By Dave Andrusko
What is the French phrase–the more things change, the more they stay the same?
This aphorism has been running through my mind of late as militant pro-abortionists say (and do) things that are even more bizarre than they are ugly.
It’s like being caught in a time warp where the zanies who (figuratively and literally) roamed the streets in the 1960s and 1970s have paid us a return visit.
We’ve talked about some examples—but by no means all—of their recent behavior, including a woman videotaping her own abortion and beaming her child’s death to the world through YouTube, cutesy invite cards to come have an abortion (presumably just after having ones nails manicured), and a morally brain-dead movie that pokes fun at the death of an unborn child. (We’re supposed to think that when Jenny Slate tells her boyfriend what she is about to do to their unborn child, rather than “I’m having your baby,” it’s clever for her to say, “I’m having your abortion.”)
What I hadn’t written about is Sarah Silverman’s latest idiocy that is so outrageous that even some of her colleagues had to sort of, kind of distance themselves. Silverman, a “comic,” had appeared on “Real Time With Bill Maher.” Referring to whom it is that pro-lifers are concerned about, Silverman insisted “It’s goo that they’re so worried about.“
Not even a clump of cells: the unborn are “goo.”
So a perfunctory, sort-of apology from Mary Elizabeth Williams, writing at Salon.com. Actually, on second thought, it’s more like putting Silverman’s remarks “in context” so as to come to the same conclusion the likes of Williams always arrive at.
Which starts with a faux concern about respecting the complexity of it all: “Sometimes I think that I’d love to be able to just think of what occurs inside of a pregnancy as plain old goo.” But she can’t. She even has written that life starts at conception!
But that, of course, doesn’t get in the way of offing the kid, ever and always. Williams informs us
“[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.”
So, as do all abortion advocates, Williams concludes that if you don’t kill the child, he or she has “more rights” than the mother. Indeed, “When we prioritize the idea of a baby over the reality of a woman, women suffer, and women die,” she tells us. Talk about putting your thumb on the moral scales.
Click here to read the May issue of
National Right to Life News,
the “pro-life newspaper of record.”
The point of all this is, of course, is to trot out as many difficult scenarios as possible to come to the only conclusion: there can never be any “second-guessing” a woman—any woman’s—“reasons” for having an abortion. If she wants to abort, as did Emily Letts, so she can show solidarity with her abortion clinic clients and “prove” how safe abortions are, who is anyone to “second guess” her decision?
Let me conclude by doubling back to an observation Williams makes 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’s conceded that life starts at conception, but to acknowledge “any protection” to any child in any set of circumstances is to elevate the child’s rights over the mother’s.
And why should Williams? The unborn child is not “an autonomous human being.” Of course neither is the newborn, the toddler, the elderly sick, or any of us who suffer grossly debilitating injuries. Which is why having no respect for the unborn always opens the door to having no respect for other powerless groups of people.
So what do we have? A few words about how tacky it is to call the unborn “goo,” but abortion on demand or any reason or no reason, throughout pregnancy.
No matter what temporary detour pro-abortionists take, they always end up at the same destination: lethally inflicting their will on those unable to defend themselves.