By Dave Andrusko
Not often do I agree with pro-abortionists, especially the kind who sees their mission in life as eliminating even a flashing yellow light on a woman’s race to abort, and persuading the culture that concern about both mother and child is the very definition of “discrimination.”
But they do have a point: if they can convince us to stay quiet while they “change the narrative,” they can carry the day. Unfortunately for them—and fortunately for the babies—that will never happen.
I recall an essay from a few years back that appeared at Rewire News Group (then called rhrealitycheck.org). It was based on the authors’ consciousness-raising attendance at an annual International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics conference held that year in Italy.
It’s come to this. Leila Hessini offers this gem from Is Safe Abortion a Human Right?
“How can this decision be wrong?” asks Dr. Nozer Sheriar, a gynecologist in India. “How can any decision, choice or action taken by 43 million women each year around the world be wrong?”
Really? Would we care to extend that logic to wife-beaters? To child abusers? Please.
The brunt of the argument is a familiar litany: abortion on demand will never be accepted unless and until they “de-stigmatize abortion.” Once you get past that hurtle, then you can move on to the next phase. If having one abortion is morally neutral (if not positively beneficial to the mother), who is to say/judge/evaluate a woman if she has abortion after abortion after abortion?
The stigma that surrounds abortion, Hessini tells her readers, is a “social construct” as opposed to a natural instinct of repulsion. We’re told that we don’t question abortion because unborn children are ripped apart and mothers often traumatized but as a way of controlling women with a made-up “construct.”
Like so many who “reason” like she does, Hessini argues along parallel paths. On the one hand, women need this “health care service” to save their lives or to avoid “back alley abortions.” These are combined in the same paragraph with common sense laws that required waiting periods: six of one, half-dozen of the other.
But on the other hand, that’s just to lay the groundwork for the real agenda: abortion without apology and (I would argue) without conscience. Hessini asks in effect, where does anyone get off offering bromides like abortion should be “safe, legal and rare”? That by definition “reinforces the notion that abortion is wrong and abnormal”–in other words that abortion can be something to AVOID!
For the likes of Hessini, that way of thinking must be rejected, at all costs. Dividing women into categories based on their reasons for seeking care leads to “creating hierarchies of women—some who deserve an abortion, some who do not”—“invidious discrimination,” you might say.
You get the point: repeat abortion without a second thought=good/accepting. Asking yourself whether such a cavalier disregard for life is not good for your soul=bad/stigmatization.
What’s the solution?
“Advocates must continue to change the narrative around abortion: Women are the center. They should have the power and the right to make their own decisions and to not be judged—by society, by their communities, by the health system, nor by us.”
If they can only “change the narrative,” all will be well. Guess what? Tens of millions of pro-life Americans will never stand idly by.
We will shout the truth from the rooftops: abortion is wrong!
Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha