There was a day when even Planned Parenthood might have turned its back on death and destruction. But, no. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Planned Parenthood of New York City (PPNYC) responded by offering “free reproductive health care” to women affected by the world Trade Center disaster.
“[W]omen in need due to the tragic events of last week,” said PPNYC in a press statement, could receive free of cost “PPNYC services, including GYN care, birth control, emergency contraception, STD and HIV testing and counseling . . .” It did not specifically mention free abortions. However, when contacted by Population Research Institute, a PPNYC representative confirmed that any woman who had been displaced by the attack “can come in for a free termination.” (Source: Population Research Institute Weekly Briefing, September 28, 2001. PRI is a non-profit organization dedicated to debunking the myth that the world is overpopulated – http://www.pop.org)
Many families found hope and joy in the babies waiting to be born into families who grieved tremendous loss. Here was an opportunity for Planned Parenthood to see the promise of new life. But, no. The largest provider of abortions in the world stood ready to end more lives.
I don’t understand. Do you?
Ezerwoman's Blog 
So Planned Parenthood offered free health care to women who were in desperate need of it and all you can focus on is the fact that one of the numerous services they offered these poor women was abortion?
Why do you imagine that Planned Parenthood would stop offering women abortion services because of 9/11? You mention that many families found hope and joy in the babies waiting to be born. For some women a baby wouldn’t be a source of hope and joy. Maybe it would create an unbearable financial or emotional strain, or hinder her education. Maybe a pregnancy simply wouldn’t be right for her at the time. Would you force a woman to continue a pregnancy she did not want, or that endangered her health, because you think it’s right for her?
I’m a bit incredulous of your implication that Planned Parenthood embraced death and destruction. By providing health care for these women, a service that I do not see offered by those who call themselves pro-life, Planned Parenthood was protecting life. Not just the “lives” of unborn fetuses, but the lives of actual women. The women that “pro-lifers” don’t seem to care much about nowadays.
Thank you, Melissa, for taking the time to respond. One of the blessings about living in this country is that two people can have opposing worldviews and perspectives yet “converse” in a kind way. If you have a couple of extra moments, please read the post that preceded this one. I don’t say what I say about Planned Parenthood without research, careful study, and long experience with women who have said good-bye to their children at Planned Parenthood.
Twenty-five of my friends, relatives, or acquaintances have had abortions. Every one of them regrets their choice. Now is not the time to detail the ways abortion changed the way they see themselves or affected their relationships, but suffice it to say they have all asked that I tenderly share their stories with every young woman I visit with who might be considering abortion. Abortion, these women remind me, is an act of desperation in a very lonely, confused, frightening, or “between a rock and a hard place” time in their lives.
It is for this reason, Melissa, that I have spent the last 30 years doing more than just warning about abortion. I co-founded a caring pregnancy center where we mentor and care for girls and women before, during, and after their pregnancies. We are their advocates when no one else will listen or understand. I also co-founded Word of Hope, a ministry to women who’ve had abortions. I wish you could visit with Grace Kern, our executive director, who has given a great deal of her life to teens, prostitutes, women serving time in prison, professional women, and everyday wives and moms who’ve found themselves in difficult circumstances, with unplanned pregnancies, or grieving abortion choices.
I don’t know the “pro-life” people you’ve described, Melissa. The “pro-life” people with whom I serve are selfless, sensitive, and respectfully involved men and women who believe that God creates each precious life. No baby takes Him by surprise. His love and mercy is big enough for both mother and child.
Planned Parenthood is a business, a self-perpetuating institution. I am a person who doesn’t just greet someone at my door, “fix them up,” and send them on their way. What you get with me is a friend and encourager even in the muck and mire of life’s challenging journey. If you ever want a listening ear, Melissa… a shoulder to lean on, a respecter of your personhood, feel free to call 888-217-8679 and visit with Grace or ask for me.
Hi Linda,
I actually did read your previous post. I am a bit confused by how the picture you’re painting here, one of accepting, caring people, meshes with the homophobic and misleading statements you made previously. Your post implies that you think being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or trans is wrong. People are born that way. Why should anyone be denied education and protection based upon sexual preferences? Furthermore, why would you lie and say that abortion is linked with breast cancer? Why would you lie and claim that Planned Parenthood practices eugenics? You’re using misinformation as a scare tactic.
Why wouldn’t you want sexual education in schools? Teenagers will have sex. Planned Parenthood isn’t teaching us how. Biology and the internet have that very well covered. Planned Parenthood is teaching teenagers that we deserve healthy, safe relationships. That if we have sex, we need to use protection. Planned Parenthood is keeping me safe, while naive religious institutions try and fail to push abstinence.
I’d also like to address the center you’ve described. It sounds like a crisis pregnancy center. I’d like to imagine that your center allows women to explore their options and cares for them, rather than heavily pressuring women to carry an unwanted pregnancy, scaring them with the lies you presented as facts in previous posts. I’d like to imagine that your center is not like the other ones, not posing as a clinic and then harassing women with false information and slut-shaming. But with the “information” you’re providing me with, I have a sinking feeling that that’s exactly who you are.
As for your 25 friends who have had abortions and regret it, I’m sorry. But it’s likely that you also have friends who have had abortions and not felt regret, and didn’t tell you fearing judgement. You probably have friends who went through with a pregnancy and regret having children. Just because this is your personal experience doesn’t mean that it’s everyone’s personal experience.
Thank you for your number, but I won’t be calling you.
Melissa…
Perhaps I am wrong, but I sense pain in your words. Have you been disrespected, betrayed, or hurt? If you have, there is all the more reason for me to continue our conversation.
Not knowing me, you are bold to call me a liar. I try very hard not to lie. I don’t like the consequences of lying. So, before I commit to a belief, I try to become familiar with the source.
You and I obviously have different sources of information. Is it possible that your sources are less than honest or protective of a particular ideology?
I’m old enough to know that my personal feelings and opinions count for little. Feelings are fickle and opinions blow with the wind. I better serve others when I speak only what God speaks. That being said, I gather you don’t have much faith in religious institutions. I can’t say I blame you. The institutional church disappoints me. But, nearly every day, I see individual Christians making a positive difference in the lives of others because God’s Word made a difference in theirs.
Here is my solid ground: I believe God created male and female to be equal, but different. I believe that my identity (and yours) is a creation of God and treasure of Jesus Christ. This identity does not change with the circumstances (looks, age, success) of life. It remains constant. Believing in the God who created me and the Savior who rescued me from my sinful nature gives me a foundation upon which to stand. Taking my faith seriously equips me to resist bigotry and racism. Why? Because we are all created, redeemed, loved, valued, and served by God. There’s only one thing that separates us from the God who loves us: our own sinful behavior and choices.
You’re right, for example, when you say homosexuals are born that way. They are born with sin in them, just as I was born with sin in me. But, my choice is to live in that sin or fight it; to do things that my body wasn’t made to do, or be on guard against harming myself or others; to be the master of my own life and claim my choices as my “rights,” or to trust that God has a better and more hopeful plan for me.
Melissa, would you humor me a little by checking out some credible resources? Please read Unprotected by Miriam Grossman, M.D. Or, google her website. Dr. Grossman is a campus psychiatrist who has witnessed first-hand the failures of politically-correct, Planned Parenthood-style “health care.” Please google Meg Meeker, M.D. or Joe McIlhaney, M.D.
As for abortion and breast cancer, please google Dr. Joel Brind, Professor of Human Biology and Endocrinology at Baruch College in New York and president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute in Poughkeepsie, NY. Or, watch a video at http://www.lifeissues.org/AbortionBreastCancer/komen/index.htm
Melissa, what if your sources are wrong? What if mine are right? What happens, Melissa, if you or I become “inconvenient?” “Unwanted?” “Financially draining?” Will the babyboomer generation that ushered in legalized abortion be ushered out by legalized euthanasia?
There is no joy for me in a hopelessly uncreative Planned Parenthood that believes we can solve human problems by doing away with the humans. I would rather risk time, energy, and reputation figuring out ways to serve both the born and unborn; both the “convenient” and “not so convenient.”
My promise to receive your call still holds.
Hey again Linda,
No pain in my words actually. I’m a little pissed off that there are so many people out there spreading lies about an institution that helps women though. Thanks for asking.
I’m sorry to have called you a liar. If you weren’t aware that your information is incorrect, then you were misinformed, not lying. Here’s a (credible) link that might help you learn more about breast cancer being falsely linked to abortion: http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/MoreInformation/is-abortion-linked-to-breast-cancer
Calling homosexuality a sin is homophobic, and no true, loving God would promote hatred against someone based on how he or she created them. Your slippery slope argument that abortion acceptance will lead to euthanasia is just… silly. And alarmist. I could just as easily say that not allowing abortion will lead to the church completely ruling the entire world! That would be just as unfounded, but just as strong an argument as yours.
Thanks for the promise to receive my call. Still not calling though. I’m probably not going to respond to this post anymore, I can only handle so much anti-choice bull in one day.
That’s the thing, Melissa. A true, loving God would not, could not, create a person to be homosexual. What a cruel God He would be if He did! Would He think it funny that body parts don’t fit? Would He dunk biscotti in His coffee as He watched the health of men deteriorate and the hearts of women grow cold?
The God of creation made Adam and Eve perfectly. He is a God of reciprocal love; therefore, not forcing His creation to be in a relationship with Him, He gave man and woman a choice: a way that leads to life or a way that leads to death. They used their choice to fall into sin. It wasn’t until after sin entered the world that pimples, selfishness, deceit, adultery, “unwanted children,” and weaknesses for all manner of harmful behavior — including unnatural sex, came to be.
I’ll be honest. I would not feel safe in the arms of an “anything goes” God. I would not find contentment in a God who leaves me to my whims and does not warn me against danger. The human body is a fascinating work of art and scientifically astounding. The God I know would not create such a masterpiece and then set it on a course of abuse. Sin (our wrong choices) causes the dysfunction, the broken hearts, the pain, the struggles, the ugliness. We might deny sinfulness, but that is like denying gravity. The consequences show themselves everyday. Jesus Christ died on a Cross for only one reason: our sin (our wrong choices) alienated us from the God who made us. We could never hope to be good enough to earn our way back to harmony with God and eternal life someday in His presence. We (I) needed a Savior.
To think otherwise cheapens the mercy and sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
So, Melissa, you and I really differ in only one way. We apparently believe in two very different Gods.
Melissa-
I always enjoy hearing what other people have to think and say, so I found your comments interesting. I was a bit confused by some of the things you said, so….if I may, I’d like to ask a few questions?
You mention, in your first response, that a baby can create emotional, financial, or “not the right time” problems for the parents…..and that therefore the option of ending the pregnancy should be available. As the parent of 3 young children, I can tell you firsthand that having babies frequently creates moments of emotional, financial, and “not the right time” issues for my wife and I. I think you would agree with me in saying that I do not have the right to end my children’s lives, however, because they are problematic for me…correct? (I do not want to assume, so please correct me if my assumption is wrong.) This brings me to my question. If it is not okay for me to end the life of my child when they are at a “post-birth” stage, then at what stage IS it okay to end its life? And a natural follow-up question to that is “Once you’ve determined the ‘stage of growth’ where it’s acceptable to end the progress of the growth, what is the factor that you use to determine that?” (Or, another way to put it would be “How do you know that it’s okay to end the growth of the baby at that stage?”)
The reason that I ask these questions is because we all know that when a child is conceived that, if nothing is done to alter the pregnancy (and there is no miscarriage)…in 9 months…..you will have a little crying baby in your arms. We all understand this. In fact, this is….the vast majority of the time….the only reason that abortions happen. As you have pointed out, the “problems” and “issues” that come with that crying baby 9 months from now are the reasons that people go and get the abortion now. This brings me to the reason for asking my questions above. If we understand that this ‘fetus,’ at minimum, will BECOME a life in 9 months (you use the term “lives” in your comments, so I assume that you don’t believe it’s a ‘life’ while in utero?), then on what are you basing your decision of when something is (or becomes) a ‘life?’ What is your definition of ‘life?’
In another of your comments you say, “Why would you lie and say that abortion is linked with breast cancer?” I assume, by that comment, that you believe lying to be wrong? My question here is two-fold. First, “Why is lying wrong?” and second, “How do you know lying is wrong?”
You also state that “people are born that way” and therefore should not be denied education or protection regarding the way they are. Again, this brings two questions to my mind. First, “Why should they not be denied education and protection?” and second, “Do we apply the ‘people are born that way’ belief to ALL types of behaviors?” (I think of the people who are genetically pre-disposed to alcoholism, or violence, or rape. Do they get the same treatment as homosexuals?)
You say that, “Calling homosexuality a sin is homophobic, and no true, loving God would promote hatred against someone…”. I know I’m asking a lot of questions, but again, I am confused…so please bear with me! My questions are “Why is homophobia wrong?”, “What do you mean by ‘true, loving God’?” and “Why is hatred wrong?” (also, “What do you mean by ‘wrong?’)
Lastly, I note that EzerWoman offered her number to you so that you could discuss this topic over the phone, I presume. However, you turn her offer down on more than one occasion. I am curious as to why you would not pursue the opportunity given to you to discuss this matter. To “close the door” and “cover our ears” (regarding any issue) does not seem to make sense to me.
I eagerly await your response.
Take care-
Jon
Hey Jon,
Thanks for all of the questions! I’m glad that we’re all being able to discuss this topic so thoroughly (Also, hello again Linda! I agree, it seems as though it’s our thoughts on religion that have led to our differing opinions. Thank you for so eloquently expressing your views, I appreciate the time you took in addressing this topic.) Sorry if this this seems rushed, I have to leave for class in ten minutes.
So to your first question, I would say that a living, breathing child has a consciousness whereas a fetus does not. Children have memories and emotions, children have lived. Until there is a mature nervous system a fetus is not self-aware. Murdering a living child is very different from terminating a pregnancy. There’s a lot of debate about what point abortions should be performed until. I think that the point of viability (when a fetus could live outside of the womb) may be a good cut off. However, I realize that if a woman is seeking an abortion after this point, it’s because her health is seriously endangered or her child has developmental problems that would mean immediate (or near immediate) death outside of the womb. I don’t think that women should be forced to give birth to a child only to watch him/her die minutes later.
I would say that lying is not always wrong (white lies get a lot of flack, but sometimes I think we should be able to pretend to like our Mom’s cooking!). I think that in this case lying is wrong because the statement that “abortions cause breast cancer” intentionally misleads women in a way that can negatively affect their personal health. Statements such as this are scare tactics. Lies that affect our personal health in order to protect someone else’s ideology do not protect life, they do harm to it.
We do not have the right to deny education and sexual protection based on sexual orientation because discrimination unfairly keeps minorities at a disadvantage. I wouldn’t deny a straight man or woman knowledge about contraceptives or sexual health, why would it be fair to do the same to someone who is gay? Your next question is all about consent. Two men or two women are able to consent to having sex with one another. Rapists and abusers do not gain consent. They inflict harm upon another person who is unwilling. I would say that alcoholism is definitely largely based in genetics, and that they should be helped if they seek help or if their alcoholism is negatively affecting the health of others (which in this case is usually emotional or physical abuse, which is once again an issue of consent).
By true, loving God I mean the idea that God loves the people he has created. It seems to me as though the majority of Christians (I’m specifically speaking about the Christian idea of God as I think that is what we are addressing here) agree that God loves us no matter what we have done, so long as we accept him into our hearts. To be fair, this is open to a lot of interpretation, and everyone has their own personal views upon religion. So this is an area in which I fewer opinions. What I specifically am against is when people use their religion as a tool to say that the behavior of others is wrong, because God disapproves, not because it inflicts harm upon others. I think that we should be able to respect the fact that not everyone believes in God, and even if we think that certain behavior is wrong because of what our God teaches us, we cannot force these beliefs on others.
For your last question, I frequently encounter people who would seek to limit our ability to control our own bodies. If I speak via telephone to every person who expresses this viewpoint then I really just wouldn’t have time for anything else. I would say that the claim that I’m covering my ears is unfair, as I have read and responded to Linda’s post and subsequent comments as well as your own. Furthermore in my general experience (which may not apply in this case, but I feel that it does) an in person/phone discussion about abortion usually turns to the “pro-life” member preaching God’s word and trying to convert my slutty, slutty, godless ways. And that gets very tiring.
Take care as well! Thanks for the thoughtful questions.
-Melissa
Hi Melissa!
You may choose — or not choose — to respond, but there are a couple of things I’m hoping you’ll ponder. As an artist, you appreciate the human body. Actually, your blog suggests that you delight in the freedom of showing and discussing that body. Think of it! Did it come to be by accident? Did it evolve from tree frogs or slithering snakes? Think of the way each organ works in compatibility with another. Think, for example, of the unique ability of woman to bear a child. A woman physician friend of mine told me years ago that birth is a pure and simple miracle. The fact that every baby is not automatically aborted by the mother — rejected as foreign tissue much like a kidney transplant — is a miracle. Why? Because the baby is indeed foreign tissue. It is not part of the mother’s body. He or she has his or her blood coursing through his or her body; one-of-a-kind fingerprints; and — of course, gender! I was pregnant with two boys. Obviously, they were not just an extension of my body. They were male, I female. Think of the way one particular egg is fertilized by one particular male sperm that makes its way — racing past all the others — to join. Think of the little hairs in the fallopian tubes that don’t randomly push one way, then the other. No! They all work in a synchronized fashion, not unlike the “wave” people do at a stadium event.
Now, Melissa, think of the physicians who, knowing about the development of this tiniest of all people growing in the womb. As biologists, they know when the heart begins beating (about 18 days), when babies dream, when they can feel pain (and there’s solid research that they do), and how they can hear mom or respond to certain kinds of music — think of what they are repressing… day after day… as they pull, rip, cut, and tear the baby’s arms, legs, and head from what is the safest and most protected places, their first “home”: their mother’s womb.
Melissa, you are a fiesty, ready-to-engage, and therefore I assume open-minded young woman. You are ready to take on the world — on behalf of women. Do, this, my friend with eyes open. Don’t let yourself be swayed away from truth, the facts, and lived experiences by real women. Challenge yourself to be as open with me as you are with the Planned Parenthood folks who want to shape you into their mold. I have nothing personal to gain by visiting with you, asking you to consider other perspectives, or encouraging you. But, I am compelled to be honest with you, to warn you away from danger. If you believe in the value, strength, and beauty of women, then please hear me as a woman older than you who has journeyed through the valley of lies, deceit, power struggles, selfishness, and fickle feelings to see that some choices we make hurt — ourselves and others.
You speak of women having the right to control their own bodies. YES! And that they should! I am reminded of the woman who said, “Ohhhh. He made me feel so good. One thing led to another. I couldn’t stop myself. There was no controlling the moment.” Then, after discovering she was pregnant, she says, “Now, I must take control of my life and have an abortion.” Frankly, I’m very weary of this “game” that women play. In the 50s, with the birth control pill, women were told the “playing field” was now truly “equal” between men and women. But, if you consider how a woman’s body is designed, how perfectly it was made to bear a child… and that no man can compete in this area… well, what is she doing to herself with that abortion that not only stops a beating heart, but wounds her very being and soul?
I challenge you, Melissa, to stand your ground as an independent thinker. Don’t be caught up in the power play of Planned Parenthood. They are a business. A business that must have money to survive. They are self-perpetuating — handing out the condoms, and pills and devices so that girls/women can supposedly do with their bodies what God has cautioned us not to do (yet) and then welcoming these very same girls/women who contracted one of multiple STDS or became pregnant. As Dr. Miriam Grossman reveals in her short, but powerful book, a woman’s body — by its very anatomical structure — is far more susceptible to diseases than a man’s. Do those who hand out contraceptives explain that? Do they explain that, with RU 486, a woman goes through not an easy, but physically and emotionally grueling experience, often delivering a dead baby at home — alone? I know, I know. Your beloved PP will have an answer for this, but if they do, then please back away a moment. Please, Melissa, challenge yourself to listen to some other voices. The voices of former abortionists (many strong feminists in their early days) such as Carol Everett, Dr. Beverly McMillan, Dr. Patti Giebink, Abby Johnson, Judith Feltrow, Kathy Sparks, Dr. David Brewer, Dr. Anthony Levatino, Dr. Mcarther Hill, Dr. Joseph Randall, Stojan Adasevic, and Dr. John Bruchalski. Learn why Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the founder of NARAL, left the business.
And, Melissa, please ask yourself: Who really is respected, safe, and protected in a world that says: My rights are more important than yours? My life is more valuable than yours? A woman is an amazing creature. She can influence men and impact society. But, how will she best do this? How will she have a generational effect — influencing civilization for years to come? By having the courage and vision to love her neighbor — even her tiniest neighbor — as much as herself.
There’s too much death, Melissa. Too much. Death is hopeless. Uncreative. Cold. As a woman, I believe in something more hopeful. For this reason, caring pregnancy centers like mine exist. With no tax dollars, federal funding, or grant monies, we roll up our sleeves to work hard to put ourselves out of work by mentoring girls, boys, women and men to practice self-control, self-restraint, selflessness, and mercy rather than sacrifice. God asks no one to end another life in order to benefit their own.
Would you, in a quiet moment, take a look at http://www.truthTV.org This web site from Ireland says something very different from PP.
Hanging in there with you, Melissa. For all the right reasons!
Linda
Melissa-
I must say that I very much respect and admire the fact that you are willing to take the time and energy to think about and respond to these issues. I think that many young people tend to be content to just “go with the flow” and avoid “getting involved” with the world around them.
Having said that, I feel–after reading your responses–that I am still scratching my head a little bit. You will have to bear with me on this, but I am not sure that what you are saying makes sense to me.
What I observe is this. It seems to me that what Ezerwoman is saying is quite consistent with what she proposes to believe in. I am not saying that she necessarily lives by those standards perfectly…or even very well at all…..simply that what she is saying on her blog IS very much in-line with the worldview and belief that she claims to base it on…….in her case that 1)there is a God, 2)that He has given us a book (the Bible) that tells us the ideas/rules/laws/practices that are best for us, and 3)that this God cares very much about what we do. Now…you or I (or anyone else) may or may not agree with what Ezerwoman believes….but, at the very least, we must admit that what she is saying on her blog is (according to her belief system) what she should be saying. In her worldview, she is called to speak out against things that the Bible (and God) say are bad. In this case it is abortion. It could also be homosexuality, or good and evil, or whatever the topic might be.
On the other hand, and please do not take this in a demeaning or condescending way, it seems to me that the things you are stating are not in-line with the worldview (or belief system) that you propose to live by. I realize I am going out on a limb here because I do not know you personally and I do not know the “ins and outs” of your mind. I can simply go by what you’ve said in your responses…and by what you say on your blog. Again, please bear with me in my observations………..
You say that something isn’t a “life” unless it is viable on its own….and that it needs to have memories, etc. in order to “count” as a “life.” The trouble, as I see it, with that view is that there are MANY people who don’t fall into that category that are on the other end of the age spectrum…..the older people of our culture. People with Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, or other similar issues are people who do not have memories, who are not able to survive on their own, and who are not viable without outside assistance. I have a neighbor down the road who is in just that circumstance. According to what you say, it seems that these people are not to be considered ‘life’ anymore, correct? I think of the countless people who are in nursing homes, hospice care, or who are completely dependent on others for their survival (mentally/physically handicapped, severe Autism, mental disorders, etc.). Are we going to say that these people do not have value as human life anymore? (I believe this is why Ezerwoman makes the connection between abortion and “end-of-life” issues/euthanasia…because the “qualifications” needed to count as life on the ‘fetus’ end must also be applied to the ‘old person’ end, too. If we go down the slippery slope of creating a point at which something is or isn’t life (which you attempt to do with your “point of viability being a good cut off” statement) then we must also apply the same qualifications to the end stages of life, too.)
In regard to the ‘lying’ comments….I hear what you are saying as far as telling your Mom you like her cooking! But I find myself asking, “Why do you want to tell your Mom that you like her cooking…even if you don’t?” What is the foundational reason that you do that? In that same paragraph you say that ‘intentionally misleading someone’ is not a good thing….and I guess that circles back to my original question. “Why is it wrong to intentionally mislead someone?” What is the standard that is being applied there? You see, what happens is that the person doing the lying becomes the judge of whether it’s okay to lie or not. In the case of you telling your Mom about her cooking, you have judged that telling a “white lie” to your Mom is worth it because you don’t want to hurt her feelings. (Again, I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I assume that’s why you do that!) Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that your Mother is offended that you don’t just come out and tell her the truth. In that case, she would be judging that the ‘white lie’ was NOT an okay thing to do. So, the dilemma is still there. You would say it was okay to ‘white lie,’ she would say it was not. Who is correct? (Again, I realize that this may not be the case in your exact situation, but I think you get my point.)
The trouble with you saying that ‘intentionally misleading’ someone is wrong is 1)”Why is intentionally misleading someone wrong?” and 2) Who decides that question…the person doing the misleading, or the person being misled? It is likely that each person will have their own opinion so we must have some sort of ‘standard’ by which to “make that call,” right?
This same problem comes up with the whole “consent” issue in the next paragraph. “Two consenting people should be able to do what they want as long as no harm is done to other people” is basically what you are saying, I think? As before, I see some big holes in this way of thinking. First, can two consenting people do ANYTHING they want as long as they don’t harm anyone? Would it be okay for a father and his daughter to have sex…if they both consented? How about a mother and her son…or two sisters or two brothers? Would we also say those relationships would be acceptable? The other problem I see with the “not harming anyone else” rationale is the same as the ‘misleading statements’ comment. How do we decide if harm is being done….and who decides it? Does the person being harmed decide, or the person doing the harming?
We can see this play out directly in your responses to Ezerwoman. Ezerwoman obviously believes that abortion causes harm to other people and should therefore be stopped. You believe that it does not harm other people. The laws of exclusivity state that the both of you cannot be right at the same time….either abortion DOES harm a life, or it DOES NOT harm a life. It is either one or the other. Who is to determine if harm is being done…the ‘harmer’ or the ‘harmee?’ If think I’m helping my friend by doing a particular thing, but he does not think it is helpful, then how do we decide if it is harmful or not?
In the following paragraph, you state that “even if we believe that a certain behavior is wrong because of what our God teaches us, we should not force those beliefs on others.” As before, I find this way of thinking to be un-satisfying to a consistent way of living. What do I mean? Let’s think of the Muslim worldview. Under the Sharia law of the Muslim worldview, a woman has 1/2 the value of a man, must cover her body and head, and must be stoned to death if she commits adultery. Under the Jihadist Muslim view, crashing airplanes into buildings is an honorable and God-pleasing thing to do. According to your view, if I’m not mistaken, we should “leave alone” and do nothing about how those women are treated or about the victims of the terrorists because “who are we to force our beliefs on others?” I believe women are as valuable as men, but the pure Koran follower does not. Who am I to make an attempt to stand up for the Muslim women, right? That is what they believe and I should do nothing about it! This can be played out in many social circumstances. Back to the rapist example. You say that raping someone is wrong because it does not have the consent of the person being raped. But, if you have a worldview that says that women aren’t worth as much as men, then you will have no problem raping a women because your rights are more important than hers……and who would we be to judge that man or attempt to force our beliefs (that woman have value) on him? What would give us that right? Again, we come to the exclusivity factor of things. Either women are equal to men, or they are not. Both can’t be right at the same time. Either lying is wrong, or it is not. Both can’t be right at the same time. Either homosexual sex is wrong, or it is not. Either there is a God, or there is not. We cannot have our cake and eat it, too. We must draw that line somewhere and stick with it….we can’t move it around as we see fit.
Lastly, the idea that no-one should limit what we can do with our own bodies. I very much understand (I think) what you are getting at…but, the older I’ve gotten the more I realize that this is, once again, a philosophy with many holes in it. Our world surrounds us with rules, regulations, and codes of conduct. Some may be good for us, some may not….but to say that we can do what we want is just not accurate. We have speed limit signs, red lights at intersections, rules about borrowing money, manners about not hitting people when we don’t agree with them, etc. We are very much ‘limited,’ if you will, in what we can do….and for good reason. For your own situation as a student I immediately think of your teachers and the classes that you take. In math, reading, chemistry…whatever the class might be……you are graded by your teacher on whether or not you understand the concepts being taught to you. If you grasp them well then you get an “A,” if not, then you get a “C” or “D.” For you to say, “Hey, I can do what I want with my own body and, in my world, 2+2 will equal 5!” isn’t going to cut it with the teacher. You and I don’t have the freedom to make up whatever math, chemistry, or reading rules that we want to. There are rules and limits that must be followed, right?
This comes to mind even more so when I think about the natural laws of our world. Gravity is a great example. Gravity is there, always acting on us….whether or not we like it. We can choose to say, “You know, gravity is a crock! I’m not going to believe in it!” True, you and I are entitled to think that if we want, but when we jump off the Grand Canyon gravity will most definitly act on us and kill us! It doesn’t care whether or not we agree with it! As teenagers, we all have that tendency to think in terms of “invincibility” to some degree….that we can do anything and won’t get hurt and will recover from any mistake that we make. (I remember that time well!) BUT, when a teenager gets into a car accident and is thrown across the highway to their death, the laws of physics are going to act on that teenager’s body whether he thinks he’s invincible or not! Those laws don’t care about our opinion of them! I have found the same to be true for our moral and ethical laws….they are there whether we like them or not. We must be willing to call it as it is……and that may mean acknowledging some things that we don’t want to acknowledge.
Melissa…I must say again how good it is to have this dialogue with you. I hope that you can bear with my long-winded writing and questions. I also hope that our discussions can continue to be productive.
Have a good weekend.
All the best
Jon
Melissa-
If I may, I would like to clarify the whole “two people consenting” idea. To say that as long as two people consent to do something (be it sex, or whatever), and as long as no one is harmed by it…..then it should be ok——-is a short-sighted view, I believe. Simply because two people consent to do something does not mean that it might not still be harmful….to others, or even themselves.
A simplistic example would be two people consenting to go canoeing down the river….not knowing that there is a waterfall ahead that will plummet them to their deaths. If I am standing on the bank of the river, and I know that the waterfall lies ahead, am I being “right” to simply wave and smile at them as they go by? Wouldn’t the “right” thing be for me to tell them “Hey, you are going to die if you keep going down this path…get out of the river!” For me to say, “Well, hey, they have consented to do this….who am I to intervene?” would be for me to be an accomplice to their deaths.
Point is, two people consenting does not necessarily make something okay. The two “consentors” can bring harm to themselves, as well. There are many other examples of this….I just wanted to clarify. Hope that all makes sense.
Thanks again
Jon
Linda, I’m going to make this quick. After this, I really will not have time to engage you anymore. I have classes and clubs, and sometimes college kids like to sleep! Thank you for respectfully responding to my arguments and questions.
We have different beliefs on when true life begins, and on what role God plays in our lives. I think that I’ve been keeping my mind open to opposing viewpoints. What I’d really like to know is if you are open to new ideas, and to information that proves that what you believe may actually be wrong. Now that you know that abortions do not lead to breast cancer (Credible sources:
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/MoreInformation/is-abortion-linked-to-breast-cancer
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage
http://www.cancercommunity.info/case-studies/abortion-does-not-cause-breast-cancer/
http://reproductiverights.org/en/document/yet-another-anti-abortion-scare-tactic-false-claims-of-breast-cancer-risk)
I wonder if you’ll still use that “information” to coerce women into carrying through with pregnancy.
Hey again Jon, this will also be my last response to your questions. Thanks for listening and being so respectful. I’m not trying to stop productive discussion, I just can’t engage with everyone all of the time. I mean this as no offense to yourself.
To be honest, I think that you feel as though I’m inconsistent with my world views because you want me to be. You’re viewing my points much more critically than Ezerwoman’s because you already agree with her. No matter what I write here, no matter how strong the facts I present, I feel as though you will still side with Ezerwoman. Please don’t ignore faults in Ezerwoman’s logic simply because she’s “on your side” and strongly fault my logic because I’m not.
Euthanasia and abortion are not comparable because fetuses have not “lived”. A fetus has never had consciousness while someone who is old has. Simple and straightforward. Trying to relate the two is really just an attempt to tug at our heartstrings. Someone who is old does not suddenly lack a nervous system or all memories or thoughts. A fetus often does. By creating these false comparisons we’re not really focusing on abortion, it’s simplifying and romanticizing the issue until it suits you.
The holes you see in my points about consent are easily resolved. A child can never consent to having sex with their own parent. No matter the ages of the two parties, there’s a power dynamic at play which puts the child at a severe emotional disadvantage. A 30 year old woman can’t consent to a relationship with her 54 year old father. An 18 year old son can’t consent to a relationship with his 30 year old mother.
Your next argument again ignores what I have said about harm and consent. Extremist views that harm women, harm women. Again, pretty simple. It seems as though you’re arguing with me about something we agree on 😀
Your point about the rapist’s worldview is something you have constructed on your own, saying that our worldviews have to line up with every point we make (and it seems as though you are are acting as the judge of this), and for some reason that makes it acceptable. This is not what I have said. Rape is, once again, about consent and harm.
I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say with the bodily autonomy is equated to lack of agreement with math and physics. I don’t think that I can create a clear argument about this, because, well. It doesn’t make any sense at all in relation to what we’ve been talking about. Maybe you’re saying that since I can decide what to do with my uterus I think that I can decide what to do with the laws of physics? The problem being that my uterus is my uterus and the laws of physics are not trying to take away my right to choice.
I hope that this is helpful! Once again, kind of rushed. I’m working on an animation due on Monday and I’m probably not going to sleep all weekend.
Good luck with everything, I wish you both well.
-Melissa
Melissa…
You have things to do. So do I. My points will be brief:
1) There is one woman that doesn’t have a voice. She’s the preborn girl in her mom’s womb who needs someone to be her advocate. Her name to you is “fetus.” That’s what you’ve been taught to call her. But, did you know that “fetus” in Latin means “young one?”
2) This “young one,” — quite possibly a girl child, did not ask to be born. No one consulted with her nor did she consent — to anything. The act of sex is procreative. Seems rather selfish to me for a man and a woman to “fool around,” do whatever “gives pleasure,” but then (because of inconvenience) do away with their “love” child.
3) Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony and Mary Wood-Allen, M.D., were all early suffragettes. They started the original feminist movement with the simple request to be treated as persons and respected as equals. But, they never turned on the youngest of all women — the preborn girl in the womb. They knew it was the ultimate abuse, worse than the irresponsible behavior of a man. If you wish, visit Feminists for Life.org 🙂
4) I’ve been traveling the country meeting with women of all ages and all backgrounds for longer than you’ve been alive, Melissa. I have yet to meet a woman who wanted an abortion. Rather, said one pro-life feminist, a woman wants an abortion like an animal in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg. Another woman tried to make her choice a “religious” one, calling her abortion “the sacrifice” she felt she “had to make”. I’ll tell you what, Melissa. My God demands no such sacrifice. Instead, He asks that I have mercy on “the least of these” as He had mercy on me in Jesus.
Hope your animation is all you hope it will be… and that you get some sleep!
Ezerwoman
Melissa-
Do not feel that you will be offending me by ending this discussion. As you aptly point out, time is limited….and it would be impossible to respond to and discuss every person on every topic. Focusing on your studies is the job you need to do at this point in your life. (And have some fun, too!)
The reality is that we could give eachother countless paragraphs of information, “facts,” and ideas. Whether those pieces of information, “facts,” and ideas are correct or not would only be one part of the discussion. Where the real ‘rubber meets the road’ is when we each…on our own time….in our own thoughts……and at our own speed…..come to the realizations that we come to. No one can ‘push’ someone to any realization. As the old saying goes, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.” (No, I’m not saying you’re a horse!)
So, I hope you take the comments and thoughts that have come from these discussions and can find use for them….if not now, then maybe later in life? Maybe it will make more sense then? Maybe not?
I will simply leave it at this: If we are all honest with ourselves, we will notice that when we talk, discuss, and think about things (be it the topics we’re talking about here, or any topic in general) that we are always appealing to some set of “standards” or “rules.” “Consent can’t occur when there is a power dynamic at play.” “Extremist views that harm women…harm women.” “Fetuses have not ‘lived.'” Any statement that you or I or Ezerwoman makes is based—at the very least—on some set of ideas or “rules for proper living,” if you will. The question we must all ask ourselves…the question you must ask yourself, Melissa…..is “Where is my set of “operating rules” coming from….and will it stand up to the test of time?”
I do not mean that comment in a condescending way….please understand that. It is simply a comment that we must all respond to at some point in our lives….if we want to be honest with ourselves.
You are at a very important stage in your life. Many of the decisions you make in the next 5 years will affect what happens for the rest of your life……job, spouse, family, money, worldview, etc. (Not to say that you won’t make mistakes…..we all have….and we will all make more.) Just make sure that the paths you take now hold a hopeful future at the end of them, and that they don’t lead off into “dangerous territory.” (I know, I know…..I sound preachy! I’m a parent, I can’t help it!)
I wish you well in your endeavors. If you ever feel the need to discuss or ask questions in the future, I’m sure you will be able to locate this place again!
Take care, Melissa Huang-
Jon
Hey all!
I hope that I am not too late in the conversation to add something. I know everyone is busy, so I have just one point to propose. I noticed everyone was very focused on the question of: “At what point does a ‘fetus’ ‘live’?” I abhor this question because you can go into all sorts of scientific evidence, philosophical opinions, and data until you want to scream. I feel as if we have missed the point. It isn’t WHEN the child LIVES. It is what will that child BE. I don’t know about you but I would be pretty desolated if Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Jefferson was aborted as a ‘fetus’. I think that abortion is depriving every unborn ‘fetus’ of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is just my own personal opinion, and I know it doesn’t count for much, but I think that even though the child cannot live on its own without its mother in utero, or even speak out for itself it still has a right to eventually live. Who are we so silence future leaders, inventors, and mathematicians? Who speaks up for these voices that are not able to speak (as of yet) for themselves? I know, Melissa, that you are very adamant about the rights of women, and I am right there with you… I want to grow up and make a difference. Here are the harsh facts: 115,000 children are aborted each day around the world, which approximately equals 42 million per year (just to bring this into perspective 6 million Jews were killed in WW2 which lasted 6 years). I only wonder…what if one of them would have grown up to make a difference as well? All we talk about are the mother’s rights to do whatever she wants with her body, but we don’t talk about the future citizen’s right to life. It doesn’t matter if it IS alive, it still has the right to eventually live (if you don’t believe that it is alive in utero). Well thanks for hearing me out… 🙂
Susan
Perhaps we have murdered the person who would have cured cancer.