Pro-abortion folks want it both ways

Vincent J. Curtis

8 April 2014

Margaret Shkimba is a part time columnist for my local newspaper.  I rarely read her.  However, today I slipped up and did read her column of today.  It was the story of how she was transformed from a pro-life person full of righteousness to a pro-abortion person full of righteousness.  Her beef today concerned the depiction of aborted babies on large signs from the bridges over a local highway.  To morally implicate abortion mills, apparently, is morally wrong.



Margaret Shkimba may rest assured that she has lost none of her youthful righteousness nor her youthful powers of reason.

Her numerous errors of fact and reason are only surpassed by the thunderous self-contradiction of argument.

She drags out a parade of horribles: of the women who died or were maimed as a result of abortionist butchery.  She makes quite clear that the conditions which led to such atrocities no longer obtain, yet she nevertheless sticks to her conclusion!

We are supposed to be horrified by the blood of women who died terrible, gruesome deaths as the result of a botched abortion, but we are not supposed to be horrified by terrible, gruesome death of the baby in an unbotched abortion.

While it may be that no one of us has a right to tell a woman what to do with her own body, it remains a compelling state interest to regulate and minimize abortion. The state has a responsibility to ensure its own existence and the prospect of killing off the next generation is anathema to that goal.

Margaret Shkimba ought to address herself to the case of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who ran an abortuary in Philadelphia for decades.  Gosnell was one of those sort of doctors that Shkimba would praise: he provided all sorts of abortion services even to the poor.  No public official bothered to inspect his clinic for fear that the Margaret Shkimba's of the world would raise the cry that the state was trying to intimidate and shut down abortion mills, to the detriment of women's health.

The very savagery which Shkimba condemns actually happened in Gosnell’s clinic under the current regime of abortion on demand.  Gosnell escaped the death penalty but is now doing life in prison for murder.  And Gosnell’s clinic is only the most famous of its kind; it is not the only one.

Not a shred of Shkimba’s argument holds together.  If Shkimba detests bloody death, she ought to oppose abortion not support it.
-30-