NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

The Ceaseless Pro-Abortion Need to Justify All Abortions

by | Jun 13, 2014

 

By Dave Andrusko

Unbornbaby59Read abortionists zig and zag and then zag and zig when trying to figure out how to “stop playing defense” so as to “get on the offense” and the journey always ends at the same point. They believe that even to suggest that it not always a good decision to have an abortion allows pro-lifers to assume the moral high ground.

That’s why they’ve always been profoundly uncomfortable with the too-slick by half mantra that abortion ought to be “safe, legal and rare.” Why? In the words of Katie Stack, writing on the pro-abortion site Rhrealitycheck.org, because that “rare” reinforces “the idea that abortion, though permissible, should be shameful and undesirable. Nobody wants to have an abortion, after all,” Stack adds.

Says who? Not Stack, who appeared on the MTV show 16 and Pregnant a while back with two other women to tell their abortion stories. This “rare” business is “an incorrect and dangerous sentiment to hold.” Stack explains that

“A more correct statement would be that nobody wants to have an unplanned pregnancy. Sometimes those of us who find ourselves facing one really do want an abortion. Winning the moral, cultural, and political debate surrounding abortion rights means that we must not give the other side the upper hand on any aspect. Suggesting that nobody wants an abortion or that nobody should be willing and happy to talk about her experience reinforces the idea that it is shameful – and it gives the other side the moral advantage.”

Let’s break that in two. First, Stack says let’s redefine what’s discussed. It’s that “unplanned pregnancy” that is unwanted, as if somehow the “unplanned pregnancy” did not consist of an unborn child.

By this dodge Women can want the abortion to end the unwanted pregnancy—in English, the child. The child is just as dead either way, but it sounds less cold-blooded, positively Obamaesque.

Second, women DO need to talk about their abortions. But pro-lifers and pro-abortionists disagree why. The latter believe it affirms sisterhood, regains the moral advantage, and, most important, “changes the narrative” about abortion. How?

Stack says,

“Abortion, when desired by a woman, is a good procedure. Abortion itself holds no moral weight except in the context of its usage. Therefore, in order to change the stories in our heads we must resist forces that tell us that abortion as a procedure is bad, shameful, or not to be supported.”

Darn those “stories in our heads”! As we always do, let’s change the behavior (and the victim) and see if the logic works.

“Wife-abuse when desired by a husband, is a good procedure. Beating her to a pulp holds no moral weight except in the context of wife abuse’s usage. Therefore, in order to change the stories in our heads [the ones that tell us this is wrong?], we must resist forces that tell us that wife abuse as a procedure is bad, shameful, or not to be supported.”

Pro-lifers are eager for women who have aborted to talk about what happened. But we don’t counsel/advice/encourage them to go public until and unless they are comfortable so doing. To use one of Stack’s interesting words, we don’t want women doing so to be “promotional.”

The competing objectives could not be more different. Ours is not to turn their instinctive revulsion at an act they wish they could take back with all their hearts into a celebration of “autonomy”—a.ka. two thumbs up for having made the “right” decision.

For us, the objective of having her open up to a counselor is, rather, to help the woman heal.

But, of course, pro-abortionists deny there is anything to heal from, or, if there should be, the examples are so rare they are the exception to the rule. We know otherwise.

We also know the principle of desensitization that the Stacks of this world are counting on. You talk about the unspeakable enough and (the hope is) people’s moral sensitivities will be sandpapered away.

Which is why, of course, these pro-abortion encouragements to speak out don’t include talking about what actually happened–and to whom. Arms severed, torsos torn apart, skulls crushed…no, that’s not the “narrative” Stack is looking for.

That reality also is hard to dismiss as “myth,” to quote Stack at her most dismissive.

Abortion will never, can never merely be a medical “procedure,” one that lacks “moral weight.” It is fraught with moral significance because it severs the most intimate bond in human culture.

Categories: Abortion