In order to bolster their morale, those who advocate for abortion and their media allies proclaim that they are “winning the culture war.” This refers to the perception that the general public is becoming more accepting of abortion.
If ever there was an example of the phenomenon known as “the wish is father to the thought,” that is to say, the tendency to believe something because one wishes it to be true, this is it.
Nevertheless, in order to be as cautious as possible, they persist in attempting to rehabilitate abortion. The question thus arises as to how this can be achieved. One strategy employed by those who advocate for abortion rights is to reframe the deaths of unborn children as either a positive good or something beyond evaluation. This is done for a number of contradictory reasons.
What is the underlying factor that unites these disparate elements? The pivotal issue is the elimination of the social stigma attached to abortion.
How might this be achieved?
It is evident that the above argument is flawed. The assertion that women are haunted by the decision to terminate their pregnancies solely due to the influence of an omnipresent, oppressive patriarchal system that seeks to control women is, at best, simplistic and, at worst, misguided.
How might this be achieved?
It is evident that the above argument is flawed. The assertion that women are haunted by the decision to terminate their pregnancies solely due to the influence of an omnipresent, oppressive patriarchal system that seeks to control women is, at best, simplistic and, at worst, misguided.
The question thus arises as to how the stigma attached to abortion can be removed. One solution is to encourage individuals to share their personal experiences of having an abortion. The underlying assumption is that the sheer repetition of the message will either wear down the opposition or elicit empathy, leading to a change in opinion.
The objective of each is to foster a sense of familiarity that is not entirely genuine.
The objective is to challenge the prevailing social norms that often result in public shaming of individuals seeking a standard medical procedure. The term “public shaming” is somewhat vague and requires further clarification.
The aforementioned quotation is attributed to Chanel Dubofsky, who, at some point in the past, authored an article in which she posited that “abortion speak-outs can combat our own stigma too.”
Despite her staunch advocacy for reproductive rights, her role as a clinic escort, and her feminist identity, she came to recognize that she still had to confront her own internalized abortion stigma.
In an interview, Dubofsky revealed that she has avoided settings such as abortion speak-outs due to concerns that her participation might lead to the development of negative judgments about women.
One might inquire as to the basis for such a judgment.
One might also consider the possibility of multiple abortions, which could be viewed as a form of birth control.
It is evident that Dubofsky has overlooked the fact that there are numerous reasons, apart from multiple abortions, that a significant proportion of the population is opposed to at least 90% of all abortions. To cite a few examples, there are abortions performed at a later stage, abortions carried out on women who do not care enough to consider the possibility of pregnancy, abortions performed on children of the “wrong” sex, and abortions performed on babies who are sufficiently advanced to experience pain.
However, Dubinsky’s response would likely be that this is the pivotal point. There is no morally reprehensible reason for an abortion.
In fact, to even discuss the necessity of a reason is to fall into a trap. This is because any abortion, under any circumstances, could or should be “judged.”
The issue of abortion is one that is settled once the woman has made her decision. It is a standard medical procedure that is not open to external evaluation or judgement. This is analogous to other common surgical procedures such as the removal of an appendix or an impacted wisdom tooth.
For Dubofsky et al., this represents a significant rationale for advocating for women’s reproductive rights. It is essential to emphasise that the reasons for seeking an abortion are complex and multifaceted, and that the decision should not be viewed as a simple dichotomy of good versus evil.
These are the reasons she adduces.
This is the end of the discussion.
This concludes the discussion.
This marks the conclusion of the discussion regarding the termination of the pregnancy.
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.
