Radical abortion supporters have an uncanny ability to be unfazed by the horrors of legal abortion, and at the same time utterly traumatized by the work of the Pro-Life movement. Dame Magazine has proffered the latest example of this mind-boggling disconnect via a piece entitled, “Abortion Opponents Are Hellbent on Putting a Face on Fetal Remains.” As the title suggests, the author’s main contention is not with the fact that Planned Parenthood is dissecting babies who have faces, but with the fact that Pro-Lifers want to remind the public of the fact that Planned Parenthood’s victims have faces.
Enter Melissa Ohden and Gianna Jessen, two abortion survivors who are inexplicably alive today despite having been aborted in 1977. The two women testified at a congressional hearing aimed at exposing Planned Parenthood’s horrific abortion practices. Until the Center for Medical Progress released undercover footage of the actions and discussions that take place behind the abortion behemoth’s closed doors, many Americans were unaware of the callous inhumanity perpetrated at Planned Parenthood every day. And abortion proponents are seething over the fact that the tide of public awareness is turning.
In the Dame Magazine op-ed, Robin Marty decries the four faces with which the Pro-Life movement is pushing confrontation:
First there was the “face” of the not-quite-12-week gestation fetus in the petri dish of video number four. Then there was the “face” that former StemExpress worker Holly O’Donnell claims she was forced to cut through to procure fetal brain tissue. Now, the face will be the literal faces of those who survived abortion procedures, offering testimony under the guise of speaking on behalf of those fetuses seen in the undercover videos.
Here is one of the faces with which Marty is so disgusted:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/I5uhZg4EwJg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Marty is appalled that, due to Pro-Life efforts to expose the inner workings of the abortion industry, “there is no actual safe space where you can avoid” seeing the reality of abortion. Note that Marty does not deny that these gruesome realities exist, but rather complains that people should not be forced to confront them. Is the credibility of the abortion movement not severely undercut by the admission that abortion proponents themselves do not want to come face-to-face with the right they so fiercely wish to protect? Why does the Pro-Life movement owe the architects of the culture of death a trigger warning before viewing their own handiwork? This is the insanity of the anti-Life philosophy.
The anti-Life movement is predicated on all kinds of contrived “rights.” The “right to die,” the “right to kill” vis-à-vis the “right to privacy,” and now, apparently, the right to ignorance. The anti-Life movement subsists on the ability to speak rights into existence and then hold everyone else to their arbitrary, self-serving notions. We just have one question: without any guarantee of the Right to Life, where do all these other rights come from?