They're pulling out all the stops.
And it ain't pretty.
While conservatives are mourning the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade this week, liberals are rejoicing. And not just liberals, but far-left-wing liberals. And they're not just rejoicing. They're gleefully writhing in public displays of shocking depths of depravity.
We're told abortion is a last resort for women faced with unbearable choices after malicious abuses have been made against their bodies. But to hear abortion advocates tell it this week, women are merely sexual objects that need Roe v. Wade to perpetuate their singular value in our male-dominated culture.
Don't believe me? Consider two of the most brazen bits of humanity-bashing propaganda making the rounds on the Internet this week. First is an article by Mary Elizabeth Williams, an editor at Salon.com, which concludes that while life does indeed begin at conception, it's a life that is wholly expendable for the sake of its mother's sexual freedom.
Then there's a commercial by the Center for Reproductive Rights in which a sexy black man gets all Barry White-ish about his freedom to continue objectifying women since abortion can take care of any mistakes along the way.
These two advocacy pieces aren't just pro-choice and pro-abortion. They're blatantly evil in their overt marginalization of human life, their utter obfuscation of genuine love, and their endorsement of legalized infanticide.
And Williams calls pro-lifers "wingnuts!" She has no problem saying that life begins at conception, but she also has no problem arguing that the life in her womb is hers to do with as she pleases - including killing it, since, as she claims, all life is not equal.
At the end of her amazingly illogical and socially deviant article, she issues this chilling proclamation: "I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single
time - even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus
is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing."
What mother "sacrifices" her own child for what Williams defends earlier in her article as her need to accommodate her "circumstances?" It's come to this, folks, and it's a pro-choicer who's laid it out in dystopian relativism. Talk about "intolerance!"
Granted, Williams tries to play the "health" card, but it's nothing but a non-sequitur. Hardly any pro-lifer, in the statistically irrelevant number of cases in which a mother's health is at risk, insists that the unborn life should be saved at the expense of its mother's. Except in Williams' case, health has even less to do with it, since economics, politics, and even happenstance are all more valuable than the life she's contributed to creating in her own womb.
Breath-taking. In more ways than one.
Then there's former underwear model Mehcad Brooks getting all sultry in what can only be described as one of the most sexist, chauvinistic commercials to come out of Madison Avenue since the same pro-choice feminists who commissioned it forced advertisers to adopt male-emasculating characters years ago. It's as if the female empowerment we've been told is so crucial to society, and for which abortion plays a crucial role, really is the charade that America's powerful, family-phobic men have contrived it to be.
According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, a woman's ability to hold a man's attention long enough to get what she wants from him really does depend more on her ability to eradicate the telltale signs of his lust than anything else. How is that a message of female empowerment?
It's as if George Orwell's 1984 and "death of God" existentialist Friedrich Nietzsche joined forces to push the abortion debate from mere pretense over a woman's right to choose into a full-blown admission that, sure, the whole thing really is about sex without consequence or conscience. Only sex is never without consequence, is it? Or even conscience. Whether it's done within a relationship honed by pure, unadulterated, Biblical love, or whether it's as vile and self-serving as Williams and Brooks misguidedly portray it as being, are the participants in intercourse ever the same afterwards in terms of their relationships, emotions, and outlook on life?
Not to mention those times when baby makes three?
At first blush, reading Williams' article and watching Brooks' commercial, I gasped in astonishment at their open vulgarity, and in the case of the Salon.com editorial, a chill went up my spine. She says she's a mother, but if I were a child of hers, and I read her article, how devastated I would be! While I was a fetus, she would have expected me to still exist at her whim - a whim that meant only when I plopped out of her womb, her murder of me should be illegal?
At least Brooks takes the easy out - we all know the statistics about fatherless black children, and he willingly plays right into that sad spectacle by relishing the advantages abortion gives men like him. If I were a black man, I'd be particularly offended by such sleazy machismo.
Perhaps, however, both Williams and Brooks, along with their supporters, have dealt more of a setback to abortion rights than they realize. I don't know many pro-choice Americans, but the ones I do know don't strike me as the type who would endorse either Williams' or Brooks' perspective of the debate. Maybe they're trapped in old, dated arguments about abortion, but I suspect that they, along with many pro-choicers, have never thought through their opinions on this issue to the extent Williams, Brooks, and the Center for Reproductive Rights have.
Hopefully, after seeing the raw depiction of what hard-core liberals want abortion to accomplish for themselves, more moderate factions of the pro-choice movement will be forced to re-think their position on "choice," sex, immorality, lust, and gender degradation.
Not that anything has really changed about the abortion debate, mind you.
It's just that now, what abortion advocacy genuinely wants to secure for itself is undeniable. And they're the ones drawing away the curtains, not pro-lifers.
Meanwhile, truly defending human rights has been kicked back to the crowd for whom it should always have been sacred: pro-lifers who've all along insisted that abortion is dehumanizing.
Who'd have thought the pro-choice movement would have capitulated so dramatically?