Posted on 06/13/2009 12:18:29 PM PDT by wagglebee
In his commencement address to the University of Notre Dame’s 2009 graduating class last month, President Obama recognized an obvious truth with his statement that pro and anti abortion advocates have certain irreconcilable differences. Those differences were obvious when Obama’s invitation to Notre Dame was subject to controversy and pronounced public disagreement. It was obvious again during the President’s commencement address when anti-abortion advocates vocally challenged the President and were, in turn, vocally challenged by others in the audience. What might not be so obvious, however, is that one of the differences between the two sides of this issue, whether irreconcilable or not, is in the area of logic.
Beyond the questionable logic of defining as a human being the primordial parasitical conglomeration of human cells attached to the female uterus; beyond the questionable logic of considering the medical use and destruction of human stem cells to be a form of homicide; beyond the questionable logic of condemning birth control as immoral; beyond all of this questionable logic is the flawed logic found in the narrow, fervent focus on the “unborn” by so called pro-life advocates. Ultimately, they are not pro-life.
Life on earth is more than the animate existence of the human species regardless of what state of development it is in, or could develop into. It is, in fact, an interdependent, complex, network of many species that depend on a careful balance among them all to sustain them all. Because they all share a finite planet with finite resources upon which they all rely for continued existence, their mutual survival is threatened by the disproportionate procreation of any one of them.
Because human population on this planet has grown to a disproportionately high level, it has done extensive damage to the network of life, and now threatens the very existence of many species including humans themselves. Those so concerned about the sanctity of life that they seek to criminalize abortion, condemn, and even persecute those who support it are not thinking past myopic moralities. Birth control methods actually preserve life by preventing continued irresponsible increases in human population.
While, for most of us, abortion is not the preferred method to prevent unwanted births, those who think that abstinence is the only acceptable method of preventing pregnancies are as likely to have as much success by grounding all the world’s storks. The realities of human behavior and of the conditions among the Third World’s burgeoning populations of despairing, illiterate, indigents defeats less direct methods of reducing population growth—currently rocketing along at the catastrophic rate of 78 million per year. “Not tonight, honey, I have a headache”, has not proven to be an effective contraceptive. Nor, when it comes to basic instinctual behaviors like sex, does theology triumph biology, not even, as we have repeatedly seen, among the “celibate” clergy.
Where abortion is illegal or unavailable, the mortality rate among women, desperate to prevent unwanted births by utilizing crude, unsafe, methods, accounts for 13% of the world’s maternal mortalities each year. This is not pro-life.
Bringing children into the world only to have them suffer and die from lack of sufficient resources is more reprehensible than preventing their births. Thousands of infants and children die each year from starvation and disease. If it is murder to abort a fetus, is it murder to give birth to a child who must surely starve to death? This is not pro-life.
The argument that a reallocation of world resources will solve this Malthusian nightmare is ultimately based on an expectation of the miraculous—both economic and ecological. The problem is demand, not supply. The world is simply running out of the basic finite resources, water, arable land, and sea life, needed to create food. The solution, therefore, is not going to come from increasing supply; it must come from reducing demand, which means reducing population, which, in turn, means effectively controlling birth rates.
Abortion is one effective method to do that, but just one. The number of abortions can be reduced by availing women of birth control methods, devices, and pharmaceuticals that can prevent conception, but when public policy is polluted with theological moralities, as it was under the Bush Presidency, these birth control alternatives can be denied the world’s women who need them the most. This moral arrogance only results in more death by abortion, starvation, and disease. This is not pro-life.
Abortion is pro choice, and, until human population is reduced to a sustainable level, it is also pro-life.
When Obamacare becomes law the senior citizen will discover just how correct you are.
>> Alcorn: Abortion is pro choice, and, until human population is reduced to a sustainable level, it is also pro-life.
Abortions is NOT “pro choice”, abortion is generally the planned killing of human life. Ultimately, it’s the consequence of a decision, not a choice.
>> Alcorn: While, for most of us, abortion is not the preferred method to prevent unwanted births, those who think that abstinence is the only acceptable method of preventing pregnancies
Abortion does prevent pregnancies, it terminates them.
>> Alcorn: but when public policy is polluted with theological moralities
It’s a humanitarian issue as well.
>> Alcorn: Abortion is pro choice, and, until human population is reduced to a sustainable level, it is also pro-life.
The ‘logic’ of an undeveloped mind.
I wish more conservatives would argue from that point of view. Especially when the libs try this crazy sustainable environment type of approach to their position on abortion.
The leftists often whine about how other conveniences such as disposable paper/plastic bags at the grocery store are, in their warped little minds, possibly harming the planet in the long term which might someday affect human life. Yet their choices of convenience are quite demonstrably destroying human life every day.
A message for the kids out there heading back to school,
make note of the Hiltons and Lohans on how to be cool.
It's true when they say that sex is a thrill,
and worry not about Consequence because Convenience will kill.
And for those of you still on the inside,
buck up I say and swallow your pride.
Don't kick poor mom right in her womb,
for she alone holds the key to your tiny little tomb.
Logan’s Run.
Real, in person.
Or, if you prefer, “Soylent Green is People!” /heston
First he says the problem is not supply, then he states the resources are running out.....moron.
And another thing.....
.....a pet peeve of mine is to say we are running out of water. Water is not running out. We use it and it eventually ends up back where we took it. There may be localized problems with supply, but that is not what they are saying.
The water is not consumed. If anything, modern man is increasing the world water supply by burning fossil fuels, creating water from the hydrogen in the fuel. One would think the enviro-rats could at least acknowledge this truth.
I haven't even started on the ridiculous notion that abortion is pro life. What a contorted argument.
I agree.
Are we not supposed to believe that we're melting the ice caps thus releasing enormous amounts of fresh water to the liquid form of supply? If you were to fall for that tall tale, then what's the dang problem? Just get a glorified straw (pipeline) going and drink up!
Is not the biggest damn phony crisis of GW lore the fact that more people and more activity results in too much water? (Although, I'd say that if Algore actually believed his own myths, then you'd see him spending his carbon scam millions on future coastline a bit inland.)
Even if they say 'well, that's salt water', then I say 'so what?' It's still water. And can be desalinated if necessary - which it won't be.
"I haven't even started on the ridiculous notion that abortion is pro life. What a contorted argument."
Keep in mind that what he is describing comes from the selfish humanist point of view. To him this is the macro planetary version of the liberal exclusive gated community: "We like it here and there's no room for you!"
Even assuming his contortion, it is still not at all what we moral folk consider pro-life.
It is pro-my-life!
That is the irony. The boomers have raised a generation of death. When medical care is rare because of socialized medicine who is gonna want to look after a bunch of old people? We know what we do with things we do not want. We “humanly” kill them.
Guess they didn't count on that little inconvenient truth did they?
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.