Yale Daily News

Another excellent article, Mr. Taylor.

God Bless and Merry Christmas to all.

I may be incorrect but I believe Roe v. Wade was not designed to allow women the right to protectt her body from the "intusion" of a baby. It was designed to circumvent or neutralize the inequity of rich folks being able to afford a ""legal' abortion offered in expensive-to-travel-to geographical locations, thereby inadvertently forcing the indigent into illegal abortions in back rooms administered by non-medical personnel sometimes with womb piercing coat-hangers.

Of course, the Supreme Court or our culture itself would never admit this imperative motivated Roe v. Wade, but it was certainly fanning the fires which
produced that opinion., Ironically, Mr. Taylor, Roe v. Wade was about money, health and life---about egalitarianism and a country which seeks it make its laws live up to the promise of egalitarianism---not about the moral imperatives inferable from an idyllic little scene in a Biblical morality play about the life of a Hebrew family in a Bethlehem stable 2009 years ago.

Well done.

I was ready to give up on the YDN until reading this.

Excellent work Ms. Taylor

Taylor says: "But perhaps we would do well, on occasion, to set aside dialectical jousts and consider both sides with respect to their aesthetic appeal."

Ah, yes, thank you so much for the enlightening thought. Let's consider an ethical question by using Taylor's aesthetic preferences. Clearly a move away from "dialectical jousts."

The sanctimoniousness here is revolting, as Taylor, in the name of praising women, turns them into pretty objects to be protected and admired, and then celebrated in stories. God forbid women have agency! No, I know, let's remember and deify a story about a God who can inseminate a women without her consent.Sounds like an excellent basis for 2000 years of morality ...

So, "which is more beautiful, more noble, more admirable":

Obviously, "the vociferous American woman demanding the right" to be able to choose the course of her life, and the use of her body.

It's "Mr." Taylor.

We're not demanding the right. We have the right. We simply urge you not to take legal recognition away from us. Focus on sex education, on ALL education, on self esteem, on maybe lightening up about birth control, on all the things that will help eradicate abortion without taking away a fundamental right.

I disagree with number four but number six says it best, so I agree with her! It's not about abortion so much that society treats women so poorly that many times they can't afford childcare, safe sex education, etc.

Yet, I also agree with Taylor. People miss the point. Mary is truly an inspiring ideal that all women should aspire to be! What's wrong with selfless devotion and placing a child's life before your own? Our society is imperfect but we should still aspire to model our lives after such people!

Angry male feminist: "as Taylor, in the name of praising women, turns them into pretty objects to be protected and admired, and then celebrated in stories."

Do we, as feminists, not praise women, protect them, admire them, and celebrate them throughout history? If this is tantamount to objectifying them, then I am left without an alternative as to how to view women.

Further you say: "God forbid women have agency! No, I know, let's remember and deify a story about a God who can inseminate a women without her consent."

Mary did have agency. She consented to being the "Lord's servant" and to birthing God's son(Luke 1:38). If sacrificing one's life to plans that look detrimental does not require a huge amount of agency, then I don't know what does.

Whatever your stance on abortion, you have to admit that this is the worst argument about it you've ever heard. Mr./Ms. Taylor is merely attempting to extend the shaky basis of faith (assumption based on emotional and minimal sensory data) to a legal question with moral implications, which he/she hilariously attempts to mask by invoking his/her intro-philosophy vocabulary.

Though he/she contrasts the selfish and the selfless, the heart of Taylor's argument is aesthetic value: After extracting himself/herself from the hypnotic glow of the nativity scene, he/she asserts that the nativity must look prettier and feel better (and therefore BE better) than a hypothetical scene of a woman enjoying herself (what such a creature might enjoy besides iPods, video games, TVs or a Lexus, Taylor has no idea). This isn’t substance enough for an op-ed; it’s barely enough for an awkward non sequitur in his philosophy section (my condolences to his/her classmates).

Okay, so the first two paragraphs don't really go anywhere. Yeah, the manger's beautiful, especially because everyone in it was either ashamed of what was happening or CHRIST OUR LORD AMEN. But the rest of the piece is a pretty straightforward denunciation of Yuletide materialism (an annual ritual for the YDN and most papers) ... until the third paragraph from the end, where suddenly all this yammering about charity and selflessness is reduced down to ... Roe v. Wade.

Considering that the items on Brycey's Christmas list seem to be pricey electronics and luxury cars, something tells me he missed the broader point of his own article. To be fair, though, Lexus makes nice cars.

Wait wait wait. Wasn't this a joke?

It's hard to believe that somebody could praise Jesus, the corporation, and suggest Mary as a model for taking rights AWAY from people all at the same time.

Well done, well done...

That being said, I'm shocked at many of the responses supporting this message of faith, consumerism, and anti-choice. That such views might be held by otherwise intelligent people is very disappointing indeed...

Actually, I know the author, he's not joking at all - these are his views.

Mary had a choice- and she chose LIFE.

Joseph could have divorced her, abandoned fatherhood and left her to fend for herself. He chose RESPONSIBILITY and FIDELITY.

LIFE, RESPONSIBILITY, and FIDELITY.

Surely any of my fellow Yale feminists can get behind these principles.

Regardless of whether I think a biblical character (i.e. Mary, or Joseph) has actual agency, I will agree with you that Mary chose to have the baby. To be fair, some angels came, I believe, and told her that her child would be the son of God, which may have influenced her decision. It also certainly helped Joseph, who, because he did had not yet slept with his virgin bride-to-be, could have only assumed that she had been unfaithful to him. Her pleas to the contrary, without the angels to back here up, would have not have been very convincing. Without the agels, Joseph might likely have left and found a new bride, especially given men's tendencies to, certainly at that time if not now, to hold women to the standard of absolute virginity before marriage.

Now that I have deconstructed the biblical nativity story, just let me say two things:

1. I respect Mary's decision to keep her baby.

2. Had Mary chosen to have an abortion, I would respect that choice, too.

p.s. I'm sure God could have tried again.

Dear "voice of reason,"

Did you really take this column to be praising "the corporation"? Try taking an elementary class in reading comprehension.

#14--You actually have not "deconstructed the biblical nativity story." You might try not to use words (like deconstruct: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deconstruct) if you don't know what they mean. It takes clout away from the several good points you did make. Additionally, using grandiose statements like that makes you sound, frankly, like a huge tool.

Dear voice of reason,

You say: "It's hard to believe that somebody could praise Jesus, the corporation, and suggest Mary as a model for taking rights AWAY from people all at the same time." Your comment is a total non sequitur. The article does no such things concerning the corporation and Mary.

You go on to say: "That being said, I'm shocked at many of the responses supporting this message of faith, consumerism, and anti-choice."
Again, the article is criticizing consumerism, not lauding it. Did you read the article, oh voice of reason? And as for the oh-so-easy-to-make anti-choice accusation, the article is praising choice: the choice manifested in Mary's great sacrifice. She CHOSE life, responsibility, and faith.

It's rather ironic that the voice of reason can't comprehend and reason out a fairly straightforward article. In fact, it gets it totally wrong! In the great words of the voice of reason: "That such views might be held by otherwise intelligent people is very disappointing indeed..."

It is disappointing, oh voice of reason. In fact, I can't be sure in anything I'm saying because it seems to me that the voice of reason is on the opposite side of the issue. Oh, voice of reason, save me from my epistemic crisis.