Friday, March 27, 2009
Vyckie over at No Longer Quivering asked a question:
I used to have all the answers ~ now, I mostly only have questions. So ~ I'd really like to hear from those of you who are Pro-life and at the same time, not opposed to birth control. Do you not believe that the difference between regulating the number and timing of children via birth control vs. abortion is only a matter of the degree of a person's anti-life worldview? How do you respond to Mary Pride's contention that family planning is the mother of abortion? Here's what she had to say about it: "A generation had to be indoctrinated in the ideal of planning children around personal convenience before abortion could be popular." Now to me, that makes sense...
OK, first off, can we please drop the whole anti-life worldview myth? As a secular liberal I can safely say that "killing babies" is not something we do for fun. It makes it sound like we all go about getting knocked up simply for the bloodthirsty joy of killing off the child. Brunch, murder, shoe shopping, tra-la.
Spare me. Please.
Personally I have yet to meet a woman who has had an abortion who did not consider it a necessary last resort. For all of them, at a minimum, having a child would have meant losing all support, emotional and physical. And in many cases it would have meant outright abuse from the father or from those around them. And for a number of them health was an issue as well. But none of them, none of them had an abortion because they were anti-life. They took a long hard look at the quality of life, both for themselves and their child, and decided they couldn't put a child through that.
As for birth control, no, I do not believe that it's murder. Now, you can argue health risks for any drug or internal device, so for the purposes of this discussion, let's stick to condoms. If keeping the sperm from reaching the egg via a latex barrier is murder, then so is abstinence. After all, as far as I know, God only had direct hand in making one baby in history, every one else involved getting two people in the same place at the same time with the same thought in their minds. If they then say no, they are thwarting God's will and preventing Him from bringing a child into the world.
Look at it this way. God made man in His image. He gave man dominion over all the plants and animals, including giving him the knowledge and ability to split them up, to control which animal breeds with which animal. Why would he not have also given Man the ability to control their own reproduction? After all, Man is the only being in the world that does not have a heat cycle, that does not have the irresistible urge to procreate. Man is the only being in the world where God is not in direct control of the reproductive cycle. Man is the only being that can say no.
Man is also the only being that can choose to do other things that don't result in babies (not going to get more specific, kids might be reading). So the question really boils down to "Should we be applying technology to this process or not". I say, why not?
And as for how someone can be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time? If someone wants to sin, it's between them and God. If they are that determined we're not going to stop it, On the other hand, I don't want the government getting between me and my doctor, for any reason. It is not a huge step from "You cannot not have this baby" to "you cannot have any baby" or "you have to have a baby". I don't want to open that door.
Besides, women in desperate situations have been having, or trying to have, abortions throughout history. If you really want to end abortions, end the situations that make women feel so desperate. Increase the social safety net, make health care universal, and seriously, seriously, work to promote adoption as a viable alternative. The way we treat that option is shameful in this country.
Anyway, that's my $0.02. And now that I've written out this reply, I'm going to go put it on my blog too.
Posted by The Knitting Lady at 10:09 AM