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.
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