Wednesday, April 4, 2012

It's just plain unnatural. . .

I am not much of an organic person.  I grew up in an age when "better living through chemistry" was not a company slogan but a perspective on life.  I do not disdain beef (how could any self-respecting Nebraskan).  I do enjoy my veggies but I put them beside a proud rib eye.  I am not so much concerned about the food chain.  Growing up eating from one end of the critter to the other and chowing down on whatever neighbor dropped off from garden or feedlot, I find it presumptuous to question the pedigree of what ends up on my plate.  I am generally not squeamish about what I eat (as my family can attest) and have a lifetime of history braving the unknown territory of pot luck fare.  But I did resonate with the musings of an organic gardener who is much more green than I but who finds, with me, the prospect of abortion the most unnatural of choices...

I wonder, “How come so many environmentalists are pro-choice? Why such urgency to purge our food supply of genetically modified corn chips and pink slime? Why so little regard for the pharmaceutical-ization of human reproduction?”

After all, abortion is not organic. That may sound glib, and I should maybe be better at just living in the moment and enjoying quality time with my kids, but I think it’s a useful way of looking at an issue that is almost always viewed through a political lens. Abortion is unnatural. Interrupting a pregnancy is literally an act against nature. Usually, if left alone, the little seed that is planted in a woman’s womb when she becomes pregnant will grow, thrive, and blossom into a beautiful, organic human child.

That is nature’s way. As sure as the sun rises in the east, babies are what nature wants. Is there another species in all of creation that goes to the lengths we go to subvert nature’s plan? I’m not talking about miscarriage, or other physiological reasons why a pregnancy in the animal kingdom might come to a natural end. I’m talking about a medical abortion induced by intentionally ingested or prescribed chemicals. I’m talking about suction-aspiration procedures which literally vacuum out the contents of a pregnant woman’s uterus.

It is a lot of things. Natural, it is not.


OR the really radical punch line:  Abstinence is organic. Abortion is not.

Quite apart from the theology or morality of it all, he seems to have hit the nail on the head.  Do you agree?

3 comments:

Matt Carver (Matthaeus Glyptes) said...

Have you heard of the Society for Reproductive Anachronisms? It's the other side of the horse, so to speak, but interesting nonetheless. http://critical-art.net/Original/sra/SRAweb/manifesto.htm

Anonymous said...

I agree whole(foods)heartedly.

I think the people who are pro-organic and anti-human life often believe that the earth is better without man. They think of people as a blight on the perfect natural world.

Therefore, to them, the goal of humanity is to have the minimal impact on Mother Earth, the greatest expression of which is depopulating the earth...

Airin Ahmed said...



Wow, Nice Post, I like It………….
Best of Luck………..

Medical Abortion
Medical Abortion Clinic
Medical Abortion Pain
Medical Abortion Risks