The prolife movement has progressively been losing ground. Against insurmountable odds, the prochoice movement pushes forward, gaining momentum and adherents. How could something so clear-cut as the life within a mother’s belly be debatable? Yet here we are.
There is an abortion clinic in my city. They used to hide themselves within the cover of an hospital’s walls: but are now more brazen and have opened a private location in the community, as if they were a 7-11 or a Mac’s store. And why not? They hold all the talking points, and have a national media that acts as their personal apologists. It’s against the law to protest within an imaginary bubble zone around the establishment. Otherwise, the police will arrest you and take you away in cuffs. But these problems are commonly known within our orchestra attuned to life. The unseen problem is that the enemy has planted their ideology within our ranks, unbeknownst to us.
An argument is steadily lost when one party concedes ground. Inevitably, the losing party is relegated to narrowing their response criteria based on their opponent’s guidelines. If you concede (for example) that microevolution is possible, you will be hard pressed to counter macroevolution. Whoever defines the argument will win the argument. This concept is a known battleground within the prolife movement, and is the thrust of continual sparing over the terminology we debate with: Whether it’s prochoice or prodeath, or a baby versus a fetus, the terminology used can sway the public. Yet on an undetected level, the prochoice movement has willfully influenced the adherents of prolife. How?
A while back, I applied for a job with a prolife nonprofit organization. They were looking for a new executive director. Their existing director was pregnant and stepping down. My qualifications were such that I was shortlisted to an interview with the board. I lost the job to a very qualified and exceptional lady that was more capable than me to fulfil the organization’s objectives. But one thing struck me during my interview. I was asked whether it was proper for a man to represent a prolife organization. Come again? The board was trepid over giving the enemy an easy target (a man talking about a woman’s body), a lightning rod to dismiss prochoice criticism. When someone of the male persuasion questions abortion, the enemy’s retort is ad hominem: a personal attack based on gender to divert from the merits of the argument. I applaud the board in that they considered me and would have likely hired me if my talents were more persuasive. But the questions highlighted a subliminal factor that decades of misguided feminism had produced: the outrageous suggestion that the prolife movement may have conceded to one of prochoice’s founding objections. I understand the hesitation, and the fear of the shrill ill-informed cry stigmatizing you as a “sexist”. My concern is that this fear has led to a gradual shifting towards the less bumpy road; and that this has in turn resulted in, perhaps unconsciously, talented male adherents being ushered to the side lines. Inevitably, this sensitization to the enemy’s antics will reap an unholy crop of diminished donations and a dwindling volunteer base: As many of these males will drift away to other worthy causes.
The face of prolife is pro-family. Males need not be relegated to the periphery out of fear of offending the enemy’s sensibilities. The socially liberal media seems silent to our voice. Perhaps a man speaking on “woman’s issues” would attract their attention, even if only for an opportunity to ridicule. They would come to mock and to shame, expecting reparation from our subverted ranks. Unbeknownst to them, they could be confronted with a well prepared response. Indubitably, they would be confronted with the truth. And perhaps it would be in a baritone. And truth is what we seek to spread, irregardless of the voice that proclaims it.