Abortion Really Hurts Women
A woman is more than the sum of her reproductive parts.
But the narrative coming from politicians and the media these days seems to contradict this fact. Those who desire to protect innocent human persons in the womb are often portrayed as anti-woman. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I celebrate the rights that we American women have. We can vote, run for office, own businesses, and serve our country in the military. My daughters can dream as big as they like, and use their God-given talents however they choose. Together we can work hard and accomplish big things. But that doesn’t mean we have to support abortion.
In our culture today, abortion rights have become synonymous with women’s rights. This is a travesty. I can think of few things that hurt women more than abortion. Abortion is a tool of genocide, which has been used in many nations as a tool for gender discrimination. Sex selection by abortion has killed untold numbers of Chinese and Indian women, who would have been allowed to live if they had been male. Fortunately, recent changes in Indian law may help curb this genocide.1
In the US, where most abortions are done for convenience rather than for gender selection, abortions still hurt women.2 The physical and psychological side-effects of abortion are well-documented, and physical side effects of the procedure are acknowledged even by the pro-abortion community.3 Abortion leaves physical and emotional scars on women, while depriving unborn persons of their “inalienable rights” to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Can I support women’s rights while opposing abortion? Absolutely. Don’t let anyone tell you that you can’t do the same.
By Heather Kuruvilla, Ph.D., Center for Bioethics Fellow
Articles Cited:
- http://india.nydailynews.com/newsarticle/5058ae5dc3d4cabe3c000000/india-to-jail-families-who-coerce-women-into-abortions
- http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ASMF/index.html#Is_Abortion_Safe
- http://www.prochoice.org/education/cme/online_cme/m2expected2.asp
Jeremiah wrote,
Great comments, Dr. K. It certainly is tragic, and sadly frustrating, that women’s rights are equated with abortion rights. I’m not quite sure who sold the public this lie and why so many have bought into it, but it unfortunately seems pretty well entrenched at this point.
It’s worth pointing out too that the US, while not so much known for ‘abortive’ gender selections, is woefully open to and supportive of PGD sex selection (see the Fertility Institutes, for example: http://www.fertility-docs.com). Indeed, the US is one of the only developed nations to still allow such a blatant form of eugenics. Even here in Australia – a nation with some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world (mostly in the state of Victoria) – PGD sex selection is illegal.
Yet this too will get (and is already) branded as ‘women’s rights’. The slope is slippery and we are already sliding. And it’s sure hard to stop once you’ve started…
Link | September 26th, 2012 at 10:02 am
Heather Kuruvilla wrote,
Jeremiah,
Great point! PGD raises many ethical issues even when gender selection isn’t considered. But it does allow for a new method of gender discrimination. Thanks for bringing that up.
Link | September 26th, 2012 at 10:14 am
Dreampod wrote,
I feel that you cite prochoice.org deceptively as you refer to them as supporting your argument that “The physical and psychological side-effects of abortion are well-documented, and acknowledged even by the pro-abortion community”. The page you link to however does not mention psychological side-effects whatsoever (mostly because the science is highly conflicted on the subject) and the vast majority of the ‘physical side-effects’ are not what are generally considered side-effects (effects not directly related to the procedure or medication) but rather intrinsic aspects of the procedure much like heart surgery results in pain, tiredness, and scarring.
Further it particularly seems intended to mislead and deceive due to the failure to acknowledge, let alone compare, the “physical and mental side-effects” of pregnancy or miscarriage. Since once a woman is pregnant the outcome will be one of those three options it only seems reasonable that you would consider the relative amount of suffering and bodily alterations each outcome induces before criticizing one without acknowledging that the others have similar or more severe consequences.
Link | October 5th, 2012 at 2:30 am
hkuruvilla wrote,
Certainly the literature is conflicted about the psychological effects of abortion. Pro-life advocates cite them extensively, while pro-choice advocates believe that they don’t exist. Indeed, one of the most “balanced” articles I found on the topic was here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/somatic-psychology/201010/post-abortion-stress-syndrome-pass-does-it-exist . This author believes women may need counseling after abortion, though admits that some women will not need counseling, and may even feel relieved or happy rather than stressed.
You are correct that both pregnancy and miscarriage can have physical and psychological side effects. These are not addressed in the blog because the focus of the blog was the fact that pro-life advocates are demonized in pop culture for being “anti-woman”, simply for having an alternative moral view. Many pro-choice advocates say that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare”. If abortion is unequivocally good for women, why need it be “rare”?
Pro-choice.com only talks about the physical side effects of abortion. Thanks for pointing this out so I can edit the blog!
Link | October 5th, 2012 at 9:27 am
Heather Kuruvilla wrote,
Some recent data supporting the contention that abortion hurts women.
http://www.lifenews.com/2007/12/04/int-553/
Link | December 4th, 2012 at 2:34 pm