The pro-abortion behemoth, a seemingly untouchable, invincible juggernaut, is founded upon intellectual quicksand. The case for abortion is based upon two relatively simple lies which are increasingly being called into question by both scientific advances and recent events. The first lie is that the child in the womb is not a separate human being with its own identity. This is the intellectual argument for abortion: the “head” of the abortion movement, so to speak. The second lie is twofold: 1) pro-life men and women do not care for pregnant women and 2) women cannot escape desperate circumstances without abortion. This is the “heart” of abortion: emotional blackmail that many “pro-choice” advocates use to justify child murder.
The first claim was never credible, at least from any rational standpoint. The claim that the child in the womb is somehow not its own human entity has always been farcical (if not human, what exactly is a fetus?) Scientific advances such as 4-D ultrasound underscore the reality that the fetuses are indeed human, and medical advances make fetal viability ex utero possible at earlier and earlier ages. Accordingly, some within the pro-abortion movement have now switched tactics, arguing that even if a fetus is human life, some lives are worth destroying for the sake of the greater goods of “women’s health” or (more accurately) sexual emancipation.
This is horrifying but refreshing honesty from the pro-abortion camp. The assumption that abortions undertaken for the “health” of the mother are indeed more healthy is flawed, considering that “health” roughly translates to convenience. But the sad truth is that there are many who do not care about destroying human life for the sake of some perceived good. Catholic blogger Amy Welborn gives a brilliant exposition of this view which has been used throughout history to justify bloodshed for the sake of some supposed good.
As hardcore advocates of the pro-abortion movement begin to cast aside the thinning mask that they are not killing human life, less committed supporters of abortion may well be appalled at their callousness, but still support abortion by taking refuge in the argument that abortion is necessary to help mothers left in dire circumstances. This line of argument is untenable, considering the point that horrific case of Kermit Gosnell is only the tip of the iceberg of abortion clinics providing substandard “care” for their customers.
However, there is a certain element of truth in the second claim: there are certain members of the pro-life movement who care more for inducing stigma among pregnant women in need than actually assisting such women. Many women who choose abortion do so because they feel like they have no choice. Indeed, the irony at the root of the pro-abortion movement is that the pro-choice community is dependent on those who feel as if they have no choice but to abort.
Of course, this does not discount the fact that the pro-abortion movement has lied through its teeth about “pro-lifers not helping women.” As a whole, the pro-life community has proven more than willing to assist women in need, if given the opportunity. Even repentant abortion providers are offered assistance by the pro-life community. However, the pro-life movement is notoriously terrible about advertising the help it is willing to give; the noise machine which blares the “war on women” lie drowns out the silent support pro-lifers give to those in need.
The head of the pro-abortion argument was killed a long time ago, and the pro-abortion community is now running around like a chicken without its head cut off, arguing against even the most minor restrictions to abortion. But people are rarely reachable through the intellect alone, and the corpse of the cause of death still kicks for the blood of the unborn. Pro-lifers must learn to aim for the heart of abortion by caring for pregnant women who need assistance, making this willingness to assist women in need known to the general public: the pro-abortion movement will then wither.