The wire coat hanger has long been the prop of "choice" for those staging pro-abortion rallies or protests. You see them on signs and buttons and hanging around necks, all designed to symbolize what will happen to women if they ever lose the legal right to kill their unborn offspring. There are a couple of serious problems with this tactic and, ultimately, this line of thinking. First, the "coat hanger defense" has nothing to do with the ethics of abortion. It makes no attempt to justify the act, it simply argues that if women ever lose this right, they'll die en masse from self-induced abortions. Those who make such an argument conveniently ignore the fact that abortion, itself, kills a living human being, not by accident but by design. It is completely backwards to argue that society must "keep it safe" for one human being to kill another human being, one who is completely innocent and defenseless. It is like arguing that we should legalize armed robbery because bank robbers might die in the process of holding up a bank. Laws must protect the potential victim, not the potential assailant.Solid reasoning. Let me add this: Let's say that abortion gets outlawed in the USA in the near future. Some women resort to abortions done
-with wire coat hangers (as opposed to the only sometimes-sterilised tools currently used in abortuaries)
-in back alleys (as opposed to the often-frightening confines of often-unprofessional abortuaries wherein the "doctor" and the nurses are paid on the basis of frequency of abortion performed)
-performed in non-sterile conditions (well, even less sterile than most abortuaries, I mean)
-if not by themselves then by medical quacks (well, a higher percentage of quacks than are currently employed in the baby-murder industry). The oft-implied fear is that, as the article says, "they'll die en masse from self-induced abortions". Why? B/c, obviously, more women will die due to infections, toxic shock syndrome, incomplete abortions and D&Cs, perforations of the uterus, etc. I mean, more than die or become sterile NOW, b/c certainly quite a few end up with such negative personal consequences (let alone their babies, who usually end up dead and not even given the courtesy of burial in one piece).
The irony is that most baby-murder proponents are also believers in Darwinian evolution by natural selection, and it's strange that believers therein would have a moral objection to natural selection taking place. If these womens' systems are not strong enough to withstand these infections and syndromes, then what is the problem removing these women (and their defective genes) from the gene pool? They won't introduce any offspring into the gene pool either (fortunately, since the offspring die in the process), so these weak systems and weak uteri will not perpetuate themselves in future generations. That's a good thing, right? Even if women become sterilised by abortions incompetently performed, is that not an occurrence of natural selection as well, deactivating the uterus of the woman whose genes were not strong enough to resist pointy-ended trauma and/or subsequent infections and whose offspring were not strong enough to survive the application of chemical weaponry and forcible dismemberment? What's the objection here, precisely?