Is it a Baby or a Number?

Judie Brown
January 12, 2011
Reproduced with Permission

A new set of abortion statistics issued by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) has come out just in time for the annual March for Life. The report gives all those talking heads something to discuss if indeed they choose to admit that a pro-life activity even took place.

Taking the time to read the various headlines about the Guttmacher numbers, however, calls to mind another startling fact about American media, not to mention the American mind these days.

The Washington Posts report discusses the rate of women getting the abortions and the number of procedures that had been dropping, which is now leveling off. If the reporter were not wedded to the ideological spin created by abortion proponents, perhaps he would have told the reader that the number of expectant mothers who are choosing to abort their babies is no longer declining. Such honesty would require a break with news reporting tradition, a contradiction of Supreme Court sophistry and a tad bit of honestynone of which fare well in the media these days.

It is rare to see the words "mothers" and "baby" in news reports which is why, even among friendly media outlets, there is a dichotomy that continues to expandthe abyss between truth and falsehood.

Another news source reported that the AGI study exposes the problem created by the current recession. Quoting University of Alabama political science professor Michael New, "Abortion numbers go down when the economy is good and go up when the economy is bad, so the stalling may be a function of a weaker economy. If the economy does better, youll see numbers trending down again."

Is this latest survey really about numbers, economic weakness and tough family decisions? If one were discussing declining sales in new cars, I could understand it, but we are talking about babies who are dying! Arent we?

In a Wall Street Journal report, American Life Leagues Jim Sedlak pointed out the need to cut off taxpayer dollars that go to organizations like Planned Parenthood that abort babies, while Planned Parenthood suggested that all America needs to get that abortion rate moving again is better education and access to contraception! Naturally, Planned Parenthood focused on solutions that would help expand its bank account while Sedlaks perspective seeks to save lives.

But isnt the correct answer directly tied to admitting that abortion kills a person? Once we acknowledge that the subject is human beings, not numbers, something substantive can be done to end terrorism in the womb.

Ross Douthat discussed the situation that faces infertile couples, contrasting their desperate desire to have a child with those who cavalierly accept abortion as the solution to personal problems. Examining the collateral damage wrought in the aftermath of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton United States Supreme Court decisions, he explained to readers that there has always been a "tragic contrast between the burden of unwanted pregnancies and the burden of infertility." But prior to Roe and Doe, the answer to this conundrum was adoption; today far too many of those babies are defined as "pregnancy tissue" or some other linguistic gimmick and murdered by abortion.

Douthat closed with these words, "This is the paradox of Americas unborn. No life is so desperately sought after, so hungrily desired, so carefully nurtured. And yet no life is so legally unprotected, and so frequently destroyed."

Is the subject of this contradiction a human person or a number; a member of the human family or a ruse? Its time to tell the truth.