Sue Lani Madsen writes an opinion column for the Spokesman Review and tends to generate a lot of comments, most likely because of her strong conservative stance on issues. Her latest column is on abortion.
She points out a 2015 Gallup poll, which she slightly misrepresents, to support her strongly implied argument that abortion should not be allowed outside of rape, incest, and saving the mother's life. While she correctly states the poll shows 51% of the respondents think abortion should be legal with some restrictions, she doesn't mention that 29% think it should be legal under any circumstances and 19% think it should be illegal period. That means 80% think it should be legal whether certain circumstances apply or not.
Secondly, she refers to a Guttmacher Institute survey, which she uses to delegitimize women's reasons for having an abortion. From the results of the survey:
The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.
That does not sit well with Mrs Madsen.
We are horrified at a woman killing a child because she’s having relationship problems. We denounce those who kill a vulnerable human being under their care. We are inconsistent when we are not equally repulsed by abortion as violence against women, as the original feminists insisted.
A baby in the womb is a most vulnerable human being, but unlike many solidly in the pro-life camp, I do not seek an outright government ban on abortion. Any government with the authority to forbid abortion also has the authority to require it, and I don’t trust any government with that power.
Life begins at conception. All other decisions must flow from that fact, including how we treat our prenatal children.
This wrap up of her argument is confusing. She says life begins at conception. She refers to an aborted fetus as a child being killed. She doesn't want an outright ban on abortion even though in her eyes every abortion results in a child being killed. But she doesn't want a ban because she doesn't trust a government with that power because that government could also exercise power to require an abortion.
WTF? Who said anything about requiring abortions?
I think it's fair to ask Sue Lani Madsen that if she can't trust a government to forbid or require an abortion, how can she trust a government to make any decisions regarding abortion?
Which kind of leaves it up to the woman and her doctor.
Bike Tour of Amsterdam
3 days ago