Many have seen the "Sodomized Virgin Exception" on several blogs recently.
Well, I sent it to my brother, who is a conservative christian, and in many ways a reasonable guy. I sent it in the context of how polarized the two sides of this debate have become, and how much anger there is, while no one is really solving the issue of abortions, which of course all of us would like to reduce.
He sent me the response below. Please help me. Where do I start? So much steam is coming from my ears I can't think straight. What can I say to him? Perhaps no response is the best thing. The chasm between us on this issue, and the related issue of human sexuality, is so large its like trying to leap accross the grand canyon.
I think what I said was that most abortions are done for convenience. The "sodomized virgin" who took up most of the article you attached was clearly
not in that category.
By "for convenience," I do not mean that the woman takes the decision lightly. As the second example in the article pointed out, abortion is often a heart-wrenching decision. In fact, that's one of the dirty little secrets of the abortion industry: it is not as emotionally simple as
removing a "mass of tissue." Just this morning, before coming down to check my e-mail, I was reading in our local free-advertisement paper (do you have those in NH?) that a local group is starting for women who are dealing with
post-abortion stress. One of their members was quoted as saying what a relief it was to be able, finally, to deal with the abortion she had 20 years ago. So, by convenient, I don't mean easy.
Most women have abortions after sex that was consensual and unprotected. They could have used birth control or abstained from sex, but chose not to. The abortion is just to take care of the un-planned but entirely forseeable result. That's what I mean by convenience.
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institude, which is the research arm of Planned Parenthood, only 1 percent of all abortions are for a pregnancy due to rape or incest. That leaves 99% for pregnancies that follow consensual sex.
Rape and incest are tragic, and even more tragic when the consequence is so huge. But to solve the social problem we should focus on the 99%.
In that connection, the second woman in the article was much more typical than the first. She was apparently unmarried (there's no mention of a husband), and had other children. According to a 2002 CDC report, 80 percent of women who had abortions were unmarried, and 60 percent already had other children at the time. She fits with the majority by both
measures. She had consensual, unprotected sex with a man who apparently promised no long-term support. Odds are (I hate to say this, but it's true) that her other children were concieved in the same way. I'm sorry, but while I don't call her a "bitch" I do call her irresponsible. Any realistic discussion of her situation must include that aspect.
You mentioned the population explosion. That problem would be solved, at least in the USA, if women like the second one simply started behaving responsibly. I'm sure you know that about a third of all births in this country are to unmarried women. Births out of wedlock used to be very rare.
What happened? Well, I suppose that's too big a question for this e-mail, so I won't go there.
The article wound up with a parody of what the right has to say about women like the second one: "Too bad. She shouldn't have had sex. Three kids and no money are just what the bitch deserves. Her two little kids deserve it too for choosing a mother like her."
As usual when I hear the left say what they think the right is saying, they are way off. I would agree that she shouldn't have had sex. But nobody I know would ever say "Three kids and no money are what the bitch deserves."
And I can't even conceive of anyone saying, "Her two little kids deserve it too for choosing a mother like her."
In both the churches I've attended as an adult, there have been single mothers. And I'm not just talking about divorced mothers, either; I'm talking about women who had their children by fornication and adultery. I have seen nothing but compassion and care for these women and their
children.
Every year, there's a National Right to Life Sunday. At
(our church in CT), our pastor would always point out that he was the son of a single mother who gave him up for adoption. In our current church, our pastor often points out the Jesus himself was conceived when Mary wasn't
married, yet he became the one who would redeem the world. Also at our current church, one of the teenage girls became pregnant. This girl always had trouble in school, yet Liberty University -- headed by none other than Jerry Falwell -- gave her a full scholarship so she would be able to get the education she'd need to make a good life for her child. These are the attitudes of real-life Christian conservatives, as opposed to the cartoon conservatives that seem to populate the left-wing press.
By the way, if abstinence is is unrealistic, we conservatives would like to see adoption, not abortion. The inconvenience and, in some cases, shame of a full-term pregnancy can be nothing compared to the inconvenience and shame that Mary must have endured in first-century Israel. What the world needs is more role models like Mary, not more abortions.
The trouble I have when discussing things like this with my brother is that he starts with things that are true, such as its very emotionally hard on women to have abortions, but then goes on with a bunch of assumptions and judgements to end up with some conclusion that is, to me, totally untrue and not at all compassionate.
Please help.