Skip to content

Miles To Go, Crosses To Bear

21 August 2012 @ 10:53

The following is my reply to a commentator over at The Other McCain. I’m reproducing it here because I have never really published my thoughts on the position taken by many on the Right: ‘I am against abortion, except in the cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother’.

This exchange took place in a posting by Stacy McCain entitled Report: Republican Todd Akin Will Withdraw From Missouri Senate Race.

DOLPHIENESS [quoted in full]:

Main focus needs to be on ousting McCaskill with a focus on her damages to MO & USA and a focus on the economy/jobs.
This IS beyond damage control. Even his non-apology apology was offensive. Todd Akin can no longer win this.

McCaskill will continue focusing this on rape, insensitive/ignorant conservative males. This stink will rub off on ALL conservatives running for office – no matter their true beliefs.

The focus on the poor decisions McCaskill has made will fade into the background as will the topic of jobs/economy.

I am a staunch, solid conservative female. I am so offended by his comments and his nonapology apology that steam was rolling out my ears.

He quoted science without fully comprehending the article, he does not understand history (conquerors would rape women to plant their seed in order to gain loyalty from the women as the women would be torn between their children’s bloodlines and the women’s own people), he does not understand that not all women are the same (some handle duress better than others), he also does not understand true reproduction: fertility, fertilization and the implantation process.

Nor does he understand the agony a female goes through post rape pertaining to the rape, the "what if" process she goes through, the self hate, the poor self image AND the knowledge they are carrying the offspring of a monster within themselves. It is a hurtful decision making process that is up to the WOMAN to make – not some man who cannot EVER comprehend.

Then there is the additional item she must factor in: IF she does carry full term and places the baby for adoption and the child finds out they are the offspring of a monster – what will that do to the child?

There is so VERY much to deal with and a woman does not need some jerk to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body.

NOW……….. using abortion as birth control is a different story. If you are going to have sex – you stand the chance of getting pregnant. If you can’t handle the stakes – don’t play the game.

My reply:

Obviously, you’re a compassionate person, but your argument has at least two serious flaws…

1) Nor does he understand the agony a female goes through post rape pertaining to the rape, the "what if" process she goes through, the self hate, the poor self image AND the knowledge they are carrying the offspring of a monster within themselves. It is a hurtful decision making process that is up to the WOMAN to make – not some man who cannot EVER comprehend.

It is not up to the woman, nor is it up to any other Human Being, to make such a decision. There is a Human life in that womb. Life is often brutal and tragic — very horrible things happen to people. But there is nothing so horrible that can happen to you or any other person that can make the taking of an innocent life justified. The ends, easing the rape victims troubled mind and soul, do not justify murder, which is what abortion is.

2) Then there is the additional item she must factor in: IF she does carry full term and places the baby for adoption and the child finds out they are the offspring of a monster – what will that do to the child?

There is so VERY much to deal with and a woman does not need some jerk to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body.

Once again, horrible and horrid things happen to people. Very few of us escape suffering through some kind of major trauma, be it cancer, rape, the loss of a child due to violence or disease, having to care for someone with mental and/or physical disabilities, or having been conceived during a rape — the cliche is true: We all have our crosses to bear. And this one applies as well: We all have to play with the cards we’ve been dealt. One of the main reasons we value happiness so much is because there is so little of it we get to experience and enjoy during the course of our lives. The child who is born as the result of a rape did nothing wrong — why should that child be punished with death?

As I stated at the beginning of this comment, I believe that you are, quite obviously, a compassionate and humane person, but in the last sentence I just quoted, you fatally wound your argument with the phrase: ‘…a woman does not need some jerk to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body’. That ‘jerk’ would be God.

-Further thoughts…

The Abortion Exception Argument, while it may be based in compassion for the female victim of rape or incest [I'll deal with 'the health of the mother' part in a bit], is nevertheless a failed argument because it seeks to deny the Reality that there is another life involved — that of the child. In their quest to help the victim heal, as it were, those who would allow these exceptions engage in a self-deception that undermines their opposition to abortion.

Those who oppose allowing abortions do so based on their belief that abortion is the taking of a Human Life. This belief arises out of a belief that each and every Human Being has a Right To Live, one might say [even a non-believer] that: ‘all Human Life is sacred’, that it is a form of Life that is different from all other kinds.

How can one, therefore, believe that Human Life is sacred and, at the same time, believe that there can be any exceptions to this rule? Either Human Life is sacred or it is not — it either has a special value or it is on the same level with the non-sentient beast. Those who make the The Abortion Exception Argument want to be able to pretend that something Sacred can, in the right circumstances, be not-Sacred — all in the noble quest to ease the victim’s mind — that, sure, A is A, but, well, not sometimes. A thing is what it is. You can say that ‘A’ is ‘B’, but in Reality it always remains ‘A’. Once you make an exception to Reality, then you set a precedent for the practice. You give license to the denial of Reality in all areas of life. A can of worms gets opened that will infest every thing and everyone — and you sanction murder.

Those of us who believe that Human Life is sacred, that every Human Being has a Right To Life, are obligated by our Western [Judeo-Christian] Moral Code to provide aid to those who are the victims of rape and incest — mother and child. The command of Jesus Of Nazareth, ‘Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me’, requires us to care for the afflicted. However, those who make The Abortion Exception Argument, in their concentrated compassion, are forgetting that there is a little victim inside the mother victim’s womb, and, just like we are obligated to care for the mother, we are obligated to care for the child.

Regarding the a part of The Abortion Exception Argument that believes a baby can be aborted if the pregnancy or act of birth poses a mortal risk to the mother, based on this case [tip of the fedora to Mike, That Mr. G Guy], I offered up these thoughts [slightly modified for clarity here] in a post by Smitty [which can be found here]…

A very sad case.

My opinion: the pregnant girl should have not been treated.

She let herself get pregnant, whether it was intentional or out of ignorance of contraception [there is no indication in the report of rape or incest]. Either way, she decided to have sex and, even with contraception, there is always a chance it will fail. This young woman had Free Will.

Once you make the decision to have intercourse, you have the responsibility to accept the consequences, be they positive or negative in your eyes.

She got pregnant, therefore, that was the consequence.

At some point, this young lady got cancer. This was very sad, but this fact did not relieve her of the responsibility she still bore to protect the Human Life she created by her action of having intercourse [just as the father has the obligation to raise and support the child now that the mother is dead].

This case involved two lives of equal value, but the mother had chosen to take on the responsibility of creating the child and that means she had the obligation to do whatever it took to protect that defenseless child — as did the doctors and nurses by their oaths. The cancer treatments would have killed the child, so they could not morally be administered.

Life is tragic and no matter how much we want to pretend it isn’t, it is. This young woman was dealt a very bad hand, but, as the Jews say: ‘Such is Life’ — this is Reality.

Those who argue for the exception for the health of the mother are, once again, narrowly concentrating their compassion and forgetting that there is an innocent, unobligated life in the ill mother’s womb.

It it understandable, given that life is so filled with heartbreak and sadness, we would want to avoid such things, but, in our pursuit of amelioration, we must not inflict more tragedy on the world.

That the child in the womb is forgotten most of the time in The Argument is another symptom of The Present Crisis.

SPECIAL NOTE: Dolphieness is welcome to send me a response or post one in the comments and I will reproduce it in an Update to this post.

14 Comments
  1. 21 August 2012 @ 12:37 12:37

    I’m against abortion, too. But in reality, the baby died anyway, I think. So whether or not the mother was treated for cancer is a moot point. I believe that G-d is the final arbiter in situations like these. Maybe I was wrong in my assertion that the doctors treat the mother without thinking about the growing child in the womb.

    By the way, my lovely wife, Phoebe agrees with you. 😉

    • thecampofthesaints permalink
      21 August 2012 @ 13:11 13:11

      Well, then…obviously: you’re wrong!

      • 21 August 2012 @ 15:23 15:23

        Where am I still wrong? Was I wrong about the baby surviving, because I didn’t see anywhere in the article stating that. Am I wrong because I changed my opinion?

        • 21 August 2012 @ 16:56 16:56

          “[just as the father has the obligation to raise and support the child now that the mother is dead].”

          The child survived because the mother made a conscious decision to withhold medication that could have saved her life because it would have killed an innocent.

          It is never OK to kill an innocent, no matter how inconvenient or painful the consequences of that decision.

        • 21 August 2012 @ 20:05 20:05

          You were obviously wrong because Phoebe and I are right.

        • 21 August 2012 @ 20:17 20:17

          But I can man up and admit my mistake.

  2. Adobe_Walls permalink
    21 August 2012 @ 17:01 17:01

    Abortion is murder, not to be confused with homacide. It is truly sick for society to allow or an individual to advocate killing the innocent life produced by a crime while allowing the perp to live.

  3. 21 August 2012 @ 18:44 18:44

    Jon V…if you had gone to the link at CNN and read that article, you would have found out that the girl was admitted at 13 weeks and treatment was started twenty days later. The treatment was unsuccessful and she suffered cardiac arrest. In the mean time, the girl miscarried the baby.

  4. 21 August 2012 @ 20:44 20:44

    I had an ectopic pregnancy when I was 20. It was terminated by surgical abortion at 10 weeks. In this instance, there was no baby which would ever have been born, but it took me years to be able to talk about it. Saved my life. Not sorry I did it. But my beliefs, in general, go right along with yours, Bob.

    When did we decide that we could get out of this life without pain, embarrassment, sorrow, grief, sadness, or heartbreak? Easy living…First World problems…have made too many of us too soft to survive even a day without a freakin’ radio, much less overcome the “trauma” of doing the right thing because it’s the right thing and then sticking with it. I cannot bear simpering, whining, weak-minded, self-righteous, slothful incompetent people.

    I wish I had the brains and talent to comment on your post item by item, Bob, but I don’t. I hope my little bit of blather here is up to your standards.

    • 21 August 2012 @ 21:25 21:25

      It seems to me you did pretty damn well with this comment.

      I agree with you 100%: The West is full of wimps these days.

  5. 21 August 2012 @ 23:49 23:49

    *cough*

    And right after all that “Ryan is a good Catholic” stuff–printed by Ryan’s Bishop, no less–we have RomRyan campaign say that ‘we would not change the rape-excepton’ clause.

    Waiting for Ryan to resign from the campaign………crickets crickets crickets……

    • thecampofthesaints permalink
      22 August 2012 @ 07:17 07:17

      Spot-on.

  6. theo9geo permalink
    24 August 2012 @ 01:07 01:07

    Fine post, thanks, central, essential points strongly made. Thanks for raising to attention the phenomenon of tragedy. It cannot be avoided. It has to be accepted, ridden through and sublimated (which does not mean repressed, it means elevated). “Moving on” is “new age” claptrap (Althouse: “bullshit”). Best way to experience tragedy is free-flow sorrow, to include crying until no more tears arrive. Accept, accept, accept. We are creatures, all of us, no more, no less. We know the past, present and future as much as an ant knows the ocean. Live, give thanks, act as felt called and accept, resign. “Duty is ours, consequences are God.” T. J. Jackson, while at West Point. This is the lot of creatures, even those – humans only – who experience the coincidence of power and meaning. No one escapes invasion and violation of their body, mind or spirit. “Deal with it.” as one of our sons says. Your post makes that point forcefully. Thanks!

  7. theo9geo permalink
    24 August 2012 @ 01:08 01:08

    “Healing,” also, is “new age” claptrap.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: