The country is overcome with righteous indignation. Nothing could be more heinous than the wanton murder of innocent children. The acts of December 14, 2012, left everyone in shock — as well they should have. It is our duty as a society to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Six courageous adults gave their lives to protect the innocent. Those adults should be forever remembered — their names placed into an ever-growing book of American heroes. President Obama was right to be moved, saddened, and inspired to act to prevent further attacks on our children. We should all have similar responses.
As a nation, we have tried many things to provide protection for our children. We’ve instituted anti-bullying campaigns, educated school personnel on “active shooter” incidents, and slapped ratings on video games. Yet, children still die needless deaths. In his speech at the memorial service, President Obama said “Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?” Implied here is the idea that we must give up some of our individual freedoms to protect our children from violence. We can restrict — or even ban — guns from shore to shore. We can even create a cabinet level position dedicated to mental health with a budget twice the size of the Department of Defense. However, unless we address the most frequent killer of children, all other efforts are a drop in the bucket compared to the actual number of violent acts committed against children? The President is right to question whether or not freedom is worth this price. For that reason, it is time we take a serious look at how the right to an abortion has taken the lives of so many innocent children.
Let’s talk about the right to bear arms and its relationship to preventable gun deaths of children. But, let’s also talk about the elephant in the medical room. How can we argue we support protecting children, when the deadliest right of all — abortion — specifically targets the most innocent, defenseless among us?
If Obama and the Democrats are serious about restricting rights to protect children, then they should immediately look to restrict abortion. The abortion crisis in this nation kills far more children than guns. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 784,507 abortions were reported in 2009. In that same year, the CDC also said that 31,347 people in the United States died from firearm-related injuries. In other words, twenty-five times as many children were victims of abortion as were the number of people killed as a result of gun violence. Both of these numbers are tragic, but for some reason we are not allowed to talk about abortion in these terms lest we be branded radical, antiquated, and misogynistic.
And what about the word abortion? It simply means to terminate. Logic tells us that nothing can be terminating if it has not first begun. An employee cannot be terminated, unless they are already on record as an employee. Cable services cannot be terminated unless they once existed. To terminate a pregnancy suggests an understanding that something has already begun. What is that something? Maybe it is just a fetus, but then again, if fetuses lack significance, why do we have medical procedures to abort and remove them? What exactly are we preempting? The very act of abortion, then, grants importance to the thing it presumes is worthless — the mass of tissue inside a woman’s womb.
The Left would tell us that abortions end pregnancies, not lives. This argument seems to omit the obvious and empirically supported conclusion that pregnant women give birth to children. Why do we even describe pregnant women as pregnant if there is no difference between them and women who are not pregnant? If pregnancy has no meaning, the pregnant qualifier should never be used. When soon-to-be parents announce a pregnancy, why do we congratulate them? It is not because the state of pregnancy is meaningless. It is because as a society — no, as humankind — we understand pregnancy to be of great value. Why is this linear understanding of pregnancy so difficult for pro-choice advocates to understand? Perhaps it is convenience. In all recorded cases of successful pregnancy, a life has been produced. In some tragic instances, pregnancy results in still birth or miscarriage. Here, too, society has made the obvious observation that life was the expected outcome, and that at one point life was present. In these instances, even death evidences life.
For those who want to protect children, why are the rights of gun owners under attack, but the rights to an abortion a bridge too far? Let’s talk about guns, mental health, and our celebration of the felony culture, but lets not blatantly reject our responsibility as a people to talk about the biggest killer of all — abortion. Mr. President, don’t say you want to restrict rights to protect children and then turn your back on the institutionalized violence that is cloaked in the language of freedom — the “freedom to choose.”
Michael is a father, Texan, Ph.D. Candidate, and an active member of the American Association of Common Sense. He also thinks that if those who don’t own guns can speak authoritatively on gun control, then he can do likewise on abortion despite not possessing a uterus.