Mothers against Children
Colorado’s senator, Mark Udall, is running for reelection this year. Apparently his opponent has taken some positions on various questions that are upsetting to the senator, so much so that his campaign public relations folks have created an ad “exposing” his opponent.
I never get involved in politics because, as is clear in this race, there is no man of pro-life principle involved. But let’s take a look at the ad in question. Whether you are a man or a woman, a young person or a more mature one, the message has got to chill your bones unless, of course, you are a dyed-in-the-wool abortion advocate. The reason for my sickened response is simple.
You see, the content of the ad and the actors playing the roles of mother and child struck me immediately as a sign of the times in which we live. Why, you might ask, did I feel a gut wrenching twist as I viewed it?
The young mother and her daughter look lovingly into the camera as the mother explains that she wants her daughter to have the same “choices” she has had in her lifetime. This young mother wants her daughter to be able to decide to choose the abortion of a child in the future because she, the mother, could have aborted her daughter if that had been her decision. The choice is what is important, she is saying, not what the result of the choice could be—life or death of a human being.
My question is this: How have we as a society come to a point in our cultural attitudes where aborting a baby is something so commonplace that opposition—even politically motivated, weak opposition—is viewed as radical, extreme, and out of step with mainstream America? Oh I know, even Obama, who has two lovely daughters, has been heard saying, “I’ve got two daughters. I want them to control their own health care choices. We’re not going backwards, we’re going forwards.”
But the truth does not change because of the words spoken.
As I consider the reality of this paradigm shift away from respect for motherhood to disdain for it, another angle—or should I say another way of looking at it—occurred to me.
What if the woman in that ad was a pet owner? And what if she was facing the camera, holding a young puppy, telling her audience that she is fighting to maintain her right to torture and kill her puppy without the interference of others, including the government? The outcry created by the perceived imminent brutality being sanctioned by such an advertisement would be heard from coast to coast.
Every single media outlet would be in hot pursuit of the ghoul who produced such an atrocious message. Every animal rights organization in America would be protesting such inhumane attitudes, not to mention the “inherent cruelty” suggested by such an ad.
In other words, threatening the life of a puppy dog is cause for fury, but praising and politically striving to protect the legal right to kill a member of the human family—pitting mother against child—is cause for celebration.
Topsy-turvy does not even begin to summarize this word picture, at least not for those of us who see the diabolical portrayed as the angelic.
This ad is, at the very least, an alarm bell calling us to do more to oppose any attempt to create hatred toward the gift of motherhood. “Mothers against children” is not an option. Period!