The Abolitionist Society of Oklahoma is a young organisation composed mostly of young people who, following in the footsteps of the slave-trade and slavery abolitionists of the 18th and 19th centuries like William Wilberforce, John Jay, and John Newton, seek to effect the total abolition of the most egregious of human rights violations that is currently occurring in the world.
We applaud those men and women who fought misinformation with truth and self-serving deception with honest, forthright, and reasonable argumentation and seek to emulate their approach in abolishing human abortion.
We strive to discuss the issues surrounding the topic of human abortion at the highest philosophical, scientific, and theological level, while full-heartedly and unabashedly acknowledging the fact that our principal motivations are theological and evangelical (ie, Gospel-based).
Yet we also seek to meet the needs of women facing unwanted/unplanned pregnancies with spiritual, emotional, financial, and medical assistance.
To that second end, we put together and hosted our first-ever Yard Sale for Heroic Women this past Saturday. Many families contributed stuff to sell, expecting nothing in return (not even a tax write-off), for the purpose of accumulating funds to assist heroic women - those who have faced especially financial difficulties and oftentimes pressure from others like boyfriends/baby daddies to put their child to death, yet decided to keep, love, and raise that child.
The response from the community was overwhelmingly positive. Our motivations and name were on full display, and it engendered virtually nothing but support, smiles, and thanksgiving on the part of patrons. One person bought a $5 item with a $100 bill and told us to keep the change, and others did similar.
You may read more about it at the Red Dirt Report; Andrew Griffin, the Red Dirt Reporter, was kind enough to write up our event and profile our position in a very fair and objective way.
The Lord blessed the event greatly; our revenue was ~5 times what we had originally anticipated, and as we said in our posters and handbills, all proceeds are going to benefit heroic young mothers; none of the funds are going into any sort of "all-purpose account".
Contact me and/or check out our site if you're interested in more information or in starting your own local abolitionist society.
27 comments:
As a politically oriented group, I assume this group will have specific policy prescriptions. Of the list of available contraceptive methods which ones would be legally banned? Will users and importers in violation of the new drug laws be sentenced to jail time or prison time or something harsher?
Sure, that's a fine question.
Contrary to some of the really poorly-thought-out objections from some pro-aborts here and there, we don't particularly care about sperm dying. Or eggs dying.
The key idea is that, if one is to be consistent with reason and with science, a fertilised egg is a human being. A very young one, yes, but what does youth matter in terms of whether this human gets to live or not?
Now, as for your question with respect to legislation, I do not think that we should go whole hog from day 1 and put in place the same laws and penalties I'd want to see in, say, 10 years.
But yes, any method that leads to the death of the fertilised egg should be outlawed. Aborticians should be put to death by the governing authorities after a fair trial. Preferably by the same means by which they put to death their innocent victims - scalding in poison, unanesthetised severing of the spinal cord, unanesthetised crushing of the cranium and evacuation of its contents.
It's a little more difficult when it comes to the mother who aborts her child, since often these women are themselves victims of circumstance, misinformation, and other pressures. So at the beginning, women convicted of abortion should receive lighter penalties, and over the course of time, these penalties should become harsher. Eventually, I would be in favor of capital punishment for these women as well.
Dealers and importers of these drugs, when convicted, are accomplices to murder.
Any clarifying questions?
Eventually, I would be in favor of capital punishment for these women as well.
I'm getting the sense that (in the AHA vision for America) all oral contraceptives would be banned, and all the importers and users thereof would be punished very severely. Given that these are very widely used and quite easily smuggled, how do you plan to catch covert users? Random drug screenings for women? No knock search warrants? Dogs trained to sniff out OC pills?
Yes, all oral contraceptives that possibly result in the death of a child would be banned. Sort of like one can be arrested and criminally charged for firing guns at an occupied playground. I mean, you won't necessarily for sure put a bullet in a kid, but you know, you just might.
That said, you're 10% right that enforcement of these laws could prove to be very difficult. That's not a good argument for not illegalising these awful acts, however. It's difficult to catch some kidnappers, like the guy who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart. Doesn't mean we shouldn't illegalise kidnapping.
Probably, practically speaking, it would be best to have the laws and penalties on the books, and that would serve to stamp out the kind of formalised, brick-and-mortar clinics that we see today. Also, glory hallelujah, Planned Parenthood could get cracked down upon and heavily audited. I'd be in favor of a one-strike-you're-out policy where if any worker in any clinic refers to sthg even sort of suspicious vis-à-vis abortion, that clinic gets the axe.
Then, if you want to murder your child, you have to go find someone in the black market. That kind of thing is demonised by pro-aborts as "back alley, coathanger" stuff, but look, if you don't want someone sticking a sharpened coathanger down your vagina, hows about you find an option that doesn't involve murdering your child? Such horrible actions deserve to be marginalised, especially since the alternative is nearly society-wide acceptance of infanticide. Either we protect children by our laws or we don't.
I don't know about the dogs suggestion you had, but the other possibilities you mentioned aren't any good. This could certainly use some more thought, but one cannot govern everything that people do, and if one has to go "off the books" to murder one's child, Planned Parenthood gets strictly monitored to make sure that all they do is give out condoms and consult for health issues, and there are no licensed physicians that are willing to kill babies, that'd be a pretty good situation.
Oops, meant "you're 100% right that enforcement..."
I've yet to have a conversation of any significant length with an anti-abortionist without seeing at some point an equivocation between "the death of a child" and the loss of a fertilised ovum. Surely one of these is more tragic and emotionally impactful than the other, at least from the parents' perspective.
That aside, are there any oral contraceptives that do not measurably increase the odds of failed implantation of a fertilised ovum, above the natural baseline (whatever that may be)? I had thought that all OC's are known to significantly lower endometrial receptivity. If that is correct, I can safely assume that all OC pills will be banned under the AHA regime.
Such a ban would lead to an interesting problem, as it is relatively easy to import the little pills from Mexico or Canada, and moreover we can safely assume that (even with the Tea Party in control of the White House and Congress) plenty of everyday American women will still desire access to oral contraceptives. I would conjecture that we should expect smuggling and bootlegging to such an extent as to put the Prohibition era to shame.
There is also an interesting statistical problem to be had here. No pill causes as many failed implantations as a placebos with no hormones at all, because the natural implantation failure rate is fairly high, even among ordinary healthy young newlyweds. Just about any oral contraceptive prevents far more ovulations than implantations (though both effects are real and measurable) and thus the failed implant rate (per woman per year) will be significantly lower among an OC cohort than among a comparably aged and comparably sexually active cohort using no contraception whatsoever.
I've yet to have a conversation of any significant length with an anti-abortionist without seeing at some point an equivocation between "the death of a child" and the loss of a fertilised ovum
I call that a positive thing. I'm glad that so many have been able to speak consistently about this matter.
Surely one of these is more tragic and emotionally impactful than the other, at least from the parents' perspective.
Probably overall, yes, but not necessarily all individuals.
Further, what has that to do with the legality and moral justifiability of murder?
are there any oral contraceptives that do not measurably increase the odds of failed implantation of a fertilised ovum, above the natural baseline (whatever that may be)?
There may be; if there are, I wouldn't object to them.
Such a ban would lead to an interesting problem, as it is relatively easy to import the little pills from Mexico or Canada
True, just as one can be kidnapped and smuggled into Mexico, or just as one can go to Mexico and get shot.
Doesn't mean we should legalise kidnapping and shooting people here in the US.
even with the Tea Party in control of the White House and Congress
In my dreams.
I would conjecture that we should expect smuggling and bootlegging to such an extent as to put the Prohibition era to shame.
Already addressed. Also, this is merely conjecture. There are plenty of alternatives to such kinds of contraception. I should think that Trojan, for example, would be firmly behind this AHA agenda. Not so with alcohol - the alternatives just aren't as good.
because the natural implantation failure rate is fairly high
Yes, I'm aware of that. It is interesting, you're right, but the intent of the OC pill is to effect the death of fertilised ova, as a tertiary effect. Unacceptable. Maybe illegalising it will push the company to design a pill that doesn't do that. It would be fine by me.
I'm glad that so many have been able to speak consistently about this matter.
Not at all consistent with ordinary English usage, which reserves “child” for those already born. You can have your own opinions, but if you want to communicate clearly, you cannot hope to have your own definitions.
Further, what has [personal tragedy] to do with the legality and moral justifiability of murder?
Consequentialists (like myself) believe that murder is unethical because it causes generally undesirable consequences for moral agents. For example, bereaved parents crying every night over the loss of a child, an actual child which they had raised and come to know, as opposed to a mere fertilized ovum – unknown, unseen, and unmourned. If it is not abundantly clear to you from everyday experience that the loss of a beloved 8-year-old causes far more human suffering than a failed implantation then I’m quite sure nothing I can say will clarify the situation.
Also, this is merely conjecture.
Merely conjecture based upon what has happened throughout American history every single time a high-demand item was legally banned. Whether it is a pill, a drink, a smoke, or a sexual activity, we find a thriving black market arises to supply the demand, with prices inflated in order to compensate for the added risk of having to avoid the legal system instead of having redress thereto.
There are plenty of alternatives to such kinds of contraception.
Which is partly why I wanted to know which alternatives the AHA would ban (perhaps as capital crimes) and which specific methods it would allow. Some implants, for example, have not been shown to statistically increase the likelihood of failed implantation, especially when compared against less effective methods (or placebos) which lead to far more fertilized ova.
A very young one, yes, but what does youth matter in terms of whether this human gets to live or not?
Quite simply, it matters because some humans are developed enough to capable of suffering themselves and being mourned by others. Others (like zygotes) are neither capable of suffering nor likely to be missed.
Not at all consistent with ordinary English usage, which reserves “child” for those already born.
I don't think that "ordinary English usage" is the source of truth.
Further, you're begging the question by artificially restricting the term to those who think that "child" means "born offspring". I guess pro-lifers don't get to play in to your equation, by your arbitrary definition.
if you want to communicate clearly, you cannot hope to have your own definitions.
Is an attention span of more than 4 seconds too much to ask? So as to explain what I mean? I don't think so.
Consequentialists (like myself) believe that murder is unethical because it causes generally undesirable consequences for moral agents
Which begs the question; why are "undesirable consequences" unethical? Because they bring undesirable consequences?
Why does it matter whether the agents in question are self-consciously moral? Appeal to undesirable consequences, again?
bereaved parents crying every night over the loss of a child
Bags of protoplasm determined to emit saline through optical ducts by the chemical reactions in their brains. Isn't that what you meant?
an actual child which they had raised and come to know, as opposed to a mere fertilized ovum
More artificial restriction of terminology. Parents also raise "fertilised ova" and know them.
You'll scoff, but what should I care? Just b/c you didn't know my daughter who died of miscarriage doesn't mean I didn't know her. You don't know what it's like to have a relationship with my best friend or my wife; that fact has no bearing on the fact that I do know what it's like.
the loss of a beloved 8-year-old causes far more human suffering than a failed implantation
1) I asked "what has [personal tragedy] to do with the legality and moral justifiability of murder?" and this is your answer? Pointing out that suffering exists doesn't get us anywhere.
2) This is an irrelevant comparison. Who is faced with the choice to either abort an unborn child or to execute an 8 year old?
Merely conjecture based upon what has happened throughout American history every single time a high-demand item was legally banned.
1) And as we all know, the future is always like the past. Except when conditions change. And except for the fact that this begs the question and fails to countenance the problem of induction. And except for what I said earlier about alternatives.
2) Murder is in high demand. Murder has become more common despite the existence of anti-murder laws. I suppose we should legalise murder.
3) It's not as if we only want to illegalise abortion. We want to change people's minds and hearts about it too. The black market only exists when there's demand. We want to combat the supply AND the demand.
why I wanted to know which alternatives the AHA would ban
So hopefully my answer was helpful.
Some implants, for example, have not been shown to statistically increase the likelihood of failed implantation
So instead of firing a machine gun at a playground during the busiest playtime, maybe we should allow people to fire only revolvers, when there are fewer kids on the grounds.
it matters because some humans are developed enough to capable of suffering themselves and being mourned by others.
1) Once again you beg the question by linking suffering necessarily to moral justification. Where's the argument?
2) Your evidence that the very young don't suffer when their crania are crushed by forceps or spines snapped by scissors would be...?
Let me help you here. Your first sentence in answering this question should go like this: "I have observed by means of _____ that unborn, fertilised ova can experience _____ suffering."
Just fill in the blanks and add whatever you want afterwards.
Just to be clear, a fertilised ovum is a single cell. It is nothing like a baby, or even a well-developed fetus which might be miscarried. By the time of implantation (about 5-7 days after fertizilation) the zygote has divided several times to become a blastocyst consisting of perhaps 100 cells. When it fails to implant, no one usually notices, because it is far less massive than the mass expelled in an ordinary menstrual cycle.
Now, you seem to be saying that these 100 cells (or fewer) might well be capable of suffering, despite having not yet developed any neurological hardware. By way of comparison, a cockroach has almost a million cells in its brain alone.
Alternatively, you seem to be saying that suffering is irrelevant to moral reasoning, because all that matters is following divine orders. Of course you are free to think this way, but I couldn't find any divine orders addressing the specific questions at hand.
For example, if Norplant or Implanon results in significantly fewer failed implantations on account of their effectiveness in preventing ovulation, what are your divine marching orders? I've actually seen arguments on both sides of this issue on pro-life discussion boards.
a fertilised ovum is a single cell. It is nothing like a baby,
Says you, but we have no reason to think so other than your naked assertion. how do you know? How have you observed that it's nothing like a baby? What standard of baby-ness are you using, and why should anyone accept it?
Besides, God says that it is a human being. That's better than Damion.
When it fails to implant, no one usually notices, because it is far less massive than the mass expelled in an ordinary menstrual cycle.
So since it's small, it's OK to kill it. B/c you're bigger and more powerful. Right?
you seem to be saying that these 100 cells (or fewer) might well be capable of suffering, despite having not yet developed any neurological hardware
Might well.
Do you typically form solid judgments on things you have no way of observing? I'm just wondering; an affirmative answer would cause me to lose serious respect for your ideas about science.
By way of comparison, a cockroach has almost a million cells in its brain alone.
Wow!
you seem to be saying that suffering is irrelevant to moral reasoning, because all that matters is following divine orders
I made no statement one way or the other. I'm asking about YOUR system.
I couldn't find any divine orders addressing the specific questions at hand.
That's hardly a shocker since you don't think such divine orders exist.
Fortunately, that's not what I was asking you.
if Norplant or Implanon results in significantly fewer failed implantations on account of their effectiveness in preventing ovulation, what are your divine marching orders?
If you're asking about MY position now, OK.
And you're right, this is a bit of a toughie; doesn't surprise me to see pro-lifers differ on it.
How about tweaking them so they don't prevent implantations?
If that weren't possible, I could still see allowing them b/c you have made a good point.
Do you typically form solid judgments on things you have no way of observing?
I'm not going to tutor you on facts we all learned in 10th grade bio. If you want to know about the details of a human blastocyst, such as what kind of cells are found in an embryoblast at the time of implantation, you are going to have to do your own homework.
If you seriously maintain that an undifferentiated mass of stem cells can feel pain, you need to do some outside reading about which cells are involved in that process. It behooves you to do so, if you hope to argue effectively over the ethics of oral contraception with anyone who doesn't share your specific faith position.
As to your claim that God said that a blastocyst is a human being, I'm not sure what you are talking about here. To my knowledge, neither the Hebrews nor the Greeks had any words equivalent to ours for the early stages of embryonic development.
Which brings to mind an important question. Suppose you come across a married couple at your church who are using the pill. Which scriptural passages would you use to convince them that slightly increasing the odds of losing a blastocyst (which we know happens quite often when actively trying to conceive) is effectively the same as murder?
Do you typically form solid judgments on things you have no way of observing?
I'm not going to tutor you on facts we all learned in 10th grade bio.
Those facts don't answer my challenge. The point is clear, though, so I'm happy to move on.
If you seriously maintain that an undifferentiated mass of stem cells can feel pain, you need to do some outside reading about which cells are involved in that process.
Here you form a solid judgment on things you have no way of observing. Noted.
As to your claim that God said that a blastocyst is a human being, I'm not sure what you are talking about here
I refer to the biblical teaching that human life is human life from the beginning.
Suppose you come across a married couple at your church who are using the pill. Which scriptural passages would you use to convince them that slightly increasing the odds of losing a blastocyst (which we know happens quite often when actively trying to conceive) is effectively the same as murder?
I wouldn't say that, b/c it's not the same as murder.
However, what I would say and in fact have told numerous people in my church is that the pill possibly will lead to the death of their child.
Clearly, my action leading to the death of a child is not equivalent to that child dying naturally through miscarriage. Better to suffer evil than to do evil.
Here you form a solid judgment on things you have no way of observing.
Here, you ignore or dismiss all the relevant scientific evidence on the process of human gestation and embryological development, because the guy taking the time to discuss these issues with you didn't personally do the relevant research (autopsies, microscopy, labwork, etc.) but merely reads books about science.
Are you doing this in good faith with a straight face, or are you just pulling my leg? Do you discount all the relevant science texts, and if so how can you claim to know which methods have the alleged tertiary effects you mentioned earlier? Did you personally observe these effects yourself?
I refer to the biblical teaching that human life is human life from the beginning.
The one which specifically bans silphium or other effective herbal abortifacients known to the ancient near east, or the other one which uses poetic imagery to talk about matters wholly unrelated to abortion? Ok, seriously, though, can you be a bit more specific?
you ignore or dismiss all the relevant scientific evidence on the process of human gestation
I'm afraid you've missed the point.
I keep asking you these questions precisely b/c it is impossible to observe what would need to be observed in order to form a solid and respectable scientific position.
Citing the presence of brain waves is not sufficient. You don't KNOW that brain waves = consciousness. You can't observe that.
Citing the number of cells is not sufficient. You don't KNOW that >100,000 cells or >fill-in-the-blank cells = consciousness. You can't observe it. You assume it. I'm doubting your assumption, and then I'm laughing because I know as well as you should know that you don't have an answer.
Thus, your position on this matter reduces to sheer bias.
Did you personally observe these effects yourself?
Why would that matter to me? My position does not rely on "observation" as yours purportedly does, though in reality yours doesn't, upon closer examination.
The biblical teaching seems to be halfway decently summarised in these articles:
Here
Here
Here
Okay, let's back up a bit. My position is that consciousness is a property of some living things, and moreover, that we can narrow the phenomenon of consciousness down to a particular part of the body. A person can be conscious without her foot, or her hand, or her eyes, or her teeth, or just about anything other than her brain. Do you disagree?
Perhaps you think that there are some objects in the world which have the property of consciousness without a biological neural network driving the process? If so, what is the evidence for this sort of consciousness?
I should add that the assumption that we can recognise consciousness as an attribute of living things is part of why I've no compulsions about stepping on rocks (which are evidently unconscious) but refrain from stepping on dogs and cats (which are quite evidently conscious). We correctly discount non-conscious objects from moral consideration, presumably because they are incapable of either suffering or happiness.
A person can be conscious without her foot, or her hand, or her eyes, or her teeth, or just about anything other than her brain
No idea.
I've never been without a brain, and neither have you, so I should think it would be presumptuous to speculate. I suppose one could object that we don't remember being 1-week-old zygotes, but that simply begs the question against the distinct possibility that we don't retain the memories formed during that time.
Perhaps you think that there are some objects in the world which have the property of consciousness without a biological neural network driving the process? If so, what is the evidence for this sort of consciousness?
I doubt that "objects" have the property of consciousness.
But people generally do. That's the funny thing - even if we stand on the footing of naturalistic science, my position is more consistent with many things we know than yours is. For example, that people/human beings have consciousness.
We correctly discount non-conscious objects from moral consideration, presumably because they are incapable of either suffering or happiness.
Well, on that particular note, I see no evidence of the "property of moral consideration-worthiness" extant in anything, on naturalistic empiricism. Are you familiar with such a property?
The thing is, Rho, you were without a brain for quite awhile after fertilisation. It's not just that "we don't remember being 1-week-old zygotes" but rather that we could not have possibly formed any memories of that time because memories are stored within a distinct organ which didn't exist at the time. Now perhaps you are a skeptic of neuroscience (among other sciences) and you believe that the brain is not actually the part of the body wherein memories are stored. If so, there is nothing I can do to help you out. Once we start throwing away the relevant scientific evidence, we cannot hope to proceed.
but rather that we could not have possibly formed any memories of that time because memories are stored within a distinct organ which didn't exist at the time
Another assumption, one I don't grant.
Now perhaps you are a skeptic of neuroscience (among other sciences) and you believe that the brain is not actually the part of the body wherein memories are stored. If so, there is nothing I can do to help you out.
Let me rephrase your meaning here.
Now perhaps you are asking for evidence where none has been provided, rather than accepting on the basis of blind faith what neuroscientists have told us. If so, there is nothing I can do to help you out.
You don't believe that memories are stored in the brain? May I assume you've reviewed the relevant literature on traumatic brain injuries? Did you notice that amputation and innumerable other injuries don't seem relevant to memory loss, whereas brain injury or dysfunction is invariably involved? Doesn't that seem at all suggestive?
Yes, quite suggestive, but those challenges also beg the question.
I should also mention the widely-studied case of Henry Gustav Molaison, as well as other cases of retrograde amnesia. Can you find any cases in which this condition was caused by the loss of a limb, a kidney, or anything other than bits of the brain?
I wasn't suggesting memories are stored in other limbs, but rather that it's question-begging to assume that the brain is the only place/"place" in which memories are possibly stored.
Post a Comment