I don’t actually think it is in the interests of feminism or the pro-choice movement to cling so rigidly to outdated notions of “life.” It no longer helps our cause to try to argue that the fetus is not “life.” The reason for this, as people have noted, is that technological advances, like sonograms, where you can see feet on a fetus in the first trimester, have made those claims clearly and patently hollow to even ardently pro-choice people who have seen the black and white staticky fuzziness take shape into human form. How can we possibly claim that the moving creature, with feet and toes that we can see, is not “life”?The author is trying to protect a pro-choice position while acknowledging that a pregnant woman has a life within her. But there is a deeper position here. Sex is seen as a purely pleasureable activity and any creation of life merely a biproduct. This demeans one of the most important activities in a human life to mere biology. Before the sacredness of sex was stripped away by the "Sexual Revolution", it was entered into either through marriage or in less reputable and secretive ways. Gratification required responsibility (or payment). You could get married by a JP but most of the time, you were married by a religious authority who wanted your marriage to be successful both with children and contentment. Then it was all the meaning was gone. Certainly a lot of freedoms were unleashed by the "sexual revolution" but so were a myriad of problems. Unwed mothers, easy divorce, sexual diseases, and on and on. We can not turn back the clock but perhaps simply encouraging modesty could be a start. Describing sex not simply as a biological function but as a joyful expression of God's love that is best shared with a soulmate/spouse/partner who accepts the responsibility and duty of caring for both you and your shared offspring. I'm the first one to admit sex is awesome. But with sex, comes babies. That should mean families, love, support, and grace. Not abortion.
What I preached in Israel
14 minutes ago