Responding to the May 24th editorial “No Uterus, No Opinion,” I respectfully offer a uterus-free opinion in open defiance of the author’s attempted ban on paternal speech.
At least the author is correct in her opening when she tacitly admits that a baby is what ultimately emerges from a pregnant body. Moreover, when the author argues women aren’t cavalier about the (relatively safe) abortion process, she unwittingly concedes that something more gruesome than a “mani-pedi” is in fact occurring, otherwise why shouldn’t abortion be as easy and unremarkable a choice as a wort removal or colonoscopy?
From there, however, the editorial fails to grapple with the long-undeniable scientific and common-sensical truth that pregnancy involves not just the mother’s own body, but the wholly separate body and soul being nourished within. Indeed, denying a baby is involved seems to be the tissue-paper strong rock under which the entire pro-abortion rationale hides.
This inability to recognize fetal personhood also seems to allow for the author’s approval of abortion under almost any precept, including the financial inconvenience of child rearing. This failure to separate mother from innocent and growing child presents many of us with disturbing philosophical questions that go beyond the abortion debate, including what ethical barriers remain to prevent sanctioning the murder of the chronically ill, mentally anguished, developmentally disabled, or generally inconvenient? If it’s okay to kill humans on one side of the birth canal, what scientifically or morally prevents justifiable murder on the other? See: Germany, 1939.
Finally, in a botched attempt to expose Alabama Governor Kay Ivey’s supposed hypocrisy and naiveté, the author confuses the precious gift of life itself with the undeniable fact that some choose tragically to waste or destroy that gift, which only underscores the need to protect and guide life at its earliest and most fragile stages. After all, fallen men and women choose to turn their backs on God and country, while the aborted baby never even had the chance to hear her father’s voice or feel sunlight on her cheeks.
Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, and unfortunately it was not some isolated decision from which no larger societal shockwaves were felt. It was the dynamite that blew a hole in our already fractured moral dam, flooding the fertile American valley with relativistic confusion and ever-heightening waves of dreadful cultural deviancy for two generations. If slavery marred America’s birth, abortion has been the metastasizing cancer hastening its death.
Since Roe, millions of innocent babies have been killed, God has been ripped from our schools, Hollywood has debased our culture, video games have glorified rape and murder, the melting pot has been traded for the intersectional salad bowl, marriage has been devalued, drug use has skyrocketed and been largely destigmatized, and yet we sit around and laughably blame guns or other inert objects when our school children kill or show zero regard for the value of life. It seems to me that all those “antiquated beliefs that no longer have a place in today’s society” have too often been replaced regrettably by the much darker, much colder sensibilities of selfishness above all.
Roe didn’t protect women, allow for choice, or usher in some new and enlightened era worthy of eternal preservation. It was itself a cruel, jurisprudential abortifacient that stopped the 200-year beating of America’s exceptional and magnificent heart. Because whether you speak of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, abortion has wrought irreversible and unspeakable violence against all three for millions forever unheard. As even “Jane Roe” herself now admits, it has always been time for Roe to go.
—Richard F. Corrao, Jr.
Would you like to share your opinion about this topic? Is something else on your mind? Send a letter to the editor to email@example.com for publication in print and online. Click here to view our letters policy.