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.
“I am pro-choice because 77% of anti-choice leaders are men and 100% of them will never become pregnant.” - Jamie, Harrisburg
I totally agree with this. I don’t think men should get to decide on this because they will never be in the situation (looking at 9mnths pregnancy, birth, and the majority of the care if they keep it.)

I’ve read people online posting situations, hypothetical or not, about the male partner of a pregnant woman being against her decision to abort. Fine, but I bet very few of them would be willing to pay all the expenses of hospital visits etc before the birth, and then look after the child completely afterwards. They just expect to have their cake and eat it, i.e. not feel bad about killing a child, then make the woman look after it.

Saying that, I don’t ‘agree’ with abortion. I agree with the quote you used that says I cannot and will not make that choice for someone else.
 
I totally agree with this. I don’t think men should get to decide on this because they will never be in the situation (looking at 9mnths pregnancy, birth, and the majority of the care if they keep it.)

I’ve read people online posting situations, hypothetical or not, about the male partner of a pregnant woman being against her decision to abort. Fine, but I bet very few of them would be willing to pay all the expenses of hospital visits etc before the birth, and then look after the child completely afterwards. They just expect to have their cake and eat it, i.e. not feel bad about killing a child, then make the woman look after it.

Saying that, I don’t ‘agree’ with abortion. I agree with the quote you used that says I cannot and will not make that choice for someone else.
Men shouldn’t get to decide? They carry the unborn children in their hearts. Women are doubly blessed because they carry them in their hearts and in their wombs. But I have talked with too many men who have been crushed emotionally due to the loss of their children before birth.

Children have two parents - both should be involved in any decision about life and death. It’s not fair to men to leave them out of the discussion. I understand you said that men shouldn’t be the ones to make the decision and perhaps I am reading something into your post that isn’t there. If so, I apologize.

But I want to say that denying men the right to be responsible for their own children is wrong. There are men out there who want to take care of their children, who want to pay for the hospital bills, and who should be allowed to share in the fostering of children they fathered.

I see so much anger from women about how they are treated unfairly by men, and then I see them treat men in the exact same way. This isn’t directed at you, but I am getting this feeling from this thread overall.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.
 
I have been reading the various posts here with great interest. As is the case with many threads on this forum the variety of opinions, most of which are very intelligent and coherent, make me question my own opinions and are helpful because they force me to be more clear in my beliefs.

In the spirit of sharing my opinion on this topic (and hopefully enhancing the conversation) I would like to offer an alternative view point. As background I am a man who has lived 50 years, been married to a wonderful woman for almost 29 of those years, father to 3 wonderful children. I have grown up during the pro-choice era with “the pill” and legal abortion and see the bad sides of both. I won’t attempt to see this issue from a woman’s perspective because I am not equipped for that task. I can share a mans view point and in that way hopefully help provide a fuller picture of the issues involved in this discussion.

As a young man I admit my pursuit of sex with girls especially when I went away to college. I’m not proud of how I used my partners for my gratification. I know I hurt some of these young women by my callous treatment of them. My point is I never considered having a long term relationship with any of them. I was a starving college kid who knew he was not ready to get married. But they were all on the pill so “no harm no foul”. Right?

When I met my wife in college she shocked me with how easily she blew off my sexual advances yet she still was fun to be with. She told me early in our relationship she was saving herself for marriage and made it clear that nothing I was going to say would change her mind. The point is I started to cherish what she cherished - her virginity. The other girls who gave themselves away so easily in many ways got the respect they gave themselves.

From a mans perspective our sexual drive needs to be directed towards constructive ends. Sex can build strong marriages when both spouses are committed to it completely. That means complete mental commitment before the physical commitment.

Even during a marriage it is important to not use birth control because it cheapens the sexual union. It makes it sterile. A man needs to be willing to share whatever the results are of the marital act. Then he has something in it other than just the physical pleasure. I don’t know why a woman would ever allow a man to use her to just get physical pleasure, even if she enjoys it too. Having the possibility of creating a new life and being responsible to care for that child for 20 years or more will make any man pause to consider his actions. If that means he agrees to wait until the woman is less likely to conceive (as in NFP), all the better. He will more easily accept a decision to wait if he participates in it. He will respect his wife more than if she rejects him because she “doesn’t feel like it”. If they as a couple have prayerfully decided they need to avoid a pregnancy right now he has participated in the decision and will be more likely to support it. It also allows the man to show his respect for his wife in a tangible way. He is showing how he cherishes her and the gift of her fertility. It also makes the next time so much better! I can honestly say our marriage is so much happier when we got away from the artificial birth control.

In many ways I don’t know why women would allow men to get away so easily. Women are created in equal dignity to men by God. They are created in the image and likeness of God just like men. If they allow themselves to just be sterile “Pleasure Palaces” how is that reflecting their God given dignity? Women should demand the respect they deserve. If they don’t get it then they should never consider having sex with that person.

Think how much better the world would be if every woman demanded the love and commitment they deserve before they considered having sex. Make men step up! We can take it. And we will all be better for the effort.
 
I’m not following your logic.

Also, quite a few feminists would object to the term “slut” or another derogatory word being used to describe a woman who enjoys having casual sex, and would argue that women who make this choice should not be thought of as less or looked down on. They would probably think that the term “slut” is a word meant to keep women in submission to begin with 😉
The 6th Commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, was translated from the Latin, “Non fornica” in the middle ages. At that time, “adultery” meant any sexual activity outside of marriage. Therefore, the 6th Commandment specifically forbids fornication, which is the sin of sexual relations between unmarried persons.
Therefore, you either don’t know or don’t care that “casual sex” is a mortal sin. If you do not believe this, why are you here in a Catholic group?
 
I have been reading the various posts here with great interest. As is the case with many threads on this forum the variety of opinions, most of which are very intelligent and coherent, make me question my own opinions and are helpful because they force me to be more clear in my beliefs.

In the spirit of sharing my opinion on this topic (and hopefully enhancing the conversation) I would like to offer an alternative view point. As background I am a man who has lived 50 years, been married to a wonderful woman for almost 29 of those years, father to 3 wonderful children. I have grown up during the pro-choice era with “the pill” and legal abortion and see the bad sides of both. I won’t attempt to see this issue from a woman’s perspective because I am not equipped for that task. I can share a mans view point and in that way hopefully help provide a fuller picture of the issues involved in this discussion.

As a young man I admit my pursuit of sex with girls especially when I went away to college. I’m not proud of how I used my partners for my gratification. I know I hurt some of these young women by my callous treatment of them. My point is I never considered having a long term relationship with any of them. I was a starving college kid who knew he was not ready to get married. But they were all on the pill so “no harm no foul”. Right?

When I met my wife in college she shocked me with how easily she blew off my sexual advances yet she still was fun to be with. She told me early in our relationship she was saving herself for marriage and made it clear that nothing I was going to say would change her mind. The point is I started to cherish what she cherished - her virginity. The other girls who gave themselves away so easily in many ways got the respect they gave themselves.

From a mans perspective our sexual drive needs to be directed towards constructive ends. Sex can build strong marriages when both spouses are committed to it completely. That means complete mental commitment before the physical commitment.

Even during a marriage it is important to not use birth control because it cheapens the sexual union. It makes it sterile. A man needs to be willing to share whatever the results are of the marital act. Then he has something in it other than just the physical pleasure. I don’t know why a woman would ever allow a man to use her to just get physical pleasure, even if she enjoys it too. Having the possibility of creating a new life and being responsible to care for that child for 20 years or more will make any man pause to consider his actions. If that means he agrees to wait until the woman is less likely to conceive (as in NFP), all the better. He will more easily accept a decision to wait if he participates in it. He will respect his wife more than if she rejects him because she “doesn’t feel like it”. If they as a couple have prayerfully decided they need to avoid a pregnancy right now he has participated in the decision and will be more likely to support it. It also allows the man to show his respect for his wife in a tangible way. He is showing how he cherishes her and the gift of her fertility. It also makes the next time so much better! I can honestly say our marriage is so much happier when we got away from the artificial birth control.

In many ways I don’t know why women would allow men to get away so easily. Women are created in equal dignity to men by God. They are created in the image and likeness of God just like men. If they allow themselves to just be sterile “Pleasure Palaces” how is that reflecting their God given dignity? Women should demand the respect they deserve. If they don’t get it then they should never consider having sex with that person.

Think how much better the world would be if every woman demanded the love and commitment they deserve before they considered having sex. Make men step up! We can take it. And we will all be better for the effort.
**
The other girls who gave themselves away so easily in many ways got the respect they gave themselves. **

Are you saying that because they didn’t have self-respect that you had no moral obligation to respect them?! Don’t you, as a Catholic, have an obligation to respect people even if they don’t respect themselves? And maybe in the process show them they ought to have more respect for themselves? Or does Catholicism state that if a woman suffers from low self-esteem and doesn’t respect herself enough, that Catholic men are free to disrespect her?

**Think how much better the world would be if every woman demanded the love and commitment they deserve before they considered having sex. Make men step up! **
Why do men have to be made to step up? Why can’t men step up on their own and refuse to cajole and wheedle and pressure and tempt women 24/7?
 
Whenever I hear someone use the term “slut”, I always try to ask them if they ever use that term to refer to men. The answer has always been “No.”

Then I ask what term they use to refer to men if they don’t use" slut." Usually they don’t have an answer. And if they can come up with a word, it is rarely pejorative. When they protest that it doesn’t matter, I always tell them that if they dont understand the sexism implicit in the terms they use, they can hardly appareciate the sexism implicit in their claims or questions.

In this case, objectifing someone is to view them not as a person, but as a thing. A person is able to make choices and decisions, including moral choices, on their own.
So asking if abortion objectifies a woman is the same as asking if giving them a choice objectifies them, if giving them a choice is treating them as something which cannot make its own choices. Clearly giving them a choice (or making a choice) is not treating them as something which cannot make choices. So Abortion does not objectify a woman.

Rather it is a law against abortion which would treat a woman as not able to make moral choices, not a person, and thus objectify her.
 
Whenever I hear someone use the term “slut”, I always try to ask them if they ever use that term to refer to men. The answer has always been “No.”

Then I ask what term they use to refer to men if they don’t use" slut." Usually they don’t have an answer. And if they can come up with a word, it is rarely pejorative. When they protest that it doesn’t matter, I always tell them that if they dont understand the sexism implicit in the terms they use, they can hardly appareciate the sexism implicit in their claims or questions.

In this case, objectifing someone is to view them not as a person, but as a thing. A person is able to make choices and decisions, including moral choices, on their own.
So asking if abortion objectifies a woman is the same as asking if giving them a choice objectifies them, if giving them a choice is treating them as something which cannot make its own choices. Clearly giving them a choice (or making a choice) is not treating them as something which cannot make choices. So Abortion does not objectify a woman.

Rather it is a law against abortion which would treat a woman as not able to make moral choices, not a person, and thus objectify her.
👍
 
Whenever I hear someone use the term “slut”, I always try to ask them if they ever use that term to refer to men. The answer has always been “No.”

Then I ask what term they use to refer to men if they don’t use" slut." Usually they don’t have an answer. And if they can come up with a word, it is rarely pejorative. When they protest that it doesn’t matter, I always tell them that if they dont understand the sexism implicit in the terms they use, they can hardly appareciate the sexism implicit in their claims or questions.

In this case, objectifing someone is to view them not as a person, but as a thing. A person is able to make choices and decisions, including moral choices, on their own.
So asking if abortion objectifies a woman is the same as asking if giving them a choice objectifies them, if giving them a choice is treating them as something which cannot make its own choices. Clearly giving them a choice (or making a choice) is not treating them as something which cannot make choices. So Abortion does not objectify a woman.

Rather it is a law against abortion which would treat a woman as not able to make moral choices, not a person, and thus objectify her.
I have heard the word “slut” used to describe men many times. It fits men just as it fits women, if one wants to believe it fits anyone at all. Personally I think the word is ugly and nasty and shouldn’t be used at all to describe anyone.

Women who are sexually promiscuous are engaging in behavior which appears to some to justify what happens to them. Men who are sexually promiscuous are engaging in behavior which appears to some to justify what happens to them; although in Western “civilized” society, men are often seen as “sowing their wild oats,” “getting that sort of thing over with before marriage,” “not capable of remaining chaste,” etc. etc. etc. But sexual promiscuity is dangerous and immoral for both women and men.

You are right that objectifying someone is “to view them not as a person, but as a thing.” And that is exactly what happens in many cases when abortion is seen as the solution. The being inside the womb is not a “person;” “it” is an object, a clump of cells, but certainly not a person. “It” can’t be looked upon as a “person” because “it” would then merit respect and protection. It’s much easier to view it as an obstacle to one’s personal enjoyment of sex, or as a “womb squatter” who may merit some rights, but certainly not enough to “trump” the mother’s rights.

The truth is that the mother, the father, and the unborn child are all human beings and “persons” and deserve protection; the unborn child should be given more protection because she is so vulnerable and not able to protect herself.

One more point: Do laws prohibiting rape treat men as not being able to make moral choices, thus objectifying men? There are laws which prohibit rape. Does this mean that men are objects?

Sancta Maria! Sancta Maria!
Mater dei, ora pro nobis.
 
**
The other girls who gave themselves away so easily in many ways got the respect they gave themselves. **

Are you saying that because they didn’t have self-respect that you had no moral obligation to respect them?! Don’t you, as a Catholic, have an obligation to respect people even if they don’t respect themselves? And maybe in the process show them they ought to have more respect for themselves? Or does Catholicism state that if a woman suffers from low self-esteem and doesn’t respect herself enough, that Catholic men are free to disrespect her?

**Think how much better the world would be if every woman demanded the love and commitment they deserve before they considered having sex. Make men step up! **
Why do men have to be made to step up? Why can’t men step up on their own and refuse to cajole and wheedle and pressure and tempt women 24/7?
I don’t think he is saying that he had no moral obligation to respect women. I think he is saying he should have respected them, but like many men, he didn’t and regrets his actions.

Catholicism does not “state that if a woman suffers from low self-esteem and doesn’t respect herself enough, that Catholic men are free to disrespect her.” This doesn’t have anything to do with Catholicism. This has to do with mutual respect for and from both women and men.

The world would be much better "if every woman demanded the love and committment they deserve before they consider having sex." Men should step up on their own, but if they don’t, why do some women go right ahead and accept their lines and lies and fake promises and have sex with them? Are women stupid? Why do they succumb to the cajoling, wheedling, and pressuring? Why do they allow themselves to be tempted? If a man continues to pressure a woman to have sex with him a smart slap across his face may make him understand.

Girls should be raised to respect themselves and all others. Girls should also be raised to expect that some men are going to pressure them into having sex and these girls need to know that such behavior is inappropriate and that they should not engage in sexual behavior with men who play these sorts of games. A teenage girl who believes her boyfriend “really loves her” and wants her to “prove her love for him (he said so!)” may very well end up engaging in sex with him, becoming pregnant (with a new human being) and then being faced with a situation that should never have presented itself in the first place. In the meantime her boyfriend may desert her and boast about his conquest to other guys. The girl has been used. To her “boyfriend” she is nothing more than a notch on his bedpost.

Boys should be raised to respect themselves and all others. Boys should also be raised to understand that pressuring girls into having sex is completely inappropriate and if they engage in sexual behavior with girls and a pregnancy results, it is their duty to protect their girlfriend and the child they formed together.

Ave Maria! Sancta Maria! Ora pro nobis.
 
**
The other girls who gave themselves away so easily in many ways got the respect they gave themselves. **

Are you saying that because they didn’t have self-respect that you had no moral obligation to respect them?! Don’t you, as a Catholic, have an obligation to respect people even if they don’t respect themselves? And maybe in the process show them they ought to have more respect for themselves? Or does Catholicism state that if a woman suffers from low self-esteem and doesn’t respect herself enough, that Catholic men are free to disrespect her?

**Think how much better the world would be if every woman demanded the love and commitment they deserve before they considered having sex. Make men step up! **
Why do men have to be made to step up? Why can’t men step up on their own and refuse to cajole and wheedle and pressure and tempt women 24/7?
As a Catholic man I should respect all women ( and men and children too) as the children of God that they are. What I am saying is that in my younger days I didn’t always do so. I also wanted to make the point that meeting someone like my future wife who did demand respect make me less interested in her. In fact I found her more attractive since I got to know her mind and heart long before I knew her physically. I wish I had been a better person and had been more helpful to some of the girls I knew who might not have respected themselves as much as they deserved. I am not proud of my sinful actions. I am only pointing out that if a woman refuses to have a sexual relationship with a man except within marriage she would be much happier.

I agree that men should step up without needing women to do it first but why can’t both do it together? Think of all the good that would occur if there were no children born out of wedlock. Think of how much better society would be.

I see a direct link between the deterioration of society and the advent of artificial contraception and legalized abortion and welfare. When I was born girls didn’t want to have premarital sex since they were afraid of getting pregnant. Now how does a girl say “NO” to her boyfriends advances when she can easily prevent a pregnancy or kill the baby if she does get pregnant. Now men have a complete free ride.

I am surprised that so many so called feminists support contraception and abortion. If they truly seek equality shouldn’t they push abstinence? Denying some loser boyfriend access to that most precious part of themselves is every woman’s God given right. Why would feminists push things that can only result in women being used as sex objects by men. Abstinence forces men to honor that which is most precious and returns women to a place of honor in society. Contraceptives and abortion allow men to shirk their responsibilities. Abstinence forces men (and women) to grow up and make a commitment to each other before they bring children into this world.
 
As a Catholic man I should respect all women ( and men and children too) as the children of God that they are. What I am saying is that in my younger days I didn’t always do so. I also wanted to make the point that meeting someone like my future wife who did demand respect make me less interested in her. In fact I found her more attractive since I got to know her mind and heart long before I knew her physically. I wish I had been a better person and had been more helpful to some of the girls I knew who might not have respected themselves as much as they deserved. I am not proud of my sinful actions. I am only pointing out that if a woman refuses to have a sexual relationship with a man except within marriage she would be much happier.

I agree that men should step up without needing women to do it first but why can’t both do it together? Think of all the good that would occur if there were no children born out of wedlock. Think of how much better society would be.

I see a direct link between the deterioration of society and the advent of artificial contraception and legalized abortion and welfare. When I was born girls didn’t want to have premarital sex since they were afraid of getting pregnant. Now how does a girl say “NO” to her boyfriends advances when she can easily prevent a pregnancy or kill the baby if she does get pregnant. Now men have a complete free ride.

I am surprised that so many so called feminists support contraception and abortion. If they truly seek equality shouldn’t they push abstinence? Denying some loser boyfriend access to that most precious part of themselves is every woman’s God given right. Why would feminists push things that can only result in women being used as sex objects by men. Abstinence forces men to honor that which is most precious and returns women to a place of honor in society. Contraceptives and abortion allow men to shirk their responsibilities. Abstinence forces men (and women) to grow up and make a commitment to each other before they bring children into this world.
👍 Great post!
 
As a Catholic man I should respect all women ( and men and children too) as the children of God that they are. What I am saying is that in my younger days I didn’t always do so. I also wanted to make the point that meeting someone like my future wife who did demand respect make me less interested in her. In fact I found her more attractive since I got to know her mind and heart long before I knew her physically. I wish I had been a better person and had been more helpful to some of the girls I knew who might not have respected themselves as much as they deserved. I am not proud of my sinful actions. I am only pointing out that if a woman refuses to have a sexual relationship with a man except within marriage she would be much happier.

**Rush, I responded as I did because it sounded like you were saying your wife was a nice girl but all the girls who gave you what you wanted were bad. It’s an unfair characterization of those girls who did the exact same thing you were doing. My point, which I believe you acknowledge in this post, is that they deserved respect from you even if they weren’t giving it to themselves. **

I agree that men should step up without needing women to do it first but why can’t both do it together? Think of all the good that would occur if there were no children born out of wedlock. Think of how much better society would be.

**Women are already doing most of the no-saying, not the men. How many girls nag their boyfriends relentlessly for sex? All men need to do is ease up off the constant pressure they put on women. **
The world would be much better "if every woman demanded the love and committment they deserve before they consider having sex." Men should step up on their own, but if they don’t, why do some women go right ahead and accept their lines and lies and fake promises and have sex with them? Are women stupid? Why do they succumb to the cajoling, wheedling, and pressuring? Why do they allow themselves to be tempted? If a man continues to pressure a woman to have sex with him a smart slap across his face may make him understand.

Why do women succumb? Because no one can be on their guard 24/7. A woman can say no a thousand times, slap men by the hundreds, but some day, when she’s really deep down vulnerable, some guy’s going to see her vulnerability, slip past her defenses, and seize the opportunity.

Girls should be raised to respect themselves and all others. Girls should also be raised to expect that some men are going to pressure them into having sex and these girls need to know that such behavior is inappropriate and that they should not engage in sexual behavior with men who play these sorts of games.

The key word is “should.” But what girls are actually taught is to do the same things they see the adults–their role models–doing.
The anti-contraception and abortion comments I’ll have to get back to later. I really find this way of thinking so strange that until I get a better idea of what motivates it, I think we’ll just be talking across each other.
 
The anti-contraception and abortion comments I’ll have to get back to later. I really find this way of thinking so strange that until I get a better idea of what motivates it, I think we’ll just be talking across each other.
by SugarMagnolia:
Why do women succumb? Because no one can be on their guard 24/7. A woman can say no a thousand times, slap men by the hundreds, but some day, when she’s really deep down vulnerable, some guy’s going to see her vulnerability, slip past her defenses, and seize the opportunity.
What I think you are saying here is that women can’t be trusted to rely on their own self worth as a distinct part of their personality, so sooner or later a man (who evidently is on the prowl 24/7) will “catch” her when she is vulnerable. I don’t think that is how it works. This makes women appear so weak and defenseless. Are they really that way? I don’t think so.

Every woman should be strong enough to be able to resist all the little games that some men play in order to obtain sex. Every woman should be so strong in her own values that nobody can “trick” her into having sex. Do you really think men are such predators? I know the games; I know the lines; I’ve heard them over and over, but I’ve always found them to be so obvious that I question why any woman would fall for them, at any time. Women aren’t weak creatures. They are just as strong as men, maybe even stronger, and are certainly as intelligent.
The key word is “should.” But what girls are actually taught is to do the same things they see the adults–their role models–doing.
And that is why women and men should be appropriate role models for their children. If a child sees her mother or father exhibiting promiscuous behavior, then she may very well become promiscuous. So stop the cycle. Don’t be promiscuous, don’t fall for the corny lines and games men come up with, and raise your children to be strong and proud in their knowledge of self-worth and ability to remain chaste. If a woman is in a situation where she is being abused and raped, she should find help and save herself and her children. If a man is abusive, he should be arrested and incarcerated. The cycle can be stopped.

I really don’t want to cause offense. I am concerned by what I see is a blaming of men for women’s problems in this area. Unless it is a case of rape, every woman has the ability and the right to say “no” and mean it. Aren’t women strong enough to do this? I always thought they were. Am I wrong?

Sancta Maria! Mater dei,
ora pro nobis.
 
“One more point: Do laws prohibiting rape treat men as not being able to make moral choices, thus objectifying men? There are laws which prohibit rape. Does this mean that men are objects?”

Just the opposite, I would say, though there may be some objectification in some of the rulings around rape often seen as controversial.

We treat rape as a crime because we see the rapist as a person who is able to make a choice (to rape or not to rape.) Being able to make a choice does not mean that one is entitled to any make any choice one chooses, Because rape is by definition non-censual, the rapist is treating his victim as someone/thing not entitled to a choice in the matter of sex. The rapist might then be said to objectify his victim.

When insanity is invoked as a defense, the test often turns on the ability of the accused to make decisions, particularly moral decisions. When they are not capable of making judgements of their own, we are more apt to treat them differently from those who can make decisions of their own.

We have seen some cases, however, where the Judge decided that the blame applied to the victim, because she was dressed provocatively, or in a place the Judge felt was inappropriate. The Judge in effect said that the rapist was a slave to passions inflamed by the victim, and not responsible for his actions. It is to objectify him in a sense, because he is said to not be making choices of his own. But it is usually a tempered objectification, an excuse, but sometimes carrying the implication that the victims clothing or what ever spoke louder than the words of her resistance, and that the rapist was making a choice, under the justified belief that the sex was consensual.
 
“You are right that objectifying someone is “to view them not as a person, but as a thing.” And that is exactly what happens in many cases when abortion is seen as the solution. The being inside the womb is not a “person;” “it” is an object, a clump of cells, but certainly not a person. “It” can’t be looked upon as a “person” because “it” would then merit respect and protection. It’s much easier to view it as an obstacle to one’s personal enjoyment of sex, or as a “womb squatter” who may merit some rights, but certainly not enough to “trump” the mother’s rights.”

It is quite commonly argued that abortion ought to be permissable for just that reason, that the unborn, even if valuable as a potential person, is not a person, and so not bearing the full rights of a person. Not completely unlike a human at the end of biological life, the cells in question may lack sensation and thought. They lack the ability to live any kind of a human life beyond the most basically biological, as the brain dead also do. There was a referendum question on the subject in Colorado last election cycle, and attempts to define “person” as “human” failed. Most people in the US do not consider a fertilized human egg a person.

This of course runs at cross tracks to the Church’s apparent strategy to keep insisting that the unborn are human and thus deserving of full rights.(At least, everytime I hear any Catholic figure talk about it, that is all I ever hear.) As far as most Americans are concerned, the strategy begs the real question, why (or when) should the unborn be considered a person? It seems like if they really want to overturn Roe v Wade, that is the question they ought to focus upon.

But this is getting far from the point of this thread.
 
“You are right that objectifying someone is “to view them not as a person, but as a thing.” And that is exactly what happens in many cases when abortion is seen as the solution. The being inside the womb is not a “person;” “it” is an object, a clump of cells, but certainly not a person. “It” can’t be looked upon as a “person” because “it” would then merit respect and protection. It’s much easier to view it as an obstacle to one’s personal enjoyment of sex, or as a “womb squatter” who may merit some rights, but certainly not enough to “trump” the mother’s rights.”

It is quite commonly argued that abortion ought to be permissable for just that reason, that the unborn, even if valuable as a potential person, is not a person, and so not bearing the full rights of a person. Not completely unlike a human at the end of biological life, the cells in question may lack sensation and thought. They lack the ability to live any kind of a human life beyond the most basically biological, as the brain dead also do. There was a referendum question on the subject in Colorado last election cycle, and attempts to define “person” as “human” failed. Most people in the US do not consider a fertilized human egg a person.

This of course runs at cross tracks to the Church’s apparent strategy to keep insisting that the unborn are human and thus deserving of full rights.(At least, everytime I hear any Catholic figure talk about it, that is all I ever hear.) As far as most Americans are concerned, the strategy begs the real question, why (or when) should the unborn be considered a person? It seems like if they really want to overturn Roe v Wade, that is the question they ought to focus upon.

But this is getting far from the point of this thread.
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.

Sancta Maria! Gratia plena, ora pro nobis.
 
“One more point: Do laws prohibiting rape treat men as not being able to make moral choices, thus objectifying men? There are laws which prohibit rape. Does this mean that men are objects?”

Just the opposite, I would say, though there may be some objectification in some of the rulings around rape often seen as controversial.

We treat rape as a crime because we see the rapist as a person who is able to make a choice (to rape or not to rape.) Being able to make a choice does not mean that one is entitled to any make any choice one chooses, Because rape is by definition non-censual, the rapist is treating his victim as someone/thing not entitled to a choice in the matter of sex. The rapist might then be said to objectify his victim.

When insanity is invoked as a defense, the test often turns on the ability of the accused to make decisions, particularly moral decisions. When they are not capable of making judgements of their own, we are more apt to treat them differently from those who can make decisions of their own.

We have seen some cases, however, where the Judge decided that the blame applied to the victim, because she was dressed provocatively, or in a place the Judge felt was inappropriate. The Judge in effect said that the rapist was a slave to passions inflamed by the victim, and not responsible for his actions. It is to objectify him in a sense, because he is said to not be making choices of his own. But it is usually a tempered objectification, an excuse, but sometimes carrying the implication that the victims clothing or what ever spoke louder than the words of her resistance, and that the rapist was making a choice, under the justified belief that the sex was consensual.
I know you’re new here. Do you know how to use the “Quote” function? It makes it much easier for people to respond to your posts and for people to differentiate what you are stating from what others are saying if you use the “Quote” function. If you need help I’ll be happy to explain. Lots of people don’t know how to use it.

Sancta Maria! Gratia plena, ora pro nobis.
 
What I think you are saying here is that women can’t be trusted to rely on their own self worth as a distinct part of their personality, so sooner or later a man (who evidently is on the prowl 24/7) will “catch” her when she is vulnerable. I don’t think that is how it works. This makes women appear so weak and defenseless. Are they really that way? I don’t think so.

Every woman should be strong enough to be able to resist all the little games that some men play in order to obtain sex. Every woman should be so strong in her own values that nobody can “trick” her into having sex. Do you really think men are such predators? I know the games; I know the lines; I’ve heard them over and over, but I’ve always found them to be so obvious that I question why any woman would fall for them, at any time. Women aren’t weak creatures. They are just as strong as men, maybe even stronger, and are certainly as intelligent.

And that is why women and men should be appropriate role models for their children. If a child sees her mother or father exhibiting promiscuous behavior, then she may very well become promiscuous. So stop the cycle. Don’t be promiscuous, don’t fall for the corny lines and games men come up with, and raise your children to be strong and proud in their knowledge of self-worth and ability to remain chaste. If a woman is in a situation where she is being abused and raped, she should find help and save herself and her children. If a man is abusive, he should be arrested and incarcerated. The cycle can be stopped.

I really don’t want to cause offense. I am concerned by what I see is a blaming of men for women’s problems in this area. Unless it is a case of rape, every woman has the ability and the right to say “no” and mean it. Aren’t women strong enough to do this? I always thought they were. Am I wrong?
I agree with all your sentences that use the word “should.” Unfortunately what “should” be and what in fact “is” are two different things. Take this, for example: **Every woman should be strong enough to be able to resist all the little games that some men play in order to obtain sex. Every woman should be so strong in her own values that nobody can “trick” her into having sex. ** How does someone come to know about these tricks and games? In many cases, women learn about them after they’ve been conned. Girls go to school and are taught arithmetic and reading and geography, but they are not taught about male predatory behavior. We’re talking about being savvy enough to recognize deceit, duplicity, manipulation. Many a child, has no experience of deceit, duplicity, and manipulation. Parents and teachers teach children to be honest and trustworthy and they never show them examples of the opposite. So they learn to take people at face value. We learn from experience; we learn from our mistakes. Everyday children get into cars with strangers offering candy, old folks sign away their life savings to con artists, and women get swindled out of sex–all because they haven’t yet learned to be suspicious enough. And these are good people; they’re not devious enough themselves to expect it from others, or they’re not jaded enough from having been swindled one too many times. Are men predators? Not every single one, but in general, when it comes to getting sex, yes.

**If a child sees her mother or father exhibiting promiscuous behavior, then she may very well become promiscuous. **
In my comment about role models, I didn’t necessarily mean promiscuity. What is promiscuous? Everyone has a different definition. To some people (apparently a lot of people at CAF) promiscuous is having sex with more than one person in your life. To some others, promiscuous is having sex with more than 5 people in a week. What everyone would agree upon, however, is that promiscuous is a bad thing to be. It always refers to having sex with more people that the speaker approves of. It’s a fact, albeit an unfortunate one, that many women don’t feel like they can say no. It’s not that they see their parents sleeping around. It’s that they are taught (by parents, school, society in general) to be accomodating, generous, helpful. If a guy takes a girl out a few times, she starts to feel like she should give him what he wants, otherwise she is ungrateful, a gold-digger, a tease. Or: Guys pretend to be a girl’s friend, waiting until the day she is vulnerable. (No person is 100% strong all the time. We all have times of distress when we need support.) This is when the guy “friend” makes his move: when she needs friendship, comfort, support. You use the words “weak” and “defenseless,” but who is never weak and defenseless for even a moment in their lifetimes?

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.
 
How does someone come to know about these tricks and games? In many cases, women learn about them after they’ve been conned.
No. A girl learns about this from her parents. That is their responsibility to teach and nurture their children. In the same way we teach our children to not touch the hot stove or put up baby gates to keep them from falling down the stairs. It is not the responsibility of the schools or their friends or anyone else. If some parents want to ask others for help on a specific issue that would be fine. Just like we go to a doctor to help us maintain the health of our children. But if we as parents are not willing to provide the basic nutritional needs for our children no doctor will be successful. As parents we ask the schools to help us educate our children but we are never to forget we are our childrens primary teachers

Girls go to school and are taught arithmetic and reading and geography, but they are not taught about male predatory behavior. We’re talking about being savvy enough to recognize deceit, duplicity, manipulation. Many a child, has no experience of deceit, duplicity, and manipulation. Parents and teachers teach children to be honest and trustworthy and they never show them examples of the opposite. So they learn to take people at face value. We learn from experience; we learn from our mistakes.

** That is exactly my point. What parent would not warn their children about the risks of the world? Until a child has proven themselves competent to “fly solo” walking home from school or going out in public any sane parent will make sure they are there to walk with them. Or they find a trusted friend or family member to act in their place.

You seem to be saying that girls are dropped into these situations like they were just born. When I think of my teenage daughters male classmates I have to laugh at your characterizations. These boys are so insecure and oafy trying to see them as savvy if laughable. My daughter and her girl friends are the ones who verbally push these guys around on a daily basis. My daughter has blown off so many of these boys when they show an interest in her because they are so immature she isn’t interested.**

Everyday children get into cars with strangers offering candy, old folks sign away their life savings to con artists, and women get swindled out of sex–all because they haven’t yet learned to be suspicious enough. And these are good people; they’re not devious enough themselves to expect it from others, or they’re not jaded enough from having been swindled one too many times. Are men predators? Not every single one, but in general, when it comes to getting sex, yes.

In my comment about role models, I didn’t necessarily mean promiscuity. What is promiscuous? Everyone has a different definition. To some people (apparently a lot of people at CAF) promiscuous is having sex with more than one person in your life.

**We believe what the Catholic Church teaches. Premarital sex is wrong. **

To some others, promiscuous is having sex with more than 5 people in a week. What everyone would agree upon, however, is that promiscuous is a bad thing to be. It always refers to having sex with more people that the speaker approves of. It’s a fact, albeit an unfortunate one, that many women don’t feel like they can say no. It’s not that they see their parents sleeping around. It’s that they are taught (by parents, school, society in general) to be accomodating, generous, helpful. If a guy takes a girl out a few times, she starts to feel like she should give him what he wants, otherwise she is ungrateful, a gold-digger, a tease. Or: Guys pretend to be a girl’s friend, waiting until the day she is vulnerable. (No person is 100% strong all the time. We all have times of distress when we need support.) This is when the guy “friend” makes his move: when she needs friendship, comfort, support. You use the words “weak” and “defenseless,” but who is never weak and defenseless for even a moment in their lifetimes?

Not every woman who has sex is promiscuous.

**I agree so long as they are married to the man it is not promiscuous otherwise it is **

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.
I can see you have been hurt by a man or men in the past and your post reflects that. I couldn’t agree more that it is despicable behavior for any man to take advantage of any woman. My sister finally had to get divorced from her verbally abusive husband to protect herself. It is probably lucky I never witnessed this behavior on his part or I would probably be in jail for killing him. I think any real man would agree with me.

Too many men have accepted societies view of how men should act which is so destructive to so many people in this world including themselves.

That being said too many women have accepted societies view of how they should act like the farce that they all need to look like the super thin models in the magazines and until they do they are not beautiful.

Society also teaches women that sex is no big deal. Everybody is doing it! Just use contraceptives and party! No wonder there are so many people on antidepressants.🤷
 
The basic reality in our culture is that the “right” to consequence free sexual activity is the nearest thing there is to a non negotiable dogma there is. Abortion is seen as facilitating this policy and is thus to be welcomed by those who buy into the moeurs and presumptions of the dominant culture.

Many de facto abortion supporters feel squeamish about what inwardly they know to be wrong - hence the self serving outcry at pictures of aborted foeti - but they go along to serve the dogma.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top