Matt on Abortion, Part I
I am familiar with the arguments in favor of abortion rights; I move in lefty circles, and the majority of my left-liberal friends and acquaintances believe that the choice to procure an abortion is between a woman and her doctor. They believe that controlling her fertility is a basic right women must not be denied; women have a right to determine what happens with and in her body; it is about a woman’s right to self-determination and autonomy.
But years ago, I was at the home of a friend whose daughter was a meth addict (I’ve lived an interesting life…) and the daughter had discovered that she was pregnant – and did nothing for well over 4 months. She eventually went to a clinic for an abortion – her mother and I learned of this some time after that when daughter screamed for her mother from the bathroom.
I won’t go into any detail about what happened next, but I will say that what ended up on her bathroom floor rendered irrelevant any consideration of her daughter “controlling her body” – there on the bathroom floor — tiny, vulnerable, and dead — was the…aftermath of a 4-plus–months-along abortion.
When I hear women say “I have a right to control my body,” I agree with them – control of one’s body is one of the most basic rights there is, and that is what is so heinous about crimes like torture and rape.
And it is true that women have been controlled by abusive husbands throughout history by being impregnated — with the specific purpose of complicating her escape from the abuse. This is an appalling offense in my view -it is both using something that should be a blessing into a means of torment, and adding a likely future victim to asshole husband’s list – and abortion is used to destroy the effectiveness of that particular tactic. It is worth reflecting on the gravity of that offense, that women would be willing to respond with so radical a response. Any legal restrictions on abortion ought to be accompanied by some other means to make the price of that particular form of abuse something that would make Faust blanch.
But what was on that bathroom floor that day had no role in any of that history. It was not a “means of oppression,” it was not a “part of her body,” at least not in the same way her liver, or even uterus, is; it (she, actually) was undeniably a Being in her own right, and she was tiny, vulnerable, and dead. For me, that will always be the inescapable reality of what abortion is. For me, that reality decisively undermines any claim that the abortion issue is all about the autonomy of women’s bodies. There is another body to account for. That body is deserving of protection from the law as well.
Comments are closed.
In some of my hospital chaplaincy work I had ministered to parents who had stillbirths at 17-21 weeks. We would say prayers over the child’s remains, and though he/she looked “different” than us– in the presence of grieving/loving parents he/she was as human and precious as any child.
When I think about the bitter tears those parents shed over the death of their beloved child, it boggles the mind that one “choose” to destroy these beloved creatures. When infertility and sickness keep so many loving homes childless, it seems even greater an injustice that healthy children would be denied to ever take their first breath.
Lord, have mercy.
It is a good post, relying on facts. A note: a woman having control of her own body seems to assume that it begins after impregnation. Are women so feeble, so childish that they cannot control their bodies and resist impregnation.
I realize that rape is used as a general bugaboo. But how common is it really?
Gabriel, I believe certain statistics put it in the neighborhood of 1-2%. Only another 10-15% are “medically necessary” and an overwhelming majority of abortions (in the U.S.) are elective.
In cases of mental illness and addiction, we routinely rob people of the “control of their own bodies” .
But anti-abortion laws would treat all women everywhere as if they were meth addicts.
It is not clear to me that the hellish situation you describe would have been less hellish if abortion were completely illegal.
I didn’t mention rape in the post, but yes, I have heard the numbers (and also the numbers for incest) are a negligible factor in the annual abortion stats.
Gabriel Austin – one thing I’d like to mention is that when you say,
…I wonder exactly what you’re getting at? You seem (and correct me if I’m mistaken) to put the responsibility for getting pregnant primarily with the woman: she is the “gatekeeper” to her, um, reproductive system, and has only herself to blame if she gets pregnant.
A woman is indeed the “gatekeeper” to her fertility. I don’t think she should solely “blame” herself if a new life is created. But that is where a woman’s choice belongs; before the procreative act.
Katharine – you appear to be a new commenter here at VN? If so, welcome.
Quick story: a bunch of years ago, a guy I knew in my Army platoon got a local girl pregnant. I asked him what he was going to do – would he marry the girl? He responded that he didn’t know – he didn’t really care about her that much, she was just a fling, and he wanted her to “get rid of it” (that’s verbatim).
I told him in no uncertain terms that I thought he should “man up” and do the right thing – marry her and help her raise the baby they made together.
“If she didn’t want a baby, she should’ve never opened her legs,” he said, dismissing the subject. He rotated overseas soon after that conversation. I seem to recall that the girl procured an abortion before he left.
If she didn’t want a baby, she should’ve never opened her legs.
That’s what I’m talking about.
Thank you for this post, Matt.
Are women so feeble, so childish that they cannot control their bodies and resist impregnation.
This is one of the most sexist comments I have ever seen on this blog. And that is saying a lot.
I realize that rape is used as a general bugaboo. But how common is it really?
This is probably the second most sexist comment I have seen on this blog. Rape as a “general bugaboo.”
How common is rape? One in two women that you know have probably been raped.
Thank you so much for that post Matt. It must have been a traumatic event for that poor young woman. And you. What I find significant in all of this is the fact that she was victimized by meth dealers, victimized by the man who impregnated her, and then victimized again by the abortion industry. And victimizing the mother victimizes the child. That child was victimized every time the mother was.
The thing is, men are as responsible for abortion as pro-abortion politicians.
Lord, that we may have a change in our hearts! We live in a democratic republic. Our laws reflect our character. That abortion is legal and protected is testament to our lack of character as a people. There is no hope for us if we do not change. We need conversion to Christ, one person at a time, to heal this. That is the only solution to our society’s ills.
“The thing is, men are as responsible for abortion as pro-abortion politicians. ”
If by “men” you mean the fathers of these children, such as the GI Matt describes, then I would say that they are quite a bit MORE responsible than pro-abortion politicians, no?
“The thing is, men are as responsible for abortion as pro-abortion politicians.”
What are the causal linkages that make clear the responsibility of a national politician for an act committed by an individual citizen?
Are you also saying by inference that Sen. Jon Kyle (pro-life) is is less responsible for a woman’s decision to have an abortion than Sen. Chris Dodd (pro-choce)? Can you explain the causality involved here?
It must have been a traumatic event for that poor young woman. And you.
Well, yes – it’s not a memory I enjoy entertaining. Let’s just say it’s come up in therapy once or twice…
Lord, that we may have a change in our hearts!
Amen!
phosphorious writes September 3, 2009 at 2:19 pm
“In cases of mental illness and addiction, we routinely rob people of the “control of their own bodies” .
It is not to the point, but who’s the “we’?
“But anti-abortion laws would treat all women everywhere as if they were meth addicts”.
Why always the shift in topic? [Don't answer. I know why]. That a large majority of woman choose to copulate foolishly has nothing to do with laws about abortion. Whether laws can prevent abortion is a complex and complicated issue. Even God could not prevent Eve eating the apple “which brought mortal death to us, and all our woe”.
But abortion may be discouraged now, as it was before. It is and should be depicted as a vile procedure, the recourse of whores and prostitutes, performed by men with initials after their names [Susan B. Anthony] and unworthy of women.
Matt Talbot Says September 3, 2009 at 9:58 pm
“Gabriel Austin – one thing I’d like to mention is that when you say,
“Are women so feeble, so childish that they cannot control their bodies and resist impregnation”.
…I wonder exactly what you’re getting at? You seem (and correct me if I’m mistaken) to put the responsibility for getting pregnant primarily with the woman: she is the “gatekeeper” to her, um, reproductive system, and has only herself to blame if she gets pregnant”.
You are mistaken. I do not use “primarily” and “only herself to blame”. Evidently it takes two to tango.
My point was directed against those who attempt to paint the “hopeless shivering creature” who is forced against her will. My Irish family with its strong-minded women would have none of such feebleness among its women. My mother to a cousin who complained that a boy had gotten fresh with her: “Don’t whine if the motor goes when you’ve pressed on the starter”.
[...]
In your concern for social justice you seem to overlook that Planned UnParenthood is a big business, its practitioners living comfortably in suburbia, raking in millions each year, and generally on the back of the poor women. Talk about sexist!
In your concern for social justice you seem to overlook that Planned UnParenthood is a big business… etc etc.
I don’t “overlook” that at all. I agree with this. The subtle sexism of Planned Parenthood, though, does not take away from your own brutal and obvious sexism.
you seem to overlook that Planned UnParenthood is a big business
My friend, Father Sirico tells me that running a business is a very virtuous vocation.
Gabriel Austin,
“In cases of mental illness and addiction, we routinely rob people of the “control of their own bodies” .
It is not to the point, but who’s the “we’?
“We”, in this context is the law. If someone is declared mentally unfit. . . suicidal, for example. . . the law provides for a sharp curtailing of their rights. We do not trust such people to know what is good for them. Anti-abortion laws would make it a matter of legal principle that all women are of the mental status of meth-heads.
Then:
“But anti-abortion laws would treat all women everywhere as if they were meth addicts”.
Why always the shift in topic?
What shift in topic?
“It is and should be depicted as a vile procedure, the recourse of whores and prostitutes, performed by men with initials after their names [Susan B. Anthony] and unworthy of women.”
Ah. . . the nineteenth century! When men were men, and women were chattel, and when a man had spoken, that was that!
Michael J. Iafrate writes September 4, 2009 at 2:41 pm
“The subtle sexism of Planned Parenthood, though, does not take away from your own brutal and obvious sexism”.
As for instance…
My “sexism” I learned from the nuns and the women in my family. They had little patience with girls who used the “poor little me” excuse. They believed and believe that women are strong creatures, on the whole stronger than men.
phosphorious writes September 4, 2009 at 3:46 pm
“But anti-abortion laws would treat all women everywhere as if they were meth addicts”.
‘Why always the shift in topic?’
‘What shift in topic?’
From what abortion is, to how to prevent it.
You seem to believe can only be done by law. It is a complex and complicated issue. Should the law be involved in drug use? should it be involved in drunkenness?
Is the child in the womb a person ["A person's a person no matter how small"] to be protected by the law? According to Peter Singer – that dim light in the academic word – a child is entitled to protection only after several months out of the womb.
phosphorious writes September 4, 2009 at 3:48 pm
“It is and should be depicted as a vile procedure, the recourse of whores and prostitutes, performed by men with initials after their names [Susan B. Anthony] and unworthy of women.”
‘Ah. . . the nineteenth century! When men were men, and women were chattel, and when a man had spoken, that was that!’
Is there a point to this message? Mrs. Anthony was certainly no man’s chattel. She was certainly not a man.
Kurt Says September 4, 2009 at 3:10 pm
“you seem to overlook that Planned UnParenthood is a big business”
“My friend, Father Sirico tells me that running a business is a very virtuous vocation”.
Who’s Father Sirico? Do I care? If he thinks that Planned UnParenthood is a good thing, I can but say that you keep some strange company.
My “sexism” I learned from the nuns and the women in my family. They had little patience with girls who used the “poor little me” excuse. They believed and believe that women are strong creatures, on the whole stronger than men.
Sounds like you had some great teachers, and I mean that.
But your comment above, the one you made, and the one you are responsible for, was sexist.
Michael J. Iafrate September 5, 2009 at 3:28 pm
“My “sexism” I learned from the nuns and the women in my family. They had little patience with girls who used the “poor little me” excuse. They believed and believe that women are strong creatures, on the whole stronger than men”.
‘Sounds like you had some great teachers, and I mean that.
But your comment above, the one you made, and the one you are responsible for, was sexist’.
You must, at some point, define “sexist”, so that we may know that you are not simply hurling epithets. One of the curses of our times is the PC attitude which hides vices behind such undefined words as “sexist” and “gender”. {Whatever happened to the neuter gender?].
Gabriel – Just a guess, but you are probably alone on this one.
Oh but wait, the minority bishops at Nicaea were the ones who were right…