Pro-abortion position doesn’t make sense
To offer some reasonable perspective to the controversy over Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock’s comments concerning children conceived through rape, I have some questions.
What honestly makes a civilized mind think he was actually saying God condones rape? Is this how the reproductive rights mentality makes its argument for abortion? Through word-twisting and tortured interpretation? Why does it seem that it constantly looks for reasons why abortions should happen? As criminal and traumatic as rape is, why does abortion have to be the primary solution?
In the broader sense, why does this mentality seem to get so upset when women are persuaded to forgo any abortion? I recall the reaction to the movie “Juno.” And people seem to get rather defensive when challenged about life in the womb and the casual dismissal of it that abortion on demand fosters.
But you know especially who should feel outraged over that legal right, but can’t be because of ideology? The homosexual community. Being heavily Democrat, to concede that human life exists in the womb at any point would likely make their faith in, and support for, reproductive rights effectively meaningless, simply because abortion would lose its best disguise, if not sow doubts about the rest of the Democrat belief system as well.
But more importantly, conceding the pro-life position might force them to face a very ugly and inconvenient truth. I’ve read that some 50 million abortions have occurred since 1973. And the relevant thing about that number is the percentage of elective ones. Now that 10 percent of the population is automatically homosexual, would that mean some 5 million, and counting, have been aborted?
The simple reality of reproductive rights is that it physically translates into humankind eating itself alive.