A reporter in New York recently published an article about the fact that 56 percent of the abortions done in the state are on women who have already had at least one prior abortion. In researching the article, she claimed to have even found a 40-year-old woman who admitted that she has had 15 abortions.
Revelations about repeat abortions are becoming more and more common and they are forcing abortion apologists into "damage control" mode. After all, they have always claimed that abortion is not being used as birth control and is, instead, always used "responsibly" and only in the "rarest of difficult circumstances."
First off, let's make it clear that these people are about as troubled by repeat abortions as General Motors is troubled by repeat car buyers. In reality, the only concern the abortion lobby has about this issue is how it affects their public relations. They understand that there are a lot of people in the country who might have some degree of sympathy for women who end up with unplanned pregnancies and are, in their minds, just seeking a one-time fix. However, for a lot of these people, that sympathy evaporates when repeat abortions make it clear that this is less about bailing people out of a one-time mistake than it is about supporting an ongoing pattern of immoral or irresponsible behavior.
Because of this, abortion apologists know that for them to even give the appearance of defending repeat abortions would expose their "responsible abortions" lie and become a public relations nightmare. So, their strategy is to create the illusion that even they don't approve of women having multiple abortions. However, this forces them to take a position that is demonstrably illogical.
Here's the problem. Imagine five women sitting in an abortion clinic waiting room each of whom is about to have her first abortion. Meanwhile, across the room, another woman is there to have her fifth abortion. Now, according to the abortion lobby's newly concocted damage control scheme, what the five women are doing is okay but the sixth woman's behavior is unacceptable. Apparently, we're supposed to just gloss-over the fact that, in both cases, the same number of abortions will have taken place. The new paradigm is to be that it is okay for five women to kill five children but wrong for one woman to kill five children.
Obviously, this is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. It's the sort of trap that amoral people inevitably get themselves into whenever they attempt to feign a moral position. The fact is, abortion is either right or it's not and how often it happens has no bearing on that issue. Further, it is naked hypocrisy for these people to define abortion as a constitutional right that protects women and then throw women under the bus for exercising that right – even if they do so repeatedly. It's like defending the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion while simultaneously saying that people who go to church every Sunday are doing something shameful.
Now, for those of you in the pro-choice mob who think I'm off base here, I have a very simple challenge for you. You have always said that elective abortion is not the intentional murder of an innocent child. You also claim that abortion is a fundamental constitutional right. If those things are true, explain to us why it is unacceptable for a woman to have 10 or 20 or even a hundred abortions. Just search your tortured little minds and tell us the rationale behind this argument that one abortion is right but 15 abortions is wrong. And while you're at it, tell us when this moral metamorphosis takes place. Is it at two abortions, or three, or five, or...