1) Remember the Mission
For many years now, I’ve been saying that the pro-life movement must not judge success on its ability or inability to win over the pro-choice mob and that our goal is not to convert these people but to stop them. Of course, for an equal number of years there have been some in the pro-life community who challenge that position.
Fortunately, over time I have seen the percentage of those who disagree with me decrease significantly. It seems that our movement is, indeed, becoming less naïve. But such naïveté has certainly not been eradicated altogether. It still exists, and may always exist, because pro-lifers tend to be decent well-meaning people who sincerely want to assume the best about others. And while that is certainly a laudable trait, there are two fundamental truths about the abortion struggle that make this attitude unrealistic.
First, the pro-life position is one based exclusively on a moral principle. We do not oppose the slaughter of the unborn because it is impractical or because it lacks utilitarian advantages. We fight against abortion because it is so abysmally wrong that it cannot be either defended or ignored.
Second, those who most vehemently defend abortion are not just misguided or uninformed people with whom we have a philosophical disagreement. Instead, the “pro-choice” community is dominated by amoral and self-absorbed people who find concepts like “right and wrong” to be quaint and irrelevant.
Combining these two realities means that our enemies are effectively immune to any argument against the legalization of abortion. With very few exceptions, they are not winnable and, therefore, we must never evaluate our effectiveness on our ability or inability to convert them.
Now, I can appreciate why some would disagree with me on this. I have no doubt that they are much nicer people than me and, like I said a moment ago, they want to believe the best about everyone – even the Choice Mafia. If that describes you, all I ask is that you look for examples in world history where barbarians stopped what they were doing because they came to see that it was wrong. What you will discover is that inertia is a fundamental property of barbarism. It never stops on its own.
2) The Bastardization of Compassion
I have often written about the fact that, in America today, over 90 percent of children suspected of having Down syndrome are executed in the womb. I use the word “suspected” because a mistaken diagnosis in this area is not at all unheard of.
Generally, the apologists for this particular form of savagery try to rationalize it by claiming that we do it “to protect these babies against a lifetime of suffering.” Those people are lying through their teeth. They know good and well that our society does not slaughter babies with Down syndrome in order to “put them out of their misery;” we do it to put them out of our misery. Whether we want to admit it or not, these babies are killed because we find them inconvenient, unsightly, more expensive to care for than they are worth and missing many of the “normal” human qualities we so admire in ourselves.
That is the inevitable nature of a culture that places a utilitarian rather than an intrinsic value on human life. It is a system in which those with power decide who gets to live and on what justification those who fail to qualify may be killed. Today, this philosophy defines how we approach war, the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia and, if socialized medicine is in our future, it will define how we ration healthcare.
The fact is, in the “Brave New World” that America has become over the last forty years or so, the right-to-life must be earned. And for anyone we label “less than perfect,” earning that right becomes more difficult every day. In fact, just considering the Down syndrome issue alone, the inevitable question is why we should limit our compassion to the unborn. After all, if it is compassionate to kill those who, if allowed to be born, may suffer a life of misery, surely it would be even more compassionate to kill those who are already suffering such a life.
At this moment in history, we need to understand that what I’m suggesting here may be neither farfetched nor far away. That is why you and I must fight these people with every ounce of strength we can summon and we must do so until we draw the last breath God gives us.
3) A Frightening Time
It is undeniable that we've had defective people occupy the Oval Office before now and we don't have to look very far back in history to find them. Nixon was a paranoid crook whose view that the law didn't apply in his case brought the country to the edge of a Constitutional collapse. Carter was a buffoon who is proving to be as squalid a nuisance as an ex-president as he was as a sitting president. Clinton was a moral degenerate whose abysmal behavior exposed the entire system of American government to derision. And Bush 43 may have been well-intentioned but my feeling is that history is going to judge him far closer to Jimmy Carter than George Washington.
However, none of these people were nearly as dangerous or destructive as the guy who sits in that office today. During the 2008 presidential campaign, I said that the Obama phenomenon is less a political movement than a cult. Now the evidence to support that view is all around us and growing like a slimy green mold. Compared to the Obaministas, the Stepford Wives look like a herd of anarchists.
The frightening thing is, not since the Nixon administration have we seen anything like the way dissent is not tolerated. In both cases, loyalty could accurately be defined as blind devotion and unquestioned obedience as well as a willingness to be oblivious to whatever the leader does. The difference is that, in those days, if you criticized Tricky Dick you ended up on some sort of “Enemies List” and got your taxes audited. Today, anyone who says anything negative about The Grand Obama will instantly be labeled either a racist or an Uncle Tom–depending on the malefactor's skin color.
And that brings me to my latest question: is the International Olympic Committee going to be labeled “racists” now that they’ve rejected Obama’s pitch to bring the Olympics to Chicago? Or is that tactic only used in the case of Americans who dissent from the party line?
4) Caught Lying
First, the Godless Left says that abortion will not be covered under ObamaCare. But then, they fight any effort to include language that specifically excludes abortion. With a straight face, they will say it is an unnecessary waste of effort to add this one tiny paragraph to the bill – even though it is already slated to be over a thousand pages long. In other words, they are lying through their teeth. If abortion is not going to be covered, a one paragraph addition to confirm it would do no harm. Their refusal to allow this provision in the legislation is irrefutable proof that they intend to take money out of the paychecks of every American to buy abortions for other people.
What we need to be reminding them of is that the word “healthcare” relates to the prevention and/or treatment of illness, injury and disease and that pregnancy is none of those. In addition, according to the abortion industry’s own statistics, almost every elective abortion in America is done for a non-medical reason on a healthy baby and a healthy mother whose pregnancy poses no threat to either her life or physical well-being. What all this means is that, by definition, ABORTION IS NOT HEALTH CARE!
Amazingly, some Obamanistas are arguing that ObamaCare will reduce the number of abortions even if it pays for them. Of course, many of those making this claim are the same grinning idiots who tell the lie that you can be a Christian and pro-life even while working to put a pro-abortion heretic like Obama into the White House.
They are also ignoring that long-established principle of politics which says, “When you want less of something you tax it and when you want more of something you subsidize it.” I have never heard of an exception to this and, in the unlikely case that such exceptions actually exist, there is no evidence that abortion is among them. So the real question here is: just how pathetically stupid would you have to be to conclude that making abortions “free” will cause the abortion rate to drop?
Let me tell you the bottom line here. Any form of socialized medicine will eventually, if not immediately, cover elective abortion. Even if abortion is specifically excluded, the Obamanistas are banking that a future court decision will rule that this prohibition is unconstitutional. And I think they are correct in making that assumption. I can also assure you that, if national healthcare is passed, it won’t be long before a challenge to any abortion exemption is headed toward the Supreme Court. For that reason, until we return legal protection to the unborn, we cannot afford to have ANY legislation passed that would create a national healthcare system.