Revert To Saved Version

Abortion Compromise?

I read a fascinating debate between bloggers Matteo and Chadster including this highlight:

I don't know if you expressed yourself the way you meant to, or if there is something revealing in this, or whether it's just metaphysical confusion, but you said, "But who is to say whether the life of a child brought forth by a 14 year old girl in the trailer park will be of much less quality than the life of that same child if the girl had an abortion, went to college, bought a nice house, could afford groceries and then had the child." You know, the child she had later is not the same child she aborted, so there is no better life in store for it. It's dead. Right?

This neatly sums up the priorities of both sides of the abortion debate in America today. The pro-choice side focuses on the right of women to choose when to have children, while the pro-life side focuses on the right of human beings, once conceived, to continue to live.

Is there any possibility for compromise here? The standard formula proposed by pro-aborts is “safe, legal, and rare,” trotted out most recently by Hilary Clinton (as parodied here). But “rare” is a slippery slope, and any compromise in which the murder of innocent human life remains legal does not address the concerns of the pro-lifers.

Of course, one fact the pro-aborts tend to gloss over is that, with the exception of rape, women can control when and how many children to have by choosing when and with whom to have sex. What is really desired is the ability to control reproduction and have unlimited casual sex, and that requires 100% effective contraception. Thus the shape of a true compromise emerges: outlaw abortion, strictly enforce the laws against rape, and make highly effective non-abortifacient contraception freely available.

Note that I am not endorsing the use of contraception or denying the Catholic position on its use. That’s why I called it a compromise. No doubt the pro-aborts would quickly point out that no form of contraception is actually 100% effective; ironic really, when you consider that they normally sing the praises of contraception and rush to condemn anyone who dares question the effectiveness of “safe” sex.

Which brings my to final point: our courts have held tobacco companies liable when people who voluntarily use their products develop cancer. Some folks are suing fast food chains trying to blame them for the health problems of their obese customers. Gun manufacturers have even been held responsible for a murders committed using their products. Applying the same logic, shouldn't condom manufactures be held liable every time one of their customers gets pregnant? Here at last is a potential solution for Chadster’s hypothetical 14 year old pregnant girl: she’ll be able to afford a nice home and groceries after all with her million-dollar settlement from Church & Dwight Co. Inc.

posted by The Jabberwock @ 1:53 AM