It's now called "selective reduction" when you choose to keep one pregnancy going while ending others.
(Page 3 of 3)
IT'S EASY TO PREACH to women facing unwanted pregnancies, whether of one child or "multiples." Those interested in saving the lives of children should never underestimate the burden they would impose on recalcitrant mothers. Pro-life activists should help reduce the burden of women who reluctantly carry to term.
Adoption should be easy; support should be provided to the young, poor, and distraught. Concern should reach to the born as well as the unborn. But imposing such responsibilities on those who oppose abortion does not diminish the responsibility that people incur when engaging in the act that creates life. Choices have consequences, for which people must be accountable.
"The right to choose is a fundamental right," said Sen. Kerry in his maiden Senate speech 19 years ago. But the right to choose is fully protected in America today.
Men and women are free to choose to have sex, without birth control, as often as they like with whomever they like. They seek the "right to choose" abortion in order to escape responsibility for their other choices.
Abortion requires a difficult balancing of liberty and life. Euphemisms like "selective reduction" cannot disguise the fact that abortion kills. And the decision to kill should never be treated as anything other than the most serious moral challenge that we can face.
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
The speech our President should make.
A noted economist fires back.
How political can you get?
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.