Abortion on Demand and with No Apology?

Lately there have been a number of articles from the Left and the mainstream media insisting that abortion is nothing to be apologetic about, and that there is nothing "distasteful or immoral" about abortion.

Dave Andrusko of National Right to Life opines that the writers of such pieces think they are being "somehow bold".

May I suggest such writers are in fact being timid?

While being in-your-face about their devotion to promoting abortion, these writers are curiously bashful about describing what abortion actually is. The authors either use the term "abortion" or employ more typical euphemisms like "reproductive rights." But I have yet to hear of an article being "proud" of "ripping limbs off an unwanted fetus" or "shredding the parasitical mini-human" or "poisoning the little so-and-so". Are there pro-abortion writers out there who actually say, "Yes, abortion kills an innocent baby by brutal means, and I'm fine with that"?

I suspect not many. (But there are some who come close; see Salon’s “So What if Abortion Ends Life.”)

It may be that there are those who think this way, but do not say so publicly for crassly political, calculated reasons: they fear such unadorned talk would sour the conflicted "mushy middle" voters, voters who don't like abortion but are willing to allow it, voters who would recoil instinctively if the horror of abortion were as upfront as these authors' devotion to it.

Or it may just be that these authors avoid frank descriptions of abortion because, deep down, despite their foul language and aggressive bravado, these women know what we all know: Abortion is a tragic, horrible injustice that hurts not just the baby but also the mother, who is left with wounds that cut deep into her heart and soul and cry out for healing.