Cognitive dissonance of pro-abortion supporters
With Roe v. Wade overturned, Filipinos on social media called it a setback for women’s rights. Even though abortion is illegal in the Philippines, conversations online have been rife with anger, many from women and even men whose subscription to progressive ideology emboldens them to “advocate for human rights.” This is nothing more than cognitive dissonance.
They are incensed by the martial law atrocities and the Holocaust but fail to see the modern-day genocide due to abortion. Martial law and the Holocaust were led by dictatorships that branded certain people as superior and others as disposable, the same arguments used by abortion supporters. Likewise, they are furious about extrajudicial killings but support a movement that kills the innocent and defenseless.
They are critical of corruption on moral grounds but do not recognize the unethical nature of abortion. They believe men have no say in abortions, chanting slogans like “No uterus, no opinion,” but cry foul when Roe v. Wade, decided upon by nine men, was overturned. They are angry at corporate slavery but glorify companies that support a woman to be childless and in the cubicle. They want equality for women but support a tool of the patriarchy.
They seek women’s empowerment but back a cause known for its sex-selective agenda, with millions of girls murdered. They support inclusivity but champion an act highlighted by ableism, harboring an internal prejudice toward those with disabilities.
They are against sexual violence but support an act employed by sexual predators to exploit their victims further. They are incensed by abuse but use the exceptional cases of rape and incest victims to justify wholesale abortion.
They demand accountability over fake news but disingenuously fear-monger by sharing posts that treatments for ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, and the septic uterus is abortion. Medically speaking, they are not. Some who spread them are even doctors and professionals who swore by the Hippocratic oath stating, “Neither will I give a woman means to procure an abortion.”
They ask opponents to listen but will not be bothered to know the ill effects of abortion on women and society. They claim abortion is health care but support a procedure that includes the dismemberment of the baby. They cry for bodily autonomy but do not acknowledge the body inside them. They hate war but wage war in the womb. They hope to reduce poverty but only by reducing people. They demand protection for animals but will not protect their own.
They claim to be for human rights but will not respect the most basic from which all rights arise—the right to life. They draw lines over politics but concede to an ideology. They seek to remove God from the discourse but play gods who can determine who lives and dies. They want radical love but are full of hate for those who disagree with them. This is not irony. It is hypocrisy. It is true. You become what you hate.
Carmel Arcangel, [email protected]
