It seemed inappropriate to me for it to remain unrebutted, the grotesque moral premises and obfuscation of the simple facts contained in your open letter to Kamille Martindale of Unborn Justice, published 21 February 2020.
Do we really need “comparative data” to surmise as an evident fact that in the context of legality, modern medicine and social destigmatization (by persons such as yourself), of abortion, that it would have increased many times over in comparison to past years when such a context did not exist?
Really? Would you likewise argue that we need “comparative data” to assert that mortality birth rates would have dropped within the context of modern medicine? Or that vehicular deaths would have reduced with the invention of seatbelts? No serious-minded person would.
So yes, it’s safe to assert as fact that an increase in the number of people killed while in the womb de facto means a decrease in the number of people living outside of the womb. This is common sense.
But the more alarming aspect of your letter is the sheer intellectual dishonesty when talking about what abortion actually is. Stunning, really.
A miscarriage is not an abortion. To be clear, in both a miscarriage and an abortion the human child in the womb dies, but the difference in the paths towards that tragic end is night and day.
Miscarriages, by definition, are unintentional. The mother or anyone else does not seek the end of the life of the preborn child, but that life ends regardless, for a whole host of reasons.
Abortion is the intentional premeditative killing of a preborn child. (i.e. before the child has exited the woman’s body, that child has his or her life ended by a medical or non-medical procedure).
Both are tragic, but one has no moral implication for the mother, while the other has a moral implication for the mother and anyone else who supports her in the intentional, premeditated killing of her preborn child.
Abortion is not the killing of an organ or tissue or part of the woman’s body. Abortion is the killing of the distinct human life that is inside the body of his or her mother for the first nine months of their life. This is precisely why abortion is, morally speaking, murder. A lot more, but nothing less.
Being pro-life means that you are AGAINST the idea that women, doctors or anyone else should have the CHOICE over whether to murder their preborn child.
To say you are “pro-life of the woman who has to subject her body to a pregnancy,” while advocating for her legal right to murder her own child, is not pro-life at all. It’s pro-death. You are pro-choice. You are pro the choice of a woman to murder her preborn child.
Pro-choice (for women) = Pro-death (for their children). It isn’t complicated at all.
Unborn Justice comes into the fray and offers women, as an alternative to murdering their own preborn children, a support line to take care of those children. This is a righteous endeavor, especially within an evil and wicked society that tells women it’s OK to murder their preborn children if they think it may be too much of a burden when it exits their body. What an evil ideology. Staggers the mind when you think critically about it.
To be sure, being pro-life has nothing to do with the life of those children after they are born, even though such interests are righteous and commendable. Being pro-life is simply about protecting the life of the preborn by saying and propagating the idea that women, doctors, men, aliens, or whoever, should not have the right to murder the preborn who are, in every way, human while they are in the womb, just like every one of us who are outside the womb.
This is not patriarchal. This is simply moral.