‘ALL LIFE IS NOT EQUAL’
There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as seeing a liberal come out and just say what he or she truly believes. It happened last week – twice. First, Rolling Stones reporter Michael Hastings fessed up that, yes, he and his fellow swooners do in fact “lose their minds” whenever they’re in the presence of The One. (Chris Matthews’s leg seen tingling in approval.)
Not to be outdone, Salon’s unabashedly pro-abortion champion, Mary Elizabeth Williams dropped the silly pretense that “an aborted fetus isn’t a baby” – and said the words most pro-”choice” advocates believe – but don’t have the guts to say out loud:
“So what if abortion ends life?”
Kudos for your candor, Ms. Williams. Except, you should’ve added: “It’s my life that I’m worried about!”
In a blatantly revealing article, Williams writes:
“While opponents of abortion eagerly describe themselves as ‘pro-life,’ the rest of us have had to scramble around with not nearly as big-ticket words like ‘choice’ and ‘reproductive freedom.’
The ‘life’ conversation is often too thorny to even broach. Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice.”
Chilling confession – made even more chilling by the in-your-face tenor of her comments: “Yeah, of course I believe a fetus is a human life. So what? If you think that makes me any less willing to kill it, you’re crazy.”
So, how does Williams reconcile her belief that a fetus is indeed a human life with having no conscience about ending that life? How did Hitler justify it? How did George Orwell justify it? Simple. All life is not equal:
“Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers.
Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.”
So, let me get this straight, Mary Elizabeth: You’re saying that based on one’s residence, he or she might not have the same rights as his or her host, correct? Kinda like the slaves in the Old South or the Jews in WWII Germany, right? Got it.
Oh, and how clever of you to cradle “what is right for her circumstances” in between (a woman’s) “life” and “health.” You people couch your words very carefully.
While most pro-life advocates accept abortion as an alternative when the life (or health) of the mother is at risk, it’s that whole “right for her circumstances” part where most of us part company with the self-serving, pro-abortion crowd.
What kinds of “circumstances,” Mary Elizabeth? Single mothers? Financial concerns? Fear of commitment? Just not “in the mood” to have a baby? Yeah, “circumstances” – life’s a bitch, huh?
Finally, mustering all of the liberal arrogance she could muster, Williams says:
“If by some random fluke I learned today I was pregnant, you bet your ass I’d have an abortion. I’d have the World’s Greatest Abortion.”
In your case, Mary Elizabeth, I’d say: Go for it. As to your silly “World’s Greatest Abortion” line? Call me an “intimidating wingnut” – one of those to whom you refer in your pathetic article - but I’d have to say the “World’s Greatest Abortion” would’ve been the one your mom missed out on prior to your birth.
Sorry – nothing personal – it’s just that “all life is not equal.”