February 02, 2017


By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, February 2, 2017


The recent Women's March on Washington (often crude and vulgar) is probably more aptly described as a March for Abortion Choice. As such, it should encourage us to think carefully about the so-called “pro-choice” view on abortion.

Here is some food for thought.

● From Kelsey Kurtinitis, board member of Personhood Iowa and pro-life activist:

I am a woman, and yet the Women’s March on Washington does not represent me.
This is not because of any prejudice I hold—I do not hate women, nor do I suffer from any “internalized misogyny.” No, the Women’s March does not represent me because they have chosen not to.
You see, the Women’s March only believes in the pro-choice buzzword when you choose to agree with them.

● From Abby Johnson, former Planned Parenthood abortion clinic director (and Planned Parenthood 2008 “Employee of the Year”), now pro-life activist:

I hear people chant, “my body, my choice” or “mind your own uterus.”
You would think that after all of the medical technology and scientific breakthroughs that people would understand that we aren't talking about your body. And we certainly aren't talking about your uterus. We are talking about the scientifically proven individual human being that is inside your body.
These chants would only make sense if a woman aborted herself. But she doesn't. She aborts another individual. And that's who we are talking about in the prolife movement.

● From Terry O'Neill, president of the “pro-choice” group NOW (National Organization for Women): “abortion care, no less than contraception, is an essential measure to prevent the heartbreak of infant mortality.”

(What follows are my words.) Huh? Really? Notice the underlying principle of O'Neill's view: I can kill a human being to prevent my heartbreak if this human being will die a natural death.

Notice, too, the logical implications: This opens whole new avenues of “care” to prevent our heartbreak over the elderly, the ill, the homeless, the starving, etc. How? By killing them!

● Objection: But difficulty in policing and enforcing abortion law would render it useless.

Reply: We should note that it is difficult to police and enforce laws against, say, texting and driving, but the law works to discourage texting and driving. The point: if an action kills or threatens to injure innocent others, a law against the action is not unreasonable, even if not 100% effective.

We have room to be creative here. Perhaps a law against abortion should (a) criminalize late-term/ gendercide/ disability abortionists only, not women pressured into abortion, plus (b) help women so pressured (just as our anti-prostitution law criminalizes pimps and johns, not the women pressured into prostitution, plus helps the women get out of prostitution).

Most abortions are due to social problems, whereas abortions for the horrific circumstances of rape, incest, or when a mother's life is threatened account for a small percentage only.

Social problems require social solutions, not the killing of children.

● From Frederica Mathewes-Green, pro-life activist and past vice-president of Feminists for Life America:

In time, it’s going to be impossible to deny that abortion is violence against children. Future generations, as they look back, are not necessarily going to go easy on ours. Our bland acceptance of abortion is not going to look like an understandable goof. In fact, the kind of hatred that people now level at Nazis and slave-owners may well fall upon our era.
Future generations can accurately say, “It’s not like they didn’t know.” They can say, “After all, they had sonograms.” They may consider this bloodshed to be a form of genocide. They might judge our generation to be monsters.
One day, the tide is going to turn. ... The time is coming when a younger generation will sit in judgment of ours. And they are not obligated to be kind.

● Note to responsible adults/ parents: Logical dullness and moral callousness seem to be kindred spirits—don’t be duped by them. For our children's sake.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views expressed in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence or Hendrik's colleagues.)

Note to critics: Please read my other articles on abortion before offering your criticism. Thanks.

No comments: