ABORTION ON DEMAND--A NECESSARY EVIL!
Let's begin with the premise that life is sacred, that taking it (regardless the reasons) is sinful; and abortion is a method of taking life. But, we are left with a dilemma. Everyday, in every nook and crannie of the world, unwanted babies are conceived, subsequently born in to lives of abject misery, and left to fester in an already moldering planet.
For the right to lifers the answer can be found in the Bible. Unfortunately, however, the Bible simply provides no answer for this ever worsening problem. Faith, in and of itself, simply does not feed the hungry, does not educate the illiterate, does not clothe the poor, and does not provide parenting for kids brought in to the world by those who neither can, nor, will raise the products of their passion. Those who believe otherwise are well intended, but, for the most part, they are seeing the issue through rose colored glasses.
The very term "unwanted babies" goes against the grain of everything most civilized people are reared to believe. In America, we grow-up believing (or at least we used to) that adulthood brings marriage and family; that life's paramount joys include producing offspring who will mature in to the next generation of scientists, doctors, sports stars, or even the president of the United States. But the age old dream of the middle class is now all too often the nightmare of far too many poor, undereducated, under (or un) employed citizens who's prospects are bleak and dreary. For these folks (and their numbers are huge, and growing disproportionately), the notion of raising kids is little more than ephemeral. If the women of this group become pregnant it is largely the result of no planning. And for those who's pregnancies result from rape or incest, the likelihood of a good outcome is too statistically minute to speak of.
We now live in a country in which fully half of the kids are being reared by one parent households. That is, of course, unconscionable, but that is part of the contemporary problem. Our collective, and individual, consciences are no longer sufficiently active as to impose moral consequences for things like pregnancy out of wedlock. Indeed, some celebrities even proudly announce being in a "family way" well in advance of being in a family way. Actress, Katie Holmes, recently announces that she is expecting Tom Cruise's child, and most of our society applauds their accomplishment. At least in their case, they can afford to raise the youngster. In all too many other circumstances involving what, for lack of a better term we will call premature pregnancies, the unmarried parents have no plans for a baby; and bringing it in to the world, and caring for, rearing it, and assuring it a reasonable future has not even occured to them. Indeed, their pregnancies are the unfortunate result of doing what comes naturally even when doing so should not have been done. But try to spout that logic in this day and age and you find yourself in a closet with no one to talk to. Ironically, the right to life folks advocate this position, but most of them are, in reality, loathe to practice what they preach. But then the right to life clan are generally well enough educated, and well enough off, to provide for their mistakes. And for those, regardless other circumstances, for whom right to life is a religious precept, faith will suffice. And there are probably some cases where it works. But in a changing world, in a culture as complex as the one we inhabit today, such spiritual idealism may have to give way to a harsher reality.
Birth control is preferable to abortion. But many right to lifers also object to this kind of intervention. Harking back to their religious training they observe that the Bible likens birth control to a defacto form of abortion. For them, therefore, abstinence is the only means of avoiding unwanted pregnancies. And there is a certain nobility in that position, but in the world we now live in it is undeniably pollyannish to suggest that you cannot have your cake, and you cannot eat it either. Back in the days when most of us practiced that kind of morality the number of unwanted pregnancies were far less than they are now. But, as observed earlier in this treatise, that kind of morality has gone the way of spats and high hats. It should not have, but it did; and the idea that it will be somehow revived is absurd. Not even the Catholic Church, for all of its seemingly noble canons, can reinstitute the days when premarital sex, and unwanted pregnancies, were societal taboos. Going to confession, and being assigned a penance of twenty Hail Marys is about as strict a penalty as there is for those Catholics who sexually transgress. And to that is added the remonstrance that abortion is unthinkable, that marriage should ensue, and that the impending offpspring be raised Catholic. And we do not disparage this process; we just think it contemporaneously ineffective. After all, when forgiveness is no more distant that the nearest confessional, the reprisal of sin seems assured.
But the issue, which is hardly confined to the U.S., has far reaching global implications. All kinds of arguments can be advanced in support of the idea that the planet simply cannot have too many people. But the facts contravene those arguments, and it becomes increasingly clear that the unfettered growth of the human race will utlimately result in disastrous shortages of natural resources. And it seems, like it or not, that such problems are already evident. Global warming, as a case in point, appears to be a manifestation of human intervention in the natural climatological process. There are, like or not, too many people on this planet. And further populating an already over populated world seems likely to further damage its eco-systems, and to result, unavoidably, in serious consequences for people everywhere. No, we do not suggest aborting all pregnancies. Nor do we propose anything approaching an end to the propagation of the human race. But we do believe measured steps to contain the population will soon become essential, and part of that process must, logically, entail the curbing of unwanted, unplanned, pregnancies. To object to wide-spread dissemination of birth control information, and methods, is, under the circumstances, criminally negligent. Every woman who does not want to get pregnant (and everyone who should not get pregnant for reasons of age, economic deprivation, or any other reason) should be educated in the means of preventing pregnancies. And while abstinence should be taught as a desireable alternative, all other healthful means should be instructed as well.
As for abortion, it should be available to those whose lives are endangered by pregnancy, to those whose pregnancies are the result of rape or incest, and to those whose ages or economic circumstances reasonably presuppose their inability to provide for their progeny. And, we also support the availability of abortion to those women, regardless other factors, who just plain do not want to be mothers. In most instances wherein abortion is contemplated we also suggest the availability of adoption as an alternative. And we believe society has an obligation to provide for, and to establish, this alternative. But in its absence (and let's face it, we are not doing well on this front), abortion on demand should be the law of the land. If and when the right to life folks offer alternatives to the obvious miseries of unwanted pregnancy (and they must do so in realistic, concrete, terms) alternatives to abortion will become logical and attractive. But if and until that happens, women (regardless their circumstances) should have the unilateral right to terminate pregnancies they do not wish to continue. They should be obliged to undertake such actions as early as possible ( we do not object to the illegalization of so-called late term abortions), and married women should make such decisions in concert with their husbands. But, ultimately, the decision should be theirs. And those men who think they know better should keep their counsel.
Until they can become pregnant, and experience all that the gals do, they should remain compassionate and silent.
We can all agree that abortion is less than desireable. Yes, we can even define it as evil. But, in the world we live in now it is a necessary evil. And countenancing it, at least until other reasonable alternatives become regularly available, is a no brainer.
Let us add this euphemistic postscript. If everyone who should not have sex abstains. Or if everyone who has sex without wanting pregnancy will use proven birth control methods, the abortion issue will resolve itself. But what do you suppose are the chances that these events might develop? We think slim and none. And slim has already left town...........
Garrett500
10/19/2005
For the right to lifers the answer can be found in the Bible. Unfortunately, however, the Bible simply provides no answer for this ever worsening problem. Faith, in and of itself, simply does not feed the hungry, does not educate the illiterate, does not clothe the poor, and does not provide parenting for kids brought in to the world by those who neither can, nor, will raise the products of their passion. Those who believe otherwise are well intended, but, for the most part, they are seeing the issue through rose colored glasses.
The very term "unwanted babies" goes against the grain of everything most civilized people are reared to believe. In America, we grow-up believing (or at least we used to) that adulthood brings marriage and family; that life's paramount joys include producing offspring who will mature in to the next generation of scientists, doctors, sports stars, or even the president of the United States. But the age old dream of the middle class is now all too often the nightmare of far too many poor, undereducated, under (or un) employed citizens who's prospects are bleak and dreary. For these folks (and their numbers are huge, and growing disproportionately), the notion of raising kids is little more than ephemeral. If the women of this group become pregnant it is largely the result of no planning. And for those who's pregnancies result from rape or incest, the likelihood of a good outcome is too statistically minute to speak of.
We now live in a country in which fully half of the kids are being reared by one parent households. That is, of course, unconscionable, but that is part of the contemporary problem. Our collective, and individual, consciences are no longer sufficiently active as to impose moral consequences for things like pregnancy out of wedlock. Indeed, some celebrities even proudly announce being in a "family way" well in advance of being in a family way. Actress, Katie Holmes, recently announces that she is expecting Tom Cruise's child, and most of our society applauds their accomplishment. At least in their case, they can afford to raise the youngster. In all too many other circumstances involving what, for lack of a better term we will call premature pregnancies, the unmarried parents have no plans for a baby; and bringing it in to the world, and caring for, rearing it, and assuring it a reasonable future has not even occured to them. Indeed, their pregnancies are the unfortunate result of doing what comes naturally even when doing so should not have been done. But try to spout that logic in this day and age and you find yourself in a closet with no one to talk to. Ironically, the right to life folks advocate this position, but most of them are, in reality, loathe to practice what they preach. But then the right to life clan are generally well enough educated, and well enough off, to provide for their mistakes. And for those, regardless other circumstances, for whom right to life is a religious precept, faith will suffice. And there are probably some cases where it works. But in a changing world, in a culture as complex as the one we inhabit today, such spiritual idealism may have to give way to a harsher reality.
Birth control is preferable to abortion. But many right to lifers also object to this kind of intervention. Harking back to their religious training they observe that the Bible likens birth control to a defacto form of abortion. For them, therefore, abstinence is the only means of avoiding unwanted pregnancies. And there is a certain nobility in that position, but in the world we now live in it is undeniably pollyannish to suggest that you cannot have your cake, and you cannot eat it either. Back in the days when most of us practiced that kind of morality the number of unwanted pregnancies were far less than they are now. But, as observed earlier in this treatise, that kind of morality has gone the way of spats and high hats. It should not have, but it did; and the idea that it will be somehow revived is absurd. Not even the Catholic Church, for all of its seemingly noble canons, can reinstitute the days when premarital sex, and unwanted pregnancies, were societal taboos. Going to confession, and being assigned a penance of twenty Hail Marys is about as strict a penalty as there is for those Catholics who sexually transgress. And to that is added the remonstrance that abortion is unthinkable, that marriage should ensue, and that the impending offpspring be raised Catholic. And we do not disparage this process; we just think it contemporaneously ineffective. After all, when forgiveness is no more distant that the nearest confessional, the reprisal of sin seems assured.
But the issue, which is hardly confined to the U.S., has far reaching global implications. All kinds of arguments can be advanced in support of the idea that the planet simply cannot have too many people. But the facts contravene those arguments, and it becomes increasingly clear that the unfettered growth of the human race will utlimately result in disastrous shortages of natural resources. And it seems, like it or not, that such problems are already evident. Global warming, as a case in point, appears to be a manifestation of human intervention in the natural climatological process. There are, like or not, too many people on this planet. And further populating an already over populated world seems likely to further damage its eco-systems, and to result, unavoidably, in serious consequences for people everywhere. No, we do not suggest aborting all pregnancies. Nor do we propose anything approaching an end to the propagation of the human race. But we do believe measured steps to contain the population will soon become essential, and part of that process must, logically, entail the curbing of unwanted, unplanned, pregnancies. To object to wide-spread dissemination of birth control information, and methods, is, under the circumstances, criminally negligent. Every woman who does not want to get pregnant (and everyone who should not get pregnant for reasons of age, economic deprivation, or any other reason) should be educated in the means of preventing pregnancies. And while abstinence should be taught as a desireable alternative, all other healthful means should be instructed as well.
As for abortion, it should be available to those whose lives are endangered by pregnancy, to those whose pregnancies are the result of rape or incest, and to those whose ages or economic circumstances reasonably presuppose their inability to provide for their progeny. And, we also support the availability of abortion to those women, regardless other factors, who just plain do not want to be mothers. In most instances wherein abortion is contemplated we also suggest the availability of adoption as an alternative. And we believe society has an obligation to provide for, and to establish, this alternative. But in its absence (and let's face it, we are not doing well on this front), abortion on demand should be the law of the land. If and when the right to life folks offer alternatives to the obvious miseries of unwanted pregnancy (and they must do so in realistic, concrete, terms) alternatives to abortion will become logical and attractive. But if and until that happens, women (regardless their circumstances) should have the unilateral right to terminate pregnancies they do not wish to continue. They should be obliged to undertake such actions as early as possible ( we do not object to the illegalization of so-called late term abortions), and married women should make such decisions in concert with their husbands. But, ultimately, the decision should be theirs. And those men who think they know better should keep their counsel.
Until they can become pregnant, and experience all that the gals do, they should remain compassionate and silent.
We can all agree that abortion is less than desireable. Yes, we can even define it as evil. But, in the world we live in now it is a necessary evil. And countenancing it, at least until other reasonable alternatives become regularly available, is a no brainer.
Let us add this euphemistic postscript. If everyone who should not have sex abstains. Or if everyone who has sex without wanting pregnancy will use proven birth control methods, the abortion issue will resolve itself. But what do you suppose are the chances that these events might develop? We think slim and none. And slim has already left town...........
Garrett500
10/19/2005
posted by Garrett W at 2:51 PM
1 Comments:
I was against abortion for years before I became a Christian. How can you account for that?
Post a Comment
<< Home