Why pro-abortionists must justify any and all abortions
By Dave Andrusko
If you were to read abortionists zig and zag and then zag and zig when trying to figure out how to “stop playing defense,” you’d likely notice the journey always ends at the same point. They believe even to suggest that it not always a good decision to have an abortion allows pro-lifers to assume the moral high ground.
That’s why they’ve always been profoundly uncomfortable with the too-slick by half mantra that abortion ought to be “safe, legal and rare.” Why?
In the words of Jessica Griffin, writing a while back on the pro-abortion site Rewirenews.com, because that the use of the word “rare” reinforces “the idea that abortion, though permissible, should be shameful and undesirable. Nobody wants to have an abortion, after all.” (Emphasis hers.)
Says who? Not Griffin, who once appeared on the MTV show 16 and Pregnant with two other women to tell their abortion stories. This “rare” business is “an incorrect and dangerous sentiment to hold.” Stack explains
“A more correct statement would be that nobody wants to have an unplanned pregnancy. Sometimes those of us who find ourselves facing one really do want an abortion. Winning the moral, cultural, and political debate surrounding abortion rights means that we must not give the other side the upper hand on any aspect. Suggesting that nobody wants an abortion or that nobody should be willing and happy to talk about her experience reinforces the idea that it is shameful – and it gives the other side the moral advantage.”
Let’s break that in two. First, Griffin says let’s redefine what’s discussed. It’s that “unplanned pregnancy” which is unwanted, as if somehow the “unplanned pregnancy” did not consist of an unborn child.
By this dodge women can want the abortion to end the “unwanted pregnancy”—in English, the child. While The child is just as dead either way, it sounds less cold-blooded.
Second, women do need to talk about their abortions. But pro-lifers and pro-abortionists disagree why. The latter believe it affirms sisterhood, regains the moral advantage, and, most important, “changes the narrative” about abortion. How?
“Abortion, when desired by a woman, is a good procedure. Abortion itself holds no moral weight except in the context of its usage. Therefore, in order to change the stories in our heads we must resist forces that tell us that abortion as a procedure is bad, shameful, or not to be supported.”
Darn those “stories in our heads”! What if we change the behavior (and the victim)? Let’s see if the logic works.
“Wife-abuse when desired by a husband, is a good procedure. Beating her to a pulp holds no moral weight except in the context of the wife abuser’s usage. Therefore, in order to change the stories in our heads [the ones that tell us this is wrong?], we must resist forces that tell us that wife abuse as a procedure is bad, shameful, or not to be supported.”
By contrast pro-lifers want women who have aborted to come to the place where they can talk about what happened. But we don’t counsel/advice/encourage them to go public until and unless they are comfortable so doing. To use one of Griffin’s interesting words, we don’t want women doing so to be “promotional.”
The competing objectives could not be more different. Ours is not to turn into a celebration of “autonomy” a woman’s instinctive revulsion at an act she wishes she could take back with all their hearts For us, the objective of having her open up to a counselor is, rather, to help the woman heal.
But, of course, pro-abortionists deny there is anything to heal from, or, if there are any, the examples are so rare they are the exception to the rule.
We know otherwise.
We also know the principle of desensitization that the Griffins of this world are counting on. You talk about the unspeakable enough and (the hope is) people’s moral sensitivities will be sandpapered away.
Which is why, of course, these pro-abortion encouragements to speak out don’t ever include talking about what actually happened–and to whom. Arms severed, torsos torn apart, skulls crushed…no, that’s not the “narrative” Griffin is looking for.
That reality is frightfully hard to dismiss as “myth,” to quote Griffin at her most dismissive.
Abortion will never, can never merely be a medical “procedure,” one that lacks “moral weight.” How could it be?
It is fraught with moral significance because it severs the most intimate bond in human culture.
Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, go directly to nationalrighttolifenews.org and/or follow me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Please send your comments to email@example.com.