Seven abortions

I've said before the UK press is much more willing to report and evaluate abortion honestly.

angela simmons.jpgYesterday's Daily Mail had this story: "Emotional toll: A young mother tells of the devastating legacy of having seven abortions."

You would never see such a story in the US MSM, even though such stories abound. This article spotlights that the American press is sabotaging an entire segment of the conversation about abortion.

As you read the story makes points studies repeatedly demonstrate but liberals repeatedly shun or deny...

1. Contraceptives fail
2. The only foolproof way to prevent pregnancy is abstinence
3. Abortion is used as birth control
4. Abortion hurts women psychologically
5. Abortion causes premature labor in ensuing wanted pregnancies
6. Men exploit women for sex
7. Abortion ruins healthy relationships
8. Serial sex is not normal

If you're pro-abortion, what difference is there between 1 and 7 abortions? Who cares, if abortion is safe and abortion is good?

The article:

Among the throng of women who gather outside the school gates each day, Angela Simmons is every inch the archetypal middle-class mother, fussing over her 7-year-old son Ben and ferrying him between after-school clubs and play dates.

Certainly nobody would guess that the 39-year-old former estate agent is one of around 50 women each year in the UK to have notched up her seventh abortion....

Government statistics released this week show that record numbers of women are having two or more abortions - and those who do so are not, as might be expected, young teenagers who don't know any better.

Angela is typical of them. As a cautionary tale about abortion, her story reveals a great deal about the emotional legacy of a termination - and especially of multiple abortions.

For while she continually insists she does not regret any of her actions, she goes on to describe in agonising detail her lifelong battle with depression, how she once tried to take her own life and how she finds it a daily struggle to overcome a deep and abiding sense of shame.

'Looking back, there was a definitive reason why I had each termination and a valid reason why I felt at the time I could not even have begun to contemplate continuing with each of the pregnancies,' says Angela.

Many, of course, will find such a flimsy justification hard to accept - especially seven times over.

Perhaps the most astonishing revelation of all is Angela's insistence: 'I do not really regret any of my abortions.'

Or the admission that she also came close to aborting her son Ben and changed her mind only when her then partner, Patrick, begged her not to go through with it.

Certainly, it doesn't come as much of a surprise that her relationship with Ben's father broke up six years ago amid bitter recrimination over the two abortions she had against Patrick's wishes either side of their son's birth.

And yet sadly, Angela's grim story is not unique. This week's figures released by Public Health Minister Dawn Primarolo reveal how many modern women are using abortion, not as a last resort, but almost as a form of contraception.

Statistics show that last year 1,300 women had at least their fifth abortion.

Almost 950 of those having a termination had already had four previously. Almost 200 had already had five, 110 had had six before and 54, like Angela, seven or more.

The ease with which such women are undergoing repeat abortions has led campaigners to argue that terminations are being approved all too readily - given for social reasons rather than because a pregnancy might pose a significant risk to a mother's health or well-being.

There are fears too about the emotional toll that multiple abortions may be taking on such women.

This week the Royal College of Psychiatrists warned that women may be at risk of mental breakdowns if they have abortions - something which, as we shall see, is borne out by Angela's story - and should not be allowed one unless they are properly counselled about this potential risk.

So how did the intelligent, middle-class daughter of an engineer and a secretary become one of these bleak statistics?

Angela, a single mother from Bristol, insists she never used abortion as a form of contraception and was merely 'unlucky'. But seven times unlucky is perhaps stretching the bounds of credibility.

'I have always used contraception properly,' she insists.

'Yet everything - condoms, the Pill, the coil and even charting my temperature to avoid having sex during my fertile time - has let me down. The fact that I have been so fertile has been the bane of my life.'

Whether she used contraception properly or not - and under the circumstances, one can only suspect not - Angela is certainly living proof of the emotional aftermath of abortion.

After her third termination, aged 26, she tried to kill herself by overdosing on alcohol and painkillers and spent eight weeks in a psychiatric unit.

And yet the ease with which she was able to secure a fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh abortion with no proper assessment is astounding.

Indeed, she reveals that she went to the same abortion clinic for each of her terminations and claims she was offered only the most cursory of counselling before every one.

'I do wish that someone in those clinics had really sat down with me and talked it through properly,' says Angela, who is now undergoing counselling to help her cope with her past actions.

'The reason why I had so many abortions is that I didn't want to bring a child into the world unless my situation was perfect - but it never was.

'With each termination I felt it was my responsibility to get on with my own life and forget about it. After each one I just blanked out the emotions and never thought about it. I felt no remorse at all.'

Angela's first abortion was, she says, a straightforward affair. She was 21 and working as a sales negotiator for a large London estate agency when she 'accidentally' fell pregnant, three months after meeting a construction worker called Tom.

She says they used the Pill and condoms.

'It was a total shock and when I told Tom, he said he didn't want to know,' she recalls.

'I was devastated. Then he stopped answering his phone when I rang. Having a baby by myself in my tiny London flat without any support was just not an option. I felt I had no choice but to have an abortion.'

When she was nine weeks' pregnant, Angela went to her GP, who referred her to an abortion clinic.

After a 'cursory' chat with a nurse who asked her if she was sure she wanted a termination, Angela was booked in for the procedure.

'After the operation I woke up and simply felt relief that it was over,' she says. 'I just wanted to get on with my life and forget about it.'

Which is what she did, with no regrets and seemingly no emotional trauma.

Her second unwanted pregnancy, four years later, was the result of a romance with Simon.

Two years older than her, he was saving up for a round-the-world trip by doing odd jobs and not looking for long-term commitment.

It was only after he'd left the country that Angela discovered that she was pregnant again.

Once more, she insists, she was using the contraceptive pill, and once more offers the excuse that it was simply not the right time in her life to have a child.

'There was no way I could consider having a baby, because nothing had changed about my situation,' she says.

'So I went back to my GP and had another abortion at eight weeks. Again, as soon as it was over I simply felt relieved. I wanted to put it all behind me.'

Yet if Angela might have been expected to learn from her mistakes, within the year she was pregnant again, having met David, a pub manager ten years her senior. A third termination loomed.

'Our relationship was already rocky,' she says by way of explanation.

'I always suspected he was unfaithful, although I couldn't prove it, but he already had children from previous relationships with other women and I didn't want to end up like them.

'If David had turned round and said "Look, I want us to marry and there will be no other women", I might have had the baby, but instead he simply turned round and offered to pay for a termination and even drive me to a clinic.'

Ten weeks into the pregnancy, David took her to a London clinic for her third abortion. Although today she insists it was the 'right' decision, it felt very wrong at the time.

'I began to feel I was making a terrible mess of my life,' says Angela, in what many will see as a gross understatement. She broke up with David soon after.

She adds: 'A few weeks later I felt so depressed that one night I took an overdose of alcohol and painkillers. I knew immediately that I didn't really want to die, it was a cry for help, so I took myself to casualty.

'But while I got better physically, no one tried to talk to me about how I felt, and after eight weeks on a psychiatric ward I discharged myself. I thought I would just have to try and forget about it all and put it behind me.'

In a bid to make a fresh start, Angela, now aged 30, moved to a flat in Epsom, Surrey, where she started working in a gym. It was here she met Patrick, a divorced IT consultant.

This time when she 'accidentally' became pregnant three months into the relationship - it seems she had not learned her lessons from the previous pregnancies - Patrick did not desert her or offer to pay for an abortion.

In fact, he was thrilled at the news. Surely, this was what Angela had been looking for all along? A committed, loving partner who very much wanted to be a father to their baby?

'My life had only just got back on an even keel after my overdose,' explains Angela.

'Our relationship was very new. I felt we barely knew one another and really couldn't contemplate having a child.'

She aborted the baby at 12 weeks - against Patrick's wishes - and yet he stuck by her.

'Patrick held the abortion against me,' she says, seemingly surprised by his reaction. 'I didn't regret it, but whenever we had a row, he would bring up the abortion and say how hurt he was by what I had done.'

Three years later, when Angela 'accidentally' became pregnant again, her first instinct was immediately to have another abortion.

'We weren't married and I do feel children should be born within marriage,' she says, clinging to her 'perfect' vision of family life.

'Our relationship was rocky and I felt having a baby would only make it worse.

However, I also felt incredibly guilty because I knew how upset Patrick had been about what had happened to our first baby. So I let him convince me that we should keep it.'

It was a difficult pregnancy and when Ben was born eight weeks prematurely and with severe learning difficulties, Angela struggled to bond with him. Her relationship with Patrick deteriorated and when Ben was two months old she decamped with him to her father's flat in Berkshire.

During a 'reconciliation meeting' with Patrick a week later, Angela fell pregnant again - yes, you guessed it, 'accidentally'.

'I couldn't believe that I could be so unlucky again,' she says, once again oblivious to the possibility that she might have been responsible in any way. Obviously there was no way I could go through with another pregnancy so soon after Ben, when I was probably already suffering post-natal depression, so I booked another abortion.'

Many will find her actions unforgivable. Her partner Patrick certainly did, and they split up. And yet her appalling track record continued.

Two years later, Angela was pregnant again, three months after meeting 35-year-old Paul who ran his own computer company.

As before, Angela claims she was on the Pill.

'The relationship was so new that I felt I couldn't go through a pregnancy and Paul felt it was up to me to make the decision,' she says.

So it was that she went through abortion number six. But, incredibly, a year later she was pregnant again.

This time she insists she felt Paul's commitment to their future wavering, so she aborted again for the seventh time.

'Bringing up a baby in a relationship that he wasn't fully involved in wasn't on and I felt it was in all our best interests to have an abortion,' she says matter-of-factly.

The irony is, of course, that while she blames her various partners for their lack of commitment, it seems often to have been Angela who has refused to make a commitment to a relationship by having a child with a partner.

Now, she has ended up on her own with a child anyway - largely thanks to her own selfish behaviour.

And as she struggled to cope with the consequences of her own actions, she finally decided to seek counselling.

'I felt a huge sense of failure and that I had really mucked up my life,' she says.

'I felt a great deal of shame over my abortions and also that I was so hopeless that I wasn't even a deserving mum to Ben.'

As a result, Angela blames her own traumatic childhood for leading her down such a destructive path.

Growing up in Berkshire, she was four years old when her parents' marriage broke up. Her mother remarried and between the ages of ten and 14 Angela was sexually abused by her stepfather, who in 1997 was jailed for three years at Reading Crown Court after admitting the abuse.

When Angela tried to tell her mother what was happening, her mother refused to believe her - causing a rift between them which lasts to this day.

It was hardly surprising, then, that Angela grew up desperate to create her own family. Most of her ambitions centred on marriage and children - lots of them - to help erase the loneliness of the past.

And surely it can have been no coincidence that almost all of her 'accidental' pregnancies occurred about three months into a new relationship - the honeymoon phase - after which she panicked and decided to have an abortion when she decided that neither her man nor her situation was 'perfect'.

'For a long time I thought I had managed to put that episode of my life behind me,' she says.

'Now I believe that is the reason why I have never been able to commit to a relationship and why, when I got pregnant, I didn't think I deserved a baby.

'I didn't want to bring a baby into the world unless my situation was perfect. I never had a mother figure and, because we weren't close, no guidance.'

But if Angela's own childhood ordeal merits sympathy, it surely cannot justify her actions.

In the end, her own conscience is still clearly muddled. While insisting she has no regrets, she says: 'I feel the most incredible shame over what I have done.'

At least she is able to see how selfish her actions must seem to those who are struggling to conceive at all: 'I do feel guilty that I have had so many unwanted pregnancies when there are many women who can't have children.'

Perhaps the only glimmer of hope on the horizon is her insistence that: 'If I do ever get pregnant again, I would now not consider having an abortion. It is only now I can look back and see just how emotionally painful having them was.'

Others could be forgiven for suggesting that if she doesn't want to have another child, she might consider taking greater care not to get pregnant in the first place.

• Some of the names in this article have been changed.

[HT: moderator Bethany]


Comments:

In your second point I think you mean "foolproof," rather than "fullproof."

:)

Posted by: Anonymous at July 15, 2008 9:33 AM


How sad. She threw away so many gifts, so many chances to make things right.

S.

Posted by: S at July 15, 2008 9:48 AM


I'm sorry, but this story is just an example of one VERY stupid woman.

Obviously, she can't swim...yet she continued to jump into the pool...the deep end, no less. And, repeatedly.

She talks out of both sides of her mouth. First she says she wasn't phased by the 7 abortions, then she says she regretted them, but she continued to get pregnant and have more abortions.

I find it very difficult to believe that despite her issues, she couldn't find help or couldn't figure out that "maybe I shouldn't be sleeping with all these men".

Irresponsible and stupid. Period.

Posted by: Mike at July 15, 2008 9:50 AM


Well, this is a sad story. I take issue with some of these assertion, though:

Contraceptives fail

Because I think it’s pretty clear that this woman was not using contraceptives properly and consistently, really. The pill does fail, I think for some women more than others – my younger sister was conceived on the pill! – so if you have firsthand experience with this, I don’t know why you wouldn’t pair it with other methods of birth control. If you do that it’s almost impossible to get pregnant.

Abortion is used as contraception

The number are pretty small, though I don’t think anyone denies that some women use abortion as contraception. I think the stats in the article are a pretty small percentage, though.

Abortion hurts women psychologically

It sounds like she was already pretty psychologically hurt. She should have had access to better counseling, especially when it became obvious that she was suffering mentally. It’s disgusting that no one threw a second glance her way, but I think that her psychological problems – while compounded by abortion – were not caused by abortion. I think that someone like this will probably find any way to hurt herself.

Men exploit women for sex

It sounds like some of these men really loved her and wanted to be with her. It sounds like she was exploiting them, almost – not really for sex maybe, but to fuel some self-destructive cycle she was trapped in.

Abortion ruins healthy relationships

I think that all her various relationships were ruined by her own emotional problems, not by abortion. Abortion was the reason she created, but the problem was her unwillingness to trust her partner and her unwillingness to communicate with him and take his opinions and desires into account. Lack of communication, lack of shared values, and lack of respect ruin relationships – but I wouldn’t call those relationships healthy in the first place.

'The reason why I had so many abortions is that I didn't want to bring a child into the world unless my situation was perfect - but it never was.

I think this is really common and really sad. There’s this impossibly high standard for all the things you “should” be able to give your child, and it’s crap. You give your child what you can give it.

This whole thing is sad. This woman’s belief that she wasn’t “good enough” to have a child yet, the fact that no one tried to help her – all of it is pretty depressing.

Posted by: Alexandra at July 15, 2008 9:53 AM


Alexandra,

Say if she didn't have previous mental problems. Do you think having 7 abortions would have any physological effect on the women having them?

Posted by: Jasper at July 15, 2008 10:03 AM


Just a semantic note, I think we should be saying "abortion as birth control" not "abortion as contraception" because contraception is contra (against) conception. In the case of abortion, conception has already taken place, so an abortion does not prevent someone from conceiving, hence it is not a contraception. It is, however, birth control. All contraception is birth control, but not all birth control is contraception.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 15, 2008 10:10 AM


She is obviously suffering. Hows about some compassion?
Sorry, Mike but calling women stupid and irresponsible hardly leads them to the truth. She needs help.
A very good friend of mine had 6. She is an amazing story of a journey from darkness to light.

Posted by: Carla at July 15, 2008 10:14 AM


There is much hope for all women who struggle after their abortions. Hope and healing.

Posted by: Carla at July 15, 2008 10:15 AM


Bobby: In the case of abortion, conception has already taken place, so an abortion does not prevent someone from conceiving, hence it is not a contraception. It is, however, birth control.

Excellent point.

Carla: She is obviously suffering. Hows about some compassion? Sorry, Mike but calling women stupid and irresponsible hardly leads them to the truth. She needs help.

A year ago, I would probably have called her stupid too. It's a knee-jerk reaction. You're right that she needs help.

Posted by: Janet at July 15, 2008 10:27 AM


I'm not calling all women stupid and irresponsible, but come on...this one isn't living in some 3rd world country where she has no access to care.

I'm not dismissing the tragedy of her situation.

Known serial killers have mental disorders as well. How far does "compassion" go as far as THEY are concerned? "Serial Killer A" killed 7 people. This woman killed 7 of her unborn children.

What is the difference????? The tragedy is the same in both instances: 7 "born" people killed, 7 unborn people killed.

Posted by: Mike at July 15, 2008 10:38 AM


To the two anonymous'...

S,

I put "S" in the posted by slot...but from now on you'll have to do that yourself.

To the second anonymous...you're comment was brilliant so I'm going to leave it, but I'm supposed to delete it. We don't allow people to use anonymous. It gets way too confusing.

Sorry, but you'll have to pick a name...any name...

Posted by: mk at July 15, 2008 10:45 AM


Alexandra:Abortion is used as contraception

The number are pretty small, though I don’t think anyone denies that some women use abortion as contraception. I think the stats in the article are a pretty small percentage, though.

If most abortions are done in the first trimester, wouldn't it follow logically to say that it is being used as birth control?

Men exploit women for sex

It sounds like some of these men really loved her and wanted to be with her. It sounds like she was exploiting them, almost – not really for sex maybe, but to fuel some self-destructive cycle she was trapped in.

Men exploit women, women exploit men, that's the reality today.

I'm sorry, I didn't read the whole article, but I'm wondering if anyone has ruled out "sex addiction" for her?

Posted by: Janet at July 15, 2008 10:54 AM


Sorry MK - from now on, I'm Sue!

Posted by: Sue at July 15, 2008 10:56 AM


A "mini-Holocaust" sanctioned by a government which was instituted by God to protect the most vulnerable in our society.

Evidence of a colossal failure.

Posted by: HisMan at July 15, 2008 10:58 AM


If most abortions are done in the first trimester, wouldn't it follow logically to say that it is being used as birth control?

Saying that women use abortion as birth control implies that they use it as their first line of defense against pregnancy, which is not true in the majority of cases.

I'm sorry, I didn't read the whole article, but I'm wondering if anyone has ruled out "sex addiction" for her?

You should read the whole article if you get a chance. It seems to me that her addiction was to the cycle of getting involved with someone and then destroying that relationship in a way that hurt both her and her partner -- but that's just my opinion. I think someone with a sex addiction would not have had such a difficult time using birth control properly, because they would not want -- however subconsciously -- to have an unplanned pregnancy. My impression was that she was kind of emotionally damaged by the sexual abuse, and that she had the first abortion because she didn't want to be pregnant but then fell into a cycle of self-destructive behavior where she repeated the situation over and over again, using abortion to hurt and push away men who wanted very much to stay with her and start a family with her.

Posted by: Alexandra at July 15, 2008 11:06 AM


I don't like the men exploit women for sex comment. I don't know about the men in your life Jill, but it's sexist and unfair to label all men as exploiting women for sex. It makes men seem evil or unable at least to control themselves.

And, "serial sex is not normal"? Say's who? Is there a "once a day" limit? Try telling that to newlyweds!

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 11:12 AM


jasper --

Say if she didn't have previous mental problems. Do you think having 7 abortions would have any physological effect on the women having them?

It's a tough question to answer, because I don't know that I can imagine someone repeatedly getting into the same situation, one they don't want to be in, to not have any underlying psychological issues in the first place. My younger sister used to have a big problem with taking my things -- I'm not talking normal levels of sibling fighting, but really excessive taking and hiding of things I would have gladly lent to her if she had just asked. In high school it eventually got to the point where my parents temporarily put a lock on my door because she seemed to really be out of control. Every single time I sat down and talked to her about it, she would cry and say that she didn't mean to hurt me, and we would come to the agreement that whenever she wanted to borrow something, she would ask me and I would let her borrow it unless I had a really good reason not to. And yet she still kept taking things without asking, then hiding them to hide the fact that she'd taken them, until I was again forced to confront her about it and have a big angry discussion about it. In short, she kept engaging in behavior that ended in both of us being hurt and angry and upset, when she could have easily gotten the same benefits of borrowing my things without the disadvantages. I thought that was really worrying.

The taking and hiding and fighting eventually became a cycle, which certainly exacerbated whatever had caused her to take and hide my things in such enormous quantities in the first place. But the problem bigger than just her taking my things was, in my mind, the fact that she really seemed to hate herself for doing so, and she really seemed to want to stop but seemed unable to stop herself in the moment. The repetition of it certainly made her initial problem worse, because she was ashamed of herself and thus felt the need to hide even more, which was the problem in the first place -- but the repetition could not, by definition, have made worse a problem that didn't exist in the first place, without which there would have been no repetition at all.

Eventually she worked through what was causing her to consistently put herself in a situation that unnecessarily hurt our relationship, and I think the last time she took anything from me without asking was a good three years ago now. But anyway, your question is, in my mind, kind of like asking, "Could a person with no underlying emotional problems feel ashamed and secretive about repeatedly taking things from another person?" I'm sure the repetition makes someone more ashamed and more secretive about it, but I don't know that the repetition would exist in the first place without whatever underlying emotional problem caused it.

I hope that makes sense.

Posted by: Alexandra at July 15, 2008 11:21 AM


I'm no doctor but I think there's something mentally wrong with her from the fact that she has such emotional and mental problems (trying to kill herself for one). I would think after the first two abortions or so she would realize that what she was using didn't work and just to stop having sex if she didn't want to have more abortions. From the story though I don't think she cared how many abortions she had. I don't know why this is a news story. There's nothing new.

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 11:24 AM


"Now, she has ended up on her own with a child anyway - largely thanks to her own selfish behaviour."

Really? This article seems bias.

"At least she is able to see how selfish her actions must seem to those who are struggling to conceive at all: 'I do feel guilty that I have had so many unwanted pregnancies when there are many women who can't have children.' "

Having a child because someone else can't just seems wrong to me. Like if I really wanted to go to an amusement park, and someone lived next to one, would that person have to go there every day because someone else would? You should do what is right for you, you have to be able to take care of yourself. You're the one who has to live the rest of your life with yourself, with your choices.

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 11:34 AM


Regarding Jasper's quote of the day, my last son will never go to Notre Dame, a once respected Catholic institution dedicated to God's service.

However, let me suggest that abortion is more evidence of satan's plan for blasphemizing the world using abortion as the foundation.

Isn't ironic that Notre Dame means "Our Lady" referring to Mary, the Mother of God. Perhaps the alums should rename their alma mater to, "Persona non Grata Dame" or Unwelcome Mother of God.

And isn't it a hoot that alma mater means "nourishing mother"? Norte Dame Alums should should change that name to "Alma Mortem Obire".

It is obvious that the 10,000 alums that support Obama, missed the whole point of their college career. They didn't learn that it's a sin to rob God.

These highly educated idiots don't have a clue at how satan is playing them like a fiddle, sheep without a shepherd, being led to the slaughter.

As much as I hate Michigan, "Go Wolverines".

Posted by: HisMan at July 15, 2008 11:37 AM


Doesn't your son get a say in where he goes to college? And how do you know what Satan is trying to do? I don't think abortion is robbing God of anything.

Again, if a soul begins at conception, what happens with identical twins?

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 11:40 AM


Hisman:"It is obvious that the 10,000 alums that support Obama, missed the whole point of their college career. They didn't learn that it's a sin to rob God".

Maybe that wasn't the "whole point" of their college career Hisman, maybe they had other reasons for attending college. I know I did.

And maybe, just maybe, the religious people supporting Obama are right and you are wrong.

Posted by: Hal at July 15, 2008 11:41 AM


Mike,

I get a little defensive. I am meeting so many amazing women and learning their abortion stories and it is easy to be on the outside looking in. It's messy getting invested in other people's lives.

Call her stupid if you must.

I am praying she gets the help she needs.

Posted by: Carla at July 15, 2008 11:46 AM


Jess,
When you give yourself body, mind and soul to a man and they have no intention of marrying you and then they move on, you have been exploited.

Posted by: Carla at July 15, 2008 11:49 AM


Carla, what if you have no intention of marrying them? What if you're both looking for a fling?

For me marriage is about having children. I want to marry a man who wants children, and I want to have children with him. I don't want to get married just to have sex, or to find my soul mate, or best friend or whatever. I want to get married to have children, and raise them in the best home my husband and I can give them.

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 11:54 AM


Jess,
When you give yourself body, mind and soul to a man and they have no intention of marrying you and then they move on, you have been exploited.
Posted by: Carla at July 15, 2008 11:49 AM

Not if you have no intention of marrying them either.

Posted by: Hal at July 15, 2008 12:01 PM


"I'm sorry, but this story is just an example of one VERY stupid woman."


Ahhh yes. There's some good "pro life" compassion there Mikey. Charming.

Clearly, this woman is mentally ill. Do you call ALL mentally ill people "stupid", or just ones who have abortions?

And Jill, how does this article show in ANY way that men exploit women for sex because of abortion? It even says right in the first paragraph, very explicitly, that her partner BEGGED HER not to have an abortion. Everything in this article points to a very sick woman who seeks out destructive relationships.

Posted by: Amanda at July 15, 2008 12:03 PM


Then you exploit each other for sex.

Posted by: Carla at July 15, 2008 12:08 PM


Amanda,
I believe she had several different partners. Patrick didn't want her to have one. So sad.

Posted by: Carla at July 15, 2008 12:14 PM


Doesn't exploitation depend on the intention with which one performed an act as opposed to the act itself?

There is nothing about sex which makes it unique--subject only to one correct and true usage or interpretation. Exploitation during sex would therefore have nothing to do within any inherent truth found within the act itself and everything to do with the understandings and intentions of those who entered into sexual relations with one another.

Both men and women can pretend that they're interested in either marriage or some other long-term relationship in order to have sex; in this case the partner has indeed been exploited (ie. entered into relations based on a false set of assumptions).

If neither the man nor the woman is deceiving the other as to what their intentions are, by definition exploitation is simply not possible, regardless of what those intentions are.

Posted by: A. at July 15, 2008 12:18 PM


Jess,
You are worth more than a fling.

Posted by: Carla at July 15, 2008 12:29 PM


She almost sounds to me as a real case of a split psyche - like schizoid. And this may well be due to, what, 4 years of abuse by the stepfather - at just the age of transition (10 - 14). With no mother back up. And yes, due to that, her emotions of "no regret", and yet acting out towards suicide, demonstrate a real kind of automaton void, needing real serious help. It will continue until she comes to see those lives as separate from her own. You certainly can't do that alone. She even has the, at least partial sense of needing help "with her feelings" which apparently she did not get even with that psychiatric assistance. So much for that "helping community". This is what abortion on demand can do. And these numbers have been reported as pretty normal in the atheistic Eastern block countries. The soul has certainly been left out of the discussion. And it is a very real thing!!!

Posted by: KC at July 15, 2008 12:30 PM


Not if you have no intention of marrying them either.

So using someone is okay if they use you back? If anything, that's twice as much usuary and is just twice as bad.

Posted by: Jacqueline at July 15, 2008 12:33 PM


Carla,

Yes, there were a few, but she said that things with Patrick fell apart because of abortions before AND after the birth of their son.

So this isn't the case of a woman being exploited at all - but rather a sick woman who is self-medicating with sex - a very VERY standard presentation of Bipolar Disorder.

The tricky thing about bipolar disorder, is that in the manic stages, people are wild, fun, passionate, outgoing - and tend to get in to these intense emotional and sexual relationships. Then the depressive side kicks in, and the partner is usually completley blindsided. At this point, some partners become enablers, some just walk away (or run), and some encourage their loved one to get help.

I don't think legal abortion is the issue here either - as someone who is in a disturbed enough state to attempt suicide is not very likely to be disuaded by laws or fear of harming herself by self aborting or illegal abortion. In fact, the compulsion for pain/self mutiliation/self harm might make that MORE likely. (Like people who cut themselves - it becomed an addiction - abortion could be that outlet for this woman)

Reality is, on one hand she'd have many in the pro choice side looking down at her for using abortion as birth control, which makes them look bad, and many in the pro life side (as Mike clearly demonstated for us) would also look down at her - which I'd venture to guess would contribute to her contradictory statements about not regretting any of it, but still being ashamed.

The stigma against the mentally ill is rampant - and prevents people from seeking the help they need. If that changes, I think you'd see a lot less of these sad stories.

Posted by: Amanda at July 15, 2008 12:36 PM


Hi A.

"Doesn't exploitation depend on the intention with which one performed an act as opposed to the act itself?"

No, it inherent in the very nature of the sexual act itself.

"There is nothing about sex which makes it unique--subject only to one correct and true usage or interpretation."

This is simply an assertion from which you deduce that "exploitation during sex would therefore have nothing to do within any inherent truth found within the act itself." While there may be many puposes to sex, it has a primary purpose; a nature, which is both a unitive and a procreative aspect. Just like the primary purpose of eating is health and nourishment, so the primary purpose of sex is to unite the spouses and procreation.

The sexual act is a profound exchange of persons. In the language of the body, you are objectively saying "I give and surrender my totality, everything that I am to you." In the very nature of the act itself is the promise of total self-giving and commitment, and so there is a commitment there regardless of teh intent of the parties.

The reason that many of these problems like abortion and children growing up without a dad or mom is because people have taken a relativistic view of sex and said "it is what I want it to be." Well, when you use something contrary to its nature, bad results occur. If everyone saved sex for marriage and was open to life during marriage, then abortion, children growing up without a father, and almost every single sexually transmitted disease would be almost eradicated within 2 or 3 generations. Yet we insist on redefining sex and making it whatever we want in the name of personal autonomy and "freedom." Whatever it takes to make me "happy." God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 15, 2008 12:43 PM


Consequences don't cease to exist after flings have flung.

About this woman, compassion is nice and all, but why can see have 7 children chopped up and earn your compassion when Andrea Yates who killed 5 of her born children is considered a monster?

Posted by: Jacqueline at July 15, 2008 12:44 PM


I don't consider Andrea Yates a monster. I consider her a woman who was seriously mentally ill and who was not given the help she so clearly needed. What she did was horrible but I don't think she's a monster.

Posted by: Alexandra at July 15, 2008 12:46 PM


Wha?? Where did we come up with Bipolar?

Posted by: Carla at July 15, 2008 12:48 PM


I do not consider Andrea Yates a monster either. In need of help, absolutely.

Posted by: Carla at July 15, 2008 12:51 PM


Jaqui -

I have nothing but compassion for Andrea Yates.

She was a sick woman, in severe PPD, to the point where it became PPS, crying out for help, and was manipulated by her bastard of a husband to keep having children despite the fact that her doctor had recorded her PPD grew more severe with each pregnancy.


Carla -

The sexual/depressive qualities described in this article are SCREAMING bipolar. Not making any assumptions, but just going along with a theory.

Posted by: Amanda at July 15, 2008 12:52 PM


"Just like the primary purpose of eating is health and nourishment, so the primary purpose of sex is to unite the spouses and procreation."

Bobby, I understand that this is your view. But you must understand there is no "objective truth" to what you say, just your very valid opinion. Others have different views, equally valid.

Posted by: Hal at July 15, 2008 12:53 PM


*PPS - PPP (Post Partum Psychosis)

LOL @ myself for writing PPS like I'm writing a letter.

Posted by: Amanda at July 15, 2008 12:53 PM


Hi Hal.

"But you must understand there is no "objective truth" to what you say, just your very valid opinion. Others have different views, equally valid."

But what reason is there to believe that there is no objective truth to sex? What is the justification behind the belief that all understandings of sex are equally valid?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 15, 2008 12:59 PM


Hal/Bobby/etc

The ironic thing to me is that almost without fail, everyone I've encountered who has said that the purpose of sex is soley to "unite the spouses and create children" did in fact have recreational/pre-marital sex (with and/or without birth control) in their past. The people who post on this board don't seem to be any exception...

one of those "do as I say, not as I did" kinda things.

But I think you mess around and experiment at some point in your life, and learn your lessons and develop your values based on how your actions affect you.

Posted by: Amanda at July 15, 2008 1:04 PM


Bobby,

No, it inherent in the very nature of the sexual act itself.

Why? There is nothing about the nature of sex which says it only has one defining purpose. Sex does indeed have a procreative aspect, however, the reality is that a majority of sexual encounters (here applying penetration) do not and can not lead to pregnancy. A woman is only fertile during a few days of her typically 29-day cycle. The fertilization of an egg also does not guarantee a pregnancy; it has been estimated that a full fifty percent off all fertilized eggs fail to implant upon the uterine wall. If the procreative aspect is one of the primary purposes of sex, why is it that a majority of sexual encounters cannot lead to pregnancy?

What has mandated that sex has a unitive aspect? How do you know that this is inherent truth as opposed to personal interpretation? Additionally, you argue that a primary purpose of sex is to unite the spouses, by which I assume that you mean a man and a woman joined in marriage. This is by no means a natural statefor the majority of human history, marriage (if the society has had such an institution at all) has existed in a profoundly different statemultiple individuals joined in multiple different partnerships. How can a primary purpose of sex be to unite two spouses if these two individuals are entered into a profoundly unnatural state in the first place?

The sexual act is a profound exchange of persons. In the language of the body, you are objectively saying "I give and surrender my totality, everything that I am to you." In the very nature of the act itself is the promise of total self-giving and commitment, and so there is a commitment there regardless of teh intent of the parties.

Once again, is this not based on your interpretations? I do not believe that one can deny that there are certain inherent aspects of the act itself which tend to make it somewhat unique among the spectrum of human interaction but I do not think that it has to be this profound exchanging of persons which you feel that it is. Sex means whatever the involved parties want it to mean. It can be among the most profound of human experiences, indicative of a genuine bond, or it can mean nothing at all.

Well, when you use something contrary to its nature, bad results occur.

But how do we know this nature? Neither tradition nor biology (in some cases) can guarantee that something is natural. Natural also does not necessarily imply superior; saying that something is natural and thus should be preserved/upheld is a meaningless statement unless one is willing to admit that everything that is natural should be likewise upheld.

Posted by: A. at July 15, 2008 1:11 PM


Thanks "A" you saved me a lot of typing. Bobby's views are true for him. I'm not sure he understands that others can hold different views that work for them.

And Bobby, I didn't say ALL understandings of sex are equally valid. But more than one (yours) valid view is possible.

Posted by: Hal at July 15, 2008 1:18 PM


And I too am no exception, Amanda. I do regret my previous life. But this is really a form of ad hominum. The validity or lack thereof of what I say is irrelevant of the way I have behaved in my life. If someone who said all the exact same things as I did also has always lived that up to what they preach (and there are plenty of those), your argument does not work on them.

Furthermore, if we argue along those lines, then no one can learn from their mistakes. Whenever a former gang member comes to a high school to talk about how the horrors of belonging to a gang, we can dismiss him as having developed his values based on how your actions affect him. Or to use an example that I know you're very passionate about, we can blow off those who have had positive homosexual experiences (like Mel White) and say that he only believes homosexuality is morally acceptable because of his experience.

I can assure you that I have not developed my values based on how certain things affect me but on the rational and logical teachings of moral philosophers and theologians.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 15, 2008 1:21 PM


Bobby, if people eat just for health and nourishment then why do they eat meat? Or meat like veal? You can be healthy and well nourished on a vegetarian diet. The fact is most people eat meat because it taste good and is convenient. You don't have a problem with people killing animals for the fun of it, why do you have a problem with people having sex for the fun of it?

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 1:26 PM


That's not what I was getting at Bobby - and it certainly wasn't meant as a personal insult towards anyone

Just that some people do something and say "ehh this isn't really for me" and some people say "this works for me". I only mean that its a lot easier for someone who's lived both ways to say "THIS is the right/wrong way!"

I don't think comparing one's sex life to a gang member is fair - as the entire basis of being in a gang is to be involved with crime. Sex, when involving consenting adults, is not criminal at all. We're talking about an act that is NOT inherently harmful, but CAN be depending on people's perceptions or attitudes.

Posted by: Amanda at July 15, 2008 1:28 PM


Why is a dead baby so much more important then the hundreds of cows you torture and kill in your lifetime?

I'm just trying to make the point that even though sex, like eating, has a specific function, does that mean it should only be used for that specific function?

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 1:28 PM


Why is a dead baby so much more important then the hundreds of cows you torture and kill in your lifetime?

Why is a dead cow so much more important than the hundreds and thousands of babies being tortured and killed within our lifetime?

Posted by: Bethany at July 15, 2008 1:30 PM


How strange of you to blame the abortions for the psychiatric problems from which this woman was already suffering even before the first abortion.

I wasn't surprised to read that this poor woman has a history of sexual abuse; most women who've had many abortions do.

And the LAST thing such women need is to be forced to have babies they don't want. This woman needs psychiatric help for her childhood trauma, not seven more children to care for by herself.

Posted by: reality at July 15, 2008 1:47 PM


Anon, Bobby: Points taken, changes made. Thanks.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at July 15, 2008 1:48 PM


A,

"Why?"

Because in the very act itself, the possibility of bringing a brand new life into existence exists, and hence implies a lifelong commitment. What happens when people have a one night stand, and the woman ends up pregnant and decides to keep the baby? The baby grows up (sometimes) without a father. This would not happen if people realized the life-long commitment that sex entails. And just because sometimes this doesn't happen, this does not imply that inherent in sex is a commitment to each other.

"There is nothing about the nature of sex which says it only has one defining purpose."

Correct, it has two.

"Sex does indeed have a procreative aspect, however, the reality is that a majority of sexual encounters (here applying penetration) do not and can not lead to pregnancy. A woman is only fertile during a few days of her typically 29-day cycle. The fertilization of an egg also does not guarantee a pregnancy; it has been estimated that a full fifty percent off all fertilized eggs fail to implant upon the uterine wall. If the procreative aspect is one of the primary purposes of sex, why is it that a majority of sexual encounters cannot lead to pregnancy?"

All of this is irrelevant to the procreative aspect of the sexual act. And if fact, I'm not arguing that there aren't other reasons to engage in sex, but I claim that the two primary ones are unitive and procreative. Just like I said that eating has a primary purpose, there are also other good reasons to eat like friendship. But it should not be done solely for a secondary purpose with a thwarting of the primary purpose in mind i.e. planning to vomit your food up later so you don't gain weight but still want to enjoy eating with yoru friends.

But now, if children are not the primary function of the sexual act, what are they the primary function of? The nature of what begets children?

"What has mandated that sex has a unitive aspect?"

The fact that people tend to be drawn closer to someone they engage in the act with. Do people not in general feel closer to someone they engaged in sex with? You see each other naked, you experience each other at their most vulnerable. These and other aspects of sex let the partners "in" on each other. Now they can choose to ignore it, but the fact is that they have shared each other in a profound way which unites them.

"How do you know that this is inherent truth as opposed to personal interpretation?"

I am not denying that I could be wrong. I base my beliefs on reason and believe that I have good epistemic justification for holding them. As I said, I could be wrong, but what I do deny is that there is no truth to sexuality. If Hal is right, then I am wrong. I am limiting sex and making out to be something it is not. So both Hal's and my ideas of sex can not both be right. They could both be wrong of course.

"Additionally, you argue that a primary purpose of sex is to unite the spouses, by which I assume that you mean a man and a woman joined in marriage. This is by no means a natural statefor the majority of human history, marriage (if the society has had such an institution at all) has existed in a profoundly different statemultiple individuals joined in multiple different partnerships. How can a primary purpose of sex be to unite two spouses if these two individuals are entered into a profoundly unnatural state in the first place?"

I don't believe that the nature of sex is something that has been shaped by society. In other words, even if man had this "unnatural state" throughout all of history and still did, that would have no bearing on my argument. Do you know what I mean here? I don't know if I'm clear.

"Sex means whatever the involved parties want it to mean. It can be among the most profound of human experiences, indicative of a genuine bond, or it can mean nothing at all. "

OK. I hope I didn't make it seem that I denied that people can feel a certain way afterwards. Of course, it can mean nothing to someone or both. But like I argued above, there still is an objective unity between the two people.

"But how do we know this nature?"

Just based on reason and argument, like we're discussing now.

"Neither tradition nor biology (in some cases) can guarantee that something is natural. Natural also does not necessarily imply superior; saying that something is natural and thus should be preserved/upheld is a meaningless statement unless one is willing to admit that everything that is natural should be likewise upheld. "

I agree. But we may have a different understanding of natural or nature. So let me say that by natural I do not mean acting without using anything foreign. For example, I do not mean to exclude technology, medicine, or killing cockroaches. What I mean when I say natural or refer to the nature of something is acting in accordance with what that thing is or with its purpose.

I haven't seen you around before A. New to the blog? It seems you've studied some philosophy... (more than me, that's for sure)

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 15, 2008 2:00 PM


"That's not what I was getting at Bobby - and it certainly wasn't meant as a personal insult towards anyone"

Yeah, I thought using the phrase ad hominum was a bit misleading. I just meant that what (I thought, mistakenly) you were saying was more a statement about me or others than what I said, which doesn't mean I think you said anything mean or insulting to me. You're gonna come up and babysit my daughter, remember? :)

God love you!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 15, 2008 2:03 PM


Jess,

"Bobby, if people eat just for health and nourishment then why do they eat meat? Or meat like veal? You can be healthy and well nourished on a vegetarian diet."

Sure, there are a lot of things that we could avoid and still be healthy. It's like I said above. There is a primary purpose, but that doesn't mean that you can't have secondary purposes if you do them in conformity with the primary purpose. While meat may not be NECESSARY, it is healthy and nourishing (some of the time) so it conforms to the primary nature of eating. Now someone eating a brick or a watch; that's a different story. The question then becomes whether or not it is morally acceptable to eat animals.


"The fact is most people eat meat because it taste good and is convenient."

I agree.

"You don't have a problem with people killing animals for the fun of it, why do you have a problem with people having sex for the fun of it?"

I would not say people kill animals for the fun of it. Especially if someone owns a farm and raises their own animals, a single cow can feed a family for a long, long time. This can be very helpful.

But the thing about the sex is that I have no problem with people having fun when they have sex (I have fun when I do). It's just that when it is done in a way that goes against the nature of sex; that's what I am arguing should not be permissible. God love you, my friend.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 15, 2008 2:09 PM


OK, I have to get back to the baby. I'll try and get back to this later tonight. God love ya'll.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 15, 2008 2:10 PM


Bobby,

Because in the very act itself, the possibility of bringing a brand new life into existence exists, and hence implies a lifelong commitment.

That implies a lifelong commitment to having a child, not to having sex. The two are in no way the same. That said, there is no way to logically deny that having sex can indeed lead to having a child. For your statement above to be true, it would be necessary for sex to always (or at least a majority of the time) lead to the birth of a child. An act cannot beget a lifelong commitment if the chances of said act producing the element to which it is necessary for one to have a lifelong commitment to are infinitesimally small.

All of this is irrelevant to the procreative aspect of the sexual act. And if fact, I'm not arguing that there aren't other reasons to engage in sex, but I claim that the two primary ones are unitive and procreative.

How can a primary purpose retain its primacy and yet be relatively rare?

But now, if children are not the primary function of the sexual act, what are they the primary function of?

Do they have to be a primary function?

The nature of what begets children?

Evolutionarily speaking, the drive to reproduce.

The fact that people tend to be drawn closer to someone they engage in the act with.

Tend to be is not enough; a tendency in and of itself is insufficient evidence that a primary purpose exists.

You see each other naked, you experience each other at their most vulnerable.

Id dispute this one. It all depends on your definition of vulnerable and whether you equate the sex act with the deepest self. I would personally consider the realm of emotion, especially those which one feels it necessary to hide, to be an area of far more vulnerability than anything physical ever could be.

Now they can choose to ignore it, but the fact is that they have shared each other in a profound way which unites them.

Again, that depends on the assumptions and beliefs of those parties involved. It is fully possible for sex to involve only a fairly crude physical sharing.

I said, I could be wrong, but what I do deny is that there is no truth to sexuality. If Hal is right, then I am wrong.

Why could you not both be right? There are many forms of truth.

I don't believe that the nature of sex is something that has been shaped by society. In other words, even if man had this "unnatural state" throughout all of history and still did, that would have no bearing on my argument. Do you know what I mean here? I don't know if I'm clear.
Basically youre saying that the natural state of an act like sex is internal and not dependent upon any external factors. If that is true, how do we know what natural is? This links to your answer to my question of how we know what the nature of an act is, so Ill address both points here. You said that we could know just based on reason and argument, like we're discussing now. I contend that the reason and arguments which we choose to use are based upon our own perceptions. As such, they are not objective and cannot stand alone. If this is true, how could we use our subjective interpretations to intuit and reason objective nature?

What I mean when I say natural or refer to the nature of something is acting in accordance with what that thing is or with its purpose.
And how do we discern that purpose? Doesnt the purpose of each act depend, not on the act itself, but upon the reasons that the involved parties sought to perform said act in the first place? If two people engage in sexual relations solely for pleasure, than pleasure and gratification is the purpose of their act. It if a person eats to comfort themselves (think comfort food), than comfort, and not nourishment, is the purpose of that act.

It seems you've studied some philosophy... (more than me, that's for sure)

Less than youd think. In my experience, Ive found that a general grasp of the basic concepts and the philosophical way of thinking is more important than any actual familiarity with the arguments themselves. Knowledge of those arguments is beneficial, however.

Have fun with the baby.

Posted by: A. at July 15, 2008 2:38 PM


Hal/Bobby/etc

The ironic thing to me is that almost without fail, everyone I've encountered who has said that the purpose of sex is soley to "unite the spouses and create children" did in fact have recreational/pre-marital sex (with and/or without birth control) in their past. The people who post on this board don't seem to be any exception...

one of those "do as I say, not as I did" kinda things.

But I think you mess around and experiment at some point in your life, and learn your lessons and develop your values based on how your actions affect you.

Posted by: Amanda at July 15, 2008 1:04 PM

NOT ALL! Not me! I know I'm a rare exception but through God's grace (ALONE) I managed to stay chaste until I married. I only now realize how much this has benefited my soul and helps when I talk to my kids about this.
I'm going outside to enjoy the sunshine and will return to read some of the very interesting comments on here later.
Bobby your posts are gems! Very eloquent. Thanks.

Posted by: Patricia at July 15, 2008 2:46 PM


Bethany, how many babies do cows kill? Well, not including heart disease, ecoli, ect... In reality, hundreds, even thousands of cows will be eaten by one person during their life.

Amanda, I do think marriage for myself (me and only me) will be to have children. If it wasn't to create a family, I don't see the point of marriage for me. If I was going to have a baby and there was a good man who wanted to marry me, I would say yes. And we'd be married and have a baby. I am glad that I never got pregnant before, because I don't think I could stand being married to the two guys I have had sex with. I actually would have preferred to be a single Mom. But I wouldn't get married just to have a big wedding and stuff.

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 3:00 PM


"It's just that when it is done in a way that goes against the nature of sex; that's what I am arguing should not be permissible."

Woa, what do you mean "permissible?"

Posted by: Hal at July 15, 2008 3:02 PM


You would never see such a story in the US MSM, even though such stories abound. This article spotlights that the American press is sabotaging an entire segment of the conversation about abortion.

I made this point to Somg about how politicized abortion is in North America to the point that researchers in the US and Canada do not correctly report their results or else play down the negative results they find in their research. This is NOT the case in Scandanavian and European scientific journals. The practice is so common and so disturbing that one cannot read the conclusions of articles but must read the entire article, especially the results section to determine EXACTLY what was found.
So it's not surprising that stories like this would be more common in overseas papers too.

Posted by: Patricia at July 15, 2008 3:08 PM


Patricia, do you think if you slept with your husband you would have known who he really was and not have married him?

If I learned one thing from my past experiences, it's to follow your instincts and not let needy people force you to do something you don't want to. That's why I had sex. My boyfriend at the time was all, "I'd die without you, I broke up with my girlfriend for you, I love you." That crap. If I had followed my instincts I would have never gone out with him.

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 3:10 PM


Bobby you need to teach your baby to type!

Posted by: Patricia at July 15, 2008 3:10 PM


Patricia, Bobby's baby can't type but my hamster can. He loves to push all the keys and stare up at the screen. He loves to push the buttons on the tv remote, although he's not strong enough to change the channels yet (though I'm sure he would like to)!

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 3:15 PM


Patricia, do you think if you slept with your husband you would have known who he really was and not have married him?

If I learned one thing from my past experiences, it's to follow your instincts and not let needy people force you to do something you don't want to. That's why I had sex. My boyfriend at the time was all, "I'd die without you, I broke up with my girlfriend for you, I love you." That crap. If I had followed my instincts I would have never gone out with him.

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 3:10 PM

NOPE. In fact, he wanted to have sex but I repeatedly said no. To me, this should have been one of the warning signs - that he did not in fact respect me or my opinions.He had other reasons for marrying me which only became evident AFTER the marriage.

Posted by: Patricia at July 15, 2008 3:17 PM


Bethany, how many babies do cows kill?

How many cows do babies kill?

Well, not including heart disease, ecoli, ect... In reality, hundreds, even thousands of cows will be eaten by one person during their life.

And millions of babies have been killed since roe vs wade. Why don't you care about them?

Cows are killed for our nourishment and growth...not because they are an inconvenience to us, or because we just want to get rid of cows. I consider beef on my plate a blessing from God.

Beef comes with the health benefits of zinc, all of those B vitamins, iron, and selenium. And much of the iron and zinc that you get from animals you cannot get elsewhere.

Read this for a better explanation:

"Beef, veal, and pork are packed with high-quality protein. They are also a nutrient-dense source of iron and zinc, minerals that many Americans have trouble getting. While it is possible to get enough iron or zinc without eating meat, it's not easy. Eating lean meat is also a dandy way to get vitamin B12, niacin, and vitamin B6. So, including some lean meat in your diet can be nutritionally uplifting.

"The iron in red meat, especially beef, carries a double bonus. About half the iron in beef is heme iron, a highly usable form found only in animal products. And the absorption of the nonheme iron in meat is enhanced by the fact that it's in meat. Eating meat also enhances the absorption of nonheme iron from plant foods. (That's also a good reason to use smaller portions of meat mixed with plant foods in your meals.) The zinc in meat is absorbed better than the zinc in grains and legumes, as well.

"And despite the bad press red meat has sometimes received, recent research has shown that eating lean beef, veal, and pork is just as effective in lowering bad LDL cholesterol and raising good HDL cholesterol in your blood as is eating lean poultry and fish. Plus, close to half the fat in lean beef is monounsaturated, the kind that helps lower blood cholesterol and reduce the risk of heart disease when it replaces saturated fat in the diet. And much of the saturated fat that beef does contain is stearic acid, a form that doesn't appear to raise blood cholesterol the way other saturated fats do.
http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/health-benefits-of-meat-poultry-and-fish-ga1.htm

Posted by: Bethany at July 15, 2008 3:19 PM


"If I learned one thing from my past experiences, it's to follow your instincts and not let needy people force you to do something you don't want to. That's why I had sex."
----------------------------------

Huh???? Did I miss something here?

Posted by: RSD at July 15, 2008 3:19 PM


Jess: too funny!!
When I was in library school, a fellow student who was a single mom took home a rabbit from her son's class to look after over the summer. The rabbit ate through their computer electrical cords, shorted the computer and destroyed it. (The rabbit lived to tell the tale!) She lost all her data for her website the night before the project was due!
She named the rabbit Hell!

Posted by: Patricia at July 15, 2008 3:22 PM


I remember listening to a tape of a National Abortion Federation meeting. Some counselors were lamenting how many women were there for repeat abortions. Counselors from one New England facility were particularly dismayed by a customer who had openly chosen abortion as her preferred method of birth control, and had racked up TWENTY over the decades the clinic had been open.

All the counselors were venting their feelings about this -- and, contrary to stereotype, the counselors themselves and many staff are not nearly as delighted with repeat customers as the clinic owners are. The moderator stopped the gripe session and chided them:

"You sound like anti's," she said. She reminded them of their priorities: If they were for choice, then ALL abortion choices are equally valid. Abortion #20 for a woman casually using them as birth control is just as valid a choice, and just as worthy of their respect, as a woman choosing an abortion because of desperate circumstances.

They all started asserting this concept. It was the only way, I'm sure, they could go back to work another day in those places.

Posted by: Christina at July 15, 2008 3:23 PM


RSD, he said he would kill himself if I didn't go out with him. I know now I should have said, "do it." He wouldn't have. The whole relationship was lies, his lies.

Bethany, I don't eat meat and I'm perfectly healthy. And recently when I went to give blood they said my iron levels were fine.

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 3:24 PM


Patricia, Bobby's baby can't type but my hamster can. He loves to push all the keys and stare up at the screen. He loves to push the buttons on the tv remote, although he's not strong enough to change the channels yet (though I'm sure he would like to)!

haha that's cute! :)

Posted by: Bethany at July 15, 2008 3:25 PM


"RSD, he said he would kill himself if I didn't go out with him. I know now I should have said, "do it." He wouldn't have. The whole relationship was lies, his lies. "
----------------------------

So, you had sex instead...and HOW is this "not letting needy people use you"?

Posted by: RSD at July 15, 2008 3:27 PM


A,

I put the baby to sleep... mwahaha... for now...anyway,

"That implies a lifelong commitment to having a child, not to having sex."

Yes, this is what I intended for my statement to mean.

"The two are in no way the same. That said, there is no way to logically deny that having sex can indeed lead to having a child. For your statement above to be true, it would be necessary for sex to always (or at least a majority of the time) lead to the birth of a child. An act cannot beget a lifelong commitment if the chances of said act producing the element to which it is necessary for one to have a lifelong commitment to are infinitesimally small."

Let me clarify further. I think based on what you wrote that you believe that my contention is that "If you have sex, then you will have a baby. Hence, the nature of sex is procreative." I actually look at the converse of the statement and say that "If you have a baby, then the baby was a result of sex. Hence it is a NECESSARY condition (not a sufficient condition) that you engage in the sexual act in order to have a baby, whence the necessity of sex in order for a baby implies that sex is FUNDAMENTAL for having a baby, so it is the nature of sex." (BTW, capps are for emphasis; I'm not shouting at you) So that is a much more precise statement of why I claim that the nature of sex is procreative.

"How can a primary purpose retain its primacy and yet be relatively rare?"

We see this a lot. Think about the primary purpose of medical research. The purpose is to develop cures. Yet this fails quite often.

Now that's not a perfect analogy. But what I want to do with it is illustrate that there can be something that we do (sex, medical research) and the primary reason for doing it (children, cures) can happen only some of the time or rarely.

"Do they have to be a primary function?"

I think so. The reason being is that human beings are so fundamental to existence as we know it. It seems to defy common sense to say that there isn't one particular "thing" that is around solely to continue the species; that it's something that is an accidental result of something else's primary purpose.

"Evolutionarily speaking, the drive to reproduce."

Sure, I have no problem with that, but just a drive in-and-of-itself will not beget children. If I wasn't married, (even before I was married) I had a strong drive to reproduce. But that alone doesn't reproduce. There has to be some action.

"Tend to be is not enough; a tendency in and of itself is insufficient evidence that a primary purpose exists."

That's a good point. I would argue that it is more than just a tenancy, but I don't think I can exhibit any evidence without referring to an outside source (like a study) and I don't believe in those.

"Id dispute this one. It all depends on your definition of vulnerable and whether you equate the sex act with the deepest self. I would personally consider the realm of emotion, especially those which one feels it necessary to hide, to be an area of far more vulnerability than anything physical ever could be."

But don't you think that sex brings out this emotion?

"Again, that depends on the assumptions and beliefs of those parties involved. It is fully possible for sex to involve only a fairly crude physical sharing."

I agree. But even given this, I think there are chemical "things" that happen in the brain during sex which have a certain impact, but again, I really can't argue along these lines because I don't do the whole "look at this journal article" thing.

"Why could you not both be right? There are many forms of truth."

I would say the law of non-contradiction. I don't know if you mean there are many theories of truth, but I really believe that this is a hijacking of the word "truth."

"Basically youre saying that the natural state of an act like sex is internal and not dependent upon any external factors."

Shoot, no not at all. I must really be writing nonsense. So I say that the natural state of sex is external. That the nature of sex is something that is outside of ourselves.

"If that is true, how do we know what natural is? This links to your answer to my question of how we know what the nature of an act is, so Ill address both points here. You said that we could know just based on reason and argument, like we're discussing now. I contend that the reason and arguments which we choose to use are based upon our own perceptions. As such, they are not objective and cannot stand alone. If this is true, how could we use our subjective interpretations to intuit and reason objective nature?"

Sure, they're based on our perceptions, but it does not follow that they are not objective and can not stand alone. In fact, your statement "they [perceptions] are not objective and cannot stand alone" is self-refuting since this statement is just your perception, which by your own criteria is not objective and can not stand alone.

The point is that even though we come to the table with different backgrounds, that does not mean that we can not know truth. There is no reason to believe that just because we have different perceptions, all of our perceptions are false.

"And how do we discern that purpose? Doesnt the purpose of each act depend, not on the act itself, but upon the reasons that the involved parties sought to perform said act in the first place?"

Yes, this gives us guidance as to how to go about it, but it does not follow that every individual case should be determined by solely the parties involved. From certain evidences, there can be a general principle that applies to any and all cases. For a stupid example, it doesn't matter how much I want to have sex with a certain girl, I can't rape her. The act of rape in-and-of-itself is of an "evil" nature, for lack of a better phrase.

"If two people engage in sexual relations solely for pleasure, than pleasure and gratification is the purpose of their act."

I don't deny that.

"It if a person eats to comfort themselves (think comfort food), than comfort, and not nourishment, is the purpose of that act."

Absolutely. But there still is a purpose outside of them (like I hopefully clarified I believe above) that the act still accomplishes. Like I said to Jess, as long as the person eating the comfort food doesn't vomit it up (on purpose) or take some other harmful precaution to thwart the nature of eating, I have no problem with that.

And when people have sex "just for fun," I have no problem with that as well as long as they don't take means to thwart its nature.

"Less than youd think. In my experience, Ive found that a general grasp of the basic concepts and the philosophical way of thinking is more important than any actual familiarity with the arguments themselves. Knowledge of those arguments is beneficial, however."

True. Even developing and understanding their language, though, is helpful, I think.

"Have fun with the baby."

I always do, my friend. Till then...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 15, 2008 3:28 PM


Patricia, that's not the worst rabbit story I've heard. My friend was rabbit sitting and she had these big fluffy slippers. She let the rabbit out to run around her room while she went to the bathroom. She came back and found all this sticky stuff on her slipper, the bunny had mated with it!

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 3:30 PM


Bethany, I don't eat meat and I'm perfectly healthy. And recently when I went to give blood they said my iron levels were fine.

You said that previously you had had anemia, which is very common with vegetarians, and especially vegans. I'm glad to hear that you're getting better and taking are of yourself though. If you want to remain a vegetarian, I think that is terrific. However, I don't think that I should have to be a vegetarian if I like to eat meat and enjoy it's obvious benefits. Like the article said, it is possible, but is very difficult to get the nutrients from only vegetables. I'd rather get it from meat, since it also helps your body to absorb the nutrients better, not to mention it tastes good.

Posted by: Bethany at July 15, 2008 3:30 PM


I remember an advice a priest told us about relationships: "Love People, Use things...NOT the other way around"

Posted by: RSD at July 15, 2008 3:30 PM


Hal,

"Woa, what do you mean "permissible?""

I mean that everyone who has sex outside of marriage should have to go to jail.

Haha, just kidding. I just mean that it should not be something that we encourage or say is an OK thing to do. I'm not hinting at any kind of government punishment or enforcement or anything like that.

Kind of like adultery. We should say it is wrong, that people should not do it, that it is wrong to do etc. but I"m not sure how or if a government should enforce that. Probably not.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 15, 2008 3:32 PM


RSD, that's good advice!

Posted by: Bethany at July 15, 2008 3:32 PM


Because in the very act itself, the possibility of bringing a brand new life into existence exists, and hence implies a lifelong commitment.

That implies a lifelong commitment to having a child, not to having sex. The two are in no way the same. That said, there is no way to logically deny that having sex can indeed lead to having a child. For your statement above to be true, it would be necessary for sex to always (or at least a majority of the time) lead to the birth of a child. An act cannot beget a lifelong commitment if the chances of said act producing the element to which it is necessary for one to have a lifelong commitment to are infinitesimally small.

The fact is that without any impediments, sex does very often lead to children (despite what you claim). Within a year of unprotected sex, most couples will conceive. If they do not, they are considered to have fertility problems.Since children require parents, a mother and a father to best raise them, the male and female DO need to make a lifelong committment to one another in order for the child and subsequent children to survive and grow up healthy physically and emotionally.

The fact that people tend to be drawn closer to someone they engage in the act with.

Tend to be is not enough; a tendency in and of itself is insufficient evidence that a primary purpose exists.

In fact scientifically it can be proven that a woman and man are significantly bonded when having sexual intercourse. Their are components in both the man's semen and also in both of their saliva that biochemically help to physically bond them together. Even sweat has been shown to bond a couple together. This would suggest that nature (leaving God out of this for the time being) had designed us, and women in particular to be bonded to the person they have sexual intercourse with. This is why many women are emotionally damaged after having repeated sexual encounters with different partners. We are not men and our bodies are made to bond to another.

Posted by: Patricia at July 15, 2008 3:33 PM


+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Jasper's Quote of the Day:
I notice that the same old tired rhetoric about abortion allegedly being a so-called "wedge issue to divide voters" keeps coming up among Obama's Catholic supporters. Well, if your guy and his party didn't support killing the unborn, it wouldn't be an issue at all.

Slavery and it's progeny such as lynching and segregation were "divisive" as well. Does that mean we should have just ignored them in favor or "other important issues"?

Yeah, I bet you would like to "change the dialogue" on abortion. When it comes to non-negotiable issues like abortion and so-called "same-sex" marriage, all you got is changing the subject.

~ Jay Anderson, commenting on proecclesia-blogspot.com about this statement at the 10,000 Catholics for Obama website, started by Notre Dame alums:

We take the abortion issue very seriously but at the same time abortion has been used as a wedge issue to divide voters. We have seen some resistance in some circles but we want to express some facts about the senator's record on abortion and change the dialogue on this issue.
http://proecclesia.blogspot.com/2008/07/notre-dame-alums-behind-10000-catholics.html
+ + + + + + + + + + + +


HisMan 11:37: said: Regarding Jasper's quote of the day, my last son will never go to Notre Dame, a once respected Catholic institution dedicated to God's service.

However, let me suggest that abortion is more evidence of satan's plan for blasphemizing the world using abortion as the foundation.

Isn't ironic that Notre Dame means "Our Lady" referring to Mary, the Mother of God. Perhaps the alums should rename their alma mater to, "Persona non Grata Dame" or Unwelcome Mother of God.

And isn't it a hoot that alma mater means "nourishing mother"? Norte Dame Alums should should change that name to "Alma Mortem Obire".

It is obvious that the 10,000 alums that support Obama, missed the whole point of their college career. They didn't learn that it's a sin to rob God.

These highly educated idiots don't have a clue at how satan is playing them like a fiddle, sheep without a shepherd, being led to the slaughter.

As much as I hate Michigan, "Go Wolverines".

HisMan, excellent points! Many Catholics go to N.D. for the tradition and fun, or to meet a future mate. If they go to learn Catholic Theology, they aren't guaranteed to learn it correctly. That goes for many Catholic Universities today - some are much worse than others. There are a few well researched Catholic College guides available to high school students who want to find a REAL Catholic University. Parents and students beware!

Posted by: Janet at July 15, 2008 3:33 PM


I mean that everyone who has sex outside of marriage should have to go to jail.

Haha, just kidding.

LOL!

Posted by: Bethany at July 15, 2008 3:33 PM


Kind of like adultery. We should say it is wrong, that people should not do it, that it is wrong to do etc. but I"m not sure how or if a government should enforce that. Probably not.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 15, 2008 3:32 PM

I dunno Bobby - I kinda like the idea of a kick to the head for adulterers!! Or maybe a stone or two...(just kidding, sorta....)

Posted by: Patricia at July 15, 2008 3:35 PM


Bethany, it's better for me to be anemic then a cow to be dead.

Plus it's a good excuse to sleep during class.

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 3:39 PM


Hal said: "Woa, what do you mean "permissible?""

Bobby :3:32: Hal, I mean that everyone who has sex outside of marriage should have to go to jail.

Haha, just kidding.

Good one Bobby! :)

Posted by: Janet at July 15, 2008 3:40 PM


"This is why many women are emotionally damaged after having repeated sexual encounters with different partners. We are not men and our bodies are made to bond to another. "
--------------------------------------

Actually, I heard, on Relevant Radio, a guest was stating that recent studies/ research show that men are also experiencing emotional damage with "one-night stands"...

I guess men just don't feel comfortable discussing their emotions hence the assumption only women are affected by this.

Posted by: RSD at July 15, 2008 3:40 PM


Actually, I heard, on Relevant Radio, a guest was stating that recent studies/ research show that men are also experiencing emotional damage with "one-night stands"...

I guess men just don't feel comfortable discussing their emotions hence the assumption only women are affected by this.


Posted by: RSD at July 15, 2008 3:40 PM

RSD: I'd definitely buy that. After all, they undergo bonding as well, they may just not be as self-aware as women.

Posted by: Patricia at July 15, 2008 3:43 PM


Interesting RSD, I once heard when men and women break up men suffer more because people will expect the woman to be sad and try to comfort her, but with the guy they'll just say, "Oh go out and have a one night stand" or whatever guys do with each other.

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 3:43 PM


Bethany:3:33: Oh, you beat me to it! I wonder if Hal is off the floor yet.

Hal, Are you OK? (Just kidding with you.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Jess: 3:39: "Bethany, it's better for me to be anemic then a cow to be dead."

That would be a good title for your autobiography some day, Jess. :)


Posted by: Janet at July 15, 2008 3:45 PM


What a tragic, tragic life this woman has lived.

I think she'll have a lot to answer for when she dies, but I think the people who saw her drowning and did NOTHING to help her or even look at her are the ones who will have MORE to answer for. Seriously, she went to the SAME place to get all these abortions, and not ONE person said to her, "What are you doing with your life?"

What a shame.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 15, 2008 3:46 PM


True, Patricia...what basically results after that is frustration/ anger of the betrayal leading to aggression...hence, as Jess says "go have a one night stand" to get IT out of your system....and the deadly cycle begins again...

Hey...I'm agreeing with what Jess said...hmmm..strange feeling...

Posted by: RSD at July 15, 2008 3:50 PM


RSD, let's go for two! I think being nice to people is good, it's good to be nice. Do you agree?

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 3:53 PM


If there is one redeeming thing about Norte Dame, it's Alvin Plantinga. What an amazing, amazing human being! He has come up with some of the most amazing stuff.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 15, 2008 3:54 PM


I agree....hmmm..twice in 1 day..must be a record there...

Posted by: RSD at July 15, 2008 3:55 PM


Hey I'm not this evil little person who hates the word. I think we all have a lot in common. We all obviously care about our world, we're all here talking and discussing, listening and learning (hopefully).

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 3:58 PM


Bobby: Alvin Plantinga? I googled him... is he a buddy of yours?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jess: Hey I'm not this evil little person who hates the word.

Jess, I hope you aren't talking to me. I was joking about your comment about anemia and cows. No one thinks you are evil, I certainly don't!!

Posted by: Janet at July 15, 2008 4:08 PM


Oh I WISH, Janet. He's a reformed Christian philosopher, and WORLD renowned for his work in epistemology. Specifically, he has developed this amazing theory called "reformed epistemology" which he spells out in three books all which have the title "Warrant." (they all different subtitles) I haven't read them yet because I don't have the basics down yet, but I can't wait. He also has all these amazing arguments for God's existence, the evolutionary argument against naturalism. A book I'm reading "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian World view" goes through these arguments, which is how I know a little bit about them.

But yeah, from what I can tell, he is just simply amazing.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 15, 2008 4:16 PM


Bethany, it's better for me to be anemic then a cow to be dead.

If you only had that some type of passion for unborn humans ...what a difference you could make, Jess!


Posted by: Bethany at July 15, 2008 4:17 PM


All of you need to read the Guttmacher contraceptives failure rate page.

Oral contraceptives fail 9% the first year of use and when continued for two years it goes up to 14%.

Condoms; 25% first year, continued for two years, 50% of the women were pregnant.

The FDA has clearly stated that new low dose OC's are less effective and with perfect use the theorhetical failure rate could not be less than 2-3%.

Without using contraceptives, the pregnancy rate is 89%.

Using OC's 14% over two years. That is no where near certain protection.

Some say adding a condom would improve efficacy but that would imply that these guys actually care about these women and it can't be established whether they do or not.

I think it was here that someone said his wife had two abortions while they were married or anyway together. Now according to Guttmacher contraceptives are more effective when used by older married people. Assuming these are reasonably competent, intelligent people, yet they couldn't or wouldn't but anyhow didn't manage to evade two undesired pregnancies, then why do we rush to blame women for being stupid when the very pro abortion and pro contraception Guttmacher Ins. clearly states that contraceptives consistently and predictably fail at documented rates?

Posted by: hippie at July 15, 2008 4:20 PM


Sorry, that should read "Christian reformed" not reformed Christian.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 15, 2008 4:21 PM


Bobby,

"I think based on what you wrote that you believe that my contention is that "If you have sex, then you will have a baby. Hence, the nature of sex is procreative." I actually look at the converse of the statement and say that "If you have a baby, then the baby was a result of sex. Hence it is a NECESSARY condition (not a sufficient condition) that you engage in the sexual act in order to have a baby, whence the necessity of sex in order for a baby implies that sex is FUNDAMENTAL for having a baby, so it is the nature of sex." (BTW, capps are for emphasis; I'm not shouting at you) So that is a much more precise statement of why I claim that the nature of sex is procreative.

Actually, that isnt what I took you to mean at all. You said, [b]ecause in the very act itself, the possibility of bringing a brand new life into existence exists, and hence implies a lifelong commitment. I took this to mean that the lifelong commitment was to the child, but that since sex can lead to the creation of a child, that one has the same sort of lifelong commitment towards ones sexual partner as one has to any future offspring. My point was that this contention simply isnt true: different acts beget different forms of obligation and/or commitment, if they can even be said to engender either obligation or commitment at all.

"We see this a lot. Think about the primary purpose of medical research. The purpose is to develop cures. Yet this fails quite often.

Point taken. You have yet to convince me that procreation is a primary purpose of sex or that an initial primary purpose (if procreation is indeed one) should supersede all others.

I think so. The reason being is that human beings are so fundamental to existence as we know it. It seems to defy common sense to say that there isn't one particular "thing" that is around solely to continue the species; that it's something that is an accidental result of something else's primary purpose.

I do not deny either that one component of sex is procreative or that the initial reason for the existence of sex in the first place is procreative as well. However, elements evolve and change over timeprimary purposes one day may be regulated to being secondary the next. I would actually argue that this line of reasoning is somewhat superfluous anyway; I see absolutely no reason that primary purposes should be given precedence over equally, equally valid reasons. Simply because A evolved in one way, for purpose B does not mean that all those who utilize A should be forced to embrace purpose B when they utilized A for purpose X, a purpose whichdepending on the personmay or may not be harmed by the realization of purpose B.

Sure, I have no problem with that, but just a drive in-and-of-itself will not beget children. If I wasn't married, (even before I was married) I had a strong drive to reproduce. But that alone doesn't reproduce. There has to be some action.

True.

That's a good point. I would argue that it is more than just a tenancy, but I don't think I can exhibit any evidence without referring to an outside source (like a study) and I don't believe in those.

Why dont you believe in studies? I admit, you can use statistics to say absolutely anything that you want and the argument, well, Im a doctor/scientist/lawyer/ect. and what I say is right serves no purpose other than to shut down the discussion, but studies and outside research can still have some value.

But don't you think that sex brings out this emotion?

Not the kind that Im talking about. Sex also doesnt need to bring out any kind of emotional response at all.

I agree. But even given this, I think there are chemical "things" that happen in the brain during sex which have a certain impact, but again, I really can't argue along these lines because I don't do the whole "look at this journal article" thing.

Correct. There is a certain hormonethe same one which relates to a mothers feelings for her childwhich is released in the brain and facilitates a certain feeling of togetherness or bonding. People respond differently to hormonesthere is no guarantee that their responses will be uniform or that the hormone will even be released (if I recall correctly, its released upon orgasmno orgasm, no hormone).

I would say the law of non-contradiction. I don't know if you mean there are many theories of truth, but I really believe that this is a hijacking of the word "truth."

Youre going off the assumption that there is only one objective truth. Im going off of the assumption that truth can be self-created. If truth can be created in this manner, it is not at all contradictory to believe that multiple, often contradictory, statements can be true at the exact same time. They are simply not universal.

"Shoot, no not at all. I must really be writing nonsense. So I say that the natural state of sex is external. That the nature of sex is something that is outside of ourselves.

If it is outside of ourselves, where does it come from? How can we know it? And if we think we know it, how do we know that that is guaranteed to be true?

Sure, they're based on our perceptions, but it does not follow that they are not objective and can not stand alone. In fact, your statement "they [perceptions] are not objective and cannot stand alone" is self-refuting since this statement is just your perception, which by your own criteria is not objective and can not stand alone.

Well done (on catching the internal contradiction).

I would argue that we can never know objective truth because we are too caught up in our subjective interpretations of it.

The point is that even though we come to the table with different backgrounds, that does not mean that we can not know truth. There is no reason to believe that just because we have different perceptions, all of our perceptions are false.

Why (to the first statement)? I never said that all our perceptions were falseI only said that such perceptions cannot create objective truth.

Yes, this gives us guidance as to how to go about it, but it does not follow that every individual case should be determined by solely the parties involved. From certain evidences, there can be a general principle that applies to any and all cases. For a stupid example, it doesn't matter how much I want to have sex with a certain girl, I can't rape her. The act of rape in-and-of-itself is of an "evil" nature, for lack of a better phrase.

Youve lost me: I dont see how your example relates to the argument that you are trying to make. If youre getting at what I think youre getting at, your example is not an appropriate rejoinder to my argument in any casein my example, both parties consented and agreed upon the purpose.

Absolutely. But there still is a purpose outside of them (like I hopefully clarified I believe above) that the act still accomplishes.
But what if my comfort food is something with no nutritional value whatsoeverwhat if it actually harms me? Is it still achieving your primary purpose of nourishment and consumption?

And when people have sex "just for fun," I have no problem with that as well as long as they don't take means to thwart its nature.

Why does it bother you even if other people thwart what you feel the primary purpose of sex is? Im not nave enough to argue that no one is affected by what others do, but still, isnt a certain amount of individual autonomy allowed?

Have a good night

Posted by: A. at July 15, 2008 4:28 PM


Hippie, ironically the only person here who called her stupid was an ardent pro lifer.

Posted by: Amanda at July 15, 2008 4:29 PM


Jess,

FYI vegans are LESS likely to be anemic than meat eaters.

I give blood all the time. The blood bank people always say how good my iron, cholesterol etc. I tell them point blank that I don't eat meat or dairy so that's probably why.

If you eat as nature intended, you will be healthier.

As for my female meat eating relatives; can't donate blood 'cause they are always anemic.

And yep, they call me before surgery to get directed donations.

Posted by: hippie at July 15, 2008 4:32 PM


Jess, it's not you as a person that I have a problem with...I feel it's your priorities and your morals that IMO are a little skewed due to your (mis)understanding of the CCC.

Posted by: RSD at July 15, 2008 4:43 PM



Certainly nobody would guess that the 39-year-old former estate agent is one of around 50 women each year in the UK to have notched up her seventh abortion....

Government statistics released this week show that record numbers of women are having two or more abortions - and those who do so are not, as might be expected, young teenagers who don't know any better.

..........

I think this makes the point that of all abortions anually, about half are repeat customers. That means that a few women have many while the overwhelming majority have none.

If there have been 50 million abortions and each year half are to repeat customers. That means that about no more that 25 million women have had abortions, since you can have only one first time. Anyway there are 300 million Americans therefore 150 million women. So that is in the neighborhod of 15%.

With contraception so available, you have to acknowledge that contraceptive failure is a big player. Some pro abortion folks say half or more of women choosing abortion were using contraception.

Posted by: hippie at July 15, 2008 4:43 PM


What is CCC?

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 5:07 PM


Catechism of the Catholic Church...you know, the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Posted by: RSD at July 15, 2008 5:14 PM


I would say my biggest priority is taking care of myself, making sure I'm the best person I can be. I think only then can we really help others. My next priority? My family and friends, making sure I'm being the best friend, daughter, sister, ect, I can be for them. That's about it. My priorities are myself and the people in my life, the people in my world. And the animals in my life, obiv.

Did you know there are some prisons where they give the prisoners animals to take care of? It helps both the animals and the prisoners. Most of the prisoners don't know what it's like to have something love you so, so much unconditionally. And to care for that animal. To take care of it. It's a great program.

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 5:16 PM


Thanks for the reply, A. I think I'm going to let you get the last word in because we're already discussing 1000 different topics, and the posts are getting longer and longer. Plus we could go on forever like this.

You're very well spoken, A. You write in an articulate manner, and express your ideas well.

You're quite the enigma! :)

Nice to have you on the blog. I think you'll add a lot.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 15, 2008 5:25 PM


Unborn babies are part of the people in this world....THEY have a higher priority over animals, Jess.

That's why we stand for them more than the animals. I would love to protect the baby seals but I have limited resources...People first.

Posted by: RSD at July 15, 2008 5:32 PM


I would say my biggest priority is taking care of myself, making sure I'm the best person I can be. I think only then can we really help others. My next priority? My family and friends, making sure I'm being the best friend, daughter, sister, ect, I can be for them. That's about it. My priorities are myself and the people in my life, the people in my world. And the animals in my life, obiv.

Jess, my point was, why can't you love them both? Why can't you voice your opinion that babies should be protected, just as you voice your opinion that cows should be protected? With people like Hippie, I can understand the anti- animal killing position, because she also voices her opinion to save defenseless human beings. At least her position is consistent- she doesn't like any creature to suffer or die at the hands of others.

But when you think it's okay for a human being to be tortured and killed, but then say it's not okay for a pig or a cow...I just have to wonder... It really makes me sad to think that you care more about a pig than a human baby. If you saw a pig about to be slaughtered, and a baby about to be stabbed, would you try to save the pig first?

Posted by: Bethany at July 15, 2008 6:54 PM


The ease with which such women are undergoing repeat abortions has led campaigners to argue that terminations are being approved all too readily - given for social reasons rather than because a pregnancy might pose a significant risk to a mother's health or well-being.
Like this is rocket science? Who do they think they are kidding. Everyone knows that women get abortions easier than getting bunions on their feet removed.
'It was a total shock and when I told Tom, he said he didn't want to know,' she recalls.
The typical ambivalent narcissistic man he didnt want to know what? that he was a father?
'If David had turned round and said "Look, I want us to marry and there will be no other women", I might have had the baby, but instead he simply turned round and offered to pay for a termination and even drive me to a clinic.'
So much for choice eh? Once again a cad who expected sex, got it, a dumb woman who gave it, and the abortion was HIS choice.

'Our relationship was very new. I felt we barely knew one another and really couldn't contemplate having a child.'
This is just one reason why sex is best saved for marriage.
'We weren't married and I do feel children should be born within marriage,' she says, clinging to her 'perfect' vision of family life.
Interesting. Sex isnt for marriage but babies are. This is what happens when we separated children from sex. Since she wasnt married she felt she should still have sex but she couldnt have a baby. Apparently Patrick felt the same since he never offered to marry her either.

I agree with earlier posters: this woman has some really serious problems. The interesting thing is that no one in the medical system tracks these women and says after abortion number 2 Whats going on here?
Maybe thats because its a womans right?


Posted by: Patricia at July 15, 2008 7:56 PM


Hal,

Bobby, I understand that this is your view. But you must understand there is no "objective truth" to what you say, just your very valid opinion. Others have different views, equally valid

Let's look at the two views tho Hal.

If you live the way Bobby suggest we are meant to live, the way nature "made" us, the way it works when all things are equal...

We have marriages that last, kids with both parents, no STDS, no adultery, no abortions, no unwanted pregnancy..

When we do it your way, we have woman on birth control that then fails so they have to abort, we have divorce, we have adultery, we have STDs, we have teens having babies...

From a purely practical, not spiritual standpoint, Bobbys' philosophy wins hands down.

The only thing gained by doing it your way is that every time you itch, you get to scratch.

Posted by: mk at July 15, 2008 8:02 PM


FOR DOUG

http://www.yourdevelopingbaby.com/sampleChapters/7.htm

Posted by: mk at July 15, 2008 8:34 PM


mk: Oh my Gosh!!!!!!! I'm speechless!

Posted by: Janet at July 15, 2008 9:01 PM


MK,
Oh, sweet babies!!! I love it!! Thanks. :)

Posted by: Carla at July 15, 2008 9:03 PM


Mike: Obviously, she can't swim...yet she continued to jump into the pool...the deep end, no less. And, repeatedly.

She talks out of both sides of her mouth. First she says she wasn't phased by the 7 abortions, then she says she regretted them, but she continued to get pregnant and have more abortions.

Mike, rather than argue, I'd say that we do occasionaly see such things, including people who have many kids, 5 kids, 7 kids, etc. Sometimes, the situation is a "disaster" in almost everybody's opinion, but you know what - a free society is gonna have that, once in a while.

Posted by: Doug at July 15, 2008 9:19 PM


http://www.yourdevelopingbaby.com/sampleChapters/7.htm

MK, the physical reality of the unborn in this argument is really not much at issue between you and me.

Posted by: Doug at July 15, 2008 9:24 PM


mk, sorry I checked on your link but I saw the nine week old and it is the cutest thing! I just want to hold it! But it probably wouldn't work, I don't think it has skin yet : /

I know this is going to sound pretty stupid but I'm looking at these pictures and I'm thinking, why can't these babies survive outside the womb? I know they're underdeveloped but most mammals are similarly underdeveloped at birth. But I'm no doctor.

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 9:32 PM


Bethany, I would go to whoever needed me most. If it was a choice I would probably choose the baby. If the baby is in its mothers stomach, then there's nothing I can do.

Listen, I don't want anyone being mean about this so I haven't mentioned it before and I hope if I mention it now no one will be a jerk. My sister has a heart condition, a problem with the valves. She can't be under too much strain, strain that comes with childbirth. Her doctor told her she should have children as soon as possible, if she wants them, while her body is young and has a better chance of dealing with the strain. If something went wrong and it was her or the baby, I hope she would choose her life. I love her, she's my other half. I really don't care if the baby gets aborted I would want my sister to live.

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 9:40 PM


As I said before, many women regret their abortions, but none regret their children.

You would think after her 4th or 5th, the abortion mill would've conseled her a bit.

Posted by: Jasper at July 15, 2008 9:43 PM


You're 20 years old and don't know why "these babies can't survive outside the womb" ?????
Did you never take biology in high school?

Posted by: Mike at July 15, 2008 9:49 PM


Mike no one probably thought a 6 month old could survive outside the womb 20 years ago. You're so quick to give up.

Jasper, many women regret having children. Most wouldn't say it though. Why? Well what would your reaction be if a woman told you she regretted having children?

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 9:54 PM


Jess, If I remember correctly, didn't you tell us that you have an aunt who had trouble in childbirth? It must be very unsettling for you since your sister could have similar problems. If she ever becomes pregnant, please let us know and we will pray for them both!!

Posted by: Janet at July 15, 2008 9:55 PM


Jess, I should have also said, I'm so sorry to hear that.

Posted by: Janet at July 15, 2008 9:57 PM


http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn11222

They didn't think this baby would live but it did!

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 9:58 PM


Mike: 9:49:You're 20 years old and don't know why "these babies can't survive outside the womb" ?????
Did you never take biology in high school?

Relax. It's just an honest question.


Posted by: Janet at July 15, 2008 10:00 PM


Yes Janet, one of my aunts had a horrible thyroid problem. My Mom said (this happened about 10 years before I was born) it looked like her eyes were going to pop out of her head and her heart was about to give out. All my aunts and my Mom have thyroid problems, and some of my female cousins. One of my cousins told me another aunt gave birth to a dead baby in a toilet. It's really upsetting.

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 10:06 PM


"Jasper, many women regret having children."

really? what gives this imression?

Posted by: Jasper at July 15, 2008 10:17 PM


"If it was a choice I would probably choose the baby. If the baby is in its mothers stomach, then there's nothing I can do. "
---------------------------

Your heart "sounds" like it's in the right place..but your head? Um, that's another thing...

Posted by: RSD at July 15, 2008 10:21 PM


http://happilychildfree.com/ann.htm

There you go sir.

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 10:21 PM


RSD, what could I do if a woman was set on having an abortion? Put her in a strait jacket and lock her in a closet?

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 10:23 PM


No Jess, I mean people who have Chidren, do you know any who regret them?

I know many who regret their abortion, do you personally know any who regret their children? (I realize they might not tell you)

Posted by: Jasper at July 15, 2008 10:27 PM


Yes. One of my classmates mothers told her she regretted having her, among other things.

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 10:32 PM


I'm going to bed. Early night tonight so I can get up early to beat the heat (not literally no one should beat anything).

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2008 10:38 PM


Listen, I don't want anyone being mean about this so I haven't mentioned it before and I hope if I mention it now no one will be a jerk. My sister has a heart condition, a problem with the valves. She can't be under too much strain, strain that comes with childbirth. Her doctor told her she should have children as soon as possible, if she wants them, while her body is young and has a better chance of dealing with the strain. If something went wrong and it was her or the baby, I hope she would choose her life. I love her, she's my other half. I really don't care if the baby gets aborted I would want my sister to live.

I'm very sorry to hear that about your sister, Jess!

In the case of a mother's life, doctors have always been able to do whatever is necessary to save the mother. (Also, if the mother dies, the baby would naturally die as well- making 2 deaths, not just one, and we don't want either one to die).

If the mother is at risk of death, the doctors can do whatever is necessary to preserve her health, and if the child dies as a result of life saving measures, that would be looked at as a regrettable outcome, and not the intended result. This was the case before Roe, and if abortion was made illegal again, your sister would have just as much of a right to have whatever necessary measures taken to preserve her life.

When I was talking about abortion before, I was not referring to women whose lives are in jeopardy, I was referring to the majority of women who abort for reasons of convenience.

Do you really not feel any sadness over the fact that a baby's life can be snuffed out, tortured and killed, just so that a woman can have sex as she pleases, without responsibility? That is what the majority of abortions are performed for. Is convenience really more than life? You said that you would rather be anemic than to hurt a cow. Wouldn't you rather have someone go through a pregnancy, than to kill a baby?

I think you really are a lot more pro-life than you think, Jess. Please give it some thought.

Posted by: Bethany at July 15, 2008 11:25 PM


Hal:

God is righteous and I follow Him. If He's wrong then I'm wrong, if He's right I'm right.

Go Buckeyes.

Posted by: HisMan at July 16, 2008 1:01 AM


Jess, we counsel, we pray...but we do NOT support the killing of the unborn. It is always a wrong CHOICE...always.

Posted by: RSD at July 16, 2008 6:50 AM


Doug,

MK, the physical reality of the unborn in this argument is really not much at issue between you and me.

No, but sentience, pain and whether or not the unborn should be given personhood status, all are.


Jess,

They have skin at 9 weeks. They even have fingerprints...actually by week ten, it has everything it's ever going to have. From that point on it's just growing.

Posted by: mk at July 16, 2008 6:54 AM


Bethany --

You said that you would rather be anemic than to hurt a cow. Wouldn't you rather have someone go through a pregnancy, than to kill a baby?

I'm not Jess, but I think the main distinction between these two phrases is that Jess will take upon herself anemia rather than kill a cow -- she never said, to my knowledge, that she would rather everyone in the world be anemic than kill a cow. Also just because a person thinks something is the right thing to do does not mean that person thinks there should be no legal option BUT to do the right thing. So even if Jess would prefer that everyone were anemic, that doesn't mean she necessarily supports the criminalization of eating meat.

Posted by: Alexandra at July 16, 2008 7:25 AM


I know many who regret their abortion, do you personally know any who regret their children? (I realize they might not tell you)

Jasper, it's a touchy subject and I don't think anyone really talks about it. But when I was in a public speaking class in college, we had to do an informational presentation -- we could pick any topic, the point was to become comfortable with that type of public speaking. One woman did her presentation on abortion and said that the reason she was pro-choice was that she had gotten pregnant in high school, and had been resolutely pro-life at the time. She said that she now considered her pro-life beliefs naive and ignorant because only by going through pregnancy, childbirth, and young motherhood was she able to understand what she was talking about. She also said that while she loves her daughter very much, she wants other young women to know that they have options for a reason, and that taking advantage of the right to terminate a pregnancy is not necessarily something they should refuse to consider.

Posted by: Alexandra at July 16, 2008 7:36 AM


Jasper, it's a touchy subject and I don't think anyone really talks about it. But when I was in a public speaking class in college, we had to do an informational presentation -- we could pick any topic, the point was to become comfortable with that type of public speaking. One woman did her presentation on abortion and said that the reason she was pro-choice was that she had gotten pregnant in high school, and had been resolutely pro-life at the time. She said that she now considered her pro-life beliefs naive and ignorant because only by going through pregnancy, childbirth, and young motherhood was she able to understand what she was talking about. She also said that while she loves her daughter very much, she wants other young women to know that they have options for a reason, and that taking advantage of the right to terminate a pregnancy is not necessarily something they should refuse to consider.

I sincerely hope that her poor daughter never has to hear that speech, or know of her mother's selfish feelings.

Posted by: Bethany at July 16, 2008 7:43 AM


I'm not Jess, but I think the main distinction between these two phrases is that Jess will take upon herself anemia rather than kill a cow -- she never said, to my knowledge, that she would rather everyone in the world be anemic than kill a cow. Also just because a person thinks something is the right thing to do does not mean that person thinks there should be no legal option BUT to do the right thing. So even if Jess would prefer that everyone were anemic, that doesn't mean she necessarily supports the criminalization of eating meat.

Point taken, Alexandra. :)

Posted by: Bethany at July 16, 2008 7:43 AM


Just to clarify, my point to Jess wasn't so much about her stance on the legality of abortion or killing animals, but her willingness to openly speak out against killing animals, but non-willingness to openly speak out about killing babies.

Posted by: Bethany at July 16, 2008 9:05 AM


Saying that people should not use contraceptives because they sometimes don't work is like saying you shouldn't use seatbelts and airbags because they sometimes don't work. They still prevent many, many unwanted pregnancies.
Just telling women not to have sex is totally unrealistic. Women, and men can't always control their urges, and people have always been sexually irresponsible.
Yes, it would be a good idea if more people would use self control, and it would avoid a lot of trouble, but this just doesn't happen all the time.
And it's totally unrealistic to hope that mankind will ever become totally vegetarian. What would we do with all those uneaten animals anyway ? None of us would be here if our ancestors had not eaten meat. The human race would have gone extinct. That's why the people at PETA are such jerks. They don't even want people to keep animals as pets ! If all pet animals were set free, all of them would die.

Posted by: robert berger at July 16, 2008 9:23 AM


"She also said that while she loves her daughter very much, she wants other young women to know that they have options for a reason, and that taking advantage of the right to terminate a pregnancy is not necessarily something they should refuse to consider."

Brutal, absolutly brutal.

Posted by: Jasper at July 16, 2008 10:31 AM


Uhhgg... Robert, I hate to be mean... but you are the pro choice version of Yllas. Your posts always leave me blinking in disbelief that you could actually be serious.

Posted by: Amanda at July 16, 2008 10:43 AM


"Women, and men can't always control their urges, and people have always been sexually irresponsible."
----------------------------------------

Ummm...I guess that would be true if you're a liberal...but don't include people who have the rational to think and don't allow their "urges" to make decisions for them.

Posted by: RSD at July 16, 2008 11:01 AM


@ 7:36AM, Alexandra relayed in a personal recollection:

She also said that while she loves her daughter very much, she wants other young women to know that they have options for a reason, and that taking advantage of the right to terminate a pregnancy is not necessarily something they should refuse to consider.

Therefore, electively killing your child is a moral good.

Am I wrong about this conclusion Alexandra?
I cannot see any other reason why you would post it.

So my question is this - her daughter has only changed location, and has moved from a gestational age period to another developmental age period. Can she legally kill her daughter now?

If not, then why not, considering she holds position that one should have a right to kill her own child as a moral good?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 16, 2008 11:04 AM


I cannot see any other reason why you would post it.

I posted about it because jasper asked if any of us had ever known a woman to regret having a child. I did not offer my opinion on it.

If she decides at this point that she does not want her daughter, she is free to put her in foster care or give her up for adoption.

Posted by: Alexandra at July 16, 2008 11:27 AM


MK: "When we do it your way, we have woman on birth control that then fails so they have to abort, we have divorce, we have adultery, we have STDs, we have teens having babies..."

We don't have adultery or teens having babies under "my" morality. Maybe others, but not mine.


Posted by: Hal at July 16, 2008 11:55 AM


Your wishy-washy morality Hal?

Adultery is still adultery, premarital sex is still premarital sex...no matter how society changes its views on the subject.

Unfortunately, moral relativism seems to be the norm nowadays....but that still does not change things.

Posted by: RSD at July 16, 2008 12:19 PM


Alexandra @ 11:27 AM

I understood you were responding to jasper. I'm asking for your reasoning on whether she can kill her daughter or not, and what those differences are between now and when her daughter was in-utero.

To be perfectly clear - I was referring to her conclusion, the woman who gave the presentation, but my questions were directed at you, seeing you chose to share that story.

Do you agree with the conclusion that I drew that she believes "terminating a pregnancy" (abortion) is a moral good?

If that's so, then why isn't legislation being passed so parents can kill their children at other locations and at other developmental ages without legal repercussions?

Why do people not want to discuss aborting their children in front of their children, if they suggest that such a thing is perfectly fine to do?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 16, 2008 1:16 PM


Uhhgg... Robert, I hate to be mean... but you are the pro choice version of Yllas. Your posts always leave me blinking in disbelief that you could actually be serious.

Posted by: Amanda at July 16, 2008 10:43 AM

With all due respect, Amanda, I'm confused. Are you upset about his take on sex or Peta? You are both pro-choice, right?

Posted by: Janet at July 16, 2008 1:16 PM


Why do people not want to discuss aborting their children in front of their children, if they suggest that such a thing is perfectly fine to do?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 16, 2008 1:16 PM

Because their kids might disagree with them?


Posted by: Janet at July 16, 2008 1:21 PM


Janet @ 1:21 PM

The line of thinking was that this is an upsetting topic and that a lot of people don't really discuss it. From my experiences very few women will come forward and say that at one time they considered aborting their particular child. Having such a discussion calls for a maturity and a huge love, and from those who shared with me, a renewed life in Christ was needed to even admit that kind of thinking.


Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 16, 2008 1:33 PM


Chris, I was being factetious, referring to a more general talk about abortion, not a specific one. I see where you are coming from.

Posted by: Janet at July 16, 2008 2:00 PM


Really Hal?

I thought you said sex outside of marriage was fine. That's how you get pregnant you know. And you're all for birth control right? Well, if you're having sex outside of marriage and using birth control and it fails, whose morality were those people following.

Whether the birth control works or not is not a moral issue. Sometimes it just doesn't. So if you are for birth control, and for pre marital sex, then your moral code most certainly does result in unwanted pregnancy's.

Do you believe in the right for people to divorce?
Do you believe that it is okay for people to have abortions?

I'm sorry, I must be missing something. Perhaps you'd like to share your moral code with me. It might clear some things up.

Posted by: mk at July 16, 2008 2:37 PM


Janet - I had an inkling you meant that, but now a days it has gotten to the point where anything is possible.

I just had my mind blown on another blog - I had no idea that Planned Parenthood in 1966 gave a "Margaret Sanger Award" to Martin Luther King, Jr. and it was accepted!

I highly respected him, so I'm at a loss as to why he wasn't aware of the tragedy of abortion and Margaret Sanger's past eugenic remarks, particularly against African-Americans.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 16, 2008 2:45 PM


Chris,

You don't have to go to Martin Luther King for that mind-blowing info...

Obama (supposedly fighting for the African-American/ Negros) is endorsed by PP and he ALSO accepted their endorsement.

If he becomes prez..he will definitely win a Sanger award.

Posted by: RSD at July 16, 2008 3:08 PM


Did you just honestly say "Negros"??

Sorry, did I step in to the wrong decade by accident?

Posted by: Amanda at July 16, 2008 3:32 PM


Watch out RSD, the race police are here.

Posted by: Jasper at July 16, 2008 3:38 PM


Oh hi Jasper! What's working in the race police like?

Posted by: Jess at July 16, 2008 4:22 PM


Amanda, Robert is 25x's nicer then yllas, at least.

I don't get you Amanda. I don't get your stance on abortion. You looked up to PP and even wanted to intern for them for so long, and now you're saying you're mostly pro-life? Do you think some babies deserve a chance to live because they are wanted or not? So a baby can be killed solely because of its conception (rape)?

Posted by: Jess at July 16, 2008 4:26 PM


Do you agree with the conclusion that I drew that she believes "terminating a pregnancy" (abortion) is a moral good?

Not really. I wouldn't call filing for bankruptcy a "moral good," but I think that it's better to allow people to file for bankruptcy than not. I think that's the place she was coming from re: abortion.

If that's so, then why isn't legislation being passed so parents can kill their children at other locations and at other developmental ages without legal repercussions?

I'm sure you have heard this reasoning before, but after a child is born a parent can terminate their legal rights as parents and give it up for adoption.

Posted by: Alexandra at July 16, 2008 4:30 PM


And Robert, where does PETA say we can't have inter-specie families? Of course meat in necessary in some diets. There are actually a lot of cultures even time periods where meat was so scarce they were basically vegan. Look at the cuisine of most southern cultures, like southeast Asia, China, a lot of those places you won't find a lot of meat in their diets. You can check out fatfreevegan.com for some creative recipes if you're bored and have some spare time. You don't have to follow the recipes exactly, you can use regular milk or cheese instead of soy, if you don't do soy.

Maybe you should check out the ASPCA. It might be more your thing. Good luck!

Posted by: Jess at July 16, 2008 4:36 PM


"You looked up to PP and even wanted to intern for them for so long"

Yep - and then I actually did it, and found out a lot of the upper level administration are sleazy and living like celebrities on the upper east side of Manhattan while they pay CRAP wages to the people working their butts off to actually help people.

" now you're saying you're mostly pro-life?"

I don't think I've said that. I've said I do not support PP, and I've said I'm on the fence.


"Do you think some babies deserve a chance to live because they are wanted or not? So a baby can be killed solely because of its conception (rape)?"

In the case of rape, a woman has not consented to her pregnancy. You shouldn't be FORCED to live with something you had no control over. By forcing sperm in to an unwilling woman's uterus, you are violating her, her body, and her right to decide whether or not to take part in any activity that could lead to pregnancy. My conflict is about whether or not I think consensual sex is or is not consent to pregnancy.

But in cases where a couple simply didn't feel like using birth control, or in cases where the mother changes her mind once the fetus is viable, there's absolutely no good reason I can think of not to carry to term or induce labor and put the baby up for adoption - of course with the exception of medical issues. But I've yet to read about a medical problem late in pregnancy that would be solved only by aborting, rather than induction or C section.

Posted by: Amanda at July 16, 2008 4:41 PM


What if a couple wants to have a baby one day but they can't afford it now, are in school whatever, use birth control, it fails and they get pregnant, do you think it's right for them to abort?

Posted by: Jess at July 16, 2008 4:50 PM


"MK, the physical reality of the unborn in this argument is really not much at issue between you and me."

No, but sentience, pain and whether or not the unborn should be given personhood status, all are.

Okay, so if we address those in the future, then great.

Posted by: Doug at July 16, 2008 4:54 PM


Using birth control is the crux of my inner conflict - so that's the thing I really just don't know about... sorry thats a crappy answer, but I'm really just not sure. Part of me says the fact that they used birth control means they didn't consent - the other part of me says - they should have thought about that first. Then again, I come from a family that would have helped me out, no questions asked, and I know not everyone is so lucky. So yeah - thats the thing I'm stuck on.

Posted by: Amanda at July 16, 2008 5:56 PM


What if a couple wants to have a baby one day but they can't afford it now, are in school whatever, use birth control, it fails and they get pregnant, do you think it's right for them to abort?

Posted by: Jess at July 16, 2008 4:50 PM

I'm not sure who you are asking, but I will! No, it's not OK EVER.
You know God doesn't give us unlimited babies whenever we want them. If we don't want them when he's willing to give them, we may not have another chance in the future. It may not sound fair, but that's how it works. Why do you think so many women are having to undergo in vitro? 'Cause the babies aren't coming according to their schedule.

Posted by: Janet at July 16, 2008 6:00 PM


Well now, Doug, I thought that's what I was doing. You are the one that brought up whether or not it is a physical reality. I just posted some pictures.


Posted by: mk at July 16, 2008 6:02 PM


mk:6:02: Is that supposed to be you or Doug?

Posted by: Janet at July 16, 2008 10:54 PM


Alexandra at July 16, 2008 4:30 PM

I asked you:

I understood you were responding to jasper. I'm asking for your reasoning on whether she can kill her daughter or not, and what those differences are between now and when her daughter was in-utero.

To be perfectly clear - I was referring to her conclusion, the woman who gave the presentation, but my questions were directed at you, seeing you chose to share that story.

Do you agree with the conclusion that I drew that she believes "terminating a pregnancy" (abortion) is a moral good?

To which you replied:


Not really. I wouldn't call filing for bankruptcy a "moral good," but I think that it's better to allow people to file for bankruptcy than not. I think that's the place she was coming from re: abortion.

Apparently my two leading paragraphs were completely overlooked. Let me try again.

That woman framed it as a moral good - Life without a child is of greater value than life with a child. Abortion provides life without a child. Therefore abortion is of greater value than life with a child.

That means abortion is a moral good.

Bankruptcy won't do. Life is life, death is death. This is not shades of gray here.

I'm asking you - Alexandra: Do you believe that abortion is a moral good?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 17, 2008 6:59 AM


Apparently my two leading paragraphs were completely overlooked. Let me try again.

I'm sorry, I thought that you had clarified in your first two paragraphs, which I did not overlook at all, that you were asking my opinion on her conclusion. Which is what I gave.

That woman framed it as a moral good - Life without a child is of greater value than life with a child. Abortion provides life without a child. Therefore abortion is of greater value than life with a child.

NO, she did not say that. She said that if you're pro-life, make sure you're pro-life because it's what you actually believe and not just because of what people around you believe.

Bankruptcy won't do. Life is life, death is death. This is not shades of gray here.

It's not about shades of gray. It's about recognizing that something may not necessarily be a good thing but recognizing that denying the people that opportunity is even worse. So really that's exactly my view on abortion -- it's not a "good" thing but it's better to have it available than to not have it available.

No, I don't believe abortion is a moral good. I support lots of legal measures that I wouldn't say are moral goods. I don't think divorce is a moral good but I think it should be legal. I don't think alcohol is a moral good, but I sure am glad it's legal. As I said, I don't think bankruptcy is a moral good, but I would be horrified if someone were to somehow take away the option.

Posted by: Alexandra at July 17, 2008 6:10 PM


Alexandra @ 6:10 PM

My apologies - when I initially posed my question, it was poorly formed, which is why I tried to clarify it again.

NO, she did not say that. She said that if you're pro-life, make sure you're pro-life because it's what you actually believe and not just because of what people around you believe.

There are those who call themselves "pro-life" who aren't fully convinced of the humanity of the unborn, even though this woman had a child of her own, I don't think she ever fully resolved that understanding. And given your next statement - I don't think you have either:

It's not about shades of gray. It's about recognizing that something may not necessarily be a good thing but recognizing that denying the people that opportunity is even worse. So really that's exactly my view on abortion -- it's not a "good" thing but it's better to have it available than to not have it available.

So you believe abortion is a necessary moral evil - correct?

And you seriously believe it is a worse evil to not allow people to kill their own children?

I think the only way you can rationally make that statement is if you believe the unborn aren't fully human beings. SoMG is a rare pro-choicer who concedes the unborn are human beings, but they may be killed because of their location. (That's an argument made by Eileen McDonagh, David Boonin and Judith Jarvis Thompson - moral volunteerism). Do you hold that understanding?

You seem to studiously avoid discussing the down and dirty of what abortion actually is - why? If there's a reason why you wouldn't want to discuss it - send me an email at chris@jillstanek.com and just let me know one way or the other. Thanks.

One other thing you should know - I'm firm when it comes to these debates, but I also realize that there are many who are "pro-life/pro-choice with a heavy heart". Usually life experiences helped form that particular understanding. I'm not beyond compassion when discussing these issues in that light, particularly when someone is willing to be intellectually honest and open.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 17, 2008 8:26 PM


So you believe abortion is a necessary moral evil - correct?

Not really. I think it's something that is not the awesomest thing in the world, but whose existence is necessary.

And you seriously believe it is a worse evil to not allow people to kill their own children?

I think the only way you can rationally make that statement is if you believe the unborn aren't fully human beings. SoMG is a rare pro-choicer who concedes the unborn are human beings, but they may be killed because of their location.

It's not really their location, more the fact that they are using another person's body against that person's will, and that stopping them from using that person's body unfortunately results in their death. If there were a way to end a pregnancy without killing the unborn, then I would happily ban abortion.

You seem to studiously avoid discussing the down and dirty of what abortion actually is - why?

I don't, really. Abortion ends the life that is growing inside the mother's womb. Our point of disagreement is whether someone can refuse to share their body with another person at the expense of that person's life.

I'm not beyond compassion when discussing these issues in that light, particularly when someone is willing to be intellectually honest and open.

I can tell that about you, Chris. You have a good heart. :) I hope you don't think I'm intellectually dishonest.

Posted by: Alexandra at July 18, 2008 9:36 AM


Alexandra @ 9:36 AM

No - I don't think you're intentionally being intellectually dishonest - but we all have blind spots in the way we look at things - myself included.

The way you think about abortion seems to reflect TMB - Thompson, McDonagh, Boonin, which acknowledges the unborn are human, but points to dependency as being the critical issue.

On my own blog, I wrote a post called Lileigh's Location:
http://www.thrufire.org/2008/04/controlled-burn-bodily-rights-or.html

that takes a look at abortion from this dependency/bodily rights angle. Whether you find it convincing or not, I'd really appreciate your feedback on it, which you can do there.

FYI - I have two more parts to write - part 2 is drafted and the third, dependent upon the first two, is outlined.

It would be helpful if we moved this conversation there.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 18, 2008 10:13 AM


Well now, Doug, I thought that's what I was doing. You are the one that brought up whether or not it is a physical reality. I just posted some pictures.

MK, no, that's not what you were doing. You said "FOR DOUG" and then there was a link.

Posted by: Doug at July 18, 2008 2:52 PM


Janet: Is that supposed to be you or Doug?

Janet, it's MK - she missed her last appointment for a haircut, and now is feeling too hot.

Posted by: Doug at July 18, 2008 2:54 PM


Yes Doug,

I said FOR DOUG, and then there was link...TO PICTURES. No commentary...just pictures. You assumed I was using the pictures to show you that these fetuses were human, but by your own admission, we already agree on that.

So why would I have posted them to prove that?

I was pointing out that they were little PEOPLE, PERSONS, individuals...read the captions.

Posted by: mk at July 18, 2008 5:54 PM


Why Doug you sly dog...did you just say you think I'm hot???

Janet,

That was me. I posted the link (pictures) and was kickin' back waiting for Dougs reaction!

Posted by: mk at July 18, 2008 5:56 PM