How do pro-abortion women not see abortion objectifies them?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gift_from_God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not every woman who has sex is promiscuous. There are a lot of reasons women have sex–sex that they don’t even really want. And they don’t really know why–only that they don’t think they have the right to refuse. But if no one teaches them that they do have the right to refuse, then they will only learn this (if they learn it at all) from experience.

I am blaming men–not every man in the world, but I am blaming men for the things they actually do to women to get what they want at any cost. Why should they be any less blameworthy than the con artist who uses his talent for deceit to commit theft and fraud. A lot of men commit theft and fraud against women.

So maybe women should be taught to think as you say above. If I had a daughter, I’d tell her about the tricks and games, I’d educate her about deceit and manipulation, I’d train her to spot a con man. And if she grew up to be jaded about human nature and mistrustful of others, I’d consider it a far far lesser evil than sending a lamb out into a world full of wolves.
First of all, let me apologize for using the word “promiscuous.” I didn’t like it at the time I wrote my post, but I couldn’t think of any other word or term to use and I still can’t. I don’t think the English language has a word for what I really mean.

I had to delete most of your post because of space. Sorry. You know, when I read what you wrote I agreed with most, if not all of it, and it makes me so sad. It seems sometimes that men are indeed “wolves” and out to get what they can get; not worrying about pregnancy and knowing they can boast about their conquests and will receive accolades from their friends, who are out doing the same thing.

I don’t have a living daughter now, but if I did, I would do what my sister did with her daughters. She taught them what to expect; all the lines and games and promises. Her daughters are remarkably successful and neither of them has fallen into any sort of trap laid by men.

In some of the psychology courses I’ve taken I’ve been taught that in our society we often blame women and let men “off the hook.” They don’t know any better or that’s just the way men are. And to me, that’s a cop-out. I think it’s so important that we raise our sons to respect all people, including themselves. I honestly am sick of hearing men say they can’t help it - it’s all they think about and that makes it OK.

I guess I’ve let slip a little bit of my anger toward men and what society tells them is OK. I hate feeling like this because I think I’m objectifying men and I don’t want to do that. I’m very aware of the games some men play when all they want is sex. I don’t know if they really don’t see how cruel and hurtful and dangerous those games can be, or if they just don’t care at all. They are lucky in that they can’t get pregnant. That sounds awful, I know. But they can just get off and then leave while the woman (who oftentimes is a young teenager) ends up deserted, betrayed, and carrying a new life inside her. I think our physical readiness to have children progresses faster age-wise than our emotional ability to have children. No 12 year-old should become pregnant. Something got screwed up somewhere and I don’t know what happened.

But I do believe there is a solution (although I don’t expect it will happen anytime soon). If we educate our children to act morally, they will act morally. They really do want to trust us and do what we say.

And one more thing I would like to add - it infuriates me when young teens become pregnant and are absolutely terrified to tell their parents. There’s something wrong in a parent-child relationship when a daughter panics because she thinks (or knows) her parents will “kill her” if they find out. No parent should desert a child because she was trapped. We’re supposed to love our children, not betray their trust.

It seems that children in previous generations were taught to wait until marriage. Not all did, of course, but back then it wasn’t expected for a girl to “put out” on her first date, or even on subsequent dates. And she certainly wasn’t told she was weird for being a virgin bride.

If men “can’t help it” how come men of previous generations had more self-control? What makes the men now such weak wimps? Frankly, I think it’s another ruse some men hope we will buy into so they can have their pleasure without any consequences. It’s also the logical outcome of widespread contraception, that is, divorcing the procreative function from the sexual act.

Sex nowadays has been reduced from its sacredness and holiness to just something to do, like sports. (In fact, men refer to it in sports language like “getting to first base.”) It’s tragic that this generation has such an incredibly low, even animalistic, view of sex. Certainly God wants better for us. Sheesh, you’d think we’d want better for ourselves!

My marriage lasted for only four years before my husband died. I’ve read a lot of posts here which refer to the marriage covenant and how important sexual intercourse is to that covenant - how holy it is. To be honest, my husband and I (though deeply in love) never accepted that “holiness” stuff. To us, sex was a sharing of ourselves, but God never came into it. We never even considered that. It would have been completely alien to us. And when I read these posts I realize we missed out on something so wonderful, something that would have brought us so much closer, to the point where we would really have been “one.” And I get jealous and sad when I read those posts. I never had that and I most likely never will.

Sancta Maria! Mater dei, ora pro nobis.
 
Feminists don’t want women to be viewed as objects of sex or as sluts. The thing is, the pro-abortion feminists are so adamant about having the right to have an abortion, and I was thinking that since one can only get pregnant through sex, if they had an abortion, they obviously had sex. Why don’t they see that having abortion can make women look like sluts?

To all those pro-life women here on CA, g’day!
I think the use of your word describing women who have sex is totally inappropriate for this forum. Just my opinion.
 
I think the use of your word describing women who have sex is totally inappropriate for this forum. Just my opinion.
I think the OP is a one-post wonder. Just puts it down and leaves, never to return.

Frustrating, isn’t it? 🤷

I agree with you - that word should not be allowed. It’s ugly. I’ll suggest to the powers that be here at CAF that they remove that word from print.

Salve, salve, salve Regina!
 
Well, it’s not far from the topic of the thread (and IMO the OP is so poorly worded that it is irrelevant) so let me just say the Church does teach that a person is formed at the moment of conception and that person should be afforded every right and every protection given to other persons. That is what you should be hearing from Catholics because Catholics are required to accept this Church teaching. The value is not in any potential for becoming a person. There is no potential. The unborn are persons, not potential persons. An unborn child is as much a person as an elderly person and the number of functioning cells is irrelevant, as is the description of “human life” you discussed. “Personhood” should never be determined by whatever stage of life someone happens to be existing in at the moment.
It doesn’t matter if 99 percent of the people in the world don’t think a fertilized ovum is a person. Truth can’t be decided by vote; it can’t be decided by anything. It just is.
What you or the Church recognizes to be The Truth is independent of what the rest of society is going to believe without someone connecting the logical dots. Of course there is no guarantee that everyone would accept it, but you cannot blame them for not agreeing with you if they have never even heard the reasoning. I have heard bishops equivocate about humans versus persons on this issue. And I heard one fellow insist that the concept of personhood needs to be avoided, I think because he thought it was “dangerous”. But I cannot be sure of this as either I missed his reasoning or he skipped it. And of course someone who wants to censor ideas as “dangerous” is again treating others as not being able to make their own choices. (Almost invariable, people who want to make my choices for me haven’t made the choice themselves, but are relying in turn upon another’s judgement. It is somehow easier to objectify someone else once one surrenders one’s own autonomy. I guess because they have already devalued autonomy itself.)

But what I have not seen is an attempt to define personhood, or justify the unborn as persons, in a way that would do the job of over turning Roe v Wade. That would have to be without depending upon religious beliefs. What I have seen are arguments that the unborn are human. But again, that just begs the question. The justices didn’t allow abortion because they were not sure that the unborn might turn out to be something other than human, say a dog or cat. What they were unsure of was when to attach personhood, or the rights thereof, and ultimately whether that decision could/should even be made without reference to religious principles. Since the Court is obliged to not use religious principles, they have to leave the decision to the woman, who may use her own religious principles.

Which brings us back to my point. If the Church really wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, rather than begging the question, or demanding orthodoxy on an equivication between human and person, it needs to justify its position connecting the two, and promote that reasoning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top