The article fails, of course, to put in context that Ragsdale sits on NARAL's board and that board provides the political cover for an multi-billion dollar publicly supported industry involved with the destruction of children for any reason.
It's so telling to read her words and the obvious contradictions within. Ragsdale is obviously a very intelligent woman, and well-spoken, but she says certain things without even considering their implications:
From the article:
"I suppose it's possible for an intelligent, faithful person to still believe that there's no moral difference between a zygote and a baby," Ragsdale allows. "But there's no reason for most of us to believe that. And I don't."
How can a scientific or moral truth be so subjective that it depends on one's own personal beliefs? That would make it not a moral principle, but a matter of personal interpretation. There has to be an objective truth: either the fetus is a child or it is not, but to cop out and say that it depends on what you want to believe is akin to saying that a baby chicken is only a real chicken if you want it to be, other people can disagree and perhaps it's not a chicken at all. Her line of logic is purposefully anti-logic, it is the cold, calm rationalization of forcing what you want to be true over the objective truth.
Her bad logic continues later in the article:
"That's the tragedy in most cases," she continues. "That birth control failed, that they might want to have a baby but the economics are such that they can't possibly afford it, that we don't have healthcare, that women can't choose to have the babies they want. There's a tragedy."
What, I wonder, does she mean by "it"? What is "it"? And by saying "babies they want" she's clearly contradicting her earlier statements that "it" is not a baby. She's saying that until "it" is born, the baby is not a baby, but in the same sentence, just a short few words later, she acknowledges that some babies are wanted and the aborted babies are unwanted, but it shows that she recognizes that they are both babies.
I can't fault Ragsdale, she is obviously so wrapped up in pro-abortion politics, organizations, and self-identity politics that it is likely an enormous intellectual mountain to climb to state the obvious: that abortion kills a child. And I hesitate to too easily castigate the media and the Phoenix, for they are likely surrounded by a climate that doesn't engage these ideas and issues in a competitive way-- they all blindly accept Ragsdale, and look to her as the authority figure. They are reporters who don't know, so they seek out whom they trust to know for them, and are getting bad answers.
No, friends, the uncomfortable blame lies with us. The blame lies on our shoulders because these lies continue without our constructive corrections. These appointments go unchallenged because we give up on the world. We hear too often religious people excuse their own personal inaction because they 'see signs of the end times' or because there's "no hope" or because things are "too far gone" and they let these things continue. We focus on the overwhelming problems and get dispirited, whereas, instead, we need to challenge ourselves each and every day to continue taking constructive pro-life action to help save the unborn. When we hear a pro-abortion argument we need to correct it. When we see a pro-choice politician we need to respectfully engage them, when we find the pro-choicers in our own family, we need to dialogue with them, and when we see a woman in need we need to continue speaking to her and bringing her to the many wonderful pregnancy centers around the state.
The blame lies with us, the challenge is upon us, and the future will change because of you.