Thursday, March 22, 2012
Pro-Choicers Keep Marginalizing Life
After all, the duplicity exposed by pro-choice advocates has always been baffling: ostensibly supporting a woman's right to choose, yet denying a pre-born life the opportunity to survive the womb.
But after reading an account today in the New York Times about how some pro-choice advocates are abruptly ending their financial support for the Susan G. Komen Race for a Cure, I really don't get it.
Sure, Komen stunned a lot of people by awkwardly cutting off a pittance in funding to Planned Parenthood this past winter. But they re-instated the funding after pro-choice advocates raised a firestorm. So now, pro-choicers are deciding that saving womens' lives by funding breast cancer screenings and research is... um, less important that continuing to pout about Komen's brief moment of pro-life vicissitude?
Duplicity, thy name is abortion rights.
Over the course of almost 30 years, the Komen organization has become the undisputed champion for women fighting breast cancer. They raise $350 million annually for breast cancer research and prevention. They have secured corporate partnerships with some of America's biggest blue-chip companies. Millions of people across the country participate in their "races" every year. They own the pink ribbon, and everyone knows what it stands for. Shucks - if it wasn't for Mary Kay's venerable pink Cadillacs, Komen would probably own the rights to the color pink.
Yes, I am unabashedly pro-life, yet I was as stunned as pro-choicers when Komen dropped Planned Parenthood like a hot potato. I was far less surprised when they flip-flopped and restored funding, even after we learned that the hundreds of thousands they budgeted for Planned Parenthood was chump change in both organizations' budgets. And that Planned Parenthood farmed out breast cancer screenings - what Komen helped fund - anyway. Turns out, no Planned Parenthood clinic has mammography equipment.
So Komen's pro-choice supporters got their Planned Parenthood money back. Why are they still unhappy? Why are top-level executives at Komen jumping ship? Why are Komen's fundraisers cancelling events in the cash-flush and decidedly pro-choice New York metropolitan area?
Because pro-choicers are angry at Komen? Because some staffers at Komen were concerned about money going to Planned Parenthood? Because - gasp! - not everybody in Komen's executive ranks are pro-choice, and they feel entitled to their pro-life convictions?
Oh no! I guess Komen is an evil empire. It's not pro-lifers who are raging against Komen - at least not after the initial euphoria of Komen's de-funding of Planned Parenthood was crushed by Komen's policy reversal. Pro-lifers may be less enamored by Komen now, but it's hard to argue that fighting breast cancer should suddenly become insignificant.
Granted, there are other organizations that help fight breast cancer, and who knows how many pro-choicers who used to support Komen will instead funnel their money to these other non-profits. And even I can't ignore the sloppy handling of Komen's curious knee-jerks over the Planned Parenthood issue. But has Komen suddenly become the arch-enemy of women's health?
You'd think so, by the tone of this Times article. But then again, perhaps the motivation of pro-choicers has never really been about women in general, or cancer prevention, or even abortion. No, perhaps their motivation is so self-centered and narcissistic that they're willing to deny the very natural purposes for which their anatomy has been designed. After all, a calloused disregard for humanity - whether it's pre-born or cancerous - is the only way to explain the duplicity of pro-choicers and their march towards moral oblivion.
Let's face it: abortion is all about making sex convenient. But is sex supposed to be convenient? Pleasurable, yes; but not convenient. Life isn't convenient. Life isn't even for us as much as it is for God, as a demonstration of His creative powers in exaltation of His glory. To the extent that life is given to each of us, we are also given opportunities to "make the most" of that life; but does restricting sex to the covenant of marriage - and even then with the full knowledge that one physically intimate moment could indeed produce more life - too wicked a penalty to the concept of self?
Apparently, the very sex that brought pro-choicers into the world isn't good enough for their own (potential) progeny. Talk about having double-standards! Indeed, it helps put their sociopolitical posturing into perspective.
Heaping scorn on Komen may be duplicitous, but their motivation seems anything but.