NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

“Bringing Abortion Stigma into Focus” by ignoring the real reasons people disapprove of abortions

by | Oct 22, 2014

 

By Dave Andrusko

noshameabortionreLet me get this straight. Studies in “the academic journal Women & Health” are to be treated as “objective” because it is “academic,” even though all the contributors to “Bringing Abortion Stigma into Focus” are passionately committed pro-abortionists?

Even though many contributors to this “Special issue,” such as Ipas, have devoted their institutional lives to spreading abortion across the globe? Even though the idea that there is something ever-so-slightly morally problematic about taking the life of unborn children is a taboo topic in these circles?

I will actually read the entire issue—and you can, too. You can access it free online until March 15.

Click here to read the October issue of
National Right to Life News,
the “pro-life newspaper of record.”

Here are just a couple of preliminary thoughts based on Herold’s summary and the Special Issue’s Introduction.

#1. There’s lot of “stigma” attached to abortion, not just here, but in many nations even those with permissive abortion laws.

#2. More recent research is looking at its “multiple manifestations across the globe,” according to Kate Cockrill and Leila Hessini, authors of the Introduction. “Drawing on the findings from studies around the world, the authors maintained that abortion is produced locally and is constructed, reproduced, and shaped by the broader context in which it is embedded.”

Oh.

#3.There are three commentaries “building on these objective studies,” Herold tells us, that “examined stigma’s long-ranging consequences on a national scale and proposed ways to combat it.” Those commentaries included the “marginalization of abortion providers since Roe v. Wade,” a refinement of the “definition of stigma,” and an exploration of “a world without stigma.”

As I say I will read the Special Issue. Pro-abortionists take great pride in placing an “academic” sheen over the rough surfaces of the same-old, same-old gibberish. Watching them attempt to defend the indefensible, or—in this case—attempt to rationalize away disapproval that is as deep as it is instinctual may be tedious, but it does give us insight in the minds of the abortion absolutists.

I first was made aware of this Special Issue when I read a post at the pro-abortion site rhrealitycheck.org, written by Steph Herold. Please go to “Repeat Abortions versus Multiple Abortions: call them what you will, pro-abortionists defend them unwaveringly,” a post that I wrote about a piece that Herold wrote earlier. It helps you get inside her head and understand why she was the perfect choice to write about the Special Issue.

Categories: Abortion
Tags: abortion