Why the preborn have the right to use their mothers’ bodies
What is the nature and purpose of the kidney versus the nature and purpose of the uterus?
The answer tells us why a woman is not obligated to give her child her kidney but is obligated to “give” her child her uterus.
… The kidneys exist for the health and proper functioning of the body in which they reside. In other words, kidneys exist in a body, for that body.
In contrast, the uterus exists in one body, to be around — and for — another body. The fact that a woman can live without her uterus but a fetus cannot shows that the uterus exists for the unborn child rather than for the mother.
The unborn, as members of the human family then, must not be denied the environment that regularly waits in great expectation for them….
[M]aintaining pregnancy is simply doing for the unborn what parents must do for the born — providing the shelter and nourishment a child needs. It is what is required in the normal course of the reproduction of our species.
Furthermore, when unborn children are aborted, they are directly and intentionally killed in the environment made for them. A kidney patient, in contrast, dies as a result of kidney disease. As a physician friend of mine pointed out, “In the renal [kidney] analogy, if nothing is done, one person dies. In the pregnancy case, if nothing is done, no one dies.”…
A woman’s uterus may be in her body, but every month it gets ready for someone else’s body. It exists not so much for us as women, but for our offspring.
~ Stephanie Gray of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, via MattFradd.com, November 27
[Photo via CBR, HT: Nick]
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 answer tells us why a woman is not obligated to give her child her kidney but is obligated to “give” her child her uterus. – no it doesn’t. Women aren’t obligated at all. They have the right to choose. If they don’t want a developing fetus in their uterus then they don’t have to.
Currently, yeah. And that’s called “injustice” since a parent shouldn’t be allowed to kill their child, and should have by law certain obligations to provide basics to all their children, regardless of their child’s age or stage of development.
Just for grins, please tell me what you would say to a child who someone wanted to abort, who was almost aborted, or one that abortion played a similar role in their life, when they came up to you and asked you “Why do you fight so hard for my parent’s right to kill me, and not at all for my basic right to live?”
The womb is the natural habitat of the embryo or fetus. That is what this compelling argument boils down to.
But I’m a person, not a collection of parts. My brain should decide when I’m going to have another baby, not my uterus.
Lisa, your brain has 100% control over whether you have another baby, it’s called ‘sex’. See we know how babies happen. If you don’t want another baby, don’t have another baby! It’s super easy! No one is advocating that you *must* have sex, in a manner which could result in conception, at a time when you are fertile. That is 100% your choice. See ‘choice’ comes before action. We are all for choice, choose away when, where, and how many offspring you will have. Use your brain, not your vagina, hormones, emotions, or uterus. BUT once you have made that choice and ALREADY HAVE an offspring, you should be as required to provide for it’s care as any other parent. For a very young offspring nature/God/evolution has given female members of the human sapien species a uterus, which provides all the care our children need for about the first 38 weeks of their life, after that *you* will have to provide alternative housing, food, and other necessities. The only difference between what is asked of a parent providing necessities for a 4 month post-creation offspring and a 14 month post-creation offspring, is you are conviently born with everything you need to care for the one, and will have to work very hard to provide everything you need to care for the other.
Jespren,
That line of reasoning is flawed. Women don’t always choose when to have sex. That doesn’t mean that any child conceived in a non-consensual manner should be okay to be killed. It’s this line of thinking that our movement really needs to get out of, in a bad way. When we focus on the child, rather than the actions of their parent(s) leading up to their conception, our movement gains legitimacy. Because really, isn’t this what it’s about? Protecting the lives of children, rather than policing the sexual habits of others?
Lisa,
A gestating child is ALSO a person. It shouldn’t be legal to reduce them to a collection of dead parts by killing them with abortion. Everyone can go ahead and do their best to use their brain to prevent their uterus from gestating any children by preventing those children from being conceived, but once they are conceived, you already have at least one child, and killing them shouldn’t be a legal course of action.
Excellent argument based on biology, This quote of the day.
Hey, I saw a witty quote and wonder, would people stricken with the disease of abortionism buy a bumper sticker that reads:
“I would kill for an orgasm” ?
Or, “Abortionism: Abortion advocates contract the disease, but pre-born humans die from it.” ??
Yeah, I think the first one is better, too.
Excellent Quote of the Day!
“In the renal [kidney] analogy, if nothing is done, one person dies. In the pregnancy case, if nothing is done, no one dies.”
Yep. Abortion is an injustice, an gross violation of human rights, and pits mother against child. There is nothing good about abortion.
My brain should decide when I’m going to have another baby, not my uterus.
The pituitary gland in your brain actually regulates your monthly cycles. The reproductive system is just that… a SYSTEM… which works together toward reproduction. I find it interesting that so many people choose to overlook this.
Your monthly periods are your body saying “No baby conceived this month, so I can shed this lining that was created in preparation for that possibility.” Your fallopian tubes are what connects your ovaries, where the eggs are produced, to the uterus. Their purpose is to transport the egg to where it has the possibility of being fertilized.
All of this (and much more) make for a carefully balanced system. It’s not just a bunch of parts. But our reproductive system is clearly made for reproduction… and our brain is a huge part of the process.
Of course, you were probably referring to something that’s not really biology, but the belief that your personal philosophy should not only get to override your own biology, but the biology of the child residing within your uterus.
Xalisae, the reason *why* rape is so bad is because it takes away a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body, including choosing when to have children if the rape conceives. That’s why it’s a horrible crime. But abortion, abortion rights, and a child’s right to exist has nothing to do with rape. If rape was legal, then, yes, it would. But rape *is* illegal, and taking away someone else’s rights because yours were violated isn’t an arguement. Women can choose to have sex or not, so can men. That is the choice surrounding reproduction. That’s when we can choose to have kids or not. If a man (or a woman) takes away that choice through an illegal act that is a horrific, criminal violation and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But even in those (comparatively) rare instances where a rape conceives a child, that still isn’t an excuse to kill the child. A violation was done to the woman, she lost her right through a criminal act, she can not then, through any rational means, turn around and use her violation to take rights from another (the child who already exists). If someone comes in and robs my house of all assets leaving me destitute, a life changing situation which could potentially (if a homeowner/renter didn’t have insurance) be a much longer recover period than a 9 month pregnancy, I do not suddenly gain the right to ruin someone else’s life because mine was ruined. I still, even if it inconviences me, can not trample on someone else’s right. The offspring/baby has a right to life, he or she has a right to be cared for until he is of sufficent age to care for himself.
She said she didn’t want to be ruled by her uterus. I was pointing out that she wasn’t ruled by her uterus, but by her brain. Unfortunately, sometimes, other people don’t respect those rights, that’s why we have police, laws, courts, and prisons. No one asks for a crime to be commited upon their person (or it’s not a crime), but we punish the criminal who breeched those rights, not an innocent 3rd party. Even if the victim might want to punish a 3rd party.
That people 1) know how babies are made and 2) can legally choose whether or not to engage in that action is, in my mind, the strongest secular arguement against legalized abortion.
Look, the only ones minimizing woman to “a collection of parts” and to the sum of their reproductive organs are the pro-choicers who parade around in vagina costumes, make cookies decorated like female parts, and knit uteruses
Excellent quote from Ms. Gray. It’s so simple. Why don’t more people listen to her?
This is possibly my favorite quote of the day ever. Stephanie Gray is brilliant, very few people could explain this idea so well.
Ugh.
x,
Say what?
I think the “ugh” comes from the annoyance she has (I share it with her) of pro-lifers focusing so much on “you made the choice to have seeexxxxx” instead of “regardless of literally anything else, kids shouldn’t be killed unless it’s the most dire of circumstances ever (which 99.9% of pregnancies will never be)”. It just seems like half of pro-life arguments boil down to “keep it in your pants” and that’s really not what it’s about.
I don’t know if that’s why she is “ugh”-ing, but that’s why I am.
Thank you, Jack. Sometimes I’d swear you could read my mind. :P
Jack and xalisae,
I agree completely, but I think Jespren is merely pointing out that the argument about rape is wrong for other reasons as well. You’re all correct, and your arguments are not mutually exclusive.
Ultimately though, killing is wrong because it’s killing. Duh. :-p
Xalisae: :D You know what they say about great minds.
Andrew, I get you. I don’t think Jespren is entirely wrong. I take issue with her final statement here:
” That people 1) know how babies are made and 2) can legally choose whether or not to engage in that action is, in my mind, the strongest secular arguement against legalized abortion.”
That’s not a strong argument in my mind, furthest thing from it actually. It’s quite easily demolished with bodily autonomy arguments, for one. The focus always, especially in a secular argument, HAS to be on the humanity of the unborn baby, and the fact that this person has human rights. The parents’ actions are quite irrelevant. If the focus is not on the child’s rights, every single pro-life argument against abortion fails. If you aren’t focused on the child, then it’s quite easy to argue that just because a woman chose to engage in the activity she isn’t remotely bound to abide by the consequences by that activity. Once you focus on the humanity of the child, however, this argument about consequences is void, because another person and their right to their life is in the mix. Jespren did touch on that fact, but to sum it up like she did in the part I quoted I don’t agree is a strong argument.
I’m not sure if I am explaining my issue with that argument well, but it basically boils down to that the focus should never be on the parents’ actions, willful or not, it should be on the child.
So if a woman doesn’t want to have a child they should just remove the environment. Why don’t prochoicers just remove their uterus???? it is not made for them but for their child.
Are you being sarcastic chantal? Women should get hysterectomies if they aren’t ready for a kid yet?
I do not like this quote btw, j/s.
Your objection might be valid if my arguement could be boiled down to ‘keep it in your pants’, which it doesn’t. I’ll give you that my arguement against STDs boils down to ‘keep it in your pants’, but I’m not speaking about STDs. You’d have to severly twist my words to come to the conclusion that my speil, which boils down to ‘actions have consequences and you shouldn’t be allowed to kill someone to avoid a known and expected consequence’ is equivelent to ‘keep it in your pants’. I’m a married mother of 3! Three 4 and under even! That I’m ‘open’ to sex shouldn’t be hard for anyone to determine. I’m not even Catholic. I have no objection at all to contraceptives that actually contracept (as in contra-conception not contra-live-birth). But when the pro-aborts are basically running around yelling ‘i deserve sex without consequence even if I means someone’s death!’ Pointing out that, no, you do NOT deserve a legal execution to avoid consequences of purely voluntary actions is very necessary and in no way negates the action itself. The reason I *don’t* suppose the Catholic’s version of NFP as a sole means of spacing/avoiding pregnancies is precisely because I think sex is very important. Depending upon a woman’s cycle the Catholic NFP method may have the couple avoiding sex 3 out of every 4 weeks of the month! But the Bible says married couples are only to abstain for brief periods of agreed upon abstinance for the purpose of fasting and prayer. ‘Keep it in your pants’ isn’t even my message to the unwed it’s ‘get married when you are ready to have sex’. The entitlement attitude of ‘i deserve consequence free sex’ is what caused the abortion problem to begin with. Until people accept that there are consquences to their actions (good and bad) and they do not deserve to trample another’s human rights just to avoid them, abortion will continue to be seen as a necessity for ‘women’s health’.
Children. Aren’t. Consequences.
Children. Aren’t. Punishment.
Children. Aren’t. Entitlements.
Until the Pro-Lifers stop reinforcing the Pro-Abortionist accusation of “You just want to punish women for having sex by making them have babies!” by treating children as if they ARE punishments instead of people…we’re never going to make any progress.
JackBorsch, this is why I said ‘secular’ arguement. The leading secular ethicists no longer consider mere humanity the goalpost for human rights. Many secularists are calling for personhood to be extended to higher animals at the same time as it is removed from severly disabled, very young, or severly mentally handicapped/disabled humans. Focusing on the child is no longer a *secularly* sustainable arguement since secularists are pushing for straight out euthanasia, infanticide, and non-consenting ‘assisted suicide’. You can’t make a strong point for the child’s right to life superceeding an adult’s right to anything short of life, because leading ethicists no longer believe or push for a ‘human’ right to life, but rather a ‘conscious being’s’ right to life. Since ‘consciousness’ is largely defined as self-awareness you can no longer, in the vaulted halls of the intellectuals, even argue against infanticide using a ‘right to life’ arguement, since humans do not typically become self-aware by any measurable standard til around 2, they don’t believe a priori that there exists a right to life.
“You’d have to severly twist my words to come to the conclusion that my speil, which boils down to ‘actions have consequences and you shouldn’t be allowed to kill someone to avoid a known and expected consequence’ is equivelent to ‘keep it in your pants’.”
I didn’t explain my objection all that clearly. I’m sorry, it’s my bad, I will try again.
Pro-choicers and pro-lifers don’t disagree, and I don’t think have ever disagreed, that sex may result in pregnancy sometimes. Everyone and their mother, unless they are a young child or extremely uneducated, agrees that pregnancy is one possible consequence of getting freaky. All of us agree that pregnancy can result from sex.
The problem comes when you focus on this choice to engage in sexual activity that can lead to pregnancy (oh man I’m channeling Denise with that phrasing) instead of focusing on the child (not a consequence, not a choice, a living being). The only thing that we are really arguing with the pro-choicers is the humanity of the unborn. We aren’t arguing about whether sex makes babies, we are all in agreement that people should be able to choose whether or not to engage in sex (at least, normal people get this, rapists don’t of course). These arguments focus on things that aren’t even being argued, and take away from what’s important to pro-life. The unborn child that isn’t legally protected needs to be the focus. You framing your argument as ” babies are a consequence of sex, and you shouldn’t kill to be avoiding a consequence” doesn’t put the child and her/his rights in the forefront. It unfortunately puts the focus on the activity (the smexy smex) instead of the actual living being that results from this activity. And it’s a pretty unflattering way to frame children. They are beings, not consequences. Does that make more sense as an explanation?
And this isn’t meant as a criticism of you, or that you are anti-sex, or anything like that. It wasn’t something I was accusing of. I do think that the arguments made from consequences to essentially boil down to “keep it in your pants or tough it out” and I don’t think that should be a message that should be put across. It doesn’t mean that I think that’s a message you like or are putting out, I just think that’s a flaw in the argument.
See now here we run into a definition barrier. Because ‘consequence’ does not mean ‘negative’, it merely means ‘outcome from an action’. It’s neither grammatically nor ethically incorrect to say children are a ‘consequence’ of sex. I would say they are a very *good* consequence of sex and, ultimately I would strive to return to a society which views children positively and with anxious excitement rather than dred. They are not punishments, they are not negatives, they are wonderful, fantasitic, life-affirming little beings who we have the joy of being able to create. When I speak to people concerned they may get pregnant ‘too early’ I stress the many up sides to having kids early, not ‘make sure you avoid kids’. It is a flawed mindset that see kids as anything but positives.
”
JackBorsch, this is why I said ‘secular’ arguement. The leading secular ethicists no longer consider mere humanity the goalpost for human rights. Many secularists are calling for personhood to be extended to higher animals at the same time as it is removed from severly disabled, very young, or severly mentally handicapped/disabled humans.”
Sure. Singer and a few other ethicists make these arguments. And some Christian denominations say that God knows who is going to get an abortion so it’s okay. It doesn’t mean that humanity is not a valid argument against abortion from a secular standpoint, or that it’s not a strong argument. It simply means some secularists disagree, just like some Chrsitians disagree with the Episcopalian view on abortion or whatever.
“Focusing on the child is no longer a *secularly* sustainable arguement since secularists are pushing for straight out euthanasia, infanticide, and non-consenting ‘assisted suicide’. You can’t make a strong point for the child’s right to life superceeding an adult’s right to anything short of life, because leading ethicists no longer believe or push for a ‘human’ right to life, but rather a ‘conscious being’s’ right to life. Since ‘consciousness’ is largely defined as self-awareness you can no longer, in the vaulted halls of the intellectuals, even argue against infanticide using a ‘right to life’ arguement, since humans do not typically become self-aware by any measurable standard til around 2, they don’t believe a priori that there exists a right to life.”
You are talking about a small amount of secularists. Just like any other group of people secularists have varying arguments about various topics, and some are logically weaker than others. There are many anti-abortion arguments that don’t appeal to religion, and the one you think is the strongest is the one I think is one of the weakest, and I explained why I see it that way. Whether or not some leading ethicists don’t agree with the humanity based arguments is quite irrelevant to whether they are logical or convincing. Most people I know, pro-choicers included, find Singer and his ilk quite disturbing, btw. Using a tiny sampling of secularists to paint us all is short-sighted.
Well, now I’m really confused, because I “liked” everybody’s comments.
“See now here we run into a definition barrier. Because ‘consequence’ does not mean ‘negative’, it merely means ‘outcome from an action’.”
No, I agree. Consequence does not necessarily mean bad. Good grades are a consequence of studying, etc. It’s just that I think it’s the entirely wrong thing to be focusing on in a pro-life argument. Literally nobody is arguing against the fact that sex can result in pregnancy, or that pregnancy is a “consequence” if you will. Our opponents aren’t arguing it, it’s just moot. It what people do with that “consequence” is the sticking point, and that’s where the arguments should start in my opinion. Sex is quite irrelevant to the discussion of the unborn.
“It’s neither grammatically nor ethically incorrect to say children are a ‘consequence’ of sex. I would say they are a very *good* consequence of sex and, ultimately I would strive to return to a society which views children positively and with anxious excitement rather than dred. They are not punishments, they are not negatives, they are wonderful, fantasitic, life-affirming little beings who we have the joy of being able to create. When I speak to people concerned they may get pregnant ‘too early’ I stress the many up sides to having kids early, not ‘make sure you avoid kids’. It is a flawed mindset that see kids as anything but positives.”
I do get you aren’t saying “negative consequence” by stating that kids can be a result from sex. I wasn’t saying you were saying that. Though I don’t agree that kids are always positive to have. There was literally nothing positive in my birth for my mom, nor my continued existence after birth to be honest. She would have been much better off if I were dead. The reason that I don’t like to focus on the “consequences” is because I think it misses the mark completely. It’s irrelevant how I got here or how I ended up existing. It’s just irrelevant. The fact I was a consequence, even negative, has nothing to do with whether it was okay to abort me. My mother’s choices or lack thereof had nothing to do with whether my death is acceptable in a just society. I don’t think I can explain correctly why this focus on “consequences” in any form just bugs me to death but you can get the gist of it from my arguments lol. I just think it’s a very weak and irrelevant argument.
And I don’t think bad about you, I’m not like trying to rag on you or anything. I just sincerely dislike the argument and think it fails.
JackBorsch, it depends, I suppose, on which circles you hang in. What I put forth might be a small group among laymen, but among the ‘intellectual elite’ of colleges, universities, ethicists, and medicial circles worldwide it is becoming or has become the majority. It’s only after it’s become the norm in those circles does it start to trickle into the mainstream laymen population. For instance when those two Aussies published in a major journal in support of infanticide the journal’s response wasn’t to admit they’d made a mistake and chastise their selection commity, it was to chastise the *public* for not being advanced enough to engage in the conversation. Amongst themselves the ‘intellectuals’ and ‘professionals’ of the world are over their disgust and past the discussion stage of such things. Catch any of them talking to what they think is purely their peers and they openly acknowledge nothing special happens at birth to make a person where there was none before. There isn’t anything fundamentally different. Where go the teachers there go the students. If we ignore that line of thinking because it’s so obviously *wrong* then we can’t really stop it from spreading. But if we take it seriously then we can innoculate against it.
Ultimately though it a matter of style. Some will be receptive to what you are saying, some will be receptive to what I’m saying. No ideology needs to walk lockstep with each other because those we are opposing are not in lockstep. (Which means don’t be confused there Hans, it’s all complimentary, not contradictory)
“Well, now I’m really confused, because I “liked” everybody’s comments.”
I liked your comment saying this. What does this say about me, that I like confusion or something? That’s kind of strange.
I’m one post behind! My uptake is slow due to cell-phone access instead of computer.
I get what you are saying, and honestly I think we’d agree in a real-time forum where we could better disasemble the details. (For instance, surely it was your mother’s mindset that made you a ‘negative’ consequence not your express being! *You* are a positive regardless of what your mom may have thought!) Suffice to say I am not offened, understand your point, and realize difference in opinon does not equate with dislike. We have very personable back and forths or compliments most days.
JDC,
“Well, now I’m really confused, because I “liked” everybody’s comments.”
I liked your comment saying this. What does this say about me, that I like confusion or something? That’s kind of strange.
Well, I dunno. And And I liked your comment liking mine. This is like a tv showing a camera shot of the tv watching the tv…
“Well, I dunno. And And I liked your comment liking mine. This is like a tv showing a camera shot of the tv watching the tv…”
I couldn’t resist liking this, so the cycle continues…
Jespren wrote: “I’m not even Catholic.” LOL!! I know on a bad day, that would have hit me wrong but today, VERY FUNNY!
I think that we should celebrate babies in or out of wedlock, especially since there is so much pregnancy-shaming already going on by abortion advocates. Somehow, abortion advocates and the general public need to experience a paradigm shift. Pregnancy needs to be accepted as a natural and healthy process, not all the negative meanings heaped upon it, as X points out.
Natural Family Planning isn’t just for Catholics anymore. It’s very holistic, healthy, and all kinds of other good things. Can a single woman use Natural Family Planning while she engages in sex with multiple partners? I think it’s possible. Although, in a strong relationship, the two partners are more likely to respect each other and bond over the activity of charting fertility and making decisions ahead of time about when to engage in sex.
I love sex but I don’t have it in the middle of the bread aisle at the supermarket, no matter how tempting it might be (hey, you don’t know, I might have a rye fetish!). So if we can use common sense on an ordinary day, why not promote the common sense approach of abstaining during a fertile time?
Jack, wanna come over? I’ll make you a bowl of soup and then I’ll explain why you are indeed a blessing to everyone who has gotten to know you through Jill’s blog. I have cookies too.
Thank you Courtnay! I like getting to know everyone on here too. And I’ll take you up on the soup as long as it has no meat product in it. ;)
Yeah Jespren, I think we agree far more than disagree for sure. It’s just stuff that irks me about that argument. I always enjoy our back and forths. :)
Well, now I’m really confused, because I “liked” everybody’s comments.
Me too, Hans. This is a very good discussion. I’m thoroughly enjoying the well-thought-out arguments. This is the way differences are *supposed* to be discussed. Unfortunately, we all know far too well what usually happens, especially when pro-choicers are involved.
Well, I agree with a good deal of what Jespren says, but when arguing about abortion, I rarely, if ever, use the argument about sex resulting in babies. I tend to agree with Jack and X more on that one, that focusing on the humanity of the baby is going to trump and be a more compelling argument than “Well, you shouldn’t have had sex.” Because, let’s be honest, things change. Life is complicated. Lots of women get pregnant when they think it’s okay, but then husband leaves her, job less, whatever. and they might feel that abortion is the only recourse.
I know Jespren doesn’t mean this, but the consequences of sex argument comes across as a little smarmy, too. (Maybe that’s just because I’m not one to talk, so I can’t really tell other people that).
And ninek, I agree with you, somewhat, but not using NFP isn’t even close to having sex in the middle of the bread aisle!!! lol your comment did make me laugh though. I’m of the mind where I’m trying to use NFP but use barrier methods in the fertile times. Things would not go well in my marriage if I didn’t…. :)
Oh and BTW Jespren, as a young married man, I have to say: NFP is AWESOME. You should look into the Creighton model some time. Not only is it great for family planning, but it helps diagnose so many medical problems that would otherwise go undetected. It is very beneficial to relational, emotional, and physical health.
It’s not just a Catholic thing either. ;-)
“I love sex but I don’t have it in the middle of the bread aisle at the supermarket, no matter how tempting it might be (hey, you don’t know, I might have a rye fetish!). So if we can use common sense on an ordinary day, why not promote the common sense approach of abstaining during a fertile time?”
Lol, are you shaming exhibitionist sourdough enthusiasts? :D
J/k, I do find it irksome that the choice seems to always be between NFP or slutting it up at every opportunity. That’s a false dichotomy! NFP is a great thing if you choose to use it and it works for you and yours. Some of us don’t like it. And that’s okay too. And honestly, this is another reason why focusing so much on the sex rather than the child in the pro-life movement annoys me a bit. I don’t see why it matters to anyone but me and any sex partners if I have sex with one woman using NFP for the rest of my life, or ten gazillion people of both genders as long as I am not killing babies or causing them to be killed, and I am taking care of any live babies I make, and I am not spreading diseases around. I just don’t get why it’s relevant or why anyone cares.
^ yes, Jack, this. While I have my own set of morals, I don’t think the way I conduct my sex life has much to do with the pro-life movement, and making it illegal to kill innocent humans.
I won’t be shy about talking to people about benefits to using more natural forms of BC, but someone’s position on that shouldn’t affect their pro-life creds. ;)
Just my luck. My two favorite breads are rye and sourdough. Now I’ll be having impure thoughts every time I have a slice. :)
The majority of conceptions occur through consensual intercourse. It makes sense to encourage abstinence in order to lessen unplanned pregnancies. Abstinence also means decreasing the spread of STDs.
Practical means to encourage abstinence include chaperoned dating and greater adult supervision for young people. It also might help to encourage working from home.
LOL! I only just now remembered the Seinfeld episode where George is trying to mix all his favorite things and is under the blankets eating a sandwich. When the lady asks what he is doing, he replies, “I’m pleasuring you!!”
Andrew, the Crieghton method was the one I got so annoyed at when I went looking. And it sounds like an awesome way to plan a pregnancy, but a rather crappy way to avoid it. I have a medical condition, despite my wishes (I absolutely *want* more kids and would be thrilled to have another, and another) I really shouldn’t get regnant again. It means going off all my medication and being in sever pain and mostly non-functional for my other three kids and husband during most of the pregnancy. That’s just not appropriate on several levels. So we want to avoid pregnancy if possible (while still being thrilled if we do turn up pregnant despite). The Billings ovulation method seems the most sustainable to me, as with careful tracking there is only a short window where couples need abstain (or use barrier method). But I am actually planning on Billings Ovulation method and a flora-scope ( http://www.fertile-focus.com/saliva-ovulation-predictor.html ) to pinpoint my fertile days. Since my cycle has always in the past been very regular and easily trackable it should allow us to minimize our chances of pregnany while still following the Biblical mandate to not withold sex for prolonged periods of time.
Sounds like you had a bad experience with Creighton. That’s too bad. Creighton is great for avoiding or achieving. My wife and I are currently using it to avoid (or space, rather), and it actually requires less days of abstinence than what we were using before (sympto-thermal).
Andrew Ensley, it is entirely possible the information I found is an inaccurate portrayal of the method, it was from a Catholic pamphlet (downloadable, several pages with drawings and example charts) but I forget the name. I’m glad you guys found something that works well for you!
Gluten free bread makes for great bedding, much less likely to tear ;-)
Is Denise Amish?
To repeat Kel’s post:
My brain should decide when I’m going to have another baby, not my uterus.
The pituitary gland in your brain actually regulates your monthly cycles. The reproductive system is just that… a SYSTEM… which works together toward reproduction. I find it interesting that so many people choose to overlook this.
Your monthly periods are your body saying “No baby conceived this month, so I can shed this lining that was created in preparation for that possibility.” Your fallopian tubes are what connects your ovaries, where the eggs are produced, to the uterus. Their purpose is to transport the egg to where it has the possibility of being fertilized.
All of this (and much more) make for a carefully balanced system. It’s not just a bunch of parts. But our reproductive system is clearly made for reproduction… and our brain is a huge part of the process.
Of course, you were probably referring to something that’s not really biology, but the belief that your personal philosophy should not only get to override your own biology, but the biology of the child residing within your uterus.
I have a few comments to make regarding the discussion between Jespren and Jack.
1) I really liked this post by Jespren:
JackBorsch, this is why I said ‘secular’ arguement. The leading secular ethicists no longer consider mere humanity the goalpost for human rights. Many secularists are calling for personhood to be extended to higher animals at the same time as it is removed from severly disabled, very young, or severly mentally handicapped/disabled humans. Focusing on the child is no longer a *secularly* sustainable arguement since secularists are pushing for straight out euthanasia, infanticide, and non-consenting ‘assisted suicide’. You can’t make a strong point for the child’s right to life superceeding an adult’s right to anything short of life, because leading ethicists no longer believe or push for a ‘human’ right to life, but rather a ‘conscious being’s’ right to life. Since ‘consciousness’ is largely defined as self-awareness you can no longer, in the vaulted halls of the intellectuals, even argue against infanticide using a ‘right to life’ arguement, since humans do not typically become self-aware by any measurable standard til around 2, they don’t believe a priori that there exists a right to life.
The reason I liked the above post is because it planted the seeds of a prolife utilarian argument in my mind. I think this is very important since, as Jespren has pointed. utilitarian thinking has begun to rule the day in the field of ethics and, I would add, the culture at large. Like Jack I used to find this argument a bit off point because I was overly focused on the humanity of the preborn argument. Jespren has clearly shown how the two arguments aren’t mutually exclusive but actually flow from one another – just like everything in life is linked, these two arguments are linked. Most importantly, these two arguments reflect/mirror the reality of our lived experiences.
continued….
We need to develop this prolife utilitarian argument since most justices have accepted the interest theory of human rights – meaning human rights only arise in the context where a sentient being can reasonably said to have an interest in their loss.
2) I think it needs to be clarified for Jack and xalisae that Jespren is not saying that she is interested in policing people’s sex lives or sexual behaviour. Jespren is just making an observation about the causal relationship between sex and babies.
3) Furthermore, it needs to be restated that Jespren is not denying the humanity of the preborn. In fact, she is is implicitly arguing for it.
4) When Jespren says that many seculariists have adopted this utiliarian ethical framework she is not saying (or painting) that all secularists share this ethical framework.
—
Finally, I have some questions for Jespren. Jespren what did you mean when you said that NFP could have a couple abstaining from sex for upto 3 weeks? Typically it would be for 1 week at most.
Jespren how can we develop the utilitarian prolife argument. Acknowledging that sentient beings are responsible for their actions is a good start. I would like to know how a prochoicer utilitarian thinker would respond to this logical deduction.
Further this prolife utilitarian argument supports Ms. Gray’s argument that the preborn baby has a right to the Mother’s uterus, especially in situations when there has been no rape involved in the conception of the child.
Jespren you have did some excellent thinking on this subject, I am quite astonished. It is very original. You have taken an old argument and breathed new life into it
Christians and Catholics have seceded the utilitarian argument to the secularists because we have generally dismissed utilitarian arguments, in and of themselves, as unethical, which is fine, but we can also develop prolife utilitarian arguments and show that utilitarian arguments don’t just lead to one set of conclusions. We can fight utilitarian ethicists on their own ground, and use utilitarian arguments against them.
Tyler, thank you. I am something of a coolly logical person. I rarely bring emotions into the mix of my decisions about anything, I believe in the superiority of rational logic above anything else *for me*. Which should be understood as I do not expect or demand others follow such a system. I may not understand why people reason from their emotions, but it works quite well for some (and makes other miserably unhappy) and okay for others and is, ultimately, a far more common view of the world. So I could be said to be a utilitarian of sorts. But I am far from the typical utilitarian. Since I fully believe that logic, being incapable of contradiction (misinterpretation yes) and therefore incapable of participating in a lie, will always, when properly followed, lead to and support truth and righteousness. The problem comes when people take a ‘me first’ filter to utilitarian thinking and use it to twist ‘right’ into ‘in furtherance of me’. It should be simple: in order to survive as a species we must have offspring. Women were given the unique ability to provide those offspring through intercourse in it’s proper time and place with men. This is good and proper for the betterment of ourselves and should be looked upon as a good thing. Dismissing such a thing as an ‘illness’ to be treated, a ‘defect’ to be cured, or a ‘mistake’ to be killed is an abomination to the very being of our species (viewed through either an evolutionary lens or a creationary lens). Therefore when women and men are old enough and rational enough to choose to participate in an action they know will bring about consquences, society should have no qualms about holding them to those consequences, even if a few individuals find the consequences distasteful. There can be humanitarian things done to help them (in this case adoption or contraceptive) but sentient beings should realize life is a continium in which we have an imparitive to care for the next generation. If you, as a rational and reasonable human being wish to take the next step in your continium of life and become fully realized sexual beings then you have to take the responsibilities that go along with that maturation. To put it in more common terms, deciding as a teenager to take the step to become a licenced driver means you get more than the joy of driving the car, you also go, inherently, the responsibilities of following the laws of the road, not leaving a scene of an accident, insuring yourself, and not driving while imparied. As a society we used to demand the same exact thing from people who wanted to have sex. Want the next step in life? Take the responsibilities that go with it. Now I rarely state it so plainly and do so here only to give you food for thought. It has nothing to do with controling sex. There are logical and real biological responsabilities that go with sex, however, and once you cross the line on taking that step in life there is no logical reason why we as a society should allow individuals to jump back and forth over it. Either you are mature enough to have sex or you aren’t. You can’t say you are mature enough to drive the car but not to insure it, mature enough to collect the paycheck but not show up to work on time, mature enough to have intercourse but not to deal with children.
To your NFP question. It was put this way in the pamphlet: (paraphrasing and my words) there are the standard 3-5 days a woman in fertile to avoid if you don’t want to be pregnant, but since a breakthrough ovulation can (rarely) happen during a period when the signs, such as mucus, cervical changes, and temperature shift can be hidden by a woman’s menstral flow if you have a reason to avoid pregnancy you should not have sex during the period flow either, typically 5 days (7-10 for me though, so now we would be up to 15 days for me right there). But then, if you have a serious reason to avoid pregnancy, sperm *can* survive in a woman’s system up to 7 days, so the 7 days leading up to when you expect your fertile time to begin should also be abstained. so, according to the Catholic church’s guide found through a Catholic website, a woman with a serious reason, medical health was given as an example, should abstain not only during their peak fertile time of around 5 days given cervical/mucal changes and charting, but the week before and the week of the menstral flow. Given that I have a ten day period with a late luteral phase, that works out to be almost exactly 3 weeks. Yes, that pretty much guarentees I will never get pregnant, but that’s quite the strain on a marriage too (to me).
Wanted to note, the site suggested those who found it necessary to abstain 3 weeks out of the month could ‘give their sacrifice as an offering’ and went on to suggest which prayers and saints to appeal to.
Jespren, I don’t think you are a utilitarian. I have read too many of your other posts which clearly shows that you don’t rely on utilitarian arguments. But I can clearly see that you can understand/explain that type of thinking.
IMO utilitarian thinking usually is guilty of the mind and body split/duality fallacy, something I noticed you have never commited. Utilitarian thinking only understands one aspect of the natural law – the teleological or consequential aspect of natural law.
It will take me some time to digest all of your recent post. (It is another good one in my opinion. At one time, I remember xalisae making similar arguments but I think I failed to recognize the importance of those arguments at the time. Sometimes the way an argument is phrased makes all the difference. And sometimes a person is not ready to hear them.)
Tyler, thank you, I don’t usually consider myself one because, as you mentioned, I believe the soul to be linked to the body and I believe in the supernatural. But it certainly is something I’ve been accused of. More often I just get called ‘Spock’ with varying degrees of hostility or annoyance. :)
Jespren, from my limited exposure to utilitarian thinking it seems that they generally focus on the consequences of human actions, and the “interests” sentient beings have for their own future happiness (at least this is Singer’s utilitarianism). Basically, utilitarians claim to themselves the ability to decide what the “interests” are for all human beings. It is an aggressive move – a hidden move that few in the MSM notice or object to. All people, and especially libertarians, should find this move very offensive. How can a utilitarian decide what are the “interests” are for all of humanity? Basically, these utilitarians postulate that humans are interested in their own happiness (happiness is defined in very material terms for a sentient being). We should not let the utilarians decide what our “interests” are as sentient beings. This is where the fight is – “interests.”
This type of utilitarian thinking also seems to assume that happiness can be quantified for humanity as a whole. How can a free people accept this type of thinking as basis upon which to legislate in a country that values individual liberty?
Tyler,
the utilitarian-model is easily refuted because of its reductionist grip. When studying chemistry decades ago, we were told that the sum-total value of our body-chemicals was $0.08…. in today’s market, that’d be about $0.24. Ask where they got a personal value above a quarter (because only physical reality counts) and the discussion terminates, very quickly.
“Ask where they got a personal value above a quarter” – the personal value is the range of outcomes or outputs which occur as a result of those chemical constituents combining in the particluar way that they do.
Thanks for the biology lesson, Reality, but it still doesn’t add up! By far, our most-valued aspect is our life (soul in old-philosophy). If ‘life’ has little to no value, has your life value? Why?
It wasn’t a biology lesson John, it was a lesson in logic if anything.
You ask where our personal value lies beyond the meagre sum that our chemical constituents are valued at, yes?
Thanks John. I agree with your view that the utilitarian perspective isn’t a complete philosophy. However, the point I am trying to make is that perhaps we don’t need to discount utilitarianism completely in order to defeat utilitarian arguments. Perhaps we can use utilitarian arguments and premises that support the prolife position to defeat those utilitarian arguments that support the prochoice position.
Within the utilitarian philosophy/framework the question of the value of the preborn human being depends on whether it has interests and whether society, as a whole, in addition to the parents have an interest and responsibility to the preborn child. Currently most utilitarian ethics simply focuses on the interests of the sentient human being and not its responsibilitites to other sentient beings. The failure of utilitarians to address the issue of the responsibilities of sentient beings is a legitimate and serious one in my opinion.
For many decades it was thought that life was no-big-deal, so an (actually several) attempts were made to replicate this phenomenon. All these failed – every experiment! [One even duplicated sea water (elaborately).] No life, until one, single drop of actual sea water was added to the solution. The stagnant water teemed with life.
Have I got your question right John? Would you like me to profer an answer to it?
Reality, why don’t you think a mother has a responsibility to gestate the preborn child until it is viable?
Yep, your question is the right one. I would love to hear your answer …. absolutely no sarcasm here! It has been a huge turning-point for this rationality-buff!
Tyler, if a woman does not wish to carry a fetus to term there is no justifiable reason why she should be forced to do so.
John, you ask where our personal value lies beyond the meagre sum that our chemical constituents are valued at.
The chemical constituents within us form the breathing, moving bodies that we are/have.
If one of us were to use our body to push a person out of the way of an oncoming bus it could be said that we have realized a value greater than the sum of our chemical constituents, both objectively and subjectively, could it not?
Thanks Reality but that does answer the question that I asked. I asked you why you thought the Mother doesn’t have a responsibility to carry the preborn child to the point of viability. The mother is a sentient being who understands how human life is created and brought into this world. Doesn’t she have a responsibility to the preborn child? I am not talking about some external force, such as a law forcing her to carry to viability, but I am asking whether she has an intrinsic moral duty to carry the life inside her womb to the point of viability because she knows that the preborn child will be sentient one day. How can the mother avoid the reality of this responsibility? As a sentient being, shouldn’t she compel herself to carry the preborn child to viability?
There is no basis on which she has responsibility unless and until she decides to undertake such. Even then she may change her mind. That probably sucks a bit but thats life.
Reality, what would constitute a basis upon which the mother (or parent or any sentient being) would have a responsibility to her child – preborn or otherwise?
Once a woman has freely chosen to complete gestation and deliver then she is assuming responsibility, she has chosen to bring a person into the world. She may of course decide the responsible thing to do is adopt out.
Thanks for answering Reality. Now I am just wondering what would cause her, or any woman, to choose to bring the child into the world? What information, aside from the knowledge of human development, does a women need to make this free choice?
To reiterate, what piece of information is sufficient to allow her to abort the preborn child and thereby override her understanding of human development and her required role to gestate the preborn human being?
Information? It’s not simply about information. People don’t base their decisions purely on information.
Therefore I find your second paragraph to be irrelevant as well as, in part, falsely assumptive.
Reality, could you please tell me what people base their decisions on if they do not base them on information? Are you suggesting that people’s emotions arise without information or for no reason?
I will answer any responses tomorrow Reality.
Good night.
“Are you suggesting that people’s emotions arise without information” – wow, no wonder you sometimes sound like Kryten from Red Dwarf!
“or for no reason?” – sometimes for no apparent reason or one that others can see.
‘Information’ isn’t black and white, cut and dried. It depends on the weight or value we give any particular piece of information. How we assess it against other pieces of information. Or which information means the most to us for emotive or other reasons. Or whether we are even interested in that piece of information at all.
Different people can receive exactly the same information and draw different conclusions about it or make different decisions based on it.
Some people read the bible and live their lives based upon it. Others read the bible and find it to be a load of claptrap.
You cannot expect people to make the same choices or decisions that you would just because they have the same information that you do. That would drive you insane.
I hope you get a really good nights sleep :-)
wow. So, neither the biological parent-child relationship nor the fact that biological parents are default custodians/guardians of their biological children are sufficient, in Reality’s mind, to warrant an inherent obligation of parent to child. Oh, but flimsy things like emotions and feelings warrant ending the child’s life, though. How truly disturbing.
Reality – one notion common in law is the notion of a reasonable person. Often in deciding whether a person has been negligent or not the Court will ask whether a reasonable person would have known better in the given situation. If the court can no longer use the concept of a reasonable person how is the court ever going to determine right from wrong actions?
In other words, if there is no concensus on how a person should act given certain pieces of information then how can any action ever be wrong?
xalisae, with the recongition of same-sex marriage, or more accurately stated as genderless marriage, biologicial parents will no longer be the default custodians/guardians of their biological children. I am sure Jack would say how this c/would be a good thing, but I hope he would acknowledge that his assertion would be based on the erroneous idea that exceptions to the rule represent a better standard upon which to make a law.
This is one of the reasons it is important to protect traditional marriage, and to perserve the rights of biological parents.
Lol you are just fear-mongering Tyler. Same-sex marriage doesn’t mean that bio parents don’t have their rights first and foremost. And you live in Canada, you guys have had same-sex marriage for quite a while and the world hasn’t fallen apart.
Yes, I remember back in the day…when the slavemaster needed more stock, he could just go down and impregnate one of the female slaves to grow another slave. Because her uterus was made for being pregnant, so why shouldn’t it be used? It’s not like she had any reason to expect to choose how to use it.
Who says traditional values are out of style?
Yes, I remember back in the day…when the slavemaster needed more stock, he could just go down and impregnate one of the female slaves to grow another slave. Because her uterus was made for being pregnant, so why shouldn’t it be used? It’s not like she had any reason to expect to choose how to use it.
Rape is wrong. So is ownership over another human being (the preborn are also human). Always has been, regardless of what society said at the time. Women aren’t chattel, and neither are the children they conceive, no matter who the father is.
It is so screwed up, this hatred feminists seem to have toward their own biology and capability to bear children. So screwed up that they believe fertility is nothing more than an opportunity for male victimization. SERIOUSLY?
If you think you’re in slavery to your uterus and “the man,” and the only way out is through abortion, you have an extremely twisted view of your own gender.
And Tyler for the last time stop misrepresenting my views. You know good and well I don’t advocate biological parents not raising their kids, for goodness sake I don’t even like adoption in general unless it’s needed. It takes some real mental gymnastics to twist anything I have ever said to act like I support bio parents not being the default caretakers of their children.
Jack, how do you define falling apart – what kind of statistics would you like about Canada? Sorry, I can’t give you statistics about abortion – the government won’t reveal those statistics. Perhaps, you are referring to the person who had to go to the Supreme Court in order to defend his free speech, or perhaps you are referring to the Priest and Pastor bullied by their respective provincial Human Rights Commissions, or to the Lesbian mother in the US who had to leave the USA because the Court ordered her biological child to be given to her ex-Partner?
In Canada genderless marriage has been legal since around 2005. Not enough time for all of the societal changing implications to come out. They will occur, just as they have happened in other countries. Progressives understand that you have to boil the frog slowly.
And Jack my beef against genderless marriage has nothing to do with my view of homosexual persons. There is nothing wrong with homosexual persons. I disagree with the morality and lifestyle that is promoted on their behalf and without their consent.
AnnaAnastasia
Aren’t men at risk of women getting pregnant with their child and running of with another man? Can’t women use their fertility to harm and victimize men, to deprive them of offspring?
Or is the assumption that all men are uncaring and unloving bastards too ingrained in the prochoice perspective that it blocks the vision of seeing a happy union of a man and a woman in a supportive marriage raising their own biological children?
Surely, the biology of the sexes has advantages and disadvantages for both genders. Why are prochoice women so down on the capabilities of their own gender?
xalisae, with the recongition of same-sex marriage, or more accurately stated as genderless marriage, biologicial parents will no longer be the default custodians/guardians of their biological children.
Wow. You must’ve put on your Superman cape today, because that was quite a leap! Same-sex marriage wouldn’t change THE DEFAULT biological/parental settings. There would have to be an adoption sometime between a birth and a same-sex couple having both partners gain parental rights of a child. Giving another different but equal party the same rights as an original party doesn’t take rights from the original party, dude. There are certain circumstances in which biological parents don’t get default legal custody of a child already, without even considering same-sex marriage. Some cases of women who were using drugs while pregnant and their children are born with drugs in their system, and other such cases, off the top of my head. Drug users who are denied custody of their children because of harm they caused those children while they were gestating hasn’t somehow robbed all women of the default custody and biological right of parenthood of their children, and gay marriage wouldn’t, either. THAT’S WHY IT IS “default”!
Not that this has anything to do with what I originally said to Reality. Thanks for the derailment! ^_^
xalisae, I was only talking about the legal recognition of the biological reality changing, not the biological reality itself. Of course the biological reality itself will never change, until science can create eggs or sperm.
I apologize for derailing the post. It was not meant to. It was just meant to illuminate the tenuous nature of the current legal regime that respects biological parenthood. We have a tendency to it for granted that our current laws protect realities that exist prior to and independent of State recognition.
I agree right now the State does trample upon the biological rights of many parents. Ironically, the justification for doing this is to protect the children. The State, correctly, has no problem protecting born children. However with the switch going on in society – children are beginning to be see as a legal right of adult of individuals regardles of their biological relationship to the child. This dethroning of the legal recognition of the primacy of the biological relationship is necessary if homosexual couples are to be considered on equal footing with biological parents under the law.
Anyway…I won’t bring this up again in relation to the topic.of the responsibility a person has to their biological children. I believe the two issues – the legal recognition of the biological parents and the responsibility of the biological parents to their children – are two separate issues and we should not try to conflate the two.
The responsibility of the biological parents to their children is a legitimate argument against utilitarian type thinking. It represents an existential reality.
The legal recognition of this existential reality is good but it can be changed just as the law changed when it stopped recognizing human preborn babies as a legal person and de-criminalized abortion.
xalisae, I like your argument in general but I don’t think you should rely on the existing laws that support the recognition of biological parents as part of your argument. In my opinion it throws mud in the waters. (I realize this sounds rich after my derailment by bringing up marriage.)
It would be appropriate to use laws that recognize the primacy of biological parental relationship as examples of society constructing its laws according to natural law concepts and principles. But existing human made laws shouldn’t be used as support in a argument because they are human-made laws, and, therefore, can be changed by human beings at any moment!
Reality says:
November 29, 2012 at 6:07 pm
Is Denise Amish?
(Denise) No. Denise is realistic. Many tragedies occur because of sexual activity. Decreasing it and therefore decreasing those tragedies is a legitimate social goal.
“So, neither the biological parent-child relationship nor the fact that biological parents are default custodians/guardians of their biological children are sufficient, in Reality’s mind, to warrant an inherent obligation of parent to child.” – people aren’t robots. You seriously think a biological link is the only factor that drives peoples thoughts and actions?
“flimsy things like emotions and feelings” – I actually can’t believe you came out with that. You!
“if there is no concensus on how a person should act given certain pieces of information then how can any action ever be wrong?” – Tyler, nothing has changed. Its still the way its always been. We aren’t intellectual or emotional clones.
But existing human made laws shouldn’t be used as support in a argument because they are human-made laws, and, therefore, can be changed by human beings at any moment!
Human-made laws that recognize The Natural Order are a great example of justice, and should rightly be held as a standard and yardstick for other laws. After all, you are speaking to and with someone who has no higher power to create my laws for me. The Natural Order is really all one has to work from under these circumstances. A human-made law which violates The Natural Order is unjust, and should thus be altered (in the case of abortion, re-altered) to uphold justice and reflect The Natural Order. Human parents nurture and support our young. We are not rabbits or hamsters who are compelled to copulate at every available moment then later eat the resulting young for a snack if the circumstances of their conception are or become unfavorable. Dignity, yo.
“people aren’t robots. You seriously think a biological link is the only factor that drives peoples thoughts and actions?”
No. That’s the problem as it stands. The world of facts and reality(ha-ha!) are tossed aside for the inaccurate yet self-soothing notions that help people do as they please out of fear or desire for comfort or ease or even spite and other lesser things. That’s why we get all this “clump of cells”/”not a human being”/”products of conception” blather from you lot. People do horrible things on emotional impulse ALL OF THE TIME, and very rarely are those things just or proper actions. Do you think that legitimizes the actions of the dude who catches his wife in bed with another man and shoots them both to death? He was angry! Do you think that legitimizes the actions of a man who kills a widowed elderly man and cashes his social security checks to pay his mortgage? They were going to foreclose on his home, and he was scared!
Do I think people are robots? Absolutely not. Do I generally expect better behavior from my fellow human beings? Abso-friggin’-lutely.
“I actually can’t believe you came out with that. You! ”
Why not? I’ve told you repeatedly that if I wasn’t as fact/logic/reason-driven as I am, and lived all of the time by pure emotion and feelings, my actions of 11 years ago would’ve been VERY different.
I still can’t believe your chosen moniker here is “Reality”.
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/316/708/ca1.jpg
Reality, I am not sure if you understand that women are sentient beings and are therefore capable of understanding how human reproduction works and their implicit responsibilities in facilitating that process. How does a person shut-off their brain? (I imagine I am asking the right person when I ask this question.)
Isn’t it fair to say that a woman who can be so ignorant about her role in the process of human reproduction is not a sentient being and is therefore equally permitted to be aborted (if not from life then at least from humane society)?
By the way Reality these are serious questions, and deserve serious answers from people who support the killing of human beings.
“The world of facts and reality(ha-ha!) are tossed aside” – whose reality?
Refer to what I wrote to Tyler about ‘information’.
“Do I think people are robots? Absolutely not. Do I generally expect better behavior from my fellow human beings? Abso-friggin’-lutely.” – I agree!
“I’ve told you repeatedly that if I wasn’t as fact/logic/reason-driven as I am, and lived all of the time by pure emotion and feelings,” – it isn’t a case of either/or. A variable ratio of fact/logic/reason and emotion and feelings are applied to almost every decision or choice.
“I am not sure if you understand that women are sentient beings and are therefore capable of understanding how human reproduction works” – based on?
“and their implicit responsibilities in facilitating that process.” – who says they’re ‘implicit’?
“How does a person shut-off their brain?” – apart from death they generally don’t.
xalisae, I am glad we agree.
Reality is running….when he starts to give short answers he has given up the fight… xalisae you won again! Another prochoicer is left speechless.
If short answers are all that is required then that is all I will give. I also referred to a larger response I had given earlier, didn’t you get that?
I also answered your questions.
Run? Never. Here I am and I’ll keep responding.
Now why don’t you try to answer my questions?
You have about 15 minutes before I head off for a period of hedonistic debauchery and utterly amoral mayhem (would you expect anything less?). So post what you wish and I’ll be back in about 40 hours or so.
Reality pose real questions and I will try to answer them? The questions you raised above were merely inane and curt responses with no substance.
you have already acknowledged how reproduction works in previous posts, etcc…. Hence your question “who says they’re implicit?” is a retreat from your previous acknowledgement. Reality is running…and perhaps hiding.
“I agree!”
Okay. So, you agree that we should expect better behavior from our fellow human beings than them disregarding the biological facts of the matter in their parental relationships with their gestating children and having them killed for emotional reasons.
Argument over. Have a wonderful time. Try not to kill anyone.
I probably should’ve said Reality is shutting off his brain… and yet he is not dead! I guess he is non-sentient being now folks.
Reality you have helped to make it painfully clear to me that there are two main lies that the prochoice movement perpetuates:
1) the preborn child is not a valuable human being because it is not sentient;
2) the Mother is capable of shutting off her brain and her feelings.
Solutions:
1) Education about human life and human virtue;
2) Compassion for the Mom being lied to.
I think the writer of the article makes a very good point! The uterus is put in the woman’s body for holding and carrying children that’s what its there for. And the child is a separate being from it’s mother. The child is alive and growing from the time it is conceived with its own DNA that contains everything about what that person will be if it’s not interfered with, everything is already decided from eye and hair color, sex, bone structure, fingerprints, even male pattern baldness if it’s a boy, everything genetically is already there and present at the time of conception. That child that is created is a unique and living human being. If they don’t believe that they need to look at even the very basics of embryology and biology. It’s a scientific fact so they can’t use that as an excuse either. This isn’t just a Biblical belief. Though I do believe what the Bible says we are all created in the image of God and he knows all of us and has a plan for all of our lives. The truth is the truth if they believe it or not is their choice. That is their real choice there. They have to choose if they will believe the truth or a lie if they want to do what is right or wrong. We can choose to believe that the sky is purple and tell everyone around us that it is and that it’s our choice. But that doesn’t mean that the sky is really purple. A person can CHOOSE to believe anything but that doesn’t make what they believe the truth or what is right.
Unless a woman is raped she did consent for that child to possibly be conceived and put in her uterus. Even if she used a condom or birth control because everyone knows (or should know if they are having sex) that there is NO 100% effective form of birth control accept abstinence. If you are having sex you are taking the chance of getting pregnant that’s a fact. So she did use her brain to let the child be in her uterus.
And if the woman was raped the child should still not be killed for something it had no control over, or the crime of it’s father either. It’s still a living human being it’s still half her as well and it is innocent of everything just like the mother is. Two wrongs don’t make a right. An abortion won’t change the fact of what happened and it won’t help the mother heal it will only violate her more research show this. Women suffer many times more from the abortions than they did the rape. She can carry the child and give it up for adoption if she doesn’t want to raise the child herself. The baby is innocent and shouldn’t be killed because of the actions of another. Rape is a horrible crime and should never happen to begin with but God forbid when it does the baby if there is one as a result should not suffer because of it that baby did nothing wrong.
Just because some women have been lied too and are believing that selfish lie that their body is theirs and that a child is disposable because it’s in her body for a time and that gives her the right to destroy that life doesn’t make it the truth or whats right. These women need to learn the truth and educate themselves and look past their selves for the good of their children, and for themselves! They are hurting themselves so badly as well. I don’t want to see any woman or baby hurt by abortion. Abortion is NEVER the right answer in any situation.
http://voiceforhope.blogspot.com/
You say the women doesn’t have the right to choose, but by what right do you say that?
Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. There is no right that tops that the right to life is the most basic human right anyone has. Abortion is truly a human rights issue. Without the right to life all other rights are meaningless. There is no excuse for taking the life of another human being period.
I live my life first and foremost by the word of God and after that the laws of the land unless they conflict with the Bible.
We have to live life under moral beliefs and laws or there is nothing but chaos and destruction. Without knowing what is right and wrong without moral beliefs and laws like our country was founded upon crime and destruction would rule. What anyone thought was all right to believe would be fine. Under that kind of thinking it’s like saying it’s all right to steal anything you want because you choose too and therefore that makes it all right. That does not make it right to steal. The same is true of killing it’s NOT all right to kill someone else just because you want to or choose too.
By what rights do you live your life?
When a woman is raped she does not lose her knoweldge and understanding of how the reproduction process works. She still understands that there is a baby developing. Indeed, she recognizes that the baby developing is, in part, the biological offspring of the rapist. She also knows the baby is her offspring. She can never escape this knowledge. An abortion can’t remove this knowledge from her brain. Abortion can never abort a woman’s thougths or feelings. Her thoughts and feelings exist and remain within her because she is a sentient being. Until the prochoicers recognize and accept that the Mother is a sentient being who has thoughts and feeling she can never get rid of, until the prolife side convinces the prochoicers that they have an incomplete understanding of the mother, the prolife community will have a tough time convincing the hard core abortion advocates (who typically haven’t had an abortion) to change their mind.
Actually, the prochoice know the mother is a sentient being, who am I fooling except myself, the prochoice side just don’t care about anybody except for themselves.
Well Tyler. despite your hopes and dreams, I am not running or hiding. Here I am, as I said.
“you have already acknowledged how reproduction works in previous posts, etcc…. Hence your question “who says they’re implicit?” is a retreat from your previous acknowledgement” – no its not, what rubbish! Women understanding how human reproduction works does not indicate implicit responsibilities in facilitating that process. Obviously.
xalisae, your wishful thinking and personal prejudices do not signify that an argument is completed in your favor.
“I probably should’ve said Reality is shutting off his brain… and yet he is not dead! I guess he is non-sentient being now folks” – oh how droll. Yet you appear to have ignored or fail to comprehend the information I have provided you. I question your sentience :-)
“2) the Mother is capable of shutting off her brain and her feelings.” – if a pregnant woman were to do so she would simply become an incubator. It is precisely because women do not shut off their brains and feelings that they make choices. As you admit here …” the prochoice know the mother is a sentient being, who am I fooling except myself,’
Reality, you misunderstand my point. When I said that prochoicers know the mother is a sentient being it was to express the prochoicer’s lack of concern for the women’s cognitive abilities to understand the process of human development.
Then your point is wrong. I can expand on this by addressing the comment you should have posted here rather than on the thread where you used denigration to deny having denigrated Jack. But thats by the by.
“You still fail to understand the basic biological imperatives that result from a pregnancy.” – not every biological activity or function has an inherent imperative. You are making an assumption based on your own beliefs.
“You fail to see that human reproduction makes a woman responsible from the moment of conception because that is how human life development works.” – not at all, it is you who fails to see that that is not the case. Obviously.
“You think a woman can simply unlearn this bit of knowledge and deny her responsibility in facilitating this process” – what you are espousing is opinion, not knowledge. Nothing is being ‘unlearned’. She only has responsibility if she accepts it.