Skip to comments.Gee, I Wonder Why Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers Donít Get Along Better!
Posted on 05/11/2012 10:18:11 AM PDT by Morgana
In one breath, Forbes contributor Chitra Sundaram bemoans how no real discussion occurs online or offline when it comes to abortion policy. In the next, she unwittingly betrays her own culpability in the sad state of our national dialogue with a tirade about pro-lifers alleged heartlessness:
The silent masses, much as Margaret Sanger, a pioneer in Womens reproductive rights and one of the founders of Planned Parenthood found during her travails, remain ignored. They live and die on the fringes of society, in pockets of dire poverty and inner city tenements, even in an ultra-rich country like ours. Yet they might as well not exist as far as politicians, and commentators are concerned. If poor women get pregnant, it must be because they are sluts. And the fact that they cant afford to have a child simply means that they shouldnt have sex! And the possibility that they might be living in overtly or covertly abusive situations matters little to the ideological pundit. Finally, if the unwanted child is to be forced upon a woman or family, the State of Arizona, facing similar budget deficits to other states has cut into the very programs that might help ease the financial strain on such families.
Much could be said about how pro-choice states actually dont do better than pro-life ones in reducing abortion rates or preventing unintended pregnancy, or which social programs actually help the needy and which ones simply waste money and foster dependence on government. Here, though, lets focus on the authors visceral aversion to frank discussion about sexual responsibility.
Hyperbolic slut descriptor aside, the underlying point that poor women (other than rape victims) get pregnant because they knowingly chose to do something that potentially results in pregnancy is self-evidently true, as is the commonsense advice that not having sex is the only foolproof way to avoid pregnancy. Why is it offensive to say so? Isnt prevention a vital, legitimate part of any discussion of the troubles afflicting the poor? Most importantly, why arent we allowed to take into account somebodys responsibility for creating a baby when evaluating her wish to destroy him or her?
After asserting that Margaret Sanger was actually cautious of the indiscriminate use of abortion because she understood its physiological and psychological affects on women and their partners, Sundaram takes even more fatuous leaps of logic:
In a civilized society that values individual liberties, however, how can a state or federal government say that you basically have one chance to avoid pregnancy through birth control? (a right, which we might note it took almost 65 years to achieve).
Abortion doesnt avoid pregnancy; it ends it by killing a mothers baby. And therein lies the problem its not that pro-lifers are trying to give women as few reproductive choices as possible; its that one particular choice in dispute is unacceptable because it kills an innocent person. Like too many pro-abortion ideologues, Sundaram sustains her outrage by simply refusing to even reference why pro-lifers object.
Then again, maybe its for the best that she skips over the heavy lifting; in the comments, she tells someone that how you want to define human being is a personal choice (um, no) and that her basis for choice trumping fetuses right to life is that women are contributing members of society. Sounds like bad news for children, the severely disabled, and many of the elderly
If however, for any reason (error, or inefficacy) you screw up, you must be forced to have children you cannot afford?
You must be forced to bear a child (simply because we dont have another nonlethal option), but youre not forced to keep that child. Poor women can give their babies up for adoption, and if thats too much trouble, most states also have safe haven laws letting women leave their newborns at hospitals, fire houses, and police stations.
It is reprehensible enough when governments like the Chinese enforce a rule of no more than one child per family. How is it any different when a government insists that we cannot limit the size of it?
Er, maybe because in one case the government is forcing you to kill someone, and in the other the government is forcing you not to? Seems pretty self-explanatory to me.
Why doesnt abortion get the candid, productive discussion it deserves? Its not because pro-lifers are unfeeling dogmatists. Its because pro-choicers stigmatize the discussion of inconvenient truths, ignore us when we tell them what they pretend they want to know, and coarsen the debate with demagogic questions they already know the answers to.
I wonder what Same sex couples think about abortions or would they rather not tread on their brethren. Just think of all the children that could of been adopted.
To normal people this is just crazy either way. God’s plan is soo much simpler. Man woman make babies. Raise the kids and show love. Otherwise its some damn complicated.
The Democrats couldn’t care less about “choice” or women living in poverty. They want abortion because there are too many people on their highways, beaches and hiking trails. They’re a bunch of selfish, self-centered, self-serving rats who don’t care how many people die as long as they get their way. They don’t mind guns as long as they get to control who the guns are pointed at. Yes, they are just that bad.
You nailed it.
Liberals are the ones importing people by the tens of millions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.