Recently, I was involved in an online debate with a person who is a Liberal Democrat, and vehemently Pro-‘choice’. In response to one of their posts, I wrote this, and thought I’d share. SDG…
Xxxxxx, please do not be sorry, and though I did not mean to ‘fire you up’, I am glad that you commented. I am sure that there are many other people who frequent my page who feel as you do, but will not comment. You are a surrogate for them today. On their behalf, I thank you.
I want to take a few moments to examine your post, as it covers most of the main Pro-Choice argumentation. Please note that I will use the words baby and fetus, not ‘clump of cells’, not ‘products of conception’
1) “Pro choice is about a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body.”
This presupposes that the body (the life) growing inside the woman is not in and of itself a person, has no body of their own, as such has no rights, which I get is the main argument. (One woman I read recently straight up called the baby a parasite) but does this then not deprive the female unborn child (never mind the male) the right to decide what to do with her body? If this is fundamentally a women’s rights issue, what of the rights of these women?
2) “Men have been making decisions for women for most of history.”
This is ‘The War on women’ argument, which is usually paired with the proposed notion that abortion (aka reproductive rights) is the way to cure this. (For clarity’s sake, I am aware that the term ‘reproductive rights’ encompasses a variety of things, however, most often when I see/read/hear the term used, it centers around abortion)
I respectfully disagree. In fact, I would propose to you that the real war on women is gendercide, in that the majority of abortions done in places like India & China for example, are sex selection abortions, and it is the female babies that are killed.
This argument, (much like the completely fallacious and incendiary ‘College rape culture’ claim) is used to make the claim that today in America women are patriarchally besieged, unable to decide who to sleep with and when, and what methods of contraception to use. Is that what is really being said?
3) “So if you don’t get pregnant, then please don’t weigh in on this issue.”
This is equivalent to: ‘If you’re not X, you can’t have an opinion on X involved issues.’ It is a tactic used to silence any opposing viewpoints, thereby killing conversation and/or debate. It assumes that people cannot show/have empathy, and it is extremely unfair and problematic. We see this very mindset working division and strife in our country right now, when it comes to matters of epidermis, melanin, and the associated difficulties… There are many good people afraid to speak on issues that they care deeply about because they are afraid of being labeled, bullied, etc. It is sad and ridiculous.
So, as the son of a woman, the husband of a woman, the brother of a woman, the father of a woman, the uncle of a woman, cousin to many women, heck, as a person, I think that I am entitled both to a) Have an opinion and b) voice it. Just as everyone else is free to either agree or disagree. Why would anyone think otherwise?
4) “You have no idea what it means to have to make that choice.”
Actually, you’d be surprised.
5) “And what happens to an unwanted child once they are born? Do We think about that? Does the government care about whether they are housed, fed, clothed, educated, sent to prison, sick? I think not.”
This is the ‘It’s better to kill it now than to have it suffer later’ argument. On the surface, it sounds almost empathetic, even caring, but in reality, is it? This is the logic that causes 90% of babies with Down’s syndrome to be aborted. It is akin to theAktion T4 program. Which was started in 1939 to euthanize “incurably ill, physically or mentally disabled, emotionally distraught, and elderly people.” From 1939 to 1945 some 200,000 people met their end in this way.
Is it right to deprive a human being of life, on the chance that they may suffer later? Do you think that, given the choice, the nearly 60 million children aborted in the US since 1973 would have voted to be killed? I think not.
6) “Respectfully, men have no right to decide or to legislate what a woman chooses to do with her body.”
It’s not an issue of legislation Xxxxxx. As Mrs. Clinton rightly says: These are the laws in our country (like them or not). I would note though, that 38 states have fetal homicide laws, in those states, the law also says that if someone kills a pregnant woman they have killed two persons. Why is that? It is the undeniable fact of the personhood of the fetus, the personhood of the baby…
7) “It’s her body AND for that matter, her soul to do what she wishes. I’m a social worker and I’ve seen what happens to these kids and overburdened and under resourced families.”
I am well aware that nearly 40% of the abortions performed nationally are women who are in or close to poverty. This is true, and lamentable. I am also aware that in NYC, black people are 25% of the population, but have 61% of the abortions. How is this explainable when free birth control and all kinds of sex education materials are readily available for free, abundant in schools, pharmacies, etc.? How is it at all explainable that once again (as of the most recent data, 2014) More black children are aborted (27,367) than born( 23,680) in NYC? – https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/vs/2014sum.pdf
What this means is that abortion is being used as ‘birth control’, but I would argue that feticide is not birth control, it is population control.
Interesting that you would mention the soul. In my ‘line of work’, I have also had to deal with broken women unable to forgive themselves sometimes decades after abortions, (sometimes multiple ones) some of whom mark the days annually because they were unable escape the reality of the abortion: At the end of every abortion, someone is dead. Not a clump, not by-products, but a person. A person, innocent, full of potential and purpose, is dead. We all know this, no matter how hard we try to redefine, or change the terminology.
Or what of the women who had safe, legal abortions but were unable to carry to term later (there are more than you think, and no one talks about them, because of the ‘safe legal and rare’ narrative.) What of these completely preventable tragedies?
8) “Are you willing to adopt some of these kids? Sorry. This fires me up.”
I’ve already been informed that I did not make enough to adopt, and then when I did, that we were too old. We talked about this very thing last week, and at this point, have given up.Let me say this, and then I’ll stop:
This issue is not simply a women’s rights issue. It is a people issue. It is a human rights issue, and it is one that impacts most people very strongly. Why? Because again, we know what we’re really talking about: The taking of a life. Abortion is the purposed, intentional, taking of a human life.
In order to make the truth of this fact less repulsive, less fundamentally disquieting, we must dehumanize the baby. This is not an uncommon methodology; we do it all the time. Human beings know that others are human, just like dogs can spot eachother a block away, in a rainstorm at midnight. We just KNOW. So we have to make the person an ‘other’. In order to hate, enslave, fear, kill, we have to seek out the ‘otherness’ of that person. It temporarily assuages our primal discomfort…
Life is chock full of situations, circumstances and issues. That is the reality, and if you live long enough, you’ll have trouble. I just cannot ever agree, that imposing the death penalty on a person, especially an innocent one, ever solves the problem.
Looking forward to your response…
(I did eventually get a response. A response that bypassed all of my points and went right to feelings. There is no way to reason past that, so it ended.)