Are we talking about the Charlie Hebdo unity rally and demonstration? Or the March for Life?
There's a thought experiment. Robert Royal calls it "Magical Thinking" and helps us think through it here .
"I am Charlie," the common slogan, is silly and emblematic of how we express ourselves publicly about moral matters these days. But no shame on that crowd for saying - no matter in how confused a fashion - that we don't allow some people to kill others, simply because they think they have a right to.
What shall we say, though, about the people who have remained largely passive in a world in which 1.32 billion babies have been aborted since 1980?
Or an America that has killed, without losing much sleep, 57.5 million babies since 1973?
More than Stalin (40 million).
Way more than Hitler (30 million).
Chairman Mao edges us out (60 million), but he had a bigger population to work with. And anyway, we're catching up.
Out of those 57.5 million, 17.3 million black babies were aborted. It's hard to get your head around such numbers, so this may help: That would be like eliminating the entire black populations of New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Houston, Memphis, Baltimore, Washington DC, Dallas, Columbus, San Diego, Phoenix, Indianapolis, Boston - combined. And more than twice. Put a different way, it amounts to almost half the current African-American population.
If America's police departments did that, we'd be seeing a lot more than demonstrations about "Hands up, don't shoot."
Perspective is everything, especially if it's keen and clear and not seen through an ideological lens. Young adults and adolescents in greater numbers every year, along with other generations of Americans from the Roe era to the children in strollers, get the truth of the pro-life cause and movement.
It should not surprise America that the pro-life movement is growing younger and stronger. Incredible advances in science have made it possible for young women such as myself to first greet our children and witness their miraculous development beginning when they aren't much bigger than a legume. Today's women track their baby's developments with any number of smartphone apps. Today's children are growing up in a world where ultrasound pictures of their siblings are taped to the family refrigerator. Today's would-be parents are bringing children into the world where tremendous medical advances keep nudging backward the age at which babies born prematurely can be kept alive…
The 2014 midterm elections saw a huge number of legislators who self-identify as pro-life elected to office. Pro-choice darling Wendy Davis was a spectacular failure, and candidates like Mark Udall, who campaigned on abortion rights, not only lost but were criticized for emphasizing their pro-choice positions. The war on woman rhetoric the abortion rights camp has been using will likely be retired, especially when the youngest woman in history was elected to Congress last year, and she is a staunchly pro-life woman in fiercely pro-choice state.
The tide has turned, the truth of human life and dignity is again self-evident to more Americans. The March is getting bigger, younger, more joyful and hopeful every year. It's joined by burgeoning groups of witnesses to the demonstrable ravages of abortion, like Silent No More Awareness Campaign , Created Equal , Centurions , And Then There Were None , Rachel's Vineyard , Live Action , and so many others.
The media mostly didn't cover the March for Life. But they're rendered more irrelevant every year by ignoring hundreds of thousands of exuberant young people pouring into the nation's capitol, cramming Constitution Avenue and the streets and avenues crisscrossing Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. Especially when participants take to social media to share the news themselves .
And it's those thinkers and writers who are engaging the culture with challenging responses to the tired slogans of a dying movement that claims the right to kill in the name of an ideology of 'freedom of choice.'
Here's a good example.
I don't have the right to force someone to be pregnant. I don't have the right to force someone to continue to be pregnant. I don't have the right to force someone to become a mother against her will. I simply don't.
And neither does anyone else…
What we, as a society, do have the right to do is to require, and we do that all the time.
It is an accepted norm of human society that we require parents (this includes mothers) to care for their minor children. We do not accept conditions and exceptions to this rule. The age, sex, stage of development, and location of the child do not in any way preclude the obligation, the societal requirement, that the parents ensure that that child's basic needs are met. This is true whether the child is living in the same residence as the parents or not. The obligation remains intact even if the minor child is away at boarding school, or living with relatives. Human society requires that the parents of each child be responsible and answerable for his/her health and safety.
In the event that the biological parents choose to pass the obligation for raising that child along to someone else (adoption), we still require that that happens in a way which is in the best interest of the child.
And it's about time we look out, once again, for the best interests of the child.
This is not a new and radical position. The social contract which exists between parent and child is ingrained within every culture on Earth. This basic understanding of the duty owed by parents to their offspring predates its being codified into written law. There has never been a human civilization which did not hold this expectation for parents.
Now pay attention to this:
What is new is the position we now hold. Western society has decided that in the unfortunate instances when the biological parents of a child are incapable of caring for their child, we as a society will step in as a safety net, and see to his/her health and safety collectively. We recognize and so value each life that we have made the historically unprecedented decision to fulfill the parental obligation even in the absence of parental ability.
It is this basic human premise and recognition of human value which Pro-Life people call upon with regard to what is owed the child in the womb. We acknowledge the biological fact of the humanity of that developing human being, and require of its mother the same societal norm which exists for the well-being of all children. We expect that the parents of that child will meet and fulfill the basic needs of that child. In the event that they feel incapable of caring for that child long term, we place upon them the same obligation which is already in place - that they transfer the care of that child to someone else in a manner which safeguards the health, safety, and well-being of that child.
Recognition and protection of the right to life and human dignity are preeminent, the right upon which all others build. Rallies for the rights to free expression of speech, even of the most vile and obscene sort, no matter how many world leaders lead the march, make no sense whatsoever if that first and fundamental right is subjected to an ideological bias against life deemed disagreeable.