Alabama state Rep. John Rogers just made one of the most horrific justifications of abortion ever proposed in American politics. Or, at least, one of the clearest.
“Some kids are unwanted,” Rogers said. “so you kill them now, or you kill them later. You bring them in the world unwanted, unloved, and you send them to the electric chair. So, you kill them now, or you kill them later.”
On Tuesday, the Democrat was arguing against the state’s Human Life Protection Act, which would ban abortion except when it’s needed to save a mother’s life. The bill passed the state House and has moved on to the Senate. But lawmakers such as Rogers want it stopped at all cost, even if it means arguing that some humans have no value.
Alabama Senate Majority Leader Greg Reed, a Republican, issued a statement in response to Rogers’ diatribe, saying, “His comments should be condemned at the state and national level.” They should, but they probably won’t be. Because even though they’re clearly abhorrent to all sides, they transparently describe the lies on which the pro-abortion movement is founded.
“Some kids are unwanted, so you kill them now, or you kill them later.” Most pro-abortion advocates are too smart to use the language of killing children, but Rogers’ assumption is universal among his party: A child’s value is not inherent but comes from worth that is bestowed upon him or her by others. But if a child’s unwantedness justifies its disposal, then people have no inherent dignity or worth. We have to wait for our mothers (and lawmakers) to tell us whether we have value.
“You bring them in the world unwanted, unloved, and you send them to the electric chair.” Here, Rogers implies that every child whose mother wants an abortion is undesirable and will ultimately become a burden to society. He further implies that when such a mother goes to term with her baby, she will continue to find it unlovable, and it will end up on the streets. … committing murder? Again, if human value is based on a general consensus, we run into a problem. How can anyone whose worth hasn’t been given to them ever do anything worthwhile? It’s easy to justify ridding society of certain persons if we expect little to come of them.
Rogers’ comments expose the truth that the pro-abortion movement isn’t about “telling a woman what to do with her body,” as he said. It’s about choosing which people are more valuable — those outside the womb or those within.
If you need more evidence that a categorical condemnation of Rogers’ comments is too much to ask, see my colleague Becket Adams’ description of the backlash-focused media reaction or read the Washington Post’s coverage, where a writer calls the comments “perplexing.” Why are they not appalling, unacceptable, or horrific? Because that would reflect poorly not just on Rogers but also on his whole party.
Perplexing indeed.
