In 1995, feminist leader Naomi Wolf called for a pro-abortion movement “that acts with moral accountability and without euphemism,” noting that, “With the pro-choice rhetoric we use now, we incur three destructive consequences -- two ethical, one strategic: hardness of heart, lying and political failure.” That hardness of heart was fully manifest in the profane video produced by the Center for Reproductive Rights celebrating the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
But let’s go back to October 16, 1995, when the New Republic published Wolf’s remarkably candid article entitled, “Our Bodies, Our Souls.” Wolf made reference to “Dr. Joycelyn Elders’s remark, hailed by some as refreshingly frank and pro-woman but which I found remarkably brutal: that ‘We really need to get over this love affair with the fetus....’”
She explained that “Second Wave feminists reacted to the dehumanization of women by dehumanizing the creatures within them. . . . Yet that has left us with a bitter legacy. For when we defend abortion rights by emptying the act of moral gravity, we find ourselves cultivating a hardness of heart.” And she urged that abortion must be treated with “grief and reverence.”
In stark contrast with that attitude, the Center for Reproductive Rights released an online video which is so obscene that author Eric Metaxas writes, “When I first watched this ad, I thought, this HAS to be a spoof. It employs the ugly racial stereotype of a smooth-talking [black] predator celebrating his freedom to use women at zero cost to himself: Hey, baby, hook up with me—and then go have an abortion. Are they kidding? No; this was no spoof.”
The “smooth-talking predator” is actor Mechad Brooks who sits in a chair holding a red rose in one hand and a drink in the other, saying to the camera (as if speaking to his spouse), “All these years so many people said we’d never make it. They’ve been trying to tear us apart. . . Put limits on you, on me, on us.” And then, Metaxas notes, “he roars with laughter,” a sardonic, mocking laughter at that.
“We’re going to be standing right by your side, today, tomorrow, and the years to come,” he continues. “Because that is how much you mean to me, baby.” And then, once more, the laughter.
To repeat: This was not intended to be a sick joke or a demented spoof. This was meant to be taken seriously, presumably by the same kind of people who shouted their approval of abortion at last year’s Democratic National Convention. Let’s celebrate the slaughter of 55 million babies in the womb, especially in the African American community!
Metaxas quotes Ryan Scott Bomberger, an African-American pro-lifer who runs the Radiance Foundation, who noted that, “With the black abortion rate as high as it is and black fathers as absent as they are, it’s just sick to see Mehcad Brooks shill for the number-one killer in the black community.”
More graphic still are the comments of Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who asked what her uncle would do “if he’d lived to see the contents of thousands of children’s skulls emptied into the bottomless caverns of the abortionists’ pits?”
Naomi Wolf wrote that, “The pro-choice movement often treats with contempt the pro-lifers' practice of holding up to our faces their disturbing graphics. We revile their placards showing an enlarged scene of the aftermath of a D & C abortion: we are disgusted by their lapel pins with the little feet, crafted in gold, of a 10-week-old fetus; we mock the sensationalism of The Silent Scream.”
Yet, she asked, “How can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro-lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? To insist that the truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy. Besides, if these images are often the facts of the matter, and if we then claim that it is offensive for pro-choice women to be confronted by them, then we are making the judgment that women are too inherently weak to face a truth about which they have to make a grave decision. This view of women is unworthy of feminism. Free women must be strong women, too: and strong women, presumably do not seek to cloak their most important decisions in euphemism.”
In light of these comments, I would like to make a simple proposal. The repulsive video described here has been pulled by its producer, but if someone can find a copy of it (legally), perhaps they can remake it, interspersed with these very images Wolf describes, terribly disturbing images which are now readily available online. Then let’s see if a single pro-abortion leader in the world will even attempt to minimize the horror of abortion.
Wolf argued that, “Only if we uphold abortion rights within a matrix of individual conscience, atonement and responsibility can we both correct the logical and ethical absurdity in our position and consolidate the support of the center.”
Let every American look at the pictures of these ripped up and mutilated babies and ask if it is possible for there to be an “abortion rights” movement that operates “within a matrix of individual conscience, atonement and responsibility.” And let every American ask what kind of human beings (and what kind of organization) could mockingly celebrate the slaughter of the unborn.
I’m getting sick and tired of the Obama administration using children selectively in order to help the president advocate his public policy positions. As I sat and watched his recent press conference, I finally understood his opposition to the Iraq War. It seems he and the late President Hussein are kindred spirits who share more than just a name. They share a sick penchant for using children as human shields in the middle of war. And make no mistake about it; America is currently at war with itself on many different fronts. As I sat and watched Obama surrounded by little human political shields, three things struck me as being especially hypocritical:
Just a few years ago, the president would have supported murdering all of those children by dismemberment.
The president would have classified their dismemberment as "health care" within a comprehensive reform package necessary to preserve the well-being of children, and finally
All the children at the press conference were protected from being murdered at that particular moment by government agents carrying concealed weapons.
But it got worse as the day went on. ABC News and other outlets began circulating letters written to Obama by children wishing to weigh in on current public policy debates. That's normal, of course. Children always weigh in on public policy debates without being prodded by liberal parents who never left childhood themselves. And everyone knows it makes sense to base public policy decisions on the recommendations of children.
What people do not realize is that the practice of children voluntarily writing the White House is so common that the Obama Administration is having difficulty keeping the content of some of these letters from the press. Fortunately, I have a mole in the White House who has sent me some of these previously hidden letters - all of which were mailed by school children to Obama. In fairness, we are forbidden to assume that any of the following letters were written under duress from right wing parents or school teachers:
Grant writes "Mr. Obama, there should be some changes in the law with abortions. It’s a free country, but I recommend there needs be [sic] a limit with killing babies. Please don’t let people own abortion clinics or give money to powerful lobbies like Planned Parenthood. I think there should be a good reason to get an abortion. There should be a limit about [sic] how many abortions a person can have."
Julia writes "Even though I am not scared for my own safety, I am scared for others who are not yet born. My opinion is it should be very hard for people to be aborted in the womb. I beg you to work very hard to make killing children not allowed, not just for me, but for the whole United States."
Taejah writes "I am very sad about the children who lost their lives since 1973. So I thought I would write to you to STOP feminist violence. Thank you, Mr. President."
Right now, ABC, NBC, CBS, and the New York Times should be up in arms about the fact that these letters are just now hitting the press. They should also be outraged that it took a leak for them to get there. Clearly, the press has a right to know what all children - liberal or conservative - are thinking about important matters of public policy. With the help of the media, we could have curtailed the right to abortions - despite the fact that they are clearly written into the language of the constitution (right next to the right to homosexual sodomy and free birth control). After all, the president himself said “if there's even one step that we can take to save another child then surely we have an obligation to try."
If only the president valued the political opinions of all children equally. Then he might realize that every child has an equal right to life. And so many children could be saved
Author’s note: This column is based on a metaphor I stole from Scott Klusendorf. As such, I owe him and Oliva V and a trip to the Texas Roadhouse.
Like most of you, I try to be financially responsible. For example, I pay my IRS estimated pre-payments well in advance. I also make conservative estimates of what I owe the IRS. Therefore, I usually end up getting a nice tax refund. When I get it back, I buy something I really don’t need. Two years ago, it was a Fender Telecaster. Last year, it was a Fender Stratocaster. I don’t mind splurging every year just as long as I wait until I actually have the IRS check in hand. Just last week, however, I did something I should not have done: I spent my tax refund before I actually received it.
But I had to have it. The Mesa Boogie Express 525 amplifier is one I’ve been eying for the last couple of years. When I finally got it home and plugged it in it did not disappoint. I’m already thinking of getting another Mesa Boogie – this time an Electrodyne 2x12. But before I take the big plunge, I’m going to drive out to California to tour the Mesa Boogie factory. When I get there, I’ll have an opportunity to see them put a Mesa Boogie amp together, piece by piece.
They’ll probably start by fastening four pieces of solid birch together. But when they finish fastening them together, they won’t yet have a Mesa Boogie amplifier. Next, the engineer will bolt in a 12-inch Celestion speaker. But it still won’t be a Mesa Boogie amplifier. Even after he fastens the tubes into the chassis, it still won’t be a Mesa Boogie amplifier. When they finally put the knobs on the outside of the amp, we’ll be pretty close to calling it a genuine Mesa Boogie. (For the record, if they ever build me a custom amp, the volume knob had better go to eleven. Ten just isn’t loud enough for this aging rock-and roller).
But after the input jack is installed (so I can actually plug in one of my guitars) I will concede that we finally have a Mesa Boogie amplifier. And that will be well worth driving across the country to see.
And so I’m off to Petaluma, California. Spring break is this week and I am about to head west on I-40. Just a couple of miles from my house, there is a sign that says “Barstow, California, 2,554 miles.” I’m not stopping for anything except gas until I get to California. On the way home, however, I plan to take a detour and stop by the Grand Canyon.
The first time I went to the Grand Canyon was 1973 – the year the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade. I was just eight years old. The sight was so beautiful that I took out an old Polaroid camera and snapped a picture from atop the deepest part of the canyon. As it began to develop, it was only a tiny blob. It was too small for me to tell what it really was. In fact, it was kind of ugly at first. A few minutes later, however, it became apparent that something very beautiful was developing out of that tiny little blob. When it was done developing and ready to pull out of the camera, it was a beautiful thing, indeed.
Human beings are not put together from the outside like Mesa Boogie amplifiers. Therefore, there is no legitimate debate about when a human becomes a human. From the very earliest stage of life, humans are actively involved in the process of developing themselves from within. That’s why it is so tragic that in 1973 the Court decided that a woman has a right to disrupt that process by destroying the tiny human in the womb.
Those who understand liberty believe that living entities should be left alone to develop themselves from within. The only thing standing in their way is a living constitution constructed gradually from the outside.
In 1995, feminist leader Naomi Wolf called for a pro-abortion movement “that acts with moral accountability and without euphemism,” noting that, “With the pro-choice rhetoric we use now, we incur three destructive consequences -- two ethical, one strategic: hardness of heart, lying and political failure.” That hardness of heart was fully manifest in the profane video produced by the Center for Reproductive Rights celebrating the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
