Making women give birth

Posted byDavid BrockertFebruary 4, 2020Posted inabortion, politics, Sen. Ron Johnson

Tags:abortion, Bible, humanitity, politics, women

I need a little help here. I am having a difficult time understanding why unborn babies are so important that women’s lives are being wasted by insisting that, if they become pregnant, must give birth to the child. If a woman would rather not, why force her? It seems to me to be inhumane, or a punishment, to do so if her social or economics or culture or medical conditions would make it more harmful than helpful. What makes life so precious to others that they are willing to sacrifice lives not their own for an ideal? If it is a punishment, what could that woman have done to deserve such a punishment?, and will it not also punish the child, unless they are adopted into a fine, loving home? I admit it is not a foregone conclusion that the mother and child will be suffering, just likely.

There is a human population explosion, ya know, so why make it worse? Even if we need ‘cannon fodder,’ there are still enough people to use that way, if it is so important. Even after the black plague, or World War 1 (including the Russian Revolution) and 2, the population was lessened for only a short time. Why concern yourself with enhancing our human population expansion? It will happen without our helping, and, seemingly, we can not hinder it.

On another related topic, birth control, this is truly, except in rare cases of a devoted & loving partner, a woman’s issue. Part of the attraction of ‘the pill,’ and other birth control devices, was that it freed women from becoming pregnant after having sex, without the cooperation of the male, while still allowing for the possibility of pregnancy when they chose. It also freed women, and their partners, from having to chose to have, or not have, an abortion. But most importantly, it gave women a reasonable chance to enjoy their sexuality. This simple issue gave the lie to many men’s (near) feminist philosophy – they are not really concerned with whether women enjoy sex, but when they should start being sexual and how often. It has forever been accepted that men have the freedom to enjoy sex, mostly whenever they want to, now women can too. EXCEPT where there are restrictions to the access of birth control. Some reasons are based on morality, some are based on age or other social conventions, and some are based on religious foundations. They all seem to me to be mostly patriarchal holdovers, or just another way to bolster the patriarchy, but this is getting into areas I do not want to discuss here – it is too complicated, and too ‘close to the bone.’ What I want to emphasize is that it has been shown that given sex education, and birth control, the pregnancy and abortion rates decline. What is more important here – protecting the morals of our females (as well as denying them enjoyment of sex), or preventing abortions?

I have not read the “ENCYCLICAL LETTER HUMANAE VITAE” that was published in 1968, so I am not basing any of this on any understanding of what it says. It is just that it sure seems to be missing the mark for what it is trying to do. It may have some pretty high ethical standards it is trying to assert, but the actual doing is not working (how many Roman Catholics use birth control? There are some devout Roman Catholics who do not use birth control, but get abortions – go figure.). I just question it’s basic assumptions. Most importantly assumes that we are put here to procreate, to make babies. Well, DUH!! That is the meaning of life, as far as I am concerned. My question is why is it so important that a woman must be forced to give birth in any condition she or the baby is or will be in? The value of life is in how it can be lived, not just that it is possible, and in some cases it is medically impossible to save the mother and/or the baby. I just find that to be inhumane. But even at a more basic level, is life so precious, animal or human, that it must be protected unequivocally. Certainly animal life is not given the consideration that human life is, why not? Are humans so special? I find that hard to accept totally, but I must say that I do enjoy bacon and eggs for breakfast, so, to a certain extent, I accept the superiority of mankind, or at least the need to sacrifice animals for our continued existence. But even so, I do not accept the absolute ownership of life not human. To me human life is not any more special than an animal’s. (A lion will eat me as soon as it would eat a deer.) What would make it so? The Bible says so? That is pretty poor logic to base such philosophy on. Might makes right? I just do not buy that argument. I am not in favor of justifying rights based on that, otherwise we would still have slaves.

We are on this pale, blue dot in the sky (a closed system), along with the rest of creation, what gives us the right to dominate and wreck such damage to the world just because there so many of us? We have the ability to adjust it some. Birth control and abortion can help.

Posted byDavid BrockertFebruary 4, 2020Posted inabortion, politics, Sen. Ron JohnsonTags:abortion, Bible, humanitity, politics, women