Pro-Lifers’ Terrible Vision for Marriage

I closed the previous post by saying that the implications of Pro-Lifers pigheadedness to hold abortive mothers as not guilty by reason of: Life is Hard are even worse. Let’s consider marriage.

Lydia McGrew, PhD wrote:

A legal situation with harsh penalties for abortionists and zero penalties for the procuring woman would be just another such rough-cut distinction made by law, based on considerations like the difficulty of proving the woman’s state of knowledge or intent, information about the prevalence of mitigating pressure and even coercion on the woman, the widespread deception practiced upon pregnant women, the fact that the woman is not confronted with the humanity of the victim in the same way that the abortionist is, and so forth.(Abortion is unique in that the victim is physically hidden, and can remain hidden, from one of the people who is complicit in the victim’s destruction.)

Until thinking about this topic of abortion and women’s ability to choose, I have considered myself a strong supporter of marriage. That will continue, but I confess that it will do so under the powers of habit and will; yoked by conviction from the Word of God. If those (my efforts) fail, then only by the power of the Holy Spirit shall they be maintained. And only if He is so inclined.

She said that abortion is unique in that the victim is “physically” hidden, but this is a perversion of the truth. Pregnancy is visually hidden–not physically–and it is far from unique. Who has seen God? Who has seen Jesus? Who has seen the Holy Spirit? Who has seen a merely human spirit? Who has see the human heart as it is spoken of in the Bible? Who has seen Heaven? Who has seen Hell?

Who has seen marriage? Marriage, like pregnancy, is a good thing. Also like marriage it is surrounded by fears and anxieties and real sacrifice. We can see the evidence of it, but no one has put eyes on the mystery of two flesh become one. It must be accepted on faith. Under the Pro-Lifers’ terrible rule of eyeballs: If no woman has the moral agency to refrain from commitment to abortion, then no woman has the moral agency to commit to the good of marriage. There is not even a matri-gram to prevent women from becoming the puppets of divorce lawyers.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Pro-Lifers’ Terrible Vision for Marriage

  1. Under the Pro-Lifers’ terrible rule of eyeballs: If no woman has the moral agency to refrain from commitment to abortion, then no woman has the moral agency to commit to the good of marriage. There is not even a matri-gram to prevent women from becoming the puppets of divorce lawyers.

    This is pretty much the de facto doctrine in most Churches anyways. But good point about the wickedness that this line of argument employs and calls for.

  2. I cannot help except that I moved to Wyoming, “the equality state”, which gave TEHIR Women the right to vote in 1869.
    You probably have encountered white knights or a worse manifestation of the gamma on the male side.
    Not all women are the same. Many are smart and strong-willed and have moral agency. Many are (or pretend to be) infants. That is part of the problem, including that women are the fairer sex but the weaker vessel. Enough serpentine propaganda and many more than men will swallow anything including the fruit of the tree.
    There is a reason scripture warns to find a virtuous wife – because not all women are (or can be) virtuous.
    So find a spiritually mature, strong willed woman whose will is in submission to Christ, then she (assuming correct theology) will submit to you, but also correct you when you err- but more importantly obey you and let you lead.

    Also somehow the waking up in a tub of ice with a missing kidney (instead of a baby) appears to be a parallel.

  3. @tz

    So find a spiritually mature, strong willed woman whose will is in submission to Christ, then she (assuming correct theology) will submit to you, but also correct you when you err- but more importantly obey you and let you lead.

    Servants correcting masters is wrong. I don’t correct my boss. A soldier does not correct his captain. A child should not correct his parent. I have never wished that my wife would correct me. Whenever she has tried it, it put both of us in a bad mood. It’s on my list of things that a husband should never let pass from his wife.

  4. Lydia, like all women, find emotions more real than reality, and wrote in such a way to deny those pesky emotions. She has very real issues facing hard choices, and repeatedly would rayher wave hands and words than face them.

    If she was sitting under a tree, I’d expect to see an apple core…

    Thank god the Catholic Church doesn’t hold her view. The auto excommunication to women and any who aid in the murder set the right tone. Is it enough? Not at all, but it gives all the faithful good tools to show logical consistency, teaching, and a stick to beat people with when they reach for apples

  5. Despite any individual peoples views, yes. It is of grave matter, the woman consents to doing it, and she knows its evil. One can look at all the ramifications of the act upon a womans psyche; if they didn’t know, they wouldn’t have deep psychological problems from the act.

    In addition, the Catholic Church believes all humans ever born are required to follow natural law, even if pagan, heretics, or atheist. Many voices in the church… conveniently forget to mention this when discussing such matters. They claim a woman is less culpable for the act, but forget she is also held accountable for merely knowing whether the act is right or wrong to begin with. Logically, how could someone be held accountable for lack of knowledge on a subject, but have no accountability for actions taken based on a lack of knowledge?

    The Church and her teachings are only able to function with a universal natural law applying to everyone. Individual culpability may increase or decrease on some subjects for a few individuals, but determination of that should be left to God or the privacy of a good confessor/spiritual director. Anyone who undercuts natural law is a modernist and likely doing so to advocate heresy

  6. “like all women, find emotions more real than reality”
    Yes, absolutely. The man’s brain is oriented toward objectivity and truth, the woman’s toward subjectivity and feeling. The woman, mistaking her emotions with reality, can create all sorts of “realities” that she genuinely believes to be true.
    This tendency seems more exaggerated in some women than in others, but it’s there to some degree in most of them (and maybe all as you say).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s