Posted on 03/27/2004 11:27:39 PM PST by 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?
If we need only concern ourselves with the rights of the parties who are engaging in the conversation, then we certainly don't need to concern ourselves with the rights of human zygotes, embryos, fetuses, newborns, or even toddlers and pre-schoolers. They are not participating in the conversation any more than chimps are.
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.