Video reflection of March for Life 2011: Do we know HOW to end abortion?
As usual, the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform erected its Genocide Awareness Project display along the March for Life route in Washington last month.
CBR’s Mark Harrington has just released the following compelling video. The backdrop is Mark’s delivery of an important message about the need to show graphic abortion photos against footage of marchers viewing the display. Mark wrote:
What has come of 38 years of the same tactics? Children continue to die. Parents continue to be wounded.
Successful social reformers of the past used images of the injustice against which they fought. And, they won. Why shouldn’t we do the same? The truth is no social reform movement has ever succeeded in outlawing injustice by covering it up. And I have news for you, the pro-life movement won’t be the first.
Sadly, much of the pro-life movement is unwittingly doing much of Planned Parenthood’s work for them. They don’t need our help. PP covers up the horror of abortion well enough on their own.
Watch the response of the marchers as hundreds of thousands are struck by the grisly reality that is abortion – many for the first time! And, consider this question: If images are the most effective tool to change minds and end this battle, why don’t we use them?
For the past 11 days Bryan Kemper and I have been speaking across New Zealand for ProLifeNZ, our primary purpose being to help educate and activate the youth.
After getting a handle on the lay of the land in NZ, where the culture, pro-lifers repeatedly explained with frustration, is apathetic and often ignorant about abortion, I quickly developed a powerpoint presentation, “Why the hard truth?,” making the same case as Mark about the need to use graphic pictures in our social justice movement to stop abortion.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
We are to use any Christ like means necessary to teach and live the truth. Christ on the cross was a graphic image, amen? We are each called to this fight and God has already prepared our paths all we have to do is seek His face and walk in the destiny He has prepared for us. I am the director of 911BABIES a prolife outreach that was concieved 9-11-01 and birthed in late 2005. A simple man with a heart for God and desire to not just settle for His will but seeking His PERFECT will for my life and my calling. Living for Him in the life issues with a voice that will not be silenced! Thank you Jill for your posts and for answering the calling of God in your life!
In Christ for Life,
Eddie DeHart
Do we know how to end abortion?
Yes, we do. Unfortunately, it seems to split pro-lifers. The truth is posting pictures of abortion might persuade someone- I hope that they at least causes those men and women who see them to stop and think- but in reality people probably won’t change until there’s some sort of benefit involved for them- that’s just basic human nature. If you want to change people’s minds, then prove to them that it’s in their best interests. And I don’t mean lie- be honest about how being pro-life might benefit them- but outline how the switch to an equality-based philosophy is better for all of us.
I have no problem showing the truth. I whole heartedly agree with showing photos of what abortion does to babies. Why ARE we covering it up? How will people end abortion until they understand what it is? How will they understand unless they SEE IT?
Powerful video.
Wow – that was profound. The fact many marchers had not seen these images before is not a good thing. It’s more about feel-good activity and less about real change. They are not revolted enough to demand change.
Simply showing human life developing is not enough, because people lack imagination and comprehension of the impact. The videos are horrible and harsh, but the reality of death is even worse. The reality of millions of women suffering silently, throwing their lives out of control, living in despair or killing themselves is awful. We forget those realities.
All change starts with emotions. Without stirring emotions, all the education in the world will not bring about change.
We’ve grown numb to the carnage – so much so, that even Lila’s shocking videos don’t have the impact they should. People are like – yeah, so what? Because they cannot see themselves in the position of a slave/prisoner.
Ergh, again. Every time this issue comes up, it threatens to give me a headache; it’s certainly not as cut-and-dried as a geometry proof, or anything, and more than one position has merit.
On the one hand, I strongly agree that the horror and reality of abortion (using every possible medium available to us: audio, video, still photo, replicas/models, etc.) needs to be put into the face of every last adult in the world, so that, no matter HOW he/she decides, he/she will no longer be able to remain in complete ignorance. Silence and darkness generally helps the kingdom of sin, not the Kingdom of God. We CANNOT let fear of emotional backlash/upset/adverse reaction stop us; even those who are upset by the images (and shouldn’t they be? We’re not upsetting them for “fun”; we’re showing them something profoundly upsetting, that needs to END!) deserve to have the truth given to them, just as every cancer patient has a right to know the truth about the diagnosis. (Can you imagine a world where all people who could conceivably be upset at a cancer diagnosis were denied knowledge of the diagnosis? How arrogant of us, to give them a “blackout” like that, and deny them their right to come to terms with it, choose treatments, put their houses in order, etc.!) The idea that “it will backfire with some people, whose hearts will simply be more hardened by the graphic display” is no excuse at all, since all of human history allows anyone to accept or reject the truth (including hard truth). They deserve the truth; it’s a matter of justice to them (even if they don’t appreciate or want it, at present).
On the other hand: there’s truth in concern that some children may be too young to absorb a graphic image and put it in its rightful context; some might simply react with primal horror, and associate it with the March, forevermore, and so on. The March simply isn’t set up to “filter” such displays from the very young. But I don’t want the very young to be prohibited from coming on the March, either.
Thoughts? I’m open to ideas, here…
Christians who died during Roman persecutions had no benefit to their stubbornness, no payoff in this life for steadfastly remaining Christian. If the images divide some pro-lifers, it indicates that we need MORE conversions, and the pictures will help accomplish that. Some Christians don’t like the Crucifix because it’s too graphic and unpleasant. Early followers of Christ even fell away when his teaching was hard. Avoiding the unpleasant, avoiding the difficult? Those are the tactics of the pro-choice.
Yes, it’s hard to look at the pictures. It should be hard. It should be disturbing. By our feelings we know we are human, we are compassionate, we can’t look at the suffering of others and go about our lives as if it didn’t matter.
Social Justice, Jill?
Don’t let Glenn Beck hear you say that.
<blockquote>After getting a handle on the lay of the land in NZ, where the culture, pro-lifers repeatedly explained with frustration, is apathetic and often ignorant about abortion, I quickly developed a powerpoint presentation, “Why the harder truth?,” making the same case as Mark about the need to use graphic pictures in our social justice movement to stop abortion.</blockquote>
We’ve been showing people the gruesome fetus pictures for a long time, so if they were the magic bullet it would have beenh over in, say, June of 1973.
No one approach will succeed, because people tolerate and/or support abortion for a LOT of reasons. And I’ve actually seen a commentary by a man who said that seein the aborted fetus photos made him MORE PROCHOICE because he thought it was AWESOME to give women that kind of power.
If I could do ONE thing to the prolife movement it would be to get people to stop thinking that they have the magic bullet and everybody else is wasting time.
There are too many in the pro life camp who simply don’t want the pictures shown (I know of at least five who disagree with this method, even at the March for Life). Quite frankly, the only way to have the truth be told is if it was aired nationally, on a network willing to expose abortion for all its gruesomeness. I would grant it should not be shown during a time young children might happen to tune in.
The evil of abortion will not stop, until each and every adult American sees it for what it is. I believe we’re getting there, but the daily cost is still way too high.
I think someone should put a picture of DaVinci’s Embryo In The Womb and next to it a caption that reads that’s at least as long as educated people knew embryos were not a mass of tissue. And then maybe someone could paint a picture with baby tears and pray that those whose hearts aren’t completely hardened will wake up. If I could draw that’s what I’d draw a picture of an abortionist next to a failed abortion and a tear from the victorious baby slowly dissolving the predator slowly. No negative posts please.
You might be able to end abortion is some parts of the country but not all. You certainly won’t be able to end it in Canada or Europe where gals with some $ will go to have their surgery – and perhaps some nice sightseeing and museum visits too!
And let’s not forget the old “D&C”s which will return, in masse, with the criminalization of abortion. Catholic women of means, like my evil mother, knew all about that.
“If you want to change people’s minds, then prove to them that it’s in their best interests.”
Except it’s not. No one benefits from losing a constitutional right.
This is extremely important, but I fear we are going to engender all sorts of frustration beause this approach is wrong. A few decades ago some fellows were drinking excessive amounts of alcohol and behaving badly. When told about their poor behavior, the critics were thoroughly disbelieved because ‘such nice people when sober would not accept a Jeckle to Hyde personality transformation just by inbibing a ‘bit’.
The sober accusers devised a plan to record the offendes on videotape for iron-clad ‘proof’. As suspected the drinkers were initially shocked by what they saw and refrained from boozing TOTALLY, for about two weeks. When asked why they had returned, the boozers answered with: ‘So what?’.
I very much suspect that the same scenario will occur here if abortion promoting folks are confronted with graphic images and have not heard from Prolifers ANY answer to the so-what question.
THE END OF ABORTION will only come about by meeting the basis of this problem. I have a somewhat unique take on the phenomenon of abortion. But I suspect because the solution is more chemical-based rather than morally-based, the ‘moral’ arguments keep flowing in an unending pattern. Not one single pro-lifer is even interested if this ‘theory’ is thoroughly tested … let alone found relevant. [Says a lot about US, eh?]
A few decades back, a Dr. Patrick Dunn of NZ, decided to graph the emotional turbulence of his pregnant patients. What he recorded was a sharp first-trimester drop-in-mood, that framed a mini-depression from wks 8-11.5 (The ‘lowest point of this 1st depression was exactly the time when 80% OF ALL ABORTIONS occur.)
While the second trimester does not show an unusual drop (usually the mood is slightly elevated) However, a deeper depression begins at the onslaught of the third trimester and worsens until birth. Then there is a sudden glitch to euphoria at birth {This is easily explained: most women will release substantive quantities of endorphins when birthing. These chemicals act like, but are stronger than morphine.}
Dr. Dunn graphed a third period of depression. It begins exactly where the depression before birth leaves off. It worsens and at times becomes suicidal. [It is, for me, a graphical representation of the infamous postpartum depression.]
This IS enough to wonder if much of abortion is a reaction to depression. If so, the proper medical response is to treat the depression, not kill ‘the child’.
Decades later (while doing other research). I happened to find an exact ‘fit’ as to why these pregnancy-related-depressions occur. The NEED of a high amount of zinc in development stages is delineated in ‘Zinc and Copper in Medicine’ eds Sarper & Karcioglu.
There are many divergent facts that make a zinc-deficit a likely candidate. First, the impact is LARGE. Almost 70% of Americans are zinc deficient. The mineral zinc is to body-function as calcium is to body-structure ie. immunity, healing, growth. vision, hearing, taste, etc, etc.
The depression-link stems from the fact that zinc finds a large expression in the mossy fiber layers of the brain’s cerebellum. Finally, we should also be aware that the onslaught of puberty also is the initiation-stage for a 4th period of high zinc use. Most teens do not modify their diets at this time so mood-swings, depression, loss of muscle control, zits, PMS, criminal activity,etc are all stemming from a zinc-deficit-disorder. A pregnant teen is a shoe-in for pregnancy related depressions.
If you do not meet this ‘problem’ now: you can be assured the clamoring for relief, will entrench abortion as a quasi right-of-passage for ‘feminist’ leaning women. [Not met, a zinc deficit ensures a kind of genetic-slavery to as many as 90% of so-called genetic conditions, that need sufficient zinc and vitamin B6 DURING PREGNANCY to be eradicated.]
There is an underground issue happening now, but not usually addressed. We are dumping on future generations massive amounts of financial debt. [I thought that these were the folks who would take care of us when we are older.] If anyone major (a big nation) defaults, we will have massive and very swift chaos. So swift will this ‘chaos’ be that massive starvation and death may occur. This might even save-us from death-by-euthanasia??????????????
I would use graphic pictures only in certain circumstances – when doing training in Pro-Life, as a last-ditch effort with a woman who says she understands all the ramifications – and then warn her that the pictures are graphic- but represent the reality of abortion.
I think like Abby Johnson – I do not put up large graphic aborted babies when I do sidewalk counseling – I do show a 6 week pre-born child with their natural fingers and toes. Nothing graphic.
And Father Frank Pavone does not condone graphic pictures in any and all circumstances. We are to protect minor children – and have a sense of decorum. I like the GAP project – but only in areas where there is a warning, where educationally it’ll do some good.
In education for pro-life efforts – yes – it convicted me when I was in a seminar with Scott Kluesendorf. Yes America will not stop abortion until it sees it — carefully, thoughtfully, in the proper time – and with a loving touch to do it at the right time – not hit people over the head with it.
We can’t be as brutal as the abortionists, and can’t be as guarded to never show pictures. In the proper way – it moves hearts and minds. There is no denying the brutality of abortion.
You’re absolutely right Joan. Nobody benefits when the constitutional right to your LIFE is denied and yet you support it happening 4,000 times a day in the US.
I think part of the problem is that we are trying to eliminate the cart before the horse.
Abortion is the cart and it is pulled by the horse of contraception.
You cannot have a large percentage of the population contracepting and expect them to not accept abortion as another form of birth control.
For the vast majority of couples contracepting, the mindset that children are not welcome is prevalent. They cannot or won’t open their hearts to the possibility of children.
When you have a significant, if not a majority of couples who are simply not open to the possibility of children, when contraception fails as it inevitably does, many will turn to abortion.
Besides this, contraception leads to promiscuity. And despite our liberal attitudes towards this behavior there is still the shame associated with it and therefore the desire to cover-up the behavior even if it means killing a baby.
The abortion mindset did not develop overnight. It started in 1930 when the mainstream protestant churches accepted contraception for married couples. Within 40 years of contraception being accepted abortion too became accepted. Both are now firmly entrenched in our culture.
I am not naive enough to believe that we have a snowball’s chance in hell of ridding ourselves of these two evils anytime soon.
Personally, I think we can put up all the pictures of dead babies we want. This will not do it. (I’m not against this BTW) This issue is much bigger and much different than racism or the holocaust (not to demean the holocaust by any stretch of the imagination).
I believe that nothing short of divine intervention will do this.
During the times before Christ, God called the Hebrews back to himself over and over again. He did it though prophets and sometimes direct intervention. He also punished the Hebrew nation by having them absorbed or conquered by other nations.
I would not be surprised if he brings the West to its knees in order to force us to change our behavior in this area. We seem unable to do so on our own.
I think there is truth in the pictures – BUT there is a time and place. And I would add some cautions.
I am a woman who had an abortion – one of millions of women (and men) who have participated in one. Many people compare abortion to the Jewish holocaust. The profound difference, though, is that I am the the one who turned on the gas, or pulled the trigger. I cannot “distance” myself from the photos. It may be truth – but how could I promote looking at the pictures when I am one who actively participated UNLESS I was healed of that decision and the participation in killing my own child?
You cannot show these pictures without having immediate help for those who have abortions in their past.
AND at our local pregnancy center, if we actively participated in showing these photos, the exact women we are interested in reaching would NEVER EVER come to us once word got out (and our reputation is primarily word of mouth). As Abby Johnson said, the photos outside of her Planned Parenthood when she started volunteering did nothing. It was ultimately the love, forgiveness and kindness that reached out to her.
Um angel, there wasn’t some magical “culture of life” before contraception became legalized. Married women just had babies, including one’s they didn’t want.
” there wasn’t some magical “culture of life” before contraception became legalized. Married women just had babies, including one’s they didn’t want.”
Yeah, I know, I am one.
Megan, there was most definitely more of a culture of life than what exists today.
While women might not have been happy about having another baby, they HAD that baby anyway. They recognized that it was sinful to kill the child and they made do. Many times, later in life they were blessed in a way they never expected.
That mindset does not exist in a widespread way today. In fact some governments are determined to “force” the abortion/contraceptive mindset on women – this element of coercion was predicted by Pope Paul VI.
“No one benefits from losing a constitutional right.”
Gee, the slaves benefitted when the slave owners lost their constitutional “property” rights.
Women had babies THEY DIDN’T WANT?? You mean they couldn’t just break the babies’ spines instead? What an atrocity.
It’s a good thing we have a culture that is absolutely saturated with condoms and birth control pills, along with prevalent abortions. Now there are no unwanted children. Or, not. Oh well, I GUESS THAT JUST MEANS WE NEED MORE CONDOMS, MORE BIRTH CONTROL PILLS, AND MORE ABORTIONS. How did Einstein define insanity again?
As for the question, How to end abortion? It can never be completely ended, since murder is very illegal and yet it happens every day. Making it illegal would eliminate almost all birth control abortions, though, which probably account for about 90% of all abortions.
Megan,
If a woman I know hadn’t had the baby she didn’t want, my husband wouldn’t be here right now.
yes – and if Oprah’s Mom did not have that last baby (and allowed another couple to bring that baby up), Oprah would not have a half-sister right now.
We have lots to learn – many lessons here – for generations to come.
Love always wins – we learn, we grow, and hopefully we make a difference. Even if a child has a hard life – she can go on to have children and grandchildren of her own and keep that family tree alive.
Having a life makes all things possible.
And let’s not forget the old “D&C”s which will return, in masse, with the criminalization of abortion. Catholic women of means, like my evil mother, knew all about that.
CC,
I have read that women in the early 1900’s had procedures done by their doctors to “bring back the menses”. Was this an intentional abortion on the part of these women or what they believed to be a legitimate medical procedure? It’s difficult to know without talking to each of these women personally. Either way, for us to assume that they were intentionally aborting isn’t fair because the knowledge we have about fetal development today was not available to them.
If and when elective abortion is made illegal, doctors and women who procure elective D&C’s with no legitimate medical reason will be breaking the law and hopefully subject to high monetary fines which could be donated to PRC’s.
Yes, good things can come from undesirable things. So?
Is it hard to look at these pictures? Yes. But the reality is this, these pictures are the reality of what is happening. The reality is… little sweet lives look horrible, when they are taken too soon.
http://www.facebook.com/IDSCforLIFE
Paladin,
When my three year old daughter saw the graphic signs and asked why people were holding them I told her that there were some people hurting babies and are holding these signs in order to get other people to help us stop them. She seemed to accept that and wasn;t bothered by the signs. I know not all children would react the same way but that is what I did and my daughter was fine with it.
Everybody please contact your congressman soon. This week congress is holding hearings on defunding Planned Parenthood of Title X monies cause they commit abortions. Tell them to vote YES to HR217. Here is a link to the current co-sponsors. If your congressman isn’t on the list of sponsors already then please email and call them:
http://www.exposeplannedparenthood.com/title-x-abortion-provider-prohibition-act
joan
Please stop bringing that “Constitutional right” nonsense here. Mothers, parents, families, (Obama did call this a family decision) all have a Constitutional right to kill their children in unimpeded privacy? Were the founding fathers also abortionists on the side, but just neglected to unambiguously spell it out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights knowing that 200 years later their omission would be corrected? Why won’t pro aborts answer the very simple question Laura Ingraham asked again last week: What other Constitutional right should be rare? If this “right” to abortion has so much benefit for all of us, why should it only be exercised rarely? Perhaps it is your opinion that at the rate of 1.2 million annually, abortion in the U.S. currently is a rare occurrence. Maybe to you, “safe, legal and rare” has already been achieved.
For those of you who think that prenatal homicide is a constitutional “right”, please explain how you arrived at this absurd conclusion.
Please explain why killing every human being in the first nine months of life and taking away from each of us our entire human lifespans does not violate our rights.
I would say that my answer to Jill’s question is that right now, no we do not KNOW how to end abortion because many people in the prolife movement do not yet accept that contraception is the root of abortion.
This is just silly. Of course the pro-life movement knows how to end abortion. You change the Supreme Court, overturn Roe and give lawmakers a chance to pass laws protecting unborn children. It’s not exactly rocket science.
You don’t end abortion by attacking the pro-life movement — “What has come of 38 years of the same tactics?” — and making it appear that the entire effort to change hearts and minds has done nothing.
“What has come of 38 years of the same tactics?” We’ve cut abortions in half in some states, we’ve closed hundreds of abortion centers, we’ve helped millions of women avoid abortions or heal after one, we’ve saved millions of lives from abortion, and abortions are down to near historic lows. And most importantly, we’re one vote away from toppling Roe and abortion on demand.
We’ve made significant progress and the time has come to unite together, elect a pro-life president and Senate in 2012, and finish the job.
Attacks like these designed to prop up some group’s work on the backs of bashing the work the pro-life movement has done, don’t help end abortions.
If you want to advocate using graphic pictures to help end abortion, fine. But if you can’t promote your own pro-life efforts on their merits without trashing other pro-lifers, perhaps your efforts really aren’t that effective. Or maybe you’re in the wrong movement.
abortions are down to near historic lows
Might have something to do with access to contraceptives. And if Roe (“Stare Decisis” as said by conservatives Roberts and Alito) goes down, it will be up to the states to decide about abortion law. As such, the blue areas will continue to provide abortion as they did in the run-up to Roe. Women from the anti-choice states will need to travel in order to get an abortion.
If and when elective abortion is made illegal, doctors and women who procure elective D&C’s with no legitimate medical reason
And how are you going to determine if this happens. Will “big government” be able to fund squads of overseers on each D&C that happens? Somehow I don’t think the doctor’s lobby will be too pleased about that. The old school D&C’s happened despite the criminalization of abortion.
While women might not have been happy about having another baby, they HAD that baby anyway. They recognized that it was sinful to kill the child and they made do. Many times, later in life they were blessed in a way they never expected
Right, and many of those unwanted children grew up in a life of poverty and abuse. The only reason, in the “good old days” that women bore these children was because, if they didn’t have money, they couldn’t get an illegal abortion. “Sin” was not a factor and if it was, the rich Irish Catholic women of my childhood, were going straight to hell!!!!! (They took care of their “problems”)
Please explain why killing every human being in the first nine months of life and taking away from each of us our entire human lifespans does not violate our rights
If a woman has an abortion (or any surgery, for that matter) it has nothing to do with your rights. We have a right to privacy vis-a-vis our property – our bodies. Should I be able to get your kidneys if and when I want them? Should the state mandate that women not get elective sterilization procedures? In both cases, the answer is no because a person’s body is as much their property as their home.
Hi CC.
“Should I be able to get your kidneys if and when I want them?”
Here is the problem with this analogy. The state of pregnancy is natural i.e. it conforms to the nature or purpose of the female reproductive organs. Hence if a woman has an embryo living inside of her, then that embryo is exactly where an embryo should be and the woman’s reproductive system is functioning properly relative to its design (whether that design be by God or evolution or whatever). The point is that there is an order to things and that we must respect that order.
Contrast that to the kidney analogy. The purpose of your kidney is not to help someone else or to be hooked up in any way to someone else. It is for your body and hence, no one has a right to it. However, in order to fulfill a greater good (that of returning proper function to someone who needs a kidney) you may freely donate it to them or hook yourself up to them in order to preserve the higher proper function of life for another human being. But this is by no means a requirement as it is an extraordinary use of the kidney. The womb, though, has the specific design and purpose of being a place to nourish and protect an unborn human being. Your kidney is for your body and hence cannot be FORCED to be used by someone else. The womb is FOR an embryo or fetus. That is its purpose. That is what it is there for and hence, the kidney and womb are not analogous in this situation. That is why the violinist analogy and all other analogies similar to that fail. They do not take into account proper function and the order of nature which all other rights are based on. God love you.
CC wrote:
“abortions are down to near historic lows”–Might have something to do with access to contraceptives.
“Might?” That’s rather vague, isn’t it? It also flies in the face of human nature (i.e. easier access to supposedly “safe and effective contraception” has a tendency to lull sex-minded people into being less cautious and more experimental with extramarital sex, which can increase the “pool” of people who eventually feel that they “need” abortion as a “back-up contraception” when the condom, pill, etc., inevitably fails).
One might also find the timing of the CDC’s refusal (followed by a panicked promise to withdraw that refusal) to publish this year’s abortion statistics:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/02/04/the-cdc-coverup-now-turns-to-bureaucratic-panic/
If you’re in the mood for a good “whodunit” and sniffing out potential duplicity and malfeasance, you might start there…
Are young kids exposed to smut every day? You betcha. Do you hear alot of parents crying about it? Not really.
Are young kids exposed to morally questionable information and situations at school? You betcha. Do you hear alot of parents crying about it? Not really.
But show a picture of an aborted baby to a 10 year old and GASP… gnashing of teeth, wringing of hands, crying. Why?
Show a picture of an aborted baby to a 5 year old and GASP… gnashing of teeth, wringing of hands, crying. Why?
Show kids these pictures but explain them too! Don’t leave kids alone with their thoughts about these pictures. I’m in that camp that I want my kids exposed to this stuff because then when they’re faced with the pro-abortion mantras in school, they can defend their pro-life position with solidarity. They won’t fear anything because they’ll be convicted in the truth! They won’t fall for the BS of “a woman’s choice” or “my body, my choice” rhetoric.
Instead of handing a kid a condom, hand them a card with a picture of an aborted baby on it with the statistics of STD’s and abortion rates.
But this is just my opinion…. I got my kids into the pro-life movement early on. I wanted to make sure they were firmly planted in that camp.
Anti-choice zealot Eric Erickson has been debunked:
Erickson: “For 40 Years” The “Report Has Appeared In The Last November Or First December Issue.”
Reality: Publication Dates Varied Greatly In The Past. During most of the Bush administration, the report was published in November. For instance, the data for 1999 were published on November 29, 2002, and the data for 2000 were published on November 28
And more including e-mail from the CDC stating that “Abortion Surveillance Report was submitted by the science staff to MMWR in November.”
CC, why do you ignore Bobby’s response to your ridiculous kidney comparison? Why do you deflect, distract, deflect?? Why are you running away from our questions, CC? Why? Why do you only ask but run away when it’s time to answer? What are you running from CC? Why do you think a woman’s own reproductive organs are malfuntioning if a human being is concieved and grows? Did you hatch from an egg CC? Was your mother a lizard or a chicken? How did you learn to type, CC? Answer us, CC, or else we will answer for you.
CC says, “Duh, I donno. Cecile didn’t give me a script for that, doyyye.”
CC says, “I have to keep going on like this or Joan won’t let me sit next to her in study hall.”
CC says, “I’m afraid Cecile’s going to make me turn in my green vest if I start thinking for myself.”
Of course I’m being facetious to make a point. But I think she’s getting it. Even Joan made an anti-death penalty comment during the last few days. There’s hope for all of us, isn’t there?
Amen, Dirtdartwife!! Well said.
“The womb, though, has the specific design and purpose of being a place to nourish and protect an unborn human being”
But not all women choose to use their womb for this purpose. On the other hand, one woman’s womb could be used to “nourish” the fetus of another couple. The government has no more right to mandate surrogacy as it does to mandate childbirth which is what criminalization of abortion does. My internal organs (and whatever is inside them be it a fetus or a fibroid tumor) belong to me. Neither the church nor the state has any vested interest in them. Until Roe is overturned the judicial principal behind the right to abortion is the right to privacy.
And with scientific advances, it might be possible to develop a fetus in a lab environment. In this case, the womb will be obsolete. Consider that labs can take sperm and eggs and create a blastocyst. Which begs another question. Shouldn’t you folks be lobbying to shut down in-vitro labs because of all the “babies” that they “kill?”
CC wrote:
Which begs another question. Shouldn’t you folks be lobbying to shut down in-vitro labs because of all the “babies” that they “kill?”
And if we say “yes”, you would respond with… what?
“But not all women choose to use their womb for this purpose.”
If there is a fetus in the womb, then they are already using it for that purpose. The question then is not whether or not they will chose to use their womb in that way, but whether or not they destroy that proper function of their body. If I have just ingested a cheesburger, I don’t question at that point whether or not I want to have the fat from it affect my body. It’s already happening. If I decide to vomit it up to avoid the its fat content, then I certainly have not chosen to not have fat affect my body; rather, I have chosen to disrupt a natural bodily process through a means which is not at all in accord with the proper function of my body.
“On the other hand, one woman’s womb could be used to “nourish” the fetus of another couple.”
Indeed, which of course I would be against.
“The government has no more right to mandate surrogacy as it does to mandate childbirth”
Again, we aren’t talking about mandating childbirth anymore tahn we are mandating eating fatty foods. Once you have a fetus in your body, we are saying you can not kill it, just like once you have fat in your body, you should not vomit it up as a means to losing weight.
“My internal organs (and whatever is inside them be it a fetus or a fibroid tumor) belong to me.”
This doesn’t really address anything I said about the purpose and proper function of the body. The point is that there is an order to nature and we need to respect that, which again, teh kidney analogy fails to address. Your reply, CC, seems to be “who cares?” And of course, there is the reply that the body of the fetus belongs to teh fetus. But let’s go down this path. Is the idea that you can do whatever you want with your body because it is your body?
“Shouldn’t you folks be lobbying to shut down in-vitro labs because of all the “babies” that they “kill?””
Yes of course. They are evil.
We do that too! Great catch CC. The Catholic Church defends the right of every child to be conceived in unity between a man and a woman, and not to be ‘created’ by human science. That is part of the dignity of being human – from the moment of natural conception to natural death.
I see that you are catching pro-life fever – save all humans from embryo experimentation that takes their life (embryonic stem cell research) – and try to save lives of the unborn.
We care about all humans – welcome them all into the human family – no matter their size, age, creed, color, nationality, religion, sex, functionality, family of origin or dependency. If you are human – welcome to the family!
Keep trying cc – you will eventually get it! ;)
Bobby – great post.
And letting the baby live is a lot better than undoing the natural process of your own body (pregnancy) and killing the child (murder). Just let nature keep going because at the heart of it all – in the case of pregnancy – we are talking about two bodies – the mother body and the baby body.
Let’s have an outcome everyone can live with – pun intended.
Again – the decision to parent that child is an entirely different decision – and that is where the mom can exercise her rights. But if she chooses abortion – the rights of the baby are trampled on.
As Gianna Jessen ( a woman who survived a saline abortion) says: ” if abortion is about woman’s rights – where were mine?” Great question. And that is what it’s all about.
And letting the baby live is a lot better than undoing the natural process of your own body (pregnancy) and killing the child (murder).
So if a woman runs into a problem with a miscarriage and the only way to save her is to abort the fetus, you would allow her to bleed to death because that is the “natural” way to do things?
CC, if she is having a miscarriage the baby is already dead and thus it isn’t an abortion.
I don’t care if my mother wanted me or not- I have every right to live.
I don’t care if any woman “wants” the baby she made, that child exists and has the right to not be killed.
And after birth, there are 10 million couples that very much WANT that child.
Sorry – miscarriage and abortion are not the same – one is an act of nature the other is a purposeful act of force.
If a mother is in danger of her pregnancy most physicians will try to have that woman get medical help to keep that pregnancy going until the baby can be birthed – even if it’s early. They can do marvelous things with certain drugs and bed rest. So in general their is not either/or – but a both/and.
We want to try to save both the mother and the child, and pre-natal science has marvelous tools to do that. Even one of my friends had a growth removed in her 20th week of pregnancy – she was being taken care of a neo-natal specialist in high risk pregnancies. Both mom and baby doing fine, thank you.
Remember – not either/or – but and and both. Save them both. They are both lives worth saving.
So cc – if this is the only case to save the mother – then can we agree to say that we want to limit abortions for those who ‘just want them because…?’
Since most abortions are for convenience – can we agree to limit the frivolous ones? What do you think?
got to go – be back later!
Since most abortions are for convenience – can we agree to limit the frivolous ones? What do you think
It’s none of my business why a person has an abortion. It’s not for me to judge whether it’s “frivolous.” I don’t care. A woman shouldn’t have to justify her reasons for a legal surgical procedure.
John McDonell says:
February 7, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Hi John McD.,
What you are saying makes sense to me….. but I’m not in a medical field. Just keep posting and maybe someone who can run with your ideas will take notice eventually!!! God bless.
Huh?
So if a person ‘just wants to keep her figure’ that is enough for ending the life of a pre-born human?
How about ‘I want to run track?’ or ‘I don’t want to lose my volleyball scholarship (and incidentally, I don’t want my boyfriend in my home country to know I was sleeping with someone here in the States)’
How about ‘I don’t want my Mom to know I am sexually active?’
How about ‘we thought about everything’ and when I asked what their parents thought – he said they had not consulted with either of their parents! (so I wonder what they thought of their choosing to end the life of their parent’s first grandchild?
How about ‘my returning boyfriend won’t want to raise another man’s child’ and when I asked her if she talked it over with her man, she said no (and he HAS been the dad to her first child (not his)’ Afterwards, she panicked and had an abortion and it turns out that the returning boyfriend was not bothered by her being pregnant with another man’s child at all.
How about ‘I’m from a strict family and I did not want to disappoint them.’
How about ‘I’m not having an abortion because we found out that this baby is my boyfriend’s – not the guy I fooled around with.’ (so if the timing was wrong – a baby would be dead.
How about ‘If you don’t get in there NOW to have that abortion, I will throw you out onto the street and you will be homeless!’ as the man stared-down that woman into the clinic.
All are true stories – and this is only the tip of the iceberg.
I can’t make these stories up. They are too unbelievable – too bizarre.
So cc – not judging of course – in what situations would you have wanted to help the women to make a better decision? at what time would you want to help a child live? don’t you think we should care about our fellow man and woman and want the best for them? If someone was beating a child on the sidewalk? would you step in and help – or walk on past… after all ‘it’s none of my business.’
Just wondering what it would take for you to help save a life and care about others.
CC said : My internal organs (and whatever is inside them be it a fetus or a fibroid tumor) belong to me. Neither the church nor the state has any vested interest in them.
Make a bet? Go ahead and show you aren’t in your right mind and you’ll find out about the state. The entire basis of your argument is legality, not morality. However, the state can do whatever it wants with your body based on what’s “legal”. Your worldview didn’t work so well for those who oppose the state regimes, such as communist countries etc.
CC – Basically your worldview is “might makes right – the heck with morality.”
You couldn’t live through your own worldview if was turned against you.
Bobby,
I try to avoid commenting most of the time, but this I couldn’t resist.
“The state of pregnancy is natural i.e. it conforms to the nature or purpose of the female reproductive organs. Hence if a woman has an embryo living inside of her, then that embryo is exactly where an embryo should be and the woman’s reproductive system is functioning properly relative to its design (whether that design be by God or evolution or whatever). The point is that there is an order to things and that we must respect that order.”
As CC has already noted, the problem here is that you’re enshrining the concept of purpose without a thought as to whether or not the supposed purpose of the organ/body part in question is actually one that is welcome to the person whose body part/organ is being used. I don’t think that anyone can deny the human womb has evolved (or, if you prefer, is designed) to enable the creation and development of a human zygote, embryo or fetus, but it’s quite a leap to assert that “purpose” lends itself directly to defining all instances of permissible use in the manner that you describe. The intentions, thoughts and feelings of the person involved also matter. To illustrate, and I apologize in advance, female genitalia exist so that women can have sex and bear children. That doesn’t mean that they have to, of course, but, evolutionarily, that is the purpose of a woman’s sexual organs. It also doesn’t mean that all instances of using said organs in such a manner either is or should be permissible. Your line of reasoning could be used by a male rapist or pedophile in order to defend his actions. If female genitalia exist for sex and childbirth, his forceable usage of said organs for sex is in line with their purpose and is therefore permissible if you are solely judging by this standard.
“There is an order to nature and we need to respect it.”
The problem here is that the “order of nature” varies a great deal based on who you ask about it. Nature possess both tooth and claw, and is not loathe to use them. We violate the ‘natural order’ all the time. People who have been in catastrophic accidents who would have died back in the day can sometimes survive due to medical advances. People who have inherited severely debilitating genetic conditions can live, have better lives, or even bear children, depending on the specific nature of the condition involved. In order to debunk these examples, you would need to argue that they are already perversions of nature–ie. that the natural state of man is healthy, uninjured and alive. That simply isn’t true. It would be wonderful if it was, but the child with Down’s Syndrome or some form of severe mental retardation is just as natural as either you or I. Yes, many cases involving either physical or mental handicaps are due to instances in which some part of the body is not functioning the way that it is thought that it should (enzyme deficiencies, mutations in the DNA or RNA, ect.) but perfection was never and has never been the domain of nature. In order to make the above argument (that the natural state of man is healthy, uninjured and alive), you would actually have to define nature as something that does not and has never existed, thereby rendering what does exist unnatural.
It’s entirely possible that I went off on an incredible tangent with the last answer, and you may have intended nothing of the kind when making your original statements. If so, I apologize, although I have to admit that it was fun.
Sarah, I am a born-again Christian. I absolutely believe I will answer to God for my life someday. That being said, I know absolutely wonderful Christian women who love God who have faced the same situation as your sister and had the baby removed. The thing with ectopic pregnancy is there is no chance at all for the baby to live. The baby will die whether or not your sister does anything. Why should your sister die too? This is NOT an abortion. The surgery to remove the baby is not intended to KILL the baby. The baby dying is an unintended consequence of the surgery. This child is a human life and precious in God’s eyes. But unfortunately the baby will not live long enough to be born and if nothing is done, your sister will die also. Please don’t think it is an abortion. The surgery is not intended solely for the purpose of killing the child.
Hey there Enigma.
I hear ya about not commenting. I’m not able to comment too much anymore because now I have a job as opposed to, you know, a sinecure… anyway, I’ll try and make this brief and hopefully not get into too much intense back and forth cause I won’t be able to do too much of it.
But let’s see. What I failed to point out in my reply to CC (and should have) was that my argument was a response to her kidney analogy to show why it was problematic. In other words, as you essentially point out in your first paragraph, if my ARGUMENT against abortion was “it is a natural state of being, therefore to mess with it is wrong” then indeed I think some undesirable things, as you mention, would follow. However, my only point was that the kidney analogy does not work as a comparison.
Now your second paragraph about nature, I think I need to say carefully what I mean by nature and the natural order. By something being natural, I mean that it conforms or acts in accordance with the purpose or nature of a particular thing. So, for example, in the car accident scenario mentioned above, any medical interventions restore proper function to the body and heal it in a way that attempts to bring the body back to the working state that it was in. Thus, even though we don’t use the term “natural” to mean medical interventions, I would be fine using it in this example. On the other hand, I would say that cancer is NOT natural because it works against the body, thwarting proper function.
I would certainly agree that the handicapped or mentally challenged person is just as natural as you or me, and that their handicap is a result of some sort of barrier or “blockage.” (I’m at a loss for the right word here) These are simply defects in our nature, as you pointed out, like all of us have. Now I actually would not argue that our natural state is “healthy, uninjured, and alive” but that this is what we should all strive for and indeed, the way things “ought” to be. So i wouldn’t argue that what is natural is the majority of how things are, but that there really is an ideal sort of perfection out there that we strive for. Even everyone in teh world had a “broken” (this word immediately connotates imperfection, but I simply mean to convey the physical state of what we call a broken arm) arm, it would still be the case that all their arms are not functioning properly. It seems to me that the real burden (I’m not saying this is you) is one who would deny that there is proper function of the body or say that it is subjective.
I don’t know if that addresses what you’re getting at, but I don’t want to say much more. I gotta get to class.
“If so, I apologize, although I have to admit that it was fun.”
You are always fun, Enigma. Good journey.
Sydney,
Excellent comment, re: ectopic pregnancy! A direct, willed and procured abortion (which is usually shortened to “abortion” in common lingo, though that invites ambiguities) is, by definition, a “targeting” of the unborn child for death… and that’s always and everywhere a grave moral evil, and a hideous crime. An early Caesarian section for an ectopic pregnancy, even if it’s done so early in the pregnancy that the baby’s chances of survival are practically nonexistent, is not targeting the baby for death; the doctor and others would move Heaven and earth to save him/her, if they could.
Also, I just found that our own good Dr. Nadal has a reference to some more information on “double effect”!
http://gerardnadal.com/2010/05/23/the-principle-of-double-effect/
(Quick note: did one of my posts–with a link to Dr. Nadal’s page–fall into automatic moderation?)
Enigma wrote, in reply to Bobby,
As CC has already noted, the problem here is that you’re enshrining the concept of purpose without a thought as to whether or not the supposed purpose of the organ/body part in question is actually one that is welcome to the person whose body part/organ is being used.
I’m afraid that sort of subjectivism would make quick nonsense of all definitions of “health”, “damaged”, “harm”, and any other references to the proper design/workings of anything, if you followed it to its logical end. As C.S. Lewis once put it: “Every disease that submits to a cure shall be cured: but we will not call blue “yellow” to please those who insist on still having jaundice.” (Lewis, _The Great Divorce_). For example: what if I were to “redefine” cancer as simply “an alternate way of being healthy, albeit with a shorter life-span”? Would you object? Would you consider my definition to be wrong?
In fact, I can’t think of any objective standard or definition that wouldn’t be reduced to “mush”, if we were to subject it to personal whims and approval, like that.
The intentions, thoughts and feelings of the person involved also matter.
Just to explore the question: why do you say that? Why should they matter? (I’m not disagreeing, as such, but I’d like to know the foundation for your answer.)
To illustrate, and I apologize in advance, female genitalia exist so that women can have sex and bear children.
Again: why do you say that? On what basis did you make that determination? Sexual pleasure, for example, isn’t strictly necessary for child-bearing; reproduction can happen without it. You might argue that the pleasure has utility (in making child-bearing attractive), and I might even agree… but the whole statement begs the question: how did you arrive at your own ideas of “design” and/or “purpose”, and how did you choose it, over and against other ideas?
Your line of reasoning could be used by a male rapist or pedophile in order to defend his actions.
If one restricted oneself to the purely material (i.e. atheist), perhaps.
If female genitalia exist for sex and childbirth, his forceable usage of said organs for sex is in line with their purpose and is therefore permissible if you are solely judging by this standard.
Well… this could also indicate that the suggested “purpose” of genitalia is incomplete, at least. A false conclusion may be the result of flawed starting assumptions.
Enough, for the moment; now *I* have to get to class! :)
Bobby,
“Now your second paragraph about nature, I think I need to say carefully what I mean by nature and the natural order. By something being natural, I mean that it conforms or acts in accordance with the purpose or nature of a particular thing. So, for example, in the car accident scenario mentioned above, any medical interventions restore proper function to the body and heal it in a way that attempts to bring the body back to the working state that it was in. Thus, even though we don’t use the term “natural” to mean medical interventions, I would be fine using it in this example. On the other hand, I would say that cancer is NOT natural because it works against the body, thwarting proper function. I would certainly agree that the handicapped or mentally challenged person is just as natural as you or me, and that their handicap is a result of some sort of barrier or “blockage.” (I’m at a loss for the right word here) These are simply defects in our nature, as you pointed out, like all of us have. Now I actually would not argue that our natural state is “healthy, uninjured, and alive” but that this is what we should all strive for and indeed, the way things “ought” to be. So i wouldn’t argue that what is natural is the majority of how things are, but that there really is an ideal sort of perfection out there that we strive for. Even everyone in teh world had a “broken” (this word immediately connotates imperfection, but I simply mean to convey the physical state of what we call a broken arm) arm, it would still be the case that all their arms are not functioning properly. It seems to me that the real burden (I’m not saying this is you) is one who would deny that there is proper function of the body or say that it is subjective.”
That does get at what I was discussing and, in terms of your first paragraph, the argument does make more sense now. There are undeniable biological facts about the function of various parts of our bodies. Our immune systems, for instance, fight off infections and illness–that is the purpose of said system. The language here gets difficult for me, because while certain systems undeniably have a certain function, it’s hard to discuss without getting into a discussion of purpose or design. Evolution, as properly construed, does not denote senseless chance, but it isn’t directed either. I digress, however, since I’m certain both that you know this already and that you know my positions on the subject.
I think one needs a more nuanced understanding than the one listed above. Even among properly functioning bodies, there is a very wide range of normal. Attempts to define what is normal and/or proper run the risk of de facto defining normal as a very small, limited subset that devalues the experiences of many people. That said, I think your substitution of the term “proper” in place of “normal” is a good one–normal carries too many connotations.
“Good journey.”
You too.
Paladin,
As CC has already noted, the problem here is that you’re enshrining the concept of purpose without a thought as to whether or not the supposed purpose of the organ/body part in question is actually one that is welcome to the person whose body part/organ is being used.
“I’m afraid that sort of subjectivism would make quick nonsense of all definitions of “health”, “damaged”, “harm”, and any other references to the proper design/workings of anything, if you followed it to its logical end. As C.S. Lewis once put it: “Every disease that submits to a cure shall be cured: but we will not call blue “yellow” to please those who insist on still having jaundice.” (Lewis, _The Great Divorce_). For example: what if I were to “redefine” cancer as simply “an alternate way of being healthy, albeit with a shorter life-span”? Would you object? Would you consider my definition to be wrong?”
There was nothing subjective about my above statement. Human purpose, when properly construed, is derived both from bodily capability and from intention/desire. I should note here that said definition does not exclude some conception of a higher power, either.
I also have no idea where your cancer statements originate from. Based on my previous statements, that is not an extrapolation that one can justifiably make. It is quite difficult to argue that things that actually exist aren’t natural (“existing in or formed by nature,” according to dictionary.com), but if you want to try, don’t let me stop you. You can argue that they are a perversion or wrong, but they’re still natural.
“In fact, I can’t think of any objective standard or definition that wouldn’t be reduced to “mush”, if we were to subject it to personal whims and approval, like that.”
You assume too much. The alternative to religion is not confined to pure whim and fantasy. Most people, whether they are religious or not, have a set of guiding principles which they strive to uphold. They don’t simply wake up and say, “I feel like doing this, and since I want to, it’s right,” and then decide to do the exact opposite the next day, also defining that choice as right even though it is in direct contradiction to the previous one. I am not arguing that there aren’t people who do live in the manner that you describe, but to asset that all people who lack religion must adhere to such a paradigm is both wrong and incredibly short-sighted.
“Just to explore the question: why do you say that? Why should they matter? (I’m not disagreeing, as such, but I’d like to know the foundation for your answer.)”
Why shouldn’t they? On a more serious note, I’m an individualist. I believe that society can be considered a social good only so long as it enables and protects the individuals within it. I reject all prophets, whether religious or secular, and believe that all people should think for themselves. That doesn’t necessarily mean rejecting what you’re told, but it does mean that you shouldn’t follow or believe just because someone else says it.
I say that intentions matter because we are not simply organic machines, designed to serve a particular duty or purpose which we must fulfill. Life is meaningless if one cannot choose.
“Again: why do you say that? On what basis did you make that determination? Sexual pleasure, for example, isn’t strictly necessary for child-bearing; reproduction can happen without it. You might argue that the pleasure has utility (in making child-bearing attractive), and I might even agree… but the whole statement begs the question: how did you arrive at your own ideas of “design” and/or “purpose”, and how did you choose it, over and against other ideas?”
Evolution entails neither a designer nor a purpose. Genes seek to perpetuate themselves, and those traits that increase an organism’s fitness tend to survive while those that detrimentally affect an organism’s fitness do not. Although it is improper to speak of design or purpose when one is discussing the development of the human body in an evolutionary sense, certain body parts have specific functions that they serve. Lungs serve the function of allowing us (and any other animal that possesses them) to breath. The heart serves the function of pumping blood throughout the body, without with the body’s other organs would die. I could do on, but you probably get the idea. This isn’t opinion, either. The function of various body parts such as I have been describing is scientific and medical fact.
The reproductive organs serve the function of enabling one to have sex and to reproduce. That’s also scientific fact. I never mentioned sexual pleasure–I said sex and reproduction. The two are not necessarily linked–infertile people can still have sex. Given the relatively low percentage of sexual acts (meaning intercourse between a man and a woman in this context) that actually lead to viable pregnancies, you might have trouble arguing that sexual/reproductive organs exist solely for the purpose of reproduction. Humans are among the few animals that have sex when the female is not fertile.
In any case, biological function in and of itself does not impose moral limits on permissible use of your own body parts. To use Bobby’s and CC’s example from above, your kidney is supposed to filer your blood, and your blood is supposed to circulate throughout your body. And yet we have such things as organ donations and blood transfers.
“If one restricted oneself to the purely material (i.e. atheist), perhaps.”
You misunderstand what it means to be an atheist. Atheism strictly means that one does not believe in a higher power–the alternative is not pure materialism as you assert.
“Well… this could also indicate that the suggested “purpose” of genitalia is incomplete, at least. A false conclusion may be the result of flawed starting assumptions.”
I was going off of exactly what Bobby said. He didn’t bring up any form of morality, although I accept that his comment was intended to rebuff an argument rather than stand on its own.
Enigma: “Evolution entails neither a designer nor a purpose. Genes seek to perpetuate themselves, and those traits that increase an organism’s fitness tend to survive while those that detrimentally affect an organism’s fitness do not.”
Nicely said.
“Genes seek to perpetuate themselves, and those traits that increase an organism’s fitness tend to survive while those that detrimentally affect an organism’s fitness do not.”
Not to hem and haw over the meaning of the word ‘seek’ but genes do not have the capacity to think or ‘seek’ anything any more than an electron ‘seeks’ a proton. Different genes are ‘designed’ to have different functions but they know nothing about survival of the fittest or pupose; they simply perform the function they’re designed to perform in nature.
Truthseeker, it’s not saying that genes can order a pizza for delivery or make a chocolate cake with cream cheese frosting, but they do have the information to make more copies of RNA and proteins – this is necessary for us to grow cells and have offspring – and they are passed to offspring. As Enigma said, the genes that make organisms more fit to survive tend to be perpetuated.
Hey Doug,
I was just pointing out that the ‘purpose’ or nature of the gene is ‘given’ to it and the genes are just carrying out thier function as they were designed to do. Genes do not have the capacity to change or seek any other purpose any more than a proton can decide to attract another proton. In that respect, natural order is not subjective and human purpose has nothing to do with intention or desire.
What if it’s a gay proton? : P
The nature of the gene is that it’s self-replicating, and they do have the capacity to change, via mutation. And of course it’s not a “conscious” decision on their part.
Correct. They have no purpose of their own. Mutation comes naturally to complex genes cause they are designed with a capacity to bond with other molecules according to creation’s design. Humans are similar to molecules in that respect however we bring subjectivity and reason into the equation thanks to our Creator who gives us our spiritual being.
Truthseeker, there is no proof of “creation” or “design,” though. If you want to talk about “spiritual being,” here, then you might as well say that genes can order the pizza….
Doug,
There is proof of creation. Without creation the first molecule could never have come into existence. And their is proof of “spiritual being”. Without spiritual being their would be no subjectivity to our existence. And quit talking about pizza; you are making me hungry….
Truthseeker, Carder started it, she with her “chocolate cake with cream cheese icing..”
You appear to be conceiving of time as a separate, one-dimensional thing, and that is not the reality of our universe. “Spiritual being” is a matter of belief, and you are welcome to your beliefs, but that doesn’t make them a good basis for restricting the freedom of women
Hello? Tell me more about this time dimension where nothing was ever created? And share with me the source of subjectivity and conscience. And then define love for me B<}
imo if you love your neighbor then you seek to save them from spiritual death and a very good basis for restricting anybodys freedom to kill another human being. But enough of my beliefs. Tell me more about this time dimension where nothing was ever created? Is that the same dimension where genes order pizza?
It’s not just a “time dimension” TS. We live in spacetime, and though we can’t directly perceive it with our senses, that’s the real deal of the universe – movement in spacetime, rather than in “Newtonian” space of 3 dimensions and a separate time dimension.
If we could “see” it, then rather than bodies “orbiting” others, for example, we’d see movement in spacetime, perhaps somewhat akin to movement along what we’d now call a curved surface, like of fabric, with gravity being responsible for the curvature.
Time as a separate quantity is very, very relative – relative to the observer and to velocity.
If you believe we have free will, emotions, etc., then subjectivity and conscience are no necessary mystery – we have the thoughts and they are free to be internal to us, including all our “shoulds” and “should nots” whether they arise from our own desires or from what we’ve been told by others – our parents, teachers, peers, etc.
Love is a group of emotions – affection, attraction, caring, fondness, attachment, etc., present in varying degrees.
Doug,
Thanks.
Truthseeker,
“In that respect, natural order is not subjective and human purpose has nothing to do with intention or desire.”
I never said that natural order was entirely subjective. Certain biological systems have a function that they must perform in order to sustain life. Said performance is also not usually a choice–it is automatic and unstoppable except by injury or death. Where I dispute natural order is where people assign more meaning to it than that.
It also depends entirely on how you define human purpose. Most people would agree that humans don’t exist solely to survive and perpetuate themselves. We can think, we can choose, we can, to some extent, decide what purposes we want our lives to serve.
Doug,
Your explanation still gives no logical explanation of how seperating time from space as ‘seperate quantity’ allows things to exist that were never created. At some point it would have needed to be created in order to be present in any space wouldn’t it?
Enigma, according to that definition the purpose of the womb in natural order is to sustain the life of a fetus just like the purpose of the heart is to pump blood through a persons body. Your own definition would place abortion as an aberation to natural order because the growth and life of the fetus would continue and is unstoppable except by injury or death.
Truthseeker,
First off, I mispoke slightly. (One downside to responding right before one runs out the door for work). It should read, “Said performance is also not usually a choice–it is automatic and unstoppable except by [malfunction, artificial intervention,] injury or death” A small change, I know.
You’re also doing exactly what I said I objected to. Recognizing that a biological system serves a particular function in no way implies any moral or other judgments about disrupting the natural order. Just because something is natural does not mean that one has to prefer it, or uphold it at all costs when one considers said natural process detrimental to his or her own well being.
Enigma,
The fact is that the fetus will continue to grow regardless of anybody’s choice to keep him from growing; it is automatic and unstoppable except by [malfunction, artificial intervention,] injury or death; so I fail to see the distinction.
Biological fact: The function of a womb is to nurture and enable the development of human zygotes, embryos and fetuses.
Biological fact: Once the zygote implants upon the uterine wall, it will, presuming that it is genetically healthy and the proper uterine environment is maintained, usually continue to grow although miscarriages, particularly in the early stages of pregnancy, are actually quite common.
Moral imperatives engendered by these facts: Absolutely none
I really don’t see what you’re getting at. Why on earth would I spend time denying fundamental facts about human biology? We don’t necessarily have different views about the facts–ie. the function of various biological structures–where we disagree is in the conclusions that we draw from the existence of said facts. Repeatedly emphasizing the facts concerning the function of the womb and the development of a human fetus isn’t going to affect my argument. I’m already well aware of biology.
Truthseeker
And I think true reason and heart sense is what lets us know that killing babies is wrong. And it’s because we put value or at least should put value on fellow human beings that enables us to see the intrinsic value of the unborn. I believe in a creator too and if I could speak to him or her I would ask him to give more brain power to those who also possess heart sense. That it would be in direct proportion. I think the world would be a better place. And the womb would once again be a safe place and not a killing ground.
I’m already well aware of biology.
You are also well aware that abortion is an aberration to nature and to motherhood.
Truthseeker,
We haven’t been discussing motherhood, only the biological facts concerning fetal development and the womb. Given the commonality of both human mothers and animal mothers deliberately killing or abandoning their offspring after birth, I don’t see abortion, pretending, for sake of argument, that I share some your moral views about pregnancy and the fetus, as particularly abnormal. Through history, many cultures have killed unwanted infants, particularly through the practice of exposure. The Eskimos, the Spartans, the ancient Greeks and Romans, and several others although I lack the time or inclination to list every instance. Animals routinely eat or kill offspring when they are stressed, or when they feel that they cannot provide for said offspring.
Abortion does, granted, disrupt the natural functioning of biological systems, but so does a lot of medical science. While I understand Bobby’s definition above, I disagree with it. The aging process is also a natural part of human existence, one that we seek to circumvent quite frequently. While such attempts may be efforts to restore the function of various biological systems, the effects of aging upon said systems that we are trying to ameliorate are themselves also natural.
Furthermore, the term aberration does not necessarily convey any value judgments about whatever it is that is an aberration. It may be an aberration for me to take a two week vacation or go to the zoo, but that doesn’t mean that anything about said excursions is inherently wrong.
“Animals routinely eat or kill offspring when they are stressed, or when they feel that they cannot provide for said offspring.”
I agree that there are natural non-human animalist behaviours which would not be considered natural for the human species. But even from an animalistic perspective I cannot think of ANY species of animal other than human that kills their offspring in the womb.
“I agree that there are natural non-human animalist behaviours which would not be considered natural for the human species. But even from an animalistic perspective I cannot think of ANY species of animal other than human that kills their offspring in the womb.”
You are twisting my words and completely neglected the examples of human behavior that I mentioned. Again, good luck arguing that something that actually exists in nature isn’t natural. Plenty of animal females also re-absorb their fetuses when they can’t provide for them. I do not know of anything in the animal kingdom (for the moment excluding humans, even though we are animals as well) that mimics or imitates induced abortion (unless humans are doing it to the animal, such as when a pregnant dog is spayed) but that is only indicative of the fact that humans use tools beyond what other animals can create
It is also indicative of the fact that it never occurs in nature.
I was not neglecting your examples. I am unaware of Eskimo’s or any ohe humans having a practice of abandoning their children to die of exposure; perhaps you could link me to the references.
http://books.google.com/books?id=vAKSZPR-hk0C&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=sparta,+death+by+exposure&source=bl&ots=8gij1nLSmr&sig=ExVl8Yzvbg9aE3FbmQVUUo9ijiY&hl=en&ei=zfFXTc2zHpDPgAeS8qnDDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=sparta%2C%20death%20by%20exposure&f=false
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n22_v146/ai_15952600/
http://www.jstor.org/pss/672815
And I haven’t even mentioned China or other Asian cultures with a strong gender preference, something that you are already aware of.
But even from an animalistic perspective I cannot think of ANY species of animal other than human that kills their offspring in the womb.
Truthseeker, it’s not a matter of conscious choice, but I did see just recently that there’s a type of shark where the two biggest/strongest babies eat the others while still in the womb.
At times of resource shortage in the past, some human societies have “put out” their elderly, sick, etc., for the good of the tribe. If famine was the problem, then those who did not produce or secure food were seen as the most expendable. If children were not sick or otherwise held to be deficient, I think they were safe in most cases.
Enigma, good point with China. Do they actually terminate illegally birthed citizens or their parents? And if the US remains a Democraptic majority then we are on a path to government mandated abortion in the name of conservation and eugenics and cost-savings. But imo that would still not make it natural for a person to kill their offspring in their womb. It would still be just as unnatural and abhorrent.