Eleanor Smeal, president of the pro-abortion Feminist Majority Foundation, which publishes Ms., says the issue comes at a “dire” time when abortions are on the decline, states are considering abortion bans, and the Senate has approved two new Supreme Court justices who may back repealing Roe v. Wade.
The issue is also timed to coincide with the heating up of the November election battle, but Smeal told the Associated Press “We have to get away from what the politicians are saying and get women’s lives back in the picture.”
If you don’t think that abortion is the defining issue of our time (sorry Hannity, terrorism is important, but there won’t be anyone for them to kill when the Culture of Death has had its way with America), get your head out from wherever it is you’ve stuck it. Ms. Magazine recognizes it. Planned Parenthood recognizes it. NARAL Pro-Choice America recognizes it. The Democratic Party recognizes it. Do you?
“…the issue comes at a “dire” time when abortions are on the decline, states are considering abortion bans, and the Senate has approved two new Supreme Court justices who may back repealing Roe v. Wade.” Women just aren’t killing their babies like in the good ol’ days. We’ve got to step it up. Forget “safe, legal, and rare,” we’re fighting against their very existence–er, for our very existence here!
There is something very eery about women being proud of having taken the lives of their offspring. Or there should be. But we seem to have trouble comprehending the actions of someone like Andrea Yates. Of course she wasn’t insane! Millions of women trampled the same bloody path before her. In the midst of this American twenty-first century it should not sound strange in the least to hear women claiming to do what’s best for their children by killing them, whether by water or abortionist’s knife. “Reaping what we sow” is passť; the harvest has been coming in for thirty years.
[The following is from Richard John Neuhaus’ “While We’re At It”–the first place I turn in every issue–in the October 2006 issue of First Things, p.76. (The featured article produced by Evangelicals and Catholics Together is worth reading and pondering, as well.)]
Elizabeth R. Schiltz, a law professor, writes in BusinessWeek: “From time to time, we are all confronted with the disconnect between how we see ourselves and how others see us. I’ve always seen myself as a responsible, law-abiding citizen. I recycle, I vote, I don’t drive a Hummer. But I’ve come to realize that many in the scientific and medical community view me as grossly irresponsible. Indeed, in the words of Bob Edwards, the scientist who facilitated the birth of England’s first test-tube baby, I am a ‘sinner.’ A recent book even branded me a ‘genetic outlaw.’ My transgression? I am one of the dwindling number of women who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome and choose not to terminate our pregnancies. So when I hear about medical breakthroughs like preimplantation genetic haplotyping (PGH)–a new technique to screen embryos in the in vitro fertilization process for 6,000 inherited diseases–I can’t help but see 6,000 new reasons that parents will be branded as sinners or made to feel socially irresponsible for bringing their children into this world.” Prof. Schiltz is author of Defiant Birth: Women Who Resist Medical Eugenics. …
The late Christopher Lasch wrote that we congratulate ourselves on our moral progress because we no longer tolerate “freak shows” at the county fair. The real reason, he said, is that we are fast becoming a society that has no tolerance of, no place for, freaks. They should never have been allowed to be born. Moral discourse today, especially in the academy, is rife with talk about respecting the “other.” So long as the other is not so other as to be a burden.
On a similar note, I recommend the article, also from First Things (Oct. 1991), called “I Want to Burden my Loved Ones,” by Gilbert Meilaender.