A pro-abortion marcher in Washington on Sunday said, "I just had to be here to fight for the next generation and the generation after that." I'd like to ask her which generation aborted babies belong to.
This woman was just one of many converging on Washington's Mall to rally for "abortion rights" and "global reproductive freedom." Sadly, her statement, just like the broader "pro-choice" movement, is shrouded in deception and euphemism.
I mean no offense here, but the more you examine the pro-aborts' claims and distortions of language, the less sympathetic their cause becomes. Consider certain statements of the rally's supporters and participants.
Actress Lynda Carter said, "There is a religious and moral superiority and arrogance that so many, not all, Republicans have. It is the ultimate intrusion by government to tell a woman when she can have children, if she has them at all."
No pro-life advocates I know are trying to tell women when they can have children. They can have them anytime they want. They just shouldn't be allowed to "terminate" them in the womb.
And if the pro-life position is grounded in religious convictions, on what do pro-abortionists base their casual disregard for life? Aren't they saying the mother's "right to choose" is a moral right? If not, why all the moral outrage?
And if it is arrogant for pro-lifers to stand up for innocent life, how arrogant is it for pro-aborts to ignore the dignity, rights and even existence of the unborn? As for "ultimate intrusion," I wish Ms. Carter would tell us how she justifies intrusions on the baby's body and life.
Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said, "The march is about the totality of women's lives and the right to make decisions about our lives." Other pro-aborts insist that women's health is their great concern.
But their zeal has little to do with choice or women's health. If they truly cared about choice, they wouldn't favor government-funded abortion on demand without restriction, including partial-birth abortion.
They'd want pregnant women to make informed choices. They would make sure they were aware of the latest research suggesting that large percentages of women who've had abortions experience emotional or psychological problems. They'd tell them about their babies' possible sensitivity to physical pain.
They'd tell them of the suspected linkage between abortion and breast cancer, even if the evidence is inconclusive. And they'd quit exaggerating concerns over the mother's health as a justification for partial-birth abortions.
Must Watch: Senator Explains Why He Changed From Being a Democrat to Being a Republican | Katie Pavlich