Who are the slaves?

meg.bmpPro-abort Meg Wilson, a senior at Georgetown U in DC, posted this on the Choice Words blog yesterday:

Tuesday morning I decided to do a shift of clinic escorting....

So the morning was fairly quiet until an anti-choice protester arrived and began sounding off. While at first his comments remained general and aimed at everyone within ear shot, he soon started to narrow his focus to just me.

At first I just assumed it was just the fact that I was standing closer, but then his comments became increasingly directed; directed at the only black female. For him the best way to help sway over black patients as they entered the clinic was to paint me as a traitor to "my own people… who wants to kill my entire race." I, of course, was highly offended by this alone, but the icing on the cake was when he asked me one simple question, "If you're pro-choice, then can I choose to have slaves?"

I was completely outraged by such a racially charged statement....

I don't know why Wilson was "offended" and "enraged." Obviously this was the first she had encountered analogies between abortion/slavery and abortion/black genocide, meaning she hadn't done any research whatsoever on abortion before becoming an activist. Doesn't say much for her.

Actually, pro-abort blogs are all over the slavery analogy right now, in response to Melinda Henneberger's NYT piece I drew your attention to Sunday, "Why pro-choice is a bad choice for Democrats."...

Tuesday NYT ran 7 letters to the ed, including one from Lynn Paltrow, director of the deceivingly named pro-abort group, National Advocates for Pregnant Women, that included this:

Melinda Henneberger notes that opponents of abortion have made progress by making abortion a "human rights issue comparable to slavery." The real problem, though, is that pro-choice advocates have defended abortion rather than the women subjected to such outrageous analogies.

"Outrageous"? How so? Slavery apologists considered blacks nonpersons, property, expendable at the whim of their owners. Hello?

Pro-abort blogger bean at Lawyers, Guns and Money responded:

The slavery point is worth noting, if only because BOTH sides of the abortion debate have compared it to slavery - on the abortion rights side, it's the forced pregnancy that compels a woman into servitude; on the anti-freedom side, it's the fetus whose personhood is not acknowledged (hence the "Dred Scott" secret phrase).

But what really piqued my interest here is that Paltrow takes... much of the mainstream pro-choice movement to task. And she's got a point. By focusing on the abortion procedure itself, we (reproductive justice activists and advocates) buy into the antis' trap - we put a procedure about which many people feel uncomfortable in the spotlight. How might it change the conversation if we stopped talking about abortion itself and started talking more about the women - many of them already mothers, as Paltrow points out - who have abortions?

Many people are going to say this won't work - talking about women's autonomy wasn't successful before Roe and hasn't been successful since. But this strategy is not about intangible concepts like freedom and autonomy. It's about actual women and their real lives. I think it's a pretty compelling turn of phrase.

Pro-aborts have fallen into "the anti's trap" by "focusing on the abortion procedure itself"? Bean, that's called "informed consent," and your people fight that every step of the way. In actuality, pro-aborts run like roaches from discussion of the "abortion procedure itself."

And I've never heard pro-aborts compare pregnant mothers to slaves. They certainly circle around it, saying abortion brings freedom, that women would otherwise remain barefoot and pregnant.

And I've heard them lately say more than the opposite, calling preborn babies freeloaders or parasites - less than slaves, who don't even reciprocate for food and shelter. And the implication from that is the mother is an unwilling landlord, or duped mortgage company, or infestation victim, take your pick, but certainly not a slave.

everyone2.jpg

No, in actuality, pro-aborts stay away from the word. Because the comparison of abortion to slavery only works one way. And they'd rather not go there. Hence, they become "offended" and "enraged" and consider it "outrageous" when we do, protesting way too much.


Comments:

She should meet Edward Allred.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 28, 2007 2:53 PM


*grumbles*

Sometimes in these extenuating circumstances, I think I would like to perform retro-active abortions.

Oh, it only goes one way, Jill? How about this- for 9 months, a woman is a slave to a fetus. She can't drink, smoke, and often things she typically enjoyed before pregnancy are denied her because the fetus will mess with her ability to stomach food, give her strange cravings, and often lower back pain.

Sounds like slavery to me.

Posted by: Erin at June 28, 2007 3:16 PM


4life,
Or Star Parker....What a story she could tell her!


Sounds like pregnant women are healthier than when they're not. A woman can still enjoy a glass of wine every night when she is pregnant, but yes, she can't get stupid drunk. Personally, I still ate food and usually kept it down and the lower back pain is only at the very end of the pregnancy. I guess i'm just tougher than some because i'd do it all over again.

Posted by: Rosie at June 28, 2007 3:30 PM


Rosie, hi. Who is Star Parker?

Posted by: Heather4life at June 28, 2007 3:32 PM


Erin,

shall I get out my toy-violin now so we can have a huge PITY PARTY!

wake up girl! anything worthwhile is not easy or comfortable ... ask Bethany (and then slither back under the rock from which you came).

sounds so ... 'Dad, I just hate the Porche you got me for Christmas .... the colour was just absurd ...'

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at June 28, 2007 3:34 PM


"She can't drink, smoke, and often things she typically enjoyed before pregnancy are denied her because the fetus will mess with her ability to stomach food, give her strange cravings, and often lower back pain."

pro-abort women are wimps Jill.... and self-centered as well....


Heather, I agree, she should read about fast Eddie..

Posted by: jasper at June 28, 2007 3:36 PM


Well while I was pregnant this last time {gave birth 4-19-07] I puked for the first 3 months, I went to the hospital with dehydration, my ankles swelled like 2 balloons. I had a sore back and feet for the final 3 months, I had the flu. I had severe heartburn. I endured hours of painful labor, I had severe fatigue. You guys get it. And now I have been blessed with the most beautiful daughter!

Posted by: Heather4life at June 28, 2007 3:44 PM


Yes, John and jasper, pro-abort women are self-centered wimps who apparently can't do what billions of real women have done without complaining through the ages.

Normal women embrace that part of their humanity and gender that men can never ever compete with for the most part feel blessed and excited and honored and maternal to be pregnant.

And pregnancy is a sign of good health, for heaven's sakes! Sheesh.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 28, 2007 3:46 PM


What was all that about name calling? I thought you weren't going to allow it.

Are you going to deny that pregnancy puts a strain on a woman's body? Are you going to deny that an embryo/fetus makes use of a woman's organs and nutrients, and in the case of an unwanted pregnancy it does this without her consent? Are you going to deny that pregnancy comes with risks? Are you going to deny that pregnancy results in significant changes to a woman's physical and psychological states?

Or perhaps you should accept the fact that not every woman sees herself as a baby maker, or wants to donate her body as this moment in time, and that does not make her a wimp.

Since you seem content to violate your own rules, perhaps you'll allow me to use a bit of name calling hyberbole the other way. Here goes: Pro-life women have low self-esteem as the result of the oppressive nature of the patriachical belief system they've bought into. Too bad they see themselves as nothing more than uteruses. What are all you women doing on this blog? Go pop out some more babies so you can care for them while you clean the house and cook dinner. Let the men folk worry about all this important intellectual stuff.

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 3:57 PM


Oh yes, I'm sooo self centered because I don't want to have a biological child, and would choose instead to adopt. Oh yes, I'm such a wimp because I don't want to give up a career that I love and an education that I enjoy to pop out a few babies. I'm so so selfish because, despite the fact that I have no maternal instincts (I have six nieces and nephews, and zip maternal drive), I don't want to be pregnant. Oh Gods, I should repent RIGHT AWAY and maybe then I'll be okay with taking nine months out of my (quite happy) life to pop out a critter that I don't want, don't care about, and would regret immensely.

Oops, my eyes just rolled RIGHT OUT OF MY HEAD.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at June 28, 2007 3:58 PM


Wait, why is it that a PC cant call a PL a name (w/o being jumped all over), but y'all can call us PC's all sorts of names and not feel one ounce of guilt...

Posted by: midnite678 at June 28, 2007 3:59 PM


Obviously it's all the Christian love they're full of, midnite. It magically turns insults into "trumpet calls" to make us heathens awake into the light of Jesus, obviously.

Wait, there go my eyes again.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at June 28, 2007 4:01 PM


I am not a wimp nor am I self centered. And I've also state numerous times here that I would not personally have an abortion unless I was raped or my life was in danger...Yet I am a self centered wimp.. WOW.

Posted by: midnite678 at June 28, 2007 4:05 PM


"Obviously it's all the Christian love they're full of, midnite. It magically turns insults into "trumpet calls" to make us heathens awake into the light of Jesus, obviously."

ROFLMAO!

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 4:09 PM


*snicker*

Posted by: midnite678 at June 28, 2007 4:11 PM


Personally, I like to think of it as akin to those really neat spoons they used to put in cereal boxes in the 90s, you know the ones that would change color in milk? Well, Jesus is like the milk, and insults are the spoon, and they change color, tada!

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at June 28, 2007 4:12 PM


ROFLMAO: That is bloody brilliant Less! Not to mention, I'd forgotten all about the color changing spoons... I wonder if they still make them? It made breakfast time so much more fun!!

Posted by: midnite678 at June 28, 2007 4:15 PM


Well, Diana, my stating that pro-abort women are wimps is nothing new...

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/05/prochoice_women.html

... and based on your own whining about pregnancy. Grow up. Read what Heather wrote. Buck up.

Where's your pregnancy pride? Why is it women get pregnant, not men? Is it something we can do men cannot or not?

And yes, pregnancy is a sign of good health, not a sign of illness.

If you're not up to it, fine. If you don't want to get pregnant because you find pregnancy and/or children disgusting, fine. Just don't whine about it. It's unbecoming and immature.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 28, 2007 4:15 PM


Jill,

But it's not unbecoming an immature to call us wimps and self centered... Interesting..

Posted by: midnite678 at June 28, 2007 4:20 PM


Well, Midnite, what do you call the 90%+ of mothers who abort for inconvenice, as a primary or back-up means of birth control?

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 28, 2007 4:25 PM


Diana, I beg your pardon? I raise my kiddies and I work. My hubby cooks.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 28, 2007 4:26 PM


Jill,

I'm aware that your resorting to name calling is nothing new.

I never said pregnancy was not a sign of good health. In fact, the whole reason it is a sign of good health is that pregnancy puts a significant strain on a woman's body. She has to be relatively healthy in order to handle it. That's why spontaneous abortions occur in women who are not healthy enough to carry a pregnancy to term. It's also the reason for amenorrea in unhealthy women. As a nurse, you know that. Why not admit the facts rather than constantly resorting to spin and poisoning the well?

I wasn't whining about pregnancy. I'm complaining about your hypocrisy in insisting that there will be no name calling and then engaging in name calling yourself. (I was also testing whether or not, since you've violated your mandate, you were now going to allow pro-choicers to do it too). Now what's more immature - questioning hypocrisy or childish insults? Hmmm....

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 4:27 PM


The nurse in the delivery room with me was 9 months pregnant herself. Still on her feet hauling ass. She was as smart and quick as a whip! I didn't sense low self esteem at all.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 28, 2007 4:31 PM


Heather,

Nothing personal against you. I don't actually believe that. I know better than to make generalized assumptions about entire groups of people. I was responding in kind (and testing Jill). For just as not all pro-choice women are wimps, not all pro-lifers are barefoot pregnant and in the kitchen. It's just as unfair for Jill, Jasper and John to call such names as it was for me to do it. I thought a taste of her own medicine would have sparked something.

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 4:31 PM


Hey Less,
Before you start cracking off on this thread why don't you go back and finish with the questions I asked you yesterday on the
June 26, 2007
Two major pro-life First Amendment court wins
thread.

Oh, maybe you saw my questions and decided to ignore them.

If you are going to start a discussion, you should finish it.


Posted by: Sandy at June 28, 2007 4:34 PM


What do you call them, Jill? That's the real question.

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 4:35 PM


WOW, there is ALOT of hostility in this thread today.. Name calling (although at PCer would be banned if he/she dared to say nasty things to a PL), I shall take a break and smoke for everyone :-)...

Posted by: midnite678 at June 28, 2007 4:37 PM


midnite, sounds like a plan. I think I'll do the same. :)

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 4:39 PM


Diana, no offense taken. Women can be whatever they want to be. Most of my friends with children also have careers. They manage the balance.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 28, 2007 4:39 PM


4life,

Here's the short version...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Parker

Posted by: Rosie at June 28, 2007 4:41 PM


One of my resident OB's was pregnant too. She's in med school. She gave birth before I did. She came right back to work after her maternity leave was up.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 28, 2007 4:44 PM


Way to go Star!

Posted by: Heather4life at June 28, 2007 4:46 PM


Per Erin,
"Oh, it only goes one way, Jill? How about this- for 9 months, a woman is a slave to a fetus. She can't drink, smoke, and often things she typically enjoyed before pregnancy are denied her because the fetus will mess with her ability to stomach food, give her strange cravings, and often lower back pain.

Sounds like slavery to me."

Honestly Erin,
Will you feel like a slave when you choose to have a baby or is it just when you don't want one. Please explain.

Will you tell your future children that you felt like a slave the entire time you were pregnant and drinking and smoking were more important than creating a healthy environment for them?

Will you tell your future children that you feel like a slave raising them becuase it takes away from your time, money, friends, etc...

It's called motherhood.

How and where did you learn and embrace this negative ideology on pregnancy??

Posted by: Sandy at June 28, 2007 4:54 PM


Hey Heather,
I don't know if you noticed from the site, but she guest hosted on the View in June. I missed it, but saw her on H&C, she was disputing Michael Moores new Crockumentary.
I guess it was a hoot.

Posted by: Sandy at June 28, 2007 5:00 PM


Sandy, I missed it. Do you have kids?

Posted by: Heather4life at June 28, 2007 5:03 PM


Sandy,

With respect to your question to Erin, the difference is one little word: consent.

If you consent to not leave and work in the fields for food and board for 9 months you are not a slave. You have a job. If you are forced to work in the fields for nine months and are given room and board but you did not consent, your position is akin to slavery. Same field work. Same room to live in. Same food to eat. But one is a violation of your rights and the other is not.

If you want a pregnancy, then you are obviously consenting to the use of your body. If you do not want a pregnancy, then your body is being used without your consent, and you have a right, as a person, to end that use. That's how the two are akin. It's not an analogy that fits very well, but your argument against Erin is akin to saying, "You claim that he penetrated you without your consent, and that's a violation of your rights, but what will you tell your next sexual partner? That he raped you?" Of course you won't Because just as a job can be a fulfulling experience, whereas forced labor without consent is terrible, consensual sex can be a beautiful thing even though rape is terrible, and a wanted pregnancy can be a beautiful thing while an unwanted pregnancy is terrible. Consent makes all the difference.

Your argument against Erin's

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 5:05 PM


Sandy, can you imagine how devastating it would be to be a child and to know that your mother considered the time she spent carrying you in her womb "slavery"? If nothing else could give a child low self esteem, I think that would definitely do it. It sends the message that a child is not worth going through any amount of inconvenience or suffering for. And honestly, if I were that child, I would wonder if my mother considered taking care of me at the present time(as a born child) slavery? I can assure anyone out there that it takes a lot more out of you, physically and emotionally, to take care of a child once they are out of the womb, than when they are inside the womb. But that doesn't mean I am a slave, just because I take care of my children and put so much physical energy and work into their every day lives. It's called being a mother. I do what I do because I know that my children are worth all of the effort I have to give them to make sure they are happy and healthy.
And in the end, I feel that my children will know that they have always been loved, and they will never have to wonder if I felt they were a burden.


Posted by: Bethany at June 28, 2007 5:05 PM


Sorry for that last little clip at the end of my post. It's not supposed to be there.

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 5:07 PM


gosh it worked - finally some semblance of humanity folks .... you don't have to look too far ... maybe your grandparents ... Ask your (great)grandma about giving birth ... [I even heard a man in his 90's complain the kids (in their 70's) were too noisy!]

It seems peers (Less & Diana) can toot only words ... here there is nothing like experience ...

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at June 28, 2007 5:17 PM


"If you want a pregnancy, then you are obviously consenting to the use of your body. If you do not want a pregnancy, then your body is being used without your consent, and you have a right, as a person, to end that use."

If you do not want a pregnancy, do not have sex. If you have sex and get pregnant, you have a moral obligation to have the child you helped create. You do not have the right to kill that child once it's created...

Posted by: jasper at June 28, 2007 5:19 PM


I personally won't deny that pregnancy certainly had challenges, physically and emotionally, but unlike some of the others here, I believe women are strong individuals not incapable of handling a pregnancy. Just look at career women and physically active women, active throughout 9 months of pregnancy! That's not to dismiss the hardships some women have had, but I believe you're over-exaggerating the side-effects and risks, in order to gain support for abortion.

Posted by: Rachael at June 28, 2007 5:25 PM


Rachael, how right you are. Are there women who have problem pregnancies? Of course! However, most women are able to work through their pregnancies, exercise, eat right, have sex, etc. Pregnancy is not an illness!

Posted by: Heather4life at June 28, 2007 5:29 PM


I'm sure I've compared--or rather, equated-- forced continuation of pregnancy to slavery somewhere on this board.

If not, I do so now: forcing a woman to grow a pregnancy she doesn't want, and to give birth to a baby she doesn't want, treats her body as property of the state and thereby enslaves her.

Posted by: SoMG at June 28, 2007 5:29 PM


Jasper,

Should married couples who don't want children not have sex? B/C if that is the case, I sense a lot of divorces happening in the future...

Posted by: midnite678 at June 28, 2007 5:29 PM


Hey Heather,
Yes, I have two beautiful wonderful earlthy children who I love with everything in my heart and soul. I also have two children that I lost in early pregnancy that I love with everythig in my heart and soul.

Bethany,
I agree with you 100%.
I love being a mom and feel it is an honor and a priveledge to raise my children.

My first pregnancy was a breeze, my second was very difficult. But I felt empowered by both. It is such a great feeling to create and nurture a baby in your womb. The wonders of being pregnant far outway the small alterations we make in our lives to bring them into the world healthy.

Being a parent is definitely the hardest job I have ever had, but the most fun and rewarding.
I wake up everyday and thank God for what I have.

I can't imagine ever feeling like a slave to a pregnancy or my children.

Gotta run to a softball game!
I will check in later.


Posted by: Sandy at June 28, 2007 5:32 PM


Ugh. I hate it when they call us "anti-choice." Im not anti-choice; Im all for the choice not to have children. Im all for the choice nto to get pregnant. Im just not for the choice to get pregnant and then not have children.

Im pretty easy-going, but if people want to be called "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion" then it seems to me that they would extend to us the courtesy of using a label with which we were moderately comfortable.

Posted by: SamanthaT at June 28, 2007 5:34 PM


"If you do not want a pregnancy, do not have sex. If you have sex and get pregnant, you have a moral obligation to have the child you helped create. You do not have the right to kill that child once it's created..."

You make a lot of statements here, statements made by every other pro-lifer I've spoken to. Perhaps you'll back them up? See, last time I check, we were talking about rights, not morals. Abortion may or may not be the moral thing to do. But all I'm interested in is whether or not a woman has a right to do it.

Now, I missed the part where my consenting to sex amounts to my signing away my right to bodily autonomy. Can you fill me in? Is there a contract that I don't remember signing every time I engage in intercourse? Or are you going to tell me that by risking putting someone (and I'm assuming the "someone" part for your benefit) in a position of depedence on my body I sign away my rights? Why?

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 5:36 PM


Also for those who claim an unplanned pregnancy is "forced gestation" pregnancy is a normal, biological result of human sexual function (not a puinishment and certainly not a disease) and the the natural coarse following intercourse. There is no forced gestation -- no outsider's impregnating her against her will (except rape) -- pregnancy is a naturally occuring process resulting from the actions of the two individuals having sexual relations. This is how the human body is biologically programed, regardless of whether the woman and her partner have made a conscious decison to not have children. If you're going to have sex, you need to accept the possibility that you could contribute to a pregnancy, regardless of how careful you are. Whatever happened to the personal responsibility feminists cry for?

Also, I'd like to point out while there are certainly those out there who don't desire to have children, in the majority of cases, it is not the pregnancy which is undesired, but rather it is the situation surrounding the pregnancy which is undesirable and is the source of the crisis. Therefore the focus shouldn't be focused so much on remidating the pregnancy as much as remidating the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy.

Posted by: Rachael at June 28, 2007 5:39 PM


Cancer is a natural result of a smoker's choice to continue smoking. Does that mean that the no longer have the right to get that tumor removed?

Getting a tape worm is a natural result of eating certain foods that are not properly cooked. Does a person who makes the choice to eat those foods sign away their right over their body by eating those foods? Should we, because of their action, refuse to remove the tape worm and instead force them to feed it?

The fact that something is natural or unnatural has nothing to do with your right over your own organs.

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 5:45 PM


She does make a good point..

Posted by: midnite678 at June 28, 2007 5:47 PM


Diana,
These are fallacies.

Cancer is a natural result of a smoker's choice to continue smoking. Does that mean that the no longer have the right to get that tumor removed?

First of all, cancer in this case is not a healthy part of a natural biological process, it is the result of outside causes. Another thing is that we're not talking about a cancerous tumor or just tissue, we're talking about a developing human individual (in the early stages of life). Also, at least the smoker acknoledges their behavior may have contributed to the cancer, unlike those who deny their personal actions led to pregnancy.

Getting a tape worm is a natural result of eating certain foods that are not properly cooked. Does a person who makes the choice to eat those foods sign away their right over their body by eating those foods? Should we, because of their action, refuse to remove the tape worm and instead force them to feed it?

Again, we're not talking about algae, amoeba, or parasites, we're talking about a developing human being (in the early stages of life).

The fact that something is natural or unnatural has nothing to do with your right over your own organs.

Your rights end when another's human life.

Also, I have already cleared up that the it is often it is not the pregnancy which is undesired, but rather it is the situation surrounding the pregnancy which is undesirable and is the source of the crisis. Often if the situation surrounding the pregnancy is resolved or improved (except in those who wish to remain childfree) the pregnancy is no longer seen as undesirable.

Posted by: Rachael at June 28, 2007 5:53 PM


*Your rights to harm another human being ends at their body.

And you still don't seem to understand that you invite the risk of pregnancy with your actions. At least own up to your own behavior!

Posted by: Rachael at June 28, 2007 5:55 PM


*Your rights to harm another human being ends at their body.

Posted by: Rachael at June 28, 2007 5:55 PM


Diana, your point is taken. But just because you dont sign a contract to carry a child that you conceive does not mean that the child does not have the right to life. You dont sign a contract every time you get in your vehicle, but if you take the life of another person while operating that vehicle, you will be punished accordingly--even if the dead is preborn. At what point does my right to life become paramount to your life? If my mother and father are bodily obligated to pay for my college, does that give them the right to terminate my existence so that they dont have to work anymore? Or are the neighbors allowed to abort me so that my loud music doesnt violate their right to bodily autonomy, including the inner ear that might be offended by excessive bass?

Posted by: SamanthaT at June 28, 2007 5:57 PM


Which one, midnight? But seeing that you're pro-choice I think I know your response.

Posted by: Rachael at June 28, 2007 6:00 PM


Ah, don't assume or stereotype me b/c I am pro-choice, ask Samantha T about me..

I just don't understand why you are granting a being that isn't born yet more rights than a person who is born. Why do their right trump a woman's? Can someone please explain that to me...

Posted by: midnite678 at June 28, 2007 6:05 PM


Hi Rosie and Heather4Life,

looked up a bit about Star ...

the insightful comments (from both sides) makes for some very interesting reading click here

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at June 28, 2007 6:07 PM


Because a persons location or age doesn't change who they are or their value. It is still the same human being with inherent worthy, embryo, fetus, infant, child, teenager, adult, or elderly (all just different stages of life). Nor does a persons value change based on the circumstances in their life (is someone who's poor or has an addiction less valuable than the rich or clean?)

Posted by: Rachael at June 28, 2007 6:10 PM


Rachel,

I'd be very careful about accusing me of fallacious reasoning. Given who I am, I don't take such accusations lightly.

The fact that something is "healthy" versus "not healthy" is irrelevant to the conclusion I was trying to draw from the analogy, which was merely that the fact that something is a natural or unnatural process has no bearing on your rights.

Once we come to that conclusion, THEN we can move to the next stage of the argument, which is whether or not the personhood of the organism in question affects your rights. And it does not. Even if we assume that a fetus is a person, it does not have any more right to my organs than a tapeworm. EVEN if it's my fault that it's there. If I drive recklessly, hit someone resulting in irreversably damage to their kidneys, that individual does not have a right to my kidney (assuming we're a perfect match) EVEN THOUGH it's my fault he's in the position he's in, and the accident was a natural consequence of my behavior. Person or tapeworm, doesn't matter, no being has a right over my organs.

"*Your rights to harm another human being ends at their body."

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, bu tif you mean that my right to bodily autonomy ends at their right to life, then that is most certainly false. If another person is attempting to use my body without my consent (e.g., rape me) I can kill him. Even if he doesn't know what he's doing (perhaps he's mentally handicapped).

"And you still don't seem to understand that you invite the risk of pregnancy with your actions. At least own up to your own behavior!"

There really is no need to be rude and presumptive. I understand perfectly that there is a risk of pregnancy that comes with sexual intercourse. That's why I'm on birth control and my partner and I use condoms. But the fact that there is a risk. The fact that pregnancy is a natural consequence of sex is not equivalent to my waiving my right to bodily autonomy any more than my walking through a bad neighborhood known for rapes in a miniskirt is waiver of my rights.

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 6:12 PM


Diana, you cannot kill another person unless you will be killed yourself without doing so. If you kill an unarmed man who breaks into your home, you will be tried for murder. But if you invited that man into your home and then killed him for taking you up on your offer, you would be punished to the full extent of the law. In keeping with this ideology, I am all for a woman's aborting a pregnancy in the case of irreversible injury. I take issue with a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy after she willingly engaged in the act that led to the pregnancy, and I further argue against the notion that a single person can give or withhold the value of an entirely different individual's life.

Posted by: SamanthaT at June 28, 2007 6:18 PM


Once we come to that conclusion, THEN we can move to the next stage of the argument, which is whether or not the personhood of the organism in question affects your rights. And it does not. Even if we assume that a fetus is a person, it does not have any more right to my organs than a tapeworm. EVEN if it's my fault that it's there. If I drive recklessly, hit someone resulting in irreversably damage to their kidneys, that individual does not have a right to my kidney (assuming we're a perfect match) EVEN THOUGH it's my fault he's in the position he's in, and the accident was a natural consequence of my behavior. Person or tapeworm, doesn't matter, no being has a right over my organs.

Certainly strangers do not "owe" the use of their body to another stranger, but do you believe it is fair to compare a parent-offspring relationship to one of strangers or parasites? Our culture does recognize that a parent has responsibilities to their offspring that they do not have to strangers.


Posted by: Rachael at June 28, 2007 6:26 PM


"Diana, your point is taken. But just because you dont sign a contract to carry a child that you conceive does not mean that the child does not have the right to life."

I never said the fetus doesn't have a right to life. In the course of this argument I always assume, with pro-lifers, that an embryo/fetus is a person (even though I personally don't believe that a first trimester embryo is). But the fetus' right to life does not supercede the woman's right to bodily autonomy.

"You dont sign a contract every time you get in your vehicle, but if you take the life of another person while operating that vehicle, you will be punished accordingly--even if the dead is preborn."

Of course you will. I may forfeit my rights with certain actions. I do not believe that I ever forfeit my right to bodily autonomy or my right to life. So then it is a question of which outweighs which.

"At what point does my right to life become paramount to your life?"

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Your right to bodily autonomy supercedes my right to life. But then it is a question of what is a violation of bodily autonomy.

"If my mother and father are bodily obligated to pay for my college, does that give them the right to terminate my existence so that they dont have to work anymore?"

I don't know what you mean by "bodily obligated".

"Or are the neighbors allowed to abort me so that my loud music doesnt violate their right to bodily autonomy, including the inner ear that might be offended by excessive bass?"

That's not a violation of bodily autonomy. A violation of bodily autonomy (or "self-determination") involves taking away your ability to determine what happens to your own physical person. Note that this is not the same as freedom. Your right to bodily autonomy is not the same as your right to move your body about wherever your wish. In your case, you can very easily wear ear plugs, try to talk the neighbors into quieting down, or (drastically) move. You still determine what happens to your eardrums (whether they get some protection, etc, etc)

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 6:27 PM


You pretty much sumarized a good part of what I was trying to say, Samantha, thank you.

Posted by: Rachael at June 28, 2007 6:30 PM


"Diana, you cannot kill another person unless you will be killed yourself without doing so."

This is false. You can kill a man who is raping you to get him to stop, and you can kill an intruder into your home without charged.

"If you kill an unarmed man who breaks into your home, you will be tried for murder."

Depends on the circumstances. If you did not know he was unarmed, you will not be tried for murder.

"But if you invited that man into your home and then killed him for taking you up on your offer, you would be punished to the full extent of the law. In keeping with this ideology, I am all for a woman's aborting a pregnancy in the case of irreversible injury. I take issue with a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy after she willingly engaged in the act that led to the pregnancy"

Hmmm... there is a big difference between inviting an intruder in and doing something which makes it likely that he will come in. One implies consent to his presence, the other does not. If I leave the windows open in a very bad neighborhood where I know there is a prowler, this does not amount to consent to his presence in my home, even if my stupidly leaving the windows open is the reason he's there. And if I have bars up on my windows in that same bad neighborhood, but they fail for some reason (say, I put them up wrong), I certainly have not invited him in, or consented to his presence in my home.

"and I further argue against the notion that a single person can give or withhold the value of an entirely different individual's life."

I've no idea what you mean by that.

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 6:35 PM


*without being charged

"Certainly strangers do not "owe" the use of their body to another stranger, but do you believe it is fair to compare a parent-offspring relationship to one of strangers or parasites? Our culture does recognize that a parent has responsibilities to their offspring that they do not have to strangers."

I personally think that this is a moral issue and not one of rights. In fact, I am inclined to think that the status of parent/offspring makes abortion immoral beyond the first trimester (which is when I believe personhood begins), but the fact that an action is immoral has nothing to do with whether or not one has a right to do it.

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 6:38 PM


Samantha,

I want to make it clear that my point with the intruder analogy (she started it, John and MK!) is that just as you have not consented to an intruder in your home, a woman who engages in sexual intercourse, especially if she has used protection, has not consented to use of her body by a fetus.

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 6:44 PM


Rachael, sorry for misspelling your name. Won't happen again.

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 6:47 PM


wild ride tonite for midnite ............

humans are strange creatures and we assign values to ourselves and others ... at times these values are backed by religious concepts ... ie. the ten commandments; the Code of Hammurabi; some of Jesus' sayings ... The Golden Rule; some tenants in Islam ... etc. At other times values have a more philosophical base ... a set of laws .... doctrine of Rights ... but most often values are found outside the classroom in 'the world'.

This last set is likely the most important kind. It is the outcome/reflection of being loved. For Diana to say we're talking of rights here not morality. Is like claiming a corpse does not come from a living - loving person, but somehow just appears. A right is a value that seeks affirmation. There is no 'right to abortion' and there is no 'right of denial'/autonomy because abortion brings death ... to the fetus ... to family ... to motherhood ... Emptiness is just that zip - no fun!

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at June 28, 2007 6:47 PM


"This is false. You can kill a man who is raping you to get him to stop, and you can kill an intruder into your home without charged."

ttp://www.vindy.com/content/local_regional/284611763608293.php
YOUNGSTOWN — The use of deadly force in self-defense doesn't apply once the threat of bodily harm is gone, the city prosecutor says.

"If you have an opportunity to retreat, you have a duty to do that," City Prosecutor Dionne M. Almasy said Tuesday. "It's fairly obvious; the self-defense doctrine says you use deadly force to combat deadly force or serious bodily harm."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21976040-1243,00.html

Posted by: SamanthaT at June 28, 2007 6:51 PM


Diana,
Forgiven, in fact I didn't even see it at first ;-) And I'm sorry if I got a bit impatient with you.

Posted by: Rachael at June 28, 2007 6:56 PM


Samantha,

Fair enough. But my claim about killing a man who is raping you still stands. And that's what's crucial.

John,

I don't understand your claim. While rights and morals do often coincide (it's immoral to violate the rights of another, for example), the fact of the matter is that just because something is immoral doesn't mean we don't have the right to do it. You may think premarital sex is immoral, are you going to tell me that as a result, I don't have a right to do it? I personally think that a Nazi standing on a podium and spewing his filth to his fellow Nazis is immoral, but I also believe that he has a right to do it. Rights and morals are not the same thing.

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 7:00 PM


Rachael, No problem. I understand that things can get heated around here. That's the nature of debate. If it didn't get heated, I'd be worrying.

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 7:02 PM


Anyway. I should get going. Thanks for some fun conversation.

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 7:04 PM


On a side note, can't believe the idiocacy of some drivers. This afternoon on my way home, as I approached a railroad track on a country road, albeit busy, the gate went down and the signal went on. I patiently slowed down, aticipating a wait, however, two drivers on the other side decided to go around the gate, despite the fact there was a train coming and it was about only 50ft away and picking up speed. Just plain stupid. I about loss my life last November racing a train and has a hard lesson to learn.

Posted by: Rachael at June 28, 2007 7:04 PM


Diana, I am not above your right to shoot a rapist. In fact, give me the gun and I will do it myself. But I dont understand how you can say that sex and pregnancy should be two separate acts. Sex is how people get pregnant. Until recently, it was the only way. If you show me a girl who did not know that she could conceive by getting pregnant, then I will concede the point that sex should be separated from pregnancy. But if a woman is so set against pregnancy that she would terminate the life of her child, she need not be engaging in an act that would put her in that situation. I value a human's right to life above a human's right to engage in sexual activity.

And PS, thanks for the clarification above.

Posted by: SamanthaT at June 28, 2007 7:05 PM


"On a side note, can't believe the idiocacy of some drivers. This afternoon on my way home, as I approached a railroad track on a country road, albeit busy, the gate went down and the signal went on. I patiently slowed down, aticipating a wait, however, two drivers on the other side decided to go around the gate, despite the fact there was a train coming and it was about only 50ft away and picking up speed. Just plain stupid. I about loss my life last November racing a train and has a hard lesson to learn."

Man. That's so scary. I guess I'm just too much of a worry wart to ever try anything like that. Wow.

Samantha,

"But I dont understand how you can say that sex and pregnancy should be two separate acts."

They are separate events. One is an action, the other an event caused by that action (well, linked through a causal chain). I'd go into all the messy metaphysical details, but I wouldn't want to bore you.

"Sex is how people get pregnant. Until recently, it was the only way. If you show me a girl who did not know that she could conceive by getting pregnant, then I will concede the point that sex should be separated from pregnancy. But if a woman is so set against pregnancy that she would terminate the life of her child, she need not be engaging in an act that would put her in that situation."

See, this is where you and I diverge. Just because a certain action (sex) can likely lead to a certain outcome (pregnancy), even if you know it, does not mean that you consent to the outcome. I know that driving recklessly can lead to accidents. But if I get in one, that doesn't mean I consented to the accident happening. I know that smoking causes cancer, but just smoking does not by itself mean that I've consented to cancer. A lot of it comes down to reasons. If I smoke TO GET CANCER, then it seems like I've consented to cancer. But if I smoke because I like it (perhaps it eases my anxiety, etc, etc) then I don't think I've consented to getting cancer, even though it's a natural result of my choice. If I drink poison TO COMMIT SUICIDE, then it seems like I've consented to my death. But if I drink poison because a man points a gun at a passerby and says "drink this or he dies" or even points it at me and says "drink this or I'll shoot you", then I don't think I've consented to my death. And I think it is the same with many other outcomes of our actions. Whether or not we have consented to the outcome is heavily dependent on our reasons for performing the action. Now, whether we are stupid for doing something that is likely to cause something that we don't consent to is another matter entirely, but the fact that we might be stupid doesn't change whether or not we have consented.

"I value a human's right to life above a human's right to engage in sexual activity."

I'm sure I do too. But I value a human's right over their own person - over their own body - over another's right to life. Because I see cause and effect as separate (which, metaphysically, they have to be in order to actually count as cause and effect rather than just one event), I understand that one can consent to one without consenting to the other. And I really don't see any difference between saying that a woman who has had sex MUST give up her body for 9 months because she had sex and saying that a man who has shot another man in the liver MUST give up part of his liver to the man he shot just because he shot him. The victim's need for the organ was the result of the shooter's action, but DESPITE the fact that he shot the other man, we would violate his rights by putting him under and taking part of his liver. And in the second case, we can even imagine the shooter INTENTIONALLY wanting to harm the liver of the victim, whereas in the first case, the woman's reasons for having sex were likely pleasure, connection with her partner, etc, rather than pregnancy.

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 7:24 PM


"I'd go into all the messy metaphysical details, but I wouldn't want to bore you."

That sounded pedantic. I didn't mean it to. I truly just don't want to bore you. :)

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 7:26 PM


Anyway. Gotta run. Logic paper due in 2 days.

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 7:27 PM


"Or are you going to tell me that by risking putting someone (and I'm assuming the "someone" part for your benefit) in a position of depedence on my body I sign away my rights? Why?"

if you're talking about your right to kill someone else who YOU made dependent on your body, then yes, you do not have that right. To suggest otherwise is barbaric and satanic.

Posted by: jasper at June 28, 2007 7:39 PM


Thanks for the article John. I appreciate it!!

Posted by: Heather4life at June 28, 2007 7:41 PM


"To suggest otherwise is barbaric and satanic."

This is your justification for you claim? I'm blown away by your sound reasoning. Such a fantastic argument! Jasper, I asked you to give reasons for believing what you believe. Calling the opposing viewpoint names doesn't count.

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 7:47 PM


Course...it's fun to point out that people were justifying slavery with the bible. How does that fit in this equation?

Posted by: Cameron at June 28, 2007 7:57 PM


"This is your justification for you claim? I'm blown away by your sound reasoning. Such a fantastic argument! Jasper"

How else would you describe the right to kill an unborn child? swell?

Posted by: jasper at June 28, 2007 7:58 PM


@Cameron: Well, you should know that people who justified slavery using the bible were not real Christians, that and they misinterpreted the bible to fit their own agenda.

Posted by: Rae at June 28, 2007 8:01 PM


"Abortion may or may not be the moral thing to do"

may? Diana which is it?

Posted by: jasper at June 28, 2007 8:02 PM


Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave'."

The argument relies on Canaan having settled in Africa, therefore africans as slaves is of course self-evident.

Interestingly... there is little or no criticism of slavery in the bible, even though they were surrounded by it. In fact, Paul tells the slaves to be content and embrace what the lord has ordained for them.

Posted by: Cameron at June 28, 2007 8:08 PM


Diana,

one of the books that deals with some of the problems posed by virtuality ... computer scenario; intellectual ideation; classroom theorizing ... etc. and its ill-symmetry with actuality / 'the-real-world' is the book 'Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance' by Robert Pirsig. We can get so wound up in our wee intellects that we can at once hold an absolute sacredness for 'body autonomy' and at the same time hold that there is no 'specialness/sacredness' in humans. If there is some kind of 'sacredness', how'd it get there? Is there a sacrificial aspect to this 'sacredness'? If 'yes', does it supersede our directive for self preservation = body autonomy?

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at June 28, 2007 8:10 PM


Any chance that Cameron gets to divert from the argument of abortion, he takes it and settles for inane remarks..

Posted by: jasper at June 28, 2007 8:18 PM


John, 4life,
here's her story....
http://www.christianitytoday.com/tcw/1997/julaug/7w4022.html

Posted by: Rosie at June 28, 2007 8:28 PM


Wow Jasper, your keen awareness of what's going on is reminiscent of a hiding ostrich's.

Posted by: Cameron at June 28, 2007 8:39 PM


John,

Our "wee" intellects are all we have. I don't like the implication that bodily autonomy is "sacred". I don't think there is such a thing as sacredness in the sense I assume you are using it in. It's simply a right possessed by certain beings in virtue of what they are. I see no inconsistency in holding that we are beings that possess rights, while holding that none of it is "sacred" (in the sense I assume you're using it).

Jasper,

"How else would you describe the right to kill an unborn child? swell?"

I would describe it as a right. I don't put normative import on rights per se. The right to freedom of speech is sometimes great and sometimes ugly. But it's a right nonetheless. The right to bear arms is sometimes good and sometimes extremely nasty, but it's a right. The right to free press is increasingly terrible (who cares about stupid Paris?!), but it's a right, and it can still be wonderful.

But, see, here's the thing. I asked you for a justification of your claim, not a description of mine. Do you understand the difference? Are you going to ever give me a justification of the conclusion you are trying to push? If not, I'm not sure there is any point in continuing this. I don't come 'round here to listen to people make claims I've already heard without backing them up. I come 'round here to have a little fun engaging in a debate on an important issue in today's society. Debate requires rational arguments. Rational arguments are composed of conclusions (which you have down pat) and premises that support those conclusions (justification which you aren't giving). Now, are you going to engage in a debate by giving me justification for your claims or not?

"may? Diana which is it?"

Personally, I believe that it depends on the circumstances. But whether or not it is moral is irrelevant to whether or not a woman has a right to do it. That was my point.

"Wow Jasper, your keen awareness of what's going on is reminiscent of a hiding ostrich's."

LOL. And yet as I laugh, I'm also silently weeping, since it seems so many have their heads in the sand. Does it make you happy to know you're not alone, Jasper?

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 10:30 PM


Jasper: "How else would you describe the right to kill an unborn child? swell?"

Diana: "I would describe it as a right"

Diana, you think that morality has no place in deciding whether or not an unborn baby has a right to life. I don't think we will get anywhere because my values, morals, beliefs, etc are just so different than yours.

Good-Luck

Posted by: jasper at June 28, 2007 11:14 PM


Jasper, I've never denied that a fetus has a right to life. But I agree we'll never get anywhere - not because we have different values or morals, but because you've never actually justified your conclusions. We can't engage in a debate unless you do that.

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 11:20 PM


what exactly do you want me to justify?

Posted by: jasper at June 28, 2007 11:23 PM


Jasper:"How else would you describe the right to kill an unborn child? swell"

Diana: "I would describe it as a right"

Jasper: "Diana, you think that morality has no place in deciding whether or not an unborn baby has a right to life."

Diana: "Jasper, I've never denied that a fetus has a right to life."

Diana, I know defending killing can be tough somtimes, but you have to keep your facts straight...

Posted by: jasper at June 28, 2007 11:28 PM


"if you're talking about your right to kill someone else who YOU made dependent on your body, then yes, you do not have that right."

That. Tell me why I don't have that right.

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 11:30 PM


"if you're talking about your right to kill someone else who YOU made dependent on your body, then yes, you do not have that right."

That. Tell me why I don't have that right.

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 11:30 PM


Jasper - my argument for abortion rights does not hinge on whether or not the fetus has a right to life. It assumes the fetus does in fact have the right and goes from there. And as I've stated many times on this site, I believe that personhood begins with real brain activity - the beginning of the second trimester, and at that point, the fetus has all the rights of a person, including the right to life. So who needs to keep their facts straight?

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 11:33 PM


Because that unborn baby is living person.

DOI:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Posted by: jasper at June 28, 2007 11:37 PM


That's not sufficient to justify your claim. No other living person gets to use my body without my consent. So, since you're so hip on the quote from the Declaration, why are you giving more rights to the fetus than any other individual? If we're all created equal, why should the fetus have more rights than any other person?

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 11:41 PM


Definitions of unalienable on the Web:

* (inalienable) rights - fundamental rights belonging to people, which cannot be taken away. The phrase "unalienable rights" was used in the Declaration of Independence (1776).
www.historycentral.com/Civics/U.html

* inalienable: incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another; "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Posted by: Bethany at June 28, 2007 11:43 PM


Jasper,

While I'm terribly happy that we've actually started to engage in something that looks like a debate, do you mind if we continue this another time? It's past my bedtime, and I have a logic paper to finish up tomorrow, so I'll need to get an early start.

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 11:43 PM


So, does the woman have "bodily autonomy" in the 2nd trimester? she loses this autonomy when brain activity starts?

Posted by: jasper at June 28, 2007 11:44 PM


Who was taking them away?

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 11:45 PM


Ok, goodnight....

Posted by: jasper at June 28, 2007 11:49 PM


For FSM's sake! It's not that complicated!

It doesn't matter whether the fetus is a person or not, no individual has a right to use your body without your consent. So a fetus does not have that right, at any time during pregnancy.

Now, the fetus does have a right to life, but a woman's right to bodily autonomy supercedes that right to life at any time during the pregnancy.

However, if we can preserve multiple rights, that's what we should do, just as we preserve the right to free speech and the right to raise one's children as one sees fit simultaneously by regulating where and when pornography can be displayed. We regulate the HOW, not the WHAT. So, after viability, when both rights can be preserved, we can regulate how bodily autonomy is respected in an effort to protect the fetus' right to life.

Now, I believe that personhood begins in the second trimester. At this point, as far as I'm concerned, the fetus gains the right to life. This does not change the woman's rights at all. Why would it? Instead we now have a question of which right supercedes which (since they are in conflict), and the woman's right supercedes the fetus. The supercedence has nothing to do with the fact that it is a fetus and everything to do with which rights are in conflict.

Furthermore, I also personally believe that abortion after the fetus becomes a person is immoral, although I believe a woman still has the right to do it, and yes, the fact that the fetus is now a person is the reason that I believe it is now immoral. But we have the right to do many immoral things, so the fact that something is immoral does not count against our having the right to do it.

Does that clear things up for you? Or should I expect more asinine questions before I finally try to get to bed.

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 11:55 PM


Sorry about that last statement. Nicotine jones' getting to me, I think.

Have a good night.

Posted by: Diana at June 28, 2007 11:56 PM


"Now, the fetus does have a right to life, but a woman's right to bodily autonomy supercedes that right to life at any time during the pregnancy."

Why?

And what I mean by why is....why is the right to autonomy (over a child that you had part in creating), more fundamental and worthy than the right to life itself? I am not asking for the violinist argument. I want to know why this right is more worthy than the right to life.

Posted by: Bethany at June 29, 2007 12:26 AM


By the way, don't worry about answering that tonight, have a good night and answer tomorrow when you have time. ;) Hope you do well on your logic paper. :)

Posted by: Bethany at June 29, 2007 12:27 AM


Diana, 11:55p, said: "Now, the fetus does have a right to life, but a woman's right to bodily autonomy supercedes that right to life at any time during the pregnancy."

Diana, according to the blogger in my post, this argument fell flat before Roe and still falls flat. I found that comment very interesting.

You're employing the reverse-slave argument. We say preborn babies are the equivalent of slaves. You're saying unwilling pregnant mothers are the equivalent of slaves?

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 29, 2007 5:51 AM


I know this is petty, but one of the things I enjoy most about being a hypereducated, ultra-successful badass is the insinuation that pro-life women are only so "pro-baby" because they lack the capacity to be anything but mothers. I also love being called a mindless drone to the patriarchy- seeings how my pro-life philosophy follows in the tradition of Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Yep- those were some repressed housewives who didn't rock the boat o' sexism.

Pro-aborts insult me and insult all women, because they imply that our bodies' reproductive capactiy is a liability. We MUST have access to pills and shots to sabotage it (birth control) and we MUST have surgery to correct it (abortion), because women are incapable of being successful in the natural physiology.

There is nothing wrong with my uterus, my ovaries, my breast- none of it. And I managed to achieve everything I have accomplished with them present and functioning.

Posted by: JacqueFromTexas at June 29, 2007 7:41 AM


Jacque, I could not agree with you more!

Posted by: Bethany at June 29, 2007 7:46 AM


Diana,

Thank you for your lessons in Logic 101. If anything, I have learned what arguments are worthy of your time.


Reading your posts remind me of another intelligent, scholastic, assertive, instructor/philosophy student that you may feel inclined to read someday: Edith Stein. She's been canonized a saint and has tremendous things to say regarding this thing we call life. She was a Jewish convert to the Catholic faith (not without some conflict!), taught for many years, wrote papers on a range of subjects, was an avid philosopy junkie, eventually became a Carmelite nun, was rounded up along with her sister to Auschwitz, and perished there with the rest of her human brethren.

Only bringing this up because your posts seem to reflect her own approach to things. She's not the only saint I would suggest that can meet you eye-to-eye on metaphysics, logic, reason and such, but she was a woman and quite the progressive for her day.


Hope the logic paper is coming along...

Posted by: carder at June 29, 2007 8:02 AM


Jill,

I guess you have never read "Killing the Black Body". In it, Dorothy Roberts likens the morally reprehensible anti-choice stance of putting the fetus before the mother to when slave masters brutally whipped pregnant slaves in a way that would not endanger the fetus, and hence their profit.
Women should be respected and trusted to make the decision about whether or not a have an abortion. After all, being forced to have a child for which one is not mentally, physically or emotionally ready sounds like slavery to me.

Posted by: prochoice4life at June 29, 2007 9:00 AM


You can't compare pregnancy to slavery anymore. Slavery is done! If you have irresponsible sex, be prepared to accept the consequences.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 29, 2007 9:28 AM


Oh, it only goes one way, Jill? How about this- for 9 months, a woman is a slave to a fetus. She can't drink, smoke, and often things she typically enjoyed before pregnancy are denied her because the fetus will mess with her ability to stomach food, give her strange cravings, and often lower back pain.

Sounds like slavery to me.

On the surface, it sounds like it. But I'd say it'd more like voluntary indentured servitude. In every case (except one that I know of) the woman invited a man into her body the main purpose of which is to create life (you may argue that it's the main purpose, but without it, our race would have died out eons ago). When that life is created the pro-abort woman bitches and moans and in many cases kills the progeny living inside her.

I make choices all the time, and I deal with the consequences. That's what it means to be a man. If I don't want to help create a son or daughter, I don't do what it takes to do that, especially with a woman who I would not want to marry. If I do help create a child, I deal with it and be the best father to the child that I can.

Posted by: Tony at June 29, 2007 9:39 AM


* claps for a REAL man!!*

Posted by: Heather4life at June 29, 2007 9:41 AM


Jacque, excellent comments.

Pc4l: you equate maintaining an unplanned pregnancy as being beaten, as if pregnancy is forced upon the mother with severe physical consequences?

In 90%+ of those unplanned cases, the mother was "mentally, physically, or emotionally ready" for recreational sex but not the responsibility that comes with it. Don't equate that with societal beating. Call it what it is, immaturity and/or selfishness.

There's a disconnect here, and the onus is not on the baby, as if s/he gets hold of a whip and has a temper tantrum from the inside, or on society.

The onus is on the mother. She is no slave. She slept with who she wanted to sleep with. She can get up in the morning and work where she wants to work, or not. She can live where she wants to live. She can place her baby for adoption if she doesn't want her life altered.

In reality, the mother is the slaveholder. The baby is her property. She can do with that baby whatever she pleases.

Pro-lifers care about both baby and mother. We want the best for both and do everything we can to ensure the best for both.

All you offer is death. Why, you yourself are in the slave trade, a slave captain willing to throw little slaves overboard when they got burdensome.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 29, 2007 9:44 AM


I'm just around for a second. Stupid logic paper is getting exceedingly difficult. Thanks, everyone, for the well wishes. I'll need them. :)

Bethany,

"why is the right to autonomy (over a child that you had part in creating), more fundamental and worthy than the right to life itself? I am not asking for the violinist argument. I want to know why this right is more worthy than the right to life."

I've thought about this a lot recently. The arguments from analogy (the violinist, forced organ donation, etc) are why I believe that one right supercedes the other, as you know, but this question has been a bit tougher.

I personally think that the reason the right to self-determination/bodily autonomy supercedes the right to life when they come into conflict is that the right to life is made meaningless or ineffective without the right to bodily autonomy. If you don't have the right to determine what happens to your own body, then you've lost the ability to preserve your life (since your life is wholly dependent on your body). If you can't guard your life, because you have no say over your own person, then the right to life is effectively empty.

That's in very abstract terms, but since we're talking about the general question of which right supercedes which in a conflict, it should be in abstract terms. Furthermore, I'm not entirely happy with the wording, since I don't feel it fully captures the idea behind it. But there it is.

Jill,

"You're employing the reverse-slave argument. We say preborn babies are the equivalent of slaves. You're saying unwilling pregnant mothers are the equivalent of slaves?"

I'm not employing the "reverse-slave argument". I think that analogies drawn between slaves and fetii and slaves and pregnant women are all weak analogies. The big difference: there is no question of ownership of another individual with respect to pregnancy. That's the main question with slavery. It is not the main question with abortion. The question with abortion is one of ownership over own's own organs. My claim is that your have a right to autonomy over your own person, including your uterus, and that right supercedes the fetus' right to life in the same way that your right over your vagina supercedes a rapist's right to life. (Even if the rapist doesn't know what he's doing - I'm not saying fetii are malicious, so please don't try to spin it that way).

Carder,

I've heard of Stein, but I've never read anything of hers. I should look into it. Thanks for the suggestion.

Posted by: Diana at June 29, 2007 9:50 AM


Jacque,
*Claps* I'm sooo glad to hear another pro-life feminist view on here, I'm not the only one!

Posted by: Rachael at June 29, 2007 9:51 AM


I just don't understand why you are granting a being that isn't born yet more rights than a person who is born. Why do their right trump a woman's? Can someone please explain that to me...

midnite, that's an easy one. The child's right to life trumps your right to convenience. Should the child's life endanger your own, then your life takes precedence. Until then, that is the order of importance of rights.

It would be a lot like inviting someone on board your boat for a 9 month cruise. Once the ship gets underway, you realize that because of this new passenger, you won't be able to eat as much strawberry shortcake as you like, or drink as much booze as you like because the new passenger is on board.

Do you throw him overboard because he's inconvenient and he's on your boat?

If he eats so much you might starve to death, sure. But you should have taken a look at your provisions before you invited him on board and set sail.

Posted by: Tony at June 29, 2007 9:57 AM


Hi Diana,

you make two problematic claims in this latest series of posts .... there are likely others too, but I love pickin-your-brain.

#1 - you state: "Our "wee" intellects are all we have."

In the process of learning language we use a type of formation called abstraction. For instance we use the word 'cat' to describe a little creature with fir, but the word 'cat' in the English language is a symbolic representation - not a description. We get so used to this term that we mistakenly believe that my symbolic representation is more valuable than the actual creature. Hence you make a mistake in understanding intellect is a sole reality when it has multiple aspects to it. Two of intellects more obvious aspects are 'virtuality' and 'actuality' .... other aspects are dreaming, fantasizing, imagining, etc. These two have some rather unique features and we do get lost in verbiage at times .... it can be a way to escape.

All language is virtual ... a small kid wants a hug more than a speech. Can't tell you how transforming a hug is to a seventeen year old (of either sex) who has not been hugged (outside of a sexual encounter) since they were @4 years old. So when you claim that intellect is all we have ... I think: 'come again?'

problem #2 ... I used the term 'sacredness' not in a religious sense but more in the philosophical sense of 'specialness'. The right to life is the primary RIGHT in the sense that the human must be a living being before any other right comes into play. We do not speak of a corpse having RIGHT(s)

It is the first right (by necessity), but does it trump other rights? To answer such a question requires a delving into other aspects of our formation than just our intellect.

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at June 29, 2007 10:04 AM


John and Tony, excellent points!

Posted by: Heather4life at June 29, 2007 10:09 AM


John,

You misunderstand my use of "intellect". I guess the usage was a bit archaic, but I merely meant that our minds (and that includes sensory inputs) are all we have to go on. That doesn't make what we perceive or think necessarily real - I'm no subjective idealist - but our minds (including senses) are the only means we have for gaining knowledge about the world.

With regard to the right to life, you say:
"It is the first right (by necessity), but does it trump other rights? To answer such a question requires a delving into other aspects of our formation than just our intellect."

I'm confused by this statement. What would we have to appeal to? You seem to think that emotions can also lead to knowledge. That there is truth to be found in a hug. But I can't buy that. Hugs are not epistemically reliable. Emotions often lead to false beliefs rather than true ones.

Posted by: Diana at June 29, 2007 10:12 AM


*Raises hand*

Rachael, 951a, I'm one, too... :) Although I prefer to call myself an egalitarian to avoid being looked upon as an infidel.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 29, 2007 10:13 AM


If my unborn child was not a human, then why was there a heart beating in my tummy? Only another living being would have a heartbeat. I had to share my body. Otherwise, I would be a murderer. Otherwise I could not live with myself. I suppose that's why some try to explain it all away as science. If I ever told my OB about some of the things I have read on this blog, I believe he would give me a very strange look. Or he may get quite a good laugh!

Posted by: Heather4life at June 29, 2007 10:18 AM


Oh, and on a side note, John, this:

"In the process of learning language we use a type of formation called abstraction."

is highly contentious. Chomsky's poverty of stimulus argument can be run against this claim as easily as it can be against grammar acquisition, and as such there are serious questions as to whether or not abstraction is sufficient for gaining linguistic knowledge of universal terms like "cat" or "red".

Posted by: Diana at June 29, 2007 10:21 AM


It doesn't matter whether the fetus is a person or not, no individual has a right to use your body without your consent.

Consensual sex implies consent.

Posted by: Tony at June 29, 2007 10:22 AM


My second and third pregnancies were unplanned. I knew what I was doing. Even though I thought I'd been SUPER careful, it happened anyway. Abortion? Forget it. The second pregnancy was from an abusive man. I could have taken the easy way out and had an abortion. That would have made my boyfriend an abuser and me a murderer. I kicked him to the curb [with the help of the police and the courts] I had my son!

Posted by: Heather4life at June 29, 2007 10:32 AM


"Consensual sex implies consent"

Why not prove it rather than just stating it, Tony?

I can consent to smoking without consenting to cancer. I can consent to eating steak tartar without consenting to getting e coli. I can consent to eating raw eggs without consenting to getting salmonella. I can consent to walking barefoot in the mud without consenting to getting ringworm. I can even consent to drinking poison without consenting to my death (see my post to Samantha above). All of these are cases of consenting to an action without consenting to the likely and completely natural outcome of that action, even though I know that this is the natural outcome. As such, I don't see why I can't consent to sex without consenting to pregnancy.

Posted by: Diana at June 29, 2007 10:32 AM


There is nothing to argue. If I go to a restaurant and eat a steak that makes me sick, that is in NO WAY my own fault. If I take off my clothes and decide to have sex, the FIRST thing on my mind will be possible STD's and possible pregnancy. If either of the 2 follow sexual intercourse, it IS my fault! I knew this could happen. There is a difference between being an innocent victim and being a responsible adult.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 29, 2007 10:40 AM


4life,

You've completely missed the point. Who's "fault" it is is not at issue. Whether or not one consented is. The whole point of these examples (many of which it is my fault that I got what I did - including the steak tartar, doesn't matter how nice the restaurant is, it's raw beef) is that you can consent to an action without consenting to the natural and likely outcome. I knew I could get e coli eating steak tartar! It's my fault I got it! That doesn't mean I consented to it. Same with every other example on that list.

Posted by: Diana at June 29, 2007 10:45 AM


Nope, Diana. Sex is like placing a bet. You bet because of the excitement of betting, the possibility of a desireable outcome, the taboo of betting ect. However, once you place the bet and lose, you can't come back and say that you consented to betting...just not paying if you lose.

You went into the situation knowing the possible and likely outcomes. I doubt a bookie would be to understanding of your arguement.

Posted by: Lauren Author Profile Page at June 29, 2007 10:53 AM


My friend is an HIV + gay man. He told me. "This is my fault." " I should have known better." He is correct.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 29, 2007 11:03 AM


Let me add to my above post. It wasn't all his fault. The other 1/2 falls on the man who gave him the virus.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 29, 2007 11:05 AM


Lauren, that is an excellent analogy!

Posted by: Bethany at June 29, 2007 11:05 AM


Yes it was Lauren!

Posted by: Heather4life at June 29, 2007 11:06 AM


Thanks! I have a really expanded version somewhere in my blog. I'll dig it up if there's interest.

Posted by: Lauren Author Profile Page at June 29, 2007 11:15 AM


I'm interested!

Posted by: Bethany at June 29, 2007 11:21 AM


PS I know plenty of smokers who have lung cancer and emphysema. Who do they always tell me is to blame? Themselves. I'm not trying to sound cold. Just making a point. I am a smoker too. I like an occasional cigarette. If it ever gives me COPD, it's my fault. I know the risks associated with smoking.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 29, 2007 11:23 AM


Lauren, me too. Use that one again! Great comparison!

Posted by: Heather4life at June 29, 2007 11:26 AM


Where do babies come from?

It's a question we all asked at about 5 years old. The way our parent's explained it differed, but we can safely assume that by 12 we all knew that babies came about from sex.

That's why I refuse to entertain the concept that a fetus is "raping it's mother" because she "did not consent to it being in her body". If you know that sex causes pregnancy, even if you take every step to not get pregnant, you are still consenting to pregnancy because it is the cost of the gamble.

Everyone knows that when you gamble you could very well lose your money. You go into a poker match with this knowledge. You lay down your bet, thinking you have a full-proof hand and, lo and behold, you lose. After the flop you can't say "well I didn't consent to losing my money! I just consented to the act of gambling for other reasons!" and then proceed steal all the chips on the table. You went into the hand knowing that there was a high probability of losing your money, you lost your money despite your careful planning, and now you have to deal with it.

Now the crux of this argument comes in the fact that losing your money after losing a bet is NOT a punishment, but rather a foreseeable consequence of gambling. You gamble to feel good, make money, to fulfil a compulsion, get closer to the dealer, or whatever, but the "fun" of gambling takes into account the possibility of losing it all. It is your responsibility to uphold your end of the deal and relinquish your money.

When one consents to sex, she enters into a "bet" of sorts. The odds change depending on her contraceptives, but there is always the chance she will "lose it all" and become pregnant. To deny this is ludicrous, to maintain that this is a punishment is absurd. Sex is a gamble if you don't want a baby. If the cards fall against you you're responsible for the outcome. Even if you use every method of birth control known to man there's always a chance you'll "lose it on the river" and be stuck with the consequences. When was the last time you've seen someone refuse to pay up after losing a bet and walk away? Doing so would be a default on the "contract" of gambling, just as an abortion is a default on the "contrac" of sex.

Posted by: Lauren Author Profile Page at June 29, 2007 11:27 AM


Lauren, BRAVO!!

Posted by: Heather4life at June 29, 2007 11:30 AM


4life,

It's not about who is at "fault". If I lick the spoon with raw cookie dough on it and then get salmonella IT IS MY FAULT. I knew I could get salmonella and I licked the spoon. But that doesn't mean I consented. Blame and consent are not the same thing.

Lauren,

Your bookie analogy is interesting, but I think faulty. There is not a natural causal relationship between my bet and my debt. There is an agreed upon relationship - one that is almost contractual (although outside places where gambling is legal, the contract cannot be enforced).

But you seem unconcerned with the implications of your conclusion. If I live in a bad neighborhood, where I know there are a lot of break ins and I know that it is likely that if I leave my window open, someone will break into my house, and then I foolishly leave my window open because it is hot, you seem to be saying that not only is it my fault that the burglar has entered my home, but also that I have consented to his presence. There is a natural causal relationship between the my window being left open and the intruders presence in my house (given his bad psychology).

Or worse, what if I wear a miniskirt in an area known for being filled with sexual predators (we know these things now - Meghan's law and whatnot). I know it is likely that this action will naturally (given the f'ed up states of sexual predators) lead to my being assaulted. Does that mean I consented to it? No. Of course not. I may have been super stupid, but stupidity doesn't equal consent any more than culpability does.

Or what about all the other examples I gave above. These are much more fitting than the two I've just given. You're going to tell me that the smoker consents to cancer? Not that he's culpable. Of course he is, but those two things are different. You're going to tell me that the person who wants to feel the cool mud on his feet consents to ringworm? That the richie who enjoys his steak tartar consents to e coli? If you're correct, then that is what you must be saying.

Posted by: Diana at June 29, 2007 11:36 AM


I second that...bravo!

Posted by: Bethany at June 29, 2007 11:36 AM


What I mean to say by noting that the relationship between bet and debt is not natural, but a social convention is that because of the social convention, there is implicit consent in placing the bet that is not automatically present when the relationship is not dependent on a social convention.

Posted by: Diana at June 29, 2007 11:41 AM


But if you licked the spoon with cookie dough, didn't you consent to licking the spoon? Oh, cookie dough. My favorite snack!

Posted by: Heather4life at June 29, 2007 12:04 PM


4life,

You did consent to licking the spoon, but your consent to licking the spoon does not equal consent to salmonella, any more than your consent to following closely in your car equals consent to rear end the person in front of you. It is totally your fault. You knew it was a natural and likely outcome, but that does not mean you consented.

And I'm totally with you there. I love cookie dough!

Posted by: Diana at June 29, 2007 12:10 PM


Your missing the point, Diana.

Instead of realizing that the two are, by their natures, correlated, you focus on the abusrd notion that social and natural phenomena can not be compared. Pregnancy is especially linked to a gamble due to the extreme statistical emphasis placed on both. We opperate within our frames of reference, and in our society a losing bet results in a debt. This is the framework for the analogy. I could frame an analogy using alien concepts in order to be free from the chains of social convention, but that would serve no purpose in our debate.


Your examples as to where my arguement is sure to lead are completely unrelated to the sex and reproduction, and unrelated to gambling. Your miniskirt/rape scenerio would be like saying that it is an accepted risk that placing a bet will lead to your murder. In either case a third party has entered the scenerio and changed it in ways unforseen in the original contract.

Furthermore (though unrelated to gambling) pregnancy can not be compared to being raped, murdered, or food poisioned because none of these things are the desired or natural consequence to a given action. No one wears a miniskirt with the express purpose of being sexually asulted. No one opens a window to be murdered. These acts are the corruption of purpose, never the victims intent.

Pregnancy, on the other hand, is a crutial outcome of sex. It goes beyond forseeable (as would be the case of a lost bet) the the realm of necessatiy. While it is not necessary for every woman to be pregnant, it is necessary for pregnancy and reproduction to occur within society. Recognition of this fact separates the sex/pregnancy relationship from any other behavior driven outcome. Because of this the "natural consequence" of seeing sex as a contract of odds will not lead to the acceptance of rape and murder. These acts will continue to be viewed as actions happening apart from the actions of the victim.

Posted by: Lauren Author Profile Page at June 29, 2007 12:13 PM


Lauren, and everyone out there who prayed....I have exciting news!!!!!!
http://bethany.preciousinfants.com/2007/06/29/i-am-crying.aspx

Posted by: Bethany at June 29, 2007 12:16 PM


Bethany, I am so delighted!! I already read this in my mail. Same thing happened to me.[story I told you] Congratulations!!

Posted by: Heather4life at June 29, 2007 12:24 PM


Diana,

Your all over the place. On rights, morals, etc. you can't even keep your own opinions straight. If an unborn child has a right to life, the he has an absolute right to life. If another right superceeds his right, then he doesn't truly have that right to life to begin with.

Stop trying to dance around the issue. you are for killing innocent unborn children if the mother wants to. I pity you.

Posted by: jasper at June 29, 2007 12:27 PM


Um... first, Lauren, I haven't missed the point at all. What I claimed is that your analogy between sex and gambling falters because the fact that the relationship between a bet and the incurred debt is a social convention makes it such that there is implicit consent to the debt when the bet is placed. Something similar happens with promises. Given the social conventions around promises, if I make a promise to you, I agree to fulfil it and give implicit consent to chastisement if I fail to make good on it.

Since no such social convention is in play with sex and pregnancy, you can't claim that the same implicit consent exists in that situation. So, if you have an analogy that works without social convention, it would be very relevant to the debate, since it might actually be a viable analogy.

"Your examples as to where my arguement is sure to lead are completely unrelated to the sex and reproduction, and unrelated to gambling."

Um, analogies aren't supposed to be of the same sort. Gambling is not related to sex, but I didn't complain about that aspect of the analogy

"Your miniskirt/rape scenerio would be like saying that it is an accepted risk that placing a bet will lead to your murder."

The issue here was consent, not betting.

"In either case a third party has entered the scenerio and changed it in ways unforseen in the original contract."

Uh... and what do you call a fetus? The third party in both scenarios was completely forseen. That was built into both cases.

"Furthermore (though unrelated to gambling) pregnancy can not be compared to being raped, murdered, or food poisioned because none of these things are the desired or natural consequence to a given action."

You're telling me that ringworm is not a natural consequence of walking barefoot in certain places? That e coli is not a natural consequence of eating raw ground beef? That cancer is not a natural and likely consequence of smoking? And whether or not an outcome is desired is a completely subjective matter and irrelevant to whether those who don't desire it have consented to it. If I'm suicidal, I might eat raw beef to get e coli, or smoke to get cancer. And in those cases it would seem like I've consented to the e coli or the cancer. The fact that I'm deranged and want cancer (hypothetically) has no bearing on weather or not Joe Blow, who smokes but doesn't want cancer, consents to the cancer he gets. Similarly, the fact that pregnancy is sometimes desired has nothing to do with whether someone who does not desire it has consented to it.

"No one wears a miniskirt with the express purpose of being sexually asulted. No one opens a window to be murdered. These acts are the corruption of purpose, never the victims intent."

The fact that people never have this purpose is irrelevant. All that matters is natural consequence. And give the psychological states of certain people, which in the case at issue, I am well aware of, it seems like a natural (if unwanted) consequence. If I were deranged, I might wear a miniskirt to get assaulted. But then I've consented (and with that consent it is no longer assault). If I'm suicidal, I might leave my window open to allow the intruder in. But then it seems like I've consented to his presence. The fact that people sometimes have sex with the purpose of becoming pregnant, and thereby seem to consent to that pregnancy, has no bearing on whether those who have sex for another purpose (which, if I may remind you, it does have) have consented to a pregnancy they don't want.


Furthermore, the necessity of pregnancy for continuation of the species is comepletely irrelevant to the rights of the individual woman. Or are you going to claim that it is in fact relevant to whether or not a woman has a right over her body? If the population were dwindling severely, would you be pushing to force women to get pregnant even though they didn't want to?

Posted by: Diana at June 29, 2007 12:33 PM


Jasper,

"Your all over the place. On rights, morals, etc. you can't even keep your own opinions straight. If an unborn child has a right to life, the he has an absolute right to life. If another right superceeds his right, then he doesn't truly have that right to life to begin with.Stop trying to dance around the issue. you are for killing innocent unborn children if the mother wants to. I pity you."

Where have I been inconsistent. No right is sacrosanct. If you believe that, then you've got some serious issues. Are you claiming that because your right to raise your children as you see fit supercedes the pornographer's free speech rights to post his pornography wherever he wants that he doesn't really have free speech rights? Are you claiming that because your right to bear arms does not extend to owning tank piercing missiles, that you don't truly have a right to bear arms? Are you claiming that because the right to free press is curtailed when the information to be released is a matter of national security that you don't truly have free press rights? You live in a very strange world, Jasper, where apparently reason and reality very rarely visit. I pity you.

Posted by: Diana at June 29, 2007 12:37 PM


I am totally confused now.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 29, 2007 12:38 PM


Bethany, Wonderful news! I'm very happy for you.

Posted by: Diana at June 29, 2007 12:46 PM


Diana, I don't have time to respond right now, but if I will later today. Sorry to post and run! I promise I'll be back to answer your post.

Posted by: Lauren Author Profile Page at June 29, 2007 12:56 PM


It's cool, Lauren. I should go work on my paper, anyway. I'll keep an eye out for your reply.

Posted by: Diana at June 29, 2007 1:00 PM


Diana, what is your major?

Posted by: Heather4life at June 29, 2007 1:02 PM


I'm a PhD candidate in philosophy.

Posted by: Diana at June 29, 2007 1:06 PM


That's wondreful!

Posted by: Heather4life at June 29, 2007 1:08 PM


UUGH, meant wonderful!

Posted by: Heather4life at June 29, 2007 1:09 PM


Thanks. :) It's not easy, but I've always loved school.

Posted by: Diana at June 29, 2007 1:14 PM


You know Diana, I love school also. I always thought Forensic medicine would be a cool field! I became a nurse instead. I'm going on for another degree. It's home study. I am a fast reader. I retain info quickly, but I stink at math! Punctuation is another weakness. You must be one smart lady!

Posted by: Heather4life at June 29, 2007 1:24 PM


Diana,

I would say the flaw is in your analogy, not Lauren's.

If I live in a bad neighborhood, where I know there are a lot of break ins and I know that it is likely that if I leave my window open, someone will break into my house, and then I foolishly leave my window open because it is hot, you seem to be saying that not only is it my fault that the burglar has entered my home, but also that I have consented to his presence.

I don't leave my vagina open and penises (peni?) just enter at will. In sexual intercourse, you make a CHOICE to PARTICIPATE in an ACT. Over 99% of abortions are from consensual sex. The act of sex carries the risk of pregnancy. You participate in the act knowing that risk- you just don't want to accept the consequences of the choice you made. In the case of burglary or rape, you haven't invited anyone into your home or into your vagina- In the case of sex, YOU DO.

By the way, if the treatment for e-coli, ringworms, or lung cancer involved the slaughter of an innocent baby, I would oppose that. If a pregnancy could be ended without the death of an child, your cop-out in not accepting the responsibility for your choices would be of no consequence to me.

P.S. Is this paper for a conference?

Posted by: JacqueFromTexas at June 29, 2007 1:52 PM


Diana,

the right to life has no ambiguity unlike those other rights you refer.

Plus, many of our rights/laws are based on morals. ie you can't rob, steal, rape, etc..

Heather, thats what Diana likes to do; confuse the issue of life. They spend their time spinning around in circles defending the death mills. Most Darwinists do this routine...like Cam.

Posted by: jasper at June 29, 2007 1:58 PM


Way to go Jacque!! jasper, I just meant that I am getting lost in the confusion of these analogies. *sigh* I know that Cameron uses this tactic as well. I think it's a way of shifting the focus of the real issue. Abortion is murder.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 29, 2007 2:20 PM


food poisoning, mini skirts, and burglary have nothing to do with abortion! It's like comparing apples to oranges.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 29, 2007 2:29 PM


From a layman's point of view, and not being a prolific student of collegiate logic: we keep hearing about "right to autonomy"
'rights to self's organs" "my consent" etc.


Couldn't this be a sophisticated way of saying "selfish"? Me, me, my ,my and nobody else's? So opposed to generosity, which puts the other's needs first. And please, I'm not trying to start a metaphysical explanation of that virtue. Leave it for another post :)

"Call it what is, immaturity and/or selfishness"

Jill, couldn't we give some women the benefit that they were bullied,/forced/obligated to abort? Does that still fall under those 2 categories you mentioned? If they were not given any other choice, then we could rightfully say that it was anti-choice?

Posted by: carder at June 29, 2007 2:36 PM


I agree Heather, they'll do anything except talk about real evil of abortion.

Posted by: jasper at June 29, 2007 2:37 PM


heather, look at this one below, Diana believes that aborting a 38 week-old unborn baby should be legal..and in the next breath she denies it..

###########

Jasper: If a woman has true bodily autonomy (control over her own body), can she abort an unborn baby at 38 weeks? The mother and baby are fine with no health problems?

Diana:Yes.

Posted by: jasper at June 29, 2007 2:48 PM


jasper and carder, Did you happen to see that Tiller was performing late term abortions on women who wanted to go to rock concerts and sporting events? Appalling isn't it? This is one of the most selfish things I have ever heard.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 29, 2007 2:48 PM


jasper, the funny thing is that pro choicers are always squawking about their bodies! "Keep the government off of my body!" If you cared so much about your body, why did you have reckless sex in the first place? Not only did you become pregnant. You also put yourself at risk for a disease. What if you found out you had contracted HIV years after your abortion? I just don't get this backasswardness.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 29, 2007 2:56 PM


yes, I read about this heather. This was a testimony from an abortion doctor who worked for tiller, or maybe even from tiller himself.

Posted by: jasper at June 29, 2007 2:58 PM


jasper, maybe the mother's life was at risk. Maybe she told Tiller that she would have a nervous breakdown or a heart attack if she were to miss the concert.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 29, 2007 3:00 PM


@ Diana 12:21,

Noam Chomsky eh? .... This was not about how language was acquired but once we do have it, what we do with this ... Many academics hold themselves in high regard ... often at the expense of emotions. Part of this is no doubt a classical and arbitrary decision. But accenting on virtuality/language seems to be a control mechanism where someone other than #1/me has input - a significant input at times even dominating my own!

The world of emotion is a world where the group supersedes the individual ... the individual does not even seek control but sublimates the self to the group. The goal/end-point of emotions is meaning .... the goal/end-point of intellect is understanding. [If you are interested - the other two actualities comprising human life are the physical reality who's goal/end point is purpose and the fourth is 'faith' whose goal/end-point is significance. So comprehending a human life in your terms is extremely limiting.]

Any emotion cannot be fully (even partially) understood. But this does not mean that it should not be experienced. I cannot list the positive changes in a young man who was repeatedly hugged and affirmed over two days. He was 'hard-as-nails', a wrestler in his senior year in high school .... I met him a few months later - so relaxed /// all tension had gone. And I did not recognize the new him. I was astounded ... and he thought it weird.

While each avenue has merit (both intellect and emotions), neither one should be relegated to secondary/not-truly-human status. A person emphasizing understanding ... can still comfortably accommodate control. But control is almost anti-meaning ... hence emotions are often shunned by intellectuals.

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at June 29, 2007 3:09 PM


Heather, LOL!! yes

Posted by: jasper at June 29, 2007 3:17 PM


Jacque,

"I don't leave my vagina open and penises (peni?) just enter at will. In sexual intercourse, you make a CHOICE to PARTICIPATE in an ACT."

You're correct that the particular case you picked on does not, on it's face, appear to involve an overt act. I would say that purposefully leaving the window open, however, would count as an overt act what one chose to take, and hence the cases are not disanalogous in the way you suggest. Either way, the other cases all involve overt acts.

And to answer your question, the paper is not for a conference. I did recently present at a conference that I organized and had quite a bit of fun. This paper is for a class, however, and is giving me so many problems that I prefer to let Jasper tick me off around here than actually work on it. *sigh*

Jasper,

"the right to life has no ambiguity unlike those other rights you refer."

Really? If that's the case then I guess you're saying that I cannot kill a man who is raping me to get him to stop. His right to life is, according to you, sacrosanct, and my right to bodily autonomy does not supercede his right to life. After all. I'm not going to die from being raped, so I have no right to kill him to get him to stop. Is that how you feel?

"Heather, thats what Diana likes to do; confuse the issue of life. They spend their time spinning around in circles defending the death mills."

Jasper, why is it my fault that you can't keep up? Why is it my responsibility to parse everything into little bite size pieces so that you get what's going on? I've raised similar points with pro-life colleagues and their response is never "you're just trying to confuse the issue". They stand up and debate like rational individuals. I'm pretty sure that the fault here does not lie with me. I've no problem explaining points if people find them confusing, or defining terms if people ask, but I'm not going to let you attack me just because you can't follow the argument.

"heather, look at this one below, Diana believes that aborting a 38 week-old unborn baby should be legal..and in the next breath she denies it."

If the only way you can make a case for your conclusion is by taking what others have said out of context, then there really is no point in talking to you. So others are not swayed by your misrepresentation of my statements, here is the rest of my response to your question:

"Yes. Although what would be best in that situation (as long as the risk to the woman is not substatially great) induced labor and delivery and then preventative measures to save the life of the infant. If the woman's right to bodily autonomy can be respected without harm to the infant, than it should be. While the woman's right to bodily autonomy supercedes the right to life of the fetus, if it is possible to respect both the woman's right to bodily autonomy AND the fetus' right to life, then that is what should be done."

Now, does undergoing induced labor and delivery constitute allowing her to have an abortion? Technically, yes:

a·bor·tion /əˈbɔrʃən/ –noun 1. Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.

They are removing the fetus from her uterus to end a pregnancy. They're just using induced labor and delivery to do it. And, as I said, since no right is sacrosanct, while her right to self-determination supercedes the fetus' right to life, we may regulate HOW the woman's right is exercised in order to preserve the rights of the fetus (as we do with many other rights).

Posted by: Diana at June 29, 2007 3:32 PM


John,

I'm going to be completely honest; I have no idea what all that meant (although it sounds an awful lot like Hegel, which is also a mystery to me). Explain?

From what I did get out of it, however, I will say that I do not deny the value of emotions. They are an important part of being human, and they should be experienced, explored, etc. But we do not find facts in emotions (except facts about emotions). How we feel about a particular proposition has no bearing on whether that proposition is true or false.

Posted by: Diana at June 29, 2007 3:37 PM


consent, blah blah blah...
sometimes you just don't get a choice, do you think you will get to consent to die at the end of your life? some things are just not up to you. What is up to you is the way you handle it when it does happen.

Posted by: Rosie at June 29, 2007 3:59 PM


Diana,

You callous idiot. We're talking about the right to life of an innocent unborn child. What the hell is wrong with you? you arrogant snob.

Posted by: jasper at June 29, 2007 4:00 PM


Ah, I see Jasper has no argument so he does an ad hom. How mature.

@Bethany: I'm so happy to hear the news! I am incredibly happy for you!

Posted by: Rae at June 29, 2007 4:19 PM


a little wisdom (sent to me by my brother),

"I was at the corner grocery store buying some early potatoes. I noticed a small boy, delicate of bone and feature, ragged but clean, hungrily apprising a basket of freshly picked green peas. I paid for my potatoes but was also drawn to the display of fresh green peas. I am a pushover for creamed peas and new potatoes. Pondering the peas, I couldn't help overhearing the conversation between Mr. Miller (the store owner) and the ragged boy next to me.

'Hello Barry, how are you today?'

'H'lo, Mr. Miller. Fine, thank ya. Jus' admirin' them peas. They sure look good.'

'They are good, Barry. How's your Ma?'

'Fine. Gittin' stronger alla' time.'

'Good. Anything I can help you with?'

'No, Sir. Jus' admirin' them peas.'

'Would you like to take some home?' asked Mr Miller.

'No, Sir. Got nuthin' to pay for 'em with.'

'Well, what have you to trade me for some of those peas?'

'All I got's my prize marble here.'

'Is that right? Let me see it' said Miller.

'Here 'tis. She's a dandy.'

'I can see that. Hmmmmm, only thing is this one is blue and I sort of go for red. Do you have a red one like this at home?' the store owner asked.

'Not zackley but almost.'

'Tell you what. Take this sack of peas home with you and next trip this way let me look at that red marble' Mr. Miller told the boy.

'Sure will. Thanks Mr. Miller.'

Mrs. Miller, who had been standing nearby, came over to help me. With a smile she said, 'There are two other boys like him in our community, all three are in very poor circumstances. Jim just loves to bargain with them for peas, apples, tomatoes, or whatever. When they come back with their red marbles, and they always do, he decides he doesn't like red after all and he sends them home with a bag of produce for a green marble or an orange one, when they come on their next trip to the store.'

I left the store smiling to myself, impressed with this man. A short time later I moved to Colorado, but I never forgot the story of this man, the boys, and their bartering for marbles.

Several years went by, each more rapid than the previous one. Just recently I had occasion to visit some old friends in that Idaho community and while I was there learned that Mr. Miller had died. They were having his visitation that evening and knowing my friends wanted to go, I agreed to accompany them. Upon arrival at the mortary we fell into line to meet the relatives of the deceased and to offer whatever words of comfort we could.

Ahead of us in line were three young men. One was in an army uniform and the other two wore nice haircuts, dark suits and white shirts...all very professional looking. They approached Mrs. Miller, standing composed and smiling by her husband's' casket. Each of the young men hugged her, kissed her on the cheek, spoke briefly with her and moved on to the casket.

Her misty light blue eyes followed them as, one by one, each young man stopped briefly and placed his own warm hand over the cold pale hand in the casket. Each left the mortuary awkwardly, wiping his eyes.

Our turn came to meet Mrs. Miller. I told her who I was and reminded her of the story from those many years ago and what she had told me about her husband's bartering for marbles. With her eyes glistening, she took my hand and led me to the casket.

'Those three young men who just left were the boys I told you about. They just told me how they appreciated the things Jim 'traded' them. N O W, at last, when Jim could not change his mind about color or size....they came to pay their debt.'

'We've never had a great deal of the wealth of this world,' she confided, 'but right now, Jim would consider himself the richest man in Idaho .'

With loving gentleness she lifted the lifeless fingers of her deceased husband. Resting underneath were three exquisitely shined Red Marbles !

The Moral : We will not be remembered by our Words, but by our kind deeds. Life is not measured by the breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath.

Today I wish you a day of ordinary miracles ~
A fresh pot of coffee you didn't make yourself.
An unexpected phone call from an old friend.
Green stoplights on your way to work.
The fastest line at the grocery store.
A good sing-along song on the radio.
Your keys found right where you left them.

Send this to the people you'll never forget. I just Did...

If you don't send it to anyone, it means you are in way too much of a hurry to even notice the ordinary miracles when they occur.

IT'S NOT WHAT YOU GATHER, BUT WHAT YOU SCATTER THAT TELLS WHAT KIND OF LIFE YOU HAVE LIVED!"

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at June 29, 2007 4:51 PM


Rae, Diana, Lauren, Heather. Thank you so much for the congratulations. I still have to be cautious but today is such a happy day!

John, what a beautiful story! So full of truth and wisdom.


Posted by: Bethany at June 29, 2007 5:34 PM


Kudos John! Great news Bethany!

Posted by: Heather4life at June 29, 2007 5:48 PM


Sorry about that Diana, you just got me pissed-off a little.

Posted by: jasper at June 29, 2007 7:12 PM


Bethany,

I'm a late comer here. What's the great news??

Posted by: Mary at June 29, 2007 7:35 PM


Mary, here is the link:
http://bethany.preciousinfants.com/2007/06/29/i-am-crying.aspx

Posted by: Bethany at June 29, 2007 7:52 PM


Hi Diana,

thanks for giving me another chance to explain ...
there is IMO a fundamental way in which being fully human is perceived. Too often, we relegate our intellect as our primary truth-bearer but do not realize that many neurological inputs impact on other brain sectors and hence powers than the cerebral cortex (the site of intellectual learning ... a primate trait - especially human).

Please draw three interlocking circles + one very large one encompassing the other three. To each of the smaller circles assign in turn 'physical'; 'emotions'; 'intellect' and to the big circle assign the word 'faith'. Each of these represents the power that we use to find/experience/become 'human'. Each of these is necessary and a whole lot of trouble ensues from pitting one against another ... eg. intellect as being superior to emotions. Each also has its own 'goal' or raison-d'etres ... #1 - physical reality seeks 'purpose'; #2 - 'emotions' seek ultimately 'meaning'; #3 - the goal of 'intellect' is 'understanding' and 'faith' seeks 'significance'. {I do not think there is one word that falls outside this framework!}
So 'truth' is much more holistic than relegating such to intellect ... for example: I can mourn for a deceased pet and such is a human-truth but one would be hard-pressed to find any 'truth' as an intellectual exercise exclusively.

There are some rather strange observations in adopting such a view ... one is that there seems to be a sort of time-line ... physical reality seems to be from conception until the late teens; intellectual seems concentrated from late teens until late 20's; emotions are mainly about making a family ... late 20's - early 40's .... and faith seems the concern of the elderly ... @75 and up.

This also permits a very different understanding of truth and rights are not only an intellectual football, but a living reality.

Emotions are perhaps downgraded by intellectualism because these are very much about being-in-a-group and only skirts about identity as an isolate-individual. Your sense of autonomy stems from here but the word 'rights' does not find its proper (full) home the way you conceive 'rights'. These seem more to be about 'MY - wishes & desires', cloaked in the buzz word 'rights'.

For Jasper, Heather4life and others 'rights' are comprehended as meanings and significance .... and is only treated as a intellectual subject tangentially. When Jasper asks you to emote, it is not a useless exercise [or an ad hominem attack as Rae believes it to be] but one that is closer to the truth than a reliance on intellectualism.

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at June 29, 2007 8:01 PM


Excuse me, John, but calling somebody an "arrogant snob" or a "callous idiot" doesn't sound like bringing somebody closer to the truth and relieving somebody's reliance on intellectualism.

Posted by: Rae at June 29, 2007 8:09 PM


Bethany,

What exciting and wonderful news!! The same thing happened with my last pregnancy and she is now 20y/o. I couldn't be happier for you and wish you the very best!

Posted by: Mary at June 29, 2007 8:17 PM


thanks John, your a very wise man. I always learn from your posts and I wish I had your patience...

Rae, I already apoligized to Diana. It was wrong what I said... sometings analogies just don't apply, like comparing the right of life of a rapist to an unborn child as the unborn child never commited any crime.

Posted by: jasper at June 29, 2007 8:48 PM


Great, wonderful news Bethany ... blessed are you and blessings on your whole family ....

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at June 29, 2007 8:51 PM


@Jasper: That is true, and I note that you did apologize, which is very good of you. I was just pointing out to John that it was an ad hom attack regardless of the "message" behind it.

Anyway, what's done is done.

Posted by: Rae at June 29, 2007 8:59 PM


Jasper-

Name calling is immature, rude and detrimental to our cause. If you can't form an argument, then don't speak at all.

Sorry, Diana.

Posted by: JacqueFromTexas at June 29, 2007 9:02 PM


Yes, I know.

Posted by: jasper at June 29, 2007 9:05 PM


Rae,

you are right ... but keeping 'cool' is at times contra-indicated. For instance, I purposely provoked a fight with Erin .... just hoping that she would align her thoughts with her words. Diana is a whole different person with a whole different approach. I read Jasper's posts as a deep-frustration. Diana purposely uses words as if she was fencing with phrases ... twisting and turning a sort of 'see-I-win (because you did not catch-me)'. But Jasper knows that death has no winners. The one to worry about is Diana ... she'll twist herself out of all normalcy. I do pity her.

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at June 29, 2007 9:14 PM


@John: I think she'll probably respectfully disagree with you about twisting herself out of normalcy. I'm also not sure she'd appreciate your pity.

But tell me John, why do you pity her? Is it because you feel morally superior and feel the need to show your "mercy" towards her? I apologize for sounding condescending, but this is the only way I can think of phrasing what I'm trying to say.

Posted by: Rae at June 29, 2007 9:27 PM


Your bookie analogy is interesting, but I think faulty. There is not a natural causal relationship between my bet and my debt. There is an agreed upon relationship - one that is almost contractual (although outside places where gambling is legal, the contract cannot be enforced).

Tell that to Guido and Mario.

Posted by: Tony Author Profile Page at June 29, 2007 9:40 PM


Your missing the point, Diana.

No, Diana is ignoring the point.

Posted by: Tony Author Profile Page at June 29, 2007 9:42 PM


Frustration isn't an excuse for lashing out at others so rudely. Frankly, if someone can't keep their cool during an argument and fill a post with more material than ad hom attacks, they shouldn't be debating. Period.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at June 29, 2007 9:45 PM


Well let Cameron know.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 29, 2007 9:46 PM


Hi Rae,

pity is one word that opposes virility and pride ... if it is understood only from an intellectual - isolate point-of-view. Pity is much more at home in the sphere of emotions ... a place where identity is shared ... Diana is my sister and I shiver at her IMO self-destruction. I have plenty of pain and rejection in my-personal life and would not wish such on anyone ... especially a sister.

A few weeks back MK said this felt like someone insisted on playing on the road with a Mac truck barreling down. 'Oh, you're gonna get hit! Please move!' What is our answer, Rae? Is our pity misplaced?

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at June 29, 2007 9:57 PM


@John: Why do you feel Diana is self-destructing? Why do you feel she is worthy of pity? I'm honestly wondering why you feel the way you do.

I don't think pity is the same as concern for another's well-being. Warning somebody that they're going to get hit by a Mack truck by playing in traffic isn't the same (in my eyes) as pitying somebody because they have a different set of morals than yourself. Of course I can see how you are making an analogy that playing in traffic puts them at physical risk where as supporting abortion or something puts their spiritual well-being at risk?

Posted by: Rae at June 29, 2007 10:10 PM


Wow, John, and thank you for that extra credit Logic 101 description.


NOt to divert the logic rap, (it's getting quite good actually, don't stop)Jill's article is about abortion/slavery comparisons. Some of us may/may not know that Dr. Alveda King, niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is a prominent pro-life activist and is certainly qualified to speak about this topic than some of us here. You can read her open letters on the Priests For Life website, click on "African American Outreach". She experienced 2 abortions, one done without her consent. She considers the abortion issue THEE civil rights issue of our day. Anybody want to take Sister Alveda on???

@Erin and Samantha T: Samantha, you've had the benefit of several years of hindsight since your abortion, Erin, yours was fairly recent. To hear that post-abortive women are described in less than flattering terms, how does it make you feel? Are they completely off base or are there shreds of truth in their conclusions?

Posted by: carder at June 29, 2007 10:15 PM



Per Less:

"Frustration isn't an excuse for lashing out at others so rudely. Frankly, if someone can't keep their cool during an argument and fill a post with more material than ad hom attacks, they shouldn't be debating. Period."

Per Less:
(In a response to me earlier tonight)

"Life generally does interfere with arguing with batty old shrews who believe sex automatically equals pregnancy and that every child is a blessing."

So calling pro-life women Batty Old Shrews is not lashing out or rude????

Please clarify. I want a 50 word or less explaination. No gramatical errors or spelling mistakes please. This will count towards your final grade.

Posted by: Sandy at June 29, 2007 10:17 PM


Bethany,
Congratulations! Great news!!

Posted by: Sandy at June 29, 2007 10:19 PM


...fill a post with more material than ad hom attacks...

The post contained more than ad hom attacks. I have the ability to post more than simple insults. I have a point with the posts other than to be insulting.

Three sentences, thirty words, not counting the quote. Feel better now?

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at June 29, 2007 10:27 PM


Geez! Go work on a paper and you'll come back to find you've been insulted, apologized to, pitied and otherwise the topic of discussion. Goodness.

Rae,

Thanks for standing up for me. :)

Jasper,

Apology accepted. (And, Jacque, thanks for apologizing as well, even though it wasn't your doing.)

"sometings analogies just don't apply, like comparing the right of life of a rapist to an unborn child as the unborn child never commited any crime."

My question about the rapist directed at you was a point about your claim that the right to life is inviolable. If that were the case, then I couldn't kill a rapist to make him stop raping me. But I can and should be able to. Hence the right to life is not sacrosanct (no right is).

Tony,

I'm pretty sure "Guido and Mario" would agree that the social convention surrounding betting results in the fact that implicit consent is given in the placing of a bet. And I'm not sure how I'm ignoring the point by trying to pay close attention to all the nuances.

John,

I THINK I understand where you are coming from now, and I think that our disagreement results on two fronts. First, you and I have a different understanding of 'truth'. 'Truth' for me, is (very very roughly) correspondence with reality. You seem to be seeking some higher Truth (with a capital T). And while the search to this itself might bring something wonderful to you, I do not believe any such thing exists. There is only reality, and truth consists in our ideas matching up with that reality (again, that's very, very rough).

The second point of disagreement comes with regard to the circles you asked me to draw. There is no distinction between the physical and anything else for me. The physical is all there is. Now, I do firmly believe that in order to truly explore the human experience, we must give space to the senses (if that is what you mean by physical), rational processes, and emotions. But, as I noted above, the truth about the world is not the same as what we necessarily discover in human experience.

You seem to be implying (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that I do not actually look at the substantial reality behind the words but instead focus on the words themselves. Basically, then, you would be saying that I'm playing with semantics rather than actually talking about the world. I'm sort of offended by that. I don't take what I'm doing to be word-play. I take it to be an attempt to understand the world using experience and reason.I do not believe that I "fence with words". Rather I hope that I engage in debate with concepts and propositions that match with reality and with logic (that is, with truth and reason).

Further, I'm not sure how I'll twist myself out of normalcy. I'll be the first to admit that philosophers seek out complexities where others wish there were none, but that's all in the hope of finding the truth. We adhere to Occam's Razor, but sometimes the world is not simple.

John, I do very much appreciate your caring, but I'm afraid I can't accept your pity. As a matter of fact, I'm further offended by the idea that I ought to be pitied. I don't see how I'm "self-destructive". I waited tables full time for years to pay my way through college. I obtained two BAs - one in philosophy and one in political science. I then obtained a Masters and am now well on my way to my PhD. While I was an undergrad, I co-founded and served as president of the ACLU chapter of the university I went to, and was an active member in Justicia Sin Fronteras (Justice Without Borders - my favorite activities was leaving water and cell phones in the Mexican desert to prevent the deaths of those who so desperately want to get into this country). Whenever I had time I volunteered at the local battered women's shelter.

Currently, I'm senior editor of my university's undergraduate philosophy journal, I serve as liason between the grad students and the faculty, I just organized a graduate conference which my university hosted, and I presented at it. On top of my own classes and dissertation prep., I teach introductory philosophy courses, including intro ethics. I'm also aiding in editing a new edition of my fav. professor's logic textbook, and I work about 15 hours a week in the department to make some extra cash. I look back at what I've just written, and I feel terrible, since it looks like I'm just blowing my own horn. That's not my meaning at all. I know so many who do so much more than me, and I strive to be like them. The point of all this "I do X, Y and Z" is that my life has not been some spin in self-destruct mode. I dedicate my life to work, study, and helping others in the ways that I can best help.

Posted by: Diana at June 29, 2007 10:32 PM


John,
Diana your sister? Does this mean "sister" as in the we're-all-one-big-human-family sense? Or is she your biological sibling? I'm thinking it's the former, please correct me if I'm off.

Posted by: Carder at June 29, 2007 10:50 PM


In the we're-all-one-big-human-family sense, unless John knows something I don't.

Posted by: Diana at June 29, 2007 10:58 PM


"I co-founded and served as president of the ACLU chapter of the university I went to,"

well that explains it...

"and was an active member in Justicia Sin Fronteras (Justice Without Borders - my favorite activities was leaving water and cell phones in the Mexican desert to prevent the deaths of those who so desperately want to get into this country)"

Did you tell them that they were brealing the law?

and they should file for citizenship legally and not cut in front the law abiding immigrants

Posted by: jasper at June 29, 2007 11:09 PM


And once again Jasper...you're condescension is just oozing here. Your apology to Diana is ringing hollow...

Posted by: Rae at June 29, 2007 11:16 PM


Why Rae, I didn't critize Diana again? I just indicated that it's makes sense that Diana would be part of the ACLU.

10. The ACLU was founded by Communist, with communist ideals, communist goals, and they continue to impose a Communist like agenda on America daily. The founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin stated clearly…

9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.

8. Their outright hatred of the Boyscouts. They are currently doing everything in their power to hurt this organization. They attacked their free speech right to exclude gays, and are threatening schools, and fighting in court to get their charters shut down. The oppose the military supporting them, and will sue the pants off any school that attempts to charter them.

7. The ACLU are pro-death. Not only is the ACLU Pro-abortion, it’s the ACLU’s top priority. It most definitely takes a backseat to free speech for the ACLU. As a matter of fact, the ACLU has fought against the free speech rights of those that oppose it. If its abortion or euthanasia, as long as its pro-death you can count on the ACLU to support it. The only exception to the ACLU’s pro-death stance, is if it is a convicted criminal; in this case they are against death.

#6. The ACLU advocate open borders. Not only have the ACLU opposed the Minute Men, a group who are simply exercizing their freedom of speech, protesting and stepping up where the government is failing, but they have helped illegals cross the border.

5. The ACLU is anti-Christian. The list is endless on this one. Under the guise of “seperation of Church and State”, the ACLU have made a name for theirself on being rabidly anti-Christian. This is one area where they are most hypocritical. They oppose tax exemptions for all churches, but fight for them for Wiccans. They are against Christianity in school, but oddly remain silent as our children are taught to be Muslims. Whether its baby Jesus, ten commandments, or tiny crosses on county seals, the ACLU will be there to secularize America, and rewrite our history.

#4. The ACLU Opposes National Security. The ACLU have opposed almost every effort in the arena of national security. From the bird flu to bag searches, the ACLU have been against it. No matter what kind of search someone tries to do to protect people, the ACLU have proved they are against them across the board. Its kind of ironic that they don’t practice the principles they preach.

Take a walk into the NYCLU�s Manhattan headquarters - which it shares with other organizations - and you�ll find a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search.

#3. The ACLU Defend the enemy. They have a long history of this one. They defended the P.L.O. in 1985. They defended Quadafi in the 1980’s. And they continue today. They have told Gitmo detainees they have the right to remain silent, as in not talking to interrogators. One issue that really disturbs me is their refusal of funds from organizations such as the United Way that were concerned the money would be used to support terrorism.

2. The ACLU supports child porn distribution and child molesters like NAMBLA.

There is no doubt the The ACLU are perverting the Constitution.

1. The ACLU fufills its agenda using my tax money. What more can I say on this one?

Posted by: jasper at June 29, 2007 11:28 PM


Jasper...where do you get this information? It's complete and utter paranoid crap. I would feel bad for you for actually believing this stuff, but then I realize that that would do no good and that you choose to believe it and you aren't forced to so I don't feel bad for you...I laugh.

Posted by: Rae at June 29, 2007 11:48 PM


Rae,

It's accurate, which point do you dispute?

Posted by: jasper at June 29, 2007 11:53 PM


@Jasper: Can you provide unbiased citations for these "facts"? Because to be frank, I don't buy any of them...particularly because you take them to be "fact" and I know that everything you post is usually...crap.

Ugh. I apologize though Jasper. I'm being very witch-y this evening. I'm getting weened off my medications, and I'm getting irritable.

Posted by: Rae at June 29, 2007 11:58 PM


Rae,

Most organizations have biases...but these are the facts.
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/

Posted by: jasper at June 30, 2007 12:03 AM


Oh please Jasper. That page is crap and you know it.

Posted by: Rae at June 30, 2007 12:08 AM


ACLU Thinks is Just Fine for Pregnant Women to Abuse Drugs:

The ACLU of Maryland has saluted a decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals that the state’s “reckless endangerment” statute does not apply to women who knowingly take drugs while pregnant. The ACLU was representing a woman who was found to have cocaine in her system during the birth of her baby, and successfully prosecuted for reckless endangerment. The Court of Appeals overturned the conviction. The ACLU was pleased. The baby had no comment.

Posted by: jasper at June 30, 2007 12:11 AM


*yawn*

Jasper? I don't care. I think the ACLU had some good points and some not so good points. Most organizations are like that. Of course when you disagree with an organization you ignore the good that they do and only focus on the negative things...which is precisely what YOU are doing. I don't agree with the ACLU all the time. I definitely don't always agree with NOW, NARAL or Planned Parenthood.

Get over it.

Posted by: Rae at June 30, 2007 12:15 AM


Rae,

But the list goes on and on and on....

http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_outrages/

Posted by: jasper at June 30, 2007 12:19 AM


@Jasper: And I could care less and less. By giving the ACLU negative attention, you are giving the exactly what they want...attention. They are like Anne Coulter, the more attention you give them, the less likely they are to shut up.

Posted by: Rae at June 30, 2007 12:21 AM


Ann Coulter is great Rae, you should read her book:
Godless, the church of liberalism....


About the ACLU:

Ancient Greco-Roman cultures embraced a variety of depraved lifestyles—from sexualizing young children and honoring homosexuality, to reveling in obscenity and the slaughter of their most vulnerable citizens.
This archaic philosophy should sound familiar; it is faithfully promoted by the modern-day American Civil Liberties Union (and Diana). In virtually all facets of its agenda, the ACLU seems determined to abandon Western civilization’s noblest truths and traditions—to regress to the pre-Christian worldview of unbridled decadence and callous barbarism.
During the pre-Christian reign of the Roman Empire, citizens placed little or no value on the sanctity of human life, a hollow perspective which ushered in the abominable practices of abortion and euthanasia. Under the tradition of paterfamilias, if a Roman citizen opted not to care for his newborn baby, the baby would be abandoned—forsaken to die from exposure to the elements.
As Christian ethics spread through the Empire—changing the course of Western civilization—such practices were increasingly viewed as abhorrent and were finally banned.
Unfortunately, the ACLU—the nation’s largest public interest law firm, with a 50-state network of offices, 100 staff attorneys, and some 2,000 volunteer attorneys—seems determined to turn back the clock 2,000 years. Its agenda is pushing our nation back into that dark era when parents chose to murder their own children and abandon the blessings of parenthood for no reason other than personal convenience.

Posted by: jasper at June 30, 2007 12:30 AM


Jasper, I really don't care about what you have to say about the ACLU, because apparently you don't care about what I have said.

And I hate Anne Coulter, she is a low-life, scum-sucking attention whore. She's the right wing version of Michael Moore. Both of them make me want to vomit.

Posted by: Rae at June 30, 2007 12:37 AM


::Bangs his head against his desk, hoping to erase the memories of reading this thread::

John & Jasper,

Ok, I'm just going to say this once, get it off my chest, and then be done with it. I'm not going to start another pointless argument, I just need to say this before I have to go kill something.

STOP WITH THE RELIGIOUS RADICALISM. Jasper, you said yourself that you're ex-military. Apparently you have no problem defending our nation by killing another human being. That makes you just as low as us pro-choicers. John, while you've made some very good arguments, some of your comments come out of nowhere, and seem to be just really subtle attacks. Jasper, your little explosion at Diana was something I'd expect out of a pre-pubescent boy, not a grown man.

Seriously, you guys remind me of the guys from the Fourth Reich, or CLASH, and even SHANC. You have so much to say, but at the same time, so much of it is just opinion. More Jasper than John, in that case, but still!

::Sighs:: I don't even know why I check this site anymore. I just end up chaining half a pack of cigarettes and going to sleep angry or going out in a bad mood.

Posted by: Skinhead Dan at June 30, 2007 4:09 AM


I'm a lurker but I just have to say something about this:

"ACLU Thinks is Just Fine for Pregnant Women to Abuse Drugs:

The ACLU of Maryland has saluted a decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals that the state�s �reckless endangerment� statute does not apply to women who knowingly take drugs while pregnant. The ACLU was representing a woman who was found to have cocaine in her system during the birth of her baby, and successfully prosecuted for reckless endangerment. The Court of Appeals overturned the conviction. The ACLU was pleased. The baby had no comment."

It's not more "pro-life" to prosecute drug-addicted mothers. If a pregnant woman takes drugs, it is bad for her fetus. It doesn't follow, however, that punishing her is the best way to deal with this issue. Unfortunately this is how the war on drugs has been fought and why it's been so ineffective: we'd rather spend our tax money on punishment than treatment and preventive measures like education and jobs. The government has two choices: it can provide poor and drug-addicted women with drug counseling and prenatal care, or it can charge them with endangerment after the baby is born. In this case (and many others), it chose the latter. The problem with this is that it discourages women from seeking help early in the pregnancy because they (reasonably) believe they'll be prosecuted rather than helped, and, since it's not focused on the drug use in itself but the "child abuse" aspect, it also punishes women for carrying the pregnancy to term rather than having an abortion. How ironic! This is another unintended consequence of focusing more on fetal rights than on women's human rights instead of treating both as important; the fetus is actually harmed and the woman's interests are ignored. Women addicted to drugs do not want to harm their unborn children, but they need help to get off drugs. The ACLU does not think it's "just fine" for women to take drugs while pregnant, either, and it's disingenuous to say that by not criminalizing her conduct the state is approving it. There are just fairer, more effective, less harmful ways to solve the problem. It should also be noted that these kinds of prosecutions fall heavier on poor black women even though white women also use drugs and alcohol while pregnant, but that's another discussion.

Dorothy Roberts has a lot more to say about this, if you're interested. I think someone mentioned her elsewhere. You're bound to disagree with her but it's good to get another perspective anyway, right?

Posted by: lurkie at June 30, 2007 8:21 AM


I'm a lurker but I just have to say something about this:

"ACLU Thinks is Just Fine for Pregnant Women to Abuse Drugs:

The ACLU of Maryland has saluted a decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals that the state�s �reckless endangerment� statute does not apply to women who knowingly take drugs while pregnant. The ACLU was representing a woman who was found to have cocaine in her system during the birth of her baby, and successfully prosecuted for reckless endangerment. The Court of Appeals overturned the conviction. The ACLU was pleased. The baby had no comment."

It's not more "pro-life" to prosecute drug-addicted mothers. If a pregnant woman takes drugs, it is bad for her fetus. It doesn't follow, however, that punishing her is the best way to deal with this issue. Unfortunately this is how the war on drugs has been fought and why it's been so ineffective: we'd rather spend our tax money on punishment than treatment and preventive measures like education and jobs. The government has two choices: it can provide poor and drug-addicted women with drug counseling and prenatal care, or it can charge them with endangerment after the baby is born. In this case (and many others), it chose the latter. The problem with this is that it discourages women from seeking help early in the pregnancy because they (reasonably) believe they'll be prosecuted rather than helped, and, since it's not focused on the drug use in itself but the "child abuse" aspect, it also punishes women for carrying the pregnancy to term rather than having an abortion. How ironic! This is another unintended consequence of focusing more on fetal rights than on women's human rights instead of treating both as important; the fetus is actually harmed and the woman's interests are ignored. Women addicted to drugs do not want to harm their unborn children, but they need help to get off drugs. The ACLU does not think it's "just fine" for women to take drugs while pregnant, either, and it's disingenuous to say that by not criminalizing her conduct the state is approving it. There are just fairer, more effective, less harmful ways to solve the problem. It should also be noted that these kinds of prosecutions fall heavier on poor black women even though white women also use drugs and alcohol while pregnant, but that's another discussion.

Dorothy Roberts has a lot more to say about this, if you're interested. I think someone mentioned her elsewhere. You're bound to disagree with her but it's good to get another perspective anyway, right?

Posted by: lurkie at June 30, 2007 8:22 AM


Hi Diana, Rae, and Skinhead Dan,

remember that I said at around 8 last night: "There are some rather strange observations in adopting such a view ... one is that there seems to be a sort of time-line ... physical reality seems to be from conception until the late teens; intellectual seems concentrated from late teens until late 20's; emotions are mainly about making a family ... late 20's - early 40's .... and faith seems the concern of the elderly ... @75 and up."

This is my view ... it is primarily a distillation of what my experiences have been ... many of these coalesce with others but these concepts do clash with some at times .... especially in the age-thing. Most of us are older than the willful 15 year old and definitely older than an incorrigible 2 ... but we'd be very hard pressed to 'explain' all the experiential-learning that makes-up our opposition to the agenda of others. We call such periods phases ... but never concede that I may be in such a phase myself ... as one of the 'older' crowd (eyebrows raised/*eyes-rolling* - ('Sure, sure!') ... MANY OF US...have been there, done that ... (and survived) ... what next! As just one small example, there was a time when such a concept as pity would be such a direct affront to me, it would almost leave me speechless. But slowly, over the years just surviving has made this a past experience ... a phase thing.

There are signs that indicate that we are in a phase and most-often these are the things we experience as most challenging ... and we avoid them. Here are a few examples: funerals; being physically touched (no sex intended - like being hugged); poverty as in a skid row 'bum'; psychiatric psychosis; talking to a person of a very foreign language/culture; big, angry pets ; .... for Jasper its Communists, liberals, and the ACLU ... ; for Rae its Anne Coulter and Jasper; for Diana and Less its their respective fathers; for a few its very strong religious beliefs; ... for almost everyone there is something/someone that challenges their whole outlook to the core.

Diana calls herself a realist and finds that invoking sensory input helps very much with this. However, months ago Dan and I went over some of this turf. Sensory information is about actuality ... not reality. So give me the sensory information about void; space; time; speed; acceleration; motion ... about zero; nothingness; a vacuum. The physical universe is about that which is but the invention of the concept of 'zero' by an Indian mathematician opens the universe to newer possibilities and our minds as not only information receptors but information/reality manipulators.

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 8:38 AM


Lurkie,

It's called personal responsibilty. Snorting or Smoking crack cocaine while you're pregnant hurts the unborn baby very badly. The women you do this should be thrown in jail.

Posted by: jasper at June 30, 2007 8:40 AM


jasper, I agree. In my state these children are taken away at birth. I know a druggie who has birthed 10 kids. She has none of them.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 8:46 AM


jasper, go to the Geri Santoro post. Look at what Dr. Defense wrote.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 8:47 AM


"...my favorite activities was leaving water and cell phones in the Mexican desert to prevent the deaths of those who so desperately want to get into this country). Whenever I had time I volunteered at the local battered women's shelter."


That's noble of you, Diana. In spite of our differences, I can always admire those who are willing to help those who can't help themselves. You could probably tell us stories of what you've witnessed...

Which begs the question, and I wish to emphasize that I am being sincere when I ask this, not patronizing at all: Why didn't you extend the same level of charity to your son/daughter which you shared with perfect strangers?

Posted by: carder at June 30, 2007 8:57 AM


Hi Heather,

I saw what DD wrote, the blow hard.

"Jasper, you said yourself that you're ex-military. Apparently you have no problem defending our nation by killing another human being. That makes you just as low as us pro-choicers."

Dan, pro-aborts target the most innocent among us. Sometimes war is necessary, as you know, to defend our liberties..

Posted by: jasper at June 30, 2007 9:02 AM


Isn't that a death threat?

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 9:03 AM


Sorry Jasper,

I tend to agree with lurkie here. Removal from society (which is what jail is) will not solve the situation ... nor will corporal punishment. On the other hand, I do not believe lurkie's solutions are any better.

I find it strange that many drug addicts [like native ones] will bend-over-backwards not only to give birth to their babies but try to raise them. At the very same time, self-proclaimed pro-choicers will kill their progeny via abortion on a whim. Perhaps, such disparate views can assist both????????

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 9:08 AM


I think we all may disagree on this one, but I think they all need tubal ligations!

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 9:12 AM


Yes, because that will surely help them to fight their addiction.

Posted by: Heather B. Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 9:14 AM


"I tend to agree with lurkie here. Removal from society (which is what jail is) will not solve the situation"

John, I believe this is about justice for the baby who is born addicted to crack cocaine, this is a very serious crime that should not go unpunished.

Posted by: jasper at June 30, 2007 9:15 AM


...Drug addictions are a touchy issue with me. Family and all, you know.

Those women need help more than anything. Not punishment, and not surgery.

And really, that goes for any addiction, not just drug-related.

Posted by: Heather B. Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 9:16 AM


No Heather. Don't miss my point. How many abortions is she gonna have before kicking her habit??? How many crack addicted children will she give birth to?

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 9:16 AM


Argh. I've been sitting here for what seems like ages trying to figure out an appropriate response, Heather. This early in the morning (and considering I haven't slept really), it's a bit difficult.

The situation you describe is a bit...iffy, for lack of a better word...and I'm torn on it, you know? A part of me wonders if perhaps it better that they weren't born to a crack-addicted mother, while at the same time....

Again, argh. My thoughts aren't coming together properly in my head, if that makes any sense at all. I think I see your point, but I think the bigger issue in cases like those is that the woman needs help.

Maybe that just seems like the bigger issue to me because I've had more experience with how things like drug addictions affect people than I have with how abortion does.

Would you mind if I gave this a bit more thought after I finish my work and sleep for a bit, and then get back to you with any conclusions I might have drawn?

Posted by: Heather B. Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 9:30 AM


By all means Heather. I agree. That's a tough one. What should we do? Who knows? Sometimes I feel that it's a lose lose situation. Do you tie the woman's tubes? Do you let her have 10,16,20 abortions, or do you allow her to keep birthing crack addicted babies? Most of the crack addicted women I know tell me that the drug gives them a sexual high. They tell me "I could have sex until the cows come home" [I cleaned that one up] Most have no intention of having any babies made while they "sell" their bodies.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 9:49 AM


Hi Jasper,

many people believe corporal punishment to be corrective. [It is often not!] ... it drives the addict deeper into the psychotic-state because it only confirms their self-image as being 'useless'. How would you deal with a child comprehending that the child's Mom was useless addict and his/her father was not-there?

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 10:01 AM


Obviously, one cannot force a woman to undergo surgery, so that's a no-go.

The only option I see, really, is rehab. Thing is, the individual has to want to change and they need people there to support them for any such treatment to be effective.

I mean, unless she's forced to go to rehab (and I would imagine there would have to be some sort of court ruling enforcing it) and has random drug tests for however long...there's really no way to ensure she stays clean. Even then there's no guarantee because some people just do not care.

It's a sticky situation, really. I mean, you can't force someone to do something they don't want to (well, technically you can but in this situation, I think you see what I'm saying).

Posted by: Heather B. Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 10:07 AM


BTW, I've also heard that (about the sexual high).

Posted by: Heather B. Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 10:09 AM


Ya, you cannot force someone to have surgery. You can't stop them from having as many abortions as they wish. You can't force them into rehab. Sadly, some addicts tell me that they have been to rehab 10, 20, 45 times. No luck. A lot of them die trying. Some make it. I hear that crack is very hard to kick. Although, I do know of 2 women who succeeded.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 10:13 AM


Jasper, I'm sorry we disagree. My vision of "personal responsibility" involves responsibility to myself but also to others who need help. I just think it would be better if we could provide non-judgmental, non-punitive treatment to these women before the babies could be harmed by drugs, not wait until they're born and throw the mother in jail. I'm not sure you understand what addiction means. No matter how much these women might want to be "responsible" and stop using drugs, they can't without medical help and counseling. It's not as simple as just jailing them.

About the tubal ligation, I think that would be wrong and it borders on unconstitutional (see Skinner v. Oklahoma, which doesn't make clear that you can't sterilize drug addicts, but you can't sterilize criminals, and I think you would have to involve the criminal justice system/due process to do this, so...). But that kind of thing has been tried in the U.S. and elsewhere (e.g., Nazi Germany) and no matter how good your intentions are it ends up being a form of eugenics, applied disproportionately and unfairly to black women. There's also no reason to permanently sterilize someone for a condition that is temporary with the right kind of treatment.

Posted by: lurkie at June 30, 2007 10:20 AM


I don't know what it was my aunt was addicted to, but whatever it was, it got two of her children taken away. They wound up being adopted by her sister and brother-in-law.

She finally kicked it, though, around the time she started seeing her husband, and they have to beautiful girls and a she has a good relationship with her other two daughters.

I think that more often than not, they just need something or someone they care about more than the drugs.

Posted by: Heather B. Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 10:21 AM


Now we have a lot of meth addicts. Heroin, also hard to kick. It's sad.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 10:21 AM


Apparently I have family who used to produce and sell meth =/.

I try to stay away from the drugs. I've seen what it does to people, and it's not pretty.

Posted by: Heather B. Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 10:24 AM


Heather, some very good friends of mine are addicts. They CAN change, but they won't unless they want to. I've seen an alcoholic claim 20 years of sobriety only to start drinking again. Addiction is a day to day battle. There is no magic cure. One day at a time is the motto. My friend's dad used to boot heroin. He has been clean for 15 years.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 10:28 AM


One of Darren's friends is fighting a heroin addiction, among other things. His solution was to get out of the state entirely and start over where he didn't know anybody and had no connections.

He's been clean, I believe, since he moved to Washington, D.C. almost 6 months ago. Hopefully, he won't give in.

I've had addictions of my own to battle, and I know how much of a failure I feel like when I do give in, so it's always a bit depressing to see someone else fall off the wagon.

Posted by: Heather B. Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 10:34 AM


Less, 9:45p: for someone who has been doing quite a bit of name-calling herself the last couple days, you're not in a position to point fingers.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 11:06 AM


Jill, yes. I was thinking the same thing. She certantly wins no awards for being polite.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 11:19 AM


Jasper,

We didn't go into the desert to find people to tell them they were planning to break the law. We left water and cell phones on paths that are commonly used to try and get into this country. We didn't run into anyone while we were out there (if there were people, the probably would have been too cautious to come out and say hello). The point was not to help them get into the country, but to prevent needless deaths. As someone who calls himself "pro-life", I'd think you'd be all for preventing death. Or does your concern only extend to those who've yet to pass through the birth canal?

Say what you like about the ACLU. I'm used to hearing comments like that. And yes, it does explain a lot - I'm an individual whose very concerned with the preservation of rights and freedom. Now, I don't agree with everything the ACLU does, but I do believe strongly in their overarching mission - protecting the Bill of Rights. Don't you? Those who disparage the ACLU full stop are, in my opinion, not paying attention.

Carder,

To be completely honest, I don't believe personhood begins until the second trimester, so I don't believe there was a person for me to show consideration to. If my pregnancy had been further along, while I still believe I would have had the right, I personally would not have aborted out of moral consideration for the fetus.

I had a number of reasons for chosing to have an abortion, which I've gone over on other threads. I'd prefer not to go over them again, not because I'm not comfortable sharing my story, so to speak, but because I'd rather not have to spend my time fending off passive aggressive attacks about how selfish, callous, and damaged I must be.

John,

I don't know of any difference between reality and actuality except that (on a modal realist view) "the actual" describes the universe we live in while "the real" describes all universes in existence. And that, of course, is only the case on the assumption that multiple universe theory is correct. If multiple universe theory is incorrect, then there is no difference between what is real and what is actual.

So, that being the case, it's unclear to me what you're driving at. I understand that you think something beyond experience and reason is capable of giving us knowledge about the world. I disagree, given that I know of nothing other than knowledge and reason that serve as reliable epistemic practices. Faith, hope, love, etc are all wonderful, beautiful things that are an important part of the human experience. But they do not "aim at truth", so to speak; they do not serve to bring us to true beliefs about the world.

And, just so you know, I don't have any problems with my father. I love my father dearly. We've had our disagreements, and religion has certainly made my relationship with my parents awkward and difficult from time to time, but I'm afraid you're Freudian assessment of me is incorrect. Like all Daddy's girls, I don't even have words to describe how much my daddy means to me. I'm actually sort of confused as to where you would get the idea that I had problems with my father.

Posted by: Diana at June 30, 2007 11:22 AM


"many people believe corporal punishment to be
"My vision of "personal responsibility" involves responsibility to myself but also to others who need help."

me too, thats why I'm for laws that protect the unborn (they fall under "others" too). Our church always is contributing money for homeless shelters/programs for single pregnant women who help....


"corrective. [It is often not!] ... it drives the addict deeper into the psychotic-state because it only confirms their self-image as being 'useless'."

John, Lurkie,

I'm for programs that help the drug addict, I know some, I understand that they need help and I'm for it. But jail time is for about justice for the victim, not about rehabing the perpetrator.

you wouldn't be for no jail time for parents who abuse infants would you?

Posted by: jasper at June 30, 2007 12:04 PM


Hi Diana,

multiple universes are a fairly recent theory, but like you I am a realist and only attune to there being one. However, the experience of this universe is a little broader than we perceive it ... through our senses. I gave you a short list of actualities that are mere negatives of 'things' ... hard to explain ... do space; time; energy; mass; speed; motion; acceleration ... void, nothingness; emptiness ... exist? In mathematics the use of the concept 'zero' comes from a Sanskrit mathematician. We take such for granted now (with our decibel system), but such things were not possible in the Roman numerical universe. The Roman-scholars applied mathematics to what was found in actuality .... and here there is no zero, no 'nothing'. [Likewise there is no 'negative' nor 'fraction-of-being'.] Modern mathematics [and IMHO modern philosophy] is a mixture of actuality {sensory information) + virtuality (brain generated information). As just one example, the colour we describe as purple does not exist in the actual universe but is a mental construct ... a reality but not an actuality.

As far as some of those other comments regarding faith, hope and charity ... do not drive to the same truth as reasoning, but these certainly do have their own take on reality .... and much of it lies outside cognitive analysis. It lies within what is reason in a very broad sense. A tiny example, we all seek peace. Is peace a lack-of-violence or has it a positive connotation ... so a life of peace permits no violence. This seems to be a remote question but to Jasper (and other military people) peace is at the very core of life ... of truth.

Your affection for your Dad is not up for question, both you and he were in phases, that saw you as opposed to each other. We grow ... expand. A child's life is not an infringement when he is perceived as - a student in one of your classes who needs your assistance - . Our presence is our gift to each-other. Denying life via abortion is a denial of that gift.

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 1:04 PM


Oh Jilly, you missed the bold part again! My posts have points other than insulting people, dear, which is what makes them different than jasper's rant. Is that differentiation clear enough for you, or should I explain again? I thought the bold would do it, but apparently, I was wrong. : (

John, what I'm going through is a phase because I have issues with my father? Huh? Who died and made you a psychologist? I have issues with my father because he was verbally abusive during my childhood, not because I'm going through some phase where I pierce everything and am pro-choice.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 1:10 PM


John,

"multiple universes are a fairly recent theory, but like you I am a realist and only attune to there being one."

Actually, you can be a realist and agree with multiple universe theory. I kind of like it, personally, since it solves several big problems in modal logic, modal metaphysics and the semantics and psychosemantics of intensional inexistents, but the jury is still out.

"However, the experience of this universe is a little broader than we perceive it ... through our senses. I gave you a short list of actualities that are mere negatives of 'things' ... hard to explain ... do space; time; energy; mass; speed; motion; acceleration ... void, nothingness; emptiness ... exist?"

First, zero, space, time, etc, are the reason that I include "reason" and not just sensory experience. I'm not an empiricist (I'm not a rationalist either). Second, I think what you seem to be claiming is that mental phenomena (secondary qualities like color) are real but not actual? Mkay. Sure, you can draw the distinction that way, but I still dont' believe that anything but the senses and reason are going to get you knowledge of the real but not actual.

"As far as some of those other comments regarding faith, hope and charity ... do not drive to the same truth as reasoning"

And this was our first point of divergence. Truth is (roughly) correspondence between propositions (or beliefs or sentences or concepts, take your pick) and reality (or actuality, given the way you seem to be laying out the distinction). Hope does yield propositions that correspond with reality. Love does not yield propsitions that correspond with reality. Peace does not yield propositions that correspond with reality. Reason does, though. So does experience, and the hope of science and philosophy is that together they will yield all the propositions that correspond with reality - they will allow us to know all the truths there are. Now, I doubt we'll ever get there, but we can at least try and get as many as possible.

Posted by: Diana at June 30, 2007 1:35 PM


Less.

re. the phases ... these are not willed by me nor by anyone. I am not even an amateur anything let alone psychologist. I wrote before that this is the theory that I have devolved from personal experience. If this does not apply to you ... and you view it as condemnation then forget it and move on. If it does calm some restlessness, then I hope it helps.

@Diana,

as I was telling Less above, this is a theory (I think a good working model) to help us not get to fixated in any one phase. It is my experience that truth is very much part of love and peace ... it just not found in sentences and proposition ... but in things like faith, and courage, and affirmation. These are not yet in the catalogue of truths to be uncovered by philosophy and science. Maybe such will happen in the far distant future, but my very short life has me scrambling for answers .... hey, perhaps I'm not comfortable with too many hanging questions.

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 2:11 PM


Less,
You need to stay off the hooch for awhile and clear your memory.

You are such a hypocrite. I could find dozens of past posts where you written snide one-line posts making fun of Christianity on this site
which is very disrespectful. You are one of the biggest offenders of name-calling and personal attacks. Which leads me to have to believe you truly are a pubecent.

Your syntax gymnastics are so transparent. Jasper includes trails of posts where he creates and responds to good arguments.

Posted by: Sandy at June 30, 2007 2:13 PM


Sandy,

Jasper's responses typically amount to "I'm right, you're wrong" and "what is the world coming to."

Posted by: prettyinpink at June 30, 2007 2:22 PM


Jasper's points, if there ever are any, are usually lost beneath insults and other assorted condemnations. He never has a point other than to critique other people's choices, occasionally spout religious dogma, and to inform people that they are, in fact, wrong and will be going to hell.

Those one-liners are usually in response to other name calling: if they're offensive, stop spouting off religious dogma, calling pro-choice women wimps, and worrying your head over our immortal souls. If you want respect, earn it. It isn't that difficult of a concept. Judging by my bustline, ring on my finger, and the fact that I can understand elementary statistics, I'm far past puberty, if you would care to join me.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 2:36 PM


John,

Theories are always good things to have, as long as they are open to modification or rejection based on new evidence (which I have no doubt, knowing you, that your theory is).

I guess at the end of the day you and I just have vastly different understandings of what constitutes "truth". I will not deny that there is something great and wonderful to be found in things like hope, faith and love (although I think all three can also bring ill), but I wouldn't call it truth. I'd be willing to say that they lie at the core of human experience, and that experiencing them and exploring them is a central part of being human. On that understanding, I'd say that on the basis of what evidence I have so far, it's a pretty good theory.

Posted by: Diana at June 30, 2007 2:58 PM


I have to say that I think it's a little unfair to be picking on Less. We all get a little heated every once in a while, and we all will occassionally let our emotions get the best of us when posting. No one is innocent of that, but there is a difference between occassionally getting carried away while debating and just being carried away without doing any debating at all. Less consistently contributes to debate in a constructive manner. She makes good arguments and backs up her claims with facts, and I always enjoy reading her posts.

Less, I'm sorry if I've overstepped my bounds. I just felt compelled to put my two cents in.

Posted by: Diana at June 30, 2007 3:10 PM


*occasionally*

Although honestly, I think it looks better with two s's. More double letters in English words!

Posted by: Diana at June 30, 2007 3:14 PM


No, don't worry about it Diana. I wouldn't be typing here if I had a lot of personal bounds with my posts, so no worries. : )

I don't know if my problem is that I get too heated: I tend to think that the problem lies more with the fact that I see the posting as more of a game than anything. For a while I did get really into it, very emotional about it, and then it started affecting my relationships (being increasingly bitter about Christianity when one's significant other is Christian doesn't work too well), so I had to adjust how I see things. Generally, I'm much happier and much less misanthropic if I don't ponder things too much. : P

And yeah, double letters suck. Success is my least favorite word in the entire English language: double doubles are the spawn of evil.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 3:23 PM


Diana,
Please. Yes, let's stand up for poor misunderstood Less. She does not consistently contribute to debates in a constructive manner.

She brings this type of attention to herself by taking issue with the way others argue against her posts and doesn't want to admit she conducts herself the same way. When she is called out she always has some sorry excuse to justify her behavior. (see example below)

Yes, we all get emotional about this issue, but
Less continues to personally attack others in a very disrespectful way.

So if you want to help poor Less out, you may want to counsel her into rethinking how she approaches the subjects that are discussed on this site in a more mature manner.

Per Less:
"Those one-liners are usually in response to other name calling: if they're offensive, stop spouting off religious dogma, calling pro-choice women wimps, and worrying your head over our immortal souls. If you want respect, earn it."


Again Less, you may want to re-write this paragraph. I can't make heads or tails of the first sentence. You could shorten it up a bit to read more clearly. Also, you have one too many words in there that makes it confusing. You really don't need to put a comma after "wimps" since you have an "and" to complete your last point.

Standard junior high english.

It's like you said. "If you want respect. Earn it."

Posted by: Sandy at June 30, 2007 3:35 PM


Oh yes, Sandy, you're such a paragon of maturity. We should absolutely all aspire to the astronomically high standard you set. Funny how you started the whole mess, with the "Pro-Choicers Annoy Me!" post: completely undeserved, childishly phrased, and with more emotional rhetoric than Bill O'Reily.

I'm sorry you don't understand colons and long sentences: perhaps you should take some higher-level English courses, it might help with that. I put commas there, despite the fact that I don't particularly need to, because I think it looks better. It's not something that is strictly forbidden, just something unnecessary. I have always done it, if you'd like to go back to every post I've ever written, I'm sure that fact will be confirmed.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 3:44 PM


"Success" indeed. "Neccessarily" always gives me trouble too. I'm not even sure it's spelled correctly there!

"No, don't worry about it Diana. I wouldn't be typing here if I had a lot of personal bounds with my posts, so no worries. : )"

Cool. Since that's the case, would you mind if I asked you a personal question? I've noticed that you've said you don't ever want kids (that was you, right?), and I'm wondering if your reasons are purely personal or if you have more general reasons. I ask because I'm on the fence about having kids myself, and since my boyfriend -with whom it's either got to go to the next level or end - doesn't want them at all, I need to make a decision one way or the other.

I'm there with you on the posting thing. I post around here just because I love to debate (which is no doubt why I'm a philosopher - that and I'm a knowledge junkie and philosophy is the only field where you can study anything from theoretical physics to Renaissance poetry and it's still relevant to your field). It's really cool that you and your significant other can make it work despite differences in religious belief. Religion has played havoc on my relationship with my parents from time to time.

Posted by: Diana at June 30, 2007 3:49 PM


For some reason, the religious differences are far easier with my boy than with my parents. It's the elephant in the room whenever I'm at home, but my boy and I debate about religion constantly. We both enjoy it, and oddly enough, we agree more often than not. It's interesting how certain beliefs span across two completely different ways of looking at the world.

About the kids, it's more personal reasons. I have always loathed the idea of being pregnant; I've always seen it as incredibly creepy. I distinctly remember being five and being scared of pregnant women in movies. It's something that holds absolutely no appeal for me. As my significant other refuses to allow fetuses to be implanted on his liver (I kid!), biological kids are out. We've debated adopting, but both of us prefer to live our own lives and focus on careers. We have a plan in case we change our minds, but right now neither of us want kids.

It's difficult, when you're on the fence about kids and your other is sure. I wish you luck deciding!

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 3:57 PM


Sandy,

I stood up for Less because I didn't see any point in attacking her for something we all do every once in a while. You're doing it right now! And that's fine. You're upset.

But I don't see that Less has done anything that requires such serious chastisement. Every once in a while she makes comments that you find offensive, either on her own or in response to offensive comments directed at her. But she also engages in debate by making arguments and citing facts. There are others on this blog who never do such things.

There are many comments made on this blog that I find exceptionally offensive. In this thread alone I have been called a "selfish wimp" (just for being pro-choice). And when I called Jill out on it, her justification for name calling was that she's done it before! She then proceeded to insinuate that I am immature. I have been "pitied" for my beliefs, I've been called a "callous idiot" and an "arrogant snob", I've been accused of attempting to confuse and deceive rather than actually argue, I've been accused of merely playing with semantics, and my statements have been purposefully misconstrued to make me look bad. And that's all just on this thread. We won't even go into what people have said about the fact that I had an abortion. But I have let it go. Why? Because most of the people who made these offensive comments and insults also engage in debate, and those who don't, well, I guess I'm just nice. Less participates in the conversation with more than insults and offensive comments, so why not just let it go?

Posted by: Diana at June 30, 2007 4:07 PM


Thank you Erin for expressing you and your generations attitude - that achieving anything good in life should not require any kind of sacrifice to be made.

Posted by: Zeke13:19 at June 30, 2007 5:16 PM


Per Diana:
"I stood up for Less because I didn't see any point in attacking her for something we all do every once in a while."

Thank you for proving my point!

This is EXACTLY what I called her on. Less was attacking myself on another post for responding on this site in a manner that most of us do including herself.

My comment on "annoyance" was a play on the post JM started. No surpise Less that I would feel that way. This is a pro-life site.

So yes Diana, let's move on.

Posted by: Sandy at June 30, 2007 6:00 PM


Why assume all of us on here are Christians? We have Catholics, Agnostics, Protestants, Lutherans, etc. I seem to remember someone typing JAAAAYYSSUUSS on many a post. That's both insulting and offensive!

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 7:40 PM


@Heather4life: Catholics, Protestants and Lutherans are all Christian...and Lutherans are Protestants.

Posted by: Rae at June 30, 2007 7:45 PM


Rae, I'm a blond. I guess I had a blond moment. [ I still think I'm smarter than Ashley Judd though. LOL!!!! [ Hope you will laugh with me on that one] However, we do have some agnostics. *bell rings* I got one right.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 8:11 PM


Rae, if you thought that was bad, go to the Gerri Santoro post. I was trying to say Medical Examiner. Instead I kept writing MA. Massachusetts. LOL!! It's okay. I can laugh at myself when I screw up!

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 8:15 PM


"Jasper's points, if there ever are any, are usually lost beneath insults and other assorted condemnations. He never has a point other than to critique other people's choices, occasionally spout religious dogma, and to inform people that they are, in fact, wrong and will be going to hell."

Lessy, Pippy,

Oh com'on, I've never condemed anybody to hell.... I think you girls should convert though, give it a try. read the teachings of Jesus...

Posted by: jasper at June 30, 2007 8:22 PM


@Heather4life: Eh, don't worry, I have horrible trouble with names. I work with a woman named Heidi and a woman named Kerri and I always call Heidi, Kerri. I also keep accidentally calling the guy I like (not to his face mind you...) "Mike" when I *know* his name is Ryan.

Posted by: Rae at June 30, 2007 8:27 PM


Rae, I have to tell you that I took care of a little kid this afternoon. {work ya know] Her mom came to the door and said "Hello Heather" I said "Hello Erica." She said "Dawn" I think I turned every shade of red under the sun. I hope I don't do that again.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 8:33 PM


Oooooooh, I hate screwing up names. I used to babysit for identical twins (though they would usually cut their hair slightly differently) I would always wait for one of them to call eachother by name or wait for their little sister to call one of them by name before I'd say their names myself.

Posted by: Rae at June 30, 2007 8:37 PM


Heather, Rae,

I get my nephews and nieces mixed up sometimes, calling them by the wrong name. It's tough when you have have like 16 or 17 of them....

Posted by: jasper at June 30, 2007 8:39 PM


It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry couldn't remember his date's name. She kept saying "Oh Jerry" and he'd say "Oh you."

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 8:41 PM


"Mulva!" lol

Posted by: Bethany at June 30, 2007 8:44 PM


Yep, I think sometimes your brain just goes south. It's happened to me. Been called Racheal, Lisa,Holly, Cathy etc. Sometimes if someone just looks like the name that they should have, you automatically call them by it.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 8:45 PM


Yep, I think sometimes your brain just goes south. It's happened to me. Been called Racheal, Lisa,Holly, Cathy etc. Sometimes if someone just looks like the name that they should have, you automatically call them by it.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 8:45 PM


@Jasper: My dad always confuses my name and my brothers' names. Whenever he is calling for one of us he lists our names in order, with the one he wants very last. The sad thing is, it's only myself, Brady and Matthew. >_

Posted by: Rae at June 30, 2007 8:46 PM


Hi jasper and Bethany. MULVA! LOL!

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 8:47 PM


Hi Heather...

Hi Bethany, hope your feeling better....

what is MULVA?

Posted by: jasper at June 30, 2007 8:49 PM


Jerry Seinfeld was going with a girl, and he forgot her name. George was trying to help him. Jerry said that her name rhymed with a body part. Jerry, George and Elaine tried everything to get her to say her name. The woman finally took notice and said "You don't know my name, do you?" In a final attempt Jerry said "Uh ya." She asked "What is it?" Jerry said, "Mulva?" She took off. At the end he called out the window "Delores!!!"

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 8:56 PM


female anatomy vulva and clitoris.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 9:06 PM


Oh that Jerry...

Yeah, I was a bit too young to watch Seinfeld...those jokes would have been over my head, heck that joke was over my head (specially "Delores") until it was pointed out now...

Posted by: Rae at June 30, 2007 9:08 PM


I bought the old DVD's. Great laughs!

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 9:12 PM


Well, good nite all.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 9:15 PM


Heather, Rae, and Jasper,

I can remember when my children were little how I would ask the olders ones to translate the jibberish of the younger ones. My two older ones were also so proud to help potty train their baby sister. I mean, taking her through the process step by step, even a demonstration of how to use TP.

Posted by: Mary at July 1, 2007 7:27 AM


I forgot to mention, like the rest of you with problems with names, I still can't get their names straight all the time either!

Posted by: Mary at July 1, 2007 7:34 AM


My mother tends to call me by my younger sister's name. Thing is, she never calls my sister by my name =/

Posted by: Heather B. Author Profile Page at July 1, 2007 7:48 AM


She actually called me "Donna" once, too.

We were watching "That 70s Show" before she went to bed (and she was sick), so that might be it. Really, that's the only explanation I can think of.

Posted by: Heather B. Author Profile Page at July 1, 2007 7:57 AM


I met Donna from "That 70's show" a couple of years ago...she is really tall!

Posted by: Bethany at July 1, 2007 10:08 AM


was she nice?

Posted by: Heather4life at July 1, 2007 10:20 AM


Yes, she was friendly.... I wished at the time I had a camera so I could have taken a picture. lol It was neat to see someone from Tv in real life. :)

I heard from a lot of people in my city who had seen her in restaurants that year (she was here making a movie - lightning bug or something?), that she kind of had a foul mouth and was very loud about it...lots of parents were upset that she was cursing loudly around their children.
That's all I know.

Posted by: Bethany at July 1, 2007 10:26 AM


Bethany, I hope all is well with the baby!

Posted by: Heather4life at July 1, 2007 10:28 AM


I do too Heather...we are all sick today with a stomach virus... hopefully it will be short lived and with no effects on the baby!

Posted by: Bethany at July 1, 2007 10:33 AM


Bethany, when it rains, it pours! Do you remember me telling you that my Doc. made me get a flu shot while pregnant? She just kept insisting even though I told her that it had made me very ill in the past. I caved and let her give it to me. A day later I was sicker than a dog!! I went back to her office to get antibiotics. I gave her one of those "I told you so" looks.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 1, 2007 10:40 AM


I know she meant well. I think I prefer a male GYNO. They seem to listen better. Some women will ONLY have a woman doc. My last male GYNO was fabulous!!

Posted by: Heather4life at July 1, 2007 10:43 AM


Jasper,

Nice try, but don't assume I'm agnostic just because I value good argument and watch the Daily Show.

Posted by: prettyinpink at July 1, 2007 12:38 PM


Ok PIP, no problem.

Posted by: jasper at July 1, 2007 1:17 PM


Heather, antibiotics for a flu shot reaction?

Posted by: prettyinpink at July 1, 2007 3:06 PM


PIP, I always get sick after taking the flu shot. I always end up on antibiotics. That was why I didn't want it. I KNEW it would happen. She kept insisting, so I took the darn thing. I think sometimes doctors must realize that some of us know our own bodies better than they do.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 1, 2007 6:35 PM


@Heather4life: The reason Pip was wondering about the antibiotics to settle a flu-shot reaction was because the flu is a virus, not a bacterium, so it makes no sense that your doctor would prescribe antibiotics for a viral disease.

It's also just bad practice to do that because taking antibiotics when you don't need them allows for bacteria to gain resistance.

Posted by: Rae at July 1, 2007 6:47 PM


Rae, I know. Gimme a second. B back 2 explain.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 1, 2007 6:50 PM


Okay. Here is what happens to ME every time I take the flu shot. The day afterwards I get chills, nausea and sometimes vomiting. It always goes into an upper respiratory infection. Bronchitis or pneumonia. I really don't know why. Maybe I have a weakened immune system. Perhaps someone could shed some light.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 1, 2007 6:59 PM


I just want to state for the record that I am NOT anti flu shot. It just makes me ill. I have spoken to others who also refuse it. The same things happen to them.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 1, 2007 7:10 PM


@Heather: Do they test you for bronchitis or pneumonia? Do they test your sputum for bacterial cultures? If they don't, it could still be influenza they are "treating" you for.

Posted by: Rae at July 1, 2007 7:17 PM


No Rae. They never did. They just listened to my lungs and put me on Z-pack. I always feel so much better after my first dose.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 1, 2007 7:25 PM


Not to gross you out, but my sputum is dark greenish whenever this happens. The coughing is so harsh, it just kills my chest. I always feel like I'm coughing up a lung or 2.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 1, 2007 7:29 PM


@Heather: That does *sound* bacterial to me, based on the sputum color because usually viruses don't change the color of phlegm. And don't worry, it doesn't gross me out. :)

Though I think next time, just to be *safe* if you do get another flu-shot, I would have the sputum tested just to make sure it is bacterial as opposed to viral.

I'm lucky, I've never needed the flu-shot because I rarely get sick. My brothers have to get them due to their allergies and asthma.

Posted by: Rae at July 1, 2007 7:32 PM


Thanks Rae. Maybe I'll run that by my doc. next flu season. Odd. The only time I do get sick is after that dog gone shot.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 1, 2007 7:36 PM


Rae, I hope your lab class is going well!! I'm gonna sign off for a while. Going to pop in a movie.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 1, 2007 7:39 PM


*nods*

No problem. :)

Yeah, I had to go to the doctor about a week ago to start weening off of my anti-depressants and because I was over 18 the doctor I was seeing (she wasn't my normal doctor) was all like, "You should get the Guardasil shot!" and I'm like..."No...I want to wait until there are more studies done."

and she's like, "Well, it's been in testing for 7 years and it's been on the market for a year now and blah blah blah."

So I'm like, "I don't care! I'm *not* having sex, I have never *had* sex, I have no use for the shot! Besides, I'm not blowing 300 bucks per shot! I'm not interested and I'm going to wait another year or too!"

And she got all snippy and I left. She was such a witch, I missed my normal doctor...

Posted by: Rae at July 1, 2007 7:41 PM


Good for you Rae!

Posted by: jasper at July 1, 2007 8:52 PM


Rae,

Smart lady. When in doubt, don't. Do not blindly believe or accept the "safety" of any vaccine, or let yourself be pressured into having it.

Posted by: Mary at July 1, 2007 9:25 PM


The main reason I rejected it though was due to the fact it is so new...every other vaccine I've ever had have been around for practically forever, so I had no trouble getting things like my meningitis shot or a tetanus shot...because they prevent something that WILL kill me and will kill me quickly. HPV is something I may or may not have (which I actually do...I get warts on my legs and feet on occasion) and I may or may not get cervical cancer, it's not a definite thing and I also won't always die from cervical cancer.

It just sounds almost too good to be true, you know? I'll continue to read up on it, because I think it has merit, but until then, I'll pass because I genuinely have no use for it and my parents don't want to spend that kind of money on vaccines.

Posted by: Rae at July 1, 2007 11:55 PM


Rae, she sounds like an awful doctor. I hate when doctors try to pressure you into things you don't want to do. You did great. I hope you'll find a new doctor who treats you better.

Posted by: Bethany at July 2, 2007 8:17 AM


Rae, likewise.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 2, 2007 8:29 AM


Rae,

Ask her if she has had the shot! That ought to stump her. Then ask her if her 12 year old daughter had it!

The nerve!

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 2, 2007 8:50 AM


Heather, yeah, I understand if the reaction decreased immune efficiency. I had that once when I was younger, but I ended up catching a rhinovirus instead. Now flu shots don't get much of a reaction out of me. But that's why I was confused. Though, with infections like pneumonia it can still be viral--a PA I was shadowing told me the worst infections he has seen were viral pneumonia when I asked him whether the patient we were seeing looked like a bacterial infection (his phlegm was also green). It just seemed odd to prescribe antibiotics without running tests first--MRSA being on the rise and all.

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at July 2, 2007 12:24 PM


MK,

I second that!!

Posted by: Mary at July 2, 2007 1:06 PM


Well the woman I saw wasn't my normal doctor, I just needed to get a prescription for the ultra-low dose anti-depressant pill I'm using to ween off my meds, and she just nagged me about the Gardasil vaccine while I was there.

And as for weening...it's going pretty well, she has me going too slow though, I don't feel like taking 3 months to ween off the meds when I'm sure I can do it in 6-8 weeks. Bah. I'm going to follow the instructions for stopping that are on the Effexor website as opposed to what she said...silly doctor.

Posted by: Rae at July 2, 2007 4:37 PM


AAKK, snippy doctors. I HATE when that happens. Unless they really do mean well.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 2, 2007 5:11 PM


Rae,

I've been meaning to ask you about your progress. I hope it is going well and that you are doing well. Do be careful of weaning though. If it takes 3 months so what? Don't take any chances, especially when things seem to be going well. We and I'm sure you, don't want to see any setbacks. You know we are all pulling for you.

Posted by: Mary at July 2, 2007 5:26 PM


@Mary: The doctor who told me this said she intentionally goes very, very slow when it's really unnecessary to do so. I will be okay if I do go a bit faster, because in reality it's only supposed to take 6-8 weeks. I'll be fine. The only reason you go slow for Effexor is to avoid the crap-tacular withdrawal symptoms, not out of concern the mental health bit. :)

But everything is going well. I'm on to 150 mg per day and starting next week or so, possibly the week after I'm going down to 75 mg.

Posted by: Rae at July 2, 2007 5:43 PM


Rae,

I'm glad to hear it is going well for you. You are taking a giant step and deserve a lot of credit. Keep us posted.

Posted by: Mary at July 2, 2007 8:36 PM


Rae,

What are the withdrawal symptoms? Do you have someone watching you to monitor your behavior changes. Sometimes the person with the illness is the last one to see the erratic behavior.

My son always gives me permission to tell him if I see any signs that his meds aren't working or if I sense he is spirally into a depression or manic phase.

It's really hard for him because he doesn't see what I see. I haven't been wrong yet either. And by being willing to submit to my judgement (which I get no pleasure from), he has been able to stay out of the hospital for two years now.

Kudos to him as it is most humiliating to have mommy treating you like a five year old. But how mature to admit when he needs help.

Mental Illness sucks. My heart goes out to everyone that is suffering from bi-polar, add/hd, depression or anything else that can't be "fixed" and requires endless rounds of meds and "experiments"...

Hey Diana,
This is one case where I wish "Science" would hurry up and do some of it's "magic"...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 3, 2007 6:57 AM


Rae, good job on rejecting the Gardasil vaccine. And good job and weaning off your anti-depressants with the help of your doctor and not on your own. Although if it turns out you need them due to a chemical or genetic disposition to depression, don't hesitate to go back on them. But I hope you don't need to. :)

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at July 3, 2007 7:26 AM


Yup, I have no problem with going back on them if I genetically or chemically need them. However, I am going to *try* to work on dealing with things better so I *don't* need the pills, but if I find that I do, then so be it, but I know I don't want Effexor again...it numbs you from the inside out.

Posted by: Rae at July 3, 2007 5:31 PM


Hey Rae, did you say Effexor? That's one of the anti-depressants I'm one (for major depression and ADD) and just after one day of missing a dose, I get a nasty headache. But other than the withdrawl effects, it's the first anti-depressant that's actually been effective for me and I've had little to no side effects. But anyways, glad you're doing ok while weening off of it :-)

Posted by: Rachael at July 5, 2007 11:12 PM