Saturday, March 28, 2015

An Abortion Book for the Kiddos [Clinton Wilcox]

You may have heard by now that there's a children's book written by Mary Walling Blackburn called Sister Apple, Sister Pig. It's a children's book about abortion. A book about a very adult topic written to children that you wouldn't yet talk about the event that preceded the abortion (the birds and the bees, and all that). You can find the book for free at the link provided, though at free the book is still highly overpriced.

Mary Walling Blackburn is apparently an assistant professor of art at United Methodist University's Meadows School of the Arts. Right off the bat, this woman has no business teaching at a Christian university or any school affiliated with it. Our Lord has some very harsh things to say about those who engage in or support the sacrifice of children. And according to The Blaze, Blackburn wrote this book to "[play] chicken with the anti-choice people."

The book follows Lee, a three year old child who has been told that his mother had an abortion. But it's okay, because if she had kept his sister, she wouldn't be able to spend all that time with Lee, and might not have enough money to feed them.

One of the major problems with this book is that it seems to ascribe full personhood to his sister, talking about how his mom had his sister killed because of these reasons. His parents even convinced him that it's okay because now they can spend all that time with him, and anyway his sister has stuck around now as a ghost (which is certainly against Christian theology). So Blackburn essentially is using a three-year-old child to illustrate why abortion is okay.

The problem with these reasons (which any adult should realize) is that they work equally well to justify killing infants. These reasons would have worked equally well if they had waited until Lee's sister was one year old before killing her. In fact, these reasons work equally well to justify killing Lee if another child that is more appealing to his parents comes around.

Even worse, Lee's father affirms his reasons for his mother's abortion. Here's what Lee says to his father: "I'm not sad that my sister is a ghost! If you kept my sister, you would be tired, and sad, and mad!...Because we would be wild and loud and sometimes we would fight. Mama might be scared that she could not buy enough food for us. Mama might not have enough time to read to me, to paint me with me, to play with me, to talk with me..."

So Lee is scared, most of all, that his mom won't have time for him. He spends the least amount of time on the only reason that might at least make an abortion understandable (which is not the same thing as justifiable), that she worried about having enough money to feed them. And what does Papa say in return? "Lee, you have some good reasons to not have a sister right here, right now."

His dad actually affirms his reasons for his mother's abortion. Of course Lee is okay with it. His parents told him a flat-out lie, that his sister is still hanging around as a ghost (so she's not really gone), and he affirms that his own selfish desires for his mother's time are good reasons for the abortion. Parents are supposed to teach their children how to be moral people. Children need to learn that selfishness isn't right, and that the world doesn't always (or usually) go the way we want it to. That's life. Instead, the father is (perhaps unknowingly) instilling a sense into his son that he can take advantage of people to get what he wants. That's what his mom did with his sister, anyway. And again, these reasons work equally well to kill his sister as an infant.

And of course, there's the fact that while these reasons may work not to have any children, as was mentioned so often in this book, they already had a child. These reasons might be good reasons not to conceive another child, but once a child is already here, you can't just kill the child because he/she is inconvenient.

I tried to Google search for pro-choice blogs that might have gotten wind of this book and given their thoughts on it. I couldn't find any that even mentioned it (perhaps they don't think it important enough to talk about). But if I were pro-choice, I would seriously take issue with the point of view expressed in this book, and the very fact that Blackburn is attempting to talk about this subject with young children.

24 comments:

  1. When pro-aborts complain that about graphic images because children might see them, we should defer the pro-aborts to Blackburn...

    ReplyDelete
  2. >> Our Lord has some very harsh things to say about those who engage in or support the sacrifice of children

    Like this?

    The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."

    Hosea 13:16

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I should apologize. I re-read my previous comment and it was harsher than I should have been.

      Actually, no. This is talking about divine judgment, not abortion, which is a whole different issue.

      Delete
  3. >> Our Lord has some very harsh things to say about those who engage in or support the sacrifice of children

    Or this?

    Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

    Our Lord seems to be OK with sacrificing children if their parents pissed Him off or didn't believe in Him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not a Christian, but by "our Lord" the author means Jesus, doesn't he -- not Old Testament authors?

      Delete
    2. Neither am I, but from what I understand, there is a God of the OT, but his word are harsh, and they are selectively quoted by Christians - the 10 Commandments are from the OT, the Book which also condones owning humans as possessions and prescribes how much beating owners are able to dish out before they get punished etc.

      On top of that, the NT contains passages which suggest Jesus actually IS God made into flesh, and that Jesus states that God's laws of the OT still stand.


      *** Jesus IS God made into flesh?

      John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...
      John 1:14 - And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,

      John 10:30-33 - Jesus answered them, “I and My Father are one.” Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”



      *** Jesus's coming doesn't mean that OT stuff is now null and void.

      Matthew 5:17-18 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

      So I still think the author's claim that the Lord somehow cares about children being sacrificed is not false.

      I know this is not the main point of this review, but if he's going to even bring Jesus talk into it, he might as well be accurate, right?

      Delete
    3. Again, this is a case of divine judgment. It has nothing to do with the abortion issue.

      Delete
    4. Acyutananda,

      Jesus and God are one in the same (and the OT God is the same God as the NT). However, as "anonymous" has conveniently omitted, these are cases of divine judgment. They have nothing to do with abortion. This is a whole separate issue.

      Delete
    5. I only replied to >> Our Lord has some very harsh things to say about those who engage in or support the sacrifice of children

      And I pointed out I was off topic, not even talking about abortion, just sacrificing or killing children for no apparent reason. "Divine judgement"? Against CHILDREN and FETUSES? And who does the judging again? Our LORD? Sorry, it appears your LORD is fine with sacrificing and ripping fetuses out of women when their parents do something to piss Him off.

      Delete
    6. Thanks, Clinton Wilcox, for clarifying your view about Jesus and God, particularly the OT God.

      Anonymous: "the author's claim . . . is not false."

      You mean "is false," right?

      At this point I will withdraw from the theological discussion. Anonymous, do you consider "ripping fetuses out of women when their parents do something to piss [God] off" to be a wrong to the women, or to the fetuses, or both? If it is a wrong to the fetuses, is ripping them out for other reasons also wrong?

      Delete
    7. I tried to post this on March 29, but it didn't go through:

      You apparently recoil from God ripping fetuses out of women. What about human beings ripping fetuses out of women?

      Delete
    8. Acytananda:

      Yup, you're correct, I mean to say "is false".

      So you concede the statement that God, who == Jesus, is fine with ripping fetuses out of wombs? That Old Testament is not null and void to the modern day Christian?

      So onto your second point. Am I fine with human beings ripping fetuses out of women? Well, if it was the woman's choice to do so, yes, I am fine with it. I'm not fine with someone else, a murderer, God, soldiers of a rebel army, ripping it out against her will. And I was mainly responding to the claim "God is against child sacrifice", when clearly he is not since he has shown himself to take part in child sacrifice.

      Do I consider the fetus's POV? As far as I'm concerned, a fetus does not have a will and cannot feel pain, at least until about 20 weeks. If I was that fetus, would I care about being ripped out? I can't imagine how I can if I was lacking all of the basic facilities that allows me to experience the world. So I wouldn't care if I was ripped out at 20 weeks by the woman carrying me, IF IT WAS BY HER OWN VOLITION.

      Delete
    9. There's a certain irony in an atheist chastising a Christian for "selectively" quoting verses, only for that same atheist to turn around and selectively quote verses that appear to agree with him. My claim is not false; but I also study the Scriptures, rather than pulling a verse out of context to mean something that it doesn't actually mean.

      When Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, this was because as human beings, we are incapable of keeping the Law. The Law is still the Law (in other words, what was moral then is still moral today), but we are incapable of keeping the Law perfectly, so we all deserve Hell when we die. Jesus doesn't want us to go to Hell, so he came to earth to live sinlessly and take the punishment that we deserve. Jesus fulfilled the Law for us because we are incapable of keeping it ourselves.

      So yes, God cares very much about how we treat each other. You can't refer to verses about divine judgment and use them to support abortion.

      Delete
    10. >> selectively quote verses that appear to agree with him

      Well, if there is even 1 passage in the Bible where God is shown to pass divine judgement on babies who have done no wrong except have parents who, in this case, happened to worship a different God, I think that is sufficient evidence to refute your original claim that

      "Our Lord has some very harsh things to say about those who engage in or support the sacrifice of children"

      as HE is the very person who has, at least on 1 occasion, murdered innocent children. Sure, I cherry picked, but if that doesn't change the fact that God has shown himself capable of killing children.

      Whether it was "divine judgement" or not is totally irrelevant. God himself will kill children for crimes they have not committed. That is the truth as written in the Bible.


      >> so he came to earth to live sinlessly and take the punishment that we deserve

      I think vicarious atonement is an immoral system. If I did something wrong, I do not want Jesus or anybody else to take the blame. If I have done something that deserves hell and punishment for all eternity (if such a thing existed), BRING IT ON. I WILL PAY FOR MY OWN SINS OR INDISCRETIONS. If my being an atheist and not believing in God pisses him off, I'd rather burn in hell for all eternity than to go against all evidence that I have gathered in my own life and believe something for which I can find no good reason to believe. If God wants to punish me for HONESTLY being wrong about His existence, he is an immoral piece of garbage, and I'd rather burn in hell than suck up to him.

      And again, never said anything about abortion, just your claim that God gets angry about killing children. Well, maybe he does when other people do it. Its "divine judgement" when He does it. My bad.

      Delete
    11. Clinton. BTW, I don't agree with you on the Bible or the existence of absolute morality, and also about the ethics of abortion. As a point of advice, if you want to be convincing to the ever growing non-believing young population about the pro-life stance, I'd seriously consider leaving out the God talk. Most of us have already heard about "reading in context" and don't find that convincing at all. Most of us find think the religious are delusional and apologetics just desperate spinning of an immoral code full of double standards. As soon as there is anything in your pro-life talk that reminds us that the speaker also believes in illogical nonsense, we've already made up our minds about anything else you have to say. Just my 2 cents...

      Delete
  4. Anonymous,

    "So you concede the statement that God, who == Jesus, is fine with ripping fetuses out of wombs? That Old Testament is not null and void to the modern day Christian?"

    I assume you have quoted Hosea correctly. Clinton Wilcox has said:

    "Jesus and God are one in the same (and the OT God is the same God as the NT). . . . these are cases of divine judgment."

    I'm under the impression that some who identify as Christians would disagree with some of what he has said. But as regards communication between you and me, defining the views of Christians would be a new topic.

    ". . . if I was lacking all of the basic facilities that allows me to experience the world. So I wouldn't care if I was ripped out at 20 weeks . . ."

    What if you were ripped out at 36 weeks, under anesthesia that turned off all your basic faculties? What if you are killed tonight in your sleep without feeling a thing?

    What is wrong with killing? Is it only because we may temporarily "care" that something is being done to us against our will? If we are not awake to care, is there nothing wrong if we are killed? A fetus being killed may not care, but who said that caring about being killed is the only thing wrong with killing? What is wrong with killing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >> What if you were ripped out at 36 weeks, under anesthesia that turned off all your basic faculties? What if you are killed tonight in your sleep without feeling a thing?

      These 2 situations are not so different.

      I am FOR abortion rights, but also FOR reasonable restrictions, and am against abortion after a fetus has gained reasonable amount of brain function.

      To me, what makes a person a person is experience and sentience. I know from experience that a 36 week old fetus responds to the outside world, and think that aborting such a being is WRONG. I think its wrong enough to be illegal, and override a pregnant woman's bodily autonomy.

      I think at around 20~25 weeks or so, while abortion is killing, I think its a victimless killing. If you, the entity being killed cannot experience it, I simply think the point is moot. In that case, I weigh a woman's bodily autonomy above the killing.

      In that case, I simply think its up to the woman herself. If she wants to abort, its simply not any of my business, and nothing has been harmed. I couldn't care less.

      If you told me that a fertilized egg had human rights, I'd simply laugh you off. I think quite a few people would.

      If you told me that a 36 week old fetus has human rights, I'd agree with you. I think quite a few people would also.

      Science doesn't dictate right or wrong, or state when fetuses gain human rights. That is up to society to decide. In this debate, I don't think there would ever be a consensus in the US, though in some advanced nations of the world, abortion is not even an issue. As a social policy, I think the only reasonable position is Pro-choice, but with restrictions for late-term abortions.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, Anonymous. That makes your position clear, and we are in agreement about late-term abortions, which is good.

      However, you have said:

      "To me, what makes a person a person is experience and sentience. . . . a 36 week old fetus responds to the outside world, and think that aborting such a being is WRONG. I think its wrong enough to be illegal . . ."

      Such a being doesn't have much experience, so you seem to think that aborting a being with sentience alone, without experience, is wrong enough to be illegal.

      I agree, but I also think that aborting a being who will SOON have sentience is wrong enough to be illegal.

      That is why I asked you, "What if you were ripped out at 36 weeks, under anesthesia that turned off all your basic faculties? What if you are killed tonight in your sleep without feeling a thing?" In neither case do you have sentience. And yet you think that it would be wrong to kill you.

      I assume that the reason you think it would be wrong to kill you is this: because the anesthesia will wear off, or you will wake up, and have sentience, SOON.

      Am I right about your reason?

      If so, my question then becomes: why is killing wrong in those cases where you will have sentience soon, but not in the case of a 3-week embryo who will have sentience soon?

      You may reply, "A 3-week embryo will not have sentience for another 22 weeks; that's a long time."

      But what if you were in a coma now, expected to feel fine when you wake up -- but that is expected to be 22 weeks from now? Would it be okay to kill you? Personally, I don't think 22 weeks is too long to wait.

      So if you think it's okay to kill a 3-week embryo but not a 25-week embryo, I think the only way for me to understand why you feel that way is if you answer this question that I asked you:

      "What is wrong with killing? Is it only because we may temporarily 'care' that something is being done to us against our will? If we are not awake to care, is there nothing wrong if we are killed? A fetus being killed may not care, but who said that caring about being killed is the only thing wrong with killing? What is wrong with killing?"

      My replies to you have all been delayed because I am always informed that my comment is "awaiting moderation," and that takes a few days. I think I was put on that status because, under another post by Clinton Wilcox, I posted a comment that included a couple of links. If you would like, we could have a faster turnaround discussing under any of the posts on my blog. I will not give the link, but the name is No Termination without Representation, and it can be Googled.

      Delete
  5. >> I assume that the reason you think it would be wrong to kill you is this: because the anesthesia will wear off, or you will wake up, and have sentience, SOON.

    >> Am I right about your reason?

    No, that is not my reasoning. As a person in a coma, pre-coma, I have expressed the desire to keep being alive, and have appreciated and wish to continue being alive. AFAIK, a fetus has EVER been in this state. It is a clean slate. A zero. Being a fetus is a totally unique condition that a person will never ever experience again - and I don't think its comparable to any condition of someone who is already born.

    >> we may temporarily 'care' that something is being done to us against our will?
    AFAIK, a fetus doesn't have a will to even speak of.

    >> What is wrong with killing?
    In the grand scheme of the universe, nothing. The universe doesn't care if all humans die today in a nuclear war. But as a member of a society and of humans, I personally do not wish to die, nor do I wish to be hurt or suffer, and I'm assuming all of my peers in society feel the same way. If I try to murder someone, they'll certainly fight back, and I might get hurt or killed, and also I know they'll not enjoy it. Fetuses don't care.

    A fetus doesn't care, and as stated earlier, they are in a very unique situation in their life cycle that they'll never be in again - total void and also total dependence. Total dependence means there are 2 parties. The woman and the fetus. If a woman doesn't want the child, prioritizing the fetus necessarily decreases the happiness of the woman. So being pro-life automatically places the non-existent wishes of the fetus above the self-determination of the woman. Because a fetus has no wishes and feels no pain, I simply don't think that valuation is right. If a woman doesn't want the child, the fetal period is the only time in a human's life that I think killing it has no consequence for the one being killed, and for society at large. So I find this killing practically victimless.

    Now you MAY insist that a woman is actually harming herself by having an abortion and that the pro-choice side is trying to encourage women to have abortions. Both of these are simply false. I know a few mothers who have had an abortion in their life, and they are living happily and do not regret their decisions. While I am pro-choice, I am also a father, and am anxiously awaiting our next child. We've never had an abortion, and don't plan to abort any of our future pregnancies. And I'm still pro-choice.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First of all regarding your "delusional" remarks to Clinton Wilcox: He probably won't reply to you, since he won't want to dignify the tone you use, so I will mention that I have heard him in a lengthy debate with an atheist. In that debate he did not refer to any reliigious doctrine, so I think he's aware of the tactical advantages of not doing so in some contexts. Perhaps on this page he has a partly religious audience.

      I also don't support that kind of tone, and won't be able to continue with you if you repeat it to me or anyone.

      While I, like you, am very skeptical of Christian and many other religious doctrines, I believe studies have found that religious people tend to be happier than average, so there must be a difference between religious doctrines and psychotic delusions. Moreover, I feel that people looking back at us a hundred years from now will probably find the assurance and certainty that many atheists feel about their present worldview to have been more or less as misplaced as any mistaken religious doctrine. I have recently read a couple of articles about a book by eminent atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel, and now I want to read the book itself. The article "The Heretic" can be found by Googling for --

      Heretic Thomas Nagel academics condemning

      -- and clicking on the first result. The article "The Book That Deflated Darwin Day" can be found by Googling --

      Deflated Darwin Day worldwide celebration

      Nagel's book is called Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False

      (Nagel is certainly not a creationist, nor arguing for intelligent design, but some of his arguments could be used to defend intelligent design, which is what has many atheists angry.)

      The outlook that I feel to be safest is "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

      In answer to my question "What is wrong with killing?" you have written: "As a person in a coma, pre-coma, I have expressed the desire to keep being alive, and have appreciated and wish to continue being alive. . . . I personally do not wish to die, nor do I wish to be hurt or suffer, and I'm assuming all of my peers in society feel the same way. If I try to murder someone, they'll certainly fight back, and I might get hurt or killed, and also I know they'll not enjoy it. Fetuses don't care."

      A sense that something is wrong is usually called a moral intuition. If I understand correctly, your moral intuition says that if we kill somebody, we don't take anything important away from them. Or that whatever we take away from them, it is not wrong to take it away. Am I correct about your moral intuition?

      You feel that if we kill somebody, we don't take anything away from them that we should not take away / that it is wrong to take away; it's only because they FEEL that we're taking something important away from them (though you don't consider that something important), or because they, for whatever reason, do not wish to die, that killing is wrong. Am I correct that this is what you mean? If someone does not wish to continue being alive (because they expect a fabulous afterlife or whatever), then there's nothing wrong with killing them?

      Also, to you, a big moral difference, with life-or-death consequences for an unconscious person, hinges on whether before becoming unconscious, the person was once conscious.

      To me, the fact that people frequently wish not to be killed is a useful indication of the importance of a person's life; but really that wish itself is just a stray thought that may or may not occupy a mind at any given moment -- which means that any indefinite number of moments may pass by without that thought.

      (To be continued – this is 1/4)

      Delete
    2. 2/4

      I think I am able to see through your eyes temporarily and to somehow see, as important, the fact that a person has not yet been conscious (even though the person will be conscious later); and I'm able to see your worldview in which life is not important, while caring about life is important. But my moral intuition is much different.

      According to my moral intuition, a person's life itself is important: the 80 years or 55 years or 12 years or whatever that a person may live is valuable, so depriving them of their future life, when we don't know what their future might have turned out to be, is wrong.

      WHY do you and your peers all not wish to die? Won't you lose something if you die? What will you lose?

      I think that some moral intuitions serve us so much better than others, that the former deserve to be called correct, or even "moral absolutes." Most scientists believe that one particular moral intuition is just a particular pattern of synaptic firings in the brain, and a different moral intuition is just another pattern of synaptic firings. They may not normally be concerned with whether one moral intuition serves us better than another. But even if some of them were to agree on an intuition that does serve us well, I think they would say that ethical logic (such as you and I have been using, and such as we normally see in abortion debates) would not be a means to identify that moral intuition. Whether or not scientists are exactly right about the reducibility of moral intuitions to the brain, I would agree with them on that point -- logic cannot, ultimately, prove or disprove the correctness of any moral intuition.

      But I think that logic can do a lot to nudge us in the right direction, and my logic would be this:

      Whenever any abortion is proposed, we in society have a limited amount of power, but some amount of power, to affect the situation of the woman and the fetus if we decide to do so. And since we have some power, we also have a moral responsibility in relation to that power -- we have a responsibility to use any power that we actually have, or refrain from using it, in the wisest way.

      We don't have any moral responsibility in relation to any power that we DON'T actually have.

      We certainly don't have any power to make the fetus's brief past better, but we don't have any power to make the woman's past better either. The joys and sorrows of her past are beyond anyone's power to undo.

      I said above that I can see through your eyes temporarily and somehow see, as important, the fact that one person has been conscious in the past while another has not yet been. But after that momentary look, I come back to my intuition that the past is completely meaningless for the task that is before society. Logically also I can't see any argument for taking into account the past. Talk about something that is now non-existent!

      And regarding the present, the real present is just the dividing line between past and future -- it is a moment of no duration.

      So what remains to us is a certain amount of power to affect the entire FUTURE of the woman and the entire FUTURE of the child, and it is our moral responsibility, and ONLY moral responsibility, to use or refrain from using that power wisely.

      Delete
    3. 3/4

      In the entire future of the child, its 20-25 weeks of unconsciousness is a very small fraction. It is much less than the total time it will spend unconscious (asleep) during its post-natal lifetime, and less than the woman will spend unconscious (asleep) during her entire remaining lifetime, even if she is already 45 years old. For all meaningful intents and purposes, in deciding how we can affect the entire future of the woman and the entire future of the child for better or for worse, we can ignore that 25 weeks of unconsciousness.

      We can certainly take into account the fact that a zygote is at high risk of miscarrying. The exact degree of that risk is much disputed. But anyway, a woman doesn't usually even know she's pregnant till the embryo is 3 weeks old -- by which time its heart is beating, but more importantly, by which time the embryo's risk of natural death has been much reduced. As a guess in order to proceed with my argument, I would say that with good medical technology, its natural risk at that point is not more than 20%. So if at birth, in its society, it would have a life expectancy of 80 years, let's call its life expectancy 20% less: 64 years. If the mother is 30 years old, her life expectancy is only 50 years. But anyway, I don't mind if we call their life expectancies "comparable". But remember, what is at stake is the life itself of the embryo, versus, normally, only some quality of life for the woman.

      "Now you MAY insist that a woman is actually harming herself"

      I don't.

      "that the pro-choice side is trying to encourage women to have abortions. Both of these are simply false."

      It's not so completely simple. In a YouTube I saw of a debate in some state legislature, a female legislator recalled that in college, “You just couldn’t be a woman if you hadn’t had an abortion.”

      Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in Gonzales v. Carhart: "[Women's] ability to realize their full potential . . . is intimately connected to 'their ability to control their reproductive lives.'" In other words, abortion may be necessary in order for a woman to realize her potential. And certainly she thinks that realizing one's potential is a good thing.

      Ginsburg must have put a lot of thought into what she wrote, and, even if no other woman had thought of it before, some women must have gotten the idea from this Supreme Court justice and women’s leader that abortion for the sake of their education, etc., not only should be legal, but can be a good thing.

      "Cherie Blair can call herself a feminist all she likes, but any feminist worth her salt would have made a point of having a termination . . . when she got knocked up the last time. . . Myself, I'd as soon weep over my taken tonsils or my absent appendix as snivel over those [five] abortions. I had a choice, and I chose life - mine." (Julie Burchill, “Abortion: still a dirty word” in The Guardian, May 25, 2002)

      Naomi Wolf, author and abortion-rights advocate, once wrote:

      "Other abortions occupy places on the spectrum that are far more culpable. Of the abortions I know of, these were some of the reasons: to find out if the woman could get pregnant; to force a boy or man to take a relationship more seriously; and, again and again, to enact a rite of passage for affluent teenage girls. In my high school, the abortion drama was used to test a boyfriend's character. Seeing if he would accompany the girl to the operation or, better yet, come up with the money for the abortion could almost have been the 1970s Bay Area equivalent of the '50s fraternity pin."

      Delete
    4. 4/4

      "I know a few mothers who have had an abortion in their life, and they are living happily and do not regret their decisions. While I am pro-choice, I am also a father, and am anxiously awaiting our next child. We've never had an abortion, and don't plan to abort any of our future pregnancies. And I'm still pro-choice.

      The fact many women don't appear to have harmed themselves doesn't mean that there are not a lot of women who appear to have harmed themselves greatly. There are a lot like that. But whatever the balance of harming / not harming may be, I think we should be very reluctant to legislate against people harming themselves. So whatever the balance of harming / not harming, it would not be a good reason to outlaw abortion.

      It is the fact that in abortion one person is harming ANOTHER person that I think is good reason to outlaw unnecessary abortions.

      "We've never had an abortion, and don't plan to abort any of our future pregnancies."

      Good!

      Delete
    5. You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. It's not necessary to respond to every interlocutor that comes along. Once he/she said that he/she is not convinced by being told to "read it in context" (which is really just basic information as far as properly interpreting a book), I decided not to pursue it any further. Plus, you are correct. I do recognize the tactical advantage in arguing from philosophy rather than Scripture, especially with atheists. But that doesn't mean religion has to stay out altogether. The author of this book teaches at a Christian university, so in this case it was appropriate.

      Delete

All comments are moderated. We reject all comments containing obscenity. We reserve the right to reject any and all comments that are considered inappropriate or off-topic without explanation.