A young abortion doctor's dilemma
In short, a gay abortionist started having shaky feelings about his dedication to abortion when he and his partner started trying to adopt a child. After all, each baby he dismembers is "one less child for adoption".
No. It's a specific child he killed.
"Evan" does struggle with this:
He also wondered how he would explain what he did for a living to his adopted child. After all, wouldn't his son or daughter have been born because the birth mother had not chosen abortion?
But Evan is also choosing. He is choosing to value the mother's "reproductive rights" above the life of each and every child he kills. He could, after all, say to her, "My partner and I want to adopt. I, personally, would give this child a home. Will you allow me to love your child rather than kill him?"
He chooses not to.
As does every abortionist, in a way. Probably every single abortionist knows somebody who would adopt the child his forceps are closing in on.
It's just that, for "Evan", the way he's set his priorities is a bit more clear.
There are so many other facets of this article I could go after. The coy way the author avoids, as much as possible, the violent reality of what "Evan" does to children. The melodrama of painting abortion as sparing women from dangerous criminal abortions, rather than the reality of abortion as ensuring that she ends up with a dead baby instead of the live baby she'd very likely be eager to love and care for herself, if given the chance. The question of how "Evan" could be "proud" of what he does, yet unwilling to talk about it. The fact that abortion is emotionally and morally repugnant even to those who have strong stomachs and an intellectual dedication to the principle that abortion is a right.
No. Let's just stick with the fact that whenever he finally does adopt, "Evan" will know in his heart of hearts that there is always something he loves more than the child he's opened his home to.