An anti-abortion argument crafted like a root canal

Yet another anti-abortion screed lacking in accuracy or civility:

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

As Morally Serious as Root Canal
by Mona Charen

“. . Debra Haffner, of the Religious Institute, wrote, “In more than 30 years of working with women struggling with the question of continuing a pregnancy to term or having an abortion, I can think of fewer than a handful who approached the decision lightly. Almost every woman wrestled with what would be best in her individual circumstances, and with what her faith taught her.”

This is fatuous moral reasoning…

Mona Charen

Mona Charen

We’ve heard it many times. Abortion is a an “agonizing personal choice.” Women struggle with the decision. Well, some doubtless do agonize, but, let’s face it, many do not. Feminist writer Naomi Wolf admitted in 2004 that, “I used to think of abortion as being somewhat trivial; the moral equivalent of serious root canal dentistry.”

OOPS. Definitely the wrong feminist and tract to single out. Let’s let Wolf continue:

“I had something of a conversion when I was pregnant in my mid-thirties with a baby we wanted. I found I could not square the enthusiasm my husband and I were expected to show for the wanted foetus in the adorable ultrasound — and the marvelling we were supposed to do at each stage of its development — with the casual attitude to an unwanted baby at the same stage that was the norm in debates about rights to abortion. Finally I was amazed to discover, when I actually listened to anti-abortion activists instead of demonising them, how much common ground both sides had.

A true feminist, I believe, sees women as being moral adults. She does not encourage women to sink to the fainting-couch and reach for the smelling salts when faced with the outcome of her decisions.”


That sounds like the real-life issue — and the people who face it first hand, at least to my ear. It’s not a trivial thing, and liberals are not trivial people. But, hey, never mind that old argument:

But, in any case, agony is irrelevant. If, before robbing a bank, the thief agonizes about the act, does that make the decision a moral one? Is it a “very personal choice” whether to libel someone? Shall we say that making insider trading illegal compromises people’s “moral autonomy”? These terms are designed to obscure the issue rather than clarify it.

You don’t even care! ALRIGHT, fine, you care too much. But your little feelings are irrelevant, you bleeding hearts — have America’s babies and STFU.

Share