In a recent column, Amber Nichols-Buckley, a lecturer at Ole Miss, criticized Sen. Roger Wicker for working to preserve the ban on taxpayer-funded abortions. Ms. Nichols-Buckley states that she empathizes with Sen. Wicker and pro-lifers "...because their faith, and their hearts are so aligned with the idea that life begins at conception and should be protected at all costs."
Rather than deal with the idea that life begins at conception, she pivots to the argument that if abortion is restricted, women will "... suffer from lack of access to family planning and necessary, life-saving screenings." Why would she make the pivot from the reason that pro-lifers oppose abortion to the argument of supposed benefits of abortion? Could it be that she understands that if life begins at conception, then aborting the child in the womb would be killing a human being and, therefore, a great moral wrong?
Convince the pro-lifers that life does not begin at conception and the abortionists will have no opposition from pro-lifers. However, science is going in the opposite direction. Modern, pre-natal technology is proving that the child in the womb is a living, distinct, growing human being that responds to stimuli, including pain.
It is Sen. Wicker and the pro-lifers who are following the science, not Ms. Nichols-Buckley and the abortionists. Sen. Wicker and the pro-lifers are also on the right side of history. There will come a day when a future generation will rise up in righteous indignation and exclaim with horror, "How could our forebears condone the killing of millions of unborn children." God hasten that day.
Jerry Horton, Ecru