Prolife Blogs today points to the assertion of Christina Page that
Study after study proves that contraceptive use is the only way to prevent abortion; the places on earth contraception is most available are also where abortion is most rare.
Most rational people might be tempted to say, "The only way to prevent abortions is...not to have one." But that answer is unacceptable in feminist and other liberal circles.
Like many other pro-abortion advocates, this assertion seems to be built on the supposition that sexual activity is inevitable, beyond the choice of the woman or the ability to choose NOT to have sexual activity. Indeed, sexual activity seems to be as assumed as breathing. From where would such a supposition spring?
It seems to issue from the belief that since our bodies are biologically capable of sexual acts, they should therefore be utilized for sexual acts at any and every time possible. The possibility that a woman might choose not to have sex, or to exercise restraint about when and who they will have sex with, seems inconceivable. The old saying "I think, therefore I am" might be adapted to express this liberal truth: "I am, therefore I have sex."
Within this subject there appears to be another assumption that contraception, if used, will always work. That isn't always the case. Even oral contraceptives, the most reliable form of birth control for decades, sometimes fails. (I have two children that I love dearly, both of whom prove that it can fail).
Contraception can certainly reduce the odds of getting pregnant, and by extension the odds that women who consider abortion as a contraceptive option will actually end up exercising that option.
But just because a woman gets pregnant doesn't automatically mean that the pregnancy must end in abortion, as seems to be a parallel assumption. Pro-abortion liberals seem to automatically assume that women are incapable of performing the selfless act of allowing the child (which was conceived because of an act she performed) to develop inside her body and be born.
Getting bent out of shape that pregnancy sometimes results from sexual intercourse is like getting bent out of shape because you walked out into a field, spread around some corn seed, and then, by golly, corn sprang up. Reproduction is the natural outcome of sexual intercourse, especially at certain times of the month. Being incredulous that a pregnancy results from sexual intercourse is about as logical as being incredulous that the grass in your lawn is green after having run your sprinkler.
The only thing is, even if you are upset by such outcomes, you can chop down your corn rows or mow your grass without destroying human life. I have no problem with mowing your lawn, and I have no problem with contraception...as long as human life isn't destroyed in the process. And since the unborn child has a unique set of human DNA from the moment of conception, it can't be anything other than "human life."
In making these progressive assumptions (that sex must happen and pregnancies must be aborted), maybe they're just following through with the Darwinian perspective most liberals hold today: that humans are simply highly evolved animals.
Animals for the most part act on instinct and do not make make reasoned decisions. Perhaps in the tortured logic of liberals, this extends to women being unable to do anything other than have sex and then abort the resulting child. (How sad it must be for a human being to be so governed by their biology that they cannot act intelligently, ruled only by their instincts with one inevitable outcome.)
But it might also be said that even animals sometimes surpass the "humanity" of humans. You see, very few mothers in the animal kingdom intentionally kill their offspring, while about 1 million mothers a year kill their children in America.
Maybe the Darwinists are onto something. Maybe humans are more animalistic than any other animal?
0 comments:
Post a Comment