NATHANIEL BEACH, ’20, Sports Editor– As a Republican, it’s common to be called pretty much every pejorative in the book. However, this occurs on both sides as well. It seems within society today, that this is the result of political conversations. When a rational political conversation arises, it is often suppressed by emotional attacks on one another. No, just because I’m pro-life doesn’t mean I’m a sexist who wants women to be in servitude to men. This overreaction that so many people have nowadays is dangerous and leads to division.
Why does this happen? Well, it’s simple. The only time people have these discussions anymore is during emotional times. Abortion hasn’t been discussed by hardly anyone until numerous states started adopting “heartbeat bills” to restrict abortions within their states. Now, it is an emotionally charged and reactionary discussion to legislation polarized bodies passed.
For this article, I really hope that the overzealous and reactionary name calling can be obsolete. The best way to engage with one another is by listening and being mature and respectful. I personally hate when Leftists try to bring race and gender into every discussion and utilize identity politics to forward their agendas. However, I’m not calling them out for their arguments, but rather listening to what they actually believe, so that I can have a better and more constructive conversation with them. While I go in depth about the pro-life position and why I support the abolishment of abortion, keep in mind that my stance along with everyone else’s do not follow some sort of generalization, but rather are a collection of ideas, experiences, and who we are as people. They do not make us inherently bad, but rather offer a contrary perspective to the world we live in.
When the abortion debate is brought up, it is often reliant on populist terms to gain traction for the pro-life or pro-choice side. People in support of abortion generally throw around phrases such as “my body, my choice” or they’ll go to the extreme and actually suggest that men should have zero input on the discussion, as Twitter has happily showered my timeline with. This is contrast to the pro-life position who will try to use fear and scare people into support with heinous pictures of actual dead babies on picket signs outside government buildings (or if you’re from my town, they’ll stand outside your elementary school).
Both of these solutions are asinine and unproductive ways of going about the discussion. For the sake of this article I will refrain from using any and all populist pro-life taglines and instead give a real explanation of what being pro-life is to me.
I was a junior in high school when I tweeted that life begins at conception. It became so controversial that my teachers were even discussing it in their classes. I’m sitting in AP Economics and my teacher comes up to me at the start of class and has me explain to everyone why I’m pro-life. While being put on the spot to give a sound answer to an extremely complicated political issue in front of a large group as a 16 year old was nerve-wracking, I nonetheless obliged and explained.
I explained how I fundamentally believe that life begins at conception because of basic biology. Humans are unique because of our DNA. We’re taught in school that DNA is the biological fingerprint and no two living organisms have the same DNA. This is a known fact. Now, when conception occurs, the DNA of the two parents combine and create a completely new and unique strain of DNA. This strain is unique and will only exist for that one organism. Now, this organism, with its DNA, rapidly evolves and develops. At a mere 6 weeks from conception, a human heartbeat can be detected. That is how fast the human being develops. So with this, you have a unique set of human DNA inside a developing life form. This is a human being.
I will go out on a limb and make the assumption that there is no point in any of our existence that we were not a human being. Meaning, from the point we were conceived until now, we were always human. While inside the womb we were developing and were not fully functioning beings, but nonetheless we were still human. There was never a time we were something besides human. An embryo is a human being at a different stage of development. This is scientific fact. The location of the body does not dictate whether or not I’m a human. Regardless of whether or not I’m in the womb or out the womb doesn’t matter.
Now, moving forward we have established that life does in fact begin at conception. This still doesn’t show that abortion is wrong. I mean, the unborn children don’t have fully functioning minds and are incapable of living on their own, while the mothers’ are and could easily be hurt with childbirth – whether physically or emotionally.
In order to truly explain why abortion is wrong, I have to discredit most of the pro-choice arguments to really make sense.
The child not being able to live outside the womb is an ignorant line of thinking to use to promote the legality of abortion. First off, literally no child can survive on their own outside of the womb regardless of how developed they are. Right after childbirth, the babies are directly given to the medical staff to ensure they are treated properly and are often cared for for days before the parents can take them home. Even at home, babies must be nurtured – fed, burped, put to sleep, etc. The child, regardless of what stage of development, is not capable of living outside the womb until roughly four to six months after childbirth, when they can start doing things on their own, such as eating “hard” food, no longer needing to be burped, and are starting to make coherent sounds/words. Using the rationale that since the child can not function outside of the womb is credible reason to abort a child, is barbaric. While the conditions to live are obviously much different between a child at 6 weeks versus 6 months in development, they are nonetheless both incapable of living outside the womb on their own.
The child being just a “bundle of cells” is another line of thinking that is problematic. This often translates to “the child isn’t as developed as me.” You’re right, an embryo is not as developed as you are. However, this is actually a relatively illegal argument to make for abortion. Development can not play a factor into the debate as a result of the Disabilities Rights Act of 1990. This law was passed by Congress to ban the discrimination of all human beings on the basis of their development. Originally lobbied by a Down Syndrome Right’s group, this has been expanded to include all disabilities, both physical and mental. An individual with Acrodysostosis is born without arms and legs. However, they are just as much of a human as I am. Someone inside the womb is just as much of a human as I am, even if they aren’t fully developed.
Ultimately, the abortion argument almost never relies on science and reason when discussing, but it generally turns into a matter of rights. While supporters of abortion rarely if ever cite science for their arguments, they nonetheless make this a women’s rights issue – understandably so. Now, in explaining this aspect of the argument, the beginning of this article will play a huge factor into this. Just because I’m pro-life doesn’t make me a sexist, it makes me a proud supporter of all life.
Now, much of the social justice arguments the pro-choice crowd make are wrong and have little to no basis behind them. Generally, these arguments are found either on the news or all over social media. The amount of times I saw the same few pictures on people’s Instagram stories with buzzwords was way too high.
Most pro-choice advocates relate abortion to a women’s rights issue. As the anger that has engulfed American society will dictate, the pro-lifers are all sexist men who want to control women’s bodies. Let’s take a look at that…
The majority of abortions (64%) are performed simply because the father does not want the baby or the woman is coerced by others. The reasons vary, but the end result is the same. The life of an innocent child is ended. In 95% of all cases, the male partner plays a central role in the decision. Of men interviewed at abortion clinics 45% recalled urging abortion, including 37% of married men. Many of these men reported being justified in being the primary decision maker in the decision to have the abortion.
If anything, the sexism in the abortion debate can be found on the pro-choice side if name calling and pejoratives are to be thrown around.
However, there is even greater cause to be concerned. Abortion does not kill only children; it also kills women. Women have died of legal and illegal abortions. For the most part, abortions today are medically “safe” for women. However, these procedures do have the potential to cause great trauma to the woman. Many women who have had abortions say they regret them and suffer from Post-Abortion Syndrome. This is a mental health disorder that actually causes the woman much psychological trauma. This generally occurs as the result of having their child murdered and pulled from their bodies.
Regardless of safety and legality, abortions are always deadly for the child.
Abortion is not a women’s rights or reproductive rights issue.
It is a human rights issue.
This issue challenges our society to determine the values and rights of the most vulnerable among us. When we recognize abortion as a social justice issue, the discussion boils down to one question: Does a preborn human being have the right to be born or not?
Ultimately, this article will do little to change people’s minds. That wasn’t the intention. The intention was to explain my pro-life argument. I’m sure those who read this will be focussing on the holes in my explanation, so as to combat my argument with why I’m wrong.
The hope I have with this is that my words aren’t twisted around and that just because I’m a guy who’s pro-life does not automatically classify me as a sexist. My hope is that this article can maybe highlight an alternative perspective, to allow you to think about your own stances on the argument, and maybe even give you a want to learn more.
Now, this is why I’m personally against abortion. The entire article is explaining why I’m against it on a broad scale.
Something I’m sure I’d get heat for if I didn’t mention is abortion in regards to rape and incest. The woman is forcefully impregnated and forced to raise a child. In theory, this should be illegal. That is inherently wrong. I want that to be known now, that I do in fact believe this should be an exception to the rule.
However, it also doesn’t make sense in reality. Abortion has to be an all or nothing decision. When exceptions start being brought up it makes it a really muddy and complicated mess. How would it be determined if the woman was raped? In order to get an abortion does the rapist have to be convicted? Or will abortion clinics rely on the woman’s word? In this case, what’s to stop all women who want an abortion from claiming rape was the reason why, if this is the only exception to the law? If the woman does need a conviction from the rapist, how can society honestly put a woman through so much pain – first an entire court case (which could last longer than the woman’s pregnancy), then the abortion of her child she had with her attacker. In terms of incest, would a paternity test need to be done to prove it was incest before an abortion would take place? What if the father isn’t present?
Rape and incest are evil. The forceful impregnation of a woman should be punished to the highest degree. Women should be able to receive help to heal from the trauma. Abortion just isn’t the answer. The exceptions to the rule argument is asinine. It is all or nothing.
Instead, Planned Parenthood should be funded to allow for contraceptives to be free. Plan B should be free for women – and especially survivors of sexual assault. For all of the trauma the survivors have been through, a healthy and less intrusive alternative to a full-blown abortion is best. Though the best course of action is ending the patriarchal power dynamic that allows for men to think it is an okay thing to do, or for politicians to sympathize with them. However, that is a different discussion.
I wrote, rewrote, deleted, and wrote some more for this section of the article. The issue many pro-life supporters have is radicalized Leftists will target the rape and incest exception to try to paint pro-lifers as rape sympathizers, though that is really not the case. Both sides of the argument can agree that rape and incest are bad. That should be common sense (though the shocking Title IX statistics prove otherwise). However, this becomes a really complicated matter that Leftists try their hardest to simplify in order to degrade pro-lifers. On one hand, you have a survivor and someone who underwent a tragedy and is now left with a child as a constant reminder of their attack. On the other hand, you have an innocent life that wasn’t responsible for what happened and is the unfortunate result of a heinous act. This is again, where the fundamental question arises: Does a preborn human being have the right to be born or not?
This question, is a complicated one. It’s one we all should ponder over, as it ultimately yields the most important answer to the entire discussion.
I hope my take on the abortion discussion was worth the read, and I truly hope that we can use this nationwide discussion to take time to listen and learn from one another. That way, we can contribute meaningfully to the national discussion and instead of feeding into hatred and animosity that our society has absorbed, become rationale and mature thinkers who can talk to one another like acquaintances – not enemies. The political beliefs of the person do not dictate the person’s character. Keep that in mind as you discuss the controversial “heartbeat bills” popping up across the nation. I know my stance is controversial. I know it may anger some people. I hope that instead of feeding into that anger with emotion and rage, we can turn this into a discussion of opposing beliefs. That’s what this is all for. That’s what the purpose of the discussion is – to build upon your own beliefs and learn to better yourself through interactions with others.
Nathaniel Beach ’20 is a Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) major from Canal Winchester, Ohio.
Brooke
I just threw up in my mouth, a lot. I can’t even believe The Denisonian published this crap. I literally am beyond dumbfounded that you actually thought it was a good idea to publish this. As an alumnus that has previously donated, I can assure you I’m done supporting asshats like this clown. Never again.
The Denisonian
Hi Brooke, the Denisonian published his opinion for the sake of starting a conversation, with another opinion counteracting it. Thanks for your comment, I would encourage you to continue supporting Denison with the perspective that not everyone agrees with his argument of why he’s pro-life. Just something to consider; also, our staff does not reflect his opinion as a whole.
Allison
Verification, independence, accountability – opinion pieces should still be held to a code of journalistic ethics. I am disappointed the Denisonian chose to publish a piece that puts forth “facts” without any reference to credible sources. As written, this piece is both antagonizing and condescending while lacking the backbone of an argument based on “science and reason,” cornerstones which the author makes a point of stressing. I find it hard to believe the editing staff at the Denisonian truly believed this article, as it stands, would promote an open and purposeful discussion of the topic.
The Denisonian
Not necessarily stating that his opinion is fact, but, the opinion section is here for all students to express their beliefs, whether they are factually based or not. If he claims fact in the article, we will not change it because, in his belief, it is fact. Nonetheless, there is “freedom of the press.” A news article would not be the same of course since that would have to be based on factual evidence.
Kelly Folkers
Former editor-in-chief of the Denisonian here. I think it’s great you all tackled this issue with opposing viewpoints, sparking debate. However, opinion pieces in any newspaper are subject to fact checking, and this article has some serious factual errors. I am a medical ethicist, and I am very curious to know where the author got some of these facts as they are not in line with my professional understanding of reproductive health. In my line of work, I have written about two dozen op-eds, including one for the New York Times. Each of my articles is subject to careful fact checking by opinion editors prior to publication, and failure to provide sources results in rejection. I know how difficult it is to be a student journalist and editor, and you can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good when it comes to publishing this newspaper. But your readers deserve to know where you are getting your information with links in the text of your articles, and with careful fact checking by editors.
Caroline
Former Denisonian writer and former New York Times employee here- Fact checking is still a cornerstone of journalistic integrity regardless of whether it is an opinion or not. If you are citing “facts” then they must be correctly sourced. A google search is not a legitimate fact check. Legitimate news outlets fact check opinions and I would hope that the Denisonian would hold itself to these same standards. This gross misunderstanding of what freedom of the press entails is concerning to say the very least.
The Denisonian
Thanks for your input. Our staff will keep this in mind in the future regarding fact-checking. We attempt to hold ourselves to the same standard as other newspapers but sometimes, it can be difficult to keep it up. Doesn’t excuse it and we will fix the facts that are cited in the article. Thanks again for taking the time to comment.
Nathaniel Beach
Kelly Folkers and Caroline, I’m happy you were able to be affiliated with the New York Times. That is an incredible opportunity that many journalists strive for. While the left-leaning paper I’m sure puts much scrutiny on their opinion pieces, all of my information comes from credible sources cited now within the article as well as in these comments that you would have seen prior to commenting. Yes, the facts I present do not align with your point of view, however that doesn’t make them wrong! I’m against gun control, yet can not deny the facts that point to gun control being a necessity in the country. A Google search will bring up numerous credible sources as to why Post-Abortion Syndrome is, why abortion is more unsafe than pregnancy, and much much more. They will also most likely show facts that align with your arguments as well – since this is such a complex issue. The fact that their are two sides of this argument which are relatively evenly split in the country should show you both that their are facts that support my argument that are incredibly valid, which I use in my article. Thank you for your time working on the Denisonian, and for staying active with the student news publication. I speak for everyone on the Denisonian staff, which I’ve been on for four years now, that we would more than welcome responses from an editor-emeritus. We ensure that our staff stays diligent in their facts and continues to follow the SPJ Code of Ethics. My facts are all accurate, researched, and cited. I truly am sorry that they aren’t what you were hoping to read though.
Kelly Folkers
I see that this is one of your sources: http://www.stopforcedabortions.org/docs/ForcedAbortions.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1vFE9hz5iftiQf0KZuA75uknVhC2Gf6O8KHkTSKK3FNfTZWp1n5IzJceo
This is not a primary source and has been released by an interest group. Did you check its sources? Did you evaluate where these survey results come from? A couple of these studies weren’t completed in the US or are comparative, according to their titles. These may very well be accurate statistics that don’t align with my point of view, and I can live with that because any set of data will not align completely with any viewpoint. My ultimate point is that there are reasons to question this source, and any good editor would do the same. I’d be more than happy to provide some advice to The Denisonian on fact checking and critically evaluating sources, as this is something I do every day in my career as an ethicist and writer. Reach out any time.
Nathaniel Beach
Hello there. As the author of this article I want to thank you for your comment and criticism. While I don’t think the aggressive wording is needed, I nonetheless respect your opinion. As we are both Denisonians, we should be able to agree that Denison as an institution is attempting to allow for all viewpoints to be expressed and for all students to better their understanding of the world by challenging their beliefs of the world. That is why the Denisonian, a student organization, is dedicated to allowing both sides of political arguments heard. I would greatly hope that your donation to the school that you graduated from and a place that has clearly left an impact on you, as you are still keeping up with the Denison student news publication, is not tarnished as a result of one individual’s opinion that they hold. Just because we disagree on a political issue, I hope that this one disagreement between you and one student on campus, does not tarnish the donation that can help students that have no relation to me whatsoever for years to come. In addition, Denison allows for the Denison College Republicans to exist (that I am President of), as well as the Denison Libertarians. If you are uncomfortable with the existence of these groups, I would suggest you reach out to President Weinberg or Vice President of Student Affairs Laurel Kennedy to express your displeasure of having political ideologies present on campus that are contrary to yours. I hope you have a great evening, and thank you for reading my article.
Abbe
The fact that this poorly researched opinion piece was green-lit for publication is pretty appalling. Sure, I get the idea behind running two opinion pieces to show “both sides of the coin” as a means to start dialogue, but where is the responsibility to readers to run truthful journalism, or at least citations for the “facts” printed therein?
The author writes: “The majority of abortions (64%) are performed simply because the father does not want the baby or the woman is coerced by others […] In 95% of all cases, the male partner plays a central role in the decision. Of men interviewed at abortion clinics 45% recalled urging abortion, including 37% of married men. Many of these men reported being justified in being the primary decision maker in the decision to have the abortion.” Where are these numbers coming from? What study or article was this taken from? Surely, it should come as no surprise to a college student that they should need to cite from legitimate sources in order to have their argument hold water.
And where did this gem come from?: “Many women who have had abortions say they regret them and suffer from Post-Abortion Syndrome. This is a mental health disorder that actually causes the woman much psychological trauma. This generally occurs as the result of having their child murdered and pulled from their bodies.” I’d love to know where the author is getting this biased pseudo-science.
I won’t even waste time debating the opinion laid out in the above article, never mind addressing the misspellings and the grammatical errors, but I am disappointed to see that the editorial staff allowed this inarticulate and poorly written drivel to run without proper citations and attributions.
Nathaniel Beach
Hello and thank you for your comment and for taking the time to read my article. As a student of Denison University, I am hard wired to research and have accurate facts before writing an article or essay. Everything in my article is true. In terms of your first concern that you lay out, the source of my information is found here:http://www.stopforcedabortions.org/docs/ForcedAbortions.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1vFE9hz5iftiQf0KZuA75uknVhC2Gf6O8KHkTSKK3FNfTZWp1n5IzJceo. In terms of the second issue you have, Post-Abortion Syndrome is not actually a pseudo-science as you suggest, but a simple Google search of the condition will explain that this is in fact a real thing. If you are unsure, you can simply type “Post-Abortion Syndrome” into Google search and you will get the answer you are seeking. Now, I would urge you to consider looking into these two subjects if you are curious to the validity of my arguments, as I put much time into research for this article. Thank you for reading my article and taking time to question what is written. Constructive criticism is a great thing, and I appreciate the ability to show you the proof behind the true science I lay out in my article.
Caroline
You do know that citing a pro-life website is not an academic source, correct?
Nathaniel Beach
I’m sorry you’re upset with the nature of my sources. I would encourage you to write a response to my article if you would like to engage. I will not be arguing the validity of facts based on whether or not they better serve the argument presented. The source of my facts don’t change the fact that they exist. Thank you for your time and I hope to read your response in print soon!
Caroline
I am more than happy to write a response and will certainly look into it. However, as an alumnus and as a person that has worked in media for 11 years, the fact that the you are not willing (or possibly able) to differentiate a credible source from a biased source is incredibly disturbing. Not only does this make you look uninformed, but it hurts your argument. I hope that Denison is still actively teaching this sort of critical thinking and that you have simply chosen to willfully disregard it.
Kerry
Hi Nathaniel, “post abortion syndrome” is actually not a real thing. It is not a recognized medical diagnosis in either the ICD or DSM. Multiple studies have found that sound scientific research has not supported such a diagnosis. I was able to learn all of this through a quick Google search as well, and recommend you dig a bit deeper to select unbiased sources.
Denison Alum
Dude literally cites a propaganda piece. What’s the point of a Denison education again?!?!?
Mae
Wow. This paints a sincerely disturbing image of the level of education Denison is providing these days. Definitely not going to donate to Denison again, seems like the kids aren’t learning anything. What a disappointing thing to see coming out of my alma mater. If they were living up to the goals of training discerning moral agents, there would be even a hint of empathy in this article but there’s really nothing here but bad grammar and a total lack of research. Shame! Shame on the Denisonian and shame on Denison itself for failing its students so completely.
Nathaniel Beach
Hello there. I appreciate the comment, but if you look just above your comment you will see me cite my sources I use. In addition, the entire purpose of Denison is to allow for students to develop their own opinions and be able to intellectually back them up, which I do. If you disagree with me, that doesn’t say anything about the education of Denison, but rather a difference in your and my thinking. I would truly hope you do not take away your donation to a school who clearly left an impact on you – as you’re still keeping up with the student news publication. Seeing as my opinion is but one of the 2,000+ students at Denison currently and the thousands who have attended and will attend, I hope your decision to take away a donation that can help thousands of Denisonians is not dictated on the opinion of one student who disagrees with you. Thank you for engaging and taking time to read my article. You are more than welcome to submit a response in the paper if you would like to continue engaging with this discussion at Denison.
Rachel
To be honest, I like to keep an open mind, but as Abbe mentioned where did ANY of these statistics come from?? Suggesting the Plan B pill to a woman who has been raped of sexually assaulted is nonsense. And if abortion is restricted in her state, it’s likely that Plan B is also. And further, I feel exhausted by the false dichotomy that you’re either pro-life or pro-abortion for anyone who wants it under any circumstances. Lastly, what are we doing for women who medically cannot carry their baby, because of health complications to their babies or themselves?? As I’ve become older I’ve sadly had several friends–even friends who would define themselves as pro-life–fall into this category. How can you ask a woman or a mother to choose between her own life or that of her unborn child?? I’d also like to distinguish that banning abortions doesn’t really make you pro-life; it just makes you pro-birth. If you’re really into being pro-life, you’d back this up with more social services for families and children.
Julia Baker
Could an editor please review this article and correct the grammatical errors? I am specifically concerned by the overuse of commas. It does not reflect well on the author or the Denisonian.
Gratefully,
Proud parent of a Denison graduate
The Denisonian
Hi, we just weeded over it and corrected grammatical errors. Let us know if we missed any.
Alex
As a Denison graduate, I would implore the editorial team at The Denisonian to carefully navigate the difference between opinion and propaganda. This is a college newspaper with many young readers who may or may not take the time to questions the “facts” so eloquently (that’s sarcasm for the obtuse) presented here. This piece contains information that is factually incorrect and misleads readers intentionally. I have had an abortion. It was done legally, and because of this, I was safe. I do not regret it. My health care provider did not question my intentions or judge my actions and my boyfriend at the time gave me the space to make the decision that was right for me and for my body. My abortion was a big decision, but it was the right one, and by the way, my reasoning is nobody else’s business. I did not suffer from this “post abortion syndrome” that Mr. Beach speaks of and most certainly did not have a child “ripped from my body.” Abortions that are preformed by professionals should remain legal in all states. It keeps women safe. It is a medical procedure, not a murder. Forcing women to be mere vessels and responsible for the survival of cells fundamentally strips women of their legitimacy and their rights as humans. Unlike Mr. Beach, I have formulated my opinion of abortion based on facts, based on religious neutrality, and based on personal experience. This is how a legitimate opinion is formed.
Perhaps Mr. Beach has time to sign up for a Women’s Studies class before he graduates. I would personally recommend an English class as well, but hey, that’s just my opinion.
Caroline
WELL SAID!
Denison Dad '13
I was going to make a pun that NATHANIEL BEACH, ’20 was “born yesterday”, but that’s too easy. You need only read, “Abortion hasn’t been discussed by hardly anyone until numerous states started adopting “heartbeat bills”, to show NATHANIEL BEACH ’20 is at best naive. Roe v Wade was passed in 1973 and Abortion has been a litmus-test question in every presidential campaign and Supreme Court confirmation since. If he hasn’t heard abortion being discussed it is because he wasn’t alive for the first 30-years of the discussion and not listening for the other 16 years.
NATHANIEL BEACH, ’20 and everyone who agrees with his self-satisfied “fact-based” rationale is welcome to be Pro Life – it’s a free country. But when you try to make it illegal to act otherwise you become a dangerous threat to rest of us – especially the rest of all women. Abortion isn’t a complicated political issue, it’s a personal health-care issue between a woman (ideally a couple) and their doctor. The government has no place in dictating that process or outcome.
Sadly, I think NATHANIEL BEACH, ’20 is going to have a hard time getting a female date his senior year.
AC
This article is indefensible. His arguments are not supported by legitimate facts, end of story. The article is nothing but mindless, misinformed drivel, peppered with the word “science” every now and then. What we have here is another white man speaking from atop high horse on matters he has absolutely no business concerning himself with. Until Mr. Beach is able to grow a human in his uterus, abortion rights have nothing to do with him at all.
PR '82, parent '16
Nathanial, I will start by saying that I agree with most of the commentary above, but have a different perspective on your opinions.
You write: ‘People in support of abortion generally throw around phrases such as “my body, my choice” or they’ll go to the extreme and actually suggest that men should have zero input on the discussion…’
While I don’t know that I’ve ever thrown around that phrase, but it’s certainly how I feel. But its not just about a woman’s body, but her life. As a man, you will never have to put your life on hold for a child. You won’t have 9 months of discomfort, you may have paternity leave – if you’re lucky enough to have a job that pays for fathers to go on leave – but most importantly, if your girlfriend were to get pregnant now, you, Nathaniel, would not have to reconsider your career, your life, your choices. She would. So while you may think it “extreme” for women to say that men should have no input, a baby does not impact a man’s life the way it does a woman’s.
I’ve had 2 abortions in my life. I was not coerced. I regret neither. Most importantly I was overjoyed to be able to have 2 wonderful children when the time was right–when I could raise them when I was emotionally and financially able, and was in a committed relationship.
You should look into the impact that stress – particularly the stress that being a poor, struggling, single teenage mom – has on a child. (Check out the PBS video The Raising of America to learn more – https://raisingofamerica.org/raising-america.) One day, when you’re a parent, you’ll recognize how much it takes to raise happy, healthy children. I believe it is unfair to bring children into this world who are unwanted and cannot be nurtured for by young parents who don’t have the wherewithal to care for them.
Ideally all children would be planned, timed to one’s own life goals and stage in life, and, in short, wanted. I am thrilled that you support family planning – even Plan B. Great news! But sadly, many folks who oppose abortion also seem to oppose family planning – which is decidedly counterproductive (and, in my opinion, designed to keep poor women, in particular minority women, poor – but that’s for a different blog).
Good luck to you as you move forward. I hope that one day in your life you’ll be able to see the bigger picture, even if you’ll never have to experience the stress of unwanted pregnancy yourself.
ALUM 2009
As a Denison grad, I’d like to thank this guy for highlighting why uninformed citizens who cite propaganda as fact shouldn’t be making intimate personal health care decisions for other people. Faculty at an academic institution such as Denison should be ashamed for this authors lack of understanding of biology and scientific fact. He literally said you can ‘google Post Abortion Syndrome’ to get more information…. SMH. As a physician, his explanation of DNA is so factually inaccurate it’s embarassing. The real hypocrisy here is that ‘small government conservatives’ think it’s ok for the government to decide whether you have a child or not.
Meghan07
There isnt much to add here that hasn’t been said, but I want to say this: Nathaniel, I am not at all impressed by your research skills, facility with the English language, ability to make and support an argument, or capacity for empathy. You seem incredibly naive to the struggles of single mothers and really the entire female population. You believe that abortion hasn’t been discussed prior to the heartbeat bills, which is laughable, and you mention that Plan B should be handed out to rape victims, which suggests you do not realize that before the Obama administration it was available only by prescription, if at all.
However, you have maintained your composure and a measure of professionalism in the face of intense (and rightly deserved) criticism, which is more than I can say for our President and a member of the Supreme Court. You are still a student, and as such your primary role is to learn. You likely didn’t expect this article to gain the traction off the safety off the Hill that it did. I ask that you sit with some of the discomfort that these comments have surely brought to you. Yes, you are held to a high standard. There’s an opportunity here for you to learn first how to cite unbiased, evidence-based facts that aren’t biased. Doubtless you are thinking “if I don’t cite pro-life stats, I’ll be citing pro-choice stats.” That’s not actually how any of this works. Science isn’t biased. You continually refer to “2 sides” of an argument but there are always far more than 2. Secondly, take into account the realization that you don’t know anything about babies. Literally nothing. You dont know anything about being pregnant, nothing about delivery. Nothing about nursing, changing a diaper, feeding them. Nothing about stages of development. When they eat “hard?” foods. When they begin to crawl and talk and walk. And I fear you know even less about women. So next time you decide to write an opinion piece, think very deeply about why anyone, truly any single person on this planet, would benefit from hearing your opinion.
Caroline
Let me get this straight… you are a conservative and believe in “limited government” (according to your 2018 “Open Letter to the Republican Party”) and yet you think that the government should be able to force women to complete unwanted pregnancies? That is the definition of hypocritical. You are entitled to your own opinion on abortion – however factually incorrect and morally misguided – but politicians have no place making decisions about women’s reproductive health. Those decisions should be made by women and their physicians. Furthermore, the “life begins at conception” idea is a Christian belief. Last time I checked, separation of church and state is a principle our country was founded upon, so this belief has no place in legislation. If you truly want to lower abortion rates, perhaps try supporting politicians who champion comprehensive sex education and accessible reproductive healthcare instead of supporting policies that will kill women. Here is an article written by an OBGYN that I believe you should read to educate yourself on this subject. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/opinion/abortion-laws.html
Sam
Oof. Stick to the sports page, sweetie.