Why Your Abortion Affects Everyone
/I often hear, “How does my abortion affect you?” Why should anyone else care about “her”: body? Well, we know there’s a living human inside of her body, and we see abortion as a human rights violation. Maybe it won’t directly affect me if you kill your two-year-old, but that doesn’t mean you should be allowed. But there’s an argument beyond the principle of stopping such an evil practice.
I reject the idea that abortion is between a woman and her doctor. Not only has it involved taxpayer participation, but the pro-abortion lobby also fought to make Christian organizations pay for women’s abortions. Vice President Kamala Harris even made it known on the 2024 campaign trail that if she had won the presidency, she didn’t intend to grant religious exemptions in her pursuit of codifying Roe. I have also argued that there is great societal harm from abortion. The ideology necessary to keep abortion legal extends beyond the doctor’s office, and it’s deeper, more dangerous, and more unjust than most Americans can imagine.
Recently, I watched Jubilee’s “Surrounded” video featuring Live Action President Lila Rose versus 25 pro-abortion activists. One older black woman, Dana, stood out from the group. She had a very calming tone and didn’t raise her voice like other debaters. She seemed very compassionate and worked with women who had suffered sexual abuse. Dana also revealed that, many years ago, she had an abortion. Rose chose to speak to Dana for an extra ten minutes at the end, and the conversation took a very dark turn. Rose asked if Dana believed it was appropriate for Scott Peterson to be charged for the murder of his 8-month preborn son or just the pregnant mother, Laci. Dana said Conner was a “clump of cells,” and Scott should have only been charged for harming Laci.
The pro-choice activists praised Dana for her conversation, but the chilling repercussions of what she advocated for were profound. Rose even laid it out. In cases where an abusive boyfriend slips or forces a woman to take abortifacient drugs, he would not be guilty of ending a life. Even still, Dana stood firm that men should only be charged for harming women and not the “tissue.” Women like Remee Lee, who was tricked into taking a drug that ended the life of her child during the first trimester, would never be able to seek justice for the life of their wanted child.
I was taken aback that Dana admitted to something so heinous out loud, but I wasn’t surprised she felt that way. After all, back when Scott Peterson’s misdeeds were still in the headlines, pro-choice activists fought against justice for babies like Conner and their families. They criticized the Unborn Victims of Violence Act back in 2004 because recognizing a “child in utero” as a victim of crime was too close to granting “personhood.”
Anything that gets a fetus a step closer to personhood is a threat to the abortion lobby and ending abortion. We saw this last year when the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that three sets of parents could sue an IVF clinic for the “Wrongful Death of a Minor.” The law had applied to embryos in the past, and nothing in the law excluded human embryos who had never been implanted in a womb. The clinic was supposed to have their embryos watched and secured, but they allowed a man to wander to where the embryos were stored, remove them, and then drop them.
Who else would be liable? Of course, the clinic failed to meet its obligations. If this case had been presented as “big business versus grieving parents,” perhaps most of the public would have supported the ruling. That’s certainly the narrative Republicans should have latched onto. Instead, they quickly ran to the side of the clinics to avoid political blowback. That didn’t stop Democrats from hammering them and explaining these are the repercussions of a post-Roe world.
IVF clinics claimed they would need to be shut down, and this should inspire serious questions. The court didn’t make a ruling on whether the parents would win their case. They simply ruled that they could sue and seek punitive damages for negligence. If that was enough to shut the IVF clinic’s doors, we should reconsider their practices. Bringing life into the world is a tremendous responsibility, and we need to appreciate the gravity of every created individual.
The pro-abortion lobby was outraged that embryos—even wanted embryos—would be considered children and their parents could seek civil—not even criminal—justice. “Personhood” wasn’t addressed in the ruling, but anything that gets the preborn closer to “personhood” is a threat.
But the abortion activists go even further beyond this. More than a decade ago, Heather Surovik had her final prenatal visit and was informed by her doctor that she was dilating. But on the way home, she was hit by a drunk driver with multiple DUIs. Surovik and her mother survived the crash, but Brady did not. Surovik wanted justice for her unborn son and sought help from the Colorado legislature. But Colorado has had extreme late-term abortion laws on the books for years. It’s the home of “abortion absolutists” like Dr. Warren Hern, who will perform third-trimester abortions for healthy women with healthy pregnancies. The abortion lobby is strong in this state, and to acknowledge Brady as a victim would have moved the needle too close to “personhood.”
During a committee hearing, Planned Parenthood sent a representative to speak out against the bill. He said they support a woman’s right to choose when to parent a child, so they have to oppose bills that “directly or indirectly” interfere with that choice. Elen Belef from We Are Women Colorado also opposed the bill. After calling Brady a “baby” while offering condolences, she rephrased and said Surovik “lost a pregnancy.” Brady, like Conner Peterson, was viable outside of the womb. They were living and conscious beings who could hear their mothers’ voices. Pregnancy is a natural condition. Conner and Brady were not conditions; they were their mothers’ children—their loved and wanted precious boys.
House Bill 13-1032 said if a crime committed was the “proximate cause of death or injury to an unborn member of the species homo sapiens, the respective homicide and assault charges for that death or injury may be brought simultaneously with the underlying charges.” Belef said this law was a “backdoor” to grant “personhood” to zygotes, embryos, and fetuses, and she could not allow that.
In other words, abortion is not between a woman and her doctor. Judith Jarvis Thomson’s defense of abortion was always a farce. Bodily autonomy is not sufficient to grant women a blanket right to kill the preborn, especially not throughout the entire pregnancy. It requires dehumanizing, discriminating, and disqualifying the preborn from the “unalienable” Right to Life, which is supposed to be “endowed by our Creator”—not subjectively granted by man. This is a natural right, not an entitlement or a privilege.
The ”unwanted” children are not the only ones who face this discrimination. Wanted children are also sacrificed to this ideology. That is why Surovik could not get justice for her son, Brady, and that is why Dana could look Lila Rose in the eye and say Conner was a “clump of cells” who wasn’t alive and only possessed the potential to become a “live birth.”
I do not want justice for my child to be another sacrifice laid upon their bloodstained altar. Your perception is not a universe or a nation all to itself. Our ideals and how we act on them affect the whole society. You cannot decide that your child is an unalive parasite unworthy of rights without that logic extending toward my womb as well.
Later, Dana said she was glad to push back because Rose talked about “emotions” while she talked about “health care.” This is false. Denying a nearly born child is alive is not scientific, and denying them justice in the face of murder certainly isn’t health care. I, mostly, believe many of the statements and reactions to Rose throughout the video were women coping with the horrific reality of what they did to their sons and daughters.
While their apparent and unconfessed suffering is a reason to consider banning abortion, it’s not the main reason why activists like Lila Rose persist. Abortion should be banned because it needlessly kills innocent preborn sons and daughters. And even though a ban won’t end all abortions (which is true with all crime), it’s still worth the pursuit because millions of lives will be saved and equal justice must be established and applied.
In conclusion, I will leave you with this final warning. We need to be very careful about telling the government that our sons and daughters in the womb have no right to be protected from violence because we have no idea when the government might take us up on that offer. And if the response to COVID-19 taught you anything, it should be that our government doesn’t mind trampling over our liberties and bodily autonomy. “My body, my choice” is merely a chant to a golden calf, and the only “god” a tyrannical government respects is itself.
