Many who consider themselves pro-choice would at least point out that abortion is a difficult decision, or even if they don’t like abortion, they find it necessary.
There are also those, particularly politicians, from both sides of the abortion debate, who will acknowledge that the issue is an emotional and divisive one. This may translate to a sort of cop-out view in refusing to hold much of a view at all, or it may mean one has great respect despite disagreement for their opponent because of the nature of the issue.
Writer Sady Doyle, in her piece for In These Times, “Abortion Isn’t a Necessary Evil. It’s Great.”
And yet none of this is likely to convince dyed-in-the-wool abortion opponents. Dismantling fetal “personhood” with logical or scientific (or even Biblical) arguments does nothing to convince those who believe a fertilized egg is a human being, because those beliefs have never been founded on logic or science. They’re emotional. You can’t argue emotions.
But you don’t necessarily have to respect them, either—particularly not when they require you to behave in ways that cause harm.
The rest of her piece isn’t much better however, as she writes about how great abortion is without seeming to give it much thought. Sure she has a lot to say, but it doesn’t seem conceivable that one could be so serious and understanding of the issue and make such claims. Which means we can assume that Sady doesn’t really understand the abortion issue then.
Even further down in her piece, she mentions that “[p]rogressives have apologized for being right. But we don’t have to. Abortion saves lives, improves lives, and makes for a stronger society. The facts are decisively on our side.” She also points to the risk of pregnancy and the circumstances of children who will be born only to die so soon after. The only way in which she mentions the risks of abortion is to briefly point out a claim made by author Katha Pollitt, with regards to “…the impact of the misinformation promulgated by the anti-abortion lobby, convincing huge numbers of women that abortion causes cancer, or depression, or suicide.”
Even if abortion were to save lives or improve them or make for a stronger society, at what cost? A direct abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother, and so there goes the argument about how it saves lives. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Over 56 million children have been aborted since Roe v. Wade. This includes young women who will never even get the chance to be pro-choice themselves someday, to be the “…leaders and geniuses with uteruses…” Sady herself speaks of.
Like this pro-life news article? Please support LifeNews during our Fall 2014 fundraising campaign with a donation!
Does abortion improve lives? It may seem like it, but in the long-term, it usually turns out that abortion rarely fixes problems for a woman or a couple, but rather worsens them.
So does abortion make for a stronger society then? Hardly. Not when we have women killing their children and then suffering mentally and physically for it. Not when we try to empower our females through “reproductive freedom,” which really means through death. And now when we convey the message that the lives of some are worth more than others based on a decision their mother makes.