A body would have to be naive in modern America not to know that Saturday's march in Little Rock was called a "Rally for Reproductive Justice"--but wasn't really about reproductive justice. It was a rally, certainly. But that one word was about as honest as the push-cards might could get.
For Saturday's march was a pro-abortion rally. And abortion is the opposite of reproduction, or it was last time we looked. And who's to hand out justice to the babies who are killed every year, every month, every week, every hour since Roe v. Wade? Better if it had just been called a Rally for Abortion, or perhaps a Rally to Keep Abortion Legal, and leave it at that.
Irony is hard to avoid when arguing with the pro-abortion types. Remember how they commandeered the word "choice" all those years ago? As if the child in the womb has any choice when it comes to its demise. Some of us are old enough to remember the 1990s when a senator from Massachusetts named Kennedy huffed and puffed that the government should keep providing "pregnancy-related services." What the senator meant was "pregnancy-ending procedures," but he couldn't say that aloud and call things what they were. Any more than his disciples can today.
Pregnancy-related services? Such as getting ice cream and a nice pillow? Back then that phrase sounded as innocuous as a Rally for Reproductive Justice does today.
Of course those who would do the defining--if the rest of us would just let go of the language and allow them--say Saturday's rally in Little Rock was in support of "reproductive justice," and they define that as "the right to choose whether and when to have kids, and the right to parent those children in safe, healthy environments."
Forget for a moment their use of "parent" as a verb. We'd ask them where a child could be more safe and healthy than in his mother's womb? Until the abortionist gets involved.
Then there was somebody speaking at the rally from the Human Rights Campaign in Arkansas. So tell us, what species is the child before it's aborted? Is it not human; does it not deserve human rights? It can get confusing when these people begin assaulting the language. Not to mention plagiarizing. This is one of the quotes from said speaker taken directly from Sunday's paper:
"Believe me when I tell you, we are the ones we have been waiting for."
Oh, Lord, not that again.
Why not be more clear with the language? Because that'd give it away. Some Americans, however, will insist on telling it like it is in this debate. We have our souls to think about.
Editorial on 01/24/2018