By Dave Andrusko
Often I will pick apart pro-abortion arguments because they are either blatantly untrue, ridiculous extrapolations, and/or internally incoherent. However I also try to be a keen enough (and sympathetic enough) observer to look beneath the surface.
So when a friend forwarded “Abortion in the Public Imagination,” a post at Patheos, I resisted my initial urge to confine myself to wondering what the author was thinking.
The core of her argument is that a pro-life publication should not have illustrated the story “Do we value life as God does?” with the graphic of a woman probably in her eighth month. It’s “absurd,” she tell us.
Why? For several reasons. Her first thought (or so she writes) on seeing the headline and the image was of “maternity leave, of childcare costs, and of the high financial cost of prenatal care and childbirth. I thought of funding cuts for education and for social services.”
And, more specifically,
The vast majority of abortions happen before a woman starts to show; even late-term abortions tend to occur during the second trimester. An image of a woman in her eighth month of pregnancy is relevant to the questions I just posed—questions about childcare and medical costs and maternity leave—not to abortion.
As I intimated at the beginning, I’m guessing there is a lot more going on than meets the eye. Does she really think that an avowedly pro-life publication would not be talking about abortion in this context? Or that this same publication hasn’t on many previous occasions shown ultrasounds or representations of babies much earlier in pregnancy?
More to the point, would she be happier if the accompanying graphic had been of a woman at, say, at 20 or 22 or 24 weeks, all in the second trimester? I’m guessing not.
She wants to wipe away the impact of the last election–the one in which pro-life President-elect Donald Trump told the public what happens in a late abortion–and to whom. Whereas the offending graphic softly touched on the beauty of protected unborn life, Mr. Trump’s description told of the ugliness of when the body of an unprotected unborn child is ripped from her mother’s womb.
She would rather talk about first-trimester abortions because that allows her to avoid the visibility issue and return to the nonsense we saw the Supreme Court buy last year: that requiring minimum safety standards from abortion clinics is “burdensome” on a woman’s “right” to abortion.
She tells us that while she is now “pro-choice,” she “grew up in a pro-life home and community,” even ran a college pro-life group. But “Things changed.”
We can only wonder what those “things” were.
Which is why her post had to be about “framing”–aka, skirting the real issues. She wants the abortion issue “framed” so it deals only with earlier abortions, interference with which is foolish and even unconstitutional, in her mind.
Pro-lifers? We don’t want abortion “framed” at all. We want the truth and we want it applied across the board.
Regardless of how developed the unborn child may be, she deserves protection. She should be shielded, whether she is far enough along on her developmental journal so that her mother is “showing,” or just taking the first steps down the prenatal trail.
Or, to quote a famous author, “a person’s a person, no matter how small.”
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.