The French aphorism, “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose,” has been occupying my thoughts recently. This adage has been particularly relevant in the context of the ongoing debate surrounding abortion rights. Pro-abortion activists have been engaging in actions and espousing views that are not only objectionable but also increasingly bizarre.
It is as if one were caught in a temporal loop, where the eccentric figures who (metaphorically and literally) traversed the streets in the 1960s and 1970s have returned to haunt us.
We have discussed a number of recent examples of their behavior, including a woman who filmed her own abortion and broadcast the footage on YouTube, invitation cards that appear to be designed to appeal to women considering abortion, and a film that mocks the death of an unborn child. (We are expected to believe that when Jenny Slate informs her partner of her intention to terminate the pregnancy, rather than stating that she is carrying his child, she employs the term “abortion.”)
I have not yet discussed Sarah Silverman’s most recent act of idiocy, which is so outrageous that even some of her colleagues have distanced themselves from it. In a recent appearance on Real Time With Bill Maher, comedian Sarah Silverman made a series of controversial remarks regarding the pro-life movement. She asserted that those who oppose abortion are concerned about the wellbeing of the unborn, and that even a clump of cells is worthy of concern.
Mary Elizabeth Williams, writing at Salon.com, offers a perfunctory apology. In fact, it is more akin to contextualizing Silverman’s remarks in a manner that aligns with the conclusions typically reached by Williams and others.
This begins with a feigned concern about respecting the complexity of the issue: “Sometimes I think that I’d love to be able to just think of what occurs inside of a pregnancy as plain old goo.” However, she is unable to do so. Indeed, she has even written that life begins at conception. Nevertheless, this does not prevent her from advocating for the termination of pregnancies. Williams informs us that
“[W]e face the stigmatizing notion that if we yield to the idea that a fetus is a life, we’re baby killers. But a fetus is not an autonomous human being. And a fetus should not have equal – or maddeningly, infuriatingly — more rights than the woman in whose body it grows.”
Thus, as is the case with all abortion advocates, Williams arrives at the conclusion that if the child is not killed, the child has “more rights” than the mother. Indeed, she states, “When we prioritize the idea of a baby over the reality of a woman, women suffer, and women die.” This is an example of a clear moral bias.
Click here to read the May issue of
National Right to Life News,
the “pro-life newspaper of record.”
The objective of this discourse is to present a multitude of challenging scenarios in order to arrive at a singular conclusion: that there can never be any form of “second-guessing” a woman’s (any woman’s) rationale for undergoing an abortion. If a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy, as did Emily Letts, in order to demonstrate solidarity with her abortion clinic clients and “prove” the safety of abortions, who is anyone to “second guess” her decision?
I will conclude by returning to an observation made by Williams earlier:
“In the never-ending ideological battle over abortion, the great burning question perpetually boils down to whether what is growing in a woman’s body is a human life or not, and how much if any protection it is entitled to.”
She has conceded that life begins at conception, yet to acknowledge any protection for a child in any circumstances is to elevate the child’s rights above those of the mother.
Why should Williams do so? The unborn child is not an autonomous human being. The newborn, the toddler, the elderly sick, or any of us who suffer from grossly debilitating injuries are not either. This is why a lack of respect for the unborn always leads to a lack of respect for other powerless groups of people.
What, then, do we have? A few words about how inappropriate it is to refer to the unborn as “goo,” regardless of the circumstances. Abortion on demand, for any reason, throughout pregnancy.
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
