Reproductive freedom, reproductive rights, reproductive health care: Abortion of truth at the Democratic National Convention

U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris at 2024 Democratic National Convention

Reproductive freedom, reproductive rights, reproductive health care

Abortion of truth at the Democratic National Convention

Hendrik van der Breggen

When the topic of abortion came up at the 2024 Democratic National Convention, truth got dismembered.

How so? By lots of talk about justifying abortion as “reproductive freedom,” “reproductive rights,” and “reproductive health care.”

Thinking people should, well, think.

 

Reproductive freedom justifies abortion?

No, it doesn’t.

Reproduction, i.e., the creation of a child (pre-natal human being/person) conceived via sex, occurs before abortion takes place. Reproductive freedom is exercised before abortion takes place.

The late Michael Bauman, Professor of Theology and Culture at Hillsdale College, observes:

"When pro-choicers have unforced sex, they are choosing. That is freedom of choice. When they decide to kill the child conceived during that sexual encounter, that is freedom from choice. They chose; now they want to be free from the consequences of that choice, even if someone has to die."

In other words, justifying abortion via “reproductive freedom” is a ruse.

Note: The hard cases — rape, incest, threat to life of the mother — to which many abortion-choice proponents point as justification for abortion account for fewer than 5 percent of all abortion cases. In his 2015 book The Abortion Wars ethicist Charles Camosy reports that the number for the hard cases is 2 percent. But here (and at the DNC) we’re not talking about the hard cases, so don’t get sidetracked.

Again, to justify abortion — i.e., 95–98 percent of all abortions — via “reproductive freedom” is a ruse.

 

Reproductive rights justify abortion?

No, they don’t.

Every adult has to right to reproduce. That is, every adult has a right to reproduce via consensual sex if they are biologically capable and, preferably (for the sake of the children), if they are married.

But, again, reproduction occurs before abortion takes place. This means that the exercise of one’s right to reproduce occurs before abortion takes place, too. (If this is unclear, re-read previous point about reproductive freedom.)

So justifying abortion via “reproductive rights” is also a ruse.

Reminder: Along with reproductive rights come reproductive responsibilities. Parents have duties to their children. The first duty is to care for children, not kill them. Other duties include provision of food, clothing, shelter, education — and lots of love.

 

Reproductive health care justifies abortion?

No, it doesn’t.

Dr. Kendra Kolb, a neonatologist, states this: “There is no medical reason why the life of the child must be directly and intentionally ended with an abortion procedure.”

Kolb adds: Yes, treatments for ectopic pregnancies occur, but they’re not abortions per se, if we use language accurately. Yes, treatments for heart disease or cancer can involve pre-term deliveries that might result in the death of a child, but they’re not abortions per se, if we use language accurately. When we accurately define “abortion” as the direct and intentional ending of a pre-natal human being’s life, abortions are not medically necessary.

 

Abortion, then, is not health care at all, let alone reproductive health care.

 

So justifying abortion via “reproductive health care” is yet another ruse.

 

Don’t be fooled

That the premeditated killing of pre-natal human beings via abortion is justified by reproductive freedom, reproductive rights, or reproductive health care is simply not true.

Folks, don’t be fooled by the falsehoods.

 

 

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor (formerly at Providence University College, Manitoba, Canada).

 

 

For additional thought

 

• Kendra Kolb, The Pro-Life Reply to: “Is Abortion Ever Medically Necessary?” (video)
• Hendrik van der Breggen, Trudeau is Gaslighting Canadians about Abortion (article)
• Hendrik van der Breggen, Untangling popular “pro-choice” claims and arguments concerning abortion (article)
• Hendrik van der Breggen, Untangling Popular Pro-Choice Arguments: Critical Thinking about Abortion (book)

Reproductive freedom vs. abortion

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, March 8, 2018

Reproductive freedom vs. abortion

What follows is a slightly edited footnote from my book An Enquiry Concerning Human Abortion, written thirty-something years ago. The truth of this footnote remains relevant for us today.

As Canadians know, in October of 1986 abortionist Henry Morgentaler appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada in his campaign against then-extant abortion law. As Canadians may also know, on the opening day of his appeal Dr. Morgentaler expressed his position with these words: “I hope the Supreme Court will grant reproductive freedom to Canadian women and the ability for doctors to provide good medical care” (Maclean’s, October 20, 1985).

As Canadians may not know, Dr. Morgentaler’s position is ludicrous.

Since a human being is reproduced at the onset of pregnancy, the fact remains that the decision/choice to reproduce is made, unwittingly or wittingly, before the occurrence of pregnancy.

Now think about this: Because abortion destroys human beings after the freedom to reproduce has been exercised, and because (according to the Hippocratic Oath and the Declaration of Geneva) good medical care entails the preservation of human life rather than its destruction—and because the Canadian Supreme Court did not and does not curtail the reproductive freedom of Canadian women by legislatively enforcing the use of chastity belts and/or contraceptive measures—it is quite correct to conclude that Dr. Morgentaler has confused the freedom to reproduce with the freedom to kill. He equates “good medical care” with medical expertise in killing.  

At this juncture some persons object that if they have taken care to use contraceptive measures and yet become pregnant, then they have the right to an abortion.

My reply: Considering the fact that most contraceptive methods are not 100% foolproof, and considering the fact that one takes a risk when one uses contraceptives (i.e., one risks getting pregnant), one also must accept responsibility for the risk of pregnancy when one engages in sexual intercourse. Why? Because taking a risk entails taking the responsibility for the possible consequences of that risk. Just as in Las Vegas one should accept responsibility for one’s losses when one gambles (takes a risk) and loses, so too in sexual intercourse one should accept responsibility for one’s pregnancy when one takes the risk of becoming pregnant and becomes pregnant. In other words, thinking that one has the right to abort one’s “unwanted child” after choosing to risk pregnancy is more ridiculous than thinking that one has the right to keep one’s money after one has lost it at a Las Vegas Black Jack table.

Back to the present (March 2018): Here are seven takeaways.

1. Reason and contemporary science tell us that the human embryo/fetus is in fact a human being: i.e., it's a genetically distinct, self-governing dynamic entity that belongs to the human species. It's not feline or canine; it's human. It's not a cat being or a dog being; it's a human being. It's not a kitten or a puppy; it's a human child.

2. Canada’s 1988 Supreme Court ruling did not give women the right to abortion. It merely struck down law that required therapeutic abortion committees. Why? Because the committees were not equally accessible across Canada and thus unfair to women. The Supreme Court ruling tasked Parliament with making an abortion law to remedy this unfairness and protect unborn children.

3. Reproduction, i.e., the creation of a child conceived via sex, occurs before abortion takes place.

4. Michael Bauman, PhD, Professor of Theology & Culture, Hillsdale College: “When pro-choicers have unforced sex, they are choosing. That is freedom of choice. When they decide to kill the child conceived during that sexual encounter, that is freedom from choice. They chose; now they want to be free from the consequences of that choice, even if someone has to die.”

5. Only a small fraction of total abortions occur in the case of rape (forced sex).

6. Sometimes pregnancy results in socio-economic problems, but, surely, socio-economic problems require socio-economic solutions—not killing.

7. Unlike losses at the Black Jack table, a child is a blessing.

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Providence University College, Manitoba, Canada. The views expressed in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.