What do we know about abortion advocates? Any port in a storm. What do I mean by that?
Whatever it is, so long as it helps sign up new advocates of killing babies all the way up to birth (with an option on ignoring them if they survive), it will be rinsed clean. If necessary, old “villains” are temporarily rehabilitated.
Here’s a sample from a study I read a year ago, commented on, and have now reread.
All in all, it may be one of the strangest “studies” from a pro-abortion source that I have ever read. But (see above) it makes perfect sense because they are persuaded it advances “the cause.” Consider…
We’ve all read or heard ad nauseam that abortion “helps” women. In fact, those who of us who oppose abortion are supposed to understand that obliterating an unborn child is a kind of (sick) rite of passage, as normal as puberty and getting a driver’s license.
What about men (and boys)? Their “role” is, at a minimum, to shut up, better yet facilitate the death of their children.
Now, we’re told (at least in 2019), there was room for #MenForChoice which ought to flourish because men need to know that abortion benefits them as well.
I give you “Male Abortion Beneficiaries: Exploring the Long-Term Educational and Economic Associations of Abortion Among Men Who Report Teen Pregnancy” which appeared in the Journal of Adolescent Health.
Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and videos.
Conclusion? “Women’s use of abortion services were associated with educational benefits for men who report teen pregnancies.”
At first glance, you wouldn’t think this would be a big selling point among self-avowed “feminists.” But any port in a storm, right?
The abortion industry and its legion of media enablers will never cease to tout the power of #ShoutYourAbortion. But they also know if they can persuade more men to tout the supposed advantages—to them—of abandoning the pregnant women in their lives, it helps shape a different narrative: EVERYBODY benefits– except for the kid. But they don’t put up hashtags.
The political agenda of the whole enterprise is absurdly, even embarrassingly, self-evident. So we are not the least bit surprised when lead author Bethany Everett of the University of Utah in Salt Lake told Reuters Health by email, “We are seeing an influx of laws being passed that criminalize women who have abortions and abortion providers, and yet we never discuss male partners and how they may benefit from access to abortion.” (Not said explicitly but could be, “Hey this is one time we need the guys.”)
So nearly 600 young men were “interviewed when they were in their late 20s and early 30s, who reported involvement in a pregnancy before age 20,” according to Reuters’ Carolyn Crist.
According to the study, conditions improved in every way possible for the young men if the young girls in their lives aborted.
If they didn’t? Doomed! You have to say this for pro-abortionists, they don’t bother with subtleties.
One ray of hope is extended in the last paragraph.
Said Luciana Assini-Meytin of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, who wasn’t involved in the study,
“Not all adolescents who experience teen parenting are doomed to a life of poor outcomes. Some do well, despite an early childbirth; others don’t,” she said in an email to Crist. “We need to better understand the mechanisms by which teen fathers are able to succeed
In the very last paragraph of the actual study–in one of those embarrassing comments that are needed to negate the obvious implications of their results–the authors reassure us, “The results should not be provided as motivation for men to coerce a woman into having an abortion.”(Yeah, right.)
“[R]ather, they highlight that restricting access to abortion may have negative consequences for men whose partners desire abortion but are unable to access services.”
Get it? Guys, you shouldn’t coerce women (actually girls) into aborting even if you’re persuaded you’d get a better job and make more money if she does. Just know that if your “partner” should “desire abortion but [is] unable to access services,” all these benefits could be lost.
So? Lobby for laws allowing unrestricted abortion, the conclusion that is so obvious the study authors don’t even have to write it.
It’s enough to give cynicism a bad name.
LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared in at National Right to Life News Today —- an online column on pro-life issues.
