I subscribe to Netflix. This is a movie program where you pay about $17 a month and you select three movies. Those movies are sent to your house. When you are done a movie, you stuff it back into the self addressed, self stamped envelope they provided, put it in your mailbox and within one, maybe two, days you receive the next movie in your queue. It is very cool.
The other night, I finally watched “Precious,” the story of a young African American girl whose life is basically a living hell. Yes, I know there was a subtitle attached to the movie, but I can’t remember it. Anyway, Precious is about 16 years old, in a tough inner city high school when her father rapes her. Real pleasant stuff. Not the kind of movie you watch during dinner.
Precious already has a child. I’m not sure when she had that one, but the baby looks about one year old. She lives with her mother, who is an abusive, alcoholic living off “the welfare.” Oh yeah, Precious is also very large physically and can hardly put two words together. You’re getting the picture, right? We’re not talking Ozzie and Harriet here.
Ultimately, to add insult to injury, Precious learns that she is pregnant again from the rape.
Now, I know movies are not real and that they exercise a lot of literary license. I’m also not interested in criticizing the movie industry. But I was really bothered by the fact that (according to the movie) Precious never even seemed to consider an abortion. Raped by her own father, failing high school, one child at home being cared for by a wacked out mother, dependent on welfare.
Hello out there!
I mean, if there was a circumstance that cried out for an abortion, this was it.
But, ultimately, she had the baby and at the end of the movie (SPOILER ALERT) she seems to be getting her act together to some extent after winning a writing contest.
I don’t know what happened to the real Precious and whether or not she ever considered an abortion, but I can’t help but be bothered by two things – the fact that the movie never interjected the possibility of an abortion and whether or not the real-life Precious even considered it. Let’s face it, no one wants to be catalogued as “pro-abortion” but in a case like this it’s hard for me to not think that the situation cried out for an abortion.
Of course, I could never advocate “forced” abortions, but what pisses me off is that the anti-abortion movement has so stigmatized the abortion process that it has in some ways persuaded this woman, and women like her, to not even consider the option. And the cycle of poverty persists.
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information 
April 24, 2010 at 12:37 pm
I agree with you John, although I think sometimes you are out there. Charles has yet to really answer the question, he is great at obfuscation and that is what the pro-choice movement does….
I believe you said you had a kid, Charles. When it was 22 weeks, was it a “baby????
If someone has an abortion at that point, is it not killing?
And please do not try to divert everything with that abortioncentr…. crap that you peddle.
Give me a friggin direct answer!!!!!!
LikeLike
April 24, 2010 at 12:46 pm
John, re post #12 on this thread, you say you want to discourage others from getting in the field. I get that piece. But if recall Jen Boulanger, she is very strong and there is no way she is going to back down. Indeed, you might be emboldening her. She believes she is doing the right thing. Why be so “un-Christian” and disturb her home life? Don’t you have any compassion for her and the fact that she thinks she is helping women?
LikeLike
April 24, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Meg, what in post #18 do you not understand?
Pat, John does it because he can get away with it. If she came out and punched him, he’d stop doing it, because he would be threatened with a further loss of perceived potency if she did it again. He has to be a hero on his terms, not life’s.
LikeLike
April 24, 2010 at 1:33 pm
I’m confused again. Pat, do you mean “April 12”? The posts are not numbered so far as I can see. And Charles, isn’t post #18 comment #18? Also, I responded to your #20 but it’s not here. One thing I said was to email me at jdmd@ptd.net.
Pat, you’re right, there’s no hope that Jen will change. And I’d prefer to use that time to go to a killer’s house. My sign there, “A Killer Lives Here” receives lots more attention even than the picture of the head of the decapitated youngster. I am now visiting the homes of three killers: Roizin, Benjamin, and Dantzic. If you know of a fourth, I’d exchange Jen’s place for his or hers in a heartbeat.
LikeLike
April 24, 2010 at 1:42 pm
post, comment, what’s the diff? No, I’m not corresponding with yet one more person who will terminate the slog with “I will pray for you.” If you can’t cope with it here, John, you’re sure not going to cope any better with it there. But I can understand you feeling overwhelmed.
LikeLike
April 24, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Charles, this is a public forum. You don’t have the ability to communicate in public. Sometimes, privately, I can sort things out, but here with you it’s just time wasted. If you insist on talking in the dark, though, so be it.
LikeLike
April 25, 2010 at 11:29 am
John, you have too much to lose expressing your thoughts in this forum. It’s too bad, because the public forum was the seedbed for some of the prime concepts of Western Civilization. Can you imagine how much poorer we’d be if Socrates’ symposia were comprised of men too insecure to risk having their opinion challenged?
But it’s a consequence of the very core of the so-called “pro-life” movement: So much energy has to be invested in the self-help program that there is not enough left over to risk the threat of exploration of the whole issue.
LikeLike
April 25, 2010 at 11:39 am
You know, I have to say Charles, that you really have not answered Meg’s question directly and that tells me you may be uncomfortable with the question, like so many pro-choicers would be.
As for me, Meg, at 22 weeks it certainly looks like a baby to me, although it is not viable and, as I have said on this blog, I do believe that it would be a form of killing to abort.
LikeLike
April 25, 2010 at 11:40 am
Note to John: Hey, John, can we have a discussion off this page about Jen Boulanger? If that is okay with you, just give me your email.
By the way, since you live up in the area, I hope you are not a Phillies fan!
LikeLike
April 25, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Pat, will you ask methe question that I do not seem to understand coming from Peg?
What I understand Meg asking is, “Is it a baby?” And my answer is meant to convey that nobody except the person pregnant with it– either a man or a woman– can call it a baby at any stage of its development.
Meg’s purpose is to pose a question similar to the “coin of tribute” posed to Jesus: “To whom should I pay this? Caesar or God?”
The man knew that if Christ chose one over the other, He’d be screwed.
Meg wants me to say yes or no, so that she can say either I’m an advocate of murder or a murder-mongering troglodyte.
\\
The fact of course, is that “humanity” is a complex feedback. Anthropologist Owen Lovejoy modeled it back in the Eighties when the Lucy discoveries by Donald Johanssen brought us closer to understanding the evolution of mankind. Lovejoy pointed out that her bipedalism couldn’t have by itself ensured the evolutionary success of the species, but was one of some eight factors (I don’t have the book at hand) which strengthened one another by their interplay. Take away any one of them, and the line was doomed to die out, just as gorillas, with such low reproductive rate, are on their way out, no matter how much we’d like to see them stay around. Among the factors which produced beings who became human– and which still define humanity (see: feral children) are: reproductive rate, length of maternal nurture, play, socialization in the group, extent of sexual availability, and pair bonding, if I remember correctly.
This is stuff “pro-lifers” can’t consider, because it would force them to modify their stand. Meg will never be satisfied with any answer I give unless it lets her confirm her belief. So, you can pick for her: murder advocate or troglodyte?
LikeLike
April 25, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Pat, I’d be honored — jdmd@ptd.net
I haven’t been much of a baseball fan since the St. Louis Cardinals as a kid. I thought they were all Catholics.
LikeLike
April 25, 2010 at 2:44 pm
I will contact you soon, John. Ah, the Cardinals. Stan Musial, Lou Brock, Bob Gibson… I hated them! My team is the Yankees
LikeLike
April 25, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Charles, I think Meg is asking a very legitimate question. She is basically trying to establish if you (and the pro-choice movement) condones “baby killing?”
Thus, she is asking you for your personal opinion about “baby” and “killing”
To me, this is the most difficult question pro-choicers have to face. Personally, I believe at 22 weeks it is a baby and that we are killing it. So, I supppose I could be accused of supporting “baby killing”. But I take it a step further and say, yes, this is okay. It is a legitimate (according to the Supreme Court) and a “good” form of “killing,” like some people think electrocuting a murderer is okay. Or it’s baby euthenasia.
Every women who has had a child knows what is going on at 22 weeks. Most pro-choicers, including you I suspect, do not want to address that very difficult issue.
LikeLike
April 26, 2010 at 10:47 am
Pat, the question is NOT legitimate, since it’s framed by the dysfunctional nature of the so-called “pro-life” movement! You are letting her determine the definition of the debate, which is not the therapeutic way to deal with a person obsessed by a neurosis and employing the techniques necessary to continue in a dysfunctional mode.
Granted, you want to “build bridges,” but you will find out that your off-post correspondence with John will end with him saying he will “pray for you.” I predict this statement will come within 20 exchanges. What John really needs to change him is daily contact over a long period with friendly and supportive “pro-choicers,” although given his age, he will find it a lot harder to shift gears than the “Fuhrer Ex” did.
Back to “baby killing.” As long as you defend it rather than point out her problem, she will continue in the role an alcoholic plays until he is finally confronted by all those who see he has a problem. As it is, you can see for yourself just where she’s coming from when she responds to my given answer.
Aborticentrism is as understood today as alcoholism was in 1935.
LikeLike
April 27, 2010 at 9:16 am
I believe it’s a very legitimate question, Charles. If you, like me, are pro-choice I believe we (like the other side) needs to be able to defend our position. That’s why I would personally be intersted in your personal opinion on the question. But, honestly, all you do is avoid it and shove it back onto John’s lap and start analyzing him.
You’re pro-choice, tell us what you think about a 22 week abortion. In YOUR opinion, is it a baby and is it killing? I think I know your unannounced opinion. Now I’m saying step up to the plate.
LikeLike
April 27, 2010 at 11:39 am
Pat, you’re wasting valuable time trying to talk to Charles here. I’d love to talk to him in private, but not here. I’d have to say things that I would never say in public, and, believe me, they would not include “I’ll pray for you.”
LikeLike
April 27, 2010 at 4:03 pm
John, if you want to hack my account or spread my e-mail address to other so-called “pro-lifers,” my contacting you would be a great way to have it happen. However, if you really want to communicate with me, you can use real mail– po box 665, 05156. It’s a small town, and my first name will get any letter to me at that address.
Pat, I’m sorry that you thought my previous answers to Meg’s question were evasive and that I have not answered John Dunkel’s questions in a satisfactory way, so I’ll try again. If this explanation is not satisfactory, please let me know.
Meg’s question is, “Do you think that aborting a 22-week-old fetus is killing a baby? Would you support a woman’s decision to abort a 22-week-old fetus?”
First,: I look at many things differently than many people do. When people argue for campaign finance reform, I say that the most effective way is to focus on how the money is spent rather than how it is raised. When people argue for more gun control, I address not the further restriction of acquisition, but of getting rid of one’s guns. And when people think of “human life” as embodied in the poster-perfect nine-month-old, I think of its right to a happy life.
When people define “happiness,” very few of them define it according to the classical Greek definition, arrived at by Socrates and his Athenian followers: “The exercise of vital talents in a setting affording them scope.” Money, long life, a sense of cheerfulness, fame, honors—none of these meet the standard. By this definition a man who rises no higher than to be a member of his church’s men’s mouse breeding club and does well at it is a happy man, while a dyslexic, dry-drunk, 98-IQ, clinical narcissist who is the clueless President of the United States, is not.
For me, people are not accoutrements in life—they are not my lovers, bosom buddies, helpmeets, neighbors, counselors, stalwarts, mentors, comforters, safety valves, betes noire, guardians, or housemates. They are each a being in a context in which I must deal with them in order for each of us to continue to do well.
The man who sits across from me, expressing grief at the death of his two-year-old in an arson: Is he aware the autopsy revealed both anal and vaginal sexual abuse, with the hymen dislocated to the area of the liver? The four-year-old toddling toward me across the floor of the church basement: Why is her grin fixed in a rictus instead of a smile? At the grocery store, why is the man with the pocket protector carrying out a child who appears terrified? Why did the woman in the soft drinks aisle slap her whining three-year-old? Why is my Little Brother, held back in kindergarten, trying to saw through his neck with a piece of string while his father recounts his trip up to Christophe’s Citadel on muleback? Why has the knock-dead 20-year-old with the green eyes gone into a downpour for a mile-long walk to the store without a shred of protection for her two-year-old? Why is my 55-year-old customer bragging to me that he can drink a can of Foster’s, without getting a buzz? Why do my siblings last ten, fifteen years in dead marriages that mangle their children?
Each one of these lives started out with a social assumption that they had a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I evaluate people for happiness—what they can achieve for themselves—rather than for the comfort they provide to my life. It would be self-centered of me to expect them to behave in ways that would make me feel more pleased or joyful.
Second: Therefore, when I consider the egg, the blastocysts, the fetuses, the babies, I consider not in terms of what I feel is right—after all, my judgments, being mine, are necessarily flawed—but what is right for them, and the first and most important and most critical is that there always be somebody there to nurture them to adulthood. If there is not, then they are forever doomed to be denied a chance at happiness.
I say “forever,” in the sense that nobody might ever intervene in time. The Ceausescu-regime Romanian orphans are a well-known example. Children who had to be born, given willy-nilly to orphanages, tended for years by indifferent and totally overwhelmed staff, then turned out into the streets when he fell, to live by prostitution, thievery and chemical abuse, ejecta of an indifferent world.
There are of course those to whom intervention comes late, as for example narrated in the book, A Boy Named It. And then there are those for whom it comes too late, like killer Jack Abbot, author of In the Belly of the Beast, a work so powerful as to lead Norman Mailer to befriend and free him from prison; Abbott, who went free for four months before killing again.
Third: Therefore, all humanlike organisms are merely humanoid to me until such time as they merit regard as being human. In the case of born people, it is self-evident—they might be Trisomy-13 babies, feral pre-teens, homicidal teenagers or Skid Row derelicts, but society has defined them as human, and as such, they deserve recognition, no matter how much I might reject, despise or fear them.
In the case of unborn humanoid organisms, I look for evidence that there is someone who is in the position to guarantee nurture—which is to say for the most part the pregnant or pregnant-through-surrogacy woman. (Of course, science has proven that it now could be a man, too, as I’ve explained before.) Where that guarantee does not exist, then what I am looking at does not have a chance of becoming human; therefore, what I am looking at, even though I want it to be a baby, is not a baby. And as long as it is not a baby, I cannot arrogate the right of the woman to do with her pregnancy as she wants. And as I am not the one who is pregnant, I am not in a position either to urge or prevent an abortion.
I might very much want it to be a baby, to be my baby, to become human, to nurture it using the skills I know will work. I might weep at its human form, at the gentle backlighting the photographer provided to give it that angelic aura, to mourn the promise and potential destroyed by abortion.
But that is merely to address my own need for comfort and reassurance, not to address that being’s need for nurture and protection once outside the womb. To insist that a child be born to a life of abuse and neglect is to seek to create a comforting myth for myself, that I have saved a human life, when what I have done is sentence a child to a world which Faust asked Mephistopheles to show him as part of his bargain with the Devil.
“Show me Hell,” demanded Faust, and Mephistopheles looked about and replied, “Why, this is Hell, nor am I out of it.”
So-called “pro-lifers,” having read the account in the aborticentrism blog (http://web.mac.com/charlesgregory/ABORTICENTRISM/THE_CLOSEST_IT_GETS%3A.html) about the Baby Store, know full well what they are walking away from when they leave at the delivery room door—and they can’t stop themselves from doing so. That is why I have such contempt for them.
Is my answer clear???
LikeLike
April 28, 2010 at 11:54 am
Charles, I don’t know how to hack an account or why anyone would want to, and nobody else even cares what your email address is. And couldn’t you just say Charles Gregory, Springfield VT? Why all the hush hush? Anyway, I write to hardly anyone unless I really know him. I enjoy talking to everyone, though, and that’s what blogging is most like, talking. But it’s talking publicly, and from now on I’ll only talk to you privately; so it’s email or bye-bye.
LikeLike
April 28, 2010 at 4:54 pm
John, anthropologically you and I would both like to be the alpha male and have the other imply inferiority by acceding to the other’s request– I could invite you to contact me at my email address by clicking on the icon at the RESPONSIBLE Right to Life aborticentrism blog, and you have invited me to contact you at your private e-mail account. In either case, one of us implicitly gets his alpha status confirmed by the other. Which is why I have refrained from inviting you to contact me at my address.
This of course could lead into a rumination on why a self-proclaimed “pro-lifer” would extend such an invitation rather than continue a public dialogue– but I will forego the opportunity to lecture.
What I will do instead is accede to the judgment of a more impartial person, Pat, who can tell me after she has dealt with you whether you are really a thoughtful and flexible person.
LikeLike
April 29, 2010 at 11:05 am
I dont know John from Adam. I just see what you see, Charles. What I sense is that he is committed to his cause, which I admire, no matter how much I do not believe in his cause. Sometimes he (like you and probably me) sounds a little whacky. I’m not sure if John is very flexible.
Again, I haven’t the foggiest. You are big boys, you can work it out.
LikeLike