2011-01-21

The Great Lie

I came across a post or two at a 'blog named Feministe about the recent horrific discoveries at an abortion clinic in Philadelphia claiming (along with many comments to the post) this case "proves" the same old worn out arguments for making abortion "safe, legal and rare". There were numerous contradictions and blatant inconsistencies in the post and the attached comments, so I wrote a comment in an attempt to address at least a few of them. Since the comment is currently under moderation, and I really have no hope that it will actually be published, I hope you'll forgive me for posting it here:

“The Truth of the matter is that each and every life created, from the moment of its conception, has intrinsic value given by its Creator that is not dependent on whether said life is “wanted” by another human or is useful in some way to another human. This includes tiny embryos up to full term and beyond and the mothers who carry them, and the fathers who gave the other half of the DNA. This is most clearly true of innocent life.

I HAVE “been there”, as a mother who has carried 5 children to term and lost 2 children to miscarriage. I know for a fact that my life DOES have value beyond its role in carrying a “fetus”. Where is the logic in saying that because MY life has value beyond its use to the fetus, therefore the fetus’ life has no value beyond its use to me? You can’t have it both ways, or if you DO want to have it both ways at least have the intellectual honesty to come out and say it. It is this utilitarian claim that says "your life has no value because it is of no use to me" that can carry an abortion doctor from a clean and sterile, well kept and licensed clinic to the horror of Grosnell’s clinic. Just because an abortion was clean and sterile and performed on a tinier human doesn’t mean that that tinier human is any less dead than the ones Grosnell killed.

Just one inconsistency that I saw in the article:
The author states that “outlawing abortion would have done absolutely nothing to help the women and babies who died or suffered in Gosnell’s care.” Ok, leaving aside for a moment the fact that there is NO way to know this with such certainty as she seems to possess, we see that the author then goes on to say “how greater government oversight and enforcement of health care laws could have shut down Gosnell’s operation years ago.” So it’s not practical to enact and enforce laws that are by definition designed to protect both the mother AND the baby, but yet we must advocate for “government oversight” (a.k.a. enacting and enforcing laws) over health care?

If one would take the time to study the pro-life stance, one would be able to see that pro-life advocates are only being consistent when they advocate also for abstinence and against free-range contraceptives (dangerous in their own right). These advocates want to bring about the end of the perceived “need” for abortion by eliminating unwanted pregnancies through educating people on 1) the fact that all life has intrinsic value aside from its usefulness and 2) respect for the sacredness of the act that brings about this life, and the sacredness of the marriage that protects that act.

My heart bleeds for the woman who truly believes The Great Lie that she can have no choice but to end the life present within her, that depends on no one if not her. If I can kill the life within my very womb, what is to stop me from killing the life just leaving it? Or the life that I have far less reason to care about?”

I know these arguments are far from complete and are barely coherent... I welcome additions and corrections.
Post a Comment