Note: I’d originally written the piece that follows about a year ago for Palin Drone, but felt it was worth a re-post in the wake of this revolting piece of eco-terrorist propaganda, Virginia Ironside’s soulless advocacy for child murder in the name of “compassion”, the upcoming midterm elections and the latest finding that most Tea Partiers are social, fiscal and national security conservatives.
That the last bit would surprise anyone is perplexing. As an avid, active Tea Partier here in South Florida since Tea Party Fort Lauderdale set up its weekly gatherings at the corner of US 1 and Oakland Park Blvd in February of 2009, I can report that the overwhelming majority of participants are pro-life, pro-gun, pro-military, pro-war on Global Jihad, pro-limited government and pro-personal responsibility and freedom.
If pro-abortion advocates had their way, many of the world’s greatest achievers and contributors would never have been afforded the opportunity to leave an indelible mark upon civilization due to the less-than-ideal circumstances surrounding their births and physicality (not to mention the whim of their mothers). After all, Winston Churchill had a speech impediment. Abraham Lincoln was born into poverty. And Leonardo da Vinci was the illegitimate product of an unwed mother.
Not too long ago, I attended a BBQ at the home of a close friend. In the midst of the merriment, the conversation somehow digressed into an impassioned abortion debate as we sat around the kitchen table, in one of those strange progressions where a simple, innocuous inquiry like “How is your family?” segued into a heated argument over whether life begins at conception.
Ok, that’s quite a stretch, so let me explain.
The friend in question’s family is still dealing with the ramifications of losing a very young child to an aggressive, destructive brain tumor a few years back. Later that day, she was going to attend a family dinner commemorating what would’ve been his eighth birthday. (Having been deeply involved with the family during the horrific, 10-month ordeal in which every instinct of the grieving, heart-broken parents centered around how to best comfort, love and ease the child’s pain, I find Virginia Ironside’s comments that much more repugnant and offensive).
Somewhere in the mix of lingering grief, heartache and anger, she launched into an understandable tirade about the unfairness of it all, especially given the fact that the boy had two loving parents who provided a good home. Up until that point, I agreed with everything she’d stated.
However in the next breath, she began railing against pregnant teenagers, unwed mothers and even young married adults who willingly reproduce (i.e. choose life) long before they themselves have reached a certain level of maturity and financial security. Now I certainly don’t condone teenagers having babies, or even partaking in the activity that leads to their creation; in an ideal scenario, everyone would wait until marriage, or at least until their 20s (when the chances of emotionally maturity are much higher) before having sex — and when they did, they’d take proper precautions if not ready to care for the needs of an infant. And in a perfect world, if they did actually use birth control, it would never fail. Not ever. Not even once.
But as I said, we don’t live in a perfect world. Does that somehow designate unplanned life as disposable?
Pro-life advocates who walk the walk like Briston Palin don’t think so. And as someone who knows how difficult it is to practically abide by one’s belief in the sanctity of human life, she’s actively reaching out to teenage girls in an effort to help them prevent pregnancies until securing a better future for themselves, one that hopefully includes a loving, devoted spouse and father.
Having said that, let’s take a look at the issue from the “ideal circumstances” standpoint.
In a side-by-side comparison, if a married couple in their 30s with stable careers, and two 16 year-old high school sweethearts lacking two nickels to rub against each conceive a child, is the life of the former couple’s unborn child somehow more worthy than that of the latter, though neither unborn creation had actually been given a choice — so to speak — about their conception?
Using my friend’s logic, the answer would be yes. She’d flatly stated that since young people are “too selfish” to give up their babies for adoption, they should abort them if they cannot adequately provide for their material needs. Of course, if we didn’t live in a “hook up” culture that glamorizes meaningless, casual sex, devalues God and preaches moral relativism, there would be far fewer unplanned pregnancies to deal with in the first place. But that’s a discussion for another post.
I can and often do agree to disagree with friends, for the sake of the relationship. In this case, the woman in question is a wonderful person for whom I’d do just about anything. What was frustrating to me on that particular day though, was her unwillingness to let me put forth my point of view; every time I tried to make a counter-argument she’d cut me off. It didn’t help that our other female friend kept interjecting hard luck stories about her boyfriend’s childhood to support the financial wealth justification — notwithstanding the fact that he’d gone on to achieve great success after growing up a poor kid in a large Irish-Catholic family.
It was kind of like being a guest on The Factor: Before I could complete a sentence, one of them would cut me off. Or, they’d immediately shoot down my premise. For example, when I mentioned that I was once an unplanned pregnancy and as such, was also very grateful that my parents were pro-life, my statement was dismissed because after all, my father was a doctor.
Me: “Yes, that is true but at the time my dad was struggling to get his surgical practice going, barely paying the mortgage on our two-story colonial, which he couldn’t afford to fully furnish.”
Friend: “Bah! Your parents knew that once he got his career off the ground, the money would come in.”
Me: “Fair enough, but suppose God forbid, my dad had been in some kind of accident, leaving him incapacitated and unable to perform surgery while my mom was still in the first trimester. Would that have then justified an abortion? Or what if it had happened years down the road, forcing my mother to take over as breadwinner. She’s a pretty smart lady, but in all likelihood, would never have been able to replace my dad’s income, which would have taken us down quite a few notches on the economic scale — maybe even into borderline poverty. We would then be in the dire financial circumstances that according to your premise, justify abortion.”
My point again: there are no guarantees in life. Even if a child is born into a near-perfect situation, it could all change in the blink of an eye before he or she is out of diapers. When you get right down to it, innocent human life is innocent human life. Either we believe it is sacred — flawed though it may be — or we don’t. There is no in-between.
And whether it’s Hitler or Stalin committing mass genocide against the handicapped and entire races of people they deemed inferior; government bureaucrats determining whether it’s cost-effective for your 75 year-old mother to have her recommended hip-replacement surgery; or well-intentioned people buying into abortion based on a subjective quality of life argument, all have one thing in common: a deliberate rejection of the laws of God and nature in favor of some Utopian pie-in-the-sky ideal. I can think of 50 million reasons why that is just plain wrong.