Terminate narcissism, not the preborn
To be sure, banning abortion in the U.S. wouldn’t fix the [gender imbalance] problem in China and India. South Korea seems to have restored a gender balance by restoring girls to “an honored place.” I would note, however, that the greatest moral progress over the last two centuries has been generated by recognizing the natural rights of individual persons.
Maybe it’s not restoring girls to an honored place that is the key to moral progress. Maybe it’s restoring children to an honored place. Not just rich kids or white kids or heterosexual kids, but all kids. Not just kids whose heads have exited the birth canal, but all kids. Maybe the sense of obligation that a parent feels for his or her offspring, the recognition that my life is not all about me, is the real solution to the problem.
~ Ken Blanchard, South Dakota Politics, June 22
[Image via fightingsuperwoman.blogspot.com]
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.
OH, AMEN! God bless this man.
Thank you, Ken Blanchard!! Although you don’t have a uterus I like what you wrote very much!! :)
Amen to that! Selfishness is a huge reason for abortion. So glad this man is speaking out against it.
I beg to differ, many women’s abortions are selfless acts. They are refusing to bring a child into the world when they aren’t able to provide the child with the best life possible.
Hi Jane.
Are you saying that if you have good reason to believe that someone will not have “the best life possible”, then it is morally permissible to kill them?
Read some of those comments at Ken’s sight and you will see how not everyone thinks sex-selection abortions are so bad. The pro-abortion mindset is so vile.
But it is consistent, Denise. See, this is part of the reductio ad absurdum of the bodily autonomy argument in favor of abortion. From the (incorrect) premise that a woman can do whatever she wants with her body for any or no reason whatsoever, it follows that a woman may kill her fetus because of its gender, or torture it for fun, or a host of other things. When people start embracing these absurdities, it is clear that they are no taking the right to an abortion as a starting, ground assumption, and that anything that logically follows must be correct because the right to an abortion essentially seems to be a first principle.
OH, AMEN! God bless this man.
Word.
I beg to differ, many women’s abortions are selfless acts. They are refusing to bring a child into the world when they aren’t able to provide the child with the best life possible.
Jane, what do you see as “the best life possible?” If a child is born and somehow their parents can support them, should they be killed?
When I was about 10 or so, my father lost his business and we went bankrupt. We were living in a house with no heat (this was in western New York, where it gets very cold) or electricity. We could have died in there. It was truly a nightmare. Should my parents have shot all four of us because they couldn’t give us “the best life possible?”
I havent had an easy life, and it often hasn’t been very happy. I think that many of us here are in the same position. But I don’t think anyone of us wishes that we would have been aborted. No one has a crystal ball. We don’t know what life has in store for us, or what we will become.
And lastly, what about adoption? Couldn’t there be someone out there who could give that child the best life possible, even if his/her biological parents can’t? My son’s birthmother already had two children, and had drug problems so she placed him for adoption. Now that’s what I call a selfless act.
No, because you were a born, separate human being when you were living in a cold house. When you are born you are allowed the right to body autonomy.
Well said, Bobby and may I add that if your read between the lines when pro-aborts defend sex-selection abortions among Asians I always get this sense that they truly do believe that it is the better alternative for the “unwanted” girl. You see if she is never allowed to be born then at least she will never be abused, discriminated against, etc. You see it really is the good, moral choice in their mind- not just for the mother, but the aborted as well. Now compare how similar that is to when pro-aborts always argue that if we don’t allow abortion then we are condemning so many “unwanted” boys and girls to a miserable life of poverty. It is the same sick mind set: thinking you can decrease misogyny by encouraging more misogyny. And thinking you can solve any social problem with abortion.
And adoption is NOT always a selfless act. Some women are physically unable to provide a baby with healthy development because they’re addicted to drugs or alcohol during their pregnancy and can’t quit simply because theyre pegnant. Carrying a pregnancy to term in order to give a fetal alcohol syndrome baby into The System means the child is almost guaranteed to bounce from foster home to foster home
Jane,
Our point still stands, though, that that baby’s life is worth something. It’s not desirable for children to be in the System, as you say, but humans have this incredible ability to overcome circumstances. Personally, I’d rather give those kids a shot at life rather than condemn them to a violent death before they even have a chance.
Abortion is cruel.
Lesson number 1
It is not fetal alcohol syndrome baby. Nor is it Down Syndrome baby or Cystic Fibrosis baby or Autism baby or Lazy Eye baby. The word baby comes first.
You are giving us a guarantee that a child with FAS will bounce around foster care? You are wrong, Jane. Wrong. There are families that SPECIFICALLY want to adopt those with FAS.
Try again.
And please continue posting as your lack of compassion for those that need help is only making you look heartless. Your only advice? Kill them!!
I agree with Ken Blanchard.
Here’s some of the problems I have with using abortion to solve issues:
It doesn’t address the issues.
It’s a permenant solution to a temporary situation. (A woman won’t be pregnant forever–even if it feels that way. Eventually that pre-born human being will come out).
If a woman doesn’t seek counseling for problems she has she will not overcome them.
There are people who will and do adopt children with special needs. They recognize the child won’t always be easy, but they take said children in regardless. Some of them do their very best. If we don’t have a society that cultivates this mindset of being loving and helpful then we can’t expect a loving and helpful society.
We can’t throw the baby out with the bath water simply because a system isn’t perfect. We have to fix the system. Abortion won’t fix the adoption system. It can’t, it’s not the nature of abortion to do that. However people who care and want to make things better can offer life-giving and solutions that will work towards making the system better. And abortion simply does NOT do that. Whatever anyone says, abortion does NOT effectively address and offer any kind of real solution to the problems we have as a society or people. It’s not its nature to do that.
You’re right, it was ableistic of me to write Fetal Alcohol Syndrome baby and I apologize sincerely. I should have written Baby with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, though my point still stands.
Also, I wonder if Jill stanek still says things like “downs baby” like she did in her bill o’rly interview
I beg to differ, many women’s abortions are selfless acts. They are refusing to bring a child into the world when they aren’t able to provide the child with the best life possible.
Jane, that is the characteristic deluded, twisted, and selfish pro-abortion remark. A life less than perfect should not be allowed or lived, right? Only “the best life possible” is tolerable. Heaven forbid human beings should struggle or suffer. Well, struggle and suffering are part of our human condition, like it or not, and we cannot avoid all suffering. We try to alleviate as much as possible, and we make moral and correct decisions so we don’t add to our suffering through the consequences of sin, but that doesn’t mean life will be free of pain.
There is absolutely nothing selfless or brave or loving about killing a child in the womb. The excuse that it’s not “the best life possible” is hogwash and merely a pathetic attempt at justifying killing a baby.
Carrying a pregnancy to term in order to give a fetal alcohol syndrome baby into The System means the child is almost guaranteed to bounce from foster home to foster home
Jane, I work in the child welfare system and these children do get adopted. The main goal of the child welare system is to provide permanency for the child. Often children like this are adopted by relatives in an arrangement called “kinship care.” The caregiver/relative gets a stipend until the child is 18.
And even though the media has done a good job of painting all out of care homes (we’re trying to get away from the negative connotation “foster care” has) as being terrible, many of them are very good.
My agency does not discriminate against same sex couples, and it’s been my experience that they are more willing to adopt disabled children.
There are those children who do get moved from home to home. It’s usually children with serious behavioral problems. I agree this is not an ideal life for a child but once again, I think if we asked them if they wish they would have been aborted, the answer would be “no.”
Believe what you wish, Jenn. I think that if i’m not ready to give a child a good life, then I will wait until I’m ready to give birth, by any means necessary.
I don’t think it’s kind and loving and Christian to bring people into a world where they have to suffer, and the irony of pro-lifers voting Republican…the party that seeks to eliminate welfare and WIC and low-income healthcare for women (planned parenthood), really and TRULY do not care about people’s quality of life in the slightest.
You think michele bachmann is a good candidate for president? She wants to eliminate the minimum wage. How will that provide quality of living for any american? Pro-life is pro-delusion, plain and simple
Trying to get away from negative connotations with a euphemism, hmm? I’ll remember that the next time you take anyone to task to using a euphemism for abortion like “choice”
Jane, one of the main problems with your attempts at logic is that you don’t seem to afford any fundamental rights to a child until that child is born and “[brought] into the world”.
Really, though, children are already brought into the world at conception, we just usually can’t see them. Sucking on a 1/2″ thumb on an ultrasound, kicks to the bladder in the night, rejected lunch entrees; these all come from the child who is already present in the womb. That child may be smaller and live in a very fittingly-designed waterbed with on-tap room service, but that does nothing to diminish his or her rights as a human being and a person.
The child is already present, Jane. After conception, changing this is no longer prevention, it is termination.
You’re right, there is a fundamental difference in our belief systems: I do not believe that life begins at conception.
This doesn’t make my logic flawed, though. My logic is based in the belief that life, and body autonomy, begins at birth, and based on this belief, my logic is sound.
I do not believe that life begins at conception.
When do you believe life begins, and how do you define “life?”
When humans reproduce, the sperm and egg are alive. When the gametes fuse, do they then produce a non-living entity or non-living cell? Or does life beget life?
Believe what you wish, Jenn. I think that if i’m not ready to give a child a good life, then I will wait until I’m ready to give birth, by any means necessary.
If you’re not ready then you have no business participating in the activity that creates babies. Period. That’s what being a mature grown-up means.
By any means necessary? Do you hear yourself? “I’ll kill if I have to! I’ll use whatever means necessary!” Good grief! You’re talking about a human being, Jane! How cold-hearted.
You can deny science all you want, Jane, but the FACT is that upon conception, a new and unique human being has been created. That is LIFE. It’s not a rock or a plant. You were once in the same state of early development, and you were a human being even then. Childbirth is not magic: it’s just transportation.
My logic is based in the belief that life, and body autonomy, begins at birth, and based on this belief, my logic is sound.
Any basic biology/embryology textbook would say otherwise, Jane. You are arguing against scientific fact. Life begins at fertilization, and therefore your logic is not sound. It’s a fantasy. You can try to fantasize the human as alive only at birth all you want. It won’t make it true.
I beg to differ, many women’s abortions are selfless acts. They are refusing to bring a child into the world when they aren’t able to provide the child with the best life possible.
“Oh No! I won’t be able to afford my daily triple shot latte, large screen flat-panel TV, and payments on the BMW, guess I’ll have to be selfless and kill the baby!!!”
Even more shameful than abortion advocates who are OK with parents who terminate their unborn child because she is female are those abortion advocates who are OK with so-called “family planning” centers (like Planned Parenthood) who aid and abet men who sexually abuse young girls by performing abortions on their victims without notifying parents or law enforcement. Way to go, abortion advocates, throwing girls “under the bus” for the sake of your precious “reproductive rights”. And don’t claim that PP was set up by Live Action. Independent government agencies in Alabama and Vermont found this to be the case. And it is so common in California, that the Court noted this fact without comment (The People v Cross, 134 Cal App 4th 500)
Jane, I think WIC is a really good social program because it provides women and their children with only a limited amount of really needed resources at somewhat controlled prices. I think probably Republicans would prefer this be done by private charity, but I don’t think WIC is a problem for Republicans like widely abused programs such as food stamps.
Babies are pretty much always adoptable. Feel free to bring me, or Pamela, or a number of any commenters here any “unadoptable” babies you may happen across. If babies aren’t adopted, it’s because their parent’s rights were not terminated until they were school-aged. There is a very high demand for babies and toddlers of all ethnicities and abilities. Also, with widespread access to abortion today, all of these babies’ mothers chose to give birth. Usually the children are removed from their homes, not released for adoption at birth. Babies are “in demand” because they have enormous capacity to bond with their new parents, while older children have undergone abuse that may cause them to act out against adults or other children, and have difficulty bonding with adults. Are they still deserving of homes? Absolutely! But it requires a lot more effort and training than taking on a newborn. I don’t think, by the way, that you understand the point of “people first” language when you argue that the child you are speaking of is doomed to a life of failure and not a worthwhile human being–but are willing to call her a “baby with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome” rather than a “Fetal Alcohol Syndrome baby.”
(By the way, pro-lifers, DH and I have an informational meeting on adoption tonight; pray that God will give us guidance as we start to learn more about our options for international adoption, and that He will lead us to the child or children He has for us.)
(By the way, pro-lifers, DH and I have an informational meeting on adoption tonight; pray that God will give us guidance as we start to learn more about our options for international adoption, and that He will lead us to the child or children He has for us.)
@young christian woman: I’m not trying to criticize you, but I have to admit it bothers me when people go to foreign countries to adopt when there are children needing homes here.
Young Christian Woman,
That’s great that you’re adopting internationally! I have two cousins from the Republic of Georgia. :) There are babies all over the world that need loving care. Will be praying for you and DH.
Oh my! My parents weren’t able to give me someone else’s definition of “the best life possible.” Oh noes! Sometimes we had to eat left-overs and wear our siblings old clothes! Horrors! Do you think it’s too late for my parent so abort me? Sure, it all worked out, we grew up to be productive adults. But there are so many people richer than me, better looking than me…and what if my life gets hard again? What if something happens and it’s no longer the best possible? Oh, woe is me!! I deserve to die because I can’t afford designer shoes! Aaaagh!
Too much sarcasm?? LOL!!
If babies aren’t adopted, it’s because their parent’s rights were not terminated until they were school-aged. There is a very high demand for babies and toddlers of all ethnicities and abilities. Also, with widespread access to abortion today, all of these babies’ mothers chose to give birth. Usually the children are removed from their homes, not released for adoption at birth. Babies are “in demand” because they have enormous capacity to bond with their new parents, while older children have undergone abuse that may cause them to act out against adults or other children, and have difficulty bonding with adults. Are they still deserving of homes? Absolutely! But it requires a lot more effort and training than taking on a newborn.
Great points.
Ninek, do you honestly think I am talking about kids being forced to eat LEFTOVERS? you do know there is a level of poverty below leftovers and hand-me-down clothes, right?
So what is the level of poverty at which it is morally permissible to kill someone? Where is the poverty threshold that if you are on one side you get to live and on the other side you need to die?
Ninek you always crack me up.
I know!!! Count me in for post-birth abortion!!! I was poor! I am poor!!! I’m about to get married and have no idea how we’ll make it financially for a whole year – we’ll have to cut back and use coupons and we won’t be able to afford maternity coverage. We can’t buy a Porsche!!!! Gahhhhhhh. Dear me, we should both just ask our mother’s to post-birth abort us. He didn’t have a great childhood growing up, he should have been aborted long ago.
Jane, yes, we all know that. But, really, people survive poverty. And it’s okay. Really. Listen to yourself: You are saying that because someone can’t give a child a good enough “quality of life” that the child must be aborted. What is your definition of being able to provide a “quality life” for the baby?
“So what is the level of poverty at which it is morally permissible to kill someone”
At whichever line a pregnant women decides to draw for her unborn child.
Megan,
Please try of understand that I asked that question of Jane in the context of the argument that she seemed to be making that abortion is morally permissible because the child will grow up to be poor (or whatever). If women have bodily autonomy in favor of abortion, there is no need to bring up poverty or anything else like that. Indeed, as your reply illustrates, a woman can choose to kill her unborn because he will be too smart or have too good a life or for any other reason whatsoever. So the point that I was attempting to make to Jane is that her argument about poverty is question begging- if women have a fundamental bodily right to an abortion, no need to mention poverty. If not, no justification is sufficient to kill an innocent human being. So the whole poverty issue is completely moot and has nothing to do with the grounding of the morality of abortion. Thus, we can all hopefully now see that the poverty argument is question begging and move on.
“So what is the level of poverty at which it is morally permissible to kill someone”
At whichever line a pregnant women decides to draw for her unborn child.
And pro-aborts have the nerve to call us fetus worshippers. If this isn’t worship of the all-powerful “goddess woman” I don’t know what is.
Why shouldn’t the all-knowing goddess woman get to decide her 2-year-old is too impoverished to live, Megan?
Bobby- it doesn’t matter what the level of poverty is for a woman seeking abortion, it’s her legal right to not endure a pregnancy if she doesn’t want to, for whatever reason she sees fit.
In my case, I am 27, sexually active, in a committed relationship, and making decent money working 50-60 hours a week. If I were to get pregnant today, I would have an abortion because it is MY decision and MY belief that i do not have time right now to give a child a happy, healthy childhood. I am not poor when it comes to money but I am poor when it comes to time and poor when it comes to stability.
My decision, my body, my life, my rules. That’s not narcissism, that’s me planning on being the best mother possible for a child if I’m ever ready for one. And yes, if you want me to unwrap the euphemism from all of that: I will kill any unborn children that my boyfriend and I create, until I am ready to carry a pregnancy to term. I don’t care how you want to say it!
Good points, Bobby.
It is simply dishonest for anyone to claim “selflessness” as a reason to abort an unborn child.
“I” determine if my child will be too poor. (Focus is not truly on the child’s life but on the desires of the mother.)
“I” determine whether or not a child will interfere with my life. (Focus is on the mother.)
It’s “my” body and “my” choice is the only one that matters. (Focus is on the mother.)
So, let’s not pretend the person aborting is doing so out of love and mercy toward the child. If that’s love, I wouldn’t want to see hate.
Bobby,
I saw this conversation consisting of distortions and explanations for why a woman might decide to get an abortion. I don’t think the selfish, materialistic career woman trope is an accurate depiction of your “average” abortion-contemplating woman, but on the other hand, it’s nobody’s business why a woman would make that decision.
Kel,
SOS, over and over and over. Do you really think legalized abortion makes it permissible to murder a post-born human? Should we just take a poll of all women who’ve committed infanticide on their prolife/choice leanings–do you think you’d find the majority of them claiming to be prochoice or something? Why don’t you email Casey Anthony?
If I were to get pregnant today, I would have an abortion because it is MY decision and MY belief that i do not have time right now to give a child a happy, healthy childhood.
And rather than place that child in an adoptive home where parents COULD give that child a happy, healthy childhood in an open adoption scenario, you instead choose to kill your child, thereby depriving that child of life entirely, as opposed to merely depriving that child of happiness. On what planet is this selfless??
Also, do you honestly think having a baby is a completely selfless act? Take the Reagan-era welfare queen stereotype. Say you have a woman who desperately craves the love and attention of young children, yet has no source of income, and doesn’t plan on finding/creating one soon. This woman has seven children already and relies on the goodwill of others for everything. Do you think having another baby would be a “selfless” move on her part?
Do you really think legalized abortion makes it permissible to murder a post-born human?
By your reasoning, it should. By your reasoning, a woman is not obligated to do ANYTHING she does not wish to do with HER BODY. This would include providing for a child with food, clothing, and anything else that child might need to survive in her home.
My decision, my body, my life, my rules. That’s not narcissism, that’s me planning on being the best mother possible for a child if I’m ever ready for one. And yes, if you want me to unwrap the euphemism from all of that: I will kill any unborn children that my boyfriend and I create, until I am ready to carry a pregnancy to term. I don’t care how you want to say it!
Should be QOTD
Also, do you honestly think having a baby is a completely selfless act? Take the Reagan-era welfare queen stereotype. Say you have a woman who desperately craves the love and attention of young children, yet has no source of income, and doesn’t plan on finding/creating one soon. This woman has seven children already and relies on the goodwill of others for everything. Do you think having another baby would be a “selfless” move on her part?
I believe that in comparison to aborting a child, yes, giving birth to a baby is a selfless act. If the goodwill of others extends to that woman’s children, it proves that those children – all seven or eight of them – have value.
My grandfather, btw, was the 8th of 10 children, born during the Depression era.
“it doesn’t matter what the level of poverty is for a woman seeking abortion, it’s her legal right to not endure a pregnancy if she doesn’t want to, for whatever reason she sees fit.”
Right, so why did you even bring up poverty? Who cares about poverty? As you say, “my decision, my body, my life, my rules.” If taht is true, what does poverty have to do with anything?
“I saw this conversation consisting of distortions and explanations for why a woman might decide to get an abortion. I don’t think the selfish, materialistic career woman trope is an accurate depiction of your “average” abortion-contemplating woman, but on the other hand, it’s nobody’s business why a woman would make that decision.”
Right, so teh right to an abortion is not based in poverty. That was my only point- that bringin up poverty has nothing to do with anything and is a distraction from teh actual issue at hand.
My decision, my body, my life, my rules.
I hate seatbelts – MY decision, MY body, MY life, MY rules. – so why should I have to wear one or be ticketed if I don’t?
I feel like chugging a 6-pack then driving – MY decision, MY body, MY life, MY rules – what gives anyone a right to stop me?
16 year-old wants to pop an advil at school – HER decision, HER body, HER life, HER rules – so why should anyone stop her???
Funny how the body autonomy doesn’t work out so well in many scenarios, only where there’s an innocent baby involved!
Kel- I do not have time, nor energy, nor resources, nor desire to become pregnant right now. That means that not only do I not want to raise a child, I do not want to give birth, and do not want to be pregnant for 9 months.
I will some day be a great mother, and that time is not now. It is NOT my responsibility to put a child into the adoption system…there are too many babies and children in the US and abroad already that need homes, I would never contribute to that.
Because for many women, poverty IS an issue. And not just “leftovers” level of income, but true, dirt poor, abject poverty.
That’s why poverty was part of the discussion
Thanks Carla! I totally am owning it! I believe 100% in abortion on demand, and without apologies.
100% for dismembering babies in utero!!
Yeah. Go. You.
Gee, didn’t somebody fairly famous say that eating ramen noodles and mayonaisse sandwiches was a good enough reason to abort? And didn’t pro-abort Joy Behar laud her for being so ‘brave’?
Gee, don’t they teach kids in all that sex education that sperm plus egg equals new human? Because they should.
I realize that Jane doesn’t know that being sexually active could lead to pregnancy. She couldn’t possibly be choosing to create a baby that she can then choose to murder. Nah… that’s just not possible. No, she must not realize that sex between men and women creates babies.
I guess Planned Parenthood must still be using the old stork myth, or maybe they tell school kids that they came from ‘the baby store.’ What else could explain the abortion fans lack of knowledge about how new human beings get created?
Gee, it turns out that I DO know that sex leads to pregnancy without birth control! I use birth control that is 99.99% effective. If on the off chance that I get pregnant I have the safety net of abortion.
Go. Me.
Go. Science.
Go. Society. That. Allows. Sexuality. Without. Pregnancy.
oops, my comment was being typed before I say Jane admit that, though she does know how babies are made.
She also states that “Kel- I do not have time, nor energy, nor resources, nor desire to become pregnant right now.”
But she’s having sex, so she is using her time, energy and resources to become pregnant.
I am more and more convinced each day that abortion fans are mentally ill, and willfully so.
“Because for many women, poverty IS an issue. And not just “leftovers” level of income, but true, dirt poor, abject poverty.”
But you don’t need to be poor in order to have an abortion. You can do it for any and all reasons. Sure, for some women poverty is an issue. For me, photography is an issue. I’m sure everyone else here can bring up their other issues. The question is, how does it relate to justifying the morality of abortion? Abortion is morally permissible because “My decision, my body, my life, my rules.” So why bring up poverty? You don’t need to be poor to justify an abortion. You can be rich.
I do not have time, nor energy, nor resources, nor desire to become pregnant right now.
I bet if it were you in that womb, and you had the cognitive capacity you do now, you’d be hoping like hell that you’d MAKE the time, MAKE the energy, MAKE the resources, and disregard desire, though, huh.
My decision, my body, my life, my rules. That’s not narcissism, that’s me planning on being the best mother possible for a child if I’m ever ready for one. And yes, if you want me to unwrap the euphemism from all of that: I will kill any unborn children that my boyfriend and I create, until I am ready to carry a pregnancy to term. I don’t care how you want to say it!
Jane, on the subject of poverty, you have the most impoverished spirit I’ve encountered in a long time. In one statement you proudly proclaim you will kill your unborn child without apology, then later you insist you’ll be a great mother someday. Wow… may God in His mercy open your eyes to the evil you defend. Your attitude is truly pitiable and sad, not to mention deadly. You would destroy life on a whim. I can’t think of anything poorer.
I believe 100% in abortion on demand, and without apologies.
It is indeed difficult to apologize to someone after they’re dead.
Jane, no society allows sexuality without pregnancy. Our society allows sexuality without giving birth to a living child. No matter what, if you’re pregnant, you will give birth. It just depends on whether the child comes out alive and well or dismembered. To willingly have sex when you’re not ready for a baby is 100% selfish…I don’t care how effective your birth control is, it’s not as effective as abstinence.
Jane, I didn’t say our belief systems were different, I pointed out the problem in yours. Logic founded on an untenable base cannot but be equally flawed if not more so.
Ladies and gentlemen, we should all thank Jane for demonstrating in a refreshingly honest and straightforward manner why the culture of death is doomed to failure.
One by one, the arguments in favor of abortion have fallen to science, logic, and simple common sense. Exposed for the misdirection, myth, or outright bald-faced lies that they are, they have been dispelled from all discussion in which one knows the truth. All that remains is the only tenet to which knowledgeable pro-abortionists ultimately clung, as Lady Laura Loo so quotably pointed out; namely, that of arbitrarily devising means and arguments by which the lives of others may be devalued and therefore eliminated in the pursuit of one’s ambitions, dreams, or simple comforts.
In her comments, Jane has made it clear that her decision to murder her children would not be borne of poverty, medical need, or any of the other fear-mongerings set forth by pro-abortionists; rather, she simply doesn’t want to make the sacrifices necessary to carry a child for nine months and then either place said child up for adoption or be the “great mother” that she believes she will one day be. Yet again, the demand for actions (i.e. pleasures) without consequences naturally follows from the belief that others must die for one’s own comfort.
So, I see no further reason to argue with Jane. Anyone who honestly thinks this through – or has even studied biology – will inevitably arrive at the same conclusion that I have, and reading Jane’s bluntly-narcissistic comments cannot help but accelerate that.
Such are my thoughts on the matter, and now I’m done in this thread. God bless, everyone! 8D
Jane, you make a lot of assertions about when life is valuable, when life begins and you dehumanize a baby in the womb. You make these assertions without any sound logic or science to back them up. It’s painful reading your responses because your arguments are easily picked apart using sound logic. Give us the “why?” to back up your arguments that goes beyond your personal beliefs and bad logic.
You have to realize that if your arguments are true for you, then they are true for all human beings. If you can use arbitrary standards like potential for suffering, wantedness, poverty,… as standards for the right to life, then *all* human beings can use the same standards. For anyone who values justice, all human beings should have the ability to use your same standards for the right to life against any other human being. If your arguments are true for an unborn human being, they are true for a newborn human, a 2 year old human, a 20 year old human, or a 90 year old human with end stage alzheimers.
“My body my choice”. It’s when you destroy the body of another human being that this argument fails.
It’s been my experience that a person doesn’t HAVE to give into all their sexual urges. A person can say “No, let’s wait until marriage.” or, if married a person can say, “No, let’s wait until my least fertile time.” (NFP rocks for this reason–I’ve used it for over 7 years both to achieve pregnancy and to avoid pregnancy).
Great point, Mother in Texas!
I’m so tired of hearing the line “forcing women to carry a baby to term reduces them to broodmares!”
Funny, cuz I always thought that it’s the “sex with whoever, whenever, however . . .” mindset that lessens people’s dignity and reduces them to the level of animals.
I’m so tired of hearing the line “forcing women to carry a baby to term reduces them to broodmares!”
I understand the feelings behind the statement, although in essence it’s not true. If you’re going to be sexually involved it’s important you understand and accept the consequences. Sexual intimacy has consequences. Abortion is effectively saying a person does not accept that pregnancy is a natural result of sexual intercourse.
“Ninek, do you honestly think I am talking about kids being forced to eat LEFTOVERS? you do know there is a level of poverty below leftovers and hand-me-down clothes, right?”
Gah! The bad childhood/unwanted kid/poverty argument rears its head again! Megan and Jane, maybe you will answer this honestly. I had a hideously abusive, poverty stricken childhood, and I was very unwanted by my mother. Should I have been aborted, since you think abortion is the answer to those type of situations?
Jane says:
My decision, my body, my life, my rules. That’s not narcissism, that’s me planning on being the best mother possible for a child if I’m ever ready for one. And yes, if you want me to unwrap the euphemism from all of that: I will kill any unborn children that my boyfriend and I create, until I am ready to carry a pregnancy to term. I don’t care how you want to say it!
__________________________________________________________
This is one of the saddest things I’ve ever read. On one hand, I’m impressed with Jane’s honesty. On the other, I’m distraught over her moral bankruptcy. Abortion is not sound preparation for being the best mother possible.
I guess I always thought that the people that were pro-abortion just really didn’t know any better…they really hadn’t thought through what abortion really meant. But clearly Jane has thought it through, and proudly proclaims that her future babies are medical waste unless she changes her mind and decides she’ll let them live.
Jane, with that world view it is not possible for you to be a good mother. I pray your eyes will be opened to the truth.
“I had a hideously abusive, poverty stricken childhood, and I was very unwanted by my mother. Should I have been aborted, since you think abortion is the answer to those type of situations?”
Alright Jack, I’ve been baited. Every woman should have the right to make reproductive decisions based on her own assessment of her circumstances. There’s a clear difference between that assertion and the one you *want* me to make, i.e. saying that kids in abusive situations ”should” have been aborted. Yeah, abortion “should” have been an option on the table for your mother. If she didn’t think it was the right time, or thought the environment was too abusive, or for whatever reason, yeah, abortion *should* have been one option, which I’m assuming it was for her. This really has nothing to do with whether you are happy to be alive now, and everything to do with what she felt back then. But obviously your mother didn’t choose the abortion route, so the question is really moot.
“If you’re going to be sexually involved it’s important you understand and accept the consequences. Sexual intimacy has consequences. Abortion is effectively saying a person does not accept that pregnancy is a natural result of sexual intercourse.”
No, abortion is just one way of dealing with the consequences of sexual activity, albeit not one you’d choose. Let’s apply your statement to another bodily function–eating. If a man overeats, then poor health and chronic disease is a “natural” consequence of that action. If that man went to see a doctor to get medication for high blood pressure, would you say that medication is “effectively saying that this man does not accept that diabetes is a natural result of overeating” and try to deny him care?
Megan, I wasn’t trying to bait you. I am seriously wondering how the answer you gave can be consistent. I hear pro-choice people argue all the time that abortion is a good solution to child abuse and poverty. However, you never say that any specific person should have been aborted to “save” them.
Let me pose a question: Pretend my mother is still pregnant with me. She has five kids already, dirt poor, mentally ill, abuses her born children, and has a horrible perv for a husband. If you were counseling her, would you recommend she have an abortion? Why or why not?
Megan,
How many times have we gone over the correct understanding of the word natural? Again, if something is natural than it acts in accord with the good or proper function of an agent. So overeating would not be considered natural because at a certain point, it acts against the good of the human person. In the case someone has overeaten, artificial medicine would be natural because it acts to restore proper function back to the body. Diabetes is not natural in the sense that it acts AGAINST the good and proper function of the body, so anything that restores that good or proper function back to the body is natural. Contrast this with the state of being pregnant. Pregnancy is a proper function of the body. One is not (normally) sick when pregnant, nor is it considered a disease or a disorder as diabetes is.
No, abortion is just one way of dealing with the consequences of sexual activity, albeit not one you’d choose. Let’s apply your statement to another bodily function–eating. If a man overeats, then poor health and chronic disease is a “natural” consequence of that action. If that man went to see a doctor to get medication for high blood pressure, would you say that medication is “effectively saying that this man does not accept that diabetes is a natural result of overeating” and try to deny him care?
Megan, as Bobby said, overeating is NOT a NATURAL function of the body. The person who overeats has imposed an UNnatural situation on the body. When a woman gets pregnant sexual intercourse did not impose an UNnatural situation on the body, but rather a natural one. When a person overeats they impose an UNnatural situation on the body.
Taking medicine and working on diet and exercise IS, in fact, accepting that one has diabetes and has to care for it. If a person did NOT care for themselves and do something about the diabets, they would be in denial and NOT accepting the fact they have diabetes.
Abortion does NOT accept pregnancy. Accepting the pregnancy means caring for oneself through it, and accepting the situation that this is where you are now so taking care of oneself and the pre-born human being is part of being in that situation. And a woman does NOT have to keep her baby. She can put said child up for adoption. There ARE good agencies out there who WILL help the mother and baby (I know because my family worked with one of them, so I know they exist).
“Terminate narcissism, not the preborn”
WORD.
1.
inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive admiration of one-self, self-love; vanity.
2.
Psychoanalysis . erotic gratification derived from admiration of one’s own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development.
—Synonyms
1. self-centeredness, smugness, egocentrism.
I don’t buy that argument. “Natural” is a subjective concept that can be twisted to support the views of the beholder. Medicine has completely skewed the dichotomy between natural/artificial. It’s entirely “natural” for the body to degenerate over time, yet modern medicine allows us to keep grandma alive by equipping her with tiny elegant machines. Is this mercy or indulgence in our cyborgian fantasies? And pain-killers: they don’t function to restore the body to its proper working “order,” and pain is very much a part “natural human existence.” Yet it would be unthinkable to undergo major surgery without the option of a morphine drip. And one last example: dental work. Would it be defying the “natural order of things” to get braces for cosmetic purposes?
Plus, last I checked, our legal system doesn’t arbitrate based on what’s “natural” or “artificial.”
Megan,
Okay here’s the thing. Abortion doesn’t accept pregnancy because it terminates the pregnancy. Putting aside natural or unnatural or anything else, that’s how it does NOT accept pregnancy.
A person who has an abortion is not accepting the pregnacy. Accepting the pregnancy means doing what one can to help that pregnancy move along as healthy and as well as it can.
When I was pregnant I had to take pre-natal vitamins, walk, do Kegal exercises, have blood taken, and drink lots of water. I wasn’t perfect at it, but I worked at it because I accepted the fact that I was pregnant and since I was pregnant, I had to do my best to care for myself and the unborn human being within me since that was now my responsibility as a pregnant woman. (note nowhere in there did I say that it was my body my choice. My choice happened when my husband and I decided to go ahead and have sexual intercourse during my most fertile time of my cycle. Once the pregnancy happened, the choice was outta my hands. Now I had someone else to think of–my unborn little human being who was inside of me, not because of some insidous plan to ruin my life, but because that’s how reproduction works in human beings ’cause that’s how it works in Mammals–but I’m guessing you already knew that, so it’s just review).
If I had gone, instead, and aborted, that wouldn’t have been accepting I was pregnant, that would’ve been me saying “I don’t want to be pregnant, I’m not accepting I’m pregnant, so I’ll get rid of the pregnancy so I don’t have to think about/worry about it anymore.”
Abortion does NOTHING to help a pregnancy–it just kills it. Terminate, kill, end, whatever adjective/verb you use, the result is the same: the pregnancy is no more, therefore since you can’t have a pregnancy without a pre-born human being, then to end a pregnancy is to end the pre-born human being. Therefore, NOT accepting pregnancy, not accepting pre-born human being.
To summarize:
human egg joins with human sperm
conception happens–new pre-born human being starts developing=pregnancy.
Abortion:
get rid of result of human egg plus human sperm (new pre-born human being) end of pregnancy
I do apologize if this post sounded patronizing or conscending. That’s NOT how I meant it to sound, I was just breaking everything down to be as clear as possible because I try to eliminate as many misconceptions in my communications as possible (since I don’t claim to be perfect, I can’t be sure this always happens, but I do my best). I can’t always determine how people are going to take things (especially over the internet) but I try to be civil and polite. If I was impolite or uncivil in anyway, please accept my apologies and please forgive me. If you didn’t think I was uncivil or impolite, then my intentions were understood and that’s great.
Have a good Sunday.
“I don’t buy that argument. ”
Well, fortunately it isn’t an argument. It’s a definition. That is, when we use the word “natural”, what we mean by natural is what I said above. So there is nothing to argue there, only clarifying what we mean by certain terms.
““Natural” is a subjective concept that can be twisted to support the views of the beholder.”
Sure. How does it follow that there is no such thing as the ends of an agent or the purpose of an agent? If some people misuse something or twist it, is there no objective reality to the concept? How does people’s misuse of something therefore constitute that the something does not exist?
“Medicine has completely skewed the dichotomy between natural/artificial. It’s entirely “natural” for the body to degenerate over time, yet modern medicine allows us to keep grandma alive by equipping her with tiny elegant machines. Is this mercy or indulgence in our cyborgian fantasies?”
Suppose I have no answer to this situation. Though there is an answer which requires a bit more work, at the very worst for my position, this is a very specific case that is difficult to figure out in general without more information. Just because the answer to this particular example isn’t completely obvious to everyone at this point does not undermine the general fact that things act towards an end. You need to not bring up just one tricky or unclear case, but if you wish to deny final causes, bring up ANYTHING by, for example, denying that there is no purpose to the heart, that heat just happens to be generated through fire, that when you throw a rock at a glass window it just happens to shatter and that there is no causal connection between those two events. Giving an example with no clear solution to undermine final causes is like giving the example of the killing of Bin Laden to try and undermine the idea that murder is wrong. There can always be difficult and unclear scenarios that people aren’t sure about or disagree upon, but a general reason needs to be given outside of “not everyone agrees” or “this particular case is unclear.”
“And one last example: dental work. Would it be defying the “natural order of things” to get braces for cosmetic purposes?”
No. Please read my above definition of nature more carefully because nothing in that definition implies this. Something is unnatural if it works against the ends or proper function of an agent. Braces in no way work against or thwack the proper function of a human being, or teeth, or anything like that. Again Megan, you’re confusing the bad definition of natural that you are used to with the one I gave above. There is nothing in my definition about “not interfering with an automatic process” or “letting nature just play itself out” or whatever else about this example you have in mind.
“Plus, last I checked, our legal system doesn’t arbitrate based on what’s “natural” or “artificial.””
My goodness. Megan you’re smarter than this. Who cares about the legal system? If you are now trying to say that what is moral is by definition what is legal, than fine. But I doubt that your defense of abortion by bodily rights is really grounded in the fact that it is legal.