Andrea wonders why nobody seems to be asking a certain simple question.
Fewer than ten years ago, even Planned Parenthood acknowledged that abortion is a “difficult decision.” On its website in 2022, it no longer does.
On the pro-abortion side, many women offer variations of the same two arguments: (1) I had things other than motherhood that I wanted to do with my life, and (2) it was the best thing I could do for the baby because it wouldn’t have had a good life with me. Regarding the second argument, I’d love to see a person charged with the murder of an adult successfully make that same argument: “Yeah, I had to kill my wife because I couldn’t support her in the way I wanted for her. Killing her was the best choice for me and for her.”
For those who say it was a hard choice, the logical question is “Why? Why was it a hard choice?” If the pro-abortion side is correct — that the fetus is not a baby, is an insensate bundle of cells, is inseparable from the woman’s body so it’s like having an appendix removed, or is lacking the intellectual or emotional capacity to have an existential desire for life — abortion should be no harder than eating chicken for dinner. (I have no idea how vegetarian and vegan women justify abortion.)
Pro-life people seldom ask women the “why” question because they already know the answer: a fetus is an independent life within the woman, who is both life-giver and incubator. This is not a conspiracy by the White patriarchy; it’s a biological fact of life. But still, what pro-lifers must do moving forward is to ask the question every time. Only in that way can they force women to acknowledge what they’re saying when they proudly recount that they had an abortion even while acknowledging the tough decision they made: they sacrificed a human life for their own benefit.
Funny, innit, that Lefty women would find that idea troubling, given the Left’s perennial emphasis on selfishness and “living your best life” and all that rot. Funnier still is how often Leftards manage to undercut their own arguments this way; as I’ve been saying for years, your typical, standard-issue shitlib will contradict himself eighteen times before lunch every day. Reminds me of another abortion-issue oxymoron:
The debate concerning “fetal homicide” hinges on the issue of fetuses killed by violent acts against pregnant women. Pro-life advocates typically support legislation that defines the fetus as a person under fetal homicide laws, or otherwise confers rights or protections upon the fetus or unborn child. Common references to such laws include the Fetal Protection Act, the Preborn Victims of Violence Act and the Unborn Victim of Violence Act. Those supporting these laws say that both the lives of the pregnant woman and the fetus should be explicitly protected. They assert that fetal homicide laws justly criminalize these cases and address both unborn children and their mothers.
Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws.
This obvious contradiction can’t go on forever. Is it a developing human life, or is it a gaggle of cells with no more moral or emotional heft than a random wad of pocket lint? Sooner or later, society will be forced to settle on whether it’s going to be the one, or the other.