Making you pull the trigger

I’m ambivalent about abortion.  I grew up pro-choice, and have always accepted that, in certain situations, pregnancy is simply too burdensome.  When I was young, I set a very low standard for what constituted “burdensome.”  As I’ve grown older and had children of my own, that standard has become very high.

No matter my views on abortion, though, I’ve never, ever, ever believed that someone opposed to abortion should be forced to perform one.  As the Anchoress explains, though, while I may find abhorent forcing people to commit an act they consider to be murder, the Obama administration has no problem with doing so.  This is what comes from government by narcissists.  If it’s right for them, it’s incumbent upon you.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Charles Martel

    The Catholic Church may prove to be a key player here. The U.S. bishops have made it clear that Catholic-run charities and hospitals will not be complicit in killing the unborn and they will simply shut them down.

    That’s about one-third of all the hospitals in the U.S.

    When (not if) that happens Obama will have his first manufactured crisis on his hands, so he will declare a national emergency. He will nationalize the Catholic portion of the medical system so that no woman has to forego the inconvenience of not being able to have her child eviscerated and thrown into a slop pail whenever and wherever she desires.

    But where will Obama get doctors and nurses to replace the ones who will have left the medical system rather than participate in killing? I hear Cuba has a great national health system–perhaps he could recruit there. And certainly Canadian doctors, who are used to being compliant and politically correct, could be enticed by our better climate and (temporarily) better abortion technology.

    The face of evil is shedding its mask. On one hand I walk around depressed at its sheer ugliness and chutzpah. On the other, nothing clarifies better than knowing that the enemy feels safe enough now to reveal his true face.

  • Al

    Health care may be the thing that sinks Obama before a terrorist attack.
    Check out what the Heritage Foundation has developed on the Libs’ plans. .

  • Mike Devx

    Charles, Al (and others)

    What is your position on contraception? Or on drugs such as RU-486 that allow fertilization between the sperm and ovum but prevent attachment to the cervical wall?

    I’m not interested in the part of question that is concerned with “percent-effectiveness” – because that is not a moral or ethical part of the question. I’m interested in whether you think they’re reasonable and ethical or moral.

    It seems to me that a compromise between the individual freedom libertarians and the social conservatives could be found here. Men and women are to take responsibility for their sexual lives by engaging in these forms of contraception – and accept the fact that, once pregnant, they are NOT to have an abortion, because abortions are illegal.

    In other words, exercise true responsibility for their actions up front. And accept the consequences. This seems responsible (and conservative) to me, and both sides of the argument would in fact be giving up something near and dear.

  • Charles Martel

    I’m interested in whether you think they’re reasonable and ethical or moral.”

    Contraception has become one of history’s greatest slippery slopes. Until the Anglican Lambeth Conference in 1931, no Christian denomination approved of it under any circumstances. The Anglicans decided that it could be permitted among married couples for health or economic reasons, such as giving wives a rest from childbirth or easing strains on income by spacing children.

    That began the slippery slope. By the 1960s, only Roman Catholicism among major western denominations was holding the line against it, and even then was under tremendous pressure to drop its opposition. When Paul VI declined to approve contraception in his encyclical “Humanae Vitae,” he–presciently–warned against the effects that a “contraceptive mentality” would produce:

    —An decrease in respect for the institution of marriage as its function devolved from primarily procreative to procreative and unitive to solely unitive. In other words, its traditional primary function of procreating the next generation would be replaced by another, formerly secondary, function, namely sexual pleasure as a goal in and of itself. (And once marriage was based on the pleasure principle, it would be easy to pass no-fault divorce laws that allowed people to easily dissolve their unions once the thrill was gone.)

    —An increase in pre-marital and extra-marital sex simply because the technology would be available for people to avoid the one consequence of sex that would otherwise betray their affairs: pregnancy. (Not to mention that STDs subsequently skyrocketed, the effect of a massive increase in promiscuity and the damnable tendency of some bugs to not be thwarted by pills, jellies, dams or rubbers.)

    —An increase in and aceptance of abortion since implicit in the contraceptive mentality is the expectation–almost the “right”–to not get pregnant. When contraception failed, the fallback would increasingly become abortion.

    After Paul VI got laughed off the stage, there began the endlessly repeated assertion that one is somehow responsible, or ethical or even moral to use contraception because the fruits of unprotected sex are so horrible: children. An analogy would be to tell your teenage daughter to make sure she purges her meal at the restaurant tonight “because you don’t want to be irresponsible and become fat. It’s OK to eat, but you mustn’t digest.”

    So, no, I don’t think the contraceptive mentality is reasonable when you consider the very sorry state of sexual affairs among moderns today. Obviously, from my statements above, I don’t find the use of contraceptives ethical or moral in any traditional sense of those terms. Ethical and moral decisions often present us with hard choices that can cause us inconvenience or suffering. With one or two exceptions, such as a provable threat to a woman’s health, I don’t think I’ve ever heard a pro-contraception argument that was not fundamentally a rationalization to continue doing what one intends to do. The ancient concepts of self-control and chastity cannot trump the modern lure of the consequence-free orgasm.

    Men and women are to take responsibility for their sexual lives by engaging in these forms of contraception – and accept the fact that, once pregnant, they are NOT to have an abortion, because abortions are illegal.”

    Not gonna happen. See the point above about how if we set out to thwart a pregnancy then, by God, we’re entitled to thwart it–one way or another.

  • Charles Martel


    That said, I now that the horse is way too far out of the barn for there ever to be a ban on contraception, let alone any attempts by the academy, media, politicians or denatured Christian denominations like the Episcopalians to question it in any shape or form.

    So, reluctantly, I see the reasoning behind the compromise you propose. I just don’t see too many people accepting its trade-off.

  • Al

    I do not see contraception as immoral. But as Charles has so eloquently described, the ability to prevent contraception brings us all much closer to facing the personal moral dilemma of our time.
    Early Twenty First Century American society has placed that choice in the hands of the (usually) two individuals involved. The different scenarios are almost innumerable. I would rather that choice remain in the hearts of the individuals. For example, quite a few couples in the UK are opting to keep their Downs babies rather than abort them, much to the surprise of the NHS. That is where the decision must stay.

  • Mike Devx

    Charles, Al, I agree about the slippery slope and the fact that contraception is one part of a culture of death. I proposed that compromise because it forces men and women to become responsible up front about their sexual behaviors. Right now we have a complete abdication of *all* responsibility across the board, in the name of sexual freedom.

    If libertarians could accept that an abortion is in fact the murder of a clearly human fetus, then they could retain the “individual freedom” side of their philosophy that states that I am a free human being, and sexual behavior is a part of the human condition, and it’s my body – but agree that the “individual responsibility” side of the philosophy requires me to be responsible for the baby if pregnancy occurs.

    If social conservatives could accept contraception as the enforcement of responsibility into the free-for-all sexual arena – so long as abortion on demand becomes illegal – because the passage of a law against abortion forces responsible decision-making up front, which is the goal of such laws restricting individual freedom…

    Well, there might be a way past this cultural impasse, while the struggle would continue on the “education front”, trying to convince people to be both responsible AND moral in their choices. If both sides could agree that the other at least has a valid point, then both sides could see that both are giving up something sacred to their belief system. (While continuing to fight the battle in the arena of public opinion of course)

    The crux of the compromise is this: Take two strong conservative candidates, one on the libertarian side, one on the social conservative side. If the “wrong one” of the two wins in your district, would you agree to continue to support the winning candidate, or would you stay home? Would it make a difference should the “wrong candidate” take the position of compromise that I wrote about? Can we find a compromise?

    I’ve been in both camps. My libertarian core philosophy used to have me firmly in the camp of individual freedom. My relatively recent conversion to the philosophical position that a fetus is a human being and must not be aborted has me in the conservative “human life is sacred” camp now. I know I can’t reconcile the two into a single coherent position, so I have had to accept that abortion should be illegal. Yet I see the benefits of the compromise still.

    Abortion is just one of the areas of compromise that might be necessary; but it is the most difficult one, because the issue of abortion is elemental and sacred.

  • Ymarsakar

    And when Barack Obama orders forced sterilizations of the “unclean” amongst us and forced lobotomies of the “societally dangerous”, which doctors will be able to deny his command?

  • Ymarsakar

    When Leftists, Democrats, anti-Iraq and anti-humanity advocates were talking about how Bush was taking us down this “slipper slope” do you know what was really going on?

    What was really going on was that they didn’t give a fauk about any slippery slope, except in so far as they could push us all over it.

  • Danny Lemieux

    I think that what you are trying to say, MikeD, is that we are imperfect beings living in an imperfect society in which we must make imperfect choices. Am I right on this?

  • Mike Devx

    That certainly is true! Also,
    “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”

    Obama’s leftist supporters are on the rise again.

    People like Rick Moran, a so-called “moderate conservative”, are calling for the Republican party to become Democrat-lite. Don’t be fooled by him. He rips conservatives for “litmus tests” and “unrealistic goals”, but if you read what he’s been writing for the last six months, it is all entirely vague. He claims to represent a “true conservatism”, but he NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER gives examples of his true conservatism. That is because were he to give examples, he would be exposed as a simple-minded “moderate conservative” along the lines that have been losing us election after election. He is, in fact, as amorphous and vague as Obama, which means Rick Moran has learned how to deceive. In particular I sense a virulent hatred of “traditional social values” from Rick Moran.

    So we have the leftists moving even further left, and we have voices on the right trying to move us to the left as well.