Is that why you hide responses to all your outlet’s articles — despite your outlet’s affirmation that “the conversation is more interesting when everyone has a voice?” Apparently your desire for women’s decisions to be supported, moral implications be damned, is so great that it justifies stifling voices of dissent. Congratulations on creating yet another echo chamber based on a belief in the supremacy of its members’ ideas solely on the basis of immutable characteristics of their identity.
Is that why you use terms like “choices regarding fertility” as a laughably transparent veil over the term “abortion?” Seriously, your article is clearly about abortion. If you are such an unabashed proponent of a woman’s right to eliminate the fetus developing inside her, why not just cut right to the point and add an “abortion” tag to your article? You’re not fooling anyone. These are just dog whistles to your ideological counterparts. You are not trying to change any minds or open a larger dialogue, so just be honest about the topic you’re addressing.
Is that why you at no point even acknowledge the question of the autonomy of the entity that, by your argument, a woman has every right to terminate as she so pleases? No, why would you? It’s all about women’s choices. That’s the heart of the issue, no? You have made it painfully clear that you are unwilling to entertain any alternative viewpoints. Your aim is to establish doctrine, not present an argument based on reason or evidence. You must know this. Anyone who makes a moral statement based on the inherent rights of a group of people knows this. This isn’t a statement of conviction; it is an attempt to define a singular moral truth.
It is truly intriguing to see you paint such a one-dimensional portrait of a complex and very contentious moral issue from such a disingenuous and insecure position.
Godspeed with your preening and self-deception.