Op-Ed: It's Time to Defeat the Left's Pathetic Excuses for Abortion Once and for All
Too often throughout history, progressives have tried to justify the regularized killing of selected human beings innocent of any crime.
With hindsight, we see now that the so-called reasons given for normalizing the killing of the unwanted in centuries past were irrational and totally unjustified.
And yet today, with much the same blindness to faulty reasoning, we accept and defend the large-scale (over 62 million since Roe v. Wade) routine killing of children selected for “lawful” abortion while in their mothers’ wombs.
Last month, for example, the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood set out in a complaint some very flawed arguments demanding that a federal judge strike down Arkansas’ Unborn Child Protection Act.
These now-standardized complaints responding to protective laws introduced by states have become perfunctory; they are now perversely routine.
This current complaint reiterates the same old conglomeration of faulty reasons pretending to show why no state should be allowed to provide protection for human beings in their mothers’ wombs.
The same old excuses for killing are trotted out whenever any state tries to introduce protection for these innocents targeted for termination.
A judge then decides summarily that the state legislature’s protections for the unborn are to be put on hold.
These federal judges need to examine a lot more seriously the regurgitated pro-abortion illogic riddling these shoddily constructed complaints.
Ten truths about the legitimacy of constitutional protection for “our Posterity” must be allowed to re-emerge from this flawed complaint.
1. Elective abortions are “preventable deaths.”
The complaint draws attention to pregnancy-related mortality rates and calls for the Arkansas legislature to “put an end to these preventable deaths.”
But the complaint ignores the abortion-related mortality rates (close to 100 percent) for the children targeted for elective abortion in the womb. These are easily and genuinely preventable deaths.
Elective abortions should not be misrepresented as a cure for unsafe childbirth.
It is a flat-out lie to say, “Legal abortion is one of the safest medical procedures in the United States.”
For the smaller patient in the “medical procedure,” it is absolutely deadly — deliberately so.
2. Abortion doesn’t stop “sexual assault and domestic violence.”
Elective abortions should not be lauded as a cure for “sexual assault and domestic violence.”
Indeed, access to legal abortion has made the continuation of abuse of women and girls all too conveniently “private” for the abusers who exploit this whole injustice. It is unjust to treat the aborting of unborn children as “choices,” as always “lawful,” always freely chosen by “the woman” and always strictly “private” decisions.
Every elective abortion itself is an act of violence, albeit in a medical setting. Lethal violence against children is never “necessary.” Before as well as after birth, children should not receive less protection than adults.
Their mothers’ personal safety and social needs can and should be met by nonviolent means.
3. The deliberate killing of innocents, no matter how commonplace, is never right.
“Abortion is also extremely common — approximately one in four women in this country will have an abortion by age forty-five.”
Most 6-year-olds use this puerile argument: “Mom, nearly everyone is doing it, so it must be right.”
The proliferation of abortion has created a cult of denial in which the extermination of vulnerable “unwanted” human beings in large numbers has been authorized and carried out with impunity over a considerable period of time.
4. The myth of “forced pregnancy” is unacceptable.
“Forced pregnancy poses a heightened risk of harm in Arkansas,” the complaint reads.
It claims that state laws protecting prenatal human beings are “forcing” their mothers “to continue their pregnancies against their will.”
Yet we all know that no “force” is necessary to continue the pregnancy. It is the unborn child targeted for killing who is being “forced” from beneficent conditions of viability within her mother’s womb into the “non-viability” of the abortionist’s waste bucket.
5. Disproportional black abortion rates need to be reduced, not increased.
“In 2019, Black people made up just over 15% of Arkansas’s population, but more than 46% of people who obtained abortions in Arkansas were Black,” the complaint reads.
Yet the muddled logic of the complaint cites the disproportionate rates of black abortion as a reason for Arkansas not to provide legal protection for black children in the womb. How crazy is that?
Black “pro-choice” columnist Getty Israel, writing about Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act of 2019 in the Jackson Clarion Ledger, got it right:
“If Black lives really matter, then liberals must address the underlying factors driving abortion rates. … Black disparities in abortion rates should be equally appalling as infant mortality.”
6. More abortions for black patients do not make black pregnancies safer.
The complaint again abandons logic to claim:
“If the Ban were to take effect, these [black] patients would be forced to continue pregnancies that statistics show are two-to-three times deadlier to them than to their white counterparts.”
But the truth is that if abortions were more carefully limited, the medical establishment might be “forced” to examine and report on why black pregnancies are “two-to-three times deadlier.” For as long as unlimited abortions are easily accessed and easy money rolls into the abortionists’ coffers, then the urgent need to find real solutions to problems indigenous to black pregnancies is ignored.
7. There is no “ban” on treatment to save the mother’s life.
The truth is that separating a mother and her unborn child for the purposes of saving a mother’s life (preterm parturition) is not abortion. Life-saving separation is specifically approved in the Unborn Child Protection Act.
It is tragic when the unborn child separated is too premature to live. The little body should be treated with respect in recognition that a human life has been lost in the separation.
This is very different than an elective abortion where the purpose is to produce a dead child.
8. The proffered justification for killing the unborn are excuses, not reasons.
The sheer scale of abortions indicates that these brutal post-conception exterminations of innocent human beings are being perpetrated indiscriminately.
The complaint endorses the absurdity that “every reason for an abortion is a good reason.”
Take a look at the indefensible latitude of the spin:
“Ultimately, the decision to terminate a pregnancy is motivated by a complex constellation of diverse, interrelated, and deeply personal factors that are closely tied to each individual person’s values, culture and religion, health and reproductive history, family situation and support system, educational or career goals, resources and financial stability.”
The age-old truth “Thou shalt not murder” still applies to our unborn children.
9. A continually disputed “precedent” is no genuine precedent.
The complaint boasts that abortion must be legal now “under nearly five decades of binding Supreme Court precedent.” Not so. Rather, nearly five decades of disputed Supreme Court precedent points to an error in law.
Roe v. Wade set a disputed precedent. Planned Parenthood v. Casey did not resolve the disputed “precedent,” and the dispute continues.
10. Adults’ gender identities do not count more than an unborn child’s life.
Finally, there is something so weird about the complaint’s tender concern for “people of other gender identities, including transgender men, gender non-binary individuals and gender diverse individuals [who] may also become pregnant and seek abortion services and thus would also suffer irreparable harm under [the act].”
Yet there is no concern whatsoever for the irreparable harm suffered by the children directly and violently killed by those “abortion services.”
No mention whatsoever.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
