:Reasonable Force

David W. Boles over at Urban Semiotic raises the oft-decried spectre of the wire-hanger abortion at the prospect of the confirmation of purportedly constructionist nominee to the Supreme Court, John Roberts. I responded on his comment thread (in a moderation queue as of this posting) and decided to post my thoughts unedited (though I’ve added a few links). Though I’m obviously on the other side of this critical issue, I appreciate David’s thoughtful style and his courtesy in responding to all of his visitors.

David, with all due respect, the horror of back alley abortions was largely a media creation based on bogus numbers spoon-fed to them by pro-abortion advocates. Granted, if you happen to know one of the few legitimate cases, it has more emotional impact. Nevertheless, the fact remains that a lie was greatly responsible for shaping cultural attitudes toward legalization. The political cartoon you cite is a shameful example of fear-mongering for political purpose with no basis in fact.

Further, while I would never argue that life is easy or fair for people born into disadvantaged circumstances I fail to see how the compassionate solution is to offer scars that never heal. You say that abstinence “doesn’t work;” I presume you mean that it isn’t applied in the populations that need it most or are poorest equipped to deal with additional mouths to feed?

That it works to prevent unwanted pregnancies is unquestionable. So, rather than throwing up our hands and conceding that some groups can never be taught self-respect or self-control, perhaps we should frankly examine whether an effort has ever been undertaken to impart those virtues, without simultaneously offering the easy path of unrestrained “protected” sex along with the assumption that they’re going to do that anyway.

I’m not accusing you, by the way, of having the above-stated attitude toward any group, though I do believe your dismissal of abstinence education is tantamount to such a position.

Again, I recognize that inner-city conditions can be horrific and that there are no silver bullet solutions to the day-to-day situations faced by their residents. I don’t believe, however, that the abortion debate has ever been about compassion for women there or anywhere.

I will not, however, try to make the argument that all women can control the circumstances under which they might become pregnant. I agree with one previous commenter that our world is far from ideal.

The problem is that we attempt to correct one injustice with an even greater one when we suggest that preventing a child from being born is to salvage a woman’s sovereignty over her life and body.

It was not the difficulties faced by women in unfortunate circumstances that prompted the legalization of abortion. It was that we crossed a line somewhere in the pursuit of unfettered liberty and began to perceive the unthinkable as first unfortunate but understandable, then reasonable, and finally, horrifyingly, natural.

Sorry for the length, David. I would just like to make two more points.

First, have you and the other pro-choice advocates here considered how many women are forced to exercise their “right to chose” by fathers, husbands, or boyfriends? No, I don’t have numbers on that and doubt they could be accurately assessed, but anecdotal evidence leads me to conclude that it’s not a low number.

Point being, the same men that can assert their will over the women’s bodies in getting them pregnant can assert their will via the clinic. All you’ve done is give irresponsible men a legal way to avoid child support.

Second, and parenthetically, in response to Carla (comment#3), who questioned the relevance of Sanger’s acquaintance with Hitler’s Merry Band of Eugenicists (raised in comment#1), I respectfully submit that it is absolutely relevant if it sheds light on Sanger’s motivations for advocating legal birth control and abortion. Wikipedia’s entry on her contains a plethora of quotes near the bottom that leave little doubt that she shared some of the philosophies prized in Hitlerian medicine.

UPDATE: David’s response can be read here. David has graciously provided a classic example of the attempt to invalidate opposing views when they are voiced by folks with sincerely held religious convictions. To his credit, he did post my initial response to his article and has been unfailingly courteous.

Two things that amused me:
First, his initial greeting to me, “SCPanther – I was waiting for you to make an appearance here. You are BlestWithSon’s evangelical brother, correct?”

Does anyone else get the mental image of Vader stepping from the shadows with an ignited lightsabre? Note that I’m her evangelical brother; an early preview of what David views as an exposé.

The second funny thing was that David categorizes this site as a “Pro-Life ministry,” in a misguided effort to further cast aspersions on my credibility. Granted, this site would be more worthy if it were a directed ministry in that fashion but, as is apparent to any casual observer, right now it’s just one guy’s sporadically posted opinions on many different subjects. I didn’t bother disavowing his characterization because anyone who visits will know better, and because I wouldn’t have been ashamed of it if it had been true.

My concluding comment to David follows:

David: I do not believe you [are] here to have a genuine intellectual discussion about the issue raised in my post and the following comments.

I’m sorry you feel that way, David. I believe all of my comments were relevant to your post and the comments here, and would have hoped that you might deal with the issues rather than ruling me ineligible for “intellectual discussion” by virtue of the faith that helps to shape my beliefs.

Nevertheless, I certainly acknowledge your right to do whatever you will with your site and the discussions therein.

Thank you for displaying my comment and for your sentiments. I likewise bear no ill feelings toward you and pray God’s rich blessings on you and the others who have commented here.

9 Comments