The Dishonesty of the Abortion Debate

I feel like the author was strongly pro-abortion (and that explains why she's so familiar with statistics about illegal abortions prior to Roe v Wade) but a sonogram of a 12 week old baby is changing her mind.

Rather, if you read further on then you should see that the author is advocating for abortion, despite the gross nature of it, because the end justifies the means:

And here is one truth: No matter what the law says, women will continue to get abortions. How do I know? Because in the relatively recent past, women would allow strangers to brutalize them, to poke knitting needles and wire hangers into their wombs, to thread catheters through their cervices and fill them with Lysol, or scalding-hot water, or lye. Women have been willing to risk death to get an abortion. When we made abortion legal, we decided we weren’t going to let that happen anymore.

Which argument is absurd, akin to arguing that "since Zyklon B results in too many deaths of Nazis then we need to find a safer was of exterminating Jews." The point being that while the effect or illegal abortions are often deleterious to the mother, the solution is not to make the murder of infants safer.

Instead, why not deal with the reasons why women get abortions, from fornication to selfishly not wanting children to difficulties in adoption.

Move backwards from birth and look for the moment at which you can say now there is a person who didn’t exist before and that moment is conception. For years after birth a pattern of growth will continue that is simply a continuation of what was happening before birth.

That is implicitly recognized by liberals in the case of the eggs of bald eagles, but effectively denied in the case of humans.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.