Your child deserves to have YOU as their mother and to be raise and cared for and loved by YOU (and the father of course). In situations where that is not possible, obviously, adoption (and other options) is a wonderful and beautiful secondary alternative. But that doesn’t negate the obligation in the first place of the biological mother. And in the case of adoption what it most often means (with few exceptions) is that the man and woman putting the child up for adoption probably should not have been engaging in sex in the first place. Our actions obligate us to certain moral responsibilities. If we aren’t ready to accept those then we aren’t ready to have sex.

Sterilizing yourself intentionally is not a good alternative either, as it is an abuse of your body. You are destroying a perfectly healthy and good function of how your body was designed to work. And all so that you can enjoy some pleasure it was designed for without the natural and good consequences of the act.

Tessa – life is about much more than maximizing our pleasure. That is a road that ends in despair. The pursuit of such pleasure while disregarding what we were made to be will not lead to the peace and joy you are searching for. That peace is only found in recognizing who you are and what you were made to be and then living in accordance with it.

I wish you the best! God bless you.

It seems to me that you came to this particular discussion on this particular blog for a reason. Maybe, in your heart of hearts, you are looking for truth.

Someone who believes that everything isn’t black and white, that is, one who believes that there is no truth, or that truth is relative, has a problem — or so it seems to me. To believe that there is no absolute right and wrong means that the person has to accept that nothing he or she says is reliable, that in fact everything he or she says or believes is meaningless.

Apparently, from what you have said in this thread, you believe that you have the absolute right to do whatever you want, whenever you want, with whomever you want, as often as you want, however you want. Do you not see the contradiction?

The only way to make sense of the world and of life is to understand that there is right and wrong. Right is not always pleasant or convenient, and wrong never comes without consequences. Matt’s take on things is right. You may find that unpleasant or inconvenient, but that doesn’t make you right.

I hope you will consider that as you look for truth. I pray that you don’t stop looking for truth until you find it, and that you find the fulness of truth and have the courage to accept it.

Peace and all good to you.

I’m sorry, but I get the feeling that you’re not a huge fan of women liking sex. You seem to think that it is all the woman’s fault if a baby is born. I’m not sure if that is actually what you believe, but that is how you’re presenting yourself. It takes two to get pregnant, and men tend to get the better end of the deal since they don’t actually birth the child. And actually, it would be a responsible choice for me to give up any hypothetical child I birthed because I do not think I would be a fit mother for a child. Just because I am a woman does not automatically make me a good mother; I have my strengths, and nurturing children is definitely not one of them. Any child of mine would be much better off with parents who use their resources to adopt a child than it would be with me. And just because I do not want children does not mean that I should not have sex. Sex is a wonderful, pleasureable thing that brings couples together, and there are many ways to have sex that won’t result in pregnancy (meaning no penetration is involved, and as a bit of TMI, that constitutes most of the sex that I have). And even if penetration is involved, modern contraceptives (when used correctly and in conjunction with one another) make that chance nearly zero.

And I actually plan on getting sterilized as soon as I can so that I can fully enjoy sex in all forms, which is a whole other issue, since apparently as a woman most American doctors won’t sterilize me unless I have one or two children already and/or are thirty years of age. You tell me whether it’s fair or not if I happen to (on the 99.9% off chance) get pregnant because a doctor wouldn’t sterilize me for these reasons when I wanted to be sterilized. Why do so many people care only about the child living, and living with the biological mother, when they never consider the mother herself or how the child will be taken care of with the mother? It rather thoughtless, and it feels like it’s all about control. I am trying to understand other people’s views, am willing to reconsider my own, and want to find a solution that benefits everyone involved, but I can’t find others who are willing to look at all of the factors with me. There is more than just one factor involved, and it feels like most sides in these sort of debate choose to only focus on one factor. Things aren’t black and white, no matter how hard one may try to make them so.

Whether or not you feel my choice to give a hypothetical child up for adoption is responsible or not, that is for me the most responsible choice I could make, and you have no right to judge my choice as responsible or irresponsible without knowing my situation. I’m not perfect; I’m sure you’re not either. Maybe you don’t agree that I should be having (responsible, protected) sex if I don’t want children, or that I should give up any hypothetical child I would have at this time for adoption; to that I say that my situation is an extremely complicated one that I would not be able to share here, and we will have to agree to disagree. And I have a feeling you won’t agree with anything that that think or choose to do, so I am not going to argue further.

And while giving your unwanted baby up for adoption is certainly VASTLY more “responsible” than aborting (killing) him/her. It still is not very responsible. Which is my point.

Sex being only appropriate within a life-long marriage is not only a “religious belief.” It’s a matter of justice for the baby involved. It’s based upon natural law – no need for religious beliefs to come into play at all. Your unwanted baby is owed his/her biological mother and father. And not separately, but within a secure and safe relationship that is exclusive and life-long (this is the definition of a marriage). That is what is best for the child. That is what they are owed by you, her mother. For you to engage in sex knowing that you risk getting pregnant while not intending to take responsibility for your own child, the human being you brought into the world, is not responsible at all. Sorry.

Adoption is a beautiful choice for people who are victims of irresponsible behavior (their own or others) and who could not otherwise provide for their child. It is not a “responsible” option for people who want to have sex without consequences and then to shirk their duty to the baby they bring into the world as a result of it. Giving up all responsibility for their own son or daughter who, by no fault of their own, was brought into the world by their mother’s desire for sex – but not for them.

It has absolutely nothing to do with what I believe. It has to do with what is just and right for each and every human life that comes into being.

I do see your point on the contraceptive issues, and why it might be seen as birth control by some. I just wanted to point out that not all see it as that. I certainly do not. For example, if I had sex and were to get pregnant, I would have the child and give it up for adoption. I just don’t see abortion as an option for myself. But I am so thankful that I have contraceptives that I can use that significantly reduce my odds of getting pregnant to almost zero. And I never said that sex wasn’t risky. That is my point: the problem is that people aren’t adequately taught about sex. We should not teach people that sex is completely safe, but how to have sex responsibly and know what the very real risks are. It is silly to assume that anything you do doesn’t have risks. Taking medication has risks. Skydiving has risks. Eating new foods has risks. But it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do those things; enjoy them, as long as you are prepared for it and do it responsibly. Perhaps if people were actually taught how to use contraceptives properly, and they were informed of the success rates and told to use more than one method at a time, then the abortion rate would in fact decrease rather than increase. Just giving people contraceptives and telling them to go for it is never the answer.

I completely respect that you feel sex should only be within marriage for those who want children, but I do not agree that your ideal should be imposed on everyone in America. That is extremely unfair. Not everyone shares your personal and/or religious beliefs, and it is perfectly ok for them to not agree with you and act how they see fit. I, for example, do not see sex the same way that you see sex. I would ask that you respect my freedom to have sex and use contraceptives, though you may not agree with how I live my life. Again, I respect that you want to live your life that way, but you can’t force others to do the same. I understand wanting abortion to be illegal on the grounds of unjustly ending a life, but people should both be educated about contraceptives/sex and have access to contraceptives, because not everyone believes the way you do.

Thanks for your thoughts. And actually, it’s yes, a contraceptive culture has most certainly contributed to more abortions. The correlation is astounding. The more and more common the use of contraceptives has become, the more and more abortions that have occurred.

I never said contraception didn’t help prevent pregnancy if used properly. And I never said or implied that dangerous pregnancies had anything to do with contraception use. Not sure why you mentioned those.

Putting women in a bad place? That is ridiculous and COMPLETELY insulting to women. Women are completely capable of controlling themselves if they are taught to and, if they do make a mistake, giving birth to the innocent baby inside of them…their own child.

The problem with POVs like yours is that you start with a (false) given that…women are going to have sex. As if they have no control over what they do. It’s not just the abstinence education that failed some people, it’s the entire education system and most of all their families and the culture in general that implies the same (false) given that you are – that they are just going to have sex, “everyone is gonna do it.” So, of course, they do. Duh.

And of COURSE people use abortion as birth control. Anytime you have sex, even if you use multiple forms of birth control, there is a chance at pregnancy. Period. So if you’re going to have “responsible” sex, then you had better be ready to accept a child. Otherwise, you have no place at all rolling the dice with pregnancy, conceiving a child and then killing them because you decided it was okay to roll the dice on getting pregnant because you used contraception and, whoops, it failed. That’s completely irresponsible. And anyone who gets an abortion because their “birth control failed” is most certainly using abortion as a form of birth control. Their “conception control” failed (contraception) so they “control” the birth another way (by killing the baby). A huge portion of abortions occur because “my birth control failed.” That is abortion as birth control, plain and simple.

You are missing the point of how contraception contributes to abortions. It’s a matter of the cultural value of sex and its consequences. Contraception and its widespread use has enabled (and encouraged) this idea that there is such a thing as “responsible” or “safe” sex that doesn’t involve the potential consequences of a new human life being created. That’s a lie. The ONLY place that safe and responsible sex can occur is within a life-long marriage which is open to the children that may result from their sexual activity. The child deserves that and needs that.

Additionally, a contraceptive culture and a false sense that there is such a thing as “safe” sex has had a risk compensation effect. That is, because people perceive sex as completely safe and that there are no real consequences to it, they engage in more and riskier sex than they would have otherwise. That’s what scientific research found with the “condom” distribution approach to stopping AIDS in Africa (more on that here).

Actually, more contraception is not the contributing factor to why more abortions are taking place. Contraception prevents pregnancy if used properly (especially if two or more methods are used at once, which is recommended). Dangerous pregnancies are unrelated to contraception usage. And many women who get abortions are young teenagers who don’t use contraception (or don’t use it properly) because they are only taught abstinence. It has been proven that areas in the US that teach abstinence only or have inadequate sex education courses have higher rates of teen pregnancy. If contraception was more available and used correctly, the market for abortions would decrease dramatically. The only way that could happen without contraception knowledge and usage is if people didn’t have sex at all. To say that more contraception is not the answer, and then say that abortions should be illegal, is putting women in a very bad place indeed.

It’s also a little offensive to say that people today think of abortion as a form of birth control (I’m assuming you mean women, since they’re the ones getting the procedure). You are not a woman; I am. I do not know any woman (or person), for or against abortion, who thinks of it as a form of birth control. And if someone does, it is not the availability of actual contraception that causes this view. Abortion is a serious and horrible procedure that is not to be taken lightly. How could anyone view ending a pregnancy as no big deal? Many women agonize over it. And that is why it is so important to make real birth control more available.

And what it comes down to is that you’re incorrect about whether or not it’s “settled” that a human life is ended in an abortion. That’s my point. It IS settled. Science has more than settled that a new, unique, individual, self directing human life is created at fertilization. That’s settled. It’s just that people don’t want to accept this truth because of its hard consequences to the lifestyles so many have chosen. And yes, even the hard consequences to some very rare, but real and difficult situations regarding some pregnancies (rape, health of mother, etc.). But that just makes them hard (which life is). It doesn’t make killing innocent innocent human life acceptable or moral.

And better education and resources for pregnant mothers would be great. I’m with you there. I’m not with you on more contraception (as that is one of the contributing factors to the lifestyle that has led to more abortions and to treating abortion as a kind of “birth control” in the first place).

Either way, all of those are just really, really bad excuses to intentionally kill an innocent human life. They are illogical and unethical as well. They just happen to be accepted excuses by many in our culture. And suggesting that it is “not a moral society” that makes abortion illegal when women are not fully supported is completely fallacious nonsense. It implies that it IS a moral society that allows the killing of children in the womb. It is that kind of unsound implication being spread around that has caused so many people to be confused on the ethics of this issue. But as such arguments continue to be exposed as simply irrational, emotional appeals, more and more people are coming around to realizing and respecting the dignity of all life.

Thanks for your thoughts.

To make the statement about who has the authority to determine whether a woman gives birth or not, we are only discussing the reality of the matter. No interpretation is necessary. Either she decides or, through some mechanism or other, society or government decides. But to make the statement about who has the authority to destroy a human life, you have to already have the conclusion to the argument that in our society is far from settled, a conclusion stating that abortion is in fact “taking a human life” – as opposed to destroying living tissue that has the potential of becoming an individual person. I did not leave off half the story, I just did not include the part of it that is not comparable.

As for the natural course of things, all manner of things is natural but regularly avoided because life is more pleasant without it. The very phraseology “the intentional destruction of an innocent human life” assumes the position it attempts to support.

All that said, I am not in the least in favor of abortion. To the extent possible, we should build systems of health and financial support, education, birth control and family planning that do not put so many women in the position of having to make the choice in the first place. (The choice must be made whether legal or not, as the presence of illegal abortions in the days before Roe v. Wade illustrates.) And we should build aspects of society that make it easier for women to avoid what amounts to penalty for choosing other options other than abortion.

And we must recognize that not all pregnancy scenarios are equal. A 13-y/o who has been raped and is pregnant or a 40-y/o whose unborn child has complications that endanger the mother’s life is not at all the same moral or ethical issue as a 22-y/o who doesn’t want stretch marks. They are distinct kinds of situations that cannot be lumped together.

At the very least until that far distant day when we have the kind of society where women are fully supported in their lives, pregnancies, and child rearing, it is not a moral society that makes abortion illegal. If you want to eliminate abortion, reshape society so that the alternatives are more attractive to the real people living in the society.