The Forum > Article Comments > Where did the love go? Violinists are not babies > Comments
Where did the love go? Violinists are not babies : Comments
By Bill Muehlenberg, published 28/2/2005Bill Muehlenberg analyses Jarvis's "violinst" justification for abortion on demand.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
-
- All
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 28 February 2005 11:59:02 AM
| |
Why do people insist on misreading Thompson's argument?
It is so simple, that it really seems that it must be deliberate. If you read the actual article, you will see that Thompson is arguing about making abortion illegal - she argues that there are no other laws which FORCE a person to save another's life, only laws about taking lives. There are no "good samaritan" laws about jumping into a river, or donating a kidney to save someone's life. Making it compulsory for a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy is therefore a much greater burden than we would ever place on any other citizen. No-where does Thompson argue that abortion is either simple, or compulsory. Only that it should not be made a criminal act. Posted by Amanda, Monday, 28 February 2005 1:45:12 PM
| |
Amanda
So far as having children, or not having children, there is now much choice because of better quality contraception. This is particularly so for women see…http://www.betterhealthchannel.com.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Contraception_choices_explained?open) Perhaps you could help answer this question. “Why then so much abortion, (or the discarding of unwanted children), when there is now ready access to so much reliable contraception?” Posted by Timkins, Monday, 28 February 2005 1:59:16 PM
| |
I quote Bill Muehlenberg
"It (the embryo / fetus) is the natural guest of a mother's womb." Thanks for acknowledging it is "the mother's" womb, Bill Thanks for acknowledging the embryo / fetus is "a guest". I will appreciate it when you acknowledge the owner of the "womb" and the "permanent resident" of the body (the mother) has "rights" which prevail over anything the "guest" user of "the mothers womb" can claim (and who is, after all, just "passing through"). I would further suggest, if you knew the circumstances, desires, aspirations and expectations of the mother, you will still lack the "intimate involvement" with and "responsibility for" the pregnancy to presume your opinion counts for anything. Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 28 February 2005 3:52:38 PM
| |
Amanda - we have lots of laws not to kill other people.
Did you miss them all? Pearl Posted by Pearl, Monday, 28 February 2005 6:04:10 PM
| |
Consider this scenario. A ship is wrecked on a deserted island and the only survivors are a man and a one-year-old child. Fortunately there is sufficient suitable food and water available for them both but given the child’s young age it is necessary for the man to care fully for the child’s needs. As well, it is the case that there are many quite poisonous scorpions on the island which could prove fatal to the child if she were bitten. This fact necessitates that the man, who has boots, has to carry the child strapped to his chest much of the time.
At the time of the shipwreck, the man was aware that another ship was due to visit that area in about eight to nine months, but until then it was almost certain that there would be no chance of them being rescued. Sure enough, a ship does come by after nine months and happens to see the man’s signal fire. He is subsequently asked if there were any other survivors of the shipwreck and he tells them of the little girl. When it is enquired as to where she is, he calmly tells them that she is dead. He then goes on to explain that after a month or so, even though she was healthy, he had deliberately killed her because he had become tired of having to carry her around and provide for all her needs. It is pointed out to him that since he knew he would be rescued after eight or nine months, and the child would then be able to be cared for by others, why didn’t he just look after the baby until then? His reply is that since the child was fully dependent upon him he considered it to be his right to be able to kill the child if he wanted to do so. Would we accept his argument? I expect that he would be charged with murder. We do not normally accept that being dependent eliminates one’s right to live. Why should a preborn child’s dependency be an exception? Posted by GP, Monday, 28 February 2005 6:29:34 PM
|
In her article Pringle tends to portray child rearing as an imposition on the mother, and the father of course is not included in the article. The only male in the article is a violinist, who uses the mothers body against her will. (Ho hum…boring dogma from another era).
Pringle also overlooks the fact that very cheap and reliable contraception is now readily available for women, and with that contraception they can be in complete control of their reproductive self, and much more in control of their destiny.
Modern contraception should have made abortion almost entirely redundant, and those children who are born should be greatly wanted by their parents. However abortion rates have hardly declined in many years.
Why then so much abortion, (or the discarding of unwanted children), when there is now ready access to so much reliable contraception?
We appear to have a very mixed up society, even with so much choice now available. And in the minds of many, love for oneself, has now surpassed love for others. Pringle's article just encourages this type of thinking.