A woman’s choice to have an abortion does not impose on anyone. However, an outside force preventing her having an abortion certainly imposes on her. The two sides are not symmetrical, contrary to what you suggest.

Furthermore, comprehensive sex education does not (and should not) present promiscuous sex as a favorable alternative to abstinence. The same experts cited in the article say that abstinence should be encouraged as the best option, and other options should be described as well. The message is “abstinence is the safest choice, but if you must, here’s how,” rather than “take some rubbers and go have fun.” Further, consider the psychological impact of sex being something one learns about in school instead of this unspeakable, unacknowledged act. As the research shows, the net result is certainly not more sex than happens anyway.

I appreciate your intelligently-written feedback.

-Barry

Let us suppose for a moment that this was the only stance made my Stand True. Then the article makes complete sense. As ‘anti-abortionists’, we should be furthering the availability of contraceptives, of furthering sex education classes to promote ‘Safe Sex’. All this would severely reduce the number of abortions, which (as we determined above) is most certainly a good goal.

But Stand True is not just ‘pro-life’, it is ‘Christ-centered pro-life’. This changes everything. Now we must analyze Stand True as a group of Christians coming together to stop abortion in a Christlike manner. The assumption still stands - abortion is bad, and needs to be avoided - but the methods must change. Spreading the availability of contraceptives implies that sexual relations between anyone is OK, as long as there are no repercussions (i.e. a pregnancy). Or, in other words, go ahead and do it, you won’t be held responsible. This violates the Christian ideology that sexual intercourse should be reserved for two married people. From a Christian standpoint the only valid contraceptive pre-marriage is abstinence, which should be practiced out of reverence for the ideal of marriage, not because we don’t want abortions.

In this analytical light, the article’s solution fails. It clearly does not take into account the faith and belief of the very group it tries to break down (though, to credit the author, it at least tries by assuming a ‘pro-life’ mantle in providing a solution).

As far as ‘imposing a belief system on others,’ when you try to convince us that a fetus is not a human being, are you not imposing your beliefs on us? The fact is, truth has not been decided in this matter. Either the fetus is a human, or it isn’t. I don’t know. I believe that the fetus is a human, but I don’t know. I would warrant that you believe the fetus is not a human, but you don’t know. Neither of us know, because I don’t think experts have agreed on a definition of ‘living’ yet, so we cannot determine if the fetus is ‘living’. So until we know for certain, any argument for either side is ‘imposing beliefs on others’, not just the ‘pro-life’ side. Always be willing to look at your own stance with a critical eye, rather than viewing yourself as morally superior to those you debate against.