Sep 22 2014

No, conception is not accidental

Published by

During two of my son’s naps today,  I read some academic pro-choice philosophy.

I came across some discussion by professors Laurie Shrage and Elizabeth Brake on “forced fatherhood.” They are addressing the pro-choice tension where mothers are free to abort their children, but if children are born, fathers are not free to walk away from the children. They are forced to pay child support. These men are often referred to as “desperate.”

Quote from professor Laurie Shrage’s New York Times’ piece:

Women’s rights advocates have long struggled for motherhood to be a voluntary condition, and not one imposed by nature or culture. In places where women and girls have access to affordable and safe contraception and abortion services, and where there are programs to assist mothers in distress find foster or adoptive parents, voluntary motherhood is basically a reality. In many states, infant safe haven laws allow a birth mother to walk away from her newborn baby if she leaves it unharmed at a designated facility.

If a man accidentally conceives a child with a woman, and does not want to raise the child with her, what are his choices? Surprisingly, he has few options in the United States. He can urge her to seek an abortion, but ultimately that decision is hers to make. Should she decide to continue the pregnancy and raise the child, and should she or our government attempt to establish him as the legal father, he can be stuck with years of child support payments.

Let’s keep in mind that this tends to be the same crowd that pushes sex education on younger and younger kids, arguably with age inappropriate materials.

It seems that Sex Ed 101 teaches where babies come from. Babies are conceived via sex. Sex = babies.

If that’s the case and if most people in North America are aware of this fact, how in the world can a man “accidentally” conceive a child?

This can only happen in an abortion-promoting culture where we attempt to separate sex from pro-creation. We all know that no contraception is 100% effective. But what is pretty darn effective is abortion.

And this is what leads to an inconceivable quote like this one:

In consenting to sex, neither a man nor a woman gives consent to become a parent, just as in consenting to any activity, one does not consent to yield to all the accidental outcomes that might flow from that activity.

Therefore sex no longer leads to babies, or unwanted babies in any case, therefore men and women can become “accidentally” pregnant, bear no responsibility and the child in the womb is killed or, if he/she lives, may have to do without a “desperate” parent who opted out.

The rabbit hole goes down further, but my son is hungry. Off I go.

2 comments so far

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Sep 22 2014

Blast from the past

Published by

This article is from January 2014. How civilized:

As horrifying as the killing of newborns seems to modern people, in ancient Rome, babies weren’t considered fully human upon birth, Mays said. Instead, they gained humanity over time, first with their naming a few days after birth, and later when they cut teeth and could eat solid food.

Whereas today, they are considered fully human after birth, but not before. Moving target, these “progressive” ideas.

One comment so far

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Sep 21 2014

Abortion: Not merely private and personal

Published by

This article is not about abortion. It’s about India, and why her booms have been busts. But this part interests:

The dystopic details don’t end there. The use of new technology to abort fetuses selectively has led to a rapidly declining female-to-male birth ratio, with a nationwide average of 914 girls per 1,000 boys in 2011, as opposed to 940 to 950 girls in European countries—and with Gujarat, its development such a shining exemplar in the Modi campaign, boasting an average of 891 girls in 2011, among the lowest such numbers in India. At the same time, India—and especially in states like Gujarat—is a growing provider of rent-a-womb services for wealthy European and North American couples.

Of course, this is the result of an abhorrent bias/hatred against women. Were abortion not available, infanticide through exposure like in First Century Rome would likely be the means to rid our world of women. But abortion access facilitates these deaths. I don’t think you can get away from that fact without jamming your head pretty deep in the sand.

Add your comment

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Sep 19 2014

Is this pro-choice? Really?

Published by

Seriously, I’m asking. I am certainly pro-life. I acknowledge that, and I see things through that lense, that worldview.

But can anyone, pro-choice or pro-life watch this girl recite her poem and not feel a sinking sense of pain?

That is what I felt.

She spent way too much time describing how she would have taken her little girl to the museum to see dinosaur bones, she would have put stars on her ceiling, she would have measured her height. She would have… She would have, but her little girl is dead. She wraps it up by saying “This is my body.” But we have just been very thoroughly reminded that the dead body was not her own. It was separate, and it is gone.

Abortion: pro-life, pro-choice. It is not a success story.

7 comments so far

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Sep 19 2014

Feminism: Bewitched by Abortion

Published by

Just came across this quote while doing some research. Thoughts?

When arguing for their own equality, feminists condemn the unethical use of power by which men have usurped the rights of women. The price of men’s privilege, they conclude, has been paid by women, and the price is too high. Feminists believe that rights must be ranked; no one can demand for himself the right to deprive another of a more important right. Decency requires that men make some sacrifices to prevent greater sacrifices being unjustly imposed upon women.

This is a reasonable position, but pro-abortion feminists sabotage their own case by hypocritically refusing to grant the unborn the same rights that they demand for themselves. They resent the discrimination practiced against a whole class of humans because they happen to be female, yet they themselves discriminate against a whole class of humans because they happen to be very young. They deplore that the value of the woman has been determined by whether some man wants her, yet insist that the value of an unborn child is determined by whether some woman wants him. They resent that women have been “owned” by their fathers or husbands, yet claim that the unborn are owned by their mothers. They believe that sexual freedom cannot include a man’s right to rape a woman, yet proclaim that it does include a woman’s right to kill her unborn children. They lament men’s reluctance to recognize the personhood of the women, yet steadfastly refused acknowledge the personhood of the unborn.

-Rosemary Bottcher, Feminism: Bewitched by Abortion

3 comments so far

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Sep 19 2014

Deciding what a woman does with her body, long gone?

Published by

…But deciding what a woman must think–now that is totally kosher.

Really ridiculous for Justin Trudeau to tweet this, that the days “when old men get to decide what a woman does with her body are long gone.” Apparently the days of dictating thought are here to stay?

I hope people realize what is happening here, and it has nothing to do with abortion in particular. Freedom of thought is at stake. For this great freedom, my parents left their home and came to this country. Not so someone could tell them what we must believe in order to be “progressive.”

 

7 comments so far

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Sep 18 2014

Adorable “human mushrooms”

Published by

Someone once said that people will always find a philosophy to justify their actions (maybe Camus?), and this morning, while beginning to feel a little ashamed of bombarding my Facebook family and friends with anecdotes, photos, videos and a plethora of reflections about our youngest daughter, I have found just the philosophy I need! I share it with you, in case you ever need to defend your own gushings about babies, offspring, grandchildren and all of those little “human mushrooms.”

From GK Chesterton’s A Defense of Baby Worship:

The most unfathomable schools and sages have never attained to the gravity which dwells in the eyes of a baby of three months old. It is the gravity of astonishment at the universe, and astonishment at the universe is not mysticism, but a transcendent common-sense. The fascination of children lies in this: that with each of them all things are remade, and the universe is put again upon its trial. As we walk the streets and see below us those delightful bulbous heads, three times too big for the body, which mark these human mushrooms, we ought always primarily to remember that within every one of these heads there is a new universe, as new as it was on the seventh day of creation. In each of those orbs there is a new system of stars, new grass, new cities, a new sea.

 

Add your comment

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Sep 17 2014

The Boy in the Moon

Published by

Ian Brown is the author of The Boy in the Moon: A Father’s Journey to Understand his Extraordinary Son. It’s going to be put on as theatre, and that’s a play I’d like to see.

Ian Brown in this interview expressly says what so many of us feel about people with illness or disability of one kind or another (I’d argue that includes every single last one of us, but that is an idea to explore later). He says his son enhances his sense of happiness, and teaches him that fragility is not weakness, rather that it is at the core of being human.

Basically, as he describes it, he is saying his son is a gift, because having him in his life has taught him things he might not otherwise know.

And yet, he entirely balks at the notion that children with disability are a gift from God.

People say, “Oh, I would never trade my disabled child. They’re gifts from God.” I hate that sentimentalizing. If Walker is God’s idea of a gift, then God really needs to read the instruction manual because not only is he not a gift, but he knows he’s not a gift. I would not change him for my sake, but for his own life – it could be easier and less painful, and I would change that in a second if I could.  But if you are not sentimental about him and just look at who he is, he’s kind of revealing.

This made me think about how sentimentality, cliches, they can really turn people off, even when they are thinking the same ideas as someone else. It reminded me, to be frank, of a sometimes tendency of the pro-life movement to sentimentalize. I, for example, don’t do pro-life work “for the babies.” I do it because I value our shared humanity and I think killing children in the womb detracts from that and makes us, the living, more callous. It’s two ways of saying the same thing. But I am guessing there’s many a pragmatic pro-lifer who felt he/she couldn’t join the broader movement for the sheer sentimentalism of it all.

I certainly believe all children are gifts, yes, from God. We don’t choose when the gift comes, or the wrapping. (In fact, I believe everything is a gift, so the fact that I’d like to have children, but have none, also some form of unwanted gift–but this we are not allowed to mention.) Everything I own is merely on loan to me, from God. But something about the Oprah Winfrey age of constant talk diminishes the deep significance of these things. I don’t need happy pictures of babies to enhance my desire to want them to be treated as the gifts they are. And so I share, perhaps, some of Ian Brown’s frustration at the sentimentality of it all.

2 comments so far

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Sep 17 2014

The pro-choice position comes to its logical conclusion?

Published by

From Trevin Wax over at The Gospel Coalition:

Are abortion rights supporters fully embracing an absolutist agenda, one that legitimizes and praises a woman’s choice to abort, no matter the circumstances?

It sure seems that way. In the past few years, activists have moved away from Bill Clinton’s philosophy that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” Or that abortion is, in Hillary Clinton’s words, “a tragic choice.”

Why leave behind words like “rare” and “tragic?” Because speaking of abortion this way lends credence to the pro-life position that there is something wrong with ”terminating a pregnancy.” If the abortion-rights agenda is to succeed, then, abortion must be de-stigmatized. And nothing will remove the stigma from abortion faster than making it common and celebrated.

Even though this seems to be the logical conclusion to the pro-choice position, I don’t think most people, even most pro-choicers, are comfortable endorsing any and all abortions. A friend of mine talks about this issue quite a bit and he often asks his pro-choice friends if they support sex-selection abortions. Pro-choicers tend to squirm and struggle  because they agree there is something inherently wrong with killing a baby because of his/her sex. But why does gendercide make them uncomfortable? Isn’t it just another abortion? Another choice?

I think the pro-choice position is being forced to swing so far in that direction – the celebration of abortion – that it is again providing us with an opportunity to reach people. Because most people cannot celebrate it. And I don’t think it’s due to cultural stigma (an argument they often toss out), but due to the fact that we know what is in the womb (hello sonograms) and it’s within our nature to want to protect our offspring, not kill them.

As Frederica Mathewes-Green, formerly Feminists for Life’s Vice President of Communications has said,

No one wants an abortion as she wants an ice-cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg.

 

I think that’s true. And for that reason, we’re unlikely to see the world be swept with the phenomenon of ‘abortion celebration.’

People are much less pro-choice than they think they are, and/or less pro-choice than the movement’s leaders. The stats are clear. But that’s a post for another day.

The article makes additional points and provides some examples that we can rely on in discussions or in our writing. It’s worth a read.

3 comments so far

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Sep 16 2014

“Justin Trudeau is stripping me of democracy”

Published by

A few thoughts from Mike Schouten from We Need a Law:

Gallant’s position seems largely influenced by federal Liberal leader Justin Trudeau. For months now Trudeau has been talking nonsense about the legal status of abortion in Canada. He is either ignorant of the jurisprudence or is intentionally misrepresenting what the law says. Even as late as this past weekend, the flamboyant Trudeau was on CBC’s Sunday Edition telling listeners that his party is “a party of the Charter” and he will defend women’s rights at all costs. Does he really think all women are pro-abortion? As one female supporter said to me, “If he isn’t assuming that [all women are pro-abortion], then I’m offended as a citizen that he would strip me of democracy. We shouldn’t be putting up with this kind of patronizing attempt at leadership in a post-feminist Canada.”

2 comments so far

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Next »

Get Adobe Flash player