What if the ‘Fetus’ Could Shoot Back?

Email Print

Whew! I’m still digging out from under the avalanche of email that my blog about “evictionism” and abortion unleashed. Thanks to all of you who took the time and trouble to write, often at length and very thoughtfully. You educated and encouraged me as well; I’m extremely grateful.

A couple of intriguing patterns emerged from your scores of notes. First, if I thought hatred of the TSA resonated with LRC’s readers, their horror at murdering people before birth more than matches it. Nothing I’ve written has pushed more of you to contact me than my three short paragraphs on the latter.

Surprisingly, though, only one of my correspondents was a fellow female; seems abortion isn’t exclusively a “women’s issue,” as its proponents so often portray it. And no wonder: Many of you asked about the father’s claims in all this and pointed out how the State has once again attacked masculinity by stripping a man of his God-given authority over his children.

Second, you are overwhelmingly opposed to “removing” in any way the life Providence creates in the womb. Several of you condemned “evictionism” as a dangerous procedure that physically traumatizes both mother and child. Most of you very clearly saw it as a variation on abortion — and an attempt to euphemize same. Odd, isn’t it, that when personal responsibility is a prerequisite for a free society, some of liberty’s lovers scramble not only to promote immorality, whether fornication or the slaughter of the resulting child, but also to free the culprits from the dire consequences of their actions. There is no concern for the innocent child, only for the sinful parent’s “rights” and “freedom.” Yep, that’s judgmental — but I’d rather be judgmental than infanticidal.

LRC’s readers find evictionism’s “logic” as offensive as its immorality. Virtually all of you agreed with me that defining the normal, expected result of the marital act — even when using methods, none of which are fool-proof, to prevent that result — as a surprising and malevolent “trespasser” is balderdash. You often compared the baby to an actual trespasser, demonstrating the many places where the analogy fails.

I received similar comparisons from the handful of readers who differ with us. They expended thousands of words, some of them profane and abusive, to convince me that babies are indeed trespassers but murder isn’t murder because “life” doesn’t exist until a certain point, or because “freedom” includes the freedom to murder (naturally, they didn’t phrase it like that), or that the mother’s “contract” is revocable at will. (Um, guys? Seriously? You’re spending way too much time on politics if you can comfortably reduce this most primal and personal of relationships to such silly terms. And if you think I’m unduly harsh, I dare you to poll some moms for their opinion of such a “contract.” Might wanna don a haz-mat suit first, though.) They tried valiantly but in vain to uphold the analogy to trespassing. A certain defensive tone ran through all, leading me to conclude that, deep down, each man realized he was promoting evil. All but one leaped to the erroneous conclusion that condemning the murder of children before they’re born means that I’m calling for the homicidal State’s protection of “fetuses.” Wrong. Prohibiting abortion “works” as well as prohibiting anything else. Condemning it instead, and so strongly no decent person would ever even consider such a barbarity, is a far more efficacious approach. Bonus: it honors freedom.

By the way, could we dispense with the terminology? “Fetus” objectifies abortion’s innocent victims, just as chattel slavery’s proponents demoted human beings to “property.” Government also uses this propagandistic technique when convincing its recruits to kill “the enemy” in war. That alone requires us to disdain this tactic.

Meanwhile, I confess to a lack of enthusiasm for debating either evictionism or abortion — mostly because for me it’s enough that God said, “Thou shalt do no murder.” I also doubt the efficacy of endlessly arguing. My impression is that folks very seldom change their minds on these issues. Those of us openly acknowledging that abortion equals murder are not about to approve when you who secretly believe the same nonetheless espouse a woman’s “right” to “choose.” (I notice we’re speaking only of born women here, not the unborn ones abortionists condemn to death without any “choice” first. On the other hand, one of you insisted, “I believe in a woman’s right to choose — not to get pregnant!”) It seems that in addition to legalizing this unspeakable atrocity, abortionists also expect our agreement and applause. Got a newsflash: You’ll never secure either, no matter how many words or specious arguments you launch at us.

Then, too, my stomach turned at the pro-abortionists’ fine points, the slicing and dicing, the tortured “reasoning.” These are human lives we’re talking about, yet you want them to hinge on whether or not a baby has reached X number of weeks when his mother pronounces sentence on him, or how you or someone you’ve read defines “life,” or any number of other bizarre details supposedly specified in the mother’s non-existent “contract.” Forgive me for this incendiary comparison, but your arguments echo the Nazis’ as to why it wasn’t really murder, was in fact admirable, to kill “life unworthy of life.” Should you ever face people so determined to rob you of existence — and that is a distinct possibility under Obummercare—I hope you obtain far more mercy from them than these helpless babies receive from you.

I’ll leave you advocates of abortion with a couple of stories, also from my correspondence of the last week. When you contend for murder, please remember these almost-victims and understand that abortion and evictionism aren’t just cute academic arguments: real flesh-and-blood people live or die because you justify and advance such wickedness.

A young man and the teenaged girl whom he’d gotten “in trouble” met in a parking lot: from there, they would head to Planned Parenthood to rid her of the evidence of pre-marital activity that would infuriate both their families. Then the girl’s cell-phone rang. Her pastor happened to be calling, about something else entirely since he knew nothing of their situation. But when she hung up, she told her boyfriend, “I can’t do this. It’s wrong.”

That couple is now happily — even ecstatically — married; their “fetus” is a blonde little girl with braided pigtails. She has a younger brother as well and two pet dogs. Her father told me he and his wife suffered some very hard times, emotionally and financially, and that their families were indeed outraged. But he thanks God every day for His mercy in saving his daughter.

Another gentleman sent me this intriguing email: “I escaped murder by virtue of being conceived in 1971, cause it woulda been lights out for me post Roe V. Wade.” When I asked for details — and permission to publish his story — he responded, “I was an accidental pregnancy of a teenaged couple in a poor state who couldn’t possibly afford another (!) child.  My adoptive parents were unable to conceive and sought adoption. Since murder was not an option at that time, the problem was solved between the two parties. [I am] an employed professional in a technical field, partner in a private airplane, newly married, and a regular participant in our church service programs[;] you may draw whatever conclusion you wish about my outcome…and the rest of the world may also judge accordingly. At least I’m here for the judging.”

Yes, at least this “fetus” is here for the judging — or for savoring the life that is one of our basic, inalienable rights. Millions of others aren’t.

Let me close with a brief but brilliant slogan from writer John Zmirak — one that could settle the issues of abortion, evictionism, and all their satanic variations while upholding the Second Amendment: “Arm the Unborn.”

10:10 am on September 12, 2012