I have a very dear friend, Ben, who seems to be compassionate, smart and socially responsible. For years I have tried to get him to concede that prenatal homicide is wrong and should be illegal, but one day he said to me, “You haven’t convinced me.”
I said back to him, “But you are the one who is supposed to be trying to convince me!” It was very frustrating. Ben often acted like he was doing me a favor just to listen to my arguments. He said I was wrong to use the government to try to deter abortion. I thought the norm was, or should be, for the government to protect the unborn.
Many people believe that the neutral, hands-off position on abortion is to favor legality, that if you don’t want to get involved in abortion, you should just leave it up to the woman. The opposite is true: if you don’t want to rock the boat on abortion, you should insist that it be illegal. Why? Pro-choice is an attack.
Nine-month pro-choicers (those who support unconditional abortion) claim to be concerned with the right to privacy, but they squash the unborn’s right to privacy and right to live. When pro-choice-to-killers banish the unborn, they viciously attack even those unborn children whose mothers have no desire to abort. The abortion choice alone is a crime against humanity.
For these reasons, when the government allows abortion, it is endorsing and promoting the practice. “Pro-choice” is pro-abortion. Saying “abortion is a woman’s right” can mean it is a legal right, a moral/ethical right, or both, and this confusion is a strong weapon for the killers. The degree of hostility in the abortion endorsement is measured by how much prenatal homicide reverses normal values.
Ben fails to understand that there are two kinds of “burden of proof,” one determined by the debate and one determined by the issue. The debate places the burden on whoever is out of power or wants to convince another person to change their position. When segregation was legal, the debate placed the burden on those who opposed it. Now that segregation is illegal and considered evil, the debate places the burden on those who support segregation.
The issue places the burden on whoever will do the most harm if wrong, regardless of who is in power. For example, in a criminal trial, our legal system places the issue-burden on the prosecution rather than on the defense, because the system considers it worse to let ten guilty people go free than to put one innocent person in jail. Where does the issue place the burden in segregation, today and when it was legal? Policies like segregation do more potential harm than policies of equality, so the issue burden is on the segregationist and always has.
Who will do the most damage if wrong, nine-month pro-choicers or pro-lifers? If the pro-choice allegations are true, then pro-lifers stand to enslave women, which is very bad. But if pro-lifers’ claims are true, pro-choicers are perpetrating a baby holocaust that dwarfs the Nazi holocaust, and they are exploiting women, and this is more harmful than the enslavement-of-women scenario.
So the debate places the burden on pro-lifers because the law opposes them and they are politically incorrect, but the issue places the burden on pro-choices because they are arguably committing so much harm. This contradiction is the injustice of our day and is a reversal of normal values. Not only is pro-choice pro-abortion, it is passionately so.
The burden on pro-choicers is incredibly heavy. Imagine the burden one has to meet to justly kill me. First, the citizens get to vote on whether the death penalty should be legal. Then I have to be accused of a capital crime. I must be found guilty of the crime in a court of law and I get a legal team to defend me. I can appeal for decades all the way up to the Supreme Court. Note that the unborn child isn’t even accused of anything and people are not allowed to vote on abortion!
Prenatal homicide is one of the most difficult-to-understand phenomena mankind has ever had to deal with. Given how important it is, and how it pertains to so many aspects of our lives, it may be the central question society ever needs to wrestle with. We communicate in sound-bites controlled by a media that favors prebirth infanticide, so it is difficult to even explain the alliance between pregnant mothers and their little ones.
Ben helped abort his own child and that of his sister, so he shirks his responsibility to protect the unborn. His position is self-serving in that it offers cheap sex, and does not call on him or his allies to challenge their peers to protect unborn children. They pretend they don’t have to debate us but I doubt they’ll get away with this forever.