HaloScan.com - Comments

The Dawn Patrol: Comments

What a great perspective on our tragic destruction of handicapped unborn children!
Bravo!
Tim | Homepage | 10.05.06 - 1:39 am | #

amen!

they are blessed to have you as their dad!!!!
Theresa | 10.05.06 - 7:27 am | #

[T]hey remind me that the Incarnation was God disabling himself, in order to be able to share fully our life on Earth.

Never mind your quote of the day. That is the quote of the millenium.
Robert N.G. | Homepage | 10.05.06 - 10:02 am | #

This really is a lovely post.

I think it's worth pointing out, though, that raising a child with special needs is tough (and I know, all children have special needs -- but therapy multiple times a week, infant hospitalization, etc are certainly somewhat unusual). There are many people who simply don't have the resources to deal with that, and many who, as you point out, probably feel overwhelmed at the prospect of raising a special-needs child. I think it's important to promote institutional assistance, like you have in California, for families with Downs kids or kids with other disabilities. I'm very pro-choice and believe that women should always have the option of terminating their pregnancies even if we don't like their reasons, but part of the pro-choice position is giving women as many options as possible. Support for children with disabilities is a key part of that.
Jill | Homepage | 10.05.06 - 10:07 am | #

I actually thought you DID point out that it is a tough road rasing a child with special needs. Good for you for placing value on these "imperfect" lives --- as you said, we are all imperfect. I read your letter to my daughter as well. My Dr. was shocked when I did not want the amnio test ... he could not believe that I would not want to know if my baby was D.S. ---- it is the sad world we live in. Thanks for taking the time to share with others that these lives are every bit as valuable as ours. Amen.
Tara | Homepage | 10.05.06 - 11:18 am | #

Right, sorry, didn't mean to infer that you didn't point out that it's tough. You made that clear. But I'd imagine it's certainly even more difficult for people who don't have state-sponsored resources like California does, or who are single parents, or who are lower-income, or who work multiple jobs to keep their families afloat.

Jill, do you have children?

The interesting side effect of this pro-Choice position, is that the devaluing of human life, and the making of "hard" (self serving) choices are going to come full circle when you get old and disabled.

It's difficult taking care of an aged parent. It's a good thing there are resources (nursing homes) available so that grandma or grandpa doesn't inconvenience our lives too much.

Heck, euthansia may be possible, and your children might have the option of "putting you to sleep" rather than having to deal with the bills of paying for your elder care. That will take a lot of the pressure off of Medicare. A lethal dose of barbiturate, when weighed against changing your dirty diapers makes a lot of sense when we have our busy lives to worry about.

After all, it will be your children's right to choose what happens to you when you are elderly.

You can argue all you want about how that won't happen because it isn't their body, but neither is the unborn child your body.

I think you pro choice people, by your example, are going to reap what you sow.
Tony | Homepage | 10.05.06 - 12:03 pm | #

"I think you pro choice people, by your example, are going to reap what you sow."

Or might we reap what we sow? One of the hardest fought lessons that I ever learned was understanding the depth of my complicity in the evils of the world. I have always been explicitly anti-abortion. Yet, I am positive that I have supported the sinfulness, arrogance, and pagan ideologies of our time. None of it intentionally - but I have no doubt that I have. Reaping the ways of abortion and death is part of a much larger problem with all of us. Assume that you are part of it. You will be better off in that assumption.

That is, of course, not to say that we cannot be hypocrites and oppose sin and death at every possible opportunity. It doesn't mean we should not explicitly condemn and work to eradicate abortion. It just means we should be a bit humble about it.

It isn't just the pro-choice people who will reap these rewards. And they may not deserve it less than we who are pro-life.
Silly Interloper | 10.05.06 - 12:29 pm | #

Let's stick to the point. Here's a dad with two reasons he doesn't believe that other people should abort solely because a child has a disability. That's his right. I deal with the bad attitudes of the public daily or whenever I'm out with a client who may or may not have a severe disability. I'm not "special," and I don't have extra "patience" except when dealing with the crowd who tells me how patient and special I must be to do what I do.
In my opinion, his experience does not and should not negate or make less valid the choices of anyone else, and vice-versa.
Why don't we just respect each other and the choices we make without reducing the man's post to what I'm sure he did not intend for it to be? It's not a tirade against women - it's just his opinion, and he has a right to that, whether or not everyone agrees with it.

-and I'm still voting pro-choice, anyway. :)
Shelley | 10.05.06 - 1:17 pm | #

Great point, unfortunately we collectively reap what we've collectively sown. Even if just a few people drilled holes in their side of the boat we will all sink or bail ourselves out together.
Hannah | 10.05.06 - 1:19 pm | #

"Let's stick to the point."

I think the point is that the "choice" is a valuable and priceless human being, and it requires sacrifice and effort from those who have them. TC is clear that bringing the life into the world is a noble and good act, while aborting it is the cheap and bad one. It doesn't "face" the child and deal with it, it hides from the face and destroys it.

That pretty well exposes the invalidity and the badness of the abortion alternative.
Silly Interloper | 10.05.06 - 1:26 pm | #

Hannah, there is some truth to that, but there is a bit of a mutiny going on. Almost everyone is poking holes here and there. Then there are those who blast even bigger holes out of ignorance, not realizing they are bringing down the ship. Still others are deliberately drilling, blasting, and chipping at the hole in a deliberate attempt to sink the ship.

Cooperation with the last group is clearly not going to happen. Stopping the second group is difficult, and we may or may not get cooperation from them. So, as much as I would like a full team effort, I doubt that's what we will get.

But I do have my own hole-poking to figure out and rectify (is it these spiked boots? or maybe the target practice?), and I will be partly responsible if the entire ship sinks. In fact I *am* partly complicit in the millions of lives that have fallen overboard.
Silly Interloper | 10.05.06 - 1:34 pm | #

My favorite essay on this subject is Michael Berube`s:
http://www.michaelberube.com/ind...g/comments/608/

Pesonally, I was grateful to have had the opportunity to have had prenatal testing in all of my fullterm pregnancies, even though my husband and I greatly disagreed (and argued quite a bit) on conditions under which we would want have wanted to abort.
L. | Homepage | 10.05.06 - 1:41 pm | #

Tragic-Christian:

Thanks for drawing this to our attention. I am also the dad of 4 great kids - one of whom lives with DS. Our own media up here in Canada has had its slant on this particular issue, and I believe such views need to be thoughtfully but passionately challenged.

Prayers and blessings.
joseph walker | Homepage | 10.05.06 - 1:47 pm | #

SI,

You are right of course. Had my circumstances been different I easily might have been pro-choice, had an abortion, and helped another person to get one. I was on BCP's for a few years (not knowing before I was catholic that BCP's can cause abortions) not knowing it was wrong, who knows and God forgive me if I aborted any pregnancies. Had I been born a generation earlierier I would have been one of those feminists agitating for the sexual revolution.

But as it is there are plenty of evils that I'm complicit in everywhere I turn, my sins of commission and ommission. So I plead for God's Mercy, not His Justice for myself and for the world.
Hannah | 10.05.06 - 1:59 pm | #

You'd think I'd be hardened to it by now, but I am continually shocked to hear people so cooly respond to a REAL parent with a REAL disabled child that all parents should have the right to terminate their disabled child, even when the disability is unmeasured and hardly even proven.

Might as well sit Tragic Christian down and say, "Oh, well, I know Dot's great and all, but nobody would have blamed you for having her sucked out of your wife's womb and destroyed before she was born."

It show such horrible discrimation against the disabled, I can hardly contain myself. Any society that discriminates against the disabled -- to the point of killing them before we even know exactly how disabled they are -- should be ashamed of itself.
Sparki | Homepage | 10.05.06 - 2:01 pm | #

"In my opinion, his experience does not and should not negate or make less valid the choices of anyone else, and vice-versa.
Why don't we just respect each other and the choices we make..."

This is the classic moral relativist position.

Peter Kreeft has a nice lecture on that here, lecture #5:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio.htm

Actually all the lectures are great. #2 on Divine Truth is my personal favorite.
Hannah | 10.05.06 - 2:02 pm | #

Hannah - to be clear, I'm less of a classic moral relativist and more of a moral pluralist or value-pluralist, who acknowledges the co-existence of opposing ideas and practices, but accepts limits to differences, such as when vital human needs are violated.

(definition borrowed from the Wiki)

Still pro-choice though - I vote to leave those decisions up to individuals. In my moral view that's something that I have no say over, and I vote that way to keep my decisions up to me as well.
Shelley | 10.05.06 - 2:21 pm | #

Your comment is a poignant one, Sparki. We could even arrogantly look up at God and say: "I see all your beautiful children, God. But you really could have just slaughtered the lot. No problem by me." Such it is when love is absent.
Silly Interloper | 10.05.06 - 2:34 pm | #

"In my opinion, his experience does not and should not negate or make less valid the choices of anyone else, and vice-versa.
Why don't we just respect each other and the choices we make..."

If we are going to respect individual "choice" as an absolute and supreme value, why limit it to abortion? If we are going to respect as "valid" the "choice" of killing an unborn child, I can see no reason why we should not also respect as "valid" the following "choices":

* The choice of white southerners to enslave blacks.

* The choice of husbands to beat their wives.

* The choice of parents to abuse their children.
Dan | 10.05.06 - 3:16 pm | #

And as for the "it's tougher for some others" defense of aborting undesired children, it's lack of love, not lack of money, that really makes things tough. Jill, has it ever occurred to you that poor people might love life as much as -- maybe more than -- you do?
Dan | 10.05.06 - 3:21 pm | #

Shelley,

Then I assume you have no objection to infanticide? I mean, after all, parents killing their children is something you have no say over. Right?
Kasia | Homepage | 10.05.06 - 3:42 pm | #

*sigh*

Dot's a blessing all right, and I applaud TC and his wife for their choice. I applaud even more that they had the right to make it.

For you see, had they not had the wherewithal - emotionally, physically, financially - to raise and nurture Dot with all her special needs, forcing them to do so anyway would have not quite been so blessed - for them or for Dot.
WoMomma! | 10.05.06 - 3:46 pm | #

Dan, be careful when you talk about "*The choice of parents to abuse their children."

Unlike abortion -- which is about as straightforward as it gets -- "abuse" is very much in the eyes of the beholder. Some people consider all spanking to be abuse.
L. | Homepage | 10.05.06 - 4:02 pm | #

"...forcing them to do so anyway would have not quite been so blessed - for them or for Dot."

I don't presume to measure God's blessings by your standards, WoMomma. However, given that your statement were true, it would still be immeasurably better than killing her.

Besides - what if they lost the wherewithall *after* she was born? (Lost a job, health, whatever) Would that, then, justify abandonment? Of course not.

Hardship is not an excuse for irresponsibility, selfishness, cowardess, abandonment, or the killing of human beings. (And the broken record turns....)
Silly Interloper | 10.05.06 - 4:12 pm | #

What I find disturbing about aborting for DS is that we as outsiders have made a qualitative judgment about which lives are worth living and which are not. As opposed to aborting because NO baby was wanted, abortion because of disabilities is effectively saying, "We wanted a baby, but we did not want YOU.
Jane Lebak | Homepage | 10.05.06 - 4:14 pm | #

It show such horrible discrimation against the disabled, I can hardly contain myself. Any society that discriminates against the disabled -- to the point of killing them before we even know exactly how disabled they are -- should be ashamed of itself.

I agree Sparki. The fact that no one is ashamed to say "oh, a DS child-what a hardship-let's kill it" scares me.

You can find a reason why any person in your life might be difficult. I suppose that is abortion, I shouldn't expect more...it just seems so horrific.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 10.05.06 - 4:32 pm | #

L, so what if some people think all spanking is "abuse"? If they are right we should change the law and outlaw all spanking. We however allow "choice," to a degree, concerning spanking, because whatever the effect of spanking on a child is, most people think that moderate spanking is not so harmful that it must be outlawed.
Dan | 10.05.06 - 4:44 pm | #

I can see no reason why we should not also respect as "valid" the following "choices":

* The choice of white southerners to enslave blacks.

Well, Dan - that's illegal. Abortion is legal, which is where the moral decision is left to the individual.

* The choice of husbands to beat their wives.

Again Dan, illegal. I'm sensing a pattern here.

* The choice of parents to abuse their children.

Once again, Dan, illegal. Abortion is legal - so it leaves the argument in the moral zone.

That's all I'm sayin'.
Shelley | 10.05.06 - 4:57 pm | #

So you have no problem with any of them if they were legal?

Slavery, wife abuse, child abuse are ok if they were legal?

So now you worship government as well as choice?

How quickly the gods multiply. ;)
Hannah | 10.05.06 - 5:20 pm | #

For you see, had they not had the wherewithal - emotionally, physically, financially - to raise and nurture Dot with all her special needs, forcing them to do so anyway would have not quite been so blessed - for them or for Dot.

WoMomma, I don't see any excuse there. People who don't want to have children, I understand. People who want children – but aren't prepared to love and care for them no matter what – are the sort of people who, to be blunt, have no business having them. I would pity just as much a non-disabled child born to "parents" like that.
Joel | Homepage | 10.05.06 - 5:26 pm | #

Dan, see what happens when you replace "spanking" with "abortion:"

We however allow "choice," to a degree, concerning abortion, because whatever the effect of abortion on a child is, most people think that moderate abortion is not so harmful that it must be outlawed.
L. | Homepage | 10.05.06 - 5:30 pm | #

So now you worship government as well as choice?

Government?
L. | Homepage | 10.05.06 - 5:31 pm | #

"Once again, Dan, illegal."

Shelley, as Hannah has revealed with her examples, the legal status of something has nothing to do with the moral evaluation of it or it's logical consistency.

If you lived in the time when slavery was legal, would you consider it a good argument that it should be respected as a valid choice just because it was currently legal? No? Then don't expect us to.
Silly Interloper | 10.05.06 - 6:10 pm | #

As vehemently pro-choice as I am, I do think the selective abortion of disabled fetuses is a tragedy. Unfortunately, the general view of a disabled child is of a terrible burden, or even an intolerable burden. Even worse, many of the advocacy groups promote the worst views of their particular disability because the worse they make the plight of families dealing with their particular disability, the more money they can bring in. (I'm looking at you, Autism Society)

My belief is that the diasbled children is better served by the work of people like Tragic Christian, who put a face on disability and show the joy and life to be had with a disabled child. If the terror of having a child with a disability is lowered, more people will be willing to have and raise such children.
Tapetum | Homepage | 10.05.06 - 6:38 pm | #

Why should anyone have to be "forced" to take care of his or her own child? It seems to me that it should be the most natural thing in the world to do even in the face of hardship.

Besides, if we take the position that dependent individuals can be disposed of whenever taking care of the gets "hard" I predict we would see a bloodbath never before seen in the history of the world.

Civilized societies find a way to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. If we can't do that with all the wealth we have in this country, we are doomed.
Judith M. | 10.05.06 - 6:52 pm | #

I'm just stunned with the overall quality of the conversation here! People on both sides of the fence are being very thoughtful, and (mostly!) respectful.

Robert N.G.: You make me blush -- "quote of the millennium," indeed! The words here are mine, but I think I got the idea from Henry Nouwen (peace be upon him, as the Muslims say).

And, combining several thoughts based on the conversation above, I believe that when you want a child, you HAVE the child you're given -- warts, disabilities, and all. One's choice was to have a child -- not the perfect accessory. It's consumerist and narcissistic to say (thank you, Jane), "We wanted a baby but we did not want YOU!" I've been phrasing it (perhaps more uncharitably) as "You're NOT the baby *I* DESERVE!"

Deciding whether to keep a child based on the cost involved is a frightening idea to me. It makes the baseline value of a human being solely economic and utilitarian. I'm a GREAT waste of money myself!

I would also emphasize to the pro-abortion side that that if a woman is bearing a child she doesn't want, for whatever reason, adoption is ALWAYS an option, and is the more humane decision -- by saving the child and putting it with a loving family, there's even an increase in overall happiness, so it has its utilitarian side! I am aware of people who are even willing to adopt DS children -- I just read an article in "Exceptional Parent" magazine about a family who, after raising their own kids, adopted four DS children over the years.

Anyway, this is a more elevated conversation than most I've read on the internet! I look forward to more! I am always learning!
Tragic Christian | Homepage | 10.05.06 - 7:14 pm | #

Tragic Christian,
I'll echo Robert N.G.
The following is right on...

"the Incarnation was God disabling himself"

Wow.
Leif | 10.05.06 - 7:24 pm | #

Jill,
I'm hesitant to get into another argument on this special post, but...

"terminating their pregnancies"
?

Why is it always you prochoice folks have to drag out this grammatical nightmare.
When one has an abortion, one terminates the life of an embryo or fetus. As a result of terminating this life, the pregnancy then comes to a halt.

You might note that giving birth to a baby, when it's good and ready to come out, also results in the termination of a pregnancy.

So your phrase is ambiguous.
Though sadly, your meaning is clear.

Of course I know why you prefer the crafty phrase "terminating a pregnancy".
Would that an abortion were only that.
Leif | 10.05.06 - 7:37 pm | #

L, first of all, there is no such thing as "moderate" abortion -- unlike a spanking, abortion by definition kills.

You also fail to deal with my point that we should outlaw spanking if, like abortion, it is bad.
Dan | 10.05.06 - 7:52 pm | #

L,

Do you consider abortion abusive to the fetus?
Leif | 10.05.06 - 7:53 pm | #

I'm hesitant to get into another argument on this special post, but...

But....?
L. | Homepage | 10.05.06 - 7:53 pm | #

Shelley, slavery was once legal too. By your logic, we should have kept it that way.
Dan | 10.05.06 - 7:54 pm | #

With regard to outlawing spanking, I meant, "constitutes abuse", not just "bad." Of course most people don't think spanking is so abusive that it should be outlawed. The point is that spanking is no different than abortion in terms of whether it can be objectively judged.
Dan | 10.05.06 - 7:57 pm | #

Let me sum this up before we get another 200 posts. Some people think abortion is bad. Some think it is OK. Nobody's opinion will change despite all the rhetoric exchanged on both sides. And so it goes....
Neil C | 10.05.06 - 8:04 pm | #

Dan, in the interest of staying "on topic," don`t get me started on the topic of whether spanking children is bad.

I do not happen to think abortion is wrong, in every circumstance, though I agree it does kill a very small, undeveloped human being.

I`m wondering if Tragic Christian or anyone else has read the Micheal Berube post I linked above. He`s a pro-choice self-described liberal, with a severely handicapped son.
L. | Homepage | 10.05.06 - 8:06 pm | #

Dan, whether "most people" think spanking constitutes abuse depends on who you talk to:

http://www.nospank.net/main.htm

It is not an objective issue -- not even close.

And I think Neil C. is on to something there!
L. | Homepage | 10.05.06 - 8:09 pm | #

L,
Do you think abortion is abusive to the fetus?

(There are probably some rules against reposting the very same line. I'll give the question a second run, and leave it there.)

Neil,
200 posts?
That's a long fence!
I've got my hole digger ready, level, Stilson wrench...
are we doing stockade?
chainlink?

Any fence-related humor, anyone?
Leif | 10.05.06 - 8:30 pm | #

Neil,
200 posts?
That's a long fence!
I've got my hole digger ready, level, Stilson wrench...
are we doing stockade?
chainlink?>>

And as usual, Leif, your point responding to what I said? It wasn't refuting any of your arguments.
Neil C | 10.05.06 - 8:41 pm | #

Leif, of course, abortion kills an embryo -- a very small, undeveloped human being. I`ve said so, very clearly, many times (including a few comments above), and even told you the story of holding my own dead embryo in my hand. So what`s your point, Leif? What are you getting at?

And what made you decide not to hold your tongue, despite your being so "hesitant to get into another argument on this special post."
Special, but not special enough?
L. | Homepage | 10.05.06 - 8:42 pm | #

Nobody's opinion will change despite all the rhetoric exchanged on both sides. And so it goes....

Many people will never change their opinions on anything, no matter what. However, many other people will if given a reasonable argument that refutes their ideas. Others will change their opinions if circumstances in their life force them to.

It is simply wrong to think reasoned arguments are a waste of time in all cases.
Amy K | 10.05.06 - 9:25 pm | #

Neil C. - if you feel that way, what on earth are you doing on a blog?

By the way - I have changed my minds about things many times due to discourse with others. Occasionally in extremely dramatic ways.
Silly Interloper | 10.05.06 - 9:51 pm | #

Blog discussions aren`t always about changing minds -- sometimes they allow insight as to what kind of people are on each side of every argument, and help participants strip away useless stereotypes. All pro-life people aren`t women-hating religions fundamentalists, and all pro-choice people aren`t cold, heartless sociopaths who take pleasure in killing unborn babies.
L. | Homepage | 10.05.06 - 10:14 pm | #

""...forcing them to do so anyway would have not quite been so blessed - for them or for Dot."

I don't presume to measure God's blessings by your standards, WoMomma. However, given that your statement were true, it would still be immeasurably better than killing her.

Besides - what if they lost the wherewithall *after* she was born? (Lost a job, health, whatever) Would that, then, justify abandonment? Of course not.

Hardship is not an excuse for irresponsibility, selfishness, cowardess, abandonment, or the killing of human beings."

Thanks, SI, for this response. You said exactly what I felt, and expressed it better than I could have. And I too have changed my mind in some extremely dramatic ways due to discourse with others, most notably, I became prolife.

Take care -
Joanne | 10.05.06 - 10:18 pm | #

All pro-life people aren`t women-hating religions fundamentalists, and all pro-choice people aren`t cold, heartless sociopaths who take pleasure in killing unborn babies.

L, you're right, and I've learned that in these comboxes as well. However, leaving out the part about taking pleasure, I'd have to say the term "sociopath" applies to somebody who wants to have children but would abort the ones with DS. That requires a person who genuinely believes that children are objects, and has a total disregard for the well-being of anybody but herself.
Joel | Homepage | 10.05.06 - 10:26 pm | #

I guess I read Neil C's remark as somehow implying the discussion was futile. Which begs the question - why participate?

If that wasn't his point, I have no idea what his point was.

Perhaps I read him wrong, but his assertion that people won't change their mind is simply wrong.

(You're welcome, Joanne).
Silly Interloper | 10.05.06 - 11:14 pm | #

Silly Interloper, I`m guessing that Neil was speaking not about blogs in general, but about his recent back-and-forth-like-a-ping-pong-ball dialogue with a specific pro-lifer on another comment thread here -- one whose first initial is the same as mine.
L. | Homepage | 10.05.06 - 11:22 pm | #

Who lives? Who dies? Who decides? And what "choice" is legit? Okay to kill the disabled? Okay to kill girls (e.g., China, India et al.)?

Where is that line drawn? As the blond haired, blue eyed child of brown haired, brown eyed parents (love those recessive genes!), I got a lot of strange looks in my early days. Would my mother have been justified in aborting me to spare her the suggestion that the milkman was my daddy?

Would I have been justified in aborting my own children if they'd broken the spell and returned to the brown eyed heritage of their grandparents? None of the sweet little blue eyed munchkins did, so we'll never know (BTW, one of them is absolutely taken with his best friend's baby sister, a Down's child).

I am so fed up with the "choice" claptrap. We may not choose evil, and what is more evil than killing children? Last Sunday's gospel rings loud and true. I am often tempted to start a millstone franchise. Business would definitely be booming.
C.J. | 10.05.06 - 11:51 pm | #

I see comments about "hard choices" and how hard it is to raise a child, and how hard it is to abort a child... but ultimately, there comes a time when we have to stop thinking about ourselves and what is harder for us, and just do the right thing, regardless of whether the government will permit us to do the wrong thing.
Christina Martin | Homepage | 10.06.06 - 12:20 am | #

It seems that some parents have children and others have choices.
Pat Patterson | 10.06.06 - 3:07 pm | #

"...even told you the story of holding my own dead embryo in my hand."

L., I wouldn't ask this if you hadn't willingly put this forth. I understand if you don't want to get into it. So feel free to ignore me. (Like you need permission.)

Did you/do you love the child that you lost?
Silly Interloper | 10.06.06 - 3:08 pm | #

Silly Interloper -- no. There was nothing there to love. I like to think that had it been born, I would have grown to love him or her (though I had serious doubts about whether or not I would, because it was a very much unwanted pregnancy).

Come to think of it, I didn`t love any of my born children in utero, either, or even right after their births --- when they came out, they were little squalling strangers. And yet I eventually managed to love all of them.
L. | Homepage | 10.06.06 - 3:32 pm | #

"All pro-life people aren`t women-hating religions fundamentalists...."

I know a lot of "pro-life people" -- I am active in the pro-life movement -- and none of them are women-hating or fundamentalists. Almost all of the ones I know are Catholic, who by definition are not fundamentalists. Approximately 2/3 are women, and they no more "hate" women than pro-choice liberals. Same for the men.

What pro-lifers do tend to be is very devout. Although it is not a 100% correlation, there is a very strong correlation between devoutness and pro-life fervor. I think this is because the devout are keenly aware of the sacredness of life. At the other end of the spectrum, atheists think there is no ultimate meaning to life and that we are all just a mass of atoms moving at different speeds. It's not hard to understand why they wouldn't think killing a teeny life off is no big deal -- to them a life is nothing more than a clump of cells and what's a clump of cells worth?
Dan | 10.06.06 - 5:43 pm | #

Wow, Dan -- so you really DO believe that we pro-choicers are mostly athiests, who think that life is essentially meaningless and "killing a teeny life off is no big deal?"

So much for reading blog comments to overcome stereotypes! :)
L. | Homepage | 10.06.06 - 5:50 pm | #

L,
This sort of thing is heard from you, frequently, on these threads...
"abortion kills an embryo -- a very small, undeveloped human being."

You acknowledge that an abortion takes a human life, but are often, as above, very quick to follow up that that life is very small and not fully developed.
Why should its size and age matter?
A life is a life is a life, whether it is one month along in the womb or 35 years along outside the womb.
A life is a life is alife, whether it is really, really small or six feet tall, thin, obese, etc.

I guessing your mention of the embryo's tiny size and its early stage in development is a sort of disclaimer or caveat you give yourself to mitigate any natural guilt you might have surrounding your "prochoice" position.

If you really, really don't feel the least bit ashamed about your support for legalized abortion, then quit telling us all the embryo is really small and only in the very earliest stages of development.

--A Specific Prolifer
aka
Leif | 10.06.06 - 6:50 pm | #

Oooh, speaking of stereotypes! Hi, Leif! :)

Since I also believe in euthanasia, I wholeheartedly agree with you that size and degree of development have nothing to do with a human`s right to life, or lack thereof; it depends on many, many other variables.

I truly don't "feel the least bit ashamed" about my support for legalized abortion -- but it`s quite irrelevant to ask me to quit telling you "all" (who are you speaking for, here, Leif?) that the embryo is "really small and only in the very earliest stages of development." These facts about embryos are true, Leif.

It is also true that some do people think size and extent of development alone are reasons that justify abortion, but I have never made that particular point -- not even when you tried to make it FOR me. Nope -- as Dr. Suess says, in "Horton Here`s a Who," "..a person`s a person, no matter how small."
L. | Homepage | 10.06.06 - 7:08 pm | #

Tragic Christian,

I don't have time to read through all these comments, but I just wanted to thank you for your beautiful post and for choosing life for Dot. Two members of my extended family had Downs Syndrome. One was a cousin, the son of my Dad's oldest sister. The other was an aunt, my Mom's youngest sister. I remember as a kid I would play with dolls with my aunt when we would visit the little farm community my Mom came from. When my cousin and his family would visit, I remember trying to teach him to count. He was more profoundly mentally disabled than my aunt and was unable to talk. Both my cousin and my aunt are dead now.

All the Downs Syndrome people I've met are all the sweetest, most loving people you could ever find. They don't have a mean bone in their bodies. Less people like that in this world is surely a great loss.
Susan B. | Homepage | 10.06.06 - 8:29 pm | #

I knew you'd get side-tracked by my Zeussness, L.
And he was right of course.

Anyhow,
If you're not at all ashamed of supporting abortion rights, then why keep telling the world the fetus is really small and only just starting to develop? So what?

It's very telling that you have to keep assuring yourself, rather publicly, that abortion's not so bad, because that "fetus is not really a developed person yet, and it's so small."

Like his mythical namesake, I think Dr. Zeuss hit you with a bolt of lightning, with "A person's a person no matter how small" (and regardless of his/her placement inside or outside of your womb).

You just don't know what hit you yet, L.
You pretend to agree with the Dr., but then carry on as if you're disputing his point.
Leif | 10.06.06 - 9:27 pm | #

"A person's a person no matter how small" (and regardless of his/her placement inside or outside of your womb).

I think the latter phrase (not in the Dr. Seuss original) makes all the difference.

Leif, quite honestly, regardless of its tiny size, I am quite impressed how complex embryos are. I have never, in my life, ever disputed that they are human beings, human individuals. Remember: I was once pro-life.

It's very telling that you have to keep assuring yourself, rather publicly, that abortion's not so bad, because that "fetus is not really a developed person yet, and it's so small."

Again, I have never used size as a justification for my opinion, here or anywhere else -- and I never will.

So I know exactly what "hit" me, Leif: I very suddenly became aware that I would kill a human being, in certain circumstances. And yes, I recall it was very much like a bolt of lightening -- I was 15, and still remember the very moment when I decided I would have an abortion in certain circumstances. I realized the implications and the full gravity of my decision -- that`s why I`m not pro-life.
L. | Homepage | 10.06.06 - 11:06 pm | #

"Besides - what if they lost the wherewithall *after* she was born? (Lost a job, health, whatever) Would that, then, justify abandonment? Of course not."

In general, if a parent or parents felt they were unable to provide their child with an acceptable standard of care, I think most of us would entirely understand if they decided to give that child into the care of others (abandonment is more frequent in cases where there's nobody to take them, in an institutional sense).

The thing is, in the vast majority of abortions, that is literally not a viable option.
____________

" I think this is because the devout are keenly aware of the sacredness of life. At the other end of the spectrum, atheists think there is no ultimate meaning to life and that we are all just a mass of atoms moving at different speeds. It's not hard to understand why they wouldn't think killing a teeny life off is no big deal -- to them a life is nothing more than a clump of cells and what's a clump of cells worth?"

More foul calumny . . .
Did you know that when asked, Americans would be more likely, all else being equal, to vote for a disabled black Muslim lesbian than an atheist?
Well, no, they haven't asked about that specific combination, but the general result of such surveys strongly suggest that would be the case. One big reason would seem to be the silly idea that atheist = someone lacking all morals and meaning. I mean jeez, I wouldn't even say that about Republican congressmen!

Yet.

But seriously - sure, both 'atheism' and 'theism' are general ideas, not specific philosophies, and one can find a few examples here and there of genuinely nihilist atheists, who mostly seem to be either adolescents or, in a couple of cases, French. But oddly enough, the kind of theist who goes on about this never seems to consider whether the idea that: life itself is a miraculous 'accident,' that all of us (even our nonhuman fellow creatures) are the product of millions upon millions of years of evolution - the incredibly, unbelievably lucky ones - each a part of an unbroken chain ultimately reaching back over a billion years (probably several), that everyone living on this little warm wet planet are the only living things we've ever found so far in the entire universe, with ourselves the only ones, as far as we know, who can actually think about that fact, and that for us this astonishing life is a tiny, all-too-brief moment sandwiched between unexperienced eternities of non-existence, that this life ain't no dress rehearsal, but the one-night-only show, the one chance before the curtain closes -

that this wouldn't tend to give one a sense of the impossible preciousness of life?

Don't even get me started about meaning.

Yes, I'm drifting off topic, but I don't know what I could add to the main discussion, "I, with no rights in this matter . . ." Much happiness to Dot and her family.

"Any fence-related humor, anyone"

Hmm - would be a welcome change from railing against stuff . . .
Dan S. | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 12:46 am | #

"The thing is, in the vast majority of abortions, that is literally not a viable option."

Dan S., that doesn't change the fact that I was demonstrating at all.

That is, losing the wherewithal to support a child is not a valid justification for killing a life. If it were such a justification, it would also be valid for abandonment.

You changed the focus to alternative resolutions rather than justification, which is logically inconsistent.
Silly Interloper | 10.07.06 - 1:47 am | #

"… no. There was nothing there to love."

Caveat: I am engaging in some speculation about you here, L., not trying to force you into specific conclusions. I am genuinely interested in how you clarify or correct my thoughts about you.

L., I wonder, then, just what you mean when you say your lost child was a human. If you are Catholic, as you say, and you believe it is, indeed, a little human, as you say, then you would know that a human being is far more than just the sum of it's complex biological systems. You would know that to be a human being it must have soul and spirit. You would love it like all human beings at all stages. Unless you have no love for human beings in general?

Is "humanness" only measured in terms of biology to you?

If you think there was nothing there to love, then it seems to me that when you say "human" in terms of the organism you held in you hand, you don't really mean it was human – you mean it was a vacant biological host for a human (even before it died). You don't mean a complete human at all – especially in Catholic terms.

I think this confuses the issue when you discuss things with pro-lifers. Pro-lifers generally think of a human as a complete human, not just a biological host. (I have never known one that didn't think so.) So when you say you believe it is a real human being, you are communicating something other than what you actually mean. According to a pro-life p.o.v., your view of the "humanness" of the fetus is actually a denial of its humanity. It would be like calling a model of a car a real and true car, and expect a car aficionado to know what you meant. Without the guts of the car (and without the soul of the baby) it is not a real car at all. It just looks like one. You seem to be all about form, and not about substance.

I think that if you want to communicate accurately and honestly to pro-lifers, you should probably acknowledge that you don't believe the fetus is a real human being. It is only as human to you as an appendix removed from a human is.

It is very clear that your views on abortion are completely incompatible with Catholicism. If I understood you correctly, your views on human life are also completely incompatible with Catholicism.

Now, it is not my place to tell you whether you are a legitimate Catholic, or not. But I can tell you for certain that if I believed what you seem to believe about abortion and human life, I certainly wouldn't call myself Catholic.

I love your lost child. I genuinely love your lost child. I hope you can find that love someday, too.
Silly Interloper | 10.07.06 - 2:41 am | #

Silly Interloper, my embryo was dead -- I repeat, there was nothing there to love. When it was a little heartbeat in an ultrasound, there was something there, but what I felt was not love. In fact, what I felt the first time I held my newborn babies in my arms the first time was not love, either -- I was glad to make their aquaintance, but until I had some concept of them as individuals, I didn`t feel anything like "love." But just as love -- or its absence -- does not personhood, it doesn`t define whether I view embryos as fully human, either -- or any other child, for that matter.

A strange little boy playing in a park? I don`t feel anything like love for him, but I might talk to him for a few minutes, and get to know him, and like him -- or maybe he`s a foster child in need of a home, and I might take him into my house and really get to know him, and love him.

And I`m indeed Catholic -- and I fully admit I am not a very good Catholic, and perhaps will never be. But overall, this has less to my view that abortion is justifiable homicide, and more with my heretical view that my non-Christian husband`s religion is as true as my own.
L. | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 10:28 am | #

I love your lost child. I genuinely love your lost child. I hope you can find that love someday, too.>>>

Silly, this sounds soooo condescending, like when someone tailgates you and you smile at them as they flip you the bird. And as for why I read this blog, I find the music stuff interesting and look at the other things sometimes just to get both viewpoints on a subject, and usually you make your point in a rational way.
Neil C. | 10.07.06 - 10:31 am | #

I think that if you want to communicate accurately and honestly to pro-lifers, you should probably acknowledge that you don't believe the fetus is a real human being. It is only as human to you as an appendix removed from a human is.

Again -- my capacity to love something has no bearing on whether I think an embryo or fetus is a human being. I am being honest when I say I believe it is.

But I can tell you for certain that if I believed what you seem to believe about abortion and human life, I certainly wouldn't call myself Catholic.

In fact, for 25 years, I listened to people who shared this very opinion (including my own mother) and told me I had no place in the Church, and I should just get out and stay out.

Well, I`m back, and I realize I never left. And if I end up in Hell someday, I will go there as a Catholic. (At least it will be warm, and my husband will be there, too.)
L. | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 10:38 am | #

Neil C., I think Silly Interloper means it when he said, "I love your lost child. I genuinely love your lost child. I hope you can find that love someday, too."
I imagine he`s doing his best to imitate God`s unconditional love, and feels sorry for people like me, for whom love (even my love for born people) is conditional.
L. | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 10:43 am | #

I imagine he`s doing his best to imitate God`s unconditional love, and feels sorry for people like me, for whom love (even my love for born people) is conditional.>>>

Not being even close to Catholic, I'll take your word for it.
Neil C. | 10.07.06 - 11:14 am | #

Since I also believe in euthanasia, I wholeheartedly agree with you that size and degree of development have nothing to do with a human`s right to life, or lack thereof; it depends on many, many other variables.

And any pro-choice children you will be raising will be making their own choices with regard to the value of your life when you are elderly.

Are you ready for that?
Tony | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 11:29 am | #

I'll comment on your other thoughts later, but it should at least be noted that this:

"(At least it will be warm, and my husband will be there, too.)"

...is not Catholic teaching. Catholicism allows for the possibility of anyone of any religion to respond to graces they were given by God and to reap the benefits of Christ's death ***even if they do not believe in him***.

As Catholics, we are forbidden to make the judgement whether or not your husband will wind up in hell.
Silly Interloper | 10.07.06 - 11:29 am | #

Tony: yes. I have a living will to make my intentions known, too.
L. | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 11:37 am | #

"Are you ready for that?"

Tony, one thing that seems evident to me about L. is that she has at the very least faced these physical realities (and, in fact, refuses to hide from these challenges) and the physical consequences they have. I would be very surprised if she hasn't faced the possibility of her euthanasia and accepted it on that basis. (Not to imply that that is the only basis she accepts it on.)

Things are still a little fuzzy for me regarding the complete human being, but I think it deserves a better understanding before laying down challenges like that one.
Silly Interloper | 10.07.06 - 11:43 am | #

Well, Silly Interloper, since my husband shares my pro-choice views (and once actually paid for an abortion for someone), I suppose I can speculate that he and I will end up in the same place -- wherever that may be.

Getting back to the original theme of this post, my husband would have wanted to abort a DS baby, or any other baby with serious problems. He and I had a big falling out about this -- there were certainly circumstancs under which I would have chosen to abort, but all of them had to do with my own health and/or the likely quality of life (or even viability) of the baby. I know too many people with DS who lead happy, fulfilling lives to ever use that alone as justification to end a pregnancy.
L. | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 11:45 am | #

"...that basis." is referring to the physical reality of killing a human being. When I return I will hopefully be more awake. Need coffee.
Silly Interloper | 10.07.06 - 11:46 am | #

"...I can speculate..."

"Speculate" being the key word. I have every hope we'll be sharing coffee in paradise. (There is coffee in paradise, isn't there? Someone, please tell me there's coffee in paradise!)

"I know too many people with DS who lead happy, fulfilling lives to ever use that alone as justification ..."

I do give you credit for this. The nature of this on-going, multi-thread conversation doesn't tend to focus upon the ways that you do show respect for human life, but I have taken note of it, and it gladdens me.

What this has to do with getting my coffee, I don't know.
Silly Interloper | 10.07.06 - 11:55 am | #

"I have every hope..."

I'm absolutely sincere when I say that. But I don't mean to imply these things are not perilous to the soul, either.
Silly Interloper | 10.07.06 - 11:59 am | #

Well, Silly Interloper,

Everytime I read this, I keep thinking the sentence will continue "Well Silly Interloper...Trix are for kids..."

Sorry, I know that had nothing to do with anything...
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 1:13 pm | #

"And any pro-choice children you will be raising will be making their own choices with regard to the value of your life when you are elderly."

This is such a great point. It's frightening, really.

There is such irony in supporting someone else's life being taken without his or her consent and then wanting a living will to be honored. On what grounds should anyone care what your wishes are, or the what the wishes of your health care proxy are, with regard to your life, medical care, and death?
Joanne | 10.07.06 - 1:53 pm | #

Trix are not for MY kids! Ironically, we eat mostly cinnamon Life cereal in our house -- so when it comes to cereal, we`re pro-Life. We also eat this all natural, Kashi-brand cereal shaped like little people, which our 4-year old refers to as his "human cereal."

I noticed a while back that I began too many posts with, "Hmmmm," and have tried to temper that -- I will now watch the "Well`s..." as well.

Silly Interloper (can I call you SI for short? Or does that make you sound too much like St. Ignatious?), I try to live an honest life, above all. This means I admit all of my faults, my shortcomings and my doubts -- I do not pretend to believe in anything in which I have trouble believing, and I carefully examine all of my reasons for believing, and disbelieving, everything. Questioning everything has always come naturally to me, and it`s up to me to strive to do the best I can, with what I`ve been given.
L. | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 1:55 pm | #

That`s the point, Joanne -- I fully realize that someday it might be out of my hands entirely, and up to others. I can make (and have made) my wishes known, but I know that
ultimately, my fate is not my own.
L. | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 1:56 pm | #

"Any fence-related humor, anyone?"

"Hmm - would be a welcome change from railing against stuff..."

dan s., can't you see readers are electrified by the topic? at any rate, there's certainly no hedging about...
serpentyn | 10.07.06 - 5:41 pm | #

dan s., can't you see readers are electrified by the topic? at any rate, there's certainly no hedging about...

Serpentyn, does this series of puns mean that I'm obligated to picket up where you left off?
Joel | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 6:31 pm | #

Now, people, no barbed comments right out of the gate, please ...
Tragic Christian | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 7:30 pm | #

Before I even read the other comments, I have to say that I bristle so much about eugenic abortions because we're treating people as garbage just for being different. So much for "celebrating diversity".

I worked in one of those institutions that disabled kids used to be consigned to for life. So I got to meet those institutionalized kids thirty, forty, fifty, sixty years later. And despite the lack of early intervention and such, they were still some of the most amazing human beings I've ever had the honor to meet in my life. And I do mean honor.

As children they got shunted away to a place that would have crushed a lesser person. To a man and to a woman, they built lives for themselves anyway, amid restrictions and abuse and neglect.

I pity them less for having been institutionalized than I pity the rest of the world for never having met them. For people to dismiss them as unworthy to even breathe air, without even having met them, based purely on their own personal prejudices, is beyond appalling. And that we've built a society where that prejudice is applauded is even worse.
Christina | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 2:40 am | #

I'm not "special," and I don't have extra "patience" except when dealing with the crowd who tells me how patient and special I must be to do what I do.

Amen, Shelley! When I'd tell people I worked MH/MR, they'd say, "Oh, you must be so patient!" I'd say, "Yeah, I have to deal with corrupt management and idiotic regulations. It's a shame that detracts from the joy and fun of the job otherwise."

It always annoys me that people assume that folks with disabilities are just so much more draining to be around than "normal" people. I teach "normal" kids English in a private academy in Korea, and I need a thousand times more patience to deal with these designated-normal kids than I ever needed when dealing with disabled folks.
Christina | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 2:44 am | #

Dot's a blessing all right, and I applaud TC and his wife for their choice. I applaud even more that they had the right to make it.

So the best thing in the world isn't love, it's the opportunity to reject love?
Christina | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 2:53 am | #

Leif, ref "terminating a pregnancy"

My best friend had to have three pregnancies terminated due to life-threatening medical crises. They were terminated via emergency c-section, with live births!

When my daughter was nine months pregnant and suffering from gestational diabetes, we took her to the hospital to have the pregnancy terminated. Via induction of labor. My granddaughter is now two years old.

As a member of Feminists for Life pointed out, all pregnancies terminate. It's the ending of the life we object to!
Christina | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 2:58 am | #

L., I think we just need to be clear that the battle over abortion isn't a battle about the legal, social, and political status of terminating pregnancies. All pregnancies terminate naturally at about nine months, and many are non-controversially terminated via c-section or induction of a live birth.

The battle over abortion is about whether or not fetuses are disposable.
Christina | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 3:01 am | #

Dear L.,

"...quite honestly, regardless of its tiny size, I am quite impressed how complex embryos are. I have never, in my life, ever disputed that they are human beings, human individuals. Remember: I was once pro-life.
Again, I have never used size as a justification for my opinion, here or anywhere else -- and I never will.
So I know exactly what "hit" me, Leif: I very suddenly became aware that I would kill a human being, in certain circumstances. And yes, I recall it was very much like a bolt of lightening -- I was 15, and still remember the very moment when I decided I would have an abortion in certain circumstances. I realized the implications and the full gravity of my decision -- that`s why I`m not pro-life."
...
"And if I end up in Hell someday, I will go there as a Catholic. (At least it will be warm, and my husband will be there, too.)"

Dear L, I worry about these statements you make. On the one hand, it is great that you have so much clarity about yourself, most of us don't know what we're capable of, so I believe you have the making to be a great saint. But the next step would be to repent. Admitting that you're capable of mortal sin and then later on committing it is not what consigns a person to hell, ultimately it is the lack of repentence. Reading your posts I fancy you're more than halfway there as I seem to detect an underlying sadness and struggle.

This can be a moment of grace for you if only you let it be. As for your husband, you can rescue his soul (if need be) too. St Teresa of Avilla says when one soul goes to heaven she drags a whole bunch of other souls along with her.

Hannah
Hannah | 10.08.06 - 4:51 am | #

For those who follow PostSecret, this week's postcards include one from a woman who aborted her DS baby.
Leyan | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 8:49 am | #

Thanks for your concern, Hannah. But in order to sincerely repent, I would have to feel sincere repentence -- and I don`t. More than 25 years (and multiple pregnancies) later, I still believe I would abort in certain circumstances. Also, I`ve never worried about my husband`s soul -- he`s on his own, because only an individual knows for sure what is in his or her heart.

And I don`t think "sadness and struggle" quite describes what I am, because I`m oddly at peace with being a less-than-fully participating member of the Catholic church -- which I suppose is a very clear sign that I am not a "good" Catholic. If I were, I would try to do something about it.

But I can see that your concern is sincere, and I thank you for it.
L. | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 10:44 am | #

"I know that ultimately, my fate is not my own."

That's true, and again, thankfully there are people who are willing to ascribe certain rights and dignities to you as a human being, that you seem unwilling to extend to others, namely, the preborn.
Joanne | 10.08.06 - 11:31 am | #

" ...all pregnancies terminate. It's the ending of the life we object to!"
--Christina

My point exactly.
And well put, Christina.
Leif | 10.08.06 - 4:34 pm | #

Dear L.,

If I may be so bold, I think your major error is too place too much emphasis on feelings. For example, you said that you didn't feel any love (!=love) for your children when they were born, you don't feel repentance, etc.

Your feelings (like your imagination) are just a component of you, they don't define you, they shouldn't be the boss of you, and they won't be if you will it. The higher part of you is your will which loves and your intellect which knows. Feelings are in part biologically ingrained (such as the oxytocin mothers are supposed to get upon labor that stimulates bonding to the infant), and partly socially conditioned (which advertisers have learned to manipulate in order to sell their products). I got this from a theology book.

My feelings aren't callibrated the way I like either, I'm like that girl in the Seinfeld episode who cried at dropping a hot dog but not when her grandmother died.

It might help if you keep in mind that loving and repenting are action verbs.

Bottom line is repent first and let your feelings catch up to you or not later.

Hannah
Hannah | 10.08.06 - 5:34 pm | #

Again, I have never used size as a justification for my opinion, here or anywhere else -- and I never will.

Then why did you bring it up?
Mary | 10.08.06 - 6:09 pm | #

Mary, I brought it up only as a description -- an embryo is indisputably small and undeveloped, but it`s a human individual nonetheless and I don`t argue with that point. Leif was the one who accused me of using my description as a point of rationalization for my opinion, so I brought up that it didn`t matter as a point of clarification.

Hannah, I`m not sure I can "repent first and let your feelings catch up to you or not later" -- repenting in the hope that true repentence might follow would feel too much like just going through the motions to me, unless I meant it. My heart and my head are attached.
L. | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 9:54 pm | #

L.: "Silly Interloper, my embryo was dead -- I repeat, there was nothing there to love."

Okay. But haven't you ever felt/had love for a dead relative or friend while viewing his body in a casket?

Let me phrase my question a little more precisely. Did you/do you believe that the human you observed inside you with the ultrasound possessed a soul that was lovable or worthy of love? (It might help me if you explicitly stated if you believed a soul existed, or not. At this point, you seem to say that you do believe that the human being that you are willing to kill is a complete human being – soul and all.)

L.: "… but until I had some concept of them as individuals, I didn`t feel anything like "love."

Okay. You seem to believe that love is only an emotion. If you don't "feel" something, there is no love. Is that accurate?

Love, to me, goes far, far deeper than that. Christ gave us the supreme example of love by showing us how far we can love through sacrifice. Our willingness to sacrifice for people demonstrates a much deeper and broader love than our "feelings." We can sacrifice for our family, to be sure, but there is more love to be given according to how we are willing to sacrifice for others. Most charity is done out of love for people we don't know at all.

What you seem to be showing, L., is a lack of love. Your love doesn't seem to extend beyond self and a few chosen individuals. Beyond those few, you seem to live in a tragically loveless world, which means you don't have to be concerned about the other humans you don't love – particularly the child you lost and other unborn. I can see how this would make you not worry about it when your children also lost all love for you to the extent that they would euthanize you.

I find it difficult to see it any other way, right now. (Though I, of course, am seeking your input for understanding – not insisting this is right.) After all, if you did have a broader love, how could you abide the killing of that humanity which is worth loving?

So – as a genuine reflection, not to be mean – my best understanding of you, so far, is that you lead a life that is excessively starved of love. And this evokes a deep sympathy in me. I hope that Christ will eventually lead you to find love beyond that.

L.: "…non-Christian husband`s religion is as true as my own."

Is your husband's religion 100% compatible with Catholic doctrine? (Would you care to tell us what it is?) If it is not, and you believe it is "as true as [your] own," then you believe Catholicism is wrong to that extent. So why would you then call yourself Catholic? It seems willfully irrational to me. (And very likely heretical.)

Niel C.: "Silly, this sounds soooo condescending, like when someone tailgates you and you smile at them as they flip you the bird."

There was no condescension in it whatsoever. I love her lost child. I feel sorry for her that she does not love it. She is it's mother, after all. That may be as tragic as the loss of life itself.

Neil C: " And as for why I read this blog, I find the music stuff interesting and look at the other things sometimes just to get both viewpoints on a subject, and usually you make your point in a rational way."

All cool. It doesn't clarify the original comment, but it seems clear that you don't consider the conversation to be futile.

L.: "Well, I`m back, and I realize I never left. And if I end up in Hell someday, I will go there as a Catholic. (At least it will be warm, and my husband will be there, too.)"

To be clear – I am not telling you what you should or should not do or be. I'm just very confused why you would even choose to be Catholic if you actually reject it so severely in so many ways.

L.: "… and feels sorry for people like me, for whom love (even my love for born people) is conditional."

It's more than just being conditional, though. It seems quite vacant beyond your little circle of influence. If I understood what you said about yourself, you can't love beyond an emotion evoked from direct contact. That's very sad.
Silly Interloper | 10.08.06 - 11:12 pm | #

L.: "And if I end up in Hell someday, I will go there as a Catholic."

Everyone who goes to hell will go there in full knowledge of the Truth of Catholicism. It makes it no less tragic.
Silly Interloper | 10.08.06 - 11:28 pm | #

I'm just very confused why you would even choose to be Catholic if you actually reject it so severely in so many ways.

I didn`t choose it -- I was born into it. It chose me. I didn`t choose to be American, either, and probably would have picked something else, but even if I were to change my citizenship now, I will always think and speak like someone who was raised American, and it`s exactly the same with being Catholic: it`s part of who I am. It is true I am a dissenter, and not a devout or fully participating Catholic -- and yes, a heretical one, too -- but a "bad" Catholic is still a Catholic. You can argue with that, and even tell me to go away, but I will likely keep coming back, anyway.

My husband is a Buddhist who rejects Christianity outright (even a bit hostilely, due to a bad experience with some pushy missionaries in his hometown), and is not fully comfortable that our children attend Catholic school. He stays as far away from it as he possibly can, and this is okay with me.

And yes, for me, love is an emotion, something either felt....or not. This might be just a question of our different definitions, because while it`s true I need what you call "direct contact" for what I call "love," I do care about complete strangers, and do a lot of charity work. What I consider "charity" and concern for others you likely consider "love."

I am married to a wonderful husband, and we have three children, so with all due respect, and appreciation for your concern, I am perplexed that would think I "lead a life that is excessively starved of love." I suggest you direct your "deep sympathy" elsewhere.

I can see how this would make you not worry about it when your children also lost all love for you to the extent that they would euthanize you.

Excuse me, but... I have requested that they euthanize me, so if they follow through, perhaps even against their own wishes, doing so would be an act of love on their part. (However, I imagine that if I ever reach that state, I won`t be likely to care, one way or another.)
L. | Homepage | 10.09.06 - 12:33 am | #

"if they follow through, perhaps even against their own wishes, doing so would be an act of love on their part."

Is following your wishes an act of love if your wishes are simply wrong? Is doing the wrong thing FOR someone truly loving?
Andy | 10.09.06 - 11:07 am | #

Obviously, Andy, I don`t think my wishes are wrong, so your question, for me, is entirely moot. :)
L. | Homepage | 10.09.06 - 12:20 pm | #

And the Michael Berube essay I linked above mentions exactly this same issue of living wills, Andy:

That’s right, even if you yourselves ask your life partner to refuse medical treatment on your behalf if you are severely and profoundly incapacitated, (Eric) Cohen and his “modern conservatives” will overrule you. Indeed, in the name of championing “loving surrogates” over “living wills” (a euphonic but horrific line), Cohen will treat you as if you are morally incapacitated and thus ineligible to decide your own fate.

I know Dawn doesn`t like when people paste other people`s writings in her comments, but this time, I hope she makes an exception, because here are Berube`s opinions on the original subject of this post (as said, he is the father of a severely disabled DS child, whom he and his wife chose NOT to abort, although they are pro-choice):

Obviously I can’t and don’t advocate abortion of fetuses with Down syndrome; indeed, the only argument I have is that such decisions should not be automatic. A fetal diagnosis of Down syndrome should not be understood, either by medical personnel or by parents, as a finding to which abortion is the most logical response. I believe this not only on humanitarian grounds but also as a matter of practicality: unlike Tay-Sachs or trisomy 13, say, Down syndrome is a disability whose effects are too various to predict and often too mild to justify abortion on “quality of life” considerations for the parents and child.

Nonetheless, although this is my belief, it is only my belief. I would not want to see it become something more than belief – something more like a coercive social expectation. There are already plenty of social forces out there telling pregnant women that they may have an abortion only if they agree to be consumed with guilt about it, and I want to do nothing to reinforce those pressures. I believe that no good is achieved by making some forms of childbearing mandatory, even in a matter so close to my heart as this. But by the same token, just as I would deny that I have the right to make other parents feel guilty for aborting a fetus with Down syndrome, so too would I deny that other parents have the right to make Janet and me feel guilty for having Jamie. This is not a “relativist” position: it is based on the ideal of reciprocity. I will not claim right of access to certain areas of your life, so long as you do not claim right of access to equivalent areas of mine. If I do not want to interfere with other people’s most intimate decisions, I also want it understood that those of us who do have “disabled” children are not selfish: we are not a corporate liability, we are not a drain on health care resources, we are not siphoning money away from soup kitchens, environmental protection, or job training and day care for single mothers.
L. | Homepage | 10.09.06 - 12:35 pm | #

"I believe that no good is achieved by making some forms of childbearing mandatory"

This is like saying "I believe that no good is achieved by making the avoidance of murder mandatory"

You don't, eh?

What a mess.
Leif | 10.09.06 - 3:38 pm | #

L.: "-- and yes, a heretical one, too -- but a "bad" Catholic is still a Catholic."

Sure. I'm a bad Catholic after all. The question is: Are you even a bad Catholic? You seem to think so, but you thinking so doesn't necessarily make it so. In fact, from your apparent admission to heresy you have this to contend with:

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

I provide that for your own edification and introspection, not to prove anything. However, if your statement that you are heretical is accurate, it would seem your Catholic status is very dubious. As always, I'm not going to insist on the point, and I don't think it is my place to do so. But there it is.

Realize that I am mostly trying to understand you here, and provide information when it's relevent. I am not all that concerned with your status myself, except in terms of understanding things. My main concern is that you do not represent Catholicism. You have made it blatantly clear that you do not represent Catholicism at all. So I'm cool.

"… I do care about complete strangers, and do a lot of charity work. What I consider "charity" and concern for others you likely consider "love.""

I hope so. That would seem to indicate that you do in fact love beyond the emotion – assuming the charity is done out of love and not some other motive. But for some odd reason you don't recognize it as such. Which is certainly better than the bleakness I was reading from you.

"I am married to a wonderful husband, and we have three children, so with all due respect, and appreciation for your concern, I am perplexed that would think I "lead a life that is excessively starved of love.""

Well – two things. 1) If your love is limited to only emotions, I would expect these relationships of yours to be excessively shallow. You could easily starve among the "warm fuzzies." I suspect and hope, as it probably is with those you don't know, you have deeper things going on. You just don't recognize it as love. 2) There is something utterly wrong with cutting off love and a regard for a complete human being – even your own offspring. (You seem to be avoiding any admission that the child was a *complete* human being with soul and spirit. Yes? No?) Regardless of the glimmer of hope mentioned above, you have severely cut yourself off from love, and that will inevitably be crippling to the love in your life.

"I suggest you direct your "deep sympathy" elsewhere."

If I observed a man withering away because he only ate white bread, I would have great sympathy for him. If he took issue with me and told me he wanted no pity because he loved white bread, hated other foods, and felt perfectly good about it, I would still have great sympathy for him as I watched him wither away. At the very least for your inability to love your child, I have deep sympathy for you. More so if you spurn it.

L.: "Excuse me, but... I have requested that they euthanize me, so if they follow through, perhaps even against their own wishes, doing so would be an act of love on their part."

But that only compounds the tragedy. Not only have you reduced yourself to nothing lovable, but trained your children and husband to do the same and to respond to that with complicity in an assisted suicide of sorts. This is nothing like the love about which we Catholics are taught. It is more like the systematic eradication of love.
Silly Interloper | 10.09.06 - 4:36 pm | #

but it seems clear that you don't consider the conversation to be futile.
>>>

Yeah, suddenly you and Leif are for abortion and L. is now against it. I reinterate that no one will slap their head and go "You're right!" It's just interesting what each side has to say.
Neil C. | 10.09.06 - 4:57 pm | #

This is nothing like the love about which we Catholics are taught.>>

Not everybody is Catholic here. Guess we don't know what "true" love is either, Silly?
Neil C. | 10.09.06 - 5:00 pm | #

Neil C.: "Yeah, suddenly you and Leif are for abortion and L. is now against it. I reinterate that no one will slap their head and go "You're right!" It's just interesting what each side has to say."

That's not usually how it works, but you have already been disabused of this silly notion that nobody ever changes their minds on an issue.

And the rest of us aren't exactly measuring the benefits according to what Neil C. gets out of it.
Silly Interloper | 10.09.06 - 5:16 pm | #

Neil C.: "Not everybody is Catholic here. Guess we don't know what "true" love is either, Silly?"

Neil C., if I were having this conversation with you, I'm sure it would be completely different. You might have very similar problems, but you would relate to them very differently. However, I'm having it with someone professing to be Catholic, so my comments should be quite relevant. And I stick by my interpretation of love - regardless of whether or not we label it "Catholic."
Silly Interloper | 10.09.06 - 5:24 pm | #

And the rest of us aren't exactly measuring the benefits according to what Neil C. gets out of it.>>

Not saying you should, but I'm just expressing my opinion, and I respect everybody else expressing their opinions.
Neil C. | 10.09.06 - 5:41 pm | #

I think we can agree on some mutual respect.
Silly Interloper | 10.09.06 - 5:58 pm | #

Silly Interloper, if love and charity are synonomous, why do so many prayers make the distinction between "caritas" and "amor" (e.g., Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est..)? Anyway, I don`t claim that my pesonal definition of "love" matches the Catholic one (and it certainly doesn`t match yours), so I`d say there`s no need for us to argue about it.

As for being a dissenting Catholic, there`s a difference between dissenting privately, and actually sowing dissent within the Church. As for the heretical circumstances of my marriage (complete with my promise to take care of my husband`s family`s Buddhist alter in our home someday, because he`s the eldest son), I have looked into Canon law myself and wondered whether I`m a Catholic excommunicant or simply a non-communicant -- and concluded that ultimately, it doesn`t matter, as long as I don`t go around calling myself a good Catholic or holding myself up as representing the Church on that or any other heretical view.

If you prefer to think it`s "sad" that my relationships with my husband, children, extended family and friends are "excessively shallow," and that I am like "a man withering away because he only ate white bread," there is probably nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. You are unlikely to ever believe me when I tell you that my life is quite the opposite of the nihilistic emptiness you describe. I`m only sorry you do not acknowlege, nor seem to understand, that even people with non-Catholic values and opinions can lead happy, meaningful, productive and fulfilling lives.
L. | Homepage | 10.09.06 - 7:02 pm | #

Leif, I didn`t expect you of all people to agree with what Michael Berube wrote.
But since he chose NOT to abort his severely disabled DS son, would you at least agree that he did the right thing, albeit for what you consider the wrong reason?
L. | Homepage | 10.09.06 - 7:06 pm | #

Mary, I brought it up only as a description -- an embryo is indisputably small and undeveloped, but it`s a human individual nonetheless and I don`t argue with that point.

Why did you pick that description?

There are many, many, many ways you could have described it. For instance, embryos are indisputably the children of the women who abort them, yet you did not describe them so.

Why did you describe it at all? Why the "nevertheless"? Why did you not just say, "It is a human individual, and I don`t argue with that point."?
You did not want to make an unequivocal statement, you had to modify it with an observation that these human beings are very small, and so it is clear that this observation has some relevance to the question of their humanity.
Mary | 10.09.06 - 10:09 pm | #

complete with my promise to take care of my husband`s family`s Buddhist alter in our home someday, because he`s the eldest son

The term for that is "apostasy." As in, that was exactly the behavior that Christians were fed to the lions for refusing to engage in.
Mary | 10.09.06 - 10:17 pm | #

FYI, Mary, the bishops in Japan now allow Catholic Japanese wives of non-Catholics to carry out the Buddhist rituals for their husband`s ancestors (as most were doing anyway) -- the rational is that such actions fall under the commandment to honor thy father and mother. However, back when we were married, it wasn`t permitted.

And as for your insistence that "it is clear that this observation (of size and development) has some relevance to the question of their humanity" in my view that the embryo is a human individual, I don`t know how I can possibly make it any more clear than what I said -- and you quoted. If you still insist on reading some nefarious meaning into my words, you`re obviously not listening to me.
L. | 10.10.06 - 1:18 am | #

"I don`t know how I can possibly make it any more clear than what I said..."

For the record, I did ask if you believed it had a soul and/or spirit - making it a complete human being, and I don't think you have answered that.
Silly Interloper | 10.10.06 - 11:59 am | #

The love for a special needs child can run deep. Likewise can the love a speacial needs child for a pareent. Take a moment and read the story of one such father/son and then watch the video. It is quite touching!
>
> http://cjcphoto.com/can
DEW | 10.10.06 - 12:57 pm | #

Dear L.,

"I`m not sure I can "repent first and let your feelings catch up to you or not later" -- repenting in the hope that true repentence might follow would feel too much like just going through the motions to me, unless I meant it. My heart and my head are attached."

I'd just like to clarify that it's certainly your free will that you can choose to base your convictions and whom you love on your feelings. That's your free choice, I was saying you are not bound to do this. Since there are situations you would have an abortion you choose not to be pro-life any longer, out of honesty.

But I that's a terrible reason and I beg you to reconsider. Like you I also don't feel confident that I'd do the right thing in every circumstance, even abortion. I know I have a breaking point but I don't know where it is exactly. That is why I strongly pray 'lead us not into temptation' and ask God not to break me with trials I can't handle. It's part of humility, that I try to always remember that I'm weak and that it's the grace of God that keeps me from sin, not my own efforts. That's my standard, I don't lower my standard to match my capability.

So in short, I'm discussing your stated reasons. I think you're great but your stated reasons are lousy. If you want to believe what you believe, go ahead, but I think you should be honest(!) and say this is what I choose to believe, no matter what. I freely choose to be bound by how I feel and define love as an emotion etc.

Thanks for putting up with me.

Best,
Hannah

A quote from GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy:

But what we suffer from to-day is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert--himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt--the Divine Reason. Huxley preached a humility content to learn from Nature. But the new sceptic is so humble that he doubts if he can even learn. Thus we should be wrong if we had said hastily that there is no humility typical of our time. The truth is that there is a real humility typical of our time; but it so happens that it is practically a more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic. The old humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether.
Hannah | 10.10.06 - 3:39 pm | #

Silly Interloper, I believe that if any human being has a soul and/or spirit, making it a complete human being (and since there`s no way to empirically prove this, it`s something we have to take on faith) an embryo would, too.

I also don`t discount the possibility of animals having souls.

Thank you Hannah, for your sincerely kind comments, but I`m not convinced that abortion is always a sin (which, before anyone argues with me on that, I will say I fully acknowlege that it`s a dissenting opinion -- so be it, and let God judge me for it).

Also, I think true honesty can never be a "terrible reason" for any belief.
L. | Homepage | 10.10.06 - 3:57 pm | #

L., The only reason to be wrong that is not terrible in my mind is ignorance, which you certainly are not!

Hannah
Hannah | 10.10.06 - 4:34 pm | #

Thanks, Hannah.

I think ignorance is the saddest reason of all.
L. | Homepage | 10.10.06 - 6:38 pm | #

"Also, I think true honesty can never be a "terrible reason" for any belief."

Honesty isn't a reason for a belief. Honesty is a proper representation for that belief. There is some other reason for actually having the belief.

Do you spell anal-retentive with a hyphen, or no?

All jokes aside, I think it's important to dot the i's and cross the t's with L. For example, when she says she believes "some" abortions are not sinful, she is not actually placing herself in the category of people who think "some" abortions are not sinful because an extreme situation exists that threatens the life of the mother. L. has made it clear that she believes situations with far milder hardships can also call for an abortion that wouldn't be sin.

The amazing thing about L. is that she fully admits the full humanity of the unborn - even the tiniest of them - yet she is still willing to kill them *and* she is completely upfront and honest about that. She doesn't shy away from any of the criteria that indicate that abortion is murder - but she thinks that's okay. It's really quite amazing to my mind.

What her actual *reason* for believing that way is - I still have no idea. As far as I can tell, she hasn't given any real reason other than she thinks so. It would seem to me to require violence to reason to attempt to provide one.

L. is also honest about the fact that she doesn't necessarily value human beings all that much, either. She is really quite unique among the pro-choice interlocutors I have engaged. Most of them hide behind the non-human status they arbitrarily asign unborn babies, and they obfuscate the issue with equal rights. I don't recall seeing either from L.

It does make me wonder, though. L., other than extreme scenarios (such as self defense), do you believe that abortion of someone who is already born - even full grown - is always a sin?
Silly Interloper | 10.10.06 - 7:01 pm | #

My views are not as uncommon as you make them out to be, Silly Interloper. It`s just that the "clump of cells" pro-choicers get most of the attention.

In answer to your question: the sinfulness of killing anyone depends entirely on the situation.

As far as I can tell, she hasn't given any real reason other than she thinks so.

I think I`ve given you quite a few reasons, on other comment threads. I don`t believe that any woman should be compelled, legally or otherwise, to sacrifice her physical well-being for the sake of another person, even if removing the risks to the woman require actions that certainly result in the death of the other person. I believe women who voluntarily face such risks in cases of rape or immediate danger to their health are heroes of the highest order, but I don`t believe in mandating such heroism by law.
L. | Homepage | 10.10.06 - 9:07 pm | #

Mary, I was going to argue with you, but I decided I honestly do not care. :)

I am proud and happy to honor my husband`s ancestors, and respect and perpetuate traditions that he holds important. Perhaps because he recognizes my sincerity, he got over his "Christian allergy" and allowed me to baptize our kids, and send them to Catholic school. Interfaith marriages are all about mutual respect and compromise.
L. | Homepage | 10.10.06 - 9:16 pm | #

"I think I`ve given you quite a few reasons, on other comment threads. I don`t believe that any woman should be compelled, legally or otherwise, to sacrifice her physical well-being for the sake of another person, even if removing the risks to the woman require actions that certainly result in the death of the other person."

That simply restates what you believe. It doesn't give a reason why you believe it.
Silly Interloper | 10.10.06 - 9:46 pm | #

Ah -- I see. So your argument is that your view is superior by virtue of the fact that it is based not just on what you "think," but also on the tenets of revealed religion? What I view as my own common sense judgment is therefore inferior, and can`t possibly be valid, without some kind of authoritative approval? Hmmm. We really do look at life differently, don`t we?

Okay, I guess I`ll go with your, "...because she thinks so." It`s not reason -- it`s a statement of fact.
L. | Homepage | 10.10.06 - 10:53 pm | #

Now, L. We have been examining your beliefs and reasoning. You haven't examined my reasoning at length, so it's not very rational or kind to degenerate into sarcastic, back-handed ad hominem - even if it does serve your evasiveness.
Silly Interloper | 10.10.06 - 11:24 pm | #

None was intended, actually. It`s hard to get the tone right, in print, all the time.

But is a forced sacrifice really a sacrifice at all?
L. | Homepage | 10.10.06 - 11:56 pm | #

"But is a forced sacrifice really a sacrifice at all?"

By asking the question, you are clearly conflating my discussion regarding love with a discussion regarding law. Two different things. Next question?
Silly Interloper | 10.11.06 - 12:11 am | #

Should someone be forced to do something based only on an abstract description and defintion of something called "love" that they don`t personally feel or recognize?

And when have I ever been "evasive?"
L. | Homepage | 10.11.06 - 12:32 am | #

"Should someone be forced to do something based only on an abstract description and defintion of something called "love" that they don`t personally feel or recognize?"

I never implied anything of the sort, so your question is nonsensical to me.

"And when have I ever been "evasive?""

Are you serious?

Instead of providing the reasoning for your beliefs, you made a broad remark about my reasoning to imply that they were based upon some egotistic sense of superiority and spoon-fed, arbitrary ideas. It seemed pretty obvious to me you were trying to characterize my reasoning as dubious to juxtapose it against your lack of reason so it looks less unfavorable. (If that wasn't what you were doing, I haven't a clue what your point was.)

After that, you wrote: "Okay, I guess I`ll go with your, "...because she thinks so." It`s not reason -- it`s a statement of fact."

...which explicitly evades providing any reasoning.