By Dave Andrusko
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by the kind of responses (or absence of response) I received to “Woman aborts child because baby is a boy.”
I did not receive an avalanche of emails [or “likes” on social media] from pro-lifers. Why? They had no trouble believing a pro-abortion “feminist” would find aborting a male child “liberating.”
Or that “Lana” (the only name the blogger used) would believe that it was a strike against Patriarchy to make sure that there would be one fewer males around to subjugate women, and would vow to do so likewise if ever the “curse” struck again.
Subsequently Lana had a girl, all the more reason it’d been a good idea to abort her son. There would be one less man “around to hurt her progress,” one less boy to “demean her or call her names.”
Pro-lifers would not need to write back to express their horror. All abortions horrify them and that the logic of reverse gendercide had taken hold of this woman’s mind was unsurprising.
What was surprising—or perhaps not—was that within two hours two pro-abortionists responded. One was very civil, one was hostile but both asked the same question: are you serious, Andrusko?
Did I really believe this had taken place? Wasn’t it more likely it was just somebody trolling for attention?
Of course I can’t know if the abortion took place. But (in addition to the reasons mentioned above) here’s why I think there was no reason to disbelieve the writer.
Early on, Lana tells us
Over the past 3 years, I have lost many friends, and several of my own family members have completely cut off communication with me. I now know that these are “adults” who just cannot handle the fact that I have the right to make choices, and that these choices ultimately hardly even affect them.
This statement is boilerplate pro-abortion verbal hash and a signal that her abortion was so reprehensible (presumably even to those of her friends and family who are “pro-choice”) that this act of utter ruthlessness has cost her the company of at least some of the people who matter to her. My guess is this defensiveness partially explains why her “reasoning’ (for lack of a better word) goes so completely off the rails.
I would also add to that, “Why not?” If abortion is an act of autonomy exercised by a rights-bearing adult in which a non-entity to whom no obligation is owed is eliminated, why should any of the particulars matter?
Boy or girl, one or many, two weeks or 32 weeks, none of this makes an iota of difference.
The whole message of the contemporary pro-abortion movement is power means never having to say you’re sorry. No apologies, no self-doubt, no revisiting the decision to take a life is allowed. Indeed, abortion is not only liberating (old hat to pro-abortion feminists), but also so utterly routine they now make “comedies” about offing unborn babies.
Speaking of power, if you read the way Lana comes across in her post, I don’t think it’s much of a leap to conclude she doesn’t have control over her life in any meaningful sense. Exercising a life and death decision over a hapless unborn baby could be a kind of sick exercise of the ultimate power.
One other reason I believe Lana is telling a true story. If you actually go to pro-abortion websites, it’s fair to say there is virtually nothing that ordinary people would find repulsive that they won’t publish and promote (“subversive” would be their choice of words).
You cannot caricature them because as soon as you say, “Well, they’d never say [whatever],” they’ve not only proudly said it, they’ve moved several steps beyond.
If you didn’t get a chance to read “Woman aborts child because baby is a boy,” take a moment to do so.
Lana is much more representative of today’s pro-abortion feminists than establishment organizations such as Planned Parenthood would like to admit.
Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, either go directly to nationalrighttolifenews.org and/or follow me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha.