Skip to comments.Clare Boothe Luce argues vigorously against birth control
Posted on 09/02/2013 9:13:32 AM PDT by ReformationFan
Ann Clare Boothe was born on April 10, 1903, in a dismal apartment house on Riverside Drive in New York City .
Clare herself once succinctly pictured her unpropitious prospects as a baby. Shortly after her conversion to Catholicism, she was attacked by an ardent disciple of Mrs. Sanger for the Catholic stand against birth control. She wound up her tirade by saying, I cannot understand anyone as enlightened as yourself subscribing to that doctrine. I think I appreciate your logic, said Clare. Lets take the case of a young married woman, frail and ill, deserted by her husband, earning a precarious livelihood as a sales girl and about to become a mother for the second time. In due time the baby would arrive under circumstances that might be described as abject povertynot even enough food in the house. No prospects of security for the child. Certainly no prospects of giving it even the ordinary opportunities for a happy home or a good education. Now I presume you would consider that those conditions would justify birth control?
Obviously, was the reply.
Clare snapped the trap. Thats just it. Now will you tell me why I did not have the right to be born? I, for one, am a pretty good argument against the birth controllers.
(Excerpt) Read more at nobility.org ...
Nowadays, her interlocutor would have felt free to suggest that Ms Booth’s mother should have aborted her and saved Progressive Civilization from her barbaric, malign Christian influence..
Clare Boothe on the right.
With her husband
Not to mention that she was (shudder) a Republican.
Clare Boothe Luce ping, frank.
As with all liberal arguments, there is no moral, ethical, logical foundation; so points are advanced on emotion alone.
Weird how it all turned out. The commie libs and their GOOBer pals convinced American women that birth control and abortions were the way to go. Now, we’ve got to import the entire population of Mexico to the U.S. in order to have workers to pay for our Social Security and Medicare. Geeez. Whadda country.
Amazing isn’t it! Americans did all the hard work of killing off their own children to make the world a more arid and better place, then the Hispanics come in and ruin it all - we’ll just have to start the killing ALL OVER again. Back to square one, like trying to keep a hole dug on the ocean shore!
On the contrary, it is the conservative position that is advanced on emotion, tugging at our natural emotional response to children. As conservatives often argue, no person has a right to the services of another. Healthcare, for example, is not a right because it requires a doctor’s services. The doctor is free to charge for his work or to refuse service. In similar fashion, it can be argued that you do not have a right to be born, because it requires work on part of your mother. Later, you would also become a financial burden on her when she will be required to feed you and pay for your education and medical care. Naturally, most of us welcome these things because we want to have children and because we love them, but it would not be moral to force a woman to give birth to and raise a child she does not want.
Abortion removes the child from the womb; it does not have to kill it. Death just happens because the child can not survive independently. Does this automatically mean that the child has a claim on the mother’s body, that she is somehow morally obligated to carry him to term because he needs it? The socialist argument is yes; you must always work for those who need you. The conservative argument is yes, because God creates all life in his image and all life is therefore sacred and must be preserved at all cost, even if it means forced labor. The liberal (classical liberal, anyway) argument is that forced labor of any kind is slavery and is never justified, so it is preferrable to allow the child to die than to force its care upon the mother.
Each of these views is perfectly logical and follows naturally from the core moral principles. Those would be altruism for socialists, the sanctity of life for christians, and the rejection of forced servitude for the rest.
Henry Luce. Back in the days when Time magazine was worth reading.
I get it. But the part about abortion “not killing” the baby but merely removing it from the womb to die is absurd.
> the part about abortion not killing the baby but merely
> removing it from the womb to die is absurd.
Not at all. There is some research into an artificial uterus device. It is entirely possible that in the future a doctor could surgicaly excise the fetus and the placenta from the womb, implant it into this artificial device and have it mature to term there. Transplantation into another woman’s womb may also be possible, although tissue rejection reaction may make this considerably more difficult and dangerous.
The existence of these techniques, however, would in no way change the morality of abortion. Even if the fetus could be removed and kept viable, who will be forced to take care of it until adulthood? Is it moral to force society to pay for its care? The mother?
Consider the current debate about universal healthcare. If a man’s life can be saved with an expensive treatment, is it moral to force society to pay for it? The Obamacare mandate is an example of an affirmative answer. Aborted babies are no different. If you can force society to pay for the sick, you certainly can force mothers to care for their unwanted babies. The question you must answer for yourself is: does the life of another man trump your right to property and freedom? If yes, you must then both support Obamacare and be pro-life. If no, you must oppose universal healthcare (or any other form of forcible wealth redistribution), and be pro-choice.
The question you must answer for yourself is: does the life of another man trump your right to property and freedom? If yes, you must then both support Obamacare and be pro-life. If no, you must oppose universal healthcare (or any other form of forcible wealth redistribution), and be pro-choice.
....horsepucky, your cleverness is no argument. ZeroCare comes with death panels so there will be no miracle cure in the real world of the socialist collective.
Also in the real world there is NO unwanted baby... over 2 million FBI screened Mothers and Fathers are ready to adopt ANY child born that needs a home even with severe medical problems .... you appear to love death a little too much, there is NO morality in abortion, period.
You’ve thrown a lot of words and phrases together in an almost coherent pattern, enough to convince the lesser among the readers that you may be smart. In fact, you’ve placed yourself in the running to be the poster boy for a one-child policy, or even better, a no child policy. Any atrocity can be rationalized in the manner you’ve chosen if one’s vocabulary is just large enough. Why, you can even convince yourself that birth itself is an atrocity.
You use the word emotion to mean sentiment. Yes, it is useful to invoke our sentimental attachment to children, but the primary objection to abortion is that it is is an act of violence against a child by its own mother, or, usually, by an indifferent third party. You say that carry ing the child to term is involuntary servitude . But if the child is unwanted, then what is rearing that child but the same? Suppose she decides she wants rid herself of the burden and takes it to a vet and pays him to put down the baby as he would a dog she does not want? What is the difference between this act and an induced abortion except the stage of development and the illegality of the first action? Really only the lack of sentimental attachment to an unformed child that we have for the fully formed one.
> Suppose she decides she wants rid herself of the burden
> and takes it to a vet and pays him to put down the baby
> as he would a dog she does not want? What is the
> difference between this act and an induced abortion
> except the stage of development and the illegality of the
> first action?
The difference is that somebody else can take care of the child after it is born. The goal of abortion is not to kill the baby, it is to remove it from the woman’s body so that she is not forced to work for it. It just so happens that before birth (or at least, until a few weeks before) there is no way to remove the baby and keep it alive afterward. Because there is no hope, the baby is killed immediately rather than left to die slowly on his own. It’s the humane thing to do; euthanasia, not murder.
If there was a way to keep the baby alive after abortion in some kind of an artificial uterus, everyone would do that instead. There would be no involuntary servitude then.
You can also achieve a similar result by allowing adopting couples to pay the woman to carry the baby to term. If that were legal, you’d very likely see women choose that over abortion.
The purpose of an abortion is to get rid of the child. The most practical way is to kill it. If it does survive, then the first impulse is to let it die, and if it hangs on then to help it along.
God is pro-choice. Prayers for you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.