Keith is a self-described writer who recently fled from one abortion fire, California, into the frying pan of another, Colorado.
Will The Pitter-Patter of Little Feet Get in The Way of Your Fun?
I'm trying to write articles from a Christian/Catholic perspective, Christian first, Catholic second, but that doesn't always mean my ideas conform to the strict doctrines of the Catholic church, or of any Christian denomination whatsoever. Yes I oppose abortion - probably the hottest hot-button faith-based or even secular moral issue of our time, but I am not unreasonable about it, compared to other die-hards who would allow for absolutely no early termination of pregnancy. One way I differ from other Catholics is that I believe a woman should have the right to an abortion in the case of rape. What just and loving God would demand that a victim of sexual assault nurture to fruition the evil seed of the beast who violated her?
When I have discussed this proposal with fellow Catholic associates of mine, none of them agree with me. Absolutely nobody. Even my own wife of 32 years and counting differs from me on this issue. Not so much as a Catholic, which she is, but as a mother, which makes her think that no fetus whatsoever should ever be killed in the womb. She carried her kids to birth and way beyond, and it appalls and horrifies her to think that any mother would decide to do otherwise.
I voice my lack of opposition to abortion in the case of rape just to show you that I've done a lot of thinking on this issue, a lot of thinking for myself. I'm not a blank slate that allows others to scribble their opinions all over me. Chalk dust makes me sneeze. Our creator didn't make little automatons to keep him company, he didn't want mindless robots scurrying around aping his every sentiment. What kind of Father does want that from his children? He gave us free will and a better brain than the rest of the animals, which he expects us to use. He delights in our using it, as long as that use is put to good purpose, to help rather than to harm others.
My major difficulty with eliminating unwanted pregnancy comes with the practice of recreational abortion. What do I mean by recreational abortion? I mean going out on a Friday night, getting drunk or high, meeting a strange man or woman, having sex with them, then deciding to end the pregnancy so it won't interfere with any future fun. Any sex used strictly as a form of fun, with no intention of accepting its consequences, which is conception, falls under the banner of recreation. And any abortion that comes about as a result of eliminating the end result of such recreating, falls under the banner of recreational abortion.
I'm not denying that sex can be fun, it can be a whole lot of fun - God made it that way so we would be fruitful and multiply. I'm just saying that if you want to play, you got to pay. So if you're doing the big nasty, the horizontal hula, shaking the sheets, engaging in amorous congress, make sure you're doing it with someone who will step up and take responsibility for the pitter-patter of little feet that inevitably comes out of it. Preferably this sexual partner of yours should be your husband or wife, or somebody that will make you their husband and wife before or after the water breaks and the miracle of new life comes into the world.
Is a Fetus a "Health Issue?"
One day I realized that you will never hear an abortion advocate call it what it really is - killing babies. My eyes were opened to this fact one day when I was driving to work. It must have been a Saturday - yes I work on Saturday, because instead of my regular old fart AM station I was tuned in to NPR. NPR has some interesting shows on it sometimes - I'm not going to stop listening to it just because you tell me it's too godlessly liberal, but they undoubtedly lean to the left on the issue of abortion. That's okay, their opinions don't threaten mine.
Anyway, on that particular eye-opening day, the self-proclaimed pundits on NPR were talking about the leaked Supreme Court ruling that would overturn Roe v. Wade. During the course of the discussion, I noticed that the talking heads there, who obviously leaned toward the pro-abortion side of the debate, kept referring to it as an issue of women's health. Purely a health-care question, as if a baby is nothing but a tumor or some rotting section of infected tissue that has to come out so the woman will not die. Never once did I hear the self-proclaimed pundits say that abortion involves taking the life of a living, breathing human being.
But lest we forget, I'll remind you of something that the folks at NPR ignore, probably so their own consciences will not be bothered by the implications of murder. A baby is a human being, and as a human being, he or she has a right to health care as well. A pretty important component when looking for a good health plan is finding one where you will not die. True, abortion is a health issue, just like those deep thinkers on NPR said, but the health of two human beings is involved here, the health of the infant inside the womb, and the health of the mother. The goal is to make sure both are alive and kicking, once the pregnancy is over.
Is this strictly some mystical, metaphysical concept I am arguing for, purely the capricious whim of some invisible God who cannot be proven by science protecting the lives of the unborn by pulling the puppet strings of followers blinded by fanaticism? Absolutely not. Our own Declaration of Independence, the document upon which this country was founded, espouses the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for all people. All men are created equal, and all that. It's hardly ever a reality in this country, but it's a noble goal to try for. Do babies not fall under the definition of people too? If not people, what are they? Boils, cysts, malignant growths that need to be extracted because of the peril they represent to the health of their hosts?
Is Abortion a Population Control Issue?
Allow me a couple of additional observations upon abortion to wrap up the article, some that perhaps don't necessarily relate to abortion as a recreational activity, but are nonetheless relevant to the discussion.
First of all, a person very close to me, and I'm sure plenty of others too, look upon abortion as a means of population control. There are too many people in the world, says he, and abortion is a way of limiting the exponentially multiplying ranks of humanity that are putting far too much pressure on the world's finite resources.
I agree that there are too many people on the planet. When God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply, the Earth's population was precisely two. In other words, at that point there was still a lot of room to spread out. We now have about 8 billion living on this lovely rock, and that's double the folks we had when I was a kid, about 45 years ago. Is the Earth's population going to double every 50 years? If so, there's no way to sustain that. As it is, even here in relatively sparsely populated North America, we are already drinking the rivers dry. The Colorado River, a stream that sustains approximately 40 million people, no longer reaches the sea. I read the other day that the Great Salt Lake is drying up too, turning into a desert of toxic arsenic dust because the mountain runoff that used to flow into it has been tapped dry. How can we keep that up? We can't. My friend is right - well, half right.
But just like genocide is not the answer to culling the human herd, neither is abortion. Leaving religion out of it, one of those practices is highly offensive in the eyes of civilized people, and the other should be, but oddly is not. The real solution is to limit the number of children we conceive, not to kill them once we can hear their heartbeat. I'm sure when the big guy upstairs sees us wrecking his handiwork, he understands that be fruitful and multiply needs a little modification as a guiding reproductive principle.
The second idea I want to discuss in pinning the tail on my braying donkey here, is to denounce the declaration leveled at men by abortion advocates, as one way to silence the debate. You're a man, you don't have a right to an opinion on things that affect womens' bodies. The issue is not pertinent to you.
I tend to disagree with the assertion. Since approximately half of the human beings born to women are male, I think the issue is exceedingly pertinent to us men too. Since girls and boys alike are going to be butchered, both sexes have a right to complain about it.
But even if I agree to shut off my overflowing faucet, there are plenty of women who will sustain the stream with their voices of dissent. The anti-abortion platform is not composed exclusively of domineering males who want to control womens' bodies. According to the Gallup organization, 48% of women say that abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances, as opposed to 53% of men. The pie-chart slice for those who think it should be illegal under all circumstances shows 12% of women, 14% of men. In other words, although your lies, damn lies and statistics vary depending which organization is putting their finger on the pulse, and who is paying for the survey, no matter how you slice that pie there are plenty of women who will lend their voice to the abortion debate, even if you manage to stuff a sock into this unqualified man's pie hole.
Except for my personal circle of family and friends, apparently, numbers like these demonstrate that most Americans are like me, they are reasonable on the issue of abortion. Though they might be practicing Christians themselves, they are not swallowing everything the pastor and the priest tells them, hook line and sinker. Thinking people acknowledge reasonable circumstances in which abortion is acceptable, but draw the line at recreational abortion being exercised as a safety valve for the consequences of promiscuous sex.