How the Pro-Choice Mentality Exploits the Weak

Two recent articles illustrate the stark dichotomy between pro-choice and pro-life attitudes toward human life.

The first is a horrifying piece that appeared last week in The Telegraph:

“The unnamed girl was brought to the UK from Somalia with the intention of removing her organs and selling them on to those desperate for a transplant. According to the World Health Organisation as many as 7,000 kidneys are illegally obtained by traffickers each year around the world…

While there is a black market for organs such as hearts, lungs and livers, kidneys are the most sought after organs because one can be removed from a patient without any ill effects.

The process involves a number of people including the recruiter who identifies the victim, the person who arranges their transport, the medical professionals who perform the operation and the salesman who trades the organ.”

What does this have to do with abortion? Wintery Knight explains:

“Right now, we have a situation where a large number of people believe that it is OK to murder innocent unborn children so that their happiness in this world is not impacted by the needs of others. I believe that this pro-abortion position can easily be extrapolated to child-trafficking and organ-harvesting. After all, once you say that innocent unborn children can be murdered for your happiness, then what’s to prevent you from harvesting organs for less-innocent born children for your happiness? The logic of the pro-abortion view is “a grown person has more rights than an unborn person, because the grown person is bigger and stronger”. Well, a grown person is also bigger and stronger than a small born person. This is the pro-abortion view: bigger = “has more rights than”. It’s about exploiting weaker people who get in the way of your happiness.”

The second article is a great deal more hopeful. It tells the story of a woman who regretted her medically-induced abortion, and how her mother, boyfriend, priest, and doctor mobilized to reverse what was thought to be an irreversible decision.

“Nineteen years old and pregnant, Cynthia Galvan had an abortion pill in her mouth and turmoil in her soul. She was unmarried and felt unprepared for motherhood.

A medical abortion was the solution. The day before Galvan had ingested the first drug in the RU-486 regimen, mifepristone, intended to detach the embryo from the uterus. Now she was taking a misoprostol pill, which would cause her body to expel the baby.

Yet she doubted. Her mother was in tears over her decision, and a local pro-life doctor told Galvan over the phone he might be able to reverse the effects of the prior day’s pill.

A call to Planned Parenthood’s staff suggested the opposite: The baby was already dead, they assured her—or if not, it would be born with major birth defects. They warned that unless she took the second drug to expel the pregnancy now, she could experience severe pain.

Galvan spit the pill out, unsure who to believe.”

It goes on to describe how Dr. George Delgado successfully reversed the effects of RU-486 by administering intramuscular progesterone.

“Delgado’s theory was that by flooding Galvan’s body with progesterone, he could reverse any damage that might have occurred to her placenta…

The abortion drug Galvan had ingested, mifepristone, works by blocking natural progesterone. “When you don’t have the progesterone effect, the placenta and the embryo dies, and you have a medical abortion,” Delgado explains. In essence, mifepristone starves the baby of nutrition and oxygen.”

Delgado’s clinic has since set up a website and hotline. A report detailing 6 cases (4 of which were successful in reversing abortion) can be found in the Annals of Pharmacotherapy.

This also sets up the interesting question of whether or not organizations like Planned Parenthood will ever embrace this therapy as a legitimate choice for women who regret their medical abortions.

Advertisements

17 thoughts on “How the Pro-Choice Mentality Exploits the Weak

    • The girl was kidnapped from Somalia to have her organs harvested and sold in the UK. The customer, “doctors”, etc. were based in the UK, not Somalia.

    • So, she wasn’t given a choice then. How is that example supposed to demonstrate the case against pro-choice? Are you really suggesting this example is one that pro-choicers would support?

    • “Are you really suggesting this example is one that pro-choicers would support?”

      I’m suggesting that both types of abuse/exploitation stem from the same kind of mindset.

    • “I’m suggesting that both types of abuse/exploitation stem from the same kind of mindset.”

      Matt,

      An equally ridiculous point can be made against pro-life. The same kind of pro-life mindset would advocate the first example as being most beneficial in that one dismembered body is used to save many lives by the distribution of its organs.

      Of course this would be to misrepresent the point of pro-life just as you use the same example to misrepresent the point of pro-choice.

      Abortion is uniquely different in that the non-sentient cells that become a human are embodied within the woman. Only religious belief in souls and other unsupportable notions, mythical inventions about what constitutes valuable life attribute the same value to a single cell as to the woman carrying it.

      The first example you give is clearly neither pro-choice or pro-life, and your use of this example is so gross it brings your whole case into disrepute. I simply cannot fathom how any intelligent person would use that first example.

      The second example is an example of pro-choice in action. The girl exercised her choice. Any coercion she may have endured to have the abortion initially, or not to have it later, would have been anti-pro-choice. The second example does nothing for your case whatsoever.

      There’s a genuine place for argument with regard to the stage at which abortion is allowed that is unique in the matter of balancing human lives. The two examples you have chosen here grossly trivialise this argument.

    • “The same kind of pro-life mindset would advocate the first example as being most beneficial in that one dismembered body is used to save many lives by the distribution of its organs.”

      Can you expand on that further? That would be a *utilitarian* argument, but many pro-lifers (myself included) reject utilitarian ethics. See my previous post: https://wellspentjourney.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/bioethics-and-worldview/

      “Of course this would be to misrepresent the point of pro-life just as you use the same example to misrepresent the point of pro-choice.”

      How does Wintery Knight’s analysis misrepresent the pro-choice position, specifically?

      “Only religious belief in souls and other unsupportable notions, mythical inventions about what constitutes valuable life attribute the same value to a single cell as to the woman carrying it.”

      You have the burden of proof for establishing moral significance flipped completely backwards. Also, abortions typically don’t take place at the single-cell stage. Related: http://jwwartick.com/2013/07/29/epistemic-abortion/

      “The second example does nothing for your case whatsoever.”

      I think you’ve misunderstood the point I was making with the second example (highlighting and praising the work of pro-life individuals in saving a single life…not using the example, in itself, as evidence for the pro-life position).

    • “I’m suggesting that both types of abuse/exploitation stem from the same kind of mindset.”

      You’re a mind reader of pro-choicers? OK, I’ll mind read two. The first example is typical of a pro-life mindset. You clearly think that it is sensible to kill one young girls to save many lives from organ donations.

      No? Well, of course not. This shoddy reasoning is beneath you Matt.

  1. This is a ridiculous piece, bordering on the dishonest. The pro-choice position in these cases would be respecting the choice of the person being coerced here. In the first case clearly these children are not given a choice. In the second case the young girl had the choice to change her mind and that was supported.

    • “In the first case clearly these children are not given a choice.”

      Neither are children who are aborted. In both cases, an adult (driven by desperate circumstances) is trampling on the rights of children in order to look out for themselves. It’s about the powerful exploiting the powerless, in both cases.

    • If you want to use these children in some sort of analogy, then the first example would be analogous to a young girl being forced to be impregnated and forced to carry a baby to full term. It would be in complete opposition to pro-choice. How do you not get that?

      The second example is one of pro-choice. The young girl didn’t want the pregnancy, but then changed her mind. She was making the choice, in as much as you describe what actually happened.

    • “It would be in complete opposition to pro-choice. How do you not get that?”

      I think Wintery Knight’s quote speaks for itself here, frankly.

  2. “The pro-choice position in these cases would be respecting the choice of the person being coerced here. In the first case clearly these children are not given a choice.”

    Exactly. You state clearly why abortion is evil and why “pro-choice” really means no choice.

  3. Matt,

    What is your position on the case where a continued pregnancy would definitely threaten the woman’s life, but the foetus could not survive outside the womb, where continuing the pregnancy really is a choice between the woman and the foetus?

    • I’ve stated many times that I believe abortion should be legal in cases where the mother’s life is in danger.

    • But these cases are rarely that simple. This is the point I’ve been making, that it is not a simple ‘No abortion, under any circumstances’.

      How about a case where there is a high risk of harm to the mother, but the certainty would not be apparent until the foetus is several weeks old? If the pregnancy was an accident of failed contraception (i.e. not rape, no other reasons to avoid pregnancy other than the potential harm to the mother) it would seem far better to abort as soon as the pregnancy became apparent, and the sooner the better.

      Then, what about cases where the mother is suffering from some disorder that would really make pregnancy very difficult for her but not life threatening – say if the mother suffered severe depression.

      There are many varied scenarios we could consider. A mother that decides she doesn’t want the baby after it has been born does not have a good reason to kill the baby. A mother that wants emergency contraception to prevent the fertilized egg attaching, or to dislodge it within days of conception is fine. In between we have a whole range of scenarios where there is a balance between the stage of development and the well-being or even whim of the mother. It’s complicated, and each case must be examined separately, but we also need broad legal guidelines within which doctors and mothers can know they can act legally, and when the can’t. This is the problem – defining the conditions for legal abortion. It is bound not to suit everyone, but we must face this problem and not over-simplify it with a simplistic pro-life agenda. And we should not entertain a simplistic pro-choice agenda either.

  4. ““Right now, we have a situation where a large number of people believe that it is OK to murder innocent unborn children so that their happiness in this world is not impacted by the needs of others. I believe that this pro-abortion position can easily be extrapolated to child-trafficking and organ-harvesting. After all, once you say that innocent unborn children can be murdered for your happiness, then what’s to prevent you from harvesting organs for less-innocent born children for your happiness? ”

    People who are pro-choice will say that embryos lack consciousness so that killing them is like cutting a tree.

    I explain here http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/2013/08/11/on-the-feeling-of-a-lonesome-bat-von-den-gefuhlen-eines-einsamen-fledermauses-des-sentiments-dune-chauve-souris-solitaire/ why I think that the problem of consciousness is much problem than many folks think.

Comments are closed.