Of all the terrible media publications out in the ether, the News & Politics section of Teen Vogue might take the championship belt for harboring the most garbage opinions ever. Recently, they’ve penned articles bravely titled, “We Need To Talk About Digital Blackface In Reaction GIFs” and “The Silence Around Periods Is LITERALLY Putting Lives At Risk,” whatever that means. However, one piece by Lauren Duca, a columnist for the ultra-leftwing magazine, puts forward more ridiculous and near inhumane arguments for abortion than previously thought possible in fewer than 900 words.
Ms. Duca’s open letter to the Democratic Party asserts, “Equality is impossible without reproductive rights.” Of course, she is talking about the “right” to kill an unborn child for any reason one might see as justifiable. She makes sure to mix in every perversion of ethical behavior used by Progressives to diminish what an abortion really is and to advocate that any woman should be able to solicit one.
In nearly every paragraph, there is a claim or argument so outlandish that it could easily be mistaken for an article on The Onion. Yet Ms. Duca’s attitudes towards abortion policy and its place on the ideological litmus test for Democratic Party members are quite scary if you truly cherish human life. And I mean all life.
So we can look at this article in two ways: 1) through the lens of humor, which often diminishes an opponent’s credibility; and 2) through a lens of morality, common sense, and science. Here are five examples of Ms. Duca’s foolishness and frightening lack of ethical decency.
1) Being pro-life is pretty much the same thing as not being a fan of bubble tea, but also preventing other people from drinking bubble tea because of your personal distaste for the beverage.
Yes, you read that correctly. If you are confused, here is the full quote below:
“Here’s an analogy for Sanders, Luján, and all of the men in my mentions, who are apparently still struggling with this concept: It’s cool if you refuse to drink bubble tea, but that doesn’t mean you need to prevent others from having the option of drinking bubble tea. The problem is not rejecting bubble tea, but in dictating others’ ability to drink bubble tea just because you personally consider bubble tea to be vile ball milk.”
Not only is Ms. Duca using an obscure Asian drink (that is actually quite delicious in my experience) a really strange way to analogize this debate, it also shines a light on the immorality of Progressive attitudes toward abortion.
Conservatives like myself witness this morally stunted theorizing, which equates efforts to stop hundreds of thousands of pregnancies from being terminated every year to full-blown efforts to institute bubble tea prohibition. It’s hilarious when you think about the absurdity of the argument, but equally discomforting when you realize this is how 29% of Americans think according to a recent Gallup poll.
2) Should Democrats start backing pro-life candidates in certain districts, we might as well combine the two major parties (with an obvious new title).
Ms. Duca feels so strongly about her right to kill a child in her uterus that if the Democrats start allowing (or, God forbid, supporting) any congressional candidates who are pro-life, then the two-party system might as well be dead.
“Being pro-choice is not a “requirement” of being a Democrat, but valuing equality ought to be, and true equality is impossible without abortion access. A win for a Democrat who opposes abortion rights is a loss for human rights. Honestly, if that’s the plan, may be we should just scrap the two-party system and do a Democrat–Republican combo ticket. Tentative title: The White Supremacist Patriarchy.”
Ding! Ding! Ding! I’ll take racist white men for $200, Alex! Is anyone really surprised that Ms. Duca found a way to bring race and sexism into the ethical debate over an unborn child’s right to life? That’s today’s Progressive Left in all of it’s socialist, intersectional glory.
Again, it’s terrifying that people actually think this way. Furthermore, she simplifies the abortion debate as some righteous “human rights” issue. And what, might I ask, are the rights of the child you procreated? Is it not human? Does your fully grown (though probably not cognitively) body have more rights than that still-developing but eventually-whole baby?
3) “Having a baby costs money,” so I should be able to obtain an abortion if I can’t pay for him or her.
After pandering to her intersectional readers by pontificating on the bigoted evils of white men, she later employs her degree in economics—because that’s what all Teen Vogue writers major in at college, right?
“I’m not sure if the problem here is one of willful ignorance, blinding male privilege, or some mind-numbing combination of the two, but not only is abortion access a human rights issue, it’s also an economic issue that is essential to progressivism. Or, to put it more simply: Having a baby costs money.”
LOL. Yeah, what a fantastic argument it is to say children lighten your wallets—like, a lot—so it should be lawfully permitted to terminate a pregnancy. Yet this notion is frequently deployed by Progressives. All it does is display their movement’s complete devaluation of individual responsibility (i.e. don’t have unprotected sex if you can’t handle the responsibilities that arise with becoming pregnant).
4) The Democrats permitting pro-life candidates is simply a strategy for male domination.
“Women cannot be equal when they are denied the option to opt out of that decades-long financial burden, and proposing a platform of economic equality that dismisses this reality is no less than patriarchal arrogance masquerading as ‘strategy.'”
My favorite element of this quote is that it shows a level of stupidity and naïveté that only Teen Vogue could produce. Across the country, Democrats only have complete control over 6 state governments. Republicans have complete control of 26. There are 34 Republican governors. The GOP controls the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. 68% of Americans do not believe that abortion should be “legal under any circumstances.”
People who think like Ms. Duca with regard to abortion are in the vast minority. Don’t they understand that there is a correlation, if not some causation, with the Progressive Left’s stance on abortion that alienates voters and makes large swaths of Americans call their moral standing into question? But it doesn’t matter to them. The Left has closed off its already extremely rigid ideological platform from any malleability.
5) If women can’t get abortions, then they’re just breeding machines a la The Matrix.
“The economics of abortion are crucial to policy debate, but from an ethical standpoint, the necessity of reproductive rights comes down to this: Refusing abortion access casts women as breeding machines, in the sense that being compelled to carry a pregnancy to term renders us as lower ranking than organic matter in the eyes of the law.”
There’s a great deal to unpack here. Firstly, the fact that Ms. Duca attempts to make an argument “from an ethical standpoint” is hysterically ironic. Secondly, pretending that prohibiting abortion would turn women into “breeding machines” and nothing else is so absurd I’m starting to think this is an Onion article again.
The biggest fallacy of the pro-abortion movement is its assertion that they stand for the rights of women, yet the movement’s strongest advocates ignore the simple truth that nearly all women want to raise children. They make voluntary life choices that allow them to be mothers over career-oriented people in high numbers. The desire to maintain a job or rise in the ranks of a business does not exempt a woman (or a man) from the consequences of getting pregnant.
Lastly, to get scientific for a moment, human evolution made us male and female. If you want to cast blame on anything for making women our breeding machines, blame the 4.1 billion years that life has existed on Earth. Furthermore, referring to a developing fetus as simply “organic matter” is ugly and a complete distortion of science. Fully-grown humans are technically a collection of “organic matter.” Should murder be legal?
This reminds me of a classic Ben Shapiro moment, when he showed a dumb college student what it means to live the “Thug Life.” She argues that fetuses are “just a bundle of cells,” which proves that it should be permitted to kill babies in the womb. Again, this is a complete distortion of science. The question Ben always asks pro-choice debate foes is this: “Does the birth canal magically confer life?” No, of course it doesn’t. Yet Progressives have it in their heads that a fetus isn’t human until it exits the uterus. And Democrats claim to be the pro-science party…
Image courtesy of Sant Magazine.