A new article from a writer at the liberal online publication Salon is one of the most extreme pro-abortion diatribes ever written. It is so in-your-face that it is already sending shockwaves through the Internet just hours after its publication.
The content of the article, some of which is excerpted below, needs no words to show how shocking the content is from Mary Elizabeth Williams, who starts her piece saying, “So what if abortion ends a life?”
“I believe that life starts at conception. And it’s never stopped me from being pro-choice,” she writes.
Of all the diabolically clever moves the anti-choice lobby has ever pulled, surely one of the greatest has been its consistent co-opting of the word “life.” Life! Who wants to argue with that? Who wants be on the side of … not-life? That’s why the language of those who support abortion has for so long been carefully couched in other terms. While opponents of abortion eagerly describe themselves as “pro-life,” the rest of have had to scramble around with not nearly as big-ticket words like “choice” and “reproductive freedom.” The “life” conversation is often too a thorny one to even broach. Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice.
Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.
When we on the pro-choice side get cagey around the life question, it makes us illogically contradictory. I have friends who have referred to their abortions in terms of “scraping out a bunch of cells” and then a few years later were exultant over the pregnancies that they unhesitatingly described in terms of “the baby” and “this kid.” I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages. Why can’t we agree that how they felt about their pregnancies was vastly different, but that it’s pretty silly to pretend that what was growing inside of them wasn’t the same? Fetuses aren’t selective like that. They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born. Read the rest at:
Earlier this week, on the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, NBC News published a poll on abortion declaring “seven in 10 respondents oppose Roe v. Wade being overturned.” But NBC got that result by misrepresenting the nature of Roe. The network said Roe guaranteed the right to abortion only in the first three months — in truth, Roe protects abortion even at full gestation.
This misrepresentation was a fitting 40th birthday present for Roe and the cause of legal abortion — a cause built on a foundation of lies.
The first falsehood underlying today’s pro-choice cause is Roe v. Wade itself. It is simply a bad decision. The majority divined from the “penumbras” of the Constitution a nebulous “right to privacy,” which somehow included the right to abort your unborn child up until the moment of delivery. That’s legislating, not interpreting.
Legions of pro-choice judges and legal scholars have admitted that Roe was bad jurisprudence.
“One of the most curious things about Roe,” wrote liberal Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe “is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”
Alan Dershowitz, another legendary liberal Harvard Law professor, called Roe “judicial activism” lacking “clear governing constitutional principles.”
Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg called Roe “Heavy-handed judicial intervention” that “was difficult to justify.”
“As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible,” wrote Ed Lazarus, an Obama administration appointee and avowed pro-choicer who clerked for the decision’s author, Justice Harry Blackmun. Read the rest: Tim Carney: Defense of abortion built on a foundation of lies | WashingtonExaminer.com.
This is a story that needs to be spread across this country and through the whole of the world. We have it fairly easy here in the U.S. and seldom are faced with the reality that women in other countries face. Sharmishtha Basu is the author of this story and if you have never visited her blog, please do take the time to check it out. If you truly want an insight into a part of the world that many of us here in the U.S. never see or even hear of, she will educate you. God bless!