I am Pro-Choice!
Yes, friends, though I'm a devout Catholic, I am pro-choice. However, I do not misunderstand...I do not equivocate on the word "choice."
I am convinced that all of you women have the right to choose to dump the immoral sub-human piece of human debris who is saying to you that he loves you, you and he were meant for each other, for you to let go (and drop your skirt) and go where the spirit leads (evil, that is). He doesn't love you. YOU CAN CHOOSE!
YOU CAN CHOOSE! You can choose to scream NO! and slap the schmuck across the face. He doesn't want YOU, he wants what you have, a warm place to wiggle his putz.
YOU CAN CHOOSE! You don't have to take humiliation and disrespect. You can choose to save yourself for a true man who adores you for who you are. Save yourself for him. Deliver yourself from your smooth talkin' orgasm-driven jerk.
YOU CAN CHOOSE to say no to a shallow, diseased, lying sub-human, or choose to explain to your true love down the road why you have genital herpes. Choose now what will you say then, and how you will broach the subject.
If you are pregnant, YOU CAN CHOOSE! You can come through for your newborn child and place him in the care of one of thousands of couples who cannot have children.
If you are pregnant, YOU CAN CHOOSE! Choose to keep the life of one who is not a part of your body but in it; a separate human being. You can say no to the sweet-talking Planned Parenthood worker who offers you to turn your child into "baby puree" and suck it into the sink, though calling it a medical procedure.
If you have had an abortion, YOU CAN CHOOSE! Find help among the Christians dedicated to bringing healing to those who suffer post-abortion trauma; they'll point you to the One who will forgive you, Jesus Christ!
YOU CAN CHOOSE. However, don't think you can choose whatever you want and choose the consequences of your free choice. For that matter... I am anti-choice.
posted by Underground Logician @ 10:39 AM
14 comments
14 Comments:
Underground,
As a woman who has been raped, and who has ended up pregnant as a result of that horrible experience, I really feel the need to answer your post; however, I believe you have the right to your opinion.
Many women have issues with dumping bad men, and that is a self-esteem issue. Not an excuse, but that's where it comes from. Most women do say no. One third of all American women have been raped, which is better from other countries where the percentage is 50% or higher. If you haven't noticed, our society (and I do agree that it is partly the fault of raging feminist) does not value women or their bodies, and so, neither do the women themselves.
On pregnancy, my body is a temple. Why should I have to carry in my temple the spawn of a man who raped me, beat me, nearly killed me? Carrying a child is sacred, I agree. Why should I allow my womb to be defiled by the evil of a violent, angry man who has no respect for my temple? Why should I have to go through the hormonal, emotional, and life changes necessary for pregnancy for the parasite of a man who wanted nothing more than to do me harm? Maybe a stronger woman than I could have done it. But who are you, or anyone, to decide what I should be allowed to do to protect my mental and physical health? Did I mention, by the way, that I have a chronic illness and may only be able to carry one child to term? Is it fair for that child to be concieved in hatred, no matter who raises him, rather than love and devotion?
Though I may not agree wih you, I am honestly interested in your answers.
My heart breaks to hear your story, PC. It really does...May I say on behalf of the good men in this world that there is no price to put on you, your body, and your right to choose what is best for yourself. I mean that with all my heart. So thank you for sharing this heartbreaking revelation. I hope others who read these comments will do so with great reverence.
As to your questions, I'm writing on the fly a bit. So, I'll make comments right now, and please feel free to offer feedback; I might not be as clear to you as I would like.
I think where I need to begin is with the word you used in the beginning of your comment: the word "right." Where do these rights come from? We know innately that they exist. Our common sense rings true with the idea. When talking about rights, we enter the world of natural law. We have rights because we exist! We live. We are human. We are endowed by our Creator with inalienable human rights, meaning, they are not rights we relinquish to someone else. I cannot give up my right to live. It is mine as long as I live.
Now, my existence, conceived in love by my parents is not conditioned on the fact that my parents loved each other. In terms of causes, it is accidental, meaning, the love comes out of the relationship and physical union, though it isn't essential to the act of conception. My having green eyes is an accidental quality. My eyes don't need to be green for them to function as they do.
So, I was conceived. My first point of existence was when my Dad's sperm joined with Mom's egg, and wallah! I'm here. As a human, according to natural law, I have rights in lieu of my existence ( I know I'll need to clarify more here; feel free to question)
In light of what I said regarding human existence as the basis for human rights, the termination of an unwanted pregancy due to rape can never be a point for justice, not only for the pre-born baby, but for the dear women who have the horror of this reality upon them. Again, I am only imagining the extreme difficulty you have endured. Yet to terminate the life of a separate entity, another human life, at whatever stage of development, can never undo or remove the injustice done to the mother.
I pause here, for I know, just by my sitting here, that this is difficult. It's hard for me to type this. My focus is not so much against the women who have had the abortion procedures, but on the establishment that misleads these very vulnerable, damaged daughters that abortion is a just satisfaction for the harm done to them. In fact, it is the exact opposite. In essence, it exascerbates the situation where not only is the woman's rights violated, but now the life of an pre-born human' life terminated.
This is a sad injustice to women and the babies. This is why I try to communicate as I do; to end the terrible injustice. I hope you have a strong support network, and I know that there are groups that help women deal with this trauma, even if it has been years back.
I will stop and wait for your feedback, should you feel the freedom to comment. Again, I am brokenhearted for you.
Lots of therapy and the support of an incredible husband has done wonders for my recovery, and since it was years ago, it's not as difficult for me to discuss now. Thank you for your compassion.
A right, as defined by the law, is: an individual liberty in a constitutional sense. There are; however, individual rights that are difficult to define in a constitutional sense, such as the right of a woman to control what happens to her own body. The constitution promises to promote the general welfare of the people, and part of my mental, physical, and emotional welfare is to allow me to make my own decisions about my health and my body.
The Constitutionally implied right to privacy protects a woman's choice in matters of abortion.
Norma McCorvey sought an abortion in Texas, but was denied under state law. The Court struck down that law, on grounds that it unconstitutionally restricted the woman's right to choose. The opinion set forth guidelines for state abortion regulations; states could restrict a woman's right to choose only in the later stages of the pregnancy. The government of this country has said that it is my place to choose what happens to me, and no one else's. I don't get to cut off your nuts if you rape someone. You shouldn't get to make me keep some cells, that are not yet human, in my body if I don't want to. I agree that some women get aboprtions for reasons othe than physical and mental health, but that is still their choice, until the second trimester.
I don't believe that conception should ever be accidental. Children should always be concieved from love. If they are not, the mother has some choices to make, especially because what she decides will effect her mental and physical health as well as the possible mental health of the child. There are a myriad of options, including adoption, but in the end, only the woman can make the decision that is best for her. It is not fair to limit her options based on anyone's religious beliefs, except hers.
My abortion was not satisfaction for the harm done to me, and cannot ever erase what has been done. It did; however, keep me from bringing into the world a child who could not be raised by me and could not be adaquately raised by someone else. It was a physically and emotionally painful experience, and an incredibly difficult decision to make. I thought about keeping the child, but decided not to for mental and physical health reasons. You may not understand all of them, and that's fine, but remember, only I can know my physical and mental limitations. I knew that if this kid looked anything like it's father, no matter how much I cared for it, I wouldn't be able to look at it. I also wouldn't be able to handle the idea that a child, half me, was out there in the world and I was too much of a chicken to raise him/her myself. Plus, when I do have childen, is it fair for them to have a brother or sister out there that hey have never met? I also don't believe that a fetus is human until after the 3rd or 4th month. I don't regret my decision, and I know I would regret the pthers for the rest of my life.
I appriciate you trying to understand my situation rather han calling me a baby-killer and damning me to hell like so many Christians I have met. Feel free to discuss anything you want, and ask anything. When people truely understand each other, there is room left for nothing but love.
Well, polanco, you've said a mouthful, most of which I will not comment. You have made up your mind. And, from your concluding paragraph, sounds to me you had conversations of this very subject with Christians, whereby you came away feeling condemned by them. I cannot condemn, though you have opened up your life to me. I do have perhaps four issues for you to consider.
You said: "The government of this country has said that it is my place to choose what happens to me, and no one else's."
Yes, it has. And yet, this is not the basis of rights. In my other comments, rights are not given by governments, or those with power. Rights assume a Lawgiver, which implies both freedom and obligation. This is a natural law principle. I will not belabor this point.
Next, you said: "I agree that some women get aboprtions for reasons othe than physical and mental health, but that is still their choice, until the second trimester."
Why the second trimester? What has changed from the first to the second trimester? How about the third trimester?
Third: "There are a myriad of options, including adoption, but in the end, only the woman can make the decision that is best for her. It is not fair to limit her options based on anyone's religious beliefs, except hers.'
If this your appendix, spleen, or gall bladder, no doubt your principle concerning your body applies. In the case where a fetus is involved, this is another entity other than your body. How is this choice best for him/her (left to the second, third trimester,and birth, it will be a him or her)?
In addition, let's clarify the issue at hand. Repeatedly this has been reduced to a simple religious issue. Though religion implies moral requirements, one does NOT need to be religious to be moral. It just answers the question better as to why be moral. It can be irritating when a fundie comes by and starts spouting
Arguing from the principle of cause and effect: an effect cannot be greater than its cause, what is human at birth implies that it is human at conception. It is sound reasoning to infer thus, that the fetus in the first trimester is human (this perhaps is answering my own questions in my second part. Sorry)
Lastly, "It did; however, keep me from bringing into the world a child who could not be raised by me and could not be adaquately raised by someone else."
It would be a risk to allow a complete stranger to adopt and raise your child. No doubt you would wonder how the child is doing; it's how the heart of a mother is. It never goes away. The excruciating thought I have comes from being a dad, a provider, nurturer and protector of my boys. Does this mean then, that if you can't raise the child, and someone else won't do it like you, that the child shouldn't get a shot at life? How can we assume that he/she is better off?
These are questions and comments I leave on your table. Feel free to take them or leave them. Again, thank you for opening up your life for discussion. You are the brave one here, especially with your negative experience with other Christians. I am a Christian, and you are a sister to me. And, I'm glad you have loving support from your husband.
I think the real debate is over what thos ecells will become, not what they are. In the earliest stages of development there are no neural cells or connections, no organs, and no limbs. It may have the potential for life, but it is not yet life. An egg is an egg, not a chicken. A grouping of cells is a gouping of cells, not a person.
I never make up my mind. I come to a current position that I amend based on information I recieve. I try o remain open so that I can hold discussions with people who disagree with me. There are some things I feel more passionately about than others, but I'm listening.
Well and good.
Thanks again for engaging in adult, civilized discussion about this subject! And thank you for not telling me I'm evil or condemning myself to damnation, evin if you believe it's true. I never understood why people felt the need to say, "You're going o hell for that."
I'm writing this as anonymous because I'd like to share something from a guy's point of view.
A situation: A non-married couple have sex and she might be pregnant. Due to the woman's culture, it's difficult for her to imagine having the baby. She's going to abort. the to-be father is frantic, but can do nothing about it. Several tense days go by and her period comes. (The couple is pretty stupid about those simple drug store tests.) They later get married and have a child. Whenever the husband sees the child, he can't help thinking of that possible tragedy.
The point? Nothing really. But it makes me wonder how many abortions are actually because of shame and inconvenience instead of threat to a mother's health or other off-cited reasons. Makes me wonder how many mothers who considered abortions but decided to keep the child actually regret their decision.
That's a good point, but the question is: does she get to decide, or should the govenment?
The decision IS hers because she CHOSE to have sex, did she not?
In that situation, yes, but a law will not be situational.
Quick question: Is self-defense situational?
back to the REAL argument here:
The fact of the matter here is that rape is fortunately the rarer case between the two situations. The more common of the two, where the man and woman decide to have sex, would be where the whole crux of this argument really is.
Should people be able to do whatever they want without taking responsibility or have to deal with any consequences? Please realize that without consequences, chaos would reign in our society. If people can morally do this when dealing with abortion, they can also morally commit murder, steal, rape, pillage, destroy, vandalize, and anything else they want by following the same principles of those allowing abortion to happen. Anarchy would be the new way of life. Safety would be forfeited, not just for us, but for our children and our children's children. This is extreme, I know, but this extreme is a reality to the unborn.
IB:
You are on the right track. You're admitting that your conclusions are extreme, but that doesn't disqualify them. What you are doing is a reductio ad absurdum argument, where you take conclusion of your opponent and reduce it to an absurd conclusion, which shows that it can't be true. For instance, if someone who is a relativist says, "There is no good or evil, only thinking it makes it so," you take any act that is "intuitively" evil and make it good. So if you say, "Well and good. If a guy wants to have sex with a woman and she doesn't want to, he can still do it, for nothing is good or evil, only thinking it makes it so." The opponent usually squawks and says something about that this would be a violation of the woman's freedom to choose for herself. Which then proves your point, so then you can say "Well and good, then you are willing to concede your conclusion that "There is no good or evil, only thinking it makes it so?"
Of course, they'll respond NO! In most cases. Then you keep picking cases and whittle down their list. It's painstaking, I know, but it is necessary. Then when they throw up their hands and start attacking you, you can then conclude by their actions, they don't want to submit to the common master; they want to do what they want to do. They only use the common master for their own means; might I say, they think they use the common master.
The common master can never be manipulated. If you use a fallacy and call it logic, the common master sees sophistry as it is: arguments of straw with no substance and with great capacity to deceive.
Hmmmm....I see your point and I apologize. I will need to think about how to better my argument.
Post a Comment
<< Home