This won’t be the first time I draw your attention to some really intellectually-challenged pro-abortion remarks, and it won’t be the last. The pro-abortion position is so morally and intellectually indefensible, that when the pro-death camp seeks to defend abortion, it has to rely on something other than logic, reason, sound arguments, or common sense.
Consider what appeared in today’s Daily Telegraph. Columnist Sarrah Le Marquand has a piece called “Abortion is none of Justin Bieber’s business”. The article contains no serious argumentation, logical reasoning or presentation of fact. Instead it is one long ad hominem attack on Bieber and anyone else who dares to disagree with her.
Justin Bieber had given an interview for Rolling Stone magazine recently and in it he made clear his pro-life position. For this he has earned the wrath of this angry pro-abort. The article is typical of those in the pro-death camp: plenty of nasty invective and mud-slinging, but no proper argument or evidence.
Consider just the title alone. Just what in the world does it mean? In the article she claims he is unqualified to speak on this issue. Why, because he takes a different position than her? If so, all Ms Le Marquand is demonstrating is what a bunch of censorious fascists the pro-abortion mob is.
Or because he is male? But why in the world should males not be allowed to speak on this? After all, half of all victims killed by abortion are male. I would think a national genocide which takes the lives of 50,000 male victims every year (and 25 million worldwide), is very much something every male should be able to speak on.
Ms Le Marquand does in fact inform us why he must not be permitted to speak on this issue: because he has the audacity to actually be a Christian! Yes you heard me right. Obviously anyone who is a Christian must be disqualified from speaking out on the issue of abortion.
But why Ms Le Marquand? Why should Christians be silenced on this issue while secularists like yourself are allowed to speak? It seems to me that in a democracy anyone should be allowed to speak about the important social issues of the day, even – gasp – those dreaded Christians.
Indeed, given that Christians make up 64 per cent of the population according to the last census, just what exactly are you suggesting? Should the great majority of Australians simply sit down and shut up just because of your irrational anti-Christian bigotry?
And if being religious disqualifies one from speaking out on social and moral issues, then what are you suggesting? Should Bieber and billions of Christians the world over never speak out on rape either, or environmental degradation, or unemployment, or various other social injustices, all because of their religiosity?
But consider some more of Ms Le Marquand soggy reasoning. She says this: “Bieber is in no way qualified to judge anyone faced with an unplanned pregnancy, irrespective of their circumstances. None of us are.” None of us? Then if Bieber is not allowed to say that abortion in such a situation might be wrong, then how exactly do you get off in saying it might be right?
Indeed, why are you even writing this article? She even admits that “I’ve never found myself in that position either”! So why don’t you just butt out as well? Why must Bieber be silenced while you are allowed to go waffling on about something which is just as foreign to you as it is to him?
And one more pearl of wisdom can be examined here. She says, “But for those who find themselves faced with unplanned or unwanted pregnancies, legalised abortion must remain an option.” OK, now we have a moral absolute being thrown out in the middle of an article full of moral relativism.
So let me get this straight. The option to kill someone who puts us in an uncomfortable or unwanted position must always remain open. OK, so let’s say I am sick of several street people who have recently started living in my home. They may be needy people, but plenty of times I find them annoying, inconvenient, or a pain in the butt.
By her reasoning I have the option to shoot them; that would be morally acceptable because they are unplanned and unwanted. Strange, but I can think of all sorts of other situations where I find myself confronted by those who are both unwanted and unplanned.
I guess by her version of morality I have the moral right to consider lethal force to rid myself of these annoyances as well. Thank you Ms Le Marquand for offering us this bit of moral wisdom. Life is so much simpler – and convenient – now that I have adopted your unique moral code.
I suppose the only remaining question to ask is, why does a major newspaper even bother to print such morally vacuous and intellectually barren articles? If they are just looking to fill space, I would be happy to submit a few pro-life articles. But I suspect the paper would not be too interested in such an offer.