Archbishop Prendergast

Why such a good page, you ask? Because there are two ProWomanProLifers on it all on the same happy day. Very much unplanned. My letter, here and Véronique’s here.

___________________

Rebecca adds: The insistence that if one opposes abortion, one must support birth control is a fine example of question begging. (For the record, while I reject the notion that abortion is a consequence-free private decision that is the prerogative only of the woman involved, I believe birth control to be none of anyone’s business but the couple’s, informed by medical, theological and other considerations that matter to them. Although I do have some serious qualms about the medical basis for a number of birth control methods.) But the argument takes as a given that a) sex can be severed from reproduction and b) perfect birth control, or close enough to perfect, is achievable. Neither of these is true.

The world would be a happier, better, saner place if fewer teenagers (and, dare I say it, unmarried adults) had sex. This is partly the case because of the inevitability of unplanned pregnancies. No birth control method is 100% effective; sterilization comes pretty close, but even then, whether through a faulty procedure or natural regeneration, sterilizations sometimes don’t work. And the numbers typically given for the effectiveness of the pill, diaphragm, condom and so on are usually “perfect use” statistics; in reality, very few users reproduce these circumstances, and the “”real world” reliability of most birth control methods is much lower. This may tie in well with certain political or religious views, but it is not a political issue or a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.

So we create a culture in which sex is separated first from reproduction, then from marriage, and finally, in the age of the hook-up, from commitment or even affection. We raise a generation with the mantra of safe sex (omitting the fact that some diseases can be transmitted even while using a condom) and provide them with flawed tools to prevent conception. And inevitably, we end up with unplanned pregnancies, men leaving smoke behind them in the manner of the Road Runner as they head for the hills, and women convinced that their lives are ruined, who try to flee by terminating their pregnancies.

The fact that only abstinence is guaranteed to prevent pregnancy is also a matter of fact, not opinion. Young women (and men) who think their lives will be ruined, or (less melodramatically) recognize that premature and single parenthood will radically alter their plans, should keep this in mind. As a society, we can have “consequence-free” sex or we can value all life. We can’t do both, and no matter how hard we try (and many people have tried very hard indeed) we can’t sever sexuality from reproduction. Which is, I believe, part of the teaching of the Church on this matter.

Rob Snow interviewed Ottawa Archbishop Terrence Prendergast this morning here.

It’s a good, fair interview, but the host uses the phrase “a woman’s right to choose” multiple times.

I am decidedly against the use of euphemisms to describe abortion. “The right to choose?” There is no such right, neither figuratively nor constitutionally, and of course we are talking about taking a life.

But it got me thinking: Maybe I should use more euphemisms. “Why, Archbishop Prendergast, don’t you support a man’s right to unadulterated, responsibility-free sex?” (One raised eyebrow and an accusing glare…) Well? Why not? Because everyone supports a man’s–and a woman’s–right to fun, free, unfettered-by-future-possibilities-of-children, sex.

Yes indeed, euphemisms could prove very helpful.

_____________________

Tanya adds: How about anti-consequence? Or, playing on its antonym, pro-unimportance (which would suit Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada just fine, as she’s quoted as saying, “fetuses are not that important”)!

_____________________

Véronique adds: Just to make it clear: the radio host is using “a woman’s right to choose” instead of “abortion.” Not the Archbishop. In fact, Archbishop Pendergast’s first sentence makes the link between “a woman’s right to choose,” abortion and the taking of an innocent human life.

That being said, I am irked beyond description by the use of “a woman’s right to choose” like it’s some kind of birth right. None of us are born with unfettered rights to choose whatever. A “woman’s right to choose” is not only an euphemism, it’s a lie. But that wouldn’t be the first one.

_____________________

Andrea adds: Thank you, Véronique. “The right to choose” is indeed, both a euphemism and a lie. And yes, the host used the euphemisms, and the Archbishop spoke against those and did an admirable job, too. Sorry if my post was not clear.

Excellent Ottawa Citizen letters page today

Euphemisms on the radio

Meta