NRL News

The self-delusion behind Abortion “speak outs”

by | Nov 24, 2014


By Dave Andrusko

abortionspeakout3Later today we’ll be posting with regard to a terrific article that ran in “First Things.” I mention it here because that post, and this one, address abortion and “stigma.”

The Abortion Establishment, worried that the “war on women” has reached parody status and fresh out of new ideas, is trying to rehabilitate abortion. I mean by that reframing the deaths of unborn children as (alternatively) a positive good or something beyond evaluation (for a host of contradictory reasons).

The common denominator is the centrality of eliminating the “stigma” attached to abortion. How? See above and by insisting the only reason women are haunted by the decision to take their unborn child’s life is an oppressive patriarchy determined to control women, etc., etc. ,etc.

So how to excise abortion “stigma”? Tell your “abortion story.” People will began to change their opinion about abortion either because they are worn down by the sheer power of repetition or because they will empathize  with the stories. Each is intended to foster a kind of faux familiarity.

The objective is “to disrupt the public shaming that, too often, surrounds the pursuit of what should be a standard medical procedure.” {“Public shaming”?}

That quote comes from Chanel Dubofsky writing about how “Abortion Speak-Outs Can Combat Our Own Stigma Too.”

She begins

[Last]Thursday’s live-streamed “one in three” speak-out made me realize that even as a staunch reproductive rights advocate, a clinic escort, and a feminist, I still have to battle my own internalized abortion stigma.

This is worth considering.

Dubofsky tells us she’s avoided such settings (“abortion speak outs”), among other reasons, because she feared she would start judging women. Judging them for what? Multiple abortions, for example, aka abortion as birth control.

Of course there are multiple reasons besides multiple abortions that a majority of people oppose at least 90% of all abortion which Dubofsky manages to ignore: “later” abortions, abortions because women simply don’t care enough to worry about whether they become pregnant, abortions because the child is the “wrong” sex, abortions performed on babies advanced enough to feel pain, to name a few.

But her point would doubtless be that this is the point. There is no invalid reason for an abortion, in fact, to even talk as if there needed to be a reason is to fall into the trap that any abortion could or ever should be “judged.”

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

A woman wants an abortion, end of discussion. It is a “standard medical procedure” which is no more to be evaluated (judged) by others than having an appendix removed.

For Dubofsky et al., that is one of the principal reasons to speak out: to reemphasize that the reasons a woman have abortion are matters beyond good and evil.

They are hers. Period. End of discussion. End of baby.

Categories: Abortion
Tags: abortion