A recent article published by Salon offers ten suggestions on how to argue abortion with pro-life relatives. This indicates that those in favour of abortion are having to become more creative in order to defend a position that is widely regarded as being morally reprehensible.
The article, entitled “How to Argue with Your Relatives About Abortion,” In her article, Shawna Kay Rodenberg presents a series of arguments that are ineffective in persuading pro-life individuals and offers suggestions for alternative approaches.
The recommendations set out by Rodenberg are presented in bold below, accompanied by my own commentary.
“First, acknowledge that abortion isn’t just a conservative Christian issue.”
It is noteworthy that those who advocate for the termination of pregnancies do not often demonstrate respect for pro-life beliefs. However, it is noteworthy that Rodenberg acknowledges the moral opposition to abortion espoused by numerous religious traditions, as evidenced by the following statement:
Even the Dalai Lama has said that abortion is an act of killing, but “it should be approved or disapproved according to each woman’s circumstances”. Pro-life policies are not exclusive to Christian traditions, so if you’re sitting across from Aunt Cheryl at the dinner table, pretend she’s a Buddhist so you’ll be more patient with her.
Then
“Don’t argue about semantics like “anti-abortion” versus “pro-life”.
“Remember that their news feed is not like yours.”
These recommendations are beneficial for all individuals. Nevertheless, Rodenberg’s subsequent recommendations attracted my attention because they acknowledge the humanity of the unborn child while in the womb of the mother.
“Never say that a foetus is not a baby or argue that it is not alive”.
One might inquire whether this is not one of the principal arguments advanced by those who advocate for the legality of abortion. The term ‘fetus’ is frequently dehumanised, with the individual in question being described as a ‘blob of tissue’, a ‘product of conception/POC’, a ‘non-sentient’ form of life, or even a ‘parasite’ attached to the unwilling ‘carrier’ (the pregnant woman). Notwithstanding, Rodenberg counsels readers to concede the humanity of the fetus.
Pro-life women are disgusted by the “vagina as magic portal” pro-choice argument, in which some dark magic takes place at birth that transforms a foetus into a person. Even if you maintain that independent breathing marks the beginning of life, many premature babies cannot breathe on their own, but we still call them babies, not fetuses. Acknowledge the humanity of the foetus.
The reality is that abortion results in the death of a preborn human being in the womb. This is a truth that even the most hardened abortionist is now admitting, as Live Action News has reported. This Salon writer’s instruction to readers suggests that the “my body, my choice” argument is becoming increasingly untenable, due to the influence of abortion victim imagery, sonograms, 4-D ultrasounds and successful fetal surgery (in conjunction with the rise of social media, which has highlighted the inherent flaws in the abortion debate).
This is even more evident in Rodenberg’s subsequent proposal.
“Do not argue that abortion gives a woman autonomy over her body.”
One must pause to reflect on this assertion. I had assumed that this constituted the entirety of the argument. Am I misunderstanding the argument? Did not the seven men on the Supreme Court who ruled in favour of Roe v. Wade somehow grant women a “right to privacy” to do what they wanted with their bodies, even if it resulted in the death of another human being? It would appear that Salon has conceded this argument.
In doing so, you infer that the woman’s body is the only one involved, and whether or not you believe that a foetus should have civil rights, we all have to admit that it does have a body, a tiny physical manifestation. To deny that it does is to ensure that you lose the argument.
I must admit that I was somewhat misled by the title of Rodenberg’s Salon article, which led me to believe that it would address the question of how to defend the pro-abortion position. However, the article in fact deals with the question of how to concede pro-life arguments. The article then proceeds to present a number of further points.
“Do not argue against adoption as a viable alternative.
“Don’t talk about exceptions in cases of rape.”
This suggestion is also perplexing in light of the fact that Roe was predicated on the falsehood that the woman in question, “Jane Roe” (Norma McCorvey), had been raped. It is also perplexing that whenever pro-life legislation is enacted, those in favour of abortion typically cite the so-called “hard cases” (rape, incest, and the life of the mother).
Despite the rhetoric to the contrary, numerous women have chosen to continue the pregnancy of their babies following the traumatic experience of rape. This decision is made despite the external pressure to abort. Furthermore, some women who did choose abortion after rape have attested to the ongoing victimisation that the abortion procedure itself inflicted upon them.
“Never claim that abortion is a single issue and that there are other issues of equal importance.”
In the opinion of Rodenberg, the underlying cause of this phenomenon can be attributed to the following factors:
They [pro-lifers] are consistent in their belief that all people, even the terminally ill, should live as long as God intends. Many argue, quite rightly, that legalising euthanasia would put undue pressure on the elderly, disabled and terminally ill, especially if they’re poor, to end their lives before they become a burden on their families.
However, there is no need for concern. The world has not undergone a radical transformation. It is evident that Salon is not being reasonable in its assessment of Rosenberg’s suggestions. In many instances, Rosenberg’s suggestions are laced with criticism of her opponents, with particular focus on the perceived concern of pro-lifers for the “sanctity of the white middle-class lives of men and children.”
Nevertheless, it is not those who support abortion who oppose its use as a tool for eugenic genocide against minorities. Rodenberg’s work fails to acknowledge the significant number of Black and Hispanic pro-life advocates and minority groups that oppose abortion and illuminate the historical roots of Planned Parenthood’s eugenic ideology.
Rodenberg even proposes that Planned Parenthood is the solution to abortion, rather than acknowledging that they are, in essence, an abortion Goliath. He suggests that the focus should be on emphasising the importance of pregnancy prevention.
Tell your Aunt Cheryl that the vibrant presence of many women’s health organisations, such as the leviathan that is Planned Parenthood, reduces the number of abortions that women seek. At least you’re acknowledging that abortion is not ideal, and she’ll appreciate that. Tell her that defunding Planned Parenthood has been shown to increase the number of abortions sought, especially by low-income women.
It is to be hoped that “Aunt Cheryl” will be able to discern the fallacies inherent in the rhetoric employed by Live Action, and that she will be aware of the video which breaks down Planned Parenthood’s self-reported corporate data. This reveals how abortion is the organisation’s core service and chief money-maker.
It is possible that “Aunt Cheryl” would respond that abortions at Planned Parenthood have increased, rather than decreased, as Rodenberg has suggested. Furthermore, it is likely that non-abortion services (STD testing, pap smears, etc.) have declined.
Rodenberg’s final proposal is particularly alarming. She attempts to justify the proposition that, in the event that a child is at risk of abuse, the child should instead be killed.
In the section titled “Unintended pregnancies carry risks for the child, too,” she writes:
Auntie Cheryl should also know that women who aren’t prepared or supported to care for children are statistically more likely to neglect and abuse those children after they are born. They are more likely to suffer from depression, less likely to bond, less likely to seek antenatal care and more likely to experience domestic violence during pregnancy. Their babies are more likely to die even if they are not aborted… In your Aunt Cheryl’s protected mind palace, every woman loves her baby. Remind her that this is not always the case, that not all women are cut out to be mothers.
The concept of a “sheltered mind palace” is worthy of further consideration. Contrary to what Ms. Rodenberg may believe, pro-lifers such as Aunt Cheryl are not living in a fantasy world. Rather, they believe that a child should not be killed simply because one person has decided that the child has no value.
In conclusion, Salon has undergone a complete reversal from a position of reasonableness to the standard pro-abortion mentality, which can be expressed as the assertion that “unwanted babies are better off dead!” Although Rodenberg acknowledged that the preborn in the womb is, in fact, a human being, she failed to draw the conclusion that the deliberate killing of that human being is unjustifiable murder.
Ultimately, if Salon’s readers attempted to implement Rodenberg’s recommendations, it is to be hoped that the fictitious, pro-life “Aunt Cheryl” would have the opportunity to demonstrate the futility of their actions.
Editor’s Note: This item was originally published in Live Action News and is being reposted here with the publisher’s permission.
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
