ihrketayhl: (Default)
[personal profile] ihrketayhl
For the curious, I love my new job. But that's not what this post is about.

Any of you who know me IRL, and a handful of those who only know me online, know that I spend a lot of my time in...let's be generous and call them "conversations"...with those who hold viewpoints that oppose mine.

Put bluntly: I like to argue. A lot.

And for the past handful of years I've felt drawn particularly to religious or religion-based arguments, possibly just because of the sociopolitical climate, or possibly because I like my debates with a healthy dose of batshit. Who knows.*

I'm Catholic, if anyone's wondering; I'm just a pro-gay marriage, pro-evolution, pro-Choice and pro-religious-freedom Catholic who doesn't believe in Hell, which according to a lot of people makes me a very BAD Catholic. XD

Anyway, there's your background. Today's topic is abortion, specifically late-term abortions. No, I'm not planning on making this a terribly long post, I just...needed to vent this at somebody.

I keep hearing from the Pro-Life segment that one of the reasons abortion, especially late-term abortion, is wrong is because God has a purpose for suffering. Today I heard an example of a man whose wife had lung cancer: he claimed it served the purpose of bringing them closer. Now, I know nothing about this man, barring what he says in these comments.

But I'm REALLY BOTHERED by the notion that just because some good comes out of the pain, it somehow JUSTIFIES the pain.

When I was a kid, that was called "looking on the bright side." Which I appreciate! I think it shows great strength of character to take a painful, horrible event, and bring something good out of it. I think people who can do that are the strongest in the world.

That said, the painful, horrible event? Still sucked. Saying that something good came out of it does not transform the event itself into a good thing.

So, to bring it back to the original topic, just because one might grow personally from the experience of watching their malformed child live a short, painful life, doesn't mean that the short, painful life of the child was a wonderful thing. (This is ignoring, even, the idea that painful things happening to others only happen to help YOU grow, an idea which kind of disgusts me.)

Sure, there are bright sides to everything. But deliberately seeking a painful experience--for yourself and for this child? Because God has a purpose for everything and you might grow from it?

I'm not sure what you call that.

(Though, after typing that out, it does occur to me that this is kind of a common theme in the Christian faith. We celebrate Christ's death on the cross. Some of us even celebrate the existence of Hell because the possibility of Hell allows us to appreciate God's love.** Perhaps we need to examine where this comes from before we can really get to the root of the issue.)

*not meant to imply all religious folks are batshit. though i'm religious and i'm pretty batshit, so make of that what you will. XD

**edit to the last *: yeah, never mind, we're batshit.

Interested in other points of view. Sharing welcome.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-06-10 07:46 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] paradoxymoron.livejournal.com
Pain, in an of itself, is not a good thing. The actions taken as a result of pain can be good: motivation to fight off an attacker, bringing the family together after a tragedy, etc.

The linked story? Euthenizing the cat was the most humane thing: the ending of life before the good was outweighed by the suffering. That's more of a right-to-die than a pro-life/pro-choice, in my opinion. Is it the most moral choice? The most ethical? Depending on your beliefs, yes.

I agree with your statement that the short painful life of the child is not a wonderful thing. (Though, if you want to argue, I can say it's a good thing.)

(no subject)

Date: 2009-06-11 04:35 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vareth-is.livejournal.com
No, I wanted other opinions--I value and respect argument, but so long as your agreement is honest and not just ass-kissing, I appreciate that as well. XD

I'm sort of hesitant to say the life of a child isn't a wonderful thing, because, like...even if the child is suffering, it's still your child, it still exists, and there's something about new life that is (IMO) inherently beautiful.

But it's sort of selfish, isn't it, to say that because YOU find something beautiful, it's okay to put that something through a lot of unnecessary pain and torment. Because you think it's beautiful, because you think it's worthwhile. It's like, well, that's great, but since the kid isn't going to live long enough to appreciate your Deep Feelings towards it, aren't you kinda just using it?

(no subject)

Date: 2009-06-11 04:48 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] paradoxymoron.livejournal.com
It is selfish. And self-serving, but sometimes something wonderful does come out of being selfish. There's a difference between causing intentional pain (Munchausen's By Proxy) versus pain due to absense of action (not performing medical work, not treating due to beliefs, etc); are either of those using the child?

One of my friends was not expected to live until her first birthday, much less graduate college and get married (which she's done), because of the extent of the congenital defects she suffered. It's possible she could have been medically aborted, had her parents believed in it (Catholic) or had it been presented (I've never asked).
So. This could have been a case of selfish It's My Baby It Will Be Wonderful during a short, painful life and an early death, but with the Miracle Of Modern Science, she's pulled through. Now, her life is fairly wonderful. Then? Not so much. But? The pain was not unessesary; in order to repair, pain was caused. Pain is still caused on a daily basis due to the nature of the work, but I wouldn't venture that it was unnessesary.

Not asskissing. :D

(no subject)

Date: 2009-06-11 05:05 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vareth-is.livejournal.com
This is very true! And this is, I think, where a lot of the (SANE, VALID) arguments stem from. You really can't know what the "right" choice will be, because you can't predict a miracle. And because the child has no voice of its own, you have to be the one to decide--are you going to risk the child having a lot of pain and potentially dying very young, or not?

I don't think either choice is inherently selfish, nor do I think pain is something that should ALWAYS be avoided, because sometimes you do need to go through it to grow, to live.

But that's the thing: it's not absolute, and neither option is necessarily more "right," if such a thing can even be quantified. Sometimes aborting the child is the most humane thing you can do, for both the mother and the child; and sometimes, even if you know it's humane, you just can't bring yourself to do it. No one knows how it could turn out or how it will turn out.

That's why they call it pro-choice, not pro-abortion. :)

(And I didn't think you were. You don't strike me as the type to asskiss. XD)

(no subject)

Date: 2009-06-11 05:10 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] paradoxymoron.livejournal.com
There are values, on a scale, of what is and is not right. Sticking a needle into a kid is generally not a good thing. Sticking a needle into a kid to inject a vaccine is a good thing. Sticking a needle into a kid to test an experimental treatment that may cure the overlaying problem but cause further complications...is...getting into the gray fuzzy area in the middle somewhere.

Some people have a definite black/white sense of right and wrong, ethics and morals. Killing a kid is always wrong, no matter if it's to save the life of the mother or to end suffering for a condition that will not improve but will only be prolonged. Other people...there's gray, there's different shades of gray, there's a different spectrum of gray.


I'm gray. :) And I can defend someone making a choice even if I do not agree with that choice (most of the time).

(no subject)

Date: 2009-06-11 05:53 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vareth-is.livejournal.com
Well, see, I'm not arguing that killing the kid is ever RIGHT.

I'm just saying that--well, that blog I linked to kinda put it best. Sometimes there isn't a right choice. Sometimes there's just a choice.

I grew up in a pro-life household, spent the majority of my life believing in the pro-life movement. The majority of my extended family is pro-life (and there are a lot of them, and I see them often). I definitely understand where that side of the fence is coming from. I've been there.

But I'm not there anymore, for damn good reasons.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-06-11 05:58 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] paradoxymoron.livejournal.com
So you're either on the fence or over on the other side; I take it this is a thought-out move, questioning that side of the equasion and then making your own decision based on your belief structure (rather than absolute rejection/rebellion)?

(no subject)

Date: 2009-06-11 08:55 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jesurgislac.livejournal.com
While I'm definitely on the pro-choice side of the fence (I can't think it's ever right for the state or for any individual to have the right to force a woman to bear a child against her will: woman have to have legal access to abortion and the government just has to trust women to use that right wisely) my post was specifically about the awful no-right-choices inherent in late-term abortions, related to what was absolutely the worst no-right-choice decision I ever had to make.

I know pet-owners - friends of mine - who would have decided differently: who would have wanted their pet to stay alive until they knew their pet definitely wanted to die. And I can't say that's the wrong or right decision either. It's an awful position to be in, knowing that you have to decide, and you are the only one who can decide, when the right time to kill has arrived. For me, the only way to go is to say that the person who is the only person who can make that decision must be given the legal right to make that decision. Sometimes they may use that right unwisely. But the consequences of taking that right away will be worse than the consequences of granting that right.

Hm. I think I need to make an update to my post...

(no subject)

Date: 2009-06-10 12:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jesurgislac.livejournal.com
Today I heard an example of a man whose wife had lung cancer: he claimed it served the purpose of bringing them closer. Now, I know nothing about this man, barring what he says in these comments.

You know, I didn't respond to David in the comments thread at my post because I thought: Regardless of what else he's saying, the guy's wife had lung cancer - I am not going to mock or bash him for how he says he/his wife coped with that.

But: This is ignoring, even, the idea that painful things happening to others only happen to help YOU grow, an idea which kind of disgusts me.

Well, yeah.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-06-11 04:22 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vareth-is.livejournal.com
*nodnod* Which was exactly my initial reaction--and actually the thing that drove me to make the post. I was bothered by him saying that and I sort of had to parse out WHY I was so bothered by it.

Also, as I am too shy to actually comment on your blog (which I check pretty often), I just wanted to say thank you. Your posts reminded me that it IS all right to get angry about injustice--that being a mature and intelligent person doesn't mean you have to lay back and take whatever abuses society is throwing at you. I needed the reminder.

And I'm sorry about your cat. I was close to mine, too, though he was the whole family's and not JUST mine. His kidneys gave out in May '06; he was only nine. ...Not that I expect you to care about Internet Stranger #27384923's cat, I just wanted to say I sort of know how it feels and it made me cry remembering.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-06-11 08:57 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jesurgislac.livejournal.com
Your posts reminded me that it IS all right to get angry about injustice--that being a mature and intelligent person doesn't mean you have to lay back and take whatever abuses society is throwing at you. I needed the reminder.

Thank you.

And I'm sorry about your cat. I was close to mine, too, though he was the whole family's and not JUST mine. His kidneys gave out in May '06; he was only nine. ...Not that I expect you to care about Internet Stranger #27384923's cat, I just wanted to say I sort of know how it feels and it made me cry remembering.

Yeah. I'm sorry. Little furry buggers, how they claw at your heart...

(no subject)

Date: 2009-06-10 03:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jibii.livejournal.com
Yes, you are a terrible catholic, but I still love you~

That's pretty much where I stand on abortion. I'm totally anti-"choice"-abortion, but fully support any woman who has to go through medical or serious mental problems. (i.e., I do think that a child conceived after rape has a right to live, but I could never bring myself to judge a woman who aborts it)

and also, justifying bad things. yyyyeah. Just no. Take it as a growing experience, but never justify them.

I have no good reason to use this icon, but it's new and shiny so it needs no justification. :T

(no subject)

Date: 2009-06-11 04:29 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vareth-is.livejournal.com
Yeah, see, I'm really not for "convenience" abortions--as in, the ONLY reason you're having the abortion is that you just don't feel like having a kid. If there is no financial reason, no emotional reason, no physical reason why you CAN'T have the kid, I think you should do it.

That said, when you really look at it? Abortions that have absolutely NO reasons other than "convenience" aren't that common. (Unless you consider birth control a form of abortion, but people like that need to go read their Bibles and stop filling the world with more of their kind.)

...It took a lot of self-control not to compare it to fandom. Seriously. (Cloud might've become a hero, but this is probably not a great comfort to the half-dead genetic experiments trolling around Nibelheim.)

(no subject)

Date: 2009-06-11 03:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jibii.livejournal.com
I think I'm a bit more strict than you, then. Because I would think it wrong for a woman to get an abortion if she couldn't be a good parent for the child (emotional or financial reasons), instead of just giving that child up for adoption. :T Because I've read up on the mental trauma many women face when they go trough with it, and I personally think that would be tougher than giving the child up.

That reminds me. You need to see linds' community, here: [livejournal.com profile] used_potoin

(no subject)

Date: 2009-06-13 09:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vareth-is.livejournal.com
Oh, nonono, I'm not saying abortion's right. I think in ANY case where adoption is also an option, the child should be put up for adoption.

But as adoption is, in many places, a difficult and complicated process, I think we need to focus on making that easier instead of just making abortions illegal. I'm not advocating abortion: I'm arguing against the prohibition of. Sorry if I didn't make that clearer.

And I'll check out the comm. After I go grab [livejournal.com profile] volwrath from work. XD

(no subject)

Date: 2009-06-13 10:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jibii.livejournal.com
Yes, I'm aaaall about making adoptions and access to contreceptives easier. Because if a women who doesn't want/can't take of a baby doesn't have one to begin with, there's no need for abortion.

But the very concept that a women can say "I don't want this baby I conceived" for no reason other than "she wants to" and go and get an abortion repulses me down to my very core. I believe that abortions for a medical (physical or mental) reason are a woman's right, but I don't believe that an abortion for any other reason is a right. I believe the right of the child to live trumps the mother's "right to chose". I also believe is fathers' rights if they want to keep the child..

I do try, however, not to judge people or tell them what they believe is wrong or right. This is just what my heart tells me.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-06-10 10:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zephyrus4096.livejournal.com
Well, what kind of morality are you talking about? Liberal morality, which respects fairness and harm-avoidance above all? Or conservative morality, which puts equal weight on fairness, harm-avoidance, tradition, authority, and purity?

Every issue is different depending on the lens with which you look at the problem. One person's right to choice and autonomy is another person's violating the sacred social order with anarchistic self-centered destruction of tradition and family structure.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-06-11 04:24 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vareth-is.livejournal.com
>>Every issue is different depending on the lens with which you look at the problem.

Which would be why I gave the background. Obviously, I am looking at it from the lens of a bad Catholic. XD If it didn't come across that I'm liberal, I'm really not writing it well, am I.

vaginas

Date: 2009-06-14 05:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] canofstag.livejournal.com
1) hello i have no idea what this post is about although im judging from a word that i saw while scrolling past the comments that it is about abortion which i believe is an irrelevant issue because i believe that all women should eat their young and absorb their life-force unless their young are gay in which case they are probably poisonous.

2) i woke up with a screaming headache this morning and an idea that i had done vaguely terrible things the night before. thus im saying for the sake of my personal amusement that cloud was really really drunk last night. which makes sense because he artistically made out with 3 1/5 different people.

a) i still didnt draw the picture although i drew half of a face and then stabbed the paper repeatedly which should count as trying

b) for some reason i wasn't tired at all last night and ended up awake in bed until 4 in the morning
at some point during this time-stretch i seriously considered writing a formal essay of why no one NO ONE wants to have sex with sephiroth and sending it to you
i) 90% of this was my realization that sephiroth is a severed head every time you see him post-nibelheim
ii) the other 10% is the capital letters U, G and H
iii) did i make up that shit about him having different scents of shampoo or is he actually gay enough to burn down a rainforest

c) yes he is the 1/5
i) no you can't see
ii) no
iii) no
iv) still no

d) the others were tifa aerith and zack im considering doing a yuffie and a barret so there will be all the date-able people also zack. all i really want to do with these pictures is irritate everyone i hate. (take the tifa one to the clerith shippers, the aerith one to the clotis and the zack one to. well. gamefaqs.)
i) I think the names clerith and cloti are both gross. clerith because it sounds stupid as hell and cloti because it looks like clitoris.
ii) speaking of vagoos, sephiroth has one

thanks for allowing me to stall for another 15 minutes or so. i would write you a thank-you note if i weren't already not writing many others.

Profile

ihrketayhl: (Default)
ihrketayhl

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
1617 1819202122
23242526272829
30      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 24th, 2017 02:34 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios