Why Wendy Davis Defends Abortion: To Justify Her Own

We all know Wendy Davis defends abortion. She became famous for doing so when she filibustered the Texas state legislature to prevent them from restricting some abortions. I remember her speaking strongly against men who oppose abortion, saying that they shouldn’t control women’s lives.

But I have to ask, should we only allow those who have killed before have control over all national laws against homicide? Should murderers decide the penalties for taking another’s life?

I suppose it would be easy to argue that this question literally applies in the case of abortion, but I’m asking this question to a wider audience, including those who pretend that abortion is akin to pulling a bad tooth rather than killing a daughter.

The point here is that Wendy Davis and others really aren’t opposed only to men (and only pro-life men, if they were honest) having input on abortion law, they also oppose women from having any input if these women are not pro-abortion.

In fact, it is pretty much a club of women who have done the deed and the daughters they raise.

In the case of Wendy Davis, she was defending her own action, and will probably insist on doing so for the rest of her life. According to Associated Press:

 Davis writes that during her second trimester she took a blood test that could determine chromosomal or neural defects, which doctors first told her didn’t warrant concern. But a later exam revealed that the brain of the fetus had developed in complete separation on the right and left sides, Davis says. She sought opinions from multiple doctors, who told her the baby would be deaf, blind and in a permanent vegetative state if she survived delivery, she writes.

“I could feel her little body tremble violently, as if someone were applying an electric shock to her, and I knew then what I needed to do,” Davis writes. “She was suffering.”

She goes on to say that an “indescribable blackness followed” the pregnancy and that the loss left her forever changed.

The ectopic pregnancy happened in 1994, and terminating it was considered medically necessary, Davis writes. Such pregnancies generally aren’t considered viable, meaning the fetus can’t survive, and they can endanger the mother’s life. But Davis writes that in Texas, it’s “technically considered an abortion, and doctors have to report it as such.”

Birth defects can be horrible trials to deal with. But just like we shouldn’t kill people after their born, so it is no different when we do so before they are born. What’s funny (and not in a good way) is that the way this is reported about Davis it is as if special circumstances are required to justify abortion. In this case, the circumstances are better than the “first world problems” that other people invoke, but the bottom line is that she still felt she had to make excuses to justify the procedure.

(Putting the ectopic pregnancy in the same class as the “euthanasia” abortion, Texas reporting law notwithstanding, is a disinformation move. Ectopic pregnancies are not removed to kill the baby so it won’t be born, but operations to save a mother’s life in the case of a baby that cannot be born.)

So if the fact that men can’t get pregnant disqualifies them from having any input into abortion policy, why don’t women who have had abortions feel any need to recuse themselves? Why are only men supposed to shut up?