I have looked carefully at the arguments of abortion supporters and found them to be unconvincing. I can never get myself past the conclusion that abortion is supported by so many because it frees people from taking responsibility for their actions.
I find it difficult to believe that most abortion supporters do not on some level realize that abortion is indeed the killing of a child. The evidence after all is irrefutable. The fetus has its own set of DNA, independent of its mother, at conception. Is DNA not an indicator of a human life? Brainwaves, heartbeat, fingerprints, etc. all develop very early in the process. Are these not indicators of a human life? Moreover, how can anyone who has seen a sonogram of a baby in the womb support abortion?
So, I have been asking myself, why do supporters of abortion so vehemently cling to their beliefs? Why do they want to spread those beliefs around the world? Why do prominent supporters, like President Obama, oppose any restrictions whatsoever on the practice of abortion? Why, for feminists, has abortion become the central concern to the welfare of women?
Father Tad Pacholczyk, author of the monthly column Making Sense of Bioethics, this week argues that those who support abortion do so in defiance of logic. So why why does support for abortion persist? The answer he proposes is a simple, but convincing one. The sexual revolution does not work without abortion:
...Perhaps the most plausible explanation of why abortion advocates will so readily defy logic and ignore the obvious came from writer Dale Vree. He had been invited to a "living-room discussion" on abortion back in 1989 which included six prominent pro-lifers, six prominent pro-choicers, and one or two undecideds.Vree expected that the heart of the debate would hinge on when life began, but it didn't. It didn't even turn on the hard cases -- rape and incest. When one of the radical feminists argued that abortion is simply about the right to make choices, one of the pro-lifers replied that the choice was made back when the woman agreed to have sex. Then one of the pro-choicers finally blurted out: "We're pro-sex and you're anti-sex," meaning, according to Vree, that "they're for lots of sex in lots of forms while we pro-lifers feel it should be limited to heterosexual marriage. . . . They made it abundantly clear that they're committed to the sexual revolution, and that revolution will wither without the insurance which is abortion and this is their bottom-line concern."
This indeed appears to be the crux of the matter, the central concern that has motivated radical feminists, Hollywood, and many other advocates of abortion to sacrifice untold millions of unborn babies since the early 1970's. George Jonas zeroed in on this same bottom-line explanation: " We invent euphemisms, such as 'choice' for killing, and sophomoric dilemmas, such as pretending not to know when life begins, to ensure that nothing hinders Virginia's quest for Santa Claus. No obstacle must interfere with her goal of self-fulfillment -- least of all an issue (as it were) of her healthy sexual appetite."
In the final analysis, this stands as probably the single greatest tragedy of our time, that the unordered and inordinate sexual desires of men and women have been allowed to twist the most rudimentary moral logic to the point of death for so many of our children. Full column.
I think Father has hit the nail on the head.
No form of contraception is 100% effective. So, if there is going to widespread sex outside of marriage (fornication in the blunt language of the old days), how does one escape the "burden" of the inevitable pregnancies that will occur? Abortion.
So, in the end, the uncomfortable truth of abortion (i.e. the killing of a baby) must yield to the desire for sexual pleasure.