Why liars for Jesus can’t be believed when they say they’re anti-abortion

If you denounce the Affordable Care Act because it’s “the biggest expansion of abortion and abortion funding since Roe v. Wade” or because it requires that “Americans buy health insurance plans that pay for contraceptives and abortion” or “because it makes American taxpayers complicit in the deaths of countless unborn children,” this doesn’t make you pro-life.

It just makes you a liar.

Opposing an imaginary “expansion of abortion” that exists only in your own fevered brain is not the same as opposing abortion. It does nothing to oppose abortion. And if you really cared about opposing abortion, you would regard such irrelevant, fictional fantasies as a distraction.

But if you prefer those fantasies — if you’d rather play-act at opposing an imaginary threat — then it’s not credible for you to claim you’re anti-abortion or “pro-life” or whatever it is you’re trying to pose as.

You’re just a liar. A fantasist.

And your primary goal is indignation — the momentary rush of endorphins that comes from imagining that you are uniquely righteous in contrast with the wicked others.

Your lies prove that this is what you are. You no longer care whether or not something is true. All you care about is whether or not something feels good to pretend.

The tell — the giveaway that reveals that this is all that you really care about — is that the truth doesn’t make you happy. You’re just Bad Jackie.

When you find out that the problem you claim to be upset about isn’t actually a problem, you’re not relieved to hear it. Instead, you get even angrier. That’s because your grievance has no substance other than to be a grievance — and anyone who points out that you need not be upset about this is ruining the self-righteous fun.

You claim to be angry at the ACA’s “expansion of abortion.” You claim that this grieves you, breaks your heart, tears at your soul, and fills you with a righteous anger that cannot rest until this injustice is corrected.

Hey — good news! The ACA does not expand abortion or fund abortion or do any of those things you just said were grievous, heart-breaking, etc. You don’t have to be upset! You don’t have to worry about this!

Aren’t you happy to hear that? Aren’t you relieved to learn that the evil Satanic baby-killers are not actually killing babies?

But no, you’re not happy to hear that. You refuse to take yes for an answer. And you do not regard it as good news to learn that the thing you were denouncing isn’t a problem after all.

Instead, you’re livid. You’re enraged. How dare anyone show us that the world is not as grievous, heart-breaking and unjust as we wanted it to be? Give us back our Satanic baby-killers!

That’s the tell. That’s the proof. That is why you cannot be believed.

Perhaps you’re just cynical hucksters out to make a buck. Maybe you’re just the hired servants of some plutocratic powers looking to distract voters. Or maybe you’re the victims of your own deceptions, people who have been bearing false witness for so long that you’ve begun to believe your own lies.

Whichever of those it is, your habitual lies have proved that you don’t actually care about what it is you claim to care about.

You have proved that you’re not anti-abortion. You’re just addicted to indignation and you’ll keep telling whatever lies you have to tell, spinning whatever fantasies you have to spin, to get your next fix of that drug.

  • Kubricks_Rube

    Not only that, but expanding health insurance coverage to 30 million people, a large number of whom are in the demographic that most uses abortion services already, and making OBGYN visits easier and more affordable as well, can only decrease the number of abortions from the demand side- both by decreasing unwanted pregnancies through regular access to doctors and contraception and by making some unexpected pregnancies into wanted ones by reducing or eliminating (some of) the economic and health care-based objections to pregnancy and parenthood.

  • Katie

     You’re forgetting that those sluts shouldn’t have sex if they don’t want a baby.  *eyeroll*.

  • Sigaloenta

    What’s frightening is that sooner or later these people will start to seriously make the argument they can’t possibly pay women wages or trust them with any money at all — those terrible jezebels might use it to pay for an abortion or birth control, and then these poor oppressed “pro-life” folks would be complicit in sin!

  • Jessica_R

    And this courageous woman and her story is a good tonic to the “abortion is our Holocaust!” claptrap, 
    http://kelly-is-ceallaigh.tumblr.com/post/25011220578/safe-legal-abortion-is-prolife-tehsunshine

  • Lori

    But if women only have babies when they actually want to have them they’re not being punished for their slutty, slutty sluttiness. Can’t have that.

  • Jay in Oregon

    How could you spend any money at all, when there’s a good chance that it could make its way into the hands of the abortionists?
    The young man who delivered your pizza? He could end up down at Planned Parenthood with his trampy little girlfriend, looking to “take care” of a “problem”.
    That nice old woman behind the counter in Wal-Mart? She could end up paying for her daughter or granddaughter to “go visit her aunt for the summer”.
    Heck, even cutting checks to your local anti-abortion protest group isn’t a safe bet, since some of them end up scheduling an appointment for themselves or a loved one when their fellow pro-lifers aren’t looking.

  • KerFuFFler

    Thank you for a wonderful post!

  • Tricksterson

    After all if wimmins ain’t fer makin’ babies, what else is they fer?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

     The only reasonable solution is to start paying us in company credit, or special private food stamps that can be exchanged only for items on a predetermined list. You can get food, clothes, toiletries, etc from any retailer but not contraception (or anything else from the family planning aisle, really), and obviously not abortions either. I mean, it’s either that, or take the risk — no matter how remote — that a dollar that has touched a pro-life person’s hand will at some point be used to purchase condoms. If you accept the notion that employers are morally culpable for what employees do with their salaries and benefits packages (monetary or non-monetary), and therefore employers must have some control over what employees spend said benefits on,  then you’re basically advocating for a system like that.

  • EllieMurasaki

    That would basically kill innovation, though. If the latest Playstation isn’t on the approved list, and right when it comes out it won’t be, then nobody’s going to buy the latest Playstation. I can’t imagine that that would do anything good for the profits of whoever makes money off Playstations.

  • http://www.wayofcats.com/ WereBear

    I used to be sympathetic to their point of view; until I discovered how many opposed family planning and situations where the life of the mother was in danger. Then the hypocrisy just kept looming larger over the whole thing.

  • Tonio

    Combined with mandatory ultrasounds, and exceptions for rape or incest, those positions seem aimed at punishing women who want to have sex without being mothers. As if that itself was grievously immoral. Anyone who really opposes abortion should favor better access to sex education and contraception, so women have the tools they need to conceive only when they choose to do so, and also favor better support for women who choose to give birth.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    This, right here, is why I have such a problem with people claiming that really, the Tea Partiers and their allies are good, salt-of-the-earth folks who are simply being duped.  If they were, then the news that countries with universal healthcare don’t kill off their elders, racial equality does not mean that whites are going to be the new Jim Crow, the legalization of same-sex marriage does not mean that they’re going to have to divorce their opposite-sex partner or even obligate their churches to perform such marriages, etc., etc., would make them relieved.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    Good point. I guess you could invert it into a blacklist, where we can buy anything from any retailer except Unseemly Products.

    (Incidentally, I think that the point that you made is what’s going to defeat any possible future attempt to resurrect the scrip system; banks, manufacturers, and other retailers would fight against any roadblocks put between themselves and consumers’ money).

  • Xeno

    “Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then
    suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be
    quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one’s first
    feeling, ‘Thank God, even they aren’t quite so bad as that,’ or is it a
    feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the
    first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad
    as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step
    in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils.
    You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we
    give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black,
    and then to see white itself as black. Finally we shall insist on seeing
    everything — God and our friends and ourselves included — as bad, and
    not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe
    of pure hatred.”

    -C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

    Well, I’m convinced. People who long for their enemies to be vile ARE the satanic baby killers. Oh how the tables have turned.

  • Mary

    Amen!

  • Jurgan

    I like this test.  For example, just a couple of days ago, one of my wife’s friends said she’d heard that if you don’t have health insurance by 2014, you’ll go to jail.  My wife asked me if that was true, knowing that I follow the news more closely than she does.  This was a test for me, because I didn’t yet know if the friend was innocently deceived or thoroughly invested in the lie.  I calmly explained that, no, jail was not a possibility.  At worst, you’d have to pay a fine if you refused to buy insurance, and briefly talked about the rationale for making people pay into the system, in case she ever had to go to an emergency room.  She said something like “oh, okay,” and was relieved.  So this was someone who passed the test, and I’m glad I applied it first.  Had I assumed bad faith, I could have started insulting her and calling her a liar, and then she would have been forced to double down, because I had tied the lie to her self-worth.  So it’s important that, when correcting these lies for the first time, we be gentle enough to allow the other a graceful exit.  If they continue to repeat it despite the corrections and evidence, then we can get forceful.

    Then we started talking about Medicaid expansion, and how Governor Haley is doing her best to keep our state from giving health care to poor people.  Sadly, that one is true.

  • Tricksterson

    Btw, I forget ut if you are below a certain income level don’t you get assistance purchasing insurance?  I know that how it works under Romneycare here in Mass.

  • syfr

     Yes

  • Tricksterson

    So then why have I heard bitching both at large and by the usual suspects here about people being forced to pay for insurance they can’t afford? 


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X