1) Time magazine joins the Associated Press and FactCheck in confirming that Obamacare does indeed use federal dollars to fund abortions. Exactly the opposite of what was promised by Obama, and exactly what pro-lifers have been saying all along. Would it be impolite to say that Obama and his folks outright lied?
2) Speaking of Obamacare and its consequences, here's one ya gotta see to believe:
No, it's not a joke. Oregon is all set to implement. Do you even have to ask yourself which socio-political ideology brought this into effect?
3) For Christians who say that Jesus was silent on the heterosexual nature of marriage, here are some points to consider.
4) A beautiful parable of Jesus that has been popping into my head this week:
The Parable of the Lost Sheep (Luke 15:1-7)
The tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to listen to him, but the Pharisees and scribes began to complain, saying, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”
So to them he addressed this parable.
“What man among you having a hundred sheep and losing one of them would not leave the ninety-nine in the desert and go after the lost one until he finds it? And when he does find it, he sets it on his shoulders with great joy and, upon his arrival home, he calls together his friends and neighbors and says to them, ‘Rejoice with me because I have found my lost sheep.’
I tell you, in just the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance."
5) I don't usually click on songs posted on facebook, but this time the story behind it compelled me.
A holy and beautiful young woman, Angela Faddis (age 32), is in her last earthly hours as I type this. Countless people have been praying for her for a year and a half, since she was diagnosed with Stage 4 colon cancer on Easter Sunday 2011. She and her beloved husband, Chris, have two small children, and the grace of the Lord has carried them through this painful but sacred journey.
Yesterday, Chris posted the following words on the family's support page, along with the hauntingly beautiful song. I had never before heard of the scene at Ostia between St. Augustine and his long-suffering, loving mother, St. Monica, but now I will never forget it. This song takes on extra significance, as Augustine is the name of Chris and Angela's little son:
This song was shared with me today. It is a beautiful song called Morning at Ostia -- "which is inspired by the well-known story of St. Augustine and St. Monica -- in particular, the moment they shared in Ostia (shortly before Monica died) when they had a fleeting and glorious sense of touching something heavenly…. [V]ery much at the heart of the song is the experience of awaiting the majesty of the world to come."
Miriam, who wrote the song, did not know our son's name was Augustine or that I was particularly asking the intercession of St. Monica and Augustine this week for our Gus.
I can definitely see this conversation between mother and son.
What a beautiful consolation for the Faddis family. Praise God for the saints, and for our Lord's tender mercy.
6) I had a discussion on this blog with March Hare, an atheist who believes that human abortion is acceptable until viability.
March Hare objected to my statement(s) that an embryo, by nature, belongs in the womb, and that a womb is where an embryo is supposed to be. He called that concept a fallacy, which, um, sort of floored me. When I pressed him to tell me where an embryo naturally belongs, he said: "As to where the embryo belongs - it doesn't belong anywhere. There is no 'belong'. It happens to grow better in a woman's receptive womb, but you are introducing a value judgement here from nowhere."
This meme reminds me of that exchange:
7) I just wrote a post over on my Orphan Report about sweet Brent. He has been waiting for years and years for a family, and his advocates have raised over $15,000 towards the cost of his adoption! So, don't let money hold you back from this little love muffin:
 |
| A smile worth a million bucks! Click my photo for more info! |
And in this video, Brent's pure joy will keep you smiling for a long time! Remarkably, this is joy from a child who has already been transferred from the baby house to an institution. What a spirit he has!
Please read my entire post about Brent and pass it along (share on facebook, on twitter, by email, by smoke signals, whatever).
+++++++
And then there is dear Brett. Brett is one of the saddest cases I've seen on Reece's Rainbow. He was abandoned by his mother and found in the field where she gave birth to him. We know very little about him to this day, and he seems all but forgotten. This picture is three years old, and there are no other children from his orphanage posted on RR. No one has been able to see him, to my knowledge, and no further information will be given until there is a serious inquiry. Brett's is a relatively low cost region from which to adopt. If you would like to go on a rescue mission that no one else will go on, this is the child to save….
 |
| I have never known a mother's love. Please click on my picture for more information. |
Finally, a reminder that the auction for Andrew (which has been a HUGE success so far!) runs until 11:59pm Saturday. There are 153 items up for bid, many of which were not there at the beginning of the week, so go and see if you've missed anything! There are several items going for less than retail right now, and you Catholics (or anyone!) should especially look at Melanie's custom rosaries, made of polished stone/porcelain beads/Swarovski Pearl. Your choice from her shop! Absolutely gorgeous, and here are just two samples:
 |
Personalized Rosary in Lavender Swarovski Pearl |
 |
US Navy Rosary (or other military) |
Go here to bid on the rosary of your choice.
We've seen recent pictures of Andrew, the beneficiary of the auction, and he is sickly thin. Five years old and about 20 pounds. He needs to come home very quickly and get proper medical attention (in addition to cataract surgery to try and salvage some sight). God bless you for helping to make that happen!
And thanks to Jen, for hosting Quick Takes!
.
That is so weird when you mentioned the parable of the lost sheep. I have had that popping into my head all week!
ReplyDeleteI love that picture analogy of a baby in his womb and the astronaut. What a great point to consider who base everything on a "right".
Impolite? No, because it's the truth. They did lie.
ReplyDeleteBoth sides are full of lies, even FOX News online called out Ryan's speech for some fallacies... But the idea of segregating funds has been a polite fiction for eons.
ReplyDeletePosted the astronaut picture on FB right away! Great comparison and totally true.
ReplyDeleteNicholas, oh yeah, Paul Ryan's lies. I don't have cable so I missed all of the speeches, but I didn't have to worry about the "hard news" story that Ryan "lied". It was front page on my oh-so-unbiased local newspaper - not as commentary, but as news. I took a brief look and was disgusted when they called his claim that Obamacare will destroy Medicare a "lie". Good, good grief. Medicare was well on its way to bankruptcy before the government (read that, "Democrats", who controlled both houses and shoved the health care bill down our throats) decided to bring their incompetence to bear on insurance for everyone. The federal government cannot successfully run Medicare. They can't even successfully run the post office, financially speaking. Taking on more of what they can't handle WILL destroy Medicare and our economy will go irretrievably under along with it. It is inevitable... unless our country changes course in November. Is Romney going to be able to do that? For that matter, is Romney really pro-life? I don't know the answer to either question, but the course must be changed, regardless of what my local news editors obviously want me to think. Sorry, Nicholas, you hit a nerve... in case you couldn't tell! :)
Sharon, yeah, I refrained from my own diatribe to what Nicholas said. Not that he's not correct, as certainly there are lies on both sides, but the sheer size and cover of the Democrats lies by the media is breathtaking. Many of the Republican "lies" are also a matter of opinion, frankly, as the Fox News story that first said Ryan lied was written as an opinion piece by a Dem operative, if I remember correctly. Some folks corrected the record after that. But the fact that Obama looked in our faces and lied about funding abortions, knowing full well that it was funding abortions, and even selling out the incredibly naive or foolish pro-life Democrats who (for some crazy reason??) wanted to believe him, and throwing them under the bus…. it's really beyond the pale. But, don't get me started. ha ha.
ReplyDeleteWhere is everybody? Why aren't people writing angry pro or con comments in UPPERCASE about #2? I was thinking in church about #2 until my stomach felt sick. Then I put my mind back into the Mass where it belonged. Is Oregon the state that likes docot-assisted suicide or is that Washington? Some governments just don't like people.
ReplyDeleteIt is wrong to sterilize teen-ager girls especially without parental consent. There are crazy things going on this country.
Ugh! I have no words for #2! But seriously, the Bubble has been eerily quiet the past few days. I was getting used to having my inbox flooded with comments, but now, there's nothing...weird!
ReplyDeleteI agree, guys! Eerily quiet! :) And yes, where is anyone about #2?? It is very Brave New Worldish…. And utterly surreal.
ReplyDeleteI meant to say doctor.
ReplyDeleteIs everybody but me having a fun-filled weekend with their family and friends that they have no time to comment? Or maybe everyone is in shock or frozen with disbelief? Margo and Leila, I'm glad you're on the Internet now because I'm feeling lonely.
Don't feel lonely! I'm still here! :)
ReplyDeleteAnd, I am sure the comments will pick up in the next week…. Got some stuff coming up that puts something other than politically correct views out there, and gives women other than pro-"choice" feminists a voice.
Probably because it's Labor Day weekend.
ReplyDeleteI mean it's probably the reason The Bubble has been quiet.
DeleteThe thing about #2 is, I read it and think, "oh, what 15 year old would want to be sterilized?" But then I do think of the sex trade, and if physicians aren't even allowed to find out if the parents are aware of the procedure, then teenage girls could be brought in to avoid the "inconvenience" of pregnancy. I hope someone who works at PP will comment. What would they say to a teenage girl who came in seeking sterilization? Does anyone have a friend at PP that they could ask about this?
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you're out there Leila, Johanne, and Sharon.
ReplyDeleteYes, evil people could take teen-age girls to get sterilized. It's just another way for Planned UnParenthood to aid in crime IF they do sterilizations. It's okay if 15 year-old don't want to have babies. They are 15 and may change their minds later on. Teen-agers should be focused on school, their families, having fun with friends (boys & girls), maybe sports, and developing their talents and skills, and they should be giggling and dreaming dreams and learning about God. Yikes. And they should be doing chores too! Oh yeah, some volunteer work would be good. They should be going to their parents to talk about their problems. See teen-agers should be too busy to be having sex. No sex = no babies.
I wrote yikes because sterilization for a teen-ager is just wrong.
ReplyDeleteOn number 6.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Marc Hare’s assertions and I think deep down he disagrees with them too but was trying to avoid directly saying so because of the implications you were trying to draw.
Does an embryo ‘belong in a womb,’ I mean technically, I guess.
Does a penis ‘belong ‘ in a vagina, I mean technically, I guess
But of course this proves absolutely nothing. The idea that we are obligated to use our body parts of their intended purpose is nonsensical. And the idea that we should allow any embryo to live in our wombs because they are designed to be there is just as obtuse as the idea that we should allow any penis to enter our vagina’s because that is where penises belong.
Yuck.
~CS
The owner of a penis makes a choice as to where it goes. An embryo makes no such choice as to where he or she goes.
ReplyDeleteAnd, no, a penis does not "belong" in a vagina. Most husbands would have a really difficult time going to work or even driving a car if that were the case. The vast, vast majority of a penis' life is spent outside of a vagina, as it is supposed to. But an embryo's life is supposed to be spent safely in his mother's womb.
You (royal you) are not obligated to do anything at all with your body parts, sexually speaking. But you are definitely obligated, morally, not to kill another human being, especially one who is your own child, and especially one who is completely innocent and defenseless.
A good solution is for a person to only choose to do the baby-making act with those body parts when one is in a position to make and accept responsibility for a baby that very likely will result. That is living in the moral universe.
Do what you want with your body parts, but don't dismember or maim another's body parts.
Simple principle.
Couple other places where your analogy goes off the rails:
ReplyDeleteA penis is not a human being. An embryo is a human being.
A penis can survive and be healthy outside of a vagina. An embryo will die if he is taken out of his mother's womb.
Refer to the original meme for the proper analogy of two stages of human beings taken out of their natural habitat.
CS, You can't see me, but I'm banging my head against the wall.
ReplyDeleteI have to admit to a bit of a facepalm myself.
DeleteThe idea that we are obligated to use our body parts of their intended purpose is nonsensical.
ReplyDeleteCS, aside from the fact that we all understand that no one is required to have sex, could you be more specific and give me an example of this nonsensicality, re: other body parts and then discussion of the embryo?
Most husbands would have a really difficult time going to work or even driving a car if that were the case. Sometimes you really made me laugh!! (in a good way)
ReplyDelete@Lena--Planned Parenthood doesn't do sterilizations.
Johannne, ha ha! Thanks! It made me laugh, too!
ReplyDeleteAnd, while it's true that PP does not do tubal ligations, I am guessing the folks that work there are fine with sterilization in general, fine with Obamacare and its mandates, and obviously fine with minors getting abortions without parental consent (one could argue that abortion is more traumatic, short and long term, than a tubal). So, I'm wondering what they (or you, or anyone else who is pro-"choice") thinks about the law that now allows 15-year-old girls to get sterilized without parental consent?
Johanne, I had asked about PP and sterilizations. I guess you're right - they don't do permanent surgical sterilization. They only make women temporarily sterile through the Pill, Depo, IUD, and these are already given to minors without parental consent. I hadn't thought about whether they do permanent sterilization.
ReplyDeleteIt is another aspect of our crazy society, that children are separated from their parents in matters that are so monumental to them. Naturally, the matters on which they are separated from their parents relate to sexuality, because in our time, sex is just what it is all about. I don't think even CS would say that we live in a terribly healthy time period as far as sexuality goes. I am not going to compare our time to a previous time, because each time has had its problems. But that doesn't mean we can't look at where we are and say, we can do better right now. We can be the generation that neither supresses healthy sexuality nor perverts it and gorges on it.
We can be the generation that neither supresses healthy sexuality nor perverts it and gorges on it.
ReplyDeleteWell, that is certainly a worthy goal.
I am guessing the folks that work there are fine with sterilization in general, fine with Obamacare and its mandates, and obviously fine with minors getting abortions without parental consent I don't think that is specifically true about PP, but about a large block of our society (including myself). And I don't really know much about the mandate you are speaking about. I wonder if it's a situation where 15-year-olds getting sterilized is a consequence of the way the law is written (what I suspect) or if the law was specifically written to make it legal for 15 year olds to get sterilized. I have to learn more about. I actually can't imagine that ANYONE would sterilize a 15 year old--just because something is allowed by law doesn't mean it's actually going to happen. Who on earth would sterilize a fifteen year old, even if she wanted it? Doing an abortion without parental consent is a totally different thing than a sterilization.
I think it's a bit interesting that PP doesn't do permanent sterilization. But then why would they? If they did, they wouldn't get paid for the abortions, shots, pills, etc that they dole out.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if any of you read about it... but Texas was OK'd to cut off state funding for PP. The state's stance is they can't recieve state funds if they're providing abortions.
PP is bemoaning the loss of health care to low income women (mamograms, pap smears, etc), but they don't want to talk about the fact that if they would just stop providing abortions... they would have FULL funding. That's something else that I find interesting - that they say abortions aren't their main concern (and only a small part of their services), but they would throw away the majority of their funding so they can keep providing them.
Well, that certainly is a worthy goal.
ReplyDeleteWell, except that PP has a very different idea of what healthy sexuality is, and either they don't think they offer a perverted version, or they think perversion is healthy. So I suppose the idea requires a standard for healthy sexuality. I would certainly recommend JPII's Theology of the Body for a philosophy that certainly does not suppress human sexuality, and as an argument against PP's vision, I would just say, look around. The fruits of their philosophy are undeniably bad, with women and children suffering the most because of it.
ReplyDeleteLeila,
Again we don’t need to go over this again because we both know what the other will say. But I maintain that it’s a silly analogy, an embryo ‘belongs’ in a womb, so what? You are not under any obligation not to keep it there.
“A penis is not a human being. An embryo is a human being. A penis can survive and be healthy outside of a vagina. An embryo will die if he is taken out of his mother's womb.”
Again, irrelevant. If a penis couldn’t be healthy and survive outside of the vagina, women still wouldn’t be obligated to keep them there! My right to refuse to be entered by a penis is resolute, regardless of what would happen to the penis when I refused him. Its not my problem, frankly.
p.s. as technology advances, this will no longer be true. Embryo’s will be able to be taken from women’s wombs and grown in either other women or artificial incubators. Yet I imagine pro-lifers will still protest…
~CS
“Refer to the original meme for the proper analogy of two stages of human beings taken out of their natural habitat.
ReplyDeleteAn astronaut will die without his suit and air supply, absolutely, but it is not someone else’s responsibility to supply him these things.
To assert we have a negative duty not to kill is one thing, but to assert we have a positive duty to do whatever is necessary to keep people (including our own children) alive is fundamentally not true. If your child needs your kidney to survive, ,too damn bad. You want to refuse your 6-year-old breast milk in a famine, that’s your choice.
~CS
“I wonder if it's a situation where 15-year-olds getting sterilized is a consequence of the way the law is written (what I suspect) or if the law was specifically written to make it legal for 15 year olds to get sterilized.”
ReplyDeleteJohanne,
I was thinking the same thing . I imagine that the law states that adults can get sterilized and ‘15’ is the age of consent for sexual matters in certain states. Ergo that 15 year olds can get sterilized too.
~CS
ReplyDeleteto assert we have a positive duty to do whatever is necessary to keep people (including our own children) alive is fundamentally not true.
Actually, CS, by law, we do have to do what is necessary to keep our (born) children alive. As far as this:
an embryo ‘belongs’ in a womb, so what? You are not under any obligation not to keep it there.
and this:
If your child needs your kidney to survive, ,too damn bad. You want to refuse your 6-year-old breast milk in a famine, that’s your choice.
Do you ever consider that you have a very harsh streak in you? I will grant that you don't have children and that your opinion will change when you do - oh, dear God, I hope so. But why are you so harsh? Do you think it is a necessary part of the ultra-feminist mentality? That tenderness expressed toward a child will mean the end of the cause? Really? Do you really not have a problem with that? You are an oppressor, CS. It is not a pretty thing. If you choose to hang on to this mentality so that the feminist agenda can thrive, at least I think you will have fewer and fewer followers as time goes on. In fact you already do, first because young women are already rejecting this mentality (go to a March for Life in DC and see for yourself) and second, because Leila has 8 kids and so do I. Let's see - that is 9 votes from my house, eventually, and 10 from hers, versus your one. That certainly explains why all hell has literally broken loose against children, to try to keep them from knowing and living the Culture of Life. Society is trying to suck every one of those children into the Culture of Death, but we are training up our children in the way they should go, and when they are old they will not depart from it - even if they depart for a time when they are young. Jesus has the words of life. You, quite clearly, argue for death without mercy to those who would depend on you for help. So hardened and so sad.
to assert we have a positive duty to do whatever is necessary to keep people (including our own children) alive is fundamentally not true.
ReplyDeleteCS, as we've talked about before, there is no "whatever is necessary" to gestate a baby. It is a passive state of being. All a woman has to do is to keep breathing as normal.
An astronaut will die without his suit and air supply, absolutely, but it is not someone else’s responsibility to supply him these things.
Really? So, the government and agency who put him into space (I'm certain he did not do get there alone) could take away his means of leaving outer space or make sure he loses his supply of oxygen, and that's "too damn bad" for the astronaut, because it's not the government or agency's responsibility? Okaaaaay…..
You are not under any obligation not to keep [an embryo] there … Its not my problem, frankly.
You might not have a legal obligation to "keep the embryo there" (which requires actively killing it, by the way), but what is your moral responsibility? Because I don't think you believe that legality and morality are synonymous, right? And if you are not morally responsible for your unborn child, why not? What is your authority to say what is moral as far as killing others, if morality is not the same as legality?
If your child needs your kidney to survive, ,too damn bad. You want to refuse your 6-year-old breast milk in a famine, that’s your choice.
Just as an aside, as a mother, I have to say that the selfishness with which you approach moral reasoning (and we have used that word many times before with you, and you have agreed yours is a selfish generation), is very jarring. Every time you speak of motherhood and obligations to one's children and moral living/reasoning in general, I become a little more afraid for the future of our culture. I am glad you say things that you do, however, because people need to understand, without ambiguity, where modern feminist thought has lead us. Like I say, I prefer clarity to agreement. Thanks for being so honest.
Sharon, I posted my comment without having seen yours. If both of us have the same horrified thoughts about CS's hardened and selfish mentality, I am imagining that many, many other readers are having the same thoughts. It really is frightening, and I do hope that she is simply posturing, playing it up for the readers, exaggerating her coldness and lack of compassion. One thing I know for sure, no one is being won over to her side by what she says, because it presents an ugly, dog-eat-dog world. In that sense, it's helpful to the Church's cause, but it still is unsettling, because there are surely others who feel as she does and will live that way.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, the first thing I thought of today was "I am so glad I am not her child."
It's a bit scary to read this level of callousness and selfishness. Again, I hope she is only posturing.
I actually can't imagine that ANYONE would sterilize a 15 year old--just because something is allowed by law doesn't mean it's actually going to happen. Who on earth would sterilize a fifteen year old, even if she wanted it? Doing an abortion without parental consent is a totally different thing than a sterilization.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet the State of Oregon went ahead and implemented the law. Meaning, adults (I'm presuming) wrote things on official pieces of paper and promulgated this law. Adults. We are so messed up as far as what is "good" in the realm of human sexuality and children, that adults have done this, whether you like it or not. Again, these were "progressives" who have kicked the can down the road, because that is the nature of the movement. Where it stops, nobody knows… (line from Willy Wonka!). (Notice the discombobulation of the politicos at the end of the article? No one knows what to say, and they change the subject.)
Why is abortion without parental consent totally different from sterilization without parental consent?
Lisa, excellent point about Planned Parenthood's absolute commitment to provide abortions at all costs.
ReplyDeleteAlso, that whole outcry ignored the fact that there are plenty of clinics and low income health care options that provide women's health care. Planned Parenthood puts up this charade that they are the only game in town, and in fact, watch this amazing video regarding Indiana and that very same question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqLL-v0JpY0&feature=player_embedded
From Planned Parenthood's own mouth! Astounding!!!!!! They don't even see Medicaid patients for well women care, and they refer them to their own primary doctor, and the neighborhood health clinics!! Saying, "they have the same services" and they are not far away!
(And, PP does not provide mammograms, which is another deception.)
But watch the video. It is UNREAL.
If your child needs your kidney to survive, ,too damn bad. You want to refuse your 6-year-old breast milk in a famine, that’s your choice.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the light inside of you, cs? If you needed a kidney, you'd be singing a different tune. What should my answer to you be if you need a kidney? "Too damn bad"?
Sharon,
ReplyDeleteI need a drink. Because the fact that you continue to call your pro-death penalty, pro-gun, pro-war, anti-envrionment, anti-healthcare posse pro-life is just nauseating
sorry hunny. You are anti-abortion and anti-euthanisia. You are not pro-life.
"You, quite clearly, argue for death without mercy to those who would depend on you for help. So hardened and so sad."
I respect the emotional appeal. But can we talk about what we are legally required to do, and not all this flowery stuff. Because I thought the gov should compel us to do the bare minimum, or have you small gov people reformed your platform.
Because if you would like to create a society in which we all act altruistically and selflessly where we make sure everyone has food before big homes, well that is a conversation I would love to have with you and that is a society we can work on bringing about.
But I will not be talked to by a bunch of personal liberty zealots who toot their absolute rights to endanger public safety by carrying a gun, or who feel entitled to something as petty as their paychecks about being selfish about controlling my own body.
If you insist on having this social darwinistic society don't be upset when you are the only one who wants rights in it.
~CS
CS, when we get on planes, the rule is to put one's own oxygen mask on first, before we put it on our child (in case of emergency). This is in order to make sure that the parent is still conscious in order to help the helpless child. So it's a rule in the interest of the child. Do you know that the rule is in place because the instinct of purdy near 100% of mothers and fathers would be to put the mask on their child, first? To save the child? The airlines have to stress the rule, because it seems to go against our natural instinct to save ourselves before our children. The instinct of a mother or father is to protect our children even at the cost of our own lives.
ReplyDeleteI am thinking you lack this instinct?
Where is the light inside of you, cs? If you needed a kidney, you'd be singing a different tune. What should my answer to you be if you need a kidney? "Too damn bad"?
ReplyDeleteNubby,
Do you think you should be LEGALLY OBLIGATED to give someone else a kidney.
OBVIOUSLY it is a very good and nice thing to give someone a kidney. It is a great sacrifice to volunteer to give someone your kidney. I myself have given blood and recommend it. But I feel very different about voluntarily donating my blood and having the government require I give blood or else,
Do you seriously disagree?
~CS
"who feel entitled to something as petty as their paychecks"
ReplyDeleteUm….? Wow.
Do any of the other atheists or secularists want to defend CS?
CS, you continue to astound, and I hope you keep talking. Miss Gwen has said she would welcome communist ideals here in America. Do you feel the same?
Because if you would like to create a society in which we all act altruistically and selflessly where we make sure everyone has food before big homes, well that is a conversation I would love to have with you and that is a society we can work on bringing about.
Since inherent in altruism and selflessness is the imperative that it not be forced or coerced, then yes, I would love to know how you would bring it about. Please, tell me.
"Every time you speak of motherhood and obligations to one's children and moral living/reasoning in general, I become a little more afraid for the future of our culture. I am glad you say things that you do, however, because people need to understand, without ambiguity, where modern feminist thought has lead us"
ReplyDeleteI am just beating beating beating my head against a law.
Because I have only every talked about what parents should LEGALLY be obligated to do for their children. I have made ZERO inferences on what they should do.
Listen ladies, I think it’s a good idea to take your kids to soccer practice and make them chicken soup when they are sick. And I think it’s a bad idea to have various boyfriends sleep over when you have children. And I think your sort of a horrible person if you could save your kid’s life by donating blood but you refused to do it.
But I think you should have the legal right to do all of those things, and I would fight for your legal right to do al of those things, even if you are in fact a bad person by doing them.
I am not trying to write a parenting manuel here
~CS
"who feel entitled to something as petty as their paychecks"
ReplyDeleteNo Leila,
I am not a communist. But the idea that we somehow should have complete control over how we spend our own money and not what goes on inside our bodies, is un peu comical, doncha think?
~CS
Do you think you should be LEGALLY OBLIGATED to give someone else a kidney.
ReplyDeleteUm.
Are you "legally obligated" to become pregnant?
But the idea that we somehow should have complete control over how we spend our own money and not what goes on inside our bodies, is un peu comical, doncha think?
ReplyDeleteUm, not when there is a separate human being inside our bodies.
So, CS, what do you think of child welfare laws?
ReplyDeleteAnd, what about the question: Is everything that is legal, moral? It may be legal to kill your unborn child, but is it moral? What do you think?
And by the way, we don't have "complete control" of how we spend our money. I could go to jail if I spend my money on an assassination.
ReplyDeleteSo, your point is moot.
But I would love for you to expand more on this, if you are not sympathetic to communism, as Gwen is:
CS: "Because if you would like to create a society in which we all act altruistically and selflessly where we make sure everyone has food before big homes, well that is a conversation I would love to have with you and that is a society we can work on bringing about."
Leila: "Since inherent in altruism and selflessness is the imperative that it not be forced or coerced, then yes, I would love to know how you would bring it about. Please, tell me."
"The instinct of a mother or father is to protect our children even at the cost of our own lives. I am thinking you lack this instinct? "
ReplyDeleteLeila,
I don’t have any kids.
But I certainly think its an instinct that is up to me to develop and its not appropriate for society to tell me I can’t desire to save my own life.
I assume this is one of the reasons abortion disturbs you so, you think girls and women should automatically/ naturally want to do what is best for their unborn over themselves?
~CS
So, CS, what do you think of child welfare laws?
ReplyDeleteAnd, what about the question: Is everything that is legal, moral? It may be legal to kill your unborn child, but is it moral? What do you think?
I think (most) child welfare laws are good. I think some are overzelous though.
Leila, I honestly don't care if abortion is moral. Only that it remains legal
~CS
Thank you for admitting that you don't care about the morality of abortion.
ReplyDeleteThat is actually quite helpful in understanding your philosophy. (Could we extrapolate that morality and moral actions are not your priority?)
I assume this is one of the reasons abortion disturbs you so, you think girls and women should automatically/ naturally want to do what is best for their unborn over themselves?
Two issues. First, the issue of the state's obligation to protect the lives of its citizens. The unborn are human beings and should have the state's protection from harm (that is one of the very few explicit responsibilities of the state).
Should people want to automatically do what is best for others? (Meaning, should they not want to kill their own offspring?) Concupiscence is the tendency to sin. We all have it. We all can go further and further down the road of sin the more we ignore our consciences, OR if our consciences were never formed properly in the first place. Society (which includes much more than laws) should help people do the right thing when it comes to others, not undermine that higher instinct.
But what "disturbs" me about abortion is the 54 million dead human beings, and the women who are left empty (literally and figuratively) in their wake. That is quite a disturbing reality. Abortion is at base, a failure to love. We fail to love the child and we fail to love the mother.
Abortion is a societal tragedy and not something to celebrate. If you don't find it disturbing, then again, I am not sure what to say.
CS: "Because if you would like to create a society in which we all act altruistically and selflessly where we make sure everyone has food before big homes, well that is a conversation I would love to have with you and that is a society we can work on bringing about."
ReplyDeleteLeila: "Since inherent in altruism and selflessness is the imperative that it not be forced or coerced, then yes, I would love to know how you would bring it about. Please, tell me."
Wait why can't selflessness be coerced and forced, you try to coerce women into being selfless all the time! Couldn't we use the same catholic guilt developed for women who obviously don't care to be selfless to their unborn and re-direct that to third world strangers?
But anyway, in a true culture of life, where we valued the right to life above all else, we as individuals wouldn't have luxuries until everyone on the planet had basics. No iphones before everyone had food.
How would we implement this? Tangibly I don't think we could. But philosophically, in a world where the right to life supersedes the right to bodily autonomy and presumably the right to stuff, we would have an obligation to pursue it.
~CS
How could selflessness be coerced or forced? Wouldn't it then be an obligation, and not truly selfless?
ReplyDeleteHow would you define selflessness? I think we might be working under two different interpretations of what that is.
Heidi, I think you are exactly right.
ReplyDeleteAnd, CS, there can be no forced utopia. Communism has tried it, with devastating results. Even Jesus said, "The poor will always be with us." The best way to help the poor isn't to make everyone equally poor. You get that, right? It's to tap the fullest potential in all people, and train children to be moral, so that we can build moral societies where we care for the weakest among us ourselves, and will put others first. Moral training, not government coercion, will help the most people.
As for the Church, not only does she care for the unborn and their mothers (and walks the walk there), but she also "redirects" that care to "Third World strangers". That's sort of 'what we do' as the largest charity on earth. You may not realize it, but you have sort of made the case that everyone should be Catholic! Join us! ;)
ReplyDeleteThe instinct of a mother or father is to protect our children even at the cost of our own lives. I am thinking you lack this instinct?
Leila,
I don’t have any kids.
But I certainly think its in instinct that is up to me to develop and its not appropriate for society to tell me I can’t save my own life.
~CS
CS, how has the 54 million abortions been about "saving" women's lives?
ReplyDelete"Thank you for admitting that you don't care about the morality of abortion. That is actually quite helpful in understanding your philosophy. (Could we extrapolate that morality and moral actions are not your priority?)"
ReplyDeleteYou could extrapolate that something being moral (as you would define it) is not the highest goal as I see it, yes. And that aside from rape, I am not sure that sexual morality even exists. Right you are.
~CS
CS, how has the 54 million abortions been about "saving" women's lives?
ReplyDeleteLeila,
Um my comment
"But I certainly think its in instinct that is up to me to develop and its not appropriate for society to tell me I can’t save my own life."
Was in response to whether or not I would put on my non existent child's airplane mask on before mine, not abortion
~CS
Was in response to whether or not I would put on my non existent child's airplane mask on before mine, not abortion
ReplyDeleteAh, got it. Thanks.
In general, you are a "me" centered person, right? It seems that is how you frame most of your principles. Are you trying to change that (meaning, do you see that as a sin or defect?), or do you think it's a good thing? And if selfishness is important for survival (as I think you see it?) then why do you seem to disparage the notion of keeping one's own earnings rather than turning it over to the government?
You could extrapolate that something being moral (as you would define it) is not the highest goal as I see it, yes. And that aside from rape, I am not sure that sexual morality even exists. Right you are.
Thank you for being very clear on this. I appreciate it sincerely. If rape is possibly the only thing that is immoral regarding use of the sexual faculty, then you would say that consent is the sole criterion of the good, correct?
Also, it makes me wonder about what you wrote here, and if you still believe it? You seemed horrified back then, but if there are no moral considerations to sexual acts (aside from rape) then maybe this post no longer applies?
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/10/remember-college-student-shes-back.html
I am glad you say things that you do, however, because people need to understand, without ambiguity, where modern feminist thought has lead us.
ReplyDeleteLeila, there are the generalizations again. I wish you wouldn't do that!! I consider myself an ardent feminist and I don't agree with a lot of things that CS says.
PP is bemoaning the loss of health care to low income women (mamograms, pap smears, etc), but they don't want to talk about the fact that if they would just stop providing abortions... they would have FULL funding. That's something else that I find interesting - that they say abortions aren't their main concern (and only a small part of their services), but they would throw away the majority of their funding so they can keep providing them.
There is no contradiction here. PP does bemoan the loss of care to women but thinks that providing abortion services is critical to the welfare of women, and at this point, there are fewer and fewer places to get abortions. And I watched the video--and I wonder--it it's SO easy to get nonabortion services other places then why do SO many women to go Planned Parenthood? Obviously, it fills a gap that is not met in any other ways (in providing services OTHER than abortion)
Me: "I actually can't imagine that ANYONE would sterilize a 15 year old--just because something is allowed by law doesn't mean it's actually going to happen. Who on earth would sterilize a fifteen year old, even if she wanted it? Doing an abortion without parental consent is a totally different thing than a sterilization."
Leila:" And yet the State of Oregon went ahead and implemented the law. Meaning, adults (I'm presuming) wrote things on official pieces of paper and promulgated this law. Adults."
Leila--that is a nonsequitur. Unless you are saying that they passed a law specifically stating that teenagers ARE to sterilized--my point is that I can't imagine anyone WOULD sterilize a fifteen year old, regardless of the legality. There are a lot things we don't do because we don't do them--not because of legalities.
I am glad you say things that you do, however, because people need to understand, without ambiguity, where modern feminist thought has lead us.
ReplyDeleteJohanne, generally this is where it has led us. Not all people, not all things. But generally this is the direction it's led us. You are of an older generation of feminists, perhaps not as narcissistic and selfish as the younger ones coming up, so maybe it is shocking to you.
I am going to say again that although I cannot generalize about any individual (I leave it up to you to answer for what precisely you believe on any issue), it is necessary to generalize when we talk about ideas or movements or ideologies, or else we cannot talk at all:
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2010/09/generalizing-is-not-bad-thing.html
WHOOPS! Sorry, that first line was from me! I was responding to this:
DeleteLeila, there are the generalizations again. I wish you wouldn't do that!! I consider myself an ardent feminist and I don't agree with a lot of things that CS says.
And I watched the video--and I wonder--it it's SO easy to get nonabortion services other places then why do SO many women to go Planned Parenthood? Obviously, it fills a gap that is not met in any other ways (in providing services OTHER than abortion)
ReplyDeleteIt seemed like the PP folks thought it was easy to go elsewhere. And as to the question: When I went to PP as a teen, it was known to be the place to go where your parents wouldn't find out. They really cater to that. Plus, the word on the street is that PP is the only place that will provide. How sad is that? Misinformation. Does it bother you at all that Cecile Richards lied?
Leila
ReplyDeleteI haven't been on the blog as long as CS but I've never heard her identify as a feminist (not all progressives are feminists--though they should be!) are claim to speak for feminist ideology.
My experience with younger women is that they often look down on feminism--even disparage it--because they think they're beyond it (I don't know if this is true of CS), which really breaks my heart.
Johanne, I agree about that…. it breaks my heart too, as I am a classical feminist of the Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton ilk. What feminism has become, especially in the realm of "child killing", or pitting mother against child, is horrifying and heartbreaking.
ReplyDeleteCS, are you a feminist? Or merely a progressive?
Leila--that is a nonsequitur. Unless you are saying that they passed a law specifically stating that teenagers ARE to sterilized--my point is that I can't imagine anyone WOULD sterilize a fifteen year old, regardless of the legality. There are a lot things we don't do because we don't do them--not because of legalities.
ReplyDeleteYou have a very high opinion of people! There are people, including many doctors, who will do anything for a buck and they do not care about the woman or girl before them. I think the fact that doctors choose to dismember and shred unborn children every day, and make millions doing so, proves that some doctors will do anything, even the unconscionable.
Gosnell was working in at least two states, and went on for years, making millions:
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/10/and-this-is-soooo-different-from-other.html
This is most definitely no the only atrocity committed by doctors in this nation.
Again, this law about sterilization is the camel's nose under the tent. I believe it's the Netherlands that is now allowing teens to decide to be commit suicide with the help of the state? Teens!
http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/not-for-adults-only/
“The most eye-catching aspect of the bill, and one that has focused international attention on the Netherlands, is that it would give children between the ages of 12 and 16 the right to request euthanasia and — with the doctor’s consent — have their wishes prevail even if their parents object. Those 16 and above would be treated as adults.”
With "progressive" thought like this (the Netherlands are just a few decades ahead of us!), why would sterilization even be an issue?
I"ve only gotten as far as CS's comment at 10:55 a.m. and I wanted to make a point.
ReplyDeleteCS, you keep talking about what is legal and what is moral. You don't want a law telling you you HAVE to do something. Just so you know, St. Paul says something (don't have time to dig it up) to the effect that we are no longer bound by the law. NOT because we don't have to obey the law, but because we have a higher reason for doing the right thing. I don't need a law telling me to give a kidney to my child. I don't need a law telling me not to kill my unborn child. We don't live up to what we know is right all the time, but we don't choose right and wrong based only on the law.
CS is just going all over the place with her comments and if any of you can keep up, I'll be impressed! No matter how you respond she'll find some tangent to go off on and keep up her scorched earth policy. I could go on and on trying to respond to this silly comment: Because the fact that you continue to call your pro-death penalty, pro-gun, pro-war, anti-envrionment, anti-healthcare posse pro-life is just nauseating coming from someone who cares not one whit about the suffering of an unborn child as it is aborted. I'm not getting pulled into a nitpicky discussion with CS over all of that. You are already a dying breed, CS, like I said. How much damage those with your point of view will be able to cause, especially to our children, really is in the hands of God, because it is ultimately His battle. You won't be able to carry on longer than He decides. We can only keep trying to fight the good fight, pray for people like CS because that is what God would want us to do. We will fight to win the battles of our day and know that the victory is ultimately ours. The abortionists won't win, the real people behind the PP philosophy won't win, those who try to drag our children into the Culture of Death won't win.
Have to go help my boys see what clothes they need for the fall. They just cleaned their room and went through the fall clothes for me.
CS, you don't think a teen being sexually abused by an older man or relative would ever be pressured into sterilization? What about pimps making sure their teenage prostitutes are sterilized?
ReplyDeleteCS, you've said you are not an atheist, and yet you admit that you are not concerned with the morality of what may in fact be the killing of innocent human beings.
ReplyDeleteDo you believe in a Heaven or a hell?
Also, CS, you are pro-death penalty - as long as the victim being executed is unborn and innocent. OTOH, I believe in due process of law, and I think the death penalty should be applied very rarely, if there is no other way to protect society.
ReplyDeleteI am pro-gun in that I believe my father-in-law isn't hurting anybody when he goes deer hunting, and I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to own a hunting rifle.
I am not pro-war, but I do believe that war is sometimes necessary as a last resort to protect the rights of others.
Perhaps you should quit drinking the liberal Kool-Aid, thnk for yourself, and take a look at why some people who are conservative believe as they do. It seems that are against more of a caricature of conservative beliefs as opposed to actual conservative beliefs.
It seems that are against more of a caricature of conservative beliefs as opposed to actual conservative beliefs.
ReplyDeleteJoAnna, that is the perfect way to put it!
seems that is how you frame most of your principles. Are you trying to change that (meaning, do you see that as a sin or defect?), or do you think it's a good thing? And if selfishness is important for survival (as I think you see it?) then why do you seem to disparage the notion of keeping one's own earnings rather than turning it over to the government?”
ReplyDeleteLeila,
What other things have you heard me talk about besides abortion and sex that would lead you to this conclusion.
I don’t even believe in buying coffee or chocolate for goodness sake because of the human torture involved in the process. and I have dissuaded people from using birth control because of the environmental effects of an esterogenic water supply.
I would love to talk to you about moving our society to a more selfless place, but the first collective thing we need to give up is our ‘stuff’ not our personal space.
~CS
“Also, it makes me wonder about what you wrote here, and if you still believe it? You seemed horrified back then, but if there are no moral considerations to sexual acts (aside from rape) then maybe this post no longer applies? ”
ReplyDeleteLeila,
Its almost hard to explain but I’ll try. There is an adjustment to be made when your parent’s let you make your own decisions and allow you to do things they once told you not to do.. And the confusion that results is less because they are encouraging the immoral, and more because they are acknowledging that they never thought it was immoral in the first place.
~CS
So, they taught you that casual sex before marriage was immoral, but they didn't really think it was?
ReplyDeleteAnd that is why you said we are going to hell (symbolically)? So, really, parents (and you when you are a parent) should just allow the kids to have sex in the bedrooms (after the age of consent, I'm guessing)?
Sorry, yes, it's hard to understand.
Are you a feminist? I want to get to Johanne's comment.
Are they acknowledging that they never thought it was immoral, or are they acknowledging the fact that you are now an adult and able to exercise your free will without input from them?
ReplyDeleteI don't think allowing you to make your own mistakes is the same as condoning the activities you choose to participate in.
Can you explain your definitions of selfishness and selflessness? I'm really confused. On one hand, you seem to be really against those of us who earn money using it in the way we judge to be most prudent (you might see my husband's iphone as extravagant, we see it as necessary for his job - he's a physician and the iphone allows him to check patient's charts and answer questions/concerns more efficiently)......but yet at the same time seem to argue that selfishness when it comes to matters of sexuality are okay/ideal. So which is it - is it good to be selfish (have sex because you want the enjoyment, but don't want the natural consequence of it) or is it bad to be selfish ( buy an iphone instead of donating to a third world country)?
What other things have you heard me talk about besides abortion and sex that would lead you to this conclusion.
ReplyDeleteDo you think there is truth to what I've repeated from David Horowitz (former Communist activist, turned conservative): "Liberals are only liberal on two things: Sex and drugs. On everything else, they want to control your lives." So, like how much soda one can buy in New York City, what kind of lightbulbs one can have, what kind of insurance one must buy, even if it violates one's conscience, how high the awnings on one's shop can be, etc. etc.? It sounds like you may have that kind of philosophy?
“CS, you don't think a teen being sexually abused by an older man or relative would ever be pressured into sterilization? What about pimps making sure their teenage prostitutes are sterilized?”
ReplyDeleteJoAnna,
I could see that happening. But I almost don’t understand how parental consent laws would effect this? In every procedure I have ever had as a child, no one ever id’ed my mother. Or drew blood or did anything at all to verify that she was my mother, all she did was show up and sign someone’s name.
It would seem that whether or not we allow people to be sterilized at all is more meaningful than if they have parental consent.
~CS
Leila,
ReplyDeleteYes I'm a feminist.
~CS
CS, Johanne seems to be saddened by a lot of what you say in the name of feminism. What would you say to her? Is yours the newer, more relevant feminism?
ReplyDeleteHi Heidi,
ReplyDeleteSo which is it - is it good to be selfish (have sex because you want the enjoyment, but don't want the natural consequence of it) or is it bad to be selfish ( buy an iphone instead of donating to a third world country)?
my ultimate answer is its ‘okay’ to be selfish because its too damn difficult to avoid it. But if we are going to call people out on being selfish we need to call them out on everything, not just their desire to have sex.
~CS
Virtue is difficult, but become easier once it's practiced.
ReplyDeleteIt's even more difficult in a culture that does not value virtue.
Are you saying that we should call people out on both sexual selfishness (lust) and material selfishness (greed)? If so, then once again, you are making a very good case for being Catholic! ;)
“It sounds like you may have that kind of philosophy?”
ReplyDeleteSure Leila we can generalize that all liberals are liberal about is sex and drugs so long as we can say the only thing conservatives are small gov about is regulations for corporations. I’m fine with those generalizations.
“CS, Johanne seems to be saddened by a lot of what you say in the name of feminism. What would you say to her? Is yours the newer, more relevant feminism?”
I am not the voice of feminism. Many of my opinions are my own. I think the rights of women to vote, own property, not be beaten or raped, be paid the same as men, use contraception, have abortions, have as little or as much sex as they choose and decide for themselves if they want to be wives and mothers is pretty for ‘feminism’ though
~CS
Sure Leila we can generalize that all liberals are liberal about is sex and drugs so long as we can say the only thing conservatives are small gov about is regulations for corporations. I’m fine with those generalizations.
ReplyDeleteYou forgot the part about "for everything else, they want to control your lives".
But as for what you said, that would not be a generalization for conservatives. You may be thinking of businessmen only? "Conservative" includes social conservatism or else it's mere libertarianism. How about this: conservatism champions smaller federal government (we like subsidiarity), less bureaucracy and centralized control over the lives of citizens, in addition to holding traditional views of the social issues of marriage and abortion.
I'm okay with that generalization, and I am glad you are okay with what Horowitz says.
I am not the voice of feminism. Many of my opinions are my own. I think the rights of women to vote, own property, not be beaten or raped, be paid the same as men, use contraception, have abortions, have as little or as much sex as they choose and decide for themselves if they want to be wives and mothers is pretty for ‘feminism’ though
ReplyDeleteDo you have any idea why Johanne is not the same kind of feminist you are?
I would agree with Leila - you're making the case for Catholicism, CS.
ReplyDeleteFollow up question for you, though. You put okay in quotations - why is that? Is it really okay with you to be selfish, or do you think that it's just not worth fighting it?
In other words, do you condone selfish behaviour as acceptable, or would you prefer something else? What would be your ideal?
How could we accomplish that ideal, if it's something other than selfishness?
Do you have any idea why Johanne is not the same kind of feminist you are?
ReplyDeleteLeila,
what kind of feminist is JoHanne?
~CS
No Leila,
ReplyDelete"in addition to holding traditional views of the social issues of marriage and abortion.
completely wrong.
A small government has no opinions on whether two men get married. I can at least respect Ron Paul for that.
Conservatives views on small government are at complete odds with their views on porn, gay marriage, how many sex partners is appropriate for a person to have.
~CS
"Conservatives views on small government are at complete odds with their views on porn, gay marriage, how many sex partners is appropriate for a person to have."
ReplyDeleteI don't believe "number of sex partners" is something conservatives want to legislate. But it is entirely appropriate for a free country, full of liberty, to say that individuals cannot be killed (like I said, that is one of the few legitimate responsibilities of the federal government, protection of citizens' lives). You make it a sex issue, but to us it's a human rights issue, the right to life being paramount. Without life, one cannot have any other rights.
As for marriage…. yes, as the very foundational building block of society, it's not prudent in any way to up and redefine it to mean homosexual, when it never has been defined as that for the history of the world. Call me crazy for such a far fetched idea that marriage requires a bride and groom. ;)
Again, you think it's all about 'free sex' vs. 'no free sex'. But that's not how it is.
Also, it seems that when it comes to anything touching on sex (aside from rape) you want to see no societal standards at all. (Why shouldn't a community be allowed to have a say on porn in their community, for example?)
Do you feel that way about things other than sex?
Why is sex the biggest (and only?) issue for you, as far as freedom goes? Do you think that true human freedom comes in the ability to have sex whenever and with whomever and whatever one would like, with no consequences or judgement?
Where do you get that, if so?
Could you answer Heidi's first question?
Johanne, do you disagree with parts of the feminist view that CS has put forth here? You don't sound nearly as in favor of "selfishness" and license as she does. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, Leila, this post has covered SO many issues (and I haven't read all the posts carefully) that at this point I'm not clear about what CS has said in relation to feminism!! It would be easier to compare point by point, but I really don't know what purpose that would serve. I have no issue with CS saying whatever she wants--I just have issue with it being defined as "feminism" generally. For instance, I don't think the hook-up culture is at all good for women. At the same time I basically agree with what CS said--that women should be paid the same, not raped or beaten, be able to vote, and I think they should be able to use contraception, control their own sex lives and have abortions as well.
ReplyDeleteBut perhaps I have a different view than some (mostly younger women--don't know about CS--I really don't want this to be about comparing her to me!!!--just let us each have our own voice) in that I don't think promiscuity is good for women--not that it's immoral. And I think unwanted pregnancy should be avoided at all costs--because it's harmful to women. I had a boyfriend for several years in my 20s--we were even engaged at one point. We lived together and were sexually intimate but we didn't have intercourse because I didn't want to get pregnant. To me, that was a manifestation of my feminism. I actually don't know if this is related to anything you're asking. And I think that porn is bad for women. But I DEFINITELY don't think that being sexual outside of marriage is bad for women--as long as they don't put themselves at risk. I wish women would express their sexuality in ways that didn't put them at risk.
Having gotten pregnant by rape has given me a certain slant on things.
When I worked at Planned Parenthood (many years ago!) I began my job thinking that teenage sex was fine. That was the cultural norm. But after several years of counseling sexually active teenagers I changed my view. It causes them too many problems.
But thinking something isn't good for women is different than the Catholic view that certain things are sinful. I agree with CS that women should have control over their choices but there are certain choices i don't think should be celebrated. I dont' know if any of this makes any sense. I also think women who choose to fill traditional roles should be respected. It's not possible to venerate women and not respect the work they have traditionally done.
Sorry about all this rambling. Off to dinner.
I appreciate your thoughts, Johanne. Yes, I think I understand what you are saying, and yes, it's different on my points than Catholicism (but not all).
ReplyDeleteIf you don't mind my asking, did you ever want to have children (I think you've said you have none)? That's just my curiosity, not to make any point. And, you don't have to answer.
Also, what do you consider "immoral" as far as sexual behavior? Is porn immoral? I'm guessing that like CS you don't think of sexuality in moral terms (aside from consent)?
And if that's true, then are you saying that consent is the sole criterion of the good? And, in sexual matters only, or in all areas of human behavior?
I hope I am making sense.
Thanks!
*different on many points than Catholicism
DeleteIt sounds like you don't agree with the aspects of CS's philosophy that include "me first", and a looking down the nose at motherhood as a vocation (still not sure how her exalting of career and economics for women above all else, including family squares with her idea that capitalism is and materialism are disdainful, but I digress).
ReplyDeleteAnd I guess you wouldn't agree with her when she defends the hook-up culture, and that the "constant sobbing" by the women is only the sign of their immaturity that they eventually grow out of if they are strong women.
I think (correct me if I am wrong CS!) that she sees these things as part of a vibrant, strong feminism.
Heidi,
ReplyDelete“Follow up question for you, though. You put okay in quotations - why is that? Is it really okay with you to be selfish, or do you think that it's just not worth fighting it?”
To be honest I really don’t want to have a philosophical discussion about selfishness. But ultimately because selfishness to a point is why society flourishes, people don’t get married and have children and go to work everyday for altruistic sake.
~CS
Leila,
ReplyDelete“Also, it seems that when it comes to anything touching on sex (aside from rape) you want to see no societal standards at all. (Why shouldn't a community be allowed to have a say on porn in their community, for example?)
A community can have a say on porn, I just think the idea of making it illegal is fundamentally antithetical to the idea of small government.
Why is sex the biggest (and only?) issue for you, as far as freedom goes? Do you think that true human freedom comes in the ability to have sex whenever and with whomever and whatever one would like, with no consequences or judgement?
Say what??? Sex is the only thing we are talking about, which is why I was talking about it and not other things, which in my mind makes sense? I am against the idea of society mandating people wait until they are married to have sex and shaming all people (mostly women) who fail to do so. This hardly equates to the idea that I think true liberty is only realized through casual sex.
~CS
Leila and Johanne, I will be addressing you both if you don’t mind!
ReplyDelete“It sounds like you don't agree with the aspects of CS's philosophy that include "me first",”
Leila, By this you mean the attitude that ;I should take birth control if I want to or have an abortion if I want to?
Johanne? If this is her definition of a “me first” attitude don’t you indeed support it.?
~CS
A community can have a say on porn, I just think the idea of making it illegal is fundamentally antithetical to the idea of small government.
ReplyDeleteYou may misunderstand what a conservative means by "small govt". We are okay with speed limits, laws against theft, murder, etc. We like things to be done as close to the community as possible in things like speed limits, education, community zoning, etc. (Subsidiarity.) But limited gov't ("Don't tell me I can't buy a coke or have that Big Mac") does not mean no government.
I am against the idea of society mandating people wait until they are married to have sex and shaming all people (mostly women) who fail to do so.
"mandating" shame? How would one mandate that?
But, if culture has no norms or standards in a realm as crucial to children and society, this is what we can expect (and in fact is exactly what we have):
http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/?q=node/196
And, we have been talking about a lot more than sex. If you don't think there should be any societal norms on sexual activity, then do you think parents should teach any norms there? Or just let it be judgement free? And, should there be societal norms (shaming??) on any other issues? Like lying, stealing, cheating? Just wondering.
“And I guess you wouldn't agree with her when she defends the hook-up culture, and that the "constant sobbing" by the women is only the sign of their immaturity that they eventually grow out of if they are strong women.”
ReplyDeleteLeila, I defend the idea of the hook up culture, meaning I defend the idea that women should be allowed to participate in it without it affecting her economic or marriage prospects as it once did. I also acknowledge that each woman is different and that hooking up is devastating to some women and enjoyable to others, and each woman should participate/abstain accordingly. I think the hook up culture has had a lot of negative impacts for women—I for one end up falling in love with everyone and I tell ya, it’s a real bummer! And if you proposed a modern alternative to me that didn’t resemble the sixteen hundreds I might take it. But if the options are hook up culture v chastity and all that accompanies it, then yes I think women are in a better place with the hook up culture, but I do think we could work on the culture
What do you think Johanne,
I think (correct me if I am wrong CS!) that she sees these things as part of a vibrant, strong feminism.
Again what I see as a strong part of feminism is: women having the right to vote, determine their own sex lives, women owning property, women having access to contraception and abortion, women not getting sexually abused or battered or being in relationships that facilitate these things.
Pretty simple
~CS
CS, many people here have been chilled by your callousness and also saddened by your statement that indeed your generation is selfish.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest I really don’t want to have a philosophical discussion about selfishness.
ReplyDeleteI know this is for Heidi, but I hope she doesn't mind if I ask, why not?
But ultimately because selfishness to a point is why society flourishes, people don’t get married and have children and go to work everyday for altruistic sake.
I disagree. People marry and have children because that is a good. Marriage is a good. Children are gifts, they are a good. Going to work to provide for one's family and to contribute to society are goods. They are good. This things may be twisted to selfishness, such as children as commodity, marriage for money, or having a career in order to dominate others, but those are twistings of good things.
Sex is a good, but basing it on selfishness is twisting that good. Any good thing can be twisted and corrupted.
Why don't you want to have the discussion?
Also, I know I fire a lot of questions at you, so forgive me. But if you could answer whether or not you believe in a heaven and hell?
I'm not trying to get into a debate over definitions....I'm trying to better understand your opinions. I am interested in taking you up on the offer of discussing getting our society into a more selfless place, which you've made multiple times now, but to do that we need to be using a common group of definitions. It's just semantics, and I'm trying to move us past the whole "nanny nanny boo boo" kind of discussion that seems to be erupting.
ReplyDeleteI'll be completely honest, I don't understand some of your logic and points. It doesn't mean you are wrong or I am right or what have you.....it probably means we are talking past each other, and the whole selfishness thing keeps coming up, post after post. If we can define what makes something selfish vs selfless, we can start to examine the moral paradigm we are each operating in, and get into a real discussion here, instead of conservatives-this and liberals-that.
I do think that you might be misunderstanding the true small govt argument. It's not small as in nonexistent....it's small as in, as local as possible. Subsidiarity.
Along those lines.....if liberals want big govt and social programs.....why does that mean govt can't control what happens in the bedroom or in the courts (ie marriage) or in the hospital ( ie medical decisions) when it comes to sex and pregnancy? If we are just taking broad generalizations about groups, the logic isn't there for the left side of things, either. That's why broad generalizations aren't working in a format like this, and definitions (such as for selfish vs selfless) are necessary.
I also acknowledge that each woman is different and that hooking up is devastating to some women and enjoyable to others, and each woman should participate/abstain accordingly. I think the hook up culture has had a lot of negative impacts for women
ReplyDeleteYou mention the effects on women. How do you think the hook-up culture affects children? And men? And marriages? And a stable society?
And, why do you think the virtue of chastity and all that accompanies it (including the freedom from worries of pregnancy, disease, hormonal side effects of chemicals, being used by men and discarded, etc.?) is something from the 16th century? What other virtue do you feel that way about? Why do you think chastity will stifle your life as a woman? Can you see that it is a positive good in many young women's lives? What if a man actually took time, even months and months of time, looking at your eyes, talking to you and listening to what you say, having no motive to try and get in your pants, but only wanting to know who you are? What if you could build a relationship like that, on something real and lasting, and not on "when can we get alone so we can get naked?"
Can you see nothing beautiful and dignified in a chaste relationship, saving the intimacy of commitment and love for, well, a real and lasting commitment of love?
Sorry, I just find that women have truly degraded themselves, and the men have become degraded as well. We can't even see it anymore. The millions upon millions of dead babies, and the inability to have stable relationships, including marriages, should be a clue. Along with the "constant sobbing".
But I forget, we grow out of that. Or, maybe we just harden our hearts, which is not so much a growing out of….
Anyway, sorry to ramble. I wish I knew then what I know now. Oh, to get a do-over! (Though confession was true healing to the soul….)
I think I'll let Venerable Fulton Sheen add to our discussion: http://youtu.be/MvRd4RLDw14
ReplyDeleteGod bless :)
"Also, what do you consider "immoral" as far as sexual behavior? Is porn immoral? I'm guessing that like CS you don't think of sexuality in moral terms (aside from consent)?
ReplyDeleteAnd if that's true, then are you saying that consent is the sole criterion of the good? And, in sexual matters only, or in all areas of human behavior?
Leila--we might be missing each other with the term "immoral." I guess I'm saying that I don't believe in immorality in the sense that certain things are sinful and will send you to hell. I don't believe any of that.
But I would never say that consent is the only criterion for what is good and healthy sexual behavior. In Buddhism one of the five basic precepts is not to cause harm to another in the context of sexuality. Harm can be caused by infidelity, dishonesty, or just being unloving. I think it's very rare that harm isn't caused when sexuality is used as recreation--it's just too intimate. But the line between activity that will cause pregnancy and/or transmission of disease if very important to me.
And, why do you think the virtue of chastity and all that accompanies it (including the freedom from worries of pregnancy, disease, hormonal side effects of chemicals, being used by men and discarded, etc.?)
It's possible to have freedom from all the things you listed without being "chaste," as in refraining from all sexual activity.
And yes, I always wanted children, but it never worked out. I have a good friend, a single mom, whose daughters I am very close to and they are a joy to me.
Leila, By this you mean the attitude that ;I should take birth control if I want to or have an abortion if I want to?
Johanne? If this is her definition of a “me first” attitude don’t you indeed support it.?
CS: I'm not exactly certain what Leila means by the "me first" attitude as there has been SO much discussion under this post. I definitely think women should have the right to take birth control or have abortions. But I also think that engaging in sexual activity that requires taking hormones or exposes them to risk of pregnancy, disease, or feeling used, is not necessarily in their interest--and as a feminist, I like to see women stick up for themselves. I think women capitulate to the kind of sexuality that is most satisfying to men and that bothers me. I don't know if this makes sense. It's sad to me that women are sometimes in the position of wanting to get an abortion but I ABSOLUTELY think that woman have to have the right to do that. As long as we live in a world where women can't necessarily control whether or not they get pregnant they have to have the ability to end a pregnancy. the alternative is untenable. And I will never see the "pro-life" position as a feminist one.
But if the options are hook up culture v chastity and all that accompanies it, then yes I think women are in a better place with the hook up culture, but I do think we could work on the culture
What do you think Johanne,
I think there is a HUGE array of options between the hook-up culture and chastity. My goodness. God help us if those were our only two options! It think chastity is fine for women who want it, but one can enjoy sexuality without being in the hook-up scene. I was monogamous for years with one man--certainly not chaste, but definitely not in the hook-up culture. And I didn't put myself at risk of pregnancy. That felt healthy to me.
How do you define chastity?
ReplyDeleteIn the catholic vernacular, chastity does not equal celibacy. Chastity is directly related to your role in life. Even married couples are called to chastity - it is about respecting and honoring both the gift of sexuality AND the dignity of your spouse. So you can be chaste and still have a very fulfilling sex life. ;-)
There isn't a dichotomy between chaste and a satisfying sex life. Chastity is not about depriving oneself of sexual encounters, it's about sexual morality, and avoiding immoral instances of sex.
Thanks, Johanne! I think that other than your commitment to abortion, you do hold position that is much softer than CS's.
ReplyDeleteAnd I will never see the "pro-life" position as a feminist one.
So Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the others…they were not fully feminists because they did not believe that a mother and child should be enemies, pitted against one another to the death? What do you think of them? The idea that being fully woman means believing in the right to kill our own offspring is absurd. The thought of killing our children, no matter how young, no matter how small, should make women naturally recoil. It is actually the antithesis of everything we are as women to order our children dead. Feminists don't fight oppression by becoming the oppressor, and that was the fatal flaw of modern feminism. Abortion is an anti-women as it gets.
I see the suffragists as incredible role models for women, yet who still believed in human dignity and virtue. Then we go down the timeline in the feminist movement, and abortion as sacrament becomes the place where we really lose our marbles. Child killing has no place in true feminism.
Anyway, I think that Johanne was raised in a genteel enough age that there was still an understanding of dignity and propriety, to a point (correct me if I'm wrong, Johanne). But in the past 15 years or so, we have slid further down the "progression" of feminism, to get to point that we could have that article on hook-ups (in the Atlantic, was it?) and the attitudes of CS. So now, even the first pro-"choice" feminists are a bit taken aback by the degrading (sorry, it's true) way young women approach sex. It's going to get worse before it gets better, but a feminism firmly entrenched in the Culture of Death will ultimately implode upon itself, taking a lot of victims with it. The Culture of Death can only lead to, well, death, and life and love will ultimately win out.
Leila--we might be missing each other with the term "immoral." I guess I'm saying that I don't believe in immorality in the sense that certain things are sinful and will send you to hell. I don't believe any of that.
Johanne, if you don't believe in immorality in that way, then are you saying that if a person murders another person (for example), there is no eternal penalty, no ultimate judgement?
women .. have to have the ability to end a pregnancy. the alternative is untenable. What is the alternative, literally? That there is no violence, no bloodshed, and a child is born? How is that untenable? How is that worse than killing the child?
Sorry if I'm all over the place…
Amen, Heidi. As I've said (and as soooooo many women on this blog have said), I've lived the Planned Parenthood way, and I've lived the Catholic way, and there is no comparison with regards to satisfaction and joy. ;)
ReplyDeleteSex is a Renoir, and one can either line the birdcage with it, or one can treat it with reverence, enjoying it for the masterpiece it is! But one cannot do both at the same time.
@ Heidi--thank you. I didn't know that. I thought chastity meant no sexual activity.
ReplyDeleteJohanne, I am glad Heidi cleared that up. I always forget that sometimes we don't speak the same "language"!
ReplyDeleteI thought this was good:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) defines chastity as the successful integration of sexuality within the person (no. 2337). This definition speaks of a much greater achievement than preserving one’s virginity for one’s spouse or simply remaining celibate altogether, which is how many of us were taught to view this virtue. Chastity comes under the cardinal virtue of temperance, which involves “permeating the appetites of the senses with reason”—using discernment to govern physical instinct. Obviously not every impulse we have to eat, drink, buy, take, or do is a wise one. Our values assist us in making responsible choices in all of these matters, including how to use and not misuse the sexual energy that makes us the vital people we are.
Source: http://www.vocationnetwork.org/articles/show/170
What is the alternative, literally?
ReplyDeleteI can't really get into a huge discussion now, but here's a very interesting article that talks about the alternative. It's not quite as simple as "no violence, no bloodshed, and a child is born". The article is a bit long but definitely worth a read. Quote:
"The arguments would be endless, but they would be irrelevant to the facts: From the moment I started looking for an abortion, not once did I even consider going through with the pregnancy. Not for one second. It simply was not going to happen. Nothing, and I mean nothing, was going to stop me, and it could have cost me my life. And this is what I had in common with millions and millions of women throughout time and history. When a woman does not want to be pregnant, the drive to become unpregnant can turn into a force equal to the nature that wants her to stay pregnant. And then she will look for an abortion, whether it's legal or illegal, clean or filthy, safe or riddled with danger. This is simply a fact, whatever our opinion of it. And whether we like it or not, humans, married and unmarried, will continue to have sex—wisely, foolishly, violently, nicely, hostilely, pleasantly, dangerously, responsibly, carelessly, sordidly, exaltedly—and there will be pregnancies: wanted, unwanted, partly wanted, partly unwanted."
I think I'm at the point where I do understand your anti-abortion position, but I agree with Johanne - it's untenable (actually, for what it's worth, I agree with just about everything Johanne has said, not just this). What would your response to this be? I know I'm more guilty than anyone of saying "we need broader societal change" but I really am curious as to how you'd answer the writer's assertions. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI really am curious as to how you'd answer the writer's assertions.
Simple: A turn from sin, violence, and death, and a turn towards virtue, compassion and love.
Just because sin has been here forever, and always will be, does not mean that a society has to condone that sin, including the killing of the youngest and weakest among us. No matter how powerful the emotions at play, the question at base is still, "May we kill innocent human beings?" Truly, that question trumps all others. You are saying "Yes, we may." We are saying, "No, we may not." You believe there is no God, so it doesn't matter if we do. We believe God very much loves and cares for all His children, that they are not disposable, and that we may not harm the innocent.
What if another atrocity were defended using the types of reasoning she laid out? How would you answer those assertions?
By the way, there are millions upon millions of "wanted, unwanted, partly wanted, partly unwanted" adults in the world today, or children sitting in orphanages with "defects", Down Syndrome, etc.
ReplyDeleteWhat arguments do you use to guard against their killing, starvation, neglect, or disposal?
existenceandessence - the writer may have gone through with the abortion no matter what - or maybe not, we don't know. There are countless examples of people attempting suicide, and being prevented from doing so by better angels, much to their regret at that very moment, much to their relief and joy later on.
ReplyDeleteBut even if this were not the case - must we facilitate what is inherently wrong? I am sure that the number of abortions would fall precipitously if Roe v. Wade were abolished. Yes, there will always be illegal abortions. And no, we should not punish the women who choose illegal abortions, only the doctors and others who (help to) perform the abortion. But countless women will choose other alternatives and be eternally grateful, and countless children will be born, and happy, and contribute to society, and make their parents - biological or adoptive - happy. It is about not facilitating abortions, and making women and men think twice before engaging in the reproductive act. It is about not facilitating that which is wrong, or sin in Catholic parlance.
Michelle, I am glad you understand my position, though. It is based on a) the undisputed science that a new human being is begun at conception, and b) that we may not kill innocent human beings.
ReplyDeleteVery simple, scientific, logical.
I find that your opinion is based in emotion and metaphysical opinions (which I find odd for an atheist). But we've gone over that before.
"When a woman does not want to be pregnant, the drive to become unpregnant can turn into a force equal to the nature that wants her to stay pregnant. And then she will look for an abortion, whether it's legal or illegal, clean or filthy, safe or riddled with danger. This is simply a fact, whatever our opinion of it." Being a man, I cannot really comment on the feeling, other than to say that it struck me as being almost a possession, in the Catholic sense. The woman is possessed by the desire to destroy, and NOTHING WILL STOP HER, not even danger to herself. And we should help in that? Rather than help HER to be rid of such demons (I am not necessarily alluding to exorcism here, though I have no doubt that this can also be helpful in some such cases)?
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't really answer my question though. I know your solution is to ban all abortion, but I hope it's obvious that that's not a complete solution. The problem's not going to disappear - in the real world, there's always going to be unwanted pregnancies and people desperate to end them. Of course, I understand the tendency to just say "we need to change on a fundamental level" because that's usually my answer for everything, but there's a difference between ultimate goals (the turn from sin etc) and practical measures to get there.
ReplyDeleteI don't have a specific answer I'm hoping to hear from you. I have the same problem with other issues, where I know what we have isn't right and we need to change deep down, but how to get there - I don't know. I just know that, even in an ideal world where broad social change is possible and happens, there's going to be an interim where you can't ignore serious problems like the ones outlined in that article. If you don't have a ready proposal for how to deal with that interim, it's okay, I'm just curious whether you do have any ideas.
Hope that makes sense.
Michelle, I hope you never got the idea from me that banning all abortions would be a "complete solution". Not even close!
ReplyDeleteIf we ban all theft, with thieving stop? If we ban all wife beating, will wife beating stop? Etc… No, of course not!!
Sin will never, ever be eradicated from this earth, as long as there is the capacity for darkness in the human heart, and that will be true as long as there is free will.
Like I said, a turn to virtue, compassion and love is the only solution for the individual, and society must support that, not turn from it.
But if you are looking for ways to stop evil actions? You won't find it on this earth. That is why the concept of an atheist "utopia" or an evolution out of immorality is just folly. It will not happen.
But by God's grace, and by His love, we can move ourselves out of the sewer of sin that we so often find ourselves in, by our own dark hearts. Society should uphold the virtues, not encourage selfishness. Sometimes laws are necessary, sometimes merely societal pressures, etc.
Sometimes laws are necessary, sometimes merely societal pressures, etc.
DeleteI should add, this is to protect and aid the weak-willed among us, so that they don't hurt themselves and others. For those as they approach sanctity (the saints for example), they don't need laws and pressures to be "good". They are good because they have aligned their wills to God's, and would not dream of offending His goodness and rejecting His love. But for the rest of us, we need a bit of help to keep us on track, at least until we decide to walk toward the light and away from the darkness of our own sin and selfishness.
Sebastian, that kind of language is almost like a possession. It is a fury. It is very scary.
Compare the words of that woman in fury with Mother Teresa's words and actions, for example. Night and day. And no one, not anyone on earth, would fear Mother Teresa or recoil if she approached, anticipating that she would harm or abuse them. She didn't need laws to move her to do good. She loved God completely and that was enough. And aside from some very dark hearts, the whole world recognized her goodness.
ReplyDeleteNow, if that woman in fury that Michelle quotes were to ask to babysit my children? I would lock my doors and not let her anywhere near my house!
Anyway, I need to go get breakfast. Hope that made some kind of sense!
Anyway,
Michelle, the more I think about it, you are missing something very deep, and that is the capacity for darkness in the human heart. No laws, no outside forces, can take that away unless the man (or woman) concurs. The human heart is a complex thing, and if one operates on a purely materialistic premise for all of life and human behavior, one misses an entire dimension of human mystery.
ReplyDeleteMuch has been written on the darkness of the human heart. Such a thing does not exist in animals, by the way. A lion does not "choose" good over evil. He just does what he does. Not so a man.
But again, this is a realm that you have not likely investigated as an atheist. So, not all the puzzle pieces of human evil have been put together for you yet. I have to add that the capacity for light and goodness in the human heart is also fully available to us! What makes us "like God" is that we have intellect (knowing) and will (choosing).
We can know and we can choose. There is much power for good there, and much, much power for evil.
Okay, really need breakfast….
So... since Hitler was determined the exterminate the Jewish race at any cost, and white supremacy will always be present despite laws against it, we should accept it as a fact of life and make the extermination of Jews fully legal and acceptable? Would you be okay with that, Michelle?
ReplyDeleteThe article also begs the question... if a woman is so determined to be "unpregnant," perhaps she should abstain from the activity that causes pregnancy. (Insert caveats about rape here.)
I just thought this girl's words were too coincidental not to post:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.standtrue.com/zoegriffin/
"dark hearts"
I haven't said or heart that phrase in months, and here it is, today, again! There are no real coincidences.
h/t to JoAnna!
I think JoAnna's question gets to the heart of it, so I'll answer that. Working within your perspective, I understand why you would ban abortion. I'm not arguing with that. But to make your hypothetical more analogous, if white supremacists were going to kill themselves if they couldn't burn crosses into the lawns of African American families, or whatever, we still have a problem on our hands, don't we? You make it illegal to do what they're doing, sure, but you wouldn't (I hope) just leave it at that. There's still more of a problem to be fixed (the white supremacists killing themselves) before society has moved to a place where white supremacists don't exist. Does that make sense?
ReplyDeleteLike I said, I don't have a solution in mind for the hypothetical situation where Roe v Wade is reversed and we still have people who want abortions. I think that's part of my problem with this - it's easy to say people should just abstain, but they don't. To me, it's a question of how you meet people where they're at and help them there. They might not be where they should be, but we should have some idea of how to help them so they don't resort to desperate measures.
Sure, Michelle. I'd want those KKK members to get into counseling posthaste to address their self-destructive tendencies.
ReplyDeletebut there's a difference between ultimate goals (the turn from sin etc) and practical measures to get there.
ReplyDelete"Practical measures" implies we are working toward the same "ultimate goal". Is that the case between us, yet, Michelle?
if white supremacists were going to kill themselves if they couldn't burn crosses into the lawns of African American families, or whatever, we still have a problem on our hands, don't we? You make it illegal to do what they're doing, sure, but you wouldn't (I hope) just leave it at that. There's still more of a problem to be fixed (the white supremacists killing themselves) before society has moved to a place where white supremacists don't exist. Does that make sense?
ReplyDeleteNo, it does not. Are we supposed to play Hitler and decide who should be extinguished?
Roe v Wade is reversed and we still have people who want abortions. I think that's part of my problem with this - it's easy to say people should just abstain, but they don't. To me, it's a question of how you meet people where they're at and help them there.
ReplyDeleteNo Catholic here would disagree with that. But you have to fundamentally be on the same page toward the ultimate goal, which is Life. Counseling is available, and should be. Catholics live to advocate for this kind of care of the whole person - body, soul, spirit.
Also, the left likes to say they want to encourage adoptions, but I don't find that to be true in reality. Abortion seems to be the first resort and the best solution to the "problem" of an unwanted child. There really is no "unwanted" child…. There are two million (more?) couples waiting, sometimes years, to adopt infants in this nation. We throw them on the garbage heap instead of loving them into life and then placing them in families to live their lives. Why not adoption?
ReplyDeleteSure, Michelle. I'd want those KKK members to get into counseling posthaste to address their self-destructive tendencies.
ReplyDeleteWhat JoAnna said! Do you agree, Michelle?
Nubby, no, we're still totally in disagreement. JoAnna understood my point. I just don't see the general Catholic position as acknowledging that shit is still going to happen and people are still going to have unwanted pregnancies and people are still going to seek out abortions no matter what. Ultimately, your goal (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am) is (1) no abortion and (2) no people in a position where they want to get an abortion. Right now, those people who want an abortion can for the most part get one (with some difficulty in some places). But if you were to make abortion illegal, there will still be people who want abortions and will go to any lengths to get one. I think it's important, no matter what side you're on, to have some idea of what can be done for these people so, basically, they don't resort to dangerous "back-alley" abortions.
ReplyDeleteJoAnna, yes, counseling. But I'm not sure that's enough when you consider the desperation of the writer of that article. I'll say it again - I really am not trying to push anyone towards an answer I've come up with. I don't have one. I'm just imagining a country where abortion is illegal, but you have just about the same amount of demand for abortions. The picture painted in that article is an ugly one, and I do understand where you're coming from when you say that abortion itself is ugly, I really do get that. But as much as I don't like the idea of banning abortion, I really don't like the idea of banning abortion and having minimal support for people who are going to get abortions at any cost.
That's to say nothing of the issue of legality - if abortion is treated legally like murder, then someone who gets an abortion should be treated as a criminal. This sounds extreme, but I know we've had this conversation before, and if you're ready to tell me a fetus is morally equivalent to a grown human, then the legal consequences for abortion should be the same as for murder. In that case, someone who's seeking an abortion is equivalent to someone plotting a murder, and they should be treated the same within the legal system, no? I'd see this as holding a pregnant woman in jail until she gave birth.
I know I'm talking all in hypotheticals now, but I'm not (right now) arguing against banning abortion, just trying to take the idea of a society without abortion to its logical conclusion. I don't think it's really as simple as "there's no abortion."
Michelle, who on this blog has claimed that if abortion was illegal there would be no more abortions? Leila and I, and surely others, have clearly said there will always be sin in this world, and that we need to offer help to those in need. Spiritual and material help. That's what it's all about, what we are asked to do. Am I clear?
ReplyDeleteI just don't see the general Catholic position as acknowledging that shit is still going to happen and people are still going to have unwanted pregnancies and people are still going to seek out abortions no matter what.
ReplyDeleteActually, the Catholic position is the one that clearly sees this. Shit happening is called sin. It is all around us, all the time. It's a given in our present human condition.
There is desperation everywhere. Andrea Yates drowned her five children out of desperation. Many others do similar things. We do not, on that basis, make child drownings legal.
The Church supports abortion-minded women, Michelle. All the time.
ReplyDeleteAnd, I have had a question on my mind for months. You are pre-med. Will you be performing abortions as part of your training? Are you good with that?
Nubby, no, we're still totally in disagreement. JoAnna understood my point. I just don't see the general Catholic position as acknowledging that shit is still going to happen and people are still going to have unwanted pregnancies and people are still going to seek out abortions no matter what. Ultimately, your goal (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am) is (1) no abortion and (2) no people in a position where they want to get an abortion. Right now, those people who want an abortion can for the most part get one (with some difficulty in some places). But if you were to make abortion illegal, there will still be people who want abortions and will go to any lengths to get one. I think it's important, no matter what side you're on, to have some idea of what can be done for these people so, basically, they don't resort to dangerous "back-alley" abortions.
ReplyDeleteDo quizzical looks translate through blogger?
You're point wasn't lost on me, Michelle. And see my other two comments that succinctly answer what you rehash above.
How or why you think Catholics have their collective head in the sand about crap still "happening and people still having unwanted pregnanices",etc is baffling.
It isn't about Catholics ignoring anything; if you recall, we're all about "knowing the truth and having it set us free", living in the light, all that good stuff; see John 8:31.
My question to you is how do you plan to use "practical measures" when your end goal isn't the same as mine or any pro life Catholic?
Substitution experiment:
ReplyDelete"Ultimately, your goal (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am) is (1) no child drownings and (2) no people in a position where they want to drown their child. Right now, those people who want to drown their child can for the most part do it (with some difficulty in some places). But if you were to make child drownings illegal, there will still be people who want to drown their kids and will go to any lengths to do so. I think it's important, no matter what side you're on, to have some idea of what can be done for these people so, basically, they don't resort to dangerous "back-alley" child drownings."
Michelle, in this case, what would you do? What can be done for those people?
* Your
ReplyDeleteSebastian, it was this that made me say that:
ReplyDelete"What is the alternative, literally? That there is no violence, no bloodshed, and a child is born?"
Leila, but that's not what I'm arguing or have been arguing. I'm trying to work within your position that abortion should be banned, and trying to point out that if that's what you want (and it is), there are still concrete problems to be solved. I'm not saying your solution needs to be to keep abortion legal. I said it several times, but I really don't have a solution in mind that I want you to tell me. These are open-ended questions. I just want to know what a post-abortion society where people still desperately want abortions would look like and how its problems would be addressed.
Visit a Catholic crisis pregnancy center near you, Michelle. Have them show you.
ReplyDeleteIf someone is desperate, do we help them to do the thing in desperation? Generally, we talk them out of it….
Ahhh how many times do I have to say it! I don't have an answer. I'm not the one advocating the end of abortion. These are questions for you guys to answer, not me. And like I said at the beginning, if you don't have answers, that's okay. I won't push it because I don't have solutions either, but I think it's something important for you to consider.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think it's important for you to consider that science shows when human life begins.
ReplyDeleteNo, Leila, I know that. I'm not trying to push you to say that we should keep abortion legal. That isn't and hasn't been my point at all.
ReplyDeleteBut if you really have someone who will die trying to get an abortion, I'm not sure they're going to wander into a crisis pregnancy center and suddenly have a change of heart. Some people, sure, but there will always be some (I would imagine a considerable amount) who won't. How do you stop them? Let them make the choice and then what? They die or they get sick (good doctors who want to keep their licenses won't be providing illegal abortions) or maybe if they're lucky they get out of it okay. Then what? Jail them?
Michelle, do you recognize that they're giving you your answer?
ReplyDeleteCatholics recognize that "shit happens," like Leila said. That's sin. We live in a fallen world, and we know that these kinds of things DO and WILL happen.
Leila's telling you to go to a crisis pregnancy center. You'll see our answer there. Why? Because things like:
-financial and physical support throughout the pregnancy and usually up to at least a year afterwards is available. This includes food, prenatal care, diapers and baby food/clothes/supplies, and often housing at the center itself, or in a nearby group home
- assistance in finding a job once the woman is able to hold a job. This also includes finding child care for the child while the woman is at work
- adoption assistance, if the woman chooses to give her child up for adoption
- legal assistance, for things like jobs, adoptions, help with prosecuting abuse or a rape, if that is what the woman needs
- counseling and psychiatric support
Not to mention that the center's volunteers and staff are often walking the streets, in the actual "thick of things" trying to educate, encourage, and help out, at ground-level. They hold talks and conferences at local schools, businesses, and parishes, doing the same. Most of the time, these are free (unless it's specifically a fundraiser for the center).
So what's the Catholic answer to making abortion illegal? HELP the woman, where she's at. Help her get legal assistance, medical care, financial support, anything she needs to get her turned around. The Catholic world view is that no matter how many times we mess up or find ourselves in a position due to sin.......we can always turn back around and the Church will be there to help.
So that's your answer: In a world where abortion is illegal...we propose a system that helps the woman, lifts her up, and keeps both her and baby healthy at the same time. We propose a system of education that helps teach women how to avoid getting into that situation. And if she still gets into it.....we help her get back out again.
Will there be those who refuse that help? Sure. People turn their back on God and His help all the time - why would we think that they would do any less to a mere human attempt to help?
That doesn't mean that we give up trying to help and better the lives of those around us --even the unborn -- constantly.
Think of it this way: My child is going to lie. He just is. He's 3, it's part of his nature right now. No matter how many times I teach him to be honest, or encourage him to do the right thing...he's going to do it at some point. Does that mean I love him less? Does that mean I don't correct him and help him to dig his way out of the hole he'd just gotten himself into by telling lies? Does that mean I give up trying to encourage him to do better?
No. Of course not. I want him to be the best possible version of himself someday.
Why wouldn't we do the same for women? If we really, truly want the best for women everywhere.....why would we give up because "it's going to happen someday, somewhere, anyway" instead of trying to do better for them?
How do you stop them? Let them make the choice and then what? They die or they get sick (good doctors who want to keep their licenses won't be providing illegal abortions) or maybe if they're lucky they get out of it okay. Then what?
ReplyDeleteWell, we (Catholics) are not into coercion tactics to force someone to follow laws. We're into education, spiritual direction, and free will in good conscience.
Have you even read the facts about what would happen if RvW is overturned? This sudden paranoia in your comments, that oh, no! With r v w overturned, women's health care is gonna be at risk! is way overblown.
Regardless, people have free will. We're not going to be able to save them all.
ReplyDeleteEven WITH legal abortion, we still have women going down dark alleyways to unlicensed centers and abortionists who use dirty instruments and don't report to any overseeing agency.
We still have abortionists who are fighting AGAINST being legally licensed in the states they want to practice in.
We have centers fighting AGAINST having to be upheld to the same requirements of a surgical center....even though they're performing surgical procedures.
How is this better? And this is with legal abortion!
Even with legal abortion, we have women dying. Lots of women, and this doesn't even account for the ones who are being killed in the womb (gotta remember a large portion of those aborted are women...) Keeping it legal isn't fixing any of your worst-case scenarios. Look it up. It's still as dirty and as dangerous as it always was....but now it IS a big money-making business.
So why don't we stop playing the "safe" card, since it's really just a slogan of the industry who stands to lose lots of money when any of these regulations are put into place....and start to address the real problem.
That's what the Church wants: to address the real problem. Help women when they are found in these situations. Help them get out of these situations, without any loss of life. Make it truly safe, for both woman and child.
I could not have said it better. The points are all here, Michelle. Very well-stated.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure what you are not hearing? If you want to say there will be no desperate acts anymore, who can say that, ever? People do desperate things every day, and we don't decide to help them do those desperate acts, do we? Should we?
Let me ask a crazy question: If abortion were not an option for women, do you think there is at least a segment (maybe a majority) of women who would change their sexual habits accordingly (and men, too)? Or do you think that people cannot actually control their sexual organs and must always be having sex? (Again, it would be hard to go to the supermarket or the dentist if so.)
Are human beings sinful? Yes. Can we rise above sin with the help of strong families, good formation, societal influence, and the grace of God? Yes. It seems like the left is always playing to the lowest common denominator of human nature, and trying to accommodate that, rather than treating people with dignity, knowing that they can do amazing, even heroic things?
I have not been able to read all the comments since my last visit here so I am going to post something that seems completely out of place. It's not out of place though because as soon as I read it I thought of all these Bubble discussions. This is what I saw on FB tonight:
ReplyDeleteBlessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta (whose feast day is tomorrow!) said, “Jesus said, 'I am the Truth,' and it is your duty and mine to speak the truth. Then it is up to the person who hears it to accept or reject it.”
Good luck to all of you in this current discussion. I hope many hearts are touched by it. And now I see I need to make time for the new message from Obianuju. Can't wait to read it, after I do my work! :)
I think Heidi laid it out well, so thank you! I'm still interested in legal implications for people who, like the author, were willing to go to any length to get an abortion. Yes, I do think if you were to ban abortion you would end up with some people being dissuaded. I can't say whether that would be most people or not. You would probably have people being a bit more diligent about contraception at the very least! I think you'd still have a large subgroup (majority? minority? I don't know) willing to risk their lives to be not-pregnant, though, and that was why I was asking what practical steps you'd take. I'm still not sure that even "Help her get legal assistance, medical care, financial support, anything she needs to get her turned around" will completely fix the problem if someone's really certain they're going to get an abortion, but it's certainly a start.
ReplyDeleteI'm still interested in legal implications for people who, like the author, were willing to go to any length to get an abortion
ReplyDelete....that was why I was asking what practical steps you'd take. I'm still not sure that even "Help her get legal assistance, medical care, financial support, anything she needs to get her turned around" will completely fix the problem
What does this mean, Michelle? Should RvW be overturned, do you think we Catholics will accost people who have abortions? Are you assuming vigilante justice on our part ... or?
What "practical steps" beyond giving people information and counseling are you imagining as tangible and worthy to "fix the problem" which, at the end of the day, still leaves the choice of abortion in the hands of each individual woman?
If she's desperate enough, she''ll do it. Illegal or not. That's skimming the main point of Leila's solid comment, which touched on the idea that overturning abortion just might encourage sexually active people toward more self control.
Nubby, that's what I was asking you guys! I said it a million times, I don't have answers.
ReplyDeleteTo me? No, RvW shouldn't be overturned. But if it were overturned, there'd better be very solid plans to help people who are going to otherwise seek out dangerous, illegal abortions.
As far as the legal implications, I'm trying to take it logically from your perspective: if you knew a woman was plotting to kill her 4-year-old, what would you do? Wait until she did it? I always hear that fetuses are exactly morally equivalent to born children, so I would expect that there'd have to be some deeper legal changes than just banning abortion.
To clarify, by "I don't have answers" I mean "I don't know the answers to my own questions, which is why I'm asking them."
DeleteAs far as the legal implications, I'm trying to take it logically from your perspective: if you knew a woman was plotting to kill her 4-year-old, what would you do? Wait until she did it? I always hear that fetuses are exactly morally equivalent to born children, so I would expect that there'd have to be some deeper legal changes than just banning abortion
ReplyDeleteLemme ask you a better question:
If you knew it was legal for a woman to kill her 4 yr old, what would you do?
A simple answer to your scenario:
ReplyDeleteIf you're privy to information that is lawfully and morally important, you have a duty to protect that life, no?
Nubby, your first question isn't relevant because I don't see the 4-year-old and the fetus as equivalent.
ReplyDeleteBut yes, you are obligated to do something. What do you do? I mean it, I'm not trying to be snarky. If abortion is illegal and you know someone is seeking an abortion and you know with reasonable certainty that they'll go through with it given the chance, how do you stop them? I'm pretty sure you'd report the mother of the 4-year-old and he'd be taken out of her custody, so what would you do for the abortion equivalent of that?
I would tell someone who COULD help her - find a counselor for information, talk to her doctor, her parents, etc.
ReplyDeleteI would do the same if I thought a mom was going to kill her 4 year old. You can't even remove a child unless the threat/danger is real and proven. If I just suspected it, how could I do anything but report it to CPS or that child's physician/teacher/etc with the 4 year old? How is this any different?
As far as legal implications, we allow people to get away with murder for all kinds of justifications. Self-defense, extreme emotional distress, temporary insanity, etc. What would make you think that we, as Catholics, don't understand the emotional turmoil and stress that a woman who would go so far as to obtain an illegal, unsafe abortion would be equivalent to extreme emotional distress? I think our social programs that I listed earlier kind of prove that we understand the emotional distress that a woman can be feeling, and how extreme it can get.
The legal implications would come to those who knowingly break the law who are NOT under some sort of emotional/psychological stress: the physicians illegally performing them.
I wanted to add that just a report of suspected threat to a 4 year old is not enough to remove a child from a parent's care. It has to be investigated and proven substantial - it's not quite as easy as "reporting the mother and having the child taken out of her custody."
DeleteHeidi, you write good answers! Thanks. I could press forward with a few points (I think a lot of women would state that while they may have been desperate, they weren't under extreme emotional distress, for instance), but I think I'm going to leave it at this while things are still amicable. :)
ReplyDeleteThanks, everyone! Off to pretend to study.
Nubby, your first question isn't relevant because I don't see the 4-year-old and the fetus as equivalent.
ReplyDeleteA bit off topic, but I have to say this:
We have to go with something both sides can see as evil (i.e., killing a four year old), or wrong (pedophilia, bestiality), because there is so little that the left sees as "wrong" anymore. We can't use the old analogies. So, we move to the dramatic, because you all don't believe that even killing born infants is totally wrong anymore, or that there is much left in the way of sexual sins (if any, aside from rape/no consent). So, we have to keep going extreme to try to find SOME wrong that we can all still see as wrong (at least for now). That is the nature of progressivism…. we cannot speak in the same terms, because there is so little you guys still regard as "bad" or "evil".
It's the reason we have to keep the "what if the Nazis did…." going, too, because there is no other ideologies that both sides think are through and through evil. Not the abortion business, not pornographers, not communists… So, we are reaching, but we have to!
I hope that makes sense.
ReplyDeleteLeila and Heidi,
Selfishness is acting in your own self-interests. There are many variances of selfishness and many ‘selfish desires’ can and are crucial to a thriving society.
“Also, I know I fire a lot of questions at you, so forgive me. But if you could answer whether or not you believe in a heaven and hell?”
I believe in Heaven more than Hell.
“You mention the effects on women. How do you think the hook-up culture affects children? And men? And marriages? And a stable society?”
Truthfully I think it’s complicated. I think women working outside the home made children feel neglected, men feel emasculated, and divorce more plausible, yet I think women working outside the home was an important right for women.
~CS
I'm watching a friend's kids because she just has a baby, and only have Internet access on my phone (please excuse errors and lag time) now, so bear with me!
ReplyDeleteMy return question to you, Michelle, would be did those women feel desperate merely because they were pregnant.....or because they didn't have social, financial, and emotional support? Are you truly 100% certain that they would have gone so far as to obtain an illegal, unsafe abortion if they had access to what we pro-lifers are trying to make happen? If we were able to actually accomplish what we propose (or grow what was already in place, without the PP culture fighting us), what do you think would happen to the number of women seeking abortions that desperately?
CS, do you believe that the effect our actions have on others needs to be taken into consideration before we act? Not being snarky, I'm being serious. Is the woman joining the workforce a greater good than preventing all those negative consequences that you admit to? Why or why not?
“And, why do you think the virtue of chastity and all that accompanies it (including the freedom from worries of pregnancy, disease, hormonal side effects of chemicals, being used by men and discarded, etc.?) is something from the 16th century? What other virtue do you feel that way about”
ReplyDeleteLeila I just don’t agree that chastity is in any way a ‘virtue’ or something to strive for. There are many reasons not to have sex at all, or to limit your partners or to not have butt sex or whatever, non of which have anything to do ‘virtue’. You are no less virtuous a woman if you sleep with 30 guys than if you slept with one ( though I wouldn’t recommend it for other reasons)
~CS
ReplyDelete“Anyway, I think that Johanne was raised in a genteel enough age that there was still an understanding of dignity and propriety, to a point (correct me if I'm wrong, Johanne).”
Blehhh, Leila I think one of the reasons you think I’m darker than I am is because you talk to me, which such undeniable condescension and I get snarky just to be argumentative.
I mean what do you possibly expect with these backhanded comments insulting assumedly my dignity, propriety, and self-esteem?
Do you believe that deep down we just all want to be chaste but are too weak or brainwashed to do it? I knew a lot of people who have sexual regret, but not a single one whishes she were a virgin, why is this?
~CS
"We have to go with something both sides can see as evil (i.e., killing a four year old), or wrong (pedophilia, bestiality), because there is so little that the left sees as "wrong" anymore.
ReplyDeleteLeila
This isn't true at all. It's just that people on the left have a different idea than you do about what is "wrong."
CS, maybe that is because they are still young and haven't fully had a life to regret yet? Not sure. Everyone is different. You feel condescension, but what you are really hearing is someone who will not coddle you, but challenges you. And calls it like I see it. You should know that by now.
ReplyDeleteSo, a man or woman who sleeps around with 30 partners is equally as virtuous as a man or woman who waits until the commitment of marriage to have sex with one lifelong partner? You are right, you don't see chastity as a virtue. You have erased on of the virtues. My only question is, with your position literally sounding like "sex is fine even if it's just for fun and recreation" with no moral implications, sort of like eating ice cream or skydiving, then why can't kids have sex, too? Why can't we have sex in the streets? Why can't we do some heavy petting with animals? Why can't we masturbate in class? All of it is value neutral, isn't it? Sex is fun, casual and easy. With no moral implications. Why wouldn't parents not only want their kids to have sex in their house, but orgies, too? You were horrified by the former, but I still haven't heard why....
I am not going to be shy about saying it: Your views of sex are base, callous, and degrading. You take the Renoir and line the birdcage with it. I find it disturbing. Sorry, I do.
Johanne, except that people, even liberals, didn't used to think that abortion was good, that gay "marriage" was even a thing, etc. We didn't used to argue about these things. So, you are wrong on that....we no longer agree on what is "wrong", when we used to. CS just proved that. She has taken the virtue of chastity, and said there is no such thing in her mind. Poof! Suddenly, there is no problem, because we just 'declared' that sin is not sin. It's just that easy and convenient. And the left is doing it more and more often (especially on the sexual issues). Again, it leaves us with no common "wrong" to talk about, except for the extreme.
ReplyDeleteAnd to be very clear, CS, many readers have found your words disturbing and crude and callous. No one "forces" you to speak as you do. You need to take responsibility and be accountable for your own words, many of which have been troubling, shocking, and even appeared heartless.
ReplyDeleteAnd to answer your question, CS, I am sure that you do not want to live chastely. I don't think you harbor a secret desire to be chaste. But that fact has no bearing on whether or not chastity is a virtue or not.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete“My only question is, with your position literally sounding like "sex is fine even if it's just for fun and recreation" with no moral implications, sort of like eating ice cream or skydiving, then why can't kids have sex, too? Why can't we have sex in the streets? Why can't we do some heavy petting with animals? Why can't we masturbate in class? All of it is value neutral, isn't it? Sex is fun, casual and easy. With no moral implications. Why wouldn't parents not only want their kids to have sex in their house, but orgies, too? You were horrified by the former, but I still haven't heard why....”
Leila,
Sex doesn’t need to have moral implications in order to have real world implications. I don’t know why you are asserting that it does. Sex can and does have physical and emotional conseqences all while being morally neutral.
I don’t support having sex with a different man everyday anymore than I support eating ice cream all day every day, but not because I have anything against gluttony but because I have something against diabetes.
I think drinking beer is morally neutral as well, but we also don’t let kids do it, or do it during class ( or work) or do it on the street. Drinking doesn’t have to be moral in order to recognize it can have consequences. Same with sex.
~CS
And just in case anyone missed that "chastity" does not mean "celibacy" (and "celibacy" simply means the state of being unmarried), here is this:
ReplyDeleteThe Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) defines chastity as the successful integration of sexuality within the person (no. 2337). This definition speaks of a much greater achievement than preserving one’s virginity for one’s spouse or simply remaining celibate altogether, which is how many of us were taught to view this virtue. Chastity comes under the cardinal virtue of temperance, which involves “permeating the appetites of the senses with reason”—using discernment to govern physical instinct. Obviously not every impulse we have to eat, drink, buy, take, or do is a wise one. Our values assist us in making responsible choices in all of these matters, including how to use and not misuse the sexual energy that makes us the vital people we are.
Source: http://www.vocationnetwork.org/articles/show/170
Was worth a repeat.
So lust and gluttony are not longer vices (or the converse: chastity and temperance are no longer virtues)?
ReplyDeleteSo, some girls might be "real world" scarred by lot of sex partners, but others might not. So, if there is no moral implications, why can't we say that for kids, too?
And really, who is it hurting if someone masturbates in class or has sex in the street? It's not more distracting than someone with purple and gold hair in the class, and no more of a curiosity than a street magician in the streets? Maybe we just need to lift the taboos, and then there will be no "real world" problems.
And, why do you believe in a heaven and not so much a hell?
Do any of the sexual progressives here want to go to the newer post and comment or ask a question of Uju? So far, no one has commented except Catholics, I believe.
ReplyDeleteSelfishness as a vice is not just acting in one's own self interest. It's acting in one's own self-interest at the expense of interests and the well-being of others. I act in my own self interest when I eat healthily, for example. But that would not be "selfish". That would actually be prudent (another one of the virtues).
ReplyDeleteNow, if I take the finest cut of steak and leave my child with the bone and gristle to chew on, that would be selfish.
"My return question to you, Michelle, would be did those women feel desperate merely because they were pregnant.....or because they didn't have social, financial, and emotional support? Are you truly 100% certain that they would have gone so far as to obtain an illegal, unsafe abortion if they had access to what we pro-lifers are trying to make happen?"
ReplyDeleteThe part I bolded is what I was thinking of when I mentioned (I think I mentioned...) broader societal change. I think unless that's firmly in place - especially the social support - banning abortion is going to lead to a period of time, perhaps generations long, that will be pretty awful and scary for women with unwanted pregnancies. I have no doubt that a lot of the desire to abort is people simply wanting to undo a mistake (assuming this isn't a rape situation, of course). I'm sure having solid social/financial/emotional support would make not being able to abort easier. I imagine there's also something about abortion being more final that makes it more appealing. Honestly, as much as I support adoption (and may consider adopting at some point), I think it would be much more emotionally difficult for me to put a child up for adoption than to abort. I have no doubt there's more to it than what I put down here - I'm making assumptions, not speaking from any experience - but I think to be successful a post-abortion US would have to make sure to address all the facets of why people abort.
Johanne, do you agree with what CS says? That sexual acts are morally neutral (no moral implications)?
ReplyDeleteSex doesn’t need to have moral implications in order to have real world implications. I don’t know why you are asserting that it does. Sex can and does have physical and emotional conseqences all while being morally neutral.
I don’t support having sex with a different man everyday anymore than I support eating ice cream all day every day, but not because I have anything against gluttony but because I have something against diabetes.
ReplyDeleteLeila,
Do you think all harm is moral harm?
"So, some girls might be "real world" scarred by lot of sex partners, but others might not. So, if there is no moral implications, why can't we say that for kids, too? "
Because even without 'moral harm' there is AIDS and pregnancy! There is still hurt feelings and abuse, why is this hard to comprehend? You seem to believe that without a moral component to sex there is no reason not to have sex all day everyday, complete poppycock
"And really, who is it hurting if someone masturbates in class or has sex in the street?”
Well first you can't even eat Doritos in class so I think it’s a moot point. But as for why you can't have sex in the street, you also can't poop in the street, nothing immoral about pooping, just a private action that is all.
~CS
I think it would be much more emotionally difficult for me to put a child up for adoption than to abort.
ReplyDeleteCan you go a little deeper on this? I think many people would agree with you. But can you get to the root of emotionally why that is?
Do you think all harm is moral harm?
ReplyDeleteNope.
But as for why you can't have sex in the street, you also can't poop in the street, nothing immoral about pooping, just a private action that is all.
Is sex a private action, in your opinion? And is it on the same plane as defecation, in your eyes? Just one more bodily function?
I didn't say have sex all day, everyday, I said treat it like you would eating ice cream. Casual, no big whoop. Why not?
Adultery can cause pregnancy, AIDS, hurt feelings and abuse. Would you say that these are "real world" implications only? Or, is there a moral implication to adultery? If so, why? If it's like eating doritos, eating ice cream, skydiving, anyone can do that with another's spouse, right? No one gets hurt with those recreational activities and indulgences. So, maybe we need to drop the taboo of adultery?
Do you think abortion has any moral implication?
Leila,
ReplyDeleteI think I have said I don't see casual sex as intrinsically immoral.
With relentless promiscuity I find most people catch a disease, or get pregnant or get hurt, but If you could manage to be promiscuous and avoid all of these things, god speed. I don't care or see anything moral or immoral about it. 59% of Americans according to Gallup's 2010 survey don't believe pre-marital sex is immoral so while you disagree with this finding, I don;t know why it continues to shock you son.
Would i consider sex to be a private action, sure but I'm genuinely not opinionated about it. Most people want their sex lives to be private if you wanted to talk about it or show it to your friends, again I don't really have an opinion.
I would say that breaking vows is wrong, yes
~CS
"Do you think abortion has any moral implication?"
ReplyDeleteHavne't we been over this?
No nothing immoral about refusing to use your body to develop life.
~CS
You skipped a lot of my specific questions, but okay.
ReplyDeleteSo, adultery is wrong because of the vow issue (again, it's sort of a "consent" thing to you, right?) But again, if sex is casual and even maybe public, like eating ice cream, then why can't kids at least engage in some of that? If precautions are taken as far as disease, and such? I know that many groups want to keep lowering the age of consent for sexual rights, so that might be something that would not offend you, if sex is recreation, correct?
But if it's casual and recreational, why do you think your friends and you engage in sobbing so much in the hook-up culture? (When you were less mature.) Did you ever sob when you ate ice cream with a guy and then he left quickly? Is there anything about sex that is different than eating ice cream with a lot of different guys (taking care not to get disease is a given here, so I mean other than that).
I doubt that 59% of Americans think that "relentless promiscuity" is good or moral, so there is a difference between what they are saying and what you are saying.
Leila, hmm. I know why, but I'm having some trouble articulating since I haven't really thought about this much before, so bear with me if this isn't particularly eloquent.
ReplyDeleteWhen you abort, your problem is over - you're no longer pregnant and you can move on. (Of course, there's the possibility of regret, etc, but right now I'm taking the position of someone who has yet to make that choice.) When you put a kid up for adoption, I think there's a degree of emotional attachment and probably also a strong degree of worry that goes along with that. You lose control with adoption, basically, and from the perspective of someone who doesn't consider abortion a moral wrong, I think that's pretty scary. Even if you knew and trusted the adoptive parents to do a better job than you, I think it'd be very hard to say "I'm going to relinquish control and hope for the best here."
Of course, I'm just speculating here, but knowing my personality and how much I tend to worry, I think I would have an enormous amount of trouble giving up a kid for adoption. I'm probably not alone, and I'm guessing that leads to a lot of people who really aren't ready to raise kids being parents anyway. And really, even if adoption were the easiest thing ever emotionally, I think there'd still be people who'd prefer an abortion because just the process of carrying to term and giving birth can be socially very difficult. There's a lot of stigma associated with illegitimate pregnancies, and I can see it being very hard for people to maintain social respectability in certain cultures. It's not how it should be, not at all, but it's sadly how it is. Abortion (again from the perspective of someone who thinks it's morally acceptable) allows you to sidestep all of those issues, so while it's not an easy choice for many, I can completely understand why it often looks like the best or only choice.
I'm not trying to say that abortion is always the best choice, because it's obviously not for many people, but only trying to address how I can understand why, even with readily available alternatives, it could still be the most appealing choice. I hope that all made sense.
No nothing immoral about refusing to use your body to develop life.
ReplyDeleteActually, this is not about 'refusing' something. Abortion is an action. It is proactive, and it is a killing. A direct killing. You don't see it as a moral issue to kill, actively? There is nothing passive or benign about it. It is violent, and involves dismemberment and even crushing of bones.
But there is no moral implication?
To this?
http://www.jillstanek.com/2011/01/video-the-most-shocking-4-minute-abortion-debate-you-will-ever-see/
Please watch it all. Then, come back and tell me that there is no moral implication here.
Michelle, yes, it makes sense. It definitely does. And I will add that while abortion seems the quick fix, adoption is the most unselfish act a mother can make for her child. It is often excruciating. But to see a child (her child!) safely in a family, with mother and father, is a beautiful gift to that child. We should encourage it! Life is always better than death (see video above).
ReplyDeleteIf I could press you further. When women are allowed to see an ultrasound of their child, the decision not to abort is very high. Do you think that because women cannot "see" their child (without an u/s), they are more able to psychically kill that child before the actual abortion? For example, I doubt that if a mother saw her living 10-week-old fetus alive outside her womb (if that were possible), that she would reach down and rip him apart, or strangle him. She would likely melt and want to protect him. I think it's easy to kill the person you cannot see. Again, there is that dehumanization factor.
Thoughts?
Leila,
ReplyDeleteWe generally encourage kids not to do anything that could even potentially harm them. Like beer drinking, cigarette smoking, ect. I would think the potential harm of sex is at least as great as the potential harm of drinking a beer.
“But if it's casual and recreational, why do you think your friends and you engage in sobbing so much in the hook-up culture? (When you were less mature.) Did you ever sob when you ate ice cream with a guy and then he left quickly? Is there anything about sex that is different than eating ice cream with a lot of different guys (taking care not to get disease is a given here, so I mean other than that).
Leila when did I ever say that people do not sometimes/often/whatever have an emotional attachment to sex?
I absolutely have a deep-deep emotional attachment to sex! I don’t sleep with many people for that reason. Still not getting how sometimes having an emotional attachment to sex means sex is immoral? Just because something isn’t blatantly immoral doesn’t mean you should do it if it makes you feel bad or cry.
~CS
http://www.jillstanek.com/2011/01/video-the-most-shocking-4-minute-abortion-debate-you-will-ever-see/
ReplyDeleteLeila,
the video says its a late term abortion, extremely rare and not at all representative.
"Actually, this is not about 'refusing' something. Abortion is an action"
Abortion is the closest action you can take to refusing to carry the child isn't it? If instead of having an abortion a woman could induce delivery then and there, I'm all for that. But I don't know how that would work when a woman is only 8 or 10 weeks along.
But generally speaking I've never been comfortable looking at what abortion does to babies without considering what birth does to women's bodies. I am not going to make someone go through agonizing surgery in order to save the life of another, its absolutely not one's responsibility
~CS
Leila, that's all very likely. I think the ultrasound plays to people's emotions and not necessarily their intellects, though. I can't say for sure about myself, but I think I could easily maintain my position on the personhood issue intellectually but still decide not to abort after seeing an ultrasound. I can't know what I'd do, but I think it could go either way - if emotions and beliefs conflict, it's going to be up to the individual to decide which one carries more weight. I don't think this is the kind of thing where we should ignore our emotions, because in the end (assuming no social pressure in either direction) this is going to be about what makes you the most comfortable. I wouldn't advocate requiring ultrasound viewings, but if people are given that option and end up changing their minds, I of course have no problem with that. Given that abortion is currently a legal choice we have, I think it's up to each woman to decide how she wants to go about making that decision.
ReplyDeleteLike I said, I'm speculating. I haven't ever had to make this choice, thankfully, and I hope I'll never have to. I of course think abortion should be an option, but I won't deny that the time-sensitive nature of the choice, the emotional strain that goes with every option, and the fears associated with each would combine to make this an extremely tough decision for me (and doubtless just about everyone) to make.
What agonizing surgery?
ReplyDeleteWhat does pregnancy and childbirth do to a woman's body? (and you do recognize the good results, too, right? Decreasing ovarian and breast cancer, for example?). What makes you seem so against childbirth as a good option? I'm the wife of an ob/gyn so I really am curious here.
Let's drop the word "moral.". Can we replace it with "causes no harm?". If we do that replacement, could you see how casual sex is harmful?
Back to an earlier question of mine, because I think it's related to this morality issue. Is it important, or even necessary, to consider the effects of your actions on others when choosing whether or not to perform those actions?
I absolutely have a deep-deep emotional attachment to sex!
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think that is?
I'm trying to get you to think a little deeper, CS. You are SUPPOSED to have a deep-deep emotional attachment to sex! It's not a casual, recreational activity. It's not eating ice cream. But WHY?
Did you watch the whole video? I asked if there was a moral implication to what was being done there?
Heidi mentioned that in her anthropology classes, they stressed the "horrors" of what happens to a woman's body during childbirth, playing up the fear of death and destruction, etc. Is that what they teach you in women's studies classes, etc? You have a very severe and extreme fear of a natural bodily process. Is your extreme fear of childbirth why you advocate for abortion?
I think the ultrasound plays to people's emotions and not necessarily their intellects, though. I can't say for sure about myself, but I think I could easily maintain my position on the personhood issue intellectually but still decide not to abort after seeing an ultrasound.
ReplyDeleteI sort of scratch my head at this. There is information being given, in a medical setting, during an u/s. It is informing the woman of what is in her womb, that she is about to destroy. The seeing of the information is objective. It is truth. It is what exists in her womb. The heartbeat, the movements, the limbs, they are real. If you are claiming that seeing a child suddenly distorts a woman's thinking away from truth, it's the opposite. The emotion comes, yes, but it's the emotion of recognizing the truth. It's the emotion of recognizing the humanity of the child living within her. Sometimes emotions accompany truth.
In some cases, as with Dr. Bernard Nathanson (founder of NARAL, oversaw 75,000 abortions, aborted his own child without regret, by his own hand…. he became pro-life while still an atheist, because of what he saw on the screen, in a medical setting. Emotion was not the factor, truth staring him in the face was.
He was an atheist through and through, and he saw the humanity of the unborn on that screen.
Will you perform abortions, Michelle?
Michelle, how could an U/S not play to an intellect? What is the picture proof of? How could that only play to emotions and not concrete, intellectual knowledge? I'm curious to hear you explain it further.
ReplyDeleteYou keep saying that you would never hope to be in that situation, and seem to imply that since you've never been in that situation, you cannot make an absolute statement as to the nature of abortion (good vs bad, moral vs immoral). Out of curiosity, would you say the same thing in any other situation? As in,
-I've never been tempted to commit adultery, but since I haven't been tempted, I cannot say with 100%certainty that it would be wrong
- I've never been in the position to rape someone, but I cannot say that it is 100% wrong because I've never had that urge/desire/temptation
-I've never been in the position of being desperate and poor and had the opportunity to rob a bank, therefore I can't say that robbery is always wrong
-I don't have a child, so I don't know the emotional state of a mother who has an infant who isn't sleeping thru the night. Therefore, it should always be legal for that mother to smother that child. I've never been in that situation before, and hope I'm not ever in that situation, but if I was, I'd want to have all my legal options
Do any of those seem absurd to you?
ReplyDeleteHeidi,
“Let's drop the word "moral.". Can we replace it with "causes no harm?". If we do that replacement, could you see how casual sex is harmful”?
Absolutely. I have already conceded that casual sex can be harmful. I would never argue that casual sex is not without potential harm or risk or that these are major reasons to avoid casual sex.
“Is it important, or even necessary, to consider the effects of your actions on others when choosing whether or not to perform those actions?”
Yes and no Heidi. Southern economy (and society) was decimated by emancipation, but I don’t really care. If the success of a society is based on something like slavery or the subjugation of women, then society will have to suffer.
Leila,
“I'm trying to get you to think a little deeper, CS. You are SUPPOSED to have a deep-deep emotional attachment to sex! It's not a casual, recreational activity. It's not eating ice cream. But WHY?”
Biologically women are attached to sex to bond them to the potential father of their child. While men are generally designed to remain unattached to encourage them to spread their seed and populate the species. Getting closer?
~CS
I watched some of the video. And if we’re being frank, staring into a zoomed-in vagina was what grossed me out and caused me to turn it off, not the abortion. Morally the woman, isn’t obligated to use her body to gestate if she doesn’t want to. We’ve been over this, no?
ReplyDelete“You have a very severe and extreme fear of a natural bodily process. Is your extreme fear of childbirth why you advocate for abortion?”
That’s fair enough. I don’t think abortion is worst than childbirth or pregnancy. Natural or not isn’t childbirth the worst pain on earth? No one is obligated to undergo the worst pain on earth to save the life of another.
~CS
I'm not talking about the economy or society, as a whole. I'm talking about personal relationships, people who are directly impacted by your actions. When choosing to act, is it necessary to consider the effects on those around you?
ReplyDeleteIf we replace those words and "moral" becomes "does no harm," can you see how casual sex is not acceptable behaviour? If it is acceptable, and doing harm is then acceptable, how do you reconcile that with your earlier statements about things like wealth or the environment? With those subjects, you were adamantly against any action that would bring about harm. Why is sexual behaviour different?
In your opinion, is the emotional bond created by sex(and we can talk only hormones and endorphins here) only found in females?
Actually, CS, my childbirths were not that painful. Three without drugs, not too bad. Five with epis, I never felt a single contraction with some births (I dialate, painlessly, for weeks ahead). Some pain with the natural childbirth, but I'd honestly do that before I'd do a kidney stone. And the flu is like death, but longer.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, yes, morally, the woman does not have to gestate: She does not have to become pregnant, and this is easily accomplished. But morally, killing a person directly does fall under the realm of morality, even if CS says it doesn't. I'm sorry you didn't see that little baby. It may have softened your heart. What was shown was a tragedy. If there is a God, how can the killing of his little ones not be an offense against him?
Btw, why do you not really believe in hell?
Biologically women are attached to sex to bond them to the potential father of their child.
ReplyDeleteYes, that's part of it! You are getting close. Eating ice cream does not to this. :)
Why does biology create that bond to the potential father, the breaking of which can make us sob if we are used and discarded after sex? And, are we only material, or do we have souls? Is there a spiritual part of us also, that makes us more than meat? Is there something to our sobbing which is more than material?
Johanne, do you agree with what CS says? That sexual acts are morally neutral (no moral implications)?
ReplyDeleteIt depends on which sexual acts you are talking about. I assume you don't mean having sex with your husband, though that is certainly a sexual act. I think there are moral implications when sexual acts cause harm to someone--harm can be done to the people doing the acts or a third party (as in infidelity). Because sex is such a personal, intimate, and primal activity the potential for harm is great--and when you add the potential for pregnancy and disease it has the potential to cause immense harm (and it does, all the time). I think we should all take tremendous care with our sexuality; however, I don't share your view that sex outside of marriage is necessarily a sin. Sex inside of marriage can be harmful as well.
"My return question to you, Michelle, would be did those women feel desperate merely because they were pregnant.....or because they didn't have social, financial, and emotional support? Are you truly 100% certain that they would have gone so far as to obtain an illegal, unsafe abortion if they had access to what we pro-lifers are trying to make happen?"
I've counseled a few hundred pregnant women as they were making the decision about what to do and I would say overwhelming that women wanting abortions felt desperate because they were pregnant. Not all of them, but most of them. And this was often in addition to not having necessary support. I am all for offering women whatever support they need to continue a pregnancy that in their heart they want to continue. That is what "choice" is about--it's about making the choice to have a baby a viable option for women who want to as well as giving the woman the choice not to.
I can say that when pregnancy happens as a result of violence there is no question--the horror is of being pregnant. I say this from personal experience and experience of many other I know who have been in that situation. There are women for whom that wasn't true, which is fine, but that doesn't make it okay to force other raped women to bring their pregnancy to term. That would be truly vile.
"bring their pregnancy to term" = "That would be truly vile."
ReplyDeleteRape is vile, but can the baby resulting (and quite innocent) be truly vile? (I know this is a sensitive subject, and I apologize, but we are working outside of emotions when we discuss the objective truth of things.)
As to the first part. Yes, there are moral implications, good or bad, to any sex act, including sex within marriage. It is objectively moral to have sex within marriage. Can there be immorality in individual marriages? Of course. But all sex is fraught with questions of morality. One cannot reasonably argue that sexuality exists in a morally-neutral realm.
How can a mother of eight have the energy to be up after midnight? :-)
ReplyDeleteThe experience of carrying the pregnancy to term and knowing the baby is alive and walking around could be vile to the raped woman.
Just because the end result of something may be good, a person isn't obligated to go through hell to bring it about.
ReplyDeleteNubby, your first question isn't relevant because I don't see the 4-year-old and the fetus as equivalent.
ReplyDeleteMichelle,
I threw you that bone to see if you might read between the lines. The fact that you don't see an unborn baby and a 4 yr old as "equivalent" means we're now laughing in the face of science, and entering into a dishonest conversation, which I will not have.
As to the rest of your, "how do we go about the legal implementations should r v w be overturned", you would go about it as you go about the rest of your daily life. You don't have 'witch hunts'. You abide by laws.
You take steps necessary to protect the innocent and the vulnerable (aka, your "4 yr old" scenario). But that's garble to you, because you don't see value in protecting the weak, right? No matter the cut off date of age.
Location, age, size and comprehensive ability are your driving factors on what makes a person worthy of life.
Not intrinsic value. Sad on a moral level. Dishonest on a scientific level
Just because the end result of something may be good, a person isn't obligated to go through hell to bring it about.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with this, unless the "it" is a human being and the way one stops "bringing it about" is a direct killing.
How can a mother of eight have the energy to be up after midnight? :-)
ReplyDeleteJohanne, it's my only quiet time! You should see me at about 2:00 in the afternoon, I am usually falling asleep on the couch. But at 1:00am? Usually bright eyed and bushy tailed, ha ha!
Johanne, that sounds like "the ends don't justify the means" which kind of is Catholic teaching in a nutshell.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, the ends of "removing a pregnancy" don't justify how you get there (by killing a new human life). Not to mention that the abortion doesn't remove the "crisis" part of the crisis pregnancy, does it? A woman still is in the emotional, social, and financial crisis that she was in pre-pregnancy. It doesnt remove the PTSD of a sexual assault.
So, shouldn't we work to remove the actual crisis, since the ends don't justify the means?