Amazing! That’s my response when I hear abortion defenders spout their rhetoric. A classic example was in the June 3, 2004 UP. In his column, “Byrd trying to fly north in November while civil rights go south in Florida,” Dan Restrepo unwittingly illustrated how hypocritical the defense of abortion is.
Restrepo stated that it is neither fair nor constitutional that men should decide on women’s rights, as occurs (in his mind) in the case of abortion. The sentiment does not extend to the unfairness of a woman choosing to end the life of her unborn child.
The Declaration of Independence, a document that preceded the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, states the Creator endows all persons with the inalienable right to life. There is no question as to whether the unborn child is alive. Only those who wish to deceive others, or who are unwilling to think truthfully about the issue still maintain that the unborn child is not alive.
The unborn child is not the property of its mother to do with it as she pleases any more than a newborn, toddler, or adolescent child is. Of course, the parents have certain rights over how they choose to raise their children, but not the right to intentionally end its life. Before 1973, federal law recognized this, but the Supreme Court disregarded the rights of the unborn.
The hypocrisy is clear: Restrepo believes it unfair to the woman to limit her “right” to kill her unborn child, but it is not unfair to the child to have someone else decide its fate when it can’t defend itself.
The next point of hypocrisy is Restrepo’s ranting that the Parental Notice Amendment “would force women under 18 to get their parent’s consent if they want an abortion … I guess children don’t have rights either, or at least not according to Byrd.” According to Restrepo, parents should have the right to kill their children before giving birth, but should have no right to prevent the death of their grandchildren or to save their children from potential life-long scars.
There is a much more sinister aspect to the hypocrisy here. Abortion defenders willingly drive a wedge between parent and child, making them mortal enemies (literally!). Instead of encouraging children to hide their medical issues from their parents, we should encourage the opposite.
Restrepo’s statement insinuates that requiring a parent’s consent for a medical procedure is tantamount to denying the rights of the child. Absurd! Would that apply to open-heart surgery? What about requiring a minor to undergo treatment for drug abuse? Even the law requires parental consent for a child to be given an over-the-counter painkiller by the school nurse! Are abortion defenders living in a Twilight Zone?
The fact that an activity is codified in the law or allowed by the Supreme Court doesn’t imply that it’s right or beneficial to individuals or to society at large. The Supreme Court has made wrong decisions in the past. The court was wrong in Roe v. Wade.
We live in a society where a young woman’s worst enemy may be her own child. If the child were born, social services would rescue it. But even a few inches from birth, the woman is encouraged to kill it. That is barbarism. Why can’t we love them both?
