Let me first say that I have always opposed abortion on
demand at any time for virtually any reason and disagreed with Roe v. Wade, the
Supreme Court decision that removed most state restrictions on abortion in 1973,
when it happened. Some of you thus might believe that if it were overturned by a
subsequent decision legal abortion would end and, suddenly, all these positive consequences would result.
I’m not convinced of that; to me, it comes down to the old line “Be careful what you wish for — you just might get it.” I see much anti-abortion activism as just so much bullying and not really focusing upon the babies whose lives the activists say they're trying to save.
I’m not convinced of that; to me, it comes down to the old line “Be careful what you wish for — you just might get it.” I see much anti-abortion activism as just so much bullying and not really focusing upon the babies whose lives the activists say they're trying to save.
Some fallacies about the potential overturning of Roe:
If abortion weren't so readily available, women wouldn't be having sex and getting pregnant in the first place.
Naïve as all get out.
According to the book "Blinded by Might: Can the Religious Right Save America?", at the turn of the last century, a time before abortion was banned, a lot of men did the "use 'em and lose 'em" thing, leaving women destitute and vulnerable to abortion. And now that we know today that, especially with the #metoo movement, many girls often undergoing sexual abuse, including rape, much sexual contact that results in pregnancy isn't even welcomed, blowing to smithereens the implication that little vixens are out to seduce men and escape consequence in the process.
Naïve as all get out.
According to the book "Blinded by Might: Can the Religious Right Save America?", at the turn of the last century, a time before abortion was banned, a lot of men did the "use 'em and lose 'em" thing, leaving women destitute and vulnerable to abortion. And now that we know today that, especially with the #metoo movement, many girls often undergoing sexual abuse, including rape, much sexual contact that results in pregnancy isn't even welcomed, blowing to smithereens the implication that little vixens are out to seduce men and escape consequence in the process.
Adoptions would increase.
Not today, they wouldn't.
Having a child out of wedlock is far, far less a stigma, if any at all, than two generations ago; as a result, the vast majority of women actually keep their babies with little if any tut-tutting. And part of that is the deep hole that exists in the hearts of many mothers who actually did give up their children, not to mention that in the children themselves once they learn that they were adopted.
Revival would result.
I don't see how.
When abortion was banned during the turn of the last century religion had little, if anything, to do with that. Indeed, you never had any consistent anti-abortion theology until the late 1970s, and such theology is in fact inconsistent in its own right because it focuses on only the unborn.
And when it's shown to be unproductive — then what? We're seeing religious faith expanded to support a viewpoint beyond its actual scope.
Anyway, supporting cultural change primarily through legal means virtually never works. Proper relating needs to be modeled, not simply forced through.
I don't see how.
When abortion was banned during the turn of the last century religion had little, if anything, to do with that. Indeed, you never had any consistent anti-abortion theology until the late 1970s, and such theology is in fact inconsistent in its own right because it focuses on only the unborn.
And when it's shown to be unproductive — then what? We're seeing religious faith expanded to support a viewpoint beyond its actual scope.
Anyway, supporting cultural change primarily through legal means virtually never works. Proper relating needs to be modeled, not simply forced through.
No comments:
Post a Comment