Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Abortion dialogue: Where Alyssa went wrong







I promise, I am not trying to pick on Alyssa. But she is representative, so I am going to use her as an example of what frustrates me and others as we attempt to have a pseudo-socratic dialogue about abortion. 

If you missed the discussion (or if you want the unedited, unfiltered conversation to compare to my summary here), read the comments on the last post.


[Alyssa's words here are in red.]


Essentially, Alyssa knew that we would challenge her ideas, and then she asked, quite reasonably:

Any chance you'd be willing to have your ideas similarly challenged?


Yes. Absolutely. Challenge us with some questions. Make your case that the unborn are not human beings and/or not deserving of the right to live.


But none of that happened as far as I can tell. 

What I believe happened is that we got a lot of pro-"choice" talking points, sort of removed from anything we were actually saying. For example, Alyssa started by asserting that, although science and morality were considerations in law,

...the overarching point of a law is to maintain and protect peace and cooperation within a group.

JoAnna pointed out the massive (and obvious!) flaw in that view by pointing out that, by that logic,

...both the Holocaust and slavery were just. The Holocaust "maintained and protected peace and cooperation within" German society. Slavery "maintained and protected peace and cooperation within" the South. 

This legitimate point (which shows the logical consequences of Alyssa's premise) was answered by Alyssa with sarcasm. 

No real discussion of the implications of Alyssa's premise was ever undertaken. 

In fact, when JoAnna and jrfjosh both posited Natural Law as the basis for just law, Alyssa dismissed it:

You bring up a very tired, fallacious argument. By that incredibly useless token, I bet you agreed with how England was run in the Dark Ages because they were all about "natural and moral law".

When jrfjosh discussed Martin Luther King, Jr.'s position on just and unjust laws based on Natural Law, Alyssa said:

I also agree with MLK that we should be enforcing and following just laws.

... but she did not address the fact that MLK's entire basis for determining just vs. unjust law is based on the natural and moral law!* So how could she agree with MLK, when she had already rejected the very premise of his argument? She did not follow up on that when asked to clarify.

Alyssa had a standard narrative about Catholic pro-lifers when discussing our (supposed) approach to the law:

You're working from a flawed premise (that your Catholic faith and values should dictate not only the behavior of others, but the laws of a diverse and secular nation), so the logic that proceeds from it doesn't wash.

She tried to claim, more than once, that we were using a "because my God said so" foundation for our position.

And she was corrected more than once. She was told that we Catholics, in fact, do not work from that premise and we never have. Nubby put it to her clearly:

Alyssa: No one—Not a person—here has ever “proceeded from a religious foundation” as pertains to law...

...We never say, “Because God said so.” We go about 10 steps previous to that.

...We back track and start at the same “zero” as any secularist. So bring it. All day. Bring it. Let's reason forward. Catholics actually propelled that kind of thinking.


And yet Alyssa says again later:

The issue I take--particularly on a blog so focused on doctrine--is that there is no other reference point. Everything can be explained or justified by the doctrine. And that is a closely-held Catholic belief, and I respect and appreciate it. But that can't be a factor in deciding laws.

(Cue every Catholic on the board pulling out his/her hair.)


Alyssa expressed a desire for our enlightenment on the issue of abortion (emphasis mine):

I'm introducing an alternative premise--one that aligns more closely with how the majority thinks in order to inspire a little understanding.

There is a bizarre, inexplicable implication that we pro-life Catholics do not know about any "alternate premise" -- that we somehow need to be inspired to understand the popular opinion about abortion in America.

And just what are we supposed to be "inspired" to "understand"? What "alternative premise" is Alyssa "introducing"?

Nothing other than the same, tired pro-"choice" talking points that we have heard for over 40 years. They are hardly inspired, and often they are ideas that many of the pro-life commenters on this blog once held themselves, in their pro-"choice" pasts. 

In her words:


The fundamental difference in our arguments is that you believe that a sperm and egg have human dignity and rights from the moment they meet. I disagree with that, so we can't meet from the same premise. All we can do is reason from our own. If it helps, your logic is sound if we're in agreement that a fertilized egg has equivalent dignity to the woman carrying it. However, we're not. My logic can't justify your premise and vice-versa. It's a circular argument.


But it's not circular. It's linear. First, we must know the facts before we can embrace our values and positions. First, we must establish if the unborn is a human being. Thankfully, that doesn't take long. Science says "yes" (read here for quote after quote from science textbooks). Objective truth: A new human being is begun at conception/fertilization. 

"Reasoning from our own premise" is not "all we can do" if we have not backed up and examined our premise in the first place. If the premise is flawed or subjective, then we must not base life or death decisions upon it. Back up and examine the premise. Alyssa, we ask you to meet us there! 

But she wouldn't.

In fact, she skipped the science and went to the metaphysical:

That [when a "cluster of cells" becomes a "person"] is not something science can measure, and therefore can't comment on.

and

...science can't even agree when "human life"--a nonscientific concept that implies an emotional/spiritual element---begins

And yet science can and does comment on when a new human comes into existence. Unfortunately, Alyssa breezily bypasses the objective, scientific facts, and uses only subjective premises to justify the killing of the unborn:

I would prefer to live in a world where women have the choice.

^ Subjective.

[I disagree] that a sperm and egg have human dignity and rights from the moment they meet.

^ Subjective. (And note carefully the wording she uses.)

Regarding the difference between a "premature baby chopped into pieces" versus an abortion: you're overlooking an essential piece of the equation, and that is the woman's consent. That is what makes these situations unequal and a poor comparison.

^ Subjective.

[It's about the] JUSTICE of a woman being able to make her own decisions about her own body.

^ Subjective.

...at the end of the day it's up to the lawmakers to make the decision that will best ensure peace and cooperation in this nation. 

^ Subjective.


And then there was this:

No one here is willing to allow that there is a REASON that people are supportive of legal abortion.

I had to re-read the sentence the first time I encountered it, because it's so obviously silly. In fact, the opposite is true. Everyone here is willing to allow that there is a REASON that people support legal abortion. Who would ever think otherwise? Isn't that a given? Even my grade schoolers know that people have REASONS for doing bad things. That is as true as it is irrelevant to the discussion.


Trying to get to the meat of things, we left copious questions, all linear, for Alyssa to engage.

From Nubby:

Your idea of law “maintaining and protecting peace” without a moral or scientific basis actually falls completely on its face when you look at Roe v. Wade and the very first two unalienable rights [life and liberty] listed in the Declaration while simultaneously looking at the Court's reasoning in the decision and how it came down. 

Do you see the ordering of those rights? 
Do you know those are ordered that way on purpose? 
Do you see how RvW never should’ve tampered with that ordering?
Do you realize those rights were never voted upon by any judiciary, but merely acknowledged and respected by the founders? 

Do you know what the judicial opinions were? Have you read the critiques?
Where do you think those unalienable rights came from? A vote? 

From JoAnna:

So basically, you're saying that the unborn are human beings (scientifically), but not all human beings are persons based on some random, arbitrary criteria. How is this any different than slaveowners deciding that human beings with black skin weren't persons? Or Hitler deciding that Jewish human beings weren't persons? 

What is your arbitrary criteria for why only some human beings are persons, and others are not?

And later, when JoAnna tried patiently, methodically, to go with Alyssa's own terms and get to a conclusion...

Can you agree with me that a "person" is "a human being who is entitled to basic human rights"? Is that a fair definition?

...she got this in response from Alyssa:

JoAnna, I'm not going to argue semantics with you. I think you know exactly what I mean, and I choose to end this nitpicky sidebar here.

Effectively shutting the dialogue down.


From me:

So, you say you agree with MLK that we should not follow unjust laws, but you leave off the part where he explains what that means. How do we determine which laws are just or unjust?

Do you think it's okay for some human beings to determine the humanity of others? I mean, it's common, yes. Not just in abortion, but in all history, in many cultures. But do you think that is how we determine a person's humanity? By others' judgement?

Can you name for me any law that is not based on someone's moral judgement? Isn't all law legislated morality? If not, how so? I don't see it. 

What is the source of morality? Not "how do we determine it", but what is its source? Or, another way to put it, what is the source of moral truth? If you say "self" or "societal norms", then you are saying it's subjective. And if so, does that mean you do not believe in objective moral truth?

My question to you (and it's just a logical question, looking for a logical response): Were you ever conceived? I can't get abortion-rights folks to answer. 


And so.many.other questions left unanswered. 

None of these questions was circular. All were socratic, designed to get us from Point A in the discussion to Point B, so that we could come to logical conclusions. Alyssa would not answer, would not follow the discussion forward.

So again, here is Point A on abortion:

Are the unborn human beings?

Because if they are not human beings, then I am in agreement with Alyssa that we may kill them at will. 

But if they are human beings (or if there is even the slightest chance that they are human beings), we must put on the brakes, because we all know and understand that it is wrong deliberately to take innocent human life.

The problem is that Alyssa wants to skip or dismiss the premise question altogether and go straight to explaining "why we may kill it", before determining what "it" is!

And yet she said:

I'm already exhausted by the way these goalposts keep moving and from all the words being shoveled into my mouth. 

The idea that she thought we were moving the goalposts when we were just begging her to focus on them was perplexing enough, but just when we should have been getting to the heart of the discussion, she abruptly ended:

I've said all I can say here, because diametrically-opposed premises (and about eight different logical fallacies--look up "strawman" and "appeal to emotion" specifically) are driving us around in circles. All I can say is that abortion has been part of women's reproductive lives for thousands of years, and isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Give me a clean, safe doctor's office over a wire hanger any day.


I doubt I'll be back, but thanks for the exercise.


(And she included a link to logical fallacies.)



It's so predictable, and it frustrates me. 

Again, this is not unique to Alyssa (who I would welcome back here in a heartbeat). It's almost universal among those who defend abortion. I wish abortion advocates would just come out and say that their criteria for killing the unborn are subjective and arbitrary. Why are they ashamed of just saying it? Why not just admit, "Yes, science tells us it's a human being, but I'm okay with some human beings killing other human beings, even human beings who are innocent and weaker than we are, and who cannot fight back." Just say it. I wish abortion advocates would take their cues from the likes of Peter Singer, because although I despise his beliefs, he speaks with clarity and consistency and cold logic, and we can all see exactly where we stand. 




And while I've got you, here's a great little science primer on the beginning of human life, with a quote from Peter Singer included:











** [T]here are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.








163 comments:

  1. Hi Alyssa,

    “I was mortified by your story. I'm sorry that guy betrayed your trust, and I hope you're doing okay. I'd love to talk more, if you're interested”

    I didn’t read the post for the last few days and if you’re reading I’m just responding here. That’s very kind of you, I’ll message you privately , sorry I left you hanging in the conversation

    Others,

    Do you see the difference in Alyssa’s response and yours? She seemed to recognize that even if you are not in a relationship with someone, that doesn’t give them a right to borderline assuault you.

    The general consensus from the rest of the group was ‘that’s what happens when you have sex outside of marriage, what did you expect?

    Leila said “I guess what I'm struggling with is, how can "intimate trust" be "betrayed" by someone who is not there to honor you or cherish you? It makes no sense to me at all.”

    This is a really concerning attitude. Intimate trust in this scenario means not sabotaging a woman’s birth control, respecting her desires to stop, really really basic things . Surely you believe that when people are engaging in sex even if they don’t have a relationship that is is reasonable for a man to show her basic respect and not assault her in any way?

    CS

    ReplyDelete
  2. “Because "no" solves the problems that CS and so, so many other mislead women face when they are searching for love and commitment and end up being used by sex, if not also being left with STDs and/or an unplanned pregnancy.”

    “You cannot have birth control and its misnomer of "'safe' sex" and abortion as an out when "'safe' sex" has failed and then turn around and blame men fully.”

    No one wants to blame men fully, your friend wants to blame men some of the time, she wants men to share in their part. She wants us to stop looking at women with STDs and and pregnant, and say well you should have said no!!!

    You look at men who remove birth control, and tell women ‘should have said no’

    You look at women who have had their heart broken in relationships and say ‘see should have said no’



    No one seems to be saying, you had your heart broken, that man should not have cheated on you ( not my scenario just using that). You had someone disrespect you sexually, what he did was unacceptable. I don’t see any one clamoring that men take responsibility, and as your friend was saying that’s an enormous aspect of the abortion debate.

    CS

    ReplyDelete
  3. you had your heart broken, that man should not have cheated on you ( not my scenario just using that). You had someone disrespect you sexually, what he did was unacceptable. I don’t see any one clamoring that men take responsibility, and as your friend was saying that’s an enormous aspect of the abortion debate.

    CS, perhaps that is because everyone else, including myself, assumed it was a given that such behavior by either a man or a woman is grossly unacceptable and immoral. It wasn't a topic of discussion because it wasn't in dispute that it's wrong to sexually abuse another person.

    I'm also puzzled if you actually read most of the comments, because it was actually reiterated time and time again that both men AND women need to take responsibility for their actions and their choices. Here is one comment where I said that, for example.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Haha Joanna I didn’t see this when I made my above comment.

    “Yes, we can all agree that is very problematic! However, it seems to me that two different approaches are being proposed to deal with that problem”

    Right, but your approach doesn’t seem to be working. “Emphasizing” to men that they shouldn’t have sex outside of marriage isn’t holding up. If we illegalize abortion we hold women responsible, but we don’t have a way to hold men equally responsible ( child support aka paying a bill is not akin to carrying birthing and raising a child.

    CS

    ReplyDelete
  5. CS, your approach doesn't seem to be working either, since it's caused the death of millions of innocent children.

    I'm not sure I get your logic. So, because some men are deadbeat dads, we should kill the innocent child in the situation. Do you think it is just to kill a child because of the failings of his/her biological father?

    And actually, there is a way to hold men responsible -- it's to not engage in sex with them unless they've committed to marriage. The problem is that so many women aren't willing to hold the men responsible.

    ReplyDelete
  6. “Here's another thing I was thinking of. What if the woman is the deceiver in the scenario? Say a man has sex with a woman he feels he truly loves, and she tells him she's on the Pill so he doesn't bother with a condom. Turns out she wasn't on the Pill and she gets pregnant. But it also turns out that she really isn't all that into him. However, she decides that she doesn't want an abortion, and that adoption isn't an option, and then he's on the hook for child support for the next 18 years. He's forced to carry a significant financial burden for a good chunk of the rest of his life, against his will. Do you think that is fair, CS? What do you think guys should do to avoid this situation?”

    Haha Joanna, I had to chuckle a little bit because A) a financial burden ( sending a check and never having to meet your kid is not the same as having to carry and raise a kid and B) we don’t exactly have an epidemic of women getting pregnant on purpose, staying pregnant without the support of their partners and those that do; do it with men who don’t even pay their child support, so its really not the same


    CS

    ReplyDelete
  7. You don't think that men aren't often forced to pay child support against their will, CS? I think you grossly underestimate the prevalence of that very scenario.

    I also think you underestimate the burden child support can place on men. Their wages are garnished and if they don't pay or underpay, they can be arrested, fined, and jailed.

    Plus, some men who were statutory rape victims are being forced to pay child support when their attacker became pregnant. See here for one example.

    If a woman doesn't want to bear the burden and expense of parenting a child, she can place the child for adoption, which equalizes the situation somewhat.

    ReplyDelete
  8. CS, a couple of things:

    First, if you wouldn't mind carrying on this conversation in the actual thread where it is occurring, that would be really great. I didn't bring up the "casual sex" issue here, I kept it to Alyssa's treatment of abortion as a viable option for the "problem" of unwanted children. So, please, take this conversation there, thanks!

    Second, I have to agree with JoAnna that I would assume that you clearly know that assault or aggression or violence of any kind by a man against a woman is totally abhorrent and against our faith. Again, why would you even think otherwise? You really think we are okay with assault?

    Now, you need to distinguish between two different topics, so let me spell it out for you:

    1) It is evil and wrong for a man to assault a woman

    2) It is evil and wrong to kill an innocent unborn child

    Both of those can and do exist at the same time in the moral universe. They are both true.

    As for intimacy.... I guess I was pointing out the irony of the words used as compared to the actual relationship. I wish we still knew what "intimacy" and "trust" meant.

    And if you want to respond to anything other than the OP, please cut and paste comments and put them on the thread which contains this conversation, thanks! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I will add:

      #1 is illegal and decried

      #2 is legal for all nine months and celebrated


      Delete
  9. Margo,
    “I just want to know why CS & Alyssa don't seem to think that choosing not to have sex is even a possibility. It seems to me that they're saying that casual sex is inevitable so abortion is absolutely necessary so the women who inevitably have sex have a way out of dealing with the resulting pregnancy. If abortion is illegal and women keep having sex, what are they supposed to do? Endure 9 months of pregnancy? Or be "forced" to do the "closet hanger" thing? Very strange perspective.....”

    Because Its sex Margo. Think of what happened during prohibition, and that was just liquor. Alyssa and I were not talking about ourselves we were talking about people and human nature. We can help people make better healthier decisions in all regards absolutely but sex is strong, it isn’t going anywhere.

    CS

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi Leila,

    I just saw thing, I thought that thread was abandoned so I started posting here. I'll post over there

    ReplyDelete
  11. "sex is strong"

    Yes, sex is strong; it's designed to permanently unite husband and wife into a one flesh union. I am definitely not suggesting that we have a complete prohibition of sex the way we tried to completely ban alcohol. But, would you agree that alcohol can be mis-used? That it could be a cause of death if misused? All I'm saying is that humans need to appreciate things in a proper order. For alcohol, that means knowing your limits and not drinking excessively to the point of drunkenness (and not driving if intoxicated). For sex, that means engaging in it only within a married relationship and embracing the opportunity to give yourself completely to your spouse.

    Is it possible for humans to find complete happiness without ever having sex?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also, what about this question I raised in the previous thread:

      And it would be one thing if we Catholics were trying to enact a law saying that all people MUST pray the rosary every day or attend Mass every Sunday or believe in the Nicene Creed. That would be wrong. It just so happens that part of our faith is loving all people, including the unborn, and wanting what is truly best for all people (and abortion is never best for the woman). Do you see the difference?"

      Can you acknowledge the difference in those two kinds of laws?

      Delete
  12. Margo,

    I'm sure its possible for some people to be very happy without sex. Absolutely. Yes, I understand the different between those two types of laws.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Margo, it's as if we were to lobby for laws against stealing, and someone said, "Stop trying to base laws on your religious belief system!" It would be absurd, because we all know that stealing is definitely a moral issue, and yet it applies to all (because it's an issue of Natural Law-- it's universal to all people and all time). Same with killing of innocents. The moral law applies to everyone. No one is trying to legislate doctrinal law, as you mentioned. When someone tries to legislate that you much believe in the Trinity and attend Mass, let us know.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dang, mama. I dub you, "The Destroyahh" You annihilated every angle of the weak logic of the usual secular sound bites in this post. A++

    Oh, and, rock on, JoAnna. Bam

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sounds like Alyssa is going around in circles, and her basic premise is: "Because we can't know when life begins, therefore Catholics are insane." To understand her "logic," you have to search out her teachers. She has been told that all Catholics are insane, and she goes on these blog hunts to "refute" the logic of Catholics by repeating the talking points she has been indoctrinated with, similar to the way a child plugs her ears and shouts "la-la-la- I can't hear you!" Not hearing the evidence, only the voices in her head, she has proven the only point she set out to make, which was that all Catholics are insane.
    I think St. Paul learned from bitter experience that there were many pagans who refused to listen to his reasoned arguments. So, Catholics today have a history with this kind of thing. This has happened before. "Might makes right; the ends justify the means. Tyranny of Relativism."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Doc, you are right to a point, but I would stop short of saying that she thinks we are insane. She claims that she was raised by Catholics and she can respect Catholics. But it's very clear that she believes us to be quite ignorant and unable to formulate an opinion based on any foundation other than "Catholic doctrine". I feel like she truly believes she is doing us a kindness by "showing us an alternative premise" so that we can be "inspired" by this new (really quite old and tired) insight. :(

    ReplyDelete
  17. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing, repeatedly, expecting different results, then maybe Catholics are insane. Take this blog, for example - countless threads of well-reasoned logic, honest and direct arguments, over and over and over....and there is an expectation that it might open someone's eyes to the Truth? ;) If that's insanity, I'll gladly wear that badge. That's what we're called to as followers of Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Bri, ha ha! You are right! And in that case, it's not so insane, since millions have been picked up along the way! :D

    Planting seeds, planting seeds, planting seeds....

    Heck, it took me ten years to implement the truth of what I learned on contraception! I heard about it in college, thought it made sense, and had no intention of actually living that way, ha! TEN YEARS later, the seeds took root. God is a funny guy.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Leila, if you're ever willing to discuss contraception/NFP with me privately, I would really appreciate it (your comment above reminded me). I had no luck on the Catholic Answers forums. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Beth, yes! Email me at littlecatholicbubble@gmail.com.

      I've been a little slow answering emails, so thanks for patience, but I promise I will respond!

      Delete
  20. I would really like to hear an intellectual emotion-free argument for abortion that doesn't focus on the female carrying the child (a mother wouldn't have an abortion in the first place). I have looked and cannot find one.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Tell you what left wingers, I will give you gay 'marrage' if you give us all the unborn. Yes the 'material'/'cell mass'/'sperm and egg meetings' will have to borrow your liberal uteri for a few months, but you can give the baby (oh gasp how did that happen) to all those gay barren couples as they cannot conceive (we really should look into that and crucify the person/s responsible...oh we already did/are doing that). All of us Catholics will pray that they will survive their childhoods and find God and his Truth but at least they will have a life to live and (gasp again) their own choices to make.

    ReplyDelete
  22. A person on Facebook shared her story of choosing life, I thought it was a great story and wanted to share it with all of you. :) She did tell me it was okay to share with others.

    "I chose life 19 years ago.
    The abortion industry sales pitch is that there is a consequence-free escape route but too many women can tell you, on the other side of it, that there is no such thing. You can't cheat the law of the harvest, we ALWAYS reap what we sow. It was a "pick your poison" situation. I chose the consequence package where the consequences fell on me and not my boy. I chose the package that wrecked me. WRECKED me. But the package that gave me peace of mind. My mama said "some decisions are harder to make but easier to live with, and some are easier to make but harder to live with."
    On my path there have been many women who have shared with me the feeling that they really didn't understand the choice they were making when they terminated. That they have been emotionally and psychologically burdened in a way that they were not prepared for. It is loss. It doesn't go away. Whether or not your political view is the legal right to choose, abortion is sad and leaves a mark. I think people sometimes slip from pro-choice to pro-abortion without noticing. I also think it's been some clever and enormously successful propaganda that has convinced many that the abortion business is pro-women.
    If people had more and better access to current and accurate information about adoption, they could make more informed decisions (several have told me they wished they'd known), but anyone offering abortion services is going to withhold or manipulate the information because they have a financial agenda. I know some who were blatantly lied to.
    I have tried to imagine this earth without him on it. Without all that he has been and done and all that he will be and do. It CHILLS me to think of it! He is talented and empathetic and conscientious and funny and intelligent and kind-hearted. He has a mission on this planet. He deserves his "go at it" as much as any of us do. He saved me and he was the answer to his parents' prayers.
    Choosing life BROKE me. And then it MADE me. I am many times a better woman than I was or would have been without him.
    It takes courage and strength to choose life. Women are amazing. Don't buy the lie that some women just can't do it. "

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. jrfjosh, that is beautiful, thanks for sharing. Hope I'm not intruding, but, re your post about being childless, in case you're unaware of a possible prayer warrior, try the Poor Clare Nuns in Hanceville, AL; Mother Angelica said to a caller on her live show (years ago), 'send us your name, sweetheart, our nuns have a good track record of prayers being answered for God's blessing on barren women'. Prayers ascending from here asking Our Lady of Guadalupe, patroness of the unborn, to intercede for you :)

      Delete
    2. Thank you for the prayers and advice, I appreciate it. :)

      I do want to be clear, maybe I didn't explain my story well enough in prior posts. We (wife and I) are infertile, however we have adopted 1 son who is now almost 3.5 years old. Also, we have had a miracle now and we have another child who is almost 19 weeks old in the womb still.

      We are still infertile, but God has blessed us with a wonderful miracle. I say it that way because some people that aren't familiar with infertility think being able to get pregnant (even once) means you are "fertile". I assume people on this site understand this already, but I wanted to explain it anyways. :)

      Delete
  23. Have you watched the sixth video yet? Where the former "specimen collector" described how they were to pressure women who were on the edge or having second thoughts into abortion and about the doctor who paced the halls, impatient for his next girl to arrive? So chilling. Abortion is so often portrayed as high-minded, well-thought out, an informed, consensual, unpressured decision arrived at with clarity and permanence when time after time those decision-making conditions prove not to be there. What a sad deception. So many of us pro-lifers have walked with broken-hearted post-abortive women and wept with them as they lament the hasty, irreversible decision they made. So sad, so very very sad the deception that abortion is in anyway compassionate or good. Keep keeping this in the spotlight, Leila! You are a warrior!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Jennifer, you are so right! What madness is it when the very people who exploit women and completely ignore their post-abortive suffering, dare to call anyone else anti-woman! In all I have read from CS on the Bubble, I have never seen her show compassion for the women who suffer from their abortions. It is as if to her, these women simply don't exist. Perhaps they are seen as collateral damage in the all-important work of the abortion industry. My heart breaks for these women.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Sharon, to the abortion industry, they don't exist. Remember, the abortion industry denies that there is any such thing as post-abortion syndrome. They deny, deny, deny, despite the legions of broken women who say otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hi Sharon

    “In all I have read from CS on the Bubble, I have never seen her show compassion for the women who suffer from their abortions. It is as if to her, these women simply don't exist.”

    Not sure where you got this from. I don’t deny these women at all. I actually think waiting periods and counseling and informed consent are very good ideas. I think a lot of women are preasured or rushed into the decision of course these women exist


    CS

    ReplyDelete
  27. But CS, what you are referring to is not post-abortive services at all. I think you are still avoiding the subject. What about the very real suffering that women go through after an abortion? It is completely natural that they would suffer. A woman cannot experience the death of her child without her heart and mind noticing, even if she should be able to avoid acknowledging that reality for years. And these woman have the added burden of knowing that they had a hand in their child's death. The abortion industry ignores these women. The Catholic Church does not.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hi Sharon,

    I don't think I'm avoiding the subject at all? I don't doubt that these women exist, I don't doubt that these women suffer. I don't know why you assume I do.

    CS

    ReplyDelete
  29. The reason I doubt it, CS, is because your comments seem to be always aimed at rescuing women from being "forced" to protect the children in their wombs. I have not been able to follow the comments on Leila's last several posts, but from what I've read of your comments in the past, the tone is on abortion as a service to women. I would hope that for every time you speak out to keep women from, in your mind, being oppressed by protecting her child, you would also acknowledge that abortion causes women to suffer. And I can't imagine any suffering like the suffering of a woman who would do anything to turn back time and have the child she aborted back in her life. "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." The only thing that can heal that kind of pain, I believe, is coming to accept that her child is safe in God's arms and will be there to great her in the next life. How do you balance your defense of abortion as "pro-women", as a service that reduces suffering in women's lives, when the truth is, abortion causes immense suffering for women?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hi Emily (CS?), Hi Sharon,

    Nice to meet you both here. Your discussion as to Emily's compassion for post-abortive women in response to my original comment have just set off a million light-bulbs in my head. So, thank you both. I think this highlights a major difference in worldview in the abortion debate as I hope I can feebly show here:
    1) I think it is important to tease out the first question: is the fetus, embryo, blastocyst, fertilized ovum a human being? Leila, Nubby and others, including prominent pro-choicers like Pete Singer and Naomi Wolf, have already argued this into the ground and of course this is the commonly-held and taught view of embryologists. So everyone here rightfully gets an eye-twitch when the "it's not a human being" card gets played. But, 2) the next question is, is it permissible to intentionally kill some innocent human beings for the sake of others. If people say, yes, I do think it is sometimes okay, then fine, lets talk about that. But, more eye-twitching as people say, but it's not human. I refer back to point one.. Can we all just admit it, already so we can move on?
    But then finally 3) and here is where I think that world-view comes in, and it is certainly informed by faith, is that for many, many people in the pro-choice camps, they can see that an abortion is the death of a child. They do feel compassion (sadness) for the loss of the child to the mother, but i would argue that fundamentally, they feel that the world is a dark and difficult place. That "the system" disadvantages women, that an un-planned pregnancy further painfully disadvantages women, and that this is sufficient reason to say that yes in this case it is (albeit sad) acceptable to end one human life for the benefit of another.
    Sisters of faith out there: Do you appreciate how blessed we are to be able to walk in the light? To be not afraid? To have an incredible example of a magnificently brave young girl whose fiat, whose yes to an un-planned pregnancy changed the entire course of history? The truth that God is a good and loving God, the source of all Life, the intimately personal shepherd, in whose guidance we shall not want has transformed us into people who like the Blessed Mother are not afraid to look at a horribly difficult situation on the horizon and choose to march right into it bravely with our Lord's Word as our sure guide.

    I think we will just keep talking in circles with these kind-hearted women who really think that abortion is the lesser evil until they finally encounter Goodness himself.

    Yes we have to keep arguing for points one and two, and in the meantime we have to keep praying for changed hearts and we have to LIVE changed lives that shout to those around us "We have seen the Lord! Let us show you!".
    Now y'all can argue and scream at me that my world-view doesn't give me the right to say you can not have an abortion... I am saying my world-view gives me the privilege of knowing that we do not need abortion. Wouldn't everyone like a world like that?

    Bless you,
    J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "in the meantime we have to keep praying for changed hearts..."

      Yes, Jennifer, prayer and sacrifice as Our Lady of Fatima requested; here's one interesting story of an Irish blogger who prayed for years for the conversion of a Seinfeld writer merely out of gratitude...

      http://thepathlesstaken7.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/on-relying-on-tom-leopolds-comedy-to.html

      Delete
    2. Awesome story, Maggie! What a beautiful reminder of the effect our prayers have. It reminds me of the murderer that St. Theresa prayed for when she was a child. She was given the gift of knowing that he converted just before his death.

      Delete
  31. “How do you balance your defense of abortion as "pro-women", as a service that reduces suffering in women's lives, when the truth is, abortion causes immense suffering for women?”


    If that is your takeaway then you misunderstand me. I think that IF we have women who do not feel coerced who have adequate time to make an informed decision decide they don’t want to continue their pregnancy; I don’t think legally we should make them. I think a legal precedent that says another person against their will can use someone’s body is n ugly legal precedent

    I don’t put anything including abortion in this ‘its good for all women’ or ‘good for no women’ bucket. I’ve taken oxycodone for dental surgery, I support its use (in certain circumstances) but if you take it and it’s not the right drug for you it causes immense suffering for you. Simply put, I don’t think its right for a lot of women but that doesn’t mean I can extrapolate and say its good for no women


    CS

    ReplyDelete
  32. CS: I want you to just admit your position outright. Please, just say it:

    "I believe that we may sometimes directly target and kill innocent human beings."

    Can you admit that this is your belief? Without mincing words?

    Jennifer, great points!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Pro-aborts deny that there is any negative mental and emotional effects on a woman after abortion (more lies):

    http://www.msmagazine.com/aug01/pas.html

    ReplyDelete
  34. Maggie, a fantastic story!! We must all start praying and fasting and our number one priority in life must be union with God -- sainthood. Amen, amen!

    ReplyDelete
  35. lol no Leila, my belief is that we can't force women to be pregnant against her wishes

    ReplyDelete
  36. And in believing "that we can't force women to be pregnant against her wishes", CS, you are therefore saying "I believe that we may sometimes directly target and kill innocent human beings". It's the only logical statement that follows your own belief.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Yes somebody could certainly say "I believe that there are certain circumstances under which it is licit to directly target and kill innocent human beings. One case would be when an innocent human being is causing a pregnant person to suffer, should the pregnant person request it." But here is a scenario for you. When I was pregnant with my second child my first child was still very young (only five months old when number 2 was conceived). This second pregnancy of mine would have probably been quite tolerable if it weren't for the fact that the smell of my daughter's infant formula made me horribly ill and that carrying her in my arms as my pregnancy progressed into the second trimester was extremely painful to my pelvis. Now, when I wasn't carrying her around or feeding her I was managing. Caring for her made my pregnancy brutal. It made me suffer tremendously. Would it be licit for me to have had her killed? Would that be reasonably sufficient grounds for murder?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thanks, C, I was just trying to type the same thing! To put it more directly, CS, maybe you could say, "I believe that we may directly target and kill innocent human beings, if such a thing is necessary to avoid "forcing" a woman to be pregnant against her wishes." And we could even add, "even if she willingly participated in the act that she knows creates innocent human life." She just doesn't "wish" to create it. I can't help it - that whole concept just makes women sound stupid to me.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I'm just still thinking about this (the Bubble has a way of doing that to me!). This is the "I shouldn't have to face the consequences of my actions if I don't want to, even if I have to kill someone to avoid facing those consequences" argument. CS, do you apply this logic to other situations as well, and can we apply that argument to men as well as to women? Do we all get to kill someone to avoid the consequences of our actions, or is this a special situation for women only? And if it's all about bodily autonomy, then can we say that if I do kill someone to avoid facing the consequences of my actions, then I cannot be put in jail because my body doesn't want to be in jail?

    ReplyDelete
  40. C, I was going to type the exact same thing as you! (And Sharon!)

    It's the EXACT same thing as saying:

    "lol, no I don't believe that we should enslave people, but we can't force slaveowners to give up their economic livelihood against their will!"

    Well, that is the SAME as saying, we must allow slavery.

    Saying what you did is tantamount to saying: "lol no Leila, my belief is that we can't force women to be pregnant against her wishes.... but of course, that absolutely implies that we must allow the direct targeting and killing of innocent human beings."

    You don't follow the logic that the rest of us easily saw?

    CS, the ends don't justify the means. You agree with that basic moral (and basic Christian) principle, don't you?

    ReplyDelete
  41. "And if it's all about bodily autonomy, then can we say that if I do kill someone to avoid facing the consequences of my actions, then I cannot be put in jail because my body doesn't want to be in jail?"

    Excellent question, Sharon!

    ReplyDelete
  42. "CS, the ends don't justify the means. You agree with that basic moral (and basic Christian) principle, don't you?"

    Which is why we can't force women to be pregnant and the risks associated with that just because its in the best interest of the baby. So yes in this scenario I don't believe the ends to justify the means.

    absolutely implies that we must allow the direct targeting and killing of innocent human beings."

    So if abortion was merely the removal of the unborn and then doctors tried to save it and it died ( despite their best efforts) you would be fine with that? no intentional killing there, just removal from one form of life support? No of course you wouldn't. We've been over this a few times and respectfully ladies we simply have a difference of opinion.

    CS

    ReplyDelete
  43. Wha...? What is the end here and what is the means here? Could you please identify which is which, because I am totally confused with your reasoning.

    "...just because its in the best interest of the baby"

    Yes, not killing him is in the best interests of the baby!

    The "just because" is really out of place in this circumstance of killing the child.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Let's try to strip away the justifiers and just get down to what the question was.

    Abortion is the direct targeting and killing of an innocent human being.

    We are currently talking about abortion (see above for what abortion is).

    If you are okay with legal abortion you are saying, "I believe that we may sometimes directly target and kill innocent human beings."

    Yes? Can we agree? Because we are talking about abortion, and abortion is the direct targeting and killing of an innocent human being.

    Is everyone else following my logic here? Maybe I am not being clear.

    ReplyDelete
  45. CS, help me understand why the right to bodily autonomy trumps the right to life. Since pregnancy is temporary and death is permanent, shouldn't avoiding the permanent and irreversible consequence (death of an innocent human being) take precedence over the temporary condition (pregnancy)?

    And don't say that a woman is forced to raise a child after the pregnancy is over because she isn't. Open adoption and private adoption are viable options for those who can't/won't raise a child.

    So please, help me understand. Even the Justice Blackmun said in the majority opinion of Roe v. Wade that the right to bodily autonomy was not absolute. Why do you disagree with him?

    ReplyDelete
  46. The argument of "not wanting to force a woman to be pregnant" is silly. Only rapists would be the ones "forcing" that upon a woman. For the very large majority of abortions, they were not the result of rape. So CS, you can't even use the argument of women being "forced" to be pregnant when a woman consented to having sex.

    I know we have gone over this before, but when a woman CHOOSES to have sex, she is CHOOSING to have possible consequences happen as the result of sex.

    As long as there wasn't rape or sexual assault involved, NO ONE is "forcing" the woman to be pregnant. And in that case preventing her from killing an innocent person would only be protecting an innocent person and not "forcing" anything upon her. She already made the choice to allow a human inside her, no forcing going on. Just protecting a human life.

    ReplyDelete
  47. CS, I remember in the past that you said the method of freeing a woman from the supposedly unjust burden of pregnancy doesn't matter to you - whatever abortion procedure will free the woman is ok with you. Maybe you've modified that position recently and I missed it. Regardless, it's obvious that you know a child is killed by an abortion. But the bottom line is, you really don't care. To you, priorities are priorities, and women must to be protected from the consequences of their actions, come hell, high water, or their very own children. At the same time, it is more than strange that you are avoiding the question. How many people asked you to just straight out admit that you are ok with killing innocent human beings? And what is your response? You find something else to discuss. You saw the "ends & means" comment and decided you'd much rather talk about that instead. Interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  48. “Abortion is the direct targeting and killing of an innocent human being.”

    Um, actually according to wiki: Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo from the womb before it can survive on its own.


    ReplyDelete
  49. “As long as there wasn't rape or sexual assault involved, NO ONE is "forcing" the woman to be pregnant…She already made the choice to allow a human inside her, no forcing going on. Just protecting a human life.”

    Protecting human life through making a woman to be a human incubator against her will is forcing her.

    ReplyDelete
  50. “Regardless, it's obvious that you know a child is killed by an abortion. But the bottom line is, you really don't care. To you, priorities are priorities, and women must to be protected from the consequences of their actions, come hell, high water, or their very own children.”

    Bangs head on table. I’ve explained my position far too many times to do it again. I’m exhausted repeating the same thing over and over arguing for something I’m barely in favor of and only become more in favor of after having these discussions and consequently fearing for society if ya’ll ever take power.

    I think the way to decrease/end abortion is by spreading awareness and informed consent, screening for coercion and giving women real tangible options and taking to them about the joys of motherhood and the realities of pregnancy, I get no joy in ‘making sure women reap the consequences of their actions’ and I don’t purport to tell people what surgeries they can elect for BECAUSE I’M NOT A DOCTOR

    “At the same time, it is more than strange that you are avoiding the question. How many people asked you to just straight out admit that you are ok with killing innocent human beings? And what is your response? You find something else to discuss.”

    Ok Sharon, will you straight up admit that you are ok violating women through forced pregnancy and using them as human incubators no matter how much they protest or what the costs to their psychical and mental health? will you straight up admit that forced pregnancy is akin to rape? What! You won't cosign my hyperbolic language shocking !

    ReplyDelete
  51. "Protecting human life through making a woman to be a human incubator against her will is forcing her."

    I said that if the woman consented to sex, wasn't raped or sexually assaulted, then she consented to ALL possible outcomes. How do you deny that logic? It is straight forward, basic cause and effect logic. That logic leads to NO ONE forcing or making her the human incubator, as you put it. SHE already made herself the "human incubator" by consenting to sex. How do you not understand that logic?

    I really think you understand it, but refuse to accept that logic no matter how true it is. Because for some reason you think it is "unfair" "unequal" , but "unfair" is subjective and doesn't change the logic. A woman consenting to sex, consents to the possibility of getting pregnant. Even if she uses contraception, all contraception has failure rates. They even disclose their estimated failure rate for legal reasons so they don't get sued by people saying "they said I wouldn't get STDs or get pregnant!"

    It really comes down to people wanting another "out". I say "another" because the original out was before they consented to sex, they could have abstained. I know that is soooo terrible to say, "abstain! I can't do that!" Well, if you choose not to abstain, and you consent to sex, then you are letting the one "out" pass that doesn't require killing another human being. Explain why the innocent human being must die because the mother decided to pass on the first "out" opportunity and now she demands a second "out" opportunity? Why is it okay that the second "out" opportunity cost the innocent person their life. How in the world is it fair for one human being to lose its right to life because another human being wants ANOTHER chance to make a decision to be "out" of the situation?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Come on, CS, you're being deliberately obtuse now. You're smarter than this.

    "Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo from the womb before it can survive on its own."

    And how does this removal affect the fetus or embryo, CS? What are the intended outcomes of this removal? What is the intent of the abortionist who performs the "removal"?

    Let's say that I got sick and tired of using my body to care for my toddler, so I take him out to the desert, dump him by the side of the road, and leave. When the police come to arrest me, I tell them that I simply removed my son from his home before he could survive on his own.

    By your logic, I should not be charged with murder, because all I did was remove my son from his home once I decided I no longer wanted to use my body to care for him.

    Is that what you believe? Honestly?

    ReplyDelete
  53. "I don’t purport to tell people what surgeries they can elect for BECAUSE I’M NOT A DOCTOR"

    CS, you don't have to be a doctor to stand up for the basic human rights of other human beings. You just have to be a decent person with a moral compass.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "Protecting human life through making a woman to be a human incubator against her will is forcing her."

    Not allowing her to kill her child is an act of force? Against a passive process called gestation where she had to do nothing except, well, not kill her child?

    Okay, you know... I have to stop and remember that only God can convert a heart, and only if that heart is open and wanting to do His will above all else. I have to also remember that the lurkers are the silent audience here. I have confidence that the lurkers understand our questions to CS. And the obfuscation that has occurred in answering them.


    ReplyDelete
  55. "Ok Sharon, will you straight up admit that you are ok violating women through forced pregnancy and using them as human incubators"

    I will be the one to straight up say that this is nonsensical.

    I am pretty much done, so if you all want to keep trying to get CS to see that abortion (which she is fine with permitting) is the direct and deliberate killing of an innocent human being, please do.

    But I think I have said all I can say. I am going to take it to prayer now.

    Lord have mercy, and may the blood of the little ones that we have not protected under the law cry out in mercy for us, for what we have allowed. God has counted every hair on our heads, and that includes his little ones, whom He made in His image, before their mothers even knew they were nestled in their wombs.

    Prayer and fasting.

    ReplyDelete
  56. One last question (I know, I said I'd stop):

    CS, who speaks for the unborn? They are ripped apart, by the millions, violently, legally, and thrown in the garbage or sold for their parts. Who speaks for them? Who is their voice? Who is their advocate? They have literally no voice, no defense. They are the weakest, killed by the strong. Who speaks for them? Who will give them protection, if the law will not, if the strong will not?


    ReplyDelete
  57. CS, there is a difference here. It can be argued that we are most definitely not guilty of forcing the woman to be pregnant, that she participated of her own free will in the act that created the life in her womb, and that she has a responsibility to the life she herself helped to create. We could also argue, I suppose, as you do, that she should be allowed to abandon the pregnancy, to get that second "opt out" as jrfjosh put it, and that if we do not allow her that second chance, we are forcing her to remain pregnant.

    However... there are not two sides to the other argument. I can say that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. Science tells us it is a human being, genetically distinct from its mother, a second person in the equation. It is obviously as innocent as a human being could possibly be. There is no other side here. You cannot argue that it is not human, that there is not another person in the equation. You can say you don't care about that second person, but you cannot deny its existence.

    Abortion gives a woman a chance to be unpregnant, yes. You can argue that it is wrong to deny her that option. But you cannot argue that what she is doing is something other than taking the life of an innocent human being. Therefore, CS, what you advocate for is the right to take the life of an innocent human being. Not a very nice thing to advocate for, which is why you won't say it.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I said that if the woman consented to sex, wasn't raped or sexually assaulted, then she consented to ALL possible outcomes. How do you deny that logic? It is straight forward, basic cause and effect logic. That logic leads to NO ONE forcing or making her the human incubator, as you put it. SHE already made herself the "human incubator" by consenting to sex. How do you not understand that logic?

    I understand it completely I just disagree that a woman who consents to sex consents to 9 months of pregnancy. If you have sex you may put yourself at risk for an STD but you don’t consent to let the STD run its course. No one denies you a shot because you shouldn’t have consented to sex. You can say she consented to getting pregnant but consent to sex isn’t consent to stay pregnant

    It really comes down to people wanting another "out". I say "another" because the original out was before they consented to sex, they could have abstained

    No its not about wanting an out, its about there is nothing you can do, nothing, no contract in the world that allows your very body to be used against your will even if you said at some point it could be. If you agree to donate a kidney and decide once the other person is cut open that you don’t want to you don’t have to because your kidneys never belong to anyone else, no one has a right to them but you

    CS

    ReplyDelete
  59. “By your logic, I should not be charged with murder, because all I did was remove my son from his home once I decided I no longer wanted to use my body to care for him.”

    There is an enormous dinstinction between the efforts of your body and your body itself that the people on this board are just ignoring. There is a reason you have to pay child support but don’t have to donate an organ to your kid to save their life its because money even basic care and thr use of ones internal body are different. Its why raping woman and stealing from her are two vastly different crimes. We all know this

    “And how does this removal affect the fetus or embryo, CS? What are the intended outcomes of this removal? What is the intent of the abortionist who performs the "removal"?”

    It dies JoAnna, but the purpose is not to target and stuff innocent life ( which is as much a euphemism as what I provided), the point is to take something out of the woman’s body that she doesn’t want there. Abortions performed by pills literally thin the woman’s uterine lining, her own lining, her own body, it sloughs off whats in there, which is a far and wide cry from targeting and destroying innocent life.

    CS

    ReplyDelete
  60. “Who speaks for them? Who will give them protection, if the law will not, if the strong will not?”

    Speak for them. Advocate for them. But we cannot use women’s bodies against their will for them, that’s wrong too Leila.

    CS

    ReplyDelete
  61. “But you cannot argue that what she is doing is something other than taking the life of an innocent human being.”

    Yea Sharon, I can. She’s failing to put her life on hold to develop human life, shes failing to advance it. Keeping someone alive through intimate ways is not anyone’s obligation, is not a right anyone has. Women matter too. Your body and your very being are yours, share it with others if you please but you and you alone are entitled to it.

    CS

    ReplyDelete
  62. "Your body and your very being are yours, share it with others if you please but you and you alone are entitled to it."

    You should add at the end of that sentence ", unless you are an innocent human being that was created through someone's CHOICE to have sex, then you are not entitled to your body or very being. When that someone decides they don't want to be responsible for their own choices and the consequences of said choices. Because in today's society, many people don't know what responsibility is and want everyone else to do the hard work and hand them everything on a silver platter and not hold them accountable for their own actions. So it is okay to kill other humans because some people can't face the facts of life, the facts that say 'you are responsible for your actions'. "

    Adding that to your sentence tells the whole story of our society and that it doesn't value human life at all. We value fun over life. We value sex over life. We value "whatever the hell I want to do" over life.

    We have a values problem in our society. Life should come first. We have talked about the logic of why the mother already made her choice in a consensual situation. Logic gets ignored, because we have a values problem.

    We should value human life over, fun, over careers, over school, over "love" relations, but we don't in this society. That is the source of the issue. That is why some people say it is okay to end an innocent human's life. All those other things can be attained later, we can develope programs to help with all those other things. But we can never bring back that human that was torn apart just because someone wanted to kill them.

    ReplyDelete
  63. There is an enormous dinstinction between the efforts of your body and your body itself that the people on this board are just ignoring.

    No, CS. It's not that we're ignoring it, it's that there is no distinction. That is what you seem to be missing.

    There is a reason you have to pay child support but don’t have to donate an organ to your kid to save their life its because money even basic care and thr use of ones internal body are different.

    Pregnancy is basic care, CS. It is the natural biological mechanism by which a mother provides basic care - shelter and nutrition - to her child in that particular stage of his/her development. Congratulations, you just proved - by your own words - that abortion is wrong, because you just acknowledged that parents have an obligation to provide basic care for their children. (Organ donation, as you correctly acknowledged, is not basic care.)

    Its why raping woman and stealing from her are two vastly different crimes. We all know this

    But they are BOTH CRIMES. You acknowledge that, don't you? Raping a woman and stealing from her are both wrong?

    It dies JoAnna, but the purpose is not to target and stuff innocent life ( which is as much a euphemism as what I provided), the point is to take something out of the woman’s body that she doesn’t want there.

    That's a ridiculous distinction, CS. What if I decided that I didn't want anyone in my house and I shot everyone who entered? Would I be able to use the excuse that I was perfectly within my rights to kill them simply because I didn't want them there?

    Abortions performed by pills literally thin the woman’s uterine lining, her own lining, her own body, it sloughs off whats in there, which is a far and wide cry from targeting and destroying innocent life.

    No, it's actually not. You are deliberately starving an unborn child to death by denying it the shelter and nutrition that a parent is obligated to provide at that stage of development. You might as well say that a mother who throws her infant in a dumpster is merely depriving her child of food and shelter, not killing him/her.

    What about the abortions that violently dismember a living child, CS? Do you wholeheartedly support and champion that as a woman simply denying a child the use of her body?

    ReplyDelete
  64. She’s failing to put her life on hold to develop human life, shes failing to advance it.

    Excuse me? Are you telling me, a mother of eight children (five on earth, three in heaven) that I have "put my life on hold" to have children?

    How on earth can you make such an assertion?

    ReplyDelete
  65. JoAnna, society today says that it is better for women to focus on careers and anything else a woman wants, and a child in the womb for 9 months is a terrible thing that they MUST avoid, even if that means killing another person to prevent such a horrible dreadful experience.

    That is what the extremists on the other side of the debate have turned the society into. "It's all about ME and what I want, even if I have to kill to get it."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I support people doing anything they want as long as they aren't breaking the law or killing another person to get what they want.

      That is the issue I have with abortion, it requires killing a human being(science proves that) to get what another person wants.

      Delete
  66. CS, the more I read of your comments, the more I truly think that you consider women to be children, or dolts, or other people who need your paternalistic care to rescue them from nasty old reality. Maybe what we should do is to get the Supreme Court to announce that henceforth, it shall be unconstitutional for Nature to allow a woman to get pregnant without her express written consent, birth control or no birth control. The Supremes have already shown their willingness to legislate reality, so why not?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Wait, wait. Can we all just look at the deceitful language in the phrase "force a woman to be pregnant" You have already questioned whether or not consensual sex therefore means that the pregnancy wasn't forced, but I want instead to say, let's just talk about pregnancy more clinically for a second, and call it a health condition, or hey, if you want to be pessimistic I"ll even say lets call it a disease...which is how it is often portrayed by abortion advocates. My question is, do we talk about people being "forced" to be sick if they develop any other condition? For example:

    What if instead of "pregnancy" we were talking about tumors: massive, painful, unwanted uterine tumors. Who would say "we can't force women to have tumors"? We just don't frame it that way.

    I think we would say, okay, you have tumors. You don't want them there. The prognosis is scary! We agree that they need to come out of your uterus eventually. However, in some circumstances a good doctor would recognize that for any host of reasons, the best outcomes would be obtained by waiting to get the tumors out. Maybe the patient has some other condition that makes surgery dangerous and needs to be reconciled first, or radiation or chemotherapy is recommended to first shrink the tumors which would result in better surgical outcomes. One shouldn't just demand that the doctor cuts out those tumors immediately even if the doctor disagreed that this was the best option! And yes, of course you would be devastated at your diagnosis, and maybe you would question the fairness or justice in this happening to you. But no one logically says "You can't force me to develop cancer!" You can demand the best medical treatment to get through cancer and demand that this care is available to all women who have cancer., But if your oncologist thinks that she shouldn't don't perform a particular treatment in a particular time-frame just because the person with cancer wants it - it doesn't mean she if forcing the patient to have cancer. Even if an evil, deranged person injected the woman with cancer-causing agents the way the Nazis experimented on prisoners during the war to cause the tumors.
    And if that is understandable that we might need to prolong keeping the tumors in the uterus for the best outcomes of all involved then how the heck can we not say the same for keeping a baby in the uterus?

    In a truly unintentional pregnancy, by which I mean rape, then still, you want the best medical care to handle the health and well-being of the mother while her uterus is being inhabited, helping her achieve a healthy and safe delivery and post-partum care ought to be part of the equation too. We have compassion for this woman, and feel great sorrow for the horrible assault she endured. We rightfully say "Don't rape people."

    This forcing language is nothing but deceptive.

    ReplyDelete
  68. The fundamental difference in our arguments is that you believe that a sperm and egg have human dignity and rights from the moment they meet. I disagree with that, so we can't meet from the same premise. All we can do is reason from our own. If it helps, your logic is sound if we're in agreement that a fertilized egg has equivalent dignity to the woman carrying it. However, we're not. My logic can't justify your premise and vice-versa. It's a circular argument. - Alyssa said.

    Back up and examine the premise. Alyssa, we ask you to meet us there! - Leila said.

    That is exactly right, Leila. The “fundamental difference” is that Alyssa completely disregards the strong scientific foundation of the argument. She fails to define anything coherently (i.e., when does a baby get rights and how/why does she define it that way?)

    She parks her thought process and stays there (which is very weak, intellectually) instead of substituting in a new idea, a new definition, any new angle to support her own premise.

    It has nothing to do with describing anything as “circular”. She’s not even using that term correctly.

    Circular logic means that someone ends up back at their own starting point. That is not at all what we Catholics do (or have done all along on this blog) in our thinking process. We leap from one rock in the pond to another. We never circle back to anything that hasn’t already been rigorously established either by scientific law or by the American legal system. We never submit an idea unless it’s already a clearly established fact. Major, major difference and very intellectually thorough.

    Alyssa is misusing the phrases and the terms. And CS is proving this very much, from Alyssa:

    "strawman" and "appeal to emotion" specifically) are driving us around in circles.

    Alyssa uses terms and phrases that describe her and CS to a tee, not us. How ironic.

    ReplyDelete
  69. In all of this, and I'm just thinking out loud, I can't get past the knowledge that CS is a Christian. I wonder, truly from my heart, where is God in her reasoning and her principles and worldview? Where is God in all this?

    ReplyDelete
  70. What is the source of morality? Not "how do we determine it", but what is its source? Or, another way to put it, what is the source of moral truth? If you say "self" or "societal norms", then you are saying it's subjective. And if so, does that mean you do not believe in objective moral truth? - Leila asked.

    Another set of excellent and relevant questions here for the secular people.

    What they ought to understand is that, logically speaking, if they point to any kind of morality at all, then they need to determine what it is tied to. What anchors it? Like you asked, “what is its source?”

    They need to tie their conclusion to their heavier foundation otherwise they have a mess of disembodied thoughts. That’s not intellectually anything, except half-finished.

    If they remove God’s law, then they need to replace it with something else.
    If/then.
    Posit, define, argue.
    Easy and clear. Very logical. This is not difficult. It’s the same thought process of 4th grade pre-Algebra. Remove, replace, finish.

    The difficulty for them is that they to try to gain as much wiggle room as they can around the very striking reality that they can never escape a moral law; and that moral law is always hitched to God’s law as its wider foundation.

    If they deny God’s law, then there is no obligation for any of us to obey any kind of morality. If morality merely comes from our brains, then it’s all randomly “inherited”, and we don’t need to heed anything it says about moral choices or anything else.

    They need to double check their variable count before they can finish the problem.

    And, yes, I agree with your comment above, Leila. How does God and his law, revelation, and personal interaction with each of us, fit in with all this linguistic writhing from pro-abort Christians?

    ReplyDelete
  71. One area that I cannot ever get a straight answer on is ectopic pregnancy - pregnancy growing in a fallopian tube. Under the natural law, is the killing of the unborn child justified because the mother would die? My mother had a tubal pregnancy. She went to the hospital in excruciating pain and once the tubal pregnancy was diagnosed, the doctor cut the fallopian tube, killed the live baby, and sewed the tube back together, leading I suppose to her seven additional children after that pregnancy. But the procedure? An abortion, pure and simple. Fetus alive, heartbeat, etc. So that baby is a person, alive and the doctor killed the baby to save her. I have raised this with numerous people and I cannot get a straight answer on this. Why doesn't natural law say that one life is no better than the other and the baby should be permitted to grow in the tube until it ruptures and then if there were some miracle by which mother and child survived then we would be doing what natural law requires. So much of the discussion I have seen here focuses on natural law and how we let nature take its course and we do not abort or deliver prematurely even babies with horrific fatal birth defects. I get the analysis in that situation, but not with a tubal pregnancy. They are more common than you think and doctors who claim they never perform abortions do so when they kill the fetus in a tubal pregnancy scenario.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Here, ProACA. It's well worth the read. You can scroll down to the section regarding tubals. There are many factors involved in the choice of the doctor to licitly excise the tube, and certain conditions met. The conditions don't disrupt the natural law component, so there's no real comparison to outright abortion on demand in this instance.

    "It is the tube itself, not the fetus, which constitutes the present grave danger to the mother; and so, given certain conditions, it may be excised."

    https://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/INDIRECT.TXT

    ReplyDelete
  73. Pro ACA - this is a good resource to re: ectopic pregnancies. http://www.ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=940 It's written by a priest who has a doctorate in neuroscience from Yale and did post-doctoral work at Harvard.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Pro ACA, good questions and first I want to address the issue of Natural Law. I can't stress enough that Natural Law is not the same as "laws of nature" or "letting nature take its course" or "what comes naturally". The Natural Law is the universal moral law. It's the moral law that applies to all people in all times and which is accessible by the light of human reason (no divine revelation required). That is why we can know abortion is wrong even on a secular basis. No one has to have a "revelation" to know that it's wrong to deliberately target and kill innocent human beings. We know this from the light of reason alone. Just like we can ascertain that stealing is wrong, that marriage is a complementary, conjugal union, that cutting in line is an injustice, etc.

    C.S. Lewis called the Natural Law by another name, the tao, I think he called it. It would have been easier if we all used that, because it wouldn't be confused so easily with "laws of nature", but what can we do now? ha ha.

    As for ectopic pregnancy: You would be right that it would be an abortion if the baby's direct killing is the "cure" for the pathology. That is never allowed. Direct killing of an innocent, as the means to "fix" something (anything), is never moral. The threat to a woman with an ectopic pregnancy is not the baby, it's the infected, inflamed tube. The tube (not the baby) is what threatens the mother. So, the tube can be removed, legitimately (that is treating a pathology, and we are allowed to treat a pathology, even if the baby might lose his life in the process. This is the principle of double-effect. The baby's death may indeed be foreseen, but it's in no way intended. With abortion, the baby's death is intended, because the baby's death is the very means of "curing" the mother. They target and kill the baby directly. That is abortion.

    There are some "treatments" for ectopic pregnancy that are abortion, and that are not morally allowed. For example, there is now a "treatment" that directly targets and "dissolves" the baby with chemicals. This is immoral. Removal of the dangerous tube is moral (and hopefully there will be a day that the baby can be moved to the uterus and saved; it's been tried), but killing the child directly is an abortion and it's immoral.

    Another example of double-effect: A woman with a cancerous uterus. If a non-pregnant woman can licitly treat her cancer by removing the diseased organ (and she can), then the pregnant woman may licitly choose the same course. She would be removing the disease and pathology that threatens her life. The loss of the baby is an foreseen but unintended side effect. It was not a direct killing of the baby, not at all. Abortion is the direct targeting and killing of a baby.

    Here is a non-disease example: If I am on a steep mountain road, and I suddenly see a child standing in the middle of the road and have no time to stop, I may morally do two things: I may swerve to avoid the child (and therefore probably die in the process, because I have no where to go but into a mountain or off the mountain), or I can continue driving on the road (which is a moral act), and even though I can foresee that the child will die, I am in no way intending that child's death. I am not targeting that child in any way.

    Does that make sense?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I apologize to all the OCD readers for my lack of a second parenthesis in the third paragraph!

      Delete
  75. I read both sources - thank you. This helps me understand what Catholic bioethicists and Catholic priests state is the position of the Church. I am not so sure the reference to natural law is clearly stated in these sources. In any event, I do not agree with the portrayal of the excision of the fallopian tube because it is "diseased." The tube is not diseased (unlike Leila's cancerous uterus example). The only disease experienced by the tube is the growing, live fetus. The live fetus will continue to grow so that the tube will rupture. It is the living, growing baby that is causing the problem to the mother, not the diseased tube. If the fetus died naturally in the tube, it may not rupture and there could be no impact to the mother at all. Thus the issue is the LIVING GROWING FETUS. THAT is exactly what the removal of the portion of tube containing the fetus is directed at addressing, because if it is not done so, then the tube will rupture, the fetus will die anyway and the mother could as well. While no mother or doctor in this situation WANTS the baby to die, it must die so that the mother can live. When a Catholic bioethicist says that it is okay to remove a non-ruptured fallopian tube with a living growing fetus inside, it is quite a stretch to claim that all that is occurring is that there is the intended removal of a diseased tube with the unintended consequence of fetal death. There is an active decision to terminate a pregnancy - abort a baby, so that the mother will live. Plain and simple. I don't disagree with it. It is the right decision under the circumstances, but it is NOT AT ALL the same as a woman with cancer in her uterus. The growing fetus in the tube is causing the problem, not the tube itself. I am not suggesting that Catholic teaching should require the rupture of the tube before removing it and the no longer live fetus. But what I am saying is that this is a bigger moral dilemma than the Church is giving credit to. The other two immoral ways of aborting a tubal pregnancy are deemed immoral, but the justification for the licit way to do it just does not hold water. The doctor must choose to save the woman so the tube with the living growing fetus in it must be removed and the baby dies, because it could not survive anyway. It is not that different than women who claim they have a right to induce labor early on a baby with lethal birth defects because the baby will die anyway. I trust you will all attack me as illogical and everything else, and that's fine. Tubal pregnancies involve early intervention BEFORE a rupture and the Church is really reaching to justify it.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Inducing a baby early is not the same as abortion, as long as the intent is not to have a dead baby. Michelle Duggar, for example, induced at around 25 weeks with her daughter, because she had pre-eclampsia. Absolutely everything was done to save the baby, and the baby is now a pre-schooler, and thriving.

    The pregnancy was the source of the preeclampsia (the trigger for the condition) and yet, direct abortion is never allowed, even when that is the case.

    If you don't see or understand, that is okay, but the wisdom and study and understanding of the Church and theologians through the centuries is where we put our trust if we still don't understand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meaning, what Michelle Duggar did was not at all what people who have late term abortions do. And in those cases, the baby continuing to term is not a threat to the mother's life at all. So, different on two levels.

      Delete
  77. I would disagree, ProACA - it isn't the living baby that is harming the mother. It's the tube and its inability to accomodate and/or naturally dislodge the baby that is causing the problem. The baby itself is a "neutral party," so to speak.

    But honestly, in terms of abortion, I'd much rather work towards getting the 99% of abortions done for reasons of birth control banned than the 1% done due to reasons of the mother's life or rape/incest. Don't get me wrong, I think the 1% done for those reasons are wrong as well, and we do need to speak out against them, but at this point we have to work on getting the culture to respect life in general, before we start working on getting the culture to realize that it's not necessary to kill a child to save the mother's life, or that a baby has personhood rights even if s/he was conceived due to rape/incest. In our current cultural climate, an "all or nothing" approach simply isn't feasible.

    So what do you think about abortions being done simply for birth control purposes, ProACA (i.e., sex was consensual, both mother and baby are healthy). Do you think they are wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  78. I think abortion is wrong. I am saying that this entire post and comments are about the natural law and how those who disagree are thinking and analyzing contrary to natural moral law. My point is that when there is so much focus on the basis for opposing abortion from fertilization by applying natural moral law and the insistence on its automatic perfectly logical application, there are holes in the logic. One of the articles you cited even acknowledged that medical procedures have changed and now it is acceptable to excise a fetus in a tube before rupture when "50 years ago" the writer claimed, it may not have been the Church's view. (I actually think he is wrong on that as it goes back much farther than that). Leila, I do understand. You think it is perfectly logical. I do not. It isn't that I don't understand. It is that I don't agree with the idea that these procedures are consistent with all the other precepts of natural moral law on which you rely, and indeed, one of the sources itself acknowledged that the Church's view has changed. JoAnna, you and I are in complete agreement about preventing 99% of abortions. God Bless.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Pro ACA, do you disagree with the concept of double effect? Or do you just think it doesn't apply to ectopic pregnancy? I'm not a bioethicist, but I'm not clear on just what you disagree with and I'm trying to understand.

    Also, at least I hope you agree that a mother who aborts rather than giving birth, due to the "baby is going to die anyway" mentality, is 100% wrong. I have two friends in real life who have carried their "incompatible with life" daughters to term, then loved them and baptized them for the minutes they were alive outside the womb. They did not choose to kill them. Their lives were not in danger. There is never a reason to abort a child who has disabilities or life-threatening conditions.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I myself have delivered such a baby. My first child was diagnosed with a lethal birth defect completely incompatible with life and I intended to deliver the baby at term, but because my blood pressure shot up dangerously high I was induced a few weeks early. We baptized our beautiful son (he survived only 40 minutes, as expected) and celebrated the Mass of Angels for his funeral. I had the full support of my family and my parish priest, but told no others of the situation, for fear of questions or judgments. I believe it is wrong to terminate a baby diagnosed with lethal birth defects, despite the fact that my child and many others in this situation suffer at birth until they pass away. But yet I do have compassion for women who have decided otherwise and terminated pregnancies. I think they made the wrong decision, but I have great compassion for the road they traveled.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Pro ACA, I am so sorry for your loss! That is heartbreaking. What a beautiful witness that you loved and baptized your little son. What a gift for all of you!

    Forgive my ignorance, but when you say that he suffered, what do you mean? My friends have told me that it was peaceful, sacred. I would guess that there is more suffering in being violently aborted? I'm truly unsure of what suffering would be alleviated by abortion?

    ReplyDelete
  82. It is that I don't agree with the idea that these procedures are consistent with all the other precepts of natural moral law on which you rely, and indeed, one of the sources itself acknowledged that the Church's view has changed.

    No, the Church’s view hasn’t changed. New medical facts help to draw new conclusions, but that in no way, shape or form disregards the moral principles at play – so says the article itself. There is no need to “change the morality”, so to speak, because that is always applicable, no matter the age of medicine. It’s always been up to the doctor to make the call, as far as conditions warranting an excise of the tube. He knows what he’s looking at, he knows the remedy, and he knows there are conditions that need to be met, morally/ethically before he decides the best approach.

    And to the point about natural law: the natural law looks at a thing and asks what it is. That’s what is meant by natural law.

    ReplyDelete
  83. And let’s give a sharp contrast for purposes of those reading this thread:

    The morality of any particular choice involving excise of the tube has to be weighed and conditions considered. In the starkest contrast possible, we have the out-right pro-murder stance of CS and Alyssa. Theirs is basically a rallying cry to kill the unborn because the baby is an inconvenience. There is no moral deliberation, no consideration of conditions. There’s just one thing: I don’t want the baby (because I fear x, y, z) so we’re ending its life. That’s completely opposite the whole idea of “compassion” and “informed decision”, no matter how grave the circumstances. Flippant. Fear based. Not reality.

    The numbers go so far beyond their conclusion -- the rates of survival and low complications give confidence instead of insecurity.
    It’s absurd they should worry to the degree they do. It’s illogical and unrealistic that they fail to consider the actual reality of the medical circumstances they both fear and reference so much, yet they want to flip the switch so urgently, despite what those deliberations really may show in conclusion.

    And it’s unintelligent that they choose to ignore the wisdom of the Church that says, “In cases where it’s very grave, we’re compelled by the gravity of moral weight and moral deliberation to do right by all parties involved to the best of our medical abilities.”

    ReplyDelete
  84. CS
    "Bangs head on table. I’ve explained my position far too many times to do it again. I’m exhausted repeating the same thing over and over arguing for something I’m barely in favor of and only become more in favor of after having these discussions and consequently fearing for society if ya’ll ever take power."

    Oh this is rich. Yes Catholics have such a long laundry list of tyrannical demands to impose on society like:
    1. DON'T KILL BABIES! (or old people)
    ...add the sound of crickets here
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKcAYMb5uk4

    CS, what do you think it would be like? I shudder to think. I know this, boyfriends would asking a lot more questions and demanding more trips to the coffee shop instead of bed. As a matter of fact I would guarantee that meeting your parents , establishing trust and really finding out the true character would become commonplace. And one thing is for sure, it would be the official end of all accidental "oh , whoopsy" condom accidents. Woman would enjoy a whole new reality of respect and honor from men. They would have suitors that naturally want what is best for their potential future mate. Hell , they might even be inspired to do what they do best. Protect , honor and serve.
    "...the horror"


    ReplyDelete
  85. and rest of the logic is just numbing. enough

    Hey Nubby, answer me this. I just bought a new aluminum body Ford truck. Can you take out your abacus and reassure me that I won't end up looking like field mouse stuck in a crushed coke can? I need assurance not for my own life but for my products of conception and my incubator as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hahaha... well, I can't reassure you with an abacus, that's for sure... lol

      Your vehicle has passed all the FMVSS testing, bro, so your human micro-hatcher and living specimens of acquainted egg and sperm should be good 2 go. ;)

      Delete
    2. Please get your podcast going!!! Grassroots campaign for the Chris and Nubby Show!!!

      I'm dying!

      Delete
  86. CS in response to Johanna:
    " “Abortion is the direct targeting and killing of an innocent human being.”

    Um, actually according to wiki: Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo from the womb before it can survive on its own."


    Who wrote this... Cecile Richards? How do you define the killing of a live thing and not mention the killing of that thing? Right? The problem is that there is live thing and it's growing. Abortion aims to stop it by killing it. How do you avoid saying that unless you have a narrative to uphold.
    It would be like this: Fumigation: Applying gas to kill pests.
    Wiki Version: Action taken to end the infestation before they ruin your life.

    Webster
    1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus
    sheesh , thank you Webster for an actual definition and no more

    ReplyDelete
  87. I have a seventeen year old nephew who posted this on his Instagram. He's a great and gentle kid that plays piano , does his work well and has many interests. But this idea of being a responsible protector is what reaches deep into his soul and drives his purpose.
    http://www.memes.com/img/450075
    He follows by saying " that man is me"
    Roe has severed the ability for young to man-up and learn responsibility and consequence. To do the one outstanding thing we were charged with. A diabolical crime.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Chris, indeed! Can you imagine the horror if the world were run by the values and beliefs of St. Francis, Mother Teresa, St. Therese the Little Flower, St. John Paul II, St. Faustina, the Apostles and Saints throughout time, and oh yes... The Blessed Mother and Jesus Christ himself? Scary stuff.... ;)

    ReplyDelete
  89. The Horror
    What's comical is that this is said in the context of an abortion debate. Have you seen the new video? The blood of our brother and sister cries out....
    Not to mention at a time of open and proud barbaric head chopping, sexual enslavent and violent domination. Nuts'

    ReplyDelete
  90. Right Chris but that IS a problem. The fact that we don’t address accidental whoopsy condom accidents now, the fact that we don’t address men’s low respect of women now. The fact that we would need to get rid of abortion to make men act decently, that’s a cop out and its kind of disgusting

    CS

    ReplyDelete
  91. Actually, CS, what is truly disgusting is that we make any excuse at all for the killing of our own children.

    I wish you would answer my question about where God is in all this, in your formulation of what is good and right regarding the unborn?

    ReplyDelete
  92. "the fact that we don’t address men’s low respect of women now."

    CS, what factors do you suppose lead to the (real) problem of men having low respect for women?

    (By the way, I know many, many men of virtue who have incredibly high respect for women.)

    ReplyDelete
  93. The Church is so consistent in her understanding of human dignity:


    27. Coming down to practical and particularly urgent consequences, this council lays stress on reverence for man; everyone must consider his every neighbor without exception as another self, taking into account first of all His life and the means necessary to living it with dignity,(8) so as not to imitate the rich man who had no concern for the poor man Lazarus.(9)

    In our times a special obligation binds us to make ourselves the neighbor of every person without exception and of actively helping him when he comes across our path, whether he be an old person abandoned by all, a foreign laborer unjustly looked down upon, a refugee, a child born of an unlawful union and wrongly suffering for a sin he did not commit, or a hungry person who disturbs our conscience by recalling the voice of the Lord, "As long as you did it for one of these the least of my brethren, you did it for me" (Matt. 25:40).

    Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.



    --Gaudium et spes, Vatican II

    emphases mine

    ReplyDelete
  94. The fact that we don’t address accidental whoopsy condom accidents now, the fact that we don’t address men’s low respect of women now. The fact that we would need to get rid of abortion to make men act decently, that’s a cop out and its kind of disgusting

    CS,
    What exactly is your philosophy?
    Do you consider yourself a strong woman?
    Do you consider yourself a strong person?
    Do you consider yourself as possessing the modern woman roar within you?
    Is this what it sounds like?

    So, we can’t wave a wand and change all men into Prince Charmings.
    Boohoo and big deal.
    All we can do is change a small corner of our world. We can (and should, as a professed Christians) make our decisions based on life, self-respect, and dignity.

    It starts with you in your own world of choices, right? Avoid the jerks. Avoid giving yourself away to someone until you’re married. And don’t try to convince other strong women on here that we can’t smell the jerks a mile away. Most every woman can tell a man’s basic personality within 5 minutes of observing him.

    Avoid, avoid, avoid.

    It’s not difficult. When I want to get in shape for the season, I avoid sugar. When I want to succeed, I avoid failure by preparation and hard work.

    This is not complicated. It brings healthy change and success to whatever small corner of the world we’re living in.

    Let’s not look outwardly and whine about the world. Let’s bring whatever changes necessary to our own small world and work from that outlook. Not complex. Healthy, assertive, modern. Go against the grain. Be original.

    Let everyone else whine. You bring the change you need. Soon you’ll find you won’t need to complain about condoms, jerky guys who trick you, or the “need” for abortion. You’ll be living with real joy because you’re in control of yourself and you’re walking in God’s power, not the world’s.

    You would really benefit from some strong Catholic female friends. Maybe make the effort to find some.

    ReplyDelete

  95. “I wish you would answer my question about where God is in all this, in your formulation of what is good and right regarding the unborn?”

    God encourages people to make sacrifices, to put others before ourselves. God always encourages us to do the most optimal thing the most selfless and giving thing, but there is an enormous ENORMOUS difference to what we should do in the eyes of god and what most of us do, in what we feel we must do by law, even what we should do by practicality

    CS

    ReplyDelete
  96. “CS, what factors do you suppose lead to the (real) problem of men having low respect for women?”

    I don’t think we really raise men to be respectful of women. I mean I think we teach men to get basic consent from women but really by any means necessary. I don’t think we talk to men about how coercion is wrong. I also don’t think we teach women (girls) how to respect themselves. We either tell them not to have any sex until they are married or to have as much sex as possible without explaining that men and women are frankly different or acknowledge that a lot of promiscuity is actually an expression of pain and not sexual freedom. We raise our 12 year old sons on porn and our 12 year our daughters on daisy dukes ( and romantitsiing being a sex object) all while pretending to be super respectful of the other gender ad ourselves.


    CS

    ReplyDelete
  97. "God encourages people to make sacrifices, to put others before ourselves."

    Like unborn children, for example?

    Also, CS, you don't have to be religious to oppose abortion. See SecularProLife.org. They're on Facebook as well. Perhaps you should check them out. It was founded by a law student in her mid-twenties (now a lawyer in her late twenties). Amazingly enough, she has managed to succeed in her career WITHOUT killing any children! Her name is Kelsey Hazzard.

    ReplyDelete
  98. “It starts with you in your own world of choices, right? Avoid the jerks. Avoid giving yourself away to someone until you’re married. And don’t try to convince other strong women on here that we can’t smell the jerks a mile away. Most every woman can tell a man’s basic personality within 5 minutes of observing him.”

    How did this work for Josh Duggars wife? She should have known he was a pedophile and adulterer right? She deserves this lecture more than me don’t you think, given that shes likely (hopefully) heading for divorce after picking the wrong person. Her intuition should have told her he was a jerk right? She should have known.

    Diligence is good Nubby. When you go to Paris don’t keep your purse unzipped. But everyone knows that ANYONE can get pickpocked in Paris, that it happens to people wearing fanny packs, or those zipper things, and people with small marked bills. Part of being a strong woman, part of being a compassion person, is understanding that shit happens. Of course be diligent ( many women, myself included have had relationships with people they didn’t want to marry, that they felt something was off and didn’t listen to their gut) We should encourage people to learn, we should always encourage people to be diligent and no you shouldn’t miss out on Paris because you could get pick pocketed, but I don’t pretend that there’s a magic pill that you seem to. I don’t pretend that pickpocketers are the real problem. Try, make mistakes, learn. But its by no means always tour fault when you get pick pocketed and we shouldn’t tell people that under the guise of ‘personal responsibility’


    Let’s not look outwardly and whine about the world. Let’s bring whatever changes necessary to our own small world and work from that outlook.

    Of course you should do this, It’s a good rule of thumb to try to change yourself ( as the only thing you can always control) I was talking macro not micro.

    CS

    ReplyDelete
  99. "God encourages people to make sacrifices, to put others before ourselves."

Like unborn children, for example?



    Yes, which is wht Leila asked me what I should God thought of abortion, I already said this applies to unborn cause that’s what we were talking about

    “Also, CS, you don't have to be religious to oppose abortion.

    Of course not, I disagree with that legally, but we already know sinc we’ve been over this.

    Amazingly enough, she has managed to succeed in her career WITHOUT killing any children!”

    Um a lot of successful women haven’t had abortions, so that doesn’t surprise me

    CS

    ReplyDelete
  100. Why doesn't it surprise you, given that your constant drumbeat is that women can't succeed in life without the availability of abortion?

    As for Anna Duggar, she was raised in a cult and essentially brainwashed. But can you explain how abortion access would have helped her situation? Do you think abortions prevent adultery...?

    ReplyDelete
  101. "Of course not, I disagree with that legally" - what do you mean by this?

    ReplyDelete
  102. So your logic here is that because “shit happens” that abortion is good?
    That somehow abortion doesn’t pile on more “shit happening”? Rilllly. K.

    I’m not talking about any Duggars. I’m talking to you. You’re on here as a professed Christian, and you’re coming against Life, Hope, Love, science and logic. I never see your point. I see emotion. I see youth. But no logical point. I don’t even see an experience that colors 1/10th of what I’ve lived, and yet you have this bias that we’re cloaked head to toe in prudish misunderstanding. K. Would it help if you knew I partied quite a bit on a Big 10 campus most of my college life? Get me now?

    You mention ‘diligence’ and ‘encouraging people to learn’. That is about as Catholic a perspective as you can get, without being Catholic. Of course diligence and education are tops. Education on the science of biology and horrors of abortion is right up there.

    Why do you seem to want people to dumb-down their thinking? You think we women on here haven’t suffered some jerks? Or their jerkiness? That’s what you think?

    What magic pill are you referring to that you think I promote? I’m talking about preventative (avoiding cads and one night stands) action, not a remedy after the plunge, CS. That’s magical enough to workout avoiding pain. Follow?

    What’s your philosophy? I asked that. What do you base your outlook on? Who forms it? God or culture? How do you square the actions of the 6th video just released with your belief in God, who is Life?

    ReplyDelete

  103. There have been reasons through the ages given by people why it is okay to kill groups of people or enslave them. This one takes the cake:
    "I don’t think we really raise men to be respectful of women. I mean I think we teach men to get basic consent from women but really by any means necessary. I don’t think we talk to men about how coercion is wrong. I also don’t think we teach women (girls) how to respect themselves. We either tell them not to have any sex until they are married or to have as much sex as possible without explaining that men and women are frankly different or acknowledge that a lot of promiscuity is actually an expression of pain and not sexual freedom. We raise our 12 year old sons on porn and our 12 year our daughters on daisy dukes ( and romantitsiing being a sex object) all while pretending to be super respectful of the other gender ad ourselves. "

    Because the world is like that and some men are terrible to women, it is okay to kill innocent human beings. Wow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. jrfjosh, that is very clear. Yes, that is essentially what she is saying, when it is boiled down. Thanks for laying it out.

      Delete
    2. Um no? The above quote was in response to Leila who asked me the root of why i think (some) men don't respect women. This was not an explanation of abortion....

      Delete
  104. CS, you said (regarding the unborn, too, as you admitted):

    "God encourages people to make sacrifices, to put others before ourselves."



    Yes, thank you for that, and thank you for answering. I would say (and wouldn't you?) that God more than just "encourages" us not to kill innocent human beings, but he commands it? Is that fair to say?

    ReplyDelete
  105. “Why doesn't it surprise you, given that your constant drumbeat is that women can't succeed in life without the availability of abortion?”

    Lol I’ve never said every woman should get an abortion, that’s ridiculous and you know it. I said women are worst off when societies decide abortion should be illegal, which is a far cry away from everyone should get an abortion.

    “As for Anna Duggar, she was raised in a cult and essentially brainwashed. But can you explain how abortion access would have helped her situation? Do you think abortions prevent adultery...”

    Nubby was saying how women could spot a jerk within 5 minutes of talking to him and that women should wait until marriage. I was saying, ‘that’s silly’, plenty of women date/marry men who they genuinely believe are good people. You can’t always tell who is going to be a jerk. And ‘waiting until marriage’ has complications of its own. My comment had nothing to do with abortion not sure who It would be relevant here

    CS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. why it would be relevant, not who, whoops

      Delete
  106. And ‘waiting until marriage’ has complications of its own. What complications, CS?

    ReplyDelete
  107. Nubby,

    “So your logic here is that because “shit happens” that abortion is good? “

    No we weren’t talking about abortion we were talking about relationships.

    “Why do you seem to want people to dumb-down their thinking? You think we women on here haven’t suffered some jerks? Or their jerkiness? That’s what you think?”

    That’s sort of how you were talking, frankly. But then we agree, you date people, you try to weed out the jerks you do the best you can and hopefully and eventually, you find someone worth your time. Agreed.

    My philosophies are ever-changing and developing, it’s a process.

    ReplyDelete
  108. “Yes, thank you for that, and thank you for answering. I would say (and wouldn't you?) that God more than just "encourages" us not to kill innocent human beings, but he commands it? Is that fair to say? “

    I’d rather not do this again Leila, but I think there’s a pretty large difference than just not killing people and gestating them for 9 months, but I digress.


    CS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, I honestly don't understand. If we skip all euphemisms and such, doesn't God command us not to kill innocent human beings (I'm not sure if I've met an abortion that does not kill an innocent human being, so removing a child into an artificial womb or something is not an issue today, in this discussion).

      Do you know of any abortions that do not purposely kill the unborn human being?

      Thanks.

      Delete
  109. Margo,
    “And ‘waiting until marriage’ has complications of its own. What complications, CS? “

    I mean it doesn’t always produce better results (see Anna Duggar). But in general: rushing into marriage with the wrong person so that you can have sex, over idealizing sex, marrying someone who you find you have bad sex with, always being curious about what it would be like to sleep with other people… FOMO, are a few complications.

    CS

    ReplyDelete
  110. No we weren’t talking about abortion we were talking about relationships.

    You have tied the two together. You say relationships can be bad (men are jerks), therefore, abortion is a must. In fact, you say, abortion is a remedy. That's what you do. You tie the potential behavior of men to the idea that abortion needs to be a constant.

    See your own logic here?

    I also asked specifically if you base your philosophy on God or culture? It was a 50-50 break point. I mean, which one?

    How can your philosophy "evolve" or develop and on which foundation does it develop out of or out from?

    ReplyDelete
  111. "Lol I’ve never said every woman should get an abortion"

    Nor did I say you said that. I said that you have said - many times - that women need the availability of abortion to succeed in life.

    "women are worst off when societies decide abortion should be illegal"?

    And you're basing this on.... what, exactly? Do you know that countries where abortion is illegal have lower maternal mortality rates than the United States? So your opinions is that women are worse off when fewer of them die?

    ReplyDelete
  112. Marriage is NOT something to be rushed into nor should you EVER marry a person just so that you can have sex with them. And fear of missing out...? The only thing you should truly fear missing out on is Heaven. We don't get to experience every desire we have in this life. Plus, please give men more respect than just wondering what it is like to have sex with them.

    Men and women should marry based on true love for each other and then sex becomes symbolic of that love -- it's the act that unites them together as one flesh where they completely give themselves to one another. Thus, they already have love (not lust) for each other and won't be thinking about judging the sexual act or comparing it to previous encounters. For a true married couple, there is no "bad sex".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure if the previous reply worked right. It is supposed to be a thumbs up. ;)

      Delete
    2. Ha ha, it didn't work, but thanks for clarifying!

      Delete
  113. "You have tied the two together. You say relationships can be bad (men are jerks), therefore, abortion is a must. In fact, you say, abortion is a remedy. That's what you do. You tie the potential behavior of men to the idea that abortion needs to be a constant."

    Yes, this has been exactly CS's reasoning for years now. It's been a huge part of her support of abortion. I can't figure out why she is separating it out now?

    ReplyDelete
  114. CS, I have something I think we can agree on. Would you agree that when men treat women badly, and they use women for their own selfish pleasures, or when they beat women, or rape women, or disrespect women.... would you agree that those men have dehumanized women? That they think of them as objects to be used, rather than persons to love? Would you agree that one big factor in the mistreatment of others is their dehumanization in the eyes of the abuser?

    When we give women the status of "lesser" than, then a man can more easily use and abuse that woman?

    ReplyDelete
  115. Since we are discussing how society treats sex and teaches both genders how to feel about sex, this was a good article I read on the issue.

    http://thewardrobedoor.com/2015/08/jared-fogle-ashley-madison-planned-parenthood-and-our-men-without-chests.html

    ReplyDelete
  116. Jfrjosh: that is a fantastic critique. Thank you for sharing that. In response to Emily's comment that we don't raise men to respect women. Yes, you are right. But, I would say we don't raise women to respect men either or anyone to really respect anyone else anymore. Our culture is over-sexualized and over-materialistic and people are viewed as objects and if they get in the way, inconveniencing one's maddening quest for pleasure they are tossed aside. that includes women, and men, and that certainly includes children, both born and unborn. But, the answer is not to kill the ones who are "inconvenient". We need a fundamental overhaul of how we treat people and I think that vehemently protecting life is a pre-requisite for that dignity....

    Here is, I think, a beautiful piece written about the problem of porn (but it really ties into any sexual objectification) which truly encapsulates the Catholic truth and vision for what sexuality can and ought to be. I really hope you will read this and understand that this is the heart and this is the love that can rise above the fear.

    https://nealobstat.wordpress.com/2015/08/22/affair-of-the-mind/

    God bless you, Emily. Thank you for writing here.

    ReplyDelete
  117. JoAnna

    “And you're basing this on.... what, exactly? Do you know that countries where abortion is illegal have lower maternal mortality rates than the United States? So your opinions is that women are worse off when fewer of them die?”

    Ok but where are they I in terms of women’s education, rights and overall status? Look at a map of places you want to live, you’ll find that developed nations where women are treated well generally allow abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Hi Margo,

    “Men and women should marry based on true love for each other and then sex becomes symbolic of that love -- it's the act that unites them together as one flesh where they completely give themselves to one another. Thus, they already have love (not lust) for each other and won't be thinking about judging the sexual act or comparing it to previous encounters. For a true married couple, there is no "bad sex"”

    I don’t disagree that that is what people should do, but it’s generally what they actually do that matters. And when people wait until they get married, we also have a lot of people marrying people they shouln’t marry or marrying too soon to have sex ( but we both agree they shouldn’t do that).

    Also, there is very very much such a thing as bad sex even within marriage ( read some reddit boards) and we shouldn’t teach people (especially women )otherwise!

    CS

    ReplyDelete
  119. Nubby said "You have tied the two together. You say relationships can be bad (men are jerks), therefore, abortion is a must. In fact, you say, abortion is a remedy. That's what you do. You tie the potential behavior of men to the idea that abortion needs to be a constant."


    Leila said 
” Yes, this has been exactly CS's reasoning for years now. It's been a huge part of her support of abortion. I can't figure out why she is separating it out now?”

    I mean that I wasn’t addressing abortion at that time in that comment. But yes I think there are a myriad of reasons why abortion should be legal (which doesn’t even mean it should be used) and one of those reasons is birth/childcare fall too heavily on women who may not have supportive partners.

    ReplyDelete
  120. "CS, I have something I think we can agree on. Would you agree that when men treat women badly, and they use women for their own selfish pleasures, or when they beat women, or rape women, or disrespect women.... would you agree that those men have dehumanized women? That they think of them as objects to be used, rather than persons to love? Would you agree that one big factor in the mistreatment of others is their dehumanization in the eyes of the abuser? "

    Yes Leila, I would cosign that

    ReplyDelete
  121. "Look at a map of places you want to live, you’ll find that developed nations where women are treated well generally allow abortion. "

    This equates to the "my friends are all doing it" argument that people, especially kids, say.

    Here is another popular phrase, "if all your friends jump off a bridge, does that mean you would want to too?"

    Just because other countries allow something, it doesn't mean it should be allowed there or here.

    ReplyDelete
  122. "I mean that I wasn’t addressing abortion at that time in that comment. But yes I think there are a myriad of reasons why abortion should be legal (which doesn’t even mean it should be used) and one of those reasons is birth/childcare fall too heavily on women who may not have supportive partners. "

    So, what if the government outlaws abortion, but also implements programs that allow the mother to take 9-24 months off of work and be paid what she needs to pay all living expenses including medical, travel, and all pregnancy related costs as well, plus some miscellaneous extra for her "burden" she has because it isn't "fair" for her. That should compensate for the lack of a "supportive partner" during pregnancy and if she chooses not to raise the child, she can give it to loving adoptive parents since there are millions of them on waiting lists as we speak. She can also have free healthcare at any doctor she chooses for life.

    If those laws were in place, would it make it easier for you to be in favor of not killing another person? Or would you think you would still support killing a human being at will?

    ReplyDelete
  123. But yes I think there are a myriad of reasons why abortion should be legal (which doesn’t even mean it should be used) and one of those reasons is birth/childcare fall too heavily on women who may not have supportive partners.

    Well back up the bus. This comment tells us that women’s selection of men is pretty poor if she's not being helped out by the guy (the father of her kids) with basics like childcare.

    And if we start chasing all of these instances of these moral scandals (like infidelity) that you keep pointing to as your reason to keep abortion as a remedy, think about what kind of state (police-wise) that puts us in as a country.

    And you still endorse abortion because of the potential jerky behavior of some guy. That’s exactly like saying that since the mailman is a jerk and never gives you your mail with a smile that it’s perfectly fitting that you go and beat up orphans or some other vulnerable group.

    You get bullied by A so you want to be sure to take your anger out on B. Not logical. B is not a remedy for A.

    Here’s a novel idea: Get a great education to prepare yourself to go into a great career so that you don’t have to rely on the cad – for anything! And no children need to die in the process. You can keep the children alive and not rely fully on the man. I thought that’s what modern women were supposed to do - be strong at every angle?

    And further, you don’t know who you’re aborting. Could be the next president, the next Einstein, the next great feminist. On the other hand, you know (or you should know) who you’re sleeping with.

    Abortion is not the remedy for jerkiness. The common denominator there is the one making the choice on the man she sleeps with—that’s on the woman.
    You’re talking micro level choices. Then you point to macro level educational needs of the wider culture. Keep it aboveboard. This culture does not support nor respect life. Maybe make your choices knowing this ahead of time and siphon out the jerks to the best of your sensibilities.

    And realize that jerkiness will never go away, so we cannot live in that fantasy. You can only increase your chances of finding a good guy if you look in the right circles. Nothing’s bulletproof, but wisdom is there to implement. No innocent party needs to die.

    ReplyDelete
  124. where women are treated well

    How do you quantify this, CS?
    Show me data.

    Show me "treated well" with a number assigned to it.

    ReplyDelete
  125. “So, what if the government outlaws abortion, but also implements programs that allow the mother to take 9-24 months off of work and be paid what she needs to pay all living expenses including medical, travel, and all pregnancy related costs as well, plus some miscellaneous extra for her "burden" she has because it isn't "fair" for her. That should compensate for the lack of a "supportive partner" during pregnancy and if she chooses not to raise the child, she can give it to loving adoptive parents since there are millions of them on waiting lists as we speak. She can also have free healthcare at any doctor she chooses for life. 

If those laws were in place, would it make it easier for you to be in favor of not killing another person? Or would you think you would still support killing a human being at will?”

    Obviously we’d never do that, lol, but I do think if we want to decrease abortion rates we need to look at practices that support women and motherhood, absolutely.

    CS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You didn't answer my questions. You dismissed them by saying "we'd never do that." How can you predict what will happen in the future?

      Delete
  126. But yes I think there are a myriad of reasons why abortion should be legal (which doesn’t even mean it should be used) and one of those reasons is birth/childcare fall too heavily on women who may not have supportive partners. 



    “Well back up the bus. This comment tells us that women’s selection of men is pretty poor if she's not being helped out by the guy (the father of her kids) with basics like childcare. “

    Right, but that’s clearly happening, re the current abortion rate.


    “And you still endorse abortion because of the potential jerky behavior of some guy. That’s exactly like saying that since the mailman is a jerk and never gives you your mail with a smile that it’s perfectly fitting that you go and beat up orphans or some other vulnerable group.”

    No I think abortion should be legal fundamentally because no one should have the legal rights to use someones body without their permission, we’ve been over this. I think abortion is used from a common sense standard for a lot of reasons, including the jerkiness of men.

    And your parallel is completely off. There’s an enormous difference between just going on a killing rampage and not letting someone live in you. It’s a pretty dishonest comparison

    CS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I think it's pretty dishonest to keep pretending...insisting even...that babies are using women's bodies without permission. Aside from the 1% conceived in rape, let's be honest here CS.

      Delete
    2. We have gone over this, like CS admits in this comment. She refutes the logical arguments we have made that show the woman in 99% of pregnancy did in fact give permission for the baby to be there. Her position, as I understand it, is that because SOME men lie, deceive, or simply run away when things are tough, then it is okay for women to have the power to kill the person they gave permission to live in them. Because, she simply says they didn't give permission, based on no logical argument other than men are pieces of crap. That is my summary of CS's position after reading nearly every comment on the last 5 blog posts.

      Delete
    3. Don't forget that abortion is necessary also because women are afraid of missing out on seeing what's it like to have sex with multiple men. And apparently it makes sense to not know the men you sleep with. Yup, babies die so that women can have sex with as many men as they want.

      Delete
  127. “Here’s a novel idea: Get a great education to prepare yourself to go into a great career so that you don’t have to rely on the cad – for anything! And no children need to die in the process. You can keep the children alive and not rely fully on the man. I thought that’s what modern women were supposed to do - be strong at every angle? “

    I don’t know if you’re talking to me individually or women in general? But there’s nothing glamorous or ideal about aiming to me a single mother. Taking on absurd amounts of responsibility alone isn’t a modern woman’s prerogative

    
”And further, you don’t know who you’re aborting. Could be the next president, the next Einstein, the next great feminist. On the other hand, you know (or you should know) who you’re sleeping with.”

    I mean in the same vein you could be aborting the next Hitler so that’s point is really moot. Again I assume your talking to women in general and not me individually? But people don’t always know who they are sleeping with, whether they should or not, in reality they don’t

    CS

    ReplyDelete
  128. “How do you quantify this, CS?
Show me data.

Show me "treated well" with a number assigned to it. “

    lol here’s a map of where abortion is legal/illegal. I’m not going to waste my time coming up with an analysis of why Rwanda and Iran are worst places to live than the US and Europe for women ( or people in general). How many countries where abortion is illegal do you want to live in, compared to where abortion is legal?

    CS

    ReplyDelete
  129. I mean in the same vein you could be aborting the next Hitler

    The point is, CS, you don’t know. So until you can prove who you are getting rid of, it’s unjust attack against life. You don’t know who you’re aborting but you at least know the man you’re choosing to sleep with. Even if you only know him a fraction of 100%, you still know him enough to know you want to sleep with him. The baby you do not know at all!

    Again I assume your talking to women in general and not me individually? But people don’t always know who they are sleeping with, whether they should or not, in reality they don’t

    I don’t even know what to say to that.

    I don’t know if you’re talking to me individually or women in general? But there’s nothing glamorous or ideal about aiming to me a single mother. Taking on absurd amounts of responsibility alone isn’t a modern woman’s prerogative
    No one’s talking single mother. You said men weren’t as helpful for childcare, that assumes the man and woman are together. Anywhere, why aren’t you beating the drum of more options=more power? I thought it was more options = more power for the modern woman, so even the single mother thing is supposed to be a nod to independent female strength? I’m so flummoxed.

    What is your philosophy built on? God or culture? What is your degree in? If you're equipped for the future, good. But that is second to walking in God's ways. Second to fornication as a sin.

    ReplyDelete
  130. You don't "waste your time with analysis", that's half your trouble. The other half is that those of us who show you the numbers that pregnancy isn't "scary" or that abortion is psychologically beneficial to the woman afterward get completely ignored.

    You scramble for your own remedy. Not logic. And not God's law. I thought you were Christian?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. * abortion is not psychologically beneficial

      Delete
  131. CS, I'm struggling, struggling, struggling to understand the concept of an unborn child having no "legal right" to live inside his or her mother. "Legal right". Who gives rights? Where do rights come from? A slave did not have "legal right" to do many things.

    I want you to look at this statement, yet again, from MLK, about how we make our laws, how we determine a just law from an unjust law:

    "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

    Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."


    Now, after reading that, do you believe that making abortion legal was a just law or an unjust law?

    ReplyDelete
  132. Seriously, the major difference between Rwandan and Iranian societies and Western ones is their ban on abortion? How about you look at Ireland compared to England where there is a very different set of abortion laws. Oh, you don't have to imagine countries where paid parental leave and pretty much free medical care exists for nearly everyone? Come up to Canada for starters. Some places you can have daycare for $7 a day, funded by the government. We still have a boat load of abortions here. There goes that excuse. Try most of Western Europe, Scandinavia, etc., extensive social safety nets - yet abortion and increasingly euthanasia rates are very high.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. that question mark after "for nearly everyone" should be a period. and probably a hundred other grammatical errors.

      Delete
  133. CS, good! We agree that people are mistreated and abused when others view them as objects, rather than as human beings. Human beings deserve respect, rights, the protection of the law, correct? They deserve, every one of them, to not be dehumanized. Either by people who are supposed to love and respect them or by the state, which has the obligation to protect all humans. Would you agree? Would you agree that if the state says that one group of humans is not worthy of protection under the law, that it's open season on one group of humans, then we as a society have dehumanized them? We've seen that before, in many nations and eras, of course.

    So, do you agree that the state itself, the legislatures, the courts, can dehumanize human beings by denying them their basic, natural rights?

    ReplyDelete

PLEASE, when commenting, do not hit "reply" (which is the thread option). Instead, please put your comment at the bottom of the others.

To ensure that you don't miss any comments, click the "subscribe by email" link, above. If you do not subscribe and a post exceeds 200 comments, you must hit "load more" to get to the rest. We often have meaty and long discussions -- trust me, they're worth following!