Posted on April 30, 2022



Nothing To See Here

Abortion is shielded by its own horror


Daniel Clark



Two recent news stories have involved series of images, each of them depicting the slaughter of innocents, which have been treated dramatically differently. One of these, showing Ukrainian civilians gunned down in the streets of Bucha, was seen regularly for several days in national newscasts. All that was needed as justification was a disclaimer about the graphic nature of the footage. The other set of images, of late-term babies that were killed at a Washington abortion clinic, has gone totally unseen by consumers of mainstream news media.

These tiny human bodies were obtained by the anti-abortion group Live Action, whose medical experts have argued that some of them were probably killed illegally, through partial-birth abortions or by being born alive and left to die of neglect. Even compared to other pictures of aborted babies, these are difficult to look at. Words like "horrific" and "chilling" don't even begin to describe them. It is nevertheless difficult to believe this is the reason they haven't been shown on TV, given the media's willingness to show us vivid images of death in other contexts, such as war.

One explanation is that the media simply don't want to be seen as the bad guys. It's a phenomenon peculiar to the abortion issue that when people see pictures of the mutilated bodies of the innocent victims, the predominant reaction is to get mad not at the killers, but at the people who showed the pictures. Paradoxically, the legality of abortion is thus shielded by the very atrociousness of the act. Even if not for the factor of liberal media bias, few people would be willing to attract the ire of the public by putting these images on display, when they could instead be posing as fearless truth-tellers, by exposing the inhumanity of the Russian aggression against Ukraine.

There is no misdirection of blame where the war is concerned. When people see the carnage in Bucha, they know that it's Vladimir Putin's doing, and he makes an easy target for their anger. So why, when it comes to the babies' bodies, is it not as easy to identify the abortionists as the culprits? Perhaps it's because there's a lesser degree of separation in that case between the killers and a large percentage of American news consumers.

Very few Americans condoned Putin's invasion before he launched it. People are therefore perfectly comfortable condemning his actions from afar. Responsibility for the slaughter of babies in our own country is not so clearly defined. It certainly doesn't end with the abortionists themselves, and the other clinic employees. Nor is the circle of moral culpability confined to women who seek abortions, the men who, the truth be known, are the ones more often making the choice, or the activists who openly advocate abortion as a positive social good.

The images also serve as an unwanted reminder to men who splash their DNA around indiscriminately, guided by the "pro-choice" paradigm, according to which all outcomes are the responsibility of the women alone. Ditto that for patrons of the pornography industry, which has been especially supportive of abortion because it's just plain bad business for the women they exploit to become mothers.

Feminist academics, and the students they've succeeded in indoctrinating, have an irrational love of abortion, because it is the keystone that holds together the theoretical dreamworld they've constructed, in which the rudimentary facts of life do not apply. If they were open to being persuaded by the grisly truth of the matter, they would not have so totally invested themselves in unreality in the first place. One might as well try to talk sense to a true believer in professional wrestling.

Then there are those who condone abortion while telling themselves they're doing no such thing. They pretend to be neutral by saying it's none of their business, a self-deception that is obliterated by the sight of the real, human victims. They defend legal abortion on the basis of it being "the law of the land," as if they didn't live in a representative republic, but instead meekly accepted all laws with which they disagree. Many of them offer variations of the Jimmy Carter "personally opposed, but" position, when there's nothing about abortion to personally oppose that would not call for it to be prohibited.

When these evasive actions fail, and they're confronted with the reality they'd been so desperate to avoid, it is only natural for them to lash out like cornered animals -- which, in a way, is what they've become.



Return to Shinbone

 The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press 

 Mailbag . Issue Index . Politimals . College Football Czar