Abortion is Not Health Care

June 10, 2014   Abortion

The pro-abortion mind in action: abortion=healthcare

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on pinterest_shareMore Sharing Services3

By Dave Andrusko
Other than pro-lifers passing protective legislation, perhaps nothing angers pro-abortionists more than anyone (regardless of their position on abortion) making the commonsense distinction between abortion and women’s healthcare. To non-abortion ideologues, obviously they are separate issues. But to abortion advocates they are inseparable, two sides of the same coin, inseparable; indeed one without the other is close to pointless!

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has run away from the abortion issue. He has often insisted he won’t “reopen” the issue.

But as Rebecca Oas wrote last week in “Canada Leaves Abortion out of International Aid,” when Harper rightly insisted his nation’s “ambitious multi-billion-dollar international plan to help mothers and newborns “ not include funding for abortion, pro-abortionists were incensed.
Why did Harper do what he did? He told the Globe and Mail, “What we have been trying to do since 2010 is build broad public and international consensus for saving the lives of mothers and babies,” adding, “You cannot do that if you introduce that other issue.”

As Oas explained

“Harper’s reluctance to refer to ‘that other issue’ by name reflects the stigma around abortion worldwide, including in Canada, which has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world. It is because of this stigma that abortion advocacy groups have made great efforts to fit themselves into the broad maternal health umbrella – and why they protest so strongly at being evicted from beneath it.”

So it was utterly predictable that Erin Matson, an Editor at Large for the pro-abortion website RHRealityCheck.org, would bash philanthropist Melinda Gates for reiterating that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation also would not fund abortion.

Matson’s post meanders hither and you, hyperventilating about this and that, usually various and sundry pro-life and/or conservative interests or individuals she abhors. And then she suddenly finds someone who she says identifies as pro-life who agrees with her, which is “just one example of the kind of person-to-person conversations taking place every day that reveal the abortion debate is not and need not be considered inherently toxic.”

(Of course, had she re-read the beginning of the post, or most of what follows she might recognize that she demonizes pro-lifers in no uncertain terms.)

Indeed, her other main takeaway from her conversation with this gentleman is “that both sides have a tendency to write off the other side’s views and dismiss entirely the people holding them”—exactly what she does with any pro-lifer who disagrees with her. Oh, well.

Anyway, we are to believe that Matson has found people who you wouldn’t expect to agree with her who do. Even assuming this is true, why the need to find one or two people—or anyone?
Because it is to further the crux of her post:

“So if we really want constitutional equality, equality in pay and parity in leadership, and an end to violence against women, we do need to acknowledge that the various and far more numerous goals of empowering women will truly work only when women are able to exercise meaningful control over their own lives—including, and especially, their reproductive lives.”

Their point, I hope, is clear. You cannot be neutral on abortion (let alone be opposed) and be a believer in empowering women, or in women’s equality, or, in Matson’s more expansive idiom, in women exercising “meaningful control” over their lives. By this bizarre logic to oppose abortion is to be favor of (or at least not be opposed to) violence against women!

She then clobbers another organization which won’t take a pro-abortion stance, which takes her (and us) back to Gates, and to Prime Minister Harper, for that matter.
Pro-lifers would say two things in response. First, we believe passionately in the equality of all human life—male and female, born and unborn. We have convincingly made the case that opposing abortion makes far more sense in improving women’s health, as we have written about many times in this space.

Second, if they can’t see the wisdom of opposing abortion to promote the health of women, at the very least, nations and philanthropic organizations ought not to fund the abortion juggernaut. By the way, is it any surprise that the offspring of the marriage of technology and the “vision” of various foundations dedicated to population control (including by coercion) is sex-selection abortion? Not at all.

I don’t know Melinda Gates’ views on abortion. I do know that it was wise of her and her husband’s foundation not to let the pro-abortionists’ obsession with promoting abortion carry the day.

Source: NRLC News