True Hope, True Change

We Must Name the Lobsters

Nov 17, 2009 Five Non-Negotiable Issues, Supreme Court

In an episode of The West Wing a small circle of people, including Joint Chiefs, the President’s Chief of Staff, and the President are presented with a situation where a leader of a terrorist nation is going to be making a ceremonial stop in the United States.  The administration has recently, since agreeing to the ceremonial handshake with the President, gotten solid evidence that this leader was the mastermind behind a foiled plot to bomb the Golden Gate Bridge.  The dilemma amongst the small circle is whether or not to take this guy out with the one chance they have.  It is the opinion of everyone except the one ultimately in charge, the President, that they should take the terrorist leader (we’ll liken it to Ahmadinejad turned bin Laden).  The President is grappling with the idea, though it seems inevitable that he will ultimately agree with his counsel.  The problem is that the plan that is devised to take this leader out, and in a way that does not incriminate the United States, falls after the ceremonial handshake.  The Chief of Staff is trying to make it such that the handshake is nothing more than it needs to be.  He cites a time when he used to take his young daughter to the seafood place and the first thing she would do is name all the lobsters in the tank so that he couldn’t eat any of them.

So goes the problem of the pro-life movement.  The biggest, and possibly the only shortcoming we have in our time of living is that we don’t know the unborn child.  They are nameless and faceless.  We can see two arms and two feet, we can see a skull and a skeleton, and we can even see them move.  But we can’t see their smile, we can’t know their personalities, and we aren’t able to hold the precious little person in our hands and know them enough to love them.   Again, this is the biggest and possibly the only shortcoming of the pro-life movement, and when you look at the methodology of the pro-choice contingent you have great evidence.  Consider the most obvious example, Planned Parenthood…

• They don’t want the pregnant mother to get any literature from the sidewalk counselors, because they might realize that they are already a mother.
• They don’t want the pregnant mother to hear anything that makes what is inside of them a human being because the mother might realize that she is already just that – a mother.
• They don’t want the pregnant mother to see an ultrasound because they might realize they are already a mother.
• They don’t want any sort of waiting period where a pregnant mother, already a mother, might realize that fact and change their mind.
• They are so worried about the pregnant mother realizing they are a mother, they don’t even want to show the mom their baby when something goes “awry” and the baby is delivered alive.

All of this is an effort to make sure that the mother of the child, and any other influential person in the situation, do not come to know the child that is already alive.  The child that is already alive.

Fortunately science is on the pro-life side.  The better our images get, the more the pro-choice side has to sprint in another direction. (It’s ironic that the pro-choice side is, in most other cases, entirely apologetic of anything scientific, but I digress.) It is vitally important that we do everything else we can, on top of the scientific evidence that only some will pay attention to, to give a name and a face to the unborn child.  The precious feet and the at-this-many-weeks facts are a good start, but we need to do even more than that.  We need to give names to these children.  This isn’t to “make the decision more difficult,” but to inject the truth of the matter into the discussion.  After all, this is a live human being.  Never has it been known that a pregnant woman has delivered anything other than a human being.  There is no chance that what is growing inside of the woman, sometime in the future to be delivered, is a bowling ball or a bag of designer make-up, both of which can be amorally chucked into the garbage can.

The tragic events of 9-11 shook everyone I know to their respective core.  Yet even I have to admit that not having known anyone, personally, who was affected in the tragedy gives me a far different experience than another person who lost a friend or a loved one at one of the three sites, on a plane or in a building.  The point is this:  We must make the lobsters known so that they can be loved as more than an inconvenient growth on a woman’s body.  We must give name to the lobsters in the tank.

Share on Facebook

Related posts:

1. Steele is a good pick The RNC has chosen a new leader.  Pro-life, and otherwise...
2. Who, really, is intolerant? Quite often political discussions on issues with moral relevance (even...
3. Where is the tipping point? By now, most everyone has heard the story of the...
4. Christ’s example: a child Gospel Mk 9:30-37 Jesus and his disciples left from there...
5. Why should we reduce the need for abortion? It’s always a fascinating practice to take a look at...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.