Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. List
III. Post-Script on Sexual Ethics
IV. Post-Script on Planned Parenthood
V. Conclusion
Content
I. Introduction
If you support a total ban on abortion, and/or support treating abortion as if it were murder, then here are eleven things that you also support, by implication. You may not be aware of it, but these are problems which are almost certain to result from the full legal prohibition of abortions.
In my opinion, any extreme pro-life position, supporting a total ban on abortion, ought to have a general abortion policy which at least attempts to solve each one of these problems, if it is to be taken seriously.
II. List
1. Dangerous back-alley abortions, and attempts at auto-abortion, including by intentional drug overdose.
2. Putting abortion doctors in prison (i.e., next to rapists, child traffickers, and murderers of human beings whose mothers have already given birth to them).
3. Forcing adult women who are the victims of rape, to give birth against their will. (Reminder: Telling a woman that she should have kept her legs closed, does not solve this problem. Not only can pregnancy, male orgasm, and implantation of the embryo, occur without the woman's orgasm; they can all also occur without the woman's consent.)
4. Putting would-be mothers in prison, next to murderers, and (ironically) rapists.
5. Treating women who seek abortions as if they were murderers, in the fullest sense possible; i.e, charging them with murder with malice of forethought, and potentially even executing women for seeking (or maybe even simply wanting) abortions.
6. Forcing female children who have been raped, to give birth against their will. (Reminder: Telling an underage girl that she should have saved herself for marriage, does not solve this problem. Especially if the girl was taken advantage of by a significantly older male partner who ought to be mature enough to consider himself a supervisor of girls in his presence, rather than their potential sex partner).
7. Executing children for aborting their rapists' fetus. (I consider this tantamount to executing children for the "crime" of getting raped - that is, with several important caveats - provided that the child is female, gets pregnant as the result of that rape, and seeks an abortion to remedy the problem).
8. Child marriage, and having no punishment for adult men who impregnate underage girls and then intimidate and/or manipulate them into getting married in order to make their relationship acceptable to the law.
9. Forcing children who were conceived in rape, to be near the father who raped their mother. As of 2017, seven states require a parent to share custody, even if the other parent is a convicted rapist. Allowing a child to grow up near a rapist, and learn their life lessons from that rapist - whether it's their biological father or not - could not only damage the child's ability to acquire a keen sense of ethical judgment, it could even expose the child to the risks of being physically or even sexually abused while in that parent's custody.
10. The excommunication of women and children who seek abortions, as well as the excommunication of abortion doctors, by the Catholic Church. (That is, if you are a Catholic, and agree with the Church's extreme pro-life position that anyone who gets an abortion should be excommunicated.)
11. Forcing mothers to give birth in states and regions in which the material conditions supporting childbirth-giving and life are sub-par, and thus not hospitable to the survival of either the mother or the child. These include locations with statistically low survival rates for babies and mothers who have recently given birth, as well as locations plagued by pollution and ongoing environmental catastrophes.
I should also note that it would be especially absurd to support consequences #7 through #10 of banning abortion, considering the high death rate of women who give birth at especially young ages, as compared to older mothers.
III. Post-Script on Sexual Ethics:
Many extreme pro-life Christians, and other conservative groups who tend to oppose abortion, will argue that "not all cultures are equal". The implication of this slogan, to put it tactfully, is to assert that Christian ethics are superior to Islamic ethics. To put it less tactfully, it's to say that Christians are civilized, while Muslims are savages.
While much of the notion that "Muslims are savages" are based on political and military relations with the Islamic world (especially with the U.S. and Israel), the notion is also motivated by the religions' compared sexual ethics, especially as it pertains to the treatment of women, and adult-child relationships.
The pro-life, anti-Islamic Christian will often claim that Muslims are not only savages, but child rapists, because the prophet Muhammad married his wife Aisha when she was nine years old, took her virginity at 12, and commanded his followers to do something similar. Christians in the West will also criticize the Islamic world for the prevalence of F.G.M. (female genital mutilation) within it.
These practices are appalling, as well they should be. But they do not necessarily prove that Christian sexual ethics are superior to Islamic sexual ethics; nor to Jewish sexual ethics for that matter.
As a reminder, Jews and Christians practice male circumcision (Jews routinely, Christians less often), while eschewing female circumcision (a more radical procedure than male circumcision); while in most majority-Muslim countries, the opposite is true. Moreover, the Jewish coming-of-age ceremonies of Bar Mitzvah and Bat Mitzvah are celebrated at the age of thirteen, and there is a passage in the Talmud that says a man has not taken a girl's virginity if he has intercourse with her before she turns three.
Additionally, Christian sects such as Catholicism, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormonism), Jehovah's Witnesses, and others, have acquired a reputation over the last few decades as being plagued with child sexual abuse. Mormon sect leader and polygamist Warren Jeffs, for example, took brides as young as twelve, while his adult and older teenage brides were slowly manipulated and intimidated into accepting these new wives as their "sister-wives among equals" (although Jeffs' favoritism for his youngest brides nevertheless showed).
Moreover, there are still states in the majority-Christian U.S. which are plagued with legal and illegal child marriage, as well as low thresholds in age of consent laws. Texas currently prohibits child marriage, but it has more legally married minors than any other state. New Hampshire recently raised its marriage age to 16, while New Jersey and New York still allow the marriage of children between 14 and 16 provided that a parent and/or a judge has given permission.
Colorado was the most recent state that enforced an age of consent below 16 (it was 15). Many states used to set that age much lower, and some states even went years at a time without such laws in their early histories. Although "Romeo and Juliet laws" allowing teen relationships, are well-meaning, new federal laws establishing a range of ages of consent, is not necessarily a buffer against states having low ages of consent as intended; there's a federal law that accidentally lowered the age of consent laws of twenty states, and accidentally provided young child traffickers a loophole and legal incentive to take their victims over state lines. (And I use the word "accidentally" loosely; it's hard to tell whether these legislators indeed know what they're doing sometimes.)
Granted, many "hippies" and left-wing groups have too, so it should not be discounted that leftist and liberal cultures experience these abuses too. But that should not figure into the issue of which of the major three Abrahamic faiths are the most attentive to the rights of women and children to be free from men's attempts to force them into sex, marriage, and ritual cutting of the genitals.
In my opinion, on that issue, the jury is out. Especially if these American state and federal laws providing unreasonably low ages for consent to sex and marriage, are in any way inspired by Christian ethics. And the statement of Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie concerning why he opposed efforts to raise the age of legal marriage in that state - predicated on "respecting the liberty of religious groups" there - leads me to conclude that these laws on sexual ethics are motivated by a desire to stay true to Christian principles.
And my observation that most of the people who support a low age for legal marriage, also oppose abortion, lead me to wonder whether some of these people simply want to keep child marriage legal for the purpose of raping and impregnating a child, whom they can then use as a brood mare to create children (and maybe even child brides) for them.
IV. Post-Script on Planned Parenthood:
Finally, I have to comment about several issues related to abortion, which have been raised to me by pro-life libertarian-conservative activist Merissa Hamilton, with whom I've recently exchanged some tweets concerning the role of Planned Parenthood in all of this.
I do not dispute the allegation that Planned Parenthood overlooks, and fails to report, underage mothers who come into their facilities in order to abort their fetuses, whether conceived in rape or not. While it is a tragedy that people rape children and get children pregnant, it is not the business of Planned Parenthood to act as if it were a law enforcement agency.
Granted, there are some legal barriers to children, and women in general, reporting rape (because there are statutes of limitations on reporting sexual abuse and sexual assault in many states), but New York and Illinois have recently begun to dismantle such laws, a movement to do the same is underfoot elsewhere in the country, and turning Planned Parenthood employees into police officers is not going to help solve the problem of children suffering from unwanted pregnancies.
A child who goes into Planned Parenthood is already pregnant, and has already been raped. Going after the child's rapist with criminal charges will undoubtedly make the child safer (if successful), but arresting the rapist does not make the child no longer pregnant. And terminating pregnancies is the business of Planned Parenthood; making arrests is not.
Lastly, I cannot agree with Merissa Hamilton's assertion that it would be wrong for Planned Parenthood to give an abortion to an underage child because it would be tantamount to destroying the evidence that a rape has occurred. I say this for several reasons.
First, because a fetus is not evidence that a rape has occurred, any more than it is evidence that a rape has not occurred. You cannot tell, by looking at a fetus - nor by examining its genetics - whether it was conceived in rape. Plenty of pro-lifers, in fact, will try to convince you that the fact that the baby exists, is evidence that the mother consented! This is rubbish, of course, as I explained in my defense of point #3.
Second, because even if a fetus can be evidence that a rape has occurred, it is far from the only evidence that a rape has occurred. Rape usually leaves plenty of evidence, both physical and emotional. Ripped and bloody clothing and underwear. Torn and bruised genitalia. Emotional and mental scars that can be testified about in open court and sworn to. Aborting a fetus conceived in rape, by no means, gets rid of all the evidence that a rape has occurred.
Third and last, it is patently ridiculous to describe a fetus as "evidence that a rape has occurred". Pro-lifers spend plenty of time explaining how "every fetus is a unique, innocent gift from God with the potential to do good", etc.. It's quite a leap from praising the holiness of the innocent fetus, to describing it as a mere piece of evidence in a criminal case, no different from any other piece, such as a piece of clothing, a murder weapon, a brick containing a bullet fragment, etc..
V. Conclusion
To make a play on the popular pro-choice slogan, "If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child", Merissa Hamilton's absurd assertion that a fetus is criminal evidence, prompts me to make up a new slogan, and that is this:
"If you can't trust me with a choice, then how can you trust me with physical evidence that a crime has been committed?"
If a fetus is simply "evidence that a crime has been committed", then shouldn't it be removed from its mother's womb as soon as possible, because it belongs in a police evidence locker?
Yes, I am joking, and yes, I am serious.
Pro-lifers are the reason why people abort their children. I don't want children to have to grow up in a world in which they're forced to submit to and marry much older men, and produce more child servants and child brides for them without the chance of legal repercussions.
In my opinion, anyone who proposes banning abortion, yet doesn't have a solution to at least a few of the eleven problems I've enumerated herein, should not be listened to, nor should their ideas be entertained.
Even televangelist Pat Robertson recently commented that an outright ban on abortion, without exceptions for rape and incest, is "going too far", especially in terms of its (ahem) viability in court.
However, I still take a strong anti-government stance that abortions should not be publicly funded, even if the fetus was conceived in rape or incest, but I still think that those procedures should be legal (while funded privately or charitably).
And when speaking about abortion laws (especially the Hyde Amendment), we should be careful to distinguish between motivations for abortion which are banned from receiving public funding, versus motivations for abortion which would be criminalized outright.
While it is desirable to "lower the number of abortions", restricting access to abortion is not necessarily the solution to these problems, even if it does achieve that single objective.
There are other things that can lower the number of abortions, without interfering with mothers' freedoms (freedoms, not positive rights) to get abortions. Namely, 1) keeping abortion legal while encouraging mothers to give their children up for adoption; 2) building a safer, cleaner world that treats children less harshly; and 3) continue to research and develop medical technology which will allow people to choose surrogacy, fetal transplants, and external incubation of extracted embryos, as alternatives to abortion.
And my observation that most of the people who support a low age for legal marriage, also oppose abortion, lead me to wonder whether some of these people simply want to keep child marriage legal for the purpose of raping and impregnating a child, whom they can then use as a brood mare to create children (and maybe even child brides) for them.
IV. Post-Script on Planned Parenthood:
Finally, I have to comment about several issues related to abortion, which have been raised to me by pro-life libertarian-conservative activist Merissa Hamilton, with whom I've recently exchanged some tweets concerning the role of Planned Parenthood in all of this.
I do not dispute the allegation that Planned Parenthood overlooks, and fails to report, underage mothers who come into their facilities in order to abort their fetuses, whether conceived in rape or not. While it is a tragedy that people rape children and get children pregnant, it is not the business of Planned Parenthood to act as if it were a law enforcement agency.
Granted, there are some legal barriers to children, and women in general, reporting rape (because there are statutes of limitations on reporting sexual abuse and sexual assault in many states), but New York and Illinois have recently begun to dismantle such laws, a movement to do the same is underfoot elsewhere in the country, and turning Planned Parenthood employees into police officers is not going to help solve the problem of children suffering from unwanted pregnancies.
A child who goes into Planned Parenthood is already pregnant, and has already been raped. Going after the child's rapist with criminal charges will undoubtedly make the child safer (if successful), but arresting the rapist does not make the child no longer pregnant. And terminating pregnancies is the business of Planned Parenthood; making arrests is not.
Lastly, I cannot agree with Merissa Hamilton's assertion that it would be wrong for Planned Parenthood to give an abortion to an underage child because it would be tantamount to destroying the evidence that a rape has occurred. I say this for several reasons.
First, because a fetus is not evidence that a rape has occurred, any more than it is evidence that a rape has not occurred. You cannot tell, by looking at a fetus - nor by examining its genetics - whether it was conceived in rape. Plenty of pro-lifers, in fact, will try to convince you that the fact that the baby exists, is evidence that the mother consented! This is rubbish, of course, as I explained in my defense of point #3.
Second, because even if a fetus can be evidence that a rape has occurred, it is far from the only evidence that a rape has occurred. Rape usually leaves plenty of evidence, both physical and emotional. Ripped and bloody clothing and underwear. Torn and bruised genitalia. Emotional and mental scars that can be testified about in open court and sworn to. Aborting a fetus conceived in rape, by no means, gets rid of all the evidence that a rape has occurred.
Third and last, it is patently ridiculous to describe a fetus as "evidence that a rape has occurred". Pro-lifers spend plenty of time explaining how "every fetus is a unique, innocent gift from God with the potential to do good", etc.. It's quite a leap from praising the holiness of the innocent fetus, to describing it as a mere piece of evidence in a criminal case, no different from any other piece, such as a piece of clothing, a murder weapon, a brick containing a bullet fragment, etc..
V. Conclusion
To make a play on the popular pro-choice slogan, "If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child", Merissa Hamilton's absurd assertion that a fetus is criminal evidence, prompts me to make up a new slogan, and that is this:
"If you can't trust me with a choice, then how can you trust me with physical evidence that a crime has been committed?"
If a fetus is simply "evidence that a crime has been committed", then shouldn't it be removed from its mother's womb as soon as possible, because it belongs in a police evidence locker?
Yes, I am joking, and yes, I am serious.
Pro-lifers are the reason why people abort their children. I don't want children to have to grow up in a world in which they're forced to submit to and marry much older men, and produce more child servants and child brides for them without the chance of legal repercussions.
In my opinion, anyone who proposes banning abortion, yet doesn't have a solution to at least a few of the eleven problems I've enumerated herein, should not be listened to, nor should their ideas be entertained.
Even televangelist Pat Robertson recently commented that an outright ban on abortion, without exceptions for rape and incest, is "going too far", especially in terms of its (ahem) viability in court.
However, I still take a strong anti-government stance that abortions should not be publicly funded, even if the fetus was conceived in rape or incest, but I still think that those procedures should be legal (while funded privately or charitably).
And when speaking about abortion laws (especially the Hyde Amendment), we should be careful to distinguish between motivations for abortion which are banned from receiving public funding, versus motivations for abortion which would be criminalized outright.
While it is desirable to "lower the number of abortions", restricting access to abortion is not necessarily the solution to these problems, even if it does achieve that single objective.
There are other things that can lower the number of abortions, without interfering with mothers' freedoms (freedoms, not positive rights) to get abortions. Namely, 1) keeping abortion legal while encouraging mothers to give their children up for adoption; 2) building a safer, cleaner world that treats children less harshly; and 3) continue to research and develop medical technology which will allow people to choose surrogacy, fetal transplants, and external incubation of extracted embryos, as alternatives to abortion.
To learn more about topic #9, please visit this link:
To learn more about topic #10, please visit this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Brazilian_girl_abortion_case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Brazilian_girl_abortion_case
Thanks to Justin Addeo for contributing point #11.
To learn more about the federal age of consent law I mentioned in the post-script on sexual ethics, please visit:
http://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-unanimously-overrules-statutory-rape_b_592edaede4b017b267edff12
To learn more about the realistic and practical applications of "surrogacy, fetal transplants, and external incubation of extracted embryos" as alternatives to abortion, and the reasoning behind this idea, please visit the following links:
http://www.quora.com/What-would-it-take-to-transplant-a-fetus-from-one-womb-to-another
To learn more about the realistic and practical applications of "surrogacy, fetal transplants, and external incubation of extracted embryos" as alternatives to abortion, and the reasoning behind this idea, please visit the following links:
http://www.quora.com/What-would-it-take-to-transplant-a-fetus-from-one-womb-to-another
Based on notes taken on June 4th, 2019
Article (including post-script) written and published on June 5th, 2019
Edited and Expanded on June 26th, 2019
Edited and Expanded on June 26th, 2019
No comments:
Post a Comment