A suffering
I have a hard time explaining, even to myself, the near constant angst I feel due to abortion.
I try to remember what a normal life was like, before I was gripped by the mass slaughter of little babies. I try to imagine living a normal life again.
But these days I think normal people living normal lives are weird. These days I think I’m the normal one and they’re not.
If I go on vacation long enough, I begin to remember what normal was like. But I can’t stay there. Abortion has changed me.
I don’t dwell on any of this too much. Clearly it’s complicated. But I read something profound today on this very topic, an affirmation. It was in my friend Monica Miller’s upcoming book, Abandoned: The Untold Story of the Abortion Wars. Monica gave me permission to share this excerpt with you, my pro-life friends who can identify with what I’ve been talking about. I hope it helps you. It helped me:
One Saturday afternoon I was actually overcome with this sense of being different.
I had just returned to my Rogers Park apartment after sidewalk-counseling at Albany. It had been a hard morning. Out on the sidewalk Donna and I had spoken to a woman for over 20 minutes and she agreed with everything we said. She agreed the unborn baby was human, and that the baby had a right to live. She even agreed that abortion was a sin, but in the end she went into the clinic.
Now as I stood alone in my kitchen, I played back the conversation in my head. As I prepared myself a simple lunch I continued to think about the loss of the child. I opened the door to the refrigerator to retrieve a carton of milk. In the midst of reaching into the refrigerator my hand stopped. I was gripped by a realization. I thought, “I’m not living in a normal world anymore.”
Standing there, suspended in time with one arm in the fridge, I realized that “normal” could not apply to a world in which the murder of the unborn was protected by law – and that I could no longer consider myself a normal person. I knew that I could not live my life in the expected way….
To be pro-life is to be enveloped by a desperate, agonizing moment in history. As awareness of injustice grips you, you cannot free yourself and it is a suffering. Here was terrible loneliness. I felt alienated from the world. I even felt alienated from my own country. Words like “liberty and justice for all” didn’t seem real to me.
At the same time I also knew this was a time for great good. I knew lives could be saved. But I also felt the burden of being aware that a whole segment of the human family was denied their right to live.
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.
That did help! Thank you Jill!
I thought of you first, dear Carla… :)
Agreed… How do we explain this to our pro-choice friends. The feeling of being alienated from a country you love is a strange feeling. Western democracies around the world have made us outcasts. It is bizarre!
I remember when I was a young teenager and I first heard about abortion. I thought abortion would go away. I thought the law would change. That this was a momentary period of darkness. Over 20 years later, I realize I was wrong.
I often feel similarly in my own research on abortion following a non-fatal disability. Most families who do this think of the children as just that-children. They hold funerals, make memory boxes, and sometimes bury their children after the abortion is carried out. The fact that such people can acknowledge the humanity of their child and yet go through with the act speaks to the strong current of ableism that flows through our society.(I’m not saying that abortion is ok in the case of fatal diagnoses, it’s just that my research focuses specifically on the relationship between ableism and the abortion of babies who would become disabled individuals). It breaks my heart.
Wow an amazing excerpt. But to think, how many prochoicers will read this and be like haha she’s admitted she’s not normal.
The intervening years between my commitment to the pro-life cause and my first awakening to the horror of abortion were spent in blissful ignorance of the plight of the unborn. Like the writer, I sometimes long to go back to those blissful times, those times when I was only interested in my life, my pursuits, and didn’t give a hoot about all the dying babies. Perhaps, this is my divine penalty, my penance, for being so ignorant and apathetic for so long. I always thought someone else would come along to change the law. I thought reason would prevail. I feel I am living out that saying that says it is up to you, you cannot count on others to do what you should do yourself. I suspect my silence contributed to hundreds, perhaps thousands of deaths.
That was an incredibly uplifting excerpt. Thank you for sharing, Jill. I haven’t been involved in the fight for life for long, but it has changed the way I think about it. Sometimes I just sit and am overwhelmed by the fact that over 1/3 of my generation has been slain. I clearly remember the first time it hit me, as I was speaking before a group of people on the subject of abortion, it hit me and I broke down and cried. My heart breaks for the women, men and babies whose lives are ripped apart because of abortion. It’s one of history’s greatest tragedies.
Thanks for sharing.
I just read a chapter from my daughter’s history book on the Civil War.
How the abolitionists were on fire for the cause. How the pro-slavery folks were just as lit.
And I thought to myself, “Good Lord. Four bloody years of a horrific war to purge this land of its original sin.”
Then I thought about abortion, and what we were bringing down on ourselves as a nation.
That’s when I vaguely felt what Monica Miller articulated.
And then I shuddered.
Couple weeks ago I had to call my parents after a bad pro-abort conversation because I just had to talk to someone sane. I was shaking and nearly in tears. How can you trust someone, how can you actually deal with someone who is so sick in the head they actually think dismembering a human being is acceptable? It does feel like we’ve left normalacy behind, but there is a good reason for that. People who think murder is ok are *not* normal, and a society that accepts that isn’t normal either.
I wrote my first prolife letters to my congressional delegation 41 yeas ago when I was 12 years old. It was before the horrible Supreme Court ruling that shaped the rest of my life. I spend time at the Supreme Court now, with red tape on my mouth, marked black with LIFE. I started weeping for the dead 41 years ago and I continue with tears to plead for justice at the Court above the highest court in this land.
Thank you for this. It is comforting to read. However, I think WE are the normal ones, because it is normal in the Kingdom we belong to, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. The small ones, “the least of these,” are our friends.
It is normal for children to be about their Father’s business.
I think its especially scary how pro-aborts have changed. 14 years ago I’d hear a lot of “its not a baby. Its not human. Its not alive. Its just cells.”
There are very few pro-aborts willing to sound so uneducated and dumb anymore. They can’t argue with science. They admit the baby is human, alive, fully formed in most cases etc…they just don’t care. That is CHILLING. That they can look at another human being and just not care if that human being is killed or not. Or that they can look at another human being and decide that human has no worth and should be killed. It just fills me with dread that I live in a society of such cold-hearted, awful, evil people. If they can feel no compassion for an innocent baby where does that leave me? At the mercy of calloused blood-thirsty selfish people. Wow. Scary.
Jill,
I agree. We are changed. When the terrible realization of what we are surrounded by hits us, and when we get involved, we are never the same.
I sometimes think of the enormous waste of time and talent in medicine by nurses such as yourself, physicians such as Angela Lanfranchi, Donna Harrison, and Mary Davenport, scientists such as Dave Prentice, Joel Brind, Theresa Deischer and myself…whose educations are spent combating the Culture of Death rather than advancing the Culture of Life.
I think of the many post-abortive women whose lives have been forever changed…
How far all of those who labor in the pro-life movement could be advancing civilization with their love, energy, and talents rather than fighting this wasteful and terrible war…
And then I take it all to prayer at mass and allow Jesus to swallow it up in His sacrificial death. But yes, life will never be as it once was.
We are changed. When the terrible realization of what we are surrounded by hits us, and when we get involved, we are never the same.
Amen.
Ugh… It’s true. I cried intermittently for a while when I realized I am so different from my peers in law school. They stress about getting that brief done, while I get ridiculed by most of them for my desire to fight for life. It’s taxing. I know I’m different, and I spend most of my day around others who primarily hate me for wanting lives to be spared. My unwillingness to be quiet about what I believe has made me somewhat of a pariah, and while that in itself has its own sorrows… I’m left with the additional sorrow of knowing I’m different and that all the joys in my life are being denied to others who didn’t even get a say in the existence of their lives and the subsequent denial of their lives by the very people responsible for their existence in the first place. I cry about how lucky I truly feel. How blessed to have been allowed to feel sorrow and happiness… And it makes me feel awful for those denied that right as human beings with natural lifespans.
Sydney,
I agree completely. It is chilling to know there are people who know babies are dying and just don’t care. There is no reason for them to care about my life or yours; they would be fine offing us if we become inconvenient. It reminds me of the great Mother Theresa quote “the greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between.”
How I long for the blissful ignorance of youth that is now long gone. When I first lesrned the traditional Catholic prayer, Hail, Holy Queen, I didn’t quite get it. Now I do: “…To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears….”
In the amazing book, What We Can’t Not Know, about natural law and what is written in our hearts, Professor J. Budziszewski says that we are living in “eerie” times, unlike in the past. I think he is exactly right. Your post reminds me of that.
Since the Court issued the decision in 1973, it has been a difficult path – sometimes one gets the feeling that one is in a play – only no one has given you any lines. It is only the grace of God and His presence conveyed in the love of those around you that help you to keep your focus.
yes we live in very strange times…but then again much of history has been very difficult for decent people.
Angelina Steenstra, director of Silent No More Awareness Canada, told me that she was at the March for Life in Washington in Jan. When she reached the steps of the Supreme Court and stood facing the crowds, with her sign I Regret My Abortion, she was aware of thousands of eyes looking at her. And those eyes were filled with pain, some were crying, and she realised she was facing a world that was post-abortive. So many of the women around us have had abortions and have not yet spoken of it. Very few people are aware of just how extensive this evil is and how many people have been involved in it.
No wonder you no longer live in the normal world, it is not normal anymore.
JDC: how many prochoicers will read this and be like haha she’s admitted she’s not normal.
It’s “normal” to be dissatisfied or upset about things, perhaps about many things. Isn’t that part and parcel of the human condition? Who among us goes along and doesn’t bum out about anything? And really – does anybody actually want that? Don’t you think we’re made to struggle, at least somewhat?
Thank you for this, Jill. You’re spot on: there came a point when, even though I’d heard descriptions of a “war” between good and evil, I’d ignored it as poetry, theatre, soaring rhetoric in order to make some abstract theological point, or what-have-you. I’m not quite sure when I finally looked about and realized that it was real. There were real bodies of real dismembered people–children, helpless babies–strewn about the battlefield; the eyes of the soul-burned women who had their children killed thusly (and especially gruesome were the ones who hardened their hearts so badly, in such desperation to escape the horror, that they manufactured an artificial and diabolical sort of “glee” about the carnage and evil) were real, and not simply the emoted performance of talented actresses on the television. It wasn’t a movie from which I could walk out. It wasn’t a night-mare from which I could wake. It was a real war… and one which shows no sign of ending soon.
It takes supernatural strength to fight, in the face of that.
(*sigh*) Doug, I’m almost too weary to engage you on this, today.
Can you seriously not see a chasm of difference between “oh, dear… my pet political issue isn’t getting the support I’d like” (and yes, I’ve felt that way about various political paraphernalia) and “I’m standing amidst the bodies of real murdered human beings, who were killed with the blessing of a government who would seemingly die rather than give up the ‘right’ to perpetuate the killing”?
Do you truly need me to explain the difference to you?
@ carla…..we love you here ;) i know sometimes when we are warring with pro choicers i sure do NOT want to hurt anyone who has repented. sometimes the fights get ugly but those words are reserved for the pro aborts like cc joan reality biggz and company. carla you have repented and your sins are now as white as snow :) just like me going to PP for years. how many children did i abort through my 14 years of Depo. lets get real. i am the same as you are. i am no better. the abortion industry.dumbed me down for 14 years so i cut my ties! weve all been guilty of being involved one way or another.. and carla look at the lord has used you for good!.thats why i get to the sidewalk. i needed to give back. we love ya carla. keep up the fight! men and women alike.have been lied to from the abortion industry. its not that were stupid people…just misguided.
Others warring with words doesn’t bother me in the least, Heather. I am not hurt by others fighting the good fight alongside me. :)
I do know His forgiveness having received it after I repented. I am what He says I am. His precious daughter.
It is the women that HAVE NOT repented that my heart longs to reach. The broken and hurting and the ones in silence for years because they are consumed with guilt and shame over what they have done. Because THAT was me. The angry, haughty and in your face unrepentant that yell, “My abortion was the best thing I have ever done!!” might need me one day too.
So I keep praying!
Love you too!!
Your comments bring tears to my eyes, especially Julie’s. I love you all.
Abortion is murder…and murder poisons everyone, everything it touches.
War was declared on January 22, 1973; on the unborn, and on women as mothers (and face it, only women can be mothers; the awesome ability to nurture and bring forth new human life is the crowning ability unique to womanhood generally. I say generally; there are some women who cannot do this – and these numbers are sadly increased by damages from induced abortion)…and on any and all who would intervene on behalf of the targets of this bloodbath, this holocaust, this insanity.
“Normal”. I think if I had a dollar for everytime I’ve been marginalized, called “not normal”, or treated like a freak, an anomaly, etc. because of my prolife stand, efforts, etc. I’d be rich. And I think that since Roe, it’s “normal” to do nothing in the face of this; to look the other way, or, worse, actively promote it. Even in most churches, you are distanced if you actually attempt to directly intervene to save the lives of the unborn, and their mothers.
But you just can’t prioritize your affairs the same as you used to. Abortion changes everything, and not for the better. Over 50 million innocent lives snuffed out before they even had a chance to begin. Thousands of women injured, some fatally. Many rendered incapable of having children even when they want them. And as Dr. Nadal points out, many very capable professionals in medicine and science have sacrificed careers that would have no doubt greatly benefitted the already born folks the proaborts are always ranting should be cared for just to give those the abortion cartel has targeted for destruction the chance to be born…same chance the borts had, and none of them seems to mind having been given that chance themselves, but they presume to deny it to countless people they don’t know. And those are just the already born professionals; how many others would have pursued those careers if they just hadn’t been killed before, or just as, they were born, in death mills masquerading as “health care” facilities.
Not that one has to be in medicine or science to pay a high cost for trying to save targeted innocent human life. But it’s common decency, simple doing as you’d be done by, to at least try to intervene on behalf of someone in danger; the more vulnerable that individual is, the more incumbent it is on the stronger to seek to protect and serve him/her.
It is eerie. A very wise individual told me some years ago, ”It’s really very simple. The further one advances into the Kingdom of Light, the more one will do FOR others, if they can. The further one advances into the Kingdom of Darkness, the more one will do TO others, if they can.” We can parse whether or not abortion is a religious issue, a human rights issue, a constitutional issue (in the U.S.), but it comes down to which direction are you going? The Kingdom of Darkness is the course of least resistance, as it is fallen human nature to decline. But to those who believe Jesus the Christ, to those He gives the power to BECOME sons and daughters of the Everlasting Father of lights, and of the fatherless; and to inherit the Kingdom of Light.
I remember one time heading out the door to go to the sidewalk in front of a local death mill, and a family member sought to detain me on something non essential, and telling that person, who is prolife, that I really needed to go; there were children about to be killed, and I had only a small window of time to intervene for them, and went. Not long after I arrived, I had the joy of seeing a young woman I had shared information about abortion with just a few days earlier, having no idea at the time that she herself was pregnant and scheduled for an abortion, choose life for her baby…and for herself.
Abortion changes everything, and in ways we can’t begin to fathom, and not for the better.
Plato talked about this in his allegory of the cave, where everyone was chained and forced to watch a single wall. Once they were able to leave the cave, they were acutely aware of the cave and how many people in side were oblivious to the outside world. I think it is sort of apt, and a backhanded complement to those who keep abortion legal and how they’ve managed to keep in a quiet issue in the back of people’s minds. That’s why all of the euphemisms of “choice” and “rights” and fighting ultrasound laws every step of they way. This is also why the RealityChecker-types always wish people talked about it more and there was no stigma, but they don’t realize how much this cave of apathy helps them.
It is a terrible thing to realize that a quarter of your fellow countrymen support killing the most defenseless of all human beings, ignoring scientific reality while claiming to be on the side of reason. It is perhaps even more terrible to realize that more than half of the rest of your fellow countrymen simply do not care that a million human lives are killed with the consent of the governed every year in this country alone.
However, it is necessary for us to stand up for life, most especially because nobody else will do it. Even if it costs us our sanity and own lives. The right to live is the foundation of all other rights. If there are completely innocent people in this world with no right to live, then all of our other rights are meaningless.
Man, this article sums up PERFECTLY what I feel like: a stranger in a strange land. I remember talking to my pro-life husband one day about some abortion monstrosity or other, and he said, “Sweetie, you sound so angry.” I thought about it for a minute and replied, “ANGRY? 3500 babies will be slaughtered today in this country alone. You BET I’m angry.” How can I not be? He got it, right then and there.
My brothers and sisters in arms: God has put this burden and this fidelity on our hearts for a reason. Let’s go honoring that, and perservering in our pro life cause. BECAUSE WHAT WE ARE DOING IS PLEASING TO HIM, AND HE WILL BLESS US IN HIS OWN WAY.
I think of that bumper sticker: If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.
Well, i’M PAYING ATTENTION NOW, AND i AM OUTRAGED BEYOND BELIEF.
Paladin: (*sigh*) Doug, I’m almost too weary to engage you on this, today.
Well, buck up, old son, it won’t be all that bad. ;)
___
Can you seriously not see a chasm of difference between “oh, dear… my pet political issue isn’t getting the support I’d like” (and yes, I’ve felt that way about various political paraphernalia) and “I’m standing amidst the bodies of real murdered human beings, who were killed with the blessing of a government who would seemingly die rather than give up the ‘right’ to perpetuate the killing”?
Do you truly need me to explain the difference to you?
Sure, there’s a difference. I didn’t say that “everything’s the same” in that respect. It doesn’t “have to be the same.” JDC mentioned pro-choicers supposedly saying “haha she admitted she’s not normal” – for feeling the way she was feeling.
My point is that there are always lots of people who feel that way. There always have been, back to the time of the ancient Egyptians and beyond. I didn’t say “she shouldn’t feel that way” – what’s the point of arguing like that? If she has the feelings, she has them. It’s in the eye of the beholder, and there are always going to be such beholders.
No offense meant here – but what is “normal”? It’s a given that that woman – and quite a few people who post on Jill’s site, for that matter – are to the extreme, far side of things as far as abortion. They’re farther from the status quo, so if there’s more “head-shaking,” then no wonder.
Is anybody really “right in the middle” on all or most issues? I doubt it. And when you find yourself way out to one side or the other, then to feel “not normal” or that we are living in “abnormal times” is – heh – the norm. Or at least pretty darn “normal,” wouldn’t you say?
Not related to the abortion debate, but do we even really want to be “normal”? I think of somebody in a wheelchair, and yeah – almost surely they probably want to be able to walk, and be more “normal” in that sense. But isn’t our passion and interest coming from areas where we’re more to one side or the other? Don’t we tend to care about things and – as many pro-lifers have expressed in this thread – feel things more strongly, etc., when we’re farther from the average, from the “norm,” etc?
Praying for all of us today. The weary, the burdened, the scarred. We who fight the evil of abortion know the toll it has taken, know the hardship of doing what we sometimes don’t want to do. But God is on our side. We are on the side of what is good and noble and right. The right to life. We will win. Take heart.
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Ephesians 6:12.
The thing that terrifies me more than anything else is the CONSTANT news coverage of children being abused (i.e. the recent abuse by the 2 teachers in L.A.) and the startling number of kids that kill each other, bring guns to school, the bullying, ad nauseum.
The lack of regard for the sanctity of human life has now permeated down to kids themselves. When they grow up around parents who are “pro-choice” and think nothing of killing the unborn, what message is this sending to their existing kids ?
The pro-chice side of course, will never admit to there being any connection.
When they grow up around parents who are “pro-choice” and think nothing of killing the unborn, what message is this sending to their existing kids ? The pro-chice side of course, will never admit to there being any connection.
Mike, isn’t it better for kids to be wanted, in the first place, and thus to be in homes where they have less chance of abuse?
As to any “connection,” how can we filter out the differences between now and back “then” as I presume you are presenting things?
Some things that are now considered abuse didn’t used to be, and the reporting rate is much, much higher now. As you mentioned – the constant news coverage – are things really “worse” now, or are we just hearing about stuff a lot more?
carla even the smartest women have abortions. women of all races and ages. you have really opened my eyes to the behaviors post abortion exhibit. i now get that. Now you are giving back as i am. PP lied to me too. i wish.they would have lectured me on the low self esteem i would have been suffering from allowing men to use me for cheap sex. i fell hard for 2 guys and they just used me for sex yet PP will continue to tell women…..” be equal to men and go ahead and have sex. we men women and teens today are in bondage. carla i bought the lie just like you! contraception is the same as abortion. prevention of implantation is just as bad. carla i felt bad when you cried. just keep up the good work because we cant go back BUT we can move ahead. i will bet that you have touched more people then you know! we have the Lord and he blesses us when we do right;)
Lyssie,
I think you have to be a special person to be an open pro-lifer in a law school. That takes courage.. People like you give me hope that not all lawyers are corrupt. Having been exposed a little to the legal world, I have a small idea of what you are up against. Generally speaking, lawyers are not a timid bunch, so you will definitely need a thick skin to shield your pro-life heart. Although I am most likely older than yourself, I hope to have your wisdom and courage one day.
the thief comes only to steal, kill, and destroy.
the analogy to the slave issue is totally fitting. in about 1840, the ‘fugitive slave act’ was put into law: people in non-slave states basically had to support slavery “choice” actively. now, we have our own “fugitive slave act;” we can be pro-life for ourselves, but by law we are forced to contribute to taxes and health insurance premiums, and other ways, to make sure the legal system stays in place to support this institution.
yes, it was a horrible mess to end slavery here. it was inevitable. abortion has been and will be a more challenging battle. in the old days, you could see a slave, and see the treatment of a slave, here and there even if you were sheltered. you could see the accomplishments of former slaves who might work in your town.
go read ‘uncle tom’s cabin,’ or the lincoln-douglas debates. eerily parallel.
it is more challenging to ‘see’ the fetus, or the reality of abortion. in the old days, analogies were made to animals, and everyone knows you need to be physical to train an animal. slaves ‘looked’ different and ‘acted’ differnt – all oppressed people ned up getting characterized in a very similar way: lazy, thieving, immoral, etc. think of the out-groups you know from your lief experiences, and that is how they are portraed, but the powerful, who are allowed to define the less-powerful out-group in media, etc.
it was a huge social movement to go against the wealth and social power of the slave-owners. they were the leadership. they were the sources of money for civic efforts, etc.
In the slavery days, many were against freeing slaves because there was the perception that this category of people could not take care of themselves, and would be a burden on society – and the burden could not be met. That is the exact same argument made to abort the babies of low-income women – we cannot support them. What will we do with the poor little dears? people ask: are we pro-life people ready to adopt all of those poor, pathetic, hopeless low-SES children? when we answer, ‘yes,’ the discussion goes nowhere because that ‘question’ is not meant to lead to discussion, but to be an end of discussion. no response will be heard. we ‘progressives’ are trained to ‘argue’ this way.
That is what we liberals are trained to say. In the meantime, there are plenty of resources, we think, to allow immigrants to flow over the border, and some of us beleive there should not even be a border – health care for all. we believe that industry can handle the carbon penalties it would take to affect carbon doxide that is supposed to led to global warming. we are supposed to be able to ensure everyone receives housing, a college education, and freedom from ‘food insecurity.’ but in our liberal minds, we cannot handle another baby, and our global society is supposedly on the verge of planetary collapse.
now, ‘everyone’ knows the ‘medical’ world. we are supposed to trust them. they have political power, and wealth. the political power is being used to get into every institution around to entrench the view that abortion is OK. they are driven to provide se x ed to grade-schoolers so the indoctrionation begins young, and right under the noses of parents.
they want each medical and nursing student to be ‘trained’ in abortion, jsut like all other medical aspects, just to be thorough in training – but also because once you have been pushed into action, your mind is forced to sort this out, and you end up committed to the pro-abortion side. and what about the other side? the medical professionals parrot the same old lines: ‘do we want to establish a theocracy?’ Analogies to Taliban, the burka, and so on.
They want to silence opponents.
It is weird to recognize we are normal, believing in human rights, while a geat portion of people in power hold on to baseless rhetorical points. it was the same when ‘uncle tom’s cabin’ was written.
silence was a great strategy for a long time. outlandish, inappropriate pro-life acts – any bombing or murder, or harrassing of women seeking access to an abortion clinic, rather than appeals to help – added to the ability of the status quo supporters to silence. -they miss no opportunity.
the silence is gone, as of the last three years. health care reform brought the tie to abortion to the fore. prenatal genetic analysis is scaring disability-rights groups – according to the status quo, we cannot handle those people, and we are just too late to kill them off. sex-selection abortion has ben recognized on our shores. yes, in fairly distinct asian ethnic groups – but are we gonna say that those asian communites are simply not regular americans? that will be difficult for us liberals to sideline and ostracize a group of ethnic americans.
well, is same-sex attraction genetic, or a choice? same-sex politics cannot decide. but they are beginning to see that if they pursue the ‘nature’ side of the argument, then it will be attractive for some parents to kill their baby before it is born if some ‘gay’ gene is detected.
so, advances to recognize same-sex attraction as biologically-based are welcomed (whether true or not, there will be potential indicators detected – several already have) –but thy will pull a leg out from the abortion platform, since the desire to abort a potentially same-sex-oriented baby will certainly happen.
for us liberals, the personal is political – except we cannot hold to that when it comes to abortion – we cannot allow reality to be seen. because we know abortion will end when reality is seen. this is where we are going. komen was yet another event that has forced abortion into national-level discussion, after being suppressed for decades.
medication-delivered abortions are a major mov to out-of-sight, out-of-mind, and this is why they are being pushed so hard. aborting a half pound of blood and guts is getting unpalatable. but redefining ‘pregnancy’ to be ‘after implantation’ is a clever move. they will certainly work to make the use of morning-after pills VERY routine. as a desperate end-run.
the side effects, and mis-use, will thwart this. but it is not easy to thwart big pharma, it will happen only after overwhelming misery and death to mothers as well as unborns. but it will eventually reveal the grotesque matter that abortion is.
sadly, democrats don’t see this. the republicans and conservatives obviously no longer are a pro-life party. y’all can barely get a pro-life commitment out of a minority of the candidates that have popped up. santorum may be the only viable candidate who is decently pro-life. we democrats could make claim to our desires to protect the little guy, and the voiceless. but we are so beholden to the money-laundering of giving PP money so they can give it back to us as campaign donations, that we are compromised and cannot act. otherwise, we could totally steal / co-opt the abortion issue right now.
so, abortion will not end now. but these factors will add up and it will eventually end, like slavery did. [i acknowledge that we still have slavery, but it is illegal, and is not based on race/ethnicity membership.]
Ya… and it’s weird to realize that people think you should not be in health care if you won’t kill your patients.
Heather, I ditto your thanks to Carla.
Carla your compassion for women, all women, is extraordinary. It is a constant reminder to me for the many, many times when I go off track. You help to pull us back to what counts. It takes a special person to do what you do.
@Doug: No, “wantedness” is not a good measure of which children should be kept and which should be done away with. Abort73 goes on about this at greater length here.
Furthermore, the advent of abortion has not reduced child abuse. Instead, since 1973, child abuse has noticeably increased, the numbers on which you may investigate here. And before anyone starts making correlation/causation objections, let me point out that correlation may not strictly imply causation, but (to quote xkcd) “it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing ‘Look over there!'” Furthermore, Dr. Phillip Ney postulated eight psychological reasons why an increase in abortion might result in an increase in child abuse (which have indeed increased concurrently) and gave data supporting this theorem in “Relationship Between Abortion and Child Abuse,” Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 24:610-20 (1979)…for which I don’t have a link, so you’ll have to look it up on your own. Sorry. In 2005, a study from Bowling Green concluded that women who have had abortions were more likely to abuse their born children, not less (144% more likely, to be specific).
Basically, while it might be harder to make the case that abortion indirectly causes rises in child abuse (though the data does indicate that this is a possibility), it is easy to conclude that abortion most definitely does not lessen the likelihood of abuse. My thought is this: when you create the mentality that children are disposable before birth, the cultural value of children after birth is necessarily reduced. After all, just by allowing those children to be born, you–the parent, that is–have saved their lives. They owe you.
Thank you Tyler. I am beyond blessed to be able to reach out to other women and offer what has been offered to me. Mercy. Grace. Compassion. Unconditional love.
Heather,
Have you ever read Forbidden Grief by Dr. Theresa Burke? It outlines so clearly what comes as no surprise to many of us. Girls that grow up without the love, protection and care of fathers and mothers will try to find it elsewhere. Not ALL but for so many of us. Seeking love in promiscuity which brings its own heartbreak, STD’s, unplanned pregnancies etc. It is what PP THRIVES on.
Also those that get multiple abortions? They are caught in a cycle of self abuse and trauma. I understand it to be so much more than “How could she do that again??? She knows it’s a baby!!” It is deep and only serves to injure her that much more.
My heart aches for all of the babies killed and all of the women wounded today regardless of their circumstances.
carla..i havent gotten to read that book yet but i will. i get it. its a form of self punishment ( if im not mistaken ) and although we are quick to call women who have had abortions selfish and self absorbed it isnt always true. how about teens dragged to abortion clinics by family members? they probably felt choiceless. i told you about the young black woman with the hulking bf who dragged her into the abortion clinic. where was her choice? i would be ya a million bucks that the abortion industry would be just fine with that! i now see the insanity of how the abortion industry exploits women. our damage is done.carla BUT we will both rise up and fight this evil! the ultimate war on women. just so you know carla…when im fighting joan cc megan bigzz and company i dont ever want you to feel it has a thing to do with you. its just because they cant see the light and im trying to help them.. @ lyssie…omg is that you former pc gal? i hope so because now you are talking girl! welcome to the pl team!
Alice: No, “wantedness” is not a good measure of which children should be kept and which should be done away with. Abort73 goes on about this at greater length here.
Alice, Abort 73 didn’t address what we were talking about. Your “should,” there, is your opinion. In reality, when it’s pregnancies we’re talking about, then if they are unwanted, on balance, they *are* ended, rather than continued. That’s different, too, however, from what I was talking about with Mike. I realize you’d rather have zero abortions take place, so how about this – “Wouldn’t it be better to not have conception take place, rather than have it happen for a woman who doesn’t want to have kids, at least at the time? Or, wouldn’t it be better for kids to be born into homes where they have a lesser chance of abuse, period?
___
Basically, while it might be harder to make the case that abortion indirectly causes rises in child abuse (though the data does indicate that this is a possibility), it is easy to conclude that abortion most definitely does not lessen the likelihood of abuse. My thought is this: when you create the mentality that children are disposable before birth, the cultural value of children after birth is necessarily reduced. After all, just by allowing those children to be born, you–the parent, that is–have saved their lives. They owe you.
How do we know, really? Had there been no legal abortion, there would have been many more kids, and obviously some of them would have been abused, so right off the bat, in raw numbers abortion has lessened child abuse on that score. Moreover, it stands to reason that among the kids that would have resulted from no legal abortion, they’d have a higher rate of abuse than for the rest of the population, and for the rate of kids as a whole.
____
In 2005, a study from Bowling Green concluded that women who have had abortions were more likely to abuse their born children, not less (144% more likely, to be specific).
I remember that “144,” Alice. I’ll try and get all the results of that study – some of them are, uh, “outlandish,” I guess I’d say.
I know that it wasn’t only women who’d had abortions, it was also women who’d had miscarriages and still births that had a much higher rate of being abusers.
Specific to those who willingly had abortions, it makes sense to me – if a woman is really conflicted about having kids, then for her to have a higher-than-average chance of being an abuser stands to reason.
and yes i used depo p for 14 years and PP gave it to me. the truth is i fell hard for one of the men i was prancing around with. but a lot of women have sex for love. i found myself wanting a baby with both men but they insisted i remain on birth control. i was so heartbroken. i was crushe because they just used me for cheap sex. marriage was discussed but thats as far as it went ( discussed ) im glad the good Lord blessed me with a wonderful husband. being married is wonderfu. sleeping around makes you feel like a sl*t!
Doug,
:) You’re a sporting fellow; I’ll give you that!
I’ll try to reply to your reply to me (forgive the verbal stutter, there), but this comment of yours caught my eye, first:
Mike, isn’t it better for kids to be wanted, in the first place, and thus to be in homes where they have less chance of abuse?
“Better” is a comparative adjective, and it needs at least two things to compare. When you ask if it would be “better for kids to be wanted”, I ask you: better than WHAT? All other things being equal (which is almost certainly not the case, if I guess correctly), it would certainly be better to be wanted than to be unwanted; but I doubt that’s the limit of what you were suggesting/implying. Were you not, rather, suggesting (in the context of the abortion debate) that at least some (if not all) children might be “better off aborted, than unwanted”… with the implied explanation that “it’s better to be dead than abused”?
Alice, :( I can’t find all the results of Priscilla Coleman’s study. Not saying they prove anything “from a pro-choice point of view,” but there were some very interesting, even “incredible” things in there….
Coleman herself has admitted that the causality could be reversed – that rather than abortion “causing” women to have other characteristics, that their characteristics cause them to be more conflicted about having kids and thus more likely to have abortions. There were no controls for prior mental disease or psychiatric maladies in the study, and that’s one major criticism of it.
I didn’t know until today that Coleman was a sometime collaborator of David Reardon, and that, frankly, is just damning….
I was abused, neglected, emotionally abandoned by my own parents. But at least they let me live, and there has never been a time I was not grateful for my own life. The best part is, when you afford someone life, you also give them the gift of time, and the chance that forgiveness and peace may be found.
Moreover, it stands to reason that among the kids that would have resulted from no legal abortion, they’d have a higher rate of abuse than for the rest of the population, and for the rate of kids as a whole.
No, that does not stand to reason. That’s precisely my point. That is an unsupported assumption you have made. But, of the research that has been done on abortion and child abuse, the clear conclusion is that this is not a well-founded assumption and the fuzzy indications are that the opposite is true (i.e., banning abortion lessens the likelihood of child abuse). I’m sorry, but dismissing studies whose results you don’t like does not equate to producing evidence to support your own assumption.
Doug wrote, in reply to my comment:
No offense meant here – but what is “normal”? It’s a given that that woman – and quite a few people who post on Jill’s site, for that matter – are to the extreme, far side of things as far as abortion. They’re farther from the status quo, so if there’s more “head-shaking,” then no wonder.
Well… we’ve already gone ’round and ’round on the “moral relativism” issue already (do you remember how I described it as being utterly vacuous, and leading inevitably to one of three things: abandonment of moral relativism, solipsism, or insanity?); but do you not see that you’re using your own question-begging definition of “normal” (i.e. that which happens to fit the opinion polls of the moment? Surely you know that, in such a conversation as this, “normal” usually carries the connotation of “good”? (I realise that many people use “normal” in the sense of “that which is commonly the case” or [in the non-original sense of the word] “typical”; but there is a very different definition which cannot be grasped from the stand-point of moral relativism: the idea that “normal” = “what SHOULD be the case”… not necessarily “what IS the case” or “how COMMON a given case is”.)
Not related to the abortion debate, but do we even really want to be “normal”?
It depends completely on the choice of definition. Do we (pro-lifers) wish to be “normal” in the sense of reflecting the disdain for human life (in favour of one’s own pleasures/pursuits) which is so prevalent in the culture? No… God forbid. Do we wish to be “normal” in the sense of having a sane, authentically human ability to value every last human life as being as precious as our own (and valuing our own life very highly–I do not here address nihilists, suicides, etc.)? YES.
Don’t we tend to care about things and – as many pro-lifers have expressed in this thread – feel things more strongly, etc., when we’re farther from the average, from the “norm,” etc?
In one sense, you’re right: I once heard someone define pain as “the difference between where I am, and where I should be”. But again: unless one has even the most basic grasp of the idea of “should” (i.e. an appeal to the objective “good”, and not simply “personal opinion and whims, writ large upon society”, one cannot possibly understand what we’re saying, or what we mean.
I think–if you’ll forgive me the image–that even you have some “fumes” in your nearly-empty petrol tank of objective values; even you would regard the insatiable desire to (for example) boil live kittens to death to be “not normal/desirable/mentally stable”… and that there would be no circumstance in which you would ever consider it “normal” for anyone to desire such a “pastime” for its own sake. But again: the extent to which you are devoted and committed to maintaining moral relativism is the extent to which we are doomed to talk past each other; you might as well live in a bubble in another universe, for all the intellectual commerce we would be able to share.
“Mike, isn’t it better for kids to be wanted, in the first place, and thus to be in homes where they have less chance of abuse?”
Paladin: “Better” is a comparative adjective, and it needs at least two things to compare. When you ask if it would be “better for kids to be wanted”, I ask you: better than WHAT? All other things being equal (which is almost certainly not the case, if I guess correctly), it would certainly be better to be wanted than to be unwanted; but I doubt that’s the limit of what you were suggesting/implying. Were you not, rather, suggesting (in the context of the abortion debate) that at least some (if not all) children might be “better off aborted, than unwanted”… with the implied explanation that “it’s better to be dead than abused”?
Paladin, I wasn’t saying, in effect, “better dead than abused.” There are some mind-blowingly severe cases of abuse, absolutely horrible treatment, for example – in the Darfur region of Sudan. Even there, I’m not saying, “they would be better off dead.” Once such a question is applicable, I think only the individual themself can say.
Yeah, “all other things being equal” it’s better to be wanted, but indeed – that isn’t what I meant with my reply to Mike. Mike was, I believe, asserting some causality as far as legal abortion meaning more child abuse. My point is that, if less child abuse is the desired outcome, wouldn’t it be better for kids to be in homes where they are wanted? I’m taking it for granted that such kids have a lower chance of being abused.
“Moreover, it stands to reason that among the kids that would have resulted from no legal abortion, they’d have a higher rate of abuse than for the rest of the population, and for the rate of kids as a whole.”
Alice: No, that does not stand to reason. That’s precisely my point. That is an unsupported assumption you have made. But, of the research that has been done on abortion and child abuse, the clear conclusion is that this is not a well-founded assumption and the fuzzy indications are that the opposite is true (i.e., banning abortion lessens the likelihood of child abuse). I’m sorry, but dismissing studies whose results you don’t like does not equate to producing evidence to support your own assumption.
Alice, I’m not “dismissing studies.” You mentioned Coleman’s study, and while there were obvious errors in the way it was conducted, I’m not even dismissing that one. That’s the one I think came up with “wild” findings; quite memorable. It’d be nice to see them all. Ney had some hypotheses, but speculation upon them is not proof.
In no way is there any “clear conclusion” that supports what you say. There have been studies showing the opposite of what you say.
The American Psychological Association had a task force on mental health and abortion. They looked at a huge number of studies. The conclusion: Across studies, prior mental health emerged as the strongest predictor of postabortion mental health. Many of these same factors also predict negative psychological reactions to other types of stressful life events, including childbirth, and, hence, are not uniquely predictive of psychological responses following abortion.
The best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver that pregnancy. The evidence regarding the relative mental health risks associated with multiple abortions is more equivocal. Positive associations observed between multiple abortions and poorer mental health may be linked to co-occurring risks that predispose a woman to both multiple unwanted pregnancies and mental health problems.
The whole report is at http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/mental-health.pdf There are 8 or 9 pages of references.
On the basis of raw numbers, does abortion lessen child abuse? How many more kids would have been born had there been no legal abortion? You have to agree with me that it would have been “millions,” eh? Well, in those millions of kids, there would have been many cases of abuse. Whether it’s millions of cases, there, or hundreds of thousands, those did not happen because we’ve had legal abortion. Is that going to be outweighed due to “abortion’s effect on society”? I sure don’t think so, and moreover – does it not make sense that kids do better in households where they are wanted? You say it does not stand to reason, but it’s hard for me to fathom where that would come from, logically. There are clear-cut relationships between how well kids do in school, what chance they have of ending up in prison, etc., due to the circumstances, i.e. single-parent family homes or not, etc., and why would such not be in effect, all of a sudden, just because we’re looking at kids that would be in existence due to abortion not having been legal in the US?
It is definitely nice to hear all the different voices, especially the pro-life women.
I hope I don’t date myself too much when I say the following;
Pro-life women rule!!!
And by the way, pro-choice women it is quite easy to become a pro-life woman: simply welcome all new human life. The pro-life side will be happy to have you.
“No offense meant here – but what is “normal”? It’s a given that that woman – and quite a few people who post on Jill’s site, for that matter – are to the extreme, far side of things as far as abortion. They’re farther from the status quo, so if there’s more “head-shaking,” then no wonder.”
Paladin: Well… we’ve already gone ’round and ’round on the “moral relativism” issue already (do you remember how I described it as being utterly vacuous, and leading inevitably to one of three things: abandonment of moral relativism, solipsism, or insanity?); but do you not see that you’re using your own question-begging definition of “normal” (i.e. that which happens to fit the opinion polls of the moment? Surely you know that, in such a conversation as this, “normal” usually carries the connotation of “good”? (I realise that many people use “normal” in the sense of “that which is commonly the case” or [in the non-original sense of the word] “typical”; but there is a very different definition which cannot be grasped from the stand-point of moral relativism: the idea that “normal” = “what SHOULD be the case”… not necessarily “what IS the case” or “how COMMON a given case is”.)
I’d say that if there is any “insanity,” there, that it’s in not seeing that, yes, morality is relative, and then going from there. It’s the world we have. I’m not saying that “normal” is necessarily what’s in the polls. I’m saying that when one is at an extreme, that it means something, that of course there’s going to be some head-shaking and perhaps feelings that things are strange, etc. On “normal” meaning “good,” yeah, it often does carry that connotation, but I wasn’t saying anything about that.
Do people feel that what they think should be the case, “should be the case”? Well of course they do. We want what we want.
____
“Not related to the abortion debate, but do we even really want to be “normal”?”
It depends completely on the choice of definition. Do we (pro-lifers) wish to be “normal” in the sense of reflecting the disdain for human life (in favour of one’s own pleasures/pursuits) which is so prevalent in the culture? No… God forbid. Do we wish to be “normal” in the sense of having a sane, authentically human ability to value every last human life as being as precious as our own (and valuing our own life very highly–I do not here address nihilists, suicides, etc.)? YES.
Totally agree that it depends on how we define it, Paladin. I really didn’t mean it with respect to abortion, but in reply to what you said above, I’d add that many people value freedom, and the principle that gov’t shouldn’t impact our freedom unless it has a compelling reason to do so.
____
Don’t we tend to care about things and – as many pro-lifers have expressed in this thread – feel things more strongly, etc., when we’re farther from the average, from the “norm,” etc?
In one sense, you’re right: I once heard someone define pain as “the difference between where I am, and where I should be”. But again: unless one has even the most basic grasp of the idea of “should” (i.e. an appeal to the objective “good”, and not simply “personal opinion and whims, writ large upon society”, one cannot possibly understand what we’re saying, or what we mean.
I think–if you’ll forgive me the image–that even you have some “fumes” in your nearly-empty petrol tank of objective values; even you would regard the insatiable desire to (for example) boil live kittens to death to be “not normal/desirable/mentally stable”… and that there would be no circumstance in which you would ever consider it “normal” for anyone to desire such a “pastime” for its own sake. But again: the extent to which you are devoted and committed to maintaining moral relativism is the extent to which we are doomed to talk past each other; you might as well live in a bubble in another universe, for all the intellectual commerce we would be able to share.
Yeah, the “talking past each other” does happen. But as far as a “tank of objective values,” I’m saying that can’t be proven to be anything more than imaginary, in the first place. If I stated that “it’s objectively right that we allow the woman the freedom of choosing a legal abortion,” you’re not going to agree with that. Rather than just saying, “my way is right,” as opposed to what somebody else says, I’m looking at what is true for all of us, rather than what only applies to portions of us, belief by belief.
Anyway, per this thread, where the speaker says, “I could no longer consider myself a normal person” – I’m not laughing at her, there, and I don’t think it’s all that “abnormal,” really to feel that way. We’ve got over 7 billion people on the planet, and a fairly wide distribution about feelings on certain things. To find a Monica Miller isn’t strange at all. Is it?
Heather,
It’s all good!! :)
Lyssie,
Are you the Lyssie that used to comment here?
Funny to see so much discussion stemming from my comment. All I meant to say is that some people like to get snarky talking about those they disagree with and this seemed like an easy post to make such a joke out of, so I might as well beat them to the punch so to speak.
Carla, yes, it’s our Lyssie, an amazing convert. I’m so proud of her.
Hey again. Jill, would I be able to send you emails over the upcoming months to get information for an upcoming class debate about Roe v. Wade? It’s for my Constitutional Law class, and I more than intend to debate until my eyes bleed. As I craft my argument, I might need several sources of information to which I’m sure you and your fellows have access.
Ugh, it’s been a tough road so far, because now, since my views are public knowledge, I actually get ATTACKED via facebook by some of my peers. So annoying. But it only makes me more resolved. However, at times, I wish I had the constitution of Xalisae… She kicks @$$ and makes me fear for the future of the pro-choice movement. Wish I could strike fear into hearts like that :P
Lyssie–FIGHT LIKE HELL. There are lots of peeps here who got your back! Stay strong, and come here when u can.
I am so happy for you Lyssie!! AND for us!! :)
ooooooh Lyssie im so so proud of you!!!!;)
Thanks for the support, everyone. :) I need it. And Courtnay, I will fight like hell. I’m not afraid to do so. It’s getting to the point where my peers who aren’t professedly pro-life are starting to notice the attacks against me, and coming to resent and denounce those who go out of their way to attack my beliefs. Just earlier today a few of my classmates asked me about the “war” going on on my facebook. The attacks against me are seriously turning my other classmates against those who go out of their way to hurt me, and that’s bringing people to our side. I’m willing to be attacked, because others notice and turn away from those who would attack me. The small group of rabidly pro-choice peers (to whom I affectionately refer to as “the bra-burners”) is continually losing support. It’s worth being attacked to see that. And to hear from my other peers every morning that it’s ridiculous that others would go out of their way to do so. That, plus the support of people like yourselves, is a real impetus to go on. Thanks again. :)
lyssie you rock! i remember when we were on opposite sides of the debate. id lost track of you. what won you over?
Lyssie, sure thing. We can even write posts to get advice from the wealth of pro-life knowledge here.
Ever hear of a saint called MK? ;)
Carla says:
February 14, 2012 at 12:04 pm
“… Girls that grow up without the love, protection and care of fathers and mothers will try to find it elsewhere.”
Carla, you are exceedingly correct. Boys are affected, too. I have served as president of a Lutherans for Life chapter, volunteered at a crisis pregnancy center, and am now Life Minister at our church; and I have seen the majority of young women who experience crisis pregnancies and their boyfriends come from broken families or from families with workaholic parents. I have championed the mantra that if you want to reduce abortion, promote family time, reduce divorce, and promote joint custody.
While most Christian denominations do say, ”We are pro-life”, most end up screwing it up and saying, “but we’re not going to tackle some of the core reasons for teen pregnancies. We’re not going to address workaholism, divorce, or custody because we might offend people.”
Lyssie, I’d be interested to know what changed your mind as well.
As for the persecution you are suffering, wear it as the badge of honor it is. And get off Facebook already!!!
Thinking of you today. I hope you feel God’s protective Spirit over you. As well as our blessings!
edited by moderator
Perhaps Lyssie can write it up for Jill!! THAT would be a wonderful post to read!
And God bless MK!! I miss her!!
Someone mentioned the use of alcohol in the young and I would have to say that holds true for me. I started drinking at the age of 14 and was in relationships and situations I NEVER would have been in had I been sober.
Dear Tyler,
You have no idea what it is like to be surrounded by so many prolife men who stand up for their wives, daughters and girlfriends! Real men!!
Before I launch into the fray again with my good-natured fencing partner (Doug):
Lyssie, you were apparently a commenter before my time (that, of my memory is getting staggeringly abysmal!), but I’m so very happy for you, and for your courageous witness! We’ll support you with prayer, tactics, information, encouragement, and any other resource that we poor mortals can scrounge up! Well done, milady! :)
Doug wrote, in reply to my comment:
I’d say that if there is any “insanity,” there, that it’s in not seeing that, yes, morality is relative, and then going from there.
I’m afraid that makes very little sense, friend. “Morality” is a system by which we discern what one “should” do from what one “should not” do–i.e. what is morally good (and to be embraced), and what is morally evil (and to be rejected)… and “insanity” has no meaning, if it does not mean “derangement of the mind away from reality”. Without an objective standard, the very words “morality”, “insanity” and “reality” become meaningless; one might as well speak of a U.S. Navy while believing that there is no such thing as real water, or doing mathematics while denying that numbers exist (or can be distinguished from one another at all)! If your definition of “insanity” is really “Doug happens not to like this”, then… well… I hope you understand why I might give you some sympathy, but I won’t give that objection much weight.
Honestly: the agnostic/absolute relativist tendency to say “there is no black (it is only a very dark shade of grey), and there is no white (it is only a very light shade of grey); all is grey!” is almost incomprehensible to me; the only possible way you could be right is if you redefine the terms to your liking… which is a logical fallacy, when last I checked.
Can you not see the pointlessness of speaking about obligations (i.e. the “shoulds” and “should nots”) without having a definition of “good and evil” which doesn’t simply blow in the wind? You might as well hope to break the world-record for running the 100-metre dash, while redefining the length of a metre with every passing second! Why speak of length at all, in that case (much less the time needed to run it)?
It’s the world we have. I’m not saying that “normal” is necessarily what’s in the polls.
You’re simply saying that there is no such thing as “normal”, and that the term (save for privatised, idiosyncratic use based on personal taste) is utterly devoid of objective, distinct, coherent meaning.
I’m saying that when one is at an extreme, that it means something, that of course there’s going to be some head-shaking and perhaps feelings that things are strange, etc.
My dear fellow: you’re using the words of an absolutist, while trying to deny absolutism! No relativist can possibly talk of “extremes” in any meaningful way; you can only refer (perhaps) to the level of agitation that one or another human might (for whatever whimsical reason) have with regard to anyone else’s position. If there is no true middle, and no true ends, then how can you speak of “extremes”?
Do people feel that what they think should be the case, “should be the case”? Well of course they do. We want what we want.
:) It’s rather hard to argue with you, on that point; tautologies, though utterly empty of meaningful content, really are quite resistant to refutation. X is also equal to X, 2 = 2, and all whole numbers are either odd or even.
Totally agree that it depends on how we define it, Paladin. I really didn’t mean it with respect to abortion, but in reply to what you said above, I’d add that many people value freedom, and the principle that gov’t shouldn’t impact our freedom unless it has a compelling reason to do so.
An interesting view, to be sure (though I do wonder how you can even put together a sentence with clear content, since all terms have no objective definition or content, in your view; “freedom”, “shouldn’t” and “compelling” are all utterly meaningless terms, unless you recognize at least some sort of objective reality)… though hardly compelling, unless those terms can be clarified. What, exactly, would you regard as “compelling”, and what reasons exist for anyone to be converted to the view which you now propound?
If I stated that “it’s objectively right that we allow the woman the freedom of choosing a legal abortion,” you’re not going to agree with that.
Of course not… just as I would disagree with you if you were to claim that 2 + 2 = 5, or that my wife is a figment of my imagination; it’s simply not true.
Rather than just saying, “my way is right,” as opposed to what somebody else says, I’m looking at what is true for all of us, rather than what only applies to portions of us, belief by belief.
And I’m saying that you, so long as you try (though imperfectly) to embrace utter relativism, you will be helpless to do even that. To you, there can be no such thing as universals, or even clear definitions; so it’s not possible for you to find “what is true for all of us”, or even to discern what applies to some people, and not to all. It’s quite impossible to build a real castle without a real foundation, and using real building materials.
Anyway, per this thread, where the speaker says, “I could no longer consider myself a normal person” – I’m not laughing at her, there, and I don’t think it’s all that “abnormal,” really to feel that way. We’ve got over 7 billion people on the planet, and a fairly wide distribution about feelings on certain things. To find a Monica Miller isn’t strange at all. Is it?
I see your point, but I think you missed hers… at least partially because moral relativism blinds one to particular griefs which those who acknowledge reality must face. I grieve the death of a friend because she is a real friend, and not simply an imaginary one whom I can conjure back with but a thought; I adjust my diet because of real physical ailments, not simply because of a whim or delusion. And those who face a word where real people massacre real babies by the millions, and where real governments fiercely defend that murder as a “right” (and punish those who try to save them), simply because casual sex can then be safe-guarded and enshrined as sacrosanct, face real grief at that fact. It would be rather different, my friend, if the entire abortion holocaust were taking place in a popular fiction novel (albeit a horror novel); it might well disturb, but it would not do so on the profound level that it does, knowing that it is actually *** R E A L ***. I’m not sure how to make that fact plainer to you. If you choose to regard the real world, real events, and real morality as mere phantasms of a tortured dream of your own, then I’ll have nothing of substance to say to you. But some pains are only understood by those who live in the real world.
There was a quotation that this post brought back strongly for me. I don’t know where its from.
“…for an abhorrence has taken root in me. A passion burning within my soul, until it has consumed all the cares of my former life. In the anguish of my soul do I rejoice, for in its sweet sufferings do I find an utter certainty: this is the work that was set for me. It is my penance, my hope and my salvation, by which I shall be made worthy of the promises of Christ.”
This is probably a little late and maybe nobody will see my comment. But let’s quote Doug again, shall we:
Mike, isn’t it better for kids to be wanted, in the first place, and thus to be in homes where they have less chance of abuse?
So, let’s boil down this question because pro-abortion folks are constantly using the argument that abortion prevents child abuse.
If you argue that unplanned (initially unwanted) children will be abused at a higher rate than planned (initially wanted) children:
You are saying that women who have sex without the intention of creating children are more abusive to their children
than women who have sex with the intention of having children.
You are saying that casual sex makes a woman more abusive.
IF you are not saying that, then: wantedness/unwantedness planned/unplanned should have no effect on how the chilren are treated. If it DOES have an effect on how children are treated, you are going one step beyond slut shaming women, you are accusing women who use birth control and/or get abortions of being more abusive women than women who accept their children once they are conceived.
Hmm?
Ninek,
The whole “abort unwanted children so they don’t become abused” argument has never made sense. Your logic is a great counteraction to the fallacy of this argument. Fact is, unwantedness need not lead to abuse. To anyone that argues otherwise, I would ask: are you saying a child is responsible for his/her own abuse because of his/her unwantedness?
Ninek, sorry for the delay in replying – been busy with work and 2 days of traveling; didn’t even get online.
Ninek: This is probably a little late and maybe nobody will see my comment. But let’s quote Doug again, shall we:
“Mike, isn’t it better for kids to be wanted, in the first place, and thus to be in homes where they have less chance of abuse?”
So, let’s boil down this question because pro-abortion folks are constantly using the argument that abortion prevents child abuse.
Of course it does, on the raw-number basis of there being less kids, compared to what there would have been without legal abortion. The question – if there is one – is whether or not legal abortion would somebow raise the rate for existing kids so much that it would more than outweigh that.
___
If you argue that unplanned (initially unwanted) children will be abused at a higher rate than planned (initially wanted) children:
You are saying that women who have sex without the intention of creating children are more abusive to their children than women who have sex with the intention of having children.
To generalize, yes, I think we can say that, as long as they end up having kids. Same as we can say that kids tend to be abused more in foster homes, to do worse in school when coming from a one-parent home versus a two-parent home, etc.
___
You are saying that casual sex makes a woman more abusive.
IF you are not saying that, then: wantedness/unwantedness planned/unplanned should have no effect on how the chilren are treated. If it DOES have an effect on how children are treated, you are going one step beyond slut shaming women, you are accusing women who use birth control and/or get abortions of being more abusive women than women who accept their children once they are conceived. Hmm?
Not just “having casual sex, per se.” That would only be true if every woman that had sex, without conception being the goal, got pregnant, and of course that is not the case.
I’m saying that the mother/parents being conflicted about having kids has an effect on the kids, again – to generalize. Parenting is hard enough without being sure, without really wanting it all the way in the beginning. There’s no “slut-shaming,” from me, though that term still strikes me as funny. If we take that one study that Alice mentioned at face value, it does fit with the idea that women who are conflicted about having kids – and I’m saying that willingly having an abortion means that is the case – will have kids that have a higher rate of being abused.
Eric: Fact is, unwantedness need not lead to abuse.
I’d say the opposite is what is fact.
___
To anyone that argues otherwise, I would ask: are you saying a child is responsible for his/her own abuse because of his/her unwantedness?
Of course not. There’s no awareness, no capacity for guilt or to be “blamed,” no will nor volition at all, to a point in gestation. Come on – it’d be pretty silly to blame the unborn for the circumstances of their conception, eh?
That said, the circumstances may make a great deal of difference to the mother/parents, same as other circumstances may.
“I’d say that if there is any “insanity,” there, that it’s in not seeing that, yes, morality is relative, and then going from there.”
Paladin: I’m afraid that makes very little sense, friend. “Morality” is a system by which we discern what one “should” do from what one “should not” do–i.e. what is morally good (and to be embraced), and what is morally evil (and to be rejected)… and “insanity” has no meaning, if it does not mean “derangement of the mind away from reality”. Without an objective standard, the very words “morality”, “insanity” and “reality” become meaningless; one might as well speak of a U.S. Navy while believing that there is no such thing as real water, or doing mathematics while denying that numbers exist (or can be distinguished from one another at all)! If your definition of “insanity” is really “Doug happens not to like this”, then… well… I hope you understand why I might give you some sympathy, but I won’t give that objection much weight.
Honestly: the agnostic/absolute relativist tendency to say “there is no black (it is only a very dark shade of grey), and there is no white (it is only a very light shade of grey); all is grey!” is almost incomprehensible to me; the only possible way you could be right is if you redefine the terms to your liking… which is a logical fallacy, when last I checked.
Can you not see the pointlessness of speaking about obligations (i.e. the “shoulds” and “should nots”) without having a definition of “good and evil” which doesn’t simply blow in the wind? You might as well hope to break the world-record for running the 100-metre dash, while redefining the length of a metre with every passing second! Why speak of length at all, in that case (much less the time needed to run it)?
Paladin, no argument about things of physical reality, nor about insanity. Have to disagree about a necessary “objective standard” for morality, though. The “shoulds” and “should nots” come from the mind, rather than existing as physical reality. They’re internal to the mind, rather than external to it, i.e. “subjective” by definition. Certainly there is “black and white” – all it takes is for some entity, some individual or group, to perceive things that way.
As long as we have desires, as long as “any mind,” really, has them, then the “shoulds” and “should nots” can or will be there. The door is open here for a god, gods, or other “higher” beings than us earthly humans, obviously – they too might have their opinion.
It’s not “pointless” to speak about obligations. If there is sufficient opinion behind the notion that society should deem an obligation to be present, then it will be so.
_____
“It’s the world we have. I’m not saying that “normal” is necessarily what’s in the polls.”
You’re simply saying that there is no such thing as “normal”, and that the term (save for privatised, idiosyncratic use based on personal taste) is utterly devoid of objective, distinct, coherent meaning.
No, I really wasn’t saying that. I was going with how the speaker meant it, me saying in response that it’s really not that “abnormal” to feel that way. It’s normal to feel that way, about some things.
____
I’m saying that when one is at an extreme, that it means something, that of course there’s going to be some head-shaking and perhaps feelings that things are strange, etc.
My dear fellow: you’re using the words of an absolutist, while trying to deny absolutism! No relativist can possibly talk of “extremes” in any meaningful way; you can only refer (perhaps) to the level of agitation that one or another human might (for whatever whimsical reason) have with regard to anyone else’s position. If there is no true middle, and no true ends, then how can you speak of “extremes”?
That does not make sense. Sure I can talk of extremes – here it’s that the speaker is far to one side in the political spectrum on at least one issue – abortion. Of course there is a “middle” and “ends,” i.e. extremes. There is a range of thinking, most definitely relative to those who have the thoughts, and here we have one woman who’s at one of the extremes. I’m saying, that, given her position, for her to feel “not normal” really is pretty darn normal.
____
“Do people feel that what they think should be the case, “should be the case”? Well of course they do. We want what we want.”
It’s rather hard to argue with you, on that point; tautologies, though utterly empty of meaningful content, really are quite resistant to refutation. X is also equal to X, 2 = 2, and all whole numbers are either odd or even.
My point is that the speaker has her desires, same as for somebody in the middle of the spectrum, there, and for her to think her ‘druthers are the way things ought to be is “normal,” just as it is for people who aren’t so far to one side as she is.
____
“Totally agree that it depends on how we define it, Paladin. I really didn’t mean it with respect to abortion, but in reply to what you said above, I’d add that many people value freedom, and the principle that gov’t shouldn’t impact our freedom unless it has a compelling reason to do so.”
An interesting view, to be sure (though I do wonder how you can even put together a sentence with clear content, since all terms have no objective definition or content, in your view; “freedom”, “shouldn’t” and “compelling” are all utterly meaningless terms, unless you recognize at least some sort of objective reality)… though hardly compelling, unless those terms can be clarified. What, exactly, would you regard as “compelling”, and what reasons exist for anyone to be converted to the view which you now propound?
No, they are not “meaningless” at all. People want to be free. I accept that as a premise. Once we do that, we go from there. The “objective reality” is that we are individuals within society, and there is a trade-off between liberty and society having rules and enforcement of them that restricts our liberty. “Compelling” is (of course) in the eye of the beholder. On most issues where society impacts our freedom, there’s no big amount of disagreement, i.e. we’re pretty much all on the same page. Abortion is one of the relatively few areas where there is significant disagreement. Many people feel that the life of the unborn is the most compelling thing, and many feel the liberty of the pregnant woman is.
____
“If I stated that “it’s objectively right that we allow the woman the freedom of choosing a legal abortion,” you’re not going to agree with that.”
Of course not… just as I would disagree with you if you were to claim that 2 + 2 = 5, or that my wife is a figment of my imagination; it’s simply not true.
Sure – per your opinion, just as many people reject your take on things in favor of their own. I don’t know if you’re making what is basically a religious argument, but if so, then Joe Blow can say, “No, you’re wrong about what God wants,” or, “No, my god is the correct one, and yours is wrong…” In the end, regardless of what we may ascribe our position to, we’re all individuals having our say. It’s our “saying,” our desires at work, and that’s true for all of us, not just some of us on one side of the argument or the other.
____
“Rather than just saying, “my way is right,” as opposed to what somebody else says, I’m looking at what is true for all of us, rather than what only applies to portions of us, belief by belief.”
And I’m saying that you, so long as you try (though imperfectly) to embrace utter relativism, you will be helpless to do even that. To you, there can be no such thing as universals, or even clear definitions; so it’s not possible for you to find “what is true for all of us”, or even to discern what applies to some people, and not to all. It’s quite impossible to build a real castle without a real foundation, and using real building materials.
You’re confusing things with physical existence and things that are mental perceptions.
____
“Anyway, per this thread, where the speaker says, “I could no longer consider myself a normal person” – I’m not laughing at her, there, and I don’t think it’s all that “abnormal,” really to feel that way. We’ve got over 7 billion people on the planet, and a fairly wide distribution about feelings on certain things. To find a Monica Miller isn’t strange at all. Is it?”
I see your point, but I think you missed hers… at least partially because moral relativism blinds one to particular griefs which those who acknowledge reality must face. I grieve the death of a friend because she is a real friend, and not simply an imaginary one whom I can conjure back with but a thought; I adjust my diet because of real physical ailments, not simply because of a whim or delusion. And those who face a word where real people massacre real babies by the millions, and where real governments fiercely defend that murder as a “right” (and punish those who try to save them), simply because casual sex can then be safe-guarded and enshrined as sacrosanct, face real grief at that fact. It would be rather different, my friend, if the entire abortion holocaust were taking place in a popular fiction novel (albeit a horror novel); it might well disturb, but it would not do so on the profound level that it does, knowing that it is actually *** R E A L ***. I’m not sure how to make that fact plainer to you. If you choose to regard the real world, real events, and real morality as mere phantasms of a tortured dream of your own, then I’ll have nothing of substance to say to you. But some pains are only understood by those who live in the real world.
Monica Miller’s “grief” in this case is internal to her. It doesn’t access any “objective reality.” No argument that she feels as she says, and the same for you – yeah, you grieve the death of a friend. I’m saying it’s “objectively true” that you feel that way. But the “real world” is not that you “have” to feel a certain way, and the same is true for Monica. How sad is an abortion? How sad is a miscarriage? It depends on the observer and their frame of reference. I see an abortion as worse or “sadder” than preventing an unwanted pregnancy, but I don’t see it as sad as you do. If a pregnancy is wanted, a miscarriage can be enormously sad for the woman/family involved. If not, then perhaps it’s not very sad at all.
President now can’t be elected becouse he was aborted 41 years ago, John paul jackson said god told him ,that my friends is the impact of prodeath society. If anyone don’t know who john paul jackson is prochet of god for these times. You can find john paul jackson videos on You Tube or matt sorger.p
Excellent about law student Lyssie’s conversion on the issue of abortion and glad – but not at all surprised – to see how more and more members of the quiet majority among her classmates are voicing their support for her right to express her pro-life views, and some for her specific views too.
People often need some time, during a specific situation, to either screw up their courage to say something…or merely to figure out what specific sentiment to express or how to accurately and effectively express it– so buying time for your classmates to get it together is invaluable Lyssie, as has been demonstrated.