Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Gracious, how very very sane

Pretty Lady hesitates to touch Controversial Issues, particularly when tempers are high, the election season being what it is. But she was much struck by the sense of this:
...the so-called 95-10 legislation. This idea satisfies neither side of an absolutist clash completely - how could it and still be common ground? - yet it strives for a 95% reduction in abortion over 10 years, not by legal mandate that would contradict the Senator's belief that this decision must remain that of the mother, but instead by ensuring that no woman faces such decision without having already had the benefit of responsible information about abstinence and contraception. In the event of a pregnancy, the proposal would supply objective information about fetal development, the proper guidance of a parent if the prospective mother is a minor, and the public's assurance of necessary economic support to carry the pregnancy to term, and if it be the mother's informed choice, the adoption of her child.
If Pretty Lady may get personal for a moment--she has lately had cause to observe that Nature is a Wastrel. Life, in the churning workings of unbridled Nature, is not a rare, precious thing, carefully and thriftily meted out in measured doses to earnestly tilled and deserving soil, but rather an overflowing mass of roiling abundance, hurled to the four winds in gargantuan fistfuls, to thrive or wither where it may fall.

(In other words, Spring has come to Pretty Lady's neighborhood, and it is making her a bit heady. She does apologize.)

Thus, it seems to her that carefully tilling of Life is up to the measured consciousness of those that possess such consciousness, not to those forces that manifestly Could Care Less. In plain terms--when coping with issues that involve the nurturing of Life, it seems best to use a bit of Common Sense. And the abovementioned suggestions seem to her to be eminently sensible.


Desert Cat said...

Anything that substantially reduces the number of abortions performed is a good thing. This approach is not so very different from the approach taken by the various crisis pregnancy centers.

There are a number of capitalized items that seem to imply additional whole programs are indicated that I would want to know more about. For example, what is the "Child Custody Protection Act"? What is implied/included in "Informed Consent for Abortion Services"? And what all is included in the "Pregnant Women Support Act"?

This sounds like a good initiative on the face of it. One cannot reasonably expect a decision to carry to term if the necessary support network is absent. (And the reason that the support network is often absent in the first place is just another glaring symptom of the toxic dysfunction of today's society and culture--not something that is going to be solved by a piece of legislation or two or five, or by a court decision. This decline/destruction of family structures has been going on for many decades.)

Anonymous said...

Could you be a little more specific PL? Your language is flowery I don't understand what exactly your supporting here.



Pretty Lady said...

I am supporting Common Sense, of course.

As Desert Cat so wisely points out, one cannot expect a woman to carry a pregnancy to term if the necessary support network is absent. Thus, persons who advocate outlawing abortion without taking that fact into account are trying to legislate against nature. That simply doesn't work.

At the same time, Pretty Lady has recently had experience with the fact that Nature herself does not necessarily intend for all pregancies to come to term. Thus, treating every manifestation of life as a Sacred Thing which must be preserved at all costs is also attempting to work against nature, and is a quixotic enterprise which is doomed to failure at the outset.

At the same time, treating abortion as an inalienable right which causes no ill consequences to anyone, for political reasons, is ALSO a terrible and counterproductive thing. The fact is, abortion can be emotionally devastating, physically dangerous and psychologically scarring for the women who have them. This is true whether or not a person acknowledges larger spiritual import to the decision.

Therefore, it is in our best interests as a society and a culture to reduce the number of abortions performed, through practical, understanding, non-coercive measures which acknowledge the real reasons women have them, not the hyperbolic and pejorative ones. This is true no matter what side of the political fence a person comes down upon.

Anonymous said...

I think the important aspect of what is proposed is making sure that women are informed about contraceptives. Abstinence is a poor contraceptive choice.

It is patently naive to think that this cat will ever go back in the bag. As an aside, I think men should have the same education in contraception that women have.

Anonymous said...

Sus--abstinence is a very effective contraceptive choice. That is, it always works (barring one example 2000-odd years ago that you may or may not believe in based on your religion). Most of the other options, other than surgical removal of reproductive organs, do not work all the time. I point to my two older boys as proof, but you can read the percentage of effectiveness on the packages. Bold print on the front would be preferable to the current tiny print on the back.
Abstinence just isn't very popular these days. Given all the STDs, the emotional, psycological, legal, and financial entanglements stemming from sex and unexpected pregnancies, etc, I wonder why it isn't more popular? The cynical part of me says it's because abstinence isn't profitable, no one makes money off contraception when abstinence is chosen.
Regardless, people need good information, complete information. How many girls are told that The Pill always works, when in fact it does not? Men certainly need good information about women's contraception as well as their own options.

Pretty Lady said...

Ladies, let us be clear. Choosing abstinence is a virtually failsafe contraceptive choice. Preaching abstinence, not so much.