deceitful games of anti-abortionists
content warning: post contains explicit discussion on abortion
I held in my hand a model of a 12 week old preborn human being, also known as a fetus, or also known as a “blob” of cells if you work for Planned Parenthood. (Quiner’s Diner)
Tom Quiner has a post called “The reality of human abortion“, which features a picture of a model 12-week-old human fetus. I was intrigued by the photo, thinking the fetus looked more baby-shaped than I had previously understood, and so googled what an actual 12-week-old fetus looks like.
A 12-week-old fetus in reality looks like I remember: something like a newly hatched baby bird crossed with a tiny alien. I still think it’s a shocking image that has the potential to make someone think twice about abortion if they have other options. So I don’t understand why the anti-abortion lobby doesn’t present models of an actual life-like human fetus.
Except when I think about it, I do understand why they do it.
They are a group of people in denial of the reality that access to safe and legal abortion facilities is the only sensible option for a compassionate society; they are a group of people in denial of facts about brain development stages and sentience of the human fetus; they are a group of people who deny the decision-making power of individual women to choose what grows in their own bodies. In their desperation to make abortion seem evil, they are happy to spread any kind of half-truths, misinformation, and exaggeration they can lay their hands on.
I would take little issue with a genuine pro-life campaigner who circulated accurate images and models of human fetal development stages, a campaigner who fought to reduce the numbers of women accessing abortion by lobbying for free contraception, better childcare options and better sex education for all. But a genuine pro-life campaigner I’ve yet to encounter. All I see is a sexist and misleading religious agenda driven forward by male-dominated groups seeking to undermine the lives of women, underpinned by misinformation, exaggeration and outright lies. The deceitful games of the anti-abortionists need to be confronted.
Shame on you, Tom Quiner.
Why not make all murder and genocide available on demand by everyone!
Why should women be allowed to have all the genocidal fun?!
LikeLike
Why not indeed, SOM? After all, you, and every other Christian, are guided by example by your god, Yahweh, the most heinous genocidal maniac in human history, and for you he is perfect.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ark,
You are hallucinating a comment obviously meant for some other alternative universe.
LikeLike
And you are a disgusting , disingenious piece of filth.
Your god is a monster; one only someone suffering from psychosis or severe indoctrination would worship.
And I note that you have deigned not to try to answer the questions I asked on the previous post?
So, on top of everything, you are also a coward
LikeLike
It is interesting that his comment sparked several responses attacking God, when he said nothing about God or Christianity, in his comment. Why can’t pro-abortionists ever put forth an argument that is both rational, and does not include hatred of God and Christianity?
LikeLike
Hi, charmony777
They regularly put forward rational arguments
But your god is almost always involved in such dialogue usually because it is forced-birthers that invoke Christianity and Yahweh citing this make believe monster as the moral guide line for which to base all such decisions. Incidentally, Yahweh is all for abortion if you care to read your bible a little more closely.
He even has an abortion ritual!
PS. There is no hatred from non believers for your god. One might loath the character and what has been done by humans in its name, but it is very silly to hate something for which there is no evidence for whatsoever, don’t you agree?
LikeLike
You are free to believe as you choose. Jesus Christ never forces anyone to believe. But He doesn’t allow anyone to escape the natural consequences of their choices.
Truth is truth–you have beliefs that you know are true, and no one can convince you otherwise. You believe in God, but you choose to hate him. Is it really a choice you have made, or are you simply believing what someone else has told you? Have you looked into the truth of who God is, and who Christ is, for yourself?
You wrote that “Incidentally, Yahweh is all for abortion if you care to read your bible a little more closely.
He even has an abortion ritual!”
Do you have scripture references? And no–I’m not going to do your work for you, and try to find scriptures that support YOUR argument.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own truth.
LikeLike
Numbers 5:11-21
A woman suspected of adultery is to be brought before a priest, a poison is made and as he recites a prayer to Yhwh it is forcedly fed to the woman who (if she has been unfaithful) induces an abortion.
“If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.”
But let’s not stop there.
In Hosea 9:11-16, the son of Beeri prays for his god to intervene in earthly affairs and wreak havoc on the unborn of an entire population. “Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts… Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” To paraphrase, Hosea pleads that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children, to which the Christian god dutifully obeys and makes all their unborn children miscarry. Now, terminating a pregnancy unnaturally is unmistakably what we today call an abortion.
In Hosea 13:16 the Christian god is utterly diabolical as he dashes to “pieces” the infants of Samaria and orders “their pregnant women [to be] ripped open by swords.” This, self-evidently, describes mass abortions of such barbarity that it’s hard to even fathom.
In Numbers 31:17 Moses commands “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words, kill all women that are or could be pregnant, which is plainly abortion for the foetus.
In 2 Kings 15:16 the Christian god again orders pregnant women to be “ripped open,” which is both abortion and homicide on a mass scale. “At that time Menahem destroyed the town of Tappuah and all the surrounding countryside as far as Tirzah, because its citizens refused to surrender. He killed the entire population and ripped open the pregnant women.”
In total there are in fact twenty-six separate instances where this Middle Eastern god performs abortions on demand, conducts infanticide (the intentional killing of newborns), and murders toddlers en masse; acts recounted from 1 Samuel 15:3 to Isaiah 13:15-18 where this god not only smashes babies to death but also orders the rape of their mothers. In a word the Christian god is a heinous baby-killing, foetus-destroying monster, and as it turns out his son is also no friend of the unborn. In the Gospel of the Egyptians Jesus not only demands total abstinence but preaches for the outright separation of the sexes, stating that “sorrow” and what he repeatedly calls “error” will remain with man for just “As long as women bear children.” The statement is quite explicit: don’t ever get pregnant, and if you do then abortion is better than birth.
I hope this helps.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi harmony- (zande cannot answer my logic, so watch the sidestepping and insults)
Well look at who is trying to appeal to ‘fiction’ to try to prove his point if it isn’t the apostle of atheism himself the master illusionist zandini!
Oh wait, it was the tower of babel that was fiction. Or the walls of Jericho. Or the Exodus from Egypt. Or the creation of Adam. Or the creation of the whale.
But the selective salad bar atheist here tries to present scripture when he doesn’t believe one word of it!!!!!
Where is the laugh button? Your hands must be bloody zande from handling sharp objects. Maybe your rabbi friends need to interpret the texts for you; oh wait, they do not believe one word of it either……………..
Your level of scriptural deceit and biblical ignorance knows no measure. And please , when you speak of your christ please know that good people are aware that you are speaking of buddha, and not the Lord Jesus Christ clearly presented in scripture who alone brought grace and truth.
But then again, you would have no interest nor clue in that thing called truth. God’s word has never lost an argument to ants.
LikeLike
How convenient to point out all the faults of
LikeLike
Pointing out the faults?
You asked for the reference to the abortion ritual.
I gave it.
Yhwh performs abortions.
Knowing now that there is an abortion ritual in your bible, with abortions performed by your particular god on demand, has this changed your opinion on the subject?
LikeLike
How convenient to point out all the supposed faults of a God you don’t believe in. So you are saying that because God seems to advocate abortion in the Bible, all of a sudden you are saying abortion is wrong?
LikeLike
Numbers 5:11-21English Standard Version (ESV)
A Test for Adultery
11 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 12 “Speak to the people of Israel, If any man’s wife goes astray and breaks faith with him, 13 if a man lies with her sexually, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her, since she was not taken in the act, 14 and if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself, or if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself, 15 then the man shall bring his wife to the priest and bring the offering required of her, a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour. He shall pour no oil on it and put no frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance, bringing iniquity to remembrance.
16 “And the priest shall bring her near and set her before the Lord. 17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. 18 And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord and unbind the hair of the woman’s head and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And in his hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. 19 Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, ‘If no man has lain with you, and if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while you were under your husband’s authority, be free from this water of bitterness that brings the curse. 20 But if you have gone astray, though you are under your husband’s authority, and if you have defiled yourself, and some man other than your husband has lain with you, 21 then’ (let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and say to the woman) ‘the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall away and your body swell.
(No mention of abortion)
LikeLike
No mention in that translation.
when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.”
When he (Yhwh) makes your womb micarry.
That is an abortion. Unnaturally terminating a pregnancy is an abortion.
LikeLike
The words “make your womb miscarry” aren’t in there.
LikeLike
Yes, it is
NIV: “may the LORD cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.
The woman has been unfaithful, and if she is pregnant Yhwh aborts the pregnancy unnaturally.
That is an abortion.
LikeLike
As for the rest of the verses you “paraphrased” if you really believed all that, you would fear God and serve Him. But by all means, tell me more about how you hate God whom you claim you don’t believe in.
LikeLike
So you’re fine with Yhwh ordering preganant women to be ripped open?
You’re fine with that type of abortion.
Interesting…
LikeLike
The title of this post is “deceitful games anti-abortionists play” but the lies and deceitful games have come from your side, in this thread.
LikeLike
How about you stop the diversion and address Yhwh ordering pregnant women to be “ripped open”
Is that abortion OK?
Yes, or No?
LikeLike
And do please comment on Hosea 9:11-16 where abortion is performed on every pregnant Ephraimiam woman.
LikeLike
You believe in God, but you choose to hate him.
I am an atheist. I do not believe in gods – not yours’ or any other.
Do you have scripture references?
Why yes of course I do. But I am not going to provide them because, and I want you to tell the truth, you obviously have not read the Old Testament.
LikeLike
Sure you believe in god ark. You have made yourself the littlestonegod. It’s kinda plain for all to see that you have no use for the living God.
The facts of life condemn all men to their desired godlessness. You have tasted poison for so long you cannot tell the difference between light and darkness.
Go ahead, go into the lab and create an acorn. Using nothing. Everything you have is borrowed, and apart from God, you are simply a tresspasser on anothers property.
And you also have not a clue as to scripture.You really should stay out of deep water. You are drowning in ignorance of God’s word. Sorry, but it’s a fact. You may be able to fool your cadre of God despisers, but believers have seen your footprints for years.
LikeLike
”God despisers”, CS?
Which god would that be might I ask?
LikeLike
Just wanted to say hi ark; no need of taking up space here when i answered you.
LikeLike
Well hi back. So you not sure which god I despise then, CS?
LikeLike
Au contraire. I am positive since there is only one God.
Many gods of course, which as I said before more or less, combined they cannot count to three nor tie their shoes.
The NAME always considers the relationship. Simple really.
LikeLike
Really? Just one god.
Okay, please tell us the name of this ”God”.
LikeLike
CS, why does Israel (Yisra’el) get its name from El, the head of the Ugarit/Canaanite pantheon?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jesus still died for you, that is truth. Your lack of belief doesn’t change that truth. Again, it is illogical for someone to hate a God that they claim to not believe in. Do you also hate the tooth fairy? Think about how creepy the concept of the tooth fairy is, but no one hates the tooth fairy. It is not because you want truth, but rather the opposite. You hate truth, because Truth is a person– the Lord Jesus Christ. It is really Him that you hate. You can know many things that are true, but you will not know truth until you know Jesus. Do you think your thoughts are your own? Do you think you are free? The devil will do all he can to keep you from Christ. What free will?
Don’t believe in the devil? Do you believe evil exists? If you say no, there is no point in continuing this conversation, but if your answer is yes, do you believe in ultimate evil, a standard by which all evil is measured?
LikeLike
Lies and deception will not help you, when you stand before Truth, Himself.
LikeLike
Er … exactly what lies and what deception are you referring to.
If you cannot be specific about your accusations an back them up with evidence you are merely behaving in the same manner as you accuse others, which makes you somewhat of a hypocrite in my book.
And once more. I do not hate anything and especially not gods, your god or anyone else’s.
How many times would you like me to write this before it sinks in?
LikeLike
http://www.snopes.com/photos/medical/12weekfetus.asp
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, an interesting difference isn’t it? I’m quite shocked they try and get away with such lies. I think a fetus at that stage interesting enough in terms of development and form, why push a lie?
LikeLike
I have no dog in this fight and my personal view is pretty much encapsulated in my comment below.
I am busy with everybody’s daughter as we speak. Interesting character.
LikeLike
He writes of “allow abortion” and “regulate the brutal business of Big Abortion”. It is a different way of looking at things- prevent by forbidding, rather than prevent by controlling incentives and increasing abilities. So I have asked him, and my comment awaits moderation: would he support family planning services as a way of reducing abortions?
LikeLike
Good question, I’ll pop over and see if he answered.
LikeLike
Nobody has a right to pregnancy-free coitus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
These eight words are so spectacularly wrong on so many fronts I really have no idea where to even begin.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I bit, I am afraid. I looked at your blog.
I find you pitiable. You write against divorce, having had a divorce. It was right for you, but for no-one else? You claim that you were in a “cult”, but do not name that- it could be any independent church- and now join a much bigger cult, Catholicism, which you use to rail against contraception and gay love. There’s all this emotional confession- yes, I know, I do that a lot on my blog- but with you it’s blaming and attacking and making rules for other people that you cannot keep.
“The contraceptive mentality”, you quote your cult. There has always been a mentality of lack of responsibility, and risky sex; in earlier times people dealt with it by killing babies, and mothers died in pregnancy or childbirth; risk does not stop people-including, notoriously, Catholic priests- having sex.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Can you point to where I blame people on my blog? Or where I discussed gay love?
LikeLike
Pregnancy-free coitus? So post-menopausal women should not have sex with their husbands?
Blaming- throughout. You are a victim of the cult leader. The affair you had with him is his fault. You blame your husband.
Yuck.
LikeLike
Quotes please? And what about my railing against gay love?
Menopause does not confer a right to pregnancy free coitus. It is just the state that comes about due to natural processes. If a pregnancy occurs, the couple is still responsible for it and has no right to an abortion… because that is what sex does, it makes babies. Nobody has a right to the impossible.
LikeLike
You’re not very bright, are you? Gay people with consenting partners have a right to “conception-free coitus”.
Scots law formulated a rule centuries ago that women over 53 would not have children- which can be used to consider whether the condition of a trust is possible. They still have sex. It does not make babies.
Every word you write is blame. Your latest post starts “The professional class and divorce industry have failed”. Blame, blame, blame, complain. Your blog is unreadable!
“The contraceptive mentality”, you quote, as if that made any sense, as if hope and forgetting did not make people risk sex quite as much as contraception does. Hope- “It can never happen to me”- or forgetting in the instant moment.
LikeLike
Trying to discredit my intelligence and/or character is going to be a losing strategy. I recommend sticking to the subject at hand. For one thing, coitus means sexual intercourse, the physical union of male and female sex organs accompanied by rythmic movements. Same-sex couples don’t engage in coitus. A simple Google search could have told you that information. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coitus
LikeLike
It means sexual intercourse. Precisely. Gay sex included. Search more dictionaries!
LikeLike
I did. And it means what I said it means.
LikeLike
Yeah, yeah. Tweedledum.
You also imagine that post-menopausal women can become pregnant- or alternatively, that they are not entitled to coitus. Beside that, your insistence that gay sex is not sex is not quite as batty.
LikeLike
I know gaslighting when I see it, and that’s what you’re doing here. Denigration, changing definitions, saying I said things I did not say. That’s gaslighting. It might work on others, but I’ve had my fill and I know it when I see it.
LikeLike
Well, the record of what you have said is available to all. The trouble is, it is so tedious that few people could be bothered to plough through it. Gaslighting is serious: you denigrate the experience of people by claiming gaslighting about a single comments thread. Grow up.
LikeLike
“Nobody has a right to pregnancy-free coitus.” Why not?
LikeLike
Nobody has a right to the impossible.
LikeLike
That doesn’t really make sense … you’re a person of few words, and none of them are making sense. Do you like to actually discuss issues with reference to reality (facts, evidence) or do you prefer just throw around small sentences that feel good to you?
LikeLike
Let’s set aside this particular issue for the moment. In general, does it make sense that nobody can have a right to something that is impossible?
LikeLike
It’s not impossible to have sex without getting pregnant. I did it for nearly 20 years. It’s not a ‘right’ but it’s an expectation that can often be achieved. And if I had accidentally got pregnant? I probably would have kept it because I’ve always been in a position to make that choice in my life. I don’t inflict my personal choice on the circumstances of other people. Do you?
LikeLike
I do, when it is a matter of justice vs. injustice. We have a duty to uphold justice. Wouldn’t you agree with that?
LikeLike
Yes I do agree. It’s a thoroughly unjust society that forces a woman to grow an unwanted baby within her body against her will. Would you agree with that, or would you like to force that on women?
LikeLike
I don’t force it on women. They have a false believe that they are entitled to pregnancy-free coitus.
LikeLike
Good. So we’re agreed that forcing women to give birth in unwanted pregnancies is inhumane.
LikeLike
Nice try. We are not in agreement and you know this full well. The inhumanity is on your side, since you deny the humanity of the unborn. It is certainly not inhuman to bear a child; that act is, in fact, a profound act of humanity.
LikeLike
It’s a profoundly traumatising act that can be powerfully beautiful if it’s what you want. It’s a profound act of inhumanity to attempt to inflict such physical and emotional trauma on someone who doesn’t want to go through with it, for the sake of a potential human who has no awareness of life, no thoughts or expectations, and didn’t ask to be created. The very least we should be able to offer each child born is that they were dearly wanted, given that the variables for creating other human beings are infinite.
And it’s not about telling people to have abortions if pregnancy is inconvenient, please don’t suggest it’s anything so trivial, it’s about not demonising the option and not attempting to remove it from safe and legal practice. It’s about recognising women can make their own choices.
LikeLike
You are right, it is possible to have sex without getting pregnant. So why is abortion even an issue? Why not put all that energy into family planning options?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent! Possibly the one area we wholeheartedly agree.
LikeLike
Don’t you think that pro-abortionists are pushing their personal opinions?
LikeLike
a newly hatched baby bird crossed with a tiny alien
Beautifully worded.
Madblog plays these deceitful games all the time, too. Especially when it comes to language and numbers.
LikeLike
I haven’t seen any of her posts on this topic. Maybe she’ll pop in here for a chat and share some of her beliefs on the topic.
LikeLike
Is it time we start a *real* pro abortion movement? One where we walk up to pregnant women and make the suggestion?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had to think about that. It’s a good point. There’s no such thing as a pro-abortion movement – no-one is telling pregnant people to have abortions. There is, however, an anti-abortion movement that campaigns to make abortion illegal, yet does nothing practical or useful about preventing unwanted pregnancies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As an ex pro-lifer I can tell you that at least the people I knew in the movement were just genuinely misinformed. When we told people that abortion led to depression and breast cancer, we genuinely believed it. And when we came across contradictory evidence (for example, an actual picture of a 12 week old fetus) we would assume it was a mislabeled photo from an earlier stage that a pro-choice organization was using to “trick” women. The best solution for this is to educate people. I do wish though that the individuals who are originating these myths would be called out on their bluffs. Someone was the first person to mislabel the photo, and THAT person did it on purpose.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Really interesting, thanks. I guess people get in conspiracy mode quite easily. Tom Quiner doesn’t appear to be showing any remorse or even an acknowledgement that the model is false. Some of them simply don’t care about facts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I mentioned it before and it’s worth mentioning again:
Abortion is a very emotive topic yet if half the time, energy research and money were spent on
creating a truly effective no nonsense, no side effects contraception method, including distribution system conversations like this would eventually / soon be a thing of the past.
However, irrespective of anything else, all religious based considerations should be excluded from any such discussions as they are simply spurious and do nothing to help anyone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly. Anyone with religious ‘evidence’ pertaining to discussions on abortions is simply making it up.
LikeLike
Especially when one considers Yahweh’s heinous record on the subject.
LikeLike
Indeed, Christianity has no leg to stand on. No idea about the others.
LikeLike
Me neither. Maybe you should do another post looking at the pother major religions?
LikeLike
No, no, it’s your favourite subject, you should host the discussion. I insist.
LikeLike
@vw
Of course ‘it’ is your favorite subject. You cannot remove truth from your bones. It’s like trying to avoid the air you breathe.
Of course, for in Him we live and move and have our being. God is quite the Landlord, to be so patient with they who trespass on His dirt, while railing at Him for not existing. Not too smart.
LikeLike
Thanks ColorStorm. No idea what you mean, but you said it with your customary enigmatic elegance. Much appreciated. One day I’m quite sure I’ll have to dedicate a whole post to you. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, right!
LikeLike
I have just read ”my comment”.
You are very, very naughty and you know why !
LikeLike
Eh? No idea what you mean. You’ve totally ruined my funny comment by seeing something else, somewhere. Humph.
LikeLike
Maybe I misread something … delete this exchange if you like?
LikeLike
“They are a group of people in denial of the reality that access to safe and legal abortion facilities is the only sensible option for a compassionate society…” Really? The only option for a mother to retain her economic and social standing is to murder her children? That is psychotic and only enforces the lack of social responsibility we have to unwed mothers. It does nothing to raise them out of poverty or actually help them. All it does is say, “If you want to get ahead in life, fix yourself because having a child right now is wrong.”
” they are a group of people in denial of facts about brain development stages and sentience of the human fetus” Does brain development make it any less of a human life? It is certainly life; you cannot deny that. It is certainly life that is unlike skin and cancer cells. It is totally unique and new life and that life is human. Whether or not it has fully attained its brain activity shouldn’t matter when we are talking about a human life.
“they are a group of people who deny the decision-making power of individual women to choose what grows in their own bodies…” What is growing in their body has rights of his/her own. See the preceding paragraph about the child’s humanity.
“But a genuine pro-life campaigner I’ve yet to encounter.” You haven’t been looking very hard then.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/simcha-fisher/eight-reasons-not-to-use-graphic-abortion-images-at-the-march-for-life
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/simcha-fisher/who-are-the-one-in-three/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/simchafisher/2015/08/11/abortion-is-a-mens-issue/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/simchafisher/2015/08/05/but-what-will-poor-people-do-if-planned-parenthood-is-defunded/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/barefootandpregnant/2015/08/all-parenthood-is-unplannedparenthood.html
LikeLike
Not withstanding any religious motivation you may have, and bearing in mind that abortion has been part and parcel of humanity since the beginning and is not likely to simply ”go away” do you agree it would be far better to strive for a method of preventing pregnancy altogether until such time as it is wanted/planned?
LikeLike
Your question is strange and incomprehensible. Please get to your point.
LikeLike
Apologies for any misunderstanding.
Much time, money and effort is expended on the subject of of abortion.
I asked whether all this effort etc would be better expended devising a fool-proof method of preventing pregnancy until such time a child was wanted?
LikeLike
Nothing is fool proof and nature provides such preventative measures. We don’t really need to reinvent the wheel when nature provides us with menstrual cycles and lactation.
LikeLike
I think you are missing the point.
Certain contraceptive methods already exist that are almost fool proof.
However, if/when the science becomes available to ”switch off/on” men’s or woman’s reproductive system until such time as a child is wanted:
a: do you consider this is worth striving for?
b: would you be in favour of it.
LikeLike
No. Why break what is working properly? The point is that children shouldn’t be something you feel you need to put off or prevent. It isn’t a disease; it is a natural biological process. Funding contraceptives does nothing to solve the underlying problem that life and the creation thereof is not respected and protected in our society. Hence, the “solution” to life is to stop it which isn’t a solution at all.
LikeLike
Ah, so the deception is revealed.
Your point/view is as much about promoting Catholic Doctrine as it is about abortion.
Contraception has been practiced since time immemorial and the Catholic Church has been at the forefront of demonizing it. Yet they have made provision for the rhythm method I believe? (you will have to confirm this as I am not Catholic)
Masturbation is also a natural biological process and the Catholic church in particular has in the past been at the forefront of demonizing this perfectly natural function as well.
As you are a practicing Catholic, does your priest know you also masturbate or do you not reveal such personal details during your confessionals?
LikeLike
Where did I argue Catholic doctrine? I don’t think I have actually referenced it yet. My being Catholic does not change the natural injustice of abortion and contraception. Here are some secular women arguing my points. My Catholicism is irrelevant to the objections I have raised. Answer them.
http://www.newwavefeminists.com/
You must not have much sex. You see, most of the sex you would be, according to your illogic, contraceptive. Your misunderstanding of Church teaching is not surprising. You should know that ANY method you use to contracept i.e. deliberately bar yourself from the potential of creating life, is wrong. If you are torturing yourself with any of the various methods of natural family planning–NFP is a TERRIBLE contraceptive method and no person in their right mind would use it for that which you would know if you had such sex–in order to affect the same effect as a condom or other types of birth control, then you are wrong.
Why do you make the unfounded and ironically false assumption that I masturbate? Methinks you are projecting too much. Why masturbate when I can have sex?
LikeLike
So just to clear up this particular point before we progress any further:
If you are saying there is no religious motivation behind your stance on contraception why are you against it?
LikeLike
I am not saying there isn’t. I am saying that my objections to it do not require an appeal to the Eternal Law.
LikeLike
Fair enough. Then please explain exactly what are your objections to contraception from a non-religious perspective?
LikeLike
I already have. Oppresses women, turns them into a commodity, and places the responsibility of parenthood solely on the woman.
LikeLike
Are you saying women in a secure , married relationship should be denied any choice of whether they fall pregnant or not?
LikeLike
They do have a choice. Nature provides it for them. They don’t need to take pills that can rupture the uterus or otherwise destroy their fertility.
LikeLike
Now you are hedging. I have very little tolerance of people who become disingenuous.
There are women who for various reasons cannot/will not take the pill or use an IUD. A condom will not ”rupture the uterus or otherwise destroy their fertility”.
So. once again, do you believe women in a secure marriage ( for example) should be denied the use of all forms of artificial contraception?
It is a simple yes or no answer.
LikeLike
Seeing as science shows that continued use of contraception in marriages often end in their dissolution, I would say that the psychological benefits outweigh the convenience.
LikeLike
Does science show that if a women is kept a breeding chattel her whole life she’s likely to have no other options to care for herself and her offspring? Oh, surprise! I bet those awkward marriages last the longest. 🙂
LikeLike
I am not sure what you are trying to argue. Perhaps you are just being derisive.
LikeLike
A quick Google and the study you appear to be referencing suggests oral contraceptives are responsible. I have already mentioned many women cannot take the pill for various reasons and then asked you whether your criteria remains the same for male condoms.
Remember, I did mention I have little tolerance for disingenuous arguments.
Have another go at answering truthfully, please.
Let me refresh/rephrase.
What are your non-religious objections to a married couple in a secure, stable relationship using condoms?
So , once again,
LikeLike
Still waiting on an answer, please.
LikeLike
What a great site, thanks! Yes, it would be great to be either abstaining from sex or be pregnant my entire adult life. Go feminism!! Nice to know we don’t need religion to contort our brains into think that’s a good idea. Unfortunately, I failed to find any of the secular reason that make any of that a good idea. And you don’t seem to be sharing any – except for some vague reference to Eternal Law. Is that where women get shagged and have babies till they die? Sounds splendid and all natural.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let me put it this way: Would you rather conform to your nature as a woman or subdue it? Would you rather take pills so that men will give you a fair chance in the work place or would you rather demand that the fruits of your absolutely natural procreative functions not affect your financial situation. If we are going to subsidize anything, we should be subsidizing babies. Canada has a year of paid leave for women. It is not enough in my opinion.
All abortion and contraceptive do is allow a male dominated society to be further male dominated by forcing women to be like men. The fact that a mother of five cannot rise in a company to be a CEO is a terrible indictment of our culture.
LikeLike
Those are interesting points. Your perspective is refreshing to an extent. I would rather have sex when it seems appropriate with whomever I want, and leave having children to a time when I feel I can give a child the time, devotion and attention they require. Anything else would lead to agonising and distracting sexual repression, or a less than ideal home for more children that I could adequately care for. I have no sense that I am being forced to be like a man, when I choose not to the be a breeding vehicle for my whole adult life. You have a curious outlook.
LikeLike
I will tell you a story. When I had my first child, I was living with my inlaws, unemployed, and directionless. My family had to go on Medicare just to pay for the prenatal visits. It could not have come at a worst time. We had been married only about 8 months and our relationship was less than perfect. I was, for various reasons, an emotional wreck. Aborting that child was probably the easiest thing we could do. Sadly, nature decided to do that for us. We lost that child to a miscarriage. You call it a bunch of cells or a zygote. From your comment, I am led to believe you never had children. Have some. More importantly, don’t lose one. That zygote would mean more to you than you think.
Anyway, then we had our second child with the same terrible financial and emotional problems. I eventually got a job and my son was born. Do you think that my lack of a job or emotional distress caused me to love him or provide for him any less? Ironically, I attribute all my success so far to having a child. The total self-gift you have to you child is probably the greatest cure ever devised.
Yes, I have a unique perspective because I have lived my perspective and been in the very situation that everyone argues is when you should have an abortion. Unlike everyone, I had hope. What we do with abortion is not provide people with opportunity; we deprive them of hope. We shut out any thought that life with a child could give them fulfillment or joy. We tell them that they will be financially ruined and that they will be terrible parents. You can deny it, but I have lived it. I have heard the “nice” people giving me “advice.” And that advice was to despair.
LikeLike
This is the sort of attitude that concerns me. You are projecting your own circumstances onto other people. Your own situation is irrelevant to the experiences of other women. I too could have supported a child at any stage in my life if I got pregnant by mistake – in spite of any adverse economic or relationship conditions. That doesn’t mean I expect the same of other women in wildly different settings. I agree we shouldn’t be encouraging anyone to have an abortion, but I’ve personally never come across anyone who does. It’s one of several options, and it’s inhumane to try and remove it, just because you proceeded with a pregnancy in what you consider to be less than ideal conditions (I have no idea why anyone would suggest you have an abortion if you’re in a relationship and intend on having children, but that’s another issue).
LikeLike
Here is some advice: you will always get pregnant by mistake. It never happens when you want it to and it never will.
What I was intending to underscore is that the rhetoric used to advocate abortion WAS my circumstance. The plight of other people is, therefore, not unknown to me. It is certainly unknown to you.
Since we all can admit that no one WANTS to have an abortion, then why continue to advocate it? Why perpetuate the false despair that it is somehow an option? It is actually inhumane to continue it. You can’t deny that human life is being destroyed without somehow arguing that the zygote is not human and making unscientific assertions. It is inhumane to the child for denying it a chance at life and it is inhumane to the mother for forcing her into such despair of her life that she can actually believe that killing her own child is the right thing to do.
LikeLike
Once again, you’re indulging in some kind of weird projection not related to reality. Your experience is not applicable to everyone, do you not see that? I was sexually active for almost 20 years before I decided to have children, with not a single unintended pregnancy. I also fell pregnant as soon as we decided to have children. I don’t project my experience onto other people though, so why do you?
Every month I choose not to inseminate an egg, I am denying another human being the opportunity to develop. Every time an egg is fertilised and fails to grow, my body is denying another human being the opportunity to develop. It’s painfully sad if I allow it to be, I’d love to meet all those kids. But from a practical point of view, quality of life for all concerned is better shaped by controlling the number of offspring we generate. This is called progress. You are essentially advocating living as if we shouldn’t make judgements based on evidence about what kinds of family structures lead to better outcomes for everyone involved – you want to live like other animals, ruled only by sexual instinct without logical and compassionate intervention. That’s fine if it works for you, but don’t advocate it for other people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Once again, you’re indulging in some kind of weird projection not related to reality.” Then why is the experience of a few people willing to undergo an abortion the basis for the entire right?
Furthermore, you are being intellectually dishonest here. First you argue that, due to economic and emotional circumstances, someone may want to terminate their pregnancy. When I testified that those were my exact circumstances, you say I can’t project my experience. If my experience is exactly the experience that you use as the basis for this action, how can you then turn around and invalidate it without invalidating your original argument?
Furthermore, if personal experiences truly do not matter, than the individual experiences of any person cannot be taken into account. How can we collectively as a society permit something that only applies to a few based on their experiences? If you are going to throw out experiential knowledge as having no validity, then I am prepared for that–in that event, you will surely lose the rational high ground–but don’t move the goal posts around and claim rationality.
That is not practical, that is despair. You are essentially arguing that the SOLE means by which human quality of life may be improved is by killing children. Why not bring back the furnaces of Moloch? It would certainly be more honest.
It is a false dichotomy and wholly unsupported by science. China is an excellent example. European countries, though they enjoy a good quality of life now, do not have enough people in the younger generation to replace retiring workers, thereby straining the social safety net and reducing the quality of life.
We do not suffer from a lack of resources. India, with some smart investments, could feed its entire population and still be a major global food supplier. The US could also feed its whole population and still dominate global markets. The problem is not the number of people; it is our neglect of them. We neglect the human duty we have to care for our fellow man and the natural justice that gives him the right to the basic necessities to live.
What I advocate is that we live like humans, not automatons or beasts. But nice straw man.
LikeLike
Let me break it down for you. You essentially said, “I had difficult circumstances” (debatable in itself, you were married and wanted children) “and didn’t have an abortion, therefore other people shouldn’t”. I’m at a loss to how this is logical. Personal experiences matter for gaining an understanding of the range of experiences and the range of consequences, but not for taking one individual experience and expecting it can apply universally.
Not even close to anything I’ve said here. My argument is that if someone judges they are not in a position to bring a pregnancy to maturity, they should have access to safe and legal abortion facilities, rather than be forced to go through an unwanted pregnancy (inhumane) or left to butcher themselves (inhumane).
I also advocate we live like humans. That involves using tools we develop (not put here by invisible deities) like wheels, electricity, clean water networks and birth control, to improve everyones’ lives.
LikeLike
So then we should rather aggregate the sum of all experience? If that is so, then abortion is still illogical.
“My argument is that if someone judges they are not in a position to bring a pregnancy to maturity, they should have access to safe and legal abortion facilities…” How is that person capable of making the judgment that they not in the position to bring a pregnancy to maturity if they are not capable of bringing a pregnancy to maturity? It seems that the knowledge of whether or not they could would be requisite on actually having done so successfully. UNLESS you have someone imposing their own experiential opinion of what constitutes that ability. In which case you advocate what you just condemned.
LikeLike
Jings, enjoy a straw man argument much? No, once again, people can make their own judgements about their own lives. They are free to look at a range of experiences to consider what would be most sensible in their situation. If someone is so desperate to end a pregnancy they will drink poison is stick sharp implements in their body rather than go through with it, they have judged they are not in a position to bring a pregnancy to maturity – agreed? Now, you may want to tell them that having babies for you was wonderful, and is so for many other people, but that doesn’t mean it will be for them or their child. I agree that everyone should have options, and that if you are pregnant in a difficult situation, having a child could still be a wonderful thing. But I can’t get my head round people like you who insist that every pregnant woman is better off going through the pregnancy. There is absolutely no logic to your argument, and the fact that you would essentially want to force women to continue with unwanted pregnancies is disgusting.
LikeLike
Well, I intentionally phrased the question to leave ambiguity as to whether that was your position. A straw man would be directly saying, “You think that this should happen. Here is why it is wrong.” What I constructed was a dialectic device to ferret out the exact meaning of your words. If I want to win an argument, I have to kick out any supports, right? Once I have you at your precise meaning, I can trap you in it to the point where you can’t wrangle. But nice red herring.
“… people can make their own judgements about their own lives.” Based on what? If we take empirical data as our guide, there is no reason why we should trust people’s personal judgments. People are consistently ambitious, rapacious, and vindictive.
“If someone is so desperate to end a pregnancy they will drink poison is stick sharp implements in their body rather than go through with it, they have judged they are not in a position to bring a pregnancy to maturity – agreed?” Again, wouldn’t a more prudent society be one where such desperation was not tenable? Again, I was in similar circumstances. Some would–and did–argue that my psychological health would have been better. But desperation, coming from the Latin meaning “no hope,” is a product of a lack of hope, not rational analysis of the situation. Desperate people desire to take their own lives. Why should desperate people take the lives of others?
“But I can’t get my head round people like you who insist that every pregnant woman is better off going through the pregnancy.” Do we need to list the health benefits of pregnancy? The societal benefits of more workers? The need for domestic children for adoption? The inherent goodness of life? The need to ensure our society alleviates despair? What has no logic is that, of all options, why is abortion to be expanded upon when it is the option that, as you have said yourself, the large majority DOES NOT WANT? Shouldn’t we listen to the prior judgment people have here i.e. that abortion sucks and there should be better options? Does the fact that more and more people want to RESTRICT abortion not tell you something about it?
Unwanted pregnancies? That is just the problem. The vast majority women would like to bring their children to term, but the current services and rhetoric paint abortion as the best option. If you cannot see how our society is geared toward ignoring the actual desires of women and forcing them into a Sophie’s Choice because we don’t feel like adjusting out lifestyles to accommodate more life and, you know, the actual wishes of the mother, then I cannot see how you argue from a rational place.
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello! I think this is potentially really lovely. If you want single mothers to be persuaded to keep their baby by the promise of a sufficient income to raise the child if ever they cannot work or have no job, from the government or from your church, that might be a position I could support.
That is what you want, isn’t it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
In a manner of speaking.
https://plainandsimplecatholicism.wordpress.com/2016/07/25/seeking-solidarity-maintaining-the-seamless-garment/
LikeLike
Mmm. The Consistent Life Ethic: an ethic that opposed war, euthanasia, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, capital punishment, and poverty. I agree with some of this; you can’t call yourself “pro-life” unless you are anti-war. Research, though, saves life. Euthanasia reduces suffering; and in the end, my friend was barely conscious, her painkilling medication had to be so strong.
LikeLike
“Research, though, saves life.” Question: If the Nazi experiments on Jews had found the cure for cancer, would they have been ethical? Simply because the embryo has no voice to object does not mean it has any less right not to be tested on. Science, unlike what Max Weber argues, requires ethics. Otherwise, we end up like being Oppenheimer quoting from the Gita.
As for euthanasia, this is a good article to get some of the finer points cleared up. We are against forcibly ending a life, not letting life take its course.
https://plainandsimplecatholicism.wordpress.com/2016/08/05/re-blogging-solidarity-is-jerika-bolens-decision-an-assisted-suicide-or-a-nod-to-what-is-natural/
LikeLike
If you can’t tell the difference between a child and a blastocyst, why should anyone take any notice of what you say? Ends justify means. Not in every case, perhaps.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You may want to check your Lebensunwertes Leben at the door here.
The blastocyst is human. It is human life. That is science. It is unique and new human life. That is science. It is not like cancer or skin or any other type of cell generated by the body. That is science.
If the ends justify the means then the ends justify the means. The point of the CLE is that even one tear of compromise throws the whole thing into an unraveled mess. The difference between a blastocyst and a Jew is gone when all it takes to make it lawful to destroy it is some mental gymnastics and pseudo-science.
LikeLike
Y’wot?
Off I go to Google for a bit-
Bloody’ell, you tell me I want to check my Nazism in at the door? The phrase “life unworthy of life” (in German: “Lebensunwertes Leben”) was a Nazi designation for the segments of the populace…
Er, what can I say to that? You really think calling me Nazi is the way to go?
LikeLike
I am sorry to have invoked Godwin’s Law so early but that is essentially what your argument boils down to: some life is not worth the same as other life for completely arbitrary reasons.
LikeLike
If you call all pro-choice people Nazis this will not win friends and influence people. We care about life after birth; not all “pro-lifers” can demonstrate the same.
LikeLike
I am sorry to have been so harsh but that is what you argued. You argued that some human lives, in some cases, were not worthy of having the same rights as other human lives. When you can accept that some life is not worthy, then what actually prevents you from valuing any life? Hence the CLE. We have to be consistent because the alternative is literally gas chambers.
LikeLike
God save me from anyone consistent. Unless you are inerrant, consistency will only drive you into greater and greater error. Like the Catholic insistence on mutilating women, to achieve no possible gain, and so damage women’s fertility. See here.
LikeLike
Your first quote is not found in any doctrine I have read. As for Evangelium Vitae, you may have to update your information because the Church has.
“Some who are not acquainted with the facts believe that the Catholic Church has changed her attitude in regard to the licitness of doing surgery on ectopic pregnancies. Up to the present day the Church has
made only a few official pronouncements on this question, and these pronouncements refer to the direct attack of the surgeon on the fetus or to the direct removal of a nonviable fetus from the mother’s womb. Such procedures even today are condemned by all Catholic moralists.
On these questions the Church has not changed her view. Catholic ethicians, however, have changed their view with regard to the licitness of excising the unruptured Fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy, but this change of opinion stemmed from new medical findings on this matter. Fifty years ago there was little medical knowledge available with reference to the pathology of an ectopic pregnancy. When medical authorities provided the information that the diseased condition of the Fallopian tube, even before its external rupture, in many cases of ectopic pregnancy constituted a grave and present danger to the mother’s life, the moralists declared that the excision of the tube was licit even though the death of the fetus could not be prevented. The moralists made no change in regard to principles or in the application of principles. They merely applied the principles to new facts and arrived at a new conclusion. It is for physicians accurately to present the facts to the moralist. He depends on them for medical information. Given the medical information necessary, he will then apply the ethical principles to the case and pronounce upon the licitness or illicitness of certain procedures.”
You certainly do not appear to have much objectivity or honesty in research. You cite a clearly prejudice site for information and you failed to find the numerous articles like the one I have quoted above that was published in 1994. And all I did was google “Catholic teaching on ectopic pregnancy.” I can only assume your failure to find these clearly available sources is just your confirmation of your own biases. Not really the thing a rational and enlightened person would do, right? Aren’t you supposed to examine all the facts before establishing a theory as law? But what do I know? I am just part of a “deontological” moral system stuck in the dark ages and hates women, right?
LikeLike
Did you read the comments?
LikeLike
Seeing as nothing in the comments bolsters your argument–even when you cite the JP2 Center for Bioethics, it is just to bash them–I need not comment on them. My previous comment stands. Your understanding of Catholic bioethics is incomplete. I suggest you study actual sources, not Paul Tobin.
LikeLike
Well, the JP2 Centre for Bioethics says taking the tube is moral, even though it increases the chance of infertility, but taking the foetus from the tube is not. I critique them- would you care to defend them? Do you really want women mutilated like that? Would you care to explain what gain you imagine arises from the mutilation? Oh, yes- “Consistency”, perhaps.
LikeLike
“Well, the JP2 Centre for Bioethics says taking the tube is moral, even though it increases the chance of infertility, but taking the foetus from the tube is not.”
That is not scientifically true. I suggest you read “Fertility after ectopic pregnancy: The DEMETER randomized trial” for more information. In it, the study finds that infertility is dependent largely on a history of infertility.
With that objection firmly defeated by the cold light of science, we can turn to the moral question. Since the actual method of treatment is irrelevant, the method that does not directly abort the child is the ethical choice since to do so directly would, obviously, be murder.
See? Quite consistent with moral philosophy AND science. You seem to be about 3 years behind on the latter and about 20 years behind on the former. I will wait for you to catch up if you like.
LikeLike
“Not scientifically true” that a woman with one fallopian tube is less likely to be fertile than a woman with two. “Science”!! s/he says, then says something completely ridiculous. You can name any trial you like, science is not your strong suit.
LikeLike
I tend to avoid studies, not being a specialist, but consider this: A new study published in the journal Fertility and Sterility from the research group in Clermont Ferrand in France gives good new information on these issues. They studied the outcome for 1064 women with an ectopic pregnancy diagnosed between 1992 and 2008 that had been entered into their registry. They found the cumulative pregnancy rate after 24 months ranged between 67 and 76% – with better outcomes when medical (methotrexate) or expectant management approaches were used. http://www.ectopic.org.uk/publications/fertility-and-recurrence-after-treatment-for-ectopic-pregnancy/ Clear no for tube removal. Catholics mutilate women unnecessarily, and argue this is Moral! God save you from your church.
LikeLike
How about sperm? Isn’t menstruation an abortion? Primitive females didn’t menstruate.
LikeLike
What about sperm?
Is a woman causing her menstruation or is menstruation a natural process of her body? I am not denying that a woman may naturally lose a child. I am saying it is wrong and perpetuates a cycle of oppression on women to convince them that killing their child is the right thing to do. There may be circumstances where both lives are at risk, to be sure, but those are gray obviously.
LikeLike
Did you not understand my comment? Menstruation isn’t natural. Females in nature do not menstruate. Early woman did not menstruate. So menstruation is *not* a natural process.
LikeLike
Females as in female humans? You are being rather cryptic.
LikeLike
Females, human and otherwise. There’s nothing cryptic about what I said. It’s a scientific fact. Women went from pregnancy to pregnancy without menstruating- like other female animals.
LikeLike
Seeing as we are talking about ethics, I will have to restrict it to human females. As to why evolution brought us this, I cannot say. Our nearest ape cousins have them such as the chimp and the great apes.
This might be a good source to answer your questions.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-evolutionary-benefit-or-purpose-of-having-periods
LikeLike
I already know the scientific answer. Which part of that do you think refutes what I’m proposing?
LikeLike
Then why the prevarication. Make you point.
LikeLike
Prevarication? Seriously? You found the point too difficult get to? Obscure? Where in the world does VW find you people?
LikeLike
You can try and deflect all you want in a pseudo-Socratic style, but it doesn’t make you any less unintelligible. Make a point and I’ll answer it. Ask questions expecting some result or as some sort of trap, I will make fun of you for arguing like a Sophist.
LikeLike
Dimwitted idiot- let me spell it out as you obviously don’t have the intellect to make sense of the obvious: The Catholic church has played games with what is *human* for ages. Remember the sin of onanism? Spilling the seed?
Well, menstruation is the exact same thing. Abortion is a variation of the same process.
Was that too complicated for you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Seeing as NONE of that was obvious or even related to what I was talking about–funny that the only people mentioning Catholicism are the non-Catholics; almost as if you have no other arguments–I have to say, you should be more direct in your discussions. I wonder if @violetwisp is going to take offense at your calling me an idiot. Likely not.
The Catholic Church–again, not what our discussion was about–has applied the same principle to the discoveries of science i.e. human life is sacred. Like the article I posted elsewhere about ectopic pregnancy, the Church applied the same moral principle to new scientific information. Aquinas, for example, believed life began at a certain time because that is what the scientists of his day believed it was.
Menstruation is about the same as onanism as a wet dream is. It is completely involuntary. Onanism is commonly referred to a coetus interruptus or “the pull out method.” Clearly you can see the difference between an evolutionary throw back resulting in the involuntary discharge of an egg and the voluntary removal of the penis from the vagina at the moment of ejaculation in order to prevent impregnation.
Perhaps I didn’t get your original comments because they were devoid of nuance, categorical necessities based on the empirical nature of things, and, well, logic.
LikeLike
Another undereducated imbecile. First of all take a couple of very big steps backwards. Who in the world do you think you are speaking *for* the Catholic church? Have you worked for the Vatican? Is your family Church nobility?
Oh wait- another delusional American who’s jumped on the Protestant bandwagon and is searching for self aggrandizement through religion? Most probably.
The logic in my initial comment was of the most clear and basic variety. Do you need me to lay it out in mathematical terms for you? Did you miss the part where menstruation IS NOT NATURAL, genius? How many ways do I have to explain to you that the human female did not menstruate until fairly recently in historical terms?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Who in the world do you think you are speaking *for* the Catholic church?” Seeing as I never said I was speaking for the Church, this is a straw man. Furthermore, I will let the Church speak for me to answer your question.
“Since, like all the Christian faithful, lay persons are designated by God for the apostolate through baptism and confirmation, they are bound by the general obligation and possess the right as individuals, or joined in associations, to work so that the divine message of salvation is made known and accepted by all persons everywhere in the world. This obligation is even more compelling in those circumstances in which only through them can people hear the gospel and know Christ.” CIC, Can. 225 §1.
So you see, I am bound by Canon Law to advance the cause of the Gospel in any way possible. I would be interested in your credentials. How a fine arts specialist find himself in a position to make the judgments you have is an argument I would very much like to hear. For while I have degrees and experience in the topic at hand, it would not seem readily clear that someone whose expertise is fine art would now much about philosophy and theology.
“Did you miss the part where menstruation IS NOT NATURAL, genius?” Evolutionary biology would tend to disagree there. Here is an article from the BBC that maps out quite well the evolutionary history of menstruation. For whatever reason, evolution gave humans menstruation. That is just science. I can’t see how you can argue that, because a prior stage in our evolutionary development did not have menstruation, then it was unnatural. Are you going to argue the same about our cranial sizes or our ability to walk on land? http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150420-why-do-women-have-periods
LikeLike
LOL. I grew up as a member of a Catholic noble family, you fool. My specialisation is in Baroque Catholic Art and I regularly consult for Catholic churches- so I don’t need some undereducated idiot trying to explain Catholic doctrine to me when I’m actually *paid* to explain it to people at large.
And stop linking to articles which don’t confirm what you say. If you don’t understand something, just accept that and stop pretending you do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pink, as an impartial observer to this exchange, I thought you might like to know that insulting people, while claiming to be of greater intelligence, isn’t a good way to start a conversation. Making opaque references to ‘facts’ you fail to back up with sources is even more tiresome. Be polite to other blog guests and try to stick to clear points, otherwise it seems like you’re just indulging in nasty trolling.
LikeLike
VW, my dear, fortunately we live in a world where each individual is free to be and express themselves as they choose. And they can even do so without your consent or permission! Isn’t that fabulous? So now that we’ve set aside each person’s manner (Right? Imagine a world where someone stopped you on the street to tell you you shouldn’t wear what you’re wearing or that your accent is *wrong* just because they do things in another way!)- well, let’s get back to the discussion. Which opaque reference needs clarification?
The point could not have been more straightforward. The Catholic doctrine of “life” was the underpinning of masturbation being a sin. Spilling the seed (rather than reproducing). Prohibitions on abortion are about the same philosophy. What are you finding confusing?
LikeLike
“VW, my dear, fortunately we live in a world where each individual is free to be and express themselves as they choose.”
Yes, isn’t it wonderful? But at this particular point in time you are a fellow guest on my personal blog space. It’s a blog space where I request that we don’t indulge in silly personal insults. May I draw your attention to a post and discussion we had about this two years ago:
Please tell me you’ve grown up a bit since then. You must almost 40 by now.
So, let me summarise the points you have made to plainandsimplecatholicism so far: “I’m really clever and posh therefore I know everything and you’re dumb”. A tip – if you need to tell people you’re really clever and an expert in something, it’s because they can’t tell from anything you’ve written, any knowledge you’ve imparted, that have a clue what you’re talking about. And that is how you are coming across. If you really do know anything about Catholic doctrine (and I’m suspecting you know nothing even about art at this point) try and discuss it in an intelligent, straight-forward manner, rather than screaming “I know more than you do!!” like a petulant brat. Just a few tips to help you be a better blogger. 🙂
LikeLike
Goodness- you haven’t changed at all. And the funniest part is you don’t even recognize your bias. As always, you have no problem with inverted snobbery. When the Catholic in question said *what would an art specialist know about Catholicism*- you stood by and though that was super- just fine! That sort of personal attack is rubber stamped by VioletWisp® Have you asked yourself why?
As for my intelligence, credentials or accomplishments… I don’t really feel the need to defend myself. My life speaks for itself. That you’re bothered by it is to do with your own issues, not me.
And as for blogging/writing/publishing, are you sure you’re in a position to be giving anyone advice? Usually people who give advice are in a position of verifiable advantage as compared to those they’re giving advice to 🙂
LikeLike
You can take from the advice what you will. I would have been surprised if you’d thanked me. Pleasantly. 😀
LikeLike
You know what they say about advice… if it were worth something people wouldn’t give it away for free.
LikeLike
I’ve got a beautiful view of a big orange moon rising behind chimneys. I quite like you today Pink.
LikeLike
You don’t; and that’s totally okay. And it’s even okay to be prejudiced. We all are in some way. The trick is knowing it so we can do our best to not be unfair.
LikeLike
That’s not fair. You’re a bit of a snobby twit but I appreciate you on some level. 🙂
LikeLike
I’m not a bit snobby. I’m profoundly snobby. In every possible way. But that isn’t incompatible with my belief in merit and effort- and most of all education. Not even necessarily formal education, but education as a concept.
LikeLike
Oh see, now you’ve done it, I’m going off you already. The moon’s heading behind a cloud too …
LikeLike
“Did you not understand my comment? Menstruation isn’t natural. Females in nature do not menstruate. Early woman did not menstruate. So menstruation is *not* a natural process.”
Em, link? We’ve evolved quite natural and had periods for what, 1000s of years. Or is that millions? Whatever, it’s natural.
LikeLike
I can do better than a link: Oxford University Press, Is Menstruation Obsolete?
by Dr. Elsimar M. Coutinho Dr. Sheldon J. Segal (both of the Rockefeller Inst. and the WHO)
Very interesting topic, btw. Women went from puberty to childbirth, to lactation, to childbirth yet again. And that went on for their entire lives. Still today in places like rural Mexico or Brazil, poor disenfranchised women without access to birth control never menstruate.
LikeLike
” I grew up as a member of a Catholic noble family, you fool.” So did Henry VIII; it didn’t really make him an authority on theology.
“My specialisation is in Baroque Catholic Art and I regularly consult for Catholic churches…” And? How does that give you credentials in philosophy or theology?
“…so I don’t need some undereducated idiot trying to explain Catholic doctrine to me when I’m actually *paid* to explain it to people at large.” Says the person who hasn’t actually reproduced any Catholic doctrine. Can you comment on my citation of canon 225? Look, I don’t pretend to have any more credentials than I have already. I know what I know because I studied it and immersed myself in it. How Caravaggio’s “Death of the Virgin”–I am more of a Byzantine/Romanesque kind of guy personally–relates to menstruation and societal ethics is something you would have to prove.
Doesn’t agree with my contention that menstruation was an evolutionary development? Your original statement about wild animals not menstruating is actually addressed in the article. It is rare to find them menstruating because they are either pregnant or nursing. From the article.
“This is because wild mammals that menstruate spend most of their time either pregnant or nursing a baby. It actually takes considerable luck to catch one of them menstruating, says Rasweiler.
Menstruation is also rare in human societies that don’t use any form of contraception. There are a few such “natural fertility” populations even today, and women in these societies spend most of their reproductive life either pregnant or breastfeeding.”
So if you have an argument as to why the article does not support my contention that humans evolved to menstruate, then do so. Otherwise, you have to answer my previous point about menstruation being a natural biological process.
LikeLike
Goodness- where do I begin…
First, understanding doctrine is fundamental to the study of religious art. Especially the Catholic variety. The two things cannot be separated. How do you think a person would understand the development of the depictions of a religious figure without understanding doctrine?
Now that that’s set aside, let’s get back to the issue of menstruation. Do you recall why birth control and masturbation are prohibited in Catholic doctrine? Now apply that philosophy universally, and what do you get?
LikeLike
‘First, understanding doctrine is fundamental to the study of religious art.” Ok, so where is your STL?
“How do you think a person would understand the development of the depictions of a religious figure without understanding doctrine?” There is a difference between knowing that a cruciform halo represents the Trinity and actually knowing the doctrine of the Trinity. One can know the two sides of the iconoclasm debate without knowing any Christology. So yeah, you can because people do it all the time. What you are basically saying, at the same time, is that art needs interpretation in order to be understood. That is an interesting point of view.
“Do you recall why birth control and masturbation are prohibited in Catholic doctrine?” Because they are actions “which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible…” CCC 2370.
Since menstruation is an involuntary action of the body–you cannot, by your own bodily faculties prevent it–it cannot be compared to the voluntary AND deliberate actions of contraception. You are comparing apples to zebras.
LikeLike
Well, there’s art and then there’s art history. Art history doesn’t focus just on the fact that ultramarine was used for the virgin’s cloak- but *why*. And to understand the why one must understand church and doctrinal history.
Why were Madonna faces in sculpture more realistic in the 18th century and more romantic and idealized in the 19th? All to do with the development of ideology/philosophy. Not understanding all those things would make for a rubbish art historian.
The mistake you’re making regarding menstruation is that it’s not involuntary in the sense that it’s a failed pregnancy.
LikeLike
I mean, I get the symbolism bit and all that, but that doesn’t make you an expert on the actual doctrine. Knowing that Christ is depicted as a man-child in icons because he was both God and man does not make you an expert on dyophysitism or the Hypostatic Union.
“The mistake you’re making regarding menstruation is that it’s not involuntary in the sense that it’s a failed pregnancy.” Give me a single woman who willed herself to menstruate please. Does your knowledge of art history tell you the criteria for a sin or the moral theological difference between action and inaction?
LikeLike
Seriously? So being an expert in Catholic art history actually means I know nothing of Catholic history? Do you get the utter stupidity of what you’re saying? A specialist in any area of history needs to know every aspect that influences his/her area of study. Political, religious, philosophical-everything. That’s how, for example, I can explain to people when sculpting the bottom half of a madonna was or was not done and why. A question I’m quite certain the average Catholic- including you, cannot answer.
As for menstruation, it’s not about *willing*. Willing is irrelevant. Menstruation isn’t an action in and of itself, it’s a result. And the result of what is in essence birth control of some variety. That’s not inaction, that’s action.
LikeLike
“Seriously? So being an expert in Catholic art history actually means I know nothing of Catholic history?” No, I am saying it does not de facto make you any more of an expert than I am.
” Do you get the utter stupidity of what you’re saying?” Seeing as I never said it, but you did, does that mean that a) what you’re saying is utter stupidity and b) that you get what you are saying is utter stupidity? See, that is what happens when you construct straw men instead of actually engaging; you end up calling yourself stupid.
” That’s how, for example, I can explain to people when sculpting the bottom half of a madonna was or was not done and why.” A test then? Explain the doctrine contained in Meister des Frankfurter’s “Hortus conclusus.” Or if that is too hard, you could try the the differences in the depictions in the the Theotokos of Tikhvin and the Theotokos of Smolensk and their expression of the dual nature of the Hodegetria.
“I can explain to people when sculpting the bottom half of a madonna was or was not done and why. A question I’m quite certain the average Catholic- including you, cannot answer.” Conversely, your explanation of it would likely do little to explain the doctrine of the Theotokos. Perhaps now you will see the inherent illogical of claiming theological superiority from irrelevant circumstances like you did with that “Catholic noble family” routine.
Actually, willing is everything. You cannot be held liable for a circumstance beyond your control. The Church, as I cited earlier, defines contraceptive acts to be voluntary, not involuntary. Menstruation is involuntary because at no point is the woman exerting her will to menstruate. It happens whether she wills it or not.
You are ignoring circumstance, a rather crucial bit of moral theology. The circumstances–the circumstances in Catholic moral theology are who, what, where, by what aids, why, how, and when–of menstruation are that the who is not the woman since the woman is, scientifically speaking, incapable of directing menstruation via her own will. A sin requires there to be an actual act of the will for it to be a sin. Mentally incapable people cannot be held culpable, for example, because they do not have the agency to know the order of reason and rebel against it.
So there is no “who” in this circumstance. There is a what and a where. The what is the uterus expelling the uterine lining. The where is the uterus. The how is the relative rise and fall of hormones, namely estrogen, progesterone, LH, and FSH. It is not accomplished by any aids typically, unless there is a hormonal imbalance. And the when is dependent on the woman.
In all of these circumstances, as we can see, there is no instance where the woman is actually causing any of those actions and reactions to occur any more than she causes herself to blink.
LikeLike
That’s straightforward trolling. You can’t have it both ways. Either you accept my education gives me knowledge on the subject or you don’t. And you can’t imply I have no knowledge and then pretend that’s not what you said.
Your words were: What does a fine arts specialist know about Catholicism?
Can you at least be honest? Or is that an impossibility for a delusional religionist desperately seeking affirmation?
If you don’t understand the meaning of being born to a historical, nobble Catholic family, or for that matter being born on the heels of National Catholicism- I won’t be able to compensate for your lack of education and insight in a blog comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s a perfect example – you’ve not even addressed the content of the argument (which she seems to be winning on) but thrown out an accusation of trolling, in response to a perfectly coherent and factual comment. “Do you understand how aristocratic I am? How very dare you!!!” It’s quite comical, if that’s what you’re going for.
LikeLike
Just beautiful! I dare you to be honest enough (and have the character) to go through the comments. My first question to the (self-appointed) Catholic *scholar* was on the technical issues of Catholic doctrine regarding masturbation, menstruation and abortion- because the arguments can easily overlap. The Catholic’s response to the question was to say I was *prevaricating*, that I was trying to *deflect using a pseudo-socratic style*- and what’s VW’s response to all of that?
A “posh” person is always guilty. Isn’t that fascinating?
LikeLike
See, even that’s kind of cute. Let me know a scan through your comments and get back to you.
LikeLike
“Either you accept my education gives me knowledge on the subject or you don’t.” I think I am being quite fair here. I merely ask that your prove that your knowledge of art has given you knowledge of moral philosophy. I constructed a test by which you could make such a demonstration. Allusions are not evidence and as I said before, one may know plenty about art, but that hardly makes them theologians.
I do not imply you have no knowledge. I have made no implications whatsoever. I have been rather frank. Knowing about religious art and the symbolism therein does not make you a theologian. It makes you knowledgeable about art. In the most basic terms I can possibly put this, your credentials for theological knowledge are non sequitur arguments. Knowledge of theology does not follow from necessity from a knowledge of religious art. Recently I went to a exhibit in Washington, DC where there was an exhibit of Marian art from the iconographic to the modern. The curator was asked the question why Mary was so prominent in religious art when she was not prominent in the Bible. The curator answered by saying it was because early feminism in Christianity. No mention of hyperdulia or the doctrine of the Theotokos. She was very knowledgeable about art and its history, but less so about the theology that was behind it. She knew that icons were made with tempura but did not know that they were not painted but prayed.
So really, I am asking YOU to be honest. There are demonstrable gaps in your knowledge of Catholic moral theology that would indicate an deficiency in Thomistic categories.
So let us be perfectly honest. Bloodlines don’t mean anything when it comes to actually knowing things. Again, the bloodlines of Tudor kings could not preserve Henry VIII from trying to redefine marriage. Arbitrary social classifications do not equal theological genius.
LikeLike
“I do not imply you have no knowledge. I have made no implications whatsoever. ”
That’s a lie. There’s no way around that being a lie. How else is anyone supposed to read “what does an art expert know of Catholicism?” What’s the intent of that statement? It wasn’t criticism on substance or of an idea it was a personal attack.
We can’t have a serious discussion because your intention here is to deceive. The only thing we don’t know is if you’re trying to deceive readers or yourself. Do you seriously think your curator anecdote is *evidence* of anything?
LikeLike
“How else is anyone supposed to read “what does an art expert know of Catholicism?”” Perhaps as it was written? Not everything is some veiled attack. I am remind of some basic Christian ethics in this case. CCC 2478 “To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way: ‘Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it.'”
So no, it was not a criticism. It was a request for you to demonstrate your credentials. Though I suppose claiming to be a victim when no crime was committed may get you some sympathy somewhere, it is rather ironic that you accuse me of lying based on your own misunderstanding.
I have not said you know nothing. I have said what it seems to me and asked you pointed questions so I could understand you and check my own biases. My requests for proofs were not unreasonable and not even that difficult.
The anecdote is not evidence of anything except the practical rationale for a logical problem you have not solved. The speculative rationale I have already outlined; saying an expert in religious art is an expert of any degree by necessity is a non sequitur. Simply put, the one does not follow by necessity from the other. For there a religious art experts who are not moral theologians and there are some religious art experts who are, but this latter did not necessarily become one by being an expert in religious art. I am not sure how bare bones logic we can get here.
LikeLike
It wasn’t a veiled attack, it was a direct one. What other interpretation does that sentence have? Do enlighten us!
LikeLike
Exactly as I said: the plain and simple interrogatory that it shows itself to be, especially out of the context that makes it apparent what I was looking for. What does being an religious art expert have to do with moral theology? I have shown you the non sequitur of your argument but you seem to still think this is some personal attack. No, it is simply asking you to explain that connection which, on its face, does not exist. So please, provide it. It is not like I am asking for a theological treatise or a commentary on bio-ethics. I am merely asking how you practically justify relating the two bodies of knowledge.
Look, to be honest, you SEEMED to me to be yet another anti-Catholic bigot who just wanted someone to punch and stroke an already enlarged ego. BUT I was willing to let go of my prejudice and give you a shot. Who knows? Maybe you have an S.T.L from the Angelicum or something; I don’t know. One thing I do know is that writing people off before giving them a chance to prove and explain is rather anti-Catholic and bigoted, so I chose to ask you questions. Had I know that you were just going to take offense to any and every challenge I gave you, I likely would have used much, much softer gloves.
So, can you answer the question already now that I have spent about three comments explaining something that I find manifestly obvious? I am sorry you thought I was attacking you. I never intended to as I have stated before at length.
Also, to get back to the menstruation question, the study you cited is rather interesting. From the Oxford University Press summary:
Because of cultural changes, shorter durations of breast feeding, and birth control, the reproductive patterns of modern women no longer resemble that of their Stone age ancestors. Women have moved from the age of incessant reproduction to the age of incessant menstruation.”
This is in remarkable harmony with the BBC article I posted earlier that related that some tribes in Africa menstruate only 100 times in a lifetime because they resemble their Stone Age ancestors who had long periods of pregnancy and breast feeding. It is well established science that pregnancy and breast feeding naturally stave off fertility. It is not ground breaking or that shocking. Women in central America having several children naturally have fewer period because their eggs are being inseminated rather than discharged.
“Consequently, they often suffer from clinical disorders related to menstruation: anemia, endometriosis, and PMS, just to name a few. The authors encourage readers to recognize what has gone previously unnoticed that this monthly discomfort is simply not obligatory.”
No, it is not. Nature gave us natural birth control. Its called actually using your eggs.
“They present compelling evidence that the suppression of menstruation is a viable option for women today, and that it can be easily attained through the use of birth control pills. In fact, they reveal that contraceptive manufacturers, knowing that many women equate menstruation with femininity and that without monthly bleeding would fear that they were pregnant, engineered pill dosage regimens to ensure the continuation of their cycles.”
This is a bit of flawed argumentation. Birth control itself causes the majority of women to experience the effects of menstruation so what is the difference? If the whole point was to stop the painful side effects of menstruation, it makes no sense to use a pill that actually makes matters worse. How worse you say? Increased the risk of venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism; decrease in serotonin and exacerbation of depression; increased chance of gallstones; and you still may get abdominal cramps, mood swings, and really everything else you would get on your period.
If you were actually honest about your return to nature argument, you would be arguing for women to have babies, not putting them on the pill.
LikeLike
Come on, seriously? You can type out 2000 word comments but that doesn’t fool anyone. Your phrasing was designed as a personal attack. And that personal attack was designed to undermine any criticism of your religion.
Artifice and deception for Jesus. It goes to show that even you don’t really believe in the ideology you promote. Otherwise you wouldn’t feel the need to manipulate people.
LikeLike
I mean, you can argue what I did or did not intend with my phrasing or we can get back to what we were actually talking about. I have apologized and I think you should move on or I should. I think we are both wasting time if you are going to quibble over what I specifically meant in a single sentence. I have explained myself AND apologized for the misconception. At this point, it SEEMS like you just want to trash me and call me names like this is some junior high spat over who get to be homecoming queen; I hope I am wrong because you actually seem like a descent person which is rare on the internet as you may agree. I have to say though that I laughed aloud at the “need to manipulate people” comment. It made me wonder if we were having a serious conversation after all.
Now, I have a rather strong penchant for self-deprecation; it comes with the mild depression territory. So I have constantly looked over my comments to see if I could have said something unkind. So far–and I REALLY try to find something wrong with myself–I haven’t found anything, hence the confused apology for offending you. You, on the other hand, have been able to work an ad hominum with nearly every post. You even got called out by VioletWisp for it. I am not really sure how you are able to cry about being the victim here when the exact same thing could be said about you. That is actually the definition of hypocrisy.
Also, my comment was 660 words, not 2000. But thanks.
LikeLike
There’s no need to apologize. I’m a big boy, I can take it. I just want your method (widely used by religionists in general) to be exposed. It improves the level of debate if people know what they’re dealing with.
That’s also what was behind my reference to the length of your comments. The last person around these parts who used that technique was The Arborist. It’s the blog version of filibustering.
LikeLike
I think I have a fair assessment of you now. You are a bigot with a penchant for polemics and playing the victim. Was that short enough?
LikeLike
LOL. Interesting!
So if/when a manipulation fails, your next step is to double down on a personal attack? And very clever way of doing it too. You label someone with an opposing view both a bigot and someone who “plays the victim”. Where have we all seen those tactics before?
LikeLike
In your previous comments.
LikeLike
Mmmhhhmmmm. Absolutely! And of course on the War on Christmas! 😀 And how gay marriages destroy heterosexual marriages? And how birth control destroys families 😀 Delicious!
LikeLike
The War on Christmas is real. There have been many casualties.
LikeLiked by 2 people
btw, I asked a friend in Brazil who said your Max Mello friend needs to call customs directly and check with them how I should label her package to avoid import fees. One presumes they wouldn’t try to tax a donation, right?
LikeLike
Oh, they tax gifts. They tax everything. Send me an email, OK.
LikeLike
They taxed everything in Argentina. So I was confused when things coming to me weren’t taxed, and then I read that as I had residency but not citizenship I could bring in anything I liked (pretty much). Taking it out is another issue …
LikeLike
Let’s take a little review, shall we?
“Dimwitted idiot- let me spell it out as you obviously don’t have the intellect to make sense of the obvious:”
“Another undereducated imbecile.”
” so I don’t need some undereducated idiot trying to explain Catholic doctrine to me when I’m actually *paid* to explain it to people at large.”
” Or is that an impossibility for a delusional religionist desperately seeking affirmation?
If you don’t understand the meaning of being born to a historical, nobble Catholic family, or for that matter being born on the heels of National Catholicism- I won’t be able to compensate for your lack of education and insight in a blog comment.”
If the summation of my insults is merely asking you to prove the connection between your profession and moral theology, then is is clear to everyone–including the owner of this blog who must be frustrated with how this exchange turned out–who is actually being deceptive here.
I could tell from the get-go you were trying to elicit some response out of me so I would fall into your “clever trap.” It was so remarkably transparent. It was also transparent how frustrated you got at my unwillingness to be baited into your Sophistic argument on menstruation.
Let’s be clear: you didn’t make sense then and you make little sense now. I have no idea why you have this grudge against religious people and why you feel justified in projecting pitiful stereotypes on me and my arguments as evidenced by your invocation of the above tropes. I know from experience that the gutter can be quite lonely, hence my efforts to elevate the discussion above name calling and stereotypes. Clearly, my efforts were in vain so far.
So far, you have met each of my interrogatories with feigned incredulity, as if questioning something you say is some sort of taboo. I am sorry; I don’t take what people say on the internet for face value as a general rule. We could still have a discussion but it would require you to set aside your clear prejudices.
LikeLike
And yet again we have a comment bomb.
Funny how you omit the part where *you* began making personal attacks:
pseudo-socratic, unintelligible, etc.
My comment was clear and not open to interpretation. The Catholic position is inconsistent- at best. The way you defend it with all these scam-artist techniques proves that.
LikeLike
And yet I am the one who has apologized for his comments. So where does that leave you in a Catholic moral framework?
Your comment was unclear; that is why I said it was unclear AND why I asked for clarification. You appeared to be trying to ask questions to cause me to arrive at a certain point–a technique of the Socratic method–but did so from a demonstrably false premise i.e. how Catholic moral philosophy is inconsistent when it comes to masturbation and menstruation. Hence, you were pseudo-Socratic since the Socratic method starts by asking a question from an agreed common notion, not a personal prejudice. Again, I have apologized for anything I said that might have offended you–which you poo-poo’d it as unnecessary and thus making your continued victimization seem rather egotistical–and you respond with more insults. Again, what does your allegedly vast knowledge of Catholic moral theology tell you where you stand right now?
You can all it whatever you like, but when I quote the specific Church teaching that refutes your misconception and defines sinful acts as having to have full consent of the will you calling them scam artist techniques just makes you look comical.
LikeLike
I’m missing these ‘scan-artist’ techniques you refer to. plainandsimple is dealing with your comments in a very straight-forward manner. You’re free to disagree with her points, if you can muster any facts up. 🙂
LikeLike
Of course you are. The most interesting part of this discussion is how revealing it is.
Catholic’s interest is Catholic propaganda, not a debate. He/she uses the classic lines from the Catholic playbook. You can see various examples here:
Click to access straight_talk_about_abortion.pdf
(much of the information in there is verifiably false)
As for scam artist techniques, there are many, including distraction, social compliance, herd principle, deception etc. When applied to a debate it means someone is going to use a technique to trick you into believing something. So instead of me telling you which techniques Catholic is using to try to deceive readers, why don’t you try to identify them?
LikeLike
Another interesting example of debate manipulation is how the Arborist formats his comments. Everything from the length to the use of quotations is designed to make responding to him virtually impossible.
LikeLike
Agreed there. He has a technique, and it’s closed. I think plainandsimple is open – expressing opinion and engaging in discussion.
LikeLike
Yes, but is it real discussion?
LikeLike
Have you ever heard of a man called Prof. Robert Cialdini? Who wrote The Psychology of Persuasion?
LikeLike
Nope
LikeLike
(I’m not attempting to persuade, I’m exploring ideas)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know, but if you have a chance read it. Absolutely fascinating. He breaks down manipulative techniques: reciprocation, consistency, social proof, liking, authority, scarcity- and then he shows how people (and marketing) use them to convince the public of things that aren’t true. If you go through that catholic manual I linked to you’ll note they say things like *the church position on abortion has never changed*, which is wordplay to deceive and manipulate readers…
LikeLike
Ah yes, just like their position on clerical marriage, slavery and violent crusades. Unchanging.
LikeLike
I’m enjoying your comments, very interesting. And I apologise on behalf of my blogging buddy Pink, who tends to get wrapped up in expressing beliefs about himself and how clever he is, and forgets to respond to actual discussion points. So, to sum up, you are advocating that female humans live like other animals, ignore advances in technology and science that allow us to plan for children when we think we can best provide for them, and live most of our adult lives pregnant or breastfeeding? Do you have any concerns about poverty, women’s involvement in public life, or overpopulation? Where would we put all these children given that other healthcare benefits we choose to use mean we are living longer than ever? More high rise flats in bigger cities, or spread out across the countryside? Is quantity of humans better than quality of provision? It’s an amazing thought.
LikeLike
“So, to sum up, you are advocating that female humans live like other animals, ignore advances in technology and science that allow us to plan for children when we think we can best provide for them, and live most of our adult lives pregnant or breastfeeding?” Not at all. If anything, science has given us amazing insight into what used to be the wisdom of Yaya’s and Babushkas. With the scientific knowledge, we are better able to understand our bodies and how we can use our bodies to map out our lives.
Science has also developed artificial ways to control what the body does naturally through human self control. As I said before, the side effects of those methods typically do not alleviate the issues of menstruation. You can even have menstrual bleeding while on the pill. In terms of not making periods suck, they do a terrible job which was my point above.
I have tremendous concern for poverty and women’s involvement in public life. I just don’t think that preventing new life is the solution. In fact, given that many European countries with excellent health care and standards of living are desperate for migrant workers to fill the exponentially growing vacancies. As I have said before, we have the technology and the resources to care for each impoverished person in the US and possibly the world. What we lack is the solidarity: the genuine concern for the good of others. Without national and global solidarity that is respective of life, we will continue with haphazard efforts to help the poor and the needy.
Basically, the quality of life is not based on how many people we have but on how we are directing our resources. India, again, has the potential to feed every single person in their country, effectively ending hunger among even the poorest people there. Is the problem that they have too many people or too little concern?
LikeLike
Your argument has some appeal to me, because I agree there is much about the stripped back state of human existence that we ruin, in our attempts to make improvements. For example, I’m not a big fan of the pill personally because it does nothing to prevent STDs, it can have unpleasant side effects, and it messes with our bodies generally in more ways than we probably understand. On the other hand, I am a huge fan of condoms in terms of keeping my rhythms undisturbed, stopping STDs, helping me avoid relationships with idiots, and reliably preventing unwanted pregnancies. But each person can look at the pros and cons of each method (including your perma-pregnancy/lactation) and decide what suits their life best. That’s the beauty of choice and individual expression.
The problem for women getting involved in public life if they dedicate their life to breeding, is that we don’t have limitless energy reserves, and creating babies in our bodies, and feeding them from our body is a serious lot of work. I call it exhausting, not sure about you. The magical feeling of your body returning to normal energy levels after breastfeeding can’t be denied. The delight we all feel when our babies start to able to sleep through the night can’t be denied. And while many of us are lucky enough to split most of the responsibility with keen parenting partners, the physical toll of growing and breastfeeding a child falls only to women in this day and age.
In terms of suggesting that we should fill the planet to bursting point with as many other humans as we can churn out and simply ‘change our attitude’ to how we take care of others is incredibly unrealistic and quite irresponsible. I don’t even think a god capable of designing an existence such as this would approve of your plan.
LikeLike
“On the other hand, I am a huge fan of condoms in terms of keeping my rhythms undisturbed, stopping STDs, helping me avoid relationships with idiots, and reliably preventing unwanted pregnancies.” But who is going to make the very rational case that it is easier to make men wear condoms than have every woman on the pill? That would MEN would have the be responsible for inseminating women and we can’t have that now, can we? How will we be able to make the argument that we should pay women less or give crappy parental leave if men share responsibility?
“But each person can look at the pros and cons of each method (including your perma-pregnancy/lactation) and decide what suits their life best. That’s the beauty of choice and individual expression.” Yet my argument is that these are false choices. No one has the freedom to actually have children because these “options” are presented to us as the only viable ones if we want to keep our jobs. Wanna succeed in the job market? Don’t have kids. Where is the choice there?
“The problem for women getting involved in public life if they dedicate their life to breeding, is that we don’t have limitless energy reserves, and creating babies in our bodies, and feeding them from our body is a serious lot of work.” I understand that. That is not to say it is not possible and honestly the onus is on society to make it possible or at the bare minimum make it as easy as possible. Too many mothers are single, work long hours, and pump with no one but themselves and maybe a family member or two. I do not think it is unreasonable to demand accommodations and support from the society at large instead of society demanding women deny they have a womb that works. Side note: have you noticed that contraceptives, when used to contracept, take a perfectly normal organ that is functioning within current evolutionary parameters and screws with it? Its probably the only thing on your health plan that is actually designed to prevent a normal bodily function. And we are supposed to be happy about it? We are supposed to bend to the societal pressure to attack the womb with chemicals just so we can survive? Doesn’t that strike you as a little anti-woman?
“In terms of suggesting that we should fill the planet to bursting point with as many other humans as we can churn out and simply ‘change our attitude’ to how we take care of others is incredibly unrealistic and quite irresponsible. I don’t even think a god capable of designing an existence such as this would approve of your plan.” To quote a wise man, this does not mean to breed like rabbits. It means being open to life, not obsessively trying to use up each and every egg you have. Society as a whole needs to be open to life and it isn’t when it not only encourages contraceptives but when it creates the circumstances where they are actually the only way forward.
LikeLike
No, I say this because in every society that doesn’t provide access to safe and legal abortion facilities, women take matters into their own hands, kill or injure themselves and abort the pregnancy anyway. Are you suggesting that the only option for a woman who finds herself pregnant should be forced birth? I find that psychotic. What are you going to do? Lock them in padded cells for nine months. You may have decided a fetus is already a child with your imagination, but in reality it’s a tiny little creature that is entirely dependent on its host mother, and that has no capacity for thought or sensation. It’s a potential child, that may or may not grow any further, even without intervention.
Really? I’d hate to sound like John Zande, but isn’t that how we determine death? You’re confusing ‘potential’ with ‘actual’. You’re confusing ‘dependent’ with ‘independent’. And once again you’re denying women the right to choose what happens within their own bodies.
Yes, it has the right to grow within its host body if the host chooses to accommodate it. You can give your own embryos rights if you want, but you can’t possibly suggest that your denial of your own autonomy should stretch to any other women. Honestly, you’ll be wanting rights for sperm and eggs next.
Thanks for all those links! I look forward to reading them.
LikeLike
“Are you suggesting that the only option for a woman who finds herself pregnant should be forced birth?” I am saying that a woman should not have to think that a child is causing anything but a magnificent and wondrous miracle. Women who are told their only “option” is to kill their own child are being silently oppressed by a male-driven culture that demands women give up having a womb in order to be equal. Why not take it from some women?
http://www.newwavefeminists.com/
“It’s a potential child, that may or may not grow any further, even without intervention.” No, it is a child with potential. Have children. Your perspective might change. You also seem to have danced around the fact that you have no argument against it’s humanity. Basically, you are arguing that some human life does not have any rights. I am saying all human life, no matter their stage of development, have rights. Who is actually denying human rights here?
By that logic, we should be fine with tossing toddlers too since they are dependent as well. Scientifically, a newborn is has many of the requirements of a child in utero. Why does their potential matter when previously it did not? These are a lot of arbitrary lines here.
“Yes, it has the right to grow within its host body if the host chooses to accommodate it.” And right there you seek to deprive another human life of its fundamental right to life because someone else doesn’t want it. Sorry for invoking Godwin’s Law, but that smells too much like “life not worthy of life.”
LikeLike
I’d hate to sound like John Zande,
🙂
Let me know if you’d like me to explain some things to this extraordinarily peculiar person (whom I desparately hope has no contact whatsoever with children).
LikeLiked by 2 people
@plainansimplecatholicism.
”Here is some advice: you will always get pregnant by mistake. It never happens when you want it to and it never will.”
I would beg to differ. No ”mistakes”. My wife’s pregnancies were planned and things turned out pretty much as we had hoped. And after two children we ensured – as much as humanely possible – these were the only times she fell pregnant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great post. Religious people don’t understand that one can simply view the fetus differently, so they make false scientific claims to try and demonize abortion. And it’s really a woman’s choice. I truly believe that anti-abortion is anti-woman.
Religious people (as they had done in these comments) will also speak as if abortion is a bloodthirsty act of murder, when it’s a really difficult process for any woman to go through. Nobody likes abortion, but we should want women to have that option for their own bodies.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for your comment. I agree that anti-abortion really is anti-women. I used to think it was simply idealising pregnancy and being hung up on emotive thoughts about babies. But anyone who truly pushes to take away legal abortion facilities has no respect for or understanding of women. And yes, unfortunately that includes some women, but then the fact that they are part of generally misogynistic religions speaks volumes about how they view their place in society.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I would imagine that, without putting the children into full-time day care or employing a full-time maid, it would be well nigh impossible for anyone, man or woman to be an effective CEO and care for/raise five kids.
But maybe you have a solution to such a ”dilemma”?
LikeLike
I found that bit quite interesting and had a good old think about. I’m still thinking about it.
LikeLike
“Clearly there is no Christian position on abortion, for here real values conflict with each other, and Christian persons who seek honestly to be open to God’s call still find themselves disagreeing profoundly.”
The Washington Association of Churches and the Washington State Catholic Conference (1978). Abortion: an ecumenical study document.
Source: When God was Pro-Choice and Why He Changed His Mind
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks, it’s good to see some Christians acknowledging that. And always nice to have a link a Valerie Tarico post – makes me realise I need to spend some time over there going through the archives!
LikeLike
“I’m enjoying your comments, very interesting. And I apologise on behalf of my blogging buddy Pink, who tends to get wrapped up in expressing beliefs about himself and how clever he is, and forgets to respond to actual discussion points. So, to sum up, you are advocating that female humans live like other animals, ignore advances in technology and science that allow us to plan for children when we think we can best provide for them, and live most of our adult lives pregnant or breastfeeding?”
No need to apologise for me, dah-link. Especially if you’re basically plagiarizing the arguments I’ve been laying out here which you were at first quick to dismiss.
LikeLike
“No need to apologise for me, dah-link. Especially if you’re basically plagiarizing the arguments I’ve been laying out here which you were at first quick to dismiss.”
Interesting interpretation. As ever. 🙂
LikeLike
Interpretation? Five seconds ago when I said women didn’t menstruate you implied that was absurd. What were your exact words..?
Suddenly you’re repeating my explanation of how women went from pregnancy to breastfeeding to pregnancy. Which means they didn’t menstruate. How do you interpret that?
LikeLike
This is fun! Rehashing a discussion above. I was simply clarifying what I understood plainandsimple believes – no reference to you or what you were saying. You were dancing about trying to be clever and make some kind of point in a roundabout way. Nothing you said made sense in terms from my perspective – lots of playing with ideas trying to make people infer a meaning you thought made you seem clever. I like straightforward discussions about ideas. And I’m interested in what she’s saying, some points have merit, and her rationale for the rest of it is interesting too. I think it’s fair to say you’re just playing oneupmanship, aren’t you?
LikeLike
Rehashing? You dismissed my point which happened to be a historical fact.
Catholic’s points are not based in fact. The Catholic church has changed its position on when life begins a number of times. That was my point regarding Onanism/Menstruation. Incredibly straightforward.
LikeLike
Can you say it in simple terms here? Maybe I missed a comment or two. There was a lot of dancing. And how did it challenge plainandsimple’s point of view on abortion and pregnancy?
LikeLike
Sure. The Catholic church changed its stance on when life begins many times. This prohibition on abortion that’s in place now (with automatic excommunication) dates from the 2nd half of the 19th century. Before that abortion was “okay” until a certain point. By okay I don’t mean excellent, but acceptable to a certain degree.
This was based on the ensoulment debate. When a body “gets a soul”. If you had an abortion before ensoulment then it wasn’t so bad…
My point on masturbation and menstruation was simply to show the line they use is arbitrary. “Spilling of the seed” was considered a terrible sin up until the second half of the 20th century. Men were “wasting life” by masturbating. Now they say it was a sin because of lust, but that’s historically untrue. In the days of ignorance it was believed that sperm became a child and a female was just a “host” for the baby. Meaning life was only created by man, with a woman being nothing more than a vessel. So spilling the seed was wasting life.
LikeLike
Interesting, thank you. I didn’t realise that the gravity of the sin of masturbation has diminished with the advancement of science, while the gravity of abortion as a Catholic sin has increased. Worth a ponder. But we should bear in mind that the Church is unchanging in its teaching – that’s what they tell us, so it must be true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
YES, YES, YES 🙂
I’ll try to be more clear next time. I have a tendency to presume people are in my head and know exactly where I’m coming from…
LikeLike
That’s because you’re an overeducated imbecile. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed!
LikeLike
Pingback: On bullshit | Clare Flourish
Would you mind reading my abortion blog and tell me what you think? I’m torn up about it. Thanks!
LikeLike
I don’t really care if you answer any of my questions. Abortionists don’t care about women, the abortion clinics don’t care about women, they care about making money. If it were really about choice, then they would be advocating birth control, abstinence, etc, instead. No money in that, though. You people that defend it are just their dupes and puppets, so I am not looking to argue with you.
Another agenda is the anti-God rhetoric that inevitably comes out of every abortionists mouth. So what if the model of a twelve week old baby isn’t accurate? Claiming that a baby in the womb is not alive, not human, doesn’t feel, blah blah blah…far worse, more dangerous lies.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Well in the Wilderness and commented:
Abortionists don’t care about women, the abortion clinics don’t care about women, they care about making money. If it were really about choice, then they would be advocating birth control, abstinence, etc, instead. No money in that, though. You people that defend it are just their dupes and puppets, so I am not looking to argue with you.
Another agenda is the anti-God rhetoric that inevitably comes out of every abortionists mouth. So what if the model of a twelve week old baby isn’t accurate? Claiming that a baby in the womb is not alive, not human, doesn’t feel, blah blah blah…far worse, more dangerous lies.
LikeLike