If I’ve seen it once, I’ve seen it a thousand times over. “Get with the times!” or “It’s (insert current year)!” These all-too-common catch phrases are used to suggest that because time is progressing, so should our values, standards and morals in terms of many hot topic issues facing our country. As if we are *now* somehow more informed, more intelligent, wiser, and more responsible than we were “back then” (at any time prior to the argument – which could even be just the day prior).
The passage of time should not, cannot, and does not dictate a change in morality and values. We cannot assume that we are smarter, wiser, more responsible or more informed than we were yesterday, or 20, 50, 100 or even thousands of years ago. Before coming to any conclusion, we must define the terms mentioned in the above paragraph and then take a look to see if we actually fit the definitions of the very things we say we are. But first, let’s talk a little bit about what it means to live by a code of ethics.
Values, morals and standards are a code upon which to live by – something that not so long ago was an honorable thing to do in society’s eyes. We looked up to people who stood their ground and did the right thing, not being persuaded by emotional or personal attachment to a situation, monetary gain, or even the threat of legal action.
A code of ethics is what guides our decisions in the face of adversity and popular opposing opinion. Like the old adage goes, “If you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything.” When we determine right from wrong and good from bad with a pre-set code of ethics, we can always refer back to it in times of confusion. If we truly believe in our soul that something is right or wrong, our code of ethics will not be compromised simply because we find ourselves in what appears to be a gray area, or when others tell us we are wrong. Our value system is OUR value system and others will not be able to intrude on it. What good does it do to have a code of ethics that changes at a whim? Should values and beliefs not be something we defend to the end? We are now living in a time when we literally place no value on values – ironic, isn’t it?
If we insist on updating our values with each passing day, we have to determine whether or not our faculties are living up to the hype, so let’s take a look at the definitions of the terms mentioned earlier. All definitions are either taken from the first search result that pops up when Googling each specific term or from the online version of the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Informed: having or showing knowledge of a particular subject or situation. Technically, we do have more information than we did yesterday or last century. We are bombarded online with the tiniest little details of every possible subject and scenario imaginable. We have instant access to information on virtually anything we’re interested in learning more about, and even the things that we don’t want to know more about; things that matter, and things that don’t matter; things that are true and things that are fictional. But there’s a difference between having more information and being more informed.
Here is where it’s important to also define the word “knowledge” used in the definition of “informed.” Knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education. Please take a moment and put emphasis on the word facts. A fact is a thing that is indisputably the case. Facts don’t change, because facts are true. So to be informed about something, we must know the indisputable truth about it; whereas simply ‘having information’ does not necessarily mean we are informed, because information in and of itself is not necessarily factual.
Now let’s determine if, indeed, we are more informed now than at any other time in history. In order to do this, we’ll have to look at some of the *information* we have been given particular to the subject at hand.
In direct conflict with science, in more recent years we’ve been told that babies do not start developing in the womb until “X” amount of weeks. One of the first major problems with claiming this to be fact is that the “X” changes rather frequently, but each time the “X” is changed, it is claimed to be fact. But fact does not change! The fact is, that if babies didn’t start developing immediately after conception, abortion would not exist because babies would not exist. All the things going on inside the womb during pregnancy – a lot of which cannot be *seen* until “?” amount of weeks (I’m using the “?” not out of confusion, but to cover varying stages of development that are seen at varying times throughout the pregnancy) – have to begin at the moment of conception. Even though it cannot be *detected* until “?” amount of weeks, the heartbeat is present from conception. It’s just too microscopic to be seen or heard at that point. The same goes for any development of a child inside the womb.
We’ve also been convinced that the life inside us is not human. But again, scientifically and factually this is untrue. We know that the life is human because we know humans create other humans. A human fetus is a human fetus. We know that we cannot cross-breed humans with animals or plant life. Are puppies and kittens only canines and felines after they are born? Is a rose only a rose after it blooms? Of course not. We are informed and know that we can more than reasonably expect – we can KNOW – that a human pregnancy will result in a human baby.
Some in support of abortion will yell all day that, “It’s my body, it’s my choice!” But that’s not true either (at least the first part – “my body”), and we know it’s not true, but we keep using it as a line of very illogical defense. If we were to take DNA from the aborted baby (whose body, by the way, is the one being horribly mangled, ripped apart and thrown away like yesterday’s trash), that DNA would be clearly different than that of the mother.
So yes, it’s true that we have a lot more *information,* but since that information is false, we are not more informed.
Intelligent: Having or showing the ability to easily learn or understand things or to deal with new or difficult situations: An unwanted or unexpected pregnancy would certainly be a very difficult situation. I can only imagine how much more difficult it would be to convince oneself she was ready for a baby if she’d never been pregnant before. But we’re forgetting that while we might not have any experience ourselves, there are plenty of women before us and around us that we can learn from. Your mother wasn’t a good mother? Learn from her mistakes. Maybe your mother died when you were young. Surely there has to be at least one female in your life from whom you can learn. Still in school? There are many, many programs available to help single mommies get through school and even continue their education so that they can make a good life for themselves and their children. Scared of giving birth? Get the right anesthesia and it can be less painful than that abortion! Don’t want to be a mom? Put the baby up for adoption.
Do you know who had the very newest and very most difficult situation when she became pregnant? The first woman ever, in the history of the world, who became pregnant…that’s who. This is not a conversation about beliefs of our origins. No matter how the first woman got here, there still had to be a “first-ever” woman to get pregnant and give birth. Talk about a new and difficult situation! Surely she couldn’t even have known what was going on until she actually gave birth, and she probably thought she was dying! She had no knowledge of what was going on, no experience, nobody around her to explain things to her, yet…she did it – and apparently quite successfully as here we are, at least thousands of years later, and the world is populated quite heftily. That could never have happened without a woman getting pregnant and giving birth for the first time ever in history. She was the epitome of intelligence – she learned, understood and dealt with a brand new and extremely difficult situation. And she did it all without disposable diapers, canned formula, nanny-sharing, grandparents or pediatricians. That was one intelligent lady!
Clearly, we are no more intelligent today than we were back then – not even close! It almost sounds to me like we have devolved when it comes to intelligence.
Wise: aware of or informed about a particular matter; having or showing wisdom or knowledge usually from learning or experiencing many things; based on good reasoning or information : showing good sense or judgement. We have already addressed the first three parts of this definition and clarified that we are neither more informed nor more knowledgeable. But are we showing good sense or judgment when we choose abortion? Judgment is defined as a decision or opinion based on careful thought; the ability to make good decisions about what should be done.
When we form an opinion or make a decision, we generally take into consideration information about the subject with which we’re dealing. Since the information we’ve been fed for the last couple of decades or so is false, relying on it will not result in a good decision. When we have no experience dealing with a situation – especially so in first-time pregnancies – we can’t rely on our own experience.
One of the biggest factors that plays into women getting abortions is that they believe, without having any experience of their own to base their belief on, that nobody wants to adopt newborn babies. This couldn’t be further from the truth. But since they have no personal experience of going through the adoption process, they don’t know how easy or difficult it would be to place a baby for adoption.
It is illogical and intellectually immature to opt for abortion on the premise that “nobody is adopting these babies.” The truth is that there are many people looking to adopt babies – specifically newborn babies. But adoption takes time. It is not a decision made one day, then *POOF* the stork shows up the next morning with a bouncing baby and gently places it on the adoptive couple’s doorstep. In order for a couple to adopt one of these newborn babies that would otherwise be aborted, the process would require the BIRTH mother to not only participate in the time consuming process of adoption, but to actually have to see the pregnancy completely through and give birth.
Sometime between the conception and the actual birth of the child, a series of events would need to take place. Now, I’ve never adopted a child, so I don’t know the exact rigmarole, but I think we can all be fairly certain that these plans would involve – although not be necessarily limited to – several time consuming steps such as the following:
One would first make the decision that they would give the child up for adoption. That alone could be a decision made very quickly due to the birth mother knowing beyond the shadow of a doubt that she did not want an abortion and that she did not want to raise the baby herself. Or, maybe it would take the birth mother a couple of weeks or a couple of months or longer to decide. Maybe she would need counseling because she realized it would be such an agonizing decision to make – counseling that pro-aborts and the likes of Planned Parenthood do not offer. It’s ironic that “Planned Parenthood” doesn’t offer advice about the very option that would require perhaps the most amount of planning to be a parent: adoption. And why wouldn’t they offer adoption counseling? Because Planned Parenthood is about profit, and adoption does not provide any revenue to Planned Parenthood. Due to the limited 9-month term of a pregnancy and laws about late-term abortion, Planned Parenthood has a very small window in which they need to terminate pregnancies – windows of time that don’t allow for a woman to think. After all, if she thought, she might change her mind. Or, she might think for too long and the window of opportunity for abortion would be gone.
Next, one doesn’t simply give somebody their child. Time would pass before an agency found a good fit. And maybe, depending on whether the adoption was open or closed, the birth mother would herself sit down with potential adoptive parents if she was a part of the selection process. Let’s not forget about lawyers and the reading and signing of all the paperwork. It is not only safe to say, but logical and true, that this process requires much more responsibility and time than the abortion alternative. And again, this is time that pro-aborts just don’t have.
Each step in the process takes time, time for which an abortion does not allow. The longer one waits to get an abortion, the more expensive it is – this is just one way Planned Parenthood gets young women to make a quick, uninformed decision. And eventually, one would run the risk of waiting too long to where abortion was no longer an option because the pregnant woman is too far along.
If we’re going to be honest and intellectually responsible here, we can at least admit that the so-called lack of adoptive parents isn’t what’s preventing adoptions. It’s the lack of commitment to follow through with the pregnancy long enough (until birth) to be able to hand over the child that’s preventing adoptions. Until one has followed through with the process, a woman has no right to and cannot legitimately say that nobody will adopt her child.
Adoption is actually the least expensive option for birth mothers out of all three options (abortion, adoption, or keeping the baby). Planned Parenthood CHARGES YOU to kill YOUR baby – and no, they won’t kill your baby for you if you don’t pay up! Keeping the child is the most expensive option for the birth mother as it binds her to an 18-year “contract” and up to hundreds of thousands of dollars and more to raise the child. Adoption, however, is at the expense of the adoptive parents, so it’s FREE to the birth mother. Did you hear that?!? It’s FREE to take responsibility for one’s actions when one is willing to see the pregnancy through! And in some cases, there are even agencies out there who will PAY THE BIRTH MOTHER quite a hefty sum of money!
Some say that it would be too hard to carry a child for nine months only to have to give the child up for adoption when it’s born. Well, yeah, that would be hard. But if that’s really the reason one would consider abortion, then it makes more sense that you would keep the baby, not abort it. Especially based on the whole “it’s not human/it’s not alive until it’s born” argument that is still being forced on us. If the baby is not alive and is not human until it’s born, then what’s to get attached to? And if there is indeed (there IS, indeed!) something to get attached to, how can one “not have the heart” to give the baby up, but “have the heart” to kill the child?
When one has not experienced the adoption process, one cannot say that nobody wants to adopt their child. That said, wiser we are not.
Responsible: Able to answer for one’s conduct and obligations. We all know where babies come from. We all know what actions cause a woman to become pregnant. And we all know that even on birth control, a woman can still become pregnant – it happens more often than one would think and has much to do with the profiting of Planned Parenthood, but that’s for another conversation.
We teach (or at least we used to) our children to be responsible for their actions. Upon catching their children doing something wrong, parents often tell their children not to lie about the situation or they’ll be in more trouble. I’ve known many a kid back in the day who was marched back to the store he or she stole candy from and made to return it by his/her parents. There’s this thing called justice, that used to be used to make people responsible for their actions. It’s why we have jails and why people caught stealing are often required to make restitution toward their victims. For most wrongdoings, we have an innate sense and desire for justice to be done, to hold the wrongdoing accountable (responsible) for their actions. We don’t legally let them off the hook by paying somebody to erase all evidence of wrongdoing. In any other circumstances besides abortion, one would be charged with murder for the homicide of another human being, or charged as an accomplice to murder for helping to facilitate it. Abortion is the only type of murder that allows for the hit man to get off scot-free and even make money off it with no legal ramifications.
To say that we are less responsible now than we were before abortion was legalized is understatement.
Well, maybe I was wrong. Maybe I went into this thinking that we did not need to modernize our code of morality but now I’m not so sure. The passage of time DOES seem to mandate a modernized morality. It DEMANDS us to become more informed and intelligent, and much wiser and responsible.
The Armentrout Shout-out 