The "Storks" Movie, and My Walk With Infertility

    

 

 

 

     Today, I had the privilege of watching the charming film "Storks"! The movie was released into theaters on Friday, September 23rd, directed by Nicholas Stoller and Doug Sweetland, and according to Fandango.com, it currently has a 4.5 rating and 62% rotten tomatoes. The central plot focuses on an ambitious stork named Junior (voiced by Andy Samberg) and a quirky eighteen-year-old named Tulip (voiced by Katie Crown) embarking on an adventure to make a very special delivery. There is also a sub-plot of a young boy named Nate Gardner (voiced by Anton Starkman) eagerly anticipating the delivery of his baby brother, despite the indifference towards having another child by his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Gardner (voiced by Ty Burrell and Jennifer Aniston).

 

     In my honest opinion, this was a cute family movie that made me feel light-hearted! The voice acting was spot-on, the characters were interesting, and the plot never failed to include nuggets of comic relief. It was quite touching to see Mr. and Mrs. Gardner give up time to make cherished memories with Nate, when they could have (and would normally have) used that time to work. Perhaps, my favorite segment of the whole film was towards the end, when Junior (the stork I mentioned in the first paragraph), in order to divert attention off of him, causes the baby-producing machine to create "millions" of babies! This movie was almost as adorable as the babies depicted in it. If I were to give it a rating, it would be between a 4 and a 4.5, - very well-made and enjoyable!

 

     Charming as this film was, there was a personal downside to watching it, for me. It got me thinking about my own infertility. The thought that I will never be able to make a baby myself crept into my head as I watched this. "Too bad the storks will never answer my letter," I thought to myself. I felt uncomfortably selfish as I thought that, but I couldn't help it. I understand that I am only eighteen years old, that I have more important things to consider than having children at the moment, and that I don't need to be concerned with becoming pregnant at this point in time. However, those facts to not disqualify me from experiencing emotional turmoil due to my infertility. They do not disqualify me from feeling like a bag of broken parts, like a failure as a woman, or that I have let my parents and my future husband down. Yes, those are real thoughts that cross my mind at times. I realize that I have no reason to think such things, and that my intrinsic worth as a human is not related to my ability to reproduce, but I can't help but think otherwise.

 

     Unfortunately, reproduction is not as simple as mailing a letter to a network of birds, and having a baby delivered to your front door shortly after. For many people, it's a long, arduous process. For myself, and many people like me, it is a far-fetched, practically unobtainable dream. So, I would like to share my infertility story with those of you reading this, in hopes that my infertile readers will be reassured that they are not alone in their struggle to make offspring, and that those of you reading this who are fertile may realize how truly blessed you are, and want to hug your children a little tighter. If you are male, and you are uncomfortable with the mention of a female's menstrual cycle (period), you may want to skip the next paragraph. 😂

 

     My menarche (a female's first period) occurred I was twelve years old. But, as I charted my menstrual cycle, my parents and I found that it was troublesomely irregular. I would be lucky to have 2 or 3 periods a year. My mother scheduled several appointments with the obstetrician gynecologist; they could not, for the life of them, figure out what was wrong with me. Initially, they suggested prescribing me birth control pills, to determine if they would help me ovulate regularly. As I was only thirteen years old at the time, my mother was not comfortable with that idea. So, she kept scheduling more appointments with various doctors at various offices. Physical after physical, blood test after blood test, sonogram after sonogram, and so on. Finally, my endocrinologist suggested doing an examination known as a "chromosome study" on my DNA.

 

     I remember, quite vividly, the night my parents discussed the results of the chromosome study with me. We were eating Little Caesar's pizza at the dinner table when my mom pulled out the results. She told me their consensus; I was diagnosed with a chromosomal disorder called Turner's Syndrome (you can learn about it here). Turner's Syndrome is typically something diagnosed shortly after birth (or in some cases, while still in the womb), but no one suspected that I had the disorder, because I exhibited no physical symptoms of it. My symptoms were internal, including a horseshoe kidney and infertility. I had no qualms about a genetic disorder, - the real pain came with the infertility aspect of it. Before then, I suppose I took it for granted that I would have children of my own some day. And all of a sudden, it turned out that I couldn't. I recall crying myself to sleep that night, and not feeling like myself the next day.

 

     When I visited my doctors at Nemours Children's Clinic, they made it quite clear that I would not be able to reproduce. They told me that pregnancy could be potentially life-threatening for myself, and for my unborn child (yes, the endocrinologist called it a "child" as he was explaining this to me!). I was devastated, and borderline depressed, about this news for a good while.  It required a great deal of time, patience, and prayer on my part to overcome the state of despair it caused me. Nonetheless, I did overcome it, not my by own power, but by God's, and by the love and support of my family and close friends. While the odds are against me, I do believe that by God's grace, nothing is impossible. If He can give barren women in the Bible like Sarah, Hannah, and Elizabeth children, I see no reason why He couldn't do the same for me, if He wills it.

 

     Frequently, I get told "you can always adopt". I know that people who say this mean well, and don't look to harm to anyone. Even before I discovered that I was infertile, I had planned on growing up and adopting one or two children, along with having one or two kids naturally. If you are a fertile individual reading this, I encourage you to keep in mind that many infertile people have, or are in the process of, exploring the adoption route. In addition, as beautiful and selfless as adoption is, it does not diminish or eradicate the pain one can experience from infertility. While it may not be your intention, when you make this comment (or one like it), you risk making your infertile friend feel as though you're nonchalantly minimizing and devaluing their pain. The best thing to do it just listen to your friend, and show that you do have compassion for them in their heart-breaking ordeal.

 

     Furthermore, please understand that there is a difference between inadvertently offending someone with something you say, and outright insulting them. As I was discussing the abortion issue on a public Facebook forum one day, the issue of my infertility was brought up (for a reason I cannot recall). Later in that same thread, I was teased for it, and called a "barren wasteland". I didn't take the comment to heart, but I have genuine sympathy for someone so callous as to make such a remark. On another day, as I was shopping with my grandmother, the issue of my infertility, again, was mentioned. My grandmother said that I should consider my infertility a "good thing". Never, in my life, had I felt so outraged at something my dear grandmother said. It took everything I had to refrain from chewing her out right then and there in the store, - but I had to bear in mind that she didn't really know what she was saying. She, herself, had given birth to two healthy sons (one of which is my father); there was no way she could completely understand the impact of what she had just told me. So I had to cool off, and move on with my day.

 

     That being said, if you have an infertile friend, don't be so insensitive as to make cold remarks about their infertility, like that person on Facebook. However, if you make a mistake, and inadvertently said something that may have hurt your friend, try to reconcile with her/him, and endeavor to be more sympathetic about their situation in the future.

 

     Well, that wraps up the post! Let me know what you think of the movie, and feel free to share your story with infertility, in the Comments section. Until next time, God bless!

    





My Adumbration Of This Summer

 

     Hello, everyone! It's been quite some time since I've done a blog post, so I figured this would be the perfect time to do one! Specifically, a post documenting my experiences this Summer.

     In June, I had the privilege of staying with my Uncle Mike and Aunt Debbie in Illinois. If I had to choose only one word to describe my three-week vacation there, it would be phenomenal! We kicked it off with four days and three nights in Branson, Missouri at an exclusive resort. There, we enjoyed delectable food and fellowship. Among the things we did there were racing at the local track, playing at the arcade, shopping at the stores, strolling through an amusement park, swimming in an hour-glass shaped pool, and attending aesthetic and meritorious theatrical performances, such as Moses at the Sight and Sound Theater. If you think you may be interested in visiting Branson, you can take a look at all the fun-filled city has to offer for you and your family here. Our short-lived stay in Branson came to an end, and we returned to Aunt Debbie and Uncle Mike's home in Maryville, Illinois. But my vacation there wasn't even half-way over!

     Every night, we sat in the downstairs living room, watched a movie, and enjoyed each other's company. After about 9;30, I went upstairs into the room I was staying in. I wouldn't actually go to bed until much later in the night, - I stayed up reading and listening to the news on one of the local stations. Every Friday, my baby cousins, Ava and Mila, would come to visit. Ava is currently 3 years old, while Mila is 8 months. Those little girls are the sweetest things! I absolutely adored them, and eagerly anticipated for them to come the next week. Aunt Debbie treated me to a bike ride, a couple of Slushies, and a few trips to the local YMCA. There were a few afternoons in which I took a stroll by myself around the neighborhood; the city looks truly pulchritudinous as the sun is setting down on it. I had the opportunity of meeting several people from Aunt Debbie and Uncle Mike's church; they are truly great people who are moved by the Holy Spirit! I only hope that I will be able to meet them again some day.

     Soon after I returned to Florida, I was off to Camp Kulaqua with my church's youth group! The camp was Star Wars-themed (an appropriate theme, in my opinion, considering the recent release of the latest Star Wars film). I sincerely believe that I witnessed God at work that week. Several unsaved people prayed to receive the healing forgiveness of Christ, and those who had become lukewarm in their Christian walks were ignited again! The spiritual elements aside, I tried horseback riding and zip lining for the first time while I was there! Both experiences were initially frightening, but I learned to love them. On our way back, we floated down the lazy river at Itchentuknee before we hit the road again. Everyone was exhausted by the end of it all, but it was so worth it! The music was soulful, the food was delicious, the students were enjoying themselves, and the messages we heard were Scripture-filled and God-centered. Perhaps next summer, I will volunteer as a counselor....

     Once I returned home, I spent the remainder of the summer keeping the house clean, taking care of my dogs, reading, and researching and debating the abortion issue alongside my friend, Michelle. On the National Pro-Life Alliance (NPLA) Facebook page, there are typically several pro-abortion trolls who will leave snarky comments just to get attention. They've been rather quiet as of late, but they used to comment on every post by NPLA, every day. Michelle and I would engage these people in debates, and quickly debunk their rhetoric with documented facts, logic, and sound philosophy. When you consider the fact that there is no logical argument in favor of abortion, it is not very difficult to defend the pro-life position. As of September 22nd, I have begun a hiatus from debating this issue; this break is expected to last until a few days prior to Thanksgiving. I figured that a break reasonable in length would leave me refreshed and better prepared to defend life after the intermission is over.

     But, enough about me. I would love to hear from you guys! How was your summer vacation? What did you do? What is your fondest memory from these past few months? What in the world is going on in your world? Let me know in the Comments section!

The Folly of The SCOTUS Decision

     As I'm sure you're well aware, the Supreme Court made an important ruling yesterday. For the past three years in the great state of Texas, abortion clinics were required to meet the minimum standards applied to outpatient surgical centers, and abortionists were required to obtain admitting privileges at a local hospital. Yesterday, the 27th day of June, 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that that law was "unconstitutional". I'm sure you've probably read up on several opinions on this ruling, - but I surmise that the Internet has room for one more.

     We all saw this coming, but it doesn't make it any less infuriating. It baffles me that the people who should really be upset about this (radical pro-abortion feminists) are elated by this ruling. The whole pro-choice mantra is that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare", - well, after seeing their borderline demonic celebration of the ruling, there's no disputing that they want it legal. But, are they really concerned with the safety and scarcity of abortion, or do they just want more abortions? If they cared so much about abortion being "safe" and "rare", shouldn't they be major supporters of the law that got overturned? And they claim to care so much about the less fortunate,... isn't the overturning of this law an indirect slap in the face to poor people? As Erin Kluever cleverly put  it, "Rich women still get clean, quality care. But poor women? Well, this just perpetuates the stereotype that they need to take whatever crappy care they can find because they shouldn't be having babies anyway."

     The Supreme Court's decision sent a powerful message to the world:  the message that not only should women have the right to actively kill their unborn children, they should have the right to actively kill their unborn children conveniently. Not only should they be permitted to abort innocent humans, they shouldn't have to drive miles and miles, sometimes across state lines, to do it. What a sad, backwards nation we've become! What a dark, twisted legacy to leave for the world, and for future generations!

     Okay, it's confession time: the pro-life movement really doesn't care about the safety of abortion procedures. Yes, the underlying goal of the law was to restrict access to abortion, and we're willing to admit it. Why? Because pro-lifers want to see a country where unborn children are allowed to live, grow, and contribute great things to society; pro-choicers want to see a country where "reproductive freedom" means the freedom to kill and oppress innocent people. Pro-lifers want to live in a culture of life, where every life, from conception to natural death, is deemed valuable; pro-choicers fight for a culture of death, where the most innocent among us have less rights than corpses, rapists, child molesters, criminals, trees, birds, and several other things. Pro-lifers want to experience a world where fertility is treasured, and children are considered blessings; pro-choicers treat infertility as though it's a plague, and are hypocritically discriminative towards the youngest, most precious, and most innocent group of children. Maybe that's why pro-lifers are willing to admit their bias, and pro-choicers aren't.

The Case Against Abortion: The Unborn Are NOT Parasites - Here's Why

   The claim that unborn children are parasites is just another appeal to emotion from the pro-abortion side, a defeasible attempt to defend the indefensible. Making the unborn akin to lice or leeches dehumanizes the killing of them through abortion. This parasite claim is debunked with just one fact: the unborn are not considered parasites after they're born. A pro-choicer might say that this is because it is no longer using the mother’s nutrients, and no longer needs her body to survive. When an organism is biologically classified as something, it will carry that biological classification forever. Years ago, my dog had tapeworms in his body. Those tapeworms were indeed parasites, literally feeding off of my dog’s body. When the veterinarian removed those tapeworms, they were no longer attached to or in a host, and couldn't use any other organism’s nutrients. But even then, they were still parasites. Why? Because that is their biological classification. Think about a mosquito. Imagine this particular mosquito lands on your arm, and begins drawing blood. You notice the mosquito, and immediately swat it. Now even though the mosquito is no longer feeding off of a host, and can no longer do what parasites do, it is still a parasite, because that is what it is biologically classified as. So, if a mere change of location, and even death, cannot turn a parasite into a non-parasite, a trip eight inches down the birth canal can't do it either. Parasites are classified as parasites, regardless of their location or status, - they can't simply stop being parasites.

      To even further refute this nonsense, here are some more information:


Dr. Gerard Nadal - "I have two Master’s Degrees and a Ph.D in biology. What’s your training? It’s an important question, as it relates to the next: What is the source of your belief that the fetus is a parasite. I want the journal article reference and/or the textbook, complete with authors’ names and institutional affiliations. Then I want the exact quote. You are obviously not reading the material correctly (if at all) if you believe a fetus to be a parasite. A parasitic relationship is one that exists between members of two different species. The relationship between a mother and her offspring is a maternal relationship, which is neither mutualism, commensalism, nor parasitism."


Why the Embryo or Fetus is Not a Parasite
by Dr. Thomas L. Johnson
Professor of Biology, Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, Virginia

*Professor Johnson is an expert in Chordate Embryology & Parasitology

Professor Johnson has identified no less than eight significant differences between an embryo/fetus and a parasite:

1 a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)

b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.

2 a) A parasite is an invading organism - coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.

b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote - the first cell of the new human being.

3 a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.

b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.

4 a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.).

b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.

5 a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).

b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.

6 a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.)

b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast - the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo - blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.

7 a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.

b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.

8 a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).

b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.

A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).

A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.

[This data was compiled by Thomas L. Johnson, Professor of Biology, Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA. Professor Johnson teaches Chordate Embryology and Parasitology.]




Lists of ALL PARASITES straight from:

-Centers for Disease Control & Prevention

...and...

-National Institutes of Health

*Not one single reference indicating that a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus/pre-born baby is a parasite.


^ http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/az/index.html#a

^https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/parasiticdiseases.html

^http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/women.html

The Case Against Abortion: Not Her Body, Not Her Choice - Taking Back Bodily Autonomy

     There's this pro-choice rhetoric of "my body, my choice" to justify abortion. It implies that a woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body, and what she does with it is nobody else's business. The claim is partially true, in that a woman can, and should, be able do as she pleases with her own body - but, the unborn child inside of her is it's own separate entity. A writer on abort73.com wrote a great article explaining why this is so. I have paraphrased it for you:

     "An unborn child in utero is NOT his or her mother’s body, for several reasons:

A)   If the mother and child were truly one body, they would have the same genetic code. However, this is not the case, since the child also receives half of it's genetic information from the father. Though it is possible for a person to have a transplanted organ of a different genetic code, that organ still shares its DNA with it's original donor; the same cannot be said for an unborn child.

B)   Human embryos aren't independently generated by the mother. The embryo is not an extension of the woman's body, because it did not solely originate from the woman; it could not exist without the father's seed.

C)   In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different from that of the mother's. One body cannot function with two different blood types, so it's clearly not the mother's blood.

D)   In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is male; even the gender of the baby is different from the mother's.

E)   An unborn child's identity rests in its genetic code, not in the code of the body of whom it resides in. A Chinese embryo implanted into a Swedish woman will always be Chinese.

F)   It's possible for the mother to live if the unborn child dies; likewise, it's possible for the unborn child to live if the mother dies. This could not be so if they were truly one body.

G)   When an embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that the child is not rejected by the woman's body. If this tiny embryo was truly an appendage of the mother, there would be no need to weaken her immunities.

H)   A woman does not have four eyes, four legs, and two sets of every organ while she is pregnant.

I)   As of February 2013, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws which protect the rights of unborn children independently of the mother (except in the case of abortion). These laws make it possible to charge someone who kills a pregnant woman with TWO counts of murder.

J)   It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman in death row, because the child she is carrying is it’s own separate person, and should not have to pay for the crimes of the mother.

K)   Sir Albert Liley (the “Father of Fetology”) made this observation in a 1979 speech entitled “The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of a Fetus?”:

“Physiologically, we must accept that the
conceptus is, in a very large measure, in
charge of the pregnancy… Biologically, at
no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.”

L)   Christopher Hitchens, in his book God is Not Great, made this statement:

'As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did use to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even - and this was seriously maintained - a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words ‘unborn child’, even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.'"

     To see the original article in it's entirety, go to this link:

       http://www.abort73.com/abortion/mothers_body/

     Upon the realization that an unborn child is not an appendage of it's mother, pro-choicers still claim that the slogan "my body, my choice" still holds water, because the organism is inside her body, and using her nutrients, therefore she has the right to remove it if she wants to, because she has the right to bodily autonomy. They say that even if a fetus is a human with the right to life, it does not constitute that hey have a right to use a woman's body against her will.

     The woman put her child in a position to need her body. In no case, other than abortion, can you legally put someone in a position you don't want them in, and then purposefully  kill them for being in said position. Even if the unborn child doesn't have a right to use the woman’s body, it doesn't mean the woman has the right to actively kill her unborn child without due process.

     Bodily autonomy/integrity is a prized card in the Pro-Abortion Deck that supporters of abortion just love to play. True, a woman can be autonomous over her OWN body - not the body of anyone else.

    

   Matt Walsh wrote a popular article that summed up all the problems with the bodily autonomy argument. I will paraphrase it here, and give you the link to the full article later.

   "1) The argument assumes that pregnancy is unnatural. If bodily autonomy is really an intrinsic human right (which it is, but not in the way Roe-bots need it to be), how can something so natural as pregnancy violate such a natural right? Really, pregnancy and childbirth are very natural, and, for obvious reasons, essential to reproduction. Unborn children have a natural right to the natural processes gestating them, and parents naturally owe more to kin than they do to strangers.

  2) With the ideology of complete bodily autonomy, we have no obligations whatsoever to anyone in this world. If we didn't want to use our bodies to pay taxes, no one would be able to make us do it. Likewise, if we wanted to use our bodies to drive much faster than the speed limit permits, no one would be allowed to stop us.

   3) It assumes that people are absolutely, solely autonomous over their bodies, when they are not. Prostitution, rape, and suicide are illegal. You cannot walk out in public completely in the nude. And, there are even cases where someone is allowed to impose upon your body; think of a police officer imposing force on you when you get arrested, think of a stranger imposing force on you to break up a fight you're involved in, etcetera.

   4) It assumes that an unborn child is an appendage of the mother, which is certainly not true.

   5) It requires that a person support abortion during the entire pregnancy. After all, why is a woman's body less autonomous when she's been pregnant for eight months than when she was pregnant for one month? Why does she have any less of a “right to her own body” when she's 30 weeks pregnant than when she's 3 weeks pregnant?"

    To see Matt's original debunking of this argument, go to this link:

     http://www.lifenews.com/2014/03/07/i-am-afraid-of-this-indisputable-pro-abortion-argument/

 
     The case for bodily autonomy is easier to make from a pro-life position. Kristin, another Google user on blogger.com, wrote a great article that proved this. I have paraphrased the article here:
 

     "I, for one, have always been super pro-bodily autonomy/integrity and freedom of choice. My main philosophy in life has always been that you should be able to do whatever you want, whatsoever, as long as it doesn't harm another body besides your own. This is exactly why I am against abortion. Bodily autonomy/integrity is why most pro-lifers are against abortion. If there wasn't another body being threatened, or we simply didn't care about that body, we wouldn't be pro-life, and there wouldn't be a problem. We'd say "Yeah, sure, violate and kill the unborn’s' body. It's not like I care what others do to bodies that aren't their own!" Get a hysterectomy, sure, but there is no greater threat to bodily autonomy than abortion. The right to bodily autonomy fits so much better with the pro-life side. 

     The thing about pro-choicers is that they really don't understand bodily autonomy. They think it's absolute (they seem to forget the "as long as you don't hurt another body" part of it), but there are many situations where it is not absolute, such as helmets, seat belts, or other safety laws, certain drugs being illegal, or illegal under circumstances for people of a certain age, being taken away in a 5150 and forced in a mental hospital and watched to make sure you don't kill yourself, someone can't neglect their child and refuse to feed it because they don't want to use their arms to give it food (refusing your child nutrients and survival because you don't want your uterus to go to this is basically the same - children also have the right not to be neglected, and depriving the child of the resources it needs to live, even if it wasn't planned or is an "inconvenience", is still neglect and still wrong) or to kill or hurt their child if they wrapped themselves around your leg for instance and you can't get them off without doing so, and various other circumstances (regardless of whether or not you agree with them, they exist legally). Roe-bots think the right to life can never come before bodily autonomy, but right to life comes before at least most things as it is the ultimate threat against someone (without life, all other rights are meaningless as we wouldn't be alive to be able to use them, and this is why they put life first in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"). It's almost like a lot of them don't even think right to life is a thing, because if bodily autonomy always exists in the context of "even if someone dies", as so many of them like to argue, then you can go around killing people and excuse it by saying "Well, it was my body doing the killing  so you can't do anything about it because bodily autonomy". When talking about abortion, they act like the only aspect of bodily autonomy is whether or not you allow someone to use your organs, and they forget about unborn's bodily autonomy because the woman's autonomy is the only thing we should really care about, etc.

     Now essentially, bodily autonomy has a few different aspects to it (and not all of them are legal). It means you can do whatever you want to/with your body (get tattoos, piercings, body mods, take drugs, be a stripper or prostitute, have sex however you want, whenever you want, with whomever you want (unless the person you're having sex with is underage or didn't consent to sex) refuse to shave or wear makeup, etc.), and no one can do anything to your body without your consent or invade the personal space of your body (think of rape, molestation, inflicting pain or injury, even just touching someone without them wanting you to, etc.). Having control over your organs is an aspect of bodily autonomy, but the main principle is that no one can hurt or kill your body without your consent (it's actually sort of related to right to life, as someone being killed means their body was killed and hurt to the utmost extreme, so they aren't even mutually exclusive in the first place). You get to be in charge of your own body, and no one else can ever hurt it (unless you're into that sort of thing and it's completely consensual). 

     According to science, the unborn is another individual living human being and a distinct body separate from the mother. The unborn's bodily autonomy is the one being threatened here as the act in question is abortion, and the unborn is the one being aborted, not the woman. Abortion is forcing death (and various things with the various types, such as dismemberment, which is also a great threat to bodily autonomy) on it without consenting and having a choice in the matter. That is the biggest threat to bodily autonomy.

     Now trust me, I get that the woman has autonomy, too - she might not want to be pregnant and share her body with the unborn. Talking about the unborn's rights to life and bodily autonomy DOES NOT mean we think little of the woman's right to bodily autonomy. As an infertile female, I live with thinking about what it's like to be pregnant all the time, BUT abortion is still a greater threat to bodily autonomy. Someone hurting or killing someone else's body is obviously a greater threat than someone using their mother's organ to stay alive. The unborn have two violations pushed on it (right to life and bodily autonomy) vs. the woman's one. 

     Abortion being the greater threat to bodily autonomy is true even more so for various reasons. It is completely innocent in the matter, it could not have consented or chosen to be there, and it is already there before the woman finds out she is pregnant or an abortion can take place. It did not "take over the woman's uterus without consent" as it could never have consented to that, and comparisons like that imply intent, but it never could have made a conscious decision to do something like that or even be aware of what it was doing. Just like newborns and toddlers can't be held responsible for certain actions because they couldn't have consented to it or realized what they were doing, (from needing to be fed down to more serious things like accidentally hurting someone) the unborn is purely innocent. It can't consent to being killed either, just like infants outside the womb couldn't consent to being killed so since it's not legal to do that, it doesn't make sense to allow someone to do it to the unborn (other examples of how bodily autonomy still applies to those who aren't aware to be able to consent either way is how women who have passed out can't consent to having sex, so doing that to her is rape, or sleepwalkers can't consent to sleepwalking, yet they also can't consent to being killed). Usually people know that things like circumcision or piercing a baby's ears  are against their bodily autonomy, yet some of them do a 180 when it comes to abortion. Those aborting is a direct and conscious action in someone. The unborn being there was there by the actions of the man and the woman, or in case of rape man and woman's body. It happens to be using her uterus because that is how science works and the only home it has. Once again, it didn't "force itself into her and take her uterus hostage". Other analogies I've heard are ones like you can't drag an unconscious person into your home and then shoot them because you want them to leave *or something like that* and extensions of that. 

     Want of womb empty is definitely not an adequate excuse to literally, purposefully, consciously, and actively kill someone who already happens to be there and by natural circumstances made by other people/bodies, especially those who are wanting to kill them, and without their own consent to be there or a conscious choice made, who is the most innocent of all. Anyone for bodily autonomy should be pro-life above all else. No one is saying they should get more rights, we're just saying give them actual equal rights, which pro-aborts don't seem to understand. Someone's right to their own body stops where another's begins, and we know that is at conception. 

     Also, I never liked the "kidney transplant" type of analogies. Abortion is different than refusing to give someone an organ or something like that hasn't already happened and when someone gives an organ, part of them is gone forever and put into someone else, whereas with the unborn, it is using the woman's uterus for only 9 months, she gets to keep it in her, it is already there and growing before she finds out she's pregnant, and she will have it to herself after she gives birth in 9 months. Also, one might say that if a parent were the one to make their child's organ non-functioning, they should be obligated to give their organ to their child, or if someone already had an organ transplant, the donor shouldn't be allowed to get it back (which is an actual thing - you can't take it back once they are already using the organ), and anyone can refuse an organ. However, if someone decides to accept an organ, they are making a conscious choice to use another person's organ, but the unborn can't refuse to use the woman's uterus, and didn't make the choice to use it in the first place. There is also a difference between passively withholding an organ and actively killing someone, but I’m willing to bet that even the most radically pro-abortion people look down their noses  on those who refuse to donate organs to others who need it."


     To see this article as it was originally written, go to this link:

      http://riotgrrrlsforlifeprolife.blogspot.com/2014/05/taking-back-bodily-autonomy.html

     

This Is Me

     I just want to take a moment to thank you for reading my blog! My name is "Haley", but you can call me "Michie Poe". After over 17 years, I have become disenchanted with constantly writing all my experiences down in notebooks, and decided to begin writing about my life experiences digitally. I figured senior year would be a pretty important year to document. 😊
   
     I have always been pro-life. Ever since I became aware of what abortion was (probably 5th or 6th grade), I have been against abortion. I could never wrap my head around how anyone could support the merciless killing of innocent children in the womb. But, as I grew older, and my mind expanded, I learned about the history of abortion in our nation, and the various reasons people get and support abortions. The idea of abortion would always make me cringe, but it wasn't something I really thought about unless someone else mentioned it (very rarely, as abortion is a personal and passionate issue for many people). I always believed that pro-choice was the scientifically correct side, but not the morally correct one. As of late, I am beginning to realize just how much pro-choicers twist and deny science to fit their worldview. It wasn't until my junior year of high school that I began learning how to logically defend my pro-life stance. Browsing through Facebook one day, I stumbled upon the Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice Debate Forum, run by a man named Antonio. I decided to send Antonio a message, as he makes some very strong cases against abortion in his forum. I brought up several pro-choice arguments I hear all the time, and Antonio helped me address them. Ever since then, I have joined Antonio as an admin of the Debate Forum, and I have become committed to defending life.

     I have not always been Christian, unfortunately. I always believed in God, and believed that the Bible was His inspired word, but I never bothered to read it. I only prayed when I felt I needed God, and rarely ever attended church. I prayed to received Christ as a young girl, and was subsequently baptized, but I spent most of my childhood very unplugged from the faith. But when I was twelve, my mother's father, Grandpa Vance, passed away. Before he passed, he tried talking to my mom about getting my dad and I into church. The memory is still fresh in my mind of when my mom (really my stepmom, but my mom nonetheless) made a big decision for my family. I was sitting in the passenger side of her car, running some errands with her. We drove past the Orange Park Plaza and came to a stop at a red traffic light. My mom looked at me and said, "Haley, we're going to start going to church like my Daddy wanted us to."  Personally, I had no problem with it, so I just nodded my head. Over the next few weeks, my mom and I, along with my Aunt Amy (Mom's little sister), looked for churches to regularly attend. We eventually found a church we very much enjoyed, and began going there. Before long, my Dad began going with us, prayed to receive Christ, and was baptized. After a couple months, I felt the Lord working on my heart, like He has big plans for me. I re-dedicated my life to Him, and as a public symbol of my rededication, I was baptized a second time. I have been on fire for Him ever since.

     In case you're wondering, my pro-life views are not dramatically affected by my Christian faith; I have been pro-life much longer than I've been following Jesus, and I would be pro-life regardless of the religion I practiced.

     I have always loved literature. Reading literature, writing literature, listening to literature being read to me. I loved reading in kindergarten, and even wrote short kids books. As I grew older, the books I read became more and more mature. I have always been fascinated with the figurative language and symbolism behind every novel, and secretly had an aspiration to become an author of sorts. Among my favorite works of literature are: The Bible, The Lottery Rose, The Great Gatsby, The Crucible, The Grapes of Wrath, Animal Farm, Of Mice and Men, The Chronicles of Narnia, The Harry Potter series, Eragon, The Scarlet Letter, To Kill A Mockingbird, The Odyssey, The Devil's Arithmetic, The Boy in Striped Pajamas, The Raven, Fall of the House of Usher, and more. I have always been into writing poetry and letters that expressed my innermost feelings. Currently, I am writing a novel of my own, called The Dragon Chronicles: Isles of Speartha, the first book of a trilogy.

     I have always been a Florida girl. I call Middleburg, Florida home. I do not live in close proximity to a beach, but I don't live unreasonably far from one. I have lived in the same house on North Cocoa Avenue my entire life; about 30 minutes away from Jacksonville, a three-hour drive from Orlando. In my opinion, Florida is a lovely state full of lovely people, though I'm sure there might be some bias there. As far as weather is concerned, Florida can be very bipolar, - I've experienced harsh winters, mild winters, blazing hot summers, and more tolerable summers. As you can imagine, Florida, like many regions near the Equator, gets harsh summer storms, especially in July and August. My uncle, along with my aunt-by-marriage and baby cousin, live right next door to me. Directly across the street lives my best friend and her family. Two houses over from her house is my grandmother and grandfather, whom I visit quite frequently. Most of my family lives in Florida, but I have relatives living all over the country, - Rhode Island, Tennessee, Ohio, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, and other places.

     All in all, my views on things have remained stable throughout my life. I have matured a lot, but on few occasions have I gone through something so huge that it drastically changed me. That is why I'm starting this blog, - to document the changes I go through, the risks I take in life, the things I experience. I hope you enjoy taking this journey with me, and hope to hear about your experiences, too. 😊