Today's segment of the conversation will deal with three statements that I wish to address regarding pregnancy as a result of rape:
"Women will say they're against it, but when it really comes down to it, deep inside, they know they want the ability to have an abortion if they were raped or something."
will be combined with this one:
"If your daughter or wife was raped, you would want her to be able to choose the abortion."
and this one:
"the mother would resent the child, as it was unwanted and unplanned, and the last thing we need is another unwanted baby."
Without trying to validate those statements on some level, We'll just get straight to the analysis.
"Women will say they're against it, but when it really comes down to it, deep inside, they know they want the ability to have an abortion if they were raped or something."
Taking the position - solely for argument's sake - that every woman in the U.S. would consider having an abortion were they impregnated as a result of rape, IT DOESN'T MATTER ONE BIT. What a woman wants/desires has no bearing on the fact that aborting a baby still destroys innocent human life. No matter that they are in an awful predicament that someone else forced them into. No matter that they might be in a position of high visibility in the community. No matter that they are 15 and were robbed of their childhood. Circumstances nonwithstanding, abortion is still consciously choosing to destroy an innocent human life. And the sad thing is, that as little as a few weeks (see the previous post "When your rights are wrong - part ii") is the difference between it being illegal/legal kill your baby.
"If your daughter or wife was raped, you would want her to be able to choose the abortion."
My daughter is 11 weeks old at this point. My wife is 23 years old. Lord willing, both have long promising futures full of love, family, life, etc. Should either one of them be violated like that and raped, I can say, most assuredly, that I would never seriously consider abortion as a viable option to change the situation. And I say that with fervor, in large part because of my daughter and the joy she brings us. Now, I am in the optimal situation - we were wanting a baby for some time, my wife had a very good pregnancy, an easy delivery, and our baby is perfectly healthy. Even more related blessings have been showered upon us, but suffice it to say that we're so much better off than we ever thought we could be, in the sense of our family. Take all that away - take the house, the vehicles, the career, the television (oh NO!!), the cell phones, etc - take it all away and we've still got the baby girl, and we've still got each other, and we've still got love, and we've still got God. If the baby had been born to other circumstances, such as a product
of rape, we would still have those same 4 things. We may not have all the extra things we have now, and life would definitely be more difficult, but I could still love the baby as much as I do now. You don't love a child because it's a product of your genetic material (ask any adoptive parent), you love the child when you accept responsibility for it and invest your heart and soul into it. I would never want my wife or daughter to have an abortion (unless their life was in jeopardy - I'll address this later).
"The mother would resent the child, as it was unwanted and unplanned, and the last thing we need is another unwanted baby."
I can't begin to think of all the ways that being impregnated as a result of rape would effect a woman, and would also effect her loved ones (husband, parents, etc.). And this is a valid issue, as rape happens all the time in our country. It is entirely possible that both the mother and father could resent the child. There's also a huge possibility that they could love it with all their hearts. And there may be emotional scars that hurt every time they see the baby or hear it cry, but those could also very well be erased in a short time when they see the baby smile or sleep. Bottom line, this statement gets the same response as the first one: IT DOESN'T MATTER if the mother and father resent the baby on some level. One, if they have any shred of intelligence, they would recognize that they resent the person who interrupted their plans and forced them into the situation, and not the innocent child in their arms. Resentment, frustration, disdain, choose any word you want and it still does not mean they should be able to destroy the child. The child hasn't done anything wrong, and has no say-so in the situation, but has the most to lose. If they were capable of speaking for themselves, how many would choose to die? None. How many two and three year olds wish they were dead? None.
As to the "unwanted baby" statement, I have to respond with the standard line of the pro-life movement:
"There may be unwanted pregnancies, but there are no unwanted babies." Without getting into the tremendous hurdles of adopting a child (which is why so many people, including relatives of mine, have gone outside the country to adopt), I can tell you that there are many people who want a child but are physically unable to have one. Most of the "unwanted" children she's speaking of are not the product of rape, but rather the result of carelessness and loose morals (and I'm sure alcohol fits in there somwhere quite a bit of the time). And that problem can be fixed by people either protecting themselves or by offering sterilization services to those willing to accept it.
One final mention - this post (and the following/previous posts on the subject) are discussing abortion as a topic, and not condemning women who have had abortions. You can't go back and undo something like that, and I'm sure the scars remain, even if they're not visible from the surface. Jesus Christ offers forgiveness for anything you've ever done, no matter how wrong it may be, and He offers it to everyone. Women who have had abortions need prayer and love, the same as woman who are thinking about having one.This was part three in a series of posts dissecting points from a conversation between a coworker and myself on the topic of abortion. Thanks for reading.
5 comments:
I saw a South Carolinian Pastor on TV this weekend stating that the people in his church needs to repent (voted for Obama) or they will not receive communion. The question is… does he ask his flock who they voted for? How does he know this?
Anyway, there were protesters and supporters in front of the church. It never fails
that the supporters and the spokespersons were men. It must be a heavy burden for them to keep women from doing the wrong thing. They feel that they must save women soul and from their actions because they know not what they do. The last time I checked, Women can’t get pregnant by being with a gadget. The same guys protesting never talks about that it takes a man and a woman to get pregnant. What about the men who helped to get her in the situation? Are the men off the hook (sin wise, right or wrong, correctness)? So please, the author of this blog is not responsible for any of my sinful ways.
Have you ever considered how you are looking at this? Maybe abortion should be looked at from a different angle and look at the source for which abortion is used. Look at sex Ed, availability of contraceptive, teaching girls and boys to value their bodies, therefore raising their self esteem. When all mentioned methods failed and a woman
finds herself pregnant, say ‘Hey lady, carry your baby to birth and then bring the baby to my house and I will take it from there. Please guys, do SOMETHING. No more rhetoric and being holy. Where are the organizations that say bring your babies here? Those kinds of organizations would be used to the max. Look at Nebraska and the law that states that you can drop off children. Last week, a women from Georgia drove thousands of miles to drop off two teens. You guys should be getting busy. Stop protesting and blogging unless you think that you are getting points from God for doing so. Trust me on this. You are not getting points.
You are off the hook for my sins and I am not on the hook for your sins. You off the hook for everything that women do from over eating, telling lies, adultery to killing someone. I am not making lite of abortion or killing a two old child, but I do ask the question why are people doing it in the first place and try to work at from that angle...
I bet you that those same church supporters are divorced, missed child support payments, wishes ill will on groups of people and want to blow up a clinic. I am wary of people who profess too much. I always look below the surface. There is something up with that.
So, let us talk about other sins that Jesus Christ may not favor.
Call me paranoid, but over turning Roe v Wade lead to a host of laws that can harm the reproductive rights of women and families. Remember to be careful about any laws which you want to think that it will only affect a certain group or it won’t apply to me
or my family. Although HR 536 was push by the state, over turning Roe v Wade can make is easier. It is never cut and dry nor black and white. Lifes of women and families are not to be tampered with. Laws get muddy.
Read this comment:
I have been a physician at Grady Memorial Hospital for 44 years, in family planning for 41 years and a professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory for 39 years. I have seen the importance of family planning, including birth control, for the women of Georgia. I am concerned about the impending visit of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee on Jan. 22, the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion. He is here to encourage the passage of House Resolution 536, supported by Georgia Right to Life.
Most Georgians are unaware of the full implications of HR 536, which designates personhood in the state of Georgia beginning at fertilization and continuing to natural death. The intention is to ban legal abortion in Georgia. Additionally, defining personhood as starting at fertilization is contrary to the medical definition of pregnancy by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is at implantation —- when the embryo adheres to the wall of the uterus.
HR 536 would impact all hormonal methods of birth control, including birth control pills, the patch, the Nuva-Ring, injections like Depo-Provera and both currently available IUDs. It could even prevent the use of some forms of assisted reproductive technology and cast a shadow on the reporting of miscarriages.
Huckabee is coming to Georgia to highlight his support of legislation that could prevent public health facilities in Georgia from providing the contraceptives that 95 percent of women use at some time in their lives. Is this what anyone in the United States would want to see happen?
Family planning was designated one of the top 100 health breakthroughs of the 20th century by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We know, scientifically, that family planning, spacing the amount of time between the birth of children, access to prenatal care and safe, legal abortion contribute to the health of women and families.
I have never understood the lack of support and in some cases overt opposition to funding for family planning by those who oppose abortion. Currently fewer than 50 percent of Georgia's poorest women have access to subsidized family planning services. Many health departments run out of birth control supplies and have to write prescriptions for clients. There are only eight states with higher teen birth rates and seven states with higher infant mortality rates than Georgia. How sad.
.....
I do not believe that private and personal issues should be decided by legislators, the state or the federal government, or frankly, by the president. We do not need a Huckabee, on his whistlestop trip through Georgia, to come and make recommendations about changing our state's constitution. We need practical and realistic policies and practices that will help our state climb out of the cellar in health status for women and children. Programs that promote prevention and wellness should be at the top of the list. An ounce of prevention is always worth a pound of cure.
> Robert Hatcher, M.D., is a professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University School of Medicine.
Why even bother commenting? If you read my posts, YOU HAVE NO CASE. I don't care who is protesting, or what perspective you look at it from, you're still ending an INNOCENT life, largely for the sake of convenience. That disrespect for life bleeds over into other areas, such as the euthanasia push, and ultimately "mo murder" and other forms of violence. After all, if babies' lives are devalued, and the lives of the elderly are devalued, what claim do you have to any value on yours?
"Where are the organizations that say bring your babies here? Those kinds of organizations would be used to the max." Why should they be? Oh, yeah, you're a democrat. Relieving people of their own personal responsibility in life is what you're all about. Just like the Obama supporter saying, "I won't have to worry about my mortgage, or my car payment. We help him out, he helps us out." God forbid you actually have to endure consequences for your actions. Wait for the government to bail you out, right?
You're so bitter towards the church, and I feel sorry for you in that respect. Does the church have problems? Yes. Our pastors preach on the sin of homosexuality, and largely gloss over the subject of hetero sex outside of marriage. They may touch on it referring to teens, or to extramarital affairs, but it's rarely mentioned otherwise. But you know what? That still doesn't have anything to do with whether or not a baby has a right to life. You rail on about the rights of women, while denying the only real fundamental God-given right that exists - the right to life. So I can't take you seriously. It's as if you are carrying on about the tire going flat while the engine is on fire.
Thanks for the wonderful article you posted. I didn't know about that HR. The guy has some points, but I think there's some fear-mongering going on there, and you're shaking in your boots. "Additionally, defining personhood as starting at fertilization is contrary to the medical definition of pregnancy by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is at implantation —- when the embryo adheres to the wall of the uterus." Defining of personhood is contrary to the definition of pregnancy? Do you think maybe that's because they're referring to something different? Even if they weren't, how does the College of Whatever become the authority? I don't need one doctor or a whole host of doctors to tell me if innocent life needs to be respected, valued, and protected.
PS. As to the fear-mongering, here's a nice retort. You post one, I post one that tells the truth. How about that?:
In Gris wold v. Connecticut, 381 US. 479 (1965), the Supreme Court held that married women had an absolute constitutional right to marital privacy that included the right to use contraceptives as a means of birth control. This constitutional right was held to "emanate" from the penumbras of the First Amendment and other fundamental individual rights set out in the Bill of Rights. The same reasoning was applied in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) along with Equal Protection arguments to extend the right to single persons.The combined effect of Eisenstadt and Griswold is to guarantee to all women the federal constitutionally protected right to employ contraception as a means of birth control, but since genuine contraception does not destroy life or harm a constitutionally protected person, there was no issue with respect to the termination of human life, and the Human Life Amendment does nothing to reduce or limit the rights found in the constitution by the courts in Eisenstadt and Griswold. The Human Life Amendment would, however, protect unborn children from being poisoned after conception by abortifacients such as RU486. This is an intended consequence of the proposed amendment: to establish a legal constitutional foundation for the abolition of all abortions, whether performed by surgery or chemically induced.
There's that. Did you know that you can be put in jail if you destroy an egg of a bald eagle, event hough it's off the endangered list? You can serve prison time and/or fined $100000 for destroying an eagle egg (fertilized). But you can kill a human. No logic at all...
“Where are the organizations that say bring your babies here? Those kinds of organizations would be used to the max." Why should they be? Oh, yeah, you're a democrat. Relieving people of their own personal responsibility in life is what you're all about. Just like the Obama supporter saying, "I won't have to worry about my mortgage, or my car payment. We help him out, he helps us out." God forbid you actually have to endure consequences for your actions. Wait for the government to bail you out, right?”
We have exhausted the abortion argument at this time. But lets take up the
Personal responsibility issues as mentioned above.
I am referring to in the blog is about taking responsibility and addressing
Both sides of the abortion issue. What about the men role in abortion beside
standing outside protesting. You don’t’ want to touch that because maybe
no one else is talking about from that view point. It doesn’t matter whether other are talking about. It is real and it is THE TRUTH. Orrr maybe, you can’t get away from that old tale of the bible that the woman originates sin which came out of the Adam and Eve story. Get another play book. Ask yourself, why men are not talked about in the realms of responsibility. Why? Examine it from the right or wrong, moral and the sin side of it. I know the media and the Drudge Report tell us what to think, but that does not make it the truth.
What I am talking about is taking responsibility. Don’t you think that a man
Knows that the woman he has been with is considering an abortion or has had one. Yes he does. In many cases, he has taken her to the clinic. Get real here about responsibility.
So, yes I say it again, keep the government out of my business which I thought you were for. Yes, get a organization started to collect the babies that would have been aborted only because the right to choose p… you o.. if you are really so concern. Yes, i think you will get points for that. Put up or shut the .... up.
in other words, stop complaining.
By the way, how many Dems you know personally do no take responsibility for their actions and how many non-Dems do not take responsibility? It is not about talking points here. It is the real world. Look around you. Look at the people around you in everyday life. Do you know which ones are Repubs or Dems? Are the Repuds not taking anything from the gov’t? Hey, I’m just asking.
Remember that Jonathan guy (bobbing head) on Fox Financial program who basically told people to eat cake, guest what? He wants a handout from the gov’t. I saw him last week and he doesn’t have that smirk on his face and his head is not bobbing a much. Now who is eating cake now.
"We have exhausted the abortion argument at this time." You mean, perhaps, that you're tired of engaging in an argument that you really can't win? I mean, it's all good to look at parental responsibility. But what makes you think that the legality of abortion has no effect on the response of the man, or the woman, for that matter? He feels he can just tell the woman to "take care of it" and have an abortion, because it's legal. Make it illegal, and the situation changes. Now, it's not an easy option anymore. Now, for him, there's no escaping a child support payment, because there's no option to kill the child. Maybe you'd have less babies. Maybe you'd have more people taking responsibility for them, as there's no "easy out." Maybe you'd have less people engaging in sexual activity or more people taking preventative measures and using contraception, because now there's an inherent risk that it will change your life in a very real way.
Look, I'm really expecting some more intelligent arguments from you if you're to continue posting on this subject. I don't mean to be rude, but you're resorting to saying that I'm "afraid" to touch the issue of personal responsibility, and that a woman's right to choose (to murder her baby - you always seem to leave that part out...wonder why?) "pisses me off." Then you bring your whole anti-church thing into it, and say that I think Eve was the original sin. I recommend that you read your bible, just the first couple chapters, and find where Adam is shown favoritism, absolved of his sin, etc, because Eve had already done it. They were BOTH kicked out of the garden of Eden. Adam had to spend a lifetime of manual labor growing food and livestock. He was removed from the physical presence of God, and the land that God had created just for him. Guys don't get off. Likewise, guys share in the responsibility of abortion, unless they don't want the woman to have it, and they want the baby. But I'm not looking to point fingers...notice that the argument has never been that the woman is evil and should be flogged - the argument has been that abortion as a whole (except to save the life of the mother) is wrong and evil. P.S. There already are agencies to take care of the babies who aren't aborted. Perhaps you've heard of them. They're called adoption agencies. Of course, as I said in my previous post, the answer isn't to absolve the mother of responsibility. It's to make her (and the father) TAKE responsibility.
The government should be out of your personal business. I am all for that. But I assumed (albeit incorrectly) that after hearing it 100 times, maybe it would start to sink into your skull that having an abortion is no more a woman's personal business than killing her two year old is. IT'S NOT. Think. Learn. Realize.
Post a Comment