Replies

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.

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.

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.