The Feehery Theory

March for Life

Posted on January 22, 2015

Washington is flooded with young people.

As happens every January 22, hundreds of thousands of Americans stream in from around the country to make the case for life.

The vast majority of them are high school and college students.

It’s an interesting dynamic.

Abortion is not popular with the millennial generation.

It has been more than four decades since Roe V. Wade made abortion legal in the United States, and technology has made clear what happens to a little baby over that time.

I suppose, for young people who pay attention, they know how lucky they are to simply be alive.

The Catholic Church is the principle driver of the March for Life and churches across the area are filled with worshipers who pray for the end of the destruction of babies.

I don’t particularly like the religious argument to end abortion.

We live in a country where there is a strict separation of church and state, and it is far too easy for Catholic politicians (mostly Democratic) to say that while they personally oppose abortion, that they have to represent all of their constituents.

Instead, I like ethical and scientific arguments against abortion.

It is ethically wrong to kill little babies out of convenience and with science, we know now how human-like they are at a very young age.

With technology, there also comes great risks, the greatest of which is to young female babies.

Abortion for sex selection is widespread in other parts of the world, especially in China and India.

Abortion for eye-color, hair-color, against left-handers, and those with any kind of physical deformity is right around the corner.

Of course, the biggest crime is when people get abortions simply because it is inconvenient to have children.

Margaret Sanger, the Goddess of abortion, was a notorious racist, and she especially wanted black babies aborted.

And genocide has been perpetrated against African-American babies ever since that time.

We as a society, of course, can’t just care for babies when they are in the womb, and that is a frequent critique of the Republican Party.

We need a more holistic approach.  We need to make it more inconvenient to have an abortion than to have a baby.

And then we need to take care of the babies.

The Pope made a comment earlier this week that Catholics don’t necessarily need to breed like rabbits, which is a departure from the common understood doctrine to go forth and multiply.

Francis seems to suggest that birth control, most of which is frowned upon by the Church, should be used more often by practicing Catholics.

I think it is unrealistic for the Church to fight against the pill and condoms.

And as a practical matter, if either option wasn’t available, a lot of sex simply wouldn’t happen.

But I have a challenge for the Church.  They should make it a goal to eliminate all abortions performed on Catholic women in ten years.

It should raise resources to build a caring and sharing network that takes care of babies, especially those who born to people in distress.

The House is voting today on legislation to ban convenience abortions twenty weeks after a child has been conceived.

That vote is surely going to be mischaracterized by the left as an assault on all abortions and as being anti-women.   Some Republicans are worried that this vote could hurt them, especially with the women vote in a race with Hillary Clinton.

That might be true, but it is still the right thing to do and the fact is that banning the murder of 20-week old children is pretty popular with the public.

The March for Life has endured rain, snow, sleet, bitter cold over the years.  Today, it’s a pretty nice day in the nation’s Capitol.  Maybe that signals better days for the pro-life movement in the future.