Pro-life needs to be what it says

In April 2007 a woman died apparently because her ectopic pregnancy wasn’t treated due to abortion being illegal in Nicaragua. President Ortega has publicly stated that life-saving procedures are not prohibited by Nicaraguan law, however according to groups that want legal abortion, women are dying because doctors are refusing to treat them out of fear.

The death of Olga Reyes is an indictment on a health care system that refused to treat her. The whole object of pro-life law is to promote life and to ensure that no one is left to die or be actively killed. No matter where you stand on the spectrum of ethics around abortion Olga’s death was a tragedy and an outrage. An ectopic pregnancy is a terrible condition where there is no hope for the baby and the mother’s life is placed in danger.

Abortion is always wrong, that is it is always wrong to target another human being for death, but there are times when as a result of a medical procedure to save a mother’s life, her baby will die. It’s been said that pregnancy isn’t an illness, and that is true except in certain medical cases, such as ectopic pregnancy where the growth of the baby will cause the mother’s death. A pro-life position must be what it says, pro-life. The mother and the baby are both worthy of life, dignity and respect. I believe that women need options to make carrying a baby to term possible. That means ongoing support for vulnerable women and their children. How many abortions occur because women feel trapped by circumstance? Poverty, difficulty accessing education, healthcare and housing all contribute to a sense of dread where a baby seems to hard to cope with.

In my conversations with pro-life people I have found that they care deeply about women, yet a common trope is that pro-lifers only care about the foetus. I know for a fact that this isn’t true in New Zealand. I’ve seen the ongoing care that women with crisis pregnancies receive after their baby is born. Yet clearly the pro-life movement needs to do more to tell people what they are doing. When a woman dies and people can point to anti-abortion law as the cause of it it hurts women as well as babies. It’s a blight on the pro-life movement. Countries with pro-life law have to make sure that maternal healthcare is done right.

Those that want abortion available for women should also look to their side and reflect on shortcomings they find. Abortion is a medical procedure, and all medical procedures have side effects, however Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s clinic in Philadelphia, USA was a death trap for women. What this tells us is that irrelevant of your position on abortion, poor medical care has terrible consequences.

We can never do evil to achieve good and abortion is always wrong, but women must have access to medical care that will save their lives, just as those babies in the womb need care to keep them healthy and safe too.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in abortion, Uncategorized, women. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Pro-life needs to be what it says

  1. scrubone says:

    I agree with your comments – there is no question that an ectopic pregnancy is not going to produce a baby and must be treated or it will kill the mother.

  2. muerknz says:

    I think prolifers need to be better at communicating with non-prolifers. For example on Twitter this evening I had a woman say that prolifers should work for children in need to be adopted rather than work to stop abortion. Yet when I tried to explain that we prolifers do adopt and foster she wasn’t having a bar of it. Ironically in this issue of “Family Life”, by Family Life International, Colleen Bayer’s editorial specifically gave as a prolife idea fostering children for CYPS. She also said that supporting single mothers raising children is a prolife ministry. Colleen is a woman who has taken in a young mother and disabled baby into her home, so she puts her money where her mouth is.

    We know we’re doing the hard yards to help women and children in practical, long term ways but the narrative is just not being heard.

  3. Yonmei says:

    I appreciate this blog post – my parents are coming over for supper and will be here shortly, but they’re running late so I have time to read it and respond and tweet it, because I do think it’s a good response to prolifers who argue that women should die rather than have access to abortion.

    But:
    Those that want abortion available for women should also look to their side and reflect on shortcomings they find. Abortion is a medical procedure, and all medical procedures have side effects, however Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s clinic in Philadelphia, USA was a death trap for women.

    More correctly, those who want abortion restricted from women should look to their side and reflect on shortcomings they find.

    Doctor Gosnell’s clinic in Pennsylvania could exist and thrive because of the four decades of terrorism and political action against abortion providers. The women who went to Gosnell’s clinic for abortions were, for the most part, the poorest of the poor, women who had delayed getting an abortion because prolife restrictions on healthcare funding meant they had to save for months to be able to pay for it: by the time they could pay, they were already too late to get an abortion in most clinics. The majority of late-term abortions in the US (later than 15 weeks) are caused by this prolife restriction on federal funds: in effect, prolife policy in the US is to force low-income women to have late abortions. Many states make up the shortfall in federal funding with state funding. Pennsylvania, for prolife reasons, does not.

    There are many problems in healthcare provision in the US for the uninsured, for illegal immigrants, for people simply too poor to pay for it. But the common problem in all prolife healthcare systems is that where safe legal abortion is either impossible or very difficult or very expensive to access, women seek out whatever abortion access they can get – and there will always be people willing to profit by their needs. Doctor Kermit Gosnell was a profiteer on prolife values.

  4. muerknz says:

    Dr Gosnell’s horrific clinic can be laid at the feet of prochoice Republican governor Tom Ridge who ended inspections of abortion clinics – God only knows why. Read the Huffington Post article about it:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/23/kermit-gosnell-abortion-c_n_812702.html

    I loathe abortion, but all medical clinics need clinical oversight.

    One thing we do agree on is US healthcare. I have had online discussions with Americans and when I have brought up the immorality of their healthcare system they have said point blank that they shouldn’t have to pay for another’s healthcare.

    Healthcare for all is prolife since healthcare for the rich means poor people… you know… die. Yet many US prolifers are completely against public healthcare like there is here in New Zealand. I totally don’t get it.

    And yes, I accept that if abortion is made illegal that there will be those who still seek them. However, abortion kills a human being, we don’t make other murders “safe” to perform. Look at recreational drugs (not a perfect example since a drug user hurts only themselves), they are illegal and yet people still use them. Arguably it would be safer for the state to legalise and regulate recreational drugs, how many accidental overdoses would be stopped if there were official dosages on each batch of drug? Users would know that drugs hadn’t been cut with other substances.

    Yet as a society we still maintain that the harm of legal recreational drugs outweighs the harm of legalisation. It’s very hard to stop someone who is determined to hurt themselves and there are always those prepared to profit by selling something illegal.

    The other thing is that abortion can hurt women. Have you heard about (prochoice) Professor David Fergusson’s work?

    http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/193/6/444

  5. muerknz says:

    I don’t regard women who seek abortions as murderers because I don’t know why they want one. Perhaps they are pressured, or feel unable to cope. I can’t judge their culpability. I can say that the act of abortion is wrong, and I see culpability resting more on a society that doesn’t support women who have crisis pregnancies.

    I’m not fond of much of the American prolife movement. As a Catholic, social justice is very important to me and that includes environmental issues. I couldn’t vote for either party in America because both have evil policies that imo cause people’s deaths.

  6. Yonmei says:

    Dr Gosnell’s horrific clinic can be laid at the feet of prochoice Republican governor Tom Ridge who ended inspections of abortion clinics – God only knows why.

    Do you really think that if every woman in Pennsylvania who wanted an abortion, had been able to get one on demand in her neighborhood hospital, that any of them would have gone by preference to Gosnell’s clinic? Do you think that women who need abortions want to have them expensively in a private clinic run by a doctor who cares more for money than for their health? They are forced to do so because prolife attacks on healthcare in the US ensure they can go nowhere else.

    Prolife values create clinics like Gosnell’s, and worse.

    Healthcare for all is prolife since healthcare for the rich means poor people… you know… die. Yet many US prolifers are completely against public healthcare like there is here in New Zealand. I totally don’t get it.

    In the US, the prolife movement (understand I am not speaking about individual prolifers, but the political/terrorist movement against safe access to legal abortion) was founded by Francis Schaeffer, who is generally agreed to be the “spark” that lighted the Christian Right in the United States. There’s something about this here, written by a left-wing evangelical in response to the prolife murder of Doctor George Tiller: Killing In The Name Of…. So while individual prolifers may lean left or right, the prolife movement is overwhelmingly right-wing: it is utilised by the Republican party to ensure a strong turnout at the polls, much as segregation was used in the 1950s and 1960s. While individual prolifers differ, because the movement is strongly right-wing and effectively a Republican movement, prolifers in the US tend to support the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, torture, the death penalty, and oppose public healthcare.

    And yes, I accept that if abortion is made illegal that there will be those who still seek them. However, abortion kills a human being, we don’t make other murders “safe” to perform.

    Well, in that case, Gosnell’s clinic should not trouble you at all. Why does it trouble you? If you regard the women who went to Gosnell’s clinic as murderers, why would you care that they were risking their lives to commit what you say you see as “murder”? Why should you want clinics that perform abortions be required to be inspected, when you think women who enter them to have an abortion are entering them to commit murder?

    The other thing is that abortion can hurt women. Have you heard about (prochoice) Professor David Fergusson’s work?

    Thanks for the link: I appreciate being linked to the original rather than to a lifesite “news” report which means I have to go track down the original myself. That original note “Research on the links between abortion and mental health has been limited by design problems and relatively weak evidence.”

    I would say it’s likely that a woman with a mental health problem is more likely to have an abortion than a woman who does not, for several reasons: She may judge that her state of health makes her unfit to care for a baby: she may also be more likely to conceive accidentally: and if she is institutionalised, she is sadly at more risk of being raped. That would certainly create an association between mental health difficulties and abortions, but not a correlation.

  7. Yonmei says:

    I don’t regard women who seek abortions as murderers because I don’t know why they want one.

    That seems inconsistent. From what you’ve been saying on Twitter, you do not care why a woman wants to have an abortion: you only care that if she succeeds in getting an abortion, it should be illegal, which means it will take place in a clinic like Gosnell’s, or far worse: which is why 70,000 women die.

    You said on Twitter you “acknowledge the pain of forced pregnancy”. What good do you think “acknowledging” pain does, when you enforce it? What good is a smiling torturer assuring the victim that yes, this hurts, but the victim is required to suffer because the torturer’s ethics demand it?

    • muerknz says:

      Comparing a mother nurturing her child to live outside her body to torture is why we are never going to agree. Yes, I do acknowledge that continuing with a crisis pregnancy is not easy, but her baby’s life is at stake.

      I care very much why a woman would want an abortion, it’s why I think we need better help for pregnant women. But at the end of the day I can never agree to killing people.

      • Yonmei says:

        Comparing a mother nurturing her child to live outside her body to torture is why we are never going to agree.

        True. I’ve lived in a prochoice country all my life, but I have listened to / read accounts by women who had abortions before they were legal: I have listened to/read accounts by women who live in countries where abortion is not legal. No more than you do I have direct first-hand experience of what it is like to live under a prolife regime that regards my body as existing for use, not at my own conscience; but your certainty that forcing women is not torture strongly suggests that you never have.

        I care very much why a woman would want an abortion,

        But not enough to pay attention to why women want abortions, apparently.

        But at the end of the day I can never agree to killing people.

        But you advocate illegal unsafe abortion (or seemed to be doing so in Twitter, though this may have been due to the 140 character restriction) so in fact you do agree to “kill people”- women who die because they’re not allowed any medical help.

  8. muerknz says:

    I do not, nor have I ever, advocated any form of abortion. I advocate mothers not killing their babies – the life you don’t acknowledge. Around 42 million human beings are murdered every year through abortion. That number is a staggering amount of dead.

    • Boganette says:

      “I don’t regard women who seek abortions as murderers because I don’t know why they want one.”

      ” Around 42 million human beings are murdered every year through abortion.”

      So if abortion is murder – are the doctors murderers? The mothers? Or is it a bit awkward when you have to actually own your ridiculous beliefs on this matter?

      • muerknz says:

        The doctors definitely are because they act with full knowledge of their actions. The culpability of the mothers in the act of murder (defined as killing an innocent human person) is dependent on a variety of factors that I just don’t know, eg were they coerced?

        I find your position as ridiculous as you find mine btw. I can not understand why you don’t see that when a woman is pregnant there is a new human life that deserves to live and be loved.

  9. muerknz says:

    Also I don’t believe you can do evil (legal abortion) to achieve good (women not dying at the hands of unsafe, illegal abortionists). That’s a basic Catholic teaching as well. You can’t torture the person who knows where the bomb is hidden because torture is wrong. You can’t shoot 1 innocent person to save the life of a 100. You can’t support a dictator in the Arab world because he keeps the Middle East stable.

  10. Yonmei says:

    You can’t torture the person who knows where the bomb is hidden because torture is wrong. You can’t shoot 1 innocent person to save the life of a 100. You can’t support a dictator in the Arab world because he keeps the Middle East stable.

    But you can advocate that abortion shall be made illegal, claiming this is because you want to “stop abortions”, but in the sure knowledge that what it will actually do is ensure women die in illegal abortions.

    Because apparently – certainly according to the article to which you first linked me – women’s lives are “sacred” only in the sense that they can be sacrificed: to advocate that women should die is not evil.

  11. Yonmei says:

    Also I don’t believe you can do evil (legal abortion) to achieve good (women not dying at the hands of unsafe, illegal abortionists).

    This is sort of like saying “I don’t believe in Missouri” or “I don’t believe in homosexuality”. Even if you think it is evil to allow a woman free choice in how many children she has and when, which I do not, you can only stop women dying in illegal abortions by making sure any woman who wants an abortion can have one, safely and legally.

    I do not concede the point that legal abortion is evil. I cannot agree that it can be evil to refrain from forcing the use of a woman’s body against her will. Nor can I agree that it is a sign of “love” to force a parent to provide their organs to a child, regardless of that parent’s conscience or reason. It may be Catholic to argue that to save a life it is moral to rip organs out of a living body against that person’s will, but the laws of no country in the world would agree, nor would every person of faith. (For observant Jews, organ donation is permitted only when the donor is dead according to Jewish law: to argue that to “show love” a Jewish father must be forced by law to give up a lobe of his liver to his child, would be to affront their faith, to argue that “love” of parent and child can only be measured by strictly Catholic terms.)

    • muerknz says:

      I was completely confused about your reply until I got my husband to read the thread. He worked out why my statement was confusing – the man is a born editor.

      When I say “I don’t believe you can do evil (legal abortion) to achieve good (women not dying at the hands of unsafe, illegal abortionists). ” I should have said “I think it is morally wrong to do evil to achieve good.” Of course it is _possible_ to do evil so that good may come, but I think it is morally wrong to do so.

      I can not morally agree to mother’s killing their children in a way that makes it safe for the mothers because killing children is wrong. Likewise I would disagree with state controlled drug dens with safe dosages for recreational drug users in order to reduce unintentional heroin overdoses. I would disagree with making state torture legal so that doctors could oversee to make sure that those tortured do not suffer permanent physical harm or death. Sure you can make drug abuse and torture safer, but that doesn’t change the fact that drug abuse and torture are wrong.

      Illegal abortion will happen no matter how society legislates, but domestic abuse still happens despite it being illegal. I doubt you would support legal domestic abuse if it made it safer for the abuser.

      You want me to support killing children so that mother’s don’t resort to unsafe illegal abortions – but killing children is wrong. I can never agree to killing children.

      • Yonmei says:

        Of course it is _possible_ to do evil so that good may come, but I think it is morally wrong to do so.

        Rather than reply to this comment in detail, I’d rather make a response further down the thread that sets out what I feel about abortion and about the ethics of being “prolife”.

        But I was to respond here that again, you are setting out a position that purports to be about the value of human life, which directly requires you to regard with indifference the sacrifice of 70,000 women a year to your moral principles alone – a sacrifice that does not prevent a single abortion.

        With regard to drug control, I am a fan of the old British system: if someone becomes addicted to a drug that it is not in itself dangerous (such as heroin, cocaine, etc) then let them receive their doses as a prescription drug from their healthcare provider, who can be a route to de-addiction programs, at the addict’s own pace.

        I don’t see why we should ensure a high rate of organized crime, high prison rates for addicts who steal for crime bosses because they are desperate for their next fix, high rates of STD transmission for/with IV-drug using prostitutes who are working to earn money for their next fix, and a trail of illegal drug buying across several continents that causes damage in its wake – all with the single function of ensuring a large income for the Mafia and other criminal organisations including the Taliban.

        Making addictive drugs available on prescription de-funds organised crime, ensures addicts can live long, healthy lives, and would likely lead to more addicts being better able to quit their addiction – but even if not: lowering the crime rate and lowering the death rate both seem like good goals, not evil ones.

        Whereas your goal appears to be “I’ll stand by and wash my hands and feel morally superior to those addicts: I don’t care if they die and I’ll hope my house isn’t one of those broken into to pay for my moral superiority.” And that seems to me to be a thoroughly evil goal.

      • muerknz says:

        I’m afraid I find your positions on both abortion and dangerous recreational drugs to be immoral and harmful. We aren’t going to agree here. You say you care about lives, but you fail to address the approximately 42 million babies murdered every year by abortion. I’m not sure how you avoid caring about this terrible death rate. I’m glad that society doesn’t support your views on drugs and I hope that eventually they will see abortion for what it is – legalised murder.

  12. Faye says:

    Child sex abuse is illegal but that didn’t stop the Priests from molesting them over and over again.

    • muerknz says:

      I agree, and I would never suggest we legalise sexual abuse either. Instead I would advocate for abusers to be stopped and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I assume you feel the same way.

  13. Yonmei says:

    Many years ago, I sat on the floor with one of my best friends’ two children, and watched the younger one learning how to walk. It was the first time I had seen how difficult it is to balance on two feet: she was having a whale of time working it out, and her grin of triumph when she actually stood upright and walked two or three feet to where I was holding out my hands to her was a lovely thing to see.

    For literally the first time it occurred to me that the casual reference I had always made to abortion as a teenage feminist (“You can always have another one later”) was wrong. The younger daughter was absolutely different from the elder, her own unique self. If my friend had had an abortion when she was pregnant with one, the other wouldn’t have been “another one”: there never would have been another girl like the older daughter.

    Having an abortion destroys a chance to make a unique human being. But it is not killing nor murder. If my friend had decided to have one or two abortions (which I have no idea if she did or didn’t consider it: but I think they were both planned and I know they were both wanted because my friend like me is prochoice!) this would not have been the moral equivalent of either of her two daughters being murdered.

    Of course before abortion became safe, the standard way to deal with unwanted babies was to kill them – indeed, in Catholic thinking when it was assumed that a fetus went to Hell or at best to Limbo, a woman who gave birth, baptised, and then killed her child was doing her very best for a baby she could not keep or acknowledge ever having. Every culture pre-abortion has always killed babies or young children. Only abortion allows the right to decide, without going through the full term of pregnancy and childbirth, that this possible child will never become an actual child. Only feminism has allowed women the individual right to decide for ourselves whether or not to – literally – make a baby.

    Pregnancy is a nine month’s labour of making a baby from a fertilised egg. At the time 90% of abortions take place, a fetus has no brain and its sex is impossible to detect: it is a clump of largely undifferentiated cells. You are not “saving a baby” by forcing a woman through pregnancy against her will: you are requiring a woman to make a baby, to invest months of her labour, her health, her bodily resources – every organ in the body is put under some sort of strain – in order to create a baby, whether she wants to do so or not. You are advocating a form of slave labour, which is evil, for what you assert is a good goal: the creation of an unwanted baby.

    The cerebral cortex doesn’t begin to develop till the 15th week. About 50% of the time women miscarry the early conceptus in the first few days or weeks of pregnancy without necessarily even knowing they were pregnant: Catholic claims to believe that the fetus is morally a baby, a child, from the moment of conception do not extend with any consistency to requiring such that all heterosexually-active women shall treat their sanitary towels/tampons with proper respect as containing the tiny “corpse” of their unborn child. Nor is there any other concern for this massive holocaust of what they purport to regard as children: women on the Pill don’t ovulate and so don’t take part in what the Catholic Church ought to regard as a massive holocaust of the unborn – in your terminology, 50% of the world’s children die before they’re 4 weeks old.

    The Catholic and other claims that a fetus must be protected and treated as a human being do not surface when it comes to disposing of sanitary towels or anything else – they only surface when it means being able to harass and persecute women for being sexually active without wanting to have a baby.

    Making abortion illegal is proven not to prevent abortions but to make them more dangerous. Persecuting abortion providers is proven not to prevent abortions but to make women have far more dangerous abortions. The prolife goal of trying to make abortion illegal is the goal of making abortions more dangerous, which is evil, as a whip to force women to slave labour, which is evil, for a claimed goal of trying to make women have babies they do not want, which has been claimed as “good” by a number of dictators as well as slaveowners: Nicolae Ceausescu was one.

    Abortion is a big moral decision. It rightly belongs to the woman who is pregnant, and to no one else.

    • muerknz says:

      There’s a massive moral difference with an unborn person dying due to natural causes and being actively terminated – killed. Personhood isn’t about how developed one’s cerebral cortex is, otherwise severely brain damaged people would lose their personhood when they lose their brain functions.

      I’m going to ignore your comments about Catholic theology because it’s complicated and I doubt you actually care about the finer point of theology and doctrine. If you do care, then I apologise and I’ll point you to websites that will correct your misunderstandings of Church teaching. However I should point out that one of the reasons the Church disagrees with the contraceptive pill is because if conception does occur then the pill stops the embryo implanting in the uterus. So actually, they do care consistently.

      When I was pregnant with my fourth child they thought I had miscarried because I was bleeding. The doctors decided to give me an ultrasound to check. There was my son’s little body, arms, legs, spine and his beating heart. He wasn’t a clump of “largely undifferentiated cells” at all. (Actually I should find his photo of the scan to show you. I will if I can organise that.) My pregnancy was seven-eight weeks along from memory. It was _very_ early.

      I know it’s utterly gruesome, and I won’t link to them, but if you want, google images of aborted babies and see for yourself their level of development.

      And how do you morally cope with third trimester abortions, where the baby is fully developed and is mostly just gaining weight? We save premature babies and yet there are abortions at the same gestational age.

      Personhood is innate, we can’t develop it, it is part of what we are from the time we are concieved. It’s one of the reasons the Catholic Church disagrees with IVF and embryonic stem cell research.

      You were always you. You were always worthy of dignity, respect and life.

  14. Yonmei says:

    There’s a massive moral difference with an unborn person dying due to natural causes and being actively terminated – killed.

    So an “unborn person” who dies of natural causes can be flushed down the toilet without further ado, but one removed from the uterus by the will of the mother is more worthy and valuable? Odd. You’re right that I don’t understand the “finer points” of Catholic theology that allows early miscarriages to be flushed but women persecuted for early abortions.

    personhood isn’t about how developed one’s cerebral cortex is, otherwise severely brain damaged people would lose their personhood when they lose their brain functions.

    A person who has no cerebral cortex cannot feel pain – indeed, cannot perceive anything, since it is via the cerebral cortex that we do perceive. A fetus before 15 weeks development has the capacity to become a person, but they are not yet a person, and will not be unless a woman invests her bodily resources in making it so. (I say “it” because the physical sex of a fetus is impossible to detect at that stage.) Religiously speaking, I come from a long tradition of opposing slavery and respecting personal conscience: though I am now an atheist, I was brought up a Quaker.

    .However I should point out that one of the reasons the Church disagrees with the contraceptive pill is because if conception does occur then the pill stops the embryo implanting in the uterus.

    Factually incorrect. The pill does not stop an embryo implanting – or at least, while prolifers are determined to argue that it does, there is literally no evidence on their side, merely a possible hypothesis somewhat disproven by women who missed one pill, ovulated, got pregnant – bad luck – and stayed pregnant though they were on the pill until they realised they were pregnant. The Catholic Church opposes the Pill because the pill allows women control over reproduction.

    When I was pregnant with my fourth child they thought I had miscarried because I was bleeding. The doctors decided to give me an ultrasound to check. There was my son’s little body, arms, legs, spine and his beating heart. He wasn’t a clump of “largely undifferentiated cells” at all

    You’re right, at 8 or 9 weeks, all essential organs would have begun to develop, including the brain, though the cortex wouldn’t exist for about 7 weeks. The embryo would have been less than an inch long. Ultrasound photography is great for parents who want to see an image of what they see as their future baby: but we know (if we want to, which you obviously don’t!) at what stage fetuses begin to develop what human attributes. That is scientific fact, rather than sentiment.

    And how do you morally cope with third trimester abortions, where the baby is fully developed and is mostly just gaining weight?

    Third trimester abortions are carried out as medical emergencies, because either the fetus is dying or will die, or because the pregnancy is killing the woman. If you want to – though you might find them harrowing – you can look for personal accounts of women who lost their babies in third trimester abortions. How do you morally cope with forcing a woman to endure two or three months of pregnancy knowing the baby is dying inside of her? How do you cope morally with telling a woman she must risk her future fertility and possibly her life by waiting until the fetus is actually dead before you will allow her to have it removed? I say that in a medical emergency the right people to decide what to do are the woman herself (or someone to whom she has granted medical proxy) and her doctors: not you. Not the local bishop or archbishop or the Pope or the government.

  15. muerknz says:

    “The Catholic Church opposes the Pill because the pill allows women control over reproduction.”

    See, in the end it all just comes down to religious bigotry. So disappointing. And so typical of the pro-aborts [to be fair I should change this to pro-choice since that is how you describe yourselves], sorry, prochoicers, I have come across before.

    I’m a Billings Ovulation Method teacher – my training was paid for by Catholic organisations and my parish. I’ve avoided being pregnant for nearly seven years now, and trust me, I’m as fertile as a bunny. You can’t even be factual about what the Church teaches – wilful ignorance given your penchant for promoting abortion and criticising the Catholic Church.

    If women want to “control their fertility” (to quote you) then actually having a deep understanding of it is actually pretty darn useful. Want to know who is big on educating women about their fertility? The Catholic Church. Thanks to education I can tell you when I ovulate, I can tell you whether I’m having a break through bleed, a menstruation, or a withdrawal bleed. I use my own signs of my healthy fertility to assay my hormonal levels. I don’t suffer side effects from hormonal contraception either.

    Knowledge is freedom.

    Of course that doesn’t fit nicely with your narrative of prolifers, Catholics and the Catholic Church so you misrepresent and twist to fulfil your static conception of the ‘patriarchal dominance’ – and yes, those are scare quotes – of Catholicism. You have no intention of listening or even acknowledging with intellectual honesty what I actually believe. Instead you have told me what I believe and you have been utterly incorrect about what the Church teaches.

    I don’t have to teach you theology, you are quite capable of reading for yourself what the Church teaches. Maybe you should instead of spouting ignorant nonsense.

  16. yonmei says:

    I was reminded about this blog because I’m still subscribed to the comments.

    I apologise for what I said that led you to believe I support a woman’s right to choose out of religious bigotry. Sectarianism is an ugly thing, and I oppose it, and I can see that I made several uncalled-for comments while angry, that I certainly shouldn’t have let myself make.

    I support a woman’s right to choose, because I believe in the value of human life, and anti-choice values kill women: because I believe in the value of human lives, and anti-choice values attempt to force women to have unwanted babies, which is not good for human life. I support a woman’s right to choose because her body is hers: because upthread, I think abortion is a major ethical decision, and so rightly, belongs only to the woman who is pregnant. That’s the foundation of my views opposing the prolife case for forcing women, and it has no connection with sectarianism: I am sorry things I said made you think so, and I am very sorry for the things I said about Catholicism that offended you.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s