A friend of mine, Keith, tried to post the following response to my last post on abortion, but unfortunately due to technology hiccups, he wasn't able to:
"I think it is important to draw a distinction between "Pro-Life," and "Anti-Abortion." Anti-Abortionists are those who promote the legal restriction of abortion. Pro-Life, to me, should be more about promoting life and opposing abortion on moral grounds, rather than legal grounds. I believe it is entirely possible to be both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.
I am morally opposed to abortion when the pregnancy in question was the result of consensual sex. (However, In cases of rape, forced pregnancy, and life-threatening emergencies, I feel that abortion is not morally wrong.) I believe that human life ought to be celebrated, and that if the pregnancy was the result of consensual sex, the unwilling mother should do everything in her power to ensure that both her and her baby BOTH live fulfilling lives. I also believe that using non-abortive birth control should be a priority for anyone who engages in sexual activity and does not wish to conceive. Preventing unintentional pregnancy should be a goal of anyone who opposes abortion on moral grounds. In a perfect world, no one would even WANT to have an abortion, and those who had unintended pregnancies would choose adoption. In this sense, I am pro-life.
However, I realize that people make mistakes, and that unintended pregnancy happens. Furthermore, I feel it is wrong for the government to exert control over the contents of an individual's body. It is the exact opposite of freedom and liberty when the government can override an individual's sovereign authority over her own uterus. I morally disagree with abortion, however I believe it is even more morally wrong for the government to enforce that belief. I may disagree with women who choose abortion, but that choice is between them and God. Period. In this sense, I am pro-choice."
I asked him if I could use this as a prompt for my next post, which he agreed to. I hope that he's reading this and that we can talk more in the future.
Keith's position seems pretty typical of those in our generation who would label themselves conservative, and he does a good job of articulating the position. I find it particularly interesting because, up until recently, I would have agreed with him on every point. However, there are some key concessions in Keith's position which I do not agree with.
First, I want to address the concessions for rape, forced pregnancy, and life-threatening emergencies. The only concession here that I agree to is that of life-threatening emergencies, if there really is no other way to preserve the life of both the mother and the child.
Let me backtrack for a minute. I do agree that women should have sovereignty over their own bodies. However, they should also recognize that a natural consequence of sex is pregnancy, whether they are using some form of birth control or not (all of them have fail rates). Ideally, if a woman is not willing or able to deal with this consequence by carrying the pregnancy to term, she should use her sovereignty over her own body to abstain from sex. She should not use abortion as a back-up plan. Even in the case where the woman made a mistake, there is still the option of adoption and there are pregnancy crisis centers which can help women who need to get in contact with adoption agencies.
In the case of rape or forced pregnancy, a woman's sovereignty over her own body has already been violated, by the criminal who forced himself on her and not by the baby which was the result. There is no difference between this baby and the baby who was planned for in terms of innocence. To perform an abortion in these cases would still be infanticide. A woman going through pregnancy as a result of rape or forced pregnancy needs support, counseling and most of all love, but she doesn't need doctors or "friends" suggesting that she just get rid of the problem through abortion. That can only lead to more heartache.
Secondly, I would like to address Keith's point about birth control. As I mentioned earlier, all forms of birth control have fail rates. I only know of one case where abstinence didn't work. We would expect that with the increased use of birth control, the instances of unplanned pregnancies would go down, but the opposite has been the case. In reality, birth control offers a false sense of security which leads to more unplanned pregnancies.
But there is another, deeper, reason why birth control is not the answer. LADIES, YOU DESERVE BETTER!!! If that man is not willing to have a baby with you, not willing to confront the natural consequences of sex, he is not worth having sex with. If you want to do something recreational with your boyfriend, go to a theme park or something.
Finally, I agree that the US government spends way too much time trying to control people's choices. However, the reality is that abortion clinics are an industry and that industry has lobbyists trying to keep that industry profitable. For this reason, pro-life groups need to lobby in local, state, and federal governments against the abortion industry.
On my part, it is my prayer that governments will not need to legislate against abortion for it to become a thing of the past. The real battleground is not in legislative halls, but in the minds and hearts of everyday people. If we can become a nation that cherishes life in every form and strives to protect that life, abortion will become so morally and culturally repulsive that no woman would ever choose it anyway.
"I think it is important to draw a distinction between "Pro-Life," and "Anti-Abortion." Anti-Abortionists are those who promote the legal restriction of abortion. Pro-Life, to me, should be more about promoting life and opposing abortion on moral grounds, rather than legal grounds. I believe it is entirely possible to be both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.
I am morally opposed to abortion when the pregnancy in question was the result of consensual sex. (However, In cases of rape, forced pregnancy, and life-threatening emergencies, I feel that abortion is not morally wrong.) I believe that human life ought to be celebrated, and that if the pregnancy was the result of consensual sex, the unwilling mother should do everything in her power to ensure that both her and her baby BOTH live fulfilling lives. I also believe that using non-abortive birth control should be a priority for anyone who engages in sexual activity and does not wish to conceive. Preventing unintentional pregnancy should be a goal of anyone who opposes abortion on moral grounds. In a perfect world, no one would even WANT to have an abortion, and those who had unintended pregnancies would choose adoption. In this sense, I am pro-life.
However, I realize that people make mistakes, and that unintended pregnancy happens. Furthermore, I feel it is wrong for the government to exert control over the contents of an individual's body. It is the exact opposite of freedom and liberty when the government can override an individual's sovereign authority over her own uterus. I morally disagree with abortion, however I believe it is even more morally wrong for the government to enforce that belief. I may disagree with women who choose abortion, but that choice is between them and God. Period. In this sense, I am pro-choice."
I asked him if I could use this as a prompt for my next post, which he agreed to. I hope that he's reading this and that we can talk more in the future.
Keith's position seems pretty typical of those in our generation who would label themselves conservative, and he does a good job of articulating the position. I find it particularly interesting because, up until recently, I would have agreed with him on every point. However, there are some key concessions in Keith's position which I do not agree with.
First, I want to address the concessions for rape, forced pregnancy, and life-threatening emergencies. The only concession here that I agree to is that of life-threatening emergencies, if there really is no other way to preserve the life of both the mother and the child.
Let me backtrack for a minute. I do agree that women should have sovereignty over their own bodies. However, they should also recognize that a natural consequence of sex is pregnancy, whether they are using some form of birth control or not (all of them have fail rates). Ideally, if a woman is not willing or able to deal with this consequence by carrying the pregnancy to term, she should use her sovereignty over her own body to abstain from sex. She should not use abortion as a back-up plan. Even in the case where the woman made a mistake, there is still the option of adoption and there are pregnancy crisis centers which can help women who need to get in contact with adoption agencies.
In the case of rape or forced pregnancy, a woman's sovereignty over her own body has already been violated, by the criminal who forced himself on her and not by the baby which was the result. There is no difference between this baby and the baby who was planned for in terms of innocence. To perform an abortion in these cases would still be infanticide. A woman going through pregnancy as a result of rape or forced pregnancy needs support, counseling and most of all love, but she doesn't need doctors or "friends" suggesting that she just get rid of the problem through abortion. That can only lead to more heartache.
Secondly, I would like to address Keith's point about birth control. As I mentioned earlier, all forms of birth control have fail rates. I only know of one case where abstinence didn't work. We would expect that with the increased use of birth control, the instances of unplanned pregnancies would go down, but the opposite has been the case. In reality, birth control offers a false sense of security which leads to more unplanned pregnancies.
But there is another, deeper, reason why birth control is not the answer. LADIES, YOU DESERVE BETTER!!! If that man is not willing to have a baby with you, not willing to confront the natural consequences of sex, he is not worth having sex with. If you want to do something recreational with your boyfriend, go to a theme park or something.
Finally, I agree that the US government spends way too much time trying to control people's choices. However, the reality is that abortion clinics are an industry and that industry has lobbyists trying to keep that industry profitable. For this reason, pro-life groups need to lobby in local, state, and federal governments against the abortion industry.
On my part, it is my prayer that governments will not need to legislate against abortion for it to become a thing of the past. The real battleground is not in legislative halls, but in the minds and hearts of everyday people. If we can become a nation that cherishes life in every form and strives to protect that life, abortion will become so morally and culturally repulsive that no woman would ever choose it anyway.
