It is the fortieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, plus a day, and it becomes necessary deconstruct this particular creepfest.
For a generation we have been told that pro-aborts believed that this was an intense, personal decision, one made after much anguish and incessant prayer. We were told that no one took this decision lightly, and that everyone was pro-life, just in different ways. And so, when it came time for the Center for Reproductive Rights to mark the 40th anniversary of Roe, what do they do? Well, their unctuous spokesman appears to be closely related to Smoove B. from The Onion. This is the pimp boyfriend who slugs his girl in the eye, and believes that he can fix it with a solitary rose and some slow jam music.
Let’s consider three elements to this. First, we need to address the fact that the needle on our creep meter is bouncing hard against the far right side of this thing, threatening to break it. Second, we should mark the insolent and manifest racism of these people. And third, we will note what might be called the “true colors” element, and what should be done about it.
First, the creepshow factor. This is a guy who cares about one thing, and judging from the crude metaphor grunts when he is taking that drink of his, he wants to get it within eight thrusts or so. He cares about his “baby” about as much as he cares about the glass when he is done drinking. Looking on the bright side, this kind of guy can only get his jollies from idiot girls, or perhaps from one of those inflatable doll Supreme Court decisions that are so plentiful these days.
Second, racial animus and hostility just oozed out of this ad. Obviously, it did not ooze from Smoove B.’s cousin himself, but that is only because he is thinking about his eight thrusts. But the ad itself was jaw-dropping. They apparently realize — rightly? — that no one will see them, and that no one will care. Just as whoremongers have their idiot girls, so also despots have their idiot demographics. Beginning with Margaret Sanger’s contempt for “human weeds,” the pro-abort contingent has waged an unrelenting and very clever war on the black future. They have been very successful in this because of the radical abdication of black men. These black men have abandoned their children, and they must be called to repentance. What they are doing is twisted, demented. Sin always is.
Black skin is a gift of God, a gift that only God can give. When He gives it, as He is beginning to give it in the womb, that gift should be honored and protected. It should be honored and protected, in the first instance, by the black father of that child. But a black father will not and cannot do this if he has a black heart. He cannot do it if he pimps out his women, and places his black legacy to be slain on the Altar of Eight Thrusts. As we stare at this ad, flummoxed at the blindness, we have to remember that only God can give a black skin, and only God can take away a black heart. He will do that when someone summons up the courage to preach the gospel to black men.
By the way, before the usual suspects start to yell about my different uses of “black” in the previous paragraph, alleging my racism with loud screeches — as is their custom — I will simply point out that English uses the word black as a term of condemnation (e.g. blackguard, black heart) and honor both (e.g. Black Watch, Black & Tan). So if you want, go right ahead. Yell about etymological racism if you like. Go through the roof with it whenever some Republican tool tries to save Medicare through minor adjustments of the payouts. In the meantime, some people have noticed how many millions of our black children you have slaughtered, and we have noticed the quisling fathers.
And last, as my daughter Rachel noticed, we are at that part of the story where Goliath is trash talking. Gone are the days when the pro-aborts pretended to care. They have elected a radical pro-abort president for the second time, and it is in their touchdown dance that we can see the true nature of their ghoulish bloodlust. Now we have this, this, and of course the video in question.
Now David, when confronted with Goliath, went and picked out five smooth stones. We should remember that out of those five, he only threw one — when the battle was over, he had four left. If we really are at this place in the story, as I believe, which one should we select? That will have to remain for a follow-up post. For the present, let me note the difference between David and his brothers, between David and the rest of the Israelite army. Most thought Goliath was too big to fight. David believed that he was too big to miss.