If ever there was a hall of fame for worst activist in a movement’s history, Karen Swallow Prior has got to be a frontrunner for the pro-life/ abolish abortion movement. Despite having a history of bad articles on the issue, she has been a tool by the liberal media to subvert the cause to end abortion for several years. After the leaked Alito draft that overturns Roe v Wade, Karen Swallow Prior took to Twitter, to defend her own record on the issue, glomming onto the coattails of the impending win.
Brian Welch is the MVP here for getting Karen to say the quiet part out loud. In a rare instance, Karen Swallow Prior was ratio’d on Twitter, where she spends a great deal of time with an army of loyal cucks, simps, and feminists ready to white knight for her. She got owned here, and a lot of people saw it. Afterwards, she hopped onto the bandwagon with a piece in the liberal RNS.
The 2019 article in the above screenshot depicts the most humanist anti-abortion argument I have ever come across. She treats ending abortion as human progress rather than a moral crusade. To her it’s the equivalent of a suffrage movement.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported last year that abortion hit its lowest rate since Roe v. Wade: 11.8 per 1,000 women ages 15-44, a dramatic decline from a peak in the early 1980s that approached 30 per 1,000 women. It’s unclear whether this decrease is owing to increased use of contraceptives; delayed sexual activity among young people; the declining number of doctors willing to participate in abortions; a growing inability to deny — thanks to ultrasound technology, prenatal surgical interventions, and extravagant gender reveal parties — the insuppressible personality of the child in the womb; or a combination of all these factors.
In this section, Karen deliberately ignores the legal contribution to the trend (which may not even be true) that her entire article is based off of. Abortion is becoming a less intrusive procedure (ie take home pills) and is therefore more difficult to track or ascertain data than it used to be.
And we must never forget her 2015 article which denounced calling abortion murder and those who commit abortion murderers.
Rallying for the defunding of Planned Parenthood isn’t inflammatory rhetoric; it’s political engagement. Videos depicting the self-damning words and actions of Planned Parenthood officials isn’t yellow journalism; it’s investigative reporting. On the other hand, referring to abortion providers as “abortion ghouls,” clinic volunteers and workers as “deathscorts” or “bloodworkers,” and women who obtain abortions as “murderers” is worse than inflammatory: it is unchristlike. Calling legal abortion “murder” when it isn’t (it is, to our shame, lawful) is to say what isn’t true, at least in a civil (not church) context.
This is someone who attacks actual pro-life activism far more than the pro-abortion activism. Her humanist vision of growing beyond the need for abortion like we are living in Star Trek is historically and biblically ignorant. For her to call the immediate overturn of Roe which could result in abortion being outlawed in about 20 states overnight, a short cut as though it’s a bad thing.
As I write this on Star Wars Day, I notice that Karen Swallow Prior is basically comparing our means to end abortion to the “dark side.” Meaning, pursuing a legal strategy is taking the easy road that will achieve the goal quicker but at what cost. Whereas, she maintains that she is the “light side” of the force, taking the harder road to develop strength in the force that will ultimately be more powerful and rewarding. This is peak self-righteousness, while millions of babies are murdered.
2 Responses
Yep, she’s a faux-lifers.
“Calling legal abortion “murder” when it isn’t (it is, to our shame, lawful) is to say what isn’t true, at least in a civil (not church) context.”
Those are pathetic weasel words. Think of Abraham Lincoln’s 5 legged dog illustration. I’m well aware of the law, but I will still call them child murderers. It is technically legal with respect to the U.S. government, but it is murder in God’s eyes. She’s more concerned with us using precise terms than she is with the children who get crushed and dismembered in the womb. For that, she’s a ghoul.
At least she acknowledges that from a Christian perspective it is murder; others wouldn’t even acknowledge that.
I’m a very literal person and I often feel that the right vocabulary must be used in order to convince others. However, to call name calling unChrist-like is a huge misrepresentation of Christ, who was a big truth telling name caller. Interestingly, not calling the Romans names, though. Not that I can think of…. In this context, who are the pharisees and who are the Romans. I.e. For who are we here? What is our ministry of reconciliation? Is it a cultural ministry? Legal ministry? Personal ministry?
Each Christian’s coarse of action will be different, when his calling is considered. (Not his beliefs!!! Truth isn’t relative!) But understanding someone’s calling might give us more grace for these kinds of statements.
What is the individual Christian’s calling? Is it to proclaim truth to a dying world – then holler murder.
Is it to change legislation? To be taken seriously it might be necessary to use more literal terms to argue your point.
Is it to change hearts? A prayerful middle ground must be considered. Hollering insults rarely touches hearts (I won’t say never!) – but obviously without speaking truth you can’t change a heart.
Are we talking about changing the hearts of the unlettered masses? Arguably a fools errand! Or again, changing the heart of your next door neighbor? You can holler murderer at her every time you see her. Or you can reach out to her in her post-abortion depression and teach her that she’s depressed because she took a life, without glossing over the truth or insulting her. It is possible to address sin without insult.
In the end, as Abraham Lincoln found, too few hearts are moveable and bloody forceful war is often necessary. When it comes to issues with a victim, like slavery and abortion, I guess that heart change is the ultimate goal but for the sake of the victim if force will bring about a quicker resolution, then force should be used. We don’t have that recourse…. Where does that leave us? In light of the victim, prayerfully searching for the most effective means of ending the murder. If someone doesn’t feel that yelling “murderer” is the most effective means, well ok…. I don’t think I agree that makes them simpering.
But I don’t really know this woman’s motivation.