We were warned in the beginning that the ardent voices of the abortion lobbyists will over ride our own cries for justice.
Back then, at least in my own mind, I thought even they would be able to acknowledge the injustice here. After all, this was not only a crime against our daughter’s life – this was a crime against Cassie’s choice as a woman. No matter how you looked at it – this was a crime equally against both life and choice.
How could it be drawn into a debate about abortion?
The past week has revealed to me how greatly I underestimated the power of these voices,
and how I overestimated their reasonability.
It almost seems that it has been made into a game of whoever speaks loudest wins. It reminds me of the novel Brave New World where, regardless of reality, it is said that, “Sixty-two thousand four hundred repetitions make one truth.”
This is not about abortion. This is about holding those accountable who commit violent crimes against women and as a result take away the life that should only have ever been the woman’s to choose.
But that is not the truth that they have created with repetition.
I am no match for their repeated utterances. I cannot speak nearly as loud – I don’t have the means to create a bigger public awareness campaign.
We have statistics, and scientific polls, and independent legal analysis, but they yield a weapon much more powerful than that – Fear.
The pro-choice support this, the pro-life support this, but the pro-abortionist are threatened and offended by any and all mention of the existence of an unborn baby – even in the context of when it is what a woman has chosen.
To them we are all “anti-choice” even though the conventional definition of the word would tell us that to have choice – there must be two or more options.
How can they be so adamant that only one deserves protection?
What is truly ironic to me is that our whole argument is based entirely on something Joyce Arthur (the conductor of these voices and founder and Executive Director of the ARCC) once said – “Only the pregnant woman has the right to decide the moral value and status of her fetus, because it’s no-one else’s business. The fetus becomes a person when the woman carrying it decides it does.”
Guess she’s not saying that anymore.
She speaks of a “greater good” and insists that it must not be extended to Cassie. Does she not realize that the “greater good” she is determined to exclude Cassie from will automatically go to the person that killed her? I ask the question though I know that is not her concern.
One thing is certain – she does not give a rat’s ass about a woman’s choice when that choice is to love her baby.