Posted on 10/03/2009 12:31:31 PM PDT by kennedy
Fifty one rejection letters -- that is the number Irene Vilar received before she finally found someone to publish a tale so extreme it would surely be fiction if it wasn't her personal story: A woman who says she had 15 abortions and describes it as an addiction.
The book, Impossible Motherhood: Testimony of an Abortion Addict -- a graphic and disturbing tale of one woman's abortions and her personal quest to understand her actions -- is bound to provoke a fury when it is released next week.
It is no surprise that publishers backed away. Ms. Vilar says the dozens of rejection letters "map the psychic realm" of the United States, where abortion remains such a volatile topic that a Kansas doctor who provided the service was shot and killed during a Sunday church service in May.
Now 40 years old and raising two daughters, aged three and five, Ms. Vilar has changed public records to protect her family's privacy and refused to go on a book tour.
She is prepared for her book to be misunderstood. She takes full responsibility for her actions, is adamantly pro-choice and does not intend for her book to become part of the divisive anti-abortion debate. Indeed, she describes herself as "an extreme pathological case."
"I'm solely responsible for my actions and that's what this book is about, a search for understanding and self-accountability," she said in an interview from her home in Colorado. "I refuse to see myself as a victim."
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalpost.com ...
But in my above post I said that a fetus is not a "sentient person" before week six -- and that definition of "sentient person" describes probably every conceivable injured or ill child or adult human (child being any human after the first trimester).
Agreed!
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
An individual who is 6 weeks post-conception is the same person he or she was at 5 weeks post-conception. From Conception to week 6, or month six, or six years old, or 60, every person expriences a continuous process of development and change marking the sequential stages of the same human life.
Wonder how long it will be before the two living children find out their mother whacked FIFTEEN of their brothers and sisters? G-d’s patience is going to run out; sooner or later...
None of those qualities --- sentient, conscious, self-aware, etc. --- are permanent or continuous; all of them are intermittent.
If you say those qualities must be both fully developed and operative, then every human being ceases to be a person for about 8 hours out of every 24.
And I myself am not a person until after my first cup of coffee.
I think your definition is open to criticism.
Which 8 hours? The 8 hours mesmerized by the boob tube or internet, or the 8 hours working for somebody else? ;-)
This is so sick!!! =(
I don't agree with that either. All beings with mind, which includes all biological forms of life, have some level of self-awareness. Any creature that reacts defensively or offensively demonstrates a level of self-awareness. If an animal didn't see itself as distinct from "other" there wouldn't exist a cause to perceive fear or aggression.
People in comas have no apparent consciousness, no apparent self-awareness and no apparent intelligence. There are a number of conditions that would render a person apparently lacking in all of those attributes. Simply being knocked unconscious would do it.
LOL! Actually, I have splendid, complex, densely plotted, narratively coherent dreams when I'm asleep (much more so than my waking life) --- so maybe it's only when I'm in the Zzzz's that I'm a "person" in a fully Aristookian sense! :o)
Quite true, TigersEye.
I am aware of three kinds of entities which are clearly persons: (1) divine (2) angelic and (3) human entities. These are the ones I know of now.
But I have often wondered (and discussed with my boys) how one would classify still other entities as "personal" or "non-personal" in the moral sense.
This is a problem which presents itself intriguingly in the StarTrek world. Humans, Klingons, Romulans, Vulcans, Andorians, etc. are clearly persons. Data the Android, possibly not (but in some episodes he does seem to be able to self-program, which raises other questions.)
If you encountered a life form that oscillated between a self-aware stage and one which was not apparently self-aware-- maybe it had a seemingly passive pupate form alternating with a thoughtful, even affectionate, larval FReeper form :o) --- would it be OK without their consent to marinate them in Italian dressing, saute them and eat them all when they were in their pupa stage?
I would judge not.
I would judge that any being which has a nature that could at some stage be personal, has to be regarded as possessing the dignity of a person.
Even if that individual is at various points unreasonable, insensate, poorly developed, incoherent, or even totally unconscious. You can see how that applies to us, too.
Don’t know my way around yet... So, please forgive me if I make a mess of things....
Btw, “hi” everybody. Glad to be here!
I agree with that. I like the introduction of Data in the contemplation too. A computer with AI (artificial intelligence) can display all of the measurable signs of consciousness, intelligence and self-awareness. Possibly giving a better performance than any human could.
Should its existence be given the same regard as a human life because it displays those observable characteristics? What if it acts like it feels pain and emotions? What if it says it does and argues its own case with eloquence? Would any of that actually make it a living being? Would it really have a mind?
Even if that individual is at various points unreasonable, insensate, poorly developed, incoherent, or even totally unconscious. You can see how that applies to us, too.
I sure hope so. I thought you were talking about me until I got to the second sentence. ;^)
FRegards, TigersEye
Data seems a lot more "human" than many liberal socialists.
!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.