The pro-choice movement’s design flaw, part 3

Just came across this from Matt Walsh at The Blaze:

I can’t help but notice a potential correlation between [the Democrats] eagerness to murder the next generation and their inability to win elections. There is an argument to be made, at least, that you can’t cultivate future voters by ripping them to pieces and selling them for parts…

He goes on to defend this assertion, then makes another important point as well:

…how can we [pro-life Christians] be so selfish, bigoted, and hateful if we’re the ones trying to convince you to stop killing your children? Pro-life Christians would benefit the least from the abolition of abortion, yet we are the only ones calling for it to be abolished. If we really hate black people, why are we trying to see to it that more black people are permitted to enter the world? If we really hate women, why are we advocating for a policy that would result in more of them existing? If we really hate you, why are we arguing in favor of something that may ultimately help your political objectives more than it helps ours?

If we were truly hateful and bigoted (and politically savvy) we would celebrate your abortions more than you do. Every time another abortion clinic opened in the inner city, we would be there to cut the ribbon and throw a parade. Instead, we’re there to protest and pray. Why is that? Why are we trying to help you and save your children if we are so filled with hate?

Read the whole thing:

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/matt-walsh-dear-democrats-maybe-you-should-stop-killing-your-voters-in-the-womb/

Other posts in this series:

There are at least two pro-life contradictions

Even among those in the pro-life camp, there is controversy over using the sorts of images that appear in this video. I am in favor of it, but even so, I am not sure how much these images do for the cause, or how many people convert to the cause because of the images. Unfortunately, the “right to choose” is propped up by at least two more fundamental “rights,” “rights” many in the pro-life movement have embraced.

What this means is that, logically, the pro-life movement as a whole has embraced a contradiction. Many in it have embraced the more fundamental “rights” while arguing against the “right to choose.” If the more fundamental “rights” are true, then the “right to choose” is much more difficult to argue against. But if the more fundamental “rights” are false, then the “right to choose” is much easier to argue against. I wonder what would happen if everybody in the pro-life movement rejected the more fundamental “rights.”

Even so, slaughtering the unborn is barbaric no matter what contradictions those who oppose it hold. Innocent human life is inviolable.

See also:

If abortion is OK, why contracept?

My daughter, her husband, and I attended a prolife walk-a-thon last weekend. While we were walking, my daughter said:

“If abortion is OK, why do we have contraception?”

Smart girl. She is putting the pieces together. I’m so proud of her.

It’s a great question. If anybody reading this is pro-choice, would you mind sharing here why you contracept? I won’t argue with you. I am genuinely curious as to your thought process.