So did you catch the phrasing, some will say pro choice
versus anti abortion. The way it is phrased automatically shows which side you
fall on the debate. Or at the very least it is an interesting tell.
Everyone has an opinion and of late I am struggling with
many others’ opinions. I recently read a piece by Amanda Marcotte titled: “Keep
her legs closed!” Republicans are mad one of them said the quiet part out loud.
Her opening is that Republicans definitely want to punish
women for having sex- but they don’t want voters to figure that out. And then
ties her argument to the Dobbs v Jackson decision overturning Roe v Wade and
then ties all this to the idea that all Republicans have a long standing dream
of using forced child birth to punish women for having sex.
I seriously struggle with this over handed reach as to why
people are against abortion. Could there be a few Republicans who fit her
description? Probably, but to lump all people who believe that life begins at
conception and many of us truly believe all life should be protected is definitely
reaching. The actual definition of pro life is the respect and dignity of life
from conception to natural death. And yes there are some politicians who are
pro life for political expediency, not because they have true understanding or
belief in what it means to be pro life. Yet for Ms. Marcotte to espouse this monstrous
definition that all of us want to punish women for having sex is absurd. And as
always I do need to say I am not a Republican, but an independent conservative,
but for her purposes I do not think she worries about that difference.
We have too much extremism in this country as it is, so to
lump everybody in one category to brand everyone sex haters to me is an extreme
position. And I am being a bit short on purpose.
The pro life pro choice argument is one of the most difficult
discussions to have in this country. So her choosing the verbiage “…punish
women for having sex” or me calling her opinion monstrous does not do the debate
any favors. Yet we, as humans, all fall into this emotional trap when we try to
discuss topics we have hard opinions. And this debate is top of the list in
this country for rousing our deepest angers.
I truly believe that life begins at conception so I struggle
with the concept of pro choice. Yet I am not here to say women or men cannot
have sex. I wouldn’t be here without it. And should it be considered that if we
believe in the dignity of life from conception to natural death, where do we
draw the line at natural death? Is a women suffering in child birth a reason to
have an abortion to save her life? That is a damn good and difficult question
to answer. The choice between saving one of two lives is a struggle for mankind
in general much less for one doctor that has about thirty seconds to make a
decision. So I believe we should not condemn any one for making that choice
either way.
Yet where do the nuances become an easier choice? Well, that
depends if you say, pro life or pro choice. So that leads back to the circular
arguments that each side will make to justify their decision. And most of us
tend to be birds of a feather that flock together. The vast majority of my
friends are pro life so I would tend to use our arguments in a discussion with
someone who is pro choice. And I will say unequivocally we are right. Life
begins at conception. So how do you explain dignity of life until natural death
and for the unborn child that dignity exists and it is up to us to protect
their life since they cannot.
Some will argue that since an unborn child cannot exist outside
the womb that allowing a woman to choose to make decisions regarding her body preempts
the life argument. And honestly I may have missed the exact argument there so
if you want to clarify it, please do in the comments, just be respectful to the
debate and not use emotions.
And Ms. Marcotte’s article does not immediately reference a
religion argument, yet she heavily attacks the general concept that all or most
Republicans (again not the verbiage pro lifers, but Republicans, I am curious
as to why) and specifically calls out a State Senator in New Jersey, Sen. Durr
who apparently said “a women does have a choice, keep her legs closed” which seems
to have set her head on fire and inspired her to write her piece. And
apparently this State Senator had liked some other anti woman phrasing. Yet if
she really wants to make headway this anger fueled post is not going to change
any minds. And as I said earlier this national debate is one we struggle with
mightily with entrenched opinions And we all know how difficult it can be to
change an opinion. I once wrote a short story to try and create a way around
the debate and to change people’s hearts. For true pro lifers we know that this
is not a debate, but an understanding of the value of life and to get people to
understand this we need to change what is in the heart. And yes we struggle
when people who call themselves pro lifers stick their foot in their mouth ie the
above referenced Senator. Yet I feel that Ms. Marcotte needs to be called out
for lumping the entire pro life debate into a false narrative to vent her anger
with one person or a few people who truly do not represent what it means to be
pro life.
We know we are human and have faults. And maybe all our are
arguments aren’t perfect, but we believe that people should be engaged with
each other, believe women have the right to choose who their partners are and
to engage with them sexually. We know that saying keep your legs closed is not
the answer. We were or are young. We know we can make mistakes, yet to vilify us
for I think reasons not stated is beyond the pale.
In the Gospels there is the story of the woman about to be
stoned due to accusations of adultery. Jesus steps in and calls out everyone
there, saying those who have not sinned cast the first stone. And then they all
leave and I love this part, starting with the elders.
Not one of us is perfect, but that is one of the main
reasons to be pro life. We need to treat each other with dignity and respect
until our natural death. Sure our politicians could do better in helping with
adoption laws, better healthcare programs for young and old, leading by example
and not denigrating each other, and so much more, but to arbitrarily attack a
group of people using labels because a few people present a false front is not an
answer to solving this debate or more hopefully to a change of heart. Until
then as pro lifers we need to remember we are not perfect and cannot lecture or
berate especially us elders. That will do more for the change of heart for
people who call themselves pro choice than any argument. Maybe one day Ms.
Marcotte will be able to see beyond what is fueling her anger to get to the
real answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment