White House press secretary Jen Psaki had a contentious exchange with Owen Jensen of EWTN, a Catholic news network, last week over President Joe Biden’s opposition to the Texas Heartbeat Act.
“Why does the president support abortion when his own Catholic faith teaches abortion is morally wrong?” Jensen said to Psaki.
“He believes it’s a women’s right. It’s a woman’s body, and it’s her choice,” Psaki answered back.
When Jensen asked who then is looking out for the rights of the unborn children, Psaki added on to her previous replies.
“That it’s up to a woman to make those decisions with her doctor,” Psaki said. “I know you’ve never faced those choices, nor have you ever been pregnant, but for women out there who face those choices, this is an incredibly difficult thing. The president believes that right should be respected.”
In other words, Psaki avoided the question, as Democrats do when confronted with the issue of protecting the rights of the unborn. They have no honest answer to it.
In what other scenario is the termination of a vulnerable person’s life celebrated as a right? Further, why do Democrats encourage such rationalizations for killing?
Abortion was legalized in this country so that people could partake in irresponsible sexual behavior and not be burdened with the responsibilities that come with procreation. That’s the main reason. There may be other logical and legal reasons to support abortion, but when you get right down to it, those are not the primary reasons.
First, defenders of killing babies routinely use extreme and unlikely scenarios in which rape and incest occurred in order to delegitimize arguments against abortion. This is a classic logical fallacy. Abortions performed as the result of rape or incest are aberrations. Rape is cited as the reason for less than 1% of all abortions, and approximately .01% of all abortions occur because of incest. Abortion advocates typically inflate the significance of these rare occurrences to mask the fact that abortion is usually just a belated form of birth control. The overwhelming majority of abortions occur because mothers do not want to be burdened with a child.
Next, baby-killing proponents like to claim that the fetus is not really alive when an abortion is performed. They condescendingly refer to the victims of abortions as things such as a “blob of cells.” But a picture tells more than a thousand words. Does that look like just a “blob of cells” or “not really alive?”
There is a certain irony to these claims. It is always the people who were not victims of abortion who are advocating for the right to terminate someone else’s life.
In my opinion, abortion is justifiable in some circumstances. I would argue that rape, or when the mother’s life is at risk with a pregnancy, abortion should be considered a valid solution. We can make laws that reflect that and cover extreme cases. But this would not be enough for baby-killing advocates. Their endgame is predicated on keeping abortion legal in all cases. Nothing short of that is acceptable to them.
People should not conflate a “right to choose” with the termination of human life through abortion. Such language only desensitizes the public to the harsh reality of infanticide. There is no choice that supersedes the right of an innocent person to live.
