This election cycle, the GOP floated and then campaigned on its promise to defund Planned Parenthood. Trump’s election was more of a cultural statement than anything else if we truly analyze the factors of the election. American conservatives were forced into casting their ballots for a man who displayed not a single inkling toward a fondness for any of the central pillars of conservatism. People voted for him anyway. I believe it was mainly out of a feeling of desperation which was born out of a culture war which was swinging the United States into a social quagmire. In essence; the Trump voter voted for Trump because he at least carried the title, “Republican” which had up until his nomination, been the party of principle. His election was a mandate from the on-the-fence and reluctant Trump voting conservative. This means that the GOP had better make good on its promise to defund PP. Planned Parenthood has become a pillar and a symbol of progressive ideology in this country. The left, emboldened by eight years of moral malaise paid for with a blank check from the Oval Office, have found themselves in a fight they were certain they would never actually have to lace up the gloves for. It will be interesting to see how the left defends PP when it is actually put to the fire in Congress.
The truly vocal, radicalized progressives in the west are better at convincing themselves of falsehoods than any other group in the world. Case in point; the belief that Fidel Castro was a freedom fighter and a hero, a man to be admired. I point this particular nonsense out to illustrate the truth that progressives truly consider their political counterparts across the aisle as dangerously evil people. Yes, people who pay their taxes, go to Church, have traditional marriages and vote GOP are in their eyes, on a lower human rung of worth than Fidel Castro. A man who was responsible for the deaths of thousands of his own countrymen. So it is safe to say that there won’t be any hands reaching across the aisle in an attempt to begin a dialogue by the left. Admitting that the majority of federal money that pours into PP is used to subsidize the medicine, services and procedures it offers other than abortions in order to do nothing more than facilitate cheaper abortions would be the first step. Don’t hold your breath.
Unfortunately for the left, they have a bit of an issue with that pesky problem of morality. It can be argued that the justification for taking a life is relative to the particulars of the situation. Counter examples being; a soldier killing the enemy in war vs. the armed robber killing their victim for a wallet. The realization that the ultimate act of evil can be categorized into separate columns offers little more than a cold shudder to the staunch pro-lifer. That is, until they begin to analyze and understand that not only do we need to understand the intent of a situation but also the individuals involved in order to make our own moral judgments. To the left however, it would seem to be an air tight argument on the part of the pro-abortion crowd. In practice this line of argument offers little more than an easily dismissed talking point. One where all of the “gotcha” sentiment is instantly lost once the question of innocence is raised.
Here is where we have the problem. The question of innocence when discussing victims. We are dealing with an ideology of progressivism which instantly attributes innocence to the victim. This should seem altogether correct. However, it makes little to no sense once we understand that the idea of who the victim is has changed. Victims are no longer victims in the classical sense. The victim in the case of an abortion, where a baby is killed, is no longer the baby, it is the mother. The victims in the case of a city on fire due to rioting are not the store owners or homeowners who lose their property, but the rioters who became violent because of feelings of disenfranchisement. When Ben Shapiro is banned from college campuses, it is because he doesn’t fit the ideal narrative for American higher education. The students who disagree with him are the victims, not the speaker who just had his first amendment rights trampled on. When you or I feel exploited because our tax dollars, without our consent, go to fund an agency we’d rather have no truck with, it is the agency that suffers and by proxy the people who go to said agency that can claim the mantle of victimhood. Not us who are having the money taken from us regardless.
If that doesn’t seem to make any sense to you it is because it doesn’t. If the next administration, which so far has shown more allegiance to Goldman Sachs than it has to its droves of rabid supporters falls short on this particular issue you can essentially write off the moral superiority clause the GOP has for so long championed. It is time for all sensible Americans, regardless of their political allegiances to understand that victimhood disenfranchises the actual victims of crimes. People who point out the provactive attire of rape victims are roundly rejected as being laughably ignorant and rightly so. Why then, is it different when it comes to other types of victims? The definition of victim is clear. How morally bankrupt have we become that we are willing to entertain the idea that Fidel Castro was a hero, but an unborn child is superfluous?
That is a question that is too depressing to think about.