The latest in a continuing series.
I came to Carthage, where I found myself in the midst of a hissing cauldron of lusts. I had not yet fallen in love, but I was in love with the idea of it, and this feeling that something was missing made me despise myself for not being more anxious to satisfy the need. I began to look around for some object for my love, since I badly wanted to love something. —St. Augustine, Confessions
From the December 1996 issue of First Things:
Inconvenient Lives by Robert H. Bork (Another excellent reason why he should be on the Supreme Court.)
The author Naomi Wolf, who favors the right to abort, has challenged the feminists whose rhetoric seeks to disguise the truth that a human being is killed by abortion. In a 1995 article in the New Republic, she asks for "an abortion-rights movement willing publicly to mourn the evil-necessary evil though it may be-that is abortion." But she asks a question and gives an answer about her support for abortion rights that is troublesome: "But how, one might ask, can I square a recognition of the humanity of the fetus, and the moral gravity of destroying it, with a pro-choice position? The answer can only be found in the context of a paradigm abandoned by the left and misused by the right: the paradigm of sin and redemption."
I understand the "It's not a human!" crowd. They are trying to convince others (and their own consciences) it is acceptable to use murder as a contraceptive device. (See below.)
But ol' Wolfie is another thingee entirely. From the throwaway phrase "necessary evil" to the declaration of a need to reconcile the irreconcilable to her incomprehension (at best) or mockery (at worst) of the concepts of sin and redemption, Naomi Wolfe produces sounds not unlike those one would expect if dogs learned to talk. (Nope. Apparently, dogs make much more sense. Naomi is just a totalitarian. Or is she something else?*)
That seems an odd paradigm for this problem. It is one thing to have sinned, atoned, and sought redemption. It seems quite another to justify planning to sin on the ground that you also plan to seek redemption afterward. (All Catholic kiddies recognize that as a mortal sin in and of itself. Those that bother to go to Confession, that is. - F.G.) That justification seems even stranger for repeat abortions, which Wolf says are at least 43 percent of the total. Sin plus redemption falls short as a resolution of her dilemma. If that were an adequate resolution, it would seem to follow, given the humanity of the fetus, that infanticide, the killing of the elderly, indeed any killing for convenience, would be licensed if atonement and redemption were planned in advance.
I doubt she would have any compunction over killing the aged, infirm, handicapped, retarded, et cetera. Hmmmm... Sounds like nazism, doesn't it?
Nor is it clear why the evil is necessary. It is undeniable that bearing and rearing a child sometimes places a great burden on a woman or a family. That fact does not, however, answer the question whether the burden justifies destroying a human life. In most other contexts, we would say such a burden is not sufficient justification. The fact is, in any event, that the burden need not be borne. Putting the child up for adoption is an alternative. The only drawback is that others will know the woman is pregnant. If that is the reason to choose abortion, then the killing really is for convenience.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
But it is clear, in any event, that the vast majority of all abortions are for convenience. In those cases, abortion is used as merely one more technique of birth control. A 1987 survey of the reasons given by women for having abortions made by researchers with the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is very much pro-abortion, demonstrated this fact. The following table shows the percentage of women who gave the listed reasons.
Reason/Total Percentage
Woman is concerned about how having a baby could change her life/76
Woman can't afford baby now/68
Woman has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood/51
Woman is unready for responsibility/31
Woman doesn't want others to know she has had sex or is pregnant/31
Woman is not mature enough or is too young to have a child/30
Woman has all the children she wanted, or has all grown-up children/26
Husband or partner wants woman to have abortion/23
Fetus has possible health problem/13
Woman has health problem/7
"Has health problem" does not equal "will die if gives birth". There goes Big Babykilling's favorite excuse.
Woman's parents want her to have abortion/7
Woman was victim of rape or incest/1
Oops! Only 1 percent for Big Babykilling's second favorite excuse. No wonder this survey has never been repeated.
Other/6
It is clear that the overwhelming number of abortions were for birth control unrelated to the health of the fetus or the woman. Moreover, of those who were concerned about a possible health problem of the fetus, only 8 percent said that a physician had told them that the fetus had a defect or was abnormal. The rest were worried because they had taken medication, drugs, or alcohol before realizing they were pregnant, but did not apparently obtain a medical confirmation of any problem. Of those aborting because of their own health, 53 percent said a doctor had told them their condition would be made worse by being pregnant. Some of the rest cited physical problems, and 11 percent gave a mental or emotional problem as the reason. Only 1 percent cited rape or incest.
The survey noted that "some 77 percent of women with incomes under 100 percent or between 100 and 149 percent of the poverty level said they were having an abortion because they could not afford to have a child, compared with 69 percent of those with incomes between 150 and 199 percent and 60 percent of those with incomes at or above 200 percent of the poverty level." The can't-afford category thus included a great many women who, by most reckonings, could afford to have a baby and certainly could have put the baby up for adoption.
This demonstration that abortion is almost always a birth control technique rather than a response to a serious problem with the mother's or the fetus' health must have been a considerable embarrassment to the pro-abortion forces. Perhaps for that reason no survey by them seems to have been reported since. (Emphasis mine.) More recent statistics by anti-abortion groups, however, bear out the conclusions to be drawn from the Guttmacher Institute study. The reasons most women give for having an abortion are "social": a baby would affect their educations, jobs, lives, or they felt unable to handle it economically, their partners did not want babies, etc.
* Right, so you're thinking I'm just just calling the babykillers names again. Fascist, nazi, totalitarian, babykiller, lunatic, et cetera. Ok, so maybe my vocabulary becomes truncated when I deal with such folks. My bad.
So let us consider sin. Not that lame Naomi Wolfe kind of sin, but the real thing. The SEX IS DEATH series of posts is about disordered sexual desire and its consequences. My premise is this: Sex, outside of its proper place of a lifelong, monogamous, marriage between one man and one woman, leads inevitably to horror, terror, and ultimately, death. This is not my original idea. I got it from Dr. E. Michael Jones of Culture Wars magazine and his book Monsters from the Id: The Rise of Horror in Fiction and Film. (The premise can be taken to its logical earthly conclusion. See Dr. Jones' Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control. But that is another story for another day, kiddies.)
But fornication is just one mortal sin among many. Shouldn't all of them produce similar horrific results? Indeed they do.
Let's take one of our favorite subjects, politics, as an example. (I know, I know. I always pick the easy one because it's easy.) Government is necessary because of man's fallen nature. Therefore, political power is necessary. But what happens when men misuse such power? Surprise! Mass murder, war, conquest, oppression, repression...you name it.
What do we call it when a good thing (government, sex) is used improperly, kiddies? That's right, sin.
And what is sin?
Everybody together: "Rebellion against God"!
So, rebellion against God is Death. Trying to rationalize away your sin, regardless of which sin it is, leaves your conscience (Another wonderful gift of the Uncaused Cause) thrashing about, desperately trying to do its job.
Is it surprising when "ex" husbands shoot their "ex" wives and "ex" kids to death? Think of all the psychological damage done by trying to convince yourself that love, marriage, and sex are simply commodities, like...well, like sugar. If you had some, but don't now, go get some more...
Yeah, that is really healthy.
You can't change reality, kiddies, and neither can I. Not even a semi-famous intellectualoid like Naomi Wolfe can. Sin is rebellion against God and His order. That's rebellion against reality. And for creatures equipped by their Creator to detect that rebellion (conscience), trying to ignore it or pretending it does not exist is deadly.
Part 1: SEX IS DEATH. (Stories for Boys) is here.
Part 2: SEX IS DEATH. (Distaff Death) is here.
Part 3: SEX IS DEATH. (Joyously dispensing death) is here.
Part 4: SEX IS DEATH. (Sex is depression) is here.
Part 5: SEX IS DEATH. (When self-pleasuring becomes self-destruction) is here.
Part 6: SEX IS DEATH. (Sex is theft) is here.
Part 7: SEX IS DEATH. (A review of Bareback Mountain) is here.
Part 8: SEX IS DEATH. (What is the ultimate penalty?) is here.
Part 9: SEX IS DEATH. (Haven from reality) is here.
