Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
"God in the Dock" (1948)
As any woman who has endured a regretted abortion can attest to.
Don't you think that this quote describe most pro-lifers just as well? What with all the talk about how women don't really want abortions, they just think they do because it's so normalized in our culture, etc. I think this quote does a pretty good job describing...anyone a person doesn't agree with.
ReplyDeleteIt could. I guess in the end when we're dead we'll find out who was right.
ReplyDeleteBut I'd rather risk erring on the side of love than on the side of death and destruction. That's just a flukey, inexplicable thing about me.
But I'd rather risk erring on the side of love than on the side of death and destruction. That's just a flukey, inexplicable thing about me.
ReplyDeleteAnd that, of course, depends on what your definition of "love" is. I'd say that most people err on the side they view as being the most compassionate; it is incorrect to paint the conflict as love vs. death and destruction, even if that's how you personally feel about it. I could make a comment about how I choose to err on the side of love rather than slavery and death, and all it would do would be to convince you that I have never listened to a word you've said, because you certainly don't want to enslave anybody. I prefer to respect people even if I don't agree with their opinions, but that's just a flukey and inexplicable thing about me, I guess.
The irony of this quote, I think, is that it is about people forcing their morality on others "for their own good." I don't know any pro-choicers who want to force abortion on anybody for their own good -- they want the option open so that people's morals can dictate the options they find acceptable.
But why can't we love both mother and child? Why must it be an either/or situation?
ReplyDeleteWhen I was pregnant with my son, I didn't want an abortion. But any prochoicer in my life would have patted me on the hand and "compassionately" reassured me that it was for the best, that I was making the right choice, etc. They might have meant well but they'd have done me great harm, and harmed my family and killed my son.
Fortunately Eddie was there to offer something other than an act of desperation and despair.
Ashli, as well as Emily and Annie and the Silent No More women desperately wish that somebody had looked past their superficial distress into the real problems that were driving them to the desperation of an abortion. They'd have been grateful for another way out. Who was there to offer it to them?
Why is it that when a pregnant woman has problems, "compassion" dictates that her child must die, even as she lays on the abortion table weeping?
That's the whole reason I couldn't go to the abortion facilities any more. I couldn't take the contrast between the weeping of the women going in and the jubilation of the escorts to whom those women were just so many tally marks on some sort of political scoreboard. Where was the love? Where was somebody to say, "Look, you obviously don't want to do this. Why don't we sit down and work out another way?"
Even many abortion advocacy groups say "Nobody wants to have an abortion." (Though I'd argue that there are some exceptions.)
When an act of desperation and despair is the best a social movement has to offer, isn't it time to examine their priorities?
When I was pregnant with my son, I didn't want an abortion. But any prochoicer in my life would have patted me on the hand and "compassionately" reassured me that it was for the best, that I was making the right choice, etc
ReplyDeleteIn my whole life, I have only known of one pro-choicer who ever tried to reassure a woman that abortion was for the best when that woman had not initiated the discussion on abortion. The vast majority -- pretty much every single pro-choicer, save one, that I have ever encountered in any capacity -- will tell a woman that whatever choice she has made is "for the best." I have sat with women through abortions, rejoiced with friends who have had babies at young ages, and comforted two friends who gave their children up for adoption, and I have NEVER heard anyone tell any of them -- except the ones who chose abortion -- that they were making the wrong choice, that another choice would have been for the best.
Why is it that when a pregnant woman has problems, "compassion" dictates that her child must die, even as she lays on the abortion table weeping?
It doesn't. Compassion dictates, to the pro-choicer, that the pregnant woman experiencing the problems be allowed to decide what happens, not that her child must die. Of course you disagree that the woman should be able to solve her problem by killing the child, but that's not the point of this argument; the point is that pro-choicers as a group do not seek to force a set of actions on pregnant women, "for their own good" or not -- which is what the quote is talking about.
Ashli, as well as Emily and Annie and the Silent No More women desperately wish that somebody had looked past their superficial distress into the real problems that were driving them to the desperation of an abortion. They'd have been grateful for another way out. Who was there to offer it to them?
I wish someone had been there to offer it to them. I really do. I have no problem with CPCs, sidewalk counselors, or anyone else who has the best interests of the women at heart. Even when I was pregnant, I respected people who offered me their opinions (unsolicited) as to what I should do, because I understood that they were speaking with what they perceived to be my best interests at heart. It is very sad that some women don't get the help they deserve, and my heart goes out to them. But, of course, that in itself is not a reason to take away the option.
When an act of desperation and despair is the best a social movement has to offer, isn't it time to examine their priorities?
Declaring bankruptcy is pretty sucky, too, and I'm sure no one wants to go through that -- but people are often very grateful to have the option of acting in desperation, when bankruptcy becomes a viable option in their lives. If there were a movement threatening to do away with a person's ability to declare bankruptcy, would you say its opponents were "in favor of bankruptcy?" Or would you merely think that they wanted people to have the option, even though it's not the best choice to have to make? I think it's a mistake to assume that just because the pro-choice cause focuses on keeping abortion legal, an act of desperation and despair is the best they have to offer -- it's not like they're out there campaigning for more abortions, trying to shove desperation and despair in women's faces. They just don't want the option taken away, which is far different from saying, "This is the best we have to offer."
In my whole life, I have only known of one pro-choicer who ever tried to reassure a woman that abortion was for the best when that woman had not initiated the discussion on abortion
ReplyDeleteBut I did initiate the discussion. I said that the only way out I could see was the Planned Parenthood down the street. How many prochoicers, if the woman said she couldn't see any option but abortion, would actually sit down and look at the full circumstances of her life and say, "Well, actually, I think if you address this, you can avoid the abortion."? The fact that I said "I don't see any other way" would be read as "this is the choice I made", and their "respect" for my "choice" would have them dutifully "helping" me go through with it.
It's like once the idea enters her mind, all the wheels are greased to get her onto the abortion table, and among prochoicers I've seen a powerful fear of seeming to be "unsupportive" of her "choice".
A friend of mine once called with an emergency -- a woman in a counseling group we were in together had an abortion scheduled. She came into the group crying and saying she didn't want to kill her baby but saw no other way out. The "prochoice" women in the group just reassured her that she'd made the best choice and that they'd "support" her. How is that "support"?
I didn't have her phone number to contact her, and I never saw her again. I dont' know what happened to her, but I know that the group just abandoned her. The friend who called me was too timid to speak out against the entire rest of the group that were telling the woman that everything would be okay, yada yada yada, they'd "support" her.
How can anybody say that it's "support" when a woman is crying, saying she doesn't want to do something, and you're facilitatin it instead of doing like Eddie and saying, "Okay then, let's find another way."?
Alexandra added:
ReplyDeleteDon't you think that this quote describe most pro-lifers just as well? What with all the talk about how women don't really want abortions, they just think they do because it's so normalized in our culture, etc.
Yeah, that would be a great point if the pro-life cause was all about protecting women from making bad decisions. Then we would be the moral busybodies that CS Lewis criticized. However, that's not the core of the pro-life cause.
The core of the pro-life cause is that we don't believe people should be allowed to kill innocent children. We believe that all human beings have a right to life, even if they're disabled, seriously ill, or simply really young.
If a desire to protect innocent children from a horrific death makes me a "moral busybody," then I'm guilty as charged.
I think this quote does a pretty good job describing...anyone a person doesn't agree with.
Sadly, I think you're probably right. It seems to be a libertarian-esque statement along the lines of "Back off, dude!" ... only more articulate, because CS Lewis was a freakin' genius. :)
As far as I know, CS Lewis never actually wrote about abortion. Granted, it was not as pressing a concern when he was writing, although there certainly were abortions in those days. However, CS Lewis wrote some brilliant stuff about the importance of absolute morality and the need for Christians to stand against evil.
The author of my holistic health textbook also sited this C.S. Lews quote to support abortion. I know people have different beleifs and I respect that. But, this is another example of the Left's attempts to snide Christians by using a Christian to promote ideals that are morally oppressive to them. It's in keeping with their abilities to pervert the truth, whether in their interpretation of law, or in their interpretation of compassion. Like the idea that a person's right to choose to have a baby is somehow compareable to the baby's right to live and breathe.
ReplyDelete"The core of the pro-life cause is that we don't believe people should be allowed to kill innocent children. We believe that all human beings have a right to life, even if they're disabled, seriously ill, or simply really young.
ReplyDeleteIf a desire to protect innocent children from a horrific death makes me a "moral busybody," then I'm guilty as charged."
I completely agree. The pro-life movement is all about protecting the lives of those unborn children who cannot speak for themselves. We want to offer women an alternative to abortion, which is why so many pro-life activists do side-walk counseling and stand outside of abortion clinics. Most women who have had abortions and then given testimonies about them have said that if 1 person told them that there was another option, they would have taken it over abortion, because a lot of women honestly don't want to have abortions, but they feel like that is there only choice and unfortunately most of their family and friends are telling them that it is the best, or only option.