In America, the land of the free, a great debate arose about the nature of freedom. Was freedom the right to be morally excellent without constraint on one’s conscience? Or was freedom the license to do whatever one wanted without *any* constraints? Evangelical Christians decided it was the former and organized to fight against what they believed to be grave moral evils in society, hoping to use the law to limit some smaller freedoms in promoting the greater cause of moral freedom. So they fought to outlaw things ranging from public indecency to a situation where they believed that human beings were deprived of legitimate personhood. The latter situation was a multi-billion dollar industry that the entire economy had come to depend upon, and the evangelicals were in the minority. People called them religious fanatics who were trying to force their morality on other people and establish a theocracy. The evangelicals in turn argued that their opponents were forcing their immorality on Christians, and that they were just trying to protect the basic human rights of those being deprived of them.
This was the situation in America in the 1840s and 1850s, and the issue was slavery.
The other day, the Susan G. Komen Foundation announced that it will stop funding Planned Parenthood–temporarily. The cessation is not because of pro-life pressure. It’s not because Lila Rose showed PP is fraudulently taking money from Komen to provide “free mammograms” that it doesn’t actually provide or even refer to. It *is* because Komen won’t fund organizations that are under investigation, and there are federal and state level investigations against Planned Parenthood inspired by Live Action’s work (and while I’m among those who questioned the ethicality of Lila Rose’s work, I never questioned its efficacy).
This has led to an uproar among the feminazis. Interestingly, when it was, until a few days ago, pro-lifers who said, “We won’t fund Komen if our money is being passed on to Planned Parenthood,” we were horrible people who didn’t care about women’s health because we should put aside our petty concerns about abortion to support the more noble cause of fighting breast cancer. Now that the shoe’s on the other foot, the same people are *still* accusing pro-lifers of not caring about women’s health, but they’re the ones saying they won’t give money to Komen. And I never saw any pro-lifers attacking Komen per se, only its policy of supporting Planned Parenthood, but the pro-deathers are putting up Internet images of a “No” sign over the Komen logo, etc. See the following example:
How about supporting all women equally by not getting into a controversial area that has nothing to do with breast cancer? (Except that abortion causes breast cancer, if you believe the majority of studies done on the subject, versus one exception that is touted by the Population Control establishment). There are lots of places women can go for free health care, and Planned Parenthood doesn’t even provide free “health care”. It provides abortions for profit, and its own reports show that that is 99% of its activity.
And, of course, the other big news in the pro-life community is the HHS mandate that all insurance companies, including religious employers, not only provide coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients but actually provide them for free. The US Bishops are finally taking a stand, after sitting by while contraception was legalized, and sitting by while abortion was legalized, and sitting by while no fault divorce came out, and sitting by while IVF was invented, and sitting by while gays were allowed to adopt, and not speaking out against same sex marriage until after it was already allowed in several states–NOW they decide to take a stand in the Culture Wars other than “both parties are right in some respects and we don’t endorse politicians,” even while they actively endorse Democrats.
What really gets me in these situations is how people don’t respect our right to protest what we believe to be grave evils.
Liberal anti-war protestors throw fits at Ft. Benning and other places. Liberal OWS protestors “occupy” poor people’s apartments. PETA activists shut down Mepkin Abbey’s organic chicken farm because, they admit, they want it as a symbolic gesture to work towards banning all chicken husbandry.
All this is noble activists working for the common good, but when pro-lifers protest something, they’re horrible religious fanatics forcing their moral views on other people.
If pro-lifers compare abortion to slavery or the holocaust, we’re told that the comparison is offensive, that it’s violent political rhetoric, etc.
At least in the case of slavery, however, it’s an extremely valid comparison. As _Roe v. Wade_ notes, abortion was legal in the colonies and later US until the mid-1800s. It’s not so much that abortion was legal that matters, though; it’s why abortion became illegal.
The antebellum era, as noted, the situation was much the same as it is today. Evangelicals were politically active, fighting evil on a variety of fronts, including trying to outlaw slavery, a practice where African Americans were being deprived of basic human rights, denied legal personhood, for the sake of the economy.
The abolitionists were unpopular in their day, a very vocal minority, who, again, were criticized for trying to force their morality on other people–nevermind that the slavers were forcing their “morality” or lack thereof on the slaves, nevermind that the slavers were forcing everyone to participate in an economy based upon slavery. That situation, as far as the latter, was nowhere near as bad as abortion. At least the slavers were arguing purely for their “freedom to own slaves”, states’ rights, etc. The so-called “pro-choice” movement today is not merely arguing for the liberty to kill babies at will–they’re arguing to make it a right that we have to pay for with our tax money and our insurance money, and they’ve now achieved that end through President Obama, whom many Catholics and African Americans voted for because they thought, somehow, he was “pro-life”???–or at least they argued that he couldn’t be any worse on abortion than a lame Republican like McCain: yeah, right.
In terms of individual liberty, Abortion is now a worse threat than slavery was, because it’s no longer “just” about the personhood of the unborn babies; it’s not just about the conscience rights of medical practictioners; it’s about the conscience rights of every one of us who don’t want to pay for other people’s abortions. The supposed advocates of “freedom” and “choice” don’t seem to care about that.
Again, what really irritates me is that the people who support PETA protestors and boycotts, the people who support anti-war protestors and boycotts, the people who support their *own* protests and boycotts, will not support *our* right to protest and boycott on issue we feel is of grave importance. They accuse pro-lifers of not really believing in the cause we claim to believe in but rather having ulterior motives (such as oppression of women), which only casts doubt on their own commitments, if that’s what they think. They accuse us of trying to force our morality on them even on a matter such as asking them *not* to force theirs on us.
I really wish they could just give us that much credit–but, again, that just proves their own hypocrisy.