The following are extracts from a FB conversation:
Okay... so that's your over-riding criteria for selecting a President? You're entitled to your perspective. I'm more concerned about contexts for what derails and inhibits us, over-riding contexts of plunder and poisoning of planet earth; the contorted systems by which humans fail to share equitable value for labor... and then there's trust. Can we trust our employed officials to do what we expect from them. Sanders hasn't changed his views which are in harmony with mine and have been consistent over the years. Clinton flip-flops too much about everything... just to name a couple.
Regardless..., so you believe abortion is the primary parameter for deciding who will solve America's problems? What if all the other intentions of that said candidate will undermine any woman's ability to feed, educate, keep healthy and happy that born child ? Thank goodness though our cultural mores are not so twisted that we would decapitate anyone who thinks differently right. At least the child can grow up in a country where they are free to be incarcerated for stealing a loaf of bread rather than losing a hand, or protest injustices and not get shot because we're hungry, homeless, mentally ill, black or an abortion clinic doctor...um...yeah, sadly that does happen here though doesn't it?! no, there are too many already disenfranchised families out there to be so insistent that we continue to expand the population. Every few weeks I see more and more tents across from the homeless shelter mission... no, the contexts for all the suffering of those already walking this earth need to change drastically first.
yet earth is the greater placenta
You say social justice starts in the womb yet the imposition of your "justice" appears to me to be coming from your mouth.
It can go round like that. Where does our ultimate fealty lie... in whose truth, whose promises.
Events such as what constitutes a single life are indeed immense topics ... but so is what are the provisions for life?, the earth, the mother and father, the womb, ... and should we look narrowly or broadly— anything for that matter presents same problem, the individual vs the group... or where does the one event end and the other begin... can we both be "right" in the general sense and therefore there is an inherent disconnect between minds while we haggle over where in time does the mother end and the child begin?!
Anyway I don't mean to define the baby by the bath-water... nor throw the baby out. But can we not provide a clean bath before we put the baby in? What if we were to visualize the potential futures as the bathwater? And is that any further a stretch than visualizing the fetus in the womb as separate from the coursing blood of the mother and her past, as violent as that conception might have been?...
It might seem to some that the offspring and the mother are one until the umbilical cord is severed. Or that the father all the while after copulation has an invisible, visceral connection to both fetus and mother.
When does that true living connection begin or stop? And is the context for defining conception courting or violence? Does a rapist in other words conceive a child, or otherwise impose it, and would not a "pro-lifer" be complicit then in the raping's violence?
These are just questions, an attempt to get at the root of the controversy.
Who better than the mother knows this root and therefore the future for that potential fruit.
Sadly God does throw dice... in the form of fucked up children that grow up to commit violence (like rape) Yet life is not a card game any more than moral indignation prevents rape.
Is a rapist the hand of God saying, here Satan, you need more tortured fucked up souls!
Since I have exhausted for a time my views of conception and abortion let me attempt to construct an opposing view since we cannot say that the mother ever ceases to be the mother, can we not also not say that the child in the womb is never at any point in time not the child? that is, parents for example as soon as they can save that the woman is pregnant, they consider it to be the case that the woman is "with child", and in some cases early on even give the child a name, and at that point the child "comes to be" their child.
So in a semantic cents in the least, physiological conception and belief are one and the same for a parent. Semantics, language have great sway over belief. if two individuals believe they have a child in the womb or not, that belief appears to determine whether there is life or not.
Belief however, to return to an objection, belief is arbitrary and cannot determine life if life in fact is objectively real. I could say a rock is alive and my offspring—if I believe it to be so would it be life?
Yes, there are cases when an unplanned or ill-conceived child develops in a kindly space. And based on chance we might be inclined to hope for the best. In that case faith and a belief in a higher power would certainly be required.
Yet, what of a woman who is not inclined to believe in a power higher than her cognition and will to choose a path for her life? Whether impregnated or not a woman ought to be given that power to construct her view of her future, rather than merely succumb to another's moral construct.
She should no more merely base her decisions on hope for the best scenario than on fear of the unknown worst case. Critical thinking in that case would be warranted, yet understandably objectionable to those otherwise inclined to "let God provide"
In this way it must be accepted that there is no reconciling these two very opposed views.
"the Juda Myers story[....]Children conceived in wedlock in great love grow up to be less than stellar individuals all the time." (Brenda)
Yes, and even with the best of intentions, and legal precepts followed some parents are not at all prepared or capable of properly nurturing their children. We could not however presume to know ahead of time as observers the outcome of their failure to raise them well. Should we denounce the mother then who knows her limitations, what great odds might undo her potential to bring a planned child into a better time, a space she would have created by her own will, and not the violent will of another?
"Discrimination to a person due to the circumstances of their conception seems to be the ultimate bigotry."(Brenda)
Not sure what you mean here. Can you restate this?
anyway like I said I don't believe these two opposing views can be reconciled And while I might admonish someone with an opposing view I might have more to insist upon based on what they actually do with that opposing view.
Bombing a clinic or shooting a doctor makes these individuals no better than religious fanatics and terrorists
Anyway, re your restatement, ah, yes, the child had no choice in the matter. And we should presume, if happily that developing mind is a clean slate as they say, and not yet destroyed by a drug addicted mother, or some such living condition—we should assume the child will come free from fearful inhibitions into the world with a determination to surmount all odds! That was my hope for my children and I could not deny it of another who might choose to bring a child into misfortune at the start. They might both be far more equal to the challenge and even stronger for it.
