"A statement of courage: 'We had abortions'" is an opinion piece regarding Ms. magazine's putting together a "petition" of women who have had abortions.
The "pro-choice" logic is almost unbelievable. Consider the following:
The magazine is repeating something it did in its 1972 debut issue, when 50 well-known women signed a petition declaring they had had abortions and supporting reproductive rights.
"Supporting reproductive rights"? How is aborting babies supporting reproductive rights? Seems more like a last ditch effort to stop reproduction.
"Even then, to many it seemed absurd that the government could deny a woman sovereignty over her own body"
Ah, my favorite argument coming out of the "pro-choice" camp. Is anybody actually going to try and argue that 9 months of "inconvenience" are worth more than another person's entire lifetime?
"For many women, choosing abortion is taking control of their lives, their futures. It is being responsible enough to recognize they can't afford to provide for a child or aren't mentally or physically prepared to do so."
How about taking control of your life by not having sex unless you want (or are willing) to have a child? (I hear that sex sometimes leads to pregnancy.) How about being responsible enough to recognize that there are about 1 in 6 married couples that would like to have children but can't?
According to Ms., about 70,000 women and girls die in developing nations each year from unsafe abortions.
What about the 46 million or so babies worldwide that die each year from being aborted?
"Reproductive choice is necessary."
That's the one sentence in the article that I don't have a problem with. Women should not be forced to have sex. But again, I don't see what "reproductive choice" has to do with killing babies.