Quote of the Day 9-15-10
… [M]y plan is to… make sure that every little grandmother with her rosary, and every obnoxious, loud, angry man with his bull-horn, and every self-righteous seminary student waving a Bible, and every teenage girl with her chastity ring and her secret sex life standing between a woman and her own moral choice REALLY HAVE TO FACE that they are not doing any of the things that could actually lessen the need for abortion.
~Charlotte Taft, director of the Abortion Care Network and former abortion mill director, RH Reality Check, September 15
Sep.15, 2010 9:29 am |
Quote of the Day |
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.
After reading the full blog entry, it is obvious AGAIN that the pro-aborts have NO IDEA what pro-lifers are about and what we do. They think that all we do is yell at abortion-vulnerable women. Do your research, lady.
Hi Charlotte,
How are you lessening the need for abortion by promoting abortion?
Carla, that was my thought exactly. lol
Wag your finger at the eeevil pro-lifers, Charlotte, while your cash register ka-chings. I see you have no problem profiting from the various social situations mentioned.
I got the 40 Days email; there is no celebration of the abortionist’s illness. What a crock, as per usual.
We should support IUD’s? You mean Personal Abortion Devices, which is what they should be called. The detrimental effects of them are so bad that many women have been permanently scarred, and even in some cases rendered infertile by these cruel, worse than barbarian devices.
If my pharmacy put an “Anti Choice” sign in their window, I’d shop there and even buy their overpriced bottled water from them!
Charlotte hasn’t even the remotest comprehension of what it means to be pro-life. She can only twist it into what SHE would be if she PRETENDED to be pro-life. Sure if I were a faking abortionist, I’d also think that way. Fortunately, all things are possible with God. Violence never solves anything. Violence against unborn children, whether surgical or chemical, solves nothing and only creates more problems for the surviving parents, their families, and all of us.
Hmm . . . I’m a soft-spoken, middle-aged, pro-contraception (not abortafacient) politically Independent African American woman, so I guess I would check “none of the above . . .”
“her own moral choice”
BTW, I thought abortion wasn’t a “moral choice.” I thought it was the most common surgical procedure on earth. Most surgeries I know of aren’t “moral choices.”
“and her own moral choice…the need for abortion”
Wait wait wait… her own choice… the need for abortion. Her choice… the need. Choice, need, choice, need. It is both a choice and a need i.e. a necessity? If you need this, if it is what you must have, then it doesn’t seem like there’s really any choice…
It’s also relevant that doing all the stuff on her list doesn’t actually reduce abortions. New York (the state) does most of that, if not all, and has the highest abortion rate of any state in the US.
They’re really inconsistent, aren’t they? Like grasping at straws to portray pro-lifers the way they want us to be, not the way we really are.
I would include this lady in my prayers…for a conversion of heart.
It’s also relevant that doing all the stuff on her list doesn’t actually reduce abortions. New York (the state) does most of that, if not all, and has the highest abortion rate of any state in the US.
Keli, New York City has tons of free contraception available, and they have the highest abortion rate in the nation (the city has been called the abortion capitol of the country). The highest the abortion rate is in the Bronx. Los Angeles and Washington DC also have high abortion rates, and I assume that they’re doing everything on the list as well.
Ok.
Went to comment on RH Reality Check. I should know better.
“and her own moral choice…the need for abortion”
C’mon guys. You know like those moral choices we make every day such as:
I need to start my neighbor’s house on fire because I don’t like how he walks.
I need to rob a bank because middle-class is just not working for me.
I need to drink a six-pack of Budweiser before I drive to work tomorrow.
I need to hire a hitman because my boss didn’t smile at me today.
No joke; I once saw a post on a pro-life website wherein a woman wrestled with the decision whether or not to abort her child so that her wedding dress would fit when the wedding date arrived. I’m proud to say that the young pro-lifers unanimously posted that she should have the baby and enjoy a less formal, more fun wedding in a big old tent dress. Well, ok, the tent part is my words. She galled me on two counts: such a pathetic reason to consider killing her child, and the nerve to post about it on a pro-life site.
“REALLY HAVE TO FACE that they are not doing any of the things that could actually lessen the need for abortion.”
Like what? Forcing mass sterilization?
Perhaps someone should create a neo-eunuch movement?
Abdicate our own moral choices?
All become super “pro-choice” advocates, sweep the nation and ensure that everyone who “needs” abortions will not only have no problem getting one, but also have no problem getting a ride to the clinic, paying the bill, getting a wheelchair into the room, getting the abortion, and then getting kicked to the street.
Why should she even need to make a choice – because she “needs” an abortion?
As others point out – how does a woman’s moral choices change her “need”? Isn’t that the heart of the problem – that conception comes before choice and not vice-versa?
Surely you don’t mean we should be working towards that end – because making the choice up front about intercourse would change the possibility of conception, which really would change the situation regarding her “need for an abortion”?
Charlotte – let’s talk about your needs first.
You need money?
You need to fulfill a utopian responsibility to society to diminish the moral evils, by diminishing the “weeds”?
You need us to go away?
Maybe what you really need is a good conscience cleaning. But that will only happen if you give up your “choice”.
Carla, there are a few pro-life comments that slipped by their usual vigilance. Bravo! You know, when I was younger and the feminazi’s were out in full force, they hadn’t yet started calling us “Antis.” Ironic, but that sounds like what we females become when we don’t encourage our siblings to abort our Nephies and Niecies. I am hoping 40 Days also brings out more Uncle-ies and more cousinies. Lol! I’m proud to be an Anti and an Auntie!
ninek,
I pictured myself as a dying critter in the desert as the vultures were circling……Yikes they are a vicious crew over there. :O
But yeah. I had to get my two cents in.
Isn’t Charlotte the one who ran the November Gang? She encouraged women to write goodbye letters to their unborn child and then posted them in the waiting areas of the clinics. Pro-choicers got hopping mad because they felt it was acknowledging what we all know but what pro-lifers consistently point out that the unborn is a human life and that women experience sadness and grief when aborting that life. I could be wrong about it being the same woman but I think it is.
Here’s a link…pro-choice but still worth the read. Wow. Abortion doesn’t ever hurt women, huh?
http://www.abortionconversation.com/abortionevolbaumg.pdf
May I slide a comment into this discussion? I feel out of place because I am pro-choice, but I feel a need to respond to some of these comments.
If you read Charlotte’s entire article, she clearly states that her purpose of writing is to find other ways of helping women in unfortunate circumstances to keep from having a child in the first place. I honestly think that there are women out there who enjoy sex, as they might enjoy tv or books or chocolate, and wish to have some sort of filter to keep from getting pregnant.
The reason they don’t want to become pregnant is because they most likely cannot afford the child and he/she would grow up in a terrible environment or be put into foster care. Google around for information on foster care programs, children in poverty and the American adoption programs if you wish to know more about how terrible they ‘can be’. Not all children will be subject to terrible conditions, but too high of a percentage of them will be.
Sex in long-term relationships is pretty necessary. I challenge anyone to reason why it sex is not necessary in a long-term relationship. Then there is the opposition of teenagers having sex. Of course they shouldn’t be having sex because they’re not mature enough, but then there’s the catch that teenagers aren’t mature enough to listen to adults who say ‘Don’t do it’ so then they end up pregnant because they were ignorant of ways to keep from getting pregnant.
The option of abortion is necessary in this day in age because of the lack of long-term, cost-effective contraceptives. I would bet that if we funded ways of keeping people safe during sex, abortion clinics would no longer exist five or ten years down the road. I feel bad for women who choose to get abortions, but there is some sort of underlying reason for it and our society is to blame for not keeping her safe in the first place.
Finally, certain women end up with terrible, life-threatening diseases while pregnant and further carrying of the fetus could end in death for both. These are incredibly unfortunate and rare, but they must be taken into account. I admit that I see no way of preventing these situations because they are so random and un-forseen. It would be a blessing to everyone if these situations could be rectified in the future as well.
Jen,
First of all, the things Charlotte suggest wouldn’t really take abortion out of the equation, also they aren’t necessarily healthy for women (or necessarily even safe).
People automatically assume nobody can exercise self-control. They think all we can do is be ruled by our hormones. However, every day, in different situations people do exercise self control. Here’s a few “mundane” examples:
a. In the classroom. Even if a teenager is highly sexually attractive to another student in the room, he or she is unlikely to rip off their clothes and have sexual intercourse right there in the middle of the room. Sure, it may seem like a “no-brainer” But most of us have been teenagers. We know how powerful hormones can be. (If not, we’re kidding ourselves).
b. Driving. Most of the time people aren’t trying to drive and have sex at the same time (which would be a very hard/dangerous thing to do). A person may be driving faster to get home (or whever) to have sex, but generally they have enough control not to do so while driving.
Sure, these are “no brainer” examples, but if we took those little moments of self control and extended them in other situations and not “revved each other up” on purpose, it would be more likely we could exercise MORE self control in harder, less “no brainer” situations.
Artificial contraceptives, including IUDs are enhanced with very powerful artificial hormones. These hormones are NOT like a body’s natural hormones–which are made to work WITH the body, no these hormones are engineered to ONLY do what they are engineered, NO MATTER what the body says. Also, sometimes “breakthrough” pregnancies happen. Yes, even on the pill, even on an IUD, even with those things, pregnancies can happen. (You think those 1 and 2 percents are made up–obviously, somewhere, someone got pregnant even on those artificial birth controls).
As for life-threatening dieases, I recommend you read up on Gianna Beretta Molla. Think about how a loving mother is: protective of her kids’ life. Why, then, should a pre-born child be different simply because he or she isn’t out of the womb, yet?
Charlotte may look like a woman who’s on a mission to help women, but all she’s promoting is abortion and artificial contraception. Her sexual education suggestions stem from the belief that people are “just going to have sex anyway” (the phrase in quotes is that way because I’ve had people say that to me), which isn’t necessarily ALWAYS true.
One way that people can avoid or achieve pregnancy is Natural Family Planning (NFP). People think others can’t control themselves, but with a little bit of practice and learning how to express affection in other, chaste ways, a couple CAN exercise self control during a woman’s most fertile time. There’s SEVERAL methods available ranging from all different sorts of practices and I know several people (including teaching couples) and other places that can offer information, should someone be interested. The information is THERE, a person just has to want to get such information.
Yet people continually tell me, there’s no way people can exercise self control, which is one of the main problems based on what I’ve observe. I notice it’s the constant excuse. However, people COULD control themselves if they worked on it, it’s just people don’t WANT to. Therefore, it just makes sense pregnancy can and does happen, since that is one of the results of sexual intercourse. People want no consequences, which is why abortion and such things like the birth control pill exist. The bottom line is consequences DO exist. The law of “cause and effect” still stands.
Charlotte assumes people will just go ahead and use more birth control the more available it is. That’s not necessarily true. Some people refuse to use any form of birth control, thinking that since abortion exists, that they will just go have an abortion should they conceive a baby. I think this would happen even if artifical birth control was completely and utterly free. There’s just some people who feel that way.
Charlotte has as much knowledge of the pro-life community as I do about quantum physics. She has some clue of what it might mean for someone to be pro-life, but she doesn’t know enough about the specifics to really say much on the topic aside from tauting the usual things.
One of the commenters there said that we only want abortion to be illegal because we want poor people to be born so that they can fill the lower class jobs and go to war. What the crap?! Is that really what some of those people think?! I just lost some brain cells reading that. If they think I’m riding in a Benz and living in a mansion, they are sadly mistaken.
Praying that Ms. Charlotte overcomes her bitterness towards pro-lifers and can become a light in the darkness to women with unplanned pregnancies. (That’s what we pro-lifers aim to be.) I wonder if she has any pro-life friends….
One of the commenters at RH said she was so glad they had the truth on their side!
LOL
“I honestly think that there are women out there who enjoy sex, as they might enjoy tv or books or chocolate.”
Yup, abortion sure gave women equal rights. Don’t complain when men say, “I enjoy you like I enjoy a football game, Playboy and a cold beer.
Because people are “things to do” and “property”, right?
Can proaborts get any more shallow?
Hi Jen.
“Sex in long-term relationships is pretty necessary. I challenge anyone to reason why it sex is not necessary in a long-term relationship.”
Sex is necessary in marriage and not in simply a “long-term” relationship and here is why. The sexual act is an act of total self-giving. It is an act that is so intimate and so profound which displays the love between two people that 9 months later you may have to give a name to that love. Thus by the very nature of the act, it is a lifelong commitment because out of the act can result a brand new human being. If there is not a life long commitment, then it is out of place for two people to engage in an act which by its very nature implies a life long commitment. If a couple really loves each other, they will get married and save those conjugal relations until they have actually made that lifelong commitment to each other. Otherwise, sex in any other context is a lie with the body. In the language of the bodies, you are saying that you give yourself to your partner totally and freely forever. This is simply not the case if a couple is not married.
Now the question I have is how is sex in a long term relationship necessary i.e. how do you show that if you are in a long term relationship, then it logically follows that you must have sex i.e. there is no other alternative?
Hmm . . . I’m a soft-spoken, middle-aged, pro-contraception (not abortafacient) politically Independent African American woman, so I guess I would check “none of the above . . .”
I’m a bisexual, pro-contraception (not abortafacient) third-year law student…
If a couple really loves each other, they will get married and save those conjugal relations until they have actually made that lifelong commitment to each other.
Disagree. Whether you think sex before marriage is moral or immoral or a good idea or a bad idea, I don’t think it can be used as an indication of whether two people truly love each other. There are a lot of loving, devoted married couples who had sex with each other before they got married. Of course, there are also lots of people who had sex with someone they weren’t married to and ended up with bad emotional and/or physical consequences, and I think that’s more the problem.
Having said that, I think it’s largely a waste of time to indulge these “people have sex” arguments. Yeah, people have sex – that doesn’t mean that killing human beings is a natural, moral, or necessary outcome. Pro-lifers can disagree five hundred different ways about people having sex, but the point that draws us together is that abortion kills a human being. That’s the scientifically indisputable fact. Arguing about sexual morality doesn’t really get anywhere because any and all sides can keep holding their opinions without something indisputable confronting them.
Hey Maurauder.
“Disagree.”
Well, I would like to discuss this further with you, but I think it is true that we should not indulge the “people have sex” arguments, and I definitely agree with the rest of what you said there. Unfortunately I do sometimes get sucked into these arguments which really have no bearing on the issue at hand. Gee, that seems to be a common theme among pro-choice arguments… bringing up things that don’t at all address the real issue… hmmm…
Bobby Bambino,
I think you described sexual relations beautifully! People think it’s a “right”, rather than a privilege. I agree with you about the conception of children, as well. And I agree with you and Maurauder about engaging in “people have sex” conversations. You’re right, the point isn’t whether or not people have sex, the point is, that sometimes the result of those sexual relations is a baby and that’s a whole new life.
Hi Bobby B,
Yes you’re right. People, myself included, bring up the ‘people have sex’ issue. I guess it’s only important to me because that’s one of the reasons people end up pregnant when they weren’t ready to. I constantly harp on the point that people need to be better educated about sex in general. D.A.R.E’s open opinions about drugs and how they effect you stopped millions of children from doing drugs. Why can’t we do the same thing with sex in a high school class?
Also, you are absolutely right. I see from your perspective that the base point of abortion is that a human being is killed. Of course this is a moral debate situation that will probably never be settled. From my perspective, I don’t think I should have a say in what another woman does to herself or her child that’s still in her body. I’m sure this has been said before, but it is something I believe in fully.
If a woman feels so desperate to the point that she is willing to give up the life of her unborn child, and possibly destroy her reproductive organs, then who am I to stand in her way? Also, there is the question of ‘what is a moral?’ Something small that I find moral might send me to hell in someone else’s eyes. I believe people have a right to masturbate and yet many religions state that it’s immoral to do so. I personally don’t buy into any religion’s stand-point completely because while there are many jewels of wisdom available, there’s also too much control over what people can and can’t do.
Killing other human beings is, in essence, wrong. There are murders of passion where people feel justified in killing another human being. War is a prime example. How can we tell a woman that she is absolutely not allowed to rid herself of her unborn child when we have men and women out slaughtering full-grown humans every day. Sure, there’s the argument that perhaps that child might have been a prodigy at something. Yes, they might have, but we’ll never know. You can’t lament what has happened or what could have happened. I am of the belief that women who are considering abortions should definitely look into what psychological and physical repercussions are and then make her choice. It is absolutely out of my hands to make the decision for her.
Again I bring up the point that I wish people didn’t have to have abortions. I have no faith in people as a whole because our education on what the heavy consequences of having sex are and alternatives to sex are pretty much taboo. People are not educated on how to protect themselves, stay away from temptations, and talk to someone about how they’re feeling.
My mom was very very open with me about sex because she never talked to my sister about sex. My sister ended up starting sex at 15. My mom educated me, taught me how to avoid situations where I might end up hormone-driven and put me on birth control starting at 16. Because of what she discussed with me, I was pretty terrified of having sex with anyone whom I didn’t feel comfortable talking with about STIs or past partners.
Hey there Jen. Nice to talk with you, and thanks for the thoughtful response.
“From my perspective, I don’t think I should have a say in what another woman does to herself or her child that’s still in her body.”
So here you seem to be arguing from the bodily ownership of the mother. Indeed the argument has been said, and to be honest, I do think it is the best argument put forward by the pro-choice movement. But I believe that there are some grave problems with this line of thinking too. You say that you should not have a say in what a woman does to her child that is still in her body. Consider the following scenario. Thalidomide was a drug from the 1950s which was a good cure for nausea and headaches. you can read more about it on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide . Naturally, pregnant women took the drug to mitigate their pain, and with good reason. However, what was discovered in teh 1960s was that thalidomide caused SEVERE birth defects when taken by a pregnant woman. We are talking children being born without limbs. If you google image thalidomide, you will see many many people who were in teh mother’s womb when their mother took thalidomide (of course, not knowing what it would do to the child). So thalidomide cases terrible defects to teh child.
Now, the question is, is it a moral choice for a pregnant woman to take thalidomide knowing full well the consequences that it usually causes these horrible defects? I would argue no, that anyone who willingly takes thalidomide while pregnant is a moral monster given what it can do to teh child. Yet it seems that if we subscribe to teh principle that we cannot say what a women does to her body with a developing child inside, then there would be nothing wrong with a woman taking thalidomide while pregnant. Do you think that it is a moral choice (indeed, a choice that we should allow) for a pregannt woman to take thalidomide to stop her pain, knowing that it will most likely result in a child born without certain limbs?
“If a woman feels so desperate to the point that she is willing to give up the life of her unborn child, and possibly destroy her reproductive organs, then who am I to stand in her way?”
A fellow human being who is in her right mind! How many hotlines and programs are there for people who are considering suicide? They need someone to talk to. They don’t need to die- they need help. Similarly, killing your child and hurting yourself should never be something that we allow others to do. We as fellow rational human beings should step in and intervene for the good of her and her baby.
“War is a prime example. How can we tell a woman that she is absolutely not allowed to rid herself of her unborn child when we have men and women out slaughtering full-grown humans every day.”
If this proves anything, Jen, it proves too much. For under this same justification I should be able to kill my 3 year old daughter. Or my wife. Or anyone for that matter. What is the principle upon which war is based? Is there one? Or at least, should there be one in theory? You will find that many pro-lifers are also against war, that they do not think there is any justification in killing another human being. Those who are for war when necessary would say that when you have an unjust aggressor who is causing people harm (amongst other conditions), you have a duty to stop that unjust aggressor.
“Sure, there’s the argument that perhaps that child might have been a prodigy at something.”
I would argue that this is a terrible, terrible pro-life argument and I cringe every time I hear a fellow pro-lifer spout it.
“My mom educated me, taught me how to avoid situations where I might end up hormone-driven and put me on birth control starting at 16.”
I’m very sorry to hear that Jen. I am here to tell you that you are not a thing or a play object for boys. You are a beautiful woman, created in the image and likeness of God with dignity and moral worth. Your sexuality is a beautiful gift, and you are worth waiting for. God love you.
I am here to tell you that you are not a thing or a play object for boys. You are a beautiful woman, created in the image and likeness of God with dignity and moral worth. Your sexuality is a beautiful gift, and you are worth waiting for. God love you.
Bobby how beautiful and true. I do wish I had heard these words early on in my life. Every young girl should hear them. My daughter will. :)
Aborted children could have been prodigies, or criminals, or teachers or janitors or salesmen or librarians or mentally ill homeless people wandering the streets and raving about impending Martian attacks. What they all were, and what they would have continued to be had they continued to live, is human beings.
Besides everything else it is, abortion is un-American. It’s “all men are created equal,” not “all men are born equal.” Abortion is the latest example of the American public falling short of the ideals the country was founded on. It used to be that all men were created equal, except that woman didn’t fully count under the use of “men” as “humans” and black people definitely didn’t count. Then women and non-white people achieved equal legal status to white men. Now it’s “all men are created equal,” as long as you have the good fortune to make it out of your mother’s womb without being dismembered, burned to death, or having your brains sucked out. Creation starts once the sperm penetrates the egg and a new being with new DNA is formed, not the moment the last centimeter of a baby’s toe slides out of his or her mother.
Wow, Marauder, the above comment is awesome!!
Thanks. :D
Hi again Bobby,
“I’m very sorry to hear that Jen. I am here to tell you that you are not a thing or a play object for boys. You are a beautiful woman, created in the image and likeness of God with dignity and moral worth. Your sexuality is a beautiful gift, and you are worth waiting for. God love you.”
Thank you. I find this comment very heartfelt. I have never felt like a boy’s play thing and I am saving myself out of self-respect. My mother has told me exactly the same thing and I will tell my children the same thing. However, I don’t understand why you said ‘I’m sorry to hear that’. I think my mother was right in making sure I stayed safe. Would you mind explaining further? I’m interested hear your side.
” You will find that many pro-lifers are also against war”
I’m glad you have cleared that up. I have been under the impression that pro-lifers and pro-choicers are both for war. Not much more can be said on that topic. I have always felt that things can be settled with diplomacy rather than bloodshed.
“A fellow human being who is in her right mind! How many hotlines and programs are there for people who are considering suicide? ”
That may be true. I’m sure many women would love advice for what to do in a situation like that. Many women would probably benefit from a hotline like that, but I’m still of the opinion that people make choices for themselves, whether it be good or bad. I don’t mean to bring up the long-standing go-to, but there are women who would do self-abortions if clinics were closed. I hope you’re not of the opinion that I’m cheering ‘abortion abortion abortion’ because that’s exactly the opposite. I condemn the way Charlotte spoke very angrily against anyone who was pro-life, but I reiterate that she made valid points for making abortions a rarity. I don’t want abortions to happen, but they do happen and I think women should have the choice to have safe abortions. I see a rift in difference between what pro-life and pro-choice think. It seems that pro-life considers the child over the mother and pro-choice considers the mother over the child. It’s a conundrum for sure.
“Do you think that it is a moral choice (indeed, a choice that we should allow) for a pregannt woman to take thalidomide to stop her pain, knowing that it will most likely result in a child born without certain limbs?”
You have posed an interesting question. I’m going to look at it scientifically and say that if that happened, someone would surely create a new drug without the side effects and completely nullify the option of taking the drug in the first place. But if that didn’t happen, of course women wouldn’t want their children to be born with birth defects, so many women would choose not to take it. Also, you are looking at this from the perspective that the women still want to have their children be born wheras women who are considering abortion have a completely different mindset and are thinking about themselves instead of the child. But in final consideration I think the government should ban the product because of its side effects. It’s like DDT or asbestos, it’s unhealthy. Yes, I see the mother as a vessel for the child and we can give her instructions on what to do to her body, but she is the primary controller of her body.
Thanks for responding so fully to my post. It was very enriching and interesting to read. I look forward to discussing further. I chose to respond to you over others because you had the most to say with the least amount of ill-feeling towards my opinions and I thank you for that.
Hi Jen. Again, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I am just able to quickly scan comments, and do not have time to give a thoughrful reply over the weekend, but I will talk to you probably on Monday. Have a good weekend.
Hello again Jen.
“However, I don’t understand why you said ‘I’m sorry to hear that’. I think my mother was right in making sure I stayed safe. Would you mind explaining further? I’m interested hear your side.”
Absolutely. Mostly what I was referring to was the fact that she put you on the pill at age 16. Now she may not have said anything like the following or even believed it, but to put someone on the pill is to not have faith in them that they have any self control. How often do we hear “I don’t want you having sex… BUT if you do…”? This is to completely undermine any notion that sex is worth waiting for. Never in general would we tell someone that something is wrong to do and yet give them a way to prevent GETTING CAUGHT if they do it. That is all the pill is. It is way to get away with something you shouldn’t be doing without getting caught. Yet even when looked at from that point of view, the pill fails. Why? It does not protect against STIs nor does it protect your heart from being broken. Boys and girls at the teenage years look at sex very differently. Most young men are not in it for the long run; they are in it for the pleasure that it brings them. The sexual act is such a beautiful act of mutual self giving, and all we as a society seem to be concerned with is how to avoid the natural consequences of teh act, without giving much thought to the myriad of STIs that now run rampant as well as the broken hearts and emotional damage that it has brought on a number of people. So I say it is problematic because it set the bar for you extremely low. It said that if you have instincts and desires, go ahead, fulfill them, just make sure you take a pill every day at the same time. Rather, here was a missed opportunity to teach about self control, self denial, and ultimately waiting and holding out for that which is so good.
“I don’t want abortions to happen, but they do happen and I think women should have the choice to have safe abortions.”
Sure they happen and will always happen. All crimes will continue to happen. If someone is engaging in an action that is takes the life of another human being, then there should never be any circumstance under which we accept that action. Why should the fact that some people will still insist on doing evil imply that we should comply with that evil? Would I really be in my right mind if I began proposing that we make rape safer for rapists? Sometime rapists end up being hurt or even killed by their victim. So rape will happen whether I like it or not, agree with it or not, and I should thus try and make the conditions for rape as safe as possible for the rapist? Of course not. Rape is an action that should never ever be condoned, no matter how desperate the potential rapist is. The same principle applies here in abortion. If abortion is always and everywhere wrong because it takes the life of an innocent human being, then teh fact that people will still break that moral law and do evil should not somehow change that.
“It seems that pro-life considers the child over the mother and pro-choice considers the mother over the child. It’s a conundrum for sure. ”
Indeed it is a conundrum. I often use the phrase conflict of interests. However, the question is, who has more to lose? I (and I think most pro-lifers) do not have the child over the mother, yet we see that we are in a situation where the rights of two people are conflicting and we must resolve the question of which rights trump which rights. In the case of abortion, the unborn always has more to lose because we are talking about the unborn’s life. Indeed, we can sympathize and do everything we can to help the mother through what must be a very grave and trying time. But in the end, she will still be alive. If life is at stake, the rights that should prevail are the ones which preserve the most fundamental right, the right to life.
Jen, I appreciate you talking through the situation which I have posed. It is very open and honest of you. I’m going to respond to a few of your thoughts.
“I’m going to look at it scientifically and say that if that happened, someone would surely create a new drug without the side effects and completely nullify the option of taking the drug in the first place.”
The idea here is that this kind of misses the point of teh thought experiment. Perhaps the woman REALLY likes thalidomide. Perhaps she just wanst to take it because she can. Remember, if abortion is based on teh principle that we can not tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body while an unborn is inside, then we certainly can’t tell her she needs to take one kind of drug over another. It is her choice and hers alone, even if there is a much safer option. In fact, let me turn this up a notch. Suppose the woman WANTS a child without arms. So she takes thalidomide precisely for that reason. Or she undergoes a D & E 20 weeks into pregnancy just to remove the left arm of her child. She doesn’t have an abortion, but she just wants her child not to have a left arm, so she goes to an abortionist who rips off teh unborn’s left arm while still in teh womb, and then births the one-armed child 20 weeks later. Again, if we base abortion on the principle that we cannot tell a woman what she can do with her body and unborn while still in teh womb, this is a perfectly morally acceptable scenario. But of course, I would argue that no one in their right moral mind would say that this is a moral thing to do UNLESS denying it would cause them to also have to deny the “right” to an abortion.
“But in final consideration I think the government should ban the product because of its side effects. It’s like DDT or asbestos, it’s unhealthy. Yes, I see the mother as a vessel for the child and we can give her instructions on what to do to her body, but she is the primary controller of her body.”
Again if she is teh primary controller of her body, she should be able to take any drug she desires or to have an abortionist take off one arm or a leg or all four limbs of the child without killing him. At least then the child isn’t killed and can live life. Thus, I cannot see how the principle upon which abortion is based does not also fall if we say that taking thalidomide is not a moral option. So I would then ask what is the principle of bodily ownership upon which abortion is based? How is abortion applied to teh principle but taking certain drugs or removing limbs from teh fetus without teh intention of killing teh fetus not?
“Thanks for responding so fully to my post. It was very enriching and interesting to read. I look forward to discussing further. I chose to respond to you over others because you had the most to say with the least amount of ill-feeling towards my opinions and I thank you for that.”
My pleasure. Nice to talk with you Jen. Good journey.