Pardon My Salt 3: Stop Calling Yourself Pro-Life
The 49th annual March For Life recently took place in January 2022. It was a protest against abortion — if you didn’t know. The 49th instantiation of something would otherwise be something I pay very little attention to; however, I saw on social media a picture of one of the demonstrators wielding a sign that said, “Pro-life also means no Neocon Wars.” This piqued my interest, so — as is my nature — I obsessed over it, trying to figure out why I was so captivated by it. Now I am here with what I think is my conclusion regarding the whole debate: Pro-Choice versus Pro-Life is a false dichotomy that ultimately serves the agenda of Pro-Choice — that is, keeping the option of child sacrifice open.
“Oh no. Here comes another conspiracy theory,” you say? No. I have not said that this false dichotomy is done on purpose; I have not said it is done by accident. Delving into Hegelian Dialectic would cloud the issue with too much esoteric crap. The point is not to prove if it is intentional or accidental. The point is to shed light on what is happening.
First, I will make the case that “abortion” is child sacrifice — a sacrifice for sin. By “sin,” I mean missing the target. The particular sin is… shirking the responsibility for one’s actions. If the goal is to avoid pregnancy and the subsequent lifestyle changes of raising a child, then the responsible actions range from abstinence to the use of available contraception. In keeping with the theme of missing the target: If the target is to avoid pregnancy, then failure to take the actions to avoid pregnancy is the shirking of responsibility — the sin.
Where there is sin, there is a need for sacrifice. (And, no, it doesn’t matter if the one committing the sin identifies as religious or not. There is enough literature regarding human proclivity toward religion, so I do not feel the need to hash it out too much.) Where someone might sacrifice their ego in service of the greater good (“Die to self”), the child sacrifice happens when the person decides to sacrifice their child’s life in service of their selfish desires — ego. Instead of being responsible, the one who sacrifices the child outsources — projects — their own responsibility onto the child and kills the child in an effort to kill their responsibility. To save themselves from dealing with the reality of their irresponsibility — to preserve their ego — they kill the living being that came from that lack of responsibility.
There are even stories about women who “shout their abortion” and celebrate the accomplishments they were able to achieve after they had the abortion. They sacrificed their children in order to have the life they wanted for themselves instead of sacrificing their pride and adopting personal responsibility.
The first and foundational instance of mental flailing on the “Pro-Choice” side is the euphemism “abortion.” This euphemism is an attempt at running from reality in order to alleviate the guilt of shirking responsibility. How does someone abort a pregnancy? What method is used to accomplish this goal?
The banshee-like lamentation after Texas passed the Texas Heartbeat Act gives a clue about the method by which pregnancy is aborted. By “banshee,” I mean wailing, screeching spirit/demon. Wikipedia says that the Texas Heartbeat Act is an “act of the Texas Legislature that bars abortion after the detection of an unborn child’s heartbeat.” Why lament the criminalization of stopping another human’s heartbeat? Oh, it’s because abortion means killing the child to “abort” the pregnancy, a pregnancy that could have been avoided if the involved parties had focused on responsibility.
So, in keeping with the theme of shirking responsibility, the use of the euphemism “abortion” is another means of further shirking responsibility. The person who has the abortion already shirked responsibility by refraining from acting in ways that end up in pregnancy, shirked more responsibility by deceiving themselves into thinking that they are not killing their child, just aborting the pregnancy.
It’s Just a Political Debate?
Once the murky foundation of the euphemism “abortion” is set, the murkiness is increased by the topic of child sacrifice being elevated to a debatable political position. Because “child sacrifice” has turned into “abortion of pregnancy,” it can be taken out of the category of “moral negative” and put into the category of “political position that is up for debate.” To say that this is accomplished intentionally would overshadow the psycho-phenomenological, metaphysical — spiritual — pattern I think I see, a pattern I am not convinced that I have deluded myself into seeing. The fact that child sacrifice has made itself appear as a valid political position reminds me of “Satan himself disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14). On top of that, the fact that child sacrifice has artificially elevated its moral status to the same moral status as its antithesis — its opponent’s — reminds me of Satan trying to make himself like The Most High (Isaiah 14:13–14 NASB). One does not need to identify as religious in order to be rightfully suspicious of an idea that, through euphemism and equivocation, artificially elevates itself to the status of “Valid argument.”
The caveat to the artificial exaltation of the morally negative idea of child sacrifice is that it de-legitimizes the morally upright position of being against child sacrifice. Anti-abortion is taken out of the category of “moral uprightness” and placed into the category of “mere political position that is up for debate and votes.” The fact that moral degeneracy is up for a vote has downgraded moral uprightness to a mere vote.
I Am Not Trying to Moralize
I do not mean to just moralize over the abortion position. There are reasons why I feel comfortable labeling abortion as “morally negative” that do not require me to quote scripture:
· The practice of sexual abstinence can be used to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.
· The various methods of contraception that can be employed to avoid an unwanted pregnancy — condoms, birth control — can be used if abstinence fails.
· The “Morning After Pill” can be employed if one fails to use the above methods.
· Giving birth to the child and putting the child up for adoption.
The above methods give more than enough opportunity to avoid the moral negativity of resorting to stopping another person’s heartbeat. I mean, there are some people who support abortion and also think it’s wrong to stop a cow’s heartbeat. Even if one uses their own individual moral compass — without believing in The Moral Compass — there would be an inconsistency for them to decry the ceasing of one mammal’s heartbeat, but not decry the ceasing of a baby’s heartbeat.
The rest of the “Pro-Choice” movement’s talking points stem from the avoidance of realizing that they believe in killing a child — stopping the child’s heartbeat — as a sacrifice for a lapse in personal responsibility. Everything from “abortion is women’s rights” to “the zygote is a parasite” is an attempt at running away from the reality that they want to be able to sacrifice a child if they fail to avoid the actions that make children.
Criticism of the Pro-Life Side
The “Pro-Life” movement is the steel man in the fight; however, its major flaw is the banner it holds: Pro-Life. The best way for the ideas of anti-abortion to maintain superiority on the battlefield of ideas is to stop operating under the banner of “Pro-Life.” Drop the name. The name is the downfall of the movement.
This brings me back to the sign the demonstrator was holding: “Pro-life means no Neocon Wars.” The demonstration was about anti-abortion. I have outlined how abortion is a euphemism to hide from the reality of child sacrifice. But, in an effort to seem ideologically consistent, the demonstrator felt the need to display how he was not in favor of neo-conservative warmongering — because he is “pro-life.”
Why did the protestor feel the need to decry wars at an anti-abortion demonstration? There is a pattern I have seen, and I will try to articulate it.
Avoiding the Accusation of Hypocrisy
One of the best ways to bolster your position is to point out the hypocrisy of those who hold the opposite position. Many of the proponents of the pro-abortion movement are riddled with hypocrisy; that is why they elect to call themselves “pro-choice.” As long as their values align with their moniker, they do not seem to be hypocritical; however, their hypocrisy lies not in their support of choice but in their support of murder — stopping the heartbeat of an innocent person. The label of “Pro-Choice” gives the pro-abortion proponents the apparent cover for their hypocrisy so that their argument doesn’t seem to fall on itself at face value. They first avoided hypocrisy in the context of murder by weaseling out of it by deceiving themselves into thinking that it is not murder, and, once that is accomplished, they avoid another chance at being seen as hypocrites by attaching themselves to the easily achievable ideal of “Pro-Choice.”
However, Pro-Lifers dive into that sea of hypocrisy by holding themselves to a standard they know is difficult to keep, while their opposition holds themselves to a standard that is obviously simple. Anyone on the anti-abortion side who accepts the label of “Pro-Life” welcomes all of the accusations of hypocrisy thrown at them in an effort to delegitimize their position. If you don’t call yourself “Pro-Life,” then you never have to tell people how you are against war. You would never have to deal with arguments like, “Well, If you are so pro-life, why don’t you adopt the children who would otherwise be aborted?”
The name “Pro-Life” gives the “Pro-Choice” movement room to criticize the anti-abortion movement by trying to hold them to the purest understanding of the pro-life standard: never be for anyone’s death. That is why you hear things like, “How are you pro-life but you accept the death penalty?” or “If you are so pro-life, why don’t you adopt the babies we would otherwise try to kill for our convenience?” In masterful deflection tactics, the pro-choice crowd tries to highlight the pro-life crowd’s failure to meet the standards their moniker implies they have. If the pro-lifers are distracted with the realization that they aren’t perfect, the pro-choicers get to continue feeling comfortable with child sacrifice. The pro-lifers are so busy reconciling themselves with an artificial standard of perfect protection of life it gives pro-choicers the room to feel that they can continue sacrificing children for their sin.
In an effort to artificially attach more moral uprightness to an already morally upright position, pro-lifers ensnare themselves by their own pride and make the morally upright position of being against child sacrifice seem like it’s just mere virtue signaling.
I am not pro-life. I don’t think that a woman has the right to kill her child, but I do think that a woman has the right to kill her attacker. That position is not “Pro-Life,” but it is anti-child sacrifice; it is against killing an innocent child to sacrifice for a lapse in personal responsibility. I, myself, am not moral; I merely attempt to be moral. So, I feel no obligation to make myself seem more moral by calling myself “pro-life,” I will merely say what I think is the truth about it.
We should drop the name “Pro-Life” and vehemently disavow that label. That label — intentionally or not — gives too much wiggle room for people who want the option to sacrifice a child for their sin. And those who think that abortion is wrong should try to convince — not coerce — their opposition to choose another way, a way that doesn’t involve the killing of a child.