By Dave Andrusko
Editor’s note. This story, posted previously in NRL News Today, reminds us that depending on the circumstance, the multi-positional pro-abortionist’s ladder of logic can be manipulated into many positions.
Apologetics can be defined in many ways but the common denominator is that it is an evidence-based defense against objections. It is not “apologizing” at all. Just the opposite. It is making the case why [fill in the blank] is both rational and defensible and something you should support.
So how do pro-abortionists defend the destruction of unborn children? What is the basis of their apologetics?
Once upon a time, the “defense” was seemingly confined: abortion in very “difficult circumstances”—what we used to call the “hard cases.”
But that was loooong ago. Pro-abortionists, such as President Joe Biden and his Democrat Party, unambiguously defend abortions that take place early in pregnancy, in the middle, or at the end of pregnancy. It makes no difference. There is no logical “end point,” which is why they are soft on passive infanticide.
The only “apology” they make is when some compliant politician isn’t aggressive enough. Prime example is Biden, who in a single day could flip-flop from restating his long-standing support for the Hyde Amendment to telling us why of course he opposes a measure that has conservatively saved over two million lives.
As part of their apologetics, there is no piece of pro-life legislation that they won’t attack. It’s what they do. It’s who they are.
Nonetheless, if you really want to get their dander up, propose legislation that public opinion polls show is widely approved of by the citizenry. This makes the usual job of distortion and misrepresentation all the harder for anti-life forces, and it annoys them.
I thought of this as I re-read something I have tucked away on my hard drive after having written about it once before (I knew I would revisit it). It was an op-ed taking a sledgehammer to pro-life legislation in Ohio, written by Alicia Gibson, who at that juncture in time was the chair of Parents and Professionals of Planned Parenthood Cincinnati.
The photo (and I am not kidding) that accompanied her piece in the Cincinnati Enquirer is of a smiling Gibson holding a little baby playing with Gibson’s necklace.
No hint there that one in eight women who enter a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic gets an abortion.
Gibson attacks what she calls the ”inch by inch approach to abortion legislation” which pro-lifers call the “incremental approach.” Let’s dig into this for a moment.
From parental notification to informed consent laws to waiting periods to requirements that (largely) itinerant abortionists have admitting privileges at a local hospital to laws that say, hey, it’s wrong to submit pain-capable unborn children to the horror of being torn to pieces–all are “sustained attacks” on “a woman’s constitutionally protected right to an abortion.”
I understand that these laws potentially have a real impact on Planned Parenthood’s $1.6 billion+ bottom line. So those who speak for PPFA are going to holler to high heaven (so to speak) at anything that threatens their cash flow, although of course all this is dressed up in the usual abortion-speak about “concern for women.”
But there is another component that you come across in pro-abortion apologetics 1001.
When pro-lifers use the incremental approach—to use a baseball metaphor bunt, hit behind the runner, produce sacrifice flies—pro-abortionists are incensed. When we go for what pro-abortionists would consider a home run (to continue the baseball metaphor), they are incensed. In either case—whether a comparatively “small” initiative or a large one and regardless of how much the public supports them– we are dismissed as radicals, extremists, and out-of-the-mainstream whackos.
The implication is not just that pro-lifers are untrustworthy, which pro-abortionists must both believe and use as an assault weapon. It is that the public is unaware of the real meaning of such laws. If they did, they’d be up in arms.
In fact, the exact opposite is true. Consider….
If you believe, as pro-abortion ideologues must believe, that the public is in their corner, subterfuge is the only explanation when pro-life laws pass.
But if you understand, as pro-lifers do, that there is a litany of laws that the public supports—or will come to support in the process of explaining the legislation– then it is absolutely no surprise when these laws pass. Why not? That’s where public opinion is already at or is coming to.
That also includes laws to ban the abortion of pain-capable unborn children. Killing these babies is abhorrent even to many people who are “pro-choice.” Which is why the hysteria level by the abortion lobby reaches new heights when such laws are proposed, let alone when they are passed.
Gibson can lament that the state of Ohio was then, and is now thoroughly pro-life and that the legislature’s and the governor’s actions reflect that.
The rest of us can celebrate that the incremental approach is winning sometimes inch by inch but also sometimes yard by yard.