Global population numbers having just passed the 7 billion mark (twice what it was when I opened a vasectomy clinic in Texas), it is overwhelming to contemplate the world struggling with this flood and its inevitable threats (including starvation, drought, pollution — and what leading scientists predicted long ago would be the main danger to civilization: war).
Unless we act (this legislation, along with China’s “one child” policy, is a start), the world is doomed to strangle among coils of pitiless exponential growth.
Norman Fleishman / Yountville
As much as I dislike hearing that women ought to have children for the sake of their country, I also dislike hearing that women ought not have children for the sake of their country. Both statements treat women as commodities, and both are false claims.
For a start, Germany just announced that Europe still doesn’t have “enough children for the future”. So while Europe and the developed world don’t have enough children to support economic growth and therefor no one suggests that these countries and wealthier demographics are overpopulated, it seems that overpopulation is an issue for “those” countries and “those” classes.
To use overpopulation as a ridiculous claim that women shouldn’t be having that many children and it needs legislating, really seems to be saying that certain women shouldn’t be having children, women who might use resources, women who might already live in a populated country.
But if overpopulation isn’t a global issue, then is it really an issue at all?
I’m not one who believes that dismembering that baby in the womb would have been a grand success. These cases do, however, act as reminders that abortion kills a person, women are complicit in their children’s death, and abortion clinics in the new millenium are a far cry from safe, even though they are legal.
If we judge success by what we achieve for our goal and our cause, then I think the most successful pro-life people have been “kinder, gentler”. Gone are the days of soap box fire and brimstone, and if you’ve ever seen Andrea on the news you know how soft spoken and concise she is. This goes for Stephanie Gray, Serrin Foster, and many others as well.
I think when you’re delivering a message so steeped in tension and emotional dynamite, it’s important to keep your calm. That method has been paying off for many of us, including Charmaine Yoest.
With an easy laugh and ample charm, Charmaine Yoest doesn’t at all appear to be Public EnemyNo. 1 for the pro-abortion rights community. But the foundation of her rising influence – the accessibility of her approach – becomes clear when she settles in for an unexpectedly frank conversation about the stunning 2011 antiabortion legislative juggernaut that she has helped orchestrate.
Well done, ladies.
Andrea adds: That’s very kind, Jennifer, thanks. What I strive for is to always be reasonable. Which strictly speaking, given how reasonable it is to be pro-life, shouldn’t be all that hard.
I agree with this post about how if we want to impact the culture and change the way people think, we have to meet them where they are and force them to encounter pro-life views in the fullness of that vision. Rallies and websites(!) won’t do it. I’m big on community building, too, which, I think would by default decrease the desire for abortion (and euthanasia, while we’re at it).
Call me a cynic but my first thought when I read a piece like this one is “This has got to have been written by a pro-life commentator to show the overall menace of an unqualified right to choose…” But I’m afraid I may be wrong.
As an expecting mother of twins, this article hit close to home. But in trying to think of all the reasons why reduction is wrong, I could not come-up with arguments that were not already applicable to abortion in general. In the words of a so-called “reduction pioneer” – there’s a title you want to hang on a shingle — quoted in the article:
“He consulted his staff, all women, and they concluded that if a woman can choose to end a pregnancy, she can reduce from two to one. Besides, in this case, the team would be saving a fetus that would otherwise be aborted.”
What is more immoral or unethical about reduction than straight-up abortion? What this case illustrates is one of the steps down the slippery slope of commodification, that even with a wanted live baby kicking and growing inside you, you may still view your children’s lives not as something you created but as something you own. The tone of the article, all about the women and their doctors with a passing mention of children as being disruptive and twins as being hell, shows very well that when it comes to so-called reproduction rights, it’s all about the grown-ups.
Andrea adds: This quote took me by surprise. “If I had conceived these twins naturally, I wouldn’t have reduced this pregnancy, because you feel like if there’s a natural order, then you don’t want to disturb it. But we created this child in such an artificial manner — in a test tube, choosing an egg donor, having the embryo placed in me — and somehow, making a decision about how many to carry seemed to be just another choice. The pregnancy was all so consumerish to begin with, and this became yet another thing we could control.” It’s so forthright about what happens when we make reproduction into a choice. Almost as if to act as an example of what not to do.
Read about it here. I am not impressed by those who are so irate over photos of abortions, but don’t bat an eye at clinics strategically placed across the country providing the service that results in the photos.