The Issue of LIFE vs. CONTROL
It’s been a while since I have made a post so I thought I would jump back in with a bang. Matt Walsh made a post on his blog yesterday titled I am afraid of this indisputable pro-choice argument. In approximately 24 hours, the post has garnered close to 1,000 comments so you can tell that it’s a hot topic.
The post was made in response to an email Matt received from a reader named Rachel that felt as though she had the perfect weapon to deploy against the forces of repression and patriarchy when it comes to abortion. After starting off her tirade with a personal insult to Matt, she then makes the claim:
“If you had the guts or the brains you’d try to respond to the most important abortion rights argument… bodily autonomy or bodily integrity. This means that we have the final jurisdiction over our own bodies. Nobody can claim a right to our body that goes above our own right. Nobody can use our bodies without consent. We cannot be forced to donate organs or blood to someone else. A fetus must survive on a woman’s body so the woman has a right to withdrawal her consent and her body at any time”
She then goes on to say:
“It is immoral to require a woman to sustain a fetus and it is moral for a woman to make a decision with her body based on what is right for her. How can you argue against this?”
In Matt’s own distinct way, he proceeded to dismantle the plaintiff’s argument with the reply:
You’re right. You win. I have no response. I can’t think of any reason why you’re wrong about any of the points you raised.
Well, I can’t think of any reason — except for, like, ten reasons. So I’ll start with five reasons why that hypothetical is flawed, and move on to five additional reasons why your overall argument is flawed.”
(Maybe it is a character flaw that I have. Maybe it’s a bit of immaturity…but I love the snark in the response!)
Matt then proceeds to enumerate each of his ten arguments that totally dismantled Rachel’s pro-choice reasoning. I highly encourage you to skip over to Matt’s blog and read the whole post for yourself (link above). Some of his points are better than others but they are made in a logically consistent and coherent manner that shows Rachel for the brain dead prog that she is. One of the things that I like best about Matt’s response is that it barely mentioned God. Don’t get me wrong! I am a Christian and feel that God should be the final and only argument needed. However, in dealing with the secular Left in today’s America, using God or religion in general as the basis of defense of your beliefs will be about as effective as appealing to the Constitution in a political argument or using actual economics facts when discussing the economy….in other words, NONE.
Rachel highlights the main argument that the pro-choicers rely on. Their entire argument to be able to choose to abort babies is totally self-focused. In other words, it is all about how the child (I will not say fetus) affects them. It’s not fair that the mother is forced to endure 9 months of pregnancy when she doesn’t want to. It’s not fair that having a baby will ruin my life’s plans. Now, my dream of getting my 16th-Century Belgian Lesbian Art Studies degree has gone down the tubes! Now, I won’t be able to sleep around and have all the promiscuous sex I can have. Now I won’t be able to go to parties and enjoy my life. I’m going to have to give up alcohol just so it won’t interfere with the pregnancy! I’m too young to have these responsibilities thrust on me. Everything is centered around them. That’s why everything is done to dehumanize the baby in the uterus. To the pro-abort lefties, it is much easier to refer to a zygote or fetus than to have to talk about human life.
But when the topic of human life is placed front and center, they will casually dismiss it as secondary to the issue of choice. Recently, the head of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, stated “I don’t know if it’s really relevant to the conversation.” when asked about whether or not the question of when life begins should be considered in the abortion debate. See more of this story and the video of her statement HERE.
Oh, occasionally you will get a pro-choicer to argue that “bringing an unwanted baby into this world is cruel and inhumane” or “what if the mother is a poor teenager and can’t afford to support the baby properly” or some other such pseudo-argument, that on the surface appears to focus on the child rather than themselves. But don’t let that fool you. The underlying consideration under all of the pro-choice logic is “How will this affect me?”
The issue of control was talked about a bit in a previous post on this blog. You can read more about that HERE.