In her provocative guest post, Janet Morana, the Executive Director of Priests for Life, challenges readers to reevaluate their stance on the pro-choice movement, particularly regarding late-term abortions. She references a controversial statement made by former Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, who suggested that the fate of an infant surviving abortion should be determined by the mother and her physician. Morana critiques this notion, arguing that the very individuals responsible for the abortion decision—specifically, the abortionist and the mother—should not have the power to decide the fate of a living, breathing child. This raises pressing ethical questions about the boundaries of pro-choice beliefs and whether individuals can genuinely support policies that may lead to the death of an infant born alive.
Morana then invites readers to consider their feelings about late-term abortions depicted through recorded phone calls seeking appointments at various abortion clinics. In these calls, women inquire about abortions at 26, 28, and even 30 weeks of pregnancy with the assertion that both mother and baby are in good health. The purpose behind showcasing these conversations is to dismantle the common narrative propagated by abortion advocates, which suggests that late-term abortions occur infrequently and are reserved only for critical medical situations. Contrarily, she argues, these instances reveal a troubling reality that challenges the integrity of the pro-choice argument, as many of these abortions are conducted under circumstances that do not warrant such drastic measures.
Additionally, Morana brings attention to the ethical implications of specific types of abortion practices, such as sex-selection abortion, which allows for the termination of a pregnancy on the basis of the unborn child’s gender. She posits that such an act is not only discriminatory but also raises questions about the moral responsibility of expecting parents. Furthermore, she references the case of Kate Cox, who publicly shared her traumatic experience of having to leave Texas to terminate her baby diagnosed with Trisomy 18. Morana urges readers to contemplate their feelings about these public displays of abortion advocacy and whether applauding such actions aligns with their beliefs.
Another aspect she discusses is the issue of selective reduction within in vitro fertilization (IVF) practices, questioning the morality of “selecting” which embryos to keep when too many are created. Here, Morana points out a hypocrisy in the pro-choice argument, suggesting that the rights of the unborn should not be disregarded simply due to logistical or emotional convenience. This discussion highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of the complexities surrounding reproductive technology and its ethical implications for nascent life.
Morana warns that the potential increase in abortion rights championed by political figures like Kamala Harris could lead to vast expansions of abortion availability and taxpayer funding for these procedures. She argues that the scale of abortions occurring daily should prompt a moral reflection on the part of pro-choice advocates. By framing every abortion as the death of a unique human being, she implores her audience to confront the reality of their beliefs and the potential consequences of legalizing such practices.
In conclusion, Morana’s post serves as a clarion call for individuals who identify as pro-choice to deeply reflect on the moral implications of their positions regarding unborn life. She advocates for the recognition that every abortion—regardless of gestational age, health of the mother, or other factors—results in the loss of a unique individual deserving of life. By encouraging readers to acknowledge the complexity and weight of their choices, she aims to foster a more profound consideration of the right to life and ultimately, urges a reevaluation of the societal values surrounding reproduction and choice.