I don't know when I heard a bigger piece of crap wrapped in such a nice envelope.
There is nothing "pro-life" about those who seek to prohibit abortion. There is nothing pro-life about destroying the life and liberty of women for the sake of a collection of some cells.
"Destroying life? what is life-destroying about being forced to have a baby?"
Being forced into anything is life-destroying in varying degrees. But having a baby is a life changing decision. It has implications for the parent's entire life. A baby takes resources to raise: time-wise, emotional and financial. It DOES change the whole course of life for a woman or a couple. The so called "pro-life" do not seem to care about that. To them life means; the metabolism of a few cells, not something insignificant like an individual's actual life, happiness and goals.
Life is holy, and what does that mean? That women be treated as breeding cows. The sanctity of life is wonderful... which is why we need to load women on wagons, chain them to a metal bar at a factory and bring males to impregnate them. Done with one? Off to the second one!
Why not? "Pro-life" people think they have a right to dictate to a woman what she should do with her body and life. Why not take the sanctity of life to the next stage?
I have no words to describe how disgusted I am with the use of the words "pro-life" for such deep a disrespect for human beings.
Anti-abortionists often use the image of an embryo put into a blender. "What a horrible thing to do to an innocent baby" they say. "You're a murderer!".
How do you like the image of women brought in the herds to breed new humans?
One who does not value and respect the life of an adult cannot claim to value the life of a potential human being.
Call your irrational, conformity-minded, religious-dogma, feeling-driven ideas of yours by what they are. Don't call it "pro-life".
My thoughts on Abortion:
ReplyDeleteWell, I am not actually against abortion as long as "killing fetus" is concerned. Human beings are killing many animals anyway for rather unacceptable purposes. So killing one human is rather meager issue for me. But yeah, precaution is much better than abortions.
And that said, abortion should be made legal. It's absurd to classify it as illegal. You can kill hen's fetus for making omelette, but killing human fetus is illegal? Just because it is "human"? Bullshit!! That means you are discriminating between lives. All lives have equal values.
Killing human fetus is okay for the same reason eating eggs is okay.
Yeah, if abortion is being used to prevent female child birth then that's alarming. But otherwise.. No!
Seeing how we kill grown chickens too, how do you explain that laws against murder *should* exist?
ReplyDeleteI think your idea of animals and humans having equal "value" has a fundamental problem, which is your concept of "value".
See, what IS a value? it is something which is good for *someone* for a certain *goal*. Without these two conditions "value" is an empty concept.
So when you say that all animals have equal value, you are using the word "value" without reference to *whom* it is a value for, and what makes it a value - what goal makes it good for that someone.
For humans beings, life and happiness are the ultimate values, by our nature. This goal in turn makes some things good and some things bad for us.
If you think of how our concept of "good' and "bad" develops, in childhood we learn that touching a hot stove is bad for us. Putting on a bandage is good for us. Having loyal friends is good for us. What makes those things good? What makes them values? It is those goals - life and happiness. This is how we form the concept of value - things are of value to US because they promote our lives and enhance them (and if not, it is not a value).
There are many things which can be gotten from animals which are of great use for humans, such as meat and medicines. The fact that man's life and happiness is the goal makes those things values. It is what makes it good to take advantage of resources around us, including animals. If animals were rational, productive creatures it would have been in our best interest to live with them "in peace". Seeing how animals are incapable of such a thing (try signing a peace treaty with a lion) we make the best use of animals by using them for meat and medicine.
That is why eating animals or using them for medical experiments is good, but yet killing other humans for their meat is bad. Other men are creatures like us, with enormous values to offer when we treat other men as the rational animals that they are.
"Rights" is a concept that only arises and makes sense in the context of humans living with humans. Only humans can choose the way they live with one another. Animals don't choose in that sense - they just act by their nature. A lion will hunt for food and it cannot choose otherwise.
So other humans beings have a far greater value to us as living free creatures than animals do. In fact free animals are a danger to our lives. This is why we have laws against killing humans but not against killing animals. The implicit standard is man's life and that is the goal.
This is probably a lot to take in at once. If you're interested in more of this discussion you can listen to this free audio (http://arc-tv.com/why-human-beings-come-first/) by Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand's intellectual heir. And I would also recommend Ayn Rand's "The virtue of selfishness".
Ifat,
ReplyDeleteAgain, there is nothing in your post that I disagree with. Those who oppose abortions do so purely on religious grounds.
As an aside, in India a lot of exclusive female feticide happens, because parents do not want female children as they are seen as financial burden 'cuz according to Indian customs the girl after marrying goes away to stay with her inlaws. Also, in many communities heavy dowry is to be paid by bride's parents. This makes a male child very desirous in India, and a female an undesirable one. All this is also supported by scripture based belief that only if a son lights one's funeral pyre, would the deceased attain salvation! So, with rampant female feticide and infanticide (basically, sex selection), the female to male sex ratio has reached as low as 750:1000 in a few districts. Thus India government has made prenatal diagnosis of gender and sex-selection illegal with heavy punishments for the doctors as well as parents. Of course, for genuine medical indications abortion is allowed, including contraceptive failure.
As to your discussion with Darshan, I feel subconsciously a lot of our feelings are shaped by cultural conditioning.
An example is here, where two vegetarians (including me) have argued with another vegetarian as to how vegetarianism is not any more ethical than eating nonveg food.
http://achupichu.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/ball-of-karma/
Of course, it is a very, very very long discussion.
Personally, I do not find anything unethical with eating nonveg, yet I cannot bring myself to eat it. Having been brought up in a vegetarian family is a strong factor for this disposition. There is this strong psychological barrier that nonveg = animal = inedible that I just cannot breach. However, I also feel compassionate towards animals. I do not like the sight of chickens and lambs being butchered alive. I find the scene revolting. I do not know why I experience compassion for other species, but the fact is I do! I cannot help it. However, never do I try to use this subjective feeling as an argument against nonvegetarianism.
Some evolutionary factors could be at play, here. For instance, looking at the young ones of any species leads to release of oxytocin, and which in turn induces nurturing instincts in the onlooker.
I have never been able to decide rationally if other animals and humans have same right over resources or right to live. My stance is quite instinctive.