Abortion: A Matter of Cutural Values
Perhaps I ought not listen to Springer’s radio program, because it consistently agitates me. But it also usually gives me good starting points. In lieu of the 33rd anniversary of Roe vs. Wade and speculation that South Dakota will pass legislation that prohibits all abortions. Before I go on, like many pro-life folks, I enjoy pointing out that Norma McCorvey—the Jane Roe of the Wade decision—has since voiced her disapproval of the ruling, her role as a pawn in a case she retrospectively wishes she hadn’t been involved in, and her anti-abortion views. Alas.
Springer relies on one primary argument in supporting abortion: the female’s 9 month physical responsibility to the child trumps the reproductive rights of males—a right that he never recognizes or calls by name. It’s so clearly contrived when liberals, who talk about all our various ‘rights,’ the evidence of which is interpretive at best (privacy, free speech, free religion, etc.), ignore basic biological rights that have nothing to do with our Constitution.
But to say that a female’s ‘right to an abortion’ demands she be able to have one regardless of the consent of the male further indoctrinates the most corrupt cultural values that have grown in our United States. To say that a male has no sentiment of legal consequence in the decision of abortion marginalizes the male’s reproductive role to the extent of making it trivial. Any sound biologist will tell you that a male’s role in reproduction is anything but trivial.
It takes two adult members of either sex to create life. They do so as equals—no one sex plays a greater role in the creation of life than the other. To say so denies basic biological certainties. Thus, looking at the responsibility to the child in a nine-month window is entirely too short-sighted and unfair. Parents are not responsible for their children for a mere 9 month window at the beginning of life. Parents are responsible for their children for whatever period of time necessary to prepare that child to become a functioning, contributing member of society. This timeframe is determined by parents of every child over time, and in some cases requires more time or less time, more responsibility in one arena or another, and could involve a lifetime commitment. Indeed, the decision to become parents is not one that ought to be taken lightly.
That being said, why is it that the essential act leading to parenthood—sexual intercourse—should be regarded as trivial? I don’t understand why appreciating the sanctity of the act of creating life makes someone an unreasonable, or irrational ‘crazy right-winger.’ It is as though Americans are regarded as being incapable for exerting and degree of self-control whatsoever, that abstinence is so impractical that public schools and non-profits need to establish and ingrain birth control methods as sex is inevitable.
Sex is inevitable. That is exactly the mentality with which individuals like myself take issue. Indeed, sex is pleasurable, enjoyable, and sates a number of basic human desires. Indeed, so does heroin. So does a pint of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream. So does taking the life of an animal. Another person. Lots of base and unbalanced activities provide people pleasure and fulfill basic human desires, but are not treated as inevitable in the eyes of the law, or the eyes of society.
By espousing the message that sex is inevitable, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The longer you take responsibility and accountability away from people, the less likely the are to regard it as ever having been theirs in the first place.
I am against abortion not only because I feel it is wrong to terminate an innocent life merely because it is convenient for one person, but equally because it further indoctrinates amoral values constantly espoused by our culture, and the denial of sexual equality. Without venturing onto another tangent, if the goal of the civil rights movement brings all parties to equality, shouldn’t the laws be set up to respect equality, rather than flipping the system to oppress another group?
Perhaps I ought not listen to Springer’s radio program, because it consistently agitates me. But it also usually gives me good starting points. In lieu of the 33rd anniversary of Roe vs. Wade and speculation that South Dakota will pass legislation that prohibits all abortions. Before I go on, like many pro-life folks, I enjoy pointing out that Norma McCorvey—the Jane Roe of the Wade decision—has since voiced her disapproval of the ruling, her role as a pawn in a case she retrospectively wishes she hadn’t been involved in, and her anti-abortion views. Alas.
Springer relies on one primary argument in supporting abortion: the female’s 9 month physical responsibility to the child trumps the reproductive rights of males—a right that he never recognizes or calls by name. It’s so clearly contrived when liberals, who talk about all our various ‘rights,’ the evidence of which is interpretive at best (privacy, free speech, free religion, etc.), ignore basic biological rights that have nothing to do with our Constitution.
But to say that a female’s ‘right to an abortion’ demands she be able to have one regardless of the consent of the male further indoctrinates the most corrupt cultural values that have grown in our United States. To say that a male has no sentiment of legal consequence in the decision of abortion marginalizes the male’s reproductive role to the extent of making it trivial. Any sound biologist will tell you that a male’s role in reproduction is anything but trivial.
It takes two adult members of either sex to create life. They do so as equals—no one sex plays a greater role in the creation of life than the other. To say so denies basic biological certainties. Thus, looking at the responsibility to the child in a nine-month window is entirely too short-sighted and unfair. Parents are not responsible for their children for a mere 9 month window at the beginning of life. Parents are responsible for their children for whatever period of time necessary to prepare that child to become a functioning, contributing member of society. This timeframe is determined by parents of every child over time, and in some cases requires more time or less time, more responsibility in one arena or another, and could involve a lifetime commitment. Indeed, the decision to become parents is not one that ought to be taken lightly.
That being said, why is it that the essential act leading to parenthood—sexual intercourse—should be regarded as trivial? I don’t understand why appreciating the sanctity of the act of creating life makes someone an unreasonable, or irrational ‘crazy right-winger.’ It is as though Americans are regarded as being incapable for exerting and degree of self-control whatsoever, that abstinence is so impractical that public schools and non-profits need to establish and ingrain birth control methods as sex is inevitable.
Sex is inevitable. That is exactly the mentality with which individuals like myself take issue. Indeed, sex is pleasurable, enjoyable, and sates a number of basic human desires. Indeed, so does heroin. So does a pint of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream. So does taking the life of an animal. Another person. Lots of base and unbalanced activities provide people pleasure and fulfill basic human desires, but are not treated as inevitable in the eyes of the law, or the eyes of society.
By espousing the message that sex is inevitable, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The longer you take responsibility and accountability away from people, the less likely the are to regard it as ever having been theirs in the first place.
I am against abortion not only because I feel it is wrong to terminate an innocent life merely because it is convenient for one person, but equally because it further indoctrinates amoral values constantly espoused by our culture, and the denial of sexual equality. Without venturing onto another tangent, if the goal of the civil rights movement brings all parties to equality, shouldn’t the laws be set up to respect equality, rather than flipping the system to oppress another group?
posted by Hickmania at
10:59 AM
3 Comments:
2 comments. Neither of them are about abortion as I'm working things out in my head at the moment.
1. To quote: "It’s so clearly contrived when liberals, who talk about all our various ‘rights,’ the evidence of which is interpretive at best (privacy, free speech, free religion, etc.),"
What the poop? Okay, the right to privacy is, I believe, implied and not stated. The other two, however, are written into the freakin document! Maybe I'm just misreading, thuogh, as those require interpretation to be enforced. So, might be my mistake. I kind of hoe it is.
I mean, in your last article in the observer, you said a number of things weren't guaranteed in the Constitution. However, they are in the Bill of Rights. I bring this up to make one point. Amendment = addition to Constitution, therefore Amendment = Constitution. It was an imperfect document, and the creators realized this.
2. Abstinence doesn't work. This isn't a conspiracy. There's documented, scientific evidence. Yes, I consider social science a science as that stuff is all based on statistics, which work well. Not teaching about birth control is dangrous and harmful to children. The problem is that those who ignore the abstinence education won't use protection, and then the whole situation goes from bad to worse. This has been proven time and time again.
I'm not saying that abstinence education is bad. I was taught abstinence and all, but it can't be _only_ abstinence education. That is where is gets irresponsible.
Also, I guess I have a third statement to make. It's about the abhorrence of sex. You aren't particularly extreme about it, but there are some puritanical folks out there who get really up in arms about this. I look at is this way when I compare America with Europe in that respect. In Europe, sex is way more open and accepted, whereas in America violence enjoys that seat. Call me crazy, but sex is a hell of a lot more fun and less destructive than sex. It's always been part of American culture, this Puritanical view of sex, but I just don't get it. It seems very hypocritical when we view violence with such high regard. That's just my $0.02, though.
By
X, at 4:31 PM
The document does not give the right to free speech, or free religion. It prevents the state from prohibiting one's ability to speak against the government, and guarentees no state established religion. Thsoe are interpreted as rights, but not expressly stated as such... However, that's something that people who are much more educated in the law and government than you or I can't come to consensus on. The 'right to social security' and 'right to health care', are terms lacking Consitutional support, but are sometimes reported as though they existed.
Abstinence does work. To say it doesn't denies fact. You can point to trends, and say in some cases it doesn't work, but to claim that the practice is inherently flawed, rather than the flaw generated by a defeatist system in which it is taught, simply perpetuates the defeatism.
I don't believe I said don't teach control--you can teach that, fine, but not with my money. Why does it make sense to have schools teach children to use condoms? That belongs in the same cirriculum with 'what makes the sky blue' and 'prepositions'? I'm pretty sure that's the best example I can think of government intervention making people lazy. Apparently, the prospect of teaching ones' own child about sexual behaviors is abhorrent, after all, that's why we have schools.
By
Hickmania, at 1:39 AM
artificial birth control options ought to be taught in the school system, just as much as abstinence ought to be driven home as the most effective safety measure, both physically and emotionally.
you can make the argument that it ought to be the parent's responsibility to teach such things, but then you can also make the argument that it's the parent's sole responsibility to teach their kids reading and writing also (but that's a discussion for another time and another libertarian).
truth is, the school environment is one of the most important socialization tools the developing child has. yes, parents must accept proper personal responsibility. but believing this should not diminish the role that school plays in a child's maturation.
abortion is tragedy.
By
clavin, at 5:07 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home