Showing posts with label personhood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label personhood. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

The three types of men who support abortion



The other day I read perhaps the best article on abortion that I've ever read, and I started looking through the combox. There was one man, John, who seemed to be making the bulk of the pro-"choice" arguments, and so, like many others there, I engaged him.

He and I went back and forth a bit, but a red flag came up for me when the answers to very simple questions were met with multiple long and (seemingly) lofty philosophical treatises, metaphysics trumping science (the old "personhood" question), a limited understanding of history, and analogies that didn't make logical connections and/or proper distinctions. I tried to pull him back to basics, attempting a pseudo-socratic dialogue, but his words and paragraphs -- and justifications -- kept multiplying.

John insisted that his arguments for the killing of the unborn are based on "nuanced" considerations about which he has given much thought. And don't get me wrong, I am sure that he has indeed given a lot of thought to how he and society can justify abortion.

But as his academic theories, word play, and relativism reached higher and higher into the ethers, I came back with this:
Don't whitewash what you believe. Own it. Don't multiply words to justify it. Own it. You believe that an entire class of human beings may be killed at will by the stronger and more powerful. There is hardly a more fitting description of oppression. When the strong kill the weak, and champion it, it is most dishonorable. As a woman, it's the most disturbing thing in the world to find men such as yourself, who instead of protecting and providing, join the cads and the players who love nothing more than to help women get rid of their "mistakes." 
I hope you will be an honorable man one day and protect the weak, not champion their killing. We have a crisis of manhood in America, and a strong, honorable, decent man is hard to find these days. Step up to your role, John.

His response was to quickly wave away my challenge ("One person's strong, honorable, and decent man is another's trash," he said, whatever that means), and return to the ethers of philosophy and why he has decided that some humans are less human than others.

Which brings me to my thoughts today. What follows is pretty much a stream-of-consciousness in which I attempt my own amateur (!) psychoanalysis of men who support abortion.

As I see it, there are three general types of male abortion supporters.


1. The Ignorant Apathetic

The ignorant and/or apathetic man supports abortion for no other reason than it's legal and it's what we have done in America for some 40+ years. "Sure, I support a woman's right to choose." And that's it. Not much thought goes into it, not much investment one way or the other. Just your typical man in the mushy-middle of morality and policy, a ball bearing who goes with the tilt of the culture.


2. The Lech (otherwise known as the cad, the reprobate, the rake, the libertine, the debaucher...)

The lecherous man supports abortion for obvious reasons: He uses women as objects for his own selfish pleasure, eschews any responsibility for her heart or her human dignity, and needs abortion to be readily available in case the baby-making act makes a baby. The lech demands consequence-free sex, and he must have freedom to use and abuse at will, with no respect for life, love, honor, or moral obligation. Abortion is a necessary "good" in his life, and he will vociferously defend its legality and accessibility.


3. The Man Trained Against Manhood

This man, in my humble opinion, is the saddest case. I believe this man is exemplified by Barack Obama. Stay with me.

I've often wondered why Obama, who is generally such a weak and unmanly man, would be so fierce, unyielding, and completely committed to abortion (even voting to let a child die who survives abortion). Why? How could this be? But it's a phenomenon that makes sense if we consider his background.

Obama was raised by a radical-leftist-secular-feminist-socialist mother. His father wanted nothing to do with little Barack, essentially abandoning him, and became simply a myth and a longing in young Barack's life and dreams. It's actually incredibly tragic to ponder, truly heartbreaking.

So, this fatherless boy was not raised to know what it means to be a strong man who stays, protects, provides. He had no idea, and in fact the opposite was modeled to him by his absent, negligent father. Meantime, he had his strong, outspoken, and deeply committed feminist mother who taught him what a "man" should be, according to her radical template. Obama himself has described his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, as "the dominant figure in my formative years.... The values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics." He called her "a lonely witness for secular humanism."

Not surprisingly, he grew up and married another strong radical feminist, Michelle Robinson. Both these women were and are the dominant forces his life, and they no doubt pounded it home to him that women have an absolute right to abortion. I'd be surprised if Barack Obama has ever had a true friendship with a strong pro-life woman, or even meaningful interaction with one. But the message he received time and again, from all the women in his life -- the woman that raised and formed him, the woman that married him, and even the radical women he hung out with at Columbia and later in politics -- goes like this: "You men have no right to tell us women what to do with our bodies. We have a right to abortion on demand and without apology. You are either with us on this most basic of freedoms, or you are a misogynist brute oppressor."

What is a fatherless, lonely, ungrounded boy/man to do? I can hardly blame men like this, because at least for a time, they simply don't know any better. They defer to the women they love regarding "women's issues" and "women's bodies" and "justice for women", because they really believe it's not their place to speak. These men really believe that this is how one "supports" women.

They don't know that millions and millions of women do not believe that our liberation, success, and joy hinges on a contrived death match between mother and child.

They don't know that legions of strong, outspoken, intelligent women (including the classical feminists) do not accept that the "right" to shred and dismember our own offspring is essential to being "a fully participating member of society".

They don't realize that inherent in honorable manhood is the loving protection of the most weak and vulnerable.

I can only speculate that it's because they have rarely seen an honorable man up close. Maybe they haven't had a role model of a man who sacrifices his life for others, keeps his commitments, and steps up to defend and protect women and children.

But at base, this type of man champions abortion because he believes that's what he's supposed to do to show that he cares about women. His manhood is deeply impoverished, for sure, and it's been trained out of him, and I feel most sorry for this kind of man.


So there you have it. My thoughts for this day. Take them or leave them.

But women, we have a huge role here in supporting our men. We must continue to impress upon the men in our lives (and online, frankly) that real men, honorable men, are those who step up and protect the weak and the vulnerable, not try to find pseudo-intellectual loopholes to strip human rights from a whole class of defenseless human beings. We must impress upon them that they are hard-wired for this task, and that we women want them to be good men.

John from the combox, I don't know what shaped your views on abortion, but I want you to be a good, strong man. We women are cheering you on. You were made for this challenge. Live up to it, my friend. We need you.



+++++++
















Friday, April 26, 2013

Quick Takes: About that slippery slope...

Yikes, as I go to hit "publish", I realize that this is a terribly depressing Quick Takes! You might want to skip this one if you are having a bad day. (Although you shouldn't miss #6 and #7!)





1)  Sexual "progressives" have no natural stop, no identifiable point at which sexual "progress" is complete. Despite this fact, we are told that there is surely no slippery slope leading from gay "marriage" to the acceptance of other types of disordered sexual relationships. Yet amidst these denials, other minority sexual orientations are busy walking the legal and social trail that's been blazed for them by gay activists:

Consider three articles that I ran into on the same day.

First, Slate runs a serious plea for the acceptance of polygamous marriage:


(Polygamy, by the way, is more naturally ordered than any gay sexual pairing; I'm not sure why gay unions are embraced while polygamous marriages are vilified? I think polygamy stands a good chance of winning approval, eventually, especially if folks are serious about "marriage equality for all". I mean, why not?)

Next, German proponents of bestiality protest a law that they claim discriminates against zoophiles:


The zoophiles claim that they are "born with" their sexual orientation and that their sexual expression should be seen as normal, acceptable behavior that can be exercised responsibly. These particular zoophiles are advocating in progressive Europe, but American zoophiles are looking to follow the course that gay "marriage" proponents have taken here in the United States.

The third article opens a path for human/animal "marriage" someday, the way I see it. Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer is to be featured at a Yale conference promoting -- I kid you not -- "non-human personhood":


Hey, if animals can be declared persons (a designation denied human beings in the womb), then couldn't (and shouldn't) marriage rights follow? After all, Peter Singer and others see some forms of bestiality as a positive good, and we are told that it is much more common than we know (I believe that). Yale recently held a conference at which students were taught to be more sensitive to "sexual diversity", including sex with animals.

As to pedophilia, we've talked about the ripening conditions for its acceptance here, and pedophile advocacy groups continue to operate both here in American and in progressive nations

If it all seems too far-fetched, just remember that gay "marriage" used to be unthinkable -- even a few years ago. I actually hope we slip down the slope quickly enough to shock all the boiling frogs and snap us back to reality. Nothing is inevitable, and any society can right itself again if it chooses.


2) This is one of the saddest stories I've ever read, and we as a nation are guilty:


This is the very situation -- leaving babies who survive abortion to die without medical care -- that Barack Obama voted more than once to legally allow. Oh, to hear one Obama supporter, or one abortion supporter, denounce Obama's votes as evil. And today comes word that as Obama stood before an adoring Planned Parenthood crowd, he invoked God's blessing upon them. The bloody, broken bodies of the millions of God's children Planned Parenthood has killed were the proverbial elephant in the room.

And the irony of invoking God's blessing continues: Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, established her organization under the motto of "no gods, no masters". So, exactly which god should bless PP's work?

Interesting that Obama never once used the word "abortion" in his fawning speech to the nation's largest abortion provider.

Yeah, I'm rambling, but since we are talking about the evils of Planned Parenthood, how's this:


The leftist New York Times and Washington Post rejected this ad as being "too graphic" and "shocking" for their adult readers, yet Planned Parenthood endorses these materials for children as young as ten years old. Why are we giving hundreds of millions of dollars a year in taxpayer money to this corrupt and violent organization that sexualizes our kids, and why is our president its biggest champion?


3) Logic, logic, logic:


It is not hard to understand. It is not "complex". It is simple truth.

There are not different degrees of humanity. Either we are all human, or none of us is. And no one member of the human family gets to determine the humanity of any other member of the human family. Not allowed.


4) Oh, my goodness. I had no idea until today:

As dozens of victims were sprawled across Boylston Street, many of them in danger of death, Catholic priests came running to the scene—and were turned away. 
Doctors and nurses were welcome at the bombing scene. Firefighters and police officers were welcome. But Catholic priests, who might have offered the solace of the sacraments, were not.
... 
Jennifer Graham captures the problem well: 
"But it is a poignant irony that Martin Richard, the 8-year-old boy who died on Boylston Street, was a Catholic who had received his first Communion just last year. As Martin lay dying, priests were only yards away, beyond the police tape, unable to reach him to administer last rites…" 

Where are we? What have we become?


5) Some more interesting reading I've done this week:



(Hat tip to Dr. Stacy!)

Giving the Addict His Due
(This really convicted me!)

And, finally, perhaps the most disturbing and inspiring thing I have seen in a while:



6) I have been meaning for so long to tell you about my friend Marcus Daly, who is a master craftsman, a devout Catholic, and owner of Marian Caskets, a family company which has so incredibly impressed me! Marcus and his wife Kelly live a life of beautiful simplicity with their six children on Vashon Island, WA, and his handcrafted natural wood caskets, inspired by the life and death of Pope John Paul II, are carved with the prayers of the Divine Mercy and inlaid with a Marian Cross. Truly awesome!




I never thought that caskets could bring supernatural comfort, but these do. Check them out.

Oh, and a bonus! Because of the family's commitment to the sacredness of life, a portion of all proceeds goes toward the purchase of ultrasound machines for pregnancy care centers, "so that pregnant women in crisis can make informed choices about the futures of their babies".


7) Won't someone go and scoop up Justin and take him home forever? He has been waiting so long. And his grant just jumped by several thousand dollars, all of which can be used toward the cost of his adoption. I know a very special advocate who would be thrilled to work with any family who commits to bring him home. ;)

Justin as an infant
Getting to be a big boy!

Click here for more info on this precious little guy!


Thank you, wonderful Jen, for hosting!

And next time I will try to be more upbeat! :) :)


.



Sunday, June 5, 2011

The sliding scale of "personhood": A license to kill?



I love clarity.


For a Catholic and a pro-lifer, the issues of humanity vs. "personhood" are clear: All human beings are persons. No exceptions.


This is a human person.


However, on the pro-"choice" side, the determination of which human beings merit "personhood" is fuzzy, adjustable, arbitrary, relative, and even emotion-based. 


I've always wondered: Why would someone go that shadowy route when we are talking about life and death?


Then a few days ago, I read a comment on Jill Stanek's blog that shocked me with its clarity. A pro-lifer named Lauren stated the obvious:


"It is so clear that someone only questions the personhood of a human she wishes to harm."


That stopped me in my tracks. It's been right there in front of my face all along, but I never really noticed it. Read that sentence again:


It is so clear that someone only questions the personhood of a human she wishes to harm.


So many times I've asked the question of abortion advocates: "If you can't know with absolute certainty when 'personhood' begins, shouldn't you always err on the side of life?" No one has ever answered: "You know, that's a good point! Yes, we must always err on the side of life." It frustrates me.



But of course Lauren's comment makes it clear why I never get that answer. Abortion advocates will not err on the side of life, for one reason: Arguing on the murky, indistinct basis of "personhood" is the only way to justify the killing of a fellow human. There is simply no other reason one would argue it.

Try to think of a time when human beings' "personhood" was questioned for a motive other than using, harming, or killing them. Wasn't it a loose and subjective view of "personhood" that justified slavery? Or the Nazi Holocaust? Or even the killing of Terri Schiavo and others like her? 

In fact, the whole point of questioning the "personhood" of others is to deny them human rights. It's a rhetorical technique used to exclude, not include. 



It's like a sliding scale.




Here's how it works:


If I want to be able to kill the small human early on, like some readers, then I slide the "personhood" marker to the first trimester or so. 


If I want to be able to kill the small human up until the last toe exits the birth canal, like some feminist U.S. Senators, then I slide the "personhood" marker to birth.


If I want to be able to kill the small human in infancy, like some esteemed professors who occupy Ivy League bioethics chairs, then I slide the "personhood" marker to weeks or months after birth.


See how that works? It's easy. License to kill on a sliding scale, depending on my comfort zone. That's the core of the "personhood" debate.


Pro-lifers, please don't be fooled or intimidated. The abortion advocates' "complex, philosophical" discussion of "personhood" is not some high-minded, noble, nuanced, or inscrutable search for what is True about the human person. It's simply a way for one group of humans to dehumanize, oppress and kill another group. These advocates presuppose the good and necessity of abortion, and then they use language manipulation to justify it and cleanse their own consciences.

Pro-"choicers", if what I've written is inaccurate, please show me how. If I'm wrong, then tell me: Why do you debate the "personhood" of unborn humans, if not to have legal permission to kill them? 

There may be a reason that I haven't heard yet. I'm listening.