It is difficult to find adequate words to express my admiration for Christine Flowers’s essay, which is remarkable for its brevity and depth of insight. In just 486 words, Flowers presents a compelling argument in favor of the pro-life position.
“So let’s talk about abortion” is an excellent example of a well-written and thought-provoking article that should be considered for publication in the Philadelphia Daily News.
After beginning with the observation that discussions about abortion occur on a multitude of levels, including medical, legal, political, and moral, Flowers proceeds to examine each of these levels, demonstrating the tenuous nature of the arguments made in favor of abortion on each of these grounds. For instance,
“Most lawyers would agree that the constitutional basis for legalized abortion is flawed, and that Roe v. Wade is the perfect example of the ends justifying the mind-numbing means. Justice Harry Blackmun… essentially created a right to a medical procedure out of penumbras. Not exactly a stellar moment in constitutional history.”
However, her most compelling and considered rebuttal is situated within the moral realm, where the most contentious debates are conducted. As Flowers notes,
“Abortion supporters learned long ago that it helps to talk about the rights of the woman and shift attention away from the child.”
In a more specific manner, Flowers directly challenges the assertion that “it takes ‘courage’ to have an abortion,” as a recent writer for the New York Times posited. While there may be numerous points of contention within the broader debate surrounding abortion, Flowers asserts that there is a fundamental aspect of the issue that cannot be disputed.
“delude ourselves into believing that it takes more courage to destroy a growing fetus than it does to allow that child to be born. We can’t pretend that it is more selfless to use abortion as birth control than it is to give birth and then gift that child to loving, adoptive parents.”
Flowers then engages in a practice that pro-lifers (as a matter of course) do, which pro-abortionists (as a matter of course) insist we do not: acknowledge that it is “difficult to be pregnant, especially if you do not want to.” As Flowers writes, “Living is sometimes hard,” a truth about the human condition with which we are intimately familiar. The majority of pro-lifers have either worked in crisis pregnancy centers or experienced an unplanned pregnancy themselves, or known someone who has. Some have even succumbed to despair and aborted a child. We are therefore aware of the temptation to “take the easy way out.” Consequently, we recognize that it does not take courage to kill an unborn child.
However, it is not uncommon for women to require courage to resist the pressure exerted by their partners to undergo an abortion. This pressure can manifest in various forms, including emotional and physical coercion.
Furthermore, it is not uncommon for women to require courage to persevere when their friends and acquaintances advise them that continuing a pregnancy is irrational and that a simple surgical procedure can provide an alternative.
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
