House IV: Baby Samuel photographer sets record straight
During our conversations (here, here, and here) about an April 3 House MD episode about House’s apparent pro-life conversion after a preborn baby grasped his hand during surgery, a dispute arose whether the real photo the storyline was obviously based on was honest.
Well, the photographer who took that picture, Michael Clancy, added a comment early this morning to my first House post to set the record straight. I’m reposting it on page two.
Let me set the stage. Abortion defenders on this site called Clancy’s photo a hoax. They said the baby was under anesthesia, his hand was limp, and the surgeon merely picked it up. They drew back to the surgeon’s quote in USA Today many months after the fact wherein he made that very assertion.
I said the surgeon had to make that claim because otherwise he would have rightfully appeared to operate on this baby while he was awake and could feel it, which would constitute negligence.
The concept of a preborn baby showing signs of life and feeling pain is an eye-opener to people sitting on the pro-life/pro-abortion fence. It should even give pro-aborts pause for thought. It certainly does not bode well for the abortion industry. But what I saw on this site were pro-aborts working themselves into a frenzy to maintain the status quo, which is: preborn babies are not who they are.
Here is the original photo:
And here is the clip from the House episode:
Here is Michael Clancy’s comment:
I am the photographer that took the original picture of Samuel reaching from his mother’s womb.
www.michaelclancy.com
Samuel did reach from his mother’s womb completely on his own, and he reacted to the touch of his surgeon by squeezing the doctor’s finger. It is no mystery to me that Dr. Bruner can not admit the unborn child he was performing experimental surgery on simply came out from under the anesthesia too soon. The entire fetal surgery program was put in jeopardy when the good doctor decided to allow a newspaper photographer into his operating room. What was he thinking? It was apparent to me that I was the only one of some 15 people in that operating room that was surprised Samuel reached out. It had obviously happened before.
Dr. Bruner was the pioneer of this surgical procedure, he is no longer involved in fetal surgery. He has lost his job at Vanderbilt and several reporters have contacted me and stated that Dr. Bruner claims to be under a Gag Order and can make no further comment regarding Samuel’s surgery or my picture.
Let me remind everyone how USA Today reporter Robert Davis started his original article, ” In a crowded operating room where outsiders have gathered to watch a rare medical event, surgery on a fetus still in his mother’s womb, a stool falls with a loud bang, “Hush,” said, Joseph Bruner, the doctor leading the operation, “you’ll wake the baby.”
Blessings, Michael Clancy
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Thank you, Michael.
Thank you for sharing this breath taking picture and sharing it with the world Michael. You captured a true miracle!
I’m afraid I simply can’t see what’s so breath taking about this photo. I tend to think that it’s rather disgusting, and I have to scroll by really quick whenever it appears on the site. Guess that’s just me, though.
Less,
You probably find this picture disgusting because it forces you to face a truth that you don’t want to face. That is the fact that this little human being is in reality a person.
It must be getting harder and harder to cling to the fantasy that women only have abortions for very serious or very noble reasons.
A few days ago we saw that they are eating these little fellas in China. Yesterday we saw them playing kick the can with the body of a baby in a bag. Today we hear about a baby being left to die in a toilet. Then one of your “proofs” that our side makes things up, was taken away from you In it’s place you are left with the knowledge that yet again, the pro-abortion side lies to cover up truths that would put an end to abortion.
We keep telling you that abortion destroys human dignity, both the mothers and the childs.
I just find it odd, and very telling, that you are not disgusted by the picture of a baby in a lunch bag, the picture of a baby born in a toilet, or the picture of the baby in a pot of soup, but you are grossed out by the teeny, tiny hand of a baby that will be a allowed to live.
You say you don’t know why this is so, and I say, you probably should try to find out. Your soul might depend on your answer.
mk
Mk, the reason why I find this rather gross is likely the same reason why I find all newborns gross. I attended the birth of my oldest cousin, and could not get over how unbelievably disgusted I was by the sight of the newborn. The way my aunt reacted to it was beautiful, but my cousin, not so much. By the time he was a month or so old I thought he was adorable, but in those first few moments, not at all.
Frankly, the reason why I’m not disgusted by any of the senarios you mention is because, in all the cases but one, the baby is dead. I really don’t care what happens to a corpse. As for baby Rowan, I simply do not believe it happened. Honestly, I don’t care what you think the fetus is. I simply believe that whatever you want to call it, it’s invading the body of the woman.
“It must be getting harder and harder to cling to the fantasy that women only have abortions for very serious or very noble reasons.”
Not really. I don’t delude myself that way.
Some abortions are done for serious/noble/valid reasons, and I would even go out on a limb and say most of them are. Sadly, I know that some abortions are done for other reasons because people can be really stupid sometimes.
Mk, the reason why I find this rather gross is likely the same reason why I find all newborns gross. I attended the birth of my oldest cousin, and could not get over how unbelievably disgusted I was by the sight of the newborn. The way my aunt reacted to it was beautiful, but my cousin, not so much. By the time he was a month or so old I thought he was adorable, but in those first few moments, not at all.
Wow, if you’re that “unbelievably disgusted” at the sight of a newborn baby, I think you might need to ask yourself if you have a problem. Did something happen in your childhood to make you react this way to natural and beautiful things? Did someone hurt you and call you disgusting? I don’t know that many people who would actually go as far as to call any newborn baby “unbelievably disgusting”. It’s a pretty harsh thing to say…to anyone, or about .
Maybe some babies are born with bruises or have a “conehead” when they’re born, because of the trip down the birth canal, maybe they’re not as attractive as a plump 3 month old…but “disgusting” is the term you use for them ? Really? What happened in your life to make you feel this kind of repulsion for something that most would consider to be a beautiful thing?
I think you really need to consider who’s at fault here. Do you always think anyone not as attractive as you is disgusting? Do you find people who are older and have wrinkles and have lost their youthful looks to be disgusting? Are you really that shallow? Really?
Bethany, honestly. I simply do not find newborns to be asthetically appealing. My cousin was born when I was nine: I hadn’t formed real concepts of normalcy at that point, so anything I thought would simply be gut reaction. I can remember everyone was cooing over him, and I couldn’t stop wondering why. He was covered in stuff, was red with crying…not to mention the pain his birth cause my aunt. My nine year old brain simply couldn’t comprehend why he would be anything but kind of gross.
To you, being pregnant and having babies might be natural and beautiful. I, however, have no desire to ever be pregnant: I find the idea of being in that physical state to be disturbing. To me, birth is not anything natural or beautiful. It’s disturbing. Sure, maybe some newborns are cute: I just haven’t ever felt that.
Elderly individuals can certainly be beautiful: physically unattractive individuals can be beautiful. These people can have incredible inner beauty, and that outweighs outer appearance any day. The cousin I previously spoke of has grown up to be an intelligent and sensitive young man, beautiful both inside and out. I love him dearly. I just don’t understand why people coo over newborns. It isn’t as though I’m going around telling no one to do that, ever: I simply commented that I couldn’t see anything particularly beautiful about that picture, and I stand by that.
As to your concern about my mental well-being, it’s quite unfounded. Until I was 12 I had a pretty normal and boring life, so my dislike of newborns is all me, I assure you.
Less,
As for baby Rowan, I simply do not believe it happened.
Am I understanding you correctly? You don’t believe the story about Rowan is true?
Do you believe Jill’s story about leaving babies to die?
Do you believe the soccer baby story?
Are you that in denial, that you resist every attempt to show you the truth?
Do you honestly think that these stories are rare?
This is the FACE of abortion. It just is…
And you seemed so with it…but if it is true that you will deny everything in order to cling to your illusion that abortion is just a “procedure” and “no one” gets hurt…well, I’m at a loss!
mk
The Abortion Pop Quiz………………………………The Answers
# Josef Mengele
# Henry Howard Holmes
# Brian Finkel
# Allan Zarkin
# Raymond Showery
# Vilis Kruze
# Richard Ragsdale
# Betty Friedan
# Judith Comeau-Samue
# P. Scott Ricke
# Milan D. Chepko
# Kenneth Edelin
# Marc Eason
# Ronald Tauber
Mk, proof please?
Less, 2:19, said: “As for baby Rowan, I simply do not believe it happened.”
Less, I have the same question as MK. What are you saying you don’t believe?
I seem to remember, when the original blog was posted, comments about the authenticity of such a story. I don’t remember this ever being answered. I also tend to think that if something like this really had happened, it would be in the media constantly, as it could be twisted to either the pro-life or pro-choice side. If citations to legitimate news networks were provided, sorry for the trouble. I simply don’t remember any such citations being provided.
Less,
But how do those disdaining the Bible, or claiming there is no God, or disputing that preborn humans are human make the distinction?
Proof of what Less? Proof of the Baby Rowan story?
Proof of the lunch bag episode? Proof that God exists? Proof that there are 9 planets? Proof that my name is Mary Kay? Proof that the sky is blue?
Proof that abortion is wrong?
Why? You scoff at proof. If we show you pictures, you say they are doctored. If we show you statistics, you say they are skewed. If we cite our sources, you say the sources are biased.
If we use eyewitness reports, you call them liars.
There is no proof good enough for you, because you won’t accept reality. You see what you want to see, and you hear what you want to hear…
LaLaLaLaLa….I don’t heeeeeeaaaar you….lalalalala…..
Why would we make up this stuff…what do we get out of it?????????
Why would the abortionists and abortion industry deny it??????????…what do they get out of it??????
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I know this stuff is rocking your world and making you think about stuff that you don’t want to be true because then you might have to look at everything you are sure about, but wouldn’t you rather know the truth?
Are you really so afraid to admit that you were wrong that you will blatantly cling to lies just to save your pride????
My heart goes out to you…and my prayers…always.
mk
But how do those disdaining the Bible, or claiming there is no God, or disputing that preborn humans are human make the distinction?
Have absolutely no idea why that was in the above post…hope it didn’t throw you!
MK, get a telescope and you can see that there are nine planets, your birth certificate is proof of your name, and there’s a scientific reason for why the sky is blue.
I’ve never gotten statistics from any of you guys: if I have and it was a reputable source, I really wouldn’t bother refuting it. I would, perhaps, question the method of gathering statistics or the methods use to determine causation, but a lifetime of statistics classes had engrained that into me, sorry. Eyewitness reports are nototiously unreliable: the human memory isn’t the video recorder courtroom dramas make it out to be.
Show me reliable sources and that’s great. Show me photographs you can prove aren’t doctored, and that’s great. It’s all about proof. I can prove everything I’ve said in my post: I wouldn’t post it if I couldn’t. Can you say the same?
Less, your faith in the abortion ideology is incredible. You rejected faith in the God of the Bible for that?
Baby Rowan’s autopsy report is here: http://operationrescue.org/photos/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=460&g2
_GALLERYSID=b248a5a8664e04b794bef93cbabc08ef
MK,I just finished reading your post and took the “quiz” I got 6 right! Why? Because I too have read all about these sleezeball abortionists. Girls please beware.
That you Jill, was that so hard? Interesting how the autopsy report says that there is no evidence that Rowan was born alive. I’d tend to belive that, though I’d be interested to see if they would do addtional tests to find out whether or not the baby was born alive. I believe there are other ways to tell, though I’m no science major, so I’m not sure. It’d be interesting if there was, though.
Actually, I reject the Bible because it seems to be racist, homophobic, sexist, exessivly violent, and generally not something I’d consider holy. It had nothing to do with abortion, thanks.
Less, we never said you had to be pregnant or suffer with Fetally Induced Autonomy Theft.
We’re just saying don’t murder these wee ones. And we and the wee ones will eventually prevail.
Also, you don’t reject the Bible, you reject your own very flawed conception and understanding of what you think the Bible says.
Yep, if the Bible was “racist, homophobic, sexist, exessivly violent, and generally not something I’d consider holy”, I’d reject it too.
Seems to me most of the most spiritual churches I know are, yep, you guessed it, African-American churches.
And homophobic, no, God is not afraid of homosexuals, he’s just afraid of their end if they continue in their sin.
Sexist, yep, right on again. Let’s see, God chose Esther to deliver her people from that evil MAN Haman, he chose Ruth as an example of loyalty, and Rebecca, whew, she was hot, and Mary, let’s see…carried God’s child and is to forever to be called “blessed art thou amongst woman”. Yea, God hates womnen.
Excessively violent too? Yep, Jesus submitting in peace to crucifixion when he could have caused the earth to fall into the Sun, yep, God’s violent.
And yet another profound statement of absolute pinnacled wisdom of course emphasizing the “I’d” as follows (and it is very hard to even repeat these words), “generally not something I’d consider holy”. Do you know what the word holy means. It means set apart. The Bible is like no other book in the universe and God says it will endure forever. If that book is not holy, you are without hope.
Psalm 74:18
Remember how the enemy has mocked you, O LORD, how foolish people have reviled your name.
You should reconsider, Steph.
Less –
Would newspaper clippings from the Orlando Sentinal be enough for you to accept Rowan? It will also show how the media skewed the facts and blamed pro-life. It will also show extreme media bias…
Here are some excerpts…(I cannot post the whole article do to copywrite laws. But I have given the information so anyone can check it out)
Orlando Sentinel – Orlando, Fla.
Author: From Staff and Wire Reports
Date: Apr 29, 2005
Start Page: B.2
Section: LOCAL & STATE {ZONE} FINAL
Text Word Count: 512
“The complaints allege unsanitary conditions at the clinic, that a doctor wasn’t present and that a lack of postoperative care existed for Angele (removing last name for her privacy) when she received an abortion at the clinic. (Angele) had a live birth, but the fetus died shortly afterward, according to the complaints.
In a written statement, clinic owner Dr. James Pendergraft called the woman’s complaints “erroneous and without foundation or merit.” He described the Liberty Counsel’s claims as “another attempt to attack those medical professionals who perform termination procedures.”
In the complaint, (Angele) alleged that she went to the clinic earlier this month, when she was 22 weeks pregnant. She received a cervical dilator and pills that induce uterine contractions and was told to come back the next day. When she returned, there was no doctor present as she began to go into labor, the complaints stated.”
“The Orlando Police Department, which was called to the clinic after the woman’s procedure April 2, is not looking into the incident.”
“Attorneys for the woman also have requested an autopsy in hopes of determining if the fetus was born alive. But the chief investigator for the Orange County Medical Examiner’s Office said Tuesday that there were no grounds to do so.”
“Steve Hanson, chief investigator for the Medical Examiner’s Office, said the clinic doctor signed a fetal death certificate, which signifies that the fetus was stillborn. He said there is no reason for him to doubt the clinic doctor’s conclusion.”
“”We can’t second-guess everything that’s done,” Hanson said. “Based on the information I gathered, I’ve gotten nothing that leads me to believe that the medical examiner has any legal jurisdiction.””
*** okay – The police department refused to investigate. The medical examiner refused an autopsy because they took the word of the abortionist. The same man that was being accused. The same man that never denied he wasn’t even there.
More to come…..
oh, I forgot. The title of this article was:
“Abortion foes target clinic”
Title:
Autopsy: Abortion fetus stillborn
Orlando Sentinel – Orlando, Fla.
Author: Robyn Shelton, Sentinel Medical Writer
Date: Apr 30, 2005
Start Page: B.2
Section: LOCAL & STATE {ZONE} FLORIDA
Text Word Count: 363
“An autopsy of a fetus a woman claims was born alive in a botched abortion shows it was stillborn, the Orange County Medical Examiner said Friday.
Dr. Jan Garavaglia, chief medical examiner, said there is “no forensic evidence that the fetus was born alive.”
The fetus was delivered April 2 at the EPOC Women’s Clinic in Orlando.
Garavaglia said she carried out the autopsy on Wednesday or Thursday of this week. Her office previously had declined requests from the woman’s attorneys to examine the fetus, but Garavaglia said she changed her mind.
“As long as there seemed to be some question, I decided we would just go ahead and look further into it,” she said.”
“The Rev. Patrick Mahoney, the coalition’s director, said the mother told him she saw the fetus moving and begged a clinic worker to call 911. Mahoney said the woman’s pleas were ignored, so she used a cell phone to call a friend and asked her friend to place the call.
A spokeswoman for the clinic called the woman’s account “completely untrue” and said EPOC staff would cooperate fully in a state investigation. Attorneys for the woman have filed complaints with state agencies alleging unsanitary conditions and other lapses in care. She is being represented by the Liberty Counsel, a religious-rights group.”
“The woman’s lawyers said Friday that they are not satisfied with the medical examiner’s conclusion. Mathew Staver with the Liberty Counsel said the work was incomplete because toxicology testing was not done. However, Garavaglia said toxicology tests were not warranted because the fetus was not alive at delivery.”
*** Now, we have a medical examiner that doesn’t even know what day the autopsy was done. (the newspaper article was wrote 3 days after the autopsy date, so the interview would have been the day before to get the article to the presses in time. This medical examaner didn’t even know she did the autopsy 2 days ago? give me a break!) Don’t you think she would have checked the records to get her statment correct. The EPOC said they would cooperate in a state investigation. The police did not investigate so no information was gathered. It is the Dr’s word, who wasn’t even there, against Angele word whose defense is being supported by a religious organisation and the media won’t let us forget that now will they. You do know that everyone who has support of a relgious group lies right? The autopsy was incomplete. They didn’t do toxicology, which would have determined how much of the medication Angele had taken had gotten to Rowan. The refusal of toxicology is based on an incomplete autopsy which was done on what day?
Now – lets get some information on that abortionist who wouldn’t lie, shall we?
Action limits abortion options
Orlando Sentinel – Orlando, Fla.
Author: Robyn Shelton, Sentinel Medical Writer
Date: Aug 18, 2006
Start Page: B.1
Section: LOCAL & STATE {ZONE} FINAL
Text Word Count: 636
“The two offices, owned by Dr. James Pendergraft, were open Thursday for other services. But the state has suspended Pendergraft’s medical license and barred all five of his clinics in Florida from providing abortions on the grounds that he illegally carried out two third-trimester abortions in 2004 and 2005. The procedures under investigation occurred at his Orlando sites.”
“In its actions against Pendergraft, the state claims that the doctor failed to get a second physician’s opinion, as required by law, before performing an abortion on a woman who was 28 weeks pregnant in July 2005. In a 2004 incident, the state claims Pendergraft calculated the age of a woman’s fetus at 22 weeks but it was really between 25 and 27 weeks’ gestation.”
____________
And these complaints do not include Angele and Rowan.
oh… Let’s see… How about what this honest Dr did BEFORE Rowan…say around 2000-2001:
ABORTION DOCTOR BEGINS SERVING PRISON SENTENCE IN EXTORTION PLOT
Associated Press
An abortion doctor convicted of falsely accusing a Marion County official of bomb threats reported to federal prison Wednesday to begin serving a sentence of nearly four years.
Dr. James Scott Pendergraft IV had his motion to remain free on bond while he appeals his conviction on attempted extortion, conspiracy and mail fraud charges rejected by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday. Pendergraft, 44, owns the Ocala Women’s Center and four other Florida clinics that…
Published on 2001-07-26, Page 2B, The Miami Herald
****
Now the skeptical may say it is not the same doctor… How about this:
ABORTION-CLINIC DOCTOR GUILTY IN EXTORTION PLOT
MIKE SCHNEIDER, Associated Press
An abortion doctor was convicted Thursday of trying to extort millions of dollars from a Florida county by falsely accusing a county official of bomb threats and intimidation.
James Scott Pendergraft, who owns several Florida clinics, was found guilty in federal court of all charges against him – conspiracy, attempted extortion and mail fraud – and could get 30 years in prison. His real-estate advisor, Michael Spielvogel, was convicted of the same charges, plus lying to the FBI and filing a…
Published on 2001-02-02, Page 7B, Miami Herald, The (FL)
***
since this man is so honest, he sure wouldn’t have lied about Rowan right?
I’m so glad the police, medical examiner and the media trusted him, aren’t you?
Less –
Do you believe now? Was that enough unbiased information for you?
or do you still believe all us pro-lifers lie just to make a point?
I love to do research.
oh – just for an FYI
In my Mom’s autopsy it said she was 5’7″ and had green eyes.
My Mom was 5’3″ and had brown eyes. Not to mention her cornea’s had been removed because she was a donor.
And just think, this medical examiner wasn’t ‘forced’ into doing the autopsy. Nor had this M.E. formed an opinion on her death.
Just something to think about…..
Also, to answer another question.
This is the same M.E. that is on the discovery health channel. And wow! did she interview with everyone who had a pen and TV camera after the autopsy was done.
Valerie, the autopsy stuff really was quite enough. I’ve quite a respect for unbiased research, and frankly Jill’s little tirade just wasn’t unbiased enough for me, sorry. Now that there’s actual, legitimate, news coverage (AP) plus the autopsy report, I’ll accept that. Honestly, if Jill had simply cited her sources to begin with, this could have all been avoided.
Alright, HisMan, I get to get out my study Bible!
Racist:
?If you listen carefully to what he says and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you. 23 My angel will go ahead of you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites, and I will wipe them out.?
Hmm?.God willing to wipe out all these people because of their race?
Then Israel made this vow to the LORD : “If you will deliver these people into our hands, we will totally destroy their cities.” 3 The LORD listened to Israel’s plea and gave the Canaanites over to them. They completely destroyed them and their towns; so the place was named Hormah.
Again, God completely destroying the Canaanites in favor of the Israelites because of race?.
Homophobic:
HisMan, phobia can also mean an intense aversion of an object/person:
pho?bi?a n.
1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.
God is averse to homosexuality. Explain to me why. What, exactly, is so wrong with homosexuals that God would condemn them to hell forever? What reasoning is behind this? What is so incredibly wrong about loving the same gender?
Funny, the Bible never gives an answer for this. Just says, quite ambiguously (I can prove that too, if need be), that homosexuality is evil. I?d like some reasoning for that one.
Sexist:
?5For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands??
Submission is required to be beautiful, hm? Seems rather sexist to me?
?34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.?
Again with the submission thing?and this time, women aren?t even allowed to speak in churches!
?23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.?
?8Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.?
Loads of submission here in male/female relationships. I?d say that?s pretty sexist, myself.
There are numerous verses throughout Deuteronomy (I can cite several, if you?d like) that equate a woman?s worth solely with her virginity, but there are no analogous verses for men. Sure, there are women who do well by God: but go back and read those stories, HisMan. All those females, at some point or another, are lauded as being submissive. Why is it, exactly, that all the ?best? females are the most submissive? I could honestly go on with this one all day: it happens to be a particular area of my study.
Violent:
24 I will send wasting famine against them,
consuming pestilence and deadly plague;
I will send against them the fangs of wild beasts,
the venom of vipers that glide in the dust.
25 In the street the sword will make them childless;
in their homes terror will reign.
Young men and young women will perish,
infants and gray-haired men.
26 I said I would scatter them
and blot out their memory from mankind,
Explain how that?s not violent, please?
23 If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. 24 My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless.
Violent much?
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Not only does this verse espouse violence, but it again equates a woman?s worth with her virginity. Are those of us who aren?t virgins worth less as people because of that fact? Your God certainly seems to think so.
?23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.?
hmm… and what does it say before and after this? If this is the one I’m thinking it is, this was in my wedding vows. *gasp* if memory serves it explains how men are suppose to treat women. I noticed you left that out.
See, this is the problem with quoting certain versus and not giving the info before and after. Also, can you give me the chapter and verse of what you posted? I don’t have the bible memorized. Bad me!!
Ephesians chapter five verse 22, actually. That section talks about marriage relatinships, and the section I quoted specifically refers to how females should treat their male counterparts because the rest of it didn’t really seem relevent.
Valerie, the autopsy stuff really was quite enough. I’ve quite a respect for unbiased research, and frankly Jill’s little tirade just wasn’t unbiased enough for me, sorry. Now that there’s actual, legitimate, news coverage (AP) plus the autopsy report, I’ll accept that. Honestly, if Jill had simply cited her sources to begin with, this could have all been avoided.
Less…. you still haven’t found any unbiased sources to prove that sex education has decreased the number of abortions, STDs, and teen pregnancies over the years…
Ephesians chapter five verse 22, actually. That section talks about marriage relatinships, and the section I quoted specifically refers to how females should treat their male counterparts because the rest of it didn’t really seem relevent.
Ephesians – Chapter 5:25-33
25. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
26. to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,
27. and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
28. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
29. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-
30. for we are members of his body.
31. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.
32. This is a profound mystery-but I am talking about Christ and the church.
33. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself…
Ephesians
Chapter 6 versus’ 22 – 33
“Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.
This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church. In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself and the wife should respect her husband.”
**********
This is making it clear that women should respect their husbands decisions. That being said, husbands should NEVER take their wife for granted. If you see the part about the man leaving his parents for his wife, that is saying that he does not ‘own’ her, he is one with her. If he hurts her then he hurts himself. He must treat her as Christ treats the church. Which means treat your wife with the upmost respect. And since Christ would view the church as his fathers home, then man should never disobey his wife, because Christ would never disobey his father.
does it makes sense now?
If you want, and I’m not trying to be rude or say that you are stupid (because you aren’t!), I can help with the other passages as well. but once again, I need the chapter and vs.
Bethany – great minds think alike!
Also, I do find it funny that women don’t get the lecture but men do.
It can be quite pro female if you think about it.
I totally agree, Valerie! I think the Bible puts a lot of emphasis on women being respected by their husbands, and being loved. I see nothing about husbands being allowed to be tyrants or dictators or any other such thing. I do not see anything the Bible says about marriage to be sexist at all….the formula to a marriage is to always love each other and to respect each other. Without these things, marriage falls apart. The Bible holds the perfect solution to a failing marriage, for both men and women to follow in order to succeed. I can personally attest to the fact that this formula works!
Where I think the problem is with the bible is that it is so wordy compared to how we communicate today. To say “hello” you would have to go through 5 versus to get that.
You have to read the whole chapter in order to understand the versus. If you just read the versus than it can be taken out of context.
I’m sorry, I just don’t see it that way. I refuse to participate in anything that would require me to be submissive. I prefer a relationship of equality, one where we respect each other, as opposed to submission and respect. I understand your interpertation of it, I simply disagree.
And Bethany, I did provide statistics, and you refused to accept it. I could go get more, but I really doubt you would accept those either. You’re not willing to listen to anything that I have to say, so why I should I bother? I have a God of Sex to worship.
And Bethany, I did provide statistics, and you refused to accept it.
Kind of like Jill posted stats and you refused to accept it?
And your sources were proved to be biased….hers were proved to be accurate and from your own site!
lol
You are so funny, Less.
“I have a God of Sex to worship.”
oh… That is a good one! I like it.
Well, we will agree to disagree on the subject of submissiveness. But try not to close the door on it either.
Remember, there are some who take the bible literally. And there are others who use it as a tool to live correctly, to find morality, but not to be taken word for word. It is the emotions, the idea behind it. Not just one word.
;-)
you knew I wouldn’t be able to just let it go, right? I’m so bad that way.
*hug*
You know, Valerie, as an English major I do find a heady appreciation of the Bible: not as a religious work, simply as a work. In the English translations, the psalms are beautiful, and I’d rank the Song of Solomon/Songs as one of my favorite poems.
I don’t mind you not letting it go! Frankly, I think that’s all why we’re here. But no debates for me tonight: I finally have jelly, and I am excited. I’m allergic to peanuts, and as my family loves peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and generally use the same knife for both…I don’t get jelly very often. It’s funny how much you miss those things! College is a delicious experience!