|
|
|
| Written by YRG |
| Thursday, 11 June 2009 01:51 |
|
This speech has been getting a lot of play in the wake of the grisly church murder of Dr. George Tiller last week. Ragsdale's speech was so absurd that I felt compelled to respond to it, cribbing her words and adding some of my own. I posted the article on this site as "Rape is a blessing..." knowing that it was controversial and would get people angry. I felt that this concept was so bizarre and out there that perhaps it would shock people into seeing how absurd and divisive her words were when applied to abortion. Some people took this the wrong way and thought that I was endorsing rape. This could not be farther from the truth. Rape is a violent and horrible crime that no one should have to experience. However, I could not think of a better term to use that would cause the same shock in others that I felt when reading her words, and the feelings I evoked seemed to be similar to the ones I felt. I asked that the article be removed as the headline was changed, which changed the shock value of the piece. Instead, I will attempt to explain my feelings without the easy attention afforded by shock and controversy. At the end of the article in the Phoenix, Ragsdale says that the ones responsible for creating an environment where violence was inevitable were the ones who said Tiller ran an abortion mill. Yet I do not think she is behaving any better by advocating abortion as an absolution. She seems to equate abortion with cosmetic surgery. Her feeling is that a zygote is no more a person than a pimple, and removing it is no big deal. It is not a baby, only the promise of one. Her attitude of abortion as "an unfettered good," to be celebrated (as conveyed by the article's author) is creating the same divisive, controversial environment as those she criticizes. How is this type of speaking going to bring anyone together? Controversy is a cheap way of getting attention, and it usually only leads to more. Her mindset is dangerous as it can easily justify irresponsible sexual behavior rather than careful steps taken to avoid pregnancy. Why use a condom when you can get an abortion? Why not use the morning after pill after every sexual encounter? Perhaps this is the future that we are looking at. But what does this lead to? Already advancements in drugs and technology have led people to the mindset that internal weaknesses can be fixed externally, rather than looking inward at prevention. Why eat right when you can get gastric bypass surgery? Why exercise when you can use a scooter to get around? What may seem like straw men arguments are actually employed as solutions in many cases. I agree with abortion when it involves a danger to the mother and in cases of rape. It should be a last-case method, employed only if there are no other options, not when it becomes an easy way out for people who want to avoid the consequences of their actions. It should be a rarity, never for convenience. Yet, I believe there should be no laws against it, only more education focused on choosing life. The Pro Choice and Pro Life dichotomy should be replaced with a Choose Life movement. Someone of Ragsdale's stature, who will soon be dean to a crop of new Episcopalian divinity students, should be more positive and inclusive than divisive and controversial, and should bring people together rather than push them further apart. The opinions expressed by the writer are the opinions of the writer and their interpretation of shitheadery. If you have an opinion about their opinion, leave a comment or submit an article. |
If you have an opinion about their opinion, leave a comment or submit an article.