Every time I write a new blog, it engenders a lot of conversation. Indeed, it seems that lately there are more and more people responding to my stuff and, honestly, my head starts spinning as I try to keep up with the threads and the incessant questioning. You see, for the most part we have one anti-abortion person who is gutsy enough to put himself out there and to respond as well as he can to the numerous questions posed by those who support abortion rights. But over the last week or so, a question has been posed that I want to highlight today.
It seems that this anti-abortion activist spends a lot of time protesting at various clinics in the Allentown/Reading area of Pennsylvania. He also, however, spends every third Sunday of the month standing in front of the house of a young woman who is the Director of the Allentown Women’s Center. I don’t know exactly what this guy does outside the house, but I picture him holding some kind of sign designed to bring attention to her neighbors that she works in an abortion clinic. Now, let’s think about this…
First, there is a very good chance that her neighbors already know that she works at a clinic. Indeed, in my experience most abortion clinic workers, owners and doctors usually tell their neighbors about their work, especially if they are expecting some kind of protest. Generally, the neighbors react very well, no matter what their position on abortion. While they may not support abortion rights, they also do not want their neighborhood disrupted, especially if someone is holding up an ugly or graphic sign.
Second, and perhaps most important to me, is the question of what does this anti-abortion activist expect to accomplish? His ultimate goal, his lifelong dream, is to stop “the American Holocaust,” to “save babies.” Fair enough. That’s his right and, indeed, I defend his right to be outside someone’s house in protest.
But let’s take this scenario a step further. Let’s say that this person succeeds and one morning the young woman announces that she cannot take it anymore and that she is leaving the clinic. Praise Jesus! The protestor has succeeded!
Upon hearing the news, the owner of the clinic gets very upset. After all, the young woman has been at the Allentown Women’s Center for many years, has done a lot of good work, has helped thousands of women in need. She has been a voice not just for the clinic but for national abortion rights groups as well. She will be sorely missed. The going away party will be a sad occasion.
And minutes after the clinic owner gets the word, he or she will put the word out that the Allentown Women’s Center is looking for a new Director. Within a month or so (perhaps shorter in this economic climate), the owner will find a new person to run the clinic. During this time, however, the assistant director will take up much of the load or the owner might even come in and help out. Meanwhile, the patients will have no idea that the young woman has left. They really don’t care, to tell you the truth. And the number of patients that use the clinic in a regular basis will not be affected at all. In other words, NO BABIES WILL BE SAVED. The protestor will not be one step closer to his goal.
So, exactly why is this person standing outside of this young woman’s house?
July 1, 2010 at 1:23 pm
i am trying to understand you, cgregor. i am pro-life but i’ve adopted a child and through my church i help the homeless and those in need. how you can you say i’m not into caring for human life?
LikeLike
July 1, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Ooooh, now you’re in trouble, Bruce. The gobbledygook that follows will remove your oxygen.
LikeLike
July 1, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Bruce: Short answer– you are the exception that proves the rule. Of three who have just responded to my recent posts– you, Susan, and John– only one has adopted. If so-called “pro-lifers” were truly “pro-life,” ALL of you would have. Now, you go to a local demonstration and ask the demonstrators, “how many children have you adopted?” You’ll see what I’m talking about.
The 160 demonstrators in my town had adopted exactly 6 children among them, five of whom were adopted by a very wealthy family. That is a piss-poor testament to their care for human life. And it’s common across the country.
As John said, the long answer will deprive you of oxygen. Check out aborticentrism to see where your colleagues are coming from.
LikeLike
July 1, 2010 at 3:19 pm
You cannot force a woman into placing her child for adoption anymore than you can force her into an abortion.
But you are right, more people need to be caring for orphans by fostering or adopting. Have you adopted, Charles? Are only pro life people supposed to do that?
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Good question, susan…
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Fortunately, I still have oxygen but thanks for warning me Mr Dunkle. And CG, I’m so glad that I am doing what you think best. But you know, there are a lot of pro-life people who would like to adopt but cannot qualify. I mean, how do you know how many of them have at least tried but got rejected? Dont always paint with a broad brush…
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 8:40 am
Bruce ignore’s questions himself,
he is another prolifer that cannot support a discussion with fact.
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Hey, slow down Beatrice. What question have I not answered? Just ask me one. And please keep in mind that some people do not have all day to be on these blogs. I’m just taking off from work today to get a four day holiday. By the way, CG, I work for the Children’s Defense League…
LikeLike
July 1, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Another oxygen depletion exercise, Susan: Single parent (no live-ins the entire time) for the last 14 years of my son’s childhood. When the empty nest came along, I expanded my ongoing volunteer activities (public school classroom volunteer, parenting course staffer, County Partners and Court Diversion (for first-time juvenile offenders) board and hearing board member) to take on a series of “little brothers.”
Besides the 7.358 million minutes I was totally responsible (present or absent) for my son’s well-being, I committed myself for 600 hours and 8% of my gross annual income from well before 1988 until this last March, when my latest and paraplegic “little brother” moved out of state. As a result of my financial sacrifrice, I am about $200,000 poorer in my retirement than I would otherwise have been, but hey, it’s only money.
I always look forward to hearing from a “pro-lifer” who meets the minimum that I met– and I know it’s a minimum, because I could have done a LOT more, but like any “pro-lifer” I chose the extent to which I wanted to engage in the cause.
And I didn’t try to force any woman into adopting out her child. I bent my efforts to work with what she, the family and the child wanted for themselves. No kid got yanked as a result of my involvement. Although there was one kid I feared would try kill his siblings, and mom refused counseling.
LikeLike
July 1, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Didn’t I tell you Charles is the only saint I know? If you don’t believe me, ask him.
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 10:59 am
Anybody who thinks he’s a saint is deluded; saints are created by others for their own ends. In their lifetime, most saints are pretty intolerable people– Augustine, Theresa and Jerome come to mind.
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Yeah, let’s give him a medal! What a nice, sensitive, caring, un-selfish guy…
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 11:43 am
I don’t consider it depleting oxygen to better understand each other and what drives our opinions. I think you have invested your time and money well. Our society’s children are desperate for fathers and good male role models. Ones that will teach them morals, responsibility and integrity.
But you did not mention that you have adopted. Yet your standard for pro lifers is to adopt or to do what you have done or we cannot have a voice in the abortion debate. That is one thing I don’t understand–why we cannot listen to one another’s opinions without being threatened by them.
LikeLike
July 1, 2010 at 7:46 pm
I’M PROUD TO SAY I HAVE MY B ABY, AND DIDN’T DO THE ABORTION ROUTE! I CALLED TO GET A PREGNANCY TEST AND ALL SHE COULD DO WAS TELL ME HOW THEY DID THE ABORTION,
NEVER TELLING ME HOW TO JUST GET A TEST
TO SEE FIRST.
9 MONTHS LATER, I GAVE BIRTH TO A HEALTHY
HAPPY BABY GIRL,
MOST PRECIOUS THING IN THE WORLD~!
NO WAY WOULD I HAVE DONE THAT ROUTE OF ABORTING HER! NO WAY!
LikeLike
July 1, 2010 at 8:41 pm
you sweetheart
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 8:42 am
Delighted that you had a choice, you are pro choice!
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Praise Jesus!
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 1:08 pm
I too, am delighted you had a choice–a choice to be pro life.
I pray blessings on your baby girl and for you. If you ever need help you can go to http://www.optionline.org and find someone near you.
LikeLike
July 1, 2010 at 10:05 pm
What if she gets inspired and starts working for the pro-life movement, sharing her experiences from working in the industry?
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 9:47 am
Congrats Cathi for you and the baby girl! For sure she is adorable.
I was 15 whenToday i am a proud grandma.
I have never being inside a clinic that practice abortion, and even though i stay in a fence between pro-life and pro-choice, i get sad and my heart aches when i see some very graphic pictures of “abortion”. I was born catholic, but always believed in something bigger than the church that dictates sins and tells you what to do about that. So i decided to search for a something that could give me better explanation about a few things that i had questions. So i found Allan Kardec, i know that a lot of people will just “kill” me with words here just for me mentioning about it, but in my choice of religion abortion it is also banned. We believe in reincarnation and for that no matter how a pregnancy happens, it was your choice even before you were born. But that is where my fence hangs, because in case of rape, incest, and danger for a already mom i got to say that i am on the pro-coice side. It is a fine line that divides one from having such a procedure or not and only them can really tell you why.
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 9:59 am
Ops… i did a mistake when typing! Sorry folks…
I wanted to say:
I was 15 when i got pregnant and today i am a proud grandma…
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 4:32 pm
I’m sorry, Sonia, I dont want to sound judgmental but what the hell are you doing having sex at 15 years old???
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 9:38 pm
AGREED. Long story. One day i will tell by email! Believe me, even though i LOVE my daughter and grandkid to death, i know that a lot of things could be different or not today if i hadn’t get pregnant back there.
And the outcome of the story is even worse!
But in my defense, back in 1985, i didn’t know 1/10 of what the girls younger than me knows now in days! My mom is the kind that do not talk to her kids!
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 9:56 am
Look at that John is being nice! awwww
John, how much do you get paid for what you do? or do you have a regular work like all of us?
Why abortion is such a problem for you?
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Course I don’t get paid, and I’m retired. I guess child killing is such a problem for me because of my Jewish background. Unlike you folks I lived through that horror of the strong killing the weak. One difference then was that the mills were big; now they’re small. That’s why I call them little auschwitzes. Satan said, “OK guys, you’re so horrified at what went on in Auschwitz? I’m going to put an auschwitz in your back yard, and I’ll bet I don’t hear a peep.” Well, I’m peeping, but that’s about all.
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 2:35 pm
John, I am glad you survived the Holocaust! We should never be let to forget what happened then, nor what is happening now. Keep peeping! My Daddy was a WWII Veteran–in the Navy. Happy Independence Day to you!
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 3:36 pm
Wow! Ho’d you manage to get out of Germany in the middle of WWII? You must have a great story to tell!!
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Yeah, I dont believe him either, CG. John, wanna tell us how you survived the Holocaust?
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 8:48 pm
No, I lived here. I became aware of what went on when the camps were liberated and those horrible photos arrived here.
LikeLike
July 3, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Interesting, John because you originally said you “lived through the horror” of the camps….Guess you slipped a little…
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 9:59 am
Why Kim, have you ever done an abortion before? Do you really think that is a normal thing?
Sonia, are u real?
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Susan and Bruce:
Susan: Ted Bundy didn’t have to grow up to become a serial killer. Your position is the covenient stance used by the so-called “pro-life” movement to excuse themselves from sacrificing their time, energy and estate for children they want to see born. Bundy could have been raised far better. Check out “Mother of a Monster” in the aborticentrism blog.
To expand on that a bit, Attention Deficit Disorder was one of his undiagnosed problems. As you are unaware, clinical psychology has established the existence of three controls relevant to an ADD-free existence: mental energy controls, processing controls and production controls. There are 13 parameters among those three controls, and there are 52 aspects among those parameters. Each one of them factored into Bundy’s ADD, and his ADD factored into his becoming a killer.
Now, a parent doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to do an ADD check on a child. It’s as simple as one, two, three: 1) As a parent, trust your feelings. 2) Recognize when you feel there is a problem with your child’s behavior. 3) Know that there is always somebody out there to help you with it.m,
And that’s what Bundy lacked.
Actually, I am the only person I know who has taken the RESPONSIBLE Right to Life ™ pledge. It is an association of responsible “pro-lifers” who pledge to raise to adulthood every “unborn human” they want “rescued.” And I’ve held strictly to it. I’d be happy if you take it as well.
Susan and Bruce: Your activities in behalf of pg women and babies is commendable, but you are not willing to spend as much time working with born babies as you expect your pregnant women to, so I feel that there’s a gap between what you want and what you’re able to deliver on behalf of human life.
Bruce: Let me know when you’ve polled that anti-abortion demonstration. You’re in for an eye-opener.
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 3:37 pm
So who gets to decide which children should be aborted? Who gets to decide which women get to be mothers? Are we to have fertility police similar to China? What is your “real world” solution? Since none of the rest of us are as intellectual as you or as perfect in our pro life stance as you appear–should all children be aborted because you don’t have anymore time or money to put into the effort.
Oh, by the way, I did browse through your webpage…I feel like I depleted my oxygen.
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Uh, the woman gets to decide under the law. Duh….
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Susan: The only person who has the power to decide who should be aborted is the person who is pregnant, because only she can provide the care necessary to usher a baby into the world. There is no way you can nurture it for her without undergoing surrogate pregnancy. You can move heaven and earth after the child is born to protect it from her if needed, but in general, so-called “pro-lifers” are nowhere near that.
Your focus on abortion rather than on the needs of the living fetus and child are the primary characteristic of the movement, which points toward an underlying cancer which pervades it. Your imputation that I insist or even encourage ANYONE to seek an abortion is indicative of that focus. There is nowhere in my writings where I make any judgment as to which fetus should or should not be, but you assume it’s there.
PS– 22 years at 600 unpaid hours and 8% of my gross income is, I feel, adequate to establish my bona fides in the care for children I never insisted or expected to be born.
LikeLike
July 3, 2010 at 10:13 am
Pat at #29: Susan’s elocution doesn’t really look for an answer; rather, she is expressing the structure developed by the so-called “pro-life” movement in order to give themselves an opportunity to become heroes. The elements are these:
1. An evil. The evil can’t be Death, because it is their unavoidable death against which they struggle. Abortion is their desginated evil, because they can attempt to block the parties to it– legislators, courts, providers and pregnant women.
2. A mythic power of oppression which they can safely oppose. In this case, Susan fantasizes (as John does) about the US government telling women they HAVE to have abortions. It’s a false myth, but useful in their attempts at self-therapy.
3. A display of anger at the evil and the oppressor which imposes that evil. This in the short term is therapeutic in that it allows her to achieve a semi-catharsis, but in the long term it is illusory. The problem remains, and she will be blocked from the highest level of knowing (cf. Belenky et al.) until she has been able to integrate her knowledge of her unavoidable mortality with the rest of her life lessons.
As an example of this integration, you have to look no farther than a so-called “pro-lifer” who after raising a child or two comes to understand that life is a spectrum, not a loaf of sliced bread– if you deal with it, you deal with the whole thing, not just one slice. These apostates from the movement come to accept that the woman who decides she’s not ready to have a baby knows whereof she speaks. They’re also in favor of contraception.
LikeLike
July 3, 2010 at 10:33 am
You know, Charles, the first thing I read when I discovered this site was Pat saying that maybe you shouldn’t use it to advertise your own site, aborteiocentralixism, or whatever you call it. That just made you mention it again and again — on every single one of your many comments. Eventually I went there and got lost in thirty-seven seconds. But now I think you’re transferring the whole dang thing here. I wish you’d become a pro-lifer because we need someone with your persistence, even though some might call it gall.
LikeLike
July 3, 2010 at 10:42 am
“The fox knows many little things; the hedgehog knows one big thing.”
Isaiah Berlin, on why liberalism fails
LikeLike
July 3, 2010 at 11:05 am
I don’t understand it but at least you didn’t mention abortingthalism. Hurray!
LikeLike
July 3, 2010 at 11:49 am
Good job, John!
LikeLike
July 6, 2010 at 6:14 am
Commander N: 46 chromosomes guarantee a humanoid life form, no more. Not even God guarantees humanity to it, as you can see by even a cursory examination of the literature on feral children. When rescued from the wild, they do not immediately say “Please” and “Thank you;” in fact, they often have a hard time with bipedal locomotion, they usually have insuperable difficulties with language, and their interaction with humans ranges from super-intelligent and wary pet to uncaged animal. Since some of them have been abandoned after initial human nurture, the same characteristics cannot be ascribed to all, but each one is clearly a lesson in how humanity is acquired, not endowed.
Each one of us, therefore, plays a part in helping the young acquire human status. And in pregnancy, there is only one person who can do that– the pregnant woman. If she detests her fetus/baby/parasite, the rest of us can do absolutely nothing for it until it is born, unless she agrees to an embryo or fetal transplant.
Therefore, it is ignorance on the part of so-called “pro-lifers” to claim they are rescuing “unborn humans,” because they have no way of delivering on that. The only person who can promise that status is the woman caring for it in utero, and if she does not, then all else is froth.
So, how many have you adopted?
LikeLike
July 6, 2010 at 6:41 am
Ah, here it is. Ok here goes: 46 chromosomes equals a person. Remember, we’re here discussing one who is in hte womb, and there’s no evolution going on in there, thus, no cro-mags in utero; “humanoid”, as I understand the term, only applies to pre-human evolutionary forms. What goes on in the womb is not evolution but rather growth. And lack of growth does nothing to diminish one’s “humanity”.
Neither does lack of speech (your feral child “please” nad “thank you” argument) or lack of cognizance (the mentally ill are still human).
“Each one of us, therefore, plays a part in helping the young acquire human status”- NO! each one of us plays a part in helping societal development and education, etc, but not “acquiring human status”. Being human isn’t learned; it’s biological, and that’s innate. Do I also understand the next line to mean that unwanted people are not human? I say you’re off the edge.
Adoptions=0; I’m ineligible. But my family has taken in pregnant women who needed a place…
LikeLike
July 6, 2010 at 10:36 am
Commander: “Humanoid” is human-like, but not human. We kill them with impunity– the enemy soldier, the murderer condemned to the electric chair, the activist who poses a threat to the established order, and so on.
It is up to us already human beings to bring a humanoid form of life to a human existence, to a state in which it will be capable of finding happiness (in the classic definition: the exercise of vital talents in a setting affording them scope).
When we fail, we make society pay. Ted Bundy was “rescued” by being born in a home for unwed mothers, but was raised in an environment that did not permit his deficits to be addressed. His mother pretended to be his sister, his grandmother his mother, his sister his aunt, etc. And of course by the time he was 3, he was already acting evilly. Look for his story on the aborticentrism site.
Compare his story with that of Bobby Darin, whose mother pretended she was his sister, and so forth. (See the movie, “Beyond the Sea.”) The difference in nurturing styles in the two families made the latter a happy man and the former a monster. Society had no problem in dealing with Bundy as a humanoid.
The issue here is that the so-called “pro-life” movement has a problem: The closer it gets to them, the less sacred human life becomes. They refuse to commit to nurture every “unborn human” they want “rescued.” As a result, they put society at great risk– and nobody calls them on it.
If you can’t adopt, you can be a foster parent, a Big Brother, a guardian ad litem, a public school classroom volunteer. And if you are not permitted to be around children, you’d hardly have the moral and experiential authority to force other people to bear them.
LikeLike
July 6, 2010 at 11:07 am
The only interesting thing in these last few posts is CG’s reference to Bobby Darin. I loved him! The first song I ever learned to sing was “Mack the Knife” But I digress.
LikeLike
July 6, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Again, an enemy soldier and a criminal, etc, are still human beings! The only dehumanization is rhetorical (Russian soldiers becoming “commie bastards”, in anticipation of war, etc). And, in terms of criminals, it’s even more obvious that they are human; why bother with due process if it weren’t so? Why not just kill the accused without trial, etc, if they’re not human? Your problem is, you’re defining “human” in terms of attributes and characteristics, not biology.
Also, with regard to Bundy, I’m sure there were several points in his life where one could say, if such-and such a police officer, pastor, friend, etc, had done something differently (arrested him instead ofoverlooking his wrongs, taking him aside in the case of a pastor and talking to him, etc) it would have never turned out that way.
I understand the necessity of nurturing the lives we have saved; but one canot determine objective truth by subjective human intentions (“refusal to committ”). If it’s true that all persons have the right to life, and unborn babies are human, then abortion should be illegal. I say that’s true.
Further, you’ll be happy to know that I do contribute money to women in need of it (our group does try to keep in touch with women who’ve changed their minds) and organize supplies for Birthright at our church. Once I get married and find a steady job (heck, I’m only 22) I’ll keep adoption in mind. but as I said, you do have a point there
LikeLike
July 6, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Ah, my apologies, Commander! I had no idea you were barely one-third my age. The certainties of youth, etc….
One of the themes of aborticentrism is that so-called “pro-lifers” only devote as much time to the welfare of children as they want. Unlike parents, of course. This does make it much easier for them to insist that other people be parents. Since I chose to deal one-on-one with needy children in a manner that was convenient for me (after 14 years of quite single parenting), I feel that my experience of 600 unpaid hours and 8% of my gross income annually would be convenient for anybody else who is as “pro-life” as I am. But that’s just an aside for you.
You have no idea how very, very APPRECIATED you would be right now as a Big Brother! During the 20-plus years I was working one-on-one I kept getting asked if I could take on another child. IN fact, the last time I checked with the local BB program, they had 89 boys waiting for a match! Given your youth, I think it’s safe to say you don’t have the beginnings of an intimation of what children face out there, and you therefore don’t know how desperately they need a male role model like you. the only caution I have is that you’re going to be involved with each one until either they grow up or move away, so prepare for the long haul. You don’t want to abandon them.
As a spur to you, here’s the link to the Baby Store, which tells how much so many children need people like you:
http://web.mac.com/charlesgregory/ABORTICENTRISM/The_Baby_Store.html
Good luck!
By the way, so-called “pro-lifers” use your argument about intrinsic humanity to duck responsibility for the children they want born. Think about it….. It does make their responsibility vanish.
LikeLike
July 6, 2010 at 5:21 pm
One of the things about sidewalk counselling is that if you’re really interested in getting results, you have to pay attention, to actually listen to the woman considering abortion nad get a feel for her problems, etc. This is one of the reasons why the literature I hand out contains adresses of charities like Birthright, Catholic Social Agency, etc. It is important to look after a woman nad child afterwards.
Apology accepted; lots of people wonder about me being involved because of my age…
LikeLike
July 7, 2010 at 5:25 am
Commander, you have no idea how uninvolved you actually are as a so-called “pro-lifer.” The maximum of your effort is to use rhetorical skills to persuade someone else to have a child. You’re not investing 7.5 million seconds of your life in getting her child safely to adulthood; you’re not working to see she gets the attention she needs from resource providers. You’re just giving yourself warm, fuzzy feelings.
You did not, I am afraid, actually check out the story of the Baby Store. Until you somehow inculcate just how much it takes to make a life human, you will not be caring for human life, but only about it, and you will continue to fantasize about how well the child is doing.
LikeLike
July 7, 2010 at 5:52 am
You’re mistaken; I don’t feel the need to list, item by item, how much money I’ve given, or to whom, or how much time organizing supplies nad driving them to those who need them, etc. The life is already human; and as such, it must be nurtured. Duh. I know this by experience, having come from a broken home myself.
For your information, I did check out your site and your link; the odds against children being raised properly these days are staggering. But (here again, from experience), as long as you’re alive, there’s the opportunity for improvement. I do back up my ideals with actions, regardless of what you or any other online poster, sitting behind a screen miles away, who don’t weven know me personally, say.
Now, two brief observations about your own site (doubtless more to come, but I havent had time for a thorough reading). First: how does nature taking its course in the case of pre-implantation fetal death make God an abortionist, seeing that this is not a direct act of suppression against that life (abortion) but rather an indirect natural process?
Second, how does your “pro-lifers need to feel heroic because they fear death” argument manage to ignore the obvious fact that we, at least the Christians among us, believe in eternal life? No need of earthly remembrance or heroics if God will let you live forever in Heaven. What say you?
LikeLike
July 7, 2010 at 8:13 am
Commander, I would like to point out the work you are doing is not only scheduled according to the claims of your own personal and higher priorities on your time (unlike nurturing children); it’s also ancillary– people can work around it if you weren’t doing it (unlike nurturing a child). You can feel as comfortable as you want with what you are doing, but. . . I might be miles away sitting at a screen, but I can present objective measures by which you can measure your own performance.
As for your comment, “As long as you’re alive, there’s opportunity for improvement,” I will indulge your youthful inexperience. It is an accurate statement for the one-third of people like you who were born into circumstances of minimal outlook but had five innate skills which helped them to escape lifelong entrapment (among them: good looks and the ability to trust one’s feelings; see the Lambert Warner longitudinal Maui study). The problem is that your statement is used by so-called “pro-lifers” to avoid caring for children whom they wanted to see born: “God will help her,” etc.
Tahks for delving so far into aborticentrism. You’re the first to have reached the “God is an abortionist” page! It’s unfortunately convenient to ascribe some things to God and not others, neglecting to remember that with God all things are possible– the whirlwind as well as the zephyr and the murder by eclampsia of the pregnant woman as well as the abortion of the fetus by God Himself. We must not constrict God to the limits of our mind, but expand our minds to encompass the powers of God (paraphrasing Sir Francis Bacon). You can’t split God from “Nature” to ascribe unpleasant events that are wholly within His compass and agency. Mind, you’re only one-third my age, so it’s understandable you’d find this off-putting.
Finally, to understand where so-called “pro-lifers” are coming from, it would help to understand the nature of substance abuse. Drug abusers and alcoholics are able to continue their destructive behaviors in part because they know how to avoid ackowledging TO THEMSELVES that they have a problem. It’s a well-known habit called “denial.”
Here is the essence of the “pro-life” problem– the closer it gets, the less sacred human life becomes. As your own service to the “unborn” testifies. Rather than explain the etiology yet again, I will jump to the lack of religious faith:
It’s not that they don’t have faith. It’s that they are weak in faith and need visible proof of what their religion tries to assure them.
I am quite comfortable with the thought that there is an eternal reward of some form or another awaiting me; I am equally comfortable with the thought that ten years after I am dead it will be as though I have been dead 1,000 years– nobody will remember me, there will be nothing left behind which will remind people of me, and every thought, word and deed I have done will have disappeared like dandelion fluff. I don’t need to be a hero; I don’t need to “rescue” somebody; and I especially don’t need to invent a victim, to give it a personality and an intelligence, that I can rescue without overburdening my scant resources.
But so-called “pro-lifers” have to! And aborticentrism says they can’t stop themselves because they don’t really believe what their religion teaches them. They need, as it were, to put their finger in the wound in Jesus’ side– and Jesus isn’t around. So they have to create their own proof.
But so-called “pro-lifers” will use denial to avoid committing themselves to care for the children they wanted to see born: “I’m a religious person; I’m saved; I support pregnant women.” 600 hours and 8% indirect support of children whose parents can’t or won’t care well for them! Take it from there…
LikeLike
July 7, 2010 at 2:50 pm
I don’t claim to know as much about psychology/psychiatry as you do, but here’s how I see this: your statement “the closer it gets, the less sacred it becomes” is an accurate portrayal of those pro-lifers who want to see their ideals realized without having to sacrifice for that realization. I see plenty of that. I know people who call themselves “pro-life” but wont do anything, whether in the form of protesting abortion clinics or contributing time and money, to back up those beliefs. And that’s where experimental knowledge comes in. But here’s the point: “less sacred” is subjective. That’s how it’s perceived after a person realizes what kind of sacrifice it takes. But does that make the principle/ideal less true, or could it be a case of change in motives?
Second, the movement as a whole; I’ll quote you the principle of the ideo-motor. If one doesn’t really believe, one’s actions will reflect that lack of belief. Again, this is subjective, but it seems that protesting, sit-ins, contributions to CPCs, etc, are hardly the evidence of a lack of belief in one’s faith.
I know you say certain arguments or facts are “used by” pro-lifers to avoid responsibility, but that doesn’t make the idea any less true. what you have to do there is to refute the false interpretation of that true statement, in this case, “it’s not my responsibility after birth”. Rather sublime, isn’t it? So great a thing as truth, beyond our grasp and beyond our ability to set or determine, yet capable of being manipulated.
LikeLike