I have an amusing memory from late in my last pregnancy. I arrived at my doctor’s office one morning for a routine prenatal appointment, and as I was approaching the door, an older gentleman happened to be exiting the building. When he saw me, a look of exasperation passed over his face, and he heaved a gargantuan sigh… and turned back and held the door for me.
The hilarity of the incident absolutely brightened my day. I was laughing about it all morning! The rudeness of the exaggerated sigh so completely overshadowed the small courtesy, and of course, I hadn’t done anything at all to demand special attention, apart from simply being visibly pregnant. Today though, I was reflecting back on this little scene, and it started to seem weirdly uplifting. Obviously, the man was neither gregarious nor obliging by nature. He made no pretense of taking pleasure in doing me a service. And yet, it was somehow engrained in his mind that pregnant women must be assisted! Compare that to the attitude of the Democrats today.
We are told that, in order to be pro-woman, one must support (both morally and financially) the killing of immature humans up through birth and even a little beyond. It is obvious that this will not be in the interests of the infants (to put it mildly). Some have asked: can the rights of women completely obliterate even the right to life? It’s a reasonable question, but to my mind we are conceding too much even to conduct the debate on these terms. The Democrats’ extreme position is an offense against women and children alike.
Pregnant women are needy by nature. The howling little creatures they produce are even needier.
Understandably, people aren’t always eager to take on such heavy responsibilities. So, what happens when pregnancy becomes a woman’s own choice? It starts to seem reasonable that she should be held responsible for that choice. It becomes her project and her burden. Once upon a time, everyone understood that others (fathers especially, but also more extended family and the community as a whole) were obliged to give women particular care and support as they shouldered the burdens of childbearing and motherhood. In a pro-choice world, all bets are off. If you fought for the woman’s right to kill her child in the first place, you presumably won’t feel yourself responsible for the outcome if she decides to let it live.
As a closing note: do the Democrats have any words of wisdom to offer as to how that choice should be made? Pro-lifers sometimes lament the deeply offensive reasons for which people abort their children: because the sex is “wrong” (‘we wanted a boy”), because the baby has disabilities, because the couple wanted only one baby and not twins, and so on and so forth. As shocking as that is, I would reverse that line of thought and ask: what “good reason” could one give for having a child? How can my desire to experience motherhood possibly stand as an adequate justificatory reason for another complete human life? I don’t understand how pro-choice liberal parents can live with themselves. Do they never look at their offspring, and feel the crushing, overwhelming magnitude of what they have done? How can anyone truly take full responsibility for such a “choice”?
- Comment (90)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Comments:
Nov '10
Re: Pro-Woman
Bless the old guy. We need more people who:
Jun '12
Re: Pro-Woman
They are the type of people that when faced with a child that is MR (mentally retarded), and shows it, would abort immediately, instead of giving the child up for adoption. There are HUNDREDS of couples that would love to raise a child, no matter WHAT their disability, even if it was mental retardation, cerebral palsy, or anything in between.
On that note, I am adopted, and my parents picked me from a LIST of people that were giving up their babies. "I have a baby coming in June, July and August." (After being asked about summer babies). They picked July. And got me. I was diagnosed with CP at 18 months old. Mom and Dad could have returned me for a new baby, they refused to do that. :) So, I am a pro-lifer, but I advocate that a woman should choose to put her child up for adoption. No matter WHAT the circumstances if she doesn't want it.
Jun '10
Re: Pro-Woman
Well said.
I have a niece who could not have children. She and her husband were able to adopt two beautiful daughters. [I did the legal work for them--it's quite easy, especially if you're working with a professional adoption agency].
These were the most joyful things I've done in 37 years as a lawyer. The oldest daughter just entered college. She's a beautiful girl, bright, and self-confident. Her younger sister is following in her footsteps.
The thought that either of them could have been snuffed out by a "medical procedure" sickens me.
God bless the two young women who chose to give life to these girls.
Apr '12
Re: Pro-Woman
As shocking as that is, I would reverse that line of thought and ask: what “good reason” could one give for having a child?
Well, my folks did it, and I'm rather fond of the results, most of the time.
Silliness aside, yes, it is a pretty stand-on-the-shore-yelling-halt kind of vanity to think "oh, I chose to make this life." As any poor couple that's been trying to have kids knows, a mom and dad are required but not sufficient in and of themselves. That's why the Church says we have to be "open to life." It will happen, or it won't, and other than trying to fix physical problems there's not a lot we can do. And the child we get just is-- the designer and consumer, let's-shop-around mentality about kids is kinda freaky to me.
Just think what it will be like if we ever get DNA testing to scifi levels.
Feb '12
Re: Pro-Woman
I don't think there is an unselfish reason to have kids. At least I can't think of one.
Dec '10
Re: Pro-Woman
"If you fought for the woman’s right to kill her child in the first place, you presumably won’t feel yourself responsible for the outcome if she decides to let it live."
You would think so.
Which makes it even more odd that, once the baby is born, our heroine (Let's call her 'Julia') seems to lose the ability to control anything at all, and is encouraged to assume a lifetime posture of victimhood and vulnerability, passively living out her days in thrall to one government handout or another.
Jul '11
Re: Pro-Woman
I normally hold doors open for or give up seats to women. It is part of my upbringing to extend this little courtesy to all women. Mostly women seem to enjoy this little courtesy, some take it as their due, others seem to resent it but tolerate my old fashion manners, there have been a few instances where women have taken me to task for the chauvinistic pig they think I am. It takes all types.
Jul '11
Re: Pro-Woman
I know I am going to get hammered for this opinion, but I am going to put it out there anyway.
As long as abortion is legal and the woman is the only and final decision maker concerning if a child is terminated. Then I do not think that the man should be considered financially, legally or anyway responsible for the child unless he agrees to beforehand.
Feb '11
Re: Pro-Woman
Fake John Galt: I know I am going to get hammered for this opinion, but I am going to put it out there anyway.
As long as abortion is legal and the woman is the only and final decision maker concerning if a child is terminated. Then I do not think that the man should be considered financially, legally or anyway responsible for the child unless he agrees to beforehand. · 4 minutes ago
FJG -- Are you aware that most women chose abortion because they feel pressured to do so by the men in their lives?
Edited on September 6, 2012 at 2:08pmApr '12
Re: Pro-Woman
Fake John Galt:
As long as abortion is legal and the woman is the only and final decision maker concerning if a child is terminated. Then I do not think that the man should be considered financially, legally or anyway responsible for the child unless he agrees to beforehand. · 22 minutes ago
I think it's rational, consistent, and wrong. While it might make women realize that abortion on demand is a powerful enabler for men to use women, it wouldn't do so until after a woman had assumed that the guy whose body is saying he loves her was just having fun, and she finds out that "I'm pregnant" is terrifying...but she doesn't want to end it.
I just can't support doing something so utterly wrong as making yet another cut between the child and his parents.
Apr '12
Re: Pro-Woman
I would support men having a veto option, so long as they'll financially support the woman and the child at least until birth. No idea how someone would make that work, since there would be some women who would lie about their name, whose child it is, etc...it would have to be part of a reform of abortion laws so that due diligence is actually done, even if it means planned parenthood finally starts reporting the child rapes.
Apr '12
Re: Pro-Woman
For the record, maybe it's the places I shop but I've been consistently startled at how nice people are to a small woman with two fairly well behaved small children, or one small child and a baby belly the size of a ship. Part of it might be making eye contact and smiling as much as I can-- normal small town manners, but I notice a lot of folks don't do that-- but I think there really are a lot more decent folks than it sometimes seems.
Nov '11
Re: Pro-Woman
I really smile at the moms who have a little one having a fit in the store. They are embarrassed and look like they just want to sink into the floor. How else will they teach them not to do it if they don't go out in public? Consider Walmart a training ground. A toddler is a frightening sight sometimes and not for the weak.
Edited on September 6, 2012 at 3:46pmJul '11
Re: Pro-Woman
Mama Toad
Fake John Galt: I know I am going to get hammered for this opinion, but I am going to put it out there anyway.
As long as abortion is legal and the woman is the only and final decision maker concerning if a child is terminated. Then I do not think that the man should be considered financially, legally or anyway responsible for the child unless he agrees to beforehand. · 4 minutes ago
FJG -- Are you aware that most women chose abortion because they feel pressured to do so by the men in their lives? · 1 hour ago
Edited 1 hour ago
Maybe, but this is has not been what I have seen in my life. From what I have seen the woman makes the decision with the man having little or no input. These women’s support systems (family, friends, society) seem to reinforce the message that it is the woman’s body and life and the man has no say in it. I also know several women who decided to keep the child but refused to name the father just so that father would have no future legal claims.
Jun '10
Re: Pro-Woman
A hundred years ago, the decision to have children followed naturally from the decision to marry...for younger people anyway. And who could blame young people for wanting to marry? So, children, love them or hate them, were like Spring rain. They were going to come, and there was nobody to "blame" for it. Birth was as natural as a thunderstorm.
May '10
Re: Pro-Woman
Fake John Galt:
As long as abortion is legal and the woman is the only and final decision maker concerning if a child is terminated. Then I do not think that the man should be considered financially, legally or anyway responsible for the child unless he agrees to beforehand. · 2 hours ago
I see this as another way of showing the moral insanity of our abortion laws.
I read a horrible story recently of a man and wife who decided to have a third or fourth child. After the wife got pregnant, she changed her mind and had an abortion. The husband could do nothing, legally, to save his child, though he wanted to desperately.
And yet the same legal system holds him responsible to support the child if the woman decides to have it.
Edited on September 6, 2012 at 4:31pmMar '12
Re: Pro-Woman
Rachel, first, congratulations! Pretty soon some very small person will be looking for, then calling for mom. That word is one of the most brilliant words in the world, and yet insufficient for the meaning behind it.
Second, I don't know about you and your husband, but before we were married, my wife-to-be and I both talked about and understood that we wanted children (plural). Both of us saw children as a gift of God.
My youngest is now 25, soon to be 26, and our surmise, that children are a gift, still holds. May you and yours have a long and fruitful life together.
Jul '11
Re: Pro-Woman
No, a woman has the say over her body. As long as abortion is legal, no individual should have the right to force an unwanted pregnancy on her.
May '12
Re: Pro-Woman
Outstanding! Thank You.
Mar '12
Re: Pro-Woman
Fake John Galt: As long as abortion is legal and the woman is the only and final decision maker concerning if a child is terminated. Then I do not think that the man should be considered financially, legally or anyway responsible for the child unless he agrees to beforehand.
I disagree. Once those people take their pants off, there is an agreement to have sex, and if they are having sex, to live with the results of that sex.
If they don't really care about one another, if they are merely sexual spittoons for one another, they should keep their pants on. The results of keeping one's pants on is that there is no risk of disease, no risk of pregnancy, no risk of abortion or infanticide, no risk of mistaking an action for an emotion that does not exist.
No will to marry and share one's life with another person, no love. Being reduced to a sex object speaks to the values one holds, and their severe limitations. Abortion is a "put paid" to those values.