Analysis

Abortion: free, on demand, without restriction, says pro-abortion writer

abortion-on-demand-without-apology

Even those who are pro-choice usually say abortion is a regrettable decision or that abortion should be rare. In fact, the latter was a line President Obama uttered often on the campaign trail.

In reality, pro-choicers are revealing themselves as pro-abortion. This is the case with a column by Laurie Penny in the British online publication New Statesman this week. The pro-abortion piece, titled, “Abortion should be free, safe and legal – for everyone,” is a glimpse at the deception of abortion.

The column springboards from the story of Emily Letts, who says she filmed her own abortion to erase the stigma of the act. Penny says that when Letts says, “I feel good,” Letts is “shattering generations of anxiety and fear-mongering around reproductive choice with three simple words.”

In fact, the “heroism” of Letts for portraying a positive abortion is evidence that the “pro-choice” mindset is actually pro-abortion. Penny’s comments reveal this at length. However, she is ill-informed. She says:

Abortion can be a difficult, painful decision – if, for example, you would quite like to have a baby but are in no position to support one because ‘single mother’ is still a synonym for ‘poor and shunned’ and pregnancy discrimination is rampant in this treacherous post-crash job market. But abortion can also be a simple decision. It does not have to involve years of regret or, as Emily Letts bravely demonstrated, any regret at all.

With these arrogant and judgmental statements, Penny stereotypes single mothers far more than society does, making them victims in her pro-abortion argument. She also shows her ignorance of real choice, which would allow for adoption. Penny’s argument is that a woman either keep the baby or kill him — and if she kills, by golly, it should be free, because every woman who “needs” an abortion should have one.

Abortion should be available on demand, without restrictions, for everyone who needs it. I believe that while society still places limits on what a woman may or may not do with her own body, while women’s sexuality and reproduction are still in effect controlled by the state, any discussion of equality or empowerment is a joke. Nobody should have to play the frightened victim to make basic choices about her future.

Yes, she really did just say that a woman’s “choice” about her body should be paid for by you and me. There are no medical procedures in existence that are automatically paid for because of real need. Ask a cancer patient how much he wants his chemotherapy paid for by others. What a load off of true suffering, not to have to worry about a bill of many thousands of dollars! And here some woman sits behind a screen and demands baby-killing as the lone medical procedure that no woman should ever worry about paying, since she might “need” this facsimile of medical care. The statement is arrogant at best.

It’s frightening, too. Her entire argument revolves around controlling other people in the name of choice. To pro-lifers she says:

Many people have religious or personal reasons for disapproving of abortion and they are free, as they always have been, not to have one themselves. Yet it’s time to change the terms of the debate. It’s time to demand reproductive rights for everyone – without apology.

In short, if Penny wants an abortion, we should pay for it, and our  only real“choice” is to not have an abortion ourselves. That’s it. We have no other choices in her mind, because abortion is a good thing. She says:

The idea that abortion might be a positive choice is still taboo. For some, the only way it can be countenanced is if the pregnancy is an immediate threat to life or the result of rape – meaning that the woman involved didn’t want to have sex and as such does not deserve to be punished for the crime of acting on desire as a female. Even then, the person having the abortion is expected to be sorry for ever, to weep and agonise over the decision. In Britain, the Abortion Act 1967 obliges anyone seeking a termination to justify why continuing with a pregnancy poses a threat to her health and well-being or that of her existing offspring. “Because I don’t want to be pregnant” simply isn’t enough.

Penny’s lack of compassion for the many women who have had abortions and lived to regret them is evident as she preaches her mantra of free abortions for all. The idea is so repulsive in its premise that we must wonder if this woman has any concept of the real pain some women endure. Time and again, women admit that even though they chose abortion, it was a decision that haunted and hurt them.

Penny’s piece dehumanizes women, insults women, and alienates everyone but the exclusive abortion club she is trying to promote with her propaganda.

READ NEXT
Comments4
To Top