“We need to see abortion as an urgent practical decision that is just as moral as the decision to have a child – indeed, sometimes more moral.” – Katha Pollitt
What can you say about a woman who writes and believes something like that? To even suggest that convenience abortions, which describe the overwhelming majority of them, at least in the United States, are just as moral (sometimes more moral) than carrying the baby to term is as twisted as it gets. Unbelievable.
“Pro-choicers often say no one is ‘pro-abortion,’ but what is so virtuous about adding another child to the ones you’re already overwhelmed by? Why do we make young women feel guilty for wanting to feel ready for motherhood before they have a baby? Isn’t it a good thing that women think carefully about what it means to bring a child into this world — what, for example, it means to the children she already has? We tend to think of abortion as anti-child and anti- motherhood.”
Where to begin? Let’s start with the life of the precious unborn. If a woman is overwhelmed with children, she can protect the baby while he’s developing, and put him up for adoption. Why must the baby die because the woman doesn’t want to be inconvenienced? “Suffer” through those nine months and give that baby his life. Second, killing your own children is anti-child and anti-motherhood. Is she serious?
Sarah Zagorski at Life News writes:
Honestly, there are so many problems in this statement that I don’t even know where to start. But I guess I’ll start with science and reason, since that’s what most people want to discuss when we talk about abortion. Pollitt mockingly states that the media uses terminology like “unborn baby” to describe the child in utero. The last time I checked, everyone describes it that way because science tells us that life begins at conception. An unborn baby has its own heartbeat and unchanging and unrepeatable genetic code. This fact is considered elementary biology and is hardly debatable.
Additionally, abortion is not natural for women because the maternal instinct of a mother is to care for and protect her children, not to destroy them. And nearly 42 years after Roe we know that abortion hurts women physically and emotionally; and we know that hundreds of women have died from “safe and legal” abortions in the U.S. So Pollitt’s claim that abortion is safe is also false.
For the record, I wrote “Where to begin” before I read Zagorski’s similarly expressed sentiments about Pollitt’s views, and her views truly are stunning.
This is what happens to a soul separated from God and a mind warped by an all-consuming focus on selfish pursuits. What sort of backward-thinking ideology tries to sell killing your own unborn children as good?
We’re not talking about a pregnant woman who faces her own death if she continues with the pregnancy. We’re talking about women who don’t want the responsibility of raising a child. Women whose “unwanted” pregnancy gets in the way of school or work. Women who use abortion as birth control. Birth control, which includes condoms, is ubiquitous and definitely cheaper than an abortion. These women can make the sacrifice and carry their baby to term, and allow a married couple longing for such a blessing to love him, care for him, and protect him.
The baby, even one conceived in rape or incest, does not have to die.
Photo credit: generationlife (Flickr Commons)