Taking Issue With Abortion Views

Published online July 6, 2017

There is so much wrong with Dr. Jenni Levy ’82’s letter (Inbox, May 17), it is hard to know where to begin.

1. Irrelevancy: Killing one’s own children is wrong, period. It would not matter if studies found that killing and eating one’s children was good for one’s health; or that neither parents nor other siblings would suffer adverse effects from the slaying of a child; or that sometimes parents die because of their children; or that some parents would kill their children even if it were illegal; or that some children are conceived in rape or incest; or that some children have disabilities.

Notice I did not say “unborn” children. Because that is the real issue: Do unborn human beings, like newborns, merit inclusion in the circle of humanity entitled to the most fundamental of human rights, namely, not to be slain deliberately? If the unborn do not count (contrary to the experience of mothers who grieve children lost to miscarriage or abortion; contrary to established science identifying the preborn as Homo sapiens; contrary to the undeniable continuity of a human being from conception to death, through all stages in between), then the myriad reasons offered to justify their termination are just so many red herrings.

2. Inaccuracy: Virtually every assertion Dr. Levy makes is factually, demonstrably false. Contrary to her claims,
a. Abortion is associated with an increased risk of subsequent preterm birth. http://media.wix.com/ugd/52...
b. Abortion is associated with an increased risk of adverse mental health. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cont...
c. The claim that abortion is safer than childbirth is a canard. http://media.aclj.org/pdf/W...
d. Increasing access to birth control, perhaps somewhat counterintuitively, does not reduce the incidence of abortion. https://www.lifesitenews.co... (article by former Planned Parenthood clinic director); www.usccb.org/issues-and-ac...
(listing various studies).

3. Illogic: Dr. Levy says being against abortion means being “willing to kill women.” Why? Because some women will die from pregnancy complications. But many more women will die from car accidents. Does that mean allowing automobile use means being “willing to kill women”? Moreover, plenty of women die from abortions. www.safeandlegal.com/the-pr... (listing individual cases). So by her own logic Dr. Levy is also “willing to kill women” ... not to mention the millions of unborn women killed by abortion.

I understand that Dr. Levy considers herself “progressive and open-minded” (www.christianitytoday.com/a...) and is publicly “pro-choice”  (www.huffingtonpost.com/jenn...). That does not mean she should swallow uncritically the talking points of abortion apologists.