By Dave Andrusko

Sunsara Taylor
Does Valerie Tarico–pro-abortion to the brim and spilling over with non sequiturs–truly merit two posts in one day?
Actually, I believe the answer is yes. Here’s why.
As pro-abortionists embrace a position that is further and further and further from where most Americans are on abortion, it’s useful for us to see how Tarico strains out a gnat and swallows a camel in order to come to the correct answer,
Written at Salon, she tells us immediately that she is both pro-abortion and pro-choice–and then list the ten reasons why Tarico is passionately pro-abortion.
The “pro-choice” explanation need not delay us any more than it does Tarico–“ Choice is about who gets to make the decision”–and we can probably guess who Tarico believes that falls to. (She has had an abortion.)
She tells us she is pro-abortion “like I’m pro-knee-replacement and pro-chemotherapy and pro-cataract surgery.” While Tarico is oblivious to the obvious, we don’t need to belabor the comparisons she has unwittingly set up between the bone and cartilage in your knee and the bone and cartilage in the baby’s body which the nurse reassembles after the abortionist dismembers a living, unborn child.
To Tarico a good way of seeing abortion (and I am not making this up) is as “part of a set of tools that help women and men to form the families of their choosing.”
Kind of like a set of Craftsman tools– Ratchet Sockets – Wrenches – Pliers, etc. Only these “tools” –clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, surgical scissors, etc.- -are plied by the abortionist. The only thing missing is the equivalent of a power saw, although abortionists who specialize in killing highly developed unborn babies probably do have something comparable.
Just a couple of paragraphs about Tarico’s Top Ten reasons she is proud to be pro-abortion, which are as silly as they are shallow. (And, again, it only sounds as if I am making them up.) #2 is
*”I’m pro-abortion because well-timed pregnancies give children a healthier start in life.” Here Tarico (a) resurrects her inane observation that “Wanted babies are more likely to get their toes kissed,” etc., etc., and the idea that if women have “rapid repeat pregnancies,” it “increase [s] the risk of low birthweight babies and other complications.”
So, if you off a kid (or, for that matter, more than one), you can kiss the toes of the one you’re with and have chubbier babies down the line. Such self-sacrifice on Tarico’s part and such caring for possible future babies at the expense of the baby she might be carrying now.
She also misreads and misapplies a Ray Bradbury story about time travel to justify abortion, but that would take a separate post to deconstruct. So as choice #2, there is her reason #8:
I’m pro-abortion because I believe in mercy, grace, compassion, and the power of fresh starts.
Pardon?
You really can’t understand Tarico unless you appreciate that her universe is one giant crapshoot. And that she argues by (strained) analogy.
A woman might have gotten pregnant accidentally (an “unsought pregnancy”) or not, just as one woman who makes a random move in a moving vehicle dies while another woman does something more dangerous but survives.
It just like an “unsought pregnancy”:
Most of the time we get lucky; sometimes we don’t. And in those situations we rely on the mercy, compassion, and generosity of others.
Tarico tells us she has had three accidents which damaged her knees. “Three accidents, all my own doing,” she writes, “and three knee surgeries.”
Where is she heading with this?
“Some women have three abortions.”
Oh, I get it. Three “fresh starts.”
Tarico seems to have missed that none of these babies was shown mercy, grace, or compassion. They were shown depersonalization, destruction, and death. But, just guessing, I don’t think that would make any difference to her.
If you get a chance, please also read here.