The tenor of the entire article bothered me. Maybe I'm oversensitive to it right now, but there was something untoward about the whole thing. As the legislature of my home state of Indiana is currently taking up legislation to ban the act of killing unborn children in the womb, one of the state's larger newspapers ran a story warning how "abortion restrictions may put stress on the foster care system."
It's not the logistical accuracy of the piece that frustrated me. Of course it's true that if killing "unwanted" children becomes illegal, more will be born, and it's a mathematical certitude that will result in more children being placed in an already strained foster care system.
What bothered me is that the article, like so many being written by pro-abortion activists in media these days, carried with it a sort of, "Well now look what you've done" tone. The shamelessness that so many are able to sustain while expressing disappointment society might not be able to kill kids legally anymore is grotesque.
The belief that feticide is an acceptable solution to the problem of unwantedness is as morally impoverished as the belief that homicide is an acceptable solution to the problem of neediness, or that genocide is an acceptable solution to the problem of population density. It's as dim and uninspired as it is evil.
But there's something else that is equally repulsive about these conversations – they are all written at the pro-life movement.
It's never addressed to humanity in general, saying, "Okay everybody, with abortion becoming illegal in many locations we've all got some work to do to care for an influx of crisis pregnancies and children born in tough situations."
Instead it's always, "Okay, pro-lifers, you wanted all these babies to live, so what are you gonna do about it?"
Again, I don't know why a person could feel good about telling everyone, "If it were up to me, those kids would be dead, so I'm certainly not going to feel obligated to do anything to help them," but that is the continuing thread throughout the tapestry of these "what now" pieces being published daily.
Even a pro-life book review published the other day at Public Discourse noted that this current cultural movement was demanding a "heavy lift" from the pro-life movement. Again, it's not that I disagree with that assessment of the situation. It's that it's jaw-dropping that we don't all realize what that fact says about the humanity and compassion of the pro-aborts among us.
Just days ago, University of Michigan football coach Jim Harbaugh and his wife spoke at a fundraising event designed to generate profit for pro-life charities and programs in the state. The couple was lambasted by pro-abortion fanatics. They were raising money to care for children and leftists attacked them.
Meanwhile in that same state, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer actually vetoed adoption tax credits included in a funding bill. The purpose was to ease the financial burden felt by parents adopting children. Whitmer also vetoed state funding of maternity homes where women could live with their children as they saved money.
Why did she do this? The move didn't help women. It didn't help children. Who did it help? Other than sick pro-abortion spite, what's the motivation for the veto?
So again, it's not that I disagree with the premise that pro-lifers are going to be carrying the burden of caring for women and children as feticide increasingly becomes legally banned and ethically taboo. I'm just wondering why anyone thinks that's okay.
