Dear oh dear – if you’re going to disagree, disagree with the actual claim, not a different one. That applies to sub-claims as well as the chief claim.
Someone called Rand Paul Fanbase (not a promising start, I know) on Twitter:
Rand Paul Fanbase @LibertyNerd
@OpheliaBenson not only supports abortion “rights” but says there’s nothing bad about abortion. Humanism=hedonism. https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/articles/5269 …
What I actually wrote in the piece:
We don’t have to be helpless before a failure of contraception, because there is a fix. That’s not tragic.
Of course, that’s not to say that abortion is never sorrowful. It’s to say that it’s not inherently and always sorrowful and that it shouldn’t be made so by people who care more about a stranger’s pregnancy than about her right to decide whether it will continue. The pervasive idea that abortion is inherently and always sorrowful is a product of the political war against it and should be clearly recognized as such.
Saying “it’s not inherently and always sorrowful” is not the same as saying “there’s nothing bad about it.”