It's been all abortion, all the time on my google reader for two weeks now as the Catholic Church (I think) is promoting 40 Days of Talking At People About Abortion. Of course, this event isn't actually called that, but that's what it's amounting to.
For the most part, I've been ignoring it. If you've heard the prolife position once, you've heard the entire prolife position: think of the baybeez*, not the women! There's only so much of that I can take before my blood pressure does something drastic.
This, however, is the outside of enough.
But that's the thing about abortion. It is hatred, plain and simple. Every woman who has ever aborted her baby must hate what is growing inside of her in order to do this terrible deed.
Look, there's this thing in civilized society called "presumption of good faith", which the Slacktivist does a better job explaining than I ever could. Presumption of good faith is necessary for conversations, without it, you are merely shouting at people. You really should read the Slacktivist's thoughts on the subject, however, in short, presumption of good faith is not assuming that all decisions you cannot understand are made from malice and evil.
Look, it's not that hard to find out why women have abortions. There's this thing, it's called the internet. It's where you posted your arrogant screed and it includes lots of other things, too. You can find out why women have abortions in the words of the women themselves.
You do not know better than these women why they did what they did. That is the essence of your rant, that you know better than everyone, that you know how everyone feels, that you know everyone's motivations better than they do. That everyone else is a liar, only you know the truth. That is the height of arrogance, and it just isn't true.
If you're actually interested in learning something, here's why women have abortions, from I'm Not Sorry:
I had two beautiful daughters, ages 3 years old and 6 months. They were my whole life. I also had an alcoholic husband who I was desperately trying to seperate from. His increasingly frightening outbursts of rage had become too much for me. I was on the pill and we only made love once that month, but I still got pregnant. I knew there was no way I could possibly handle a pregnancy, and I knew if I told my husband, I would not be safe.
I secretly had an abortion and I know I made the right choice. It’s not a choice I ever thought I’d have to make, but I’m so grateful I had the right. I sincerely doubt that I’d still be sitting here in one piece, the blissful mother of two gorgeous girls, now 7 and 4 years old, if I had not had an abortion. I did what I had to do to protect myself and my children, and I have never once regretted it.
No hatred, just love for her daughters and a desire for safety.
My husband and I did not have the money to raise a child. Moreover, we had a few issues on our own to work out first. My husband is an alcoholic, and right as found out I was pregnant, he had decided to make the next step with his disease – to go to treatment for alcoholics and seek some help. I had wanted to get our relationship under control before bringing a child into this world.
Again, no hatred, just love.
Presumption of good faith. Get some.
*As said by Claire from Lost.
I know for the stone cold truth that if I had gotten pregnant while my husband D was still in the throes of addiction, it would have been the unkindest thing imaginable for that child, for me, and moreover for him. (Stress he puts on himself has always been a huge trigger, and I firmly believe if I had been pregnant before or when he went into recovery, he would not have achieved the almost-300 days sober he has now.)
ReplyDeleteNow, I didn't get pregnant, lucky for me and thanks to Ortho-McNeil. But if I had? No way in hell could anyone look at me with a straight face and tell me hate would have motivating me to terminate. It would have been hope for D's ability to recover, and the very realistic fact that I needed to put him first for a while.
Exactly. And congratulations to D, btw. There is nothing more stressful than a baby. Stress is bad for me and bad for Teh Hubby (who has MS). I can't imagine what the two of us would be like with a baby. Well, completely incapable of raising that baby, for one thing.
ReplyDelete@ Ariadne - I wish you and your husband well. Though I'm not an addict I've volunteered/worked at a substance abuse helpline and getting the right supports (outpatient therapy, meetings, etc.)seems to be a winning recipe in staying clean.
ReplyDeleteI was 'sent' over here from And Sometimes Tea, and was curious as to why someone so antagonistic toward those attempting to maintain a position that any abortion is 'killing' a fetus would care to comment in a forum which eschews the stance that all life is sacred. While I am defiantly a Catholic for Life, and all life, I allow myself leeway to consider that a fetus very early in developmental stages is not a child. The grey area is the biological vs. theological definition of when life exists.
ReplyDeleteI am certainly against a decision for women to want to avail themselves freely of the notion that it's okay to grow a fetus in their womb for an extended amount of time and then, after certain developmental levels choose to 'rid' themselves of 'it', without recrimination of a living being. I am certainly against a society that supports a flagrant disregard for life, in the legal system that allows or condones rape without castration, or in the societal system that cannot provide infant support for babies brought to birth by mothers that couldn't/wouldn't raise the children properly, and I am certainly against a system that doesn't properly educate or promote young people of the benefits of abstinence e.g. media glorification of whoredom, L. Gaga, etc., as well as in the pop culture.
I don't see why an atheist would make such a big deal about denigrating the opinion of others. I certainly have no qualms against atheists or their beliefs as it is a freedom here in the US I enjoy, and I do not feel sad, bad, or even indifferent about what others believe, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else nor interfere with others' rights. But, this business of freely killing almost babies, or viable fetuses, in late-term abortions has got to stop as a matter of course. Humans cannot be right in their heads if they don't feel pity or remorse at squeezing life out of an innocent with no choice in the matter.
This whole blog is so dedicated to its slant that it almost seems a parallel anti-movement, but the freedom of speech is all good.
As a man, a father (X 3), a grandfather (X 3), a brother to a sister, and a husband (x 2), I find it difficult, if not impossible, to understand the religious viewpoint that anyone other than the woman in question should have anything to say about her decisions regarding her own reproduction. If, as appears to be the case, one's religious/philosophical viewppint is that "ALL LIFE IS SACRED", it must logically follow that there will be times when the sanctity of certain lives may be in conflict (i.e. one of them must suffer if the other is to continue) with each other. We seem to readily understand that at times we (or the state) must decide that a life must be taken without the consent of the victim, generally, we hope, for the benefit of the greater good. This viewpoint, although universally recognized in various degrees by every society that has ever existed, is the basis for all of the controversies over abortion/"right to life". If one opposes abortion on purely rational or secular grounds (which, I will submit, is almost never possible in light of the pervasive impact of being raised and living in a largely religious society), one must recognize that so long as the law of the land is observed and no one is forced to submit to an abortion against her will, it should be nobodiy's business how or why a person should seek an abortion. If, on the other hand, one's objections to a legal abortion are based upon the belief that God forbids it or that it is a sin to do so, thus limiting another person's legal and/or secular right to control over her own body and her own "potential offspring", it seems to me that such a belief is not only unfair imposition on another person's rights, but is also an example of the historical efforts of most religions to "force" their beliefs on the rest of society. If God really is opposed to abortion, it would seem that the only "soul" at risk is that of the person who chooses to have one. It certainly has no bearing upon either the innocent fetus or the rest of the souls who neither choose an abortion nor try to interfere with other people's rights.
ReplyDeleteCinnamon:
ReplyDelete"Humans cannot be right in their heads if they don't feel pity or remorse at squeezing life out of an innocent with no choice in the matter."
With all due respect, you are here implying that a non-believer (at least non-Catholic) cannot be "right in their heads", since you presume that we cannot feel remorse or pity when someone chooses to abort an "innocent" fetus. You are more "slanted" in your perceptions in this regard than perhaps we here on this blog may be. You are painting us with a very broad brush, most likely because those of you who are rabidly anti-abortion need to believe that without reference to a deity or the concept of "sin", it is impossible for anyone to be ethical or "moral" in their actions. Your reference in this is to what will happen in the hereafter; ours is to what will happen in this life, which to us is the only "existance' that matters.
I doubt that any person is "happy" at the need to consider an abortion. That many women who have found it necessary to do so do not regret that decision should help you to see that they are not all wrong "in their heads".
Great post. I have been blogging heaps about abortion since we've got a lot of shit going on in NZ about it at the moment. We want abortion law reform here so there's been a lot of action around NZ in support.
ReplyDeleteI find it pretty rich that anti-choicers are calling hate. You have to have a level of hate for women if you want to control their lives and bodies to the extent that anti-choicers do.
You have to hate women in order to believe that it's preferable that women bleed to death from illegal abortions or commit suicide to escape their lack of choice or die in the process of giving birth or carrying a foetus to term than abortion be available when it is needed.
"But, this business of freely killing almost babies, or viable fetuses, in late-term abortions has got to stop as a matter of course." - What business? Where is this happening? Late term abortions are performed when the life of the mother is in serious danger. In New Zealand it's illegal to have abortions past 20 weeks. We've had mothers die before their babies are born (and newsflash their babies die too) because we don't allow for late-term abortion. Anti-choicers live in a fantasy world where women just abort fully-formed newborns at whim because they feel like having a glass of wine not a baby. Grow up. If you're going to talk about late-term abortions why don't you read the heart-breaking stories of women who have had to make that decision so they don't die.
ReplyDeleteTo clarify ...
ReplyDeleteCompassionate human beings are just as likely to be atheists as those that believe in the concept of God, therefore I'm surprised it appears someone seems to be generalizing atheists would take offense at my protestation against late-term abortions used for birth control, in my assertion that anyone (especially humans) "cannot be right in their heads if they don't feel pity or remorse at squeezing life out of an innocent with no choice in the matter".
That is in a nutshell the argument I have against unrestricted abortion-on-demand, that when a fetus has developed to the stage in which it could live outside the womb on its own, it is intrinsically immoral that someone can take the empirical decision of its right to life from it as a matter of convenience to the mother.
Main reasons for desiring late-term abortions (and, here, there is no clear definition), but certainly at a point when neural systems allow pain response by the fetus, might include educational issues such as the woman didn't know she was pregnant or incorrectly calculated conception, or she put it off until it was late because she couldn't arrange the abortion earlier. When reasons include, unable to make up mind, or waited until living conditions got better, or that she could think about abortion, then there is an active decision being made to kill an unborn child for someone other than the baby's convenience.
I am not against a mother's choices, nor others' if in the interest of medical emergency including mental and physical health issues, nor in dealing with rights of rape victims at early stages in pregnancy, but, '... business of freely killing 'almost babies', or viable fetuses, in late-term abortions has got to stop as a matter of course.'
What I am against is the majority of cases where a woman becomes pregnant and fails to acknowledge that she could very well have conceived as a result of a sexual encounter, whether through lack of knowledge, or lack of care for her body, and then puts off the decision of not being able to care for the baby until a late-term abortion is procured.
Legality of abortion and time limits are not consistent across the US, and may vary widely anywhere for example from a state in which no legal abortion can be performed after 12 weeks to 28 weeks. Certainly babies are born at 24 weeks with often much life support, but do survive nevertheless as 'preemies'.
Matters of convenience seem to be the majority of reasons cited by women that undergo abortion with top reasons as wanting to wait until another time when older, better financial situation, fixed-up relationship problems, or authority influence on underage woman until older or able to support a child, etc. and I've heard pregnancy resulting from incest or rape less than 2%.
Cinn,
ReplyDeleteIn the industrialized world, something less than 1% of abortions are carried out over twenty weeks. Why do you and your ilk act like the majority of abortions are late-term?
Certainly babies are born at 24 weeks with often much life support, but do survive nevertheless as 'preemies'.
Any fetus born at less than twenty-three weeks has not completely developed, most especially in the brains, lungs and eyes. The child will be unlikely to survive at all, and WILL be born with birth defects, often massive and life-threatening. Even up to twenty-four weeks, the baby is unlikely to survive, and will probably require massive, expensive medical care throughout its short life.
Why do you want infants to be forced to live brief lives of pain and agony? What kind of depraved human are you?
backing Bog and Cynic here - in the US, less than 1% of abortions are late term, and ONLY happen when the life of the mother is at risk or the baby is *SO* incredibly NOT VIABLE that birth would only cause greater harm and pain.
ReplyDeletefurther, as Cynic said, any baby born before 24 weeks is almost always NOT VIABLE. i have heard of *ONE* baby of 22 weeks survivng - after OVER A MILLION DOLLARS OF CARE. and while it's VERY accurate to say that there should be NO PRICE TAG on human life, the REALITY is, in the US without Universal Health Care, that MOST people won't be able to DO it! most insurance companies *WON'T* authorize the needed procedures and care [i KNOW - my cousin's baby was born at 25 weeks. after 4 surgeries, needing at LEAST 2 more before the baby could sustain life on her own, the insurance company cut them off. the hospital *DID* have a fund that paid for another surgery - but the fund ran out bcuz EVERYONE who's poor needs the fund... and Baby Jess died, after a month and half a million dollars...]
get the FACTS before you go casting stones. and remember what a certain Rabbi [who FOUNDED your faith] said ABOUT casting stones.
also READ YOUR HOLY BOOK - there are MULTIPLE places were abortion isn't just condoned but EXPECTED in the Old Testiment
if you [general "you" addressing EVERYONE who holds anti-abortion stance] REALLY want to "get rid of abortion" then you have TWO things to do - increase education and access to CONTRACEPTIVES [because abstinence DOES NOT WORK and we've PROVED that it doesn't work by TRYING IT and it fails] and fund research into what i'll call a "uterine replicator" or an artificial womb. because, let me tell you - *I* cannot have children, pregnancy would kill me. but if i had ANOTHER way to do it [like an artificial womb] i might want to - and if my 16-year-old niece or sister or whatever got pregnant, she now has a BETTER 3rd option [don't lie - pregnant women have TWO options - abortion or pregnancy. adoption is a LATER choice, not immediate]. an option DESPERATELY needed.
Let us not forget - Bristol Palin, poster child for "Abstinence Only" education.
ReplyDeleteoh, dear gods - yes, Bristol and all the other teen mothers - isn't Britany Spears younger sister one of this group?
ReplyDeleteit's sad - so VERY sad. Bristol seems to love her baby - but she's *VERY* lucky, having a rich family that's actually supporting [and HELPING!] her.
my youngest sister got pregnant at 18. [deliberatily, and i'm STILL pissed at her almost a decade later]. i had custody of her until she was 18 [and i'm DAMNED proud of myself for keeping her from getting pregnant UNTIL she was 18 - and wondering where i went wrong, that she turned 18, moved out, and delibertely got pregnant within 3 months...].
*I* sure as hell didn't have the money to support her and a baby! the ONLY reason i was able to support her thru age 18 was the SSI survivor's benefits i got for her. the ORIGINAL plan was she would get a job and help with rent and bills [i wanted a mere $200... sigh]
and she WILL.NOT.WORK. she has two kids - but my MOTHER has them, bcuz sister doesn't know how to take care of them and refuses to learn. or give anything up [like constant partying]
this is NOT an example of BC failing, or comprehensive sex-ed failing - it's another example of ab-ed-only failing. before i got custody of her, my sister had slept with at LEAST a dozen people - most of them with NO BC. only if the GUY wanted BC did it get used - SHE thought it was "wrong" to use BC, bcuz she was told OVER AND OVER AT SCHOOL that it was "bad". i'm sure they were saying "all sex before marriage is bad, contraceptives don't make it less bad, contraceptives are bad bcuz they allow sex before marriage" but all she took away from it was "BC is bad"
**RAGE**
And I have to apologize, PF - it's my fault Cinndy came marching in here drunk on hypocrisy and sacramental wine. Your takedown of her post was beautiful, and I wandered over there, and... um... I might have mentioned you... just a little...
ReplyDeleteYeah, so, sorry about that.
Clarification is a beautiful thing.
ReplyDeleteWithout some sort of restrictions, who's to say that figure of 1% (for prevalence of late-term abortion) isn't increased to 5% next year, and 11% the next, and then the immorality associated with the dismissing the sanctity of a human life dissipates into availability of corollary medical procedures which allow for the release of the societal mores of denying an almost-born baby its life by, say, injecting it was a mixture of thiopental and morphine so 'it' doesn't 'suffer'?
I am neither a hypocrite nor sanctimonious, nor attempting to moralize. I think if a woman engages in sexual encounters without mindfulness that sexually-transmitted diseases, and pro-creation are very real possibilities as a result then, she better well prevent at least the development of a viable fetus if she doesn't intend stopping smoking, drinking, engaging in behaviors that predispose the fetus to congenital disorders. If a woman continues to bear children she cannot possibly offer the best environment, there are options such as hysterectomies with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, intramuscular medroxyprogesterone, and Plan B, etc. to PREVENT the growth and development of a blastocyst.
Hard-nosed, perhaps, suggesting the irreversible process of sterilization, as portrayed in Indiana heartland horror films, considering governmental decision-making for mandatory sterilization procedures. This would not resolve acquisition of infectious agents transmitting human papilloma virus, cytomegalovirus, hepatitis C, herpes, etc., resulting in further expensive health care costs for treatment of cervical cancer, liver transplants, eye surgeries, etc. with drugs such as gancyclovir and foscarnet, chronic famciclovir or vancyclovir treatment, but at least the life of an innocent is spared, and decision-making capacity of the woman involved is retained--sex + sterilization, or no sex + no sterilization, or sex + responsible parenting.
My contention all along has been that unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout the later terms of fetal development to almost neonate status is an unacceptable alternative quick-fix for lack of maternal education and access for health care, lack of societal commitment to support for care of all babies at every stage of uterine development, and lack of swift justice for victims of rape, incest, and sexual predation, as well as return to values of personal integrity by not condoning promiscuity in our society.
Please, do not tell me what I can or cannot believe as a Catholic, and a mother, and a healthcare provider, and member of human race. I do not tell atheists, agnostics, whatever believers what they should have inherently in their souls or essence and I wouldn't expect that someone would tell me what I should believe as a Catholic.
Without some sort of restrictions, who's to say that figure of 1% (for prevalence of late-term abortion) isn't increased to 5% next year, and 11% the next, and then the immorality associated with the dismissing the sanctity of a human life dissipates into
ReplyDeleteAnd who's to say it is? Why is it you moralizing prigs insist that the sky is going to fall every time anybody steps outside of your carefully painted lines.
And then, sweet jesus on a popsicle stick, you cut and paste in a list of STD's, "hysterectomies with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy" and "intramuscular medroxyprogesterone," and assume everybody's going to back away slowly, frightened by your amazing knowledge.
Bitch, please; I work in a hospital too. I just know how to write for an audience.
I like that second-to-last paragraph, btw. You suggest completely redesigning society (really - Glenn Beck would put a fatwa out on you if you tried all that), and then say we should "return to values of personal integrity by not condoning promiscuity in our society."
Please, tell me what mythical point in history you think fit that description. Really, give me a time. And a country, because it damn sure has never been America.
Incidentally, I like your whole paragraph suggesting mandatory sterilization. Have you ever even heard the term "Godwin's Law"? Look it up. Really.
Then you finish by claiming you wouldn't dream of telling us heathen how to live. Which made me laugh out loud. Just scroll up this page for evidence.
You want to legislate your opinion on when life begins. But you wouldn't imagine forcing your beliefs on another.
Go run to the pyxis and see if you can get something to put on that hypocrisy - it's inflamed.
erm... i'm confused, it may be the webpage hating me - did my comment post? [post twice, according to my email] it's not here...
ReplyDeleteif it *did* post twice, sorry - if i can ever see it, i'll get rid of the extra. if it didn't... i'm so confused!
The main reason to mention sexually transmitted diseases, promiscuity, Depo-Provera, eugenics and pre-conception surgical procedures in the discussion is that this is not an emotional all-or-nothing issue for me.If a woman doesn't want to grow a baby in her womb she should either not have sex in the fertile time of her period, use an effective method to prevent conception or request sterilization.
ReplyDeleteI mentioned eugenics in Indiana because the option for sterilization was sometimes arbitrarily invoked by others than the woman involved and imposed by the state on those in penal institutions or placed in mental institutions to decrease number of those dependent on the tax-payer before widespread availability of antipsychotics such as prochlorperazine and chlorpromazine.
Increasing abortion rates for unintended conception may merely be a result of lax society standards allowing interference with integral decisions over one's own body, physical changes in adolescent females with earlier demarche associated with increased obesity rates and concomitant immaturity and irresponsibility of adolescences occurring over the past few decades, or prevalence to widespread cheap access (< $450) for abortion in the US, especially for women in poverty. But, coitus is a biological process which may result in conception. This is a matter of education
If one believes in individual human dignity, there should be no reason to accept that more than 30% of abortions are for unmarried uncohabiting women. With report of less than 1% of reasons for abortion is rape, if an unmarried uncohabiting woman procures an abortion, it seems there is an education gap.
If a woman allows her body to engage in procreative processes at the very least she should expect her body will be exposed to viral disease and unintended pregnancy. Though abortions are very safe procedures, the fact that at the current rate, nearly 33% of all women will have had an abortion by age 45 doesn't change the fact that promiscuity increases sexually transmitted disease. There are no 100% effective methods against contracting sexually-transmitted disease when engaging in sex especially if promiscuity is involved. A frequent cause of sterility is repeated viral infections. This is an education problem.
Perhaps there's debate over the efficacy of contraceptives compared to 100% efficacy rates for abortion to prevent birth, but the vast majority (75%) of women using contraceptives at the time they became pregnant state that they failed to use properly an available effective method of contraception e.g. 'the pill' or condoms. That is an knowledge deficit.
(Public health statistics from Guttmacher website)
Furthermore...I wouldn't 'dream' of imposing my particular set of values and views on anyone, but I DO advocate a minimum level of society acceptability (morality) in not killing fetuses who have attained a certain developmental level of life.
ReplyDeleteDespite nearly 60% of reported US abortion procedures (whether drug-induced or surgical) occurring at gestational age < 9 weeks after last menstrual period, I am convinced that 1.) killing a living human being beyond a certain developmental level whether intentionally or not is killing a living being. And 2.) it is wrong to intentionally kill living human beings.
I believe that a living being having 'achieved' a level of development has an inherent 'right' to its life. And, as an aside, I believe it is also wrong to artificially inseminate humans no matter how 'precious' carrying on a particular genetic line, cloning Dolly, and importing smoked rhesus monkeys for the discriminating human palate.
I find difficulty in supporting rights of those whose belief systems undermine dignity of other human beings, but this is the US. Chances are, where active discrimination occurs, legal action may be incurred. Whether non-tangential or non sequitur, it is certainly NOT hypocritical to profess beliefs in the sanctity of life, and to deny a pro-creator's option to kill a living human being.
Although extremely rare compared to overall abortion figures, if a woman chooses to give birth in the john and flush the newborn down the toilet, I believe with all my heart that she has committed a crime of murder, whatever rationale she had for doing it, under whatever circumstances it was conceived, with whatever level of intelligence and morality she used to make her decision, and, incidentally, if in the gestational period up to that time she knowingly (willingly) exposed the developing fetus and placenta to excessive levels of blood glucose, she is acting as a criminal. Lack of awareness of criminality is an education problem.
Thanks to the forum for this chance to distill my beliefs and express them rationally; defiantly as a Catholic.
(Data and statistics come from the Guttmacher website.)
Cinnamon -
ReplyDeletewho, exactly, are you arguing with? if you'd bothered to READ what people are saying - no one here disputes that contraceptive education is important - it's YOUR CHURCH that goes around saying bullshit like "condoms spread AIDS" [a patent LIE] because they hate birth control THAT MUCH.
did you know that MOST women who get abortions ALREADY HAVE CHILDREN?!?!?!?
go actually READ the "facts" you keep c/ping here - figure out what they MEAN.
sheesh
Simply put. I am a Catholic. Don't condemn me for what I believe as a Catholic, or not. I don't condemn people who are not Catholic for their beliefs, and I don't condemn people who are members of religious groups. Individuals believe whatever they believe. If a person's only basis for their beliefs is belonging to a certain group of people, they are abdicating their individuality.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the Catholic Church cannot say condoms spread AIDS. People spread AIDS. They are the vector for AIDS. IF people engage in promiscuity they can contract AIDS no matter if they use a latex barrier, or not.
Reasonable abstinence prevents both unwanted babies and sexually transmitted infections.
Women may be involved in compromising situations. It happens. Go to the ER for a whopping dose of antibiotics, pick up Plan B, and try to figure out how to make better choices. (With time, resistance emerges to the effective antibiotics to STDs.) If there is a situation where justice needs to be served, to avoid other situations of compromise; seek it. Women are not helpless creatures dependent on the state for control of their sex lives.
What else can be made of statement that 'MOST women who get abortions ALREADY HAVE CHILDREN?!?!" Is someone saying that experiencing a first pregnancy immediately makes a woman a know-it-all?
Women gamble with fecundity if they are unfamiliar with their body and fail to use contraception properly. They can 'blame' no one else besides themselves. Women gamble with their lives when involving themselves in promiscuity.
Plain, simple.
the "point" of me point out that most women who have abortions ALREADY *HAVE* children, is a continuation of an earlier point i made, in a comment that isn't appearing anymore -
ReplyDeleteto whit: they can't AFFORD more babies. period.
the catholic church did, indeed, spread the rumor [in Africa] that condoms spread AIDS. it wasn't "one can still get AIDS with improper condom use" it was "DO NOT USE CONDOMS"
i agree with your statement - irresponsible sexual practices spread sex. the two biggests vectors for the spread of AIDS in Africa are A) men giving it to their wives [and thus any future children] after getting it from prostitutes [because it's somehow *OK* to use a prostitute. and it's legal in many countries - but condoms? not so much... and condoms are often feared and hated, because the Catholic church - the biggest organized religion in Africa - is so against them] and B) men raping women and spreading it that way. sometimes it's both A and B. sigh.
all of which would be greatly REDUCED, if not eliminated, by PROPER CONDOM USE. yes, it's *possible* to get AIDS with condom use - but it's MUCH less likely.
women - especially YOUNG women in the US - *DO* have people to "blame" for their ignorance, both of their bodies and of birth control -
all those assholes who screamed and yelled and protested sex ed. who insisted on "absteneince ed ONLY".
OK, Cinndy, you're a Catholic. Fascinating.
ReplyDelete"Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of regulating procreation which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law"
(Gaudium et Spes, 51).
"Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary whether of the man or woman.
Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible." (Humanae Vitae, 14)
So, you just pick and choose which precepts you're going to follow? Very... progressive of you.
As the response was too long to publish, the summary is that freedom of the individual means that individuals have rights to believe whatever they believe no matter is they 'belong' to a public code of beliefs.
ReplyDeleteLucky for us that the Polish astronomer preferred to believe beyond his upbringing to propose the heliocentric model of the universe, as well as to believe in his pursuit of developing his conclusions to present his theories to the world.
People that have beliefs in their heart and fail to stand up for them because it is not the 'position' to the group they belong to are dishonest in some respect.
The background of a catholic upbringing promotes sanctity of the individual under a universally just human god. I don't get too caught up in the details, and I defiantly believe that the practice of catholicism i.e. the New Testament, if of more use than the historical significance of the Old Testament. That is, 'turning the cheek' is of more use generally in society than 'fighting tooth for tooth'.
Let individuals believe whatever they want to believe/feel in their gut is right or wrong. We first came out of the womb in our own placentas, not as corporations nor little members of a religion.
Means and education about contraception and prevention are readily available to women who cannot or will not care properly for the life of an almost-born.
I believe it is inherently wrong for a women to give the excuse to choose to kill the almost-born as 'they cannot afford it' or 'they felt there was no need for contraception' when there is ALWAYS the possibility that sexual encounters will result in conception, acquisition of sexually transmitted disease, or compromised integrity of the woman.
Science and biology allow for relatively cheap procedures. but the $450 abortion of almost-born is blood money. At the current rate of 1 of 3 women under 45 procuring abortions, there is absolutely no reason why the trend has to continue in a civilized society.
If women are raped, there is both the legal recourse of pursuing chemical castration as well as Plan B.
We are not a nation of 'accidental' prostitutes. If someone chooses that occupation, they should mandatorily be sterile if a person devalues their own existence so much.
That is what I believe as a Catholic. The Church doesnt' come to the same conclusions as I to prevent the culture of the unwanted and improperly cared for, but the basis of a lot of mental illness is the abandonment of almost-born in a society that chooses to believe the almost-born, or any life is not sacred.
Again, my comment was not published because it was too long.
ReplyDeleteTwo sentences then, long albeit.
Human individuals are born as sacred entities not to be interfered with or killed, but cared for properly and supported nad there are numerous means for individuals to enact on the sanctity of the individual life including proper contraception and sterilization procedures for those that cannot nor will not properly dignify the smallest and most innocent of human.
My Catholic upbringing and the Church to whose tenets I turn to for direction promotes the sanctity of human life and it is enough for me to believe that I as an individual have freedom to believe whatever I believe without the taunt that I as a Catholic pick and choose my precepts.
Well, Cinndy there's two comments up there, so some of it made it, I guess. (I've had these problems with Blogger as well. I suspect it has to do with firewalls, but I'm not sure.)
ReplyDeleteObviously, I'll get nowhere discussing when life begins with you. So let me just point out a couple of flaws in your argument.
If women are raped, there is both the legal recourse of pursuing chemical castration as well as Plan B.
That all depends. If your fellow catholics get their way, Plan B won't be available. It's considered an "abortion drug."
And... well, hate to break this to you, but chemical castration? Are you talking about Depo-provera? For a rape victim? You know, after the fact, that seems like a waste of time. And if you're talking about for the rapist, well...
1. It's still after the fact, so it's too late for the victim.
2. You have to catch the rapist first.
3. There are only 4 states that allow judges to require chemical castration with sentencing.
So really, I'm not sure you understand what you're talking about. For example, on your own self-declared Catholicism.
The background of a catholic upbringing promotes sanctity of the individual under a universally just human god. I don't get too caught up in the details, and I defiantly believe that the practice of catholicism i.e. the New Testament, if of more use than the historical significance of the Old Testament.
Or, more to the point,
My Catholic upbringing and the Church to whose tenets I turn to for direction promotes the sanctity of human life and it is enough for me to believe that I as an individual have freedom to believe whatever I believe without the taunt that I as a Catholic pick and choose my precepts.
Uh.... honey? I hate to be the one to break this to you, but according to the pope himself, you can't be a "good" Catholic and support birth control. This is a long-standing belief in the Church. In 1997, the Vatican released a document entitled "Vademecum for Confessors" (2:4) which states that the "Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception." And the Church teaches that dissent from dogma, such as the their teaching on contraception, is a mortal sin. Which means that you're barred from receiving the Blessed Sacrament, and you're going to Hell.
I mean, I'm sorry. They're your beliefs, not mine. But that's just the way it is. Enjoy your eternal damnation.
Women have choices, no matter how the prevailing law reads. And, they have a choice both on how to take care of their natural biological responses, and grow a baby properly. However, it makes a woman no less a murderer if she chooses to fatally harm a fetus at the point of development where it is almost born, whether or not continuing its life results in saving her own life. That is also a decision, and usually justified in the priority of decision-making by obtaining an early first-trimester abortion. Looking ahead to predict whether continuing pregnancy will result in a situation that requires a decision like that may be expected or a complete surprise, and the priority of decision-making effected as well.
ReplyDeleteChemical castration vs. a surgical procedure is mentioned for its reversibility because for an analogous situation we have seen the death penalty meted out to those of us unfairly accused. A women could explain that rape occurred and should expect due justice, but consensual rape (games) resulting in pregnancy is still ultimately the wrong choice for a woman when it results in an unwanted pregnancy.
Incidentally, for someone who actually doesn't believe in a 'hell forever after I'm dead' (me) i.e. a particular destination forever in the minds of those still living, damning me to hell no matter how passively-aggressively it's worded is not as unkind as wishing bad things to happen to me because of beliefs integral to my being. (I've encountered this attitude by non-believers as well as those who fervently believe in their version of God--and everyone's version is that since none of us have lived to tell the tale of their encounter with God.) I recall one particularly irritating interchange, however, when the 'perpetrator' expressed sorrow for my final fate if I didn't vote for George W. Bush instead of John Kerry because GWB 'stood for all that was good in America' and JK was 'evil incarnate' and I would go to hell for my beliefs in principles that GWB had been defined to stand for, and jK was Catholic and therefore an incorrigible heathen.
You're the one claiming (albeit shallowly) that you're a Catholic. I'm thinking you should switch to, say, Episcopalian, since you don't seem to follow any of the Catholic tenets other than a rabid anti-choice stance.
ReplyDeleteAnd meanwhile, in your first paragraph, you're back to pretending that late-term abortions account for more than 1% of all abortions.
You just don't listen, do you? You have these talking points stuck in your head, and you're going to go back to them, no matter how often they're disproven.
You're getting a little pathetic, Cinndy. Time to pack it in.