De Kristen Walker
October 4, 2012 (LiveActionNews.org) - “You’ve been a
joy and a pleasure to talk to.”
These words were spoken to
me by a journalist in New York City yesterday, after a 45-minute conversation
about my conversion from pro-choice to pro-life. Throughout our talk, this
woman – a self-described liberal feminist – seemed engaged in our talk and even
laughed at the right places. I’m speculating here, but her attitude reminded me
of other pro-choicers who have been a little surprised to find me – an
unapologetic and rather bold no-exceptions pro-lifer – a sane, rational human
being.
I don’t really think she
expected me to yell “THE BABY JESUS CRIES WHEN LADIES HAVE ABORTIONS!” into the
phone in a thick Appalachian accent and then start speaking in tongues. We had
e-mailed a bit during the pre-screening process, after all. But I am often told
by pro-choicers that I don’t fit the pro-life stereotype. For one, I don’t
mention religion unless I know I’m talking to a religious person. I don’t have
to. Reason, science, and human rights all argue for the right to life of the
unborn; they are the arguments that converted me when I was a liberal, feminist
agnostic.
It's really not complicated.
It's a baby, or it's not.
This journalist mentioned
several times that the feature would be a thoughtful, balanced look at the
opinions of several women about this “very complicated” issue. She used that
phrase several times – “very complicated.” And I politely agreed with her.
But what kept popping into
my head – and what I had to marinate on for a while after I got off the phone –
was the following observation from the late, great English essayist and
journalist, G.K. Chesterton:
Moral issues are always
terribly complex for someone without principles.
I’m not implying that this
journalist – who seemed like a perfectly lovely woman – is an amoral monster.
But she is a product of a culture that has lost its way and collapsed into a
moral relativism where whether or not a woman should be allowed to kill her
unborn baby for any reason whatsoever is ”a very complicated issue.”
I still firmly believe that
most anti-lifers, if they could open their minds long enough to actually
understand what abortion is, would stop supporting the right to it, at least
privately. I was rabidly pro-choice, but I was also intellectually honest, and
once finally disabused of the falsehood that the embryo is not a human but a
”clump of cells,” with the help of accurate images of intact and aborted
fetuses shown to me at my request, I could not help but admit that I had been
wrong.
You don’t hear a lot of
pro-lifers call abortion a complicated issue. It mostly comes from the other
side, where it’s considered outmoded and simple-minded to believe in objective
morality. The idea that there is such a thing as right and wrong, that moral
issues can be black and white, is foreign and embarrassing to them. I remember
the eye-rolling I engaged in back in my anti-Christian days when anyone used
the word “evil.”
To the moral relativist,
everything is colored in shades of gray, as if a fetus could be part human and
part not human. Things are never “bad”; they are “tragic.” We don’t get
“angry”; we get “concerned.” It’s the same way of thinking that implores us to
scratch our ironic beards and ponder the “very complicated” issue of
institutional racism or ”difficult childhoods” instead of putting rapists and
murderers in prison forever and ever.
At what point are we allowed
to start assigning responsibility? At what point are we allowed to say
something is absolutely wrong?
I posit to you that if that
point – the point where we draw the line and say “this is wrong” – is not
elective abortion, then there is no point. If a woman can legally pay someone
to kill and dispose of her unborn child for any reason at all, we have not just
lost our way; we have thrown the moral compass in the river and gone tromping off
through the woods, unfettered by thoughts of morality or ethics.
In order to find abortion
“complicated,” you have to say, “Sure, human biology tells us a new life is
created, but that new life is not a ‘person.’” Why not? “Well, because it does
not fit our invented definition of ‘person,’ that’s why!”
I’m glad I’m a pro-lifer who
is considered more or less approachable by the other side. It means I’m able to
talk to them and maybe change their minds. But the next time an abortion
advocate calls the issue “very complicated” in my presence, I’m going to
politely stop her and say, “It’s actually not that complicated. It’s either
wrong or it’s not. And it’s wrong.”
Sursă: LifeSiteNews
Proiectul de lege privind înfiinţarea cabinetelor de consiliere pentru criza de sarcină NU interzice avortul, ci sprijină femeia, copilul și familia!
Citiți aici textul proiectului.
Susţineţi acest proiect scriindu-le celor care pot lua o poziţie publică în această privinţă.
Cei care doresc să traducă din limba engleză mărturii ale femeilor care au trecut prin criza de sarcină sunt rugaţi să scrie un mail la adresa blog.stefania1@gmail.com. Dacă aţi trecut printr-o situaţie similară cu cele prezentate până acum şi puteţi da mărturie despre acest fapt scrieţi-ne pe aceeaşi adresă.
0 comments:
Trimiteți un comentariu