Stand up for what you believe in, even if it goes against the current status quo.

Posts tagged ‘Pro-Choice’

Amendment 26 Says What?

Yes, yes. I should be writing a Criminology paper and getting to sleep (it’s currently 12:30 am). But… I was having a mental block and I’m not tired so I decided to write y’all another post instead. Two in one day! I’m on a roll… 🙂

My friend told me about this article in a universities newspaper. It was under the “Viewpoint” section, which I believe is sort of an opinion section for the paper’s writers.

It’s about abortion. In favor of abortion, of course!

http://www.technicianonline.com/viewpoint/standing-up-for-rights-1.2669790?pagereq=1#.TsSKJmAfqyB

The chick who wrote this is apparently very ignorant.

She opens up with the defeat of Mississippi’s Amendment 26. She explains it a bit, not doing it much justice. Then she states, “Thankfully, the Amendment did not pass.”

Thankfully. Of course!

She’s against it because of “the issue of rape.” Of course you are. This young author believes that if a woman was raped and was not allowed to have an abortion, that the child would be “a slap in the face” and that the mother would show nothing but “distaste” towards the child because it would be a constant reminder of that rape. She says something a little insane about a mother falling, and having a miscarriage, and being processed as a criminal… which I’m pretty sure was not the intent of the Amendment, but hey, I could be wrong… Then the article moves on to fertility treatment and claims that outlawing certain fertility treatments would ban couples from having children.

And here we go.

ISSUES with this article: Everything.

First off, of course it’s a pro-choice article. What institution would print a pro-life article commending Article 26? I wonder if I wrote to The Technician about the positives of this Amendment if they would print it? Highly doubtful.

Second. Her argument about miscarriages and criminal proceedings is awkward. I don’t think she has her facts straight, which is unfortunate. I can just see college students reading this, nodding their heads in agreement, unaware that the details of the Amendment have been skewed and blown out of proportions. And of course they won’t go read the Amendment for themselves, because hey! Someone’s already done that for them. Riiiiight…

Third. I completely understand that rape is horrible. No woman (or man) should ever have to suffer a trauma that horrific. However, it’s pretty selfish to want an abortion because that child would be a constant reminder of the rape. So an abortion is better, huh? Not only will the woman suffer one trauma (the rape) but then she’ll go endure another one having the abortion!! Now that’s horrific. And to call the child a slap in the face is just plain stupid. Get a grip author! You should be more intelligent than that.

Fourth. This argument is the worst of them all I think. “I am the result of numerous fertility treatments. Although I was born long before this became an issue, it still hurts to know that some couples who want children could be potentially banned from having children, should this become a law anywhere?” Well… I don’t think Mississippi will be banning people from having children. There is this thing called adoption. It’s a great thing to do. Instead of creating babies through science and illegitimate and unnatural means, maybe parents can help those that are already living? You know, save a life, give a child a better life and the opportunity to know unconditional love and what it’s like to have a family. Isn’t that was we as Americans stand for? Don’t we stand for happiness and opportunities? Apparently only to a fault.

Plus, I love that she titles it “Standing Up For Rights.” Whose rights? Not those of the innocent, defenseless child. Oh, the woman’s rights? What? Her right to kill an innocent, defenseless child? That’s not a right. That’s murder. And murder is just plain wrong.

Maybe I’m overreacting. Maybe I’m not. I just don’t think this is a necessary article for a university’s newspaper. If they’re going to publish a left-sided article it’s only fair that they should publish a right-sided, pro-life one. But they won’t, which is unfortunate.

And that’s my peace. Time for sleep.

~Lucy

Advertisements

Pregnancy- An Emblem of Female Inferiority

SO.
I’m sitting in the library doing my reading homework like a good, little college kid. And to my utmost disgust, I have to read an article about the inequalities of women.

This article was SO infuriating, that I wrote a forum on the class’s website about it. I’m sharing the article with you. It’s quite long, and the section that I focused on was pg. 1308-1324.

It is sickening people. The stupid idiot woman calls fetuses, cute little babies growing inside mommies, as “parasites” (pg. 1313). Says that pregnancy is socially gendered and that men want to control the fetus in order to the control the woman.

Let’s just say this woman is off her rocker. I don’t know where people get these ideas! They are CUCKOO!! Ugh. Anyways. Here’s my response. Here’s the article. MACKINNON

Enjoy. And comment back with your thoughts and opinions. I’d love to hear them!!

~Lucy

“You created my inmost self, knit me together in my mother’s womb.” Psalms 139: 13

MacKinnon’s argument might be enticing to women who would like to feel discriminated against, but it is not persuasive.
She has one main argument, and that is that women are treated unequally mainly because they are women and have childbearing capabilities.
Her view of abortion is about being a victim. In her opinion, criminalizing abortion takes away women’s control over their bodies. The fetus is but a “parasite” to the woman, and poses a threat to her livelihood and welfare. If abortion was to be criminalized, MacKinnon argues that women would again become victims, victims to men’s control of society and women’s bodies. Men’s efforts to criminalize abortion “asserts the fetus against the pregnant woman.” Women see men as controlling the fetus only as a means of controlling the pregnant woman. She also argues that the fetus is not fully human until it has been birthed.
In looking at her argument from a pro-life standpoint, criminalizing abortion is not an effort to criminalize the child-bearing capabilities of women. Her argument is extremely selfish in the fact that MacKinnon is constantly looking at the woman as a victim with little regard to the life of the fetus. Efforts to criminalize abortion are efforts to protect the life of the fetus, not to take away rights from the mother. Who is MacKinnon to say that the fetus has no value as a human-being? Yes, a woman has a right to her own body. But as MacKinnon also points out, the fetus is not a part of the woman’s body (pg. 1313). And yes, women do have child-bearing capabilities that men do not and men will never know what it feels like to carry a child. But that makes women different, not insubordinate or unequal. The problem with MacKinnon’s argument is that she sees woman as victims in almost every aspect of society, as different and unequal to men. In today’s society, however, women have achieved equality with men.

The Truths of the Gospel

Hi everyone! I hope you all had a happy and blessed Easter!

I was searching the web and I came across this video on catholic.org. It is a young man speaking about the true gospel and how an organization called “Catholics for Choice” (a so-called Catholic pro-choice organization) is distorting the gospel. He speaks very eloquently about what the truth is within the gospel and how the reasons behind the teachings of Catholics for Choice are false. I would also like to mention that the organization in no way represents the standings of the Church. I invite you all to watch it. It was very informative and interesting.

~Lucy

Tag Cloud