Category Archives: Pro-Life Issues

Another Take: Pregnancy is Like a Traffic Accident

In this post, I argued that pregnancy is like a traffic accident:

If I needed a ride home from work, and one of my employees was kind enough to offer a ride, does that means I consent only to the ride home?  Well, actually, it means I give tacit approval to whatever happens on the ride home — whether I like it or not.  In other words, I can’t roll a d20 against my intelligence and disbelieve something I don’t like away.

For example, if the employee ran a red light and another car crashed into my side of the car, paralyzing me from the waist down.  A grim outcome to be sure, and I can seek monetary damages against the employee for medical expenses and rehab.  But I can’t wish the paralysis away.

In a way, abortion is the magic disbelieve roll.  “I’m not ready,” or “I don’t want to be a parent yet,” or any of the other excuses (and they are excuses) one manufactures.  The fact of the matter of is sex is tacit consent to pregnancy, since pregnancy is a possible result of sex.  We are taught in grade school that that is the case, so there isn’t an excuse for not knowing.

Agree or disagree with my analogy, I’m not the only one who uses it.  Here, Clinton Wilcox argues along similar lines, but I think he phrases it a little bit better:

When someone drives a car, they are taking on certain risks, such as the possibility of getting into an accident. Now, if you do get into an accident, you should not necessarily be forced to live with pain, injuries, etc., that may result from it. You also may not be at fault for it as the other driver may be. Or in some cases no one may be at fault for it.

So while you don’t necessarily have to live with the consequences, the person at fault does have to make it right by paying for the other person’s medical bills, paying to repair their car, etc. (or having their insurance do it, if they’re insured). They can’t just walk away and say, “Sorry, I consented to drive my car but I did not consent to get into an accident. You’re on your own.” Read the rest of this entry

Advertisements

Is Having Sex Also Consent to Having a Baby?

choice2013I wanted to revisit a conversation I once witnessed between @juliewashere, a Twitter user and founder the Golden Coat Hanger, a blog on feminist and abortion issues, and @KatyPundit (who is male and named David; so much for my uncanny ability to guess gender using forum aliases).  It was almost two years ago and before I knew about WordPress’s supercool feature to reprint tweets in graphical format, so I have only text copies of the tweets involved.

I wanted to revisit the conversation because this is a line of argument that has always bugged me in regard to pro-choice folks.  They don’t think that sex necessarily must equal a baby.  While that is true, the fact is that a baby is a potential result of sex, and murder is not an appropriate method to deal with said consequence.

Julie asked when she gave consent to pregnancy, and David told Julie, “You gave consent when you spread em open.” Julie responded:

that’s consent to sex, and ONLY sex.

David replied, “LOL, Sex makes babies. At least that’s how MY kids got here… U came by Stork?” And Julie responds with a disconnect between sex and pregnancy:

no, pregnancy makes babies, and it takes several months.

What does Julie think causes pregnancy?  I’m not sure.  But I want to take a moment to ponder her position that consent to sex is consent to the physical act, and thus not tacit consent to pregnancy.  Since there was no consent to pregnancy, this entitles the pregnant woman to terminate the unwanted pregnancy.

Let’s apply this to another situation.

If I needed a ride home from work, and one of my employees was kind enough to offer a ride, does that means I consent only to the ride home?  Well, actually, it means I give tacit approval to whatever happens on the ride home — whether I like it or not.  In other words, I can’t roll a d20 against my intelligence and disbelieve something I don’t like away.

For example, if the employee ran a red light and another car crashed into my side of the car, paralyzing me from the waist down.  A grim outcome to be sure, and I can seek monetary damages against the employee for medical expenses and rehab.  But I can’t wish the paralysis away.

In a way, abortion is the magic disbelieve roll.  “I’m not ready,” or “I don’t want to be a parent yet,” or any of the other excuses (and they are excuses) one manufactures.  The fact of the matter of is sex is tacit consent to pregnancy, since pregnancy is a possible result of sex.  We are taught in grade school that that is the case, so there isn’t an excuse for not knowing.

Sex ==> Pregnancy ==> Baby

Divorcing pregnancy and parenthood from sex is a myth of our modern age, and abortion reinforces that myth.  That is a very serious issue, and it comes to the forefront each year on this dark anniversary.

Abortion in the Case of Rape — A Brief Treatment

The ignorant comments of Senator Todd Akin add fuel to the already huge fire over the abortion debate.  Many conservatives oppose abortion in all forms, even in cases of rape and incest.  In an August 19 interview, Senator Akin was asked to clarify why he opposed abortion in cases of rape.  The following epic fail issued forth:

If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child. (source)

I want to first address the two periphery issues our Democratic friends like to focus on, then the real issue.  The real issue is obscured behind incidental (and I seriously hope unintentional) faux pas in his statement.

Calling them “faux pas” is too kind.  I like to keep the blog family friendly, and words like “douchebaggery” run contrary to that; even though it is a more fitting term.

Let’s press on.  The Senator’s first faux pas is “legitimate rape.”  This seems to suggest that there are cases of illegitimate rape.  Of course there are, but rape is under-reported, not over-reported.  And it remains under-reported because of ignoramuses like the Senator who blame the victim.

Senator Akin’s comment seems to suggest that if a woman gets pregnant by rape, it isn’t rape.  In other words, she must have wanted it.  That type of thinking has to sicken feminists to their core.  I’m not a feminist and it sickens me!

This leads to the second faux pas, suggesting that a woman’s body can somehow shut down a pregnancy if the rape is legitimate.  That’s an interesting superpower.  Why can’t women just do that for any unwanted pregnancy?  It would end the abortion debate and the controversy over government-sponsored contraception in one fell swoop!

And how would the woman’s body know the difference, exactly?  One fact I do know about rape is that the body reacts as if the sex is consensual, lubing up the right parts.  So the woman is violated by the rapist and betrayed by her own body.  That, of course, multiplies the shame exponentially and contributes to the under-reporting of rape.

Now on with the real issue.  Viewing this from a pro-life standpoint, abortion is morally wrong; it is murder.  In that light, when aborting a child conceived in rape, you punish the innocent child for the crime committed by the rapist.

Senator Akin later clarified:

I recognize that abortion, and particularly in the case of rape, is a very emotionally charged issue. But I believe deeply in the protection of all life, and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action. (source)

This was the point he was making in the first place, skewed by the stupidity of the surrounding context.  Liberals pick up on the wrong part of the message — but Senator Akin needs to realize that he gave birth to that monster by spouting the douchebaggery in the first place.

I defend the child conceived in rape as having a right to life.  I denounce the ignorance and backwards-thinking of Senator Akin, and join my liberal opponents in shock that he would make these comments.  But let’s keep the focus on the right to life, not assbag Senators who thoughtlessly spew epic fails that alienate large portions of their constituency.

This awesome tweet gets the last word:

Another Ignorant Meme

Memes are created by the dozens everyday.  I have no idea what makes one meme go viral while others sit and rot.  But I’m convinced the anti-religious ones that go viral must do one of two things:

  1. Commit serious exegetical errors that Average Joe Christian cannot counter because the church sucks at apologetics.
  2. Commit a serious category error that Average Joe American won’t notice because he’s too busy watching horrid shows like Keeping Up With the Kardashians and not busy enough learning how to think critically.

This meme goes in the second group.  I would like to point out that it is exactly the same category error discussed with the Scumbag God meme: a failure to distinguish between “kill” and “murder.”

“Kill” is a broad term that refers to the taking of lives.  Murder, on the other hand, is the unlawful taking of a life.  All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder.  For example, the following “kills” are lawful:

  1. Hunting
  2. Trapping
  3. Euthanizing sick/injured animals
  4. Butchering animals for food/by-products
  5. Killing enemy combatants
  6. Capital punishment
  7. Self-defense
  8. Defense of another who is immediate, life-threatening danger
  9. Killing a person who presents an immediate threat to the community but not directly to you (police officers only)

No comment on the fairness of those kills, but they are considered lawful in that if you clean a fish, kill an enemy soldier, shoot a horse with a broken leg, or kill to protect your child you won’t face prison time.

Murder represents a case where you killed unlawfully.  For example, if you caught your wife in bed with another guy, then beat that guy’s head in with a sharpened stick, you’re going to jail.  I’m sure that the jury would sympathize with you, mostly because there’s at least one hotheaded, possessive S.O.B. of a juror who would have done the same thing.

But that doesn’t change the legality of your action.  You still killed without a justifiable reason.  And that makes it murder.  (In the above example, if you had no “cool-down” period, it would likely be charged as manslaughter, but my point still stands that the killing is unlawful.)

Capital punishment is the right of the state, agree or disagree with it, it is still a justifiable killing.  As is killing an enemy soldier in combat; soldiers know what they’re getting in to and they know they are risking their lives when they enter the armed forces.  Same as any police officer or government Special Agent.

So, you can be pro-life, pro-war, and pro-death penalty while not earning the brand of hypocrite.  Some might say that this is special pleading, but it isn’t because I’ve shown the one exception to special pleading — the principle of relevant difference.  Lawful killing of enemy combatants and convicted murderers/traitors is vastly different than murdering a baby in the womb.

Okay, I jumped the gun a bit.  I haven’t actually proven that abortion is murder.  And that’s not my aim.  My aim is to show that not all killing is unlawful, and therefore this meme commits a serious category error.

And now, having squashed another ignorant meme, I shall enjoy a piece of Victory Gum…

The Precious Gift of Life

A high school student named MariaFernanda Gomez approached me via e-mail asking for permission to use one of my graphics that I had posted in honor of Ask Them What They Mean by “Choice” Day.

I told her that I stole the graphics myself, and as far as I knew they were free and clear to use.  The Facebook group I found them in encourages reposting.

She never ended up using the graphics, however she did write an amazing article that I think is worth calling attention to.  It’s awesome to see that there is at least one young high school student with an appreciation for the great gift that life is, and abhors the cavalier attitude that abortion advocates display toward life.

In the United States, more than 40 million unborn babies have been killed in the 29 years since abortion was legalized, and more than 1.3 million are killed each year, according to statistics from several recognized national institutes [the Alan Guttmacher Institute, Centers for Disease Control, National Right to Life Committeee, and Central Illinois Right to Life].

It would take more than 13 thousand September 9, 2011 terrorist attacks to kill as many people as abortion has killed since Roe vs. Wade. It is a tragedy that must end if we seek to foster a culture for our children that will value life, as it is – a gift from God.

Keep Reading >>

What a Glorious Choice!

It is January 22, the anniversary of the worst Supreme Court decision ever — the decision granting a woman the right to kill her unborn baby in the womb as a matter convenience.  This day is used by NARAL to celebrate this grotesque choice, and they encourage bloggers and tweeters to  talk about the woman’s right to “choose.”

But what are these women really getting to “choose?”

Abortion advocates say that this “choice” advances the cause of womankind and empowers the woman with freedom over her own body.  She is no longer a slave, she doesn’t have to be forced to surrender her vital organs to sustain something she may not have wanted in the first place.

So, those who hold the unopposed power of life and death over another human being are justified in using that power to kill someone who is a mere inconvenience?

Let’s get real.  As much as the pro-abortion crowd likes to belly-ache about situations like rape, incest, or saving the life of the mother, few abortions are actually performed for those reasons.  Most abortions are performed for convenience.  An unexpected pregnancy might be detrimental to the plans of the woman and/or man who would be the parents of the resulting child, so they kill the child.  It’s as simple as that.

Or the child is the wrong sex.

Or the child has a deformity or has the markers for a mental handicap.

This means that most women who have abortions are doing so out of selfish reasons.

An old episode of He-man and the Masters of the Universe illustrated this exact situation, with fantasy elements (of course).  In this episode, Skeletor (the villain) has learned the location of the Starseed.  This artifact is a piece of the singularity that resulted in the Big Bang — and whoever possesses it has the power of God.  Total omniscience along with omnipotence.

Let’s see what happens when He-man and Skeletor battle to possess it:

Do you agree that He-man made the correct decision?

Holding the power of life and death over another person in your hand and not using it is far more powerful than using it.  In the cartoon here, as well as in real life, holding someone’s life in your hands and ending it is always an evil act.

Reality check for my fellow pro-lifers: Our side makes a big deal about electing only pro-life officials to Congress or the Presidency, over getting the right mix of Justices in the Supreme Court to overthrow Roe v. Wade.  The government isn’t where we are going to win the battle, nor where we are going to make the greatest impact.  It is with this power of choice.

The powerful testament to He-man’s character in that clip comes from the fact that he has the power to obliterate Skeletor, but he chooses not to.  For all his evil scheming, Skeletor surely deserves nothing less than annihilation.  However, He-man chooses to preserve Skeletor’s life — and when faced with the chance to kill his greatest enemy he reacts with mercy and forgiveness.

As Zodac points out, He-man’s refusal to use the power of the universe for selfish gain demonstrated his goodness.

Pregnancy is a responsibility handed to the pregnant woman by God, and abortion is the coward’s way to duck that responsibility.  How much of a testament to a woman’s character would it be if she were in dire straits, became pregnant, had the option of aborting the child, yet still chose life for her unborn child?

The battle for abortion won’t be won in sweeping, preventative legislation.  It will be won in the trenches with individual women, one choice by life-affirming choice at a time.

Obsessing Over a Cool Feature

WordPress has added the ability to reprint tweets in a really cool way.  Some readers have probably noted that I have done that with Monica’s tweets when I wish to highlight something that was said on Twitter.

Since I absolutely love this feature, and I said two things on Twitter that I would like to reiterate here, I will now use this feature shamelessly:

http://twitter.com/tucholskic/statuses/84154570019831808

And:

http://twitter.com/tucholskic/statuses/84159934605967360

Bask in my pithy wisdom.  And, follow me on Twitter.  I’ll follow you back, and I’ll love you forever.  Well, at least I’ll follow you back!

An Interesting Philosophical Conundrum

The Christian band Texas in July is going on tour with numerous other acts to raise money for a website called sexetc.org.  According to Bryan Kemper, this website is staunchly pro-abortion despite purporting to present a “balanced view.”  In fact, it only provides links to organizations that encourage abortions, and derides pro-life organizations in blanket statements.

Basically, the site promotes values contrary to Christianity and shouldn’t be supported by persons who call themselves Christians.  Yet, Texas in July is a very vocal supporter.

A commenter to Kemper’s article, Jordan W., raises an interesting philosophical question:

As if any of you -author included- knows what’s best for the band. It’s pretty clear that this tour is serving the purpose of getting their name out there and promoting One Reality. I love this band, and I am a faithful Christian as well. Who are we to judge what they do? If you want to actually support the band, support them by going to shows.

Need I remind you that August Burns Red went on this exact tour with The Human Abstract a few years back? Cmon now, be supportive and quit your judging.

Kemper didn’t even touch on a philosophical response to what was raised here, but I wish he would have.  He talked about the practical implications, responding that Texas in July was actually raising funds for sexetc.org, where the other Christian bands mentioned weren’t specifically doing that.  Jordan kept up the “Stop judging!” reply, which isn’t really what Kemper was doing.  He was, as he put it, “It is not about being offended, it is about calling out an injustice.”

But, the broader and more philosophical question not pondered is, “Can I do what’s best for me, even if it spits on the face of the God I claim to serve?” Read the rest of this entry

For Those Who Love Irony

This Pretty Much Speaks for Itself

I’m putting this video up without editorial. Lila Rose, founder of LiveAction.org, has done another undercover investigation into Planned Parenthood. These are the facts as I understand them:

Two folks posing as a pimp and his prostitute talked to an office manager at Planned Parenthood, asking how to secure abortions, contraception, STD testing, and other services for his underage sex workers. The office manager, Amy Woodruff, LPN, coached the pair on where to go to get abortions no questions asked, counseled them on how to lie to avoid detection by law enforcement, and even gave them some business advice. She told them to avoid the clinic’s nurse practitioner because she will ask them enough questions to expose the operation, thus obligating Planned Parenthood to report to the police.

UPDATE: LiveAction released the unedited footage, just to quiet critics who suggested that this was edited to purposely make Planned Parenthood look bad.

UPDATE: Planned Parenthood terminated Amy Woodruff, the manager depicted on the video.