5 revealing things abortion supporters said in 2014

In many ways, 2014 was a revealing year. Pro-life legislation continued to pass at the state level while the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate remained unwilling to even vote on a fetal pain bill.

A poll from the liberal CNN confirmed that the majority of Americans believe that most abortions should be banned. A famous pastor preached a hard-hitting sermon on abortion and wrote an op-ed for Fox News. New blogs began and old pro-life sites expanded.

But one of the most revealing things of all turned out to be the things said by abortion activists. Here are five statements that take the cake this year.

1) Richard Dawkins, outspoken atheist

Abort it [a “kid with Down Syndrome”] and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.

Note the use of “it” instead of “he” or “she” to describe living, developing, human babies who have Down Syndrome. Dawkins admits, here, that abortion can be a form of eugenics, in which supposedly more valuable people kill those who are deemed not worthy of life.

2) Ilyse Hogue, President of NARAL

That’s what religious liberty is about. It’s about you getting to choose what would be right for you in that circumstance, but I don’t get to tell you what to do and you don’t get to tell me what to do.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Someone needs to study the Constitution. Choosing abortion (what Hogue was talking about) has nothing to do with religious liberty or choosing what is “right” for yourself in every single circumstance on Earth. That is, unless we want to classify a choice to rape or a choice to murder a five-year-old as “religious liberty” if the perpetrator thinks it’s the “right” act for them under the circumstances.

3) Rebecca Traister, at New Republic

And so we need to make it clear that abortions are not about fetuses or embryos. Nor are they about babies, except insofar as they enable women to make sound decisions about if or when to have them. They’re about women: their choices, health, and their own moral value.

Whaaaat? Dismembering, poisoning, or suctioning out a baby’s body isn’t about the baby? Well, then, who exactly are we pulling arms and legs off of? Certainly not the women abortion is supposedly about.

Also note that the “sound decision” about having a baby should be made before a man or woman engages in an act that can create a baby. Finally, if a woman’s “moral value” is the equivalent of, “I’ll hire a doctor to kill my child if I’m not ready for her,” we are in deep, deep trouble, people. That’s not the sign of a humane, civilized, and basically decent culture.

4) Hannah Rosin, at Slate

They [American women who have abortions] are not generally victims of rape or incest, or in any pitiable situation from which they need to be rescued. They are making a reasonable and even admirable decision that they can’t raise a child at the moment. Is that so hard to say? As Pollitt puts it, “This is not the right time for me” should be reason enough.

It is only “reasonable and even admirable” to say we can’t raise our own child if 1) we don’t have a child and are deciding not to create one or 2) we are giving a child who already exists to people who are able to raise them. Killing our children is never reasonable or admirable.

It is never okay to sacrifice our living children (and unborn children are living, growing, unique human beings as soon as fertilization occurs) on the altar of our own selfish wishes. Once we have helped to create a child, we absolutely must choose their life over our own desires. It’s called basic personal responsibility.

5) Refinery 29

However, if you have personal moral and/or spiritual reservations about the life of the unborn and you don’t think you’d ever get an abortion no matter how desperate you were, but you are aware that all making abortion illegal does is kill women, then yes [you can be a pro-life feminist].

Talk about empty rhetoric. All making abortion illegal does is kill women? No, it would actually act to save millions of human beings who are currently being targeted for death, despite their absolute innocence.

Plus, as a logical point…since when does the risk undertaken by those who choose to break the law cause us to change the law? Just because some women may die through illegal abortions does not require us to keep abortion legal. That is, unless you think that because a good number of armed robbers die during armed robbery we are required to make that particular violent act against innocent humans legal.

What pro-abortion comments were particularly revealing to you this year? We’d love to hear about them in the comments below.