Mary Beth Williams2

“A life worth sacrificing”: Salon blogger admits abortion ends life

Mary Beth Williams
Mary Beth Williams.

Many pro-aborts try to flip the label of pro-life on us, calling us anti-abortion or anti-choice. They don’t want the reminder out there that abortion is ending a life. But one pro-abortion blogger at Salon, Mary Elizabeth Williams, is going a different route. She readily admits that abortion ends a life… and that’s A-OK.

Her response to the question of abortion ending a life? So what?

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 try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: first trimester abortion vs. second trimester vs. late term, dancing around the issue trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person. Are you human only when you’re born? Only when you’re viable outside of the womb? Are you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on your thumb?

… My belief that life begins at conception is mine to cling to. And if you believe that it begins at birth, or somewhere around the second trimester, or when the kid finally goes to college, that’s a conversation we can have, one that I hope would be respectful and empathetic and fearless. We can’t have it if those of us who believe that human life exists in utero are afraid we’re somehow going to flub it for the cause. In an Op-Ed on “Why I’m Pro-Choice” in the Michigan Daily this week, Emma Maniere stated, quite perfectly, that “Some argue that abortion takes lives, but I know that abortion saves lives, too.” She understands that it saves lives not just in the most medically literal way, but in the roads that women who have choice then get to go down, in the possibilities for them and for their families. And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.

A life worth sacrificing. An unborn baby is indeed a life…a life which matters only if the mother finds it convenient. If the mother finds the pregnancy inconvenient, then it’s no big deal at all to end that life.

And she calls pro-lifers diabolical.

Of course, there’s something she’s getting wrong. Abortion isn’t sacrificing a life. Sacrificing a life requires willingness, for someone to stand up and say, Yes, I am willing to die for you. A mother absolutely can make a sacrifice to save the life of her unborn child – Chiara Corbella is a heart-breaking example – but an unborn child cannot be “sacrificed” for his or her mother. An unborn baby does not have a say in the decision to have an abortion; an unborn baby does not choose to die. Abortion is not a sacrifice. It’s murder. Let’s get that straight.

While Williams claims she does not want to come across as a “death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm trooper,” that’s exactly what she’s done. Some lives are worth more than others? Said every eugenicist, totalitarian dictator, and murderer who’s ever existed. That is the mindset that says it’s acceptable for parents to euthanize their disabled children, or that the elderly can be killed without their consent. By this same logic, infanticide should be completely acceptable as well. Heck, a mother should be allowed to kill her ten-year-old, too, if the mother decides that that child’s life is worth sacrificing.

It would be interesting to know who exactly gets to decide which lives are worthy to continue living, and which are not, since according to Williams, some lives are worth more than others. Are the disabled worthy of living? The elderly? The poor? Who decides? If not all humans are worthy of life, then who decides which get to live and which are sentenced to die?

I also want to point out the inherent narcissism of Williams’s argument. Not only is it acceptable to kill your unborn child merely out of inconvenience, but to Williams, it’s something worth sacrificing. How self-absorbed and narcissistic must you be to see the murder of your child as a noble, worthy sacrifice? It’s as if she thinks the baby would willingly agree to be slaughtered so Mommy doesn’t have to deal with the hassle of having a baby. That takes a seriously warped mind.

Pro-aborts will surely be cursing this article for drawing back the curtain and exposing the grisly truth about abortion. It doesn’t actually matter what people say regarding whether the unborn baby is a human life. Science has already established that it is. The question is whether or not women should have the right to take that life. And while abortion activists usually try to avoid the truth, Williams has brought it, like maggots festering underneath a rock, unflinchingly to the light for all to see.

  • “Pro-aborts will surely be cursing this article for drawing back the curtain and exposing the grisly truth about abortion”

    I won’t be cursing it. I recognize it as close to my own position: that abortion policies are a difficult moral trade-off; you are either subordinating the woman to the fetus or you are subordinating the fetus to the woman. Ms. Williams gives some privilege to the party that’s actually sentient.

    And, I must say, it’s duplicitous that a large portion of the pro-life campaign revolves around convincing pro-choicers (and the populace at-large) that the zygote represents a life form, but when pro-choicers actually pop up and agree they’re predictably met with just a new flavor of scorn.

    • Fedupalready

      It’s not a new form of “scorn!” Pro-lifers are always against abortion killing innocent lives, and that message is continued here. It only seems new because you are no longer denying the facts. Another disturbing thing is all of this is avoidable through birth control use and adoption. Neither life has to be “sacrificed” if only the culture would change and encourage prevention and the social acceptability of adoption over abortion. Image a world of responsible adults who avoid this situation to begin with, then there would be no debate or “scorn” to be had. That is what pro-lifers strive for, not the evil, women hating radicals that you people see us as.

      • Basset_Hound

        All of this would also be avoidable if women exercised self restraint and self control over their sex lives, by getting married and staying faithful. Even the most effective birth control fails.

        • Sorites Paradox

          And married women have abortions, too.

          • Basset_Hound

            So???? Married women can choose abortion for a lot of different reasons. Married women make selfish choices to sacrifice their own children to preserve their lifestyle. Married women can use abortion to conceal an affair. Married women can also be scared into abortions by doctors who paint an excessively grim prognosis if a disability such as Down’s Syndrome is diagnosed prenatally. Married women can be threatened by a husband who says “If you have this baby, I’m gone. You decide”. There are many others. That doesn’t mean that the choice of abortion is an acceptable alternative.

          • Sorites Paradox

            Sooooo???……… I responded directly to your nonsensical point that “All
            of this would also be avoidable if women married… and
            stay[ed]faithful.” You know our point was nonsensical, as you
            demonstrated in your second post. Your desire to make sure women only have sex within marriage will not solve the abortion problem.

          • Basset_Hound

            So????? My point was…”You either make a decision to account for the interests of the child (by protecting his life) or you can be selfish. That would solve the “abortion problem” for 99% of the cases. And yes, reserving sex for the commitment of marriage would solve the “abortion problem for a fair portion of that 99%.

        • forever29

          How true, but what you are saying, at least by implication, is that sexual promiscuity – the sexual revolution, so valiantly championed – is not so good a thing after all. That, however, is the last thin on earth our modern culture wants to hear. We have established sex as an unalienable right on a higher plane than human life.

    • Calvin Freiburger

      “that abortion policies are a difficult moral trade-off”

      First, I find that admission curious, since none of your past flippancy, simplistic arguments, or disrespect for the pro-life position have left the impression of any nuance or downside to the “right to choose.”

      Second, it’s not actually that difficult, even for those who don’t come from a natural-rights or sanctity-of-life starting point:
      – Did the woman create the undesirable situation, or did the baby?
      – Does either set of circumstances entailed by forbidding abortion — delaying sex or enduring 9 months of pregnancy — come even close to what abortion demands of the baby?

      “Ms. Williams gives some privilege to the subject that’s actually sentient.”

      This is where I’d usually point out that “sentience makes the difference” isn’t a self-evident proof for abortion, but in this case, I don’t even need to go that far. Williams calls on pro-aborts to do away with “stupid semantic lines” like trimester and viability. Which means she thinks killing a sentient fetus is just as legit as killing one that isn’t. How does that change the “trade-off”?

      “you’re simply privileging a different party.”

      *sigh* Too many of these conversations come back to your refusal to grapple with the concept of natural rights. The basic right to life is no “privilege.” It’s part of a consistent framework that applies equally to all human beings, and it’s something that everyone currently enjoys the protection of – except those developing in the womb. To see the most basic and elemental of human rights as a mere “privilege” illuminates your broader misunderstanding/disregard for the concept of liberty and the rights of human being.

      “it’s duplicitous that…”

      Not at all. Most of the debate revolves around educating people about what the unborn are because to people with functioning moral intuitions, that’s all that needs to be determined. We rightly operate on the premise that human beings in general, and our innocent young in particular, intrinsically deserve basic protections, and that only a monster would disagree. The growing flavor of pro-abort that admits what they’re killing but wants to be able to kill it anyway is a brand-new level of depravity that deserves all the scorn it gets.

      That’s why, rather than being mortified, I think articles like Williams’ are a wonderful development: the more honest pro-aborts are about their position, the more horrifying they’ll sound to normal people.

      • I’m just going to point out two things, Calvin. (1) I’ve been remarkably consistent about what I see as the “subordination” problem in the abortion equation. If you’ve missed that, than you really do skip right over my posts in your zeal to dismiss me as just an insufferable snot. (2) I think Williams’ viewpoint is a good development, too. Because when we all agree that abortions end a life, and the popular consensus still gravitates to keeping the practice legal, your movement will be left with some very hard questions about the efficacy self-righteousness as an organizing principle.

        • Calvin Freiburger

          It’s not “zeal to dismiss” you as an insufferable snot; comments like your latest make you all but impossible not to be seen as one.

          Regarding (1): being “consistent” about something isn’t the same as being correct or rational about it, nor does it paper over your abject inability to argue for the merits of that position or refute objections to it. You are, however, strikingly adept in your ability to out-gall yourself every time: it’s impossible to read my reply as “skipping over” much of anything, but describing it as such WHILE ignoring the myriad objections to your own argument that I raised in the very comment you’re responding to? “Insufferable snot” seems like a good fit.

          Regarding (2): Proving my point further still, you’re AGAIN showing how little you have to offer the field of serious abortion discussion. All you can give us is a return to your favorite intellectually- and morally-bankrupt crutch, appeal to popularity (even though you know we’ve discredited it in the past), and banal (and hypocritical) sneering about “self-righteousness.”

          It seems you’re the one left with some “very hard questions,” namely why you cling to a position you can’t defend and seem bizarrely uninterested in even thinking about critically.

          • You don’t like the argument so you declare it without “merits”. That’s pretty much the definition of lazy dismissal.

            Regardless, my appeal isn’t to “popularity”. It’s an appeal to how things work in a pluralistic society. If, in the end, the policy doesn’t budge and even pro-choice advocates acknowledge that abortion ends life but it’s cemented as public policy anyway, and you’re left holding on to a specialized moral indignation that the rest of the society can respect but won’t follow, what are you left with if not a kind of “self-righteousness”?

          • Calvin Freiburger

            “You don’t like the argument so you declare it without ‘merits’. That’s pretty much the definition of lazy dismissal.”

            If you think anyone you’re trying to win over is dense enough to consider this an accurate summary of our exchanges, good luck. Me, I’m confident your evasions will be too obvious to ignore.

            “It’s an appeal to how things work in a pluralistic society.”

            Don’t play dumb by clinging to your asinine non-sequiturs. “How things work in a pluralistic society” isn’t in dispute. I’m tired of explaining to you how rational human communication and mature political discussion work. You know full well that a conversation predicting how things WILL turn out doesn’t say a damn thing about how things SHOULD turn out, and that all the people in the world could agree with you, and it wouldn’t be the same thing as being correct. The simple truth is that you debate the issue like crap, and this is the only way you know how to compensate for that.

            “what are you left with if not a kind of ‘self-righteousness’?”

            Your faith that that’s how it’ll all end is unfounded, but I’ll bite: I’ll be left with the knowledge that I’m not child-murdering scum. Call it what you want. I’ll know what it really is.

          • NGOWorker

            How did you become a moderator calling people names like this? Very confusing.

          • SohnMan

            Ms. Spider stated: “If you’ve missed that, than you really do skip right over my posts in your zeal to dismiss me as just an insufferable snot.” To which Calvin responded, “It’s not “zeal to dismiss” you as an insufferable snot; comments like
            your latest make you all but impossible not to be seen as one.” Clearly he was not calling her a snot, but implying that she brought that onus upon herself with her snotty comment. I see nothing wrong with this whatsoever.

  • Basset_Hound

    Here’s a suggestion for a bumper sticker for Mary Beth Williams’ car…

    “I’d kill for an orgasm…in fact I already did. My pleasure trumps a child’s life”

  • Jenney

    What she is describing by her own admission is child sacrifice.

  • Jenney

    Hey you know what? Grandma is getting to be more trouble than she’s worth. and I have other plans. So since she’s almost dead anyway what say we do what’s most convenient for me?

    • Basset_Hound

      Especially if the old bat stands between me and an inheritance. Everybody likes free money.

  • Flip the label on them – start calling them “pro-death.”

  • Ashley

    I am about to throw up and in tears right now. How could anyone think like that about a precious baby?

    • JMM

      People can rationalize anything. In peoples’ heart of hearts, they know that being human is a sacred thing. So the only way to gain power over other humans who are in the way of their goals and plans, but keep their consciences quiet, is to dehumanize them. This is how we get slavery, holocausts, genocide, etc. Someone who believes they (and their group) are intellectually, morally or fundamentally superior decides for some arbitrary reason that another human isn’t as human as they are, so they should have power over them–even to the point of death. At first the rationalization is uncomfortable, but it gets easier, especially once people start jumping on the bandwagon to rationalize with them, and make them feel that they’re not only right, but actually fighting for something good. Their consciences become quieter and quieter even as their voices become louder and louder. Eventually, the truth comes out. People who still have a conscience and still want to do right will change their hearts and minds when faced with the truth. But people who are too prideful, stubborn, or foolish to change their hearts and minds just dive deeper into the lie, and defend it more vehemently, no matter how ridiculous it sounds Unfortunately, people who can’t face the truth and lie constantly–even if it’s only to themselves–don’t recognize the truth anymore when they see it. So when faced with the reality of what they’re doing–or condoning–they just build a bigger rationalization, without a thought, because their conscience has gone quiet, while someone whose conscience is still intact looks on horrified. It’s like the people on Hoarders, walking around in filth as though it’s normal, because they have become desensitized to the truth of their situation and what caused it, while someone else only sees horrifying mountains of garbage. The human heart is desperately wicked, and capable of making wrong seem and feel right, even if it’s killing children, Child sacrifice has happened for centuries, so for centuries different cultures have managed to convince themselves that it was not only right but necessary and good. Without God, people will do whatever seems right to them, and they can close off their conscience enough to make anything seem and feel right to them. That’s the truly scary thing about human nature.

      • Chris Turner


      • David S.

        That was a fantastic comment. Amen.

  • True selfishness.

  • Dave

    I will keep thins in mind if i ever decide to go postal. Officer i know that killed the man but he was inconveniencing me.