I’ve recently read several articles about the need to maintain or strengthen laws supporting abortion so that we can avoid the “Gosnell factor,” where women die in unsanitary late-term abortion mills that are never inspected. Authors sometimes lend support to this form of “maternal concern” with examples involving old newspaper articles printed before any abortion was legal. These old news articles might briefly report that one mother or another had died during an ugly “backroom” procedure.
Today’s abortion defender then mentions how sad the families were when these mothers died, and so we must keep all abortion legal and prevent any more families from losing a mother. This rationale either deliberately distorts or clearly misses some fundamentals about maternal care, which automatically must involve care for mother and child. With this type of maternal “support,” the post-Gosnell authors confuse related moral issues and serve a distorted agenda.
Consider for a moment that if you shoot an intruder on your property as he tries to harm or kill you, that story will make the news. The intruder’s family members might even grieve for him if he dies. Making the news and being grieved do not mean the intruder’s “choice” to invade your home was moral or acceptable.
A pregnant woman who undergoes abortion has chosen death for her child and sometimes, unwittingly, for herself, regardless of whether the abortion mill she enters passes inspection. By virtue of being a choice for a child’s death, abortion is far more heinous than home invasion. If the mother also dies, her choice for abortion was still wrong, just as was the intruder’s choice even if he dies during the invasion. This reality exists regardless of whether either incident makes the news and family members grieve for either person who chose to commit either act.
continue reading here
Charol Abrams of Buckingham, PA is a clinical laboratory scientist and published medical writer/editor with an avocation for Catholic apologetics.
No comments:
Post a Comment