Writes L.V. Anderson in a DoubleX article titled "Feminists Are Sharing Abortion Horror Stories. And That’s a Good Thing."
The phrase "not okay" caught my eye because, in the legal analysis, the right to have an abortion is framed in terms of the human individual's authority over a decisionmaking process which is presumed to involve a profound examination of the meaning of life. The woman's feelings matter in this moral struggle, but I don't see why the "personal dignity and autonomy" at the "heart of liberty" includes an entitlement to feel good about it. It's closer to the opposite. If the woman is the idealized individual the Supreme Court imagined exercising the right to choose, then she should feel a heavy weight. Anguish, sorrow, and regret belong in the process. To say I want to choose and feel good about it is to argue against the foundation of the right.
But examine that quote again:
"It helps no one when women feel that their feelings about their own personal experiences with abortion and contraception are somehow 'not okay.'""Not okay" is a quote within a quote. It's from this essay in Feministing written by a woman who says that poverty forced her to have an abortion:
Maybe regretting my aboriton [sic] isn’t the feminist thing to do. Maybe it’s not okay that I was attached to a clump of cells in the vague shape of an embyro. Maybe it’s not okay that the pain of abortion still hurts, four years layer. But it still hurts – feminist or not. I would have been a good mother.She's not asking to feel "okay" about her decision to have an abortion. She reports the kind of feelings that correspond to the Supreme Court's ideal of the autonomous individual who is entitled to authority over her body and the not-yet-viable body of the unborn entity within.
What she's asking to feel "okay" about is her status as a good feminist. And Anderson is, essentially, telling feminists not to define feminism so narrowly that those who have somehow internalized the desire to be regarded as feminists are stuck with a feminist in their head telling them to stop feeling their own feelings. Another alternative, of course, is to kick that repressive nag out of your head and be free.
पोस्ट्स
७० टिप्पण्या:
I guess the feminists would prefer simply a star rating system for abortion docs.
The woman's feelings matter in this moral struggle, but I don't see why the "personal dignity and autonomy" at the "heart of liberty" includes an entitlement to feel good about it.
Oh, good luck on that!
Didn't you watch the 2012 Democratic Convention? "Safe, Legal & Rare" is soooo 20th century! Abortion is now a sacrament for feminism. "This is MY body!"
You don't want to admit you come back from a sacrament bummed out & unhappy, do you? What kind of true believer are you?!
If abortion is going to be just another medical procedure then how about:
1. Making sure that there are no infections at the site of the operation which will get pushed into the body in the process of the operation. That's standard procedure except for abortion where it's standard procedure to go ahead without regard for STD's.
2. having the abortion doctor treat the complications of the abortion instead of claiming that all complications are preexisting conditions (such as the presence of an STD now causing a major internal infection) or unrelated conditions
3. requiring the operating rooms to meet the same standards as other operating rooms instead of not inspecting them at all or passing sub-standard conditions.
Up till now antibiotics have masked the number of infections resulting from abortions but as resistance to antibiotics grows the prevailing squalid conditions will begin to result in deaths. How long will feminists turn their heads? Well, as you see they have been being pressured all along to lie about what abortion is like emotionally. And they are continuing to lie like Sebelius about how safe it really is.
I never understood what the woman's feelings after the procedure, good or bad, had to do with anything regarding the abortion debate. The relevant questions are whether the life terminated is a human life entitled to rights, and, if yes, whether those rights outweigh the right of the woman to not share her body, under the circumstances. Whether a woman regrets or feels great doesn't do anything to answer these questions.
As long as they kill their own babies, it's ok with me.
Do men often debate a constitutional right based on how it makes them, personally, feel?
In this generation, how you feel about something trumps any moral considerations. And I'm guessing that women identify as feminists when doing so feels right. The cognitive dissonance experienced by women after an abortion is understandable -- and must certainly be awful.
But in resolving this conflict, feminism can be of social benefit to the larger community.
For example, there are obviously some people who feel okay with committing murder. The moral considerations may not be an issue. The only thing keeping them from doing it is the possibility of getting caught. But a number of these murderers do feel remorse after committing the act. It must be dreadful.
Perhaps the lessons learned by feminists on the front lines of the abortion movement can be applied to comfort other troubled souls.
Yes, Lyssa. But what about the fundamental penumbral inchoate evolving and soon to be indisputable right to never be wrong about anything so you don't have to feel bad. Pursuit of happiness is so 18th century. Women should have a right to be pursued by happiness. Happiness should be chasing them down from every quarter. Then it's their choice, their sacred choice, to decide whether to let themselves be caught.
@lyssa,
Whether a woman regrets or feels great doesn't do anything to answer these questions.
But, lyssa, we do care about people's feelings when called upon to do unpleasant moral duties. For examples, soldiers have to do horrible things. Those who do those horrible things out of duty are patriots; those who enjoy doing them are sociopaths in uniform. The latter may be militarily useful, but we sure as hell don't want our sister marrying one.
Noting the feelings of folks under moral duress may not change the underlying morality of their deeds, but it does help inform the rest of us if we should ever trust them again.
"Another alternative, of course, is to kick that repressive nag out of your head and be free."
Most people would call that repressive nag a "conscience."
Poverty does not force abortions. Irresponsible behavior forces abortions. They need to stop blaming poor people for the bad choices of some women and men.
As for the arbitrary "viability" standard, the unalienable right to Life supersedes a women's so-called "right" to terminate an evolving human life, when she or the father deem it to be an inconvenience.
Also, abortion is not equivalent to contraception is not necessarily equivalent to preventing conception. The choice, the only legitimate choice, is made before a woman and man have sex. Men and women who are not prepared to accept responsibility should not have sex. This is why the liberty of children and other immature individuals is necessarily limited.
There is a conversation that should take place, but it should begin with the facts, and continue with development of a common, consistent moral standard. Elective abortion is not principally about a woman's experience, but about the premeditated termination of a human life, and the consequences for society when a dysfunctional behavior is normalized.
The question I have about abortion is this: How come when a pregnant woman is murdered, it's considered a double homicide, and when a baby is aborted it's a "choice"?
This is the first time I've seen the word "feministing". Being gay, I'm familiar with the term "fisting," so I'm wondering if this is some kind of lesbian portmanteau.
"The phrase "not okay" caught my eye because..."
...it sounds like something a child would say, or maybe a pouty adolescent.
The "safe, legal, and rare" formulation is gone. It's now "safe, legal, and accessible" -- and the abortion-rights movement has moved far beyond "tragic but necessary choice" to "just another equally-valid choice, with nothing to do with morality or moral decision-making at all."
So far as I can tell, this makes common ground pretty much dead, as I noted earlier this week here.
Stanley Smith:
It's a matter of jurisdiction. A woman enjoys the legal right to murder her child up to the moment of birth in some cases and "viability" in others. She is legally entitled to act as judge, jury, and executioner, where the last role is normally farmed out to a third party in order to limit liability.
They call them "Horror Stories" for a reason.
What the author is complaining about is that women recognize that what they are aborting is a ultimately a baby and feel the corresponding guilt and anguish and inevitable "what if I had kept it?" second guessing.
The Elle article was interesting. I run in Catholic, pro-life circles, but I hadn't heard about the pill being especially dangerous for women who get Migraines with Aura... That's sort of something that should make big news..
I mean, if Planned Parenthood, Obamacare, et. al. are all about being pro-woman, shouldn't they make it clear that the patriarchal pharma and medical establishments are trying to sell you a product that may well kill you?
Murder does tend to be personal.
The Elle article was interesting. I run in Catholic, pro-life circles, but I hadn't heard about the pill being especially dangerous for women who get Migraines with Aura... That's sort of something that should make big news.
That's what's most interesting to me in this whole "War on Women" meme. Granted, I run in different circles than "Sex in the City," but for many of my friends, getting off the pill is one of their greatest achievements. Most of my friends used it until they wanted to get pregnant, had their first kid and never went back. Who likes fake hormones? That attitude fits in with the granola crowd, but somehow a big Phrma product has become sacrosanct.
These women killed a helpless child for their own comfort and convenience. They are selfish scum.
Next question, please.
What she's asking to feel "okay" about is her status as a good feminist. And Anderson is, essentially, telling feminists not to define feminism so narrowly that those who have somehow internalized the desire to be regarded as feminists are stuck with a feminist in their head telling them to stop feeling their own feelings.
If she's writing for Feministing, there are probably many feminists outside her head, too, who are telling her to stop feeling her own feelings. Or making snippy comments about "right wing narratives," or acting really exasperated whenever she wants to talk about her feelings.
One of the ways people enforce conformity is by making it clear that nobody with unapproved feelings is allowed to get the last word.
While waiting in an office in Lowell, a mother who was trying to fill out some papers told (not yell) her baby to 'shut up' as the child cried in her stroller. I went over to calm the child and told the mom don't worry I have four children. The mother quickly responded back, "Well I had three abortions and one child.
I wish the mother in a moment not realizing someone was trying to help her, was trying to be fresh with her three abortions remark in a way to back off. Deep down that I think she was sadly telling the truth.
Women turn to abortion, because they have been abandoned. Why is she getting the brunt of the blame?
"This is the first time I've seen the word "feministing". Being gay, I'm familiar with the term "fisting," so I'm wondering if this is some kind of lesbian portmanteau."
That's what I said about the word years ago and caught hell for. You don't have to be gay to see that portmanteau.
"Not okay" in that context sounds like not politically correct.
It's funny, I thought they had locked a lot of the cultural debate down, and now that they're losing some of it, they have to parade around like the oppressed victims.
Giver your reasons, sisterhood, and save the solidarity for the choir.
I'm not sure how pagan feminists can help women who are suffering sorrow and guilt because of an abortion. What do they have to offer? Only a loving almighty God is big enough to forgive them and to heal them.
"These women killed a helpless child for their own comfort and convenience. They are selfish scum.
Next question, please."
Is there a balm in Gilead/ To make the wounded whole?
Y'all carry on like this is a bunch of white women.
It's not.
My belief is that it is the woman's choice. It's up to her what she wants to do.
I find the pro-life argument mostly chauvinistic. They don't trust women with the decision. I also find the pro-life argument shallow. Life is eternal. It is the soul that gives life to the body. Without a soul there is no life, imo.
Naomi Wolfe wrote a great article on this subject many years ago. It's reprinted here.
That article made me aware of afterabortion.com. That's a site founded by women who have had abortions and no place to talk about them.
The stories are heartbreaking, truly.
In her dissent in Carhart II, Justice Ginsburg denies that any woman ever feels depressed after her abortion. It's an incredibly stupid thing to say.
Social science in regard to abortion is incredibly hard to do because so many women hate to talk about their abortions. (Obviously women who don't mind talking about their abortions are going to skew your sample). Finland, which has socialist medicine, has much better social science. The government actually tracks all the women who have had abortions. So you can check and see health results.
There's no causation in that study, but it really does suggest how bad our social science has been. In particular check out the suicide statistics.
Sunsong, for sake of argument, I'll grant you shallow and chauvinistic. How does that stack up to murderous?
You should feel shity if you are an abortatrix.
I mean, if Planned Parenthood, Obamacare, et. al. are all about being pro-woman, shouldn't they make it clear that the patriarchal pharma and medical establishments are trying to sell you a product that may well kill you?
That article doesn't even talk about the breast cancer link with the (estrogen-based) pill. Estrogen is the leading factor in breast cancer, which is why women are 100 times more likely to get it than men.
The pill is particularly awful to give to underage girls going through puberty. Increases breast cancer risk by 1000 percent.
This book sounds really silly. It's not patriarchs who are hyping the pill. You think the Catholic Church is hyping the pill? Patriarchs want women barefoot and pregnant, duh.
It's socialists who are hyping the pill. Obama is hyping the pill, and mandating the pill. Population control types want women on birth control. Our society loves birth control! We love it so much we downplay any breast cancer risk.
Oh my God these stories are a nightmare.
David
The baby killer thing is part of the shallowness to me. I suppose it is meant to be VERY shocking.
My view is that you have to be born to be a baby, by definition. The whole murder thing is such a turn off to me. Whatever it is supposed to force me understand, it doesn't. Maybe in the last two months of a pregnancy someone could make a compelling case - but not before that. Not for me.
The woman's choice is a higher principle, imo, than what some people believe about when life begins. To me, life is eternal, it has no beginning or end. The form changes or as Chief Seattle put it: There is no death, only a change of worlds.
@sunsong,
To me, life is eternal, it has no beginning or end. The form changes or as Chief Seattle put it: There is no death, only a change of worlds.
Even if there is no "death", there can still be murder. No one has the right to "push" another being into "a change of worlds", which is what murder becomes in your schema. Simply describing what you think death is never gives others license to bring it about.
I don't see how your pneumatology changes the moral issues of abortion, or of any other form of homicide for that matter.
There is nothing feminine about killing off your own offspring.
May God look gracefully on your soul.
(born to a 16 year old Christian in 1963, placed for adoption, and adopted via Lutheran Social Services by a wonderful family shortly thereafter)
YoungHegelian:
Immortality precludes the necessity for morality. Perhaps a perpetual state of agony would alter that perception.
sunsong:
Choice is merely a state of change. As is conception of a mortal life. How do you judge their relative significance? With abortion, you are depriving a human life of their choice or a particular state. How do you reconcile the choice of state available to one life and another?
It's nice that they are seeking more comfortable. However, abortion is going to be a matter of mixed feelings until Hallmark comes up with that "Happy Abortion!" card.
If the pre-born are considered the same as babies - why doesn't my Catholic Church have burials for them?
I've never seen or heard of a miscarriage getting a funeral, and when I go to the graveyard I also see that people do not bury the pre-born there either.
If babies before birth are human and filled with every rights of those born, then why don't churches and graveyards threat them as babies?
I grew up Catholic, and there are plenty of my generation who looked at this and saw the rank hypocrisy. The only fetuses who they treat as babies are those aborted - yet they still don't include them in their rites.
When my church starts having Funerals for every miscarriage, when the graveyard has a section for them ... then this won't seem like hypocrisy.
But until then, I see picking and choosing of what counts as baby and what counts as fetus.
Mark, you should read Catholic League.
Here's a woman describing her own miscarriage. Are you willing to tell her that no baby died? She didn't have a funeral, either. Maybe she's a hypocrite, maybe she's cheap. Maybe she wouldn't be grieving so hard if she had had a funeral service to let the grief out.
Society's discrimination against the unborn is rampant. We don't see them. The criminal punishment for killing an unborn baby in Texas (the statute at issue in Roe v. Wade) was only five years in prison. And only ten years in prison if you forcibly aborted the mother against her will.
Is there a funeral? Must not have been a baby, then.
And while you are pointing fingers at hypocrisy, Mark, you might ask our media why they can't show a photograph of an aborted "fetus" in our newspapers. The media hides atrocities all the time, of course. But abortion isn't supposed to be an atrocity, remember?
Mark said...
"If the pre-born are considered the same as babies - why doesn't my Catholic Church have burials for them?"
I'm not convinced that the Catholic church is full of hypocrites because they do not perform funerals for fetuses. I suppose that in the Catholic church a funeral is a service to help the community mourn for the loss of a friend or family member and has no religious significance beyond that. During times of stress like the Black Death people were buried in mass graves without funerals. The fact that they didn't have funerals did not change the essential humanity of the dead.
I agree with those who say that a woman has the same right to control her body as anyone else. This right exists even if someone else dies when we exercise that right. For example, if I have a rare blood type, no one has the right to drag me into the hospital and force me to give blood to save someone else who needs my blood. If I exercise my right to keep my blood and the other person dies because of my decision the state has no right to prosecute me for the death.
The reason conservative people like Ronald Reagan supported abortion for rape, incest, and for the life of the mother without hypocrisy is because of this principle of the woman's right to chose. A woman who is raped for example has by definition been denied the right to chose. One could also include abortions for women who do not have the mental capacity to give informed consent, although experience demonstrates that abortion for the mentally deficient is a very slippery slope. From the conservative viewpoint, normal women who understand that sex can lead to pregnancy and who still have unprotected sex have already given their consent when they chose to have sex.
Incidentally, the left are indeed hypocrites when they assert a woman's absolute right to chose to have an abortion because they pretend to respect her right how she uses her body, and then they force her to use her body against her will to support strangers in the name of "fairness". When you take the fruit of one person's labor and distribute it to another against their will you are stealing the part of their life which they spent in earning that money. In other words you are asserting priority over their own will in how they use their body. Claiming that it is "unfair" that one person has more than another does not change this dynamic. Once the state claims the right to control other people's bodies, they have the same right to claim the right to control a woman's body since it is "unfair" to the developing body that it should be denied life. Right now many societies are experiencing a badly skewed sex ratio because women are choosing to abort their babies because of sex. When the left concludes that this is a problem, they will undoubtedly find an excuse to override a woman's right to chose and will outlaw abortions for sex selection.
That is hypocrisy.
Saint Croix-- I think it's inaccurate to call the Catholic Church Patriarchal. We have a strong tradition of women who take charge and boss men around... the Church was giving freedom to women long before society did.
Meanwhile, the people who want to treat women like chattel? Look at the Obamacare ads. Women are just hysterical beings, driven by hormones, to the point where they need to take hormonal contraceptives in order to feel safe expressing their feelings for a cardboard cut-out. Women need to be told what insurance to buy. Women need special rules, because you can't expect them to live under the same rules as everyone else.
The feminists are the unwitting servants of the patriarchs, confusing hedonism for justice.
Mark-- The church actually does do funerals for miscarried babies of any age. Since 'grave' standards are a matter of local law, many babies who die before about 17 weeks can be buried without a coffin/grave liner, etc. So the churches keep a portion of the cemetary for the tinies and record who's buried there. Those burials are usually free of charge, as well.
They don't usually have a funeral Mass because they're assumed to be in heaven-- they don't NEED the graces of a funeral Mass. Instead, the ceremony focuses on comfort and support for the grieving family.
If you lose your baby at a Catholic Hospital, they usually work with the diocese to get coffins for the babies. What they do is save the bodies until they have enough tinies for one coffin and then bury them in the diocesan cemetary in a special baby plot-- again at no cost to the grieving parents.
And, of course, the KoC actually pays for the burial of members' babies who die between 17 weeks and term-- because most local ordinances require actual graveliners and whatnot for those kids.
But yes, the Church DOES treat the unborn as actual dead people-- If your parish really refuses to do anything, you're probably in a truly awful parish. Or, more likely, you just haven't needed these services yet.
But if you or someone you love has lost a baby, call your priest. They can only help with the funeral if they know your child has died!
"I would have been a good mother."
Well, if the bar is "Andrea Yates" is the bar maybe.
Saint Croix-- I think it's inaccurate to call the Catholic Church Patriarchal. We have a strong tradition of women who take charge and boss men around... the Church was giving freedom to women long before society did.
Yes, you're right. I was trying to mix in some sarcasm with legitimate points and it got a little muddled, my bad.
Feminists of course often say that the Catholic church is patriarchal. No women priests or Popes, for instance. But the nun has always been a really prominent part of the Catholic Church. And the Catholic Church emphasizes Mary so much.
Stanley wrote:
The question I have about abortion is this: How come when a pregnant woman is murdered, it's considered a double homicide, and when a baby is aborted it's a "choice"?
Because its the woman's choice that determines whether the child is a child or a fetus to be expunged and not biology. When, out think it would be the latter.
My question would be, suppose a woman chooses to abort and is on the way to the clinic and gets murdered, along with her fetus. Should the killer be charged with a double homicide then?
"In her dissent in Carhart II, Justice Ginsburg denies that any woman ever feels depressed after her abortion. It's an incredibly stupid thing to say."
That is not what she said. She criticized the majority for basing its decision on something for which it lacked "reliable evidence." And the word "severe" appears in front of "depression."
The majority used this as a reason to assume doctors would not describe the abortion procedure and therefore to approve of a ban on it, rather than require states to take the lesser step of requiring doctors "to inform women, accurately and adequately, of the different procedures and their attendant risks."
Don't misrepresent what was said and then call it "incredibly stupid." That's really bad!
AA: The woman's feelings matter in this moral struggle, but I don't see why the "personal dignity and autonomy" at the "heart of liberty" includes an entitlement to feel good about it. It's closer to the opposite. If the woman is the idealized individual the Supreme Court imagined exercising the right to choose, then she should feel a heavy weight. Anguish, sorrow, and regret belong in the process. To say I want to choose and feel good about it is to argue against the foundation of the right. [emph. added]
Exactly. Nicely put. But how many of these people have any but the most shrunken and debased concept of what liberty is, and what it's for? It is seen as an end in itself, and therefore the very exercise of freedom of choice should result in happiness, or something's wrong - surely I must be not quite free enough yet.
Not understanding "the foundation of the right" - which in no way precludes "anguish, sorrow, and regret" - and thereby accepting the consequences of choice, the unhappy chooser casts about for an exterior agent who surely must be interfering with or robbing him of the happiness that ought to arise simply from being able to do what he wants without hindrance. How can I be free if others do not smile upon all my choices? How can I be free if "somebody" has put some idea of a moral code into my head, which I have failed to live up to, causing me anguish? Make them stop!
Don't we see this confusion about liberty all around us?
YoungHegelian,
Even if there is no "death", there can still be murder. No one has the right to "push" another being into "a change of worlds", which is what murder becomes in your schema. Simply describing what you think death is never gives others license to bring it about.
I don't see how your pneumatology changes the moral issues of abortion, or of any other form of homicide for that matter.
One has to be "alive" to be murdered. It is my view that the soul gives life to the body. The body is just a vehicle for the soul. A car is a vehicle for the body. It doesn't make sense to equate a car with life simply because a person can be inside of a car. When there is no person in a vehicle there is no human life in it. When there is no soul in a fetus - it is nothing but a bunch of cells.
So, as I said, the whole 'baby killer' argument just turns me off. For me, the immorality here is those who want to take away a woman's choice. That is the higher principle here, imo.
SunSong-- So, does the soul happen when the child reaches a certain age or development level? Or is passing through the vagina the magic event?
Do Preemies have souls? Do children born by C-Section?
I find sunsong's position puzzling. I understand the disagreement over whether it's murder or not. That's obviously the key. But then why chauvanistic? Sure, if a pro-lifer didn't think it was murder, that idea makes sense.
It's like sunsong doesn't take the "abortion is murder" argument as though it's presented in good faith. Or can't overcome that difference enough to see why it isn't chauvanistic?
Don't misrepresent what was said and then call it "incredibly stupid." That's really bad!
Ah, you nailed me. Oops.
Should always quote people, keeps you honest. Thanks for the reminder, Professor.
What Ginsburg said was...
the Court invokes an antiabortion shibboleth for which it concededly has no reliable evidence: Women who have abortions come to regret their choices, and consequently suffer from “[s]evere depression and loss of esteem.”
She calls it a "shibboleth" which is a great word.
But she does qualify it with the "no reliable evidence." So you're right and I was sloppy.
In her footnote she says "The Court is surely correct that, for most women, abortion is a painfully difficult decision."
And then she quotes social science studies that conclude that abortion is no more dangerous to mental health than having a child.
Abortion social science is highly dubious in our country. In part I think a pro-choice bias corrupts the science.
But also it's dubious because women are so secretive in regard to their abortions. You can't trust the data. The Stakes study is far more trustworthy, since socialists keep track of everybody's abortions.
We live in a society that recognizes post-partum depression, and not any abortion depression. It is stupid. Although I grant you Ginsburg herself is making no claims in this regard, she's just citing people who are making these claims.
Deirdre,
Your questions suggest a lack of understanding of the soul, and therefore show me that you should not be making decisions for other women. The soul is not compelled by the flesh. The soul is free. When the soul enters a fetus is an individual choice - that soul makes. Souls decide for themselves when and where they will enter. Souls are way smarter than you
...or me
the chances of a soul entering a fetus that is going to be aborted are slim, imo. Souls are immortal, they have a greater perspective than we do.
Abortion is a personal matter - deeply personal and difficult for the women and girls who contemplate it. Not every woman. There are exceptions. Not every man is a chauvinist and some women are terribly chauvinistic. I'm speaking generally.
The chauvinistic Muslim provides an extreme example which can be an aid in learning, if we choose.
How is genital mutilation justified?
How is rape as a political act justified?
How is even the thought of 'honor killing' justified?
Do you think it is just coincidence that it is women who are being treated like this?
The examples are extreme - but the continuum is everywhere chauvinistic.
Freedom is the higher principle here. Free will. Sometimes even chauvinists can understand and appreciate the value of freedom :-) Which side shows greater understanding of the higher principle of free will in this case? The pro-choice people are not trying to force you or anyone to have abortions. Trying to dominate and control women is an attack on their freedom - their right to choose. It is an offense.
I am offended by people who want to force me to live by their beliefs, or their religion or their tradition or their fears.
I agree with those who suggest that most men could not endure the pain of childbirth. The gifts that women give in bringing life into this world are immeasurable and precious. There is always a risk the woman will die. There is always a risk the fetus will not survive. The amount of love, of giving of caring of service of just time involved in being a mother is immense. They deserve all of our gratitude, imo.
Choice is a freedom. It is the women's right to choose. If you don't understand that, I would suggest and pray that you become acquainted with your soul. There is no profit in controlling every single woman in this country and not know you own soul.
sunsong wrote:
One has to be "alive" to be murdered. It is my view that the soul gives life to the body. The body is just a vehicle for the soul. A car is a vehicle for the body. It doesn't make sense to equate a car with life simply because a person can be inside of a car. When there is no person in a vehicle there is no human life in it. When there is no soul in a fetus - it is nothing but a bunch of cells.
So, as I said, the whole 'baby killer' argument just turns me off. For me, the immorality here is those who want to take away a woman's choice. That is the higher principle here, imo.
Does a woman choose if/when a baby has a soul? Can she declare that the baby doesn't have a soul if she doesn't want it, but does have a soul if it does.
sunsong wrote:
The soul is not compelled by the flesh. The soul is free. When the soul enters a fetus is an individual choice - that soul makes. Souls decide for themselves when and where they will enter. Souls are way smarter than you
...or me
So the soul is operating on choice? Well when does it officially enter the fetus? And does the woman know definitively when that event occurs? If the soul chooses to enter a fetus but the woman chooses to abort the fetus, what then?
sunsong wrote:
I am offended by people who want to force me to live by their beliefs, or their religion or their tradition or their fears.
Me too! Just because some religious nut thinks its' wrong for me to kill others, who the hell are they to tell people thou shalt not kill. Don't force your religion on me, bro.
And likewise, what's up with restricting slavery? Who were those religious nuts to tell people who chose to be slave owners how to live their lives and how to deal with their PROPERTY.
sunsong wrote:
Souls are way smarter than you
...or me
the chances of a soul entering a fetus that is going to be aborted are slim, imo
That's like the prochoice version of the republican saying that if you get pregnant through rape your body has ways to abort the fetus.
The soul KNOWS that the mother is going to abort the fetus, you see.
Theferore it doesn't go into those fetuses that will be aborted.
Well, how convenient for them and for the mothers that will abort the fetuses.
sunsong wrote:
So, as I said, the whole 'baby killer' argument just turns me off. For me, the immorality here is those who want to take away a woman's choice. That is the higher principle here, imo.
That's what we call justifying your actions with rationalizations. I'm sure the whole baby killer argument DOES turn you off.
sunsong wrote:
Choice is a freedom. It is the women's right to choose. If you don't understand that, I would suggest and pray that you become acquainted with your soul. There is no profit in controlling every single woman in this country and not know you own soul.
How are we supposed to become acquainted with our own souls but by living? If women are killing their babies, they are depriving them of ever discovering that acquaintance. If you believed in a soul, which my guess is most liberals don't, would you be so nonchalant about the destruction of the vessel that houses it, when it's in the mothers womb?
sunsong wrote:
My view is that you have to be born to be a baby, by definition. The whole murder thing is such a turn off to me. Whatever it is supposed to force me understand, it doesn't. Maybe in the last two months of a pregnancy someone could make a compelling case - but not before that. Not for me.
Um, the Supreme Court already makes a distinction for babies that are supposedly viable.
Forget the subjective classification of human developmental stages (e.g. baby). An objective standard for recognizing human life is that it evolves from conception to death.
Elective abortion or any murder without cause or due process is the commission of a human rights violation, specifically the denial of our unalienable right to life. Normalizing abortion is the commission of human rights violation on an unprecedented scale. As with other crimes of this class, which are committed against the individual, society, and humanity, it sponsors a general degradation of human life.
Does sunsong recognize that if you thought the fetus was a life that should be protected, that "the woman's choice" would be a secondary consideration. As would the argument that it's simply the imposing of religious values on people. No, the life would be protected, because that's what society does. our bill of rights gives you a right to life and liberty. if you are killed in the womb you have neither.
Now granted, Pro choice people don't view it as a life that's being killed. But will sunsong not recognize that saying "you can't impose your religious morality on people" is a red herring in this case?
For example. This is very similar to the slave owners mentality. They had a right to own slaves because slaves weren't fully human. They were instead, property.
If you are not fully human then the bill of rights doesn't actually give you rights.
...Philosophies that save the trees and kill the children
... Casting Crowns
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा