We have reconsidered the phenomenon of the (so called) “Right to Life” movement and have ultimately come to realize that its existence and function has little to do with its publically avowed purpose, the protection of the fetus, by restriction of the mother’s right to an abortion.
The organization, vehemently, to use Shakespeare’s judgmental words,” protests too much,” in its display of militancy in the protection of the “life” of the fetus, from its mother, who may possess a legitimate need for an abortion. Such vehement militancy completely disappears from sight, and their army retires from the field of battle, upon the birth of the child. Remarkably, and revealingly, they resolutely and adamantly oppose all government support for needy children, including, food, health and educative relief. As far as they are concerned (or not concerned) following his birth, the child can live or die, depending upon his circumstances, without their interest or intercession. This is hardly consistent with a rationally professed reverence for life, in this instance, the life of young children.
Devotees of the right to life mantra, have actually committed premeditated and deliberate homicide of abortion providers; the professed rationalization being, that they were preventing the destruction of life (fetuses). These acts of intentional murder are, in no way, a rational affirmation of life’s sanctity.
It has been observed that most, if not all, of these self-anointed crusaders for life, are enthusiastic supporters of the death penalty, apparently in keeping with some atavistic sense of earthly justice. They (1) ignore studies that demonstrate, sociologically, that it is not a deterrent to crime,(2) approve of the State’s taking of human life,(3) ignore the several instances of botched executions, leading to results that could only be happily described by the Marquis de Sade and, (4) downplay the significant number of instances, where, with the aid of DNA tests, or other revelations, it is revealed that the convicted person was innocent of the crime for which he was charged and sentenced; at times such revelations have appeared only after the application of the mortal penalty. Total disregard of these facts and atavistic calls for the application of the death penalty, are far from appropriate for self-anointed crusaders for life.
The media has shown that a great many of these right to lifers are resolute opponents of legislation to regulate gun sales and gun ownership. We see no rational basis whatsoever, for the existence of a purported cause seeking the protection of life, being maintained simultaneously, with the support for unregulated ownership and sale of weapons. The numerous mass shootings at shopping malls, schools, movie theaters and other venues appear, in consistent fashion, to be the result of automatic weapons in the hands of deranged shooters. This is due, in large part, to the ready availability of weapons and their unregulated sale. Reasonable gun control laws would be most desirable to these counterfeit protectors of life, if the subject of that protection, life, were their actual raison d’etre.
We have spent some time pondering the rational disconnect between the name, “Right to Life” and the articulated life- affirming dedication of its adherents, and the empirical reality and significance of their starkly contrasting behavior. We have, accordingly, reached the conclusion that the organization and its members are not, truthfully, concerned to any degree with the sanctity of human life, nor, contrary to their constant public pretentions, have any especial concern, for the safety and protection of the human fetus. The facts of the manifest falsity of their misrepresentations is irrefutably evident, given the above enumerated facts; of which, to us, the most telling, is their stunning disinterest in the life and welfare of the (needy) child, following birth.
Our resultant conclusion is that they are, instead, motivated by a neurotic need for personal contact and association with a publically recognized group, to buttress an inadequate sense of personal identity. Signing on to a point of view, unanimously shared by the group, furnishes such neurotically needy personality with an ersatz affirmation of commonality, belonging and identity; this may be especially so, regarding an issue which is public and emotionally charged. Being part of an identified association, with an intimate group of non-critical, reductive minded colleagues, and sharing a mutually agreed pseudo-ideology, is their unhealthy, rationalized solution to the problem of meaningless existence.
The fetus, itself is no more than a strategically advertised symbol, such as a tribal totem or a national flag. It functionally signifies the public assertion of a shared identity, albeit, here, by people, desperately in want of an effective recipe to flavor a bland life of limitless, mundane existence.
-p.
plinyblogdotcom 