OPINION_ The New York Times' long, embarrassing list of abortion fallacies

WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The New York Times' long, embarrassing list of abortion fallacies


by Ryan Everson | June 25, 2019 04:52 PM


This weekend, the New York Times published a piece that attempts to paint anti-abortioners as hateful, oppressive, and evil people. It got a great deal of attention and was shared by major pro-abortion advocates, including Dr. Leana Wen of Planned Parenthood. However, the article is fundamentally inaccurate on many, many counts. It makes foolish arguments that educated pro-abortion advocates would be ashamed of.

The article, titled “The Long, Cruel History of the Anti-Abortion Crusade,” opens by asserting that the Founding Fathers were ideologically in line with the modern pro-abortion movement. “Our founding fathers got this right; the choice to have an abortion or a child belonged to the woman,” the New York Times says. Really?

Unlike author John Irving, the novelist who glorified abortion in The Cider House Rules, I will not make wild, unsubstantiated, and dubious claims about exactly what the Founders did or did not believe about abortion. But on the role of government, I will confidently say this: The Founders would have lamented the destruction of federalism and state powers in Roe v. Wade, and they’d despise the federal government repeatedly giving over $560 million in taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood, an independently wealthy abortion giant.

The article then notes that in the 1900s, abortion was very restricted in almost every state, and then asks, “Why was it prohibited for almost a century?"

Irving leaves this question unanswered, but the explanation is very simple: The American people democratically chose to prohibit abortion, like people in most of the civilized world at that time. That is exactly how this issue should work. There is no way on earth those ratifying the Constitution believed they were creating a right to abortion, and the 10th Amendment powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government belong to the states. Thus, state governments should have the power to regulate abortion as the voters see fit.

Next, the New York Times attempts to dress up the anti-abortion position. “I’m pro-choice — often called pro-abortion by the anti-abortion crusaders, although no one is pro-abortion ... the difference between pro-life and pro-choice is the choice.”

Sadly, this is not true either. With Joe Biden’s flip-flop on the Hyde Amendment, every major Democratic 2020 candidate now supports direct taxpayer funding for elective abortion. They support taking money out of your wallet and using it to pay for someone else’s abortion procedure, including late term and partial-birth abortion procedures. That is pro-abortion. One does not need to be “pro-life” to object to this coercive action, which involves no choice at all, least of all on the taxpayer's part. Pro-abortion is in fact the more accurate descriptor of such a policy.

...

READ MORE: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-new-york-times-long-embarrassing-list-of-abortion-fallacies


***

Chân thành cám ơn Quý Anh Chị ghé thăm "conbenho Nguyễn Hoài Trang Blog"
Xin được lắng nghe ý kiến chia sẻ của Quý Anh Chị trực tiếp tại Diễn Đàn Paltalk: 1Latdo Tapdoan Vietgian CSVN Phanquoc Bannuoc .
Kính chúc Sức Khỏe Quý Anh Chị .

conbenho
Tiểu Muội quantu
Nguyễn Hoài Trang
26062019
___________
Cộng sản Việt Nam là TỘI ÁC
Bao che, dung dưỡng TỘI ÁC là ĐỒNG LÕA với TỘI ÁC