When talking to pro-choice people I’ve often heard the sentiment that a mother’s choice trumps the child’s because of property rights. From a question I posted on Quora:
Wes, also incorrect. Society establishes just termination of human life over property as well. It’s about territory/resource more than anything else. And no, as I mentioned to Herbert, acknowledging the fetus as homosapien doesn’t negate the right of a carrier.
And to answer your question: In most all ancient cultures and laws and still today: the fetus has never trumped the carrier. We decide based on the residence. And the female’s rights will trump the fetus not because of biological category, but because of anatomy.
Here’s my response:
If the fetus were to have “infected” its mother then I could see where they would have a point. But it is well evidenced that the rape and incest only end up producing a biologically new human life about 5% of the time.
So to treat the fetus as a foreign invader when the fact is that in the vast majority of fetuses were created as a result of a deliberate choice by the mother to engage in procreative activities.
So the question should really be: Should it be acceptable to kill someone for the sole reason that their continued existence may prove to be an inconvenient result of deliberate choices made beyond their control?
In the end, I think pro-choice is merely a code word for anti-child. I believe children are easily sacrificed by people who feel it is their right to be selfish hedonists who live as they please, have junk food sex, and generally don’t have time to be bothered by repulsive children.
Gabi Jones, 25, who has a rare condition called persistent genital arousal disorder, gorges on high-calorie treats like ice cream and cakes until she has a climax.
The 48DDD blonde experienced her first food orgasm in her late teens at an ice cream parlor called Wickedy Splits.
She said: “I loved the velvety texture of ice cream on my tongue. Then one day as I was tucking in I felt a tingle starting down below.”
“The pressure kept building until suddenly it swept through my body. I felt light-headed and flushed.”
“I was stunned, but in no doubt of what had happened.”
“My friends thought I was making it up. But from then on, every time I tucked into rich, creamy desserts the trembling and tingling began.”
“I went out and bought an ice-cream maker and soon I had knee-trembling orgasms whenever I wanted.”
Gabi, from Denver, Colorado, tipped the scales at 275 pounds in her early 20s, then ballooned by 210 pounds over the last five years.
Now as strange as that is, I want to point out the prevailing cultural attitude to sex as a recreational activity to be partaken in without any fear of consequences (biological, physiological, psychological, etc.) is not much different.
It seems to me that our culture is preoccupied with promoting junk food sex. In this view, sex is nothing more than another biological activity like eating food, but unlike eating food the prevailing notion is that sex should be indulged in wherever, with whomever, and for whatever reason.
Sex is no big deal. Everyone does it. Its fun. And because we’ve been told it is an absolute right to partake of it without any context or fear of consequences, it is seen as a basic human right that others should uphold by allowing us to remove any and all barriers to our self-satisfaction.
What’s the difference between what Planned Parenthood tells kids about sex and Gabi’s view on eating?
Gabi, who loves hiking and swimming, added: “It really annoys me when people say: ‘You’re so unhealthy and fat.’
“I don’t drink, I don’t smoke, I’ve never done drugs. I am fat, fit and healthy.
“I won’t stop what I do until the world recognizes that fat is fabulous.”
In both cases, the key is to get rid of or attempt to downplay the obvious biological consequences. And while, thanks to modern technology, they are able to mask the problems their behaviors and beliefs entail.
Gabi can be morbidly obese, the children of Planned Parenthood can continue having random sex with random people (“safely” of course).
And since we don’t want to acknowledge pesky realities like biology, it is necessary that we stand with groups like the GLBT movement who also want to create a reality all their own in order to indulge in self gratification.
Finally, to make it easier for everyone to do what they want, to gratify themselves in any way they please, we need to overturn any laws or social constructs (like marriage) which have the potential to harsh our fun.
This attitude is why fundamentalists are portrayed they way they are. Its not that their ideas are wrong or not well through out or ill-articulated. That’s really of little consequence.
It needs to be pointed out that their attitude towards sex as a sterile, recreational activity unconnected with any biological consequences combined with their view of children as parasites are not unique. These are the predominant views of our society, pushed in all facets from politics to education to entertainment.
The future looks very bleak for any children produced and raised in the homes the people above will provide (when they choose to provide it, of course). One protester even had a sign “would you trust me with a child?”
What the above video shows is how it is socially acceptable, indeed fashionable, to spurn our biological design in pursuit of unbridled hedonism.
While explaining the strict rules of the household, her father — not knowing his daughter was pregnant — declared, “I would rather see a daughter of mine floating down the Cumberland River than to bring shame on this family and the indecency of an illegitimate child.”
Fearful, Winfrey thought, “Before the baby was born, I’m going to have to kill myself,” adding she did “stupid things like drinking detergent and all that kind of crazy stuff that you do when you’re trying to get attention, when you’re really just trying to cry for help.”
In a past interview, Winfrey, now 56, said she “hid the pregnancy until my swollen ankles and belly gave me away.” A few weeks later, her baby died in the hospital.
Looking back, Winfrey, who’s now a billionaire with her own cable network, said losing the baby who she “had no connection to whatsoever” was a blessing in disguise.
“When the baby died, I knew that it was my second chance,” she said.
We are led to believe that Oprah’s father’s “strict rules” are what is to blame here. However if that were the case we would hardly expect her to consider the death of an innocent human being, brought about by “bad choices, not having boundaries, sexual abuse from the time I was 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13” to be a “blessing in disguise”.
The truth is that Oprah’s views of children as being a nuisance, a punishment, a plague, and a parasite, are shared with millions of women across the country.
The real tragedy here is that that Oprah fails to see the selfish immorality of her own worldview.
It’s sad that we do things like spend a week debating whether the political rhetoric of our age leads others kill others as in the case of the tragedy in Tuscon, AZ. And yet we never hear about how language like Oprah’s encourages millions of would-be mothers to take the lives of their children every year.
Contra to Politifact, the government takeover of healthcare, characterized by the existence of strict government oversight as to who gets what treatment when and where (aka, “death panels”), or none at all, is very real.
If you are providing health insurance only with the permission of the federal government, government has taken over your health insurance.
Actually, if its such a lie that Obamacare is not a takeover of the healthcare industry, why has it already been ruled unconstitutional, specifically for its provision regulating economic inactivity? Not buying healthcare now carries with it the possible penalty of jail time.
What is truly amazing is that in spite of all of these facts, liberal organizations like Polifact feel no shame in attempting to sweep it all under the rug by calling it a great big lie. As if we had made all of the preceding facts up and were merely out “to scare people”.
Hope and change is only worthwhile if whats hoped for is clearly defined and real and what is changed is well-vetted (remember that whole 5-day public disclosure, “we’ll televise the ‘debate’ on C-SPAN” mess?) and avoids as best as possible unintended consequences like those mentioned above.
Why should Christians in particular care about all of this? Because Obamacare funds lifestyles and choices (thereby encouraging them) that are in direct opposition to our faith. Sure, free market capitalism makes such things possible, but it does not force others to fund something they fundamentally disagree with. Also, Obamacare costs money, a lot of it. More money in the government’s pockets means less money in our pockets (because the government cannot create, only take, wealth). So even the weakest churches should be up in arms about Obamacare because more money going to the government means less money in the offering plate.