The folly of pro-abortion activism
It’s quite fascinating that all those in favour of abortion have already been born.
One would think that as civilised society, we ought to consider the eventual reservations unborn children might have before ending their life prematurely. But not all share this view.
Last Sunday I had the displeasure of watching Lara Dimitrijevic of the so-called “Women’s rights Foundation” fumble away her ‘argument’ for abortion, if you could even call it that.
During the interview, no attempt was made to resolve the right to life with what she insisted is a woman’s “right to end a pregnancy”. It’s quite bizarre that the human life inside the womb was never really considered except to implicitly underline that it apparently isn’t entitled to the same rights enjoyed by other humans in Ms Dimitrijevic’s view.
Immediately, any viewer with even a modicum of common sense is taken aback, as Ms Dimitrijevic self-assuredly declares that abortion is “not an issue related to a man, but is specifically related to a woman”. Really? This jaw-dropping insight is just too much to handle already. But in any case, here’s a bombshell observation: No woman can conceive a child without the spermatozoa of a man.
If you want a grownup discussion and to be taken seriously, please revisit your elementary biology classes beforehand, Ms Dimitrijevic.
To highlight one of her many contradictions, at one point she says: “the right to abortion is not a fundamental right but right to access to abortion is a fundamental human right.”Prior to this, in the beginning of the interview, Ms Dimitrijevic had just said that “reproductive rights are also fundamental human rights. But the problem with fundamental human rights is that you can put one against the other.”
Could you please make up your mind?
Not only have you refuted your own point, but you’ve also admitted that the human life inside the womb is also entitled to “fundamental human rights”. Either you haven’t a clue of what you’re saying, or you mistake self-composure as a substitute for coherent arguments. If you’re going to robotically repeat the phrase “fundamental human right” with each breath, then at least try to be consistent.
As soon as you place human rights on a pedestal, which include the absolute right to life, then you do not have a leg to stand on when you exempt unborn humans from this absolute. In other words, the same way one does not have the right to kill her neighbour, one does not have the right to kill her own baby. This isn’t rocket science.
Adding to the comical nature of these contradictory assertions, for which Ms Dimitrijevic goes out of her way to render insufferable, she also tries to substantiate her clumsy claims through repetition - because if you repeat a falsehood for long enough you’ll eventually believe it -rationalising your way through your own made-up fiction. In fact, this is a great example of what the total abnegation of reason looks like.
The interviewer then asks: “given that the argument is that it already happens, then why does it need to be put into a legal structure?” To which Ms Dimitrijevic’s answer is that “it all boils down to choice,” revealing her true intentions in the process. She also alludes to the fact that other countries do it, which is presented as some kind of supportive claim – it isn’t. Do not take comfort in the false security of consensus, as you may find that you’re on the wrong side.
As you continue to sift through the interview in futile attempts to detect some semblance of logic, you realise that it’s not about special cases where “the mother’s life is in danger”. Such highly unusual circumstances for which modern medical technology drastically mitigates - are only presented for their sentimental social currency, masking the true underlying beliefs and intentions. Even so, there is no logic in making the exception the norm, which is precisely what you’re arguing for, all be it incoherent “from the get-go”, as you would say.
To dehumanise life in the womb by omission, which incidentally is what murderers do before they kill their victim, is to voluntarily choose to reject your sacred human rights and replace them with a twisted and convenient ideological narrative. And since this can only come about either through profound ignorance or malevolence, prolife exponents - whose ethical, moral and reasonable stance on abortion is as clear as anything could ever get - need only call out these feminist harpies for the liars or ignoramuses that they are – either of which is ample reason to exempt them from the discussion.
So irrespective of what semantics game pro-abortionists want to play, which I suspect is the next phase, those who value logical consistency can treat those who attempt to redefine human life without including biological reality as if they’re saying that 2 + 2 = 5.This is to say that those determined to repeatedly demonstrate their foolishness should be treated as fools. Either that or they are knowingly lying to you about their motives.
The left supposedly stands for the down-trodden, for the innocent who don’t have a voice or the defenceless who haven’t the means to articulate their wishes. Who speaks for the unborn in your one-way street, Ms Dimitrijevic?
And in the absence of any real arguments or coverage against abortion by our activist media masquerading as news outlets, one ought to consider the sidelined bloody history of this slaughterhouse, which exists independently of anecdotal sobstories and non-arguments. Indeed, the Johnston Archive in combination with the Abortion Worldwide report published abortion figures in the communist paradise previously known as the USSR, for which the same nonsensical arguments for abortion were made.
The figures are astounding, to say the least. Three years after the 1917 Bolshevik revolution, there were 4,816,000 live births to 10,000 abortions. By the end of the regime in 1991, that rate exploded to 4,599,840 births to 6,014,000 abortions every year. That’s 1.6 abortions for every live birth - entire generations of people, future doctors, scientists and scholars, erased, wiped out of existence because of an idiotic and sinister idea that paints murder as a human right.
Not only do those who call for the normalisation of abortion have no recognition of the masses of graves that have been allowed to happen, either due to direct omission or convenient negligence, but they also have nothing to say about the fact that abortion eventually becomes the de facto method of contraception, regardless of whether the government is made to subsidize people’s sex lives –another luminary proposition by brain dead progressives.
I expect accusations of “fear mongering,” but know that facts exist irrespective of these pitiful claims – used by cowards and repeated by morons.
In the end, I can see no instance where giving a child up for adoption isn’t preferable to killing it.
As such, there isn’t much left to say except to restate the blindingly obvious observation that one cannot be for “fundamental human rights” and simultaneously advocate for abortion. The two are diametrically opposed.
With this truth in mind, it’s time to instantiate the unconditional right to life from the moment of conception in the constitution before this propagandistic madness infects more impressionable minds.
As evolutionary behavioural scientist Dr Gad Saad would say, the progressive tsunami of lunacy never breaks from smashing against the shores of your sanity.