The intellectual dishonesty in Kate Cohen’s pro-abortion column for the far-left Washington Post is, to the surprise of no one, typical of what we see in the fake media, most especially the left’s demonic sacrament of abortion.
After discovering a TV character decided to have her baby rather than kill it, Cohen seemed to freak out a bit… “Dammit!” she writes. “I was hoping that the young, professional woman, upon learning she was pregnant right after her jerky boyfriend left her, might decide to have an abortion. Instead, it turns out, she doesn’t even consider it.”
She adds, “I’m so tired of this.”
She goes on, “The ability to put a stop to an unwanted pregnancy is part of a kit of tools women have that allow us to determine the course of our own lives. It’s freedom care.”
The deliberate dishonesty here is Cohen presents the abortion issue as a false choice — of freedom versus loss of freedom. She’s suggesting you can either have an abortion or be stuck forever with the life-crushing responsibility of a kid you don’t want.
Why do these pro-abortion extremists always hide the adoption alternative?
Where’s the adoption alternative, an alternative where you spend only nine months taking responsibility for your own actions, as opposed to literally butchering alive a defenseless baby?
Of the 600,000-plus annual abortions in this country, fewer than 1.5 percent are the result of rape or incest. This means more than 98.5 percent of the 600,000-plus unborn babies butchered annually are butchered for purposes of convenience, and this convenience has nothing to do with giving up your freedom.
During the nine months of pregnancy, most woman can live a perfectly normal life. Then your responsibility ends at birth, which means that a week or so after giving birth (and giving the child to a loving family), you can return to your regularly scheduled life.
Is that too much to ask when the only other option is butchering a human life you yourself created through your own actions and choices?
How does abortion add up to “freedom care” when adoption is on the table? It doesn’t, which is why pro-abortion extremists hide that alternative.
The simple fact is this: once you mention the give-the-child-up-for-adoption option, every argument in favor of more than 98.5 percent of abortions goes right out the window.
As far as why TV and movies don’t depict more abortions… That’s pretty easy to figure out. No matter how much effort dishonest Washington Post columnists put into hiding the give-the-child-up-for-adoption option, we all know it’s out there, which means we all know that a convenience-abortion is a monstrously selfish act.
Movies and TV shows need their protagonists to be sympathetic, and killing a baby because you weren’t careful and when your responsibility adds up to little more than a week or two away from your ambitious life, is an awful and selfish thing for a person to do.
This is especially true now that the stigma against unwed mothers has all but evaporated.
Imagine if a TV character adopted a puppy, decided they made a mistake, and rather than put the puppy up for adoption, tied it down and sliced it to pieces with a scalpel.
Kind of hard to sympathize with someone who does that, and, like it or not, that’s what abortion is.
I can think of two TV shows that handled abortion in two very different ways.
In Mad Men, the lead female character, Peggy Olson, has an affair with a married man, ends up pregnant, and knows that if she keeps the child it will destroy her professional ambitions. So, she gives the child up for adoption and goes on with her life. She never considered abortion because she willed herself to ignore her pregnancy. Nevertheless, the adoption allows her to live out her dream life.
On the flip-side, and because Mad Men is a brilliant show filled with nuance and bottomless depth, there is the Joan Calloway character, a woman every bit as ambitious as Peggy, who also becomes accidentally pregnant. She, however, chooses to have the baby, is still able to fulfill her career ambitions, and enjoys a much fuller life because of her son.
Ah, but then there’s The Knick, a TV show set in 1900. A primary character is a Catholic nun who runs around performing abortions for the rich and poor. But the extremes the show has to go through to make this woman sympathetic are sometimes so outrageous they break the spell of an otherwise fine show. Authority figures — a judge and nun, for example — constantly berate and persecute this woman in ways that can only be described as cartoonish.
You’d think she was Job, not a baby killer.
No matter how dishonestly Washington Post columnists present their pro-abortion arguments, killing a helpless, innocent baby to avoid taking responsibility for your own voluntary actions is a monstrous act, especially when your responsibility can end at giving it life and then giving it to a loving family.
With the adoption option out there, abortion will always be the selfish “choice,” so the adoption issue must be memory-holed.