The Blueprint Of Life: Is The Morning-After Pill Abortion?

Fidler On The Roof ^ | 3-28-2004 | Julie Anne Fidler

[JAFid79]

Excellent debate this week at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, between Shaunti Feldhahn and Diane (arg!) Glass over whether or not the morning-after pill can be considered abortion.

As difficult as this might be to understand for non-Christian liberals, I have always been pro-life. Even before I was a conservative Christian (admittedly, I was very young) I was against abortion. The reasons against it seemed pretty obvious then, and they are even more clear to me now. Whether or not the mother intended to get pregnant or not really isn't the point, at least not to me.

It's pretty amazing how babies are made, don't you think? Without getting too graphic, you have to admit...God designed our "plumbing" perfectly. I guess you don't see it this way if you don't believe in God. If you don't believe in God, that doesn't make it any less amazing. All it makes it is one heck of a cosmic mistake.

From the moment of conception, the blueprint of a human being has been written. Or, one could say, the foundation has been built. You can't feed, rock, sing to, or bathe an embryo. I realize that. But I take issue with any woman who tells me I'm not a feminist, or a "real woman" because I don't support a woman's right to choose. (To choose what? Whether or not to crumple up the blueprint and throw it in the trash?) To me, it seems that a "real woman" would rail against such a thing, because it goes against her very biological make-up. Call it God, call it Mother Nature, I don't care. We were obviously "built" to bear children. Women are also naturally created to have a motherly, nurturing nature.

A real woman, by nature, would feel compelled to protect the baby/ball of cells growing inside her. A real woman would not automatically seek to get rid of it.

On the RIGHT side of the issue (in more ways than one), Shaunti Feldhahn has this to say:

I understand why rape victims want to prevent pregnancy, and even many pro-life doctors prescribe emergency contraception.

As do I. As do most compassionate people. I understand the position of rape and incest victims and pregnant teens. I don't support abortion in these cases, either, but I realize that their pregnancy is shrouded in a terror that (fortunately) most of us will never know. I don't believe that the creation of life is ever a mistake, but I believe that God is big enough to realize the surrounding circumstances and afford for them.

Shaunti continues:

Why does it bother women's-rights advocates that some women might (gasp) actually choose not to avail themselves of the option, if they knew the truth?

The women's-rights movement is all about a false sense of empowerment. While they claim they are all about protecting and providing women with options, they can't handle the idea that maybe not every female on earth would be in favor of slaughtering her unborn child. To be an empowered woman, they argue in a round-about sort of way, you have to claim control over your body, no matter who or what gets in the way. Including a baby. Well, to some degree, they're right on the money. If women are designed to bear children (anyone with an 8th grade health class education can see that this is the case), then why are these "advocates" so against taking control of their bodies, and doing the very thing they're supposed to do?

The problem is, Diane and others keep trying to convince women otherwise. But what about those women who would be horrified at the idea of terminating a pregnancy? Don't they deserve to know the truth, so they can adjust their behavior accordingly? I'm not talking about rape victims here. I'm talking about women -- married or unmarried -- who don't believe in abortion but who might make a heat-of-the moment decision to engage in unprotected sex because they know that they can get Plan B and prevent a pregnancy. But if they knew that they might actually end up terminating a pregnancy, those women might decide to wait until they could get protection.

The unborn child is just "collateral damage" in the women's-rights advocates' quest to forward their political agenda. Besides...how can we expect them to take that view, when in their minds, a 72-hour fetus is nothing more than a glob of cells? Heck, a tumor is just a glob of cells.

But Diane (arg!) Glass wasn't too far off, either...believe it or not:

The abortion debate isn't only about babies, it is a debate about sexuality, or should I say how many Christians feel about female sexuality? Sex outside of marriage is immoral. Their imposition of morality in the bedroom is really at the root of much of the debate surrounding abortion.

Because, if women:

Didn't drink . . .

Didn't have premarital sex . . .

Didn't wear provocative clothing . . .

Didn't have boyfriends . . .

Didn't [insert sexist scenario] . . .

. . . well, then, we wouldn't have this problem, would we?

By golly, I think she's got it! Hand that woman a pink triangle and a Planned Parenthood bumper sticker!

Well...she got it partially.

Most of us aren't saints. We've done stupid stuff. But it's true - you reap what you sow. I have a major problem with women who get plastered, have sex, get pregnant, and have an abortion because the result of their own indiscretion ended up inconveniencing them. Abortion, as a means of birth control, is disgusting. In order to avoid pregnancy, one should avoid sex. Hence, abstinence. Not everyone likes this idea. But no one can argue it's effectiveness.

Saying no and remaining abstinent may work for teenage girls, but what about married women? Do condoms not break?

Married, unmarried...what does it matter? Sex is sex. Abortion is abortion.

Are sexual assault victims remiss if they do not use birth control as a safety measure?

::::sigh:::::

Here, I thought she was getting the point. My bad.

Actually, this is an incredibly ignorant, insensitive statement. (BAD politically-correct liberal!) I'm a sexual assault victim. Should I take Diane's crazy statement to mean that my experience isn't as valid as a pro-choice victim's experience? Gosh. I was under the false impression that liberals were supposed to be more accepting than conservatives.

I don't think any of us (with a heart) would harshly criticize a sexual assault victim's choice to abort a pregnancy. We might not agree with it (I don't), but we wouldn't condemn them, either.

More stupidity ensues...

The problem with the pro-life defense is that it isn't just about an infant's life. It's about a woman's choice. But for conservatives, a woman's choice isn't whether she will have the child, but rather, why is she having sex in the first place? Which is why the debate usually devolves into issues of abstinence and keeping one's legs crossed. Giving birth becomes a "punishment" for acting immorally. Women, after all, shouldn't be having sex without a church-sanctioned marriage.

Yes, and for the liberal, it's ONLY about a woman's choice, and not at all about an infant's life. That's the truly sad part. It isn't all about abstinence and morality, either. That's part of it, but that's not the main point here.

Giving birth isn't a "punishment" for acting immorally. A child is a beautiful gift. A gift, I believe, given by God. Regardless of circumstance. And just because a woman may not feel that she can properly care for that gift (which is a legitimate and responsible decision), that doesn't mean there aren't hundreds...no, thousands of willing parents, just dying to adopt a baby.

It all comes down to this: Maybe your unborn child is a nuisance to you. But, I guarantee you, to somebody else, it is the gift of life. Who are you to wipe that out of existence?

[arthurus]

This person seems still to be a tad confused.

[Jayanne]

Great analysis of the article.

I was interested in the last part of the article where the author mentions abstinance and seems to present it as an unrealistic or unfair approach. I teach teenagers, and one thing that always seems to get ignored when liberals are disdaining abstinance is that adolescents are frequently not ready emotionally for sexual intimacy let alone the life-altering decisions that can come with it.

There are all kinds of statistics on the effects of sexuality on relationships. For example, in the book by Doctor Raymond Short (Sex, Love and Infatuation) he notes that a relationship will average six months longer if the partners are sexually involved, no matter how badly it may be going emotionally, intellectually, in terms of compatability, etc. Six months is a long time for a 16 or 17 yr old, and it's certainly enough time for some very bad decisions to be made.

Teenagers also easily mistake physical intimacy or attraction for a true "match" of backgrounds, personalities, emotional make-up, etc. Long story short, there are very good reasons why young people should abstain from sex, and so many of them have nothing to do with the morality of pre-marital sex.

But somehow all of the stats and common sense get thrown out the door and the debate gets reduced to sexual freedom and freedom of choice.

[GovernmentShrinker]

In nature, mother mammals who don't want their offspring simply leave them to die right after they're born. It is NOT natural for all mothers, all of the time, to want to protect their offspring -- food shortage, too many offspring simultaneously, mental or physical illness of the mother, illness or deformity of the offspring, environmental stress, etc., are all common reasons for mother mammals to ditch their offspring. Abortion is a way of getting the same result as nature, only earlier, when the fetus still lacks the capacity to be aware of the process or to feel pain/suffering.

[JAFid79]

Ok, I hear ya.
Good argument.
But do other mammals have the option of putting their offspring up for abortion?

[JAFid79]

Pardon me, my bad...

What I meant to say was...
Do other mammals have the option of putting their offspring up for ADOPTION, not abortion.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Realistically, adoption is a good option for healthy white infants, but still no women should be forced to carry a baby to term if she doesn't want to -- pregnancy and childbirth are not without risks and often permanent health consequences, especially for very young mothers and mothers with pre-existing health problems. What happens to many of the non-white and non-healthy unwanted babies is truly awful. It is a myth that there are plenty of good adoptive homes waiting for all these babies. Have you adopted any black babies with fetal alcohol syndrome? Are you really going to?

And frankly, there is certainly a strong genetic component to many cases of unwanted pregnancy. Impulsive behavior and lack of intelligence are not something we want multiplying in the human gene pool -- there's far too much of it already, and it leads to a great deal of suffering, and to a further dangerous skewing of the ratio of helpers to helpees, which will inevitably lead to wholesale socialism. If all the unwanted pregnancies were carried to term and the babies adopted by good parents, the good parents would certainly have to cut back on their own genetic reproduction. This is not a scenario I want to encourage.

I'd a lot rather make contraceptives and early abortions (especially RU-486) free and readily available with no questions asked, and get the message across to irresponsible girls and women who are not prepared financially or otherwise to raise a child, that they will get no support whatosever from society for having one (or more!). Too many of these women are using their babies as hostages to extract money from taxpayers, and since many are too irresponsible to avoid getting pregnant even if they want to avoid it, contraception availability alone is not the answer.

[Coleus]

`

[Mr. Silverback]

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[cgk]

Thanks for the ping... good read. Bookmarked.

[cyborg]

Well...there are many foreign adoptions. How about taking away the politically correct BS in adoption first?

[hocndoc]

There's a huge difference between humans and other animals (at least in my family) and between abandonment and acting with the intent to kill (although, each may end up with the same results.

Humans have reasoning, communities of individuals who will take in a child who's abandoned, and a recorded history to show the effects of infanticide and separating women from motherhood on those communities.

[hocndoc]

Your logic ignores that our society is indeed a society.

Every human has the right to live, and each human should be treated equally under the law. There's only one scientific definition of human - and that's the species definition. All the others are opinion, preference, prejudice and discrimination.

No one is "forcing' any one to continue the pregnancy -- however we can refuse permission and even punish the initiation of force that will end in the death of a member of our society.

Fortunately, I believe in regression to the mean in human characteristics, especially those that have a mixed genetic/environmental component.. Other wise I'd be concerned about the number of utilitarians I see around here.

I don't think the statistics support you on the fate of minority babies in regard to adoption. Most of the children in foster care are legally restricted from being adopted (someone already has a claim on them, historical attempts to reunite children with their parents, and financial barriers that encourage foster care over adoption.). There has been a bit of reform in the last 10 years, such as allowing foster families to adopt or even paying them to do so.

[GovernmentShrinker]

The difference between humans and other animals is a matter of degree. Primates, elephants, and others, show strong family and social group bonds, often risking their own lives to protect others in their group (not only their own young offspring) from attacks by predators including humans. Those who draw a bright line between humans and other animals are relying exclusively on religious belief, not science. While I respect their right to run their own lives according to their own beliefs, I do NOT respect their claim to a right to run other people lives according to those beliefs.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Most healthy white children in foster care also have restrictions on adoption. But the fact remains that overall, healthy white children are adopted at far, far higher rates than non-white and/or disabled children, despite heavy subsidies and outright bribes for adopting the "difficult to place" children.

Of more concern is the quality of homes that many minority and/or disabled children end up in. The case in NJ of the 3 boys whose adoptive parents were starving them (including a 45 pound 19-year-old) is extreme, but I'm afraid part of a trend. Nobody wants these kids, so they get dumped on virtually any family who will take them -- including families who obviously want them only for the subsidy check, and haven't the slightest intention of caring for them to even a bare minimum standard. Too many of these kids grow up to be brain-damaged and permanently (and irreparably) angry, with no real options besides joining a street gang, and committing crimes, until they get caught and jailed, or get killed. Sadly, most manage to reproduce in the interim, perpetuating the horrible cycle and all its associated suffering -- much of which spills out into the healthy segments of society.

Society DOES matter, and that's why it's worth protecting from the scourge of unwanted babies. One of the most alarming results of the growing mobs of unwanted-children-turned-adults is the growing pressure they cause for socialism. Not just the ones who wnet through the foster/adoptive care system, but many others as well. They don't have the ability or inclination to support themselves, and they and their families invariably vote for socialism (if they vote at all) and are used by the left as pawns to convince others of the need for socialism. The only possibly ultimate outcome is the loss of a free society, and the imposition of socialism/communism, which can usually only be overthrown after decades of widespread misery followed by bloody revolution. No thanks.

[hocndoc]

Your assumption that there is a category such as "unwanted babies," and that that category does not have the right not to be killed is a personal prejudice of your own, not borne up by the laws of the US, the Declaration of Independence, or the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The only scientific definition of human being is the species classification. Any other definition of human being or discrimination between which members of the species may be killed without due process of law is a matter of personal opinion.

Your 3rd paragraph here would extrapolate from those who end up in foster care to "unwanted babies" to all who grow up to be "unwanted-children-turned-adults." None of your nightmares can be predicted from the time of conception to birth. Each of your endpoints (i.e., "They don't have the ability or inclination to support themselves" or "vote for socialism,")could be reached by those whose births were planned and much desired as well as those who were not. For that matter, we are each just a car wreck away from being able to support ourselves. That does not mean that we should be culled before or after we have shown ourselves unworthy of protection of life according to "Government Shrinker."

In contrast to you, I don't recognize your right to discriminate between which humans have the right to equal protection under the law.

[MHGinTN]

Well written refutation of major pro-serial killer talking points!

But I take issue with any woman who tells me I'm not a feminist, or a "real woman" because I don't support a woman's right to choose. (To choose what? Whether or not to crumple up the blueprint and throw it in the trash?) Emnity between men and women is the fuel of feminist empowerment. Sadly, the slaughter of children conceived by women inclined to allow that emnity to fester in their soul are the victims of the tension (in too many cases).

May I offer what I believe a reasonable perspective upon which to base abortion choice?... The concept of self-fense. In the case of pregnancy imminently endangering a woman's life, the woman (in our Republic, with our Constitution and BOR) must have the right to terminate the pregnancy. In the case of rape and the rarity of a pregnancy occurring, a woman must have the right to terminate the increased risk to her life and to reject the consequences of someone else's crime against her. In the case of incest involving a minor, the parents must have the authority to protect the minor child against increased risk to her survival. All other reasons for abortion are arbitrary based on selfish motives that do not involve self defense only indulgence.

[MHGinTN]

You asserted: "Those who draw a bright line between humans and other animals are relying exclusively on religious belief, not science. While I respect their right to run their own lives according to their own beliefs, I do NOT respect their claim to a right to run other people lives according to those beliefs." How utterly transparent, to ignore all other aspects of human society and culture, to focus upon one tightly unreasonable denegration the human species. You drive on public roads? Do you have a right to kill your innocent neighbor? Can you walk into any bank and take any amount of money you want?

You are well known to start with an assumption of what you define as right and argue every nit you can pick to verify the authenticity of your chosen right. How is it you do not see that since you so easily attack Christian perspective? You have deep issues, GS. You are not an fair debater at FR, just another liberal with an agenda.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I don't recognize your right to discriminate between which humans have the right to equal protection under the law.

And I don't recognize your right to impose a legal system under which a early stage fetus, unwanted by its mother and utterly unaware of itself, has a greater right to life than a happy young chimp who has already bonded with its family and social group. Being genetically "human" isn't the only thing that counts, outside of a specific religious viewpoint.

[hocndoc]

Ping for a lesson in how not to do logic.

What do you base your Bill of Rights for chimps and other non-humans on? I could laugh if it weren't so sad.

We were discussing the rights of humans, under human law. Your comment is a non-sequitor, having nothing to do with the topic of medications regualted by the government. Who brought up "happy young chimp[s]" or "religious viewpoint[s]," other than you?

As long as our species is the only one having this conversation and taking action to "electively" kill others within our species, as long as we are the only ones *responsible* under the law and regulating medications, we are the only ones who must be regulated.