Yes, it definitely has an attention grabbing headline, but it also raises several really good points:
I was looking through a Time magazine article whose infograph cited data from the Guttmacher Institute about the most common reasons women have abortions. It immediately struck me that none of the factors on the list were conditions that we tell women to consider before engaging in sexual activity. Don’t have the money to raise a child? Don’t think your boyfriend would be a good father? Don’t feel ready to be a mother? Women were never encouraged to consider these factors before they had sex; only before they had a baby.
The fundamental truth of the pro-choice movement, from which all of its tenets flow, is that sex does not have to have life-altering consequences. I suddenly saw that it was the struggle to uphold this “truth” that led to all the shady dealings, all the fear of information, all the mental gymnastics that I’d observed.
That’s a bold claim: sex does not have to have life-altering consequences. Do you agree?
found via my friend Tim
Quinn McGinnis liked this on Facebook.
-.- Everything has life-altering consequences. This is dumb.
Ferg, a prof at my school talked about this issue once. It was an excellent lecture. She goes into a lot of detail, but it’s based on the same basic observation that you are making here. “Private moral decisions have profound public implications. In this Spring 2011 Evening Public Lecture Sarah Williams argues that what goes on in the private arena of the bedroom is as deeply significant and formative as what goes on in the public square. Furthermore the private and public spheres cannot be viewed as separate because each establishes the ground rules for the other. Sarah goes on to outline the sexual ethics of society and then suggests ways to reconnect the two spheres.” http://www.regentaudio.com/RGDL4100K?category_id=0&search_string=sarah+williams&search_category_id=0
My belief: sex has life altering consequences. Babies are just one of them. Getting rid of them, or keeping them does not negate that fact.