Jivin J’s Life Links 4-15-10
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
He argues that to support a woman’s right to choose, “you have to believe that a fetus is not human in the moral sense.”…
This is incorrect. The pro-choice view is woman-focused, and we take no view on the fetus (or should not). The status and moral value of the fetus is moot because it’s a matter of subjective personal opinion, and the only opinion that counts is the pregnant woman’s.
What is the religious right doing by campaigning against abortion? First and foremost, its efforts seem aimed at trying to keep church pews filled by bringing more and more poor people into the world.
That’s right. “Greenberg” features one of the most mainstream, unremarkable, lengthy and prominent abortion scenes since “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” (in fact, there’s a marked similarity) and it does something no film has ever done as effectively: it mines abortion for humor. In fact, the aftermath of the abortion scene is one of the funniest, and most poignant, in the entire film. It would be wrong to give it away, but let’s say it involves our male protagonist’s extremely misguided attempt to buy an appropriate post-abortion gift for Florence, who has elected to undergo anesthesia for her D&C procedure and wakes up rather groggy.
One is left with the distinct impression that the author wants women – only pro-life women, though – to go and “dialogue” in a dark closet somewhere, by themselves. Talk about a wimp. If you can’t handle a gentle woman holding a sign, you’ve got a problem and should probably get some help.
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.
“The status and moral value of the fetus is moot because it’s a matter of subjective personal opinion.”
It’s just like the account that Father Corapi gives of the time he was debating a pro-choicer:
Fr Corapi: What is the unborn?
Pro-choicer: Whatever I want it to be!
I know this is off-topic, but I just want to thank everyone again for their ongoing support and concern. Please pray for my husband.
Will do, Xalisae!!
I think Joyce Arthur’s argument is correct, despite her mention of ‘subjective option’ (which itself is moot). She is not denying that a fetus is human. She is saying that the decision to keep a pregnancy should always be the pregnant woman’s choice. So yes, the fetus has no rights….until it is a baby. So in order to support a woman’s right to abort, you shouldn’t have to conclude that the fetus is not human. You only have to conclude that the woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy. In that respect, she’s spot on.
Dhalgren,
Are you claiming that she is trying to put the bodily autonomy argument (a la Judith Jarvis Thompson) forward? I agree that the bodily autonomy argument is the strongest argument in favor of abortion, yet also the sickest. It implies the moral permissibility of third trimester abortion, torturing a fetus for fun, engaging in sexual intercourse with the fetus while its head is still inside the mother etc etc. The LAST thing, I think, that the pro-choice side should want is for the bodily autonomy argument to become public knowledge. Most people are not able to bury their moral compass far enough down in order to accept bodily autonomy, and if most people knew that that is how the most intellectual pro-choicers defended abortion, I think they would not stand for it.
So while it would be interesting if bodily autonomy was what she was going for, it is far more likely that she has moral relativism relative to culture in mind, a much more accepted position by the public.
Xalisae: Definitely praying for your husband.
Xalisae : Praying right now, hon’.
The inherent problem with the ‘physical autonomy’ bloviation is the proponents are not willing to recognize the ‘physical autonomy’ of their intended victim, in the same manner bullies do not respect the physical autonomy of their victims.
Pimps have used this same apporach when it comes to dealing with THEIR property in THEIR stables.
WOW!
Who would have ever believed the old guard femi-NAZIS and the avant garde feministas would have adopted the mentality of pimps in order to preserve their abortion rights agenda.
You go girls!
yor bro ken
Well said, Bobby!
…and if most people knew that that is how the most intellectual pro-choicers defended abortion, I think they would not stand for it.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at April 15, 2010 2:39 PM
I think they know and they do “stand for it.” Most people are not moral philosophers, and don’t agonize over “consistent moral positions.” They simply want women to be able to make their own decisions about whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.
Oh man, that Arthur quote.
“The status and moral value of the fetus is moot because it’s a matter of subjective personal opinion, and the only opinion that counts is the pregnant woman’s.” Phrased another way, this comes to, “Yeah, all that stuff about abortion being genocide and killing human persons may very well be true. But hey! Who cares? Not me!” How do you argue with someone so blockheaded? It’s not like she doesn’t know the truth. She just doesn’t care enough to do anything about it.
Hal said, “Most people are not moral philosophers, and don’t agonize over ‘consistent moral positions.’ They simply want women to be able to make their own decisions about whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.”
Translation: most people aren’t concerned with the rightness or wrongness of something. They’re more like animals, controlled by their appetite for food or sex.
Fish want to eat so they might consume their own offspring. People want to have sex so they might kill any offspring that get in the way.
Jon, I’m not just talking about people who get abortions, but also those who never will who still want it to be legal.
Thanks for the translation, though. I have trouble with English.
Sure, Hal, no problem. However, I’m also “not just talking about people who get abortions.” For example, there are many men who “never will [get abortions] who still want it to be legal.” They tend to be yahoos with only a pretense of civilization.
Sure, Hal, no problem. However, I’m also “not just talking about people who get abortions.” For example, there are many men who “never will [get abortions] who still want it to be legal.” They tend to be yahoos with only a pretense of civilization.
Posted by: Jon at April 15, 2010 5:50 PM
/raises hand sheepishly and with no pretense of civilization/
Seriously, though, like many issues, it seems that both sides in this debate think the people with different views are not very smart, not very moral, or just haven’t thought about it enough.
Perhaps you thought I was conceding that when I said most people don’t agonize over philosophical finer points.
Seriously, though, like many issues, it seems that both sides in this debate think the people with different views are not very smart, not very moral, or just haven’t thought about it enough.
Perhaps you thought I was conceding that when I said most people don’t agonize over philosophical finer points.
Posted by: Hal at April 15, 2010 6:07 PM
____________________________
Boom there it is. Moral relativism.
Hal, who is the source of truth?
“Philosophical finer points”? When, Hal, did you speak of them? Having a consistent moral position is not the same thing as dealing with “philosophical finer points.”
Phil. I am the source of ALL truth.
I thought you knew that.
Seriously, again, some morality is relative, some isn’t.
And we won’t even agree about which morality is or isn’t relative. So, there are layers of relativism. Should I adopt yours, or you adopt mine? And why? (try to answer without mentioning God or the Bible)
I can’t lie Hal and my name isn’t George Washington.
God is the source of all Truth and His name is Jesus Christ.
When this is someday revealed to you, you won’t be able to lie either.
I continue to pray for you.
Thanks Phil.
Have a nice evening.
Joyce Arthur had an abortion years ago and I really think all her talk is trying to justify that decision to herself. Raised in a fundamentalist Christian home, she rebelled against that, but her conscience is bothering her big time.
“me thinks the lady protests too much”
Hal,
How do you decide what morals are relative? Forget God for a minute. How do we as a society decide what morals are relative and which are fixed? I don’t think it’s enough to say “everyone agrees about some moral issues” – a la rape/murder/slavery a) b/c everyone doesn’t agree (or didn’t always) and b) that then dooms us to just fight it out to have the morals we think fixed recognized. Being a libertarian minded person, I’m sort of a live and let live kind of girl – thinking the law should only intervene to stop societal harm that infringes on the rights of others. However, even under that rubric, you get the abortion debate b/c pro-life people believe it DOES infringe on the rights of a person. So what societal rubric would you use (or do you use) in determining what moral debates are worth having? I’m truly interested in your answer.
Hal,
Ever read “The Refutation Of Moral Relativism” by Peter Kreeft ?
It’s a good read.
Bobby: Joyce Arthur believes that abortion is a basic right.
She believes that the fetus has no right and that the woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her fetus.
She also believes that there should be absolutely NO debate about abortion because it’s a basic human right.
I would love to see her face when she meets her God someday. :(
I hope that everything goes well for your husband and family, X. You have lots of support here.
And I have an article that I wanted to share with you all. It discusses children who were born to drug-addicted mothers, how society had cast them off as hopeless, and how many are defying the odds and living life on their own terms. It’s very wonderful:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36571290/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/
CT: I don’t use a societal rubric to determine which moral debates are worth having. The debates which are worth having are those which people disagree about, I suppose. And those debates are resolved politically (directly by voting or indirectly by courts)
psalm. Haven’t read it. Not sure refuting moral relativism is going to solve anything.
angel, Joyce Arthur isn’t the only one who thinks that way. Millions of Americans would agree with what you wrote as a summary of her views.
That’s it for me tonight guys.
Dhalgren,
I see you are posting on this thread.
On another thread I asked you for your source concerning the University of Utah medical center opening a family planning clinic. Kindly let us know what your source is since despite my best efforts, I can find nothing about it on google or the hospital website.
xalisae,
Praying for your husband. God bless.
The Memorare.
Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thine intercession was left unaided.
Inspired by this confidence, I fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins, my mother; to thee do I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer me.
Amen.
Yo – Bonnie – when you were born, did you come with your own pile of cash? Gold perhaps? Maybe a silver spoon in your mouth?
If having children is all about economic control, then how is that any different than regulating a factory or other means of mass production? Why can’t the government demand abortions?
Posted by: xalisae at April 15, 2010 1:35 PM
——-
Praying for your husband.
For a great read on moral relativism, I recommend C.S. Lewis’ “The Abolition of Man.” It’s just a short one but quite fascinating and thought-provoking.
Hey Xalisae I am praying for you and your husband. I do pray for you often. Blessings to you and your family. You are a treasure girl and God has a special plan for you.
angel, Joyce Arthur isn’t the only one who thinks that way. Millions of Americans would agree with what you wrote as a summary of her views.
That’s it for me tonight guys.
Posted by: Hal at April 15, 2010 9:56 PM
of course Hal. That is why you destroyed two of your own children. How very sad for you. :(
oh and Hal, millions MORE Americans do not think like you and Joyce.
Millions think like this:
http://headlinebistro.typepad.com/headlinebistro/2010/04/across-the-country-prolife-legislative-victories-are-pushing-back-the-abortion-lobby.html
But I know you’ll blow this off too…. :(
Reminds me of a few scenes in Schindler’s List. The camp commander’s Jewish maid tells Schindler that the commander someday “will shoot me.” Schindler disagrees but the maid is firm and says,”No, someday he will shoot me.” The maid tells of things she knows the commander has done. She tells how he shot a woman who the day before for no reason, “Just a woman on her way somewhere. No fatter, or thinner, or slower or faster than anyone else, and I couldn’t guess what she had done. The more you see of the commandant, the more you see there are no set rules that you can live by. You can’t say to yourself, ‘If I follow these rules, I will be safe.'” In the labor camps, there were no ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’. The rules were blurry or non-existent. The only opinions that were ‘right’ were the ones made by those who carried the guns.
In regards to abortion: “and the only opinion that counts is the pregnant woman’s.
Why can our ‘leaders’ not see the simularities????
“Why can’t the government demand abortions?”
They do, in China. People’s individual lives are less valued compared to the govt’s decision about what benefits the people, overall. China for years has been concerned about their rapidly growing population. So, they instituted a law declaring that couples could only have one or two kids. The rest are to be aborted. Including by force. In China, having more than 1 or 2 kids is seen as doing something against your country, like treason, bringing your coutry down and defying the wisdom of its leadership.
Of course, a couple years ago, stories began to emerge that the Chinese govt demographers have figured out that they have gone too far – their population will have a dearth of younger people to generate wealth for supporting the aging older generation.
So, they are figuring out how to change their tune.
Either way, families do not have “choice” about having more than a couple kids – by govt decree.
This is why some of us don’t want the govt in control of everything – the govt is willing to kill people off to make politics work out for the govt. TIME and NPR should be acceptable sources for the various marxists out there…
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9766870
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1615936,00.html
Keli Hu: Phrased another way, this comes to, “Yeah, all that stuff about abortion being genocide and killing human persons may very well be true.
No, because it’s not “genocide” and personhood isn’t attributed until birth, or to a limited extent, until the fetus has certain development, i.e. the restrictions on abortion late in pregnancy.
It’s the fact that personhood isn’t attributed that has you dissatisfied, in the first place.
This is an interesting thread, actually, and I’ll be reading this with interest. I, too, agree with Arthur’s views. Think whatever you want about fetal development, etc, but the only opinion that matters should be the pregnant woman’s.
Personhood wasn’t and still isn’t attributed to victims of oppression and genocide. It is so much easier to kill and explain the killing of ‘parasites’ whether by giving them a number or refusing to let them use a birth name or by saying they are ‘owned’ by someone else.
‘Doug’ and ‘Arthur’ sound like masculine names but if the only opinion that matters should be the pregnant woman’s, why would you feel the need to comment on the issue? After all, you don’t have a say in whether any pregnant woman aborts or not anyway. Your rights were taken away 37 years ago.
Praxedes, did you read the article, at all? Arthur refers to Joyce Arthur–the writer of the letter to the editor that spawned this topic.
As to personhood, a fetus is inside a mother’s body. That’s all that matters. She can do with it as she wills, and if she wants to keep it, great, she should be supported; if she wants an abortion, great, she should be supported.
Oops. My bad and apologies. I did read the article but later was responding to your comment that used Joyce’s last name Arthur which is normally a male name. I was trying to make the point that fathers of unborn fetuses have zero say in what happens to their fetus so according to pro-aborts, they have no business commenting at all.
Substituting a few words to your own logic:
As to personhood, a Jew is inside the concentration camp fence. That’s all that matters. Nazis can do with it as they will, and if they want to keep it, great, they should be supported; if they want to exterminate, great, they should be supported.
As to personhood, a slave is inside the boundries of the plantation owner’s land. That’s all that matters. Slave owners can do with it as they will, and if they want to keep it, great, they should be supported; if they want to free it, great, they should be supported.
Jews, African Americans and fetuses are not Its. They are human beings.
Have you ever read the book called “A Child Called It?” Calling her son “It” was also this mother’s feable attempt in trying her damnest to dehumanize her child. But this strong child called Dave prevailed in the end.
Just as the ProLife movement will.
Posted by: Doug at April 16, 2010 10:48 PM: …personhood isn’t attributed until birth, or to a limited extent, until the fetus has certain development, i.e. the restrictions on abortion late in pregnancy.
NEWSFLASH from the DoI: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
No “attribution” there. They are inherent rights. Citizenship of a country is something that can be applied for, denied, or attributed. Personhood does not work the same way. This truth is not relative, despite semantic engineering by those perpatrating atrocities on others. Calling other human beings “fetal matter”, “products of conception”, “cockroaches” (as the Tutsis in Rwanda were called), “Untermenschen”, “Hunde”, et cetera, does not change the (absolute) fact you are taking human lives by executing them.
Less, here’s hoping you are never dependent on anyone else (with your same attitude) to care for you. It’s a slippery slope you’re on.
No worries, Praxedes, for better or for worse I use people’s last names quite often, particularly authors.
Unless the parents are in a relationship, the male shouldn’t have a say. Even IN a relationship, the woman has the final say. Of course, before beginning a relationship it’s usually a good idea to confirm whether or not their alignments match with regards to reproductive choice, but not everyone does that, unfortunately.
In both of your examples, the individuals are born, and not inside someone else’s body. That makes all the difference. Additionally, have you ever heard of Godwin’s Law?
Klymn73, I won’t be inside anyone else’s body again, so I’m not concerned.
Klymn73, I won’t be inside anyone else’s body again, so I’m not concerned.
Posted by: Less at April 17, 2010 6:45 PM
nope but you will have to justify yourself before God.
Maybe that doesn’t concern you now, but it will someday.
angel, as I’m not Christian, it doesn’t concern me at all.
Less,
I don’t believe in following the humorous Godwin’s ‘law’. I realize some, maybe even most, don’t like to think just too hard about subjects that would consequently put themselves on the side of evil.
I am Christian and I follow God’s Law. I do however understand why Godwin’s might be the highest law you choose to follow.
I’m also sorry if you won’t see the comparison between other evils that have happened and continue to happen in our world and the evils of abortion. This is your Choice. None are so blind as those who choose not to see.
Others have tried over and over to warn you and your mantra continues to be “It doesn’t concern me.” Great slogan to add to the other great pro-abort slogans like “A fetus is not a baby”. You could even combine some prolife slogans with yours, “It doesn’t concern me that abortion changed you.”
In regards to fathers having no say on whether the fetus is killed or not, do you believe courts should force him to pay for pregnancy related costs if he wanted an abortion and she didn’t? What about child support if he wanted an abortion? Since you will probably never be a man and will never be a child again, this probably doesn’t concern you either.
Many women worked way to hard for our inherent rights just to have some of us turn around and treat men and children in the same way that we have historically been treated.
Some women, myself included, choose to see this, other women, yourself included, choose not to.
Praxedes,
With regards to Godwin’s law, it states that as soon as someone makes a comparison between the topic at hand and the Holocaust, the debate is over–there’s nothing else to say. Inevitably, such a comparison isn’t apt, and doesn’t make sense, unless the subject is an ACTUAL GENOCIDE, which abortion is not.
As to fathers paying pregnancy costs, there’s actually a legal way to do that. You sign off all parental rights for the child, and never pay child support–you also, however, never see the child again. I support continued use of that.
Right, because the post-Holocaust motto is “It doesn’t concern you”–oh, wait, it’s Never Again.
BTW, you needn’t be ‘in someone else’s body again’ to have your right to life weighed in the balance and found lacking, inconvenient or dispensable. Cause of death could be listed terminal short-sightedness considering the apathetic banalities you spout here.
Abortion, however, is not even close to a Holocaust-like situation. It’s not a genocide. Not an ethnic cleansing. The pregnant woman’s opinion is the only opinion that matters.
Pregnancy is a unique condition wherein the fetus’s dependent on another human’s consent. If the pregnant woman wants to continue the pregnancy, great for her–there are several, several resources available. If that consent is removed, however, the woman can seek an abortion. I see no problems with this–I wouldn’t want my body to be used for the nourishment of another.
Posted by: Less at April 18, 2010 11:05 PM
Pregnancy is not unique in that way. Children are dependent on their mother and father in hundreds if not thousands of situations in a lifetime and parents are held accountable for every level of their care with the risk of losing custody if not performed properly. Why should the 9 months before birth be any different? Dependency does not appear to be a sufficient argument.
Are you opposed to breast feeding?
As you can tell Janet, Less is a part of the Dead Babies R Us crew which fine for him/her because his/her mother already chose life for him/her. IMO you are dealing with a troll with PADS what I call Pro Death Derangement Syndrome, works great for you when you get to “Choose” which babies should live or die in the womb when you have already been given the “right to life” by your own mother or should I call her “an incubator in waiting of a parasite”. I think it is a waste of your time but this is a pro-life blog in what right now is a free country for now but this is changing rapidly because the “Anointed One” has not signed an edit declaring you in violation of the law if you are pro-life YET. God bless you Janet for your patience. Carry on.
Pro-lifer L,
When a common but illogical pro-choice argument is presented it seems worthwhile to refute it for the sake of a few readers who might actually benefit from the truth. But I hear you. I have to run to do my errands, etc….
And we, pro-lifer especially, know that laws cannot redefine truth. Truth stands today, tomorrow and forever. (Changing) one heart at a time, right?
Have an awesome day. God bless.
Correction,
And we, prolifers especially….
(Sorry Prolifer L, It may have appeared that I was singling you out, but I meant “prolifers” as a whole.)
Janet, after the child is born, the mother can put it up for adoption, severing the dependence. Of course children and young adults are dependent on someone—but it doesn’t have to be their birth parents, and there’s some level of autonomy there, depending on age. There’s no such autonomy to pregnancy.
Breast feeding is the personal choice of the woman, and I really have no feelings about it one way or another.
Prolifer L, a troll is someone who contributes nothing to a discussion, posts advertising link, that sort of thing. Perhaps look up the definition; for such a common internet term is doesn’t seem to be used correctly around here very often.
Praxedes: ‘Doug’ and ‘Arthur’ sound like masculine names but if the only opinion that matters should be the pregnant woman’s, why would you feel the need to comment on the issue? After all, you don’t have a say in whether any pregnant woman aborts or not anyway. Your rights were taken away 37 years ago.
I commented because abortion is not “genocide,” for one thing. And as far as “abortion killing human persons,” it’s the fact that personhood isn’t attributed to the unborn, in the first place, that has so many pro-lifers dissatisfied with the status quo.
Doug at April 16, 2010 10:48 PM: “…personhood isn’t attributed until birth, or to a limited extent, until the fetus has certain development, i.e. the restrictions on abortion late in pregnancy.”
klynn73: NEWSFLASH from the DoI: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Yes, “men,” and that did not include the unborn. Abortion was legal, certainly to a point in gestation, anyway, when that was written.
Praxedes: I was trying to make the point that fathers of unborn fetuses have zero say in what happens to their fetus so according to pro-aborts, they have no business commenting at all.
No. You might think so, but the man can certainly have his say. The decision, either way, is that of the woman, indeed, but she’s free to have his input.