The Elephant in the Room in the Abortion Debate

by Patricia L. Dickson10/30/15

I got into a heated discussion about abortion with a liberal feminist classmate of mine the other day.  I noticed at the onset that she was very particular in framing all of her pro-choice rhetoric with the word choose.  She contended that Republicans want to tell women what to do with their bodies by defunding Planned Parenthood.  She said that a female has the right to choose what happens to her body.  And to deny a female an abortion would be forcing her to be pregnant and in turn forces her to be a mother.  What really upset me was when she said that a woman has the right to choose to be a mother.

I realized that the discussion was going to be replete with liberal talking points, so I decided to frame all of my responses with the word choose as well.  I began by informing her that the first choice that a woman makes as it relates to pregnancy is that she chooses to engage in sex.  And by choosing to have sex, she is in turn choosing to be a mother.  Although not all sex results in a pregnancy, all pregnancy is the result of sex.  So if a healthy, fertile female chooses to have consensual sex, she is choosing to possibly become pregnant, and as a result, she is choosing to be a mother.  When I said that, my nearly fifty-year-old classmate became unglued.

I really did not expect for her to lose it (although it was pure gold).  Did she not know that sex can lead to pregnancy?  Every time liberal feminists want to debate the issue of abortion, sex never enters the conversation (other than rape or incest).  Pro-choice advocates want to use choice only after the baby (or fetus, according to them) is in the womb. How did the baby get in the womb to begin with?  Consensual sex is the elephant in the room in the abortion debate.

PatriciaDicksonPatricia Dickson blogs at Patricia’s Corner.
About Author Author Archive Email

Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (702 views)

This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to The Elephant in the Room in the Abortion Debate

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    It’s funny how rhetoric — the mere forms of words — can be used to deceive or befuddle…or used to help clarify things (as Patricia did).

    This is what I mean by the dangers of man becoming little more than a political animal. With all due respect to the few honest politicians, politics itself is about crafting images — b-essing people, if you will. It’s about crafting rhetoric meant usually to deceive or hide the facts from clarity.

    Political thinking leads people to intellectualizing: using words and ideas that separate themselves from reality. This is what “A woman’s right to choose” is. It’s a rhetorical astigmatism. It blinds and hides. If we take this phrase literally, does a woman have a right to choose to rob a bank? To run me over with her car? To bomb a building?

    For man to be truly a Western man (and not a small and small-minded tribal man), he must exercise all facets of his character, not just the political. He must *know* morality and not just the clever words that keep him distant from it.

    Patricia’s words melted the wall this woman had built up between her fantasy and reality. And that is no doubt why she went ballistic.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Liberals think in terms of talking points and chants. We see this sort of behavior in both Brave New World and 1984, and the purpose in both cases is to bypass actual thought.

      And a crucial aspect of such catchphrases as “right to choose” in unanswered questions such as “Choose what?” Years ago, NBC rejected ads urging women to choose not to abort their children, even though there was no explicit political component in the ads. Abortion worshippers may talk about choosing, but there’s only once choice they care about. Ask someone who identifies as “pro-choice” if we should be able to choose incandescent lights instead of compact flourescents, or what size car we drive, or whether and how to defend ourselves. Most liberals would greatly restrict our choices there.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Talking points and chants. Check. Both Goldberg and Coulter have noted that “activist” or mob-like aspect of the Left. (Some characterize it as feelings instead of standards or thought.) Mobs are as old as time, of course, but I think a new impetus is the juvenile orientation of today’s culture: ball up your fists like a child and scream “I want my ice cream” and then throw your peas on the wall. Would the Democrat Party exist without this type?

        The other side of the coin are the “proper,” nice-talking, and nice-suited people who will sell you and your country down the river with a calm and moderate smile on their faces while offering platitudes of “unity.” (No, I did not have Paul Ryan specifically in mind, but I think he fits the mold perfectly.)

        As Stealers Wheel sung, “Clowns to the Left of me, jokers to the right.” I guess sometimes pop music has a point.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Loved “Steelers Wheel”, especially Gerry Rafferty who went on to great things as a solo artist with “Baker Street”, one of the best pop songs of all time.

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    While talking about this subject, this song popped into my mind: Having My Baby.

    Romanticizing things, particularly the things the Left romanticizes, can be destructive. But it’s not wrong to romanticize things, and in some cases is necessary.

    Contrast that with the harsh and de-humanizing rhetoric coming from feminists and the Left. Pregnancy has become a “disease” to be cured…or is thought of as men imposing limitations and restrictions on women. It used to be thought that having a child was a fulfillment of womanhood.

    One of the comments under this video caught my eye:

    I remember back in the 1970’s when this song came out, the leftist women’s movement harpy group went nuts.

    No doubt. Consider what it does to the human spirit to indoctrinate a visceral distaste for motherhood and babies. These are the same guys who say they care so damn much about the planet.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Hostility to human life (especially innocent human life) has a long pedigree with the Left. This is one of the differences between modern liberals and their more traditional version (which included many who were pro-life — such as Byron White on the Supreme Court).

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        The Left’s thesis is the religion makes people violent. They overlook the 100 million lives murdered by secular-atheist regimes. They simply redefine Stalin and Hitler as “religious” leaders…same as Mao, I guess.

        The conservative thesis is that, hell yes, like anything else in life, religion can make people mad as a hatter. Islam (known as “the religion of peace” to the Left) is a prime example. The Left, however, doesn’t discriminate between good religion and bad religion. It’s just all bad (with Christianity as the worst).

        However, conservatives are not so driven by mindless dogma. Foam is best served with coffee, not thought. And conservatives understand that religion is not an add-on, per se, to life. These ideas are inherent to our existence. That they get formalized and socialized into various liturgies is somewhat neither here nor there. Most honest religions are addressing the Big Questions — questions the dishonest Left said don’t exist because of their materialist commitment — a commitment matching or exceeding the fervor of religion, proper.

        So having pretended that religion and the questions it asks are irrelevant, if not downright dangerous, they eventually fulfill the G.K. Chesterton prophecy of “When a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything” and especially Dostoevsky who said “Without God, everything is permitted.”

        The Wizards of Smart of the Left who say that religion is for retards tend to believe in the most foolish and superstitious things including astrology, global warming, and economic and social theories that are laughably naive.

        This cult-like mindset has cast itself as the people who are smarter, wiser, and nicer. Humility is not amongst their traits. They put a lot of their identity into very precarious, fragile, worldly things and ideas — things and ideas that most conservatives see as sophomoric, at best.

        But without the idea of man being a part of something bigger, the Left is left with man as the political technocrat who can construct anything by mere belief in his beliefs. And as we’ve seen in the last century, this inner despair (which is what I think it is) is so tied to these fragile beliefs (fragile in that the world contradicts them constantly) that they are driven to hate, and even murder, those who threaten the bubble they have constructed.

        It’s not without some cause that Michael Savage says that liberalism is a mental disorder.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Since I was a teenager, I have heard a fair number of people maintain the position that religion has killed more people in history than any other cause. And by religion, these people clearly meant Christianity.

          In order to show these ignoramuses the error of their ways I simply recite backwards the main wars over the last couple of centuries and ask them if any of the following wars were religious wars,

          1. Vietnam
          2. Korea
          3. WWII
          4. WWI
          5. Spanish American War
          6. Franco-Prussian War
          7. Austro-Prussian War
          8. America War Between States
          9. Revolutions throughout Europe in 1848
          10. Napoleonic Wars
          11. American Revolution

          By about this time, they begin to see how foolish their statement is and they get cranky. And I have left out all the slaughter of communists and Nazis, plus a number of other wars around the world which most Americans have no idea about.

          And I would also note that I am of the firm belief that many if not most of the so-called religious wars were not about religion, but religion was used to gain some political or dynastic end of those behind the wars. The Thirty Years War is a good example of this. It is often taught as if this were strictly a religious war, but if one looks only a little deeper one sees this is not the case. Protestants fought with Catholics against Protestants and vis-a-versa.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Part of the problem is that most people think the Inquisition was some Stalinist horror that killed vast numbers of people without even a semblance of due process. In reality, they had very specific standards and usually didn’t execute their prisoners.

            One wonders how many people know that the Salem witchcraft hysteria was brought to an end not be secularists but by a change in which side of a religious disagreement prevailed: Some Puritans (led by Cotton Mather) believed that Satan could only appear as a follower, thus making the spectral evidence of the “victims” relevant. Others (led by Cotton’s father, Increase Mather) believed Satan could appear as anyone, making the spectral evidence irrelevant. Once the spectral evidence was effectively excluded, there was no longer a basis for the remaining charges.

  3. One thing is for sure, the truth will always strike a nerve with liars. The individual that I referenced in the blog is a classmate from thirty-one years ago. Both of us will soon be turning fifty years old (I will be celebrating my 50th birthday on November 12th. PRAISE GOD!) We both have led different lives over the years. She became a far left lunatic and according to her, I am a proud right wing extremist. Both of us are from small towns in Tennessee and both were raised in church. However, somewhere down the road, she was influenced by far left liberalism.

    Anyway, our discussion began with her claiming that republicans want to restrict abortions rights for women by pushing for restriction on partial birth abortions and defunding Planned Parenthood. She spouting on with the usual liberal talking points about republicans wanting to force women to be pregnant and so on (the usual). What struck me about her delivery was her constant use of the word choose in every sentence. That told me that she had rehearsed her rhetoric (who talks like that?). She was calm while she was spouting her talking points. However, as I began responding with facts and logic using “choose” in all of my sentences, she blew a fuse.

    Now this is the part that I left out of the blog. We were discussing (or debating) abortion rights. No one was discussing any individual’s personal situation. After I pointed out that by females choosing to engage in sex, (mainly outside of marriage) they are in turn choosing to be mothers, she started attacking me and accusing me of judging her. I had no idea that she had even had an abortion. She really laid into me. I just sat quietly (there was no need for me to say another word). She went on and on about God is not judging her because if He was He would not have allowed her to have three beautiful children (with her now ex-husband). She ended the attacks by claiming that a growing organism (as she called it) was not really a child but a lump of jelly. When faced with the truth, she confessed. That’s what truth does to people. It pricks their conscience and causes them to confess.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *