Skip to content

Akin, Round Two

Cue up the ever-reliable news media to convert the Todd Akin statement into the latest non-stop news distraction.  He said “legitimate rape,” as if there could be such a thing as “illegitimate rape.”  And now we’ve got Youtube songs out there lampooning it all and the grievance industry working overtime.  With a heavy sigh, Bro. Steve says this is all so freaken’ predictable.

And then we have to listen to all the moral posturing from people who think their legs are long enough to put one foot in heaven and the other in hell.  Radio loudmouth Todd Schnitt (the ‘n’ makes all the difference) said he’s pro-life but doesn’t want to see Roe v Wade overturned, noting that “conservative” judges had called it “settled law.”  Consequently, nothing should be done to prevent abortions from taking place.

Well, darn.  Checkmate.  If a conservative judge says a thing, that settles it.  And here I thought liberals were the ones who viewed the judiciary as the last word on things.  I feel like a dinosaur with my retrograde traditions from dead white males thinking facts and logic matter.  How quaint… how… 1521.

So, as if any such thing as logic really mattered — which it must not — here’s what I might have replied to a feelings based claim such as Schnitt’s.  “Why are you pro-life?”

If a person is pro-life because he’s a hater of women as the Democrats claim, then the position has no merit.  He’s just another hater whose opinions should be dismissed by civilized people.

If a person is pro-life because he was “just raised that way,” then the position still has no merit.  He needs to get beyond the baseless, hand-me-down attitudes of a previous (read that ignorant) age.  The fifties are done.  Ward Cleaver is dead and buried along with his skinny black necktie and his backwater opinions.

If a person is pro-life because he thinks the baby is worth protecting, then we have something we can work with.  Why would a baby be worth protecting?  If the baby isn’t yet a human being, then being pro-life about it is just idiotic sentimentality.  A guy might as well try to save the lives of all his little swimmers.  So there’s no other word that fits this position… it’s idiotic.

But if a guy is pro-life because the baby is a human being, then abortion is murder.  In that case, being theoretically pro-life while approving of a government policy that permits abortion is altogether the same as saying you’re against murder but don’t think it should be prosecuted.  It is radically incoherent.

Of all the political stances one could take on the abortion issue, this one is morally the worst.  It’s a position that acknowledges the evil of bloodshed but opposes doing anything about it.  Which way do you go from there to get worse?  At least the full-throated abortion proponent is being logically consistent by denying the humanity of a fetus and then on that basis forbidding the government from intervening.

But I honestly don’t comprehend the warped thought of a person who claims to oppose abortion while supporting the current state of affairs in America.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *