Pro-choice left: What we do with children before birth is “private”
Figures on the left have long advocated for removing parental authority for children and replacing it with a shared societal responsibility.
Want to opt your children out of sex education? Home school? Have a say in whether your child receives contraceptives? The left has long resisted parental authority to make such decisions. Instead, they advocate that we do what is best for society.
However, even this collapses when we are dealing with abortion. When it comes to unborn children, or even recently born children, the left rejects any role for society at all. Only in the context of abortion will the left suddenly demand that any role for the state or society give way to the sacred role of the parents and the family unit in making decisions that are best for them.
Honoring the 40th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President Obama proclaimed it a fundamental principle that “government should not intrude on ‘private family matters.’” (See John Piper’s excellent response.) In Roe and its progeny the Court described abortion as a necessary component of a mother’s right to privacy — autonomy from government or societal intrusion….
Abortion ethicist Peter Singer has likewise argued for the family’s right to determine, free from the constraints of society, that a born child should be terminated because it would be “in the best interests of the baby and the family as a whole.”…
If MSNBC is really puzzled about why we have this “private idea that children belong to their parents or children belong to their families,” perhaps it should consider that the left champions that exact view — at least until sometime after the family has deemed their child a “keeper.”
~ Casey Mattox, Townhall.com, April 15
[Photo via politicalpaige.net]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I think we should all have a shared responsibility towards children, but parents should still have their authority, rights and responsibilities. I don’t understand why it would be bad that we are all responsible for children’s well-being though.
He makes a good point about the inconsistency of claiming that children outside the womb are everybody’s responsibility, while children inside the womb are no one’s business but the woman’s.
Only one person can gestate any particular fetus.
More than one person can raise any particular child.
So?
lah te doh?
Sorry, I’m just at a loss to think of any other instance in society where we look at a minor child, shrug, and say, “Meh. Sorry kid, we can’t get anyone else to take care of you right now, so looks like your folks get to do whatever they want to ya.”
So Reality, since you are declaring abortion ‘ok’ because only one person can gestate a child does that mean you oppose abortion past hypothetical viability when the baby could be born alive and then cared for by another? Since there are definitive accounts of babies surviving to go home (healthy even) at less than 21 weeks, and surviving to go home alive at less than 20 weeks, it’s a fair assumption then that any woman wanting an ‘abortion’ past 19 weeks be allowed to induce labor in a hospital, terminate parental rights, and have said baby whisked away to the NICU where others can care for it? Because if you don’t then your assertion that pre-post birth is different because multiple people can care for a post born babe is nothing but hypocrasy and a strawman.
Most women can gestate a frozen embryo. Do you believe that parents should not be allowed to have them destroyed, Reality?
Roe v. Wade rests on a supposed “right to privacy.” We are an odd culture that legally guards privacy but in which people routinely discard privacy for 15 minutes of fame. A culture that is awash in pornography doesn’t value privacy much since porn is the public exposure of private parts and intimate activities.
Example: Kacey Jordan, a porn actress who became famous for being with Charlie Sheen during a meltdown, has had 5 abortions. The law protects her privacy to the extent of allowing her to terminate pregnancies. On her website, she displays her private parts to one and all. Why should the law protect this woman’s privacy when she doesn’t?
Because anyone has a right to disclose anything they want, and to keep private anything they want, Denise. The opposition to legal abortion isn’t an opposition to a woman’s right to privacy (which, as a justification for abortion was a flimsy argument in the first place), and everything to do with the gestating human being’s basic human right to live. Although, in light of the court’s reasoning about abortion and privacy, campaigns like imnotsorry.net are particularly amusing, I agree.
Why the contradiction in their beliefs? It’s not about being consistent, it’s about tearing down humanity, any excuse will do.
I want my kids to be able to drink a 40 oz. big gulp on Wednesdays. Isn’t that a private family matter?
The argument that only the woman can care for a child at that stage is just as easily an argument for OUR side. The idea being that because the child needs the mother to live at that point, it is the only point at which forcing her to take care of him/her is acceptable. So, really it depends on which right is of a higher order, the right to life or the right to be free of parental responsibilities. I think life wins this one pretty easily.
Real-stupid-ity says: April 16, 2013 at 2:13 am
“Only one person can gestate any particular fetus.”
Pray tell, just what species of fetus could that one ‘person’ gestate?
It take a family to raise a child in the way she/he should go.
It takes a whole village of idiots to fabricate an obamateur.
More on Kacey Jordan: This woman worked in the sex industry for YEARS and was on no contraception other than having her male partners use condoms. FINALLY, after her 5th abortion, she had an IUD inserted.
IMO, any fertile female who works in the sex industry should be on the Pill, Norplant, Depo-Provera, or an IUD. However, Norplant is preferable because I’ve read that some studies put its effectiveness at almost 100%.
Of course, it might be possible for a woman working in the sex industry to have a baby and be a very good mother to that baby. Indeed, if she is actually making good money, she might be able to hire people to help her raise the baby.
Nevertheless, it seems very likely that females in the sex industry are going to either abort or, if they have babies, be less-than-stellar moms. Contraception is vital for this group.
DeniseNoe, Norplant is *not* 100%. And it can have serious side effects. I’ve known 2 people who had norplant implants, both gained 50+lbs in the first couple of months, had severe mood swings, and then got pregnant.
“I’m just at a loss to think of any other instance in society where we look at a minor child, shrug, and say, “Meh. Sorry kid, we can’t get anyone else to take care of you right now, so looks like your folks get to do whatever they want to ya.” – I’m at a loss to think of any instance.
“hypocrasy(sic) and a strawman” – both? Really?
“Pray tell, just what species of fetus could that one ‘person’ gestate?” – you’ve been on this site for how long now? And you still don’t know?
“It takes a whole village of idiots to fabricate an obamateur.” – I’ll take your word for it kentheburper :-)
Speaking of … Please pray for the family and friends of a little girl (and her brothers) in my daughter’s kindergarten class who was taken to heaven during a house fire recently. Every detail uncovered in the investigation adds more sadness and confusion to those already grieving. Continue to pray for and help single moms and dads who need support from everyone around them.
“I’m at a loss to think of any instance.”
You’re at a loss to think, when it comes to abortion, you mean. ;)
Yet it is you who first stated “I’m just at a loss to think’ :-)
Come on, we both know you can do better, lift your game. ;-)
at least until sometime after the family has deemed their child a “keeper.”
Oh, I get it now. To liberal women, getting pregnant is a lot like catching a fish.
@ Jespren: Kacey Jordan and many other women work in the sex industry. Should they be on contraception?
If so, what kind?
I suppose you might believe her character will improve if she has a baby. I myself suggested that if Kacey Jordan was, as she claimed, “pregnant by an A-list celebrity,” the money from child support might well enable her to hire people who are good with kids to help her raise a baby.
DeniseNoe, you’re presuposing I agree the ‘sex industry’ should exist. I don’t. Abortion on demand and dangerous, abortion-causing live-birth control which never should have made it past the FDA freely availible are both required for the ‘sex industry’ to function at any sort of ‘modern day’ rate. Instead of ‘girlly magazines’ with pin ups of lushish women (aka WWII) we have acts so depraved I quite literally can’t describe them in a PG forum such as this. I’m consistent. I’m not going to say ‘gee, you shouldn’t do that, but if you do, here, try to be safe.’ There is no ‘wink, wink, nudge, nudge’ in my rational. The sex industry should be shut down, should not exist, already does NOT fall under the 1st Amendment, which has been repeatedly upheld in court, and is simply allowed to exist because law enforcement chooses not to prosecute what they (quite wrongly) see as a victimless crime. So, no, you will never hear me say two unmarried people should be using ‘protection’, you’ll hear me resoundingly say two unmarried people SHOULD NOT BE HAVING SEX.
Do I think having a pregnancy would be good for two unwed people who foolishly and idiotically decide to have illicit sex? Sometimes. Sometimes not. It might be just what they need to mature up, or it could be a horrific mess that drives them both further down into debauchery. But once that pregnancy occures I always think bearing a live child will be better than murdering it.
Should ax murderers make sure their axes are sterile so they don’t give their victims infections? #DeniseNoeQuestions
Prostitution is known as “the world’s oldest profession.” As long as there are human males in existence, there will be prostitutes. (I’m not someone who wants to see a female-only world.) The fact is that Kacey Jordan and a multitude of other women of child-bearing age are selling their favors.
It could happen that a pregnancy would be a good thing. I suggested KJ sue the “A-list celebrity” for child support and live with her kid happily ever after.
She aborted.
I might suggest a tubal ligation but it is quite possible that in a few years, she will WANT to have a baby.
Shouldn’t she and others like her be using effective contraception?
If so, which contraceptives are best?
“Should ax murderers make sure their axes are sterile so they don’t give their victims infections? #DeniseNoeQuestions”
I don’t really see your point on this one. Ax murderers’ victims die before they could get infected, whereas porn stars generally do live long enough after filming a scene to become pregnant.
“DeniseNoe, you’re presuposing I agree the ‘sex industry’ should exist. I don’t.”
By that logic, should pro-lifers not support abortion clinic regulations? After all, doing so seems to presuppose that abortions should be happening. Yet many pro-lifers do support regulations on the grounds that if they are going to happen, they should occur in a safer environment.
JDC, you missed my next sentence, the sex industry, eg hard core pornography the only time when stds/pregnancies would be happening, *isn’t* legal, it’s merely ignored by law enforcement. Things like strip clubs and Playboy are legal, and I would support regulations to make them ‘safer’ for the workers, abortion is, unfortunately, legal, and I support regulations to make them ‘safer’. Hard core pornography, under federal (and many state) indecency laws is NOT legal, there fore the ONLY thing I support is actual enforcement of laws including prosecution for all producers of such.
DeniseNoe, FARMING is the oldest profession, and murder will be around even in an all female society, but I do not think we should hold classes to make murderers more successful in killing their targets to avoid colateral damage or avoid injury to themselves. Robbery will also always be a part of society, shall we hold safety lessons for theives so they can learn how to do so without physically harming their victims? Prostitution is illegal, we shouldn’t be wringing our hands discussing how to make an illegal act *safer*, it’s illegal, we should be discussing how to stop it. (Which, btw, I would recommend, based upon countries with proven results, decriminalizing the act of prositution itself and criminalizing the purchase of prositution, therefore the Johns and Pimps who fuel it get into legal trouble while the prostitutes, by and large victims, feel safe going to the authorities because they are guilty of no crime). Likewise hard core pornography is illegal, we should be demanding enforcement (or change if you are of such a mind) of existing decency laws, not regulation of a criminal act.
“JDC, you missed my next sentence”
yeah, I’m sorry I’m kind of a sloppy reader sometimes. Thanks for the clarification.
JDC, no prob ;) if you consider it a legal enterprise it’s a very valid question.
To some, abortion had a rather compassionate beginning. But as science exposed the truth of life, the power holders were forced to push back at even modest attempts to infringe on their “personal rights.” The history is interesting . . .
Read my blog about the anniversary of Roe v Wade. http://bit.ly/12dSUI6
“Prostitution is illegal, we shouldn’t be wringing our hands discussing how to make an illegal act *safer*, it’s illegal, we should be discussing how to stop it. (Which, btw, I would recommend, based upon countries with proven results, decriminalizing the act of prositution itself and criminalizing the purchase of prositution, therefore the Johns and Pimps who fuel it get into legal trouble while the prostitutes, by and large victims, feel safe going to the authorities because they are guilty of no crime).”
This is probably the only reasonable anti-legal prostitution position I’ve seen. Manages to protect the rights/safety of the sex workers while being able to combat prostitution overall at a legal level. I’m always back and forth on whether prostitution should be decriminalized overall or not, this seems like it would a reasonable way to deal with the issue. Far more reasonable than current US prostitution laws, which just seem to punish the workers and don’t seem to be effective at all. Though I really don’t think we’ll be able to reduce prostitution much at all without combating the illegal drug trade and dealing with addiction.
I think you’re wrong about whether pornography is illegal, though, depending on how you are defining “hardcore” pornography. The laws on pornography are pretty inconsistent and varied but plenty of porn is legal in the US, even at a federal level.
Jack, I do not remember which country did that, but it has been very effective in other countries to lower levels of prostitution and bring about help for victims. As for ‘hard core’ I mean actual depictions of copulation as opposed to just depictions of nudity or simulated sex acts. The current justice department has proclaimed they will not persue any cases of over-age pornography, only child pornography (not that they are very active there either). There have been several federal judge rulings that have upheld the notion that actual sex acts are not covered under 1st Amendment protection, including a Supreme Court case where we get the famous quote “I can not define it, but I know it when I see it” in reference to what fell under “pornography” and wasn’t covered and what fell under “nude art” and was. It’s easy to show hard core porn isn’t legal, though: is it legal to exchange sex for money? No, that’s called prositution and is illegal in the U.S. (excepting in a few places in NV) Getting paid to have sex is illegal, even if there is a camera present. They have just decided not to prosecute the crime in any large scale for several decades. The Bush administration prosecuted several pornographers, but only a tiny amount in comparision to the whole who produce.
No, images of actual copulation between adult partners aren’t necessarily illegal either. The material in question has to satisfy all three points of the Miller Test for obscenity, and some depictions of actual acts don’t satisfy them. Obscenity. sexual or not, isn’t covered under 1st Amendment, not “actual sex acts”. It’s really a subjective and terrible law, imo anyway, it basically depends on the tastes of whatever jury/prosecuting authority/community.
And it’s not so simple that “porn=prostitution therefore illegal”, even though I agree from a moral viewpoint that’s not how it is legally in many cases. Selling images of sex is prosecuted differently (if it breaks obscenity laws) than prostitution.
Jill needs to start her own line of bumper stickers:
To liberal women, getting pregnant is a lot like catching a fish.
I want my kids to be able to drink a 40 oz. big gulp on Wednesdays.
It takes a whole village of idiots to fabricate an obamateur.
These are priceless. Thanks for my daily chuckles.
Indeed, please put ’em on your bumper. I encourage you to do so.