This is one of the most sexist pieces I've ever read. If this is what this guy thinks he needs to do to defend his line of work (killing fetal human beings), then women should take heed. Apparently women who welcome pregnancy are giving in to the lie that women are mere reproductive machines, uteruses with a supporting personality and organism. Now our congregation has some pretty efficient baby factories, but there's no sense in which any of them are or believe themselves to be mere baby factories. First, I'm not talking just about the women here. I'm talking about the families as a whole. Second, this has to be seen in the context of a whole life of being devoted to doing one's part in influencing the future of society for good, as families who love their children, raise them well, and produce many of them in this way have done. I most definitely hope and pray that the author of this article never has any children.
There are so many errors in reasoning that I can't help to deal with all of them, but let me poke fun of him with a few of them. He says the definition of pregnancy as normal comes from religious motivations, particularly Calvinist ones. I fail to see how divine sovereignty in human salvation has anything to do with pregnancy, but last time I checked the standard evolutionary picture of a female's place in history is to bear men's children for them and thus to further their own genetic continuance by fulfilling men's genetic continuance. If anything reduces women's status to something mechanical, it's the selfish gene model (which also reduces men's status to something mechanical, just to be fair).
He says this is a way for doctors, theologians, and others to get some selfish gain out of women by defining them as mere baby mills. The only theological notion I'm even aware of that goes in this direction would be the divine command to be fruitful and multiply and the prohibition against taking life unless sanctioned by divinely revealed principles. The first doesn't lead to pregnancy as the only legitimate state for a woman, as this guy seems to think. It leads to pregnancy being normal. He seems to think normal means normative, as in being required morally as often and as many times as possible. That's not what being fruitful and multiplying requires.
The second is not about forcing people in hard situations to continue their pregnancies. It's about it being wrong to kill, including those who aren't born yet. That doesn't need to be from some male motive to keep women as mere baby mills. In fact, the primary motivation many women have abortions is because of some psychological coercion from others in their lives, often including their own fathers or their baby's father. The command not to kill is because killing is wrong. Only if you think morality has no reality would you interpret moral claims as mere attempts to gain power over someone. If it is morally wrong, it doesn't matter if it's a hard decision to go through. Making it in the wrong way results in something that's morally wrong. That's the end of it.
Then he gets really confused. He says that normal female physiology is the non-pregnant state and cites medical literature to show that people do talk about thins going in ways that differ from the norm during pregnancy. He then says it's inconsistent to say that and then say that pregnancy is normal, since it's already been described as non-normal. This is linguistically naive. It can be normal that the normal state changes to a different state. This phenomenon is true of many things. You might say that normally a set of traffic lights is in the solid red-solid green configuration, and then at night they go into the flashing yellow-flashing red configuration. This happens every night, so it's normal. Yet there's also a normal state during the day, the default position when most people are driving. So one is described as normal with respect to the other, but it's not as if the other isn't abnormal. It's also normal.
Similarly, there's the normal state of a female human being (ignoring the numerous changes every day unrelated to pregnancy). When compared to this state, pregnancy is a change, and it's proper to describe the old state when compared to the new as normal. It's now in a new state that has changed. Something has happened to change it from its normal progress. Yet it's consistent with that to say that this change is also normal. When placed in the right context, the female human being will undergo these changes. This right context is something she even has a biological drive to seek. I would even say that in some sense the purpose of some of her biological functioning has been prevented each month that she doesn't conceive.
Then he says that we (inconsistently with our view that pregnancy is normal) see pregnancy as an illness by requiring frequent prenatal care and so on. That's just silly. Has this guy ever heard of preventative medicine? If I go to the doctor for a one-year checkup every year, does that mean I've got some sickness (call it being healthy) that requires seeing if it's still true of me every year? With someone who is perfectly healthy but with more risk of problems (for whatever reason), closer scrutiny might be required. Isn't that the case with pregnancy? One might argue that the normality is in question if there's more risk of problems, but the risks are more often not to the mother but to the baby. Does this doctor want to argue that a fetus is somehow unhealthy simply because it's not mature enough to warrant less monitoring?
He then frames the abortion debate as about whether the desire to terminate a pregnancy is pathological or normal, presumably with him taking the second option. This is silly. No one is arguing that abortions are easy decisions, with the pathological people going one way without a thought and the normal people going the other way without a thought. Sometimes there are difficulties that make someone not want to deal with the consequences of her already being a mother. I don't think that ever justifies abortion (though I'm not sure about whether sometimes it might excuse it). The people I think are pathological aren't the people who are confused enough in those situations to have an abortion. In one of his famous vice lists, Paul condemns the heartless, especially those who give approval to those who practice evil. Someone who condones abortion and encourages those in such difficult circumstances to terminate a pregnancy, assuring someone already in a difficult decision that this is a mere choice, as if no one's life is at stake, is a tool of pure evil.
I wonder if this guy realizes how anti-woman his claim that pregnancy is an illness really sounds once you think about it. He describes some annoyances that come with pregnancy and presumably thinks if a woman kills someone already in a relationship with her (a mother-child relationship, biologically inititated with conception) is morally less severe than putting up with those inconveniences. Saying that a woman is trapped by her body and her reproductive system is tantamount to belittling women who appreciate the wonders of being able to shelter and nourish her offspring for nine months. The bond created between mother and child through pregnancy is seen as somehow bad.
Worse still, the end result of his line of reasoning is that the ideal woman somehow avoids being what is biologically distinctive of women. Therefore his goal must be to force women to become men. The Gospel of Thomas puts this sort of statement on Jesus' lips, and most scholars see this later Gnostic teaching as sexist and unworthy of being put in the same category as anything by someone who cared enough to reach out to women of the dregs of the society of his day. This doctor's statements about pregnancy amount to the same kind of sexism.
Finally, he seems to think reproducing is identical with pregnancy. This ignores the long lives many women have devoted to teaching, caring for, and mentoring their children to be the future of society. Anyone who reduces this role to the kind of importance assumed by those who think it's sexist to see women staying home and raising children is herself, or himself in this case, sexist -- against women and against what women for most of recorded history have done and done very well, something all the male roles over history would have failed at if it hadn't been done. Assuming that caring for children is somehow beneath women, and avoiding such responsibilities like the plague (pun intended, stretch as it is) is the natural and normal path for a woman, is placing the value of this crucial role as lower than it really is. The myth that such things are less important and therefore women's place in society is unimportant has been perpetuated for too long, and this guy seems to want to continue it. I wonder if he wants to do it, to quote him, out of "certain personal role investments". After all, he does perform abortions for a living.
Thanks to Evangelical Outpost for the link and tip-off to the guy's source of income.