I've not been posting lately because, honestly, the world is breaking my heart.
Of
course, this has always been the case. It will always be the case. I
have seen the progress of it over the course of my entire life and
looking back through years of recent history, and well, forever.
The
world has always been sick, twisted, and evil, amongst whatever good,
delight, and joy there is also had. The two things will always and
forever go hand in hand so long as the world exists.
But
it's possible to reach a point where I just can't handle the exposure
anymore. The things parading rampant about are *just too much*. I
either must back away, or I must do something, say something, be
proactive in *some* way.
I've no sphere of influence beyond the small one I've been given thus far in my life; and I don't mind that, and don't think it will remain forever small because I have children.
I don't like raising hackles on people, especially when the only people receptive to what I say are my friends and family and they either think the very same as me or might only be annoyed at what I say. And in either case, I usually get misinterpreted. I rarely seem to get my points across no matter what I really do.
But, I can't stand it.
So here, go read this article:
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/attention-pro-aborts-here-are-two-arguments-you-cant-make-anymore/
It's not so much the current event it is opining about (because I am neither surprised by that nor do I think it is worth a whole lot of mental energy, because other points are far, far more valuable to be discussing), but further into the article are some very, very good points.
Some quotes because maybe you don't want to go read that article and even if you do, I believe these things deserve reiteration:
"...I don’t think we’ll convince liberals to oppose the sale (or “donation with reimbursement,” which is totally different) of baby parts. To oppose it means admitting the child has some kind of human worth and dignity, and to admit that it has worth and dignity is to contradict the entire pro-abortion platform..."
...
"The fact that body parts are being “donated” clearly indicates that the child has a body with parts. It is not a blob nor a lump nor a ball nor a clump. It’s a body. With organs. And limbs. A body. A body that is living. A body belonging to a member of the human species. A body that must be caused to stop living through a method that is commonly referred to as 'killing.'"
...
"Granted, in one sense, the babies with arms and legs and livers are “clumps of cells,” but it’s also in the same sense that all people are clumps of cells. A clump is a mass, and cells are those little tiny things of which we are all comprised. We are all masses of cells, in other words. Saying “it’s not a person; it’s a mass of cells,” is like saying, “it’s not a dog; it’s a furry thing with legs and paws.” Restating the definition of something in a more reductive and childish way is not the same as creating a distinction between the thing and itself.
"But this is all liberals do. The “cells” of their pro-abortion argument consist entirely of coming up with weirder ways of saying the same thing.
“It’s not a child; it’s a fetus!”
"Yes, and “fetus” is Latin for “offspring,” and a child is an offspring.
“It’s not a child; it’s a blob of cells!”
"Yes, and it’s a blob of cells that make up a child.
"Next are you going to tell me that Cleveland isn’t a city, it’s a Cleveland? Or elephants aren’t elephants, they’re large mammals with big, silly ears?
"Now all that’s left for the liberal is to insist that the fetus — which is an offspring, which is a child — is more blobby and clumpy than older humans. The difference between life and death now hinges on a measurement of a human’s clumpiness. This is what passes for thought in liberal circles. It’s also not even accurate on its own terms, considering that, arguably, the average Cinnabon patron is far clumpier than the average unborn human.
"Of course, before this reasoning leads to mass abortions at our nation’s food courts, it will first and most inevitably result in the euthanizing of the sick, infirm, disabled, deformed, and elderly. Putting aside any effort to quantify an individual’s blobbiness, what is really not-so-cleverly hidden in the “it’s just a blob of cells” argument is the notion that a person’s humanity, or in this case a human’s personhood, can be determined by, first, its physical resemblance to other humans, and second, by extension, its physical development.
But if a human at an early stage of development, or at any stage before birth, is reduced to nothing more than “cells” (and limbs and brains and kidneys and a random assortment of other features that coincidentally add up to the sum total of a human being) merely because it doesn’t look completely like a born person, and isn’t developed to the same physical extent, then why would the matter suddenly be settled upon birth? What pro-aborts are contending is that we acquire our humanity in degrees. It is not absolute. It does not materialize at the same time we do. We exist, for a time, as humans without humanity, or with a portion of humanity, while the rest of it will be endowed at the exact rate that we un-clumpify (again, remember, liberals are all about the science).
"If this is true, if personhood is a gradual acquisition and contingent upon our physicality, why do we grant an arbitrary reprieve once the clump/human exits the birth canal? Infants don’t look like adults and aren’t developed as much. For God’s sake, their skulls aren’t even fully formed — that’s got to subtract at least 3 or 4 points from their Personhood Index, doesn’t it? And what about people born without an arm or a leg? What about the mentally handicapped? If a baby without fully developed limbs is not a person, what about an adult without fully developed limbs? And what of an old man who has limbs but lost his command of them over time? Is he now an elderly clump?
"Logically, if the pro-aborts are correct, these individuals cannot be considered people, or at least they can’t be considered as people-y as the rest of us (once again, this is science, folks — try to keep up).
"You are left, then, with only one other option. Either advocate for the mass execution of the disabled, or accept that humans are humans, and humans are people, regardless of their physical development. It’s really one or the other. You side with the slave owners, eugenicists, and Nazis of history, or with the people who defeated those tyrants. We are all human, or not. Pro-aborts say not, and it’s time they confront exactly what that means.
"You are not defending the killing of clumps and blobs, but of humans. And in so doing, you are using logic identical to the sort that has been used to justify nearly every human atrocity in the history of mankind."
...
"Call me presumptuous, but when I hear a group of people scream that they want a particular thing “on demand and without apology,” I generally assume they must like that thing, whatever it is. They must be pro- it.
"Yes, I am aware that you prefer the term “pro-choice.” But I’m afraid we cannot use that name when referring to you, due to the fact that it’s a preposterous lie. You are not pro-choice; nobody is. No group of people on Earth, aside from lunatics and toddlers, actually think “choice” should be totally legalized and sanctioned. No rational adult would seriously assert that every choice is justified simply because it was a choice. We all believe there are good choices and bad choices. Legal choices and illegal choices. Ironically liberals have an even longer list of unacceptable choices, which is why Christians are often fined for choosing not to bake cakes for homosexuals.
“But a woman has a right to choose!”
"That means nothing, friends. It is a nonsensical statement. Of course we all have choice. We have the intellect to discern one thing from another, the conscience to determine right from wrong, and the will to act upon these calculations, for better or worse. But you are conditional in the choices you believe we should act upon, or should be allowed to act upon. And that’s OK — we are all pro-choice conditionally. Your conditions may be bizarre, macabre, and grotesque, but the fact that you have conditions means you cannot universally declare yourself “pro-choice.”
"On the other hand, you defend abortion unconditionally. You are unwilling to accept any limits or constraints on it. You are opposed to any form of restriction placed on the practice. You are so wholeheartedly invested in abortion that you won’t even tolerate laws that regulate abortion clinics to the degree that the government regulates your kid’s orthodontist. You suspend your normal zeal for government oversight and taxation, insisting that Planned Parenthood be subject to neither."
***
It has made me sick all of my life (since old enough to learn of such things, anyway), the evil that people will condone. And it's getting worse, this insistence of calling evil good and good evil. The idea that there are these "rights" that are only now coming out of the woodwork to be claimed as "rights", justified by sickening or completely unrelated arguments.
I was just reading a comment from someone responding to a liberal article, referenced in the above article. The commenter was going on about the great injustices of the world, as if this is a good rationale for making abortion universally available....
Do you want to go there? Do you *really* want to go there? Because that type of argument can lead to one place, and one place only...it pays lip service to "human life", but only certain human life. Are women and minorities and those oppressed the only ones worthy of being defended? You want to stop injustice in this world? It's a very, very short step from such arguments to genocide. In fact, such arguments *are* arguments *for genocide*. No amount of sputtering denials will change that fact.
Here's another thing. You want women to have a choice in her body? Who, I demand, is against that? Only true nutjobs. No one I know. Guess what. Women *do* have a choice. And choices, by their very nature, have *consequences*. Some choices have very, very large consequences. By and large, sex is a choice, people. Having protected sex is a choice.
Rape isn't a *choice*. Having your life in danger due to the child you are carrying...that is not a *choice*. I've never heard a single sensible person deny that abortion should and could be an option in cases as these.
Here are a couple of other comments from evil people:
"just for this stupidity, i will get pregnant twice and have an abortion both times"
"If it wasn’t so much effort and so expensive I’d totally advocate for some sort of mass spite-abortion protest."
...
I want to say that those are minority opinions, and in a way they probably are...but I see that kind of thing a lot. Sure, conservatives can be vehement in their hatred of the opposing ideologies. But I refuse to actually acknowledge any similarities, because these women here are talking about taking the the life of an innocent person out of spite and hatred and protest.
And that, my friends, is a very, very big thing. It's not just a talking point; it's not a joke.
The Holocaust? That makes me sick. Soviet Russia under Stalin? Christians and other minority groups being beheaded and burned in the middle east? Raising children in a way that they are able to kill or kill themselves? These things make me sick to my stomach. I would fight in any way I am capable to stop such things...I only wish I was more capable or that I had any idea of how to go about changing anything. How is genuine liberal ideology any different from any of these things in the genuine valuing of human life? So much lipservice is given to "rights" and "doing what makes you happy" when in reality these ideas are connected to ideologies born directly of the devil and perpetuating true evil. Not mere human evil, which is bad enough, but true, addicting, seductive and subversive evil.
I've no sphere of influence beyond the small one I've been given thus far in my life; and I don't mind that, and don't think it will remain forever small because I have children.
I don't like raising hackles on people, especially when the only people receptive to what I say are my friends and family and they either think the very same as me or might only be annoyed at what I say. And in either case, I usually get misinterpreted. I rarely seem to get my points across no matter what I really do.
But, I can't stand it.
So here, go read this article:
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/attention-pro-aborts-here-are-two-arguments-you-cant-make-anymore/
It's not so much the current event it is opining about (because I am neither surprised by that nor do I think it is worth a whole lot of mental energy, because other points are far, far more valuable to be discussing), but further into the article are some very, very good points.
Some quotes because maybe you don't want to go read that article and even if you do, I believe these things deserve reiteration:
"...I don’t think we’ll convince liberals to oppose the sale (or “donation with reimbursement,” which is totally different) of baby parts. To oppose it means admitting the child has some kind of human worth and dignity, and to admit that it has worth and dignity is to contradict the entire pro-abortion platform..."
...
"The fact that body parts are being “donated” clearly indicates that the child has a body with parts. It is not a blob nor a lump nor a ball nor a clump. It’s a body. With organs. And limbs. A body. A body that is living. A body belonging to a member of the human species. A body that must be caused to stop living through a method that is commonly referred to as 'killing.'"
...
"Granted, in one sense, the babies with arms and legs and livers are “clumps of cells,” but it’s also in the same sense that all people are clumps of cells. A clump is a mass, and cells are those little tiny things of which we are all comprised. We are all masses of cells, in other words. Saying “it’s not a person; it’s a mass of cells,” is like saying, “it’s not a dog; it’s a furry thing with legs and paws.” Restating the definition of something in a more reductive and childish way is not the same as creating a distinction between the thing and itself.
"But this is all liberals do. The “cells” of their pro-abortion argument consist entirely of coming up with weirder ways of saying the same thing.
“It’s not a child; it’s a fetus!”
"Yes, and “fetus” is Latin for “offspring,” and a child is an offspring.
“It’s not a child; it’s a blob of cells!”
"Yes, and it’s a blob of cells that make up a child.
"Next are you going to tell me that Cleveland isn’t a city, it’s a Cleveland? Or elephants aren’t elephants, they’re large mammals with big, silly ears?
"Now all that’s left for the liberal is to insist that the fetus — which is an offspring, which is a child — is more blobby and clumpy than older humans. The difference between life and death now hinges on a measurement of a human’s clumpiness. This is what passes for thought in liberal circles. It’s also not even accurate on its own terms, considering that, arguably, the average Cinnabon patron is far clumpier than the average unborn human.
"Of course, before this reasoning leads to mass abortions at our nation’s food courts, it will first and most inevitably result in the euthanizing of the sick, infirm, disabled, deformed, and elderly. Putting aside any effort to quantify an individual’s blobbiness, what is really not-so-cleverly hidden in the “it’s just a blob of cells” argument is the notion that a person’s humanity, or in this case a human’s personhood, can be determined by, first, its physical resemblance to other humans, and second, by extension, its physical development.
But if a human at an early stage of development, or at any stage before birth, is reduced to nothing more than “cells” (and limbs and brains and kidneys and a random assortment of other features that coincidentally add up to the sum total of a human being) merely because it doesn’t look completely like a born person, and isn’t developed to the same physical extent, then why would the matter suddenly be settled upon birth? What pro-aborts are contending is that we acquire our humanity in degrees. It is not absolute. It does not materialize at the same time we do. We exist, for a time, as humans without humanity, or with a portion of humanity, while the rest of it will be endowed at the exact rate that we un-clumpify (again, remember, liberals are all about the science).
"If this is true, if personhood is a gradual acquisition and contingent upon our physicality, why do we grant an arbitrary reprieve once the clump/human exits the birth canal? Infants don’t look like adults and aren’t developed as much. For God’s sake, their skulls aren’t even fully formed — that’s got to subtract at least 3 or 4 points from their Personhood Index, doesn’t it? And what about people born without an arm or a leg? What about the mentally handicapped? If a baby without fully developed limbs is not a person, what about an adult without fully developed limbs? And what of an old man who has limbs but lost his command of them over time? Is he now an elderly clump?
"Logically, if the pro-aborts are correct, these individuals cannot be considered people, or at least they can’t be considered as people-y as the rest of us (once again, this is science, folks — try to keep up).
"You are left, then, with only one other option. Either advocate for the mass execution of the disabled, or accept that humans are humans, and humans are people, regardless of their physical development. It’s really one or the other. You side with the slave owners, eugenicists, and Nazis of history, or with the people who defeated those tyrants. We are all human, or not. Pro-aborts say not, and it’s time they confront exactly what that means.
"You are not defending the killing of clumps and blobs, but of humans. And in so doing, you are using logic identical to the sort that has been used to justify nearly every human atrocity in the history of mankind."
...
"Call me presumptuous, but when I hear a group of people scream that they want a particular thing “on demand and without apology,” I generally assume they must like that thing, whatever it is. They must be pro- it.
"Yes, I am aware that you prefer the term “pro-choice.” But I’m afraid we cannot use that name when referring to you, due to the fact that it’s a preposterous lie. You are not pro-choice; nobody is. No group of people on Earth, aside from lunatics and toddlers, actually think “choice” should be totally legalized and sanctioned. No rational adult would seriously assert that every choice is justified simply because it was a choice. We all believe there are good choices and bad choices. Legal choices and illegal choices. Ironically liberals have an even longer list of unacceptable choices, which is why Christians are often fined for choosing not to bake cakes for homosexuals.
“But a woman has a right to choose!”
"That means nothing, friends. It is a nonsensical statement. Of course we all have choice. We have the intellect to discern one thing from another, the conscience to determine right from wrong, and the will to act upon these calculations, for better or worse. But you are conditional in the choices you believe we should act upon, or should be allowed to act upon. And that’s OK — we are all pro-choice conditionally. Your conditions may be bizarre, macabre, and grotesque, but the fact that you have conditions means you cannot universally declare yourself “pro-choice.”
"On the other hand, you defend abortion unconditionally. You are unwilling to accept any limits or constraints on it. You are opposed to any form of restriction placed on the practice. You are so wholeheartedly invested in abortion that you won’t even tolerate laws that regulate abortion clinics to the degree that the government regulates your kid’s orthodontist. You suspend your normal zeal for government oversight and taxation, insisting that Planned Parenthood be subject to neither."
***
It has made me sick all of my life (since old enough to learn of such things, anyway), the evil that people will condone. And it's getting worse, this insistence of calling evil good and good evil. The idea that there are these "rights" that are only now coming out of the woodwork to be claimed as "rights", justified by sickening or completely unrelated arguments.
I was just reading a comment from someone responding to a liberal article, referenced in the above article. The commenter was going on about the great injustices of the world, as if this is a good rationale for making abortion universally available....
Do you want to go there? Do you *really* want to go there? Because that type of argument can lead to one place, and one place only...it pays lip service to "human life", but only certain human life. Are women and minorities and those oppressed the only ones worthy of being defended? You want to stop injustice in this world? It's a very, very short step from such arguments to genocide. In fact, such arguments *are* arguments *for genocide*. No amount of sputtering denials will change that fact.
Here's another thing. You want women to have a choice in her body? Who, I demand, is against that? Only true nutjobs. No one I know. Guess what. Women *do* have a choice. And choices, by their very nature, have *consequences*. Some choices have very, very large consequences. By and large, sex is a choice, people. Having protected sex is a choice.
Rape isn't a *choice*. Having your life in danger due to the child you are carrying...that is not a *choice*. I've never heard a single sensible person deny that abortion should and could be an option in cases as these.
Here are a couple of other comments from evil people:
"just for this stupidity, i will get pregnant twice and have an abortion both times"
"If it wasn’t so much effort and so expensive I’d totally advocate for some sort of mass spite-abortion protest."
...
I want to say that those are minority opinions, and in a way they probably are...but I see that kind of thing a lot. Sure, conservatives can be vehement in their hatred of the opposing ideologies. But I refuse to actually acknowledge any similarities, because these women here are talking about taking the the life of an innocent person out of spite and hatred and protest.
And that, my friends, is a very, very big thing. It's not just a talking point; it's not a joke.
The Holocaust? That makes me sick. Soviet Russia under Stalin? Christians and other minority groups being beheaded and burned in the middle east? Raising children in a way that they are able to kill or kill themselves? These things make me sick to my stomach. I would fight in any way I am capable to stop such things...I only wish I was more capable or that I had any idea of how to go about changing anything. How is genuine liberal ideology any different from any of these things in the genuine valuing of human life? So much lipservice is given to "rights" and "doing what makes you happy" when in reality these ideas are connected to ideologies born directly of the devil and perpetuating true evil. Not mere human evil, which is bad enough, but true, addicting, seductive and subversive evil.
3 comments:
I am one of the very few women I know personally who has not had an abortion at some point. But not because of a moral stance or political affiliation (I have no affiliation); I have simply been fortunate enough to not find myself in that situation.
In no case, based on the people I know who have had one, does anyone regret that choice. In all cases it was an awful thing to go through, both physically and emotionally. No one *wants* to get an abortion.
To be honest, I think abortion needs to be safe, accessible, and legal. The reality is that women have been trying to abort babies for as long as we have been trying to get pregnant. This is not going to change. I absolutely do think it should be regulated, and unless there is an overwhelming justification, late-term abortion should be very limited.
Avoidance of unwanted pregnancy is, of course, the best route. But abstinence is not and has never been realistic. The truth is that contraceptives can and do fail sometimes. Life happens. IUDs should be freely available and accessible to anyone who needs/wants one. Especially the teenage/young adult population. They are extremely effective and safe.
The United States is not a theocracy, and religious laws should not be applied to a secular population. We have separation of Church and State.
Raising a child is perhaps the single most life-altering thing that can happen to a woman. I say woman because the men are so prone to running off, marriage or not. In any case, whether is is a partnership or a single parent, raising a child is a massive commitment on every single possible level. Let's make it possible for more people to do it in a better circumstance, at a better time, than endure more hardship for the potential child and them self. Of course if a person is against abortion, they should not get one.
I tend to not trust the media so much on hype and sensitive social issues. Horrible, awful things happen every day all over the world, reported and un-reported. The media does like to incite widespread reaction and fuel the flames of hate.
"Awful thing to go through"..."no regrets"...hmm.
Yes, as mentioned, the world is an awful place. We're not going to change that, or change "people" by and large...does this mean we give up trying to influence for the good? Shrugging our shoulders and giving up on morals isn't a good remedy. It is, in fact, a really, really bad, bad, bad idea.
I'm not into theocracy. No one I know wants a theocracy. (Was the early US somehow a theocracy? Have I missed that in my studies?) Do we need a theocracy to hold up value standards in society? Separation of church and state doesn't mean what many think it means. Amongst other things, it doesn't mean a separation of sense and morality. I'm not about forcing religious mores on people. True religion is based on love and compassion, and not force, anyway. I am, however, into morals and values and believe our society really, really ought to be based on these things and encouraging these things instead of just shrugging our shoulders and casting all to the wind and saying people ought just to be left to their own devices. (Crazy right-winger that I am...) Frankly, good morals and values do not come from humanistic principles. They needn't come from one religious ideology, either.
Getting pregnant doesn't, in fact, mean that you have to be stuck with the consequences forever. There *are* options. There *are* choices. There are many, many related things that ought to be addressed and discussed, from adoption to contraception. I will oppose any thought process that says otherwise.
People go on and on about choices...well, there are choices. Many. And yes, other associated things ought to be being done. Poor excuse for justifying execution. And in fact, things are being done...there are in fact solutions out there, and in fact, already widely available if only people would see them as such, but they're not being widely promoted--or accepted as choices at all!--in the way that they ought to be. I deeply appreciate the fact that many think they don't have any options, or that this is the best one, or that things aren't accessible. Young women are *especially* vulnerable in these ways. These thoughts and ideas break my heart so much. So very much. That's exactly what I would like to see changed. That's exactly why certain things ought to be promoted above others!!
There is, in fact, so much love and support available in this world--and it's being rejected and called "theocracy" or "right-wing extremism" or any of another number of labels.
It is certainly possible to make a choice to do something unpleasant and not regret it.
This is one of those things that, to me, is not a black and white issue. Although I do understand and respect others feel that way, and they should live according to their beliefs.
Carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term can have major devastating consequences to a woman- emotionally, socially and economically. And educationally. The sad truth is that there is still quite a lot of discrimination out there. And there is not enough education. Not all babies are viewed as "adoptable" by the people who are looking to adopt. It is sad but true.
http://www.npr.org/2013/06/27/195967886/six-words-black-babies-cost-less-to-adopt
Also, the adoption process takes years and is insanely expensive for those looking to adopt. It is not within everyone's means.
The system is flawed, severely. Socially, economically, it is flawed. And because of that, we need safe options for women.
To say murder is murder is one thing- but war kills people too.
In my personal view, a small fetus/zygote is not yet developed enough to be anything more than a potential, a seed. It cannot survive on its own. I would MUCH prefer a child to be born into a circumstance where it is wanted and loved and cared for. People who want children should have them. People who don't want them should not have them or be forced to have them. Let God deal with the morality, if that turns out to be the case.
In the end, it is not society or societal systems we should look to for morals, or goodness, or advancement of these causes. Our hearts and choices are ultimately between us and God.
Post a Comment