Carol Platt Liebau: The Pro-Choice Mind

Sunday, February 12, 2006

The Pro-Choice Mind

Read this pitiful piece by a self described pro-choice feminist Christian, who has apparently had more than one abortion (at the end, she mentions that "I have had my abortions, and I have had a child.").

Of course the decision to have an abortion must be a difficult and agonizing one. But other than cases of rape, incest, life of the mother at risk or severe fetal deformity, it's worth asking: How, in an era of inexpensive, readily available and highly effective contraception, does an educated woman come to have several abortions?

The author argues that , there are, indeed, two lives implicated in the decision to abort -- "one born (the pregnant woman) and one not (the fetus)." But where, from that, does it ineluctably follow that "the born person must be allowed to decide what is right"? The interest in life between the mother and the unborn baby is equivalent, really, only in cases when the mother runs a chance of dying as a result of the childbirth (and in such a case, few reasonable people would challenge a decision to abort). In most cases, as inconvenient and unwelcome and potentially embarassing as a pregnancy might be, a woman's "life" is not literally at stake in the same way that an unborn baby's is.

But perhaps the saddest part of the piece as a whole is the anger underlying it. Where does that come from? How did it happen? And consider whether, perhaps, the author is more to be pitied than blamed.


Blogger Orphan in Bama said...

Self-justification can indeed be ugly.


1:26 PM  
Blogger wile e coyote said...

The attached article has all the self-absorbtion of a Seinfeld episode without the humor or self-awareness.

Look at home much space the author devotes to descrbing her own feelings of righteous indignation and upset rather than the matter at hand.

Her "it's all about me" mindset largely explains her general approach, as well as her specific views.

We ought not pity her, Carol. She does enough of that on her own.

3:30 PM  
Blogger nk said...

I know you are a conservative from reading your posts at ConfirmThem. Ronald Reagan asked for a Right to Life Amendment 25 years ago. It does not even have to be absolute. It can be like the 21st -- leave it up to the wisdom or foolishness of each individual jurisdiction. So why is the Senate debating an amendment to ban same-sex marriage (;_ylt=ArUA2GiVp8NU7Z26E4mx.8SyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--), an "I could not care less" issue for most Americans, and not a Right to Life Amendment?

5:49 PM  
Blogger Larry Who said...

After reading the attached article about the lady, do you know what really bothers me? She described herself as a Christian.

So, you ask why should that bother you? Christians come in all sizes, shapes and beliefs, don't they?

Actually, Christians are to be like Christ. And can you imagine Jesus ever agreeing to anything as evil as abortion. I can't.

But the real shame for me is maybe this woman is my neighbor and she hasn't noticed anything different about me that would make her want to be a true follower of the Lord. Maybe the answer is for me to act more like Jesus and then she might change some of her opinions.

Paraphrasing Pogo, "We Christians have met the enemy, and it's us."

8:58 AM  
Blogger suek said...

>>So why is the Senate debating an amendment to ban same-sex marriage (url deleted) an "I could not care less" issue for most Americans, and not a Right to Life Amendment?>>

I'm not in the Senate, so I can't give you an answer, but I'd guess that while both probably should be a state's issue, the abortion issue is a point in time issue, and the marriage issue is a linear issue. I'm not sure that's a right way to phrase it, but if an abortion is done, it's done. If there is a marriage, it can cover years, many different states, and many different federal issues. Unless there is an overarching definition of what marriages are recognized, complications will be almost unlimited.

9:01 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home