Friday, February 10, 2006

"Inflict" Life

Author Anne Lamott has a column in the Los Angeles Times that is another sign (at least to me) that the prolife movement is winning (though slowly) the argument over abortion.

Anne was on a panel discussion with some progressive theologians and the panel was asked "about how (they) should reconcile (their) progressive stances on peace and justice with the ‘murder of a million babies every year in America.'"

At first, Anne, who notes in her column that she has had multiple abortions and described herself after one abortion as "sadder than I'd been since my father died.", passed at responding but then answered when asked another question. Here's what she was thinking:

"Then, when I was asked to answer the next question, I paused, and returned to the topic of abortion. There was a loud buzzing in my head, the voice of reason that says, "You have the right to remain silent," but the voice of my conscience was insistent. I wanted to express calmly, eloquently, that pro-choice people understand that there are two lives involved in an abortion — one born (the pregnant woman) and one not (the fetus) — but that the born person must be allowed to decide what is right."

In other words, according to Anne, the born person "must be allowed to decide" if the life of unborn can be ended. The born, based on their location, can "decide what is right" for the unborn.

But Anne admits that she didn't respond calmly and ended her answer by saying that a "woman's right to choose was nobody else's goddamn business."

One of the last paragraphs of her column is nonsensical jibberish.

"But as a Christian and a feminist, the most important message I can carry and fight for is the sacredness of each human life, and reproductive rights for all women is a crucial part of that: It is a moral necessity that we not be forced to bring children into the world for whom we cannot be responsible and adoring and present. We must not inflict life on children who will be resented; we must not inflict unwanted children on society."

A crucial part of the sacredness of each human life is that some human beings should be able to decide whether other humans live or die? Every life is sacred but we should kill unborn children who will be resented and unwanted? Are you sure you think every life is "sacred" or do you really think that the only "sacred" lives are the lives of those who are wanted? We must not "inflict" life but we should inflict death? Why do we feel the need to "inflict" life on "unwanted" born children? Why don't we just deinflict "life" from all the unwanted born children. So you're fighting for the sacredness of each human life while fighting to make sure that it is legal to kill some human lives?

Technology has forced many in the pro-choice camp to admit that the unborn are living human beings. Instead of trying to provide good reasons for why one human being (the mother) should be allowed to have another human being (the unborn child) killed, many pro-choicers like Anne Lamott are left with nothing to spew but empty slogans and contradictory crap.

Frank J. succintly adds "Who would Jesus Abort?"

Kevin Drum shows that he's not quite up to speed on what a human being is and doesn't have a problem with women using abortion as birth control. He certainly is a political animal.

Emily at After Abortion comments, "That's a lot of anger, and it does not reflect the calm resolve of someone who is in a place of peace about her past. Far from it."

A commenter at Amy Welborn's blog says, "husband and I attended part of the conference Anne Lamott is writing about. skipped the Sunday evening session, and her tantrum. our friends relate that it was like a bomb dropping in the room, destroyed all the goodwill and peace built up over the course of the weekend. so sad. she has to deny it is a life, in order to live with herself, I guess."

No comments:

Post a Comment