George Weigel and Roe v Wade Derangement Syndrome

In a recent post, I drew a comparison between the movies A Quiet Place and World War Z, and our current culture.  This led to pointing out that normal everyday speech can be labeled hate speech.

George Weigel writes at First Things about what he calls Roe v Wade Derangement Syndrome.

He begins by recalling a NY Times column by Barbara Ehrenreich from 1985, and her unique and callous view regarding abortion.  He then proceeds to discuss Ruth Marcus's recent op-ed in the Washington Post discussing the Down syndrome baby and abortion.

He then identifies Roe-v-Wade Derangement Syndrome:

“Not the child I wanted.” There, in a single phrase, is the moral dereliction at the center of Roe v. Wade Derangement Syndrome: If a pregnancy is inconvenient for career purposes, or the child to be born seems unlikely to tick all the boxes of one’s expectations, one makes the choice—“tragic,” as Ms. Marcus admits, or No Big Deal, on the Ehrenreich scale of values—to destroy the indisputably human life one has procreated. 

Weigel closes by discussing a recent Democrat primary election in Illinois, where pro-abortion and NARALPro-Choice America endorsed Maria Newman, said of her opponent Dan Lipinski:

I know what’s in his heart, and it’s called hate. This guy is dangerous. His views are dangerous.

Then Weigel correctly points out:

That is what Roe v. Wade Derangement Syndrome has done to our politics: It’s made it possible to say that what’s in the heart of a mild-mannered gentleman like Dan Lipinski is “hate”—and get away with it. The defense of the indefensible leads to rage, and rage becomes a form of madness.

You should read his article.