Our erstwhile “friend” and former co-blogger, melfamy (Greg) is offering his opinion of our position on abortion as evidence that we just want to “control” everybody while crying freedom. Even though Greg is a vessel captain, in this he is more like the first mate of the Minnow, just returning from his three hour tour:
By your logic, Rhode Island (A small and petty state, more suited to your character), we should check every woman every month, just to make sure that she isn’t pregnant, then keep tabs on the pregnant women so as to ensure that they do not terminate the pregnancy on their own.
You see, most Americans see your attitude for what it is, you want freedom to do what you want, and the power to control what others do with their own bodies, you utter hypocrite.
Our little buddy, Gilligan Greg, has the same issue that all liberals have – they can’t see the root cause of a problem and therefore work on the symptom. Problems are never solved by treating symptoms.
I’ve said it before but abortion “rights” is a perfect example of the difference between the “freedom of” that classical liberals promote and the “freedom from” that “progressive” liberals want. In this case it is freedom from consequence of a physical act, the purpose of which is the biological imperative of procreation – the survival of the species.
In a perfect exposition of Nature’s God and Natural Law, the act of procreation is also something quite pleasurable to execute, being designed in such a manner to encourage more of it.
To a liberal, the purpose of sex is this pleasure, not the creation of a child but in actuality, pleasure is a symptom, a side benefit. Modern science has developed manners to alter human biology to stop this reproductive process and in this process has altered society’s view to believing that this pleasure is the number one objective and a pregnancy from the act is only a side effect, akin to getting an infection from a paper cut.
The problem is that when a promiscuous society is promoted as “reproductive freedom” even though pregnancy is a known result of sex (even the most effective form of contraception is not perfect), unplanned and unsupported pregnancies (there is not enough economic stability to support a child) are a result. In a society where there is no social stigma for either the man or the woman for an out of wedlock pregnancy, it should be no surprise that there are more of them…and rather than address the root cause of what occurs when you open the sex box and follow the assembly instructions to place tab “A” into slot “B”, liberals would prefer just to exterminate the result of the choice of two people – problem being that the product of that choice is a human being.
They understand that – that is why they strain the definition of the beginning of life to mean viability instead of at the point of conception – because if it is the former, they can tell themselves that the fetus is just a parasitic clump of cells. If the beginning of life is the latter, they must consider the reality that they are murderers. That evasive thought process is what allows liberals to say things like this:
So a 15 year-old should be forced to to have a child because of an error in judgment? That is pure evil on your part.
A fetus is just an error in judgment. Sort of like making a left turn when you should have turned right. No bother, just kill it.
Yet our somewhat morally and logic challenged friend feels compelled to classify me as evil for “controlling” the elective behavior of a 15 year old child and he is not for killing a child.
Gilligan Greg, and other libs like him, wants freedom – that much is true – but the “freedom” that they seek is some form of consequence free freedom that doesn’t exist. They want a “freedom” where a person’s actions do not matter and they are not to suffer for their choices, or for that matter, to benefit from them (remember that they also want “income equality”).
This is yet another reason that liberals foolishly deny the existence of Natural Law – even though natural law is undeniable. In the physical world, it has long been a logical basis that Newton’s Third Law of Motion, that every action is met with an opposite and equal reaction, is a constant. That “equal reaction” in sociological and cultural terms is called a “consequence”. It is as sure as dawn and just as unavoidable.
If a 15 year old isn’t mature enough to understand this, they should not be having sex in the first place and yes, a parent has every right to control the actions of a child. The real problem, Greg, is not that a 15 year old is pregnant but that they are having sex in the first place.
“Pro-choicers” can block the daylight by sitting in a dark room with the curtains drawn tightly but that does not change the fact that the sun is up outside. It is only they who are in the dark.
I’ve said before that I believe that abortion, as a true medical procedure in the case of rape, incest or health of the mother, can be morally justified but a termination for convenience – in the case that an unwanted pregnancy would “ruin a girl’s life” – cannot…and is exactly the example he is using to say anti-abortion foes are hypocrites and just want to “control people’s lives”.
I don’t want to control anyone’s life; I am actually pretty pleased that science has allowed women who do not wish to have children to have a physiological manner to prevent it but the fact remains that with every sexual encounter that results with the release of human sperm in proximity of a fertile human egg, there is a potential for the creation of life. It is a risk that every sexual congress carries. The other undeniable fact of human physiology is that the female of the species fills the biological role of carrying that human fetus for the nine month gestation period.
Such is the way of things.
While civil society has no vested interest in the act of consensual sex, it does have a responsibility to protect a human life once that life is created.
It has always seemed intellectually inconsistent to me that the liberals can argue that we cannot possibly kill a plant, a fish or a toad in the quest for true human benefit because that plant, fish or toad might hold the cure to cancer or somehow its absence alters the rotation of the planet – while simultaneously being perfectly sanguine about preventing the life of a child who could be the next Alexander Fleming, Marie Curie, Albert Einstein or Stephen Hocking.
Gee, it is almost as if a human life is worth less than a desert toad…
Quite “progressive” of them, isn’t it?
In light of these simple facts, how can asking that someone (and their partner – the male has a responsibility as well) bear the responsibility for their own choice be construed as controlling someone’s life?