Is It Your Body, Completely?

[Verv]

It was the calling card for the legalization of abortion, but that's besides the point. The notion that we are the sole possessor of our body, that we are the only people who have any say over what occurs has been assumed entirely in Western civilization to the extent where people feel the only obligation that they have to their parents is to stay in touch and the only obligation to their society is to pay taxes.

However, society did not always used to be this way in the West, and society has not morphed to this inaccurate view in the East yet. Surprisingly, both have essentially the same idea:

"Our bodies, our hair and our blood come from our parents; to protect it from damage is the beginning of filial piety." - Confucius

"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body." - 1 Corinthians 6:19-20

the notion of the sanctity of the body is essentially the same; as Confucianism was a religion of treating one's ancestors as gods, it is vaguely similar to ascribing the creation of the body to God. The ramifications are the same in both of these concepts and both left a huge print upon their society:

Mothers & fathers ought to be honored as their role in the creation of us, and we ought to take care of our bodies and not behave so utterly selfishly.

There was a notion of debt to something else and with that debt comes the obligation to behave, nay, live, for something beyond our own interests. Our parents or our God bought our lives for us, and in a way that was much easier to see in centuries past it is by the sacrifices and will of our parents, neighbors and the greater society that we are able to exist at all.

If we take the idea that we owe our bodies to something else and that our mere existence is not something we do at our own whim we can become more motivated to realize that we do not make all of the decisions we make solely for ourselves but must also consider others in them.

People wonder why divorce rates have skyrocketed, why drug use and alcoholism seem to be more prevalent, why we live in an age of generally decadent behavior...

Well, it is the same as what happened in other civilizations: our opulence has led to a breakdown of the family as people have now felt they are no longer dependent on those around them and entirely more as individualized units; the relations between parent and child have broken down, as those of parent and grandchild, and we have gained such economic prosperity that we separate and scatter.

The economic system has enslaved people to their jobs and has made it so that families have broken down.

And meanwhile, the economic independence each person has achieved has individualized themselves and their goals to such extents that they have come to view themselves as profoundly isolated units within society; the nuclear family has eaten itself and produced the divorced family, a lonely organization of isolated individuals all pursuing highly individualized goals with no more happiness in sight.

And in our divorces at young ages youths lose father figures and mother figures that would otherwise afford healthy development of the sexual emotions and instead leave young men never having been close to males, and thus yearning for closeness to males and in confusion becoming homosexual and vice versa (according to some theories).

And in the observation of a world where our parents openly falter morally before us and do not hold themselves to high standards in terms of love and family we create a vicious cycle of moral failure -- all of this behavior coming from a world where there is but one or two children in a family, and both are treated as if they are the most treasured beings of importance when they are young and then largely isolated and separated from their family due to long work hours that take them out of the house and the fact that modern society almost necessitates a double-income family in the home.

In past organizations of society the grandparents lived with the families and family was more centralized; furthermore, having more children in a family bred no sense of isolation and it also spoke of obligation and sharing on larger levels due to economic destitution. With the vanishing of all of this we have entered exactly the state that Rome and Greece were in for their decline:

a world that exists without social obligation and all that matters is the wanton desires of the individual for the fulfillment of personal goals and dreams that are often unrealistic.

These unrealistic desires produce things such as abortion, divorce; these desires produce drug addiction, alcoholism, cause people to falter in their parenting or even in their roles as children.

A smart man wonders about all the possibilities of how he can attain happiness; a wise man wonders about how he can attain happiness with what he has.

A smart man considers divorcing and finding true love when the perceived fire of romance burns out; a wise man understands that romantic fires can burn out and be rekindled and that society cannot function properly through serial monogamy.

A smart man wants to taste the world completely and lose himself in the Earthly pleasures while a wise man wants to follow the path of Heaven to seek happiness in simplicity and without luxury or dependency.

The smart become slaves to that which makes them happy; the wise turn themselves and their friends and kin into that which makes them happy and become slaves to those around them.

If we look to this ancient knowledge, whether atheist or Theist, and attribute a debt unto ourselves concerning to whom we are obligated, we can make choices from the proper knowledge that we are indeed obligated to one another; we know exactly that in order to achieve more we must sacrifice; and in order to be happy, we must not isolate ourselves and pursue selfish goals.

For when we become rich and think ourselves happy we see our isolation in our happiness and that we have slaved so hard for ourselves that we have made ourselves islands; we become poor, depraved people clinging onto material for happiness -- a happiness it cannot always give. This material can further not comfort us in our times of pain nor bring us smiles. A material that we must work to maintain or achieve more of...

We become slaves on greater levels through individualizing ourselves, and slaves to nothing of innate value; slaves to something that wears itself out.

Overly individualized societies end up punishing themselves through isolation and materialism; whereas, a society where the collective body remains through strong family and friendship and mutual respect for sacrifice can attain happiness without materialism.

If we remember it is better to give than to receive and that we get more from it than through other means we can further hammer in the idea even further, but that would be a whole different essay but with an identical conclusion.

That conclusion being that the greatest path for our society to walk down is one where individualism has its place but is tempered with conceptions of social obligation, filial piety and pursuit of collective goals and not selfish desires.

 

[quatona]

If I were to adopt the concept "selfishness" as meaningful at all, I would submit that creating yourself kids is the epitome of selfishness - particularly if you expect them to be thankful, on top.

 

[sidhe]

The smart man realizes we are all individuals, and strives to create a philosophy that will work for all individuals.

The wise man realizes that we are all individuals, and stops right there.

JMV, you're still putting the cart before the horse...the society is not dependent on the maintenance of institutions because the institutions are defined by the society. What you're talking about is not the "breakdown of society", but the redefinition of what it means to exist in the society.

Civilization breaks down due to economics, not sexual morality. Case in point - Rome. The Roman empire fell after it adapted Christianity and all the accompanying morals and ethics, because it could not financially sustain its own stretched existence. Byzantium stood due to having ready access to trade routes to the east, not because Orthodox (or, later, Muslim) morality is superior.

My favorite example of this, though, is the Black Plague. During the plague, the rich and the clergy sealed themselves off, refused to share their food stores, and were selfish with their resources. Ultimately, this led to revolution, the creation of the middle class, and the Protestant Reformation...the average person discovered that they were not dependent on the nobility for survival.

 

[Verv]

If I were to adopt the concept "selfishness" as meaningful at all, I would submit that creating yourself kids is the epitome of selfishness - particularly if you expect them to be thankful, on top.

That I agree with is the case with some people's intentions; however, that is not always the case.

For instance, the production of children from an Eastern perspective is expected and children within a family are considered assets to each person. The very terminology in the Korean language has people refer to their wife as 'our wife,' in the sense that she fulfills a role for the entire family beyond even in the nuclear family.

Your words are perhaps more apt for the 21st century yuppie generation as they come to have children -- viewing them as an accessory.

Your words befit Angelina Jolie well and I admire that.

The smart man realizes we are all individuals, and strives to create a philosophy that will work for all individuals.

The wise man realizes that we are all individuals, and stops right there.

JMV, you're still putting the cart before the horse...the society is not dependent on the maintenance of institutions because the institutions are defined by the society. What you're talking about is not the "breakdown of society", but the redefinition of what it means to exist in the society.

Society can be a reflection directly of the individuals and it often is -- but sometimes, the individuals have chosen to come together as a bundle of sticks and not to stay separated.

In these situations it is always at the ascent of a civilization rather than the decline; the decline is defined by the values embraced by liberalism.

Civilization breaks down due to economics, not sexual morality. Case in point - Rome. The Roman empire fell after it adapted Christianity and all the accompanying morals and ethics, because it could not financially sustain its own stretched existence. Byzantium stood due to having ready access to trade routes to the east, not because Orthodox (or, later, Muslim) morality is superior.

The moral breakdown of Rome and the 'decadence' that mirrors our own began in the 1st Century BC, actually -- see what Augustus Caesar did and you will have a good idea of his reforms and that the death of Rome was already decided.

There are a number of factors in civilization but usually the only factor in the downfall of civilization is economic opulence which leads to moral decline.

My favorite example of this, though, is the Black Plague. During the plague, the rich and the clergy sealed themselves off, refused to share their food stores, and were selfish with their resources. Ultimately, this led to revolution, the creation of the middle class, and the Protestant Reformation...the average person discovered that they were not dependent on the nobility for survival.

That would be something I am quite interested in to study!

 

[levi501]

It would be nice if anti-choicers had a practical plan for the millions of unwanted children entering our population if abortion was illegal.

 

[sidhe]

Society can be a reflection directly of the individuals and it often is -- but sometimes, the individuals have chosen to come together as a bundle of sticks and not to stay separated.

Even then, it is the individuals who define the customs and norms of the society, not the other way around.

In these situations it is always at the ascent of a civilization rather than the decline; the decline is defined by the values embraced by liberalism.

I believe we've established elsewhere that you have limited understanding of what "liberalism" is other than a word used as an invective by the right.

The moral breakdown of Rome and the 'decadence' that mirrors our own began in the 1st Century BC, actually -- see what Augustus Caesar did and you will have a good idea of his reforms and that the death of Rome was already decided.

Which is why Rome didn't fall until 500 years after Constantine and the Christian reforms he instituted, correct? In The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, the "moral decline" of the empire is not one of the reasons for the fall...it was poor economic decisions combined with overtaxed resources.

There are a number of factors in civilization but usually the only factor in the downfall of civilization is economic opulence which leads to moral decline.

Even then, moral decline would be a symptom, not a cause. However, a shift from tradition =/= Decline.

That would be something I am quite interested in to study!

The History Channel did a huge program on how the Black Plague triggered the Renaissance. It was very cool.

 

[quatona]

That I agree with is the case with some people's intentions; however, that is not always the case.

For instance, the production of children from an Eastern perspective is expected and children within a family are considered assets to each person. The very terminology in the Korean language has people refer to their wife as 'our wife,' in the sense that she fulfills a role for the entire family beyond even in the nuclear family.

Be that as it may - I fail to see how this is an objection to my statement.

Your words are perhaps more apt for the 21st century yuppie generation as they come to have children -- viewing them as an accessory.

No, my words refer to everyone, regardless the century and generation.
E.g. having kids because it was an economic necessity for the parents...

Your words befit Angelina Jolie well and I admire that.

Well, you have misunderstood me, but that´s not really a surprise, is it?

 

[jayem]

In these situations it is always at the ascent of a civilization rather than the decline; the decline is defined by the values embraced by liberalism.

My reading of history suggests that a better indicator of a failing society is a high level of statism and authoritarianism. Certainly in the 100 years, the societies that have failed most spectacularly have emphasized the interests of the state over those of the individual, and have generally curtailed personal liberties severely. I'd consider that as the opposite of liberalism.

There are a number of factors in civilization but usually the only factor in the downfall of civilization is economic opulence which leads to moral decline.

I think economic disparity is more accurate. Weak and declining societies usually have a large portion of their wealth concentrated in a small number of persons or families, with the large bulk of the populace held down in relative poverty by having to support the upper class.

 

[MoonLancer]

It would be nice if anti-choicers had a practical plan for the millions of unwanted children entering our population if abortion was illegal.

This 10 fold. If they want to stop abortion, they will stop the reasons for unwanted children. Sadly the very same individuals tend to be against birth control, so the only conclusions i can logically come to is that they are hypocrites.

 

[Verv]

Even then, it is the individuals who define the customs and norms of the society, not the other way around.

What molds individuals?

I believe we've established elsewhere that you have limited understanding of what "liberalism" is other than a word used as an invective by the right.

Then enlighten me if I am so ignorant.

Then tell me what I am opposing when I say 'liberal' if it is that which is not liberal.

Which is why Rome didn't fall until 500 years after Constantine and the Christian reforms he instituted, correct? In The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, the "moral decline" of the empire is not one of the reasons for the fall...it was poor economic decisions combined with overtaxed resources.

Augustus was not a Christian...

Will Durant, an atheist, also agrees with one of the main reasons of the decline of civilization including the total moral depravity of the society; in fact, the Romans themselves understood this and that is one of the reasons they abhorred the Carthaginians as they were representative of this style of decadence.

Even then, moral decline would be a symptom, not a cause. However, a shift from tradition =/= Decline.

It is a part of the decline; theoretically an opulent society that stood by its values could exist, but when opulence comes about the morality of the society gets more and more changed and that is exactly what unhinges the society.

Riches cannot defeat a society -- only indolence and decadence.

Be that as it may - I fail to see how this is an objection to my statement.

Your view is overly Western and not universal.

No, my words refer to everyone, regardless the century and generation.
E.g. having kids because it was an economic necessity for the parents...

Then you are wrong -- other societies feel an obligation to their parents and grandparents to have children, and an obligation to the rest of society. There have even been campaigns where the goal was to increase the population and to sacrifice to have more and more kids.

But if we want to get into the game we can say that everything is done for selfish reasons because if we even believe something and do something in the name of that belief we are still receiving the benefit of feeling as if we have served it.

If we go that far to make the definition of selifhness that loose it would cloud the thread.

Well, you have misunderstood me, but that´s not really a surprise, is it?

Is this a flame? Are you saying that I am stupid?

Since I get reported all the time I am more and more interested in reporting those who flame me. It seems this board really enjoys enforcing rules.

I do not appreciate such unkind insinuations.

My reading of history suggests that a better indicator of a failing society is a high level of statism and authoritarianism. Certainly in the 100 years, the societies that have failed most spectacularly have emphasized the interests of the state over those of the individual, and have generally curtailed personal liberties severely. I'd consider that as the opposite of liberalism.

That is because the states have been weak.

However, the USA emphasized the interest of the state over those of the individual during its fight to save the world, did it not?

Furthermore, what of the fact that the US was a racist and largely statist nation until 1967, and still entrusts much power to the state -- even the power to wiretap and torture terrorists?

One could argue that the media is a mere extension of the figures who are in power today and thus there is no real free media and because of the amounts of moneyt hrown onto the side of the ruling oligarchs there is no real freedom in the US.

The other most powerful nation in the world is China.

Talk about "freedom" with that, please.

I think economic disparity is more accurate. Weak and declining societies usually have a large portion of their wealth concentrated in a small number of persons or families, with the large bulk of the populace held down in relative poverty by having to support the upper class.

Like the US?

This 10 fold. If they want to stop abortion, they will stop the reasons for unwanted children. Sadly the very same individuals tend to be against birth control, so the only conclusions i can logically come to is that they are hypocrites.

Or have stronger feelings and more moral dedication and devotion.

 

[roflcopter101]

I wonder how long it takes until we can put motors in a man's eyes to make him see what we want him to see.

EDIT: In case of misinterpretation, I just watched the Gamer trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ubYTIazskQ)

 

[Veyrlian]

It would be nice if anti-choicers had a practical plan for the millions of unwanted children entering our population if abortion was illegal.

Absolutely. I find the pro-life stance completely futile unless they can find a way to sustain these millions of babies.

 

[sidhe]

What molds individuals?

Every single experience someone has molds them. Family, regional culture, music, relationships, philosophy, religion, literature, cinema, theater...these all mold a person.

The way you talk, there is a monolithic Society from which we all draw our values. My commonality with you is this: We speak English. I'm a genderqueer, pansexual, goth-punk Thelemic pagan from the deep south with a strange patriotic streak for a Jeffersonian America. You're a fascist-admiring skinhead with a love of militaristic values who lives in South Korea. We're both smart - if Society molds people (and, in case you missed this, the deep south is probably slightly more conservative than, say, Mussolini), how do you explain that?

Then enlighten me if I am so ignorant.

Gladly - the primary defining notion of most American liberals is not socialism (though some are), nor pacifism (though some are), it is those self-evident truths declared by Jefferson - all men have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No redefining of "all men", EVERYONE has those three rights.

Thus, people should have the right to affordable healthcare - removing such infringes on the right to life, and the right to pursue happiness. People should be free to marry/enter civil contracts as they see fit - liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No single religion has the right to force it's view on the government - liberty. People have the right to believe as they see fit - liberty and pursuit of happiness. People have the right to speak their minds freely - liberty. People have the right to protest the speech and actions of others - liberty.

There's also an underlying thing that if we behave like our enemies, we are no better - thus, no torture, no aggressive wars, no lying to the citizens. We must hold to our ethics even when it's hard...especially when it's hard.

Then tell me what I am opposing when I say 'liberal' if it is that which is not liberal.

When you say "liberal", you seem to mean "things I don't agree with." Removing freedom of religion - not liberal. Making sure that one religion isn't favored in a pluralistic society? Liberal.

Augustus was not a Christian...

Constantine was. His pulling of funds to the east was what left Rome without defenses.

Will Durant, an atheist,

Why do you think I care about his metaphysical viewpoint? That he's an atheist means nothing - look up, dude. I believe in more gods than you. "Atheist" does not impress me as a credential - he can be just as wrong as anyone else.

also agrees with one of the main reasons of the decline of civilization including the total moral depravity of the society; in fact, the Romans themselves understood this and that is one of the reasons they abhorred the Carthaginians as they were representative of this style of decadence.

Hmm...looks more like he blames the tendency for religious institutions to repress free expression as being the root of this.

"Hence a certain tension between religion and society marks the higher stages of every civilization. Religion begins by offering magical aid to harassed and bewildered men; it culminates by giving to a people that unity of morals and belief which seems so favorable to statesmanship and art; it ends by fighting suicidally in the lost cause of the past. For as knowledge grows or alters continually, it clashes with mythology and theology, which change with geological leisureliness. Priestly control of arts and letters is then felt as a galling shackle or hateful barrier, and intellectual history takes on the character of a "conflict between science and religion." Institutions which were at first in the hands of the clergy, like law and punishment, education and morals, marriage and divorce, tend to escape from ecclesiastical control, and become secular, perhaps profane. The intellectual classes abandon the ancient theology and-after some hesitation- the moral code allied with it; literature and philosophy become anticlerical. The movement of liberation rises to an exuberant worship of reason, and falls to a paralyzing disillusionment with every dogma and every idea. Conduct, deprived of its religious supports, deteriorates into epicurean chaos; and life itself, shorn of consoling faith, becomes a burden alike to conscious poverty and to weary wealth. In the end a society and its religion tend to fall together, like body and soul, in a harmonious death. Meanwhile among the oppressed another myth arises, gives new form to human hope, new courage to human effort, and after centuries of chaos builds another civilization."

He isn't speaking specifically of Christian morality, but of the prevailing morality in general. Moreover, the moral decline is a symptom of the overall collapse of the society, not the cause thereof. And, if you'll note, this is a cycle...a new mythology arises to replace the old.

It is a part of the decline; theoretically an opulent society that stood by its values could exist, but when opulence comes about the morality of the society gets more and more changed and that is exactly what unhinges the society.

So, in other words, keep the masses poor and let the Ubermenschen make the decisions? And, if you're so fatalistic about it, why the unceasing complaints?

Riches cannot defeat a society -- only indolence and decadence.

A "society" isn't something that can be defeated...it's an abstraction. Cultures shift and change. That is the way of things. Do not obstruct the Tao.

 

[quatona]

Your view is overly Western and not universal.

First of all, my view is my personal view, and nowhere did I claim anything else. I am not claiming to speak for anybody else but myself.

Then you are wrong -- other societies feel an obligation to their parents and grandparents to have children, and an obligation to the rest of society. There have even been campaigns where the goal was to increase the population and to sacrifice to have more and more kids.

So? How is that an objection to my statement?

But if we want to get into the game we can say that everything is done for selfish reasons because if we even believe something and do something in the name of that belief we are still receiving the benefit of feeling as if we have served it.

Yes, that´s one of the reasons I don´t find "selfishness" a useful concept. But, well, you introduced it, and once you want to discuss on basis of this concept, you would have to come up with a narrower definition. In which case I would submit that creating yourself kids is the epitome of selfishness.

If we go that far to make the definition of selifhness that loose it would cloud the thread.

Agreed, but you have used the term as a keyterm without providing the definition you are working from. However, any narrower definition would prompt me to repeat my statement.

 

[LittleNipper]

First of all, my view is my personal view, and nowhere did I claim anything else. I am not claiming to speak for anybody else but myself.



So? How is that an objection to my statement?

Yes, that´s one of the reasons I don´t find "selfishness" a useful concept. But, well, you introduced it, and once you want to discuss on basis of this concept, you would have to come up with a narrower definition. In which case I would submit that creating yourself kids is the epitome of selfishness.

Agreed, but you have used the term as a keyterm without providing the definition you are working from. However, any narrower definition would prompt me to repeat my statement.

I know the perfect song that represents you. It was by Simon & Garfunkel ------- I AM A ROCK.

[FONT='Times New Roman', serif]A winters day
In a deep and dark december;
I am alone,
Gazing from my window to the streets below
On a freshly fallen silent shroud of snow.
I am a rock,
I am an island.
Ive built walls,
A fortress deep and mighty,
That none may penetrate.
I have no need of friendship; friendship causes pain.
Its laughter and its loving I disdain.
I am a rock,
I am an island.

Dont talk of love,
But Ive heard the words before;
Its sleeping in my memory.
I wont disturb the slumber of feelings that have died.
If I never loved I never would have cried.
I am a rock,
I am an island.

I have my books
And my poetry to protect me;
I am shielded in my armor,
Hiding in my room, safe within my womb.
I touch no one and no one touches me.
I am a rock,
I am an island.

And a rock feels no pain;
And an island never cries.[/FONT]

 

[quatona]

I know the perfect song that represents you.

Thanks for announcing a coming ad hominem up front.
Any time you at least make an attempt to comment on the points and not on the person I will be willing to at least read your posts.

 

[LittleNipper]

Thanks for announcing a coming ad hominem up front.
Any time you at least make an attempt to comment on the points and not on the person I will be willing to at least read your posts.

I'm merely pointing out that your points tend to be nothing but barbs. If you seemed to at least listen to my answers, I might even be friendly. As it is, I don't like talking to rocks.

 

[quatona]

I'm merely pointing out that your points tend to be nothing but barbs.

If you think you can succeed in doing so by discussing my person you are mistaken.

If you seemed to at least listen to my answers, I might even be friendly. As it is, I don't like talking to rocks.

Ah, more of the ad hominem.

 

[quatona]

I'm merely pointing out that your points tend to be nothing but barbs.

If you think you can succeed in doing so by discussing my person you are mistaken.

If you seemed to at least listen to my answers, I might even be friendly.

Well, you would first have to post something that deserves the label "answer".
I don´t care whether you are friendly or unfriendly - it´s just that my person is not the topic.

As it is, I don't like talking to rocks.

Ah, more of the ad hominem.

 

[Beanieboy]

I don't know when life begins. Is a 2 or 4 split cell a person? at 1 month? 5 months? I don't know. That's kind of a philosophical question.

According to a forum for Women's Health:
pontaneous abortion is a very common experience for women. It is estimated that between 25-50% of conceptions spontaneously abort. Researchers do not have an exact figure due to the fact that when this occurs very early on, many women do not know that they were ever pregnant.
Spontaneous Abortion

That's a lot of "souls" lost, if life starts at conception.
And if it is "spontaneous", happening without the mother doing anything, then it's either nature, or God.

But what bothers me is this:
There is a lot of concern for abortion from those who are so involved in Pro-Life.
I can understand that, seeing the fetus as a potential child, and thinking of it as killing, murdering or destroying a child, or a life or soul that is only born through God.

However, some will also talk about how terrible it is that there is a rise in single or unwed mothers. How can one be against abortion, but then against the mother who was unwed or single who chose to keep the child? How can one demonize a woman who, in making that decision, and trying to raise a child alone, has to work very hard to support AND nurture the kid by themselves? How can one truly care for the unborn if they really don't care about the mother, and either brand her Murderer if she aborts, or Sinner if she keeps it?

I was troubled after leaving Slumdog Millionaire, because I knew that the children who lived without parents, had to care for themselves, who were sometimes mamed to get more money when they begged for their caregiver, who were sold for a high price for their virginity that would be taken by an adult out of selfish ego greed, was all a reality. A co-worker went to the Phillipines, and said that children as young as 8 or 10 would offer you sex for as little as $5, seeing it as nothing more than a way of making enough money to eat. Some tourists take advantage of their poverty and desperation, offering money in return for allowing them to molest them. Japan was the leader in child porn, employing 15 year old girls to make porn, and was only stopped when the US stepped in. We have been at war since 2001, and have killed aproximately 100,000 people, including civilians - men, women, and children. This picture was one of the influences to really ask ourselves if we were in the right in Viet Nam.

The girl is naked because her clothes were burned off with napalm.

So, what are we doing about it? Protesting abortion clinics. Protesting the potential child, but of the child that has been brought into this world? Meh. Who cares. Too much work. We might actually have to see the conditions that the kids are in. We might have to own the fact that adults in India see poor kids, because they sometimes have to steal to eat, as "slumdogs", not even human, although they are fully formed, can talk, and quite conscious. We have to own that such kids are often exploited. We have to own the fact that kids are exploited for sex trade to adults, pornography for adults, or exploited to make money begging by adults, while we sit by, and do nothing but yell at an abortion clinic, and feign that we actually care about children.

If ProLife would focus on children protection, would work towards maintaining shelter for abused children, create free Day Care for single mothers in lower incomes, provide helpful resources to strengthen their family, were concerned about how common children are exploited in other countries, and work to do something about it to help the kids, I would believe that they really care about the unborn.

But they don't care about those who have been born. They only seem to care about the unborn, as if caring about children only in theory, only in paper. So, it's hard to take it seriously. It's like someone who tells his neighbor that his barbeque is a fire hazard, while his own house has smoke pouring out the window.

I just don't buy it. I've told the story of my friend John smoking, and the woman who rolled down the window, stopped at a light, telling him that smoking will kill him. She didn't care about John. She knew John probably knew that. She just felt like condemning herself to make her feel superior, because she didn't smoke. People that do "drive-by" Public Service Announcements doing only because they are going to drive away when the light turns green, and feel good about pointing out the splinter in someone's eye.

And who did the worse thing? John, smoking a cigarette, which left tar in his lungs, or a woman shouting judgment, not out of love, but out of condemnation, to exalt herself, and pat herself on the back?

Were John me, he would have just mumbled something under his breath, feeling verbally assaulted, minding his own business. Rather, he ran up to the car and said, "What???? Cigarettes can kill you???? No one ever told me that!!(He threw the cigarette down, adding), THANK you. Thank you SO MUCH for saving my life!!"

He called the woman on her condemnation, and pointed out that she was offering no new information, that it was his decision, that he was a stranger, and that she wasn't doing it out of love, but out of lack of it.

Some protesters may genuinely want to save the fetus, but if they do, they should spend time talking to their own camp, and asking why no one is helping single and unwed mothers, why no one is working to protect children from adults in this country and abroad, and to actually demonstrate their concern by acting on a much broader level with the born as well as the unborn.

Claiming to care about the unborn, but being indifferent to the born, makes absolutely no sense, except that it is an easy way to take out your condemnation or anger on total strangers, and try to justify it in the name of being right.