National Review, a conservative magazine founded by the late great William F. Buckley (a Roman Catholic) is not known for taking socially liberal positions. Salon, on the other hand, the online magazine, might be. If for example, you were looking for one magazine to support and condone sexual teenage relationships, you wouldn’t go to National Review as a first choice.
So what happens when National Review runs a story about Steve Tyler (of Aerosmith fame), and his former (much younger) girlfriend having an abortion? Salon slams them for not condemning the relationship that led to the abortion.
The National Review piece is by the co-founder of Rachel’s Vineyard, a post-abortion counselling group. So it seems natural to focus on post-abortion effects, not the societal disarray that is the root cause of so many abortions.
Certainly, Tyler’s relationship with his “girlfriend” sounds horrifying–he convinced her parents that he should be her legal guardian so they could live together. She was 14.
But when the Salon writer reads it, she’s horrified that the piece is about the after-effects of abortion and not the relationship itself or how the girl suffered. Those would be worthwhile articles to write, but they are different articles. I’m sure they’ve been written before, and I’m sure they’ve been written by pro-lifers, too, a group of people who are much more often concerned about the sort of sexual relationships that lead to abortions in the first place.by