NRL News

What are you really shouting when you “Shout Your Abortion”?

by | Dec 20, 2018

By Dave Andrusko

What would you think would be the primary motivations behind the “Shout Your Abortion” movement which is now so blasé about obliterating unborn children they’ve turned the accounts into a coffee table book, like a book-length collection of Georgia O’Keefe’s photographs to be passed around while sipping cups of cappuccino?

Self-justification? Of course.

“Normalization” of abortion? That goes without saying.

An elaborate PR campaign for the Abortion Industry? By all means.

We are good people, too, in fact, probably better for being “courageous? Without a shadow of a doubt.

Expiation, acknowledged or otherwise? We’ll get to that momentarily.

There is a lot more going on, don’t you think, than Lindy West, Amelia Bonow, and Emily Nokes who assembled the stories at “Shout Your Abortion,” would acknowledge?

I’m in Liz Wolfe’s debt for her thoughtful post at The Federalist titled, “The ‘Shout Your Abortion’ Coffee Table Book Fights Off The Real Abortion Conversation.”

What can learn and what can we extrapolate? (Let me clear, I do not have the book, so I’m relying on what I read in Wolfe’s post and examples I have read elsewhere.)

*To me Wolfe’s most important insight, which comes near the end, is not new but eloquently expressed. And that is something on display every time a conservative or a pro-lifer or anyone else falls victim to the free-speech-for-me-but-not-for-thee movement rampant on so many college campuses: a celebration of dogmatism and narrow-mindedness.

She writes

As a pro-lifer, I have my opinions on all these questions. But it feels near-impossible to actually explore these diverging ethical lines when pro-lifers are smeared as woman-hating, internalized misogyny-ruined, prudish bigots who hate female sexual pleasure, and when pro-choicers defensively clothe themselves in rhetoric that absolves all responsibility and couches their decisions in the verbiage of rights and freedoms (or in this case, pithy “f–k the patriarchy” shirts).

How can you have a discussion with anyone who knows with more certainty than that the law of gravity exists that you have nothing to say? Intolerance (at some level) implies that if my perspective were to be closer to the one who is contemptuous of my views, there might be room for dialogue.

Wolfe is making clear that nothing you or I could say about the continuity of life; the moral and ethical obligations we assume toward the child we have brought into existence; or the reason women have to drown their qualms along with their consciences in mindless cant cannot possible get through when they are drowning in their own pool of political correctness.

*Many of the stories begin and end with such simple declarations as what I do is my business and to even suggest that there needs to be a reason (a “justification”) to have as many abortions as a woman wants is proof-positive that you hate women.

Consider this account Wolfe quotes:

“The simple truth is this: if a sperm and egg come together when a child is desired, a human being is born. But if a sperm and egg come together when a woman knows in her bones that it is not the right time for her to be a mother, then perhaps what is born is her own confident agency over her life.”

So the unborn child is a human being, if desired, a goad to attain “agency over her life,” if not. The message is screamed out in so many quotations here and elsewhere. “If I can take the child’s life, I have assumed control of my life,” aka, I am the Master of my universe.

It made me think of a quote attributed to Roseanne Barr: “The thing women have yet to learn is nobody gives you power. You just take it.” If that requires exercising power over the most powerless member of the human family, so be it. One other thing.

*The unwillingness to be responsible for your behavior, indeed to glory in your irresponsibility. That’s why the question-begging use of the word “force,” as in forced to have a baby, is such a core anti-value. Wolfe writes

For people who ostensibly support “the party of science,” these explanations don’t make sense. Unless it’s a rare situation of rape or coercion, or a woman is kept in some sort of cult-like environment where the possibility of pregnancy resulting from sex is never mentioned, women are not “forced” to have children; they freely consent to sex, which has the sometimes inconvenient side effect of conceiving a baby. The pro-choice side would be wise to acknowledge this and adjust their language to make it more honest.

But this acknowledgement of cause and effect is alien to the pro-abortion mind, which revels in victimhood at the expense of the real victim. It would require—dare I say it?—acting like an adult.

Shout Your Abortion? Aren’t you really Shouting Your Immaturity and Shouting Your Irresponsibility?

Categories: Abortion