May 15, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – It’s hardly news at this point that abortion apologists are spectacularly tone-deaf. It’s almost a prerequisite to a career of championing child murder without letting self-awareness get in the way of all the self-righteous rhetoric about “choice” and “health.”
But sometimes the rhetoric is so blatantly grotesque that one can’t help but wonder if these people aren’t deliberately flaunting the dissonance between their feel-good platitudes and the horrific reality of abortion.
On Sunday, the folks at abortion lobby NARAL offered their own Mother’s Day message:
— NARAL (@NARAL) May 13, 2018
Bodily autonomy is a dubious fit for Mother’s Day, considering that abortion is the intentional thwarting of the natural process of motherhood. As the Canadian Center for Bio-Ethical Reform explains:
[M]others (and fathers) have a responsibility to their offspring that they don’t have to strangers. And while that responsibility doesn’t obligate them to do extraordinary things such as trips to Disneyland or donating kidneys, it does obligate them to do ordinary things, such as feeding, clothing, and sheltering one’s offspring. To do otherwise is parental neglect […]
Therefore, maintaining pregnancy is simply doing for the pre-born what parents must do for the born—provide the shelter and nourishment a child needs. It is what is required in the normal course of the reproduction of our species.
More sickeningly, NARAL promoted the following Glamour Magazine opinion piece by abortionist Ghazaleh Moayedi that was also published just in time for mother's day:
“Choosing when to parent is an act of love. For my patients that were already parenting, I feel the deep love they had both for the children they had and for the pregnancies they were ending. Choosing an abortion is an act of love.”
— NARAL (@NARAL) May 14, 2018
Murder is love. Yep, it’s gonna be one of those articles.
Moayedi opens by recalling a colleague who asked whether she would continue aborting babies after the impending birth of her own. “Nothing’s going to change,” she says she answered with a smile.
From this, most readers would expect an explanation as to why the experience of carrying and delivering a child left her every bit as supportive of abortion, rather than imprinting on her a conviction that such children have a right to life. But while we get some lovely poetic odes to how Moayedi “would look down at my son and weep as tidal waves of love would flow through me,” we don’t get anything resembling an argument for her titular claim.
The closest we get is this:
I am often asked whether providing abortion care is hard as a mother—as if abortion somehow exists in a realm outside of motherhood. But motherhood is not an accidental or natural job; motherhood is a job done with intention. Holding my baby’s tiny hands in my own not only strengthened my commitment to providing compassionate abortion care but also exposed how I needed to commit to supporting mothers in all aspects of my care […]
For my patients who were not parents, and did not want to be at that moment, or who never want to be a parent, I recognize their abortions as an act of intentional motherhood. Choosing when to parent is an act of love. For my patients that were already parenting, I feel the deep love they had both for the children they had and for the pregnancies they were ending. Choosing an abortion is an act of love.
Rejecting an action qualifies as carrying it out? Holding a baby’s hand reinforces support for tearing that hand from his body, for snuffing out the beating heart that pumps blood to that limb? Loving a child is consistent with having him or her executed?
Now, it’s not as if attempting to make an argument would have turned out much better. That would’ve required denying settled science. The logic would’ve collapsed at the first strong breeze it came up against. And, the standard line of “you can’t understand if you can’t get pregnant” tends not to impress anyone but fellow abortion zealots. And it’s certainly standard operating procedure for pro-aborts to use emotional appeals to distract from the salient factual or ethical questions.
But this…this is just gibberish. None of Moayedi’s conclusions logically follow from her premises. She posits staggeringly contradictory ideas within the same sentence, without the slightest effort to connect them. This clearly wasn’t written with the intention of clarifying her perspective for anyone who doesn’t already share it, but to feed feel-good pap to fellow pro-abortion fanatics. And the results are nothing short of monstrous.
As an antidote to these inhumane musings masquerading as motherhood, let’s revisit the experience of another mother, Lexi, who lost her baby to miscarriage. Lexi took away a deeper appreciation of personhood from cradling a deceased son than Moayedi got from delivering and raising a healthy child.
Lexi went into labor at 19 weeks. While “hearing the heartbeat immediately put me at ease,” Lexi says, intense pain soon followed, and brought with it dread because she knew what it meant. “I was not mentally prepared for labor and everything in me was fighting it.” Her doctors had no choice but to deliver baby Walter, after which they gave her his tiny body.
“He was fully formed and I could see his heart beating in his tiny chest,” Lexi recalled. “Just because the child within cannot be seen by us does not mean that it is a blob of cells. Walter was perfectly formed and very active in the womb.”
“We still don’t know why or how this happened, but in his short life of just a few minutes he has touched more lives than I ever could have imagined,” she said.
Two pregnant mothers, two very different lessons. Which one sounds more like love to you?