Sunday, February 04, 2007

100% of Aborted Children are Denied a Choice

Dear Jen: If the figure you quote from the Internet is correct, and “77% of anti choice leaders are men," that statistic would be somewhat sobering to me. And, I would not have a good explanation for it; except for, perhaps, that percentage may simply be consistent with the ratio of men to women in ecclesiastical leadership, political office, corporate executive positions, etc.

But, whatever the case may be, please try to remember that the statistics game goes both ways. You see, 100% of aborted children are denied a choice in the matter. So, when certain folks speak of favoring choice in connection to abortion, what they really mean is that they favor allowing a privileged 50% of those whose bodies are directly involved to have a choice as to whether or not the other 50% get to live. (If the occurrence of twins is taken into account, these percentages obviously get even worse.) And, quite frankly, Jen, these last statistics are more sobering to me than the ones you quote.

Which brings me to the issue of nomenclature: As a courtesy, I use the expression “Pro-Choice” to describe those who believe a woman should have the right to choose, under any circumstance, whether or not to terminate the life of her unborn child. Because of the contradiction referred to above, I could quibble with the appropriateness of such a title, but I refrain out of a desire to be respectful. I call people by the names they choose for themselves.

I find it interesting to note, however, that an increasing number of those who are Pro-Choice refuse to show those of us who are Pro-Life the same courtesy. They now apparently prefer to call us “Anti-Choice” as was done in the material quoted above.

I suppose that we who are Pro-Life could take our cue from the obvious talking-point strategy of these certain individuals who happen to be Pro-Choice, and begin referring to them as being Pro-Death, Anti-Life, Baby-Killers, etc., but I think that kind of behavior is wrong and counter productive.

I believe it is very important that each camp give the other the benefit of the doubt. There are sincere and decent people on both sides of this debate. Each group is apparently advocating for something that it considers to be the moral and ethical position. In my view, that would make them good people.

That does not mean that each side is necessarily right, or equally valid, it just means that there is a basis for reasoning with one another in a civil manner while attempting to share our respective points of view. If we conduct ourselves with true compassion toward one another, we just might get through to someone on the other side of the debate and find common ground. However difficult or idealistic that might sound, please consider how dreadful the results of the alternative approach can be.

Please hang in there with me, Jen. I really do want to work my way through this issue with an intelligent and articulate speaker for the other point of view. (You!) If we do this the right way, I believe that we would be providing a great service to our respective causes and to our country. At times, in our attempts to be frank, we may irritate some nerves, but I believe that we are both capable of correcting ourselves and keeping the conversation constructive. Further, because we are both fallible, I hope that other people will join in and share their wisdom with us. What do you say? Are you still on board?

Alienated Wannabe

The preceeding is a comment I posted on February 4, 2007 to the blog Jen's Green Journal in response to the proprietor's article entitled: "77%" which quotes a statement she found on the Internet claiming that "77% of anti choice leaders are men and 100% of them will never be pregnant."

Friday, February 02, 2007

Overturn Roe v. Wade!

Dear Jen, Of course, I support this legislation [HB235 S1]. I believe that Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned. This may be the chance the Supreme Court needs to do just that.

I agree with you that other people should not be trying to control your body. But, when it comes to abortion, I believe that there is more than just your body involved, so the picture becomes more complicated.

I believe the unborn child has the same rights to have her body protected as you do. I do not believe that she has the right to kill the body on the outside of her (your body), just as I do not believe that you have the right to kill the body on the inside of you (her body).

Like it or not, because of the decision you made to engage in sexual activity, a human life was created. And, because of the choice you made, the two of you are stuck together for the next nine months.

That is a long time, and it may cause great inconvenience and discomfort to you, but I believe that you are the person responsible for that condition. I further believe that you do not have the right to avoid the natural consequences of your choice by robbing the unborn child of her body.

I believe that it is reasonable for society to expect fathers to provide for their children. I also believe that it is reasonable to expect mothers to do the same. No one forced you to have sex. You chose that. Now, you need to take responsibility for your choice.

You do not have the right to put your interests above the life of your unborn child. If you do not want the child, fine. There are literally thousands upon thousands of wonderful couples who would be thrilled to provide it with a loving home.

All you have to do is not kill your child before it is born. That is all. In my opinion, it comes down to simple ethics: Her right to live outweighs nine months of your life.


Alienated Wannabe

The preceeding is a comment I posted on February 2, 2007 to the blog Jen's Green Journal in response to the proprietor's article entitled: Utah Taliban: Keep Your Religion Off My Body which expressed her opposition to the proposed legislation HB235 S1 seeking to outlaw elective abortion in Utah.