Okay, it's time for me to come clean. I've been hiding something. Most of you won't like it.
I have become numb to the abortion issue.
Yes, there, I said it.
No, you didn't correctly see what I said. Either that, or your brain didn't process it correctly.
I did not say that I no longer take a stand on abortion. I didn't say that I no longer care about the almost-moms or the never-to-be-children. I said the issue itself has made me numb.
Why discuss the issue? No one listens. (I'll bet that at least half of you have stopped reading already, simply because you "know what's coming next.")
Everyone walks into the discussion knowing that they are right, and that the opposition is wrong. All for morally-correct reasons, depending on your definition of morality. All depending on what you define as a right, and who has that right.
I could shock you by presenting a picture of an aborted, post-birth baby. It will make a great visual affect, and take hold of you for mere minutes.
But then, like everything else that shocks you, you will see it, again and again, and become desensitized to the image. Just like you did to Columbine, just like you did to 9/11, just like you will to Newtown. Some of you might have an epiphany, but most of you will go on with your lives, as if nothing here affects you. Unless it's "for the children". Then, you'll stop listening to reason, and go all in for whatever our glorious politicians are selling. Get out the little violins, please, the politicians are acting on behalf of "the children". Ironic, isn't it? But I'll get back to that later.
I could pull the Rahm Emmanual slogan, and say, "Never let a crisis go to waste," or go all Alinsky rules-for-radicals on you. But I won't; look at the establishment's response to the Occupy movement to see how well that went. They figured out an effective approach to Alinksy-type protests: let them peter out or self destruct. I could go all Cloward-Piven on you, but our federal-government loving Statists on both sides of the aisle have already succumbed to that one, so why belabor the point?
Or, I could argue a pro-abortion point. I can show that some people don't deserve to be born, because their mommas, or their baby daddies, won't support them. Practically, socially, and economically speaking, why put them through that misery? But then, Christians will get riled, go all Westboro on the pro-abortion crowd, and forget that all have fallen short of the glory of God, that all our good works are as filthy rags, and that, yes, even Christians sin, and continue sinning to their dying day.
Or, I could argue an anti-abortion point. I could use scientific and medical fact to make my points, but the pro-abortionists won't listen. See, science only matters when negating religion, not when dealing with an emotional issue of a woman's right to choose. It matters when disputing creationism, but not when discussing when life begins. Funny how we speak out of both sides of our mouths: we will create designer babies, which implies understanding that life begins at conception because "that's when you have to fiddle with the wiring", but then say that the developing life is not a life.
Or, from the medical perspective, I could argue that those with a mutated 23rd chromosome shouldn't be born at all. After all, the parents' lives will be changed greatly, and they then have to sacrifice so much for the sake of a single child, while the rest of society has to suffer the selfishness of those parents and, ultimately, deal with the child's "shortcomings". (Oh, and BTW, please don't use the slur "retarded" around me, it is very offensive.)
Or, I could take the athiest's view: religionists are assholes, simply trying to ram their views down my throat. Hence, I will never, ever listen to a religionist because they are simple folk, who obviously couldn't hold their own in an academic environment, and therefore could never understand this issue.
Discredit the source, don't you know; don't discern their information and discredit THAT. It would take too much thought. It's easier to discard the whole person than to have to decipher and vet their message.
(Disclaimer: Since I've taken special care to piss off practically everyone, note that I recognize not all people fit nicely into any one of these categories. But, come on! Even if you know that, isn't that your first thought when you have to digest an opposing view point? Isn't it easier to stereotype than to suck it up and process what someone else is saying?)
-------------------------------
If I know all this walking into a discussion, then why should I bother? If everyone already knows what they think, and no one is open minded or willing to accede on even a single point, what does it matter? Because, you know, compromising on one point of fact, and checking your emotions at the door, is like taking a gateway drug: once you take that step, you have to keep going down that path.
And why should I care, knowing that the media could play a marvelous muckraker role in this issue, but that wouldn't fit the contemporary meme?
-------------------------------
Over a decade ago, I penned a tune, which had the lyric "where is the line of demarcation?" In other words, when is it an abortion, and when is it murder?
(Yes, I know there is a premise in there. Whether you agree with it or not, follow me on this one.)
Still with me?
I thought the question was valid. I thought it was reasonable. Partial-birth abortion blurs that line, depending on your perspective. Gosnell-ing crosses the line.
And this is why I am numb.
I'm happy to debate with anyone about my views on abortion. I'm happy to debate with anyone on practically anything...if it is rational to do so.
This debate is no longer rational.
If you've read this far, you've probably agreed with a couple of my points, and disagreed with a few more. You've probably said that, yeah, this is what we argue.
That's the problem, it's what we ARGUE.
And it's not even on point.
The "line of demarcation" question is moot. That, woefully, is a game changer. If there is no line of demarcation, then anyone, at any time, can set the precedent for premeditated murder of anyone, at any time, for socially practical reasons:
- Overpopulated demographic? Too bad, so sad.
- Wrong political view? Take 'em down.
- Active dissenter? No longer any need to plead "enemy of the state".
- Economic problem for the state - wipe out whole wards of the inner city.
- Pre-existing condition that will never be cost-effective to cure? Good bye.
- Mentally unstable adult? Not any more.
Some of you are calling B.S. I don't think so, and am willing to go on record here. Think of it this way...wasn't partial birth abortion supposed to be an
anomaly? Wasn't abortion supposed to be safe, legal, and RARE? Wasn't abortion "for the safety of the mother" supposed to be a worst-case scenario? Did you ever think that a doctor would be on trial for killing a birthed child (a living human) because he fouled up an abortion? As I stated earlier, those things that we find vulgar, we tend to accept as we receive additional messages of similar nature.
The Declaration of Independence states our inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Think about the order: without life, liberty doesn't exist. Without liberty, you cannot pursue happiness. Yet, for the sake of health care, the federal economy, and politics, we are discussing what constitutes a viable life. How sad.
The real issue isn't one of faith or lack thereof, prayer in schools, or even parental responsibility. It's a culture of death. We've permitted it to permeate everything that we do. We don't value life; we reason why some shouldn't have it. We are not shocked by anything, and we let everything slide.
We've decided to discount the professional research of blocs of professionals, even when we should listen, because it's easier than dealing with nuance. And we'd hate to have our bubble burst when proven wrong, or maybe only proven inconsistent. Because our value is based on our own self-worth, our "brand", or our ability to keep up with the Joneses. Hence, our self-worth is vain and fleeting, not based on any substance.
That's what made me uncomfortably numb. It won't end any time soon. Sanger, the eugenicist, would be proud. So would Kevorkian, and anyone else arguing for a societal, utilitarian rationale for killing live babies. The abortion issue is not the issue. Acceptable, premeditated death, as defined by our allegedly caring government is. And we are foolish enough to fall for it, every time.
