Welcome back! Here is the exciting conclusion to the epic Facebook abortion debate of 2012. If you haven’t read the first part, please do so first.
Friend 3 F: My philosophies are just that, and not just opinions, and they have been informed with a lot of information in various subjects, including evolution, biology and ecology (Unborn children have the same DNA structure as a full blown human…). I don’t tend to find people of faith willing to discuss their views besides “life begins at conception” and “abortion is wrong”. (This is a problem. We pro-life people need to start learning more arguments and learning more scientific facts. This is just a learning curve, and I’m sorry, but, “because God says its not good” is a lame response and won’t convince anybody. Use logic, reason, science, data, philosophy AND faith, when discussing abortion). Until people invent a little baby incubator that can gestate a baby outside of a womans’ (woman’s) body from conception, than I think abortion is a necessary reproductive right. (Definition of ‘Reproductive’: Producing new life or offspring. I think you are confusing “reproductive” with “nonproductive”.) Women should not bear the onus of reproduction, and they should be the only ones facing the consequences of having sex. (How are babies made again?) Why do you think females are considered the gatekeepers of morality when it comes to sex? For thousands of years, poor decisions on their part meant a completely different life path when they had to “deal with the consequences”. There has never been the same kind of biological burden on males, perhaps a reason for (socially acceptable) male promiscuity. (And us terrible “people of faith” claim that male promiscuity is a mortal sin…) Removing that biological consequence through greater access to family planning causes women to be better contributors to society in ways that aren’t just as mothers and wives. (This is an insult to mothers and wives everywhere who have children and already contribute to society.) If a woman chooses to live her life because she believes that being a mother is her highest calling, that’s great for her! Just don’t expect everyone to chose a glob of cells over the bodily autonomy of women. (All in all, here is where the conversation begins to become a more “hostile environment”. I don’t know why she doesn’t understand the purpose of what womanhood entails, but, society in general is confused to what gender roles are these days.)
Friend 1 M: Some women would call that burden a benefit. Men will also not know what it feels like to grow another life inside of them. Personally I feel that is pretty big deal. It isn’t fair that women have more consequences when dealing with unwanted pregnancy. I am sure that you have heard before that life isn’t fair. You can take that one up with God but you shouldn’t take it out on a baby. There is always adoption too. Adoption agencies will pay all your medical bills, rent and even food for the time that you are pregnant. By the time most women find out they are pregnant the baby is more than just a glob of cells and in Minnesota you can abort as late as 20 weeks. At 20 weeks you are able to tell the sex of the baby! (Baby fun facts: Day 1- Baby has DNA from mom and dad. 18 Days- Heart is forming, eyes will form soon. 24 Days- Heart begins to beat. 30 Days- Blood flows through baby’s veins. 42 Days- Skeleton is formed, brain coordinates movement of muscles, reflex responses begin. 43 Days- Brainwaves can be recorded. 7 Weeks- Lips are sensitive to touch, ears may resemble family patterns. 9 Weeks- Baby has fingerprints (which are different from anyone else). 10 Weeks- Body is sensitive to touch, baby can swallow, squint, pucker eye brows and frowns. 12 Weeks- Baby can kick, turn feet, open the mouth, make a fist, etc. 4 Months- Can grasp with hands, make fists, swim and turn somersaults.) Family planning should not include abortion. The word plan itself means to do it in advance. Abortion is an attempt to “fix the problem” not to plan ahead.
Friend 3 F: “Some women would call that burden a benefit.” And some women still think of the burden as a burden. “Men will also not know what it feels like to grow another life inside of them.” And thus really don’t know what it’s like and shouldn’t be making decisions about what to do when it happens to a woman. (Okay, then the reverse is fair ground. Women can no longer tell men what to do since they themselves, do not know what its like to be a man, and thus, do not need to listen to that argument anymore.) “I am sure that you have heard before that life isn’t fair. You can take that one up with God but you shouldn’t take it out on a baby” I have heard that life isn’t fair, and that is why I believe that I should do whatever I can to make it a little bit more fair. We have the technology now to make things more fair, and I believe we should use it. I do not believe in god, and do not believe that a glob of cells is a baby, thus, I don’t need to take it up with this nonexistent god, nor the nonexistent baby, because before a baby is born, it is an embryo or fetus. (And here we get another glimpse of the hostile pro-choice movement. The baby has up to the point that it exits the mother to be killed, if the mother desires. This logic becomes incredibly dangerous because if we are going to define what makes a life a life, based on convenience, than we can also do this on the flip side.) “There is always adoption too. Adoption agencies will pay all your medical bills, rent and even food for the time that you are pregnant.” Yeah, and all of the hormonal changes and the morning sickness and being a giant whale and the process of birth being so dangerous that before modern medicine, 1 in 100 women died from childbirth and stretch marks and all around not being able to function as a normal human being while preggers. (Aaaaand here we go again. Babies are evil.) “By the time most women find out they are pregnant the baby is more than just a glob of cells and in Minnesota you can abort as late as 20 weeks. At 20 weeks you are able to tell the sex of the baby!” And that is supposed to emotionally appeal to me? It’s still a fetus, not a baby. (Tomato, tomahto) “Family planning should not include abortion. The word plan itself means to do it in advance. Abortion is an attempt to “fix the problem” not to plan ahead.” It should be a part of the plan because we know contraception isn’t always 100%. (Abstinence is 100% effective…) Women who do not want to become pregnant will become pregnant. (Not even they are abstaining from sex.) And women who are pregnant and don’t want to be will find a way to not be, just like they have tried to for thousands of years with abortifacient herbs. (I’m confused…earlier you made it sound that bad that women were responsible for the moral authority when it came to sex because its been done for so long, but now because something has been done for thousands of years its okay. What is it?)
Jeff: (At this point, I decided to be satirical.) I didn’t realize that pregnancy was such a rampant disease. The last time that I checked having sexual intercourse, results in having a glob of disgusting ewww gooey cells, that most humans would call a “baby”. The funny thing is, I constantly have to hear that the best way to prevent a disease or illness or what have you from the medical thing is to avoid the root cause of that. Here, the root cause would be sex, so, logic tells me that if you avoid sex, you will avoid pregnancy, unless its airborne, then you are in trouble.
The ironic thing about science when it comes to the issue of abortion is that it twists itself in order to make you feel less guilty about the issue. For example, while the Mars Rover is looking for “life on mars” its not looking for humanoids or animals but anything that would be determined as “alive”, such as cells…WAIT A MINUTE HERE! I THOUGHT IT WASN’T LIFE!?
I guess it just depends on the convenience of when you want it to be life. On top of that, its a federal offense to destroy the habitat of an endangered species or to destroy oh, I don’t know, the eggs of an endangered species. Why is this? I thought that it wasn’t alive yet? I smell hypocrisy. Reproductive health shouldn’t be about how can we make our reproductive system not work, but how we can make it better. When an older individual is taking heart medication, its not to make the heart stop working or work in a way that it isn’t meant to work, its making it work BETTER, so that it can function BETTER. Really, the whole argument of “its just a glob of cells” is such a straw man, because in reality, what are we made of? Yeah, a bunch of cells when you get down to it, so maybe its time to roll back all of our laws because it shouldn’t matter what we do to a bunch of cells, right?
Friend 1 M: So if you were pregnant (and wanted to be) and were at say 18 weeks and I drove drunk, ran into you and killed your “fetus”. I shouldn’t be charged with taking the life of your child? What about at 36 weeks, when you can feel the baby moving and he or she can hear you? You should not be able to determine if it is a life or not just on the basis of if it is wanted.
Friend 3 F: If you really think a glob of cells is life, please stop taking antibiotics, or be a complete hypocrite yourself. (Never used the word hypocrite. Again, convenience. Cells are considered life when it is wanted or desired, and a glob of cells when unwanted. Also, antibiotics are for infections which do not share the genetic structure of a human, as mentioned earlier.)
Jeff: The fact that you equate a pregnancy with a disease or infection reveals everything about your world view. (This is a scary reality. If someone has this mentality, how else do they look at people in other stages of life, i.e. mental health, physical health, etc.)
Friend 3 F: It does. But then again, I think “parasite” is more apropos than disease or infection. (Aaaand here it is everyone. This is what we have to deal with. Babies are a parasite before they are born and thus it is okay to eliminate them if they are in the way.)
Jeff: Wow Friend 3. That is pretty harsh, but, then again you were once a little parasite yourself. With that being said, I think our friendship can officially be over, because frankly, I can’t be friends with someone who has such extreme views, and to be honest, we aren’t really “friends”. The only time I hear from you, is when you decide that you want to use your god, “science” to try to debunk myself, or my faith. You don’t have the slightest interest in me or keeping a real friendship (and to be fair I’ve never kept one either), so I believe this is where we say “adieu”. I’ll pray for you, and hope that you find some happiness in life, because based on the tone of your posts, you have a lot of anger. I’m sure you will look at this and tally it up as a “win” for yourself, but, it’ll be the last one. (I then sent this message to her personally in a separate email, which you can see below and de-friended her. Like I mention earlier, she only would communicate to me to attack me or my faith. That isn’t a friend and clearly, I am not the person to change her mind.)
Friend 7 F: Jeff if you haven’t de-friended Friend 3 yet than Friend 3, I am just curious if you plan on having a “parasite” of your own someday? Or if you find that idea absolutely revolting….again just curious….(I really would have enjoyed the response, not to mention the whole purpose of her life. She is married, she is a self-proclaimed atheist, and she clearly doesn’t like children. So, why bother getting married since it is a religious institution? Marriage precedes children, so why bother getting married if you don’t want children? Etc, etc.)
Her response to my message:
(What? What was harsh? The parasite thing? 1) It was in quotes. (Doesn’t matter, words have meaning. What was said was offensive. I know, its okay for liberals to offend conservatives, but all Hell breaks lose if its the other way around.) 2) It’s much more accurate than disease or infection since it’s a little thing inside of a big thing taking up the resources of the big thing to grow and live its life. (You were a parasite once yourself…) It’s not really an extreme view- more like a colloquialism. Also, I don’t have a god, and never try to use the concept of my god to debunk anything (I never mentioned God at all in my points. My friends did, but I did not. Please read and comprehend before making wild accusations. You brought up religion first too. Its funny how atheists are usually the one to mention God.) . I have a specific way of looking at the world, which I believe is as completely valid as yours. Not only am I more than capable of living with people who think or believe differently that I do, I can actually have conversations with people who seem to disagree with me or my views without thinking they’re some sort of crazy angry person. (I was having a civil conversation. You were the one to turn hostile. But because I’m the Catholic, I must be the horrendous person.) You were the one who initially escalated the tone of the conversation by trying to call me a hypocrite for my views (Again, I did no such thing, go up…read what I said. I set up a straw man, a situation, and I said that THAT situation smelled of hypocrisy. Did not call you a hypocrite. But, again, I’m Catholic so I’m a horrendous person.) – I got snarky in my frustration, and you think that makes me a horrible, angry person. I don’t care how you live your life, and the personal decisions that you make, but take great offense that you would think to make those decisions for other people based on your path. (Um…all laws that are created do this. Obamacare????)
Have fun isolating yourself into a world in which everyone agrees with you and you never hear any contradictory opinions ever. (Right, because everyone is a devout Catholic…) It is a dangerous tactic, and while it might make you feel safe in your beliefs, you lose sight what is actually going on in the world. (Not really, I have many friends who disagree with me but can actually have a civil conversation with. Again, please stop labeling people.) Your righteousness is impotent with an atheist. (Cool story bro.)
“why bother getting married since it is a religious institution? Marriage precedes children, so why bother getting married if you don't want children?”
There an hundreds of benefits granted to people that are married rather than dating. It's the same reason gays want to get married.
Not for kids or religion, but for Love and Benefits.
Can you please list out…oh, I don't know, 20 benefits since there are hundreds?
If getting benefits is the reason for getting “married” than why use marriage and not just say “homosexual benefit equality”? Really, the whole “marriage” thing is just a sham. Heterosexual's will be considered “married” after 10 or 15 years and receive those same benefits as a married couple, so I suggest instead of forcing marriage, that is what is debated (not that I'd be for that anyways.)
Also, which form of Love are you talking about? There are many. I assume you are referring to the type of love that is self-sacrificing and allows you to sacrifice your body to bring forth new people…right? Because you can't do that between man-man or woman-woman relationships.
I'm refering to the unconditional love that bonds two people for the rest of their lives when they find the one person in this world that seems to make all the puzzle pieces fit together.
What about straight couples that are steril or unable to have children? What about the elderly who are unable to have kids but never found that right person until it was too late?
Marriage has never been about children (although it should proceed them) it's been about undying love and commitment.
The 20 you requested:
•Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
•Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
•Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
•Creating a “family partnership” under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
•Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
•Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
•Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
•Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
•Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.
•Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
•Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
•Making burial or other final arrangements.
•Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
•Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
•Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
•Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
•Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
•Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
•Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.
•Emotional and relationship support
“Heterosexual's will be considered “married” after 10 or 15 years and receive those same benefits as a married couple”
Many states don't recognize domestic partnerships.
It's too bad that the term marriage is what has been used in government documents, because it was originally a religious term.
I have no problem with homosexuals having to have it be called something different. However since the term has been duplicated in documents accorss the nation, it's forced it being called marriage or nothing.
You seem to have completely gone against your original argument, “I have no problem with homosexuals having to have it be called something different.”
Most insurance companies will let you claim a partner.
In order to be married in the Catholic Church, you have to be open to having children (otherwise the Church will not marry you), so yes, children are the reason for marriage.
What about infertile or elderly couples? They may still be open to having children. God can work miracles. I have heard many success stories for couples who struggle to conceive when they use NFP.
“It's been about undying love and commitment.”…no it hasn't. Only for the last century has it been about “undying love”. And really, let's look at it this way, only in the last century has the divorce rate SKYROCKETED. Maybe if people realized that their marriages were about bringing forth their children and supporting those children, the divorce rate would lower. Getting married for that reason is a selfish reason. What happens when the couple “no longer feels the love”? Is the marriage over? I think not.