Opinion

Pro-abortion opinion piece unintentionally advances pro-life arguments

In an opinion piece published Thursday by Marie Claire, pro-abortion writer Jessica Valenti criticized Democrats like Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi for not being pro-abortion enough, while complaining about pro-life Democrat John Bel Edwards’ common sense argument that Democrats would be more successful in the South if they were more open to running pro-life candidates. While there are certainly some interesting claims made in the piece, the most striking part is the way two of Valenti’s arguments could just as easily serve as pro-life arguments.

1. Human

When lamenting the need to even argue the topic of abortion as a “right,” Valenti asks, “But why do we still have to go to such great lengths? Making these arguments feels like begging for scraps. It’s humiliating to be put in the position of having to convince someone of your humanity.”

Very interesting. In an ironic sense, Valenti is absolutely correct. Science clearly tells us that the preborn baby is a human individual. While no one is contending that the preborn baby is yet able to comprehend humiliation, that’s not a scientific qualification for membership in the human species. The science is on the pro-life side. Why are we still arguing about this?

For a pro-abortion activist to imply that humanity has value places them in an ethically and logically problematic position. The pro-abortion individual is then faced with the choice of denying that the preborn baby is human – a scientifically outdated denial – or having to explain why it is not only justifiable, but also a “right,” for one class of humans to kill another class of humans at will.

The ethical problem becomes even more pronounced when we take into account that the class of humans being killed at will is the offspring of the class demanding the right to kill. One would hope that as a species we have moved beyond intentionally destroying our own offspring, at any stage of development.

2. Marginalized

In yet another surprisingly insightful moment, Valenti admits, “During times of political strife, it’s always the rights of the most marginalized that are deemed expendable or strategically fraught.”

Couldn’t have said it better.

It is problematic to argue for the “right” of a select class of people, while utterly failing to justify the intentional killing of another class of people by that “right.” We can shout “autonomy” all day long, but it means little in context of human rights if we don’t even grasp that life is the most fundamental of all human rights. The right to autonomy of one class should not overrule the right to life of another class. We have yet to hear a decent argument for why pregnancy creates an automatic exception to this common sense principle. Maybe because logically, it doesn’t.

In closing, Valenti threatens to “show up at the Democrats’ front steps” to demand an even more extreme focus on pro-abortion laws. It’s worth noting that she is right to place value on humanity, and to support the rights of the marginalized. But for now, like many on the pro-abortion side, Valenti appears quick to ignore what humanity actually entails, and to call out what she views as infringements on the rights of one group (women), while completely overlooking the suffering and death caused to another group (preborn girls and boys).

Editor’s Note: All op-eds are the opinion of the writer and not necessarily the official position of Live Action.

To Top
[if lte IE 8]
[if lte IE 8]