Teen Vogue Writer Upset that Georgia's Fetal Heartbeat Bill Prevents Her Sexual Happiness
In an article published by Teen Vogue, a young writer whines about how Georgia's fetal heartbeat bill will make her life more difficult. With her article, Isabella Gomez Sarmiento attempts to garner sympathy from the readers over her home state's decision to protect the lives of the most vulnerable and innocent humans. Her arguments are that the bill perpetuates the rape culture, denies women sexual happiness (her main opposition to the bill), and will cause dangerous back-alley abortions to take place. All three arguments ignore the all-important Biblical principle that life is a precious gift from God and should be protected and preserved to the best of our ability.
The article opens with Sarmiento complaining that since House Bill 481 makes abortion illegal once the baby's heartbeat can be detected, she will only have about two weeks after missing her period to get an abortion. Right from the get-go, she makes it clear that her opposition to the bill is all about how it makes her life a little more difficult. Of course, fetishizing selfish individualism is par for the course in rags like Teen Vogue and, sadly, in our culture.
Continuing, Sarmiento notes that the bill makes exceptions for women whose life is in danger or in instances of rape and incest. She then makes the claim, "In cases of rape or incest, survivors must have filed a police report alleging the incident in order to qualify for the procedure. This requirement perpetuates rape culture and the myth that the criminal justice system takes survivors seriously."
Arguing that the bill "perpetuates rape culture" reveals the major disconnect between those who believe that abortion is morally justifiable and those who believe that it is the murder of a human being. If you believe that a fetus is a human made in the image of God, then protecting and preserving the lives of babies still living inside their mother's womb is of prime importance. The bill doesn't perpetuate the rape culture; it recognizes that preserving life is all-important no matter how tragic the circumstances surrounding the conceiving of that life might be. Killing another human being should have an incredibly high legal bar to clear before being allowed to do it (for the record, I believe this to be true about the death penalty — we should be as certain as possible that the individual is guilty before putting someone to death).
I also want to note that I am opposed to abortion even in instances of rape and incest. Protecting and preserving life is at the very top of the ethics ladder. My response to Sarmiento is based on the bill, not on how I would've written the bill.
If taken in conjunction with her opening salvo about her period and the hassle the bill will create for her, Sarmiento's second argument — that it will deny women sexual happiness — is really her main problem with Georgia's fetal heartbeat bill. She writes these astoundingly self-serving words:
[B]y passing this bill, our state lawmakers seem to be telling those of us with uteruses that we don’t deserve the right to a happy and healthy life if we participate in sexual activities that don’t uphold pregnancy as the end goal.
Incorrect, Ms. Sarmiento. By passing the bill, the Georgia lawmakers are telling all of us that human life is more important than the pursuit of sexual pleasure. That should be as obvious an ethical statement as any uttered in our wide world. Tragically, as we know, it's not. Self-pleasure at all costs is the ultimate god of our age. As Sarmiento confesses, the lives of innocent babies are worth far less than her right to enjoy sex. I pray that she confesses of that selfish sin before she stands before the Creator of life.
Her final complaint about Georgia HB481 is the well-worn canard that restricting access to abortions will only serve to increase dangerous back-alley abortions, resulting in the deaths of desperate women. Even if that were true, it wouldn't justify the state sanctioning the murder of babies. In fact, it's such a nonsensical argument as to be baffling to why pro-abortion advocates think it will remotely move the needle in the thinking of pro-life advocates. I mean, the answer is to stop killing babies, whether in a clinic or in a back-alley. Stop killing babies.
Frankly, abortion is not a complicated topic. For sure, there are complicated topics adjacent to abortion, but abortion is the murder of another human being and shouldn't be allowed. Isabella Gomez Sarmiento's objection to Georgia's fetal heartbeat bill because of how it will inconvenience her and stymie her pursuit of sexual pleasure is despicably selfish. It's also an honest unveiling of what pro-abortion advocates value.