Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Everything's Better with Sex

Something I don’t understand about the stupid people: Why are they so damn stupid?  Here’s failed Congressional candidate Nathan Tabor, an anti-abortion stupid person from North Carolina, explaining why it is wrong for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to recommend that doctors give morning-after pill prescriptions to women who didn’t immediately need them; via TBogg:

For ACOG, the pill is a simple solution to the estimated 2.7 million unplanned pregnancies that occur each year.  But the fact of the matter is, a number of us were the result of unplanned pregnancies. You don’t have to be planned—or even wanted by your natural parents—in order to make a difference in this world.

And the argument is that we shouldn’t prevent babies from being born, because even the unwanted ones might benefit us.  And sure, that’s true enough.  But doesn’t that also justify us having sex all the time and pumping out as many babies as is humanly possible?  I mean, if the point is that we shouldn’t be preventing babies; then what difference does it make whether you’re having sex or not?  Whether a woman uses the pill, aborts her baby, or simply abstains from having sex; she’s not having a baby.  As far as babies not being born; it’s all the same thing.  Because if you’re worried about the babies not being born, you have to worry about all the babies that aren’t being born.  Not just the ones which weren’t born due to the right reasons.

And with this line of reasoning, they’re essentially equating abstinence with abortion.  Not only that, but it would be a strong argument for turning girls into baby machines immediately after puberty.  After all, the babies that we’re not letting them have would most certainly make a difference in this world.  Quite possibly a positive one.  And doesn’t it strongly suggest that it’s immoral for women to stop making babies before menopause?  How is that not a natural implication of this argument?  By my reckoning, I figure that the average fertile woman could pump-out about twenty-five babies in a reproductive lifetime; and that’s even assuming a lenient year-and-a-half gap between babies.  Comparing that with our nation’s current fertility rate of 2.08 would certainly make baby Jesus cry.  Clearly, we could be doing better.

Oh, and let’s not forget the big drain on resources that infertile people pose.  Here we’ve got millions of undernourished breeders in the world, unable to live up to their full potential due to a lack of resources; while we’ve got non-breeders wastefully existing with no other purpose than their own selfish enjoyment.  How dare they!  Don’t they know how many more unwanted babies the world needs?  Or do they just not understand the importance of proper nutrition in procreating and raising new breeders?  

Now, if they just don’t like babies being aborted, I guess I can understand that.  But this has nothing to do with whether or not we’re getting the extra folks we need to fix our problems.  And to suggest that it is immoral for these women to deny us these unwanted babies is an area that these people really shouldn’t try to visit.  Because that would make a woman who has had ten abortions and one child a more moral person than a nun who has had no children.  For that matter, it would make the proverbial Harlem Welfare Queen with fifteen kids more moral than just about anyone else.  And while I’m not really in a position to say that the procreating women aren’t more moral than non-procreating women; that’s really not an argument I’d expect from a supposed Christian with endorsements from Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Bob Jones III.  But then again, I guess I never really did expect an argument from such a person.

Needless to say, this whole thing is ludicrous.  Yet another back-assward attempt to rationalize a position that they can’t explain.  I mean sure, the argument does hold up under its own weight and can be extrapolated into a working system.  More babies means more brains working on more problems.  That’s simple enough.  But it’s a system that’s completely contradictory to everything that the anti-aborters believe in.  If you’re upset that people aren’t having enough babies, then you have to be upset at all the people not having enough babies.  Or have I missed the recent upsurge of Christians wanting me to start impregnating women?  And if that’s not what they want, and they don’t want folks having babies, I just think that it makes a lot more sense for us to be doing so while having sex.  Because everything’s just better with sex.

5 comments:

Rosie said...

Doc,
It's not that they want lots of babies to be born, but that since everything that happens is god's will, when anyone gets pregnant, it is the will of god. So to abort any baby is to go against god's will. I'm surprised that opponents are not even more vocal, because they all know exactly what god wants.
Simple?

Interesting post over at Andrew Sullivan:
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/05/christanism_and.html
about how the christianists oppose both abortion and contraception so that women suffer the stigma of their "illicit" acts.

We've got a way to go, yet.

Brandon said...

Dispense with the silly "they want everyone to pump out more babies" straw man. That's not the argument--Tabor wasn't arguing against contraception, because the morning-after pill is not contraceptive. It does not prevent a pregnancy; the egg has already been fertilized and has begun development. His argument is merely that abortion is wrong; the pill performs in an abortive capacity; ipso facto, the pill is wrong. Here's something to think about; not everyone who disagrees with you is a toothless, inbred mouth-breather. Try engaging over the issue instead of hurling epithets and twisting arguments. It makes for a better debate.

Brandon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
learn2conserve said...

This a response to the original bog,

I think you are missing the point that Nathan Tabor is making. It is not that women should be baby making machines; it’s that women who get pregnant out of wedlock should have to take responsibility. Also, that fact that, the morning after pill does not prevent a pregnancy, the baby is truly growing and ALIVE! in the woman’s womb. To abort a child is to kill, a law against God. Young girls who get pregnant need to take some action is what they did, and if they truly cannot take care of the child, then they can give it up for adoption or there are times when God knows that the girl cannot take care of the child and he takes care it of by causing a miscarriage or some other incident. A huge problem in today’s world is poor education of sex, and the irresponsible parents that do not teach their child that they have a duty to going about sex the right way.
My parents told me that my brother and I were unplanned, but they were married and prepared for it. Personally, I think people should wait till marriage to have sex, that way if they have an unplanned pregnancy then they will have the resources to care for the child. Honestly, would you really be able to look at a fetal photo of a LIVING baby that you and your significant other created and kill it. If so, you’re a sick human being.
Perhaps if you check out the website, www.theconservativevoice.com You may get some more information.

Doctor Biobrain said...

Sorry, Brandon and learn2conserve, but your reading comprehension really needs to improve. While Tabor was also arguing against abortion, I was specifically addressing the one argument I quoted. He clearly was arguing that it is wrong to kill unplanned babies because even the unplanned would "make a difference in this world". That's exactly what he said. And I addressed that argument.

Did I suggest that this was his only argument or the only argument that anti-aborters make? Of course not. In fact, I stated the opposite; that Tabor also makes a different case against abortion. But my argument was only addressing the idea that we somehow need these aborted babies for some purpose.

And this isn't a strawman at all, and you've probably made it yourself at some point: ie, that the baby you abort could be the one that cured cancer or something. And that was the argument I addressed. And I never claimed that the argument was "pump out more babies". But that is a implicit argument in what he made.

BTW, the morning after pill is not necessarily an aborter. From what I understand, it works before the egg has implanted and is far from being a done deal.