Both of the extreme positions in the abortion war use the Saint’s Excuse, the historically destructive rationalization that roughly translates as “We know what’s right, so we will shamelessly lie, cheat, steal, and commit mayhem to make certain our virtuous position prevails.” Prominent employers of the Saint’s Excuse past and present include Mao, the Spanish Inquisition, ISIS, and Ted Cruz’s marketing consultant, among others.
From the pro-abortion side, we saw NARAL embrace The Saint’s Excuse when, in the middle of its orgy of self-humiliating political correctness during the Super Bowl—NARAL said this ad was “transphobic” (the word they were looking for is “silly”)—
—it condemned a Doritos ad for “humanizing fetuses.”
Imagine that! Humanizing a growing organism with human DNA, created by two human beings that will, unimpeded, grow up to be a human being itself! The Horror.
That was just intellectually dishonest, however. What anti-abortion Pat Lohman is doing in her battle against abortion is far, far worse.
Until a few months ago, Amethyst Health Center for Women, one of Northern Virginia’s few abortion clinics, helped women considering abortions in Manassas. Lohman moved her crisis pregnancy center, AAA Women for Choice, right next door. Does “Women for Choice” sound like an anti-abortion organization to you? No? Well, that’s the idea, you see. Pat Lohman wants women seeking abortion to wander into her operation by mistake, where they will be told horror stories about abortions gone wrong and be pressured into changing their minds with “pamphlets, pleas, prayers, promises of help, used baby gear, bloody imagery, [and] God” until they either capitulate or leave.
Now, however, this unethical deception by the pro-life activist has moved to a new and even more dishonest stage. The operator of Amethyst Health Center retired and the service closed. Lohman and her allies bought the property using a surrogate (According to property records, it now belongs to the Indiana-based Blessed Virgin Mary Foundation) so the abortion provider didn’t suspect their purpose before the title passed. Today everything about the abortion clinic seems the same as ever, except there is no way to get inside. The clinic’s Google ads are still live, and the phone number is still connected. When women dial that number, however, the call is forwarded to AAA Women for Choice. If a woman seeking an abortion comes to the abortion clinic directly, she will try the door, find it locked, then go right next door, into the clutches of lying Pat Lohman and her devoted, virtuous, saintly minions.
This is truly outrageous deception, but probably not illegal. Lohman, Saint’s Excuse Grandmaster that she is, has her rationalizations all lined up.
“Deceptive? People say we’re deceptive? Okay,” Lohman told a Washington Post columnist. “But what the other guys are doing? That’s deceptive, too. Those girls have no idea what abortion really is. When I hear ‘pro-choice,’ that is a deception. And this country has forgotten about God.”
Ladies and Gentlemen, The Saint’s Excuse!
7 thoughts on “Anti-Abortion Deception And The Saint’s Excuse”
Was this “—it condemned a Doritos ad for “humanizing fetuses.”” supposed to be a link? Because when clicked on, it opens a blank page. Thought you’d want to know.
Can’t get that link to work, for some reason, sorry. I put in another one.
If one really believes that abortion is murder, then it seems to me one would be easily able to justify this. Is lying to prevent murder always unethical?
One can’t believe that it’s murder, because the law says it isn’t. Absent that, people have autonomy. Lying to people to foil their legal rights is not ethical.
I actually thought about this. We have to look at it from both positions: If you believe that mothers who have abortions are killing their children, is it unethical to try to trick them into not? I think it’s a shadier question than Jack let on.
That said, from the other side, if you think that she’s simply having a tumor removed and it’s her damn right to do it, this probably seems monstrous.
This might be one of the most stark examples I can imagine on how the disconnect between the two sides on abortion can lead people to drastically different mores. If you apply the golden rule…. I’m sure in her current state of mind she’d say that she’d want to be tricked out of an murder, if it came up. From a universality perspective, if everyone tried to trick potential murderers out of murdering, I think there’d be fewer murders. I think that there’s a strong argument that from her frame of reference, she IS acting ethically.
But the thing that always ruins a great narrative is the other side. If abortion is not killing, then this is a medical procedure, and I don’t think anyone really wants to be tricked out of seeking medical attention, and if everyone tricked everyone out of seeing the doctor, we’d probably be in a pretty shitty place.
I have to admit, I’m torn.
The Saint’s Excuse is like that. The problem is that I don’t see obvious stops on the slippery slope. Fake abortion clinics? What then, fake doctors? Fake abortions?
It is justifiable only under extreme utilitarianism, and that’s almost always a bad standard.
In my experience, you actually think about most posts.