John Noble (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
jackofallgeeks) wrote2003-09-04 08:24 pm
jackofallgeeks) wrote2003-09-04 08:24 pm
(no subject)
I'm rather enjoying this LJ-Prolife community. Sometimes I think it's a bit futile preaching to the choir, but it is good to bat around ideas, ask questions, and (especially for me) know there are others out there.
Just this evening, there was a thread started talking about how men are afraid to be pro-life. In that thread, there was a comment which read, in part:
There are a huge number of women out there raising their sons to be nothing but mindless drones - or "good husbands" as they would put it. It's a reverb against the way women have been traditionally repressed. They figure, what's good for the gander is good for the goose. They treat men the way they feel they have been treated, and it's getting worse as time goes on, and they are raising their sons to buy into it all.
This lightly touches on yet ANOTHER thing that's bothered me for some time. The fact is guys and girls are different, and not just cause each has a few different parts. Psychologically, chemically, emotionally, physically... We're so different, we don't even THINK on the same lines, and I don't think anyone will argue me on that. Guys and girls have across the board always had difficulty understanding eachother. And it BOTHERS me how... You can't raise a boy the same way you raise a girl. And the fact that guys are more oriented in physical realities (generally) isn't just because we're raised a certain way, or treated differently as a baby. We're DIFFERENT... I read a study once where they tried raising little boys the same way they raised little girls, in the hopes that the boys would be less inclined towards physical violence (I'm not a violent man, but every now and then I would just like to break things). It didn't work, but people still think along those lines. They don't recognize that we're hardwired to be BOYS, and that doesn't mean we'll all be overly aggressive, or even that we SHOULD be overly aggressive; but we're not girls.
This has quickly degenerated into a mostly-mindlerss rant, and I've lost track of most of my arguments... What it comes down to is that we need more men to act like men, Convicted, Noble, Loyal... not how we seem to be churning out guys who will not take a stance and....
-_-
Yes, more men need to act like men. I end it here.
Just this evening, there was a thread started talking about how men are afraid to be pro-life. In that thread, there was a comment which read, in part:
There are a huge number of women out there raising their sons to be nothing but mindless drones - or "good husbands" as they would put it. It's a reverb against the way women have been traditionally repressed. They figure, what's good for the gander is good for the goose. They treat men the way they feel they have been treated, and it's getting worse as time goes on, and they are raising their sons to buy into it all.
This lightly touches on yet ANOTHER thing that's bothered me for some time. The fact is guys and girls are different, and not just cause each has a few different parts. Psychologically, chemically, emotionally, physically... We're so different, we don't even THINK on the same lines, and I don't think anyone will argue me on that. Guys and girls have across the board always had difficulty understanding eachother. And it BOTHERS me how... You can't raise a boy the same way you raise a girl. And the fact that guys are more oriented in physical realities (generally) isn't just because we're raised a certain way, or treated differently as a baby. We're DIFFERENT... I read a study once where they tried raising little boys the same way they raised little girls, in the hopes that the boys would be less inclined towards physical violence (I'm not a violent man, but every now and then I would just like to break things). It didn't work, but people still think along those lines. They don't recognize that we're hardwired to be BOYS, and that doesn't mean we'll all be overly aggressive, or even that we SHOULD be overly aggressive; but we're not girls.
This has quickly degenerated into a mostly-mindlerss rant, and I've lost track of most of my arguments... What it comes down to is that we need more men to act like men, Convicted, Noble, Loyal... not how we seem to be churning out guys who will not take a stance and....
-_-
Yes, more men need to act like men. I end it here.
Agreed !!!
Extreme Feminisim had SCREWED women over, big time! I am not superwoman, and I don't want to be. I want everyone to take responsibility for themselves darn it!
K.....that was my rant :) Anddddd....I AM EMOTIONAL, I was wired that way. I like it thankyouverymuch, so ha! to all the feminazis out there!
And you son, are such a breath of fresh air. Thank you God for giving the next generation a brain, and the ability to think for themselves :)
no subject
Well, thank you. Though, the all credit goes to my parents, as I personally had little say in my upbringing. -laughs- If it makes you feel better, though, I have four other brothers at home, so, w00+!
And you, Miss (may I call you Miss?) are a breath of fresh air to Me! I fear far to many of the ladies I know wouldn't take your stance. there's nothing wrong with a lady wanting to have a career, and there's nothing saying all women must get married and bear children - far from it!
I had other things to say, but I can't remember what they were. ^_^;; I usually stop at this point, for an argument full of emotion and lacking reason quickly falls flat.
Just some thoughts...
That being said, I read the post from
You claim that most women do not know what abortion really is, and what kind of toll it can have on a woman. I disagree with that. Yes, some women may not take the time to actually weigh out her options. But it is my sincerest hope that women fully look at all options available and choose what is best for them. I know a number of women who have had abortions who knew full well going into it what it entailed. And to be quite honest, I would have been more emotionally damaged by having to bear a child and give it away than I was by having had an abortion. Every person handles stresses differently. Pregnancy is very taxing on a woman's body. No, abortion is no picnic, but when done safely it is not as dangerous as many people believe, it is even safer than a full term delivery in most cases.
As far as chivalry goes, it was done in the days of yore to make up for the fact that women were treated like lesser beings. While I would love to see it practiced more today, I don't see a man being prolife as being chivalrous (I'm sure you do many other things that are, I'm just saying that just being pro life doesn't make you chivalrous). I would much rather have a man say to me that he loves and respects me enough to be allow me to decide for myself what should be done to my own body. To me that shows a greater sense affection, than trying to convince me to do something I don't want to do. It gives enough dignity to the woman by saying, you're strong enough to know what's right for you in this situation.
I hope I haven't offended you, and I hope this came off the way I intended it to and not confrontational by any means. I am merely just giving you the views of a 20 year old pro choice gal, who knows a lot about the subject.
Every you, every me...
That being said, we must define terms. I do not actively fight against your right to choose whether or not you have children. I would never force that responsibility on anyone; much as I think it's a wonderful thing, I recognize that it is infinitely taxing in every way, and it's not for everyone. A good number of my friends don't ever want to have children, and that doesn't bother me.
My issue is when one chooses to exercise that right to choice. If you don't want kids, then don't get pregnant; I know, easier said than done, but I'm also an advocate of chasity. -shrugs- The best prevention is to not get in bed. Once a child is conceived, you have a new life inside of you, and I would argue that it is a supreme act of selfishness to snuff it out for one's own convenience.
You're right that I will never know what it's like to be pregnant. At the same time, I will never know 1/4th of the people I might have, thanks to abortion. They were dead before they were born, and that almost more than anything gets my temper up.
And yes, I'm quite sure there are women out there who know what's going on, and go ahead with it anyhow. I won't claim I understand their motivations, but I recognize that it is there. I also, however, recognize that Abortion is the only major medical operation that does not require informed consent, that there is little to no effort put toward informing girls what goes on in the operating room, or what the risks are. I recognize that few statistics are released on the chance for sterility and internal bleeding, and that Clinics are not required to keep any public records of deaths due to abortion.
As far as Chivalry goes, you're right, it was historically not the romantic ideal we all wish it had been. Like many things from the past, it's not all shining glory. What I advocate is the respect for the dignity of all women which the chivalric ideal supports. Being prolife doesn't make me chivalrous, I agree, but I would hope my motivations for being prolife do; motivation affects all acts. And once again, we must define terms -- I would never tell you what to do with your body, but the child inside of a woman is not her body. The child has unique DNA, unique finger prints, unique brain waves, and the woman's body continually attempts to eject the child throughout pregnancy, as it would attempt to eject any foreign material (the most violent of these attempts, presumably, being contractions). I don't know all the medical particulars, but I do know enough to say that the child, from conception, is genetically distinct from the mother (hell, half of the child is the Father's DNA!). Thus, I only work to keep you from harming the body of another, which I would hope to do for anyone, born or otherwise.
You have not offended me; generally, I don't take things personally, and just because I don't agree with what a person has done doesn't mean I think they are any less of a person. I hope I have not offended you. ^_^;; I'm afraid I have a tendency to do that, as this issue does make me very angry (which doesn't happen often, I assure you). I would not argue that you are strong enough to know what is right for you in any given circumstance, and I would never claim that I know better than you, or anyone, what your situation is. That having been said, I will never condone the intentional killing of a child.
Re: Every you, every me...
Much easier said than done. I got pregnant while on birth control. But humans, as well as all mammals, are genetically programmed to have sex. It is unfortunate (I suppose) that it has long since become more for recreation than procreation, but that is how the world is now. It is no one's place to tell another person they cannot have sex, it is a personal decision.
I would argue that it is a supreme act of selfishness to snuff it out for one's own convenience
When I made the decision to terminate the pregnancy I did so after evaluating everything having to do with that child. I knew for a fact that being a nursing student I could not be the kind of mother that child deserved. I knew that it's father was not even responsible enough to care for his own life let alone someone else's. I also knew that the pregnancy had gone undetected for far too long, and thus I had had no prenatal care. I had also been exposed to things that pregnant women are warned against (cadaver room, harsh fumes, not fun for adults let alone fetuses). I made the decision to not make my child suffer through it's entire life because I didn't know it was there sooner.
Yes, I realize that this is just one case out of many. But I'm merely pointing out that every circumstance is different. And thus options need to be left available for all circumstances.
At the same time, I will never know 1/4th of the people I might have, thanks to abortion.
Has it ever occurred to you that some of the people you do know may only be there because their mother had the right to choose? I know that someday years from now when I do have a family, those children would never have been born had I not had an abortion. In fact I personally have met someone who's mother had had an abortion just 5 months prior to becoming pregnant with her. Had her mother not had an abortion, she would never have been born, and it's likely her younger brother may not have been either. The point being, you don't know how many women you may personally know in your life that have used their right to choose, and it may affect your life more than you know.
the child, from conception, is genetically distinct from the mother
I do not dispute that fact. I am very well educated in anatomy and physiology, as well as embryological development. But the fact of the matter is while it is another life, it is completely and utterly dependent on one human being for nine months. Thus that person should have the right to decide if they want to have something inside them that can only be sustained by them. After it is born it can be cared for be anyone, but for nine months it is the sole responsibility of one woman, and if she does not want it there, she should not be required to keep it there. If women are forced into keeping unwanted pregnancies then it will lead to many children being born with birth defects caused by women not caring properly for themselves. It is a sad scenerio, but it is a fact. Many women cannot change their lifestyles for nine months. Let alone for the 18 years to follow.
I will never condone the intentional killing of a child.
I would never ask that of you. And the fact that you are not one active in seeking abortion rights be taken away I would never hold being prolife against you. It is a great thing to be concerned for the life that is being taken away. I myself, care more about the life and health (mental and physical) of the woman already living than about the child who has not yet been born. As well as all the other children who have been born, but cannot find homes because they are; the wrong race, the wrong age, or have mental or physical handicaps. I did not feel it just that my white infant be given a home (should I have carried to term and given it up for adoption) over another child already living, just because it would have been just that, a white infant.
Reply, the First
Agreed through and through. Again, I'm not looking to force anything on anyone, parenthood and pregnancy included. I do expect people to take responsibility for their actions and the consequences that follow. Childbirth is a logical end to sexual intercourse, and as inconvenient or troubling as it may be, I do not believe that justifies killing a child. If you don't want kids, don't have sex. I'll vouch that it's not easy, but I'll also vouch that it's possible. If you're going to have sex, fine, I won't stop you; but it's still wrong to kill a child that results from that.
I made the decision to not make my child suffer through it's entire life because I didn't know it was there sooner.
I don't mean to offend, please know that. I think I kind of like you. But that being said, as noble as this sounds at first, I think I would still say that it was a poor choice to make. I don't know, maybe you took tests and KNEW the child would have birth defects... But my friend Sarah wasn't supposed to be born alive according to the tests her mom took, and she's not a beautiful, intelligent, normal young lady like anyone else you might meet. The tests were wrong. And further, my little sister was born with a stunted hand -- her left, and we have every reason t'believe she's a Lefty. But even at that, I'll be damned if she's ever had a difficult time doing anything, from trying her shoes to climbing up the counter to get cookies off the shelf. Even doctors don't have the ability to see the future, and no one can judge that someone's life would be so horrible that they'd be better off not having it. I won't say I fault you for making the decision, but it was still the wrong one to make.
it may affect your life more than you know.
You bring up a valid point, and one that I've been presented with before. It in fact touches closely to the hardest case of all (as far as I'm concerned) where it's most justified -- the mortal danger to the mother. Even there though, I believe abortion is wrong. It's one thing if a doctor attempts to save both (or even just directly tries to save one) and loses the other. It is completely another for a doctor, sworn by oath to protect life, to end the life of either the child or the mother. Losing one is not the same as killing one. And beyond that, abortion doesn't ever ensure someone gets born -- abortion directly kills life, and if anything, the people I know are here because, at their time, their mother chose not to have an abortion.
Thus that person should have the right to decide...
-shakes head- Arguably, a child is dependant on his parents for years and years after birth, as well. Yes, arguably, after birth they can be given up for adoption or what have you. Still, I do not agree that because you are responsible for someone that you should have the right to end their life. That makes no sense at all. And as for changing lifestyles, I would argue that in that parent's case, they need to accept the consequences of their act, and in the child's case, any life is better than no life. Yes, it's a sad case that guys can be assholes and run away from it, while women are physically invested in the ordeal. But I would argue that there should be more programs to give the women the care and support they need, rather than more options to kill the child.
I would never ask that of you.
I am glad for it, as it shows a measure of understanding and compassion. I fear you misread me, though; I am actively against abortion. It is one of the few things that ever gets me angry, for all the reasons you've heard so far, and then some. I will back any legislation to outlaw abortion, because it is the killing of a human child. Anything is better than that. Additionally, Roe v. Wade, which opened the floodgates of abortion in america, was legally in error. The Supreme Court did not have the power to make laws regarding abortion, and they did. It would be one thing entirely if a bill were voted on and passed which opened this up, but it wasn't.
Reply, the Second
And on the point of your child being adopted because he would have been white... You're right, that's not cool. It's a horrid injustice that there are children out there without a home because people want 'this child' or 'that child.' But it is just that mentality that counts for a great number of abortions in America -- most abortions are from girls and young women in the upper-middle class, and most of those are out of convenience or preference. Abortion is not a cheap operation, after all. And even at that, even arguing that your child being adopted over another child would be a horrible wrong, that doesn't make it right for someone to kill that child.
Re: Reply, the First
It's been interesting corresponding with you...
no subject
It has been nice. I suppose this is the end, though, huh? If so, I wish you well.
no subject
Perhaps we'll meet again sometime. I don't know if you've been there, but
no subject
-grins- And in parting, I'd like t'say you're pretty cool.
no subject
no subject