You know me: I’m not religious. Atheists and non-believers don’t bother me, and neither do most believers (I have some issues with those who can’t stop themselves from trying to convert me after I’ve asked them to desist, but fortunately these people are reasonably rare). But what I absolutely cannot stand are people who claim to be religious who turn around and behave as though they weren’t. Case in point, the new president of the Episcopal Divinity School (EDS) in Cambridge, the Rev. Dr. Katherine Ragsdale, who had this to say about abortion:
When a woman wants a child but can’t afford one because she hasn’t the education necessary for a sustainable job, or access to health care, or day care, or adequate food, it is the abysmal priorities of our nation, the lack of social supports, the absence of justice that are the tragedies; the abortion is a blessing.
“And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion – there is not a tragedy in sight — only blessing. The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing.
“These are the two things I want you, please, to remember – abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.”
Apparently, her appointment to the EDS has pro-life Episcopalians upset. I want to know why more people aren’t upset. “The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education”? What Bible is that from?
________________________
Tanya has a sharp pain right between her eyes: “Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.” All she’s missing is a pocketwatch swinging like a pendulum. Or eyeballs that light up like these (1 minute in):
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEp7QopOZ30]
by 
Gah, it’s stuff like this that infuriates me, as a Christian. I know I should respond to this kind of idiocy with charity and understanding and compassion, but sometimes, that’s just too hard, and this is one of those times.
It’s stuff like this that has me seriously considering Catholicism…
Brigitte — I think I remember one of you linking directly to her sermon on her blog a few months ago. (Of course, soon after her blog post went *poof* after it got a little bit of publicity, funny that.)
It’s just sickening.
You probably shouldn’t convert to catholicism purely because you agree with their stance on a few big issues. They have many major theological differences from the various protestant denominations.
I don’t recognise the “The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education” bit from any specific verse either, but there is nothing unusual about someone trying to imply the conclusion they desire by guessing at God’s intentions.
I can think of a few other things which Christians widely attribute to God even though the bible has no mention:
– The catholic ban on contraception. The bible predates contraception, so how can it speak of it? They basically reached their conclusion by looking at God’s instructions regarding marriage, trying to figure out what God was thinking when those were passed down, and then to work out what God would have said of contraception had he bothered to mention it. All done to reach a desired political conclusion.
– The ‘rights endowed by their creator’ bit of the declaration of independance – there is nothing in the bible that talks of universial rights. If there were, then the various Christian countries of Europe would have recognised them long before the US was forced to declare independance.
– Abortion isn’t mentioned much in the bible. You get two verses which could, with some careful interpretation, be considered as refering to abortion… and one of those suggests it to be acceptable. No other issue is more dear to the devout US Christian population, and yet it’s one almost entirely lacking in scriptoral backing. There just isn’t a nice ‘thou shalt not kill the unborn baby’ verse anywhere, so instead the religious pro-lifer has to work by reading between the lines and guessing at what God would have said.
Christians have always had a tendency to project their own desires into their model of what God should be like, and to subsequently put words in God’s mouth.
Well, as I said, I’m not religious and certainly no Bible expert (never read the whole thing cover to cover). But my understanding is that “Though shalt not kill” sort of applies to anyone and everyone, born or unborn. We usually make exceptions, say for legitimate self-defence reasons, but it’s hard to equate abortion for the sake of continuing one’s education without delay with, say, killing a violent attacker in self-defence.
Also, my understanding is that most pro-life Christians are pro-life because they view life (all life, however imperfect and inconvenient) as one of God’s most precious gifts – probably THE most precious gift – and not because there is a particular verse that tells them to go picket clinics. I could be wrong – I don’t claim to be an expert on Christianity and Christians – but just from my experience I’d say an awful lot of them follow first principles, not specific instructions.
If you read the Bible with really legalistic glasses on, you’ll find many loopholes quite quickly. It says “Thou shalt not kill” but doesn’t say “Thou shalt not kill unborn babies” Aha! Well then, clearly it expressly allows that. “Thou shalt not kill unborn babies.” This made me laugh in a very tired, cynical way–does the Bible really need to expressly state this? What about “Thou shalt not kill people who are really old and no longer contributing members of society, who are furthermore difficult to look after?” …and on and on…
One other comment as a non-Roman Catholic on their “political” conclusions. They have given serious theological consideration to these matters of grave importance, things like contraception, and where I’ve bothered to read those conclusions, I believe they have reached nuanced, logical, spiritually uplifting positions.
Sometimes we are just looking for excuses, and end up parrotting the current cultural line–The Roman Catholic Church is political! They are out of touch!
I don’t buy it. (Though I once did.)
The rational basis for Catholic morality is a moral philosophy called Natural Law. With regard to contraception, the idea is that one shouldn’t separate the unitive and procreative aspects of human sexuality, ie. procreation is a natural (and not an elective) consequence of sexual intercourse. Interestingly, this remains true even if one uses contraception (the probabilities change, but not the range of possible outcomes); however, the attitude of people using contraception typically changes to an “elective” mentality. That is why we end up with “unintended” pregnancies, and many of the same people who promote contraception also promote abortion.
Aside from the above, the Catholic Church objects to the separation of the unitive and procreative aspects of human sexuality (at least in one’s attitude) because it leads to greater opportunities for using another person as a mere means to an end, eg. one’s own sexual pleasure.
Wow – This post has gotten slightly(?) off-track but as long as Suricou brought contraception into the discussion – an interesting statistic:
The Pill went on the market in 1960/61. Between 1960 and 1975 (a mere 15 years after the Pill’s widespread availability), the divorce rate in the US doubled, from what had been 25%, to 50%. By contrast, couples who use Natural Family Planning have a divorce rate of less than 3%.
And to add further rationale as to why a “religious discussion” on abortion also includes contraception…The number one reason for abortions is “unintended” pregnancy. Since contraception has been shown to have a failure rate (more or less, depending on the type used), when looking at absolute numbers, an increase in the use of contraception leads to an increase in the number of failures, leads to an increase in the number of abortions. In fact, failed contraception accounts for an *awful lot* of abortions.
So the idea that increased contraceptive use will lead to a decrease in abortions is blatantly wrong. And since increased contraceptive use also correlates well with the dramatic increase in divorce rates (see above) well….maybe our marriages, our children and our families are not being served well by religions and/or their leaders who say that contraception is ok and abortion is ok. Any religious leader who can decide that something is not wrong (and is actually blessing??) based purely on societal pressures or norms, is not one who is displaying integrity – religious or otherwise.
I apologize in advance is this takes the original topic even more off-track.
**Since contraception has been shown to have a failure rate (more or less, depending on the type used), when looking at absolute numbers, an increase in the use of contraception leads to an increase in the number of failures, leads to an increase in the number of abortions. In fact, failed contraception accounts for an *awful lot* of abortions.**
Higher failure rate period, or higher failure rate when used incorrectly? Every study I’ve seen has shown that increased correct use in contraception decreases the number of abortions. This website here shows the difference between typical use and perfect use of all birth control methods. It includes Natural Family Planning, and from what I can see, isn’t confusing NFP with the rhythm method. But if the amount of sex is the same, then using contraception perfectly will decrease the unintended pregnancies.
http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/summarychart.html
This website contains info on contraception use among those who have abortions:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
A lot of those abortions were caused by inconsistent use of contraception or no use at all when they got pregnant.
**And since increased contraceptive use also correlates well with the dramatic increase in divorce rates (see above)**
But what about everything else going on at that time? Women were gaining access to many more educational and job opportunities as well. I believe the saying used to be that a woman was only one husband away from poverty. With women then gaining the opportunity to be able to financially support themselves, they’d no longer be 100% dependent on the marriage for financial stability for themselves and children. Couldn’t we easily correlate that allowing women to work also increases the divorce rate, and thus that’s not healthy for marriages, family, and children?
I understand that people have religious objections to contraception use. But there is a huge difference between the idea that widespread contraceptive availability leads to more abortions, and widespread perfect use of contraception leads to more abortions.
The point is that contraceptives fail, even with perfect use. Therefore, you *must* accept that having children is a (possible) natural consequence of sexual intercourse, even if you are using contraception. Otherwise you end up “needing” abortion to make up for the failure rate of contraceptives.
It is precisely because people refuse to accept children as a natural consequence of sex that we have abortion on demand.
Anne, your point about all the other things going on is a good one. But how do you explain the incredibly low divorce rate among NFP couples? I’ve seen data suggesting it’s less than 0.2%. Of course, this is an observation about a correlation, rather than direct evidence for cause and effect. But it is such an extreme correlation that it would be unreasonable to ignore it. In my view, anyone who cares about marriage should pay attention to this.
Suricou, I’ve been wondering for a while why you read this blog and comment so consistently. I do appreciate that people who may not agree with what’s said here read it, and comment when it’s relevant and well-reasoned. Often your comments are thought-provoking, but every once in a while you toss out ones like this, which is just a bizarre, random attack on the Catholic Church. And you comment very frequently so you must on some level enjoy hearing what these ladies here have to say, even though the impression that I get from your own blog (I check in from time to time) is that you wouldn’t necessarily enjoy reading a blog with views such as this one has.
This isn’t a personal attack on you by any means; I simply felt obligated to justify my curiosity — why do you read this blog so much?
Thanks. =)
Dan,
**The point is that contraceptives fail, even with perfect use. **
I didn’t see that point in Cynthia’s post — I’m assuming that’s what you were using to elaborate your point. I saw the point as that an increase in contraception use means an increase in failures, which means an increase in abortions — her very words. As I said, failed contraception is not a majority reason for abortions — failed improper use is. Or failed use, period. And her statement that an increase in contraception means an increase in failure rates is what I’m refuting. Like I said, there’s a big difference between stating that the use of contraception, period, leads to more abortion, and the increased *use* leads to more abortions.
**It is precisely because people refuse to accept children as a natural consequence of sex that we have abortion on demand.**
I find the reasons behind abortions are much more multi-faceted than that. There are plenty of people who use contraception who fully intended to have children. They simply want to space out the children, or limit the number of children, and that’s why they use contraception. But in polling women, I haven’t seen any who have said that they’re getting one because they refused to accept the natural consequence of sex. Actually, a big reason I’ve seen is the desire to be a good mother, and they felt they weren’t capable of being so at the time. Adoption was not an option for their pregnancy.
And even if someone approaches sex with the idea fully lodged that a child may be produced, and approaches it fully prepared to accept that child … things still happen, and women still choose abortion, even when once fully prepared.
I’m not being sarcastic here, Dan. In all the stories I’ve read of women who have abortions, a variety of factors came into play, and so saying that “we have abortion because people refuse to accept the natural consequence” really simplifies it. Maybe to you, it is that simple. Based on what I’ve read? Not even close.
**But how do you explain the incredibly low divorce rate among NFP couples? I’ve seen data suggesting it’s less than 0.2%.**
What is the mindset of those practicing NFP? What are their feelings on divorce, period? What are their feelings on women and their ultimate roles in life? What is their position on the purpose of sex? How serious are they about their religion, and what is says about divorce? All of these are interconnected, and tie to why there is a low divorce rate. If you have someone who firmly believes that divorce is morally wrong, who firmly believes that the children must be raised by both a mother and father, and happens to practice NFP, then you will very likely have a low divorce rate — not because they practice NFP. Because of all the other factors, and their use of NFP stems from those other factors. But people can’t just say that marriage survival rates will suddenly skyrocket if everyone practices NFP. Especially if the two people marry with the full agreement to never have kids — NFP is very much not going to help them.
“And her statement that an increase in contraception means an increase in failure rates is what I’m refuting. ”
Sorry Anne. I never said anything about rates. Read my words again. I specifically said “when looking at *absolute* numbers”.
So, for example: Contraceptive A, even used perfectly, leads to 1 unintended pregnancy (out of 100 women using it for a year). If 200 women are using contraceptive A “perfectly”, it means 2 unintended pregnancies. 10 000 women = 100 unintended. A million women? You do the math.
And that’s only for “perfect” use. You’ll notice the link that you yourself supplied indicates that “typical” use is far from perfect.
I purposefully and specifically spoke about absolute numbers, not rates. So I stand by my original assertion – more people using contraception (even “perfectly”), means an increase in the number of unintended pregnancies. And as Dan said, people have stopped accepting pregnancy and children as a natural consequence of sex.
So much for the post being about an Episcopalian Reverend asserting that abortion is a blessing, huh?!?
Cynthia,
You did mention failure rates: “Since contraception has been shown to have a *failure rate* (more or less, depending on the type used), when looking at absolute numbers, an increase in the use of contraception leads to an increase in the number of failures, leads to an increase in the number of abortions. In fact, failed contraception accounts for an *awful lot* of abortions.”
And yes, the typical use is far from perfect. But the typical use indicates is isn’t being used consistently, which means the contraception itself isn’t a failure. It can’t fail if it isn’t being used. If the typical use changes to perfect use, the the number of pregnancies decreases.
And yes, you did mention absolute numbers in this paragraph. But it didn’t sink in for me — and it’s still not sinking in now — because people have unintended pregnancies even if they don’t use contraception. In fact, if they use no contraception and we see the same amount of sex, we’ll have higher unintended pregnancies. I’m approaching this as the amount of sex will stay the same, and that’s why your clarification here still doesn’t work for me. If those same 100 women aren’t using any contraception whatsoever, that would lead to 85 unintended pregnancies.
You also mentioned failed contraception accounts for a lot of abortions, but contraception can only fail if it’s used, and hence a failure rate. In the second link I provided, a majority of abortions are from people who don’t use it consistently, or who didn’t use contraception when having sex. So I did read that as you referring to a failure rate. A lot of those abortions wouldn’t have occurred if the contraception use had been better, and that’s why your sentence of an increase in contraception leads to an increase in unintended pregnancies was connected — when I read it — to failure rates because of what we see in those who get abortions.
Perhaps you’re approaching this with the idea that if contraception goes away, the amount of sex decreases?
“Thou shalt not kill” is a poor translation. A more accurate phrasing would be ‘You shall not murder.’ The word used doesn’t refer to killing in general – if it did, how could be be reconciled with the various executeable crimes specified later, or even eating meat? It refers only to unlawful killing. So the actual meaning is that you shall not kill another human unless an explicit exception is made under the law to allow it. Self-defence, legally valid punishment, enemy nations in times of war, and so on.
That makes it essentially useless for the abortion debate though, because at dispute is if a fetus (or, for the earliest cases, embryo) should be considered human for purposes of moral decisions.
“The rational basis for Catholic morality is a moral philosophy called Natural Law. ”
I really can’t stand this natural law thing. The convenient thing about it is the lack of a natural law book – it just boils down to a very indirect way to justify an arbitary declaration. Anyone can just state that natural law says something is right or wrong, but there is no sound way to prove either way.
At best, it’s just an argument from the status quo rephrased: Things are as they are because that is how they should naturally be, so keep it that way.
“By contrast, couples who use Natural Family Planning have a divorce rate of less than 3%.”
You mean that couples who are from strictly conservative, often catholic backgrounds have a lower divorce rate than the general population? I’m shocked! Could it be that it isn’t the NFP thats causing the low divorce rate, but that anyone who might even consider NFP will almost certinly be from a cultural group that rejects divorce anyway?
In related news, teenage pregnency drops sharply in the 20-plus age group.
Your other statistical claims have similar flaws. The numbers themselves are probably correct, but they show only a correlation. You’re looking at data from the 60’s and 70’s, one of the most socially turbulent periods in history. You might as well argue that the increaseing divorce rate is a consequence of improving gender equality (ie, now women are able to demand a divorce even if their husband forbids it). Or it might be related to increasing lifespans – longer lives, more time to divorce in. Without a lot more analysis, you can’t identify the responsible factors.
Anne pointed out the same concerns. I like Anne :>
“And you comment very frequently so you must on some level enjoy hearing what these ladies here have to say, even though the impression that I get from your own blog (I check in from time to time) is that you wouldn’t necessarily enjoy reading a blog with views such as this one has.”
What benefit would there be in only discussing things with people who I already agree with? If I debate here, then either you convince me to change a position, or I convince someone else to change a position. Either way, progress has been made, someone has been able to advance.
“Perhaps you’re approaching this with the idea that if contraception goes away, the amount of sex decreases?”
No matter how I run through Cynthia’s arguments, I cannot get them to work without accepting this assumption. It’s probably true, to an extent, but I doubt it’s true enough. Properly used, with two independant means (Usually one hormonal, one barrier), the reliability of contraception is so close to perfect as to make the failure rate negligable.
The only problem factor is that people are idiots. Espicially aroused people. Getting people contraception that could potentially have a failure rate of less then one in a hundred thousand is easy: Getting them to remember to take the pills and to not put the condom on inside-out is another problem altogether. And this is a problem for Cynthia too – if people don’t have access to contraception, this isn’t going to mean they won’t have sex unless they want a baby. No, they’ll be stupid, and have sex anyway. Because that’s just what humans do. It’s a deeply ingrained instinct.
“more people using contraception (even “perfectly”), means an increase in the number of unintended pregnancies.”
This… er, this just makes no sense. If contraception is perfect, by definition, it’s failure rate is precisely zero. This it is mathematically impossible for anyone using it to contribute to the unintended pregnancy rate.
“Contraceptive A, even used perfectly, leads to 1 unintended pregnancy (out of 100 women using it for a year).”
Ah, I see your mistake… you’re assuming that if they didn’t use any contraception, they couldn’t have any untended pregnancy at all! Sorry, but I explained above: People are idiots. No contraception does not mean no sex.
I’m not particularly religious and I don’t find religious arguments either for or against abortion persuasive. I find Ragsdale’s comments disappointing because (and perhaps I’m romanticizing here) I expect religious leaders, especially ones as well-educated as Ragsdale, to be capable of more nuanced views when it comes to controversial ethical topics. A pro-life preacher who insisted that “Every pregnancy is a blessing!” would annoy me because such a statement fails to take into account that for the people experiencing them some pregnancies are very much not a blessing. I can be pro-life while also recognizing that there are thoughtful arguments in favor of legal, accessible abortion. Similarly, there are pro-choicers who are capable of recognizing that there are ethical dimensions to abortion beyond it simply being “a blessing.” Based on this quote, though, it seems that Ragsdale is not one of them.
With regard to contraception also, I do not find religious arguments for or against it to be persuasive. I’ve used birth control (mainly condoms) for 24 years (successfully) and expect to do so until I reach menopause (and for what it’s worth, I’m happily married with 3 children). However, I would never have an abortion under any circumstances. It is perfectly possible to try to exercise some control over how many children to have while still being open to a surprise baby–in fact, it’s my understanding that most people who practice NFP feel exactly that way. The only difference is that I consider NFP simply another form of contraceptive that–morally speaking–is neither superior nor inferior to any other.
SarahB, please understand that I was explaining the Catholic rationale in response to a rather ill-informed comment about Catholicism. I was not making a blanket statement that all contraception is wrong in all circumstances. In fact, I think my comments pretty clearly leave room for someone such as yourself to take a rational position that includes contraception.
Suricou Raven, anyone can set up and destroy a strawman. You grossly misrepresented Catholicism in your first comment, and now you would have us believe that Natural Law is something arbitrary and made up. Natural Law is a very large body of thought based on science, reason and sound philosophical principles, spanning many centuries, and including some very serious contemporary work. It had a significant influence on English common law, and continues to influence our laws, the realm of so-called natural law jurisprudence. At the heart of it is the notion that many things about right and wrong behaviour are accessible to reason.
The most disturbing aspect of your second comment, in my view, is the way you write people off as stupid. I rather believe in the ability of people to make rational decisions. That is the essence of what it means to be human: a being with a rational nature.
Dan, I understand that. My comments were more directed at Cynthia’s statements that imply that non-NFP contraceptives cause abortion or contribute to a more abortion-friendly society. I understand her rationale and I think there is some justification for it. I think it is a vast oversimplification of a complicated issue, though, and I wanted to make the point that being pro-life and pro-contraceptive are not contradictory positions.
Anne, do you realize that every example you have given supports my contention that abortion on demand exists because people refuse to accept that children are a natural consequence of sex? For example, wanting to time one’s children in a certain way… then refusing to accept a child who arrives at a different time.
Your response also appears to presume that I am directing my comments primarily at women. Let me assure you that is not the case. Everything I have said applies equally to men and women. In fact, I think it may be the case that more men than women have difficulty accepting children as a natural consequence of sex, in which case my comments are more directed toward men than women.
This brings me to another point: most abortions involve some form of coercion, usually from a boyfriend or a husband, but it can also come from parents, particularly in the case of a pregnant teenager. Some relevant statistics can be found here:
http://www.theunchoice.com/intro.htm
I can also provide some anecdotal evidence to support this, from the many Birthright volunteers that I know. Virtually every woman who goes to Birthright for assistance is trying to get away from a coerced abortion. Sadly, only about half of them succeed in doing so. And of course, there are many others who cave in to pressure without seeking assistance.
Please re-read my original comments with this in mind.
Also, please re-read my comment on the correlation between NFP use and low divorce rate, and you will see that I understand very well the difference between correlation and causation. I do, however, continue to express the opinion that this correlation is so extreme as to merit further attention.
Dan,
I tried responding to your comment, but I keep getting a notice that my comment is too similar to spam.
Dan,
**Your response also appears to presume that I am directing my comments primarily at women. **
Not necessarily. But given how much a pregnancy requires from her than it does from the man, in a biological sense as well as her inability to just walk away during the nine months of pregnancy, and that reading the reasons behind abortions do come from women, that’s how my answer was phrased. The woman bears the brunt of the outcome if the pregnancy continues. The man can easily leave, and while he may be court-ordered to provide child support, he can’t be forced to provide the nurturing components.
**This brings me to another point: most abortions involve some form of coercion, usually from a boyfriend or a husband, but it can also come from parents, particularly in the case of a pregnant teenager.***
I know there are women out there who’ve been pressured by outside parties. But I’ve also read lots of stories, and lots of statistics, about how women felt that the abortion was the most moral choice they could make at the time, and they made the choice out of a desire to be a good mother.
**you will see that I understand very well the difference between correlation and causation.**
I did pick this up, but you had asked my input for the correlation between the two and those were my thoughts. Unless you meant your question as a rhetorical one. But to merit further attention makes it appear as though you feel that people should address the NFP only, and not all the other factors, and if more people just practiced NFP, there’d be less divorces.
**For example, wanting to time one’s children in a certain way… then refusing to accept a child who arrives at a different time.**
First, not necessarily. Even if someone does become unintentionally pregnant while on contraception, that doesn’t mean abortion is automatically the outcome. Second, in my mind, someone who refuses to acknowledge that sex can lead to pregnancy is someone who, if she became pregnant, ignores the whole thing altogether. She lives her life however, doesn’t take any prenatal care whatsoever, and makes no post-pregnant plans for when she has a child. Someone who does accept responsibility for the pregnancy is someone who evaluates her life and decides if she can go through with the pregnancy. If she can’t, she either selects abortion or adoption, or does keep the child.
It’s also someone who recognizes that having sex can lead to babies, and so takes every precaution possible to make that not happen if she doesn’t feel ready for a child. Third, there are reasons why people would want to time their children: they want to be emotionally ready, financially ready, and want to make sure that any existing children will still have the necessary attention.
That, and I don’t view it as people refusing to accept that — I think people readily acknowledge that outcome, which is why so many want access to contraceptives. To you, that may contribute to the “abortion-on-demand” mentality as well as to casual, unhealthy sexual encounters. To me, contraceptives allow people to have healthy sexual relationships with those that they love.
Part of what also throws me about the “natural consequence of sex” is how it connects to the treatment of children. And the fine line between a consequence and punishment. I noticed as a general observation that there was a huge outcry among pro-lifers as to Obama’s comment about not wanting his daughter punished with a baby. And yet, I often see pro-lifers also say that there are consequences to having sex, such as children. So while it’s outrageous that children can be considered a punishment, they should be considered a consequence? What does that do to the mother’s potential relationship to the child? How will that influence the emotional treatment the child will receive when growing up? What does that do to the woman herself? It just takes me into the whole mindset of “That’s what the girl gets for spreading her legs.”
I’m not saying that you are saying this, or that any of the other contributors are saying this. But I think the two can too easily get entangled, especially to the woman who’s pregnant, especially because even 50 years ago, that was a prevailing attitude — the whole loose woman aspect — in a lot of social circles. If a girl ended up in an “unfortunate situation,” she was shunned, possibly sent away and forced to surrender her child to adoptive parents, and basically told that she got what she deserved for being loose or bad or whathaveyou. Or maybe had no choice but to marry the boy who impregnated her.
The other thing about “natural consequences …” there are a lot of natural consequences out there. If I go into the ocean and a shark bites me, that is natural consequence of being in the ocean. Yet no one says that I must then not have the shark bite treated. Or it used to be that a huge natural consequence of pregnancy was maternal death, yet today, we’re able to take a lot of steps to avoid that. There are many natural consequences out there that are mitigated.
And the last thing is that we don’t live in a society where we only had sex if we would accept any possible children, and it suddenly changed in 1973. I recently read that until well after the Civil War, abortion was legal in the US. Even between 1870 and 1950, as many as 30,000 abortions were done in a legal fashion. And then there were the non-legal abortions. And in 1971, two years before Roe vs. Wade, almost 600,000 legal abortions were done in the US per year.
We don’t even live in a world with that mindset. Abortions happen, whether legal or illegal. So long as pregnancy and childbirth has been as life-changing as it is, they have happened. So long as women have needed to control their reproductive, economic, and family destiny, they’ve happened. In 2003, 42 million abortions were reported worldwide, and a large number of those were in developing countries, where I’m sure abortion is heavily restricted or outright illegal.
I fear that in this regard, given our very different outlooks, we may just be talking past each other. But I at least appreciate that we’ve remained civil with each other.
I also apologize that this took three different comments — this seems to allow my comment to get past the spam monitoring.
And now a fourth comment … I’m using US figures, as that’s where I’m located, and that’s where a lot of my research comes from.
Anne, I too appreciate that we can have a civil discussion on these contentious matters, and I do appreciate your input.
Regarding the term “natural consequence” I think you realize that I intend it to indicate a causal relationship, nothing more (ie. sex causes children to be conceived). It is certainly not intended to connote punishment in any sense.
There is nothing wrong with mitigating “natural consequences” if the those consequences are themselves bad, and the mitigation itself does not cause harm. But if we are talking about abortion as “mitigation” then it is almost always worse than the “natural consequences”.
When you say “We don’t even live in a world with that mindset. Abortions happen…” I think you are actually agreeing with me that:
1. People refuse to accept children as a natural consequence of sex.
2. We have abortion on demand because of this.
Where we disagree is whether or not there is anything wrong with this state of society.
Dan,
**I think you realize that I intend it to indicate a causal relationship, nothing more (ie. sex causes children to be conceived). It is certainly not intended to connote punishment in any sense.**
Hence my “I’m not saying that you are saying this …” caveat. But as I stated, it makes me leery to turn children into consequences. If you phrased it as “a natural outcome,” it wouldn’t have grabbed me in the way that it did, especially because I don’t recall any situation where “consequence” is associated with something positive. It’s a negative aspect, and thus can turn a child into a negative aspect, and turns it into something used against the woman (I know that you said your comments were addressed equally to both sexes, but I’m again falling back on the fact that the woman is the one bearing the brunt, since she can’t walk away from the pregnancy).
**But if we are talking about abortion as “mitigation” then it is almost always worse than the “natural consequences”.**
To you, though. To many of the women who pursued abortion, and to many of those who fought to make it safe for other women, it is the best choice available to them. It is bad for them to have a child at that time, or bad to be pregnant at that time. And to me, I think forcing a pregnancy and childbirth upon a woman who does not want to go through either state is a bad thing, especially given what both entail. It can be hard enough when a woman is excited about a child.
**1. People refuse to accept children as a natural consequence of sex.
2. We have abortion on demand because of this.**
I still can’t say I agree with you on this, because I view the issue as a very complex one, whereas you seem to view it as very black-and-white (not a criticism). It’s not even a matter of the result of sex, it’s a matter of the life-changing aspects of pregnancy/childbirth/childrearing, and that women wanted to be able to have control over that, and not be at the “mercy of biology.” I especially can’t look at it that way because of all the stories I read about how women made the choice to abort because they felt it was the most moral choice they had, and because they didn’t feel like they could be a good mother at the time. I do see that as accepting the repercussions of their actions. But my impression is that you don’t.
Anne,
I have no problem with using the term “natural outcome”. I think you are right that it’s a better term for conveying my intended meaning.
“…made the choice to abort because they felt it was the most moral choice they had…”
We are now heading down the path of a potentially lengthy philosophical discussion. It would be enormously helpful if you could explain to me why you believe that the deliberate destruction of a viable human embryo (or fetus) is a legitimate choice for anyone to make. If I have a human embryo in a petri dish, are there any moral implications if I kill it? Why or why not?