By Dave Andrusko
Here’s an exercise. What would you expect from a pro-abortion post running in the pro-abortion Huffington Post under the headline, “When The Person Shaming You For Your Abortion Is A Child: How the anti-abortion movement uses children to legitimize its message”?
At the risk of being overly cynic, how about a narrative thread built about a woman who now wants to attend anti-Donald Trump rallies but who as a child protested outside abortion clinics in Southern California?
Check that box for Jenavieve Hatch’s story. But that’s just the beginning.
Would you have anticipated faux sympathy for children who are “forced” by their parents to [peacefully] stand outside abortion clinics to try to dissuade women from aborting their children? Check that one too. And, of course, they must be “pawns,” although that wears thin when you are talking about 17-year-old adolescents.
Would you have anticipated a defense against the obvious hypocrisy (to take just one example) of the “many children at the Women’s March on Washington the day after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, and many of their photos and posters went viral”? Of course. What’s sauce for the pro-abortion goose is never sauce for the pro-life gander
Steven Meyers, a clinical psychologist and professor of psychology at Roosevelt University in Chicago, told Hatch there is a “clear difference” between the two:
“The main difference between [the Women’s March and anti-abortion protests] is the amount of conflict and negative emotion that children are exposed to at these events.”
Think back. Was the Women’s March oh so peaceful and “anti-abortion protests” not? No one who was in Washington, DC on January 21, 2017, or who read about it, could possibly come to that conclusion.
Hate and hysterical language bordering on derangement suffused the Women’s March with many foul-mouthed comparisons of President Trump with Nazis and a goofy Madonna telling the audience, “Yes, I am angry. Yes, I am outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.”
(And, by the way, for a “Women’s March,” rather odd that pro-life women were excluded.)
Predictably, the further into the story, the harsher the accusations against parents and/or churches that bring children. Eventually this was described as (what else?) “religious and emotional abuse.”
But what comes through clearly–besides the agenda of turning pro-life parents into monsters–is the defensiveness. Hatch and the women she interview fully understand that the presence of children in front of abortion clinics is an extremely powerful testimony for which they have no answer.
How/why is that so? A hundred reasons. Here are a few.
- Children are a visual reminder of what a woman is about to snuff out.
- They remind women of what could be, if they are able to summon up the resolve, the courage, and the fortitude to resist all the forces whispering in their ears to take the “easy way” out.
- When a child holds up a poster that reads, “Would you kill me, too?,” it is impossible to believe that abortion is some “medical procedure”; it is a choice to take a life.
- When a child prays, the image and those words cut through all the defense mechanisms, all the props a woman erects to keep her conscience at bay.
- The head of one abortion clinic is not happy with local police because, she claims, she saw them entertaining kids “while their parents prayed and protested outside” the abortion clinic. Finally (and this is what really drives pro-abortionists crazy)
- Children are innocent which Steven Meyers tries to turn to his advantage. He tells the Huffington Post triumphantly
“Their emerging cognitive abilities mean that they don’t understand the complexity of issues and are more likely to perceive events in black-and-white terms,” he said. “Their stage in moral development involves mainly pleasing their parents and avoiding punishment rather than having the ability at this point to grapple with abstract or complicated decisions.”
In other words, kids see the plight of innocent babies about to be annihilated “in black-and-white terms.” You don’t necessarily need a Ph.D. in psychology (although I’m sure Meyers believes it helps) just be older than children in order that you can “grapple with abstract or complicated decisions.”
Ironically, if you read pro-abortion literature, you’ll see in a nanosecond that it is replete with black-and-white terms and conclusions. What it lacks is what children have in abundance: empathy for the powerless .
Children don’t “legitimize” the pro-life “message.” They are living embodiments of the core pro-life message that all life–-born and unborn, young and old–-matters.
And if they “shame” people, it is because they remind them what they are about to do has life-and-death consequences, a truth abortion clinic personnel try to bury in euphemisms and misdirection and clichés that even they have trouble believing.