The pro-life movement died along with Trayvon Martin

Disappointingly, the right’s pro-life credibility died along with 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. Photo: Trayvon Martin/unattributed

CALIFORNIA, July 10, 2013 — Prior to February 2012, the American right was correctly viewed as the ideological movement that had a deep reverence for the sanctity of life, whereas a callous disregard for human life was mostly associated with the American left.

It is the American left that is primarily known for supporting the practices of abortion and euthanasia. Moreover, leftists are known for supporting accused cop killers such as Troy Davis and Mumia Abu-Jamal.


SEE RELATED: DE GRACIA: Race, fear and greed distorted George Zimmerman’s trial


Disappointingly, however, the right’s pro-life credibility died along with 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. The movement died when pro-lifers allowed the celebration of Trayvon Martin’s death to take place for many months on conservative websites, with little to no response. In the period since Trayvon’s untimely demise, there has been no sustained pro-life effort to express displeasure at his death or the revolting celebration of his death on the right.

The pro-life silence regarding Trayvon’s death shows that many pro-lifers who, with pretentious piousness, point accusing fingers at leftists for their disregard for life, have no qualms about adopting the exact same posture when it conveniently aligns with immoral right-wing talking points.

Manifestly, the argument that Trayvon was a waste of life and undeserving of oxygen because he had foibles common to teenage boys of all ethnic stripes, is from the same morally reprehensible book of argumentation that pro-abortion advocates use to defend the snuffing out of innocent lives from the womb.

Both sides now argue that humans have the right to casually extirpate something as deeply inviolable as human life without even a nanosecond of moral consideration.


SEE RELATED: George Zimmerman reportedly tried due to web of activists, politicians


Regardless of whatever position one holds about whether Zimmerman is innocent or guilty of the charge of second-degree murder, all honest, empathetic people must agree the Zimmerman was morally wrong for leaving his car and continuing to follow Trayvon, particularly after a police dispatcher advised not to do so. Zimmerman’s defiance of the advice against following Trayvon is the reason the 17-year-old Floridian is dead.

No amount of lawyerly sophistry or unreasoned partisan cheerleading can take away the moral culpability that rests squarely on the shoulders of George Zimmerman. The fact that those on the right who volubly proclaim to be pro-lifers are behaving as though Zimmerman acted in a completely morally justifiable way by following Trayvon and provoking the altercation that ended his life just proves the depth of wickedness within their hearts.

Even if there is a legal case that lawyers can put together to defend Zimmerman, the moral case against him is difficult to challenge. Pro-lifers understand that abortions are permissible under the law as it exists, but they appeal to morality in order to persuade people about its brutality. In the case of Trayvon, however, their morality was swiftly defenestrated. All of a sudden, these hypocritical self-professed pro-lifers strictly care about legal theories that can be concocted to defend the completely avoidable killing of Trayvon. Morality is irrelevant to them where Trayvon is concerned.

Duplicitous pro-lifers try to justify their celebration of the death of Trayvon by invoking their belief in the Second Amendment. What they do not explain, however, is how the Second Amendment champions the following of “suspicious looking people” on dark nights, approaching them with loaded guns, and shooting them dead when they justifiably react to being followed.

The Second Amendment promotes self-defense; it is not a moral or legal license to provoke fights. The idea that Zimmerman-esque provocation and escalation of violence is what the Second Amendment is for is farcical.

If Trayvon Martin was a “thug” irreversibly fated to be a statistic, then by the very logic of the pro-life Zimmerman fans, Margaret Sanger was right to pursue eugenics when founding Planned Parenthood. If Sanger was wrong, which she was, then so also are the “pro-lifers” who use her invidious logic to defend the killing of Trayvon Martin.

The whole point of the pro-life movement is that life, on a fundamental level, is sacrosanct and, thus, it should not be subjected to the reckless caprices of any human with a gun and delusions of being a peace officer. Any activity that encourages life should be celebrated, and any activity that unjustly takes life away should be repudiated. However, in the case of Trayvon Martin, the pro-life movement has been proven to be a fraud.

Pro-lifers on the right simply care about abortion and euthanasia because they are issues that they can use to taunt leftists. However, on a deep level, they could not care less about life. They just care about posturing publicly. Life, to them, is a tool which they believe can be used to play partisan games. That is why a year after Trayvon’s death, alleged pro-lifers are incapable of putting aside the talking points they receive from their favorite blogs to personally ruminate on the grave immorality of Zimmerman’s actions on the night he took Trayvon’s life.

The pro-life movement has lost all moral capital to attack the American left for their stances on issues of life and death, because pro-lifers have proven that they can expediently suspend their moral outrage and adopt precisely the same immoral line of leftist argumentation to defend pointless killings that are celebrated by the American right. While there are still undeniable pro-lifers, the movement’s moral bank account is empty. The pro-life movement is dead; it was buried with Trayvon Benjamin Martin.

 *****

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Chidike Okeem is a writer. Born in Nigeria, raised in London, England, and now living in California, he writes about race, culture, religion, and politics. You can find contact information and read more of his writings at www.voiceofchid.com.


This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

More from Chid Speaks at Communities
 
blog comments powered by Disqus
Chidike Okeem

Chidike Okeem was born in Nigeria, raised in London, England, and currently resides in Northern California.

 

Chidike is a writer with interests in politics, race, religion, and culture. He blogs at www.voiceofchid.com, you can follow him on Twitter @VOICEOFCHID, and like his Facebook page at www.facebook.com/VOICEOFCHID. 

 

Contact Chidike Okeem

Error

Please enable pop-ups to use this feature, don't worry you can always turn them off later.

Question of the Day
Featured
Photo Galleries
Popular Threads
Powered by Disqus