Salon.com's 'So What' Moment About Abortion
We couldn't possibly celebrate the 40th birthday of Roe v. Wade without liberals, and pro-abortionists, declaring their love for legalized abortion. Yes, I understand abortion is an issue with fifty shades of grey, but just as liberals like to put the Bill of Rights on a graduated scale, which allows them to push for the abolition of the Second Amendment; they put life on a similar scale. They have to since it's the only way they can be intellectually honest in a debate, albeit while looking like idiots.
Salon.com's Mary Elizabeth Williams did just that in her January 23 piece, where she holds the view that "all life is not equal."
Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.
My belief that life begins at conception is mine to cling to. And if you believe that it begins at birth, or somewhere around the second trimester, or when the kid finally goes to college, that’s a conversation we can have, one that I hope would be respectful and empathetic and fearless. We can’t have it if those of us who believe that human life exists in utero are afraid we’re somehow going to flub it for the cause. In an Op-Ed on “Why I’m Pro-Choice” in the Michigan Daily this week, Emma Maniere stated, quite perfectly, that “Some argue that abortion takes lives, but I know that abortion saves lives, too.” She understands that it saves lives not just in the most medically literal way, but in the roads that women who have choice then get to go down, in the possibilities for them and for their families. And 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.
So, Williams admits that a fetus is a human life, but "so what" if we kill it. Is she saying that some babies need to die? Granted, if a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, then an exception can be made, but Williams is talking about healthy pregnancies. The mother is the "boss," and she can do whatever she wants, regardless if her health is threatened or not. Remember, "all life isn't equal." That is quite a depraved moral compass, and it never ceases to amaze me how liberals always have a top-down model for everything.
However, NRO's Katrina Trinko penned a much more eloquent critique yesterday.
By this same logic, isn’t infanticide also fine and dandy? After all, if we’re talking about autonomy, kids aren’t exactly independent as soon as they are born. No infant can take care of themselves. And even later on in childhood, children rely heavily on the adults in their life to provide shelter, food, and emotional support. What about kids and adults who become disabled in life? What about quadriplegics? They’re not going to be able to take care of themselves. Is it okay if we just off the lot of them? Heck, what about needy friends who seem to be falling apart unless we talk to them regularly and console them? Okay to just shoot a couple of them so that we don’t have the burden? Should we ship the grandparents that spent all their money and are now financially dependent on us to the local executioner?
Yes, if the fetus is a life — and a human being — and not a clump of cells, that makes a huge difference. No one would ask a woman to respect the rights of a clump of cells. But it is valid to ask her, difficult as it is to have an unwanted pregnancy, to realize that the death of the child — the child who was totally innocent and has done nothing except be conceived — is not an appropriate way to handle this.