So lately there's been a certain person that is extremely angry and passionate about the pro-abort stance on one of my social networking sites. A friend/aquaintance of a family member, a sweet girl really. Very grateful for her help in the past with things. But I am just wondering why did she become suddenly so angry siding with the pro-abort stances? After reading her posts, she has come to stereotype those of pro-life stances as 1.) being afraid of sex 2.)fear mongers 3.) those who want to press their faith agenda on someone that doesn't believe in God and 4.)bullies of those in difficult situations. 5.)and I forgot, apparently pro-lifers are anti-adoption as well.
Fellow pro-lifers is this true?
1.)Afraid of Sex?
As I am a birth-control free girl who has sex, I would have to say no to this one. Granted, I do think sex is designed for a married committed relationship, due to the damages that happen from the instability of a non-committed relationship. Biologically speaking there are chemicals released during sex that bond one person to another, that get messed up if there is no commitment there. So no, we are not afraid of sex, we just want it to occur where it the fullness of it can be achieved.
2.) fear mongers?
So as to tackle fear mongers, I just have to say really who's the one afraid of having babies, the pro-lifer, or the pro-abort? If having a child is something to be afraid of, then why have we been doing it from the beginning of time. In our society today, pregnancy has become disease-like and must be avoided at all cost. Its like our own humanity scares us so much that we have to void it with all our might. Really think about it, how did you get here? Umm, well, yeah, your parents had sex. But again society has told us that sex should come with no consequences, and I can't even fully discuss the ramifications of that here. But really safe sex? Is there such a thing when you have risks involved with all the contraceptive devices. Its been proven that condoms don't prevent 100% against STDs and especially HIV, and people still get pregnant when on hormonal birth control. So really what is safe? To me it means I have a ring on my finger vows said faithfully so that I know I am safe in having sex, no infidelity included.
3.)those who want to press their faith agenda on someone that doesn't believe in God?
Here I have to say the believe in God is definitely a well-sized bonus to understanding sex, and being pro-life. But really we have secular humanists marching with us in the March for Life, and political groups not associated with religion. My husband and I, while devout Catholics, do think that there is argument that you don't have to believe in God to value life. You just have to think that life is something worth fighting for, something important. More important than material things and wealth. That's it.
4.)bullies of those in difficult situations
Well the media would like you to think so with this one. What they report are the crazies, and so we as a pro-life movement get a bad name. Are we all that crazy? Do we all harass someone who has had an abortion? No. Actually we (the pro-life movement) set up a lot of medical and psychological care facilities for post-abortive women, those facing difficult decisions with an unexpected pregnancy, and actually when it comes to rape, some pro-life scholars argue for emergency contraceptives (not sure if I agree with this, and I know if I was raped, I would keep the baby, but its out there).
5.) pro-lifers are anti-adoption.
No, the problem that stems this arguement, is that we feel it a right to have children instead of it being a gift. So we put so much emphasis on having biological children enough to go through laboratory methods of the extreme variety that adoption is seen as a last resort. To me I think adoption is an amazing gift as well, and not one to be taken lightly. But a lot of people because they stress that biological children are a must, they only want children like themselves, and this is from both sides of the spectrum, leftists and rightists think this alike. To adopt is not second rate, and to adopt outside of your ethnic background is not second rate, but both are equal to a biological child. Especially to the infertile or those who have the monetary means to give the child food, love and a roof over its head. So to answer this, there are probably some miseducated pro-lifers that are anti-adoption, but the majority sees it as a way to give that life a better option than one full of hardship.
and with that I am done. Do you think this response would hold up to her remarks? If you have suggestions on strengthening the argument let me know. Thanks :)