I’m sure I am no different than any other pro-life writer: a number of pro-abortionists follow what we are saying at NRL News Today just as I keep track of what we argue is their defense of the indefensible.
Occasionally (more of late, interestingly) they write me directly. To be fair, while they typically place what I write between the hammer of incredulity and the anvil of patriarchy, for the most part the tone is civil.
Someone whose essay I recently sympathetically critiqued responded with an interesting four sentence email. Without naming names, I’d like to respond, because what she wrote illustrates key points of departure between pro-life and “pro-choicers.”
“Many things are awful, unpleasant, yet morally correct and legal,” she wrote. “Abortion is one of them.”
Such as? Beyond abortion, what would be examples of behavior that is “awful” and “unpleasant” yet “morally correct and legal”? Treatment for cancer? That reduces the unborn child to the status of a tumor, which (to the less hysterical pro-abortionist and most Americans) is quite a stretch.
Slavery, which, unfortunately, exists in many places? No, because it’s not morally correct, even if it was legal. But why is it not morally correct? Because the man or woman (or boy or girl) is of infinite value simply because they are. If someone does not have rights that do not depend on the powerful choosing to give those rights to them, they are forever at their mercy.
But to double back to the author of the brief email, she told me she remains “100% pro-choice.” When I analyzed her essay, I never suggested otherwise. What I did was point out that virtually every syllable in her piece screamed out “abortion is hideous.”
Sure, she still wants the “right” to abortion to be completely unfettered—as I noted– but why? After her account of her abortion, her primary explanation is that her life is now “better” because she doesn’t have that child, particularly [I would gather] because the guy was a jerk.
Too bad for the child who (by the way) did not will him- or herself into existence. Our author moved on with her life, although that she would be writing about the annihilation of her first child in chilling detail decades later suggests there is more rumbling around in her conscience than we could ever know.
Conclusion? “Up with pluralism.” That’s it? Would “pluralism” be the be-all, end-all response when boyfriends beat up their girlfriends “privately”? When a father marries off his 11-year-old daughter out of the public’s eye? How about if we train our dogs to fight to the death in some out of the way place so we can profit?
There are people who will defend all three. Does “pluralism” erase the ability to make any moral distinctions?
I say that the case against abortion—and infanticide and doctor-assisted suicide—is open and shut, at least to the mind not closed to the cries of the innocent.
Chelsea Garcia is a political writer with a special interest in international relations and social issues. Events surrounding the war in Ukraine and the war in Israel are a major focus for political journalists. But as a former local reporter, she is also interested in national politics.
Chelsea Garcia studied media, communication and political science in Texas, USA, and learned the journalistic trade during an internship at a daily newspaper. In addition to her political writing, she is pursuing a master's degree in multimedia and writing at Texas.
