The prevailing "argument" these days of pro-abortion people is to point to some other problem (usually children who are in orphanages, or going hungry), and then say something like "100,000 homeless babies, and you're worried about an embryo", etc., etc. Of course these are two very different issues: one is the problem of childhood poverty; the other, of killing defenseless unborn babies. I choose the abortion issue to worry about, because it is heinously cruel, and brutally evil to kill a defenseless unborn human being. I'll let others fight to help homeless and hungry born children, for I am only one person, as we all are, and I can't right all the wrongs in the world. I must, out of necessity, choose my battles. To say "how can you fight so passionately for the rights of the unborn when so many born children are suffering?" is in essence claiming that the unborn are not human-but they most certainly are! Science, reason, logic-and our consciences-says that human life begins at conception. Therefore, unborn babies have the right to live, and we all have the moral obligation not to kill them. They need someone to defend them.
Don't be so emotional, you say? These unborn babies have absolutely no way to defend themselves, betrayed by their own mother, their lives ended (mostly) for the sake of convenience. It's hard not to be emotional in the face of such a monstrous injustice, of such a callous betrayal.
I was thinking about these things after exchanging a few texts with a relative. He said: "hungry six month olds anger me more than a fetus aborted at two months". This makes me think he doesn't regard fetuses as being human individuals, worthy of respect, and possessing rights. A quick Google search of reputable, scientific sources will show him that at the moment of fertilization, a human being is conceived. Any other definition of when human life begins is completely arbitrary, and self-serving. Even so, I respect my relative-he's a fine husband and father, a prosperous man who did not make the bad decisions I did when I was younger. How could he then be so mistaken about the issue? I suspect that it probably annoys him, for this is an emotional issue to say the least, and there are a lot of pro-lifers out there just as passionate about it as I am, if not more so. No doubt this is all so shrill to him, and to others like him. He's got a lot on his plate, taking care of his family and keeping things safe and secure for them. I get it. He chooses his battles, too.
Yet there are those who follow the same line of reasoning-that the problems of born children outweigh the problems of unborn children-who argue with a tone of contempt for us who are so concerned with unborn people. They seem to imply that we are hypocrites, especially those of us who are also 2nd amendment advocates. Again, it's important when debating issues to keep focused, to narrow down on the issue being discussed, and not bring up other issues which in themselves are worthy of a separate conversation. This is a mistake very much like the moral equivalency argument, which is the idea that moral concepts are essentially devoid of context. For example, you hear people say "how can you be for capital punishment and against abortion at the same time?", as if a convicted murderer or rapist were the same as an unborn baby.
The pro-abortionists must necessarily hide from themselves the nature of what they are advocating. So, they throw up a smoke screen, a fog, to do just that, for if they allowed themselves to see fully and down to the root here, they'd go mad. None of their arguments dripping with contempt and ridicule for us are valid; they are all rationalizations for murder. All of their oh-so sophisticated ideas about the subject are just a form of self-protection, for they have torn open the lid of Hell. Abortion is the worst betrayal possible.
I will fight for the unborn, and I hope you will, too.
