“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.
2 comments:
I also tried to comment on the Feministe blog, but it is also "in moderation" mode, so I don't think it will be accepted. Oh, well. I include it here at Anon's request. The comment was in response to one of the other comments on the blog, which I have included.
Lynnsey: "There’s a very common sense solution here.The way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.The way to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies is to provide age-appropriate, medically sound sexual health education (it can even stress abstinence if it teaches about the rest) and real, affordable access to reproductive health care, especially contraceptives (which should be free to any woman of reproductive age who wants them).These two very simple things would go a long way towards reducing the number of abortions, which I think is a goal that even most pro-choice people can get behind.It’s interesting to note that the parties most opposed to abortion are also most opposed to these two very sensible solutions to its prevention.Makes their supposed concern for women and children ring hollow."
Inane: "Oral contraceptives (OC's) are a class one carcinogen according to the WHO (class one being the most carcinogenic and including other carcinogens of import, such as asbestos). That makes them a very nonsensical solution to women's health.
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2005/pr167.html (IARC is the WHO's source for info on cancer)
I find it funny (in a sick way) that Big Pharma has been jamming OC's down the throats of women for the past 5 years KNOWING that the WHO has classified them as such a dangerous substance. OC's are in no way a safe alternative, unless you hold the notion that developing breast or ovarian cancer in your forties is safe (they have drugs for that, right?). The companies that push OC's on women are only concerned with the money. The doctors that push OC's on women are only concerned with the money. The agencies that push OC's on women are only concerned with the (grant) money. The women who support OC's (through online forums, ingesting, Home Ec. classes, etc...) are blind sheep being spoon fed their sexual freedom, freedom that comes in a bright pink package.
How can contraceptives be safe?!? I see that you consider yourself somewhat educated on the intricacies of contraception... I must be missing some vital detail. Care to elucidate my apparent misunderstanding (for, it MUST be a misunderstanding. No one is that foolish)?"
I have been on a BC causing cancer kick lately...
Wow so you wrote one too that got stuck in "moderation land"?? Incredible.
I am convinced that really it all comes down to money. These pro-choice idealists really don't know (HOW can they be so naive and so sophisticated at the same time??) they they're being used. Abortion, contraception and sexual freedom all hurt women. And men. And I'm not just talking spiritually here, although we know that's the most important. Even looking at the situation from a purely material standpoint, these women are being hurt materially and emotionally as well.
Post a Comment