From contraception, to abortion, and then to the archives.

In the second paragraph the author gets into the heat of the argument. The pro-life vs. pro-choice debate. I did feel as though initially she came off as bias. At the end of the paragraph she while describing the pro-life philosophy she expressed it “sadly”. It sticks out so much because it is literally the last word on the page too…lol.

But I am on her side, so I cannot really complain. Pro choice has always been the softer, and for me easier to like, of the two sides, and they support baby killing. I do not say this to be shocking, I know it may seem that way. However, as a pious man it does not matter. All other variables excluded, if left un-aborted a baby would be born, have a life, and die like the rest of us. By aborting that chance at life is taken. It in my humble opinion is baby killing. I’m am also a scientist, and I recognize that as long as a baby is aborted early enough, it is not alive yet, thus no actually killing of baby’s has occurred. I do not think the author dives deep into the topic of the life of the baby. Probably because that is a whole different argument

Another reason I enjoyed this paper was because in Evolutionary Biology the other day I brought up baby killing when we were studying a paper about beehives. The queen kills all the babies that aren’t her own in order to maintain social fear control over the hive’s female-clone slaves (asexually reproduced worker bees). I promise I am not making this up. Some close relative may survive.  It’s her source of power and why she rules. I think some pro-life advocates, truly and genuinely fear giving up that type of power to a woman. Not a literal, she is a queen and we are slaves, but a biological and evolutionary power source that, lets face it, would be the ultimate ace up the sleeve in any relationship. The one who controls the production of offspring, all other things being equal, controls the relationship. But unfortunately in our society all things are not equal. I love women so I’m 100% with giving y’all more power. Because in the end I will never ‘fear’ you, I’ll ‘Love ’ you.

The rest of the paper deals with people’s opinions about what is acceptable and the moral battle. That’s exactly what it is, a battle. Life is a battle. L/G/B/T rights…a battle. Minority rights….a battle. Woman’s suffrage….a battle. The way I relate this to the archives, is that in all the articles I’ve seen in Emory’s past, at least between the years we were assigned, the battle is a slow grinding one, and the culture of Emory is becoming more accepting by the years. Accepting towards sexual choice, skin, race, and religion. And in that diverse community were we are accepting and open to empower woman, I think makes us better and stronger. It isn’t a battle that has been won, each of these groups fights the same war on different turf, but the progress we all make is towards peace, equality, and happiness.

3 thoughts on “From contraception, to abortion, and then to the archives.

  1. I think it’s interesting that you brought up Evolutionary Biology and how the queen bee kills all the babies that aren’t in her order to maintain her colony. Here, abortion is given in another context with bees having a different goal with killing the babies. I would be curious if this also happens in any other animal colonies? I believe this is hard to draw a direct parallel to humans however, because humans have a lot more factors involved with morality and religion.

  2. Optimus: Please remember that when you are referring to an article we have read in class, you must include the title of the article and it’s author. Any person outside of our class reading your post would have NO IDEA what you are referring to. You argument will also be strengthened if you support it with some direct quotes from the article rather than simply talking *about* the article.

    Your tie in to your evolutionary biology course and studies on bees and I am also intrigued by your suggestion that controlling women = controlling reproduction = controlling women’s power. I don’t think you are alone in thinking this, but I wonder how a pro-life supporter would respond to this suggestion. Any ideas?

  3. There are lots of insect colonies in which the reproductive output is limited almost exclusively to a single reproducing female. This is just indicative of an evolutionary beneficial arrangement that promotes the fitness of the related individuals in the colony.
    It’s different in humans, because a woman would essentially be cutting off the potential for one of her offspring to develop and since this directly hinders her fitness, it would be beneficial only under circumstances where she had found a better mate. If optimus is correct in assuming that controlling women and controlling reproduction are correlated, the pro-life cause could lead to a return of men (or worse, the leaders of the colony) being entirely in charge of the family unit. Alternatively, if the pro-choice contingent are completely successful, the duration of reproductively fruitful relationships could be shortened significantly. I think this result is a scary extreme that religious conservatives irrationally fear.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.