Stephen Wan's Personal Understanding and Observation:
100 out of 100 women, on hearing the doctor's confirmation that they are pregnant, be they happy or sad, normally would exclaim:-
"Oh, really, my God, I am pregnant... I have a baby!"
Normally none would coldly respond and say, "Well, I have a THING inside me!"
Some pregnant women, when they calm down later, may consider their private situations (poverty, loss of love, being already separated from their boyfriends or husbands, or physical illnesses and weaknesses) and change their minds instead, then seeking the option avoiding the 9 months' burden of conceiving their babies. That moment on, they seek professional opinion and professionals all try to be scientific, talk about "right", personhood, autonomy, consciousness, etc. only to ease these pregnant women's psychological tensions, convince them finally that what there are inside wombs are just THINGS, not exactly true lives, not babies, and they are free to be determined, to look for doctors to move out their THINGS at their own discretion. Instead of helping the hesitant pregnant women to treasure lives (future babies inheriting their genes), these professionals handle their jobs purely as jobs only. They themselves have no motherhood and they talk as if there is no motherhood, no blood -tie intimacy, no value and no meaning for the process of conception, and meaning of life and the world only should base on so-called "right" (and "adult right only"), nothing else. Such absolutism itself is dogmatic, like any other dogma, becomes tricky trap against other alternative reasoning!
Please have mercy. It is against nature to say there is a THING (as if it is lifeless or malignant like a tumor or cancerous growth) inside the womb of a pregnant woman. "There is a baby!"
If a pregnant woman coldly demand: "I have a THING inside my womb. Doctor, please help remove it!" The problem lies NOT with the foetus. The problem lies with the woman who at that moment may have lost motherhood and at that moment cannot act as a true mother anymore. BUT can she be kind enough to let "her baby" come up into this world under her kind permission and perseverence in 9 months' time and then she can quit, proud of herself, leaving "her baby" to be taken care of in a foster home, rather than "killing her THING and then feeling guilty afterwards"?
Isn't it unreasonable and weird when you hear a woman shout with her finger pointing to her belly, "Oh no, I have a THING inside me. Please help. I want it out now. Be quick, please help!" Most pregnant women cry instead. What they need should be counselling and support, and social welfare, not a shortcut medical skill to kill a life- the baby or foetus.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Already an Era with Adequate Means to Avoid Pregnancy
Stephen Wan's Perception of Our Modern Age: An Era with More Than Adequate Means to Avoid Pregnancy under any Circumstances Whatsoever
(1) Nowadays, convenient access to obtain medications, preventive means and devices, contraceptives, condoms, before any act of sex intercourses, and even post-rape medications and drug formulations to avoid pregnancy immediately after the criminal case is reported, all imply that unwanted pregnancy actually are substantially reduced in civilized societies!
(2) (a)Therefore it seems that unwanted pregnancy becomes a problem, surprisingly indeed, and instead, to normal couples. There may be change in family's financial situations, change of mind simply because of change in the couple's relationship (no more love, say), or the unwanted pregnancy may be a problem outcome of casual sex intercourses between very young and immature yonths at puberty who are ignorant or who are afraid of reporting their problems to their parents early enough.
(b) Problems can be solved, never should reach a dead end, but death of the silent foetus will be a dead end. Should adults' problems be excuses for aborting foetuses to get rid of "lives in the wombs of mothers' inner bodies" so as to "solve the problems in the external irresponsible adults' world"?? We must not forget that all adults suffer in this world with never ending misfortune and problems of this and that everyday!
(c) Adults need love and have sex intercourses when they feel depressed with problems. When they have babies in wombs after sex, they are depressed again with the foetuses in the wombs as problems. They do not blame themselves for abusing freedom but instead they further abuse their freedom by demanding abortion to kill lives caused by their prior sex acts in relief. How can they justify love between adults should bring forth death to a third living entity, the foetus, their invitee to this world, after their making love?
(1) Nowadays, convenient access to obtain medications, preventive means and devices, contraceptives, condoms, before any act of sex intercourses, and even post-rape medications and drug formulations to avoid pregnancy immediately after the criminal case is reported, all imply that unwanted pregnancy actually are substantially reduced in civilized societies!
(2) (a)Therefore it seems that unwanted pregnancy becomes a problem, surprisingly indeed, and instead, to normal couples. There may be change in family's financial situations, change of mind simply because of change in the couple's relationship (no more love, say), or the unwanted pregnancy may be a problem outcome of casual sex intercourses between very young and immature yonths at puberty who are ignorant or who are afraid of reporting their problems to their parents early enough.
(b) Problems can be solved, never should reach a dead end, but death of the silent foetus will be a dead end. Should adults' problems be excuses for aborting foetuses to get rid of "lives in the wombs of mothers' inner bodies" so as to "solve the problems in the external irresponsible adults' world"?? We must not forget that all adults suffer in this world with never ending misfortune and problems of this and that everyday!
(c) Adults need love and have sex intercourses when they feel depressed with problems. When they have babies in wombs after sex, they are depressed again with the foetuses in the wombs as problems. They do not blame themselves for abusing freedom but instead they further abuse their freedom by demanding abortion to kill lives caused by their prior sex acts in relief. How can they justify love between adults should bring forth death to a third living entity, the foetus, their invitee to this world, after their making love?
Personhood? Why not also define motherhood?
Stephen Wan's Thoughts on Importance of Motherhood Before and After Birth of a Baby:-
(1) Should we consider the prospect- physical and psychological, for healthy development of foetus either with or without true mother's love and care, and in case "without", any other options or means to remedy the situation with help and assistance such as adoption, with foster home care and love, or improved orphanage care?
(2) In other words, should priority on saving life of foetus be always the rule, and all pregnant women without physical health problem must not demand abortion? And let society take care of the baby afterwards if the mother really refuses to act as the baby's mother?
(3) There are fosterlings who have lost touch with true parents, yet leading very successful life and demonstrating respectable personhood. Their achievement may never compensate their feeling of loss without true parents' love, but they may also have to admit that their foster homes may also have provided excellent care and love that even true parents may not provide or be able to provide the same as nice and as lovely. From this perspective, motherhood is not the monopoly of true mother and may be available should there be well educated and very kind foster homes.
(4) While we should pity a pregnant woman who has lost her interest in the baby foetus, or who has become pregnant owing to some accidental unplanned reasons, we should be also open minded to accept that such a pregnant woman may also have totally lost the expected attitude, psychological preparation, and clear mindset commonly found with true motherhood. She may turn out to be a threat to the new born baby if abortion is disallowed. BUT how can we base on this potential risk to justify killing of the foetus and get rid of a future baby? If she really may become a threat to her own baby, she can be either temporarily or permanently separated from her own new born baby! It seems there should be no justifiable ground for anyone to help "bully" and kill the foetus, a true living entity?
(5) Therefore it may be essential and critical that scope, meaning and implication of true, lost, and foster motherhoods, should be identified, studied, and defined if we would like to ask whether it is right or wrong to adopt abortion.
(1) Should we consider the prospect- physical and psychological, for healthy development of foetus either with or without true mother's love and care, and in case "without", any other options or means to remedy the situation with help and assistance such as adoption, with foster home care and love, or improved orphanage care?
(2) In other words, should priority on saving life of foetus be always the rule, and all pregnant women without physical health problem must not demand abortion? And let society take care of the baby afterwards if the mother really refuses to act as the baby's mother?
(3) There are fosterlings who have lost touch with true parents, yet leading very successful life and demonstrating respectable personhood. Their achievement may never compensate their feeling of loss without true parents' love, but they may also have to admit that their foster homes may also have provided excellent care and love that even true parents may not provide or be able to provide the same as nice and as lovely. From this perspective, motherhood is not the monopoly of true mother and may be available should there be well educated and very kind foster homes.
(4) While we should pity a pregnant woman who has lost her interest in the baby foetus, or who has become pregnant owing to some accidental unplanned reasons, we should be also open minded to accept that such a pregnant woman may also have totally lost the expected attitude, psychological preparation, and clear mindset commonly found with true motherhood. She may turn out to be a threat to the new born baby if abortion is disallowed. BUT how can we base on this potential risk to justify killing of the foetus and get rid of a future baby? If she really may become a threat to her own baby, she can be either temporarily or permanently separated from her own new born baby! It seems there should be no justifiable ground for anyone to help "bully" and kill the foetus, a true living entity?
(5) Therefore it may be essential and critical that scope, meaning and implication of true, lost, and foster motherhoods, should be identified, studied, and defined if we would like to ask whether it is right or wrong to adopt abortion.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
space-time-causality
Stephen Wan's Proposed Study about The Need for Consideration of Space-Time-Causality:
(1) Conception (why a foetus can be conceived)?
(a) Normally a possible outcome of sex intercourse, but sex intercourse can be a result of
-mutual consent bewteen wife and husband,
-mutual consent between a woman and a man without marital relation,
-rape and indecent assault,
-immature sex between a girl and a male and a female with a boy, or a girl and a boy intentionally or under confusion,
(b) accidental outcome even under normal sex intercourse with contraceptives and other precautions
(2) There are extreme views:
(a) NOT to consider any of the above causes, not to trace back why and how comes the foetus-
-let the pregnant mother decide, and nobody should stop her from saving or aborting the foetus. All decisions solely at her discretion with perhaps some medical advice only.
- or just the opposite, people try hard to list out virtue rules and universal principles or duties that no pregnant women should contravene, in other words, let society decide.
(b) MUST consider the above causes, and provide ethical criteria on basis of the various causes and then let society and the pregnant women to follow and comply with "reason" and "justification" in case by case method.
(3) There is also PRAGMATIC view:-
Whichever views above to be taken, priority is to consider the situation from the medical health perspective-
-physical health of both foetus and mother
-mental condition of the mother
-psychiatric consideration
-family and social welfare back-up and support --enough or not?
** No matter what, the "fate" or "status" of the foetus is actually worse than that of a tree or pet like a dog.
A tree or a pet dog can be loved or treasured for ecological, environmental protection or animal right reason, no matter how poor the economy or how poor the pet dog owner is. Therefore the BIG query remains: Why a valuable life in a foetus can be disposed like trash under abortion without the need for consideration of space-time-causality?
** A mentally sick man who likes to rape women can be jailed but not killed. He is definitely an enemy to all women, and a threat at any time. In so-called civilized society, he will never be castrated or imposed death penalty, and no one and no woman can claim that for self defence reason, we must kill him or castrate him. A foetus may irritate only the mother but never a threat and never an enemy at all to any other women and society.A living foetus is not a mentally sick man (even such a mentally sick man is protected in law under human right). Why can't a living foetus be protected for other sound reason if not human right? A dog is also not human, also no personhood but can be protected. A tree of lower consciousness is also protected. Why not a living foetus? Unless the pregnant mother is both physiologically and mentally sick, why a healthy woman should be allowed to get rid a life-- a future human life?
(1) Conception (why a foetus can be conceived)?
(a) Normally a possible outcome of sex intercourse, but sex intercourse can be a result of
-mutual consent bewteen wife and husband,
-mutual consent between a woman and a man without marital relation,
-rape and indecent assault,
-immature sex between a girl and a male and a female with a boy, or a girl and a boy intentionally or under confusion,
(b) accidental outcome even under normal sex intercourse with contraceptives and other precautions
(2) There are extreme views:
(a) NOT to consider any of the above causes, not to trace back why and how comes the foetus-
-let the pregnant mother decide, and nobody should stop her from saving or aborting the foetus. All decisions solely at her discretion with perhaps some medical advice only.
- or just the opposite, people try hard to list out virtue rules and universal principles or duties that no pregnant women should contravene, in other words, let society decide.
(b) MUST consider the above causes, and provide ethical criteria on basis of the various causes and then let society and the pregnant women to follow and comply with "reason" and "justification" in case by case method.
(3) There is also PRAGMATIC view:-
Whichever views above to be taken, priority is to consider the situation from the medical health perspective-
-physical health of both foetus and mother
-mental condition of the mother
-psychiatric consideration
-family and social welfare back-up and support --enough or not?
** No matter what, the "fate" or "status" of the foetus is actually worse than that of a tree or pet like a dog.
A tree or a pet dog can be loved or treasured for ecological, environmental protection or animal right reason, no matter how poor the economy or how poor the pet dog owner is. Therefore the BIG query remains: Why a valuable life in a foetus can be disposed like trash under abortion without the need for consideration of space-time-causality?
** A mentally sick man who likes to rape women can be jailed but not killed. He is definitely an enemy to all women, and a threat at any time. In so-called civilized society, he will never be castrated or imposed death penalty, and no one and no woman can claim that for self defence reason, we must kill him or castrate him. A foetus may irritate only the mother but never a threat and never an enemy at all to any other women and society.A living foetus is not a mentally sick man (even such a mentally sick man is protected in law under human right). Why can't a living foetus be protected for other sound reason if not human right? A dog is also not human, also no personhood but can be protected. A tree of lower consciousness is also protected. Why not a living foetus? Unless the pregnant mother is both physiologically and mentally sick, why a healthy woman should be allowed to get rid a life-- a future human life?
a baby is really a talent of your house ?
( testing sample 2b. post article by email )
no one has the right to terminate the other 's life
... though it happens everyday everywhere.
( testing sample 1 )
( testing sample 1 )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)