In its statement on the ‘My Voice, My Choice’ abortion initiative, the European Commission argues that ‘unsafe abortions’ pose a danger to women, which must be countered by misappropriating funds from the European Social Fund to finance abortions. What a hypocritical argument! The Commission uncritically makes its own the propaganda rhetoric of the abortion industry, which immediately collapses like a house of cards when seriously examined. Only fools fall for this lie – and those who, because they have a political or commercial interest in the legalisation of abortion, just pretend to believe it.
First of all, we must ask how an ‘unsafe abortion’ is defined in the first place, or whether there is such a thing as a ‘safe’ abortion, which is, after all, its definitional opposite.
The answer to this question is: the goal of every abortion is to kill a child in the womb. As far as the pregnant woman is concerned, such an intervention naturally also involves considerable risks for her, and it is only possible to say afterwards whether these risks have materialised or not. From an ex-ante perspective, therefore, every abortion is ‘unsafe’ because it involves risks to the woman’s life and health that would not exist if the abortion did not take place.
There is therefore no such thing as a ‘safe’ abortion.
At best, from an ex-ante perspective, one could say that abortion involves greater or lesser risks depending on the circumstances. If the abortion is performed in a well-equipped clinic with sterile equipment and by an experienced surgeon, it is less dangerous for the woman than if it takes place under the conditions for which the abortion clinic of a certain Dr Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia has gained notoriety.
However, since an abortion that is not medically indicated, even if performed under optimal hygienic conditions, poses a significantly greater risk to the woman than the normal course of pregnancy ending in birth, it must be noted that every such abortion not only aims to kill a child, but also creates a completely unnecessary risk for the pregnant woman, which could most easily be avoided by refraining from killing the child. Talk of supposedly ‘safe’ abortions is therefore either self-deception or a deliberate misrepresentation to the public.
In cases where the life and health of the pregnant woman is endangered by complications of pregnancy, the question must be asked as to which course of action is most likely to preserve her life. Here, too, killing the child is not always the best and safest option a priori. The only correct approach is that in cases where only the life of the child or that of the woman can be saved, therapeutic interventions to save the woman are permissible, even if this means accepting the loss of the child as a collateral effect. However, this is a response to a dangerous situation that has arisen of its own accord, rather than one that has been brought about deliberately.
The European Commission is also being disingenuous because, despite all its expressed concern about ‘unsafe abortions’, it is not even considering the most obvious measure that could actually make abortions safer. This measure would be to ban the postal delivery of abortion pills and to enact a regulation that they may only be taken under the supervision of a doctor.
But strangely enough, as soon as a measure that would increase safety for women runs counter to the dogmas of ideological feminism and the commercial interests of the abortion and pharmaceutical industries, the ostentatious concern about ‘unsafe’ abortions suddenly vanishes into thin air.
one-of-us.org 