The Editors at National Review, not their real names, have decided that the pro-life candidates for president should back off from a 100% pro-life, no exceptions stand on abortion.
I do wonder if we were talking about their demographic, if they would have the same opinion. For example, if there were open season on reporters and someone wanted to outlaw the brutal way they were killed, would they suggest exceptions?
Let’s just say that it would be legal to take reporters into an abortion center and cut their arms and legs off and crush their sculls. Let’s also imagine that this is government-funded activity. Perhaps, we could imagine that the main company doing these horrific murders was allowed to promote their activity in schools and public advertising.
Which reporters would they decide were inferior? Which ones are not worthy of protection from such a law? Perhaps, they would choose the writers of gossip pages. After all, they are gaining from the bad news about other people. Or maybe it would be the ones who report on the police logs. They are connected with criminal activity, right?
Of course, this is ludicrous. They wouldn’t be of lesser value because they had some connection to negative events. The reporters that report on crimes are not the perpetrators of those crimes.
So, neither is a child conceived by rape or incest in any way complicit with the crimes of his or her father. Yet, these reporters think that those children should not be protected from this brutal form of death.
There is an ignorant, confused compassion that happens in the minds of people who have not had the experience of becoming pregnant by rape. They impose their own beliefs on women to society’s detriment.
Contrary to popular opinion, women who conceive by rape don’t always want to kill their children. Many know that their son or daughter is not the perpetrator. They know the child is not an aggressor, but a second victim of the crime. They know that pregnancy is temporary, but abortion is forever.
It is intellectual dishonesty to decide some babies are worth protecting and others are not. I thank the few candidates that hold the logical conclusion that if only some are protected, than none are safe. This is what has lead to our current state of abortion on demand.
To the Editors, I say, “You are practicing intellectual dishonesty.” That tiny percentage of abortions that take place because of rape you mentioned is partially because women who are pregnant by assault are 50% less likely to choose abortion than women in other crisis situations.
I strongly believe that it is because they have been violated and they have an intuitive sense that they would be further violated in their conscience, by violating the right to life of another.
Society tells them that killing their child will somehow remove the stigma of rape. This is asinine.
The Editors also mention that abortion is enshrined in the law. This is a travesty. Instead of promoting this unjust law, a few candidates are taking a stand against it. These Editors are on the wrong side. Reinforcing injustice will never make it right.
In a grievous act of judicial supremacy, five unelected men told the country that our country’s preborn children would not be protected in the same way as born children. Thus, a distinction of class was enacted across the nation.
We have seen unjust laws that singled out a class of people to be held in low regard. The Native American genocide and the horrible treatment of foreign slaves were unjust. They had difficulty speaking up for themselves because of a language barrier.
The preborn class of people cannot speak up for themselves. It is only a level of development that separates us. The circumstances of conception should have no bearing.
They need society to change the unjust law. They need us to stand up for them.
Darlene Pawlik, VP of Savethe1 and Chair of NHRTL Educational Trust, was conceived by rape and now works every day to stand up and speak up for those who are not able to speak up for themselves.
