Sorry, but once you start to drop the idea that sex is a thing of meaning and love, with consequences, you lose any right to oppose abortion. All the anti-life brigade then have to say is "Men have the right to this pleasure and they don't need to worry about a baby - we only want equal rights".
The turn of phrase "an incubator of the state," is very revealing.
Wouldn't the real "incubators of the state" be federally-funded laboratories that artificially create humans whom they can kill at will? It's interesting that this laboratory-base creation of human life would probably be fully acceptable to the pro-feticiders, who don't see the fetus as a human being. It is actually the Pro-lifers who fight against these incubators.
It all comes down to this. Pro-Choicers support the Right to Kill helpless humans, whether the helpless humans are in the lab or in the womb.
Some of us (more than this author might imagine) are 100% chaste in "deed". And my thoughts are my own business, and irrelevant to the subject of abortion.
As a guy from the tail end of the baby boom who experienced the wild and fun 80s of young adulthood I am always amazed at how they attempt to spin the message that men are trying to force women to bear children.
The fact is that abortions advance the convenience, comfort and pleasure of men most of all. The abortion industry serves one and only one constituency. Young bucks who need to get back to the business of bedding down as many does as possible with no strings attached.
The possibility of illegal abortions strikes fear into the hearts of not women, but men in their twenties who count success by the notches on their bedpost. I know. I've spoken to those guys, it's no secret.
It would probably never happen, but I would love to see the results of a survey of women who had abortions that asked who was the stronger advocate of their abortion; the man or the woman.
I view abortion as an abominable practice and sinful to the fullest extent. But these are not my primary arguments against it. When arguing from this standpoint, it becomes a moral issue and our system of law is not based on the Word of God.
My main, secular argument against abortion is actually a matter of technology. Though I am a man, I find absolutely no justifiable reason for abortion in the year 2002. There hasn't been one in quite a long time. My view is that a woman who gets pregnant today gets pregnant due to one of two circumstances: 1. She is reckless, and/or 2. She views abortion as the ultimate in contraception.
Think about it for a second. With the easily availability of condoms, birth control pills, and an IUD, how on earth is it possible for a woman to get pregnant if she really doesn't want to become pregnant in the first place?
I also agree about the perceptions that we in the pro-life movement are too judgemental, too accusatory, "see, I told you so!" when a woman has sex and gets pregnant. We need to support these women so they have the structure to keep or give their baby up for adoption. The "easy" solution of abortion will end in pain and heartache for the would-be mother, but it might take years to realize the empty spot in her heart is a black mark on her soul, and it is harder to forgive yourself for your sins than it is to ask God for forgiveness.
I'm guessing that the author is a twenty-something fresh out of a university, her brain freshly washed. Making heroes of people for simply doing the right thing says that good morals have become optional. I would argue that single mothers - not married women - are the true "incubators for the state." What other assumption can we make when they and their babies - via massive income and childcare subsidies - become virtual wards of the state? Married working mothers fit into the same boat, for it would be unprofitable for them to abandon their babies if the government didn't credit their tax bill for the cost of child care and exempt them from the marriage tax penalty (with which families with stay-at-home moms are still saddled). The government is actively and consciously working to replace the family as the anchor in people's lives. This can only be accomplished by ensuring that the institution of fatherhood is abolished.The author is desperate to fit into the world of her liberal "pro-choice" friends without compromising her belief that abortion is murder. She wants to make abortion about bad relationships and the whims of selfish men freed from the bonds of fatherhood. In other words, she wants to be a feminist without getting the blood of murdered babies on her hands. I ain't buying it. She seems to have bought the lie that abortion would become anathema if not for men behaving badly.
I'm not in a kind mood, so I won't praise a pro-life article when its aim is to assuage the guilt of women who kill their babies in the womb. I won't comment favorably on a an article that laments the demise of fatherhood while praising single mothers.
The author needs to grow up and come down from the fence. She's either pro-life and pro-family, or she's not. The middle ground is the most fertile for the pro-choice crowd. The screaming radical feminists who praise abortion as a sacrament aren't running around the ones getting themselves knocked up, it's the one's in the middle, the one's looking for guidance, the one's who were never told that the other half of their choice is to love their baby and love their baby's father.
Love is the true choice.