Category: Let's talk
Hi, Mommy. I'm your baby. You don't know me yet, I'm only a few weeks old. You're going to find out about me soon, though, I promise. Let me tell you some things about me. My name is John, and I've got beautiful brown eyes and black hair. Well, I don't have it yet, but I will when I'm born. I'm going to be your only child, and you'll call me your one and only. I'm going to grow up without a daddy mostly, but we have each other. We'll help each other, and love each other. I want to be a doctor when I grow up. You found out about me today, Mommy! You were so excited, you couldn't wait to tell everyone. All you could do all day was smile, and life was perfect. You have a beautiful smile, Mommy. It will be the first face I will see in my life, and it will be the best thing I see in my life. I know it already. Today was the day you told Daddy. You were so excited to tell him about me! He wasn't happy, Mommy. He kind of got angry. I don't think that you noticed, but he did. He started to talk about something called wedlock, and money, and bills, and stuff I don't think I understand yet. You were still happy, though, so it was okay. Then he did something scary, Mommy. He hit you. I could feel you fall backward, and your hands flying up to protect me. I was okay but I was very sad for you. You were crying then, Mommy. That's a sound I don't like. It doesn't make me feel good. It made me cry, too. He said sorry after, and he hugged you again. You forgave him, Mommy, but I'm not sure if I do. It wasn't right. You say he loves you, why would he hurt you? I don't like it, Mommy. Finally, you can see me! Your stomach is a little bit bigger, and you're so proud of me! You went out with your mommy to buy new clothes, and you were so so so happy. You sing to me, too. You have the most beautiful voice in the whole wide world. When you sing is when I'm happiest. And you talk to me, and I feel safe. So safe. You just wait and see, Mommy. When I am born I will be perfect just for you. I will make you proud, and I will love you with all of my heart. I can move my hands and feet now, Mommy. I do it because you put your hands on your belly to feel me, and I giggle. You giggle, too. I love you, Mommy. ... ... Daddy came to see you today, Mommy. I got really scared. He was acting funny and he wasn't talking right. He said he didn't want you. I don't know why, but that's what he said. And he hit you again. I got angry, Mommy. When I grow up I promise I won't let you get hurt! I promise to protect you. Daddy is bad. I don't care if you think that he is a good person, I think he's bad. But he hit you, and he said he didn't want us. He doesn't like me. Why doesn't he like me, Mommy? You didn't talk to me tonight, Mommy. Is everything okay? It's been three days since you saw Daddy. You haven't talked to me or touched me or anything since that. Don't you still love me, Mommy? I still love you. I think you feel sad. The only time I feel you is when you sleep. You sleep funny, kind of curled up on your side. And you hug me with your arms, and I feel safe and warm again. Why don't you do that when you're awake, any more? I'm 21 weeks old today, Mommy. Aren't you proud of me? We're going somewhere today, and it's somewhere new. I'm excited. It looks like a hospital, too. I want to be a doctor when I grow up, Mommy. Did I tell you that? I hope you're as excited as I am. I can't wait. Mommy, I'm getting scared. Your heart is still beating, but I don't know what you are thinking. The doctor is talking to you. I think something's going to happen soon. I'm really, really, really scared, Mommy. Please tell me you love me. Then I will feel safe again. I love you! Mommy, what are they doing to me!? It hurts! Please make them stop! It feels bad! Please, Mommy, please please help me! Make them stop! Don't worry Mommy, I'm safe. I'm in heaven with the angels now. They told me what you did, and they said it's called an abortion. Why, Mommy? Why did you do it? Don't you love me any more? Why did you get rid of me? I'm really, really, really sorry if I did something wrong, Mommy. I love you, Mommy! I love you with all of my heart. Why don't you love me? What did I do to deserve what they did to me? I want to live, Mommy! Please! It really, really hurts to see you not care about me, and not talk to me. Didn't I love you enough? Please say you'll keep me, Mommy! I want to live smile and watch the clouds and see your face and grow up and be a doctor. I don't want to be here, I want you to love me again! I'm really really really sorry if I did something wrong. I love you! I love you, Mommy. Every abortion is just… One more heart that was stopped. Two more eyes that will never see. Two more hands that will never touch. Two more legs that will never run. One more mouth that will never speak.
that is horrible emotional blackmail drivel.
so sad, yet so true.
people need to start standing up to things like this.
it's wrong
I agree with Claire; this is nonsense.
wow; this is absolutely ridiculous, in my opinion.
No infant, let alone a fetus, has the capacity to contemplate any of this. This is a logical falacy called emotive appeal. Whether a woman wants an abortion should be her choice no matter what. People fought hard to get us this right; and while some people don't approve of abortion, I personally don't approve of a child being raised and viewed by their parents as something to regret, resent, and something that ruined their life. Of course, I also think people should use contraception to prevent things like this, but people don't use them stably and consistently. I thank God for everyone on the side of Norma McCorvey in the Roe v. Wade case. I think it is amazing that women can choose whether they want to carry a trinket to term or not.
so what is it we should be standing against then Dan exactly? A woman's right to choose?
Taking the fact that that writing is the biggest pile of crap out of the equasion, the inference in that piece is that the mother was a victim of domestic violence and had been pressured into a termination by her violent partner. So perhaps people would blame her for that too? Or what about a woman who is raped? should we stand up against her right to terminate her pregnancy?
Exactly; if you're against abortion, that's fine, don't have one. But you don't have the right to force that belief on everyone else!
the way of presentation is fine. but I don't think abortion is wrong. even though doctors are not recommending it here by not telling the gender of the baby inside, I personally feel abortion is their own choice.
Raaj
awwwww poor babies. Get over yourselves. it's a matter of choice. I know this so if you're bothered by this then that's your problem. if u don't like whats posted, then how about using your ability to choose and not read it. I'm pro-choice. I just thought it was an awesome story. so get over yourselves and find a river.
this is a very falacious story lacking in any actual realistic capacity
For once I agree with pikatchu, this is so unrealistic.. You giving a voice to a fetus is just silly... I respect your right to post this, but I am also all for my right to say that this is just silly...
I don't think realism was the point here. It was a symbolic story. A story which was written to make a point. This is an old debate, and while I believe whole-heartedly in what I believe, it's a debate that will go on and on. And since this place is barely one in which anyone's personal oppinion is valued, there's little point in debating. This situation is all-too real. Whether the child is capable of conscious thought is a moot point.
well firstly the story stated nothing in regards to the mother's rights in this case. I think it would be unfair to only assume this is what the baby wants since it cannot decide for it's own so therefore anything else that was said is completely irrelevant
Also, when you post a topic that says "everyone please read", we're left to assume that is a large issue that should demand our attention, perhaps a blindness issue at large, or what have you. So, by sucking people in that way, then turning around and saying "well if you don't want to read it that's your choice" is a totally invalid argument. In fact, that's a horrible way to get people to read this load of crap you just spewed. I'm well aware that we still didn't have to read it, but the topic title alone would draw people in, so don't use that as a foolproof excuse.
I am exercising my choice to say that it's emotive claptrap that is clearly designed to put across some pro life nutter's opinions.
There is nothing beautiful about it at all. Quite apart from anything else,terminations at 21 weeks are incredibly rare, so if it was designed to talk about termination then it was badly done since most terminations are carried out before twelve weeks.
if you google this piece there are links to it all over the internet - most of them on pro life forums. I found references to it back as far as 2006.
I imagine it's the sort of stuff people write in chain mails that they send to people with the request to forward to 1000 of your closest friends...
Mommy momy, when I am born I am going to grow up in an abusive household mommy, I am going to learn to steal and sell drugs mommy. Mommy, I am going to have a big cult, rape lots of women mommy, and then I am going to set the whole cult place on fire mommy, and kill 20 people. I will make it on Discovery's Americ's Worst crimes mommy, aren't you proud of me or, wait, shouldn't you rather make sure I don't do that mommy, the world may be better off without me.
After all, statistically, it's proably a lot more likely that a baby growing up in this type of situation ends up being a criminal than a doctor.
I am not strongly in either camp but I dispise emotional drivel, that is borrowed from an anonymous emailer.
I wonder how a pregnant rape victim would feel reading this. This is pathetic and makes no valuable point whatsoever.
awwwww want a bottle? again. if you don't like it. then use your brain and just hit the back button. Not my problem, really. if it fucks with you that much then maybe you need to think about what was written. my thoughts are my thoughts so get over yourselves. Hell I'll post it again if I damn well please. first amendment.
Ok. Let me try and use small words so you understand. You post something you believe to a site where people come to discuss such things on these boards. The very boards you posted on, with the subject "everyone Please read." People have put their opinions here, and when they have disagreed with your view, you have told them to stop whining and posting. So what was your purpose? You wanted everyone to agree? This is being posted all over facebook at the moment. It is a silly letter that has nothing to offer in a very sensitive argument. It's a very powerful form of emotional propaganda, and if people don't like it, they are going to post, the same way that you are entitled to post what you wish. Instead of calling those who disagree with you babies, why not try making a few sustainable points to back your viewpoint up?
There are many people who believe that abortion is wrong. There are those that don't. What you have presented here is not a good argument, and many pro-lifers will even tell you that. It's not that your view is wrong, it's that what you have posted to express it is not a worthwhile piece of writing, and does not reflect that viewpoint well.
Its not even well written. I mean I understand it uses the word mommy to instill a sense of motherhood into the reader, but come on, can you say beating a dead horse?
Besides, according to christian dogma, which is a large majority of those who oppose abhortion, abhorted babies don't go to heaven. Any sentiant human life who does not repent and accept jesus, goes to hell. That's a cheerful message isn't it?
It would probably be a bit more useful if whoever first penned this happy little annicdote had just said, "mommy, now I'm burning in hell, my skin is on fire mommy, it really hurts mommy, why did you do this to me mommy, why didn't you birth me and let me suffer through life in an abusive home with a single parent mommy? I could have grown up to be something mommy, I could have made you lots of money mommy. After all, I'm sure some magazine will pay good money to publish the story of the unborn child who can write in complete sentences and publish pieces online mommy. Mommy, have I said mommy enough times yet mommy? Are you getting the point that maybe this is directed towards mommy's mommy? Have I gotten repeatative yet mommy? Are you wishing I had some writing talent so that maybe I could come up with a good argument that doesn't just repeat the same sentament that people have been spouting out about this ideal for decades mommy?"
Seriously, if your going to post an anti-abhortion argument, go for it, but make it at least well thought out and worth our time to read. And please, for the love of all that is holy, don't bitch when people don't like it, you look like a whiny little child when you do that. Grow up and learn to debate better.
I think cam put it perfectly. And now I know why I deleted my facebook account.
Op - ultimately you posted this piece here with the express wish that people should read it. People read it. Many disagreed with several things about it. That is their right as much as it is your right to post it here.
If you want a debate about termination then start one, but you won't put a valid point across by name-calling and shouting at anyone who disagrees with your point of view.
I read the first few lines and ahd to quit, as it was obvious somebody ahd an axe to grind. I feel that as a male I have no right telling a woman what to do with her body. It's her body, she's the one who ahs to make the decisions about it.
Additionally, although I did not read Blackprince's responses to the criticism of the piece, I just love it when those who voice their disagreement or distaste are told that if they do not like something, they do not avhe to read it. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say taht if you don't like it, you don't have to react or say anything? That's kind of unfair, though.
black Prince wrote, "my thoughts are my thoughts so get over yourselves. "
Your thoughts? Really? Did you write this piece or just copy and paste it? Originality at its best, huh?
I find it fascinating now how the pro-life sphere has taken aim, just as prior feminists did, at the father. I have heard countless times if fathers didn't do this, if fathers didn't do that, women would not have had these abortions.
Many have already spoken well aboutthe fallaciousness of the so-called argument or point made in Post 1. If one has a valid point, one would not resort to fallacy to make it.
In truth, often a teenager, let alone a baby, doesn't contemplate the consequences of their actions or promise to protect an adult: that is absurd. Adults protect children and babies have no concept of any of this.
But if you do look around, their latest trend is to blame it all on fathers now. They used to say it was men wouldn't let them have abortions, now they say it's men are making them have abortions.
And, if a woman is subjected to physical violence like that in early stages of pregnancy, she will most likely spontaneously abort - have a miscarriage.
And these groups are usually the ones who claim a woman's shelter or other resources to be so-called anti-family. Or get upset if a pediatrician or Ob/Gyn asks about violence in the home when they suspect there's a problem.
This is just ... so wrong on so many levels; fraught with deceit and doubletalk and lies.
I am definitely pro life all the way but this is a bit much to post.
If I wanted to call myself pro-life, I could never politically support or vote for anything that would financially disadvantage women, since 70% of abortions are finance-related. As a fiscal conservative I am not pointing a finger at anyone else: only at myself on this account. People in these desperate financial situations, often caused by layoffs / no health insurance / etc. are greatly compromised in their ability to choose, because their access to resources is greatly compromised.
I am not a woman and cannot possibly understand their plight, but even now as a fully-employed individual, I have had to make decisions solely based upon available resources, decisions that compromise my own principles, even decisions about debt I would have never in a blue moon thought I would have to make.
If one is a so-called pro-life movement, that movement would provide means to life-sustaining resources for the women in question. If a movement is so-called pro-choice, then said movement would assist women in attaining access to financial resources so they could actually choose. Both extremes are silly and incoherent.
Yes I was about to post just these same thoughts LeoGuardian. The pro lifers never support the babies the demand be born. Women need the right to choose, because many factors are involved. At 21 weeks its just not possible for all this to happen in a baby's mind. So may things can go wrong before that child takes it first breath. For every woman the pro lifer wishes to have a child write her a check, give her a home, give her a mate to help her with this child, and give her the gift of true peace to care for her baby and than growing child. Do this and I'll agree that they have the right to at least suggest she have the child. If not leave her alone and allow her to choose in peace.
I don't have much to say on the topic, but here's an article I found.
Baal worship: A consistent religion
By
Jay Johansen
Two rituals
Not long ago I was reading an article about the religion of ancient Carthage. This article mentioned two rituals that were part of their religion, and while I'd read about both before, I had never associated them. Seeing the two mentioned together, I was suddenly struck by their obvious logical connection.
One ritual they practiced was the "sacred orgy". The people would get together, get very drunk, and engage in promiscuous sex. The stated reason for this ceremony was to celebrate fertility: By acting out acts of reproduction, they thanked their gods, Baal and Asherah, for their success at bearing children, breeding animals, and growing crops, and prayed for more of the same.
Another ritual was child sacrifice. A fire was lit inside a metal idol, heated until the idol was extremely hot, and then a baby would be placed in the arms of the idol or slid inside the idol and burned to death. (I once came across a source that said that the people would sing religious hymns very loudly at this point to drown out the baby's screams. I can't find that reference so I can't vouch for its reliability.) This was supposed to be an act of adoration to their god: they sacrificed the thing most valuable to them in the world -- their children -- to the god.
How practical!
Do you see the pragmatic connection here?
Excuse me if I'm being cynical, but I find it difficult to avoid wondering if the orgy's were inspired, not by religious devotion or even a materialistic desire for more crops and animals, but rather by simple lust. Did these people really see this as their solemn religious duty? Did teenagers whine, "Oh mom, do I have to go to the orgy? I have so much homework to do"? Or was the religion a thin excuse for doing what they wanted to do anyway? Of course, people are complex. It is quite possible that people saw a mystical, religious significance to sex, and also the fact that the ritual was fun didn't exactly hinder its appeal.
But then there was a problem. You have a bunch of people having wild orgies, and inevitably some number of pregnancies will result. Of course there was no real birth control back then. If the woman is married and reasonably settled and well off, maybe its no problem. Sure, the baby isn't her husband's, but they may not even know that for sure, and if they're both practicing this religion, it would seem likely that neither of them would be too upset by the fine moral niceties. But what if the pregnant woman is young and single and poor? How is she going to take care of a baby? Life is hard enough for single mothers in a wealthy, modern country like the United States, where there are many technological gadgets to ease the burden. Imagine trying to take care of a baby without disposable diapers, a microwave oven, a washing machine and vacuum cleaner to clean up messes, etc etc. What would a poor Carthagian girl do with this unwanted child? Child sacrifice provides an easy, convenient answer: give him to the god. That is, kill him and burn the body.
How neat and tidy! The people wanted cheap sex, so their religion provided a convenient excuse for it. But then they had a lot of unwanted babies, so their religion provided a convenient way to dispose of them.
Modern America
It's not difficult to see a parallel to modern America.
The most popular religion in America today is Tolerance. This religion teaches that morality does not exist outside of the human mind. If you think that something is wrong, then don't do it. But don't try to impose your morals on others. No one has the right to judge anyone else's religion or morality. Even if there is any sort of "God", then his (or her) ideas about right and wrong have no greater significance than yours or mine. It's just one more opinion.
For example, forty or fifty years ago most people believed that sex outside of marriage was wrong, so for them it was wrong. But then people decided that marriage was too confing, they wanted "free love" -- that is, cheap and easy sex. So they decided that sex outside of marriage wasn't wrong any more. Their religion, Tolerance, provided an easy excuse for it.
But then there was a problem. You have a bunch of people having promiscuous sex, and inevitably some number of pregnancies will result. No form of birth control is 100% reliable, and people often fail to use it properly. If the woman is married and reasonably settled and well-off, no problem. Sure, the baby isn't her husband's, but they may not even know that for sure, and if they're both practicing this lifestyle, it would seem likely that neither of them would be too upset by the out-dated moral niceties. But what if the pregnant woman is young and single and poor? How is she going to take care of a baby? Even with all our modern conveniences, raising a baby by yourself is very difficult. What would these poor girls do with these unwanted children?
Abortion provides an easy, convenient answer. Forty or fifty years ago, people believed that killing innocent babies was wrong. But today we simply declare that it is not wrong, and anyone who says differently is intolerant and imposing his religion on others. So, we simply kill the baby and dispose of the body. We may even donate the body parts for medical research, if we have some twinge of guilt because we have not completely freed ourselves from the old system of morality.
I don't have much to say on the topic, but here's an article I found.
Baal worship: A consistent religion
By
Jay Johansen
Two rituals
Not long ago I was reading an article about the religion of ancient Carthage. This article mentioned two rituals that were part of their religion, and while I'd read about both before, I had never associated them. Seeing the two mentioned together, I was suddenly struck by their obvious logical connection.
One ritual they practiced was the "sacred orgy". The people would get together, get very drunk, and engage in promiscuous sex. The stated reason for this ceremony was to celebrate fertility: By acting out acts of reproduction, they thanked their gods, Baal and Asherah, for their success at bearing children, breeding animals, and growing crops, and prayed for more of the same.
Another ritual was child sacrifice. A fire was lit inside a metal idol, heated until the idol was extremely hot, and then a baby would be placed in the arms of the idol or slid inside the idol and burned to death. (I once came across a source that said that the people would sing religious hymns very loudly at this point to drown out the baby's screams. I can't find that reference so I can't vouch for its reliability.) This was supposed to be an act of adoration to their god: they sacrificed the thing most valuable to them in the world -- their children -- to the god.
How practical!
Do you see the pragmatic connection here?
Excuse me if I'm being cynical, but I find it difficult to avoid wondering if the orgy's were inspired, not by religious devotion or even a materialistic desire for more crops and animals, but rather by simple lust. Did these people really see this as their solemn religious duty? Did teenagers whine, "Oh mom, do I have to go to the orgy? I have so much homework to do"? Or was the religion a thin excuse for doing what they wanted to do anyway? Of course, people are complex. It is quite possible that people saw a mystical, religious significance to sex, and also the fact that the ritual was fun didn't exactly hinder its appeal.
But then there was a problem. You have a bunch of people having wild orgies, and inevitably some number of pregnancies will result. Of course there was no real birth control back then. If the woman is married and reasonably settled and well off, maybe its no problem. Sure, the baby isn't her husband's, but they may not even know that for sure, and if they're both practicing this religion, it would seem likely that neither of them would be too upset by the fine moral niceties. But what if the pregnant woman is young and single and poor? How is she going to take care of a baby? Life is hard enough for single mothers in a wealthy, modern country like the United States, where there are many technological gadgets to ease the burden. Imagine trying to take care of a baby without disposable diapers, a microwave oven, a washing machine and vacuum cleaner to clean up messes, etc etc. What would a poor Carthagian girl do with this unwanted child? Child sacrifice provides an easy, convenient answer: give him to the god. That is, kill him and burn the body.
How neat and tidy! The people wanted cheap sex, so their religion provided a convenient excuse for it. But then they had a lot of unwanted babies, so their religion provided a convenient way to dispose of them.
Modern America
It's not difficult to see a parallel to modern America.
The most popular religion in America today is Tolerance. This religion teaches that morality does not exist outside of the human mind. If you think that something is wrong, then don't do it. But don't try to impose your morals on others. No one has the right to judge anyone else's religion or morality. Even if there is any sort of "God", then his (or her) ideas about right and wrong have no greater significance than yours or mine. It's just one more opinion.
For example, forty or fifty years ago most people believed that sex outside of marriage was wrong, so for them it was wrong. But then people decided that marriage was too confing, they wanted "free love" -- that is, cheap and easy sex. So they decided that sex outside of marriage wasn't wrong any more. Their religion, Tolerance, provided an easy excuse for it.
But then there was a problem. You have a bunch of people having promiscuous sex, and inevitably some number of pregnancies will result. No form of birth control is 100% reliable, and people often fail to use it properly. If the woman is married and reasonably settled and well-off, no problem. Sure, the baby isn't her husband's, but they may not even know that for sure, and if they're both practicing this lifestyle, it would seem likely that neither of them would be too upset by the out-dated moral niceties. But what if the pregnant woman is young and single and poor? How is she going to take care of a baby? Even with all our modern conveniences, raising a baby by yourself is very difficult. What would these poor girls do with these unwanted children?
Abortion provides an easy, convenient answer. Forty or fifty years ago, people believed that killing innocent babies was wrong. But today we simply declare that it is not wrong, and anyone who says differently is intolerant and imposing his religion on others. So, we simply kill the baby and dispose of the body. We may even donate the body parts for medical research, if we have some twinge of guilt because we have not completely freed ourselves from the old system of morality.
I don't have much to say on the topic, but here's an article I found.
Baal worship: A consistent religion
By
Jay Johansen
Two rituals
Not long ago I was reading an article about the religion of ancient Carthage. This article mentioned two rituals that were part of their religion, and while I'd read about both before, I had never associated them. Seeing the two mentioned together, I was suddenly struck by their obvious logical connection.
One ritual they practiced was the "sacred orgy". The people would get together, get very drunk, and engage in promiscuous sex. The stated reason for this ceremony was to celebrate fertility: By acting out acts of reproduction, they thanked their gods, Baal and Asherah, for their success at bearing children, breeding animals, and growing crops, and prayed for more of the same.
Another ritual was child sacrifice. A fire was lit inside a metal idol, heated until the idol was extremely hot, and then a baby would be placed in the arms of the idol or slid inside the idol and burned to death. (I once came across a source that said that the people would sing religious hymns very loudly at this point to drown out the baby's screams. I can't find that reference so I can't vouch for its reliability.) This was supposed to be an act of adoration to their god: they sacrificed the thing most valuable to them in the world -- their children -- to the god.
How practical!
Do you see the pragmatic connection here?
Excuse me if I'm being cynical, but I find it difficult to avoid wondering if the orgy's were inspired, not by religious devotion or even a materialistic desire for more crops and animals, but rather by simple lust. Did these people really see this as their solemn religious duty? Did teenagers whine, "Oh mom, do I have to go to the orgy? I have so much homework to do"? Or was the religion a thin excuse for doing what they wanted to do anyway? Of course, people are complex. It is quite possible that people saw a mystical, religious significance to sex, and also the fact that the ritual was fun didn't exactly hinder its appeal.
But then there was a problem. You have a bunch of people having wild orgies, and inevitably some number of pregnancies will result. Of course there was no real birth control back then. If the woman is married and reasonably settled and well off, maybe its no problem. Sure, the baby isn't her husband's, but they may not even know that for sure, and if they're both practicing this religion, it would seem likely that neither of them would be too upset by the fine moral niceties. But what if the pregnant woman is young and single and poor? How is she going to take care of a baby? Life is hard enough for single mothers in a wealthy, modern country like the United States, where there are many technological gadgets to ease the burden. Imagine trying to take care of a baby without disposable diapers, a microwave oven, a washing machine and vacuum cleaner to clean up messes, etc etc. What would a poor Carthagian girl do with this unwanted child? Child sacrifice provides an easy, convenient answer: give him to the god. That is, kill him and burn the body.
How neat and tidy! The people wanted cheap sex, so their religion provided a convenient excuse for it. But then they had a lot of unwanted babies, so their religion provided a convenient way to dispose of them.
Modern America
It's not difficult to see a parallel to modern America.
The most popular religion in America today is Tolerance. This religion teaches that morality does not exist outside of the human mind. If you think that something is wrong, then don't do it. But don't try to impose your morals on others. No one has the right to judge anyone else's religion or morality. Even if there is any sort of "God", then his (or her) ideas about right and wrong have no greater significance than yours or mine. It's just one more opinion.
For example, forty or fifty years ago most people believed that sex outside of marriage was wrong, so for them it was wrong. But then people decided that marriage was too confing, they wanted "free love" -- that is, cheap and easy sex. So they decided that sex outside of marriage wasn't wrong any more. Their religion, Tolerance, provided an easy excuse for it.
But then there was a problem. You have a bunch of people having promiscuous sex, and inevitably some number of pregnancies will result. No form of birth control is 100% reliable, and people often fail to use it properly. If the woman is married and reasonably settled and well-off, no problem. Sure, the baby isn't her husband's, but they may not even know that for sure, and if they're both practicing this lifestyle, it would seem likely that neither of them would be too upset by the out-dated moral niceties. But what if the pregnant woman is young and single and poor? How is she going to take care of a baby? Even with all our modern conveniences, raising a baby by yourself is very difficult. What would these poor girls do with these unwanted children?
Abortion provides an easy, convenient answer. Forty or fifty years ago, people believed that killing innocent babies was wrong. But today we simply declare that it is not wrong, and anyone who says differently is intolerant and imposing his religion on others. So, we simply kill the baby and dispose of the body. We may even donate the body parts for medical research, if we have some twinge of guilt because we have not completely freed ourselves from the old system of morality.
Oops; sorry everyone.
I can understand the author's viewpoint in this article, but abortion has been around much longer than most people think. It wasn't as safe and sterile as it is now, but it's been around for quite some time.
One point the author leaves out is that certain people don't believe a fetus is the same thing as an infant. Also, being pro-life doesn't make anyone religious.
While an abortion may be convenient, I don't think it's an easy decision, and whether it is or not depends on the person. The easy and convenient thing to do is get on birth control, but as I stated in an earlier post, people don't use birth control consistently and stably. Of course, I understand that some people can't take birth control for whatever health reason, but I can't feel bad for the idiots who are not well-off or well-off enough to take care of all the children they keep cranking out.
Yes, yes, saw this on book face.
I don't believe most women will sit around and wait for 21 weeks to pass before deciding. That's almost 5 months and the law says you've got to do it unless of emergency in the first 3 months, so 21 weeks is a long time. People aren't using religion, but some do. This has been around almost for ever and will continue no matter what. I believe its less used today due to many other methods at least in the industrialized nations. Education is the key.
Here's a component to this I wonder about:
Neonatal research is saving countless babies now that 15, 20, 30 or more years ago would not have lived. It's only a matter of time before the fetus, or even embroy, can be artificially carried outside a womb.
When that time comes, I think we'll see an amazing shift in the abortion debates: The so-called pro-life people tend to also be opposed to any public support for programs, so they then will have to choose extermination or public support of the fetus or embryo until it is full term.
The pro-choice, on the other hand, acknowleding the womb is nothing other than a biosphere, will be hard put: their stance generally revolves around her body. But she would no longer be inconvenienced (for lack of a better term), as the baby sould be artificially carried externally in a biosphere of some kind.
How many of us growing up have heard the resentment and upset by women about how they have to do the pregnancy, birth, etc.? And watch them go at it: a new one comes into the group young and scared, very pregnant. What do the rest do? Pitch in? Help her be strong?
Oh no. They tell this young, sometimes even shaking, woman all the terrible birth stories they can come up with, visibly terrifying her in the process.
So I think many will opt for, and pay for, the use of the biosphere rather than be pregnant. And the abortion debate will be flipped on its head. I think we'll see the actors on the picket lines switching sides. They may not even wait for the curtain to drop first.
But Leo, do you really think abortion is about not wanting to be pregnant and avoiding the pain of birthing, or do you think it's about not wanting the burden of a child at all? Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of your above post, due to the discussion of the biosphere, is that you believe many women get abortions for the former reason. I would disagree, or say some women get an abortion for both reasons. Perhaps you can prove me wrong?
And I will argue that a child is more inconvenient than pregnancy. Compare the length of a pregnancy to the length of a child's life.
Also, I'd say the biosphere wouldn't stop people from getting knocked up, and it most certainly won't make women, who are already opposed to having children, want them.
While I do not disagree with leo's post, I have to point out that arguing that things would be different were there a different technology, is rather moot. Of course things would be different if we had this technology or that technology, and if they had wings, pigs could fly, but they don't, so they can't. It is pointless for us to philosophize, and wrong of us to judge, based on what the future may hold. One day, we may be able to choose when we get pregnant and when we don't, elliminating unplanned pregnancy altogether, at which point I am sure abhortion will be obsolete. However, that day is not here, and we cannot judge our current circumstances on what may one day be the case.
To the last two posts: no Raven I didn't say, or didn't intend to say women get abortions to prevent the pain of childbirth, but as a choice to what is currently conceived of as her own body.
I referenced the pain of childbirth to say I think women would be ready to accept a biosphere, and I personally don't see a thing wrong with it, nor was I judging it. People use trucks to carry loads rather than their shoulders or horses' backs: to modify one's environment to better suit oneself is human.
You're right we can't judge what's currently at play based on what we don't have, that wasn't my intention.
I just meant that should that technology develop, the whole concept of abortion or whose body it is would radically change. Our concept of death has undergone a radical shift in the past 100 years, from heart stops = dead to a lot of variables now.
There are a lot of people walking around now that demonstrate this change in the view of death: people wake up from comas, recover from accidents where in not-too-distant past they would have been declared dead on the scene.
I think all our definitions go through changes based on what we possess at the time. Naturally, like Cody said, we can't really do anything different now, since that biosphere doesn't fully exist yet.
In part it does, of course, ads babies born earlier and earlier can be artificially sustained, and a fetus can even be transplanted from one womb into another.
I think it's one piece of technology that, while it will gain wide acceptance, will cause a lot of rethink on various sides of the equation. After all, in that instance, the unborn is given up to the State, just like people do now with postnatal infants, all for varying reasons, and in the young woman's case, she would be free to move on. Really no different than giving the child up for adoption after birth, except she would not have been tasked with its carriage for the duration of gestation.
If our concept of death can go through a radical shift like it has, so can our concept of birth, who or what carries the unborn, etc.
But yes, as Cody pointed out, that doesn't affect current decisions or current society, yet.
Exeept in the case of rape women can now choose when they want to be pregnancy , we already have this technology. Abortion could be almost gone, but women are humans and make mistakes. No matter they should have the choice completely.
sounds like something Rick Perry would come up with. I've read this stupid blurb so many damn times it's not funny! and it's so bloody stupid it's funny and just not worth the time. Also, who payed you to post this nonsense anyway, I want to give them a good spanking maybe they will get it then. who the hell first wrote this anyway, it's really rather a shame. and oh yeah, I know you idiots claim to be for life, but so am I. I am for life too, but I am for saving the mother who have been on earth much longer then any fetus and should be saved. besides, they have a voice and the fetus can't speak unfortunately.
That almost got me crying.
You cry really easily don't you.
It did stir my emotions as well a bit. Gosh is it a crime to be sensitive haha.
It is so wrong. This is propaganda, at least that's what it looks like. Bastards taking away a woman's right to choose by guilting them. What a shame it is.
I just didn't feel anything but very disturbed that anyone would put this shit out there. It really doesn’t deserve to be out there and circulating. It’s the mothers choice and black prince you’re a guy, I am sorry, but you have no right to say anything! You don’t carry babies, why should you have so much to say? Hell, I mean, the loudest and rudest folks about this bloody shit is men. And when the fuck did these men have the damn right to say what a woman can and can’t do with her own body? I mean, you men don’t go through this shit and yet you bitch about it like you went through it too? Dammit you don’t have the right. If you carried a baby in your woom too and gave birth to a baby then yes. But alas that is not so.
I'm sorry, but that entire argument is shit. I appreciate the fact that pregnancy is hard, but don't blame it on the guy, and don't use it as some token to lord it over us.
Granted, there are some pregnancies that were not by choice, but they are relatively few. Most of the time, you got pregnant because you fucked, and because you did it without protection. if you want to not get pregnant, either A. don't be an idiot, use protection, or B. don't fuck. If you do get pregnant because you didn't use step A. or B, don't blame it on the guy. Its not all the guy's fault, half of that fault is yours because you didn't follow one of the two steps.
Just because you have to go through the labor pains, doesn't mean you get to wield this higher power of choice. If that were true, the woman would be able to choose everything about the child, from its name, to the college it goes to when it grows up, simply because she carried it in her womb. The father did half the work, he gets half the credit, and half the responsibility.
Now certainly, there are times when the father negates his duties and leaves the relationship, and that is awful. However, that wouldn't have happened if you'd followed step 3 and C. not fucked and gotten impregnated by a man with no moral fiber who will abandon you and the child. Difficult, yes, but if you just use protection, you don't have much to worry about.
So you blame the woman. Oh she wanted it so oh well. Funny, many rapists use that verry same argument in the court room.
Did you not read the sentence when I said that some pregnancies are forced? That's rape, a forced pregnancy is rape, rape is wrong no matter what.
However, please explain to me how too adults can come together, have sex without protection, form a child, and it be entirely the man's fault? How is that mathematically possible?
I'm not blaming the woman, I'm blaming the couple. I'm saying its the woman's fault, and its the man's fault. If the man didn't wear a condum, its his fault for not doing it, and its her fault for not closing her legs. If she didn't know, its his fault for not doing it, and her fault for not checking before she let him put his penis in her vagina. If neither one of them had a condum, then its his fault for not pulling out, and her fault for not swallowing.
Please explain to me, in that, how I am blaming the woman? I love women, but sometimes they need to take responsibility and stop playing the victim.
Okay fine I see what you are saying. So let me ask you:
Do you think that if a woman gets pregnant she should have no choice but to live with it?
Nope, its her body, and she should have all the technological resources at her disposal to deal with her situation as she sees fit. It is not my place nor my right to tell someone else what they can and cannot do to themselves. If she wants to give up the baby, as long as it is before a certain period, I agree. Now, after that period, usually around twelve weeks, its wrong, because then it involves either dismembering the fetus, or vaccuming its brain out through a hole in its head. That's just wrong, and there is research that shows that they can feel the pain. Three months is plenty long enough for you to decide. After that, give it up for adoption.
And again, I seriously hate how this baby is painted as being the strong protector of the mother, while the father (of course blame the father, paint the father as an animal), is stereotypically painted as some crime-infested coward who has to beat women. Cowards who beat their wives and girlfriends are the exception, not the norm.
And the young of any species cannot protect their mothers, even if they're not so altricial as humans. A calf born to a water buffalo, who can walk within minutes of birth, stands no chance against a predator large enough to do diligence on the female who birthed it.
And certainly, a very altricial human baby could not stand a chance at engaging in defensive combat against a predatory male attacking the female who gave it birth.
and it's that easy to give it up for adoption? it's easier said then done, you have psychological issues at hand, emotional attachment, resentment that the state or father won't let her have the abortion and have to painfully raise the baby and give birth to it and then go on and give it up. and abortionissues is sepaate from ones after the birth. after the birth the father has control over the baby too, so nameing and going to college is separate from the abortion. I mean the dad just has to wait it out while the mother suffers with mood swings and everything a pregnancy brings. The father really doesn't do much except be a husband. in fact going to college is not the fathers chchoice, you're absolutely wrong about that! It's the childs choice
And how do you think the husbands feel? Do you think we don't care about the situation? Do you think we're not torn up inside?
I'm sorry but this is the problem we seem to face. Women seem to forget that men have feelings. We are painted as these horrible figures who rape, pillage, and think of only ourselves. Well let me tell you something hun, we have feelings we just don't always show them to you because we want to try to be strong for you. Not because we think it's the "manly thing to do" but because we actually care. Now isn't this all news?
Let's review what we have learned! Men have emotions, we protect because we want to, and finally, we're not the animals you think we are. I am so bloody sick and tired of this concept that men are ruthless warriors who don't give a shit about anyone but ourselves. Perhaps you should think about all of this. Take this new found knoledge back to your support groups and your crying circles.
I don't even think Rachel was blaming the guy for anything in her original post. What I gathered from it was that it should ultimately be a woman's choice what she does with her body, and that it is mostly men who oppose abortion even though they haven't the slightest idea what it's like to have a uterus, be pregnant, or give birth.
I understand that a man who helped make the child should have a say in what happens to it, but I will say this: if I were to ever become pregnant, it's to the abortion clinic I go. I'm sorry, but I do not ever want to be pregnant, give birth, or raise a child. Just thinking that I have the ability to become pregnant and give birth repulses and terrifies me. It makes me sick inside to even try to imagine myself carrying, having, and holding a child. It's like saying: "Yes Satan, here's my soul." Pregnancy and children are two things that fill me with sheer horror and disgust.
Well, sure the ones I hear complaining about it are men and yes we shouldn't control what a woman does with her body. All I am saying is that the guy does get a vote.
The guy should get to vote, but no matter what, the woman has veto power--the ultimate decision is hers.
I absolutely agree. So this does beg the question why vote? Reading your post is enough for people to give up voting rights.
To post 56, that's exactly how i feel about pregnancy and children!
Most anti-abortionists are men? Really? More drivel against fathers?
My highest contact with anti-abortionists was when I went to Florida, and they were every one of them women. And every one of them blamed men for abortions. That's right, chitlins, no matter which way the tree falls, blame the man.
I tend to agree with Margorp here, and will go even further: any group who wants equality has to take equal responsibility in hand. If we were talking blind vs. sighted here, many of you who blame men would be saying the blind person needs to take responsibility. I'm not talking out my ass: I've read your posts and often agree with that assessment.
Also, Margorp, you hit on something: we tend to toughen up sometimes to be strong for the other party. While one is emotional, has needs, needs to vent, fill in the blank with whatever word you wish, the other one is likely to keep a level head. Or at least should.
Is it true that men think about their kids less often than women? Prove it. I can tell you I think about my daughter and her needs all the time. And I've got plenty of company amongst men I know. It's just popular to paint us as nebulously bad, without any modicum of proof, even want one thing one minute and paint us as bad the next, for providing that thing.
You'll never get the equality you seek going that route. But it won't be men stopping you. It'll just be people saying: "Well, she can't take responsibility for herself, so I basically can't trust or count on her for anything." That, my friends, is non-gender. Men who do that get the same treatment.
As far as I'm concerned, equality only exists in the science of numbers. There is no equality of race, gender, abilities, and so on. It's one of those things that's nice to fantasize about, but we know will never be achieved. Someone will always have the upper hand, and someone will always blame others for whatever problems exist. Inequality with an abundance of scapegoating is what I believe we will have till the end of our days in this world.
One other thing. You say that women have all these mood swings and such to deal with, which is true and I will not disagree with you on it. I will be the first to admit that pregnancies are not easy things to go through; though with medical science what it is today, its a lot easier than it used to be.
However, the thing you don't think of is this. Who is the one who has to sit there and be the brunt of those mood swings without complaint? That's right, the man who got you pregnant. You get angry, he's the first one you see, (assuming you live together or are dating or what have you), so he's the one who gets the backlash. Your sad, he ends up with the tear stains on his shirt. You throw up, he's the one who feels he has to hold your hair. All those negative things your complaining about, yes you deal with the physical part of it, we deal with the results of it.
Now, that is certainly an inaccurate assessment, but it is based in reality. Yes pregnancy sucks for women, but it isn't all cherries and giggles for men either.
Thank you silver lightning! You are spot on with your points. I sympathize with the hardships of pregnancy but remember who you lean on for support. The men. Then when it's over you tear us down because naturally we are all about our own needs right?
Pregnancy is not a joyride for anyone involved. Pregnant women go through emotional and physical metamorphosis, and anyone in the monster's path is possible prey.
It doesn't matter what the man or woman suffers; both people in the relationship go through hell. I would say the cow suffers more because she's transforming in several ways, dealing with whatever her symptoms are, whereas the guy just gets bitched at 24-7 and has to be a slave going everywhere, getting everything, and dealing with the what-the-hell-should-I-do? feelings every time the woman's having moodswings or exhibiting some unusual behavior only a pregnant woman can understand. I would never argue that the guy suffers more or equally, but I will acknowledge that they do. Then again, I have no clue besides witnessing four out of six of my sister's pregnancies and how she interacted with her husband; I've never gone through it myself.
Verry diplomatic post.