Cut off reproduction to spite self
I spotted this harebrained quote in today’s Feministing, by Jersey Garcia, of Miami International Latinas Organizing for Leadership and Advocacy:
As the granddaughter of a poor, illiterate black woman living in a rural village in Dominican Republic, I know first hand what it is to not have choices or the resources to exercise our intrinsic right to sexual and reproductive health. My grandmother had 22 pregnancies, three miscarriages and two of her children did not reach the age of five. She never received prenatal care or contraceptives – and she never received information about her body or reproductive health.
And how exactly does Garcia know this firsthand? Because she’s here? Is she wishing her own parent had been aborted? Is she using herself as an example that progeny of poor, illiterate black women remain equally ignorant?
[Photo courtesy of Feministing]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I’m sure if we all looked far enough back into our own ancestry we’d be in for some unpleasant surprises such as out of wedlock pregnancy, adultery, rape, incest, desperate poverty, slavery, warfare, and family strife, to name only a few. I’m thankful my grandmother, an unmarried pregnant woman didn’t abort her pregnancy, which was my mother. I’m thankful my paternal grandmother didn’t abort her 5th child, my father, though she would die a year later in the flu epidemic of 1918 while pregnant with her 6th, and leave 5 children motherless. Her husband would eventually commit suicide. If you value your freedom, thank my cousin who was a fighter pilot in WW2, and the result of a rape.
And that’s only a few stories from just my family that I know about.
Human nature has never changed, life was a struggle to survive, and children rarely entered this world, or lived, in the most idyllic of circumstances.
And how exactly does Garcia know this firsthand? Because she’s here? Is she wishing her own parent had been aborted? Is she using herself as an example that progeny of poor, illiterate black women remain equally ignorant?
Wow! How belittling of the poor you are. What is your answer to ignorance Jill? Getting Jesus?
What’s stunning is that she’s not outraged that conditions were so bad that two children died before the age of five. She’s outraged that there wasn’t sex ed, a basket of condoms, and a portable abortion pump.
It wasn’t abortion that wrought public health miracles in the United States and other developed countries. It was simple things like sanitation, clean drinking water, and decent food. None of which abortion can provide, unless you propose the fetuses as a nutritional supplement.
Christina,
Excellent point. What is overlooked here is that because of deplorable living conditions, women needed to have numerous children just to make sure any survived. My great grandmother had nine children and lost four, three in one week, and she was lucky.
It seems to be such a revelation to these people that the lives of our ancestors were so difficult. dahhhh.
What’s stunning is that she’s not outraged that conditions were so bad that two children died before the age of five. She’s outraged that there wasn’t sex ed, a basket of condoms, and a portable abortion pump.
It wasn’t abortion that wrought public health miracles in the United States and other developed countries. It was simple things like sanitation, clean drinking water, and decent food. None of which abortion can provide, unless you propose the fetuses as a nutritional supplement.
Posted by: Christina at August 30, 2007 6:13 PM
Hmmm. Until the medical community knew how to perform an abortion to save a woman’s life, they knew nothing of peri-natal care. How, when, where and why did they learn this? Do some homework and get back to me.
Christina,
Excellent point. What is overlooked here is that because of deplorable living conditions, women needed to have numerous children just to make sure any survived. My great grandmother had nine children and lost four, three in one week, and she was lucky.
It seems to be such a revelation to these people that the lives of our ancestors were so difficult. dahhhh.
Posted by: Mary at August 30, 2007 6:21 PM
Honey, our ancestors used thier children for income. Your own expressed concept that children were a ‘need’ enfources the reality of our past. Children were plow horses. Beasts of burden for their parents.
What’s stunning is that she’s not outraged that conditions were so bad that two children died before the age of five. She’s outraged that there wasn’t sex ed, a basket of condoms, and a portable abortion pump.
It wasn’t abortion that wrought public health miracles in the United States and other developed countries. It was simple things like sanitation, clean drinking water, and decent food. None of which abortion can provide, unless you propose the fetuses as a nutritional supplement.
Posted by: Christina at August 30, 2007 6:13 PM
***********
Christina, your comment presupposes that this woman should have counted her grandmother happy if she pumped out 22 children and they all lived, due to good health / sanitary conditions.
I can’t think of greater oppression than being obligated to pump out 22 children due to lack of access to BC and abortion. If you don’t agree with me, you should try it sometime yourself–live up to your convictions, you know. :)
Hello?! Not all women feel that having children is an obligation, most see it as a joy.
Anna,
What you or I might consider oppressive, women in another culture or era might not. She speaks as this woman’s granddaughter, we don’t hear from the woman herself. Her grandmother may have considered numerous children a great blessing. This was a woman from a totally different era and culture.
My mother was the child of a desperately poor single mother and always cherished her life. Would you want to be the child of a desperately poor single mother?
My grandmother and her sisters were indentured servants, a common practice when a poor widowed mother could not provide for her children. They all died of old age and cherished their lives. Would you have wanted to be indentured to a family by your mother?
…
I’m not sure having 22 kids would be considered a “joy”.
But whatever, to each his or her own.
Rae,
Had all her kids lived I doubt she would have had 22. Brave lady!
Anonymous,
Honey, for whatever reason, people needed to have several children just to be certain any survived to adulthood. Diseases you and I never think about anymore and have possibly never heard of would routinely claim children’s lives. I did not express the concept that they were a “need”. The rich were not immune, and they hardly needed children to be beasts of burden. President Abraham Lincoln lost three of his four children, and he probably had the best living conditions of that era. I also doubt he needed his children to provide him with income.
Rosie,
Had she had good living conditions and could see the likelihood of her children surviving to adulthood, its highly unlikely she would have had 22 pregnancies. Its never failed that where living conditions and life expectency improve, the birth rate goes down and the population stabilizes.
@Mary: I was going to say…22 pregnancies? I mean geez…you’d have to be pregnant practically non-stop for like 20 years or something to have that many.
My already shriveled uterus cringes at the thought of being stretched out that often. ;-p
Rae,
I hear you. We don’t hear though how many of the grandmother’s children actually survived until adulthood. Again, depending on the era and culture, not all women would view a large number of pregnancies as you and I do.
What I can’t fathom Rae is wearing corsets, hoop skirts, high neck dresses and heavy hats in 90 degree weather! When I look at how our female ancestors dressed, I have heat stroke!
“What I can’t fathom Rae is wearing corsets, hoop skirts, high neck dresses and heavy hats in 90 degree weather! When I look at how our female ancestors dressed, I have heat stroke!”
Oh goodness no! I too would just fall over and DIE if I had to do that. However, I do like the way corsets look…I finally bought one at the Renaissance festival two weekends ago. :) Anyway. My great-grandma (on my mom’s side, my grandma’s mother) had…15 kids? Something on that order, with her youngest being my great-uncle with Down’s Syndrome (he’s now in a nursing home with severe Alzheimer’s-related dementia).
Rae,
When my great grandmother had her 9th and last child, she tapped on the window of her home and asked a lady passing by to help with the delivery. The lady was on her way to church, and you know how ladies dressed for church 100 years ago. She had probably spent the entire morning dressing. Anyway, the lady walked in, removed her hat, gloves, and suit coat, rolled up her sleeves, put on an apron and delivered my great aunt. I’m sure she then went back home, scrubbed her clothes over a washboard and tub and ironed with an iron that she heated up on the stove. My great aunt lived to her mid 90s.
Mary, great story and all I can say is wow, wow, and wow.
Times certainly do change, and who knows – people in the future may look back and think how “bad” we had it early in the 2000s…
Doug
Mary, it is so interesting that you know all these stories! My Great-grandfather wrote out his biography and it is short but really amazing, somewhat similar to what your ancesters went through. It makes me wonder how we Americans of today have gotten the idea that we are so entitled to things that we are not.
Doug and Rosie,
Thank you both so much. I’m glad you enjoyed the story and I appreciate your feedback.
How nice for you Rosie that your great grandfather wrote his autobiography. When these people are gone, so much history disappears forever. I’m presently working on a family history scrapbook to save old pictures, letters, telegrams, and even my father’s adoption papers. A tedious project but I am making progress. Thankfully my mother has a wonderful memory and can identify people for me.
One thing we learn from our ancestors is that we have no concept of what hardship really is.
Mary – right on about saving stuff from the past.
My paternal grandfather lived to be 97. There is a letter from him to his family, dated 1922, where at all of 19 years of age he had set out “on the road” selling pots and pans door-to-door, which had not worked out well, and he ended up working on a farm in Iowa.
He explains why he left Indiana and the ancestral home (largely just bad times and not much work available), and that he was now saving money and had high hopes for the future.
Fascinating to hear his teenage voice after so many years.
Doug
Doug,
Indeed it was! Thank you for the story.
My great-grandmother had 22 children. The 2nd to youngest was my grandfather. He was a great man who I loved deeply.
He also fathered my mother, perhaps the most wonderful woman on the planet. My mother has saved orphanages from disease and malnutrition, vaccinated entire improverished Caribbean islands, and invented a system to purify water and make it potable after Hurricane Pauline.
And to think, all that wouldn’t have happened if my great-grandmother had decided 19 was enough and had access to some medical school washout with a curette.
Jacqueline: My great-grandmother had 22 children. The 2nd to youngest was my grandfather. He was a great man who I loved deeply.
He also fathered my mother, perhaps the most wonderful woman on the planet. My mother has saved orphanages from disease and malnutrition, vaccinated entire improverished Caribbean islands, and invented a system to purify water and make it potable after Hurricane Pauline.
And to think, all that wouldn’t have happened if my great-grandmother had decided 19 was enough and had access to some medical school washout with a curette.
Well, 22 is quite a large number of kids – I’m amazed. Your great-grandmother didn’t have 25, for example, and we don’t know how an additional three would have turned out. It does sound like your grandfather was a great man, but the counter-argument would be presenting a bad person, and there’s no way to know in advance what the results of continued pregnancies will be.
That’s also the case for a given woman with an unwanted pregnancy – we don’t know how good or bad any resulting person would be if it was continued. Despite the miscarriages and abortions that take place, the world still goes along with its’ mixture of good and bad.
What we do know is that sometimes a given woman will not want to continue a pregnancy. However good or bad we might guess the result of continuing the pregnancy would be, it’s speculation on our part versus the very real desire of the woman.
Doug
Honey, our ancestors used thier children for income. Your own expressed concept that children were a ‘need’ enforces the reality of our past. Children were plow horses. Beasts of burden for their parents.
Not arguing about abortion here, but sadly that is still the situation in many places on earth right now. The only security some people see is having many kids in the hope that some of them will support the parents in their old age.
Doug
Doug, your view of the world makes me so sad. Is it really so unfathomable to you (and anonymous) that people had so many children because they loved them and considered them gifts?
Doug, your view of the world makes me so sad. Is it really so unfathomable to you (and anonymous) that people had so many children because they loved them and considered them gifts?
Posted by: Bethany at August 31, 2007 6:22 PM
Well yes Bethany. Being over 50 and having known grandparents born in the 1800’s and an avid genealogist I understand what an heir and a spare means. Children were only ‘gifts’ if they were capable of contributing to the family’s existance rather than being a burden. The more healthy children your wife pops out the less mules you have to buy. That was reality.
Go back to your ‘pretty place’ and don’t contemplate real life and real history. You can’t handle it.
Sally, I certainly am not naive. I realize that there are people who don’t realize what a blessing children are…But that doesn’t change the fact that every child is a gift.
I do know that many people did have more children to have more help around their farms and such..but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they didn’t love their children too, just because they needed help. And I happen to think that a family working together becomes closer than the family who functions separately.
Sally, I certainly am not naive. I realize that there are people who don’t realize what a blessing children are…But that doesn’t change the fact that every child is a gift.
I do know that many people did have more children to have more help around their farms and such..but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they didn’t love their children too, just because they needed help. And I happen to think that a family working together becomes closer than the family who functions separately.
Posted by: Bethany at August 31, 2007 9:44 PM
Bethany! If you think that women just gestated and gestaed for the betterment of society and loved all of their whelps, you are out of your mind. That isn’t the way it was or is.
Bethany! If you think that women just gestated and gestaed for the betterment of society and loved all of their whelps, you are out of your mind. That isn’t the way it was or is.
I didn’t say ALL parents cared about their kids, only the ones who recognized their children as gifts. And I believe more people did recognize their children as gifts back then than they do now.
No, Sally, I’m more than aware that you, and others like you, consider children whelps and that when you were pregnant, you thought you were probably “gestating”, instead of, you know, carrying your children. That’s okay. You’re not the norm, thank goodness. There are some loons out there and I know that. But those are the people I was referring to, when I said I realize there are those who don’t recognize what a blessing their children are to them.
Bethany: Doug, your view of the world makes me so sad. Is it really so unfathomable to you (and anonymous) that people had so many children because they loved them and considered them gifts?
Bethany, I don’t want you to feel sad. It’s plenty fathomable to me that some people just wanted a lot of kids. No problem.
What I am saying is sad is the economic reality for many people on earth – no social “safety nets” etc. Also not saying Social Security, etc., are perfect – good grief they’re not – but as one used to considerable economic security and to thinking the future looks good, many people’s situations seem sad to me by comparison.
Doug
“I am correct that it’s all about valuation,”
Bethany: I do not agree with this statement. I do not agree that it is all about valuation. And you cannot prove it to me, so your opinion and my opinion on that are equal in validity, correct? Because they are both only truths that we self created, right?
No – by definition we are perceiving value here. You have your “shoulds” and “should nots” just as I do, though we don’t ascribe them to the same origins. You can say that the most valuable thing is “life” for whatever reason, and I can say no – the given life isn’t worth denying the pregnant woman her desire. You really are valuing the unborn positively, though you say it comes from God, etc.
……..
“but I have never said that my moral position on abortion is correct in any external or absolute way. There is no such thing.”
There is another absolute coming from you, Doug! It just drives me nuts that you will keep saying that all beliefs are self created and then say that there IS NO SUCH THING as an external or absolute way. That very statement itself is an oxymoron, as it is an absolute statement…don’t you see? Oh don’t you see, Doug?
You don’t need to go nuts, IMO, but you’re talking about two different things. Saying that morality comes from the mind, even the mind of “God,” is one thing. Saying that Doug’s moral position is right in some external way is another. I do the first, but not the second. I’m saying there has to be “somebody” to care, have desires, etc., or there would be no morality. That is not saying that my desire, my caring, is in any way absolute.
…don’t you see? Oh don’t you see, Doug?
Bethany, you’re a heck of a nice person and a good egg, as they say, too. You made me laugh there.
……..
“I more value the freedom that women have in the matter, and you more value the unborn lives.”
Now, who was talking about MK misstating things? I absolutely do NOT value the unborn MORE than a woman. I value them the same. They are equal and both are worthy of life and liberty!
It was me talking about MK misstating things. You did it right there, too. What I said and meant is that I value the freedom of the women more (than I value the unborn) while you value the unborn lives more (than you value the freedom of the women in this matter). No biggie, I don’t think – just misunderstanding.
……..
I am not saying you are “wrong” to feel that way, and again – nor am I right in any way that “has” to be.
It certainly comes across that way to me!
Again – there is more than one thing here. There is the nature of morality, and then there are the things that we say as individuals. On the one hand I say it’s okay if the woman chooses to have an abortion, and you say it’s not. On the other there is the idea of external absolutes. If I’m a pregnant woman, then I know darn well that different people have different opinions about abortion. But if you say, “Abortion is wrong because of….God,” then I’m going to want some proof, and that’s where the lack of proof comes up.
Doug
Bethany, I don’t want you to feel sad. It’s plenty fathomable to me that some people just wanted a lot of kids. No problem.
What I am saying is sad is the economic reality for many people on earth – no social “safety nets” etc. Also not saying Social Security, etc., are perfect – good grief they’re not – but as one used to considerable economic security and to thinking the future looks good, many people’s situations seem sad to me by comparison.
Darn, I must have misunderstood what you were saying there. Sorry about that. I do think Sally is the one I should have directed that one at, not you so much. I just felt since you were agreeing with you, you felt exactly as she did.
It was me talking about MK misstating things. You did it right there, too. What I said and meant is that I value the freedom of the women more (than I value the unborn) while you value the unborn lives more (than you value the freedom of the women in this matter). No biggie, I don’t think – just misunderstanding.
I also misread you there also. I thought that you had said that the fetus’s life was more important than the woman’s life. (I have heard this argument so many times, it was such an easy assumption to make). Instead, you were speaking of a freedom that I don’t believe that every woman actually should have, not her life, as what I don’t consider as important as the baby’s life. And you’re right.
I’ll try to respond to the rest of your post late…I’ve got to finish folding the laundry and some other stuff around here first. :)
No – by definition we are perceiving value here. You have your “shoulds” and “should nots” just as I do, though we don’t ascribe them to the same origins. You can say that the most valuable thing is “life” for whatever reason, and I can say no – the given life isn’t worth denying the pregnant woman her desire. You really are valuing the unborn positively, though you say it comes from God, etc.
Actually I think human life is valuable, in and of itself, with or without my valuing it. In other words, if I felt that one human being had less value than another, I would be wrong, because it doesn’t matter what I think. The value exists without my feeling it. That is the difference between your opinion and mine…you think that human life can be less valuable or more valuable based on societies desires, and that it is not inherent within them. It has nothing to do with my desire. That’s where we differ. Maybe we should just agree to disagree because we are obviously getting no where. We’re still arguing the same thing we were arguing weeks ago with no changes of view on either of our part. I’ll just keep fighting for life, and if/when abortion is illegal again one day (I’m hoping it is within my lifetime), you’ll be okay with that, and go along with it because it is ultimately societies decision, in your opinion.
Bethany, you’re a heck of a nice person and a good egg, as they say, too. You made me laugh there.
You’re a really nice person too, Doug. Thanks, and I’m glad I could make you laugh. lol
Again – there is more than one thing here. There is the nature of morality, and then there are the things that we say as individuals. On the one hand I say it’s okay if the woman chooses to have an abortion, and you say it’s not. On the other there is the idea of external absolutes. If I’m a pregnant woman, then I know darn well that different people have different opinions about abortion. But if you say, “Abortion is wrong because of….God,” then I’m going to want some proof, and that’s where the lack of proof comes up.
But you see, God is not “the” reason that I do not agree with abortion. Even though I do agree that God is very life affirming and abortion goes completely against the Bible’s principles. Even if I didn’t believe in God’s existence, the cruel torture of a baby in the womb would be something I would have to fight regardless. (when I first heard of abortion, I didn’t even know God and had never read the Bible, yet the realization of it repulsed me). It goes against every aspect of humanity and love. Abortion is wrong because it takes the life of what is biologically proven to be a human being.
And whether the child has a soul or not isn’t the main issue. It is whether the child is biologically alive, a human being, and growing. And a child in the womb is, and it is genetically complete and has already had it’s traits determined from conception. There will never be another person exactly like the one that is aborted, and no one will ever get the chance to know what that baby could have been. Just as no one will ever get to know the babies who have been thrown in the dumpsters after they were born by mothers who were desperate and didn’t know what to do with them. Each is a tragedy. If the pro-life argument were merely based on God, then why are so many atheists and agnostics are pro-life and working to prevent abortion? Mary is agnostic, from what I remember. (forgive me if I’m wrong, Mary) Ask her about her reasons for being against abortion. The reasons don’t always necessarily boil down to God (even though God is the author of life). It is a crime against humanity, and people of all faiths, people with or without God, can recognize that.
Read this page by athiest pro-lifers:
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
And here is an article, called “Feminist, Pro-life AND Atheist”
http://www.fnsa.org/fall98/reed.html
Here’s an excerpt from the article, but I hope you might read the whole thing, if you have time:
“Why Do You Care?”
Many people think that opposition to abortion is a religious stance, and for many people this is true. For me it is not. I decided when I was thirteen that I was both an atheist and prolife. I became an atheist because I had no belief in a spiritual reality. I became prolife because my biology class taught a section about the development of the human embryo and fetus. I saw a human life as beginning at conception and stretching in one continuum until the death of that being. I saw that the inclusion of a child into society after birth (but not before) was nothing but a human convention.
When I attended college and studied anthropology, I saw this convention as part of a larger phenomenon: the practice of defining who is and who is not human. This practice is found in all cultures and though the choice of outcast is variable, it seems inevitable that someone who is biologically human will be excluded from the social definition of humanity. It is commonly known that those who are excluded are treated in ways that would be considered unthinkable otherwise. I suspect that this tendency is a perpetual weed in the garden of human society. I am not saying that this weed cannot be removed, but people who care will probably have to spend their Saturdays well into eternity walking out in their overalls to hoe if they want to keep it from choking out everything else in the garden.
It has been a constant surprise to me that other prolifers view me with distaste or distrust because of my atheism. I once attended a demonstration where my companion and I were watched suspiciously after we chose not to participate in a prayer session. “Why do you care?” both religious and non-religious people ask me. “Why should you feel that life is precious if you feel that life is meaningless and without divine purpose?” In all honesty, I can say that I have a completely rational explanation for this. I simply know that I am horrified by violence and I fail to see the long-term efficacy of violent means.
Possibly, the root of my reaction against abortion is one of self-interest and of self-identification. Aren’t there many in this world who see me as less than human because I am a woman? Aren’t there people who would deem me to be politically, socially, or ideologically “degenerate” and “undesirable” because of my atheism, bisexuality, desire not to be a mother, pacifism, or other personal characteristics? How can I demand my inclusion in humanity and yet deny humanity to another? What kind of gamble would I be taking if I allowed a dehumanizing custom to persist in my society without questioning it? If I tolerate the redefinition of what is human according to someone’s desire for power and control, don’t I make myself vulnerable to someone’s determination that I am not worthy of the designation “human”?
Bethany, you’ve done a lot of good thinking about this, I can see. Pretty remarkable for one as young as you. I didn’t even start arguing about abortion until I was 37….
But you see, God is not “the” reason that I do not agree with abortion. Even though I do agree that God is very life affirming and abortion goes completely against the Bible’s principles. Even if I didn’t believe in God’s existence, the cruel torture of a baby in the womb would be something I would have to fight regardless. (when I first heard of abortion, I didn’t even know God and had never read the Bible, yet the realization of it repulsed me). It goes against every aspect of humanity and love. Abortion is wrong because it takes the life of what is biologically proven to be a human being.
And whether the child has a soul or not isn’t the main issue. It is whether the child is biologically alive, a human being, and growing. And a child in the womb is, and it is genetically complete and has already had it’s traits determined from conception. There will never be another person exactly like the one that is aborted, and no one will ever get the chance to know what that baby could have been. Just as no one will ever get to know the babies who have been thrown in the dumpsters after they were born by mothers who were desperate and didn’t know what to do with them. Each is a tragedy. If the pro-life argument were merely based on God, then why are so many atheists and agnostics are pro-life and working to prevent abortion? Mary is agnostic, from what I remember. (forgive me if I’m wrong, Mary) Ask her about her reasons for being against abortion. The reasons don’t always necessarily boil down to God (even though God is the author of life). It is a crime against humanity, and people of all faiths, people with or without God, can recognize that.
Read this page by athiest pro-lifers:
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
And here is an article, called “Feminist, Pro-life AND Atheist”
http://www.fnsa.org/fall98/reed.html
I’ve seen such statements before – they too are the same valuation – that the life “should continue.” Okay, I know many people feel that way. My feeling is that such sentiment is still not enough of a good reason to deny a woman an abortion if she wants one.
On the “crime against humanity,” though – population pressure could one day make it perceived that not ending a pregnancy would be the “crime.” Not saying this will happen in our lifetimes, but people have been having abortions for thousands of years, and humanity has come right along.
I hear what you say, Bethany, and it makes sense to me that you feel as you do. There are many ways to look at it. A co-worker of mine wasn’t born until his mom was in her 30s. She’d had two abortions – I think one or both in her teens. He’s asked her if he would have come along had she kept the first two pregnancies and her answer was “probably not.” That’s one guy who isn’t sad his mom is pro-choice.
……..
Let me respond to some of what you quoted.
Possibly, the root of my reaction against abortion is one of self-interest and of self-identification. Aren’t there many in this world who see me as less than human because I am a woman? Aren’t there people who would deem me to be politically, socially, or ideologically “degenerate” and “undesirable” because of my atheism, bisexuality, desire not to be a mother, pacifism, or other personal characteristics? How can I demand my inclusion in humanity and yet deny humanity to another? What kind of gamble would I be taking if I allowed a dehumanizing custom to persist in my society without questioning it? If I tolerate the redefinition of what is human according to someone’s desire for power and control, don’t I make myself vulnerable to someone’s determination that I am not worthy of the designation “human”?
Sounds really pretty gut-basic honest to me, but even though she’s right – that being female makes her a second-class citizen some places (I don’t agree with “less than human”) that sure doesn’t sound like a good reason to take away women’s freedom here.
She’s already “human” and undeniable a part of humanity – she’s a thinking, feeling person, and she compares herself to the unborn which are not, so I would have one bone to pick with her there. Also, there is no “dehumanizing” the unborn. In this argument they are just as human as any of us. “Human” isn’t at issue, and if anything it sounds like a straw man argument to me. I hear her about making herself vulnerable, but the Birth Standard for rights and personhood is age-old and massively prevalent. Abortion has been with us for thousands and thousands of years and nothing has changed much there – it’s still human nature to draw the line at birth.
Doug
Atheists or secularists who oppose abortion should be distrusted and not well-received. The reason is simple – none of the laws of science or anyother argument apart from a personal God who created us contains and solid grounding to establish that any action is “right” or “wrong”.
Last June at the National Right To Life annual conference Bob Enyart and Colorado Right To Life held a viewing of his DVD Focus On The Strategy in a suite at the top of the hotel the conference was being held at. One of the women who came in and saw the DVD later said that “the NRTL leadership said that I had to leave God out of it so as to not offend any atheists. That an argument could be made using the “laws of science”.”
Enyart asked the woman “Which of the laws of science say that its wrong to do anything?” When she heard that question she answered “None of them!” and started crying.
That woman joined us as part of what is becoming known as the “personhood wing” of the pro-life movement.
:)
So, you got a douchebag here named Doug who believes that China’s forced abortion policy is reasonable. Great. Keep on promoting China’s policy which has set it up for cultural destruction in the decades to come Doug. That makes you look really really intelligent.
Zeke13:19,
Shouldn’t you be above this kind of namecalling? We can all disagree, maybe even be repulsed by someone’s opinion, but I think the best offense is always an intelligent argument, and that goes for BOTH sides of the abortion issue. By the way Zeke, I have been equally critical of both sides on this blog on this issue of namecalling.
Doug, I don’t have time to go through the posts but if you do indeed support the forced abortion policy of China, then do you also support the forced childbirth policy that existed in Romania under the dictator Ceausecu? I have found it interesting that abortion leaders, while howling in protest over Romania, have been strangely silent where China is concerned.
My point stands: The enemy loves abortion- not just because it’s the stealing, killing and destruction of a human life; not just because it wounds women’s souls and drives a wedge between them and God, possibly leading them to Hell rather than salvation; not just because it wounds men emotionally; not just because it allows men to victimize women; not just because abortion increases self-destructive behaviors in women like suicide, eating disorders, drug abuse, and alcholism; not just because abortion perpetuates promiscuity that leads to physical illness and emotional pain; not just because abortion hides incest, molestation, and statuatory rape-
But because abortion steals generation after generation after generation. It’s not just one person, and that person’s impact of the earth that is taken in an abortion, it’s that person’s children and their impact, their grandchildren and their grandchildren’s impact, and so on, and so on.
So Doug, I reject the whole, “the world still goes along with its’ mixture of good and bad” when we wield the knife that snuffs out people with no concept of that person’s future or that person’s legacy. Since my grandfather wasn’t aborted, I can tell the world what they would have missed. Had he actually been aborted, no one would have ever known.
Don’t you wonder what we’re missing? Doug, don’t you see how you have the privilege to support abortion simply because you narrowly escaped it yourself? Shouldn’t you fight for others to have the right to a life, since you’ve been allowed to live?
Zeke: So, you got a douchebag here named Doug who believes that China’s forced abortion policy is reasonable. Great. Keep on promoting China’s policy which has set it up for cultural destruction in the decades to come Doug. That makes you look really really intelligent.
Zeke, intelligence on your part would not be needing to pretend what I say.
The Chinese felt they had to do something. I don’t think I gave my opinion of it, actually, and I certainly didn’t “promote” it. What is operative is that population pressure can have such consequences, regardless of how a given person of group feels about them.
Will there be “cultural destruction”? Could be – I know the higher male-to-female ratio is going to be a big deal.
Doug
Mary: Doug, I don’t have time to go through the posts but if you do indeed support the forced abortion policy of China, then do you also support the forced childbirth policy that existed in Romania under the dictator Ceausecu? I have found it interesting that abortion leaders, while howling in protest over Romania, have been strangely silent where China is concerned.
Mary, I don’t think I said anything about it in this thread prior to answering the Zekester.
And, no, I don’t support Ceausescu’s policy. From a Pro-Choice standpoint, China’s “one child” deal isn’t a good thing.
Doug
Jacqueline: But because abortion steals generation after generation after generation. It’s not just one person, and that person’s impact of the earth that is taken in an abortion, it’s that person’s children and their impact, their grandchildren and their grandchildren’s impact, and so on, and so on.
So Doug, I reject the whole, “the world still goes along with its’ mixture of good and bad” when we wield the knife that snuffs out people with no concept of that person’s future or that person’s legacy. Since my grandfather wasn’t aborted, I can tell the world what they would have missed. Had he actually been aborted, no one would have ever known.
Don’t you wonder what we’re missing? Doug, don’t you see how you have the privilege to support abortion simply because you narrowly escaped it yourself? Shouldn’t you fight for others to have the right to a life, since you’ve been allowed to live?
Jacqueline, in all of that is the presumption that “more people” is necessarily good. I will agree that legal abortion has meant less people on earth, but do you think it really matters whether the population is 6.4 billion or 6.7 billion, for example?
“Generations” are not stolen – they are still here, each one bigger than the last, to this point, anyway, for many decades if not centuries. Especially on an individual basis, we don’t know how good or bad a given person would turn out. Given that, do we really need to deny a woman an abortion when she wants one? There are any number of people who have not been “on earth” due to abortion, miscarriage, etc., and the world is what it is – it’s a mixture of good and bad, and more people doesn’t change that. I don’t think we’re missing anything, and if population pressure continues to increase, there will be more and more sentiment of “missing” a less-crowded planet.
I’m not saying we need less people now, but do think that things like China’s “one child” policy will be more common as populatin pressure goes up. Most forecasters agree that we’re headed to over 9 billion people in the coming decades, quite a bit more than at present.
Of course if I wasn’t here, I couldn’t do anything. Same for you. And yes, “I” was allowed to live, although at the time there was no “me” to desire anything or to have any such concepts as we’re talking about. Had I never been, there would have been no regrets on my part. I see no shortage of “others” living, now.
Realizing that we simply see things very differently,
Doug
I will agree that legal abortion has meant less people on earth, but do you think it really matters whether the population is 6.4 billion or 6.7 billion, for example?
What are you saying: Why then continue living, when there are 6 billion other people out there? What do you matter?
How sad that you don’t value human life as priceless. So you don’t matter because there are over six billion of your species? You are somehow not unique, not dignified, not an absolute miracle? Aborting a child isn’t picking a flower in a meadow. It isn’t plucking the leaf off of a tree. It’s killing a human being, stealing his/her life, and denying the world something that we can never, ever have again. And denying the world their offspring, and so forth.
Look at your fingerprint. None of the 6 billion people on this Earth have your fingerprint. None in the past nor any the of the billions to come will have your fingerprint. Beyond your fingerprint, none will have your personality, your character, your heart, your appearance and qualities that can pass on to your children. You are not a biological function or the equivalent of a seed, sunlight and rain. You are a human being like the world has never seen, nor will it ever see again. Even if you were loathesome person, you have innate dignity and worth that demands protection because you are a human being. And you began as small and vulnerable as those you advocate killing on a whim.
Realizing that we simply see things very differently
Yes we do. I see human beings as one-of-a-kind masterpieces worthy of protection, which is the truth of what we are. I’m sorry you don’t see your worth and the worth of all human life, regardless of age, size, level of ability, gender, race, creed, etc. Not recognizing the contribution that you being you offers to humanity makes for an empty, pointless existence.
“I will agree that legal abortion has meant less people on earth, but do you think it really matters whether the population is 6.4 billion or 6.7 billion, for example?”
Jacquelline: What are you saying: Why then continue living, when there are 6 billion other people out there? What do you matter?
Why? Because I want to (which is the bottom line for us all). Because others want me to.
……..
How sad that you don’t value human life as priceless.
It’s not necessarily “sad” that not everybody sees things your way, J.
……..
So you don’t matter because there are over six billion of your species?
Didn’t say that. I’m saying that though there is a mathematical difference, it really does not matter what the exact number of people on earth is. If there had been less population growth in the past – let’s say there were “only” 4 billion of us on earth, do you think that would be necessarily “bad”? What if there were 9 billion now, as there is forecasted to be later this century? Might not be seen as “good.” Even if not, there comes a point when it makes a difference to more and more people.
……..
You are somehow not unique, not dignified, not an absolute miracle? Aborting a child isn’t picking a flower in a meadow. It isn’t plucking the leaf off of a tree. It’s killing a human being, stealing his/her life, and denying the world something that we can never, ever have again. And denying the world their offspring, and so forth.
There’s a good bit of emotionalism there, not to mention that again – we don’t know how good or bad a given person would be. Yes, we are all unique, so there are 6,600,000,000 of us “unique” beings already here. I’m guessing on the number – it’s not that far from that. Every grain of sand on the world’s beaches is unique too. We don’t need “more” for the sake of more – especially not to the extent of denying the desire of a pregnant woman.
…….
Look at your fingerprint. None of the 6 billion people on this Earth have your fingerprint. None in the past nor any the of the billions to come will have your fingerprint. Beyond your fingerprint, none will have your personality, your character, your heart, your appearance and qualities that can pass on to your children. You are not a biological function or the equivalent of a seed, sunlight and rain. You are a human being like the world has never seen, nor will it ever see again. Even if you were loathesome person, you have innate dignity and worth that demands protection because you are a human being. And you began as small and vulnerable as those you advocate killing on a whim.
Okay – your philosophy. I don’t expect you to change, but that’s not a good enough reason to take away the freedom from a thinking, feeling person.
……..
“Realizing that we simply see things very differently”
Yes we do. I see human beings as one-of-a-kind masterpieces worthy of protection, which is the truth of what we are. I’m sorry you don’t see your worth and the worth of all human life, regardless of age, size, level of ability, gender, race, creed, etc. Not recognizing the contribution that you being you offers to humanity makes for an empty, pointless existence.
You appear to have a need to demonize my perception and point of view. You may have a need to see things a certain way, but in no way does it make me “empty” or having “a pointless existence” if I don’t share your beliefs. I think that some of the attraction of religion for many people is that it assuages their feelings of emptiness, lack of purpose, etc. Well, not everybody feels those in the first place.
Doug
Why [do I live]? Because I want to (which is the bottom line for us all). Because others want me to.
Doug, if you announced that no one loves you, no one wants you to live, and you yourself no longer want to live, I would try with everything I have to convince you not to kill yourself. Why? Because you wanting to live and others wanting you to live is irrelevant to your value as a human being. Being wanted or having self-esteem isn’t what makes you YOU. You are you because you are you. And once you kill you, we are forever deprived of you. YOU HAVE VALUE. Not because you imbue yourself with value, or because others impue you with value- but because you are a human being.
So is it acceptable to kill the unwanted and the depressed since no one wants them to live and they, themselves, don’t want to live? Because, in your worldview, they have no value. I disagree. They are human beings.
It’s not necessarily “sad” that not everybody sees things your way, J.
You don’t think it sad that you see no innate value in human life? Neither do serial killers.
Every grain of sand on the world’s beaches is unique too.
I hear this a lot when I try to explain to human beings that they are valuable-“But everything is unique!”. I always respond this way: Do you drive on sand, walk on sand, feel any remorse about dumping unwanted sand from your shoes into the trash? Would you drive on human beings, walk on human beings, throw unwanted human beings in the trash? Would this be acceptable? Wouldn’t you cringe at a human being being smashed moreso than a grain of sand, moreso than a spider or a roach? Human beings have value over anything else. Hence the money invested in rescue missions during natural disasters, hence the fact that you’d give everything you own to save a member of your family- because they are irreplacable. I’m not advocating more uniqueness for the sake of uniqueness- I’m advocating not destroying the existing uniqueness of a human person (while also stealing her life and legacy). A embryo/zygote/fetus is an existing human life. Whether you create more human lives is irrelevant to me, but I can’t stand idly by and watch you snuff out the lives that exist.
Okay – your philosophy. I don’t expect you to change, but that’s not a good enough reason to take away the freedom from a thinking, feeling person.
So, is it a. wantedness and self-esteem or b. thinking and feeling that give people rights? I say that it’s humanity. Being human entails having certain human rights. Life (and not being dismembered or poisoned to death) is human right. Human freedoms stop when they infringe on the right and freedoms of others. Just because you deem the unborn less than you because you don’t believe that they think and feel (by the way, fetal brain activity starts at 4 weeks, as does the capacity to feel), doesn’t give you the freedom to kill them.
. You may have a need to see things a certain way, but in no way does it make me “empty” or having “a pointless existence” if I don’t share your beliefs. I think that some of the attraction of religion for many people is that it assuages their feelings of emptiness, lack of purpose, etc.
I don’t have a need to see the truth; it’s that the truth doesn’t cease to exist because I believe differently. In fact, believing the truth of human preciousness is painful and exhausting in light of people like you that are fine with killing humans. If I simply beleived that living for my good pleasure and the pleasure of those that loved me is my purpose in life, I’d spend a lot less time doing works of mercy towards the unwanted and defenseless. Even if I beleive this truth as some narcissistic delusion (as you claim), I could run around chanting, “I’m a little snowflake” with no regard for anyone else all the same- but I don’t. Instead I put considerable effort into the care and protection of vulnerable human beings (the unborn, the elderly, the disabled, the ill). So I think you beleive what it is you want to negate any moral obligation to help humanity. Sadly, you’ll see that being your own end-all be-all and condemning other people that are just as valuable as you are really is pointless and empty.
Doug,
Thank you for answering my question.