Yes again, that Vox. A pro-life woman, Karen Swallow Prior, wrote a piece in Vox.com predicting that in 50 years, historians will look back on our modern times in horror at abortion. Mostly because the act of abortion is an act of horror. You should read the article in its entirety, even though to do so gives Vox the clicks. Worth it for this piece. For brevity, here are a few highlights with my take.
Karen Swallow Prior leads her article wisely, stating historically, women and minorities have been oppressed by people in power. Which is true. She then explains it kind of makes sense that abortion would be seen as a liberation for women, giving them greater control over their lives. Perfectly playing to the pro-choice talking point that abortion is a form of sexual agency. That’s when she throws this truth grenade:
But rights for women that come at the expense of unborn children aren’t true liberation; they merely, as one writer put it, enable the “redistribution of oppression.”
Here’s the thing about oppression: it’s always done to people who can’t speak for themselves. Let me drop a bumpersticker slogan on you to better crystalize the sentiment: everyone who is for abortion has already been born.
Karen Swallow Prior then delves into the clear science and medical advancement which has given us a view into the womb like never before. We know when the fetal heartbeat begins (we can detect it so early), when the baby has limbs, brain waves, and if she’ll be left or right-handed. All within the very early stages of pregnancy. Unborn children are, undeniably, human beings.
The fact that many abortion rights supporters wish abortion to be “rare” is an implicit acknowledgment of these undeniable, if inconvenient, truths.
Yes, well-played Karen. If there’s nothing wrong with abortion, why must it be rare? A question the pro-choice side never really answers, they just dodge to a different philosophical pretzel: sure, the unborn child is a human being, but is it a person? That’s when I roll my eyes and pretend I’m a more patient person as I deal with an individual who just wants to have rights to kill a baby.
Except these same scientific advancements made on the back of medical progress, in combination with any number of other cultural factors, has slowly led to a decline in abortion itself. Causing a panic on the left, who “want” abortion to be “rare” mind you:
Whatever the cause, however, abortion is becoming less necessary and less desirable. Recent attempts in several states to expand access to late-term abortions in anticipation of the possible overturning of Roe not only violate the view of the majority (who support greater restrictions after the first trimester) but will be seen by future generations as a last, desperate show stubbornness in the face of human progress.
Every age has its blinders, constructed, usually, through a combination of ignorance and self-interest. Many things such as bloodletting and wet nurses that are seen as good or indispensable in one age are unthinkable in another.
Karen is quite possibly a nicer, more polite person than I am. Many people are. I compare abortion not to bloodletting or wet nurses but to slavery. There are too many parallels to be ignored: people said they needed slaves to lead better economic lives, that slaves weren’t really whole people anyway, and slavery was legal, so it must have been okay. If it was wrong, it would’ve be illegal, right?
The same arguments are made for abortion: women “need” abortion so they can lead the life they want to lead, including having a better career or economic status. Hence abortion clinics are usually in poorer neighborhoods. The “fetus” isn’t really a person, so therefore it doesn’t really have rights like born people do. Besides, abortion is legal. If abortion was wrong, it would be illegal, like rape and murder.
And like slavery, with enough hindsight, humanity will look back on our actions in abject horror. Especially, as Karen points out, when there was and is ample, visible, scientific proof the unborn person is so clearly a living human being. With a heartbeat, fingers, toes, and a little face.
That’s a promise. How long will this historical hindsight take, that’s debatable. But more surprisingly is not the prediction which raises eyebrows, but the publication in which the prediction appears. Vox. Liberal Vox. The same Vox which suggested AR-15s had grenade launchers and therefore had to be banned.
Is Vox hedging its bets? Is the tide turning against abortion, slowly but surely, as leftists tighten their control over their billion dollar industry of baby-killing? Let me know what you think, tweet me at @Courtneyscoffs.