It's good, because it helps them not to feel pressured to have abortions. As Mark Shea points out,

Imagine running a Crisis Pregnancy Center on this basis. A woman in a crisis pregnancy shows up, desperate for help, and instead of compassion she is grilled on how many times she's been pregnant and told, "You're just looking for free stuff. Don't expect any help from us. There's a Planned Parenthood down the street. Why don't you go there?" Because that is exactly what attempts to cap help for low income women are saying. Their fertility needs management, meaning punishment with poverty.

Labels: morality, politics, prolife

Closely related!

“It is necessary to reaffirm that employment is necessary for society, for families and for individuals”, said the Pope. “Its primary value is the good of the human person, as it allows the individual to be fully realised as such, with his or her attitudes and intellectual, creative and manual capacities. Therefore, it follows that work has not only the economic objective of profit, but above all a purpose that regards man and his dignity. And if there is no work, this dignity is wounded! Indeed, the unemployed and underemployed risk being relegated to the margins of society, becoming victims of social exclusion”.

Reminds me of an article I read a while ago, about a problem with welfare programs being that they assumed all utility came from consumption, but in reality for humans, much utility comes from production.

Labels: work

And the right to assault them when they do. Academia at its finest.

In essence, Miller-Young told me that she felt “triggered” by the images on the posters. Miller-Young stated that she had been walking through the Arbor to get back to South Hall. Miller-Young said she was approached by people who gave her literature about abortion. Miller-Young said that she found this literature and pictures disturbing. Miller-Young said that she found this material offensive because she teaches about women’s “reproductive rights” and is pregnant. She said an argument ensued about the graphic nature of these images.

Miller-Young said that she situation became “passionate” and that other students in the area were “triggered” in a negative way by the imagery. Miller-Young said that she and others began demanding that the images be taken down. Miller-Young said that the demonstrators refused.

. . . .

Miller-Young also suggested that the group had violated her rights. I asked Miller-Young what right the group had violated. Miller-Young responded, “My personal right to go to work and not be in harm.”

Now I don't think the use of such imagery is a good idea, in the same line of thinking as Mrs. Fisher. That said, I'm rather impressed a college professor would destroy someone else's property at a demonstration and say that the group had violated her rights for disagreeing with her. Perhaps Miller-Young is violating my rights by advocating for a society where humans are disposable, and therefore she should be fired from her job.

Labels: prolife

An alternative argument has it that a fetus is a human being but is not a human person. In this view it is said that abortion is morally unproblematic because moral respect attaches to personhood and not mere humanity. Since a fetus, though a human being, cannot have self-consciousness or concern for the future, it is not due the protections that we naturally accord a fully mature human person. Once again, the problem with this argument is that almost nobody really believes it, so that its constant reiteration as a defense for abortion necessarily has a corrosive effect on our respect for the truth. If the personhood argument were correct, then it would be just as moral to practice infanticide as it is to procure an abortion, since newborn children have no more sense of self-consciousness or concern for the future than do late-term fetuses. But, aside from a few theorists in the academy, virtually everybody agrees not only that infanticide is wrong but that it is murder. The personhood argument, then, is merely an expedient to justify abortion. In other words, it is a dishonest argument, and its dishonesty is sufficiently evident that its popularity must undermine our society’s commitment to truth. - See more at: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/03/12414/#sthash.wa2uomrl.dpuf

Labels: morality, prolife

This isn't the best response I've seen to the violinist setup, and suffers from a bit of an echo chamber quality, but makes some excellent points. E.g.

The hypothetical should be this: your own child becomes very sick because of something you did. He needs a blood transfusion and you are the only match. Would you refuse to give him your blood because it infringes on your bodily autonomy? Could this be morally justified? You put your kid in the hospital and now you will choose to watch him die because he ‘doesn’t have a right to your blood.’ THIS scenario would be the closest to abortion. And, if you are consistent in your affinity for ‘bodily autonomy,’ you could not criticize parents who’d rather let their child die than be inconvenienced by a blood transfusion. - See more at: http://www.personhoodusa.com/blog/no-pro-life-fanatic-could-ever-possibly-dispute/#sthash.WHcUhnAQ.dpuf

Labels: prolife