The Sorrow of the Abortion Generation

The people around me in my intensely secular-materialist upbringing and environment don’t want to hear it or believe it, but I have come to believe that abortion is wrong 99.99% of the time – wrong according to my religion; wrong for society; wrong as an example to teens; wrong as an affront to simple human dignity. The “Safe, Legal, and Rare” mantra of the 1990s is a cop-out – “rare” can mean anything, while “legal” implies moral superiority over those who believe that a fetus is a human life that must be protected. (Meanwhile, Canada’s mantra seems to be “Safe, Legal, and Available Free at Any Point in your Pregnancy” – we have no abortion law here.)

The sorrow of a generation of “emancipated” women is the untold story of the abortion debate. This brief column by one of my favourite former National Post columnists, Elizabeth Nickson, found its way into a weekly left-leaning ad-rag, “The Women’s Post”. I found it so poignant and moving, that I’ll capture the whole thing here for posterity:

Refusing to breed

Published: May 4 2007
by Elizabeth Nickson

Elites inevitably end up eating themselves, which is why the abortion debate remains so interesting. If you look at abortion rates in the States, they are “safe, legal and rare,” only in redneck states like Mississippi at 45 abortions for every 1000 births, compared to 600 abortions per 1000 births in California, and even larger numbers in D.C., and New York. In other words, the classes most likely to kill their children are the best educated, the well-heeled, and the booksmart. Too bad, cause we could use those babies today, as birth rates crash, and entire countries descend into the “catastrophic” position of 1.2 live births per woman.

I will never forget a moment one afternoon in Portland, Oregon, when the wife of a leading member of the Christian Coalition waved at an empty playground as we passed and said, “those playgrounds were built to be used by the millions of children who were killed by their mothers.” It is good, though chilling, to talk to people on both sides of the debate. I fall on the other side for the most part. I think that the ’70s, when abortion became legal, marked a social shift as important as the abolition of slavery. An entire generation of women, freed from a lifetime of dependency.

And for the most part, the refusal to breed of fully half the women who graduated from university in the years between 1968 and 1974, was the key. We want change, said the flowers of our culture. We want more. We want to study, to work, to travel alone, to love many rather than one, we want to grow. And so they did and everything changed. It turned out that women in the work force made the economy boom and millions who could only dream of things experienced in the 50s were available to the middleclass.

But still, all my friends who are childless mourn for their lost children. It is a subject so painful, few can discuss it. They drop hints, and at high holidays and summers, the sound of the children they didn’t have, at play is the saddest sound we hear. I hope we change again. I wish that all women could have their treasured children and thrilling, exciting beautiful lives, filled with freedom and contributions that will extend our first world benefits to the whole green world.

Elizabeth Nickson is a Canadian freelance journalist.



Filed under Abortion Unlimited, Against the Grain

8 responses to “The Sorrow of the Abortion Generation

  1. EmZi

    I admire your courage for posting this.

    I hope people realize how self-loathing this refusal to breed can be. Women who make this choice are choosing to conform to the ideal or model of career path…of men, the only people who can’t give birth. The group Feminists for Life does a great job of showing how choosing abortion hurts, devalues, abandons, and isolates women.

    The Left loves to make this issue out to be many things that it’s not.

    It’s not an exclusively, or even necessarily, a “religious” issue. If it were, exactly which “religion” are people who have moral objections to this fatal practice trying to “impose”? Judaism? Islam? Hinduism? Christianity? (And if the latter, exactly which confession?) Most of the people from these faiths cannot even agree about who God is, or is not. And even when they do, they agree about little else. (That doesn’t mean there’s no Truth out there, but that’s the subject for another matter.) So how can anyone claim that being against killing the smallest members of the human family is “imposing religion”?

    The only question to be asked in this debate is, “What is the unborn?”. If the unborn are not human, who cares what happens to them?

    Those who are pro-“choice” might want to check out “Five Bad Ways to Argue about Abortion”, by someone whom I understand the pro-“choice” organizations in the U.S. have banned their staff from debating on TV, or anywhere else:

  2. A moving piece. Too bad about Nickson, wonder if she could be rehabilitated one day.

  3. neo

    — DETROIT — Until this year, only pregnant women 35 and older were routinely tested to see if their fetuses had the extra chromosome that causes Down syndrome.

    Under a new recommendation from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, doctors have begun to offer a new, safer screening procedure to all pregnant women, regardless of age.

    About 90 percent of pregnant women who are given a Down syndrome diagnosis have chosen to have an abortion.

  4. MA

    Now here’s a cross between two favourite Lefty issues: the environment and abortion.

    Did anyone see this? Lefties collide: one bemoans the refusal to breed of his own, the others are taking the hysteria about global warming to the point that it makes one wonder whether forced population control — a la the forced abortions of China — become the new way of life here.

    (I don’t necessarily vouch for any or all statements commenting on the actual post, but it gives a good idea about the collision of Leftie causes, and some good rebuttal lines that Christians and non-Christians alike can use.)

  5. Save the earth by not having children? Sick and twisted logic, but more proof to me that Atheism is a path to extinction, while the Judeo-Christian God is the one true God of life on earth.

    Atheist-leftists eliminate themselves through refusal to breed, and through sacrifice to false prophets like Al Gore. Muslims eliminate themselves through endless internecine slaughter and non-stop provocation of their neighbors.

    The environmentalists’ creed seems to be: live your life racked with guilt, and leave no one behind when you die, so that the Polar Bears and Marmots can finally have their peace.

  6. jill

    It is an interesting point of view. I have many friends who have chosen not to have children, and they are perfectly happy for having made that decision. There isn’t any self-loathing involved. Some of them are teachers, who have had the pleasure of being with children each and every day for 30 years. Others are career professionals who just simply don’t want to breed. I think that decision needs to be respected.

    On the abortion front, it may be true that we haven’t any abortion laws, but most doctors will refuse to perform an abortion after 12 weeks gestation. Most. Not all.

    I believe abortion is morally wrong, but **women have the right to make that decision**. I suppose that opinion dumps me in the pro-choice bucket, and I’m okay with that. I’m not okay with the thought that the government, the medical profession, the Church, or special-interest groups have the right to tell me what I may and may not do with my own body (yes, insert argument here about how abortion also concerns the body of the unborn foetus, which would, of course, not survive without my body, so that argument is somewhat fallacious). It is vitally important that women who decide to make this choice have proper care and counselling and follow-up care, rather than just taking potentially life-threatening herbs, going to a back-alley chop shop ‘abortionist’, making a date with a coathanger, or, worse yet, abandoning a newborn baby in a toilet in a store.

  7. Jill: this type of reasoning is precisely why I have become pro-life. You just don’t make any sense! And your dismissal of the fetus-as-human argument is offensive and crude. If you have a heart, you cannot dismiss the precious humanity of nascent life.

    At the very least, abortion proponents must admit to the reality of their point of view: in order to believe that abortion-on-demand is right, you must believe that some lives are less valuable than others. It’s a dangerous belief, striking at the heart of modern civilization.

  8. Pingback: Abortion, Prematurity, and Fertility: Barbara Kay on the whitewashing efforts of the “Pro-Choice” crowd « Flaggman’s Canada

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s