John C. Wright ([info]johncwright) wrote,
@ 2006-11-13 15:37:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Gut Check Conclusion - The Plea for Charity

I hope to make this the last post for some time on this ghastly topic. It is a plea to my fellow anti-abortionists not to surrender, as I did, to hate.

We must remember at all times that these opponents are not monsters, but humans who have been deceived by monstrous pride and monstrous folly. They are not bad people, but, rather, good people who have been deceived by bad ideas.

I was impressed with the straightforwardness of some of my honorable opponents. Indeed, only one or two were unserious mealy-mouthed quibblers.  Given their experience, given their dark and hopeless world-view, I cannot condemn their conclusion.

I cannot condemn them at all, despite that they are, in their hearts, child-murderers; despite that they would applaud for the death of three out of four of my children.

Those who know me know I am the chief of sinners: far be it from me to judge them. It is the crime I hate. The criminals I like. Reading their responses in my comments boxes, convinces me that they are nice guys, good people. 

They deserve our pity and our prayers.

In my case, I am happy to report that the hatred I feel toward them is gone, and I pray it remains forever gone.  Reading their responses, and seeing how wretched they are, how confused, how lost, has moved me to feel human sympathy for them, despite the horror of the dark crimes they urge.

That sounds like a paradox, doesn't it? It is not.

We are dealing with people who, at least some of them, cannot tell the difference between a little baby and a malign tumor. They are not logical enough to reason it out on their own; they have not enough common sense to believe their own eyes; they have not enough respect for others to trust the experience of older and wiser generations; they have not enough experience themselves to know what they're talking about.

The question is not how to reason them free from his position. He does not have a position, he has a feeling, and the feeling is a sick, proud, and angry one. Once a person is so far from the sunny fields of healthy human sanity that he approves of killing babies and comatose old woman, he is lost in the wild with no paths back. Reasoning will not guide him. He is like a man possessed, like a victim of hypnosis. The question is what has cast the hypnotic spell, and how to break it: Abortion is just a side effect. The core problem is the Culture of Death.

The fact is that human beings are not psychologically equipped for lives of selfishness. When we try to be selfish, thinking self-centeredness will make us happy, all that happens is that we become self-destructive. A good and likeable person can be deceived or self-deceived into a death spiral. When his moral compass starts pointing south, every other value and virtue gets reversed, but his innate goodness, the boldness and sympathies that make him human, still exist. The engine driving the ship is still sound, the crew is still loyal, it is merely that the captain is mad. The very strengths that would make a good man a hero, when pointed in the right direction, make a good man self-destructive, when pointed in the wrong direction.

In this case, the destruction is literal: abortion, and the general self-centeredness of the Culture of Death has decimated the next generation. The reproduction rates in Europe are below replacement levels, in some places, far below. Saturn has feasted and consumed his heirs. Evolution is a force that in this case will successfully wipe out those who look to it for moral guidance. Those of us who are too meek to think we have the right to sit in judgment over which babies merit life, will, as scheduled, inherit the earth.

It is not too late to save the sinking Titanic of secularism. This vessel had three main bulkheads: Marxism, with its belief that state control of economic and social institutions could perfect mankind; Freudianism, with its belief that human perfection could result from lack of inhibitions, the absence of rules; and Progressivism, by which I mean the Darwin-flavored myth that human progress is a natural and inevitable process, like building a pyramid, not a continuous and doubtful struggle, like bailing a boat. Progressivism is a fine philosophy in May, when each day is brighter than the last, but in November, as the darkness grows, one must doubt that something will be better merely because it arises later.

While all these optimistic science-tinted daydreams might have been viable during the heady days of the Victorians, when every dawn saw new improvements in European civilization, two world wars, a cold war, and the ghastly terrors of scientific socialism run amok have put paid to notions of human perfectibility. If there was ever any religious dogma that empirical evidence supported, the doctrine of the Fall of Man is that one.  Marx and Freud are on the dustbin of history, except in the hermetic halls of academia, where nothing disturbs the dust. Using Darwin to claim some races of man are naturally more evolved or more advanced than other races still has the burnt smell of the death-camps clinging to it, and not even academics believe it any more. All parts of the ship of the secular world view have been holed below the water line.

We have to invite any who will hear us onto the Ark, if they want to escape the waters. That means having love and forgiveness in our hearts, no matter what they advocate.




(39 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]stegoking
2006-11-13 09:08 pm UTC (link)
I think you misunderstand a lot about pro-choice people.

I would never applaud the decision to get an abortion, just as I would never applaud the decision to have a baby. It is a personal decision, and none of my business. If having children made you happy and fulfilled, I am glad. If having an abortion allows a woman to get an education and get out of living in squalor, I am glad.

But I don't purport to call anyone a murderer. And I certainly do not do so while draping myself in a system of beliefs that has lead to more deaths in the past 2000 years than any other.

You talk a lot about reason, but your entire argument is based on emotion. Step back for a moment, and consider your argument from the outside. Your only evidence, in any of your arguments, is circumstantial -- with the intent to tug on the heart strings and not to appeal to any reasonable line of thought. It's not that your arguments are completely bereft of merit, indeed I can see your point. I simply disagree wholeheartedly.

And I implore you to not 'pray' for me. It's condescending and nauseating.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]superversive
2006-11-13 11:30 pm UTC (link)
I would never applaud the decision to get an abortion, just as I would never applaud the decision to have a baby.

Are you claiming that both are of equal value? Presumably, then, you are entirely indifferent (for example) that your own mother did not choose to abort you.

What you appear to be claiming is that you find a live baby no more good or valuable than a dead one: in fact, that you see no reason in principle to prefer life over death. This is a common point of view, but not in the end a defensible one, except by abandoning all pretence of humanity (or by refusing to reason out the logical consequences of holding such an opinion).

If having an abortion allows a woman to get an education and get out of living in squalor, I am glad.

What if she can get an education and get out of living in squalor by shooting a perfect stranger? Does that make you glad, too? If the central tenet of the anti-abortion position is correct, and a foetus is in fact a human being, there is no rational ground to distinguish between the one and the other.

I certainly do not do so while draping myself in a system of beliefs that has lead to more deaths in the past 2000 years than any other.

Well, I’m glad to hear you’re not a Communist.

Oh, that wasn’t the belief system you had in mind? You need to study some history, instead of the propaganda you were raised on.

You talk a lot about reason, but your entire argument is based on emotion.

The claim that a human foetus, or a human embryo, is a member of the human species, is not based on emotion; it is a claim about objective reality, and as such is either true or false. The claim that all members of the human species have a right not to be deprived of life at the will of another is not based on emotion; and if you think it is, I suggest you also try studying some elements of ethics. Your counterclaim, that these are arguments based solely on emotion, is therefore false. However, I will not return your accusation and claim that your argument is based upon emotion. It is based on nothing more than blatant misrepresentation of the opposing point of view.

And I implore you to not 'pray' for me. It's condescending and nauseating.

You feel nauseated, and you feel condescended to. Other people are not obliged to share these emotional reactions. Perhaps you should consult a good therapist, instead of trying to exercise control over the private thoughts and psychological makeup of other people.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]stegoking
2006-11-13 11:41 pm UTC (link)
"Well, I’m glad to hear you’re not a Communist."

If you believe that Communism has killed more than 1% of the people that Christianity has killed in the past 2000 years you are so incredibly delusional, it's off the bloody chart. John pointed to the Aztecs earlier in this foolish tirade of his, but the Aztecs never committed thorough genocide like the Christian conquistadors did. Or the Christian Nazi's.

Something you are forgetting, and can't seem to get past is that a fetus *IS NOT* a human being. That's why there is a separate word for it. Like acorn and tree, or seed and flower. One is not the other, and to believe it is is rank foolishness.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]lordbrand
2006-11-14 12:14 am UTC (link)
There is a seperate word for child as well. And adult. Are children and adults not humans? Zygote fetus infant toddler child teenager adult.

Christian Nazis? Wow.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]stevewilson
2006-11-14 12:46 am UTC (link)
If you believe that Communism has killed more than 1% of the people that Christianity has killed in the past 2000 years you are so incredibly delusional, it's off the bloody chart.

So, you must think that Christianity has killed ten billion people, if Communism killed one hundred million.

One hundred million is one percent of ten billion.

That's five million a year for two thousand years.

Who's so delusional that it's off the chart?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2006-11-14 09:46 pm UTC (link)
The Nazis were not Christians. Check out the number of Catholics - lay people, priests, and nuns killed by the Nazis. John Paul II had to be educated in an underground seminary because most of the priests of his school were dragged off to death camps. Think of St. Maximilian Kolbe, murdered by the Nazis for merely behaving like a Christian and giving up his life for another prisoner.

The Conquistadors were first criticized by the Dominican Friar Antonio de Montesinos, and later by Father Francsico de Vitoria, called "the founder of international law" because - drawing on St. Thomas Aquinas- his treatise on the law of nations provided the moral and political vocabulary for CRITICIZING the dehumanizing of the Indians.

As for the Aztecs, who practiced human sacrifice on a scale perhaps never seen before or since...you are wrong.

And as for the fetus not being a human being....it is illegal to kill American Bald Eagles AND to destroy their eggs.A fetus - and an eagle egg - are merely the youngest members of their species - NOT A DIFFERENT SPECIES. A fetus is not an adult, but both are humans.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]carbonelle
2006-11-16 05:16 am UTC (link)
Sorry. But the National Socialists were not, in fact, Christians. They were, as nearly as I have been able to determine, some bizarro variety of nordic Paganism (hence Tolkien's thoroughgoing disgust at their perversion of his beloved mythology. But I digress)

Please refer to The Black Book of Communism for the numbers documentation. The 100 years wars and the Ireland squabbles weren't a patch on the genocides of the 20th century.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2006-11-20 03:36 am UTC (link)
We have a separate word for teenager, too.

Does that mean they are not human beings?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]stevewilson
2006-11-13 11:49 pm UTC (link)
And I certainly do not do so while draping myself in a system of beliefs that has lead to more deaths in the past 2000 years than any other.

What about Communism?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]stegoking
2006-11-14 12:00 am UTC (link)
Are you people serious? Have you ever cracked a history book? Or does it get ignored if it's your own people doing the killing.

Hell, the old pre-enlightenment Christian US has killed more than communism ever did. *points at heathen Indians*

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]djmahon
2006-11-14 12:12 am UTC (link)
Hell, the old pre-enlightenment Christian US has killed more than communism ever did. *points at heathen Indians*

There were over 115 million Native Americans slain by the "Christian" US? Your source?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]stevewilson
2006-11-14 12:33 am UTC (link)
Hell, the old pre-enlightenment Christian US has killed more than communism ever did. *points at heathen Indians*

I take it you include deaths from introduced diseases? That's hardly a deliberate policy of Christianity.

The Black Book of Communism points to the following deaths:

20 million in the Soviet Union,
65 million in the People's Republic of China,
1 million in Vietnam,
2 million in North Korea,
2 million in Cambodia,
1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe,
150,000 in Latin America,
1.7 million in Africa,
1.5 million in Afghanistan and
10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international communist movement and communist parties not in power"

How many do you think Christianity caused in North America?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]xander25
2006-11-14 02:36 am UTC (link)
Thanks for the insight. I didn't know the actual numbers. The numbers are staggering.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]luckymarty
2006-11-14 06:25 pm UTC (link)
If you want to compare the various death tolls, you could do worse than start with Matthew White's pages on the subject. Like this list of "(Possibly) The Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other". It goes by event, so "Communism" and "Christianity" don't get entries.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#20worst

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]eljosue
2006-11-14 10:02 pm UTC (link)
Great site. I wonder who was paying Stannard.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]carbonelle
2006-11-16 05:26 am UTC (link)
It goes by event, so "Communism" and "Christianity" don't get entries.

Good point--but anyone with a cursory knowledge of world history (***raises hand sheepishly***) can spot which ones are attributable to which, e.g. Mao, The French Wars of Religion, etc.

I note that the various Islamic Wars of conquest of Christian Asia Minor, and the Christian West's belated responses aren't even up in the millions.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]carbonelle
2006-11-16 05:21 am UTC (link)
Ah... there seems to be a problem of cause and effect. Do you imagine that, say, small-pox, is variable in its potency when carried by Christians, theists, atheists, Jews, pagans &etc.? Especially in a world in which the germ theory was entirely lacking--?

Or is there something specific to Christianity that causes men to be daring sea-explorers--? Or to fight wars of conquest?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]partywhipple
2006-11-14 07:19 pm UTC (link)
Not that I want to get involved with your crying but your numbers are rather far off. Also, you do not understand the rather varied religious beliefs of the founding fathers. Your a sophist playing your sport among learned men. You should go to the Liberal community where you can spout such utter nonsense to people who will not question you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]stegoking
2006-11-14 08:30 pm UTC (link)
Oh, Please.

There are no concrete numbers for the genocide committed upon native americans, there simply can not be, what with a lack of recorded history among the decimated peoples, and there are no comcrete numbers coming out of communist Russia, either. But to even believe, for a fragment of a second, that any evil in human history has compared to that of Christianity is rank foolishness and blind insanity. The Crusades. The Inquisition. The Holocaust. Imperialism. The Holy Roman Empire.

Learned men. A believer can never achieve wisdom, despite whatever other education they may recieve. Their entire existence is based upon fallacy.

As if I did not know of the various religious beliefs of the founding fathers! The vast majority were masons, but be that as it may, masonic beliefs are steeped in Christianity. And the vast majority of the American people at our founding were Christian.

And for your misguided information, I am no liberal.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]partywhipple
2006-11-14 08:47 pm UTC (link)
Still waiting for proof of your wild claims. I'm sorry was that tirade supposed to have depth or meaning? I was lost in the poetry.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]stegoking
2006-11-14 08:53 pm UTC (link)
I'm sorry, which worldwide accepted fact are you in need of proof over livejournal of?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]partywhipple
2006-11-14 09:00 pm UTC (link)
Actually I don't need to argue with you here at all. I am more than happy to watch you argue above with others who question your absurd commentary. Please waste not a moment more humoring my base accusations. Return to the true battle above. They have brought numbers and, even worse, rationality. To arms! To arms!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2006-11-14 09:43 pm UTC (link)
Perhaps you don't realize that there are other authorities than the ones you (and yes, most of the rest of the world) apparently unflinchingly believe. Your blind faith in revisionist history is no different than what you perceive as our blind faith in a version of history inconsistent with yours. You have to take the Howard Zinn with the Hilaire Belloc.

---Josue

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]eljosue
2006-11-14 09:51 pm UTC (link)
---Josue = eljosue
Sorry for cluttering, John.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]stevewilson
2006-11-14 09:58 pm UTC (link)
Hi, Stego,

You didn't answer my question about whether you believe that Christianity is responsible for the deaths of ten billion people over two thousand years.

No serious historian claims that there was a genocide against the native americans, although there were some genocidal events. And as I said elsewhere, you can't blame Christianity for introduced diseases, which caused the bulk of the deaths.

The Holocaust? Imperialism? There are other causes to those besides Christianity, you know. Like the Enlightenment, or capitalism ...

If, as with the introduced diseases, you're going to blame Christianity for everything that happens in 'Christian' countries, then I'd suggest you blame Christianity for the road toll.

Actually, why not blame Christianity for the deaths caused by the Enlightenment, capitalism and communism?

You don't sound very rational on the subject of Christianity ... were you bitten by a Christian as a child?

A believer can never achieve wisdom, despite whatever other education they may recieve. Their entire existence is based upon fallacy.

Unfortunately, your mind seems to be shackled by some deep issues with Christianity, and it's the nature of your hatred that Christianity must be the most evil thing that ever existed.

It's so bad that you can't even adjust to a pretty obvious fall back position: that Christianity is the second most evil system ever to have existed, behind Communism.

Nope, Christianity *must* be the worst, you cannot believe otherwise.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

***Truly scratching my head***
[info]carbonelle
2006-11-16 05:43 am UTC (link)
Forever annd Completely Unknown Population of Pre-Colombian American Nonsense: Upper and lower limits can be estimated reasonably by using the available land/resources, the available food-technology and the surviving middens, etc. And this is without making the distinction between ordinary human wars of conquest, and infections (I don't hold the Eastern World responsible for the "genocide" of the Black Death in Europe: it would be dead silly) and religious- or ideologically-motivated wars, tyrannies &etc.

The Crusades: Research "Christian Asia Minor". Unless you include the wossname, Normandy Beach (and related) invasions in the crimes against humanity, you don't understand what they were, and why they were problematic. (See also, "who invented the notion of Holy War. And why.")

The Inquisition The Spaniards were right S.O.B.s I'll grant you that, but the Inquisition itself killed almost no-one. Do some research. Only the state had the right to legal murder/execution.

The Holocaust Er. Not caused by relgion (unless you count Hitler's wack-job paganism, which I don't think fair to the neo-pagans) but racism. Jews were to be exterminated for their Jewishness, even if they were atheists or Christians.

Imperialism Can you please explain to me what this has to do with Christianity qua Christianity? Surely world history has shown you enough Imperial states which were not Christian that you can perceive the two unrelated.

The Holy Roman Empire Was bad, and particularly bad as the Christianized Roman Empire in contrast to the pagan Roman Empire because--? And how--?

Here. Let me be of assistance the next time you want to indict Christians for "shouting the name of Christ and acting the deeds of Moloch"

(1) Ante-bellum Southern U.S. Slave Owners
(2) Eastern European pogroms
(3) The wars of the Reformation
(4) Just about any part of Spanish history you care to point to but particularly do some research on "conversos"

Those were real cases of Christians, as Christians using Christianity as help to evil deeds.

Of course, the problem is, that compared (in sheer scale) to the ideologies of the 20th century, all of which were if not actually atheist at least a-Christian, they're pikers. But still, very bad, and a reminder to Christians not to be triumphalist about their religion.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]carbonelle
2006-11-16 05:12 am UTC (link)
And I certainly do not do so while draping myself in a system of beliefs that has lead to more deaths in the past 2000 years than any other.

Erm... Mr. Wright is not a socialist. Nor, unless I very much mistake matters, is socialism anti-abortion, at any rate, it only takes a stand on whether or not abortion is child-murder spasmodically.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]lordbrand
2006-11-13 09:16 pm UTC (link)
"cannot tell the difference between a little baby and a malign tumor"

Oh, I think many can. I feel some simply create in themselves the hysterical blindness needed to rationalize away the consequences of convenience. A baby is an anchor, a chain, a parasite, an end of dreams and hedonism.

I understand that view of responsibility. I think most of us do. And, save in our weakest moments, reject it with a shudder. It's a temptation to simply define away evil and callousness - to force a progressive hopeful life on a reality that is unscripted. And this resulting from the consequences of an act that is, in nearly all cases, quite a bit more than voluntary.

I think few could make the selfish bargain against their child if the full weight of that death were apparent. But the child is tiny, unseen, a misty future, so the task is easier, as the task is easier for a high-flying bomber who prefers not to think about where his bombs fall.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]partywhipple
2006-11-14 07:23 pm UTC (link)
I feel some simply create in themselves the hysterical blindness needed to rationalize away the consequences of convenience.

This is exactly hwat I said in a previous post. Having been pro-infanticide in the past I know the only way you can keep the outlook you need to not go crazy or kill yourself in shame is to turn off your mind, erase what you've heard, and build a sophistical argument in your mind why something which is human is not human. There is no arguing with these people because it's a Definition which they wrongly hold, not an argument.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]lordbrand
2006-11-13 09:18 pm UTC (link)
"It is not too late to save the sinking Titanic of secularism. This vessel had three main bulkheads: Marxism, with its belief that state control of economic and social institutions could perfect mankind; Freudianism, with its belief that human perfection could result from lack of inhibitions, the absence of rules; and Progressivism, by which I mean the Darwin-flavored myth that human progress is a natural and inevitable process, like building a pyramid, not a continuous and doubtful struggle, like bailing a boat."

That describes one possible (the predominant) secularism. But not the only possible or even likely version. Christianity is one answer, among many possible realistic paths.

(Reply to this)


[info]mosellegreen
2006-11-13 09:32 pm UTC (link)
not even academics believe it any more.

I love that, how you just assumed in passing that academics believe ludicrous things. *G*

Good post.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]superversive
2006-11-13 11:31 pm UTC (link)
Many people believe ludicrous things. Academics have the unusual privilege of being paid to do so.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]carbonelle
2006-11-16 05:47 am UTC (link)
They are also (more importantly) insulated from the consequences of believing those ludicrous things. No small thing, that!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]partywhipple
2006-11-14 07:25 pm UTC (link)
This whole string of posts has been excellent, John. I hope my children get to read you works when they attend St John's.

Kinda far from actually having children now but I'm doing that FOR YOU so you can get busy getting your philosophy published. I'm that good a friend!

(Reply to this)

And just in time..
(Anonymous)
2006-11-15 12:05 am UTC (link)
..The Church of England now sees the wisdom of.. well, just read.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=416003&in_page_id=1770&8

(Reply to this)


[info]starshipcat
2006-11-15 05:23 pm UTC (link)
It has become my belief that we cannot make any progress until we can resolve the tail-wagging-the-dog issues of pregnancies that endanger the mother and of rape. There are a lot of people who really don't like abortion, but see it as the lesser evil.

I quite honestly think that the South Dakota abortion ban foundered because there was no provision for protecting the woman from a situation in which either the pregnancy itself becomes dangerous or the woman develops an unrelated medical condition that cannot be treated while she is pregnant. A lot of people got the impression (however erronious) that the proponents of the act regarded pregnant women not as people, but as incubators, as means of natal production. The thought of being forced to risk one's own life and health to continue a pregnancy is frightening enough for many people that they'd have a knee-jerk reaction against it.

The issue of rape is even more complicated because, contrary to many people's impressions, rape is not just a theft of sexual and/or reproductive services. This isn't the forum for detailed discussion of the concept of the sexual protection racket, but suffice to say that each act of rape doesn't merely violate the individual woman, but also sends a message to every other woman of "Nice sexual boundaries you have there. Shame if something happened to them."

Every woman lives on a daily basis with the knowledge that her ability to say no and make it stick is dependent upon men's willingness to honor that no, and that men are equipped to run roughshod over her determination to not become pregnant by not having sex.

If those two issues can be resolved (most likely through technological developments in ultra-preemie NICU equipment to the point of creating a uterine replicator, and possibly also nanotech development that will enable minimally-invasive fetal transplants at the earliest stages of pregnancy) so that women can feel confident that they will never have their lives threatened by their own baby and that no rapist can ever impose pregnancy upon them against their will, I think that resistance to abortion bans will crumble very quickly.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]carbonelle
2006-11-16 05:49 am UTC (link)
Excellent points, thank you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

The first choice in feminine protection
[info]carbonelle
2006-11-16 05:51 am UTC (link)
Every woman lives on a daily basis with the knowledge that her ability to say no and make it stick is dependent upon men's willingness to honor that no, and that men are equipped to run roughshod over her determination to not become pregnant by not having sex.

You remind me that the nice Mssr.s Smith and Wesson (and their cohort) reduced that dependency rather a lot. Funny that so many so-called "feminists" are in favor of restricting women's access to hand-guns.

It's as if it were better to be able to abort the offspring of a rapist, than to prevent the rape in the first place...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: The first choice in feminine protection
[info]starshipcat
2006-11-16 05:34 pm UTC (link)
The headache is, having a gun is not in and of itself enough. Firearms may be equalizers, but they are not magic wands. If a woman does not have the training to use a gun effectively (including regular range time to keep those skills honed so they can be called upon at a moment's notice) and the psychological preparation to shoot to kill, having a gun can actually put her in greater danger. There have been many ugly cases of a woman who hesitated to pull the trigger and instead had the weapon turned on her. Or worse, a woman tries to do her assailant a small injury in hopes of "slowing him down" or "getting him to think twice" and instead only infuriated the assailant so that he savagely beat or murdered her. Such hesitations are particularly likely if the woman knows her assailant (acquantance rapes vastly outnumber stranger rapes).

Not to mention that a woman who does seek to arm herself (not just geting a FOID and the weapon, but the necessary training and regular range time to be effective in defending herself) swims against a strong tide of society (which gets back to those issues of the sexual protection racket -- racketeers don't want their prey to be able to defend themselves). But even if society were to change such that every woman were not only able, but actively encouraged, to prepare herself to back her no's with deadly force, there would still be the possibility that a woman could be caught unawares and unable to get to her piece in time -- which is why rape is a tail-wagging-the-dog issue. Even now, pregnancies caused by rape are, statistically speaking, a very small proportion of the abortion statistics (admittedly blurred by questions of unreported rapes and of false reports of rape), but the fear of impregnation via rape leads people who otherwise would oppose abortion to fight tooth-and-toenail against an abortion ban.

However, if women can be assured that, should they be brutally overwhelmed, or should a man abuse a position of trust to violate them, any resultant baby can be safely removed from their womb and transferred either to that of a willing (even eager) adoptive mother or to a uterine replicator, with minimal risk to unwilling ovum donor, baby, or adoptive mother, resistance to an abortion ban will most likely crumble like so much wet cardboard.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(39 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…