This cartoon by Signe Wilkinson was posted in the Nashville Tennessean on Mother's Day:
As someone who had a child out of wedlock, Bristol is being mercilessly mocked for speaking out in behalf of abstinence....
But who better to testify that abstinence is the only guaranteed way to avoid teen pregnancy than one who has been there?
When those choosing to abstain make proclamations like "True Love Waits" they are lambasted for being "unrealistic" even if they maintain their virginity.
When teens who did not abstain learn from their mistakes and begin to reach out to other teens saying, "Don't make the same mistakes I made; find the strength to abstain," they are mocked.
Looks like the only way you can win in the media is if you readily, indignantly assert that you have no morals, no self-control, and no sense of remorse - and neither should anyone else.
[HT: Suzie Allen]
Yeah, it's like making fun of Yul Brenner for becoming a spokesman for not smoking. (Not that lung cancer and a baby are comparable!)Posted by: Marauder at May 19, 2009 1:24 PM
Oh, and in that case, no former addict should ever recommend that people avoid abusing substances. And those who have never been addicted can't recommend it either, because they're naive.
Bulltwaddle. I have made plenty of mistakes in my life. So has Steven, and we counsel the children to learn from our mistakes. In other areas we have managed to take the right path and we counsel the children to learn from our successes as well.
For example, Steven is still trying to quit smoking at 37... after having started at 10. It's really, really hard. He's fanatical about not smoking around the children or I, and cleaning thoroughly before he returns to our presence (it makes me very ill, especially when I'm pregnant.)
I've never smoked.
We tell the children... it's easier to never start smoking than it is to quit... and it is possible to get through life without having had to try everything ourselves to know it is bad!
The kids can finish this one if I start it, because I say it so often: "A dumb person doesn't learn from their mistakes. A smart person learns from their mistakes. A wise person learns from other people's mistakes." I want my children to be wise, if possible. Barring that, I'll accept smart.Posted by: Elisabeth at May 19, 2009 1:35 PM
Regarding smoking. They still teach abstinence education for smoking, alcohol and drugs. Just say no.Posted by: xppc at May 19, 2009 1:35 PM
17For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement forthe sins of the people. 18Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.
1 Peter 1:3-7
Praise to God for a Living Hope
3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you, 5who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. 6In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. 7These have come so that your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.
I sometimes suspect that the ridiculing of abstinence is fueled by jealousy or regret.
Perhaps they are disappointed with themselves for lacking the self-control and discipline that abstinence requires, so they lash out at those they view as the moral scolds. If an argument against abstinence was rock solid, then there would be no need for mockery. It seems people tend to hurl the most insults when they know, on some level, that they're wrong.
How about a cartoon of Planned Parenthood as a safe haven for sexual predators?
"The Planned Parenthood Center For the Protection of Sexual Predators"
I think that has a very nice ring to it.
We can have a 31 y/o sexual predator and one of his teenage "girlfriends" standing outside asking "are you open"?Posted by: Mary at May 19, 2009 2:40 PM
If her last name wasn't Palin, no one would attack her, no matter what she was trying to do.
But since it is, the uber-leftist will attack her, no matter what she tries to do.
They attack what they fear. They fear the Palin family.Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at May 19, 2009 3:47 PM
Sarah Palin should be the poster child for true feminism - she has a supportive husband, five children and a succesful career achieved by merit, not connections. She would be heralded as a feminist role model, except for that one pesky little problem: she's pro-life. And to add insult to injury, one of her children is special needs and she knew this ahead of time but didn't abort.
Modern feminism is practically a country club. You must be a pro-abortion liberal, no exceptions.Posted by: Janette at May 19, 2009 4:13 PM
Well, no surprise...the feminists mock Dawn Eden for the same - now that she has coverted to Catholicism and a chaste life - they give her no peace. I pray God to protect and watch over Bristol Palin and babe!Posted by: elizabethk at May 19, 2009 4:51 PM
Sarah Palin is as far from a feminist role model as one can get. She forced her child to have ... a child, she exploited her children in order to increase her political position, she barely finished college, abused her power as a governor and can barely answer simple questions. Hell, Palin is as far from a ROLE MODEL as one can get.
As for Bristol, I don't mock her stance on abstinence out of "jealousy or regret." I look back on losing my virginity as one of the most happy, genuinely enjoyable moments of my life. I mock her stance on abstinence because I mock abstinence in general: I find it unrealistic and damaging to relationships.Posted by: Human Abstract at May 19, 2009 5:55 PM
She "forced" her daughter to have a baby, how?
She "exploited" her children for political purposes, how?
She "barely" finished college. This means what?
She can barely answer simple question. LOL, your guy Barack can't even hold a press conference without a teleprompter.
Speaking of answering questions, remember "inhalator" and "breathylyzer"?
I'll give you a hint, BO was trying to address a question at a town meeting without his teleprompter. You can find it on YouTube.
Sarah Palin has always scared the left out of their minds. She is an intelligent woman who has gotten to the top of a tough political venue all on her own! She didnt marry a powerful man, like Hilary, to get her power, she EARNED it. Along the way, she was fortunate enough to meet and marry an amazing man and sustain a loving marriage and have amazing children. Jealously does not become you HA. Give the woman the credit she deserves. As for Bristol, I admire that she had the baby and if now she does see the benefit of abstinence (which I dont think you can), then more power to her!!
Sarah Palin is an amazing woman and she drives the feminists and left crazy because she has done it all on her own...and she is beautiful to boot.
Amen and thank you.Posted by: Mary at May 19, 2009 6:42 PM
HA: Regarding Palin, Mary's post contains the exact questions that I was going to ask, so I'll just wait for your answers to her post.
If you're secure in your beliefs and are satisfied with the choices you've made, then it should be very easy to state your case without mocking anyone. Besides, what do you care what other women do (or don't do) with their bodies? According to previous conversations, you don't mind if women have promiscuous sex and then have inevitable human beings chopped up - that's their personal decision. But when they choose to remain abstinent until marriage you're suddenly inspired to ridicule their sexual decisions?
Also, please explain to me how abstinence until marriage is damaging to relationships.Posted by: Janette at May 19, 2009 9:31 PM
Ever notice that the lefties never admire anyone who takes a real stand. They mock those that serve in the miltary and women who embrace an 'inconvenient pregnancy'.
Instead they honor those who talk a good game about abstracts or wail and cry over problems they blame on others. Somehow they scorn those who take responsibility and triumph over difficulties. It's a sad viewpoint, one that celebrates the worst in human nature.
It seems the the leftists hate what is truely noble in masculinity and femininity. They champion only the base ideas of self-preservation and impulsiveness while casting off selflessness and steadfastness.
Bristol can and should walk proudly before the mocking leftists. They know nothing of real valor or love. ProAborts can only thrive when they malign women for being real women; they debase sex, pregnancy and motherly love because they are incapable of countering it. They continually work at building an environment where nobility is pointless and human life and the human spirit is devalued.
As much as I sometimes get down about the political environment of for pro-life causes, I am heartened in my own experience by women who have walked head held high to raise great children. My own 'inconvenient pregnancy' will cross the graduation stage this Sunday -- as will at least 5 of her 'inconvenient' pals. Life is always the better choice; nobility can never really be mocked. We need to stand tall and speak to the better nature of all -- it is the winning message.
Posted by: LB
at May 19, 2009 9:40 PM
Sarah Palin's daughter has her baby because her mother "forced" her. Palin's DS child is "exploited" and not properly cared for. How can Palin possibly be a good mother and VP?
Did anyone ever question a man's ability to be president or VP and be an father as well?
I recall Democrat icon Robert Kennedy had 10 children and another one on the way when he ran for president. No one questioned his ability to parent or accused him of exploiting his family.
Did anyone question Obama's ability to be both a parent and president?
Certainly feminists would have a serious issue with this double standard.
Let's get real. If Palin had arranged an abortion for her daughter or had aborted her DS child, these same libs would be tearing their hair and howling like banshees about her hypocrisy and enjoying every minute of it.
They can dispense with their sanctamonious claptrap about Palin "exploiting" her children or "forcing" her daughter to have a baby.
They're as phony as 3 dollar bills and transparent as glass.
Ceil, I'll second the motion!!!!Posted by: heather at May 19, 2009 10:30 PM
Mary - I agree.Posted by: LB at May 19, 2009 10:39 PM
Human Abstract, there is nothing wrong with abstinance. Just hopping into bed with a male/female will give you sexual gratification, but it generally ends in heartache. Men don't respect you, and they don't love you at all. I don't care what they say. Sex is sex is sex. Don't you want more? Don't you want respect and love? I do. And getting to know someone while waiting is the best part.Posted by: heather at May 19, 2009 10:43 PM
Mary, I always agree with you, and I shall do so again!Posted by: heather at May 19, 2009 10:45 PM
Well, no surprise...the feminists mock Dawn Eden for the same - now that she has coverted to Catholicism and a chaste life - they give her no peace. I pray God to protect and watch over Bristol Palin and babe!
Posted by: elizabethk at May 19, 2009 4:51 PM---------------- That's sad, but who is Dawn Eden?Posted by: heather at May 19, 2009 10:47 PM
Dawn Eden wrote the book The Thrill of the Chaste and is a blogger at The Dawn Patrol. It is in Jill's lifeblog links. :)Posted by: Carla at May 19, 2009 10:54 PM
Thanks Carla, I just looked her up, but was she ever on the other side that you know of??Posted by: heather at May 19, 2009 10:57 PM
Palin the younger said that her mother "strongly encouraged" her to have the baby. What do you think that means? Palin the elder traveled around the U.S. with her children, young and old, taking them out of school and sending a clear message to them that education was far less important then making their mother look good. Her lack of college education, despite transferring and changing majors several times, is a testament to her own lack of intelligence, and dismal qualifications to be a VP. She got a journalism degree and doesn't even know which papers she reads, how dense can you get?
If Palin the Younger had come out and said, you know what, my mom told me I should do what's best for me, and I decided to have the kids, and sincerely meant it, more power to her. Teenage mothers, I firmly believe, have more challenges than mothers who are more set in the world, but can absolutely rise to meet those challenges. Teenage mothers can be fantastic mothers, and anyone who says otherwise is frankly buying into a plethora of negative stereotypes.
Yup, I firmly deride abstinence. Is it hypocritical, ridiculous, and pretty much useless? Absolutely. The nature of love is to produce and raise children -- that's it. Sex is part of that. I think that abstinence circumvents the natural process. That's not why I mock it, however--that would be because its unrealistic, and I've never met someone who is an advocate of abstinence that isn't a holier-than-thou, stuck up, moralistic jerk.Posted by: Human Abstract at May 20, 2009 1:26 AM
"Strongly encouraging" is not forcing. You said forcing.
Her children were taken out of school. Horrible. I don't suppose they had tutors or anything. How terrible that they stay with their parents. She was nominated in August? and the election was November. That's a whopping 2 months that those children were so deprived of education.
HA, you contradict yourself. You say she has a lack of a college education. Then you say she has a journalism degree. Which is it?
Oh, and this means she lacks qualifications to be VP. According to who?Posted by: Mary at May 20, 2009 5:22 AM
H.A. said, "Palin the younger said that her mother 'strongly encouraged' her to have the baby. What do you think that means?" It might mean that Mr. and Mrs. Palin didn't do a good enough job of educating Bristol. That she should not kill her baby should go without saying.
Also, an expectant mother cannot be forced to "have a baby." She can only be forced to not "have a baby." The only way Mrs. Palin could have forced her daughter to have a baby is by being an accomplice to the rape of her daughter. Highly unlikely.
I disagree with all the rest of H.A.'s comment at 1:26 a.m. too, but I'm not going to take the time to explain why. Just consider me a holier-than-thou, stuck up, moralistic jerk who buys into a plethora of negative stereotypes--and an extremist, besides.Posted by: Jon at May 20, 2009 8:05 AM
You would think this campaign would want to show abstinence can work and also warn teens what teem parenthood is really like. Why then would Candies even pick Bristol Palin? Abstinence failed for her. She hardly represents typical teen motherhood... Except that she is single. Why oh why? Candies was just inviting this. Oh. Now I get it.Posted by: emma at May 20, 2009 8:38 AM
Abstinence never fails -- it's 100% effective, when its used. Bristol failed abstain at some point, but it doesn't mean that she doesn't practice it now.
I get the feeling that pro-aborts are the biggest promoters of the the old 'fallen women' ideology. Then again, being pro-abort is about writing people off, isn't it.Posted by: LB at May 20, 2009 8:49 AM
key words: when it's used. That's the problem with abstinence effectiveness isn't it? If you want to show it can be effective don't you think you would pick someone who has been successful at it?Posted by: emma at May 20, 2009 8:55 AM
Being a PCer really isn't about choice either. They want death! Anytime a pregnant teen keeps the baby, nobody really wishes her well. More like, good luck. If that same young girl has an abortion, she's alright in the pro-deathers book. She was acting responsibly.Posted by: heather at May 20, 2009 8:55 AM
sure it's about choice. But there are extremists on both sides.Posted by: emma at May 20, 2009 9:09 AM
Want to talk about dunderheads? The latest is that VP JOe Biden disclosed the secret location of the VP hideaway in the event of an attack.
I'm not certain what part of the word "secret" he doesn't understand.
Our enemies must be laughing themselves stupid. First we have a president who jeopardizes our national security, now this guy. I'm sure they can't believe their good fortune.
HA, you were saying something about Palin's unfitness to be VP?Posted by: Mary at May 20, 2009 9:27 AM
What a great word.
If Bristol is anything like her Mom, she's a tough kid with a sense of humor and will weather the attacks just fine. If she convinces only a handful of girls to abstain, she's accomplished something. All of her detractors should leave her alone and go have sex or something. (Just kidding.)Posted by: Janet at May 20, 2009 10:31 AM
And, oh, of course, there is no educational value whatsoever in traveling around the country, visiting the different states, meeting people, and participating in the electoral process. Oh, you're right... there's NO way the Palin children could have learned ANYTHING from that...
I realize you had a lot of people to respond to, but my curiosity remains: You have previously indicated that women should have full control of her sexuality to the extent of abortion on demand. You insist that this is her body and her personal decision. Fair enough. But when it comes to abstinence, you readily speak out regarding what you think a woman should do or not do with her body. You call this particular choice unrealistic, hypocritical, ridiculous and useless. You claim that you've never met an abstinence advocate who wasn't a holier than thou, stuck-up, moralistic jerk. It seems that you only applaud a woman's choices regarding her sexuality when it's a choice that suits your fancy.
Do you realize how overtly hypocritical this is? Do you realize that you are, in fact, emposing your morality on others and using insults to do it?Posted by: Janette at May 20, 2009 10:51 AM
Oh, and I'm still interested in your view that abstinence until marriage is damaging to relationships. How is that?Posted by: Janette at May 20, 2009 10:55 AM
"key words: when it's used. That's the problem with abstinence effectiveness isn't it? If you want to show it can be effective don't you think you would pick someone who has been successful at it?"
You make a good point, but there are many abstinence speakers who were successful at abstinence. Bristol has been effective in increasing the dialogue and that's a good thing.
Abstinence is difficult, but NOT impossible. THIS is the message we should be sending our children. If you don't believe marriage is essential to a relationship, then I suppose "waiting" has no practical meaning. But, if a young person plans to marry someday, by all means, WAIT to have sex until after marriage. If you aren't sure if you want to marry, you may change your mind someday....so WAIT. I'm glad I did.Posted by: Janet at May 20, 2009 10:56 AM
And I can't spell. IMPOSE, not empose.
Wow.Posted by: Janette at May 20, 2009 10:56 AM
Of course I understand that I'm being hypocritical. It isn't as though I want to force everyone who's waiting (I don't know anyone....everyone I know who was "waiting" changed their minds) to have sex. Do whatever you want. Yes, however, I will mock it, because I think its a ridiculous choice. Then again, marriage also has absolutely no meaning for me, I'm not monotheistic and frankly, I think sex is the best part of a relationship.
For a while, I dated someone who wanted to be abstinent. At the time, I was wholly okay with it: as the relationship progressed, however, I told my partner that, if abstinence was the name of the game, I would break off the relationship, as I had no desire to continue in a sexless relationship. It was that individual's choice to go ahead and have sex. That person has never regretted it, though we broke up nearly a year ago. Regret, or lack thereof, works both ways.
She has a journalism degree, but that doesn't mean she has an education. A degree does not education make. Sure, she knows how to write a news story, but her grades were barely passing, she switched between several colleges, and I'm utterly unimpressed with her speaking skills or her ability to answer even the most simple questions. I didn't say that Biden was any MORE qualified, but at least he can name which news outlets he listens to.
A pregnant woman can be forced to remain pregnant: thus, forced to have a baby. Pretty simple logic there. No worries, Jon, I consider most people on the site this way, you're not damaging my views any.
Posted by: Human Abstract
at May 20, 2009 11:24 AM
"...I'm not monotheistic..."
Not trying to be mean, but did you mean monogamous here?Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 20, 2009 11:27 AM
Wow! Sarah Palin almost didn't finish her degree? She's almost part of the barbaric, unwashed masses. Does she even know how to use a fork? God save us from such a governor. I weep at the revelation of it all...Posted by: Pansy Moss at May 20, 2009 11:34 AM
Eh, Bobby, I'm not monogamous either, but I said monotheistic because I didn't feel like typing out that I"m not Christian, Islamic or Jewish, the trio of major monotheistic religions who really emphasize chastity. Monotheistic was just a bit shorter, (on my way to work!) but clearly confusing! Sorry about that. : )Posted by: Human Abstract at May 20, 2009 11:41 AM
Ah OK. I thought it might not be a typo, but I wasn't quite sure. I mean, one could still be monotheistic and not hold to the sexual values that we do, but I get exactly what you meant now.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 20, 2009 11:44 AM
I dunno. I've always felt it hypocritical to be a certain religion "in name" and then pick and chose which parts of it you want to practice. I understand that's a pretty personal viewpoint that not everyone follows, and I'd never dream of voicing that to someone in an accusatory way, but it just seems like good sense to me.Posted by: Human Abstract at May 20, 2009 11:46 AM
See HA, I think there is one place we can definitely agree. I've never understood why someone would belong to a certain religious organization, essentially believeing that this organization holds the truth about religious questions, and then picking and choosing what parts of it they want to accept. I think reject that POV is pretty rational for a non-religious person to hold, and I"m glad you and several others on this site (like Dan and PiP) do realize that it doesn't make much sense to be part of a religion but only accept what you like about it. Obviously there is a counter-argument to that, but I don't see it going too far.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 20, 2009 11:54 AM
We have a Vice President?!Posted by: Carla at May 20, 2009 11:56 AM
H.A. said, "A pregnant woman can be forced to remain pregnant: thus, forced to have a baby. Pretty simple logic there."
Well, I'm quite sure you have seen me argue this with Doug or Danielle, so I'm not going to go all out here. And I don't have time right now. But the fact is that a pregnant woman stays pregnant without any force. Force is only required to cause her to abort (except in the case of a miscarriage). It is force; it is violence; it is GUILT and INJUSTICE; and it is hardly different than rape.
Abortion, like rape, is both self-mutilation and violence to another, someone much weaker. The ultimate irony is that rape is often used in an attempt to justify abortion: "What? Are you saying that she has to carry and care for his baby?"
You know that the person who unites himself with a prostitute becomes one body with her, don't you? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." 1 Cor. 6:16Posted by: Jon at May 20, 2009 12:12 PM
I am hardly a "poster child" for abstinence either.
Sexually active at a young age, STD's, abusive relationships, an abortion at 24.
BUT do my children get to learn from Momma's past.....AND HOW!! They know that sex is best saved for marriage and abstinence is effective 100% of the time.
Wisdom gained through experience. Gotta love it.Posted by: Carla at May 20, 2009 12:30 PM
I have not heard abortion compared to rape before. Thank you for that insight.
This just keeps getting better.
Palin has a journalism degree but no education. Right. I suppose she pulled her degree out of a cereal box, right?
You're unimpressed with HER speaking skills.
Oh, well that settles it.
Um, what about Obama's less than impressive speaking skills? Just hope his teleprompter never gets held hostage.
Biden at least knows the names of some news outlets? Well, someone needs to tell him what the word "secret" means.Posted by: Mary at May 20, 2009 1:51 PM
Since you acknowledge that you're being hypocritical, then there isn't anything for me to argue with about that. I just find it odd that depending on the topic, sometimes you find morality to be subjective and sometimes you insist that a specific view is correct. Why not simply state that you believe certain things to be right (ie choice to abort) and explain why and certain things to be wrong (ie abstinence education) and explain why? It's up to you, but I feel that would give the debate more clarity.
I'm honestly not too concerned with the choices adults make in their relationships. Sure, I think that waiting until marriage is admirable, but consenting adults can do as they please. I'm bothered more by teenagers being mocked for being promoting abstinence. It is a fact that abstinence prevents STDs and unplanned pregnancy, so what's to mock about advocating that teenagers, aka children, fully protect themselves from these dangers?
Also, religious people aren't the only ones big on abstinence. I have personally known several atheists and agnostics who practiced and encouraged abstinence.
When it comes to Palin, you insist she's not a role model because: she, as a parent, strongly encouraged her daughter to not have an abortion, she didn't make the honor roll in college and went to several schools, she took her kids with her on the campaign trail, you are unimpressed with her speaking skills and she flubbed one question in one interview. OK. So if she had urged Bristol to have an abortion, made better grades in college and went to only one university, left her family at home during the campaign, came across as a gifted speaker and told Couric "I read Time magazine," but the policies she supports remained the same, would you then consider her a role model?Posted by: Janette at May 20, 2009 4:30 PM
No, Jnette, i would not consider her a role model. Not because of her policies, but because she would urge her daughter to have an abortion. You're missing the point: it wasn't Sarah Palin's choice to make. It was Bristol's. Sarah's involvement should be limited to saying that she would support her daughter's choice the best she could, then define what that limit was. If she didn't want to babysit her grandkid while Bristol went to school, that's her choice. On the other end of the spectrum, if she volunteered to fully involve herself in the grandkid's life and babysit it while Bristol led an otherwise normal life, up to her. But, Bristol should not have been influenced one way or another.
With regards to sex ed, I'm fully supportive of a comprehensive sex-ed class that includes abstinence as an option. I disagree with abstinence, but I'm not going to stop people from practicing it if they want, and it is an option, so it should certainly be allowed and taught. I don't think its wrong, I think its stupid; there's a huge difference. There's nothing morally problematic about abstinence, at least for me, and I've considered it pretty comprehensively.
Forcing a woman to remain pregnant is, to my mind, far more similar to rape than abortion is. Both are about controlling the woman's body. A man who wants to tell her what to do with her vagina is a rapist; a man who wants to tell her what to do with her uterus is pro-life.
Posted by: Human Abstract
at May 20, 2009 6:52 PM
H.A. said, "Forcing a woman to remain pregnant is... far more similar to rape than abortion is."
First, I'm not going to go on at length, but I'm not going to let you get away with your ridiculous language, either. An expectant mother isn't forced to remain pregnant; she's forced to abort. Those who voluntarily abort have to be forced to abort. (Actually, many of those who do forcibly abort do not voluntarily abort. They have to be coerced by boyfriends, parents, or Planned Parenthood counsellors.) Pregnancy is the desirable consequence of loving sexual intercourse. The woman who becomes pregnant has already chosen to become a mother, and her body wonderfully fulfills this life task for her.
Secondly, rape is not loving sexual intercourse. It is obviously an abuse of sexual intercourse. That union as one flesh with the raped woman thus becomes a form of self-mutilation. A man has his power and authority over a woman for their mutual benefit, the purpose of all power and authority. In the case of rape, the man is assuming a power which is not his. The woman is not his. He has no authority over her, and he violates her.
The correspondence with abortion is not perfect, but there is an obvious resemblance. Feminists basically become cynical realists who say, "Well, he did to me, so I'll do it to somebody else." So their solution to the crime is to repeat the crime.
Forced abortion is not loving motherhood. (Some pro-abortionists say it is, but rapists often say they love their victims too. For one example, see Gen. 34:2-3.) Abortion is obviously the destruction and perversion of motherhood, an abuse of motherhood. That union as one flesh with the developing child thus becomes a form of self-mutilation. A mother has her power and authority over a child for their mutual benefit, the purpose of all power and authority. Unlike a rapist, a mother really does have a rightful authority over her child, but like the rapist she abuses it (just as he abuses his power of sexual initiation). She ends up committing horrible violence just as the rapist does.
Forcing an expectant mother to abort is hardly any different than rape.Posted by: Jon at May 21, 2009 12:07 AM
And to further clarify, even those who really do voluntarily abort--i.e, consent to kill their offspring--are also involuntarily aborting. While their minds might have rationalized away the baby, their bodies haven't, and so the body can only involuntarily abort. As medical doctors mostly deal with the body (unless they're psychiatrists), they rightly refer to abortion as induced abortion or forced abortion. Pregnancy is a physical phenomenon. That medical doctors even have to talk about forced abortion is itself an irony because the purpose of medicine is to heal, not to harm.Posted by: Jon at May 21, 2009 12:16 AM
I had said, "Unlike a rapist, a mother really does have a rightful authority over her child." I.e., a rapist has no rightful authority over the woman, but a mother does have rightful authority over the child.
Upon further reflection, I question whether a pregnant woman who forcibly aborts does always or even often have a rightful authority over the child. In many cases, the child was conceived through fornication or adultery, i.e. it is illegitimate. In other cases, e.g. with a young married couple, the child was a "mistake," i.e. the couple engaged in sexual intercourse but consciously ruled out its fullest fruition. Maybe I can only say here that like the rapist, the woman had no right to her victim, but once having violated him, the best (but not ideal) solution is for her to mother him. Eventual adoption by another is also a solution.
The obvious corollary for rape is that although the rapist had no right to his victim, once he has violated her, the best--but not ideal--solution is often for him to marry her. Both pro-lifers and pro-choicers will attack me on this--maybe rightfully so--but I'm not saying that this has to be the solution. I'm only noting that past civilizations often found this "solution" (sin cannot really be solved) to be best in many cases. And I doubt that Israel was a badly off as America is today; rapists weren't quite as depraved. (Read Judges 19-20, which depicts a nadir in the history of the nation, 21:25. See especially Judges 19:30.)
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 says, "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days." I'm quite sure that at that time the marriage decision would have been left up to the raped woman, as this law was clearly made in her interests. Having lost her virginity, she would probably have regarded this solution to be best.
So maybe, if a woman becomes pregnant with an illegitimate child, then she should also be forced to mother it all her days--if she is the best "solution" to the child--because she had violated it, or intended to... but maybe I stretch the analogy too far.
Scoffers should note that the civil laws which God laid down for Israel were intended for her good, much better than those of the surrounding nations (all idolatrous), and perhaps somewhat dependent on those of the surrounding nations in the fashion of Matthew 19:7-12. I.e., there is no ideal solution for sin except for the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ and the re-birth of the sinner.
Leviticus 20:20-21 seems to support my contention that the mother who purposely aborts has no real authority over her child. "If there is a man who lies with his uncle's wife he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness; they shall bear their sin. They shall die childless. If there is a man who takes his brother's wife [as Herod did, Matt. 14:3], it is abhorrent; he has uncovered his brother's nakedness. They shall be childless." I'm sure that the curse to be childless either means that the two were to be separated and that God would not bless any child already conceived (see 2 Samuel 12:22-23, though that was a general case of adultery). It might mean that the two were to be stoned, though I doubt it. It cannot mean induced abortion, for Leviticus 20 actually begins with a prohibition against child-killing: "You shall say to the sons of Israel, 'Any man from the sons of Israel or from the aliens sojourning in Israel, who gives any of his offspring to Molech, shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones" (verse 2, cf. vs. 3-5).
If the punishment for committing adultery with one's brother's wife seems severe, consider the more general case of adultery. "If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death" (Lev. 20:10). I'm guessing that the far more lenient sentence in cases like Herod's (as I understand that sentence to be) was perhaps due to a stronger temptation because of frequently sharing the same living quarters, etc. Or because the victim who lost his wife would not want his brother and wife executed as compensation. Or maybe I'm wrong, and they really did stay childless because they themselves were executed.Posted by: Jon at May 21, 2009 1:48 AM
How do you know for a fact what transpired between Gov.Palin and her daughter concerning the pregnancy? Were you living with the family at the time or a close personal friend in whom they confided?Posted by: Mary at May 21, 2009 9:19 AM
Jon, your second post deals exclusively with moral issues relating to Christianity and Christians. I am not Christian, as I have stated, and thus the majority of your second post is wholly irrelevant to me.
You imply a disconnect between mind and body (their minds might have rationalized away the baby their bodies haven’t) that is ridiculous. The mind works in harmony with the body, not opposed to it. I know several women who have produced abortion through naturalized methods that include visualization: the body, without chemicals or interference from doctors, aborted the fetus. Your idea that even those who voluntarily abort have to be forced to abort wholly takes away the agency of the woman in this., i.e. though she chooses to abort she cannot really choose because her whole being wishes to be pregnant. That reduces women to nothing more than a receptacle for breeding.
Choosing to have sex is not choosing to be a mother, and pregnancy is not always the desirable consequence of loving sexual intercourse, as shown by the millions of women who chose to use contraception. There are no situations where a man has a power over a woman for benefit: such unbalanced power structures are almost never beneficial, as multiple psychological studies suggest. (I can cite them if you wish, but frankly, judging by your second post, I could cite whole books and you would ignore it.)
A woman who chooses to abort is choosing a legitimate medical procedure. A woman who chooses not to terminate the pregnancy is likewise making a legitimate choice. By forcing motherhood on a woman, i.e. no longer allowing that first, legitimate medical procedure, you are assuming authority over her uterus – an authority you have no right to. A woman has the right to her own body.
Forcing a woman to abdicate rights to her own body, in any form, is akin to rape, whether you’re forcing her to give up rights to her vagina or her uterus.Posted by: Human Abstract at May 21, 2009 12:46 PM
H.A., my last comment does not deal with moral concerns relating exclusively to Christianity and Christians. These moral concerns also relate to you as a secular humanist. If they did not, we would have no need of discussion. I think what you mean is that you believe Christianity to be irrelevant to the moral concerns. I still disagree--obviously I believe you're wrong--but I understand your reason for the statement. In the same way, I can comprehensively ignore your last comment to me: I am not a secular humanist, so your notions of equality, amorality, godhood, etc. are irrelevant. Such barriers to communication always result between people of such radically different religions.
But I will say a few things. You said, "You imply a disconnect between mind and body... that is ridiculous." Your statement to the contrary is interesting and may contain a little truth. An expectant mother will probably miscarry more easily during times of high stress, and though such stress usually doesn't mean that she doesn't want the baby, she can artificially stress herself in order to get rid of the baby. But then she obviously abuses her body; they are not in agreement. The absurdity of your position is shown in your final statment that my position "reduces women to nothing more than a receptacle for breeding." Nonsense! An expectant mother has already shown a desire to "breed" by having sexual intercourse. But it's true that a woman's body is wonderfully designed to produce a baby. I don't know how any biologist could analyze it without failing to note its reproductive potential.
You said, "Choosing to have sex is not choosing to be a mother." Now who is implying a disconnect between mind and body? The body knows what it is supposed to do, but the mind is not in agreement?
You said, "There are no situations where a man has a power over a woman for [the] benefit [of both]." Stuff and nonsense! My own mother--and my married sister--are perfect examples of devoted submission rewarded by sacrificial love. My mother readily admits my father's great love for her. He's not perfect--but Jesus Christ is. The union between Christ and His Church is the reality; my parents are only a picture. (You don't believe this, but my parents do. And it makes a difference in their lives. I could cite you lengthy Scripture passages as proof, but judging by your last comment, you would ignore them.)
You said, "A woman has the right to her own body." And that's what you say! But I'm not a secular humanist. I'm a Christian, and I believe that in marriage, the husband's and wife's bodies can be spoken of as the husband and wife's bodies, i.e. they belong to each other. And their children belong to them. And, in a limited sense, we all belong to each other, i.e. make demands on each other. But the ownership is limited; only God has absolute ownership.
Abortion and rape are both violence to a person who should rather be protected, in a relationship of trust. A man has no right to rape a woman, and a woman has no right to kill a child. Forcing an expectant mother to abort is hardly any different than rape.Posted by: Jon at May 22, 2009 12:00 AM
Again, I think it's worth noting that both rape and forced abortion are self-mutilation as well as violence to another. The woman who has her own child killed is violated herself in the process. The purpose of the surgery or chemical is not to heal a wrongly functioning organ but to stop it from functioning properly--and to kill the new organism that is still one with her.
The man who forces himself on a woman becomes one with her. Any illegitimate child thus conceived symbolizes their unity, resembling both father and mother. But they were partaking in forbidden fruit (the woman rightly unwillingly), and so the man was really mutilating himself as well as violating another.
So if abortion and rape are in any way sadistic, then they are also masochistic.Posted by: Jon at May 22, 2009 12:38 AM
H.A. previously said, "Forcing a woman to remain pregnant is... far more similar to rape than abortion is."
As someone previously noted in another thread, nobody is asking a woman to remain permanently pregnant. The pregnancy naturally terminates in the fullness of time, i.e. nine months for a woman. Bobby Bambino's wife was recently induced to have her baby as she was two weeks overdue already. (And if abortion is a health issue, then why can expectant mothers in Canada get the surgery so much faster than people who require, for example, a by-pass? The pregnancy, if it was a disease, would only be a temporary disease.)
But as I said before, a woman does not need to be forced to remain pregnant. Her body continues the pregnancy all by itself. Mine won't because I'm a man. I would need to be forced to remain pregnant. But the woman who wants to become un-pregnant must either wait for the delivery or force an abortion.
Forcing an abortion and forcing sexual intercourse are both forms of alienation and violence.
Post-modernism contains many contradictions. The world is said to be inter-dependent so that co-operation is necessary, but feminism isolates (the husband and the child have no claims on the woman's body). The world is said to have become more harmonious and feeling, but the woman's body is to be logically freed from any parasites. The world is said to be more feminine and tolerant, but the feminists do their best to be the same as men. And, of course, rape is wicked, but abortion is okay.Posted by: Jon at May 22, 2009 1:32 AM
Forcing an expectant mother to abort is hardly any different than rape.
Posted by: Jon at May 21, 2009 12:07 AM
Posted by: Jon at May 22, 2009 1:32 AM
John - I hope to God you've never been raped, and that goes ditto for every single person in this community. But I have, and I think it is quite condescending of you to tell a person who has been raped that another thing is worse than that....honestly. You've got some balls, but not a lot of brains, nor experience in that matter. Stick to what you know, which quite frankly, isnt too much.
Listening might be a good thing for you to do, rather than spouting at the first stupid thought that comes to your mind. From where I sit the provenance of your experience is about as rich as a 4 year old's napkin drawing of a stick figure. You make nothing but a fool of yourself when you step out of your zone of experience. It's insulting to me and discrediting to decent pro-life folks whom I respectfully disagree with. In your zeal you forgot to do your research, and in doing so have committed a gross act of experiential plagiarism.
I am so very sorry that you have experienced a rape. I cannot imagine, although there is an attempted rape in my past.
Are you willing to concede that abortion cannot be discussed unless one has had one? That men should not be fighting for the unborn because they can't get pregnant to begin with?
Jon has expressed something that I am still thinking about. I am sorry that you have taken it personally.Posted by: Carla at May 23, 2009 6:49 AM
YLT, you misrepresented me. Your only accusation against me is a false accusation. I didn't say that abortion or anything else was worse than rape.Posted by: Jon at May 23, 2009 11:58 AM
Forcing an expectant mother to abort is hardly any different than rape.
Posted by: Jon at May 21, 2009 12:07 AM
YLT, you misrepresented me. Your only accusation against me is a false accusation. I didn't say that abortion or anything else was worse than rape.
Posted by: Jon at May 23, 2009 11:58 AM
Jon - I didn't "misrepresent" you. I quoted you and now you want to retract. Lets be clear. You said it.
I had said, "Forcing an expectant mother to abort is hardly any different than rape."
YLT said, "I think it is quite condescending of you to tell a person who has been raped that another thing is worse than that." This was YLT's only accusation against me; it was followed by a plethora of recommendations and insults.
So, YLT, your accusation is false. Saying that abortion is essentially the same as rape as far as violence is concerned, is not the same as saying that abortion is worse than rape. Maybe abortion is worse than rape, but I never made any such assertion. (You also never quoted me in the original comment in which you made your accusation. Your last comment is incorrect.)
If you really want to take offense, YLT, then you should take offense at HA's comparison. He said that "[f]orcing a woman to abdicate rights to her own body, in any form, is akin to rape, whether you’re forcing her to give up rights to her vagina or her uterus." After stripping his statement of its pro-abortion rhetoric--and eliminating his argument of body autonomy--I arrive at this: "Expecting an expectant mother to carry her child is like raping her."
Where's your indignation?Posted by: Jon at May 24, 2009 1:56 PM
Posted by: Jon at May 24, 2009 1:56 PM
Posted by: Yo La Tengo
at May 28, 2009 11:56 PM
Jon - my feeling regarding that comment is that it comes from a lack of experience, and knowlege. A comparison of rape to abortion in any light by somone who has not expeienced rape as I have is shallow. When trying to make a point, speak to what you know, not what you think you know. There are some things you cannot know and some things I hope you never know.
I'm not sure that a public forum is the best place to hash out the delicate nature of language in the context of an outsider perspective so I'll just end it here.
YLT, aren't you condemning yourself? You take offense at my comparison of abortion to rape because you have been raped. Yet you have never been aborted! Gianna Jessen has (it was a failed abortion), and she was left with cerebral palsy. Couldn't she now angrily tell you not to speak of things which you have not experienced? I'm just saying that you're being inconsistent.
Actually, I disagree. I don't think that I have to experience rape any more than I need to experience forced abortion in order to compare the two. The essential point of the comparison is the violent nature of both. And do you know the derivation of the word rape? According to my dictionary, it comes from the Latin word rapere, which means "to seize." I think that you will agree that there is as much seizing of a baby in an abortion as there is seizing of a woman (usually) in rape. The baby is either literally dismembered or
chemically poisoned. In the former case, I think, the abortionist is facilitating his task of having the mother deliver a corpse by taking it out one piece at a time. Some abortionists used to refer to the head as "Number One", i.e. "Have you got Number One yet?"
Abortionists rape babies!Posted by: Jon at May 31, 2009 12:28 PM