What has happened of late, many of us would point back to the sixties, is a return to a view of human sexuality (which is easily found many times in history) that would seemingly argue that it is a casual encounter with little ramifications physically or psychologically. And in many circles, it is an encounter that is viewed as be devoid of any idea of responsibility. Not everyone believes this. And from this disagreement much of the abortion debate arises.

One of the oldest documents points directly to human sexuality. Genesis 1.28 reports that after having created man he ‘blessed them and said to them; be fruitful and multiply . . .’ A command directed at procreation, the physical consequences of sexual intercourse. Genesis 2.24 points to the psychological aspects. The author notes that what the first man’s reaction upon seeing the first woman when he said, ‘this one is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh’ and the author goes on to note that ‘now this one he called woman (ishah) because from man (ish) this one was taken.’ The author goes on to note ‘for this reason a man leaves his father and mother, and he cleaves to his wife/woman, and they shall be one flesh.’

From this ancient document at least there is a very early understanding that sexual intercourse involved a psychological commitment, at least on the part of the man, that would have him leave his parents for another and also that it would/could result in the production of another human being.

I think that it could safely be said, outside of this ancient document, that those two aspects could be safely sustained. Additionally, following the Judaeo-Christian Bible based view, human sexuality is one of the potentially greatest acts in that from it comes the creation of a human being, the pinnacle of God’s creative act that human beings now share in.

So, sexual intercourse produces a living human being. It is not dead, it is alive from the moment of conception; it is not anything other than a human being-so too, from the very moment of conception the DNA says ‘human being’ nothing else. Two people are involved.

One school of thought is that this is a casual act with no responsibility or psychological commitment on anyone’s part and if anything is produced (living human being) it is only the woman who has a say in what happens. The logical outcome of this is that a person so arguing can not argue for requiring any responsibility, financial or otherwise, from the male partner. You are in the philosophical position of arguing that the woman alone decides if that little human being insider her, which she joined with another to produce, lives or is destroyed. And, there is no time limit as to when that decision may be made – the child is liable for destruction up to the date of birth. A side question to such a philosophy – why stop there? Why is the child  able to be destroyed before birth and not after? Why is the arbitrary line drawn at birth?

Now some argue that the world of men force a woman to carry a child to term. They seemingly don’t recognize that a great majority of woman adhere to that same position. So too, I think that if they see men so selfish as that, would not a selfish man rather see no responsibility that comes from the above described philosophy? If men are the pigs people who take that position argue would they not be more apt to agree that the no responsibility position serves their piggishness more? Why would a selfish man want a woman to carry the child to term? Would he not be more inclined to remove anything that would require any responsibility on his part?

There are also those who argue that those who advocate for preserving the life of the unborn care nothing about the child after birth and that those who are for killing the child are in fact the more compassionate and care more for the child. Let me ask the reader to read that again. There are also those who argue that those who advocate for preserving the life of the unborn care nothing about the child after birth and that those who are for killing this child in utero are in fact the more compassionate and care more for the child. Does that make sense to anyone? So, by that argument the only ones supporting women’s help agencies or supporting adoption agencies are the pro-kill the child groups and that there would be no churches supporting unwed mothers, there would be no churches supporting adoption agencies. The argument would also require that only pro-abortion people adopt children and that those with a Pro-Life or religious view adopt no one. Again, does that seem or sound logical to you? Is that what we in fact find? Let me just say that every church I have ever belonged to either had the resources (large church) or had the information and supported financially those who had the resources. The churches are, in fact, a good resource for those seeking help.

What is called for is a recognition that sexual intercourse, despite all precautions (outside of sterilization of course) involves the possibility of creating another human being. All discussion needs to start here. And everyone who claims compassion for the woman, the man, or the child needs to acknowledge this. No one should (I know I am arguing against a tsunami here) go into a sexual relationship without knowing this, acknowledging it and being willing to accept the responsibility of the fellow human being that is created. It is and should be the responsibility of both partners. Ideally (again that tsunami of contra opinion) such relationships should occur only in marriage, the environment design to support and nurture children.

As an aside, this discussion notes that there are in fact medical reasons for terminating a pregnancy; either to protect the life of the mother or because the child has died in utero or some other such devastating reason.