Hi all! Sorry for the extremely LONG hiatus ... I've been ridiculously busy with school, and once that ordeal was over with I promised myself I would take a break and have an amazing holiday - which meant no abortion news, no thinking about abortion, and no writing about it. Just needed a break from stress in general, but obviously I couldn't keep myself away for long. So This is just a quick post to tell you that (1) I'm still alive (hooray!!) and (2) I hope everyone reading this has an absolutely wonderful Christmas and New Years!
I'll leave you with a video I found on refuting key abortion arguments. I think he does a great job going through all of the arguments, especially the most common argument I've seen lately from pro-choicers, which is that consent to sex is not consent to a pregnancy. Happy watching!! :)
Thursday, 22 December 2011
Monday, 14 November 2011
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
There's a court case going on in Canada right now, and CBC has a poll here on the issue (feel free to vote!). I was reading through some of the comments and they were making me both very sad and very angry. The two most common arguments for assisted suicide are summed up quite well by TerryWeins, quoted as follows:
"We show more compassion for our sick pets than we do for our fatality ill family members. As a long time disability rights advocate who is actually disabled and not being paid to represent some lobby group I fully support and individuals right to a dignified means to end ones life when the quality has expired."
First off, I am not quite sure that I agree that it is compassionate to euthanize a sick pet. I have always thought that it is an incredibly cowardly act to decide for yourself the fate of another creature (unless of course you're going to eat it, which is a perfectly natural thing to do). If this animal lived in the wild do you think it would have a "humane" and "peaceful" ending? No. If it even survived to old age, it would live as long as it was able and then it would die. Probably its death would be quite painful. It would be a struggle. That is, after all, what life is. It's not neat or pretty or peaceful or dignified - it is a struggle and and that's that.
Secondly, a human being is not a pet. A human being displaying the wish to die is someone that is deeply troubled and in need of help, love, and compassion. Saying, "well, we agree, your life sucks. Lets get you killed!" is not the compassionate response. Period. It is certainly the easy reaction to suffering - it absolutely eliminates a million hard questions such as how do we care for this person, how do we alleviate their pain, how do we keep them involved in society, how to we mitigate the effects of their disability, how do we show them that they are still valued and loved, how to we make sure their last days aren't miserable, how do we ..... but assisted death is not the answer to these questions, and the multitude of other questions that accompany end of life issues.
Finally, I want to address the idea that individuals have a right to decide when they will die with dignity. First off, no one is arguing that people do not have the ability to decide when they will die. Ever heard of suicide? The information is readily available, and anyone and everyone has the means to commit suicide, refuse treatment, or hasten their death. If someone's future is really so bleak that they believe death is better than life, then such a person absolutely has the ability to end their own life. In fact, they should be the only person who ends their own life. That way it is absolutely certain that the final choice was their own. What we are arguing against is the idea that other people can legally help someone accomplish that goal. Why? Because people can be pressured, can be tricked, and can be taken advantage of. The weak, troubled, sick, and handicapped have very small and easily ignored voices in this world. The healthy, powerful, and well-off have loud voices and commonly believe that they know what is best for those who are in their care. This law can easily be abused. In fact, even with the illegality of assisted suicide I have no doubt that such abuses still occur - but at least they are not sanctioned by the state. Finding and prosecuting such abuse is and will be almost impossible to do - after all, the only true witnesses to this abuse would be dead.
End rant. Hope this made sense. I haven't done as much reading on assisted suicide or euthanasia as I have with abortion, but I still believe that every second of every life is worth living. I have known and lived through the deterioration and death of loved ones, and even unto their last days they were beautiful, loved, valued, and they believed their lives were worth living. This is probably because they were not alone, and were surrounded by loved ones who would miss them and who wanted to spend every moment they could with them until they finally left. If only every person could be shown such love. To be ill, dying, and alone must be the hardest thing to face. I can certainly understand why people would seek out euthanasia in both fear and loneliness. And so we should work towards being a more loving and compassionate society, and we must make sure that no one ever feels alone or worthless in this world. <3 RIP
"We show more compassion for our sick pets than we do for our fatality ill family members. As a long time disability rights advocate who is actually disabled and not being paid to represent some lobby group I fully support and individuals right to a dignified means to end ones life when the quality has expired."
First off, I am not quite sure that I agree that it is compassionate to euthanize a sick pet. I have always thought that it is an incredibly cowardly act to decide for yourself the fate of another creature (unless of course you're going to eat it, which is a perfectly natural thing to do). If this animal lived in the wild do you think it would have a "humane" and "peaceful" ending? No. If it even survived to old age, it would live as long as it was able and then it would die. Probably its death would be quite painful. It would be a struggle. That is, after all, what life is. It's not neat or pretty or peaceful or dignified - it is a struggle and and that's that.
Secondly, a human being is not a pet. A human being displaying the wish to die is someone that is deeply troubled and in need of help, love, and compassion. Saying, "well, we agree, your life sucks. Lets get you killed!" is not the compassionate response. Period. It is certainly the easy reaction to suffering - it absolutely eliminates a million hard questions such as how do we care for this person, how do we alleviate their pain, how do we keep them involved in society, how to we mitigate the effects of their disability, how do we show them that they are still valued and loved, how to we make sure their last days aren't miserable, how do we ..... but assisted death is not the answer to these questions, and the multitude of other questions that accompany end of life issues.
Finally, I want to address the idea that individuals have a right to decide when they will die with dignity. First off, no one is arguing that people do not have the ability to decide when they will die. Ever heard of suicide? The information is readily available, and anyone and everyone has the means to commit suicide, refuse treatment, or hasten their death. If someone's future is really so bleak that they believe death is better than life, then such a person absolutely has the ability to end their own life. In fact, they should be the only person who ends their own life. That way it is absolutely certain that the final choice was their own. What we are arguing against is the idea that other people can legally help someone accomplish that goal. Why? Because people can be pressured, can be tricked, and can be taken advantage of. The weak, troubled, sick, and handicapped have very small and easily ignored voices in this world. The healthy, powerful, and well-off have loud voices and commonly believe that they know what is best for those who are in their care. This law can easily be abused. In fact, even with the illegality of assisted suicide I have no doubt that such abuses still occur - but at least they are not sanctioned by the state. Finding and prosecuting such abuse is and will be almost impossible to do - after all, the only true witnesses to this abuse would be dead.
End rant. Hope this made sense. I haven't done as much reading on assisted suicide or euthanasia as I have with abortion, but I still believe that every second of every life is worth living. I have known and lived through the deterioration and death of loved ones, and even unto their last days they were beautiful, loved, valued, and they believed their lives were worth living. This is probably because they were not alone, and were surrounded by loved ones who would miss them and who wanted to spend every moment they could with them until they finally left. If only every person could be shown such love. To be ill, dying, and alone must be the hardest thing to face. I can certainly understand why people would seek out euthanasia in both fear and loneliness. And so we should work towards being a more loving and compassionate society, and we must make sure that no one ever feels alone or worthless in this world. <3 RIP
Saturday, 12 November 2011
Why don't more pro-lifers resort to violence?
This post from the AntiAbortion Gang gave me a lot to think about today, so I thought I'd share it here. You can read through Ben from Canada's impression of pro-lifers, and my and the AntiAbortion Gang's thoughts on his post.
I always find it surprising when someone asks, "Well, if you really believe that fertilized eggs are people, then why don't you do more to protect them?" These people don't actually understand what it means to be pro-life, or what the goals of the pro-life movement are. Sure, if we kill a few abortionists then some babies might be saved. But abortion is so prevalent in our society that another clinic, another abortionist, will simply pop up to take the deceased's place. How does that solve anything? It doesn't. Our goal (or at least, what I believe our goal should be) is to induce a cultural shift. Unborn children need to be viewed as valuable and precious, not burdens. Pregnancy needs to be viewed as a natural, spiritual experience, not as a terrifying, horrible ordeal. People need to realize that all human life, and indeed all life, has value. And besides, as pro-lifers, should we not fight for the right of ALL human lives? Are not abortionists human? Are they not people? Could they not repent sometime in the future? We never know who or what someone will become. And ending someone's life on the assumption that they will always be who they are, and that their life will always seem as bleak as it does now, is the height of arrogance. That applies to both the lives of the unborn and the lives of those who are actively pro-choice. Pro-life, pro-love. Love and life for everybody. No matter who they are, no matter where they are, no matter what their age. <3
Disclaimer: In no way am I suggesting that abortionists should not be punished for their actions - I simply want to stress that it is not our place, nor anyone's place, to use the threat of violence or death to make a point.
I always find it surprising when someone asks, "Well, if you really believe that fertilized eggs are people, then why don't you do more to protect them?" These people don't actually understand what it means to be pro-life, or what the goals of the pro-life movement are. Sure, if we kill a few abortionists then some babies might be saved. But abortion is so prevalent in our society that another clinic, another abortionist, will simply pop up to take the deceased's place. How does that solve anything? It doesn't. Our goal (or at least, what I believe our goal should be) is to induce a cultural shift. Unborn children need to be viewed as valuable and precious, not burdens. Pregnancy needs to be viewed as a natural, spiritual experience, not as a terrifying, horrible ordeal. People need to realize that all human life, and indeed all life, has value. And besides, as pro-lifers, should we not fight for the right of ALL human lives? Are not abortionists human? Are they not people? Could they not repent sometime in the future? We never know who or what someone will become. And ending someone's life on the assumption that they will always be who they are, and that their life will always seem as bleak as it does now, is the height of arrogance. That applies to both the lives of the unborn and the lives of those who are actively pro-choice. Pro-life, pro-love. Love and life for everybody. No matter who they are, no matter where they are, no matter what their age. <3
Disclaimer: In no way am I suggesting that abortionists should not be punished for their actions - I simply want to stress that it is not our place, nor anyone's place, to use the threat of violence or death to make a point.
Tuesday, 8 November 2011
Sunday, 30 October 2011
Friday, 21 October 2011
On Ultrasounds and Manipulation
I came across the argument today that pro-lifers try to manipulate abortive-minded women by forcing them to view their unborn child in an ultrasound.
I can't even begin to tell you how angry this argument makes me. It is complete, utter B.S.
First off - if most women change their minds about abortion after they view an ultrasound, what does that tell you about the conviction with which these women believed that they needed an abortion in the first place? To my mind at least, it tells me that these women were unsure. Helping them come to a decision by showing them the reality of their pregnancy is not manipulation, it is being informed. And why are women who view ultrasounds and decide to keep their children "manipulated", according to pro-choicers, but women who are given no information and are rushed into making a decision are somehow empowered.
Abortion is the only issue I know where suppression of information is considered empowerment.
Secondly - I can't tell you how many times I've read both pro-life and pro-choice stories about women who, before and at the abortion table, are terrified, crying and just wishing that they could escape their entire situation. Out of all the abortion stories I've read, only one has had an abortion doctor send a women away because he could see that she was obviously upset. But she ended up getting an abortion anyway, after returning to the clinic because her boyfriend was pressuring her. How can anyone think it is ok to perform an elective, permanent surgery on someone who is so fearful, so obviously unsure, and so uncomfortable about what is going on? Did it ever occur to pro-choicers that women who are in this situation might feel empowered by viewing their baby's ultrasound - that someone who is scared and unsure might finally come to a true decision upon seeing exactly what it is that they are thinking about destroying? And who exactly is trying to manipulate here? The abortion clinics and doctors who perform abortions on terrified, sobbing women without a thought to whether or not this is truly what these women want; or the pro-lifers that give women information and encouragement on their pregnancy in the form of an ultrasound that shows them exactly what is going on inside their womb, and information and resources that will allow women to protect and nurture the new life within them.
In my opinion, the answer is pretty clear.
I can't even begin to tell you how angry this argument makes me. It is complete, utter B.S.
First off - if most women change their minds about abortion after they view an ultrasound, what does that tell you about the conviction with which these women believed that they needed an abortion in the first place? To my mind at least, it tells me that these women were unsure. Helping them come to a decision by showing them the reality of their pregnancy is not manipulation, it is being informed. And why are women who view ultrasounds and decide to keep their children "manipulated", according to pro-choicers, but women who are given no information and are rushed into making a decision are somehow empowered.
Abortion is the only issue I know where suppression of information is considered empowerment.
Secondly - I can't tell you how many times I've read both pro-life and pro-choice stories about women who, before and at the abortion table, are terrified, crying and just wishing that they could escape their entire situation. Out of all the abortion stories I've read, only one has had an abortion doctor send a women away because he could see that she was obviously upset. But she ended up getting an abortion anyway, after returning to the clinic because her boyfriend was pressuring her. How can anyone think it is ok to perform an elective, permanent surgery on someone who is so fearful, so obviously unsure, and so uncomfortable about what is going on? Did it ever occur to pro-choicers that women who are in this situation might feel empowered by viewing their baby's ultrasound - that someone who is scared and unsure might finally come to a true decision upon seeing exactly what it is that they are thinking about destroying? And who exactly is trying to manipulate here? The abortion clinics and doctors who perform abortions on terrified, sobbing women without a thought to whether or not this is truly what these women want; or the pro-lifers that give women information and encouragement on their pregnancy in the form of an ultrasound that shows them exactly what is going on inside their womb, and information and resources that will allow women to protect and nurture the new life within them.
In my opinion, the answer is pretty clear.
Wednesday, 12 October 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)