“Good Abortions,” “Bad Abortions,” and the Battle for Truth

Last updated on: July 11, 2013 at 3:25 pm by David French

“Good Abortions,” “Bad Abortions,” and the Battle for Truth 2013-07-11T15:25:38-05:00 David French

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I was paging this morning through Megan McArdle’s blog (she’s apparently transitioning from The Daily Beast to Bloomberg View) and ran across this brief post asking “why are all of the essays on abortion so sad?” It begins:

Jessica Grose, a writer who I like very much, says that pro-choicers shouldn’t just publish essays about “good abortions”–those had by people who are very young, or clearly too financially and personally unstable to raise a child, or carrying a fetus that will not live long past birth. They’re leaving out the majority of abortions, which are not had by frightened teenagers or heartbroken mothers terminating an unviable pregnancy.

The question, of course, is whether you want to comfort the women having the abortions, or the people considering how many restrictions we want to place on abortion. Most Americans don’t approve of having an abortion because you’re really hoping for a promotion next month, unless (maybe) that promotion is out of a minimum wage job. They don’t care if you want to travel for a few years before you settle down to raising kids. If you write essays defending choices like that, you are going to repulse some number of people who currently weakly support legal abortion.

She continues:

I’d say that on average, the American public is tacitly okay with “good abortions”. They’re even willing to tolerate some “bad abortions”–those had for convenience, or by women who are careless with birth control–because they understand that it is impossible to completely separate the good from the bad. But they are not okay with abortion as the pro-choice movement sees it, which is that right up to the point where the baby is born, you ought to be able to terminate the pregnancy for any reason. They do not believe that this is a decision which only involves a woman and her doctor. They also care about the fetus.

While I wish the American public were more committed to life, I think McArdle is largely right. Americans tend to be reluctant to “force” women into difficult circumstances but are broadly unsympathetic to abortions for convenience — thus the backlash you often see even from pro-choice advocates when people admit, for example, to killing their child to preserve a short-lived pro volleyball career. That’s dirty laundry that simply shouldn’t be aired in public.

While of course the pro-life movement should shine sunlight on the reality of the vast majority of abortions, honesty alone simply isn’t enough.

McArdle states that it is “impossible to completely separate the good [abortions] from the bad,” and — legally — she is largely right. Government can’t possibly construct a screening mechanism that separates ”good” (i.e., publicly supported because of the mother’s acknowledged difficulties) abortions from the “bad,” nor would the pro-life movement ever support such a regime. The pro-life answer is to match our honesty about abortion with charity towards mothers in crisis, to ameliorate as best we can the pressures and difficulties that lead to the “bad” abortions.

But here’s where the extreme pro-abortion Left is perhaps most pernicious, recognizing the danger to its radical vision of sexual liberty when their opponents don’t conform to absurd caricatures of intolerant fundamentalists. The old slander — that pro-lifers only care about babies in the womb and not mothers or older children — is giving way to a frontal attack on acts of support and charity for mothers and children. At the ACLJ we’re currently defending pro-life crisis-pregnancy centers from local ordinances designed to suppress and change the centers’ pro-life message, and I’ve written recently about the emerging (and reprehensible) left-wing backlash against Evangelical adoption. In other words, we’re falsely attacked for not caring, then attacked when we do care.

The screaming “hail Satan” protesters in Texas have built an industry on a foundation of lies — lies about abortion as practiced and lies about the character and nature of their pro-life opponents. While every nation is beset by its share of deceptive extremists, the real shame is that America’s pro-abortion radicals are disproportionately clustered in the mainstream media and popular culture, giving them the power to protect their fellow citizens from dangerous truths.

This article first appeared on National Review here.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

July 10, 2013

Celebrating "Natural Hair" - Funny Tee

Next Post

July 16, 2013 Three Observations About the Left and Civility

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Christmas faith family ministry music Television Uncategorized

Select a Month June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 March 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz