Does anyone care about "family" anymore? Or is it all about "personal freedom"?
I'm disturbed to think it's the latter...why? A few reasons.
For one, abortion has lost its stigma. This, according to the medical editor of London's Telegraph. This article is so ridiculous. Here's the first gem (emphasis mine):
"Ms [Anne] Furedi [the chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service - BPAS] said there had been a shift in public opinion about parenthood. The stigma of abortion had diminished but there was now concern about being a poor parent. 'Parenting is considered to be very important and is taken seriously these days,' she said. 'The idea of just drifting into unplanned motherhood is seen not to be a good thing and you could argue that among many groups of people in society abortion is seen as a more responsible response to being a victim of uncontrolled fertility,' she said.
A victim of uncontrolled fertility? This is so absurd, I can barely even address it. Who are these "many groups of people in society" who think that women get uncontrollably pregnant and must have abortions? I wonder if there's a stigma associated with adoption? I'm just glad Ms. Furedi explains that "parenting is considered...very important...these days..."...because you know, in the past, parents shirked their duties all the time - she says this as if it's a revelation among this generation! LUDICROUS.
Actually, it seems, "these days", everybody is a "victim" of something!
Is anyone a victim of abortion, though? Just checking...
Gem #2 (emphasis mine):
"The BPAS says that the opportunity to get pregnant is greater as more women are sexually active for longer, with no intention of starting a family. Contraception could fail and couples would sometimes fail to use contraception."
Okay, doesn't "failing" to use something imply that an attempt was made to use it in the first place? Did the couple try to buy condoms but have no cash? Could the woman not swallow the morning-after pill? I just don't get this...
Gem #3, in two parts:
"Abortion figures continue to rise year on year. Latest figures show that there are about 165,500 abortions for British residents a year....
"BPAS...says the law should be changed to make abortion easier."
Apparently, 165,500 abortions are NOT ENOUGH for BPAS - they need more...the article concludes that abortions are on the rise! How much easier does it have to be?
Of course, when women decide to "go through" with the pregnancy, odds are more likely that the child will be born out of wedlock...bringing me to my second reason why "family" doesn't matter anymore.
We're back in the U.S. now. Here is the latest report from government health officials on out-of-wedlock births. The mind-blowing stat? 37% of all births are now out-of-wedlock.
The argument? Those who don't see marriage as an important institution anymore feel that co-habitation or single-parenting are at the very least acceptable, if not preferrable, to marriage.
The argument is wrong.
Here's a study on co-habitation and its effects. Among its findings:
1) The types of people who cohabit or more inclined to be risk-takers and have little interest in commitment
2) people who cohabit may consider the situation a "trial marriage"
3) decisions about bills and routines are different
4) it's not definite that marriage is in the future
Here's another study, this one from Ohio State. A quick excerpt on some of its findings:
"Fewer than one-third of the couples (32 percent) concurred that they had definite plans to marry. Another 42 percent disagreed about the future of their relationship. Others either agreed they wouldn’t marry or thought they would eventually marry.
“'Our results indicate that couples who use cohabitation as a trial period to test compatibility are far less likely to marry than couples who agree that there are definite marriage plans and a specific wedding date,'” [OSU Professor Sharon] Sassler said."
The idea of a "trial marriage" scares me. One would think it would involve "trial in-laws", "trial children" and "trial parenting."
What happens when the trial is over?
That's where the 37% figure comes from. Again, family doesn't matter anymore. Personal freedom trumps everything else in our society.
In defense of this statistic, at least the children are born, rather than aborted. Abortion - the ultimate personal freedom, right?
Let's debunk...
1) "It's my body." It's not. It's a body within the womb of a woman. Isn't this undeniable?
2) "I'm not "pro-abortion" - I'm "pro-choice"...ummm - you're pro-abortion. Plain and simple. You can call me anti-choice all you want. As far as abortion goes, I am both pro-life and anti-choice. Those who are "pro-choice" are also "pro-abortion"
3) "safe, legal and rare" - look earlier to this post. If 165,500 abortions in Britain alone in one year is rare...I'd hate to know the definition of "common"...
4) "but abortion should be a last resort" - well, if you're not aborting a human life, why should it matter when you have an abortion? If there is no moral attachment, and abortion is purely a physical procedure, then all forms of abortion should be legal. But, oftentimes, that's not the case. Why? Proponents refuse to acknowledge publicly the moral component, that's why. But they limit the types of abortion (i.e., partial-birth, late-term) to seem sympathetic when all they're really doing is killing the baby earlier.
5) "I have freedom to do what I want - the government can't tell me what to do" - this is true. The government can't tell you that you can't get pregnant. The government can't say you can't get pregnant out of wedlock. But the government can legislate based on moral absolutes - this is one of them: MURDER
Okay, that's enough for now. I realize this post is a bit disjointed, I may clean it up a bit. But lastly, I want to leave you with the highly disturbing story of Amy Richards (I believe registration to the New York Times may be required - it's free. DO IT) and the euphemism of "selective reduction"...
If you've gotten this far, this is the most important part of the entire post. I hope that you're OUTRAGED...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I suppose I WOULD be outraged… except that your sort of disjointed
thinking is far too common to surprise me any more.
"Abortion, Personal Freedoms, and the Breakdown of the Family...
"Does anyone care about 'family' anymore? Or is it all about 'personal freedom'?"
Why would you assume that these values are counterposed? Isn't it
possible that families are better off when personal freedom is
maximized? After all, families are made up of individuals, aren't they?
"I'm disturbed to think it's the latter...why? A few reasons. For one, abortion has lost its stigma."
And how, exactly, is this bad for families?
"This, according to the medical editor of London's Telegraph. This
article is so ridiculous. Here's the first gem (emphasis mine):
"'Ms [Anne] Furedi [the chief executive of the British Pregnancy
Advisory Service - BPAS] said there had been a shift in public opinion about parenthood. The stigma of abortion had diminished but there was now concern about being a poor parent. 'Parenting is considered to be very important and is taken seriously these days,' she said. 'The idea of just drifting into unplanned motherhood is seen not to be a good thing and you could argue that among many groups of people in society abortion is seen as a more responsible response to being a victim of uncontrolled fertility,' she said. A victim of uncontrolled fertility? This is so absurd, I can barely even address it."
Perhaps because you have no rational answer to it?
"Who are these 'many groups of people in society' who think that women get uncontrollably pregnant and must have abortions?"
Don't get around much, do you? Perhaps you'd know about such groups if you didn't get all your information from corporate and right-wing media.
"I wonder if there's a stigma associated with adoption?"
To a considerable extent there is. There are also a lot of bureaucratic obstacles to doing it, such as scientifically baseless policies against same-sex and "transracial" adoptive parents. Many pro-choice people would join with you in working to remove these obstacles – especially
those who are also concerned about population issues.
"I'm just glad Ms. Furedi explains that 'parenting is considered...very important...these days...'...because you know, in the past, parents shirked their duties all the time - she says this as if it's a
revelation among this generation! LUDICROUS."
No, what's ludicrous is that anyone still thinks the biological ability to produce children is a guarantee of being a fit parent. What Furedi points out is that now a lot of people take it seriously enough that they don't intend to do it by accident.
"Actually, it seems, 'these days,' everybody is a 'victim' of something!"
"Victim" is a very general term. It can mean anyone who suffers from
something te didn't choose. And that happens to everyone.
"Is anyone a victim of abortion, though? Just checking..."
By the above definition, an aborted fetus is a victim if ter nervous system is at a sufficient stage of development that te experiences pain from the procedure.
Empirically, it's found that those societies that try hardest to
restrict access to abortion actually have the highest rates of abortion in general and of late-term abortion in particular, suggesting that "pro-life" policies actually increase fetal suffering.
"Gem #2 (emphasis mine):
"'The BPAS says that the opportunity to get pregnant is greater as more women are sexually active for longer, with no intention of starting a family. Contraception could fail and couples would sometimes fail to use contraception.'
"Okay, doesn't 'failing' to use something imply that an attempt was made to use it in the first place?"
Not at all. You commonly hear about people's "failing to" buy life insurance, "failing to" install smoke detectors, etc. No attempt is implied by this usage.
"Did the couple try to buy condoms but have no cash? Could the woman not swallow the morning-after pill? I just don't get this..."
Maybe the couple encountered one of those pharmacists who refuse to sell condoms or morning-after pills… but you CONDEMN such pharmacists, right?
"Gem #3, in two parts:
"'Abortion figures continue to rise year on year. Latest figures show that there are about 165,500 abortions for British residents a year....
'BPAS...says the law should be changed to make abortion easier.'
"Apparently, 165,500 abortions are NOT ENOUGH for BPAS - they need
more...the article concludes that abortions are on the rise! How much
easier does it have to be?"
The pro-choice answer: easy enough that there are no longer any unwanted children.
"Of course, when women decide to 'go through' with the pregnancy, odds are more likely that the child will be born out of wedlock..."
More likely than what? Your meaning here isn't clear.
"[B]ringing me to my second reason why 'family' doesn't matter anymore.
"We're back in the U.S. now. Here is the latest report from government health officials on out-of-wedlock births. The mind-blowing stat? 37% of all births are now out-of-wedlock.
"The argument? Those who don't see marriage as an important institution anymore feel that co-habitation or single-parenting are at the very least acceptable, if not preferrable, to marriage.
The argument is wrong.
"Here's a study on co-habitation and its effects. Among its findings:
"1) The types of people who cohabit or more inclined to be risk-takers and have little interest in commitment"
In other words, disinclination to commit is a CAUSE of cohabitation, not an EFFECT thereof as you stated above.
"2) people who cohabit may consider the situation a "trial marriage"
"3) decisions about bills and routines are different
"4) it's not definite that marriage is in the future"
And how do any of these things make cohabitation bad?
"Here's another study, this one from Ohio State. A quick excerpt on some of its findings:
"'Fewer than one-third of the couples (32 percent) concurred that they had definite plans to marry. Another 42 percent disagreed about the future of their relationship. Others either agreed they wouldn't marry or thought they would eventually marry.
"'"Our results indicate that couples who use cohabitation as a trial period to test compatibility are far less likely to marry than couples who agree that there are definite marriage plans and a specific wedding date," [OSU Professor Sharon] Sassler said.'
"The idea of a 'trial marriage' scares me. One would think it would
involve 'trial in-laws,' 'trial children' and 'trial parenting.'"
ONE would think that? No, YOU would think that. I would think that people do a trial marriage in order to decide whether to get married, and only have children if they decide the answer is yes.
"Let's debunk...
"1) 'It's my body.' It's not. It's a body within the womb of a woman.
Isn't this undeniable?"
Certainly not. Empirically, a pregnant woman is an organism in the gradual process of becoming two organisms. That process is complete only when and if there is a live birth.
"2) 'I'm not "pro-abortion" - I'm "pro-choice"'...ummm - you're
pro-abortion. Plain and simple. You can call me anti-choice all you
want. As far as abortion goes, I am both pro-life and anti-choice. Those who are 'pro-choice' are also 'pro-abortion'"
Wrong again. The meaning of words should not be that hard to discern. A person who is pro-abortion takes actions and positions that are designed to increase the occurrence of abortion. Such people would support China's forced abortion practices, for instance. A pro-choice person, on the other hand, would oppose such practices. Any time a woman doesn't want an abortion, pro-choice people are anti-abortion.
"3) 'safe, legal and rare' - look earlier to this post. If 165,500
abortions in Britain alone in one year is rare...I'd hate to know the
definition of 'common'..."
Who ever said this slogan had been realized? It's a VISION, silly. Again note that the countries with most liberal abortion law also tend to have the lowest abortiion rate. So the pro-choice agenda is actually the best way to realize this vision.
"4) 'but abortion should be a last resort' - well, if you're not
aborting a human life, why should it matter when you have an abortion? If there is no moral attachment, and abortion is purely a physical procedure, then all forms of abortion should be legal. But, oftentimes, that's not the case. Why? Proponents refuse to acknowledge publicly the moral component, that's why. But they limit the types of abortion (i.e., partial-birth, late-term) to seem sympathetic when all they're really
doing is killing the baby earlier."
I wouldn't make a prescriptive statement like the one you quote, but I also reject your either/or presentation of the question. I think most women who choose abortion don't choose it lightly, because they know a POTENTIAL new life is involved. As the between-country comparisons I've mentioned suggest, many make a different choice when their society has sufficiently pro-parent and pro-child policies. Such policies actually achieve lower abortion rates WITHOUT the horrible side effects of restrictive policies such as botched illegal abortions etc.
"5) 'I have freedom to do what I want - the government can't tell me
what to do' - this is true. The government can't tell you that you can't get pregnant. The government can't say you can't get pregnant out of wedlock."
Actually, the government can do both of these things, and often has. Remember forced sterilizations and "illegitimacy"?
"But the government can legislate based on moral absolutes - this is one of them: MURDER"
You've simply chosen here to label abortion as murder, and thereby
assign it the negative connotation of that word. Many used to view the
things mentioned above as "moral absolutes" too, as well as
"interracial" marriage, homosexuality, failing to worship Zeus, etc. Historically, moral "absolutes" are changeable – they're only absolute in someone's head.
"I want to leave you with the highly disturbing story of Amy Richards… and the euphemism of "selective reduction"...
"If you've gotten this far, this is the most important part of the
entire post. I hope that you're OUTRAGED..."
After writing all of the above, I finally clicked on that link to see
what it was about. It should be obvious that it raises no issues I
haven't already covered.
Post a Comment