Does the fetus matter or not? Is it human or not? Yes–if you think so. No–if you don’t think so. And so any circumstance can be good–if you think it is good. And alternatively, any circumstance can be bad, if you think it is bad.
No wonder pro-choicers don’t want to come out and debate very often.
Joyce Arthur’s arguments make sense to me, actually, in the context of today’s subjective culture. It’s just that they don’t hold any water when I reason it through–because that fetus either is something or it’s not and this can’t change depending on the ways the winds go…Every culture has societal norms and laws. It’s not a question of democracy. It’s a question of what we choose to classify as right and wrong. (Infanticide, slavery, anyone?)
That’s why women should be called out to think about these things, way before the moment of a crisis pregnancy. Because at that moment, someone like Joyce is going to step in and say–I couldn’t possibly tell you what’s on this ultrasound. It’s all up to you. And in the face of parents, and school, and boyfriends who aren’t ready and the thought of putting life on a different track for nine months–that is going to sound very seductive indeed. It’s quite a cruel approach when I think about it.
by 
Well, at least, Joyce has stated what the pro-choice side believes – that the life in the womb is inconsequential.
What a world she proposes! living one’s life based on what matters to me only, the objective reality simply becomes what I decide it is.
Take that logic into other areas and you can justify all manner of evil against everyone in the world.
The selfish logic of pro-choice has to be exposed for what it is – completely and totally self-absorbed. The “other” simply does not matter, it is me that comes first.
According to Joyce Arthur……”governments should focus on education campaigns to spark a cultural shift, introduce economic incentives to have daughters….”
Excuse me? Economic incentives to have daughters?? Does anyone else read these words and shudder to think that Ms. Arthur would actually consider it reasonable or rational to put this into print?? I suppose she would have no argument against future couples repeatedly and casually aborting male babies – After all, they’d want to hold out for that daughter that would help them out economically….
And….exactly what makes me so much more deserving of a “Baby Bonus” just because biology saw fit to give me 3 girls, versus my sister who has 3 boys? Are girls any more expensive to raise than boys? What exactly could Ms. Arthur have been thinking when she proposed that the government make it more financially attractive to have daughters than sons?