I am sick and tired of reading about building a "culture of life" and supporting women and babies, as if that's the answer. I'm sorry, but that's just a comforting storyline, a half-solution. For women who want a child, additional support in all forms is helpful and welcome. But some women don't want a child, and don't want to give bi…
I am sick and tired of reading about building a "culture of life" and supporting women and babies, as if that's the answer. I'm sorry, but that's just a comforting storyline, a half-solution. For women who want a child, additional support in all forms is helpful and welcome. But some women don't want a child, and don't want to give birth. What for them? Forced pregnancy and childbirth? Every pro-life proponent, including Bulwark friends, should clarify whether they support forced pregnancy and birth for women who don't want a child and don't want to give birth. Is that what they would wish for friends or family members who don't want to bear a child?
How can forced pregnancy and birth, which tramples on the hopes, dreams, and life plans of women/girls, be consistent with supporting life? What about their lives? Have they no value?
You know what is consistent with a culture of life, not to mention respect? Recognizing that women should have autonomy over their own bodies, just as men do.
***To be clear, I do not support unlimited abortion access. In general, I support the previous Roe framework, i.e., pre-viability (though I would settle for 15 weeks), in concert with the goal of making abortion safe, legal, and rare.***
This whole line of thinking assumes that all women (and men) want to have kids. As someone who has three children of my own (and lost another), I say the idea that everyone wants, needs or should have children is a false premise and is downright elitist.
Why should a waitress barely making above minimum wage, likely unmarried or married to someone making the same, have multiple children? To me, the burden should be on people of greater means. Say what you want about the Kennedy's and the Bushes, but they were wealthy families that produced a large brood of kids. Even Mittens had 5 kids.
We all know that the very people applauding this decision and rubbing their hands at the idea of some demographic shift are the very ones who will look askance at any assistance for families in need, even those who do want to have a large family.
Agree totally. Supporting the 'culture of life' is a fairy tale based on a largesse of the GOP that does not exist--possibly never did--when it comes to women's health /safety.
In the spectrum of points of view regarding the onset of human personhood, the Roe standard is very, very conservative--particularly in light of the practice of infanticide--a real thing in human history.
Actually it isn't conservative. Judaism teaches that a fetus is not a person until its head emerges. A fetus is described as mere water until 40 days after conception (52-70 days according to how we count today), and as a limb of a mother until birth. There is even a rabbinic mandate that a fetus of a woman in labor gets dismembered if that is what is needed to save the woman's life.
Christians are largely unaware of rabbinic traditions or feel that they do not apply to them. However, they do appeal to the Old Testament when they quote, "Thou shalt not murder," as if that is the end of discussion. The fact is there are only two oblique references to abortion in the Old Testament. 1) The law that considers the killing of a fetus a property offense against the father, and mandates restitution to the father for the loss as the penalty. 2) the pre-Law incident where Judah learns his widowed daugher-in-law is pregnant and orders her to be burnt immediately. As she is being led to execution, she produces proof that Judah himself is the father, so he rescinds his order. Killing another man's property was one thing, but he wasn't going to kill his own property. Christians refuse to face the fact that they cannot oppose abortion on the basis of the Old Testament without going even further than denying women bodily autonomy. To be consistent, they would have to argue that the "potential person" is the property of the father.
Interesting. By chance, have you read John XXIII's encyclical on reproductive ethics? It's from the 60's. Funny thing is, it all boils down to Nature and God's Will. Not souls, not any right to life.
I am sick and tired of reading about building a "culture of life" and supporting women and babies, as if that's the answer. I'm sorry, but that's just a comforting storyline, a half-solution. For women who want a child, additional support in all forms is helpful and welcome. But some women don't want a child, and don't want to give birth. What for them? Forced pregnancy and childbirth? Every pro-life proponent, including Bulwark friends, should clarify whether they support forced pregnancy and birth for women who don't want a child and don't want to give birth. Is that what they would wish for friends or family members who don't want to bear a child?
How can forced pregnancy and birth, which tramples on the hopes, dreams, and life plans of women/girls, be consistent with supporting life? What about their lives? Have they no value?
You know what is consistent with a culture of life, not to mention respect? Recognizing that women should have autonomy over their own bodies, just as men do.
***To be clear, I do not support unlimited abortion access. In general, I support the previous Roe framework, i.e., pre-viability (though I would settle for 15 weeks), in concert with the goal of making abortion safe, legal, and rare.***
Thank you!
This whole line of thinking assumes that all women (and men) want to have kids. As someone who has three children of my own (and lost another), I say the idea that everyone wants, needs or should have children is a false premise and is downright elitist.
Why should a waitress barely making above minimum wage, likely unmarried or married to someone making the same, have multiple children? To me, the burden should be on people of greater means. Say what you want about the Kennedy's and the Bushes, but they were wealthy families that produced a large brood of kids. Even Mittens had 5 kids.
We all know that the very people applauding this decision and rubbing their hands at the idea of some demographic shift are the very ones who will look askance at any assistance for families in need, even those who do want to have a large family.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Republican!
Agree totally. Supporting the 'culture of life' is a fairy tale based on a largesse of the GOP that does not exist--possibly never did--when it comes to women's health /safety.
In the spectrum of points of view regarding the onset of human personhood, the Roe standard is very, very conservative--particularly in light of the practice of infanticide--a real thing in human history.
Actually it isn't conservative. Judaism teaches that a fetus is not a person until its head emerges. A fetus is described as mere water until 40 days after conception (52-70 days according to how we count today), and as a limb of a mother until birth. There is even a rabbinic mandate that a fetus of a woman in labor gets dismembered if that is what is needed to save the woman's life.
Christians are largely unaware of rabbinic traditions or feel that they do not apply to them. However, they do appeal to the Old Testament when they quote, "Thou shalt not murder," as if that is the end of discussion. The fact is there are only two oblique references to abortion in the Old Testament. 1) The law that considers the killing of a fetus a property offense against the father, and mandates restitution to the father for the loss as the penalty. 2) the pre-Law incident where Judah learns his widowed daugher-in-law is pregnant and orders her to be burnt immediately. As she is being led to execution, she produces proof that Judah himself is the father, so he rescinds his order. Killing another man's property was one thing, but he wasn't going to kill his own property. Christians refuse to face the fact that they cannot oppose abortion on the basis of the Old Testament without going even further than denying women bodily autonomy. To be consistent, they would have to argue that the "potential person" is the property of the father.
yes!!!
Interesting. By chance, have you read John XXIII's encyclical on reproductive ethics? It's from the 60's. Funny thing is, it all boils down to Nature and God's Will. Not souls, not any right to life.
Correct. We are required to abort to save the life of the mother.
On a chronological spectrum from fertilzation to birth--or even past birth--first trimester *is* conservative. Your example makes my point.