Thursday, September 6, 2012

Actually, abortion is like using the child as a flotation device.

This clever meme is circulating on Facebook, but it falls short. Here is a more appropriate comparison.

Abortion is actually like falling into the water with an innocent child and using him as a flotation device. He dies, while you manage to climb back on shore and dry off.

You do this even while there is a dock just a few feet away which can provide safe harbor until you are able to not only ensure the child's survival but your own.

Rather than teaching people how to jump with both feet into the treacherous waters as adolescents, along with the often ineffectual life jackets that are notoriously misused by children and adults, we should teach them to avoid the rapids until they are able to swim more effectively, and preferably with a buddy.

A committed buddy, who would sacrifice their own life for yours.

As in, marriage.

Finally, if you and the child were pushed into the water through no fault of your own, please return to the top of this post and reread.


Tonia Marshall said...

I haven't seen this on Facebook yet but I'm sure I will. I'm surprised how young the child is! If the life jacket is meant to represent a condom would we really put one on a child this age? The premise seems to be that sex is a recreation activity to be enjoyed by all. If you take that to its logical conclusion there is no reason we shouldn't encourage our children to do it as often as they like with whomever they like.

Faith said...

This is brilliant! Thank you!

Anonymous said...

At least education is never mentioned. I always urge that teaching NFP, humanae vitae, and self control to really learn about the body and it's proper use in the area of love, marriage, grace and reproduction should be avoided at all costs.
I mean, why bother being healthy when we have drugs. Its like why watch my cholesterol when we have statin drugs. They are consequence free drugs.

tz said...

An unborn baby is not like a separate child, it imposes a strain on the mother which cannot be abated even for one moment. If the child in the example isn't nice and cooperative and calm and treading water himself, but screaming, attacking you or trying to pull you under in panic, or otherwise making it less than easy if you were there alone it would be a better example

Ann said...

Dear tz,
It's still a child.

Anonymous said...

I like the life jacket analogy. Someday we will look back at this and be horrified when we realize what we have done. Even good people get caught up in what seems to be a good solution to a perceived problem. Believing that those we slaughter are not people helps us digest this sin. But it is denial and our silence is a sign of a deep seeded guilt and what this is doing to our humanity. This denial and silence seems to be prevalent when good people get caught up in the many Holocausts in the history of civilized society. Do you see the similarities to other Holocausts? And just as other Holocausts that do not end well for the perpetrators, hear my words, it will not end well for us.

Rujuta Xavier said...

This is soooo sick! How can you compare irresponsible sex with swimming with a life jackets on!!! Life jackets that don't even work!

People will go to any twisted lengths to prove themselves right!

waywardson said...

Apparently learning to swim is not an option in the meme.

This also highlights the difference between contraception and NFP. If contraception is lifejackets, then fertility education/NFP is swimming lessons. Learn how to enjoy the water naturally!

And what this shows is that the culture of abortion and contraception is not only a culture of death, but it is a culture of limitation. It is a culture of powerlessness, it is a culture of dependence.

Learning to swim is fun and empowering. When you know how to swim, you no longer fear the water, but you respect what it is and that yes, you can drown. There is no false sense of security provided by a floatation device when you have to keep your own head out of water.

The same can be said about our sexuality. Which is why the Church does not just tolerate NFP, but actively promotes it.

LMH said...

To tz,

If you are right and the child is kicking and screaming and pulling you under, would you just say, "Oh, the heck with it and hold the child's head under water until he/she dies so that you can get away?

Perhaps you would. And there is the difference between the Culture of Life and the Culture of Death.

Personally, I would sacrifice my own life if it provided even a small possibility that I could save that child's life. And before you ask... yes, I have been in that position and yes, that child was worth every moment of suffering and the thought of losing my own life while bringing him into this world.

Christine said...

In response to waywardson: I have to take issue with your last statement, that the Church "actively promotes" NFP. No, the Church accepts its use as a potentially moral method of child spacing. But the Church never says it's the *only* moral way (total abstinence comes to mind as another), or that everyone should be doing it.

Anonymous said...

You are all missing the point. Seriously look at this statement for what it is and not read into things so much and make assumptions. "Using the child as a flotation device"? Really? Do you honestly believe that is what this ad is saying? I am astonished at how close-minded so many people are when it comes to the health and the well-being of others. What works for you and your belief systems is not what works for other people. If you believe that abstinence is best and that sex should be saved for marriage, that's great. Just don't expect the rest of the world to follow your same beliefs and opinions. If you don't believe in birth control, that's perfectly fine, don't use it then. Just please don't condemn others for not agreeing with you. After all, isn't God supposed to be the one to judge us?

Julianne Wiley said...

Thanks, anonymous, for bringing up he topic of judgment. There are some things we must judge, some things we can sometimes judge, and some things we must not and can not judge.

Specifically, we must judge:

ideas and ideologies, to determine if they are good or evil; words, to determine if they are true or false; acts, to determine if they are right or wrong.

You may judge matters of taste and preference --- that's why they have cook-offs, art shows and county fairs. You may also judge practical, how-to questions (the best way to look for a job, run a business, conduct a political campaign, enjoy Jamaica.

Things you can't and shouldn't judge, are: people's interior states (their intentions and motivations and so forth) becase you can't know them unless they clearly tell you; and people's spiritual state and eternal destiny in the sanse of saying "this gal is damned" or "that guy's going to hell", because you don't know either their mind OR God's saving initiatives. (That's why God is the judge and I'm not.)

The worst judgments, these days, are judgments you shoudl have made, and didn't.

Sheila said...

I think this is an excellent metaphor.

Maybe the reason why some don't see it as apt is that some people don't understand that there are REAL BABIES involved. The question is, WOULD YOU kill a baby in order to:

--save your life?
--save your health?
--save your mental health?
--avoid nine months of unpleasantness?
--avoid being embarrassed?

Or would you NEVER kill a child at all, for any reason?

Not only would I never kill a child for any reason, I'm also not okay with anyone else doing it. That's not being judgmental -- that's acknowledging that we do have a responsibility to defend others, particularly those who can't defend themselves.

If you DON'T believe it's a human being in there, all I can say is study some more science. Or come up with a definition of a human being that works ... so far, "an individual (having its own genetic code, for instance) of the human species" is good enough for me. If you base it off of any other standard, you'll end up either giving personhood to chickens or killing the disabled.

enness said...

Dear Anonymous,

The not-so-subtle message of this meme is that abortion is an acceptible back-up method of birth control. We're talking about homicide. That is a fact. I'm okay with not being "open-minded" about homicide, for I fail to see what it has to do with anyone's health or well-being -- at least, not more so than the one who is killed.
(I am also okay with being that crazy girl who thinks that having to use "protection" is an admission of the knowledge, even at a subconscious level, that having sex would utterly defy people's own better judgment if they actually thought they might make a child together...which gives rise to a host of other questions, starting with "What exactly do you see in this person?")

I see nobody being condemned here. If the mere statement of a fact is enough to condemn people in their minds, is that really our fault? Say you saw a lady with a baby stroller, texting, about to wander into a busy road; seeing what's about to happen, and possibly even knowing from experience, would you not want to intervene? And when you did, what effect would it have on you if the lady turned her anger on you for interrupting her conversation? (It might not be a perfect analogy. But then, I'm not a perfect person.)

Suppose the things we believe would actually be quite beneficial to individuals and society and not just to the faithful -- IF they'd actually be "closed-minded" enough to stop scoffing for a minute and think about it? Seriously. I don't expect everyone to follow. I would be thrilled if they at least gave it fair consideration before dismissing us as hopeless anachronisms, which in my experience almost never happens.

By the way, you can be astonished all you want but you haven't explained what is actually wrong with Mindy's interpretation. I am more than happy to engage with you, if you want to elaborate. Take care.

Anonymous said...

Great re-interpretation. Now someone needs to create an equally brilliant fake image of a magazine with these sentiments and distribute it all over the Internet as well.

Anonymous said...

Often those who are "pushed into the water" are still left gasping for air long after they ensured safe harbor for their precious cargo:

What do you suggest in those cases?

Bearess said...

This meme also (probably inadvertently) makes another point: the only one with whom we should be concerned is the one wearing the life jacket. Their argument is that the one in the life jacket is the only life involved, which is how they can claim that we're being "judgmental" when we have a moral objection to the message of the meme and to abortion itself. But if they're wrong, there are only two conclusions: one life is better than another and deserves to be saved at the expense of the other, or both lives require saving.

Kelly said...

@Anonymous - you were suitably named, "Someday we will look back at this and be horrified when we realize what we have done." I don't know what you did - but I didn't create a tacky poster insinuating the drowning of a child and then sensationalize it. @TZ your first post was so disturbing that I'm glad I don't have to address you by name. @Faith - "It's brilliant"...let me ask you, Faith, brilliant in a hilarious, satirical way? Or brilliant in that it captures the horror of abortion? Let's pretend that someone you know and like has an unfortunate miscarriage at 12 weeks, or even an abortion and is immediately filled with regret....would you like the doctor to take pictures and use them on a poster? Let's remember, Roman Catholics of the world, that there are other issues beyond NFP and abortion. Some children actually drown - how do you think their parents feel right about now, looking at the "brilliant" meme? The end does not justify the means when someone uses a picture of one child to represent the death of another - would ya'll be ok with a poster of a school bus accident with bloody children hanging out of the window to remind us to buckle up?

RaeMarie said...

who would be dumb enough to compare having a baby with dying?

Anonymous said...

The meme is stupid. It's not a good comparison. But neither is yours. And as for your last paragraph, "Finally, if you and the child were pushed into the water through no fault of your own, please return to the top and reread." To say that to a woman who was raped, who might (often the case) be a child herself, you are missing a heart. If you truly wanted to convince them to accept a child of such violence, this is how you would do it? What kid of christian are you? This is not what I was taught in CCD. What happened to love your neighbor? What happened to not judging, lest you be judged yourself? You have no chance of getting through to them talking to them like that, especially if the people you are talking to are already the victims of a horrific, violent act that has caused heart and soul damage. What happen to Jesus loves the sinner.How can we be acting in a manner that leads us to God when we are so hateful to each other? You were fine, until that last paragraph. But women who have been abused so badly should never be talked to in that manner, so hopefully, you would never actually use that argument to convince them to have the child. How crude and heartless. And even if you couldn't convince them to have the child, hopefully you would have the sense to leave the judgement to God.

Mindy Goorchenko said...

While I hope to respond to other comments as well, this last one requires a more immediate response.

Dear Anonymous,

Hopefully no one here will ever respond to anyone who has been raped by passing along a meme, or a blog post in response to a meme.

My response is in regards to a flippant meme which essentially negates the humanity present in the womb of a pregnant woman.

It is not to be quoted to a woman who is actually pregnant. I have to assume that my readers will understand the intended audience of this response. Just to make it very clear, I posted the original meme at the top so that there is no confusion.

Finally, the conception of a child through rape, incest, or any other horrifying means does not justify killing the conceived child. Each and every human has dignity purely because s/he exists and is created by God with an inherent right to life, not because someone else has deemed him/her worthy to be alive.

How this renders me judgmental, I don't know. But that is why I stated, "return to the top of post."

Because the arguments do not really change when we are defending someone's right to exist, no matter how they came to do so.

Anonymous said...

TZ said that the unborn isn't like a separate child, and then went on to say "If the child in the example isn't nice and cooperative and calm and treading water himself, but screaming, attacking you or trying to pull you under in panic, or otherwise making it less than easy if you were there alone". Apparently he never raised a toddler. They can throw some horrible kicking/screaming/hitting/throwing tantrums that make you want to rip your hairs out; but killing them to alleviate your stress would still be murder.

Anonymous said...

Food for thought.

Let's say a woman is raped, the rapist leaves her, and amid her own terror, out of the corner of her eye she sees a child. The child is hiding in a corner, unaware of what happened. The woman sees the child and has no idea why the child is there, but then she realizes something, the child has his eyes! The eyes of that man whom just raped her! Somehow, this horrible rapist had brought his child with him. The child simply looks up at her, completely innocent, unaware of what his father had just done, completely alone in the corner, with no one but this woman. What would she do?

Would she destroy him? Would she kill this child? Would she commit violence against the child, his child, because of the violence that was just committed to her? The child looks just like him, but he isn't his father, and he is helpless. Seeing this, I believe she would take the child to someone who could care for him. I do not believe that upon seeing this child, even amid what just happened, that she would in turn commit violence against this innocent one. She would want nothing to do with the situation, but she wouldn't leave or cause the child to die. If she killed that child, out of hurt for what just happened to her, later, when the storm had passed, or perhaps right away, she would realize that she had just done something even worse than what was done to her. How could she forgive herself?

She could blame the man for the rape, but how could she handle what SHE had just done? Not just violence and harm, but actually taking a life? And not just the life of HIS child, but HERS too!? How could she then live with that? No woman should have to live with that, especially ON TOP of having been so violated herself. The trauma would be compounded! Have compassion for women who have been raped. They have been traumatized, to say the least, they need someone to help them through, to help them heal. They can recover from a rape, but how to you propose they recover from killing a child? Do you know how many women commit suicide because they've had an abortion? How could any women live when she realizes what truly happened?

I know that in seeking abortion, people are seeking to 'undo' becoming pregnant. They believe they can stop it from happening, as if it never happened. I understand this, I've been there, when you consider abortion for a moment, not as killing a child, but as to erase something you shouldn't have done, or something that happened to you. But abortion doesn't turn back time before conception. When you are pregnant, you are pregnant. There is no going back. You are a parent, and depending on what you do, you will either be the parent of a living child, or of a dead child. Leading a woman to believe that what is within her is only a glob of tissue, LYING to her, alleviates nothing. She deserves the truth, because she can then make decisions she can live with. If you lie to her, leading her to believe an abortion will take the problem of being pregnant away as if it never happened, she will learn or realize the truth sooner or later. And then what have you done. As I said, suicide rates for women who've had abortions are high. There are crisis pregnancy centers who will help these mothers, sooo many couples who can't have their own children would lovingly accept a child to raise. Give women the gift of truth, and real love. Don't further their terror. The child is completely innocent, and she will realize that sooner or later. You tell me that a woman can justify killing her own child, because of the violence of a man. I don't think so. She would take her young and run away, protecting them. She needs support.


Anonymous said...

Please note, I am a different 'anonymous'

In addition to my comment above, I'd like to add:
Please, before you assume what is best for a woman who was raped and is pregnant - go talk to women who have been and who are raising their baby. Ask them how they feel about the child. Ask them if it happened all over, if they would have done away with their child. Maybe they would have wished they never got pregnant, but they did. Ask if they would go back and have an abortion. Ask how they feel about their child now. I think you know the answer, but please, do go ask before you assume.


Anonymous said...

As for contraception, it is advertised to protect you. It doesn't protect you, it just attempts to prevent certain things. The truth is that sperm are smaller than the holes in a condom, viruses are too. Leading people to believe they have nothing to worry about, as the marketing does, is deception. If you are hiding facts, making something sound better than it is, you should question what you are doing.

Also, saying 'if you are going to do it, at least use contraception' is just permission. People will engage in more frequent sex and with less responsible choice of partner, when they believe there will be no consequences. How many people would be more responsible in their choices and make different choices all together, if they fully realized the risks they were taking. You want to advertise contraception, you'd better be honest and let people know its nowhere near a guarantee.

Did I mention that hormonal contraceptives' 2nd purpose is to cause an abortion (hardening the lining of the uterus or thinning it, so the conceived human cannot attach and therefore dies?) Sure their 'primary' purpose is to prevent ovulation. Anyone ever ask about the secondary purpose?

I believe in telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Then people can actually know exactly what is going on and make educated decisions.

How many people would do things differently if they were given all the facts, plain and simple, instead of someone just telling them, oh just use "protection".

At least abstinence teaches self control, self respect, sex respect and respect for others. Then you can actually enjoy it without fear of disease, or the person using or leaving you, and you wouldn't have to 'fear' pregnancy because you are prepared for the possibility of creating a life.

Easy ways out and seeking selfish pleasure never lead to peace and happiness. Thats just the way it is.

Make fully informed decisions. Beware of those who advertise with half truths and even lies.


WaterBorn said...

Yes, of course a small collection of cells should take priority of the mother who was raped. So christian of you, to be so sympathetic. The quicker you morons vanish from humanity the better, because the church in all intensive purposes has been a blight on humanity. Here is a novel idea as well. Actually read the book you quote, and tell me where jesus stated abortion was wrong. And don't be cliche and say "Oh it's in the 10 commandments", actually find a document to support your theory. Then tell us why the church has giving it's blessing to abortion several times in the pass? Lastly how about you learn to actually think for yourselves rather than relying on a document full of fables, inaccuracies, and pure fucking lies.

Anonymous said...

WaterBallon...You do realize that you are simply a larger "collection of cells". Of course you are entitled to your own opinion, but why sugar-coat it? You can't believe that every pro-life church member is going to simply vanish, as we are a "blight on humanity". So you advocate murder and killing, of not only the unborn, but the born as well - state it proudly. A bit of advice, when you go on a murderous rant, you should arm yourself with the best grammar possible. The phrase is "Intents and Purposes", not "Intensive Purposes". Just as people mistake "Mute Point" for the correct "Moot Point".

MFilce said...

to WaterBorn and like minded:
On the most basic level of logic, I would say this:
Avoiding scripture entirely, if you start from the premise that killing a human being is unacceptable, and you can find no other species name to assign to an embryonic being in a woman's body other than "homo sapiens" or human, and even further, if a species does not in fact change its name from the point of fertilization into another species, then by definition you are killing a human being. All else is rationalizing; it may be compelling rationalizing and it may be infused with all the pathos in the world, but it is still merely rationalizing.

Anonymous said...

MFilce, an embryo is not a human being, it is a human embryo. Likewise a sunflower seed is not a sunflower and eating sunflower seeds does not make you a murderer of sunflower plants, throwing away an apple core with seeds does not kill apple trees.

The fact is something that drastically changes form, function, size and becomes exponentially more complex cannot be said to be in it's final developed state of being from its inception. The blueprints to a house are not also a house, they are the instructions that, when set in motion, lead to the creation of a house. In the same way human embryos are the blueprints for making a human being, it takes an 8 to 9 month process of engineering on the part of the mother's body to create a human being that can exist independently.

If the instructions for making a human can be said to be human then why not the paper the blueprints were drawn on? Should every wasted egg and sperm be considered murdering half of a human? They each contain half the genetic instructions, so that only follows using your definition of a human being. That makes every woman a serial killer and every man (yes EVERY man, even if you think masturbation is wrong, nocturnal emissions are a biological inevitability, and even if you can avoid that, 99.9% of your sperm will never fuse with your partner's eggs) guilty of mass genocide on a scale far greater than all of history's most atrocious dictators combined. If abortion is murder, then it doesn't matter because millions upon of murders are taking place every day every time a man has an orgasm.

Kevin said...

Quick note, this graphic isn't referencing abortion. It's referencing birth control. The pill for example.

Free Antivirus Download said...

Abortion is a shameful thing for a lady. free antivirus download

Grace said...

What does the dock represent, in this analogy?