No liberal cause is defended with more dishonesty than abortion. We get an enormous list of liberal euphemisms from its advocates.
Traditionally, those who define an issue and control the narrative, own that issue. Language frames the issue and twists the argument.
At the March for the Babies in Melbourne this year, we saw approximately 3,500 people attend. There were 25 to 30 young females protesting who yelled obscenities and even said to the marchers they should have been aborted and called them fascists.
Why are the pro-choicers becoming more militant and violent, among peaceful marchers and those who may simply be praying, offering information or help?
One reason is we know more about embryology and 4D ultrasounds provide a live camera in the womb, with breathtaking visuals. The pro-choicers also know that abortion is almost never medically necessary to save the mother. This is extraordinarily rare. Cutting edge technology and medicine used by surgeons performing operations on pre-borns and we have neo-natal clinics aiding the survival of babies as young as 23 weeks, and this will no doubt get lower.
The strategies have shifted from pro-choiceres. By framing it as healthcare, those who oppose abortion are immediately labelled as opposed to women’s health. They commonly label pro-lifers as oppressive, part of the patriarchy, religious fundamentalists, and old men controlling women.
Most people involved in pro-life are women and at many marches, there are hardly any men in sight. Pro-choice is also about creating the socialist/Marxist utopia and destroying the patriarchy. Often, the most hardline, aggressive pro-choicers are young female university students who know third-wave feminism back to front, are taught by socialist professors and believe it is all the capitalist system that is keeping them oppressed and not giving them total sexual liberty.
Another reason pro-lifers are often confronted with violence and abuse is the abortionists and their enablers know that abortion is not an innocuous procedure. Connecting the dots to how abortion happens will never be shown, so they want to militantly censor all the details. If every person were to see an abortion, support would plummet.
If it is healthcare and an actual right, why the total outrage when they see the results of abortion? Why shoot the messenger? Why hasn’t any woman seen the result of her abortion? They are in fact forbidden from seeing it, even if they vehemently request it.
In Australia, the same political forces who want more and more graphic cigarette packaging and more warning labels on alcoholic beverages are the same ones who want abortion imagery banned. The advertising standards board even recently tore down a billboard saying “heartbeat at 5 weeks” on a highway in New South Wales. It was deemed too upsetting.
Abortion comes down to wantedness. Some are conceived under the right circumstances and others are not; they are mistakes. Lives are not disposable because you say they are unwanted. This is often shown to us when a woman refers to her abortion as scrapping a few cells away, but the next year is exultant over her pregnancy and immediately says, baby.