|
|
|
|
Never Enough Abortions? Yes, and
Here's Why
Part Two of Two By Dave Andrusko Over the years I have on occasion been gently chided for saying that for many--not all--abortion advocates there can never be enough abortions. Surely (I was asked/challenged) they'd agree that everyone would be better off if there were fewer abortions. Yes and no, was my answer. Yes, it would be very good for women, children, and all of us collectively if there were many, many fewer than 1.2 million to 1.3 million abortions annually. But no, not everyone agrees.
How can that possibly be? Lots of reasons. Abortion for them is a means to an end--women's "empowerment." Nobody, no how, no way can have a voice except the woman herself lest it infringe on this empowerment exercise. So even to discuss the "reasons" why the child's life is taken from her is to wholly miss the point: it just doesn't matter. This is not about whose life is extinguished (so the reason why is beside the point), but how taking that life provides a woman with "control" over her life, giving her (in that dreadful word) "agency." In fact reducing the number of abortions actually can be a "bad" thing, from their point of view. Occasionally this gets admitted in polite conversation. For instance, "Keep Abortion Safe and Legal? Yes. Make it Rare? Not the Point" can be found at the pro-abortion blog rhrealitycheck.org. Written by Aimee Thorne-Thomsen, this represents one of those few recent occasions in which pro-abortionists--with the winds of public opinion obviously blowing against them--unabashedly and unashamedly admit the logic of their real agenda. Her reasoning can be summarized thusly. 1.2 million or 1.3 million annual abortions represents, if you will, the met "need." You might actually say this is too high, Thorne-Thomsen suggests, if some of these are women who aborted babies they wanted but felt they couldn't afford. But based on the rest of the argument, it's hard to believe this is anything other than a rhetorical placeholder while she moves on to her real beliefs. "On the other hand, if those 1.21 million abortions represent only the women who could access abortion financially, geographically or otherwise, then that number is too low," she writes. "Yes, too low." (Emphasis in the original.) Tacitly Thorne-Thomsen admits this is hard to swallow, at least on first gulp. So she makes her case backwards, presenting all the "good" things that will come to pass if pro-abortionists celebrate abortion and worrying about the justifications on the back end. So, if pro-abortionists unflinching agree that an increase in the number of abortions can be a positive development, it happily moves the focus to where it ought to be--"supporting women's agency and self-determination"--instead of where it is now--"judging the outcomes of that agency." This is otherwise known as "trusting women." And "trusting women" (it matters not a twit what women are trusted to do) is infinitely more important than reducing the number of abortions--in fact, an increase in abortions may be a sign of this trust. The reader responses take Thorne-Thomsen's argument a few more steps, and make even clearer the abortion mindset. We quickly are reminded that it REALLY doesn't matter if every single demand is met (women have unfettered access to contraceptives and "knowledge" about how to use them, proper education, and financial stability are mentioned). Each and every one separately and all together collectively, they are (again) beside the point. "I might still become pregnant and choose abortion," one respondent wrote. "And no one would have the right to tell me that I should remain pregnant and give birth." Not to put too fine a point on it, it is impossible to make any headway with this. On the occasions when I have spoken with people who argue this way, it immediately becomes clear that they would not be happy unless the numbers were very much they were in the old days--l.6 million--at a minimum. (Which is why the Hyde Amendment is always in their crosshairs.) And to argue accountability--of any kind--is to invite a withering barrage of (to put it politely) "how dare you?" But at least we know where Aimee Thorne-Thomsen and her cohorts are coming from. And that is a not unimportant consideration. Be sure to read "Today's News & Views" and to send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. Part One |
