NRL News

Pro-abortionists recycle transparently foolish explanations to explain why they lose and lose and lose

by | Nov 19, 2014


By Dave Andrusko

yeson1When pro-abortionists lose, or–in the case of the mid-term elections–get pummeled, it can never be because the pro-life candidates were superior, the Pro-Life Movement, led by NRLC, out-organized them, or because the voters have grown weary of the tiresome “war on women” mantra and/or their defense of abortion on demand.

Naw, it’s got to be because (as President Obama implied), the “wrong” electorate showed up; voter suppression; or because (as in Tennessee) a constitutional amendment that clearly and fairly passed actually failed. (Why? Because not enough people voted, or the votes were counted incorrectly. Even some of those who hated Amendment 1 conceded that was poppycock. See here.)

But there is always, always, always the all-purpose standby that pro-abortion feminist cling to with a passion that defies all reason. Why did Tennessee’s Amendment 1 pass? Because, as Amanda Marcotte wrote,

It’s because hostility toward abortion is about sex, not “life.”

This backs-against-the-wall conclusion is so old, so thread-worn, so inane you wonder how anyone—even writing for a pro-abortion website—could offer such an embarrassingly shallow explanation.

Two reasons. One is that genuine pro-abortion radicals (and I do mean radicals) like Marcotte believe this—or have to believe this. If you and I object with all our hearts and minds to tearing apart an unborn child, limb from limb, it is not because we find this a grotesque violation of human rights but because we are prudes.

Second, a corollary of the first, this allows them to avoid all the moral and ethical issues. If our opposition to abortion is really about your and my discomfort with their “sexuality,” then all the more reason for all women to sign up with the Sisterhood.

That is why the latest idiotic iteration is that we object to eviscerating babies because we believe they are (pardon the language) “sluts.” Is anyone using such language? Of course not.

But the pro-abortion propagandist insists that proves they are right. How? That we don’t use such dismissive, dehumanizing, crude language illustrates (a) how clever we are; or (b) how we (unlike pro-abortionists) really don’t know why we do what we do.

You can’t argue with people like Marcotte. Their logic is sometimes circular, sometimes obviously a projection of their own self-doubts, and in all cases unpersuasive to all but the initiated.

At the risk of stating the self-evident, besides allowing them to avoid grappling with the ugliness of abortion and to marginalize pro-lifers, the objective of such nonsense clearly is to circle the wagons.

If opponents (you and I) don’t really care about unborn babies—that’s just a front we adopt—then Marcotte and her friends can rest assured that eventually people will come over to their side, having seen through our “phoniness.”

The obvious rebuttal is they’ve been peddling this non-answer answer since the 1960s and no one (except the cadre of true believers) has ever found this even a tiny bit persuasive.

You would think having just been clobbered, they would try something new.

But you would be wrong.

Categories: Politics