When abortion is illegal, the lines of “pro-life” become blurry

I will never understand how people who identify as pro-life can support legislation that denies abortions at all costs, even if the mother will die and that means the baby will die, too — what insane logic decries one life lost, and supports two lives lost?

In Nicaragua, a woman is being refused cancer treatment because she is 10 weeks pregnant, and going through the treatment would necessitate an abortion. This is treatment that could save the woman’s life, and allow her to keep being a mother to her 10-year-old daughter. The Nicaraguan government used to OK abortions when the mother’s health is in danger, but now they don’t.

And somehow, it makes sense to let this woman die without treatment, inherently and willfully killing her unborn child and leaving her 10-year-old daughter motherless, instead of providing an abortion and treatment which would inherently and willfully kill her unborn child, but keep her alive and able to care for her daughter. Seems like this unborn fetus will die either way, and the government is fine with consciously letting the mother die just to prove a point.

The Pro-life camp is skeptical of this story, either questioning that “Amelia” (a pseudonym) exists or saying she is being exploited and doesn’t really need the abortion. My favorite viewpoint comes from LifeSiteNews.com:

Flores Vigil did not explain how “chemotherapy” would involve “radiation,” nor why an abortion, which would utterly destroy the child, would be necessary merely to prevent “damage” to the same child.

I understand that the story could seem sketchy, considering little information is being provided about the woman and her specific medical condition. But, I think the quotes in the above sentence prove that the skepticism here comes from a fundamental belief that all science is not to be trusted, because radiation is “damaging” in the sense that those crazy scientists are tricking us into thinking radiation is bad just so they can kill babies.

Also, these sites want to convey that pro-choice groups are calling for legalizing abortion, using this case in an exploitative way to get their agenda passed. Except that this isn’t even a case of legalizing all abortion, but at least allowing women who will die if their baby’s life is deemed more valuable and worth attempting to save. For example, the Catholic News Agency is trying to make it look like there is no correlation between abortion and saving the mother’s life because abortion is not a cure for cancer:

“Is it a coincidence that all of the main players surrounding ‘Amelia’ all agree on the same point: ‘an abortion will save the life of the mother?’ … You’d have to be pretty naïve or have a serious case of amnesia to think that,” Polo stated.

This perspective  — focusing on how an abortion is killing the baby rather than saving the mother — is why women who could live with proper medical treatment end up dying because their unborn children’s lives are given priority.

I understand why people are pro-life. I don’t understand why people who are pro-life think they should decide who lives and who dies when a pregnancy could either directly or indirectly lead to a woman’s death. I don’t understand why people who are pro-life think that risking the mother’s life is OK, even if the result is a dead mother and either a dead child or a child with serious health problems and no mother to take care of him/her.


Tags: , , ,

One Response to “When abortion is illegal, the lines of “pro-life” become blurry”

  1. William Thien Says:

    It seems to me that the pro-life movement is really a subversive segment of the liberal sector designed to divide the female vote away from The Republican Party. It’s a clever socialist/communist ploy, a political trick.

    My logic is this. A true conservative would not outlaw abortion as pregnant women having children out of wedlock and unable to afford to birth and raise the child will have to fall back on public assistance. That means more government and more taxes. And no true conservative would go for that.

    William Thien

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: