Well I've had a number of thoughts about this recently with the upcoming Irish abortion referendum. Firstly, I'm in college at the moment where I see a lot of these ‘appeal’ t-shirts in reference to this referendum. I just can't help but think this is a case of group think. I mean, how come it is that nearly every college student who would've been in favour of same sex marriage 3 year ago, is now also pro life? Seems to imply group think to me! I don't bother discussing such matters with the students though, because I can't stand to hear people make the same basic arguments, while acting like I haven't already heard them a hundred times. Students, by and large, are very uninformed. They remind me of that social experiment, where you’d get say 15 people in a room, and have them all answer a question on a sheet of paper… and if 14 of the 15 people answered incorrectly and then revealed this answer, then the remaining person will likely change their answer to fit in, before the results are given. I think a lot of men fear they'll be shouted down by women with remark like "you wouldn't understand because you don't know what it feels like to have a life growing inside you". I think that's manipulative, because it implies that if such a man did know what it would be like, that he'd quickly change his mind and shut up. I think a lot of guys may sense, that if they voiced their opinion for pro life in front of a bunch of girls, that it'd make them look as though they don't understand women very well, and thus decrease their chances of getting laid. Another thing, is the issue of who’s body it is. I assume I'm correct in saying, that we'll never be able to technically state, for sure, who's body it is. It'll always be something that's up for debate. My opinion is that it's not the mother's body, and that it just happens to be attached to her by the umbilical cord. Therefore I think this is another euphemism that allows women to lie to themselves. What's also interesting, is how none of the pro-choice people are capable of opening their eyes wide enough, to see the real reasons as to why certain big-shot politicians are doing u-turns on their original stances. It’s in order to surf the latest trend and gain votes. Often grassroots politicians are actually in a position to maintain their stance. And how come I've never heard any comedians come out against abortion? It's a controversial topic, so you have to admit, (regardless of what side you're on) that there'd be a lot things to say for such a comedian. Lots of comedians like to think they're unhesitant when it comes to being politically incorrect, just because they might mock feminists, as well as fat and disabled people! So is it just a coincidence that all comedians share the same view!? But I've never heard one talk about this matter. Obviously some comedians have spoken in favour of abortion. This is the way it usually goes with abortion debates on the radio. The pro life person, will make the argument that it's murder. So ultimately what it boils down to, is that the pro choice person's argument, is essentially that you can put a price on a human life (and perhaps you can in many ways), but it wouldn't be politically correct to say that! So at this point in time the pro-choice person, out of frustration, will usually laugh at the pro life person, as if to say "you just don't fcuking get it, do you?". This really gives the impression that the pro choice people assume the moral high ground on the matter. This is the dialog I recently heard on a radio show: Pro life: "So you're saying that it's okay to murder an unborn baby?" P choice: "No, I'm saying that when absolutely necessary, it's okay to terminate a foetus" Pro life: "So you're basically saying that it's okay to kill a child?" P choice: "Now that is NOT the correct terminology" I'm thinking that last line wasn't the cleverest come back for the pro choice person! On the comedian argument, it'd be good for one to tell a story, about a family cat having an unexpected litter of kittens. And how your kids would start to play with these kittens while you'd remain stressed and in denial over what to do. Then you wake up the next morning. Your husband comes in the door. You mention that you two had better think about what to do with the kittens. Then you begin to realise that your husband hadn't been panicking one bit about the matter! which wouldn't be like him! He then says "oh I took care of the matter". You say "what do you mean? you...". He says "you know..."! You're saddened, and horrified at him for doing such a thing... but only for a second! Then you feel great relief... and mainly because you had no part in it. But can you really tell yourself you didn't expect this?? I mean, how long have you known your husband for? Anyway, I think that story, if timed well, would result in many pro choice people reluctantly laughing their heads off. Thanks for reading. Didn't think it'd be so long.
I'm all for abortions really, I mean "pro life" is a rubbish term really. Erryone knows once you have a kid then you cease to have a life. so, really, I mean when you're redneck as fuck and you have a kid you're really ruining 2-3 peoples lives, pending if you even know who the father is. I don't really believe that a small embrio should be considered a fully fledged human being at all. Now years ago I would have said nah, onus was on you to practice safe sex so you're stuck with that kid and suck shit while you're at it, but now I'm older and probably less wise, I just think, you shouldn't have to be stuck with a kid if you don't want one.
I think a more important discussion might be how to reduce the birth rate of humans. Given that the main purpose in life is now the unfettered acquisition of resources turned into "plastic" we gonna' run out eventually. I don't think that at any stage of conception, there is an exchange of inert material. However, it's not my business to tell other humans what to do, what to say or how to solve their problems.
Your works are wonderful, I know this very well. Your eyes even saw me as an embryo, All its parts were written in your book regarding the days when they were formed.
The Catholic Church allowed abortions to a certain point until the 1500's. There was then one Pope who changed the rules into what pro-life people support today. He was only Pope for a few years but ask any Catholic one day he can just get a text from god on new rules. But before that there was no "child" until the women could feel it moving so abortions were legal and accepted. You can't decide at 9 months to abort but you had many months. Maybe this was because the church knew it had to support some kind of population control. There was no Trojans and most people lived in poverty. Or maybe it's a primitive medical understanding. No ultra-sound or any way really to know besides the women getting sick or wives tales signs of pregnancy passed down through generations besides feeling it move. But either way I have found most Christian are not aware of these historical facts. They say their view has always been the Christian one. Other religions also had a belief that a soul was not present int the body until weeks after conception. The same thing science shows us now. It takes time for anything resembling a human to be there. Making the argument a simple two party issue is just another wedge issue used to divide the public. I do find it interesting ancient people figured out what science has without science though.
For me the thing is that abortion DOES degrade human life. It should be avoided at all costs, that is all. Not the cost of making it llegal, mind you, but people shouldn't use it as a form of contraceptive. What do you think having a bunch of aborted fetuses lying around does to the human psyche? It's like the holocaust...people treat it so flippantly, but the psyche doesn't work that way.
I don't regard a blastocyst in a Petrie dish as a human. I tend to follow the Aristotelian point of view in vogue in the Middle Ages that a fetus isn't human until "ensoulment", which I regard as the point in which it has both sentience and rudimentary cognition. This requires brain activity and a nervous system. According to American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a fetus's brain and nervous system "do not have the capacity to process, recognize or feel pain during the second trimester." So on this basis, I'd say that I don't believe abortions before the third trimester are infanticide. This roughly coincides with the old trimester test used in Roe V. Wade, which was based on viability or the ability to survive independently of the mother. I think that abortions after the third semester can and should be outlawed.Do Fetuses Feel Pain? What the Science Says
while certainly not the best (or even among the best) way to deal with it, the human population of planet earth IS unsustainably excessive.
