OPINION & EDITORIAL
Pro-lifers desire responsibility
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- SSFC stipend appropriate (December 11, 2007)
- Poor plowing cuts off handicapped access (December 10, 2007)
- Cars that actually help the environment (December 10, 2007)
- Organic food: Deliciously safe (December 10, 2007)
- Diversity deserves attention at UW (December 7, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Sex, lies and criminalizing abortion (March 29, 2006)
- Abortion rights activist lacks heart (February 2, 2007)
- Compassionate care measure heartless (September 19, 2007)
- Herald highlights dangers of coercion but not illegal abortion (October 6, 2005)
- Letter to Editor (March 10, 2005)
by Letters to the Editor
Tuesday, April 4, 2006
I have heard many people — the latest being Adam Lichtenheld ("Sex, lies, and criminalizing abortion," March 29, 2006) — question why those who are against abortion don't promote contraception. While, as a legal matter, I and many other pro-lifers would not be in favor of banning all contraceptives or removing all mention of them from health class, I can perhaps understand those who are. Contraception and abortion are part of the same culture, a culture where personal autonomy and sexual gratification are the highest goods, while the human life that may result from sex is regarded as a mistake and a burden rather than as an astonishing gift.
Indeed, a child is a mistake and a burden in an uncommitted relationship, and that is exactly the problem. What pro-lifers want is a society where a human life carries more weight than a good time, and the casual sex that contraception makes possible is an enemy to that attitude.
Now perhaps that society is unrealistic (or a "living hell," depending on your point of view). But as long as our culture tells us that we can't help it, people are just going to have sex anyway, people will. And there will be mistakes and abandonment and abortion. But maybe if we start telling ourselves that we can help it, telling ourselves that we need to view others as persons and not as potential sex partners and to value the smallest of human lives, people might do that, too.
Matthew Bayer
UW student
Anonymous (April 4, 2006 @ 6:53am):
Because in most of recent human history, when premarital sex was frowned on, sex out of wedlock occurred only rarely...
Matthew says as a "legal matter" he would not oppose contraception. What he might mean is "because Griswold exists, I don't argue my true position on the subject." Pro-lifers are free to argue that the only purpose of sex should be procreation. Indeed, they are free to make the argument that procreation should be illegal, or more difficult to obtain. Show your true colors! Then we can chase you out of politics and back to practicing your religiously imposed chastity in private, rather than trying to make everyone else live by your "sperm to birth" culture of life pap.
Anonymous (April 4, 2006 @ 9:13am):
Well said.
Anonymous (April 4, 2006 @ 9:25am):
so let me get this straight you dont want people to have sex unless they are doing it to procreate...im gonna have to go ahead and think that what you want is the dumbest thing ive ever heard
Anonymous (April 4, 2006 @ 10:57am):
What's more responsible that recognizing that you don't have the resources to support a child and taking measures necessary to prevent you from having that child?
You can have sex responsibly. Not all sex that takes place outside of a marriage is "casual". The availability of contraception allows people to make responsible choices about whether or not to have sex and how to prevent conception if they don't want or can't support a child.
Anonymous (April 4, 2006 @ 2:15pm):
Methinks Matt is just mad because none of the girls on his floor will sleep with him.
Anonymous (April 4, 2006 @ 2:26pm):
Not everyone who opposes premarital sex is religious. I am against premarital sex, and I am not religious at all. I am against it because I think it is detrimental to society. It causes more unwanted children to be born. Children from broken homes are more likely to commit crimes......Ok, the real reason I'm against premarital sex is that I don't get any. Are you happy now?
Anonymous (April 4, 2006 @ 2:54pm):
Matthew Bayer, I hope you are planning on putting your money where your mouth is. If you don't want others to have abortions, you better be damn ready to start adopting. For all the pro-lifer loudmouths, only a slight fraction are willing to adopt.
I also want to see the mega churches open orphanages. The proof is in the pudding.
Anonymous (April 4, 2006 @ 3:50pm):
Ok, stop using the word "sleep" when you mean sex. Say "have sex with" or "boink." I hate euphamisms. They hide the truth. Call it what it is. Don't say "I slept with my girlfriend." Say "I shot a big load of man juice into my girlfriend's slimey fun hole."
I guess parents don't like to think of their daughters "having sex." It's much more tollerable if they "sleep." We can't have an open, serious discussion about the topic if we hide it behind nicer sounding language.
Also, a lady doesn't have sex on the first date. She "makes love."
Anonymous (April 8, 2006 @ 1:09pm):
If the Gods didn't want us to have sex, they wouldn't have provided us with our sexual instincts - as powerful as those of hunger and thirst. Maybe the Gods should get Their acts together. Or maybe, just maybe, the anti-pleasure folks (a.k.a. the so-called pro-lifers) should admit their hatred for natural humanity.
