Accepting responsibility for unplanned pregnancies

WHEN it comes to unwanted pregnancies, the Pro- Choice movement likes to portray itself as the polar opposite of the bad old Catholic Church of yesteryear. Except for one issue, the differences between the two ideologies are so miniscule that they make no difference to the overall scheme of things.

Both have a problem with unwanted pregnancies.

Both sides believe in miracles: the Church has the Immaculate Conception while Pro- Choice women “find themselves pregnant”.

The children in these pregnancies were labelled ‘illegitimate’ by the Church while Pro- Choice calls them ‘unplanned’. The Church wanted to put them up for adoption, Pro- Choice wants to put them up for abortion (the big difference).

Neither side holds the fathers of these children accountable for their offspring: the Church didn’t call them ‘fallen’ or put them to work in industrial laundries while Pro- Choice don’t even mention men in their repeal the Eighth arguments.

The Catholic Church believes the Pope is infallible, while Pro- Choice asks us not to question the wisdom of the medical expert, despite there being plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.

The biggest cheerleaders for liberalising abortion are on the left side of the political divide. These so called socialists, like the Catholic Church, like to portray themselves as champions of the poor, the sick, and the vulnerable. When it comes to the most vulnerable of all, the child in the womb, neither side is inclined to practice what it preaches.

To abort or adopt, that is the question? Why isn’t anyone discussing the third option. Why don’t couples who have unplanned pregnancies do what a lot of people in their situation do, accept full responsibility for their actions, suck it up, and get on with it. After all, parents are supposed to make sacrifices for their children, not children make sacrifices for their parents.

Sincerely, Henry Gaynor. Spa, Tralee.