In a post by Dawn Eden about men and Planned Parenthoods’ choice for men.
"It may be easier for men to leave contraception up to women, but there have been some recent surveys that suggest the majority of men are willing to share in the responsibility for family planning," Cullins said. "And I think if you talk to men who are in situations where they didn’t want to have a child, I think some of those men would tell you they definitely would’ve wanted to have had either shared in, or made, that decision themselves."
So Margaret Sanger’s organization does believe men should have a voice in whether or not they become fathers—as long as that voice says the word "no."
When men do have the option of a contraceptive, women who want to become mothers will have one more obstacle to overcome: dissuading their husbands of the temptation to make themselves infertile. What is a "choice" for men—infertility—instantly denies women their choice to become mothers.
How interesting that Planned Parenthood idea of "choice" operates only in favor of death.
I think that I will open up a travel agency in the mode of Planned Parenthood. I will offer travel planning. I will charge people who come in a fee and we will go over maps and schedules and places to go. Of course there will actually be no travel involved and when the people complain I will simply tell them that I operate just like Planned Parenthood’s concept of family planning. In their case family planning consists of contraceptives and abortions or anything to support not having a family. Travel planning without actually going anywhere is consistent with that philosophy. In fact I can advertise this as safe travel since not going anywhere must be safer. If they counter that one of the purposes of traveling is to actually go somewhere I can reply that one of the reasons God created sex was for procreation. If you can deny one of the ends of sex then I can deny my clients one of the ends of travel. Contraception divorces sex from procreation so why can’t I divorce travel from geography?
Dawn’s post also reminded me of an article I had read in Envoy Magazine some time back. Looking back at the article I see it is written by the same Steve Kellmeyer who writes wonderful essays at The Fifth Column. Steve offers a wonderful dialog that leads you through the the logical inconsistencies of those who are pro-abortion and also want the father to pay for the abortion or to pay for the raising of the child.
To see how this works, consider the following conversation between Rachel, a pro-life college student and Bill, her pro-abortion classmate:
Rachel: "Is the choice to have sex a choice to have a child?"
Bill: "No."
Rachel: "And you believe that at conception, the ‘thing’ conceived is not a child, right?"
Bill: "Exactly."
Rachel: "So, when exactly would you say that a child begins to exist?"
(NOTE: How Bill answers doesn’t really matter. Rachel agrees, for the sake of argument, to use whatever time frame he chooses.)
Rachel: "And you believe that a woman may have an abortion for whatever reason she chooses?"
Bill: "Of course."
Rachel: "Do you believe men and women have equal rights?"
Bill: "As long as abortion is legal, yes."
Rachel: "All right. Who creates children?"
Bill: "What do you mean?"
Rachel: "Well, if there’s no child at conception, the ‘product of conception’ has to become a child at some point before it’s born. Therefore, the woman alone ‘creates’ the child through the act of gestation."
Bill: "Er, what are you driving at?"
Rachel: "It’s simple. Your pro-abortion position entails the concept that sexual intercourse doesn’t create children, gestation creates children. Intercourse merely creates a fertilized ovum, a ’tissue mass.’ Men don’t get pregnant. Men don’t create children. Men simply provide one-half of a set of blueprints. The woman provides not only the other half, but the building site, the construction materials, she oversees the project, and she can destroy the whole thing anytime she wants. The man has got nothing to do with it. The existence of a child is not his responsibility – he has no choice in the matter, right? He’s done nothing to create, and you already said that the decision to have sex is not a decision to have children. So, the idea of compelling child support from the man is really a carry-over from patriarchy, when men were thought to share responsibility for the existence of a child. Now that legal abortion has liberated us from those archaic ideas, we should throw away the last remnants of the old oppression. If the question of allowing the unborn child to live or be killed through abortion is the sole decision of the woman, it makes sense to ask why the man should be made to pay to support her lifestyle, her choice? If she can have an abortion for whatever reason she wants, then she is having a child for whatever reason she wants. In neither case does it have anything to do with the man."
You can see how the conversation would end up. Rachel’s line of questioning shows the inconsistency of Bill’s position. Bear in mind that these points are given for effect, in order to show the internal inconsistency of the pro-abortion arguments and how they’re actually inconsistent with the radical feminist ideology that propels the pro-abortion movement.
Don’t expect these answers to pro-abortion arguments to change hearts in minutes. They won’t. But clear xposition of the life-affirming teachings of the Church, even when presented in a secular style such as this, will sway people in the long run. Pro-abortion advocates often accept many of the underlying principles espoused by pro-life advocates, though their rhetoric often contradicts it. When you demonstrate the inconsistency of the pro-abortion position, you’ll take another step toward leading people back to the path of sanity.
9 comments
“Pro-abortion advocates often accept many of the underlying principles espoused by pro-life advocates, though their rhetoric often contradicts it.”
What happens when they don’t?
I once was in an argument with a woman who accepted that the fetus was a life, but who maintained that countervailing interests meant that it was justifiable to be taken. This absolutely floored me, since it was the first time I’d actually heard anyone advance that line of argument- usually you debate when life begins or that it isn’t a life, not this. That is, she denied what I generally consider most people to hold true: innocent life is to be protected at all costs.
She was a radical feminist (with a post-graduate degree in it) and a very nice (and intelligent) woman, but the utter barbarism that she exhibited in argumentation was seriously revolting. I ended up winning the argument, but it was still quite the shock to see someone who totally denies the premise of life being worth protecting.
There are some radicals who advocate abortion even if it is accepted that the unborn is a living human being. For the moment they seem to be in a minority…I’m afraid that number might grow, mostly because of the discoveries we prolifers hail as proof of the life of the unborn. As biology and the fascinating field of “fetal psychology” continue to prove that the fetus holds many of the same qualities one would attribute to infants, it will become increasingly difficult to argue that the fetus is dispensible because it is not alive. Rather, pro-choicers will be forced to fall back on this sickening argument of “countervailing interests.”
By the way, a friend of mine–very strongly prochoice–has argued that there should be a prochoice option for men: that is, no child support payments. Just one more dent in the idea of personal responsibility which in turn just means one more defeat for the idea of personal freedom.
Considering that some people don’t have a problem with euthanasia – taking innocent life when it’s inconvenient is just a “seamless garment” when it comes to certain people. There are people who don’t value human life at all – and maybe not even their own life.
In any case, the pro-abortion side can be terribly consistent – the ones who yell the loudest can especially be so (just read Dawn’s post on PP’s link to euthanasia). But the majority of the American public, at least, would be repelled by the full implications of the pro-abortion line. And so we really should be making these more evident.
A while ago, someone pointed out that “birth control” really means “no births and no control.” That fits with the first half of the post.
The second half…wow. How long until that becomes legally enforcable? I’ve already begun hearing nastiness directed at parents who do not terminate their pregnancies after a diagnosis of Down syndrome or spina bifida (“Why should they get state services for that child? They should have just terminated and had another one.”) My mom’s friend had an ultrasound where they diagnosed the baby with hydrocephalus. She was still reeling from the new diagnosis when the insurance company called her *at her desk at work* and said they had booked her abortion for the following Monday and please be there at eight o’clock! After all, the insurance company pays for this prenatal testing so no one has to pay for services afterward, so the insurance company was making the next logical step easier for her. UGH.
I like the travel planning analogy. It is amazing how some of the secular ideas out there make absolutely no sense logically. It’s funny, because aren’t secular ideas “supposed” to be more logical than religious or spiritual ideas? It truly shows how Satan is the father of lies.
I think Rachel’s argument might have had more effect on a woman. Oddly enough, an irresponsible man (and I don’t mean anybody here) is not nearly as horrified by an excuse to avoid paying child support as a woman might be at discovering the same loophole.
Honestly I say let em pass a law making it legal for a man to opt out of childsupport. And when they cant get laid they’ll finally grow up.
I would like some follow up on the story where the insurance company scheduled an abortion without being asked to for a woman whose baby had hydrocephalus. Did she refuse? Did they threaten not to pay for treatment for the baby? Because of course there are treatments. Shunts to drain the fluid have even been put in before the baby is born. But these things are expensive. No wonder the insurance company wants to get rid of that baby before the mother finds out these things are possible! If you know, tell us what happened. Thanks.
Shifting Responsibility for a Life
Jeff Miller quotes the following hypothetical dialogue from a piece by Steve Kellmeyer: To see how this works, consider the following conversation between Rachel, a pro-life college student and Bill, her pro-abortion classmate: Rachel: "Is the cho…
Comments are closed.