Posted on 01/28/2017 2:32:21 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o
Excellent article. Thank you for posting. I am of the same generation, told it was just a clump of cells. I had friends who had abortions and I supported them. When faced with the same choice I chose life. Best thing I did in my whole life. I’ve often thought, as it says in the article, abortion will someday be looked upon as backward as slavery. Or blood-letting. If for no other reason, it needs to be revisited because of modern medical advances.
Post it! I don’t have a Facebook page anymore, but if you do, post it!
Not only that, if you go back a three or four generations in your family and find a young woman who gave birth to your great grandfather and a sister out of wedlock and then raised them alone, then you discover that your great grandfather married twice and produced a total of 16 children who grew up to be successful citizens with children of their own, one of whom was your grandfather, then you may realize that if the young, poor, uneducated single woman who gave birth to your great grandfather had been persuaded by "pro-choicers" like those on the streets today to abort that baby, neither you nor all the descendants through those 16 children (probably thousands over time) would have existed.
Good illustration of how a single act can have generational consequences.
Your are grossly over-generalizing and over-globalizing a single, common phrase.
A common phrase? If you say so.
I am no animal of any sort.
And quite the contrary, she has a strongly spiritual perspective on human beings.
Nothing in this article indicates that.
Perhaps she should incorporate that belief into her future articles to preclude any assumptions made by readers.
OK, your comments are fair, inasmuch as you are not familiar with Mathewes-Green’s other writings, and she does not have a spiritual focus in the NR article at hand. I suspect NR requested a secular perspective and that’s what she produced.
She is the wife of an Eastern Orthodox priest and has been writing Christian books and articles from that perspective for years, as well as giving talks at retreats and conferences sponsored by her (Antiochian Orthodox) church and others.
I do think her use of the phrase “the human animal” is justified in this context. She’s saying that if some animal mothers were massively destroying their young, we’d be worried that something was catastrophically wrong with their situation. Mathewes-Green wonders why we don’t react to the human abortion situation as if something were catastrophically wrong.
I’d say that if prized pedigreed dogs or valuable racehorses, or even dolphins or leopards, were destroying their young, there would be anxious researchers investigating what the hell was going on, and highly-publicized emergency measures taken to prevent any more losses of valuable animal life.
And Frederica is right: why don’t we treat humans with even that much consideration?
No 'probably' about it. Would that I myself could argue the case as effectively as Frederica Matthewes-Green does here...
the infowarrior
Wow. I love so much of this. One of the important lines:
“Nobody wants to have an abortion. And if nobody wants to have an abortion, why are women doing it, 2800 times a day? If women doing something 2,800 times daily that they don’t want to do, this is not liberation we’ve won. We are colluding in a strange new form of oppression.”
Liberals love European style Socialism. They wish it on us.
Europe for the most part has much more restrictive Abortion Laws than we do, yet you never hear them talking about that.
Reminds me of Immigration. If we adopted Mexico’s Immigration Laws, the Left would flip out. Same goes for Mexico’s Voting requirements.
Because some people think (and teach) that 'human animals' are of lesser value than 'other animals' and they don't deserve any special consideration at all. So if we can put down (kill) other animals then we can put down human animals too, even in the womb.
Kind of puts my angst at her usage in perspective, doesn't it.
Her example demeans human beings.
Didn't mean to offend.
(can I say that on t.v.?)
But she didn't.
So, have a nice day. I am. I'm staying inside where I can keep my feet warm!
When a woman kills a baby between conception and birth it is her fault not society’s fault.
Any individual who commits a murder, including a murder of a baby between conception and birth, is a murderer.
The author is wrong. Millions of women do want abortions. That’s why millions of women get abortions.
Women are not forced by economic considerations to abort. A woman facing economic challenges can still not abort. If she does abort, the moral culpability for doing so is hers alone.
What about the dude who got her pregnant? The rapist? Not responsible? Give me a break.
First, I am addressing only cases in which the conception of babies occurred during relations that were consented to by both the mother of the baby and the father of the baby.
Second, when two people create something and one person unilaterally destroys it, the person who unilaterally destroyed it is unilaterally responsible for its destruction.
If a man is supportive of the pregnancy, it is on her hands for sure (and of the doctors doing it). However if the man is not economically supportive, then he at least shares the guilt. Eve handing me the proverbial Apple to eat is no excuse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.