SWAN = Stephen Wan's View:
________________________
One cannot have sex with oneself. In normal sex intercourse, there must be one man and one woman. (In this discussion we do not include orgy, gay or lesbian sex.)
Nowadays:
(a) a woman may want to play multi-roles: wife, mother, career woman...
(b) Some may want to be wives only without children, and prefer to work as career women.
(c) Some may want to be just career women and never get married.
(d) Some may opt for other plans but never want any children no matter what, etc.
In (b), (c), (d) above and even in (a) above if the mother does not want any more baby, pregnancy must be avoided in sex intercourse. If there is pregnancy, it becomes an undesirable outcome of an accident.
Instead of seeking abortion as the only feasible solution to deal with such accident, we should ask a question first. Whose accident is it?
Since the man and the woman (2 persons) together in sex and then the accident happens, so the accident happens because of 2 persons, NOT the woman alone. At least we must say the accident belongs to 2 persons (man and woman), and in fact, should be PLUS such accident also belongs to society if the baby can be allowed to be given birth as well as if the baby is not allowed to be given birth under abortion. Why? Because both involve tax payers' monies for provisions of hospitals, and schooling (if there is birth).
Therefore, the argument that abortion is the pregnant woman's own private business is NOT valid. It is NOT her own private accident. It is also NOT the 2 sex partners' own private accident. It is a PUBLIC accident!
Because PUBLIC expenditure for provisions of medical asistance and facilities are involved, how to deal with outcome of such an accident becomes a PUBLIC issue, NOT a private business or issue at home. The pregnant woman alone has NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT to claim that she alone and only she alone has the authority to deal with the outcome of such accident.
On surface, the accident happens in her body in the uterus. This is not totally true as such accident cannot be separated from the context of society in which the 2 persons live.. The accident happens because of joint actions of 2 persons (man and the woman) in sex intercourse. The accident happens in the community and society where these 2 persons are members. The pregnant woman has no absolute right to ignore her sex partner and the community when she is seeking abortion or other way to deal with the outcome of such an accident.
Pro-abortionists' arguments, and Thomson's principles of arguments have assumed that the pregnant woman has absolute right to choose abortion her own way of dealing with the outcome of pregnancy as an accident. Such assumption has denied other owners of such accident- the man's right AND the rights of the society in which such accident happens. Such assumption is NOT appropriate. It appears 'kind' to the pregnant woman but actually 'extremely cruel and unreasonable' to the pregnant woman! By granting the pregnant woman the so-called right to her own body is actually pushing the responsibility to the pregnant woman alone. This is NOT fair to her. Neither is it fair to her sex partner and to the community.
Therefore the pregnant woman has no absolute right to proclaim, "It is my body. No one can interfere with my decison on how to deal with 'my accident'. I am my own judge to define what is right and what is wrong in the way dealing with the accident." No, she should not be allowed to claim sole ownership of such an outcome of pregnancy as an accident..
Since she shares ownership of such accident, she must share the views and opinions of others. All parties concerned should be responsible for offering help and assistance if the joint decision is to forbid abortion.
When the 2 joint owners (husband and wife) of a house have caused a fire of their house, such a fire as their accident also belongs to the neigbourhood and community. Why? Obviously because they cannot just choose their own way of dealing with a fire accident. They need firefighting services. They need post-fire assistance, and advice, etc. SAME with pregnancy as an accident, abortion may not be the only way or appropriate way to deal with pregnancy as an accident. The pregnant woman has no absolute right to insist upon solely on single option of abortion as the dealing method. Rather she has the responsibility to listen to other owners of such an accident. She has to take others' opinion and recommendation even though her body appears to be her own. Her body WITHOUT the foetus/baby may be her own, but her body WITH the foetus/baby may not belong to her alone anymore as soon as she becomes pregnant as an accident. There are other owners of such accident, as deducted above!
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
"Should one chops off a toe to avoid the lugworm?"
SWAN = Stephen Wan's Opinion:
__________________________
(1) In Hong Kong, we have a proverb laughing at people's ludicrous reaction in avoiding trouble-
"Chop off (get rid of) the toe to escape from the lugworm (a trouble)"
(2) If there is such a woman who really chops off her toe to escape from the lugworm, we will ask:-
(a) Is this woman crazy?
(b) Then some of us may say,
"Oh, the toe belongs to the woman. She can do anything she likes to her toe as part of her body. Nobody should interfere with her decision to chop off (get rid of) her own toe."
[President Bill Clinton once said that a woman should be allowed to get rid of ('cut-away'/ remove) her foetus/baby inside her womb, as part of her own body.]
(c) Some may add a further comment,
"Well, the woman can chop off her toe by herself. She need nobody's help. She is really free to do that. Whether she is crazy or not, we should not query. She has her own autonomy. She is an adult who knows how to take care of her own body. She has personhood"
[In abortion, however, the pregnant woman does need medical help. Some may even need surgical operation depending on the stage of maturity of the foetus.]
(d) In the case with the woman chopping off her toe, we (100%) will say,
"This woman must be crazy.
Why?
Because we know there can be many ways to avoid the lugworm (the trouble). We should never help her to chop off her toe.
Why?
Because we know this is torture. This is grievous bodily harm. Whoever helps her chop off her toe commits a SILLY crime.
WHY SILLY?
Because we know there can be many ways to avoid the lugworm (trouble).
Why should she cut away her toe?
Why can't the woman be more sensible to her toe as part of her own body, be more creative to seek other solution, or to listen to other people's advice rather than getting her mind stuck in a dead end!"
(2) Thomson and pro-abortionists (president Bill Clinton for example) do talk in the same way:
"Because the baby/ foetus (a trouble) belongs to the pregnant woman, as part of her body, nobody but herself can decide how to deal with her own foetus/baby (trouble). If she wants abortion (cut-off/ remove the baby/ foetus), she must be absolutely free to do that. Medical help must be provided."
[BUT haven't we all agreed that it is crazy to chop-off the toe (as part of the body) to avoid the lugworm (trouble)?]
(3)We can find that the LOGIC of Thomson and pro-abortionists appear NOT sound:
(a) in the case with the woman chopping off the toe, the trouble is the lugworm;
(b) in the case with the pregnant woman, the trouble is the foetus;
(c) both women are free to remove their troubles;
(d) in the case with lugworm (trouble), the silly removal method is by chopping off the toe (as part of her body) by the woman herself;
(e) in the case with foetus/baby (trouble), the removal method is by cutting away (getting rid of) the foetus/baby (as part of her body) which is also the trouble itself. Is it silly too?
(f)So the BIG questions are:
- Why the healthy toe as part of the body should NOT be chopped off?
- Why the healthy foetus/baby( argued by Thomson and pro-abortionists) as part of the body should be allowed to be 'cut-away'/removed?
(g) Thomson and pro-abortionists may argue:
- The lugworm is a trouble the woman hates;
- The foetus is a trouble the pregnant woman hates;
- The woman is actually free to chop-off her toe when she hates the lugworm even when we find her silly.
- The pregnant woman should also be free to 'cut-away'/remove her foetus when she hates her foetus even when we find her silly.
(h)- Lugworm is EXTERNAL. The woman hates the lugworm (NOT part of her body). She does NOT hate her toe as part of her body. She only wants to avoid the lugworm. She chops-off her toe as part of her body. Of course we all laugh at her. She is silly!
- Foetus is INTERNAL. The pregnant woman hates the foetus (BUT it is part of her body). SHE HATES PART OF HER OWN BODY. SHE wants to avoid the foetus. She ASKS DOCTORS TO DO THE JOB OF 'cutting-away' her foetus as part of her body.
(i) Why should we allow the pregnant woman to hate the foetus as part of her body?
We have already recognized that
toe (as part of the body) is NOT = lugworm
therefore we should NOT chop-off the toe to avoid the lugworm.
Is foetus = toe?
Pro-abortionists will have to say:
foetus = lugworm = trouble
(j) BUT lugworm is NOT part of the body
Only toe = foetus = part of the body
BUT a healthy toe is NEVER a trouble, so how can a healthy foetus be a trouble as part of the body?
The ONLY possibilities are:
(i) The pregnant woman sees the healthy foetus as an alien lugworm. Should we provide counselling services to help her and advise her to change her weird perception?
(ii) The foetus is fatal to the pregnant mother. Only a sick (NOT healthy) foetus can threaten the health and life of the pregnant woman.
(4) (a) Therefore it appears unsafe to allow freedom to abortion to anyone with new law of encouragement. Sociologists should promote the requirement of more counselling services in societies to really help pregnant women in trouble rather than promoting the concept that a foetus is definitely a trouble as long as a pregnant woman sees it as an alien 'lugworm'.
(b) The trouble is the mindset of the woman, never the healthy foetus, never the healthy toe, both as really part of the body ('part of the body' are words in description in Thomson's and pro-abortionists' arguments).
(c) Pregnant women should be advised to love every part of her body, even a sick toe or a sick foetus, whenever possible.
(d) Thomson and Bill Clinton should advise pregnant women to love every part of their bodies, the toes and foetuses alike. Indiscriminate cutting-away healthy toes or healthy foetuses are both silly and unnecessary.
(e) There should be always other ways to solve problems and deal with troubles. Healthy toes and healthy foetuses cannot be troubles. Troubles always lie with the troubled mindsets of some pregnant women only, NOT all.
(f) Such minority of troubled mindsets should be helped with counselling services, NOT to be presumed representative as norms for justifications at any time anywhere under all normal circumstances in all societies.
__________________________
(1) In Hong Kong, we have a proverb laughing at people's ludicrous reaction in avoiding trouble-
"Chop off (get rid of) the toe to escape from the lugworm (a trouble)"
(2) If there is such a woman who really chops off her toe to escape from the lugworm, we will ask:-
(a) Is this woman crazy?
(b) Then some of us may say,
"Oh, the toe belongs to the woman. She can do anything she likes to her toe as part of her body. Nobody should interfere with her decision to chop off (get rid of) her own toe."
[President Bill Clinton once said that a woman should be allowed to get rid of ('cut-away'/ remove) her foetus/baby inside her womb, as part of her own body.]
(c) Some may add a further comment,
"Well, the woman can chop off her toe by herself. She need nobody's help. She is really free to do that. Whether she is crazy or not, we should not query. She has her own autonomy. She is an adult who knows how to take care of her own body. She has personhood"
[In abortion, however, the pregnant woman does need medical help. Some may even need surgical operation depending on the stage of maturity of the foetus.]
(d) In the case with the woman chopping off her toe, we (100%) will say,
"This woman must be crazy.
Why?
Because we know there can be many ways to avoid the lugworm (the trouble). We should never help her to chop off her toe.
Why?
Because we know this is torture. This is grievous bodily harm. Whoever helps her chop off her toe commits a SILLY crime.
WHY SILLY?
Because we know there can be many ways to avoid the lugworm (trouble).
Why should she cut away her toe?
Why can't the woman be more sensible to her toe as part of her own body, be more creative to seek other solution, or to listen to other people's advice rather than getting her mind stuck in a dead end!"
(2) Thomson and pro-abortionists (president Bill Clinton for example) do talk in the same way:
"Because the baby/ foetus (a trouble) belongs to the pregnant woman, as part of her body, nobody but herself can decide how to deal with her own foetus/baby (trouble). If she wants abortion (cut-off/ remove the baby/ foetus), she must be absolutely free to do that. Medical help must be provided."
[BUT haven't we all agreed that it is crazy to chop-off the toe (as part of the body) to avoid the lugworm (trouble)?]
(3)We can find that the LOGIC of Thomson and pro-abortionists appear NOT sound:
(a) in the case with the woman chopping off the toe, the trouble is the lugworm;
(b) in the case with the pregnant woman, the trouble is the foetus;
(c) both women are free to remove their troubles;
(d) in the case with lugworm (trouble), the silly removal method is by chopping off the toe (as part of her body) by the woman herself;
(e) in the case with foetus/baby (trouble), the removal method is by cutting away (getting rid of) the foetus/baby (as part of her body) which is also the trouble itself. Is it silly too?
(f)So the BIG questions are:
- Why the healthy toe as part of the body should NOT be chopped off?
- Why the healthy foetus/baby( argued by Thomson and pro-abortionists) as part of the body should be allowed to be 'cut-away'/removed?
(g) Thomson and pro-abortionists may argue:
- The lugworm is a trouble the woman hates;
- The foetus is a trouble the pregnant woman hates;
- The woman is actually free to chop-off her toe when she hates the lugworm even when we find her silly.
- The pregnant woman should also be free to 'cut-away'/remove her foetus when she hates her foetus even when we find her silly.
(h)- Lugworm is EXTERNAL. The woman hates the lugworm (NOT part of her body). She does NOT hate her toe as part of her body. She only wants to avoid the lugworm. She chops-off her toe as part of her body. Of course we all laugh at her. She is silly!
- Foetus is INTERNAL. The pregnant woman hates the foetus (BUT it is part of her body). SHE HATES PART OF HER OWN BODY. SHE wants to avoid the foetus. She ASKS DOCTORS TO DO THE JOB OF 'cutting-away' her foetus as part of her body.
(i) Why should we allow the pregnant woman to hate the foetus as part of her body?
We have already recognized that
toe (as part of the body) is NOT = lugworm
therefore we should NOT chop-off the toe to avoid the lugworm.
Is foetus = toe?
Pro-abortionists will have to say:
foetus = lugworm = trouble
(j) BUT lugworm is NOT part of the body
Only toe = foetus = part of the body
BUT a healthy toe is NEVER a trouble, so how can a healthy foetus be a trouble as part of the body?
The ONLY possibilities are:
(i) The pregnant woman sees the healthy foetus as an alien lugworm. Should we provide counselling services to help her and advise her to change her weird perception?
(ii) The foetus is fatal to the pregnant mother. Only a sick (NOT healthy) foetus can threaten the health and life of the pregnant woman.
(4) (a) Therefore it appears unsafe to allow freedom to abortion to anyone with new law of encouragement. Sociologists should promote the requirement of more counselling services in societies to really help pregnant women in trouble rather than promoting the concept that a foetus is definitely a trouble as long as a pregnant woman sees it as an alien 'lugworm'.
(b) The trouble is the mindset of the woman, never the healthy foetus, never the healthy toe, both as really part of the body ('part of the body' are words in description in Thomson's and pro-abortionists' arguments).
(c) Pregnant women should be advised to love every part of her body, even a sick toe or a sick foetus, whenever possible.
(d) Thomson and Bill Clinton should advise pregnant women to love every part of their bodies, the toes and foetuses alike. Indiscriminate cutting-away healthy toes or healthy foetuses are both silly and unnecessary.
(e) There should be always other ways to solve problems and deal with troubles. Healthy toes and healthy foetuses cannot be troubles. Troubles always lie with the troubled mindsets of some pregnant women only, NOT all.
(f) Such minority of troubled mindsets should be helped with counselling services, NOT to be presumed representative as norms for justifications at any time anywhere under all normal circumstances in all societies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)