The following made-up conversation with a fictitious pro-choicer named Diane is based on numerous actual discussions I’ve had with real people. The dialogue is meant to expose unfortunate attitudes held by many abortion advocates. Too many pro-choicers refuse to make themselves accountable.
Diane: So you are against abortion. Does that mean you think abortion should be illegal from conception? What about rape and incest?
Me: Wait a minute. You can’t just pick and choose which abortions you want to defend – you have to justify all of them. What would you say if I told you President Obama supported nine-month abortion?
Diane: That’s ridiculous.
Me: I’m glad you agree.
Diane: I mean I don’t believe you.
Me: What if I told you Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Joseph Biden all support nine month abortion?
Diane: You’re out of your mind.
Me: What if I told you abortion already is legal through all nine months and pro-choicers want to keep it that way?
Diane: I would tell you it’s legal so late only in rare circumstances.
Me: In all circumstances.
Diane: Not in this state.
Me: In all fifty states.
Diane: If that was the law, I would have heard of it. That law would have to have just recently been passed, and it hasn’t.
Me: It became law in 1973.
Diane: I’d say you were crazy.
Me: If I did show you that abortion was legal through all nine months, for any reason, in all fifty states, and has been since 1973, would you oppose that law?
Diane: I’d rather not say.
Me: Well, if you support prenatal homicide and don’t qualify your endorsement, you are a nine-month pro-choicer, aren’t you?
Diane: I’m not answering that.
Me: If that was the law and you did not know it, would that prove that the media was not doing its job of informing the population about abortion?
Diane: No comment.
Me: Would you admit that the education system was teaching a lie if that was the law and you did not know it for all this time?
Diane: No, I won’t admit that.
Me: Would you admit that the medical community was corrupt if it accepted such a policy?
Diane: No. Besides, how many women get abortions so late anyway?
Me: How many wrongful abortions will you tolerate before you oppose the law that allows those abortions?
Diane: Only a small percentage of abortions are done so late.
Me: Do we justify late killings by performing more early abortions? The point of the extreme nature of our abortion law is that it strongly suggests that the law is unconstitutional, and that those who defend it are cranks and nutjobs. They are blatant nine-month pro-choicers, unlike average Americans who support some abortion and oppose other abortion. The whole debate over prenatal homicide is different in communities where the extremism of our law is understood. “Nine-month arguments” – like saying the unborn is not a baby until birth – are more easily exposed in such environments. Imagine where the two sides in the abortion war would be if the law had always been understood by the public. Do you see what I mean?
Me: If the Democratic Party’s plank included a commitment to defend nine month abortion, unconditionally, through the Supreme Court, would that not disqualify any Democrat who adhered to that plank? Would Republicans who accepted that extreme law also be disqualified?
Diane: I wouldn’t say that.
Me: The nature of our abortion law is only one simple fact regarding the abortion issue.
If you didn’t know such an elementary aspect of the issue as the law, you probably would not have a good understanding of the issue, would you?
Diane: I don’t agree.
Me: A person who did not know the law could not understand the corruption in many of our institutions: government, media, education and the medical field, and could not grasp certain other issues related to those bodies. Such a person would have a limited understanding of the world. Too many people refuse to deal with the awful facts of prenatal homicide.
Diane: Can you show me a single person who demonstrates such denial?
Me: Yeah – you do. You would not answer any of my questions. Don’t expect me to illustrate dishonesty sustaining the pro-choice holocaust if you yourself are divorced from reality.
The punchline is this: in fact, abortion really is legal through all nine months, in every state, for any reason, and has been since 1973. Either by design or by accident, our law is confusing in the extreme. The Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade made it seem as if only early abortion was legal, saying that the states, if they wished, could make late abortion illegal. They can’t. In Roe vs. Wade’s companion case, Doe vs. Bolton, the High Court squashed the states’ right to make third trimester abortions illegal.
The details are important. Roe said the states could make third trimester abortion illegal unless the woman’s “life or health” was endangered. We should already be suspicious – why mention “life” if “health” is enough to get a third trimester abortion? If a woman’s life is endangered, certainly her health in endangered. Maybe the justices were trying to seem as if such late abortion were only to be legal in very rare circumstances. The Supreme Court defined “health” as “all factors, physical, emotional, psychological and familial” and included the woman’s marital status and age. Only one other doctor aside from the abortionist has to attest to the woman’s health. So, the states can prohibit late abortion, except when one of “all factors” comes to pass – in other words, the states cannot prohibit any abortion! This is dishonest and misleading! The definition of “health” was not included in the main case, Roe, but concealed over in Doe, which most people have never heard of! Both cases are “of course, to be read together.” Everything in one case pertains to the other! This is another indication that the Supreme Court Justices were being disingenuous! But of course the entire undertaking is illegitimate because the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, so how can any of it be a Constitutional right?!
It appears that the pro-Roe/Doe justices believed that if any abortion was to be a Constitutional right, it all had to be, because the unborn was denied all legal status until birth. There was some mention of a “compelling state interest” to protect unborn life late in the pregnancy, but this was a paper tiger meant to deceive readers into believing the trimester scheme would allow for a compromise. There was no compromise.
What about recent state laws that forbid abortion after, say, the twentieth week? The Supreme Court requires such laws to have a “health” exception, rendering the laws toothless. I urge readers who don’t believe me to peruse the High Court decisions themselves.
From that day to this, the media and education system have disseminated the law in Roe without explaining the loophole in Doe. It amounts to the greatest propaganda campaign of our day. The medical community is negligent, to put it mildly, in its failure to fight the sickness in its ranks. The government is committing a crime so serious that we, arguably, do not have a true democracy, or even a civilization. In the academy, feminism, perhaps the greatest social philosophy of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, is being warped to commit crimes similar to those committed by the Third Reich, but dwarfing them.
I have found that when I ask people what they believe the abortion law should be their answers largely depend on whether they understand our extreme pro-abortion law. Rarely do people support the law as it is. But people are more likely to condemn the law if I explain it to them after they have said what their desired law is. After all, pro-choice is the heart of political correctness and people are reluctant to cross pro-choicers. So the proper way of approaching the issue is to ask people what they think the law should be, then to inform them of our nine-month law. I encourage educators to ask the same questions I asked “Diane” in the conversation above.
Many pro-choicers are indoctrinated. When they won’t answer simple questions – questions they are capable of answering – then it becomes virtually impossible for them to free themselves from their mental prisons.