I’ve always believed it important for conservatives to have
liberal friends, both because of the imperative to constantly challenge one’s
own assumptions, and, as this past week reminded us, because liberals are great
to have around for entertainment, especially when things do not go their
way.
If only our friends on the Left knew of the elation, the
sheer euphoria, and of course, the uproarious laughter, that we conservatives
experience at their unhinged hysteria whenever they suffer a setback, they’d
perhaps be more restrained. But then, if
liberals were capable of self-restraint, they’d be conservatives.
Just as well.
With the overturn of Roe v. Wade coming on the heels of important
decisions about religious liberty, and another Second Amendment victory, one
struggles to think of a moment that we conservatives had more of such magnitude
to celebrate in such a compressed amount of time. The collective Chernobyl-grade meltdown of
the Left made the victories even more gratifying. It was beyond even the mass unhingement
witnessed in 2016, when Mrs. Clinton lost and the entire Democratic Party was
so distraught they actually overwhelmed
our mental health resources in the subsequent
weeks. The Left is passionate
about many things, but only abortion — not school shootings, not homelessness,
not inadequate healthcare, not even war — could elicit from them such an epic
paroxysm of every bad behavior, and the only way to explain it is as some sort
of Abortion Distortion Syndrome.
The science of ADS is still developing, but initial data suggests that symptoms include irrational panic, aggression, and large numbers of the afflicted simultaneously voiding their bowels onto themselves. And just as COVID-19 can diminish the sense of smell, ADS seems to cause a diminished sense of irony, perspective, and reason.
Anecdotes, though not dispositive, are nevertheless here
instructive. One longtime liberal
friend, normally quite an agreeable chap but now manifesting symptoms of ADS
(one suspects it had been in remission), accused me of being “emotional”
because I used the term “unborn child” in a Facebook post about the Supreme
Court’s decision, and he demanded that my readers ignore me and my pro-life
views. This, while he spent about twelve
straight hours (liberals have too much spare time) breathlessly dumping onto my
page every half-baked, nincompoop pro-abortion talking point he could
regurgitate — long-form, short-form, half-formed, deformed — as quickly as he
could type them as though the fate of civilization depended on it (this, by the
way, is his idea of ignoring me), all the while lashing out in every which way,
and hyperventilating like a Victorian spinster stood up at her own wedding. He even threatened to fight someone! And I was being emotional? This poor guy was so overwrought, I thought
he’d require a spell on the ol’ fainting couch and some smelling salts. This is a grown man we’re talking about!
He was not alone.
Others threatened violence, after just two weeks ago
demanding that Americans surrender their guns to stop the violence. Another argued, paradoxically, that we need
abortions to prevent miscarriages. That’s
right, we need to kill babies to prevent them from dying.
Another pro-abortionist spoke brilliantly about the
importance of bodily autonomy, pointing out that “no other liberties survive
without that one,” it not occurring to him that this is actually the entire
basis of the pro-life argument. Another
complained of my “privilege,” though to be alive and not be pro-life is the
most perverse expression of privilege.
It’s amazing how many non-aborted people are in favor of aborting other
people.
Others complained, predictably, of Merrick Garland’s Supreme
Court seat being “stolen,” (as though it was ever his), even though the
Democrats had the opportunity to place Garland on the Supreme Court earlier
this year, and rejected him because of his race and gender.
The arguments got more bizarre. Another friend demanded to know whether I had
encountered any rape victims on the golf course. Actually no, I haven’t, come to think of
it. And?
Another compared motherhood to slavery, complete with an
image of a woman and child wrapped in chains.
Another — I’m not misrepresenting this — was especially proud of her
argument that “an unborn child is not a person because the tax code does not
allow for a dependency deduction.” Yeah, we also can’t claim our adult
children, or our parents as dependents either.
Are they not people?
Others warned that contraception would soon become illegal,
as though any of us on the Right want our friends on the Left not to use birth
control. Others worried aloud about
other women’s rights being attacked, such as the right to vote, the irony again
lost on them, that the entire purpose of abortion is to terminate all rights
for the aborted.
Another, a Republican believe it or not, queried how he’d
explain the loss of Roe to his children.
Here’s an idea: tell them to be glad their mother did not do to them
what Roe gave her the right to do. And
while you’re at it, teach them to be sexually responsible so we don’t keep
having this problem.
Two others demanded — seriously, demanded! — in true
Orwellian form, that I discontinue using the word “child” to describe an unborn
child, and substitute instead “fetus.” Sorry, but if you’re at the point where
you need to eliminate words because they hurt your argument, you have no
argument, not even:
You can’t speak because you’re a man and men can never
become pregnant! Well, I’m glad we
finally agree on that, but understand that when I talk about abortion I do not
purport to speak on behalf of women, I am giving voice to the voiceless.
We’ve turned back the clock fifty years! No, if anything, we moved the clock forward
fifty years, if not more. It was Roe
that brought us centuries backwards to barbarism, when life was cheap, short,
and disposable. Overturning Roe returned
us from the Dark Ages into an era that at least gives lip-service to respecting
human life.
By the way, when I hear all these pro-abortionists now
complaining about “overpopulation,” “unwanted babies,” “homelessness,” and “poverty,”
it’s hard to think this has no connection to eugenics. This is the same stuff Margaret Sanger was
saying 100 years ago. Let’s not turn
back the clock 100 years.
You’re imposing your religion! No, we’re imposing good science, good
morals, and human rights, which is what law should do. It’s the twenty-first century. We know where babies come from and how they
are made. We know what is inside a womb.
If anything, it’s the pro-abortionists
who demand a deference akin to religion, insisting as they do that abortion
should be subject to private convictions beyond scrutiny and public censure,
and in the face of science, common sense, and decency. Abortion,
after all, is “sacred,” to our friends on the Left, as Nancy Pelosi tells us.
A fetus is not a life! Science tells us that life begins at conception. But it’s not a human life! What other kind could it be? Well it’s not a person! A living human is not a person? That’s your position?
Uh… here’s a picture of a coat hanger! Here’s a picture of an unborn baby. Looks just like a real baby. Have you seen a picture of an aborted one, since that’s what you want? Maybe post that!
This is an offense to democracy! Actually, the entire
point of Roe was to remove the abortion issue from the voters, because the
voters wouldn’t do what the elites on the Supreme Court wanted. Overturning Roe restored the issue to our
democracy.
But the polls show national support for abortion rights!
And how many of those polled were at risk of being aborted?
Come to think of it, I saw a lot of hysterical defenses of
Roe and abortion in general, and oddly, none of them even attempted to argue
that there’s a right to abortion in the Constitution.
And the more they argued, the more they defeated their own
argument, because to engage in a national polemic is to evidence a national
polarization, thereby proving the Supreme Court right to decentralize the issue
and return it to the voters, where every vote is equal and none greater than
the other.
This equality, unfortunately, does not extend to the validity of our arguments — irrational, incoherent, and unintelligible as some are, the consequence, no doubt, of a widespread affliction that seems to manifest itself around issues that provoke, and in people who are acutely susceptible to an emotional response. If only there were some sort of vaccine.
