Danielle Campoamor, writing in CNN’s Opinion section, is an outspoken abortion advocate, basing many of her positions on her own life choices. Crediting an abortion with her current status in life: a career, a fulfilling relationship, a wanted child with another babe on the way. Not mentioned, obviously, is the black spot on her soul she keeps polishing with lies.
But I have these things because of the abortion I was legally, safely and affordably able to procure at age 23. To advocate for restricted access, to ban abortion services before women even know they are pregnant or to destroy access entirely is to endorse the unnecessary deaths of women across a country that claims to value all life.
M’kay, so let me state the position of anti-abortion advocates. People like me are opposed to abortion because abortion is the ending of a pregnancy. Where pregnancy is defined as a mother’s body nurturing the body of her unborn child. Where the deliberate ending of that nurturing of that unborn child results in that child’s death. Ergo, abortion equals an unborn child’s death. And since it’s a premeditated act, we say abortion is murder.
So we’re clear.
When Danielle decries pro-life advocates for denying access to abortion, I say “We’re denying a woman’s methods of murdering her unborn baby.” Pardon me if I’m not shedding tears over holding such a position.
I wasn’t subjected to mandatory waiting periods, forced counseling or an abortion provider required to regurgitate state-mandated, inaccurate information…. Instead, I went in pregnant and, a few hours later, came out with my future back in my control.
No, she never defines “inaccurate information” but based on the rest of her screed, I’m going to assume “Inaccurate information” includes things like an ultrasound, fetal facts like when the baby gets the hiccups, when it develops toes, fingernails and a sense of irony. Thank God Danielle was spared all that when she went in to snuff her babe. Nothing worse than hearing facts about the humanity of your child when you want to suck that little child out of your womb. Am I right?
…And since that day in 2010 I have watched in anger as the constitutionally protected right to an abortion has been attacked and trampled across the country.
There’s a constitutional right to abortion like there’s a constitutional right to a Friday night Netflix binge. A constitutional right to an all you can eat bacon buffet. A constitutional right to judgement free pedicures. Which is to say there isn’t one. Nowhere in the constitution does it say “A woman’s right to dismember her baby, so she can live as she wishes, shall not be infringed.”
We won’t tell her about that pesky line in the Declaration which says people have a right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
But enough about the lead up. Here’s the thrust of Danielle’s piece:
It is inherently violent to call for the demolition of Roe v. Wade, and wish to return to a time when abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women in the United States.
There it is. People who oppose child murder are murdering women. Ergo people who oppose child murder hate women and want them to die.
Clever trickery. Danielle links to a Guttmacher article without listing the date she’s referring to. In 1930, almost 2,700 women in the United States died of an illegal abortion. 1930. Forty years before abortion was legal. The same Guttmacher article attributes the use of antibiotics in the 1940s to a huge decline in deaths from abortion. Of the mother, not the baby. LOL at you for thinking we’re talking about babies!
Here’s the rest from Guttmacher: “The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year.” Leading me to believe that all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth also declined. But our author skips that and goes directly to the percentage itself.
By 1965, according to the Guttmacher Institute, 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth were the result of illegal abortions, and those were the deaths officials reported; the actual number of lives lost is undeniably much higher.
Context. Who needs it? It’s as frivolous as the latest stats on how early we can detect brainwaves in an unborn child. Just tediousness meant to detract from a woman’s mission to kill her own baby. Also note that while still ILLEGAL, abortion deaths declined to under 200 cases in the United States. So that whole “women were just cutting themselves to bits in illegal back alley abortions!” tripe is just that.
Another problem, to get higher numbers, Ms. Campoamor goes global, roping in plenty of other third world countries to guilt you into supporting unborn child slaughter. If she can be hyperbolic, I can be accurate.
Worldwide, an estimated 68,000 women die of unsafe abortions each year, according to an obstetrics and gynecology study, and 5 million will suffer long-term health complications if they survive. Yet if successfully implemented, the beliefs of people such as Williamson and Johnson and many other anti-abortion advocates would result in a nation of back alleys and contorted clothes hangers.
Okay, as already stated, the “back alley” and clothes hangers talking point is mostly that. Illegal abortions largely take place in the same kinds of office setups as legal ones. The image of a woman retooling her coat hanger to hook a fetus by the neck like someone who’s taken too long to accept their Oscar, is false.
Secondly, let’s not pretend modern facilities for killing babies are vacuum-sealed, sanitation wet dreams. They’re not. Many abortion facilities are subpar on basic cleanliness. And sometimes clinics want to be excluded from mandatory inspections.
Also, let’s pretend for a second a woman was rummaging through her closet for a wire hanger. Let’s pretend this lady found a wire hanger. Let’s pretend she bent it in such a way as to somehow fit it up her vagina, up into the cervix, to the womb. Let’s pretend she then used the wire hanger to hack at and scrape the contents of her uterus. Picture her doing this all by herself. If it seems too extreme, picture a friend helping her.
Do you think that woman needs a “safe abortion” or a psychiatrist? A woman who’s going to shove a sharp instrument up into her lady parts needs a doctor, all right. But a head doctor.
But women like Danielle want us to believe access to child disposal services is a woman’s best bet to sanity.
Instead of being a beacon of freedom that celebrates complete bodily autonomy, anti-abortion advocates would see the United States go the way of El Salvador: a total ban on abortion, and the demonization — even imprisonment — of any woman whose pregnancy doesn’t result in the birth of a healthy newborn.
See, and then she just runs to the “Draw your own conclusion” mat. What pro-life people want is a nation which celebrates you doing whatever the heck you want with your own body (really, we don’t care what you ultimately do, but that doesn’t mean we can’t mock), but we have issues when there’s a second, separate body (an unborn child) who enters the equation. Just as you can’t kill your born child, so you can’t kill your unborn child without ruffling the feathers of people who think murder is a no-no. We want the imprisonment or punishment of the person who’s using the tools. The abortionist. If abortion ever becomes illegal again, the person who’d be imprisoned for murder is the person who murdered the child: the one wielding the sharp object of choice.
But Danielle wants to draw strawmen, say that pro-life people hate women and want them pregnant. And only those women who deliver healthy babies get freedom. Not so. This is not the Handmaid’s Tale. What Americans such as myself want is a world where babies are given their right to life. That requires a total ban on murdering them. Inside the womb, outside the womb.
Until that time, many of us will continue to speak out against people who murder their babies. Sorry if “You shouldn’t murder your kid” is “demonizing” but a born person’s feelings aren’t as important as an unborn child’s life.
~ Written by Courtney Kirchoff