Liberal stupidity on sex flares up again in abortion arguments

Nowhere are liberal self-absorption and cluelessness more apparent than in matters of sex.  Two recent examples prove the point.

First, there's Hollywood actress Alyssa Milano, of #MeToo fifteen minutes of fame, who is so incensed by Georgia's child-protecting heartbeat bill that she called for a Lysistrata-style sex strike.  Women, Milano argued, should forswear coitus until the state government permits them to have sucked out and ripped apart any children they might conceive.

One wonders if Milano expected pro-life conservatives to recoil in horror at her call for women to exercise sexual responsibility.  You mean to tell me that women who are not ready to have children, who are seriously considering killing any children they might accidentally conceive, should refuse to have sex?  What can any reasonable, mature, grown-up American who understands how birds and bees work say but "sounds good"?

Next is Nevada state senator Yvanna Cancela, who introduced a "free-for-all" abortion bill in her state this week.  During debate on that bill, a Republican legislator suggested that when a mother opts to kill her baby in utero, the doctor preparing to carry out the act maybe might consider informing the woman's husband of the imminent death of his child.  Cancela objected:

It is not the doctor's duty to inform a partner of a woman's decision. ... The same kind of requirement is not put into any other procedure.  A man is not asked his marital status before he gets a vasectomy.

Even if you ignore the child, as abortion-supporters like to do, and focus only on the baby's parents, this is a good argument against Cancela's position.  Individuals have reproductive organs, but there's no reproductive system without husband and wife (or less stable and more socially dangerous imitations).  If you assume that marriage means the joining of man and woman into one flesh, as the institution's been understood for many hundreds of years, a husband's intention to shut down the fertility of the system is an act of violence against that jointly held system.

The Catholic Church, that terrible cabal of sex-hating prudes, says sex is the one thing husbands and wives mutually and equally have a right to from each other, that to selfishly withhold sex from your spouse is sinful.  Since the purpose of sex, whatever fringe benefits it might also confer, is procreation, it stands to reason that sneaking off to get a vasectomy would constitute a grave injustice against the marriage and the wife.  So yes, if a husband is going to defraud his bride, he probably should at least warn her about it.

Milano and Cancela are poster children for liberals' moral obtuseness and relentless navel-gazing.  They make reductio ad absurdum arguments, intended as a "gotcha" against conservatives, that work only when one accepts liberal premises.  But conservatives reject liberal premises, resulting in these arguments comically boomeranging: the absurdum turns out not to be all that absurd, after all, and the same liberals who want unrestricted sex and cheap marriage end up defending chastity and marriage's comprehensive sacredness.  Aquinas, eat your heart out.

Drew Belsky is American Thinker's deputy editor.  Contact him at drew@americanthinker.com.

Image: Chris Bede via Flickr (cropped).

Nowhere are liberal self-absorption and cluelessness more apparent than in matters of sex.  Two recent examples prove the point.

First, there's Hollywood actress Alyssa Milano, of #MeToo fifteen minutes of fame, who is so incensed by Georgia's child-protecting heartbeat bill that she called for a Lysistrata-style sex strike.  Women, Milano argued, should forswear coitus until the state government permits them to have sucked out and ripped apart any children they might conceive.

One wonders if Milano expected pro-life conservatives to recoil in horror at her call for women to exercise sexual responsibility.  You mean to tell me that women who are not ready to have children, who are seriously considering killing any children they might accidentally conceive, should refuse to have sex?  What can any reasonable, mature, grown-up American who understands how birds and bees work say but "sounds good"?

Next is Nevada state senator Yvanna Cancela, who introduced a "free-for-all" abortion bill in her state this week.  During debate on that bill, a Republican legislator suggested that when a mother opts to kill her baby in utero, the doctor preparing to carry out the act maybe might consider informing the woman's husband of the imminent death of his child.  Cancela objected:

It is not the doctor's duty to inform a partner of a woman's decision. ... The same kind of requirement is not put into any other procedure.  A man is not asked his marital status before he gets a vasectomy.

Even if you ignore the child, as abortion-supporters like to do, and focus only on the baby's parents, this is a good argument against Cancela's position.  Individuals have reproductive organs, but there's no reproductive system without husband and wife (or less stable and more socially dangerous imitations).  If you assume that marriage means the joining of man and woman into one flesh, as the institution's been understood for many hundreds of years, a husband's intention to shut down the fertility of the system is an act of violence against that jointly held system.

The Catholic Church, that terrible cabal of sex-hating prudes, says sex is the one thing husbands and wives mutually and equally have a right to from each other, that to selfishly withhold sex from your spouse is sinful.  Since the purpose of sex, whatever fringe benefits it might also confer, is procreation, it stands to reason that sneaking off to get a vasectomy would constitute a grave injustice against the marriage and the wife.  So yes, if a husband is going to defraud his bride, he probably should at least warn her about it.

Milano and Cancela are poster children for liberals' moral obtuseness and relentless navel-gazing.  They make reductio ad absurdum arguments, intended as a "gotcha" against conservatives, that work only when one accepts liberal premises.  But conservatives reject liberal premises, resulting in these arguments comically boomeranging: the absurdum turns out not to be all that absurd, after all, and the same liberals who want unrestricted sex and cheap marriage end up defending chastity and marriage's comprehensive sacredness.  Aquinas, eat your heart out.

Drew Belsky is American Thinker's deputy editor.  Contact him at drew@americanthinker.com.

Image: Chris Bede via Flickr (cropped).