Dear Pro-Life Partners, June 1, 2021

Debunking the Myths – Part 4

In this 4th installment of Debunking the Myths, I will respond to the statements Danielle D’Sousa Gill addresses
in her book The Choice that embrace the sentiment of “The Lesser of Two Evils.”

Myth # 13: I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I don’t have the right to force my beliefs on someone
else.

This myth would have some merit if we were discussing moral principles that affect the individual alone, like
sexual practices or preferences. We may confront that person in love, but it is ultimately their business.
However, when an innocent (and in this case voiceless) party is being harmed, it invalidates the argument. To
insist that “what is wrong for me may not be wrong for someone else” turns moral issues into personal opinions
rather than universal standards. Years ago, a friend of mind commented, “I would never have an abortion, but I
would not judge someone else for having one.” I asked her why she wouldn’t have an abortion, and she kind of
paused and said, “Oh.” She realized that the reason she wouldn’t is the same reason why anyone else shouldn’t,
and it is reasonable to oppose it, personally, publicly, and politically. If we witnessed someone beating a child
in Wal-Mart, we would intervene. If someone were kicking a dog on the sidewalk, we would try to stop it.

Myth #14: Abortion is never an ideal choice, but forcing a woman to carry out a pregnancy will cause
her too much emotional pain.

This is not a matter of putting the life of the mother over the life of the child due to medical complications. This
argument prioritized the quality of mom’s life above the sanctity of the child’s life. An unwanted pregnancy can
absolutely cause mental and emotional anguish…but so does abortion. Once pregnant, there’s probably no
getting out of it, since childbirth, and childrearing for that matter, have their own brand of pain. Socrates said
that it is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong. So every mom has three choices. She can opt for the pain of
taking a life that may follow her throughout her life, she can opt for the pain of having a child that may turn into
her greatest blessing, or she can endure the pain in order to grant a childless couple the joy of adoption.

Myth #15: Outlawing abortion doesn’t decrease the number of abortions; it increases “back-alley”
abortions.

It is certainly true that outlawing abortion would not eliminate it. However, limited access limits activity. When
something is more difficult to obtain, or illegal, it statistically becomes more rare. Stricter abortion laws and
decreasing number of facilities have inarguably decreased abortion numbers. To make abortion “safe and legal”
simply out of fear of what a relatively small number of women might do seems illogical, even reckless. (“Wait,
don’t stab yourself with that dirty, dull knife. Let me clean and sharpen it for you.”) Yes, desperate women
would still obtain abortions by any means possible. This does not mean we should roll out the red carpet.
Nonetheless, women who seek abortions need not be criminalized; the doctors performing the abortions should.
This could discourage the “back alley” mentality.

Myth #16: Abortion is necessary because of hard cases like rape, incest, life of the mother, and potential
medical complications. No parent should be forced to have a deformed or mentally challenged child.

It would be reasonable, in the event of complications during pregnancy or delivery, to concentrate on the life of
the mother first, which may result in the death of her baby. It is not necessarily reasonable, especially in this
time of advanced medicine, to kill the baby in order to save the mother. Regardless, it is understood that an
abortion may need to take place in the event of a medical emergency. The argument for abortion in cases like
rape and incest, however, is more insidious. The mom's life is not in danger, and the child did not perpetrate the
crime. Many pro-lifers would concede this point, but to do so puts us on a very slippery slope for two reasons:
1) A child in the womb is a human being regardless of how she was conceived; and 2) A woman could cry rape
or incest in order to obtain an abortion. This “abortion exceptions” reasoning opens the door for devaluing a
baby’s life and justifying a mother’s abortion based solely on the circumstances of conception.
I would also argue that any unborn child, no matter how challenged, sickly, or deformed is still a human being
and only God has the right to decide when he dies. Of course, this world-view requires a faith in a sovereign
God that does not track with a large portion of the population. Logically, though, a child with challenges creates
parenting challenges. I daresay, an unwillingness to deal with a high-maintenance child would be the
predominate reason for an abortion in this case. Claiming abortion is what’s “best for the child” is just
subterfuge. There are countless testimonies of people with Down syndrome or missing limbs, blind or deaf, who
are happy to be alive. So what started out as abortion for the life of the mother has become abortion for the
emotional health of the mother. What was once abortion for severe deformity has become abortion for a club
foot. No need to claim rape or incest nowadays, since it’s cool if you don’t want a girl, or just don’t want to be
“inconvenienced” by a child.

Partnering with you for Life,

Linda Verhulst, MRL-WR