I was just getting ready to hit the "Publish Your Comment" button to submit a response to Griper's Post entitled "Principles of Government Corrupted", but than I realized that I was due to Post on my own blog and that what I had just written might actually make a half way decent Post. The basic thesis in the Post I'm now responding to is that the way our government was originally set up offered a greater level of Sovereignty to the States than is currently happening today. The Federal Government has accumulated too much power and more of it should be returned to the states.
Here's my response...
You know, Griper, you've actually got me thinking about State Sovereignty in relation to the Abortion issue. The center I work at, counseling Pregnant Girls, is very highly pro-life and I have read a lot of pro-life materials and seen a lot of things that have been quite an education to me in relation to how Abortion often hurts the women too and not just the babies.
Since I've been working there, I've moved my position, at least on this issue, from a Moderate, to a more Conservative, less willing to compromise one, yet to be really honest with you, even on this issue, I do from time to time remember why I was originally a Moderate. On a personal level, I'll never be torn between pro-life and pro-abortion. I will always be pro-life, yet your Sovereignty of State idea, Griper, has reminded me again of my original more Moderate position. Though I'm still pretty conservative in my thinking on this, maybe we should at least take the time to talk about it.
My original, more moderate thoughts, mostly had to do with the distinction between holding a position personally, as an individual, and holding a position politically, thus imposing it on the group.
You see, here's the thing. Though it's best "Not to Compromise one's Convictions", when we push our "Convictions" too strongly politically, sometimes it back fires.
When I think about this, I remember that all McCain actually said about this issue is that he thinks it should be decided by the states, not the Federal Government.
Sometimes it seems that it's been the Pro-Lifers who push their ideas on a National level, wishing to eventually overturn Woe vs. Wade, or worse yet, make Abortion totally illegal. Living in such a liberal state makes me feel tempted to do the same. In
Is it any wonder really, that people who live in states such as this will plead with
We need to be careful, though, to not create a situation that backfires into a "You reap what you sow."' issue. As Pro-Lifers continue to push their ideas on a National level, Liberals have been doing the same and now we are faced with Socialism also being pushed on a National level, so what can I say? "We reap what we sow." Maybe we should take more time to think before getting so carried away with our political passions.
In the comment section below, Griper, suggested that it is Ok to rewrite a Post occasionally, or as he put it, "edit a Post from some comments made". Because of his comments, I have done some slight editing of this Post and am now adding this paragraph and the next one.
It has not been the Pro-Lifers who first "pushed their ideas" on a National Level. The first offense in this regard was the very Roe vs. Wade case that imposed Pro-Abortion ideas on the states and forbid them from making their own decisions on whether of not to ban Abortion. Later when the Supreme Court finally gave in with a ruling against Partial Birth Abortion, it was about time that a Pro-Life idea was imposed as well. After all, if there are going to be restrictions imposed on the sovereignty of the states, than it's only fair that both sides have some say in what's allowed and what's not and that the situation is not fully dominated by one side or the other.
On a Constitutional level, though, we need to be reminded that the other issue is the Baby’s Rights, because the Constitution does protect the rights of all people, which brings us back to the discussion we were having in the comment area of my other Abortion Post, entitled "Abortion/Fetal Development", about whether the Baby in the womb is a person. To be honest and fair in our positions, we need to look at both sides of any issue before deciding which side we are on, so please do read my other Abortion Post and the resulting comments. Thanks.
Sorry I'm late again in posting. I keep trying to post about once every 3 to 4 days and keep missing it. I am going to try and do better, yet for now, I guess I'm heeding the advice of most of my commenters who have told me that I should just post when I feel like it, so I guess for now, I'm just taking their advice and giving myself a break.
37 comments:
he smiles at the lady. overturning the Roe vs Wade decision would not make abortion illegal as some think. the only thing it would do is take away the choice of it from the individual and return it back to the states as it was prior.
each state would then make a determination of any restrictions that might be placed on its use. and given the poltical atmosphere some states would be very liberal in their attitude of it while other states very conservative in its attitude of its use.
in this state of california i doubt if the requirements would change at all. they still would give the individual the same choice they have now.
Basically what Woe vs Wade did was to forbid states from restricting abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy. Restrictions during the second trimester are allowed as long as the goal is to make the procedure safer for the mother. States can restrict, or even prohibit abortions during the last trimester, as long as there is no danger to the life and health of the mother.
I guess I never really thought this through when I first read the information. Since the ruling in Roe vs Wade was that state laws banning abortion were unconstitutional, the reverse of that would be that states would once again be allowed to ban abortion, even in the first trimester of pregnancy.
Another part of that ruling, though, was that the unborn child was not a "person" and thus, not entitled to any protections under our Constitution. This is what we were discussing in the comment section of my other abortion post. If this were reversed, it would set a new precedent for judging issues of abortion in the courts.
There are a lot of things surrounding the Roe vs Wade case that most people are not aware of and that could be the subject of a whole separate post. Somehow, I wasn't really expecting the subject to come up quite so quickly. I was only considering the "let the states decide" idea. Apparently, we are stuck with that anyway even if Roe vs Wade is overturned.
I hope I didn’t bite off more than I can chew when I wrote this post. I’m probably not quite as familiar with all the laws as I should be. There have been quite a number of court cases since Roe vs Wade and I’m going to have to go back and read some of it again if I want to sound somewhat informed on the subject.
don't worry too much about it lista. there is a place for the legal aspects of the issue as well as the philosophical aspects of it. then you have the psychological aspects of it also as well as the sociological elements of the issue. along with these there is the religious viewpoint of it.
an argument can be made from any one of these or any combination of the viewpoints. it really doesn't matter because it is controversial enough that you will have people arguing from an opposing viewpoint regardless.
a good argument could even be made from a viewpoint of the changing attitude of society on this issue and it is changing. people are beginning to see it as a means of birth control rather than a health therepy as it is being promoted as. since you are more familiar with this aspect of it that might be your best way to argue it.
in other words if one was to try to make a good argument on this issue it would require a post worthy of a college thesis and that isn't what blogging was meant to be.
you might even consider writing a series of posts too. i've done that a couple of times when i thought the issue was worth it or neeeded. and others have too.
You're right. I really shouldn't worry and stress, yet blogging has been interesting at least in part because those who blog are actually quite intelligent and so often when I think I know what I'm talking about, someone comes up with something else that I've over looked and than I'm thinking, "Man! I'm going to have to rework that idea."
One of my main reasons for starting to blog was the abortion issue. As I've read all these pro-life materials, I just couldn't stop feeling frustrated about the fact that most of this information is not known by the general public. I was thinking about how so often we go to the polls and vote on issues that we essentially know nothing about and this is how a lot of important decisions that effect our country get decided. I've been thinking about that and really feeling distressed about it.
It bothers me to what extent good information gets pushed under the rug because it is political in nature. I wish I knew how to fix this, but all I have is one blog on a massive web and my knowledge is limited.
"It bothers me to what extent good information gets pushed under the rug because it is political in nature. I wish I knew how to fix this, but all I have is one blog on a massive web and my knowledge is limited."
never underestimate the power of good information. it may get out slower than you and I would like but it will come to light with time. that i'll guarantee you.
and yes, in the mean time people get hurt until it does but that is life. and remember that is how God created it. it is simply the learning process we need to go through. and yes, there are times we need the patience of Job.
as for the fact you have only one blog remember this, it only takes one blog to have an impact on people. we can't change the minds of everybody and there will be those who will never change their minds.
but what you and I and so many others can do is try to give others something more to think about even if it be only one person. if we do that we are being successful in our endeavors.
just remember you are not alone and your blog is not the only blog in this fight to save lives. and we are not God.
Grandpappy told me to let God take care of the big things in life and I should just help him by doing the small things. and that is how i look at our blogs. doing a small thing in a big world of blogs.just don't expect to be able to move mountains. that's God's job.
as for limited knowledge, that applies to everyone. that is another benefit of blogs. we can learn also from those who honor us with their visits. and in learning we can write better posts too. i have many times edited a post from some comments made.
you have written some fine posts, lista. and the number of regulars you have confirms that. just remember to enjoy it.
be sincere in all you write but never get serious about it. that's my motto.
Griper's note "you might even consider writing a series of posts too. i've done that a couple of times when i thought the issue was worth it or neeeded. and others have too." ..seems like excellent
advice. For example, in attempting
to respond to the eight previous questions on America, greatness,
etc, etc, I started...and ended up with two pages on question #1 !! Gave up. Were those profound, or is it just me?
Griper,
Thanks so much for all your encouraging words. When there are so many good nuggets, I feel like quoting some of your most quotable statements, so here's a shortened version of your wonderful words.
"Never underestimate the power of good information.", "Remember that's how God created it.", "It only takes one blog to have an impact on people.", "You are not alone.", "Doing a small thing in the big world of blogs.", "Don't expect to move mountains. That's God's job.", "Just remember to enjoy it.", "Be sincere, but never get serious."
I ought to post those on my wall. Thank you so much!! You really can be encouraging at times and I really do appreciate your sincere friendship.
Also, thanks for complementing me on my posts.
Hi BB,
Aren't you the one who said, let me see, what was it? Oh, here it is. "Am leaving town for a couple of days, and hopefully you all will be off on a less stressful topic. :)"
It seems that now you have given me permission to continue. I ought to warn you that the soapbox, I mean subject, is abortion. Do you think you can take it?
You don't appear to have a blog, BB. I had to give myself permission to not post daily before I could start one myself, but apparently that's quite acceptable. I once left a 2 page comment on Gayle's blog. That's Font 12 and margins .5". Believe it or not, that's allowed on occasion. It may take me awhile to respond, though.
Actually, come to think of it, I may do some switching back and forth between Abortion and other subjects. I could almost do a post on those questions as well. I'll see how God leads.
No, BB doesn't have a blog. I spend more than enough time just keeping up with you folks! My views are often converse, and I make an effort to disagree without being disagreeable. (when I first
started, I defended Quakers on a blog that excoriated them for being
traitors in that their religion
forbids taking up arms..the blog owner became real upset and banned me forever..said I was ruining her life, etc; which made me feel bad)
Then, I have the bad habit of throwing facts and figures everywhere :) I believe your perspective on abortion issues
is solid, given your work with
pregnancy counseling and your obvious deeply spiritual nature.
I respect that, since I have been described as having the spirituality of a codfish; but
being old and having spent my life in science (explosives research) and management (defense companies) I am very interested in the 'human condition' eg how people get along (or not). For example, up this way http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354529,00.html a 10 year
old girl gave birth by caesarian, raped by an immigrant. How's that for a blip on the chart of the 'human condition'? Where does that fit in the 'my brother's keeper' concept? ...and if I DID
have a blog, Griper would come and confuse me even more. :)
I think what it comes down to with me is contractual liability. When you engage willfully in sex with another person, you are essentually engaged in a mutual contract. And, as with any contract there is what is termed as "assumption of the risk".
In a sexual contract, such risk might include getting an STD, HIV, or AIDS. Or of course winding up the father or mother of a child. Granted, there are precautions you can take to limit your amount of risk but you can not eliminate it entirely. And, that for some is too much to swallow.
Don't want the contractual risk? Don't engage in the contract I suppose.
The other aspect I look at is that many individuals who are proponents of “Life”, fail to make the connect with respect to Liberty. One is not born without their respective right to Liberty and to be Liberated. Yet, I feel that many Pro-Life proponents dismiss this very important aspect. Is it not unconscionable for one to be a proponent of Life and then seek to enslave a person?
That said, Life does not merely exist as an end in so much as it exists as a means. It is as the adage goes: a journey not a destination.
Couple the both of those theories together and it is for those reasons that I do not advocate a Pro-Life position wherein the mother, under no fault of her own (i.e., rape, incest or a risk to her health or life), ought to be forced to bear a child.
No individual has the right to enslave another against their will.
Let us suppose the mother made it her life ambition to become an Olympic athlete and worked and trained towards that endeavor. Would it be fair if she was forced against her will, became pregnant and then had to forego her life long ambition to give birth to a child? I don’t believe it would. To do so otherwise would be to, in essence, enslave someone or hold someone accountable for an act not of their own doing.
The other touchy aspect of this view has to do with individuals under the age of 18 or under the age of consent. As unfortunate as a subjective view might lead us to feel otherwise, those individuals cannot, by legal definition, enter into such a contract. This is of course not to suggest that they wont. But, by legal definition and as unfortunate as one's subjective view on abortion may have them feel otherwise, for all practical means and purposes they would have to have the same exemption as would those in cases of rape, etc.
First I'm going to submit what I wrote earlier to Griper and BB and then I'm going to read and reply to the message from Soapbox.
Griper,
You know, I was rereading some of the above comments and have decided that I love it when you smile. I guess I'm still responding to the very first comment you made. I'm not so sure that I thought the overturning of Roe vs. Wade would result in making Abortion illegal. I'm not sure what I thought, yet I did have to look it up.
If some people do think that the overturning of Roe vs Wade means making Abortion illegal, than I can see why they might be resistant to that much of a change and if a person lives in a Conservative, whether than a Liberal state, the overturning of Roe vs Wade could very well mean exactly that in their state, so for them the "threat" is very real.
I'm going to reread some of those court cases relating to Abortion. I want to get to the point in which I can remember it.
Blogging is meant to be anything that a blogger wants it to be. We are privileged and allowed to put as much or as little effort into it as we want to.
I've reread my own post again and yes, I did edit it a little, thanks to you, Griper. Thank you.
BB-Idaho,
I understand about spending "more than enough time just keeping up with you folks." That's how I felt before starting my own blog, yet I started it because I do have at least one subject that I feel passionate about and also because I am such a long winded commenter. I commend you for disagreeing without being disagreeable.
As for the Quakers, I actually have Amish in my background and they are also pacifists. I know at least one person who has considerable hostility towards such a position. I'm not a pacifist myself because I realize that not all things can be settled as peacefully as we would like them to be, yet I am sympathetic towards those who hold the pacifist position because I know it is a religious conviction and has nothing to do with cowardice. They may be a little overly idealistic, but they are not cowards.
What I eventually came to understand about this one person that I mentioned, BB, is that she lost someone who she very much cared about in a war and for her to think that war isn't necessary, as the pacifists suggest, is like saying that her loved one died in vain and that is unthinkable and understandably so.
Don't you see? People often hold positions because they hurt inside. Human pain makes it really hard for people to be objective and we just need to try and love them anyway, because when it comes to pain, love is what's needed, not judgment.
I'm sorry that you became the victim of someone's hurt, BB, when you first started interacting on blogs. I'm pretty tough, though. To get banned from my blog you would probably have to cuss me out and do it repetitively. I'm more likely to give someone more chances than I should, than to cut them off too soon.
Go ahead and throw a few facts and figures around. That's Ok.
Don't worry about Griper. He's a pussy cat. I ignore him when he confuses me and then eventually I do figure it out. It seems harder to ignore commenters on my own blog, than to ignore someone else's blog, but it only seems that way. Really, I don't have to be in a hurry to answer anyone. Learning takes time, so we all just need to be patient with each other and with ourselves.
Hi Soapbox,
I read your comment and need the time to digest it, so I think I'm going to turn the computer off now and come back to this one tomorrow, meanwhile who ever else wants to respond to him have at it.
Hello God of the Soapbox,
Ok, maybe I won't wait until tomorrow. Here I am already.
I liked what you said about "Contractual Liability", especially when you said "Don't want the Contractual Risk? Don't engage in the contract."
As far as life being a journey, not a destination, I'm not sure what that point relates to, for the right to the "pursuit" of happiness implies the right to the "journey" known as life.
You mentioned rape, but believe it or not, this only applies to less than 1% of the Abortion cases.
Another low percentage argument is the one relating to the risk to the mothers life or health. I'm not sure what the percentage is for pregnant women to have their life and health in danger while pregnant or giving birth. I don't think it is too high, yet the low percentage that I'm referring to is not the number of pregnant women who are in danger, but the number of Pro-Life people who would actually suggest that Abortion should not be allowed even when the mother's life is in danger. This number is so low that it's almost none existent. If everybody agrees with you on this, including most Pro-Life people, than you are arguing against a position that almost doesn't exist and it is thus a meaningless argument.
As to the Olympic athlete, again Rape only accounts for less than 1% of the Abortions and not only that, but also Rape is a very common exception that most people do agree on, so again you are arguing from an extreme.
Most Pro-Life people are more concerned about Abortion on demand, or Abortion done for convenience than they are about the exceptions, so to argue from extremes, side steps the real issue.
And then there's the Statutory Rape issue, which is indeed an interesting one to consider.
There's more that I could say about the Rape issue. Interestingly, I'm finding that I have easy access to enough Abortion resources to just about do a whole separate post on every single question that's brought up.
Well, if instances of Rape, incest, and/or the life of the mother account for a very very low percentage, then we ought not have too many worries making exceptions for such instances. That is my point on that issue.
As for your assertion that the percentage of hard core Pro-Life advocates (those who are so completely opposed to abortion that they assert that every child has a "right" to be born) is also a very very low percentage, while that may be true statistically, I have encountered enough of them in my lifetime that concerns me to a certain degree.
That leads me to my point on life being a journey and not a destination. So, on that I will clarify.
The hard core Life advocates of which I previously mentioned would advocate that any child conceived has a "right" to be born. That they in essence have the "right" of dominion over another individual's life. But, as I asserted, life is not merely a destination; a concrete thing if you will. It is a journey; a process or an action.
That said, it is wrong to infer that life is merely the act of being born. It is not. Life is the journey from being born to dying; it encompasses everything in between.
So, if a staunch Pro-Life advocate takes a position wherein they proclaim that a child has a "right" to be born (no matter the means by which they have come to be conceived) then they are dismissing the right of the mothers life (i.e., her process of living and the journey between the point when she was born and the point when she dies) and what it is she desires to pursue in her quest for happiness.
I consider myself pro-life as well. This is why I take the approach on the issue that I do. It is one that I feel embraces not only Life but also Liberty.
If you look at it from the contractual perspective as I do, you hold the mother to account with respect to the assumption of risk if she engages in intercourse willfully. You also assert that by her right to her life, she does not have the right to have dominion over another individual or the other individual's life. Under her concentual agreement to intercourse, she assumes the risk and the right of the child to live has foundation.
Just as say a club owner who allows pyrotechnics to be used inside his venue assumes the risk of a fire hazzard or injury to his patrons thereby creating a foundation by which the patrons can bring forth a lawsuit.
On the other hand, if an action is taken against the mother against her will, the right of the child to take action against the mother to assert a right to live is unfounded.
Just as a foundation would not very well exist for a patron to take action against the bar/venue owner if the bar owner did not permit pyrotechnics in their establishment but yet a bandmember on stage burned the place down because they blew fire on stage with some 151 rum and a lighter.
Hope that clarifies things for you.
Soapbox,
I guess I should start by affirming your position and telling you that I basically agree with your exceptions. The point that I'm trying to make is that most people do agree with these exceptions.
Just because someone has a strong belief that "Every child has a 'right' to be born", and even if this person is extremely passionate about their position, this does not mean that they are not willing to allow some exceptions. Before making an assumption that someone's belief is really as extreme as you say, you need to be absolutely certain that that is what they are saying. Extreme passion over an issue, still does not imply that they are totally unreasonable. Personally, I'm not aware of ever meeting a single person who holds the extreme positions you describe.
Politically, there is no need to feel the slightest bit threatened by extreme minorities. The lose of the exceptions that you are concerned about is something that will never happen, so this is not the most important of the Abortion issues that need discussing.
I don't know where you got the idea that Pro-Life advocates think that life is merely an act. I agree with your assertion that it is a journey, yet the baby has the same right to that journey as the mother and also the same right to liberty as the mother.
The child does have a right to be born, Soapbox, yet the mother also has a right to life. Just because occasionally one person's right takes precedence over another's because it is not possible to protect the rights of both, this does not cause the rights of both to cease being rights.
As to the band member burning a bar down, the bar owner did give this ban permission to play in his bar, yet how this would probably work is that the patron may attempt to sue the bar owner for hiring the band and than the bar owner would sue the band for breaking the contract in relation to the pyrotechnics, but then that's getting off subject. I understand your point and basically agree with your exceptions.
Lista, I'm telling you that there ARE people who do not hold the position of making the exceptions that I am referring to. These are the individuals of which I speak. It is not in my nature to merely throw out information, thoughts, and opinions without having some foundation of which to base them upon. So, while you may have not encountered Pro-Life advocates with the view that I'm referring to, they do indeed exist. And, it is that view which my comments are meant to address.
You've taken my comments out of context when you say:
"I don't know where you got the idea that Pro-Life advocates think that life is merely an act."
Again, I am referring to the Pro-Life advocates that do not hold the exceptions that I have been discussing.
As such, I stand by the assertions and the premises of which my comments were based.
What's more...
"The child does have a right to be born, Soapbox, yet the mother also has a right to life. Just because occasionally one person's right takes precedence over another's because it is not possible to protect the rights of both, this does not cause the rights of both to cease being rights."
True and honest rights do not coerce, compulse, or intimidate another against their will.
I have a right to smoke a cigar or a cigarette if I so desire right? But, I do not have the right to enter your home to do so. Because, if I did, I would be imposing something upon you against your will.
Therefore, the right to life of a child conceived through means which the mother did not consent to does not, in my opinion exist.
An individual is a means to their own end. They are not a means to the end of someone else.
The mother as such is not to be perceived as a conduit; a means to the life of the child if by doing so, it is coercing, compulsing, or intimidating the mother against her will.
On the other hand, if she has consensual intercourse, her initial will was to engage in that act and assume the risks of said act.
Gee Soapbox,
I don't know what to tell you except that I am not one of these people and I am quite convinced that the number of such people is not enough to constitute a majority and therefore, they can not make any impact politically. Politically speaking, then, this is a dead issue.
The only thing that could give such a discussion meaning is if you happen to know someone personally who has either died in child birth or been raped. If this is true, than I am so very truly sorry. Rape is very wrong and no one should have to go through such a thing.
Politically speaking, though, this a dead issue, because there are not enough people holding these extreme positions to make any political impact, so I'm not so sure that it is vitally important to try and convince such extremists to change their mind.
Are you suggesting that the baby is "coercing, compulsing or intimidating the mother against her will."? The unfortunate truth is that the baby is just as much an innocent victim here as the mother is, yet even so, of course the mother’s health; in fact, even her emotional health, should be considered in these cases.
I’d like to move past the issue of these extreme exceptions soon, because there are not enough people opposing them to make any impact politically and I don’t disagree with you on them.
That sounds good. You may carry on on the other aspect. I just wanted to put my two cents into the equation. I think so long as we reserve abortion as an option only for the situations that I talked about (which as you cite and I agree are indeed rare) we can move towards eliminating it as an option for the much more prevalent situations as you suggest.
Thanks for letting me air my thoughts.
Drop by anytime and say hello. Have a great weekend too.
- Soapie, Soapster, Soap
soapbox and lista,
you are both arguing from the point of view of a sexual act, a willing or unwilling act. you're both missing the primary premise of being pro-life.
that premise being that it is a person in that womb. without that recognition pro-lifers have no argument. for only persons are protected by the right to life. both sides of the argument acknowledge this.
this is why pro-choice promote the idea that it is just a part of a woman's body. for seeing it as a person does not allow this designation.
it is also why they fought so hard against legislation declaring that when a pregnant woman's life was taken it was considered a double homicide if the fetus died also.
as a person, the womb is the surrounding environment in which nature or God designated for it to live and survive for 9 months.
and it is from this point that those extremists can argue their point justifiably. for if it is a person then the method of impregnation is irrelevant for it still is a person regardless thus deserving protection.
if you are consistent on a principle you can't argue it from one point then turn around and use a different argument that would be inconsistent with the first.
and that is where both sides of this issue fail. they do not argue the issue from consistent viewpoints. pro-choicers are guilty of this also.
sometimes we allow emotion to get in the way of our logic.
I decided to delete my last two comments because I'm finding that this internet blogging sometimes brings out a certain part of me that well, I guess it's Ok, but I was thinking about it today and feeling just enough embarrassed about it that I decided to delete it. If the people who I addressed have already read it. It's Ok, I don't take it back, I just decided that I didn't want it to be forever posted.
Here's the part of the two comments that relates to the subject we have been discussing.
Griper,
You are basically right in what you're saying, I just wasn't in the mood for an argument over something that is not likely to happen politically anyway and I'm not sure if the issue of Abortion should be pushed to that extent politically anyway. There's more that I could say but the neat thing about you is that I think I know you well enough that I can ignore you for awhile and you know that I will be getting back to you in time.
Soapbox,
I was allowing our discussion to stress me just a little and I think it's mostly because a lot of times people use the extremes in order to avoid talking about the issues that we are most likely to actually make political progress on.
Debates work better when we start with the easier stuff instead of that which is the most controversial. Griper may or may not agree with me, but that's my opinion anyway.
Griper,
Thanks for the lovely note you sent me. I didn't post it as you requested, but thanks.
When I first started interacting with you, arguing and debating with you about businesses being more sensitive to how their decisions effect their workers, I never realized how much of an encourager you can be. You have a real gift, Griper. You are a wonderful person and are becoming a treasured friend. Thank you.
"awwww shuckens, ma'am" as he embarrassingly kicks some dirt away, 'i'm just little ol' me. your words are far too gracious."
I did that, you know, just for the sheer pleasure of watching you blush in your cute little boyish way. You are so very cute with your words. You can go play now. lol :) :) :)
To dismiss the means by which the fetus came to exist inside the womb is to dismiss facts and evidence.
I'm not the sort of individual that is wont to do that.
I base my opinion on this and other such matters only once I've all of the facts and evidence.
And Lista, you need not let a discussion on this or any other such matter stress you out. I think by and large, blogs are meant to serve as a means to relieve stress not create or exacerbate it.
For the record, I'm just as Pro-Life as the next person. But, rather than simply assert that I am, I made it a point to put forth the foundation which has led me to that position.
I think I've done so effectively. And, while in doing so, the intracacies of my position may have been interpreted as "rare" or "extreme", with respect to the former, that should only go that much further in asserting the very reason why abortion ought not be made available on demand in the much more prevalent cases.
Soapbox,
I was involved in a depression seminar recently that helped me to realize the extent to which both stress and depression can be self imposed, for it is based on negative self talk. When we tell ourselves negative things, this can cause depression and when we tell ourselves positive things, it helps us to get out of depression.
Besides the negative and the positive, another type of self-talk that causes stress is "I should" and "I must". I am all the time catching myself on all of these new shoulds and musts that I wasn't aware that I had, such as when I find a new comment on my blog, I feel that "I must" respond quickly and do so with an argument that's sound. Sometimes this isn't possible to do. Sometimes this whole process requires a considerable thinking process and takes time.
The solution is not necessarily to change the behaviors of those around us, but instead to change what we expect of ourselves, and treat ourselves with greater patience.
I wish learning was not as difficult as it is. I have more to say on the subject of Abortion, but it doesn't appear to be clearly outlined in my head just yet. Somethings just take time.
The only really quick statement that I can make at this time is that on a purely political level, I tend to agree with you, Soapbox, because there is only so much that we can impose politically on the masses, yet on a more personal level, to be honest, I have read some information about Abortion and Rape that has surprised me and one of these days I will share it.
Wouldn't you know it? That is yet another possible post.
Than she smiles and reaches out in friendship to shake his hand.
"Than she smiles and reaches out in friendship to shake his hand."
He responds firmly and assertively.
__________________________________
I've always maintained in my life that it is not the answers in life that matter. Rather, it is the equation. I think I may have mentioned that within your presence before.
Once we know the equation (i.e., the process, one's own internal compass) by which we are guided and by which we acquire knowledge to proceed forward in life, it becomes more and more of an involuntary sort of action. We need not ponder on them for as long as we may have once before.
Once in awhile, we find new information that causes us to rework the entire equation.
We are getting off subject, though. I hope that eventually I'll find the time to reread my own post above and a lot of the comments and make some kind of concluding statement, but right now, I'm working on my next post.
Soapbox,
I have not deleted your comment, I simply moved it to a different post. If I did this right you should be able to click on the link below.
Off Subject Comments
soapbox,
"To dismiss the means by which the fetus came to exist inside the womb is to dismiss facts and evidence."
and what facts and evidence am i dismissing? i don't believe i have dismissed anything of the sort in my previous response but as usual i can be wrong.
I was referring to when you said: ...that premise being that it is a person in that womb."
While I will concede that indeed it is, it is my view that before we can address that issue, we ought to take into consideration the means by which it came to exist.
And, it is from that view that I establish the position I hold (which is posted herein).
Soapbox,
You seem to be basing your argument on the "It's not my fault." idea. That is that since it is not the mother's fault that the baby exists, therefore we can kill it. The "It's not my fault." idea, however, only works with a baby in the womb.
Consider the idea of a baby/child that is mentally challenged. If such a child is still in the womb, than we can more easily conclude that the fact that this baby/child is mentally challenged is nobody's fault and therefore we can kill it. Can you imagine, though, deciding to kill a mentally challenged child just because they are mentally challenged.
Once born, even the mentally challenged are protected by the law even in situations in which their handicap was nobody's fault.
You're distorting my premise Lista.
I have no qualms about personal responsibility or self accountability. In fact, I implore it. It is for that very reason that I've based by premise on the fact that personal responsibility and self accountability ought to be maintained for individuals who engage in willful intercourse.
I will assert that portion of my premise as I address your mentally challenged scenario. As I outlined in my premise, there exists that thing called assumption of risk. Now, presuming that the parents of said mentally challenged child both engaged in willful intercourse, my premise demands that they then have accepted and assumed that such a risk exists.
I think it wholly irresponsible and morally reprehensible that we, as a society, would apply an assumption of risk towards a woman who has been sexually assaulted.
Let's try this again. If a mother gives birth to a baby and after awhile, due to no fault of the mother, the baby comes down with a serious disease and ends up with serious brain damage. What should we do? Should we kill the baby because the brain damage of the baby was not the mother's fault, or does she still have the RESPONSIBILITY to raise this handicapped child, even though the handicap is not in any way her fault?
If the baby is still in the womb, the answer is to kill the baby. If it is not, the answer is to raise the child. Why does the baby's location change the rules?
I understand exactly what you're asking. But, what you're ignoring is that I previously affirmed that with any voluntary engagement in a contract (i.e, sexual intercourse in this instance), there exists a risk.
In the instance of intercourse, I previously affirmed that such risks might include STDs, HIV, AIDS, or Pregnancy. While I didn't affirm the deformation or mental issue risk with respect to the child, that would too be a risk that any couple deciding to have a child would assume would it not?? It is for this very reason that some couples that have hereditary genetic disorders do not have children because they recognize the potential risk to the child.
Therefore, the parents of said child in your example do have the responsibility to care for that child. It is a responsibility they assumed when they decided they wanted to have a child.
Any couple that decides to have a child knows full well there is no guarantee that every child is born healthy and of sound mind.
A woman who is forced into the act of intercourse against her will does not, by her own will, accept that A) the sexual contract exists. So, therefore B) she does not willfully assume the risks associated with the risk.
I think it morally reprehensible that we would assert this premise towards a woman who is sexually assaulted to attempt to make an argument that she ought to have known that the risk of potential rape and subsequent pregnancy exists.
I really can't make it anymore clear than that.
You know Soapbox,
I have already stated that on a political level, I agree with you. I do not support the idea that Abortion should be made illegal without exception. On a more personal level, there is a side to this issue that I am not at this time discussing because I plan to one day do a post on the subject. Politically speaking, though, I agree with all that you have said.
Personal or Political...for me, either is defined by the same premise.
For, if they are not then there would be a contradiction.
But, it is said that contradictions do not exist (I believe this). Whenever a contradiction presents itself, one is to check their premises.
Thanks for giving me my $.02 Lista.
There is something that I wanted to say about the Personal vs. Political idea and I'm almost too tired tonight to do it, but I guess I'm going to try.
It has to do with bargaining. Griper and I had a whole discussion once about bargaining in relation to individuals within the economy, such as employees bargaining with employers and other business people making various different types of business arrangements and agreements.
In politics, the bargaining takes place between groups, whether than individuals. In order to get things done, the Republicans and Democrats have to come to some sort of an agreement, so they bargain with each other and make compromises. When there is not compromise, nothing gets accomplished.
One unfortunate side effect to compromise is that it creates inconsistencies. When ever you take some ideas from one premise and some ideas from another opposing premise, you are going to have inconsistencies. This can not be helped. It's just the way it is. Therefore, I can have a personal premise that plays out one way and another political premise that reflects only the parts of my personal premise that I think I'm going to be able to persuade the opposition to go along with. Yes, it's inconsistent, but unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world.
Post a Comment