Planned Parenthood Aurora: Dominick’s freaks, police check grocery lists
The information on page 2 comes from an email sent by a Planned Parenthood Aurora sidewalk counselor yesterday, who took copious notes of the day’s events.
Apparently Safeway, the parent company of the Aurora Dominick’s grocery store, which owns the vacant lot across from Planned Parenthood Aurora, would rather appease it than the pro-life community surrounding Dominick’s….
Dominick’s financial trouble and store closings are well documented. According to Wikipedia:
Dominick’s lost market share and profits following the Safeway takeover. Between 2002 and 2007, Dominick’s market share in the Chicago region declined from 24.4% to 14.5%. Jewel-Osco’s 40.5% is the market’s leader. During labor negotiations in 2003, Safeway unsuccessfully attempted to sell Dominick’s, and reported Dominick’s financial information as a discontinued operation….
After closing more than 20 stores since its acquisition, Safeway announced in February 2007 that it would close another 14 stores in the Chicago area…. After the store closings, Dominick’s operates 83 locations.
Safeway seemingly wants to lower that to 82.
And apparently Aurora police intend to establish roadblocks on New York Street at the entrance of the access road into the Dominick’s mall past PP to inquire of US citizens’ planned excursions.
Dominick’s and all other shop owners in that mall should start adding their 2 cents to rid the neighborhood of the business poison in their midst that is PP.
And as long as PP operates (pardon the pun) at that location, the short-term solution is for Aurora to pour sidewalks on both sides of the access road.
UPDATE, 9:27a: OpenlineBlog.com has posted additional information on the vacant lot and the City of Aurora’s ambiguous knowledge of the law (including video clip of City attorney Alayne Weingartz), which only creates more chaos.
Email….
From: ana…
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 19:37:48
Arrived to the site and spoke to Mr. Mayer security guard for PP in regards to the property boundaries including the access road. He pointed boundaries to the east and west up the “pine tree” and including to the middle of the road were protected….
Around 10:27 a.m., Mr. Terry D. Rogers, Chief Investigator with Dominick’s finer Foods, Inc., located on 711 Jorie Boulevard, MS 4325, Oak Broak, IL 60523 (Phone 630/891-5474 – Cell 630/688-2821 – Fax 630/891-5470 – terry.rogers@safeway.com), approach[ed] the crowd gathered across the entrance from Planned Parenthood and request[ed] that we move from the site. He explained that the site was owned by Safeway and due to liability issues we were required to move. He also claimed that several complaints has been filed in regards to protestors at the vacant lot….
I requested time to move the chairs, signs, etc, but Mr. Rogers requested we move everything asap.
Around 10:41 a.m. Sgt. Woods came to the sidewalk and took several pictures. He approached Bruce and requested his name and birthday. Bruce inquired as for the reasons and Sgt. Woods stated that he (Bruce) has been warned previously about placing signs against the “fence” and therefore he was going to issue a written (…). Sgt. Woods also stated that signs could not be around the sidewalk and he began to inquire about a larger sign and further explain the signs could only be hold by a person and place down on the sidewalk if the person was resting from holding the sign. Bruce explained that the signs were not his and I proceeded to tell Sgt. Woods what transpired minutes before as we had just moved the signs. After Sgt. Woods learned that I was responsible for the signs but he did not issue a warning to me. He stated that he has made a few warnings and in fact he remembers seven (7) warnings in regards to the signs. This transpired as several St. Patrick’s St. Charles parishioners came to the site to pray.
Paul Usher came to the side walk and requested phone numbers for Dominick’s staff and requested to speak to Eric Scheidler. Paul asked me if he should be arrested and I pleaded to please not to at which time I dialed Eric Scheidler. Paul Usher goes inside Dominick’s store and speaks to the manager Victor Karlson despite threats of arrest by Mr. Rogers and pleads from us to avoid any incidents. He was warned that if he loitered or entered the store he was going to be arrested and he was warned as he walked inside the store…. However, Mr. Karlson, Dominick’s General Manager, addressed Paul’s concerns with repect and peacefully spoke to him. Paul stated that he was going to boycott Dominick’s and walked out.
Seconds later Officer Gallardo with badge # 230 accompanied by Officer Zegar (#288) requested that Paul Usher stop walking up and down the road and in front of the clinic. As Paul prayed and chanted walking up and down the road. Others inquired if this new rule applied to any other person walking to the Dominick’s store and Mr. Gallardo said “no” if a person goes to Dominick’s to make a purchase and walks back after making this purchase this rule does not apply.
Mr. Gallardo warned that Paul Usher and any other person from our group walking continuously up and down the road was going to be arrested. As we inquired for a business card, Mr. Gallardo pointed that Sgt. Jim Boatman (#424) as the Sergeant in charge. Sgt Jim Boatman reiterated that in fact any person walking on the side of the clinic was going to be arrested. He added that we needed to walk on the other side of the street and next to the empty lot. He also explained that the Dominick’s is required to file certain documents with the city in order to request people to vacate the site. During this events there were around 20 pro-lifers praying… All spoke to the police in regards this new rules….
11:28 a.m. Mr. Terry D. Rogers came outside and call[ed] me. He stated that vacating the lot was legal procedure and until such was acquired from the City we could return to the empty lot until further notice.
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.
So in summary,
The protesters were kicked off, then told it was okay to stand on the lot until further notice from Dominick’s?
Please correct me if I got it wrong.
Yes, you are right. We were kicked off and later told that this was not the procedure.
Did Dominick’s change thier mind (and will allow us to be there), or was additional paperwork needed prior to asking us to leave (and they will not allow us to be there)?
I would be more than happy to sign a waiver of liability!!!
Dominick’s really needs to understand that all of the food, water, drinks, snacks, etc. that we buy when we’re there, we BUY from THEM!!! Not to mention many of their other customers that drop off food & water for us throughout the day that they BUY from THEM! And not to mention all of the HUNDREDS of people in the area that WILL BOYCOTT Dominick’s if they get into bed with PP.
PL Laura,
But how can that be?? We are told by PC people on this blog that the vast majority of Americans don’t care about abortion. But then, not too long ago according the the PC crowd, the vast majority of Americans supported abortion. Certainly these people you talk about are a figment of your imagination.
Mary,
Yes, they must be! I guess I’ve been praying for so many hours over there that I’ve started hallucinating! :) From being over there for more than 12 hrs. yesterday, and every evening during the week, I can say that the vast majority of people who oppose us are young men (18-25) and teenage girls..oh, yes, don’t let me leave out PP’s employees!!!
Jill,
Can we work on getting a waiver of liability? Insurance companies do this all of the time..My idea, since this is an issue of liability, is that we would get a signed waiver of liability, with each individual signature & carry it on our person while standing on the vacant lot. Only persons that have this waiver will be able to be on the vacant lot.
better yet, let’s look into renting use of the lot.
Jill,
Can we work on getting a waiver of liability? Insurance companies do this all of the time..My idea, since this is an issue of liability, is that we would get a signed waiver of liability, with each individual signature & carry it on our person while standing on the vacant lot. Only persons that have this waiver will be able to be on the vacant lot.
Posted by: PL Laura at October 7, 2007 11:14 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I had to get a waiver of liability when I had my tubal. It included the preliminary court hearing, completion of a psych. evaluation, and the final court hearing.
If each of your protesters are willing to pay to file, pay for a psych. evaluation, and pay for two court appearances each, I don’t see why not…
Why don’t we have a fund raiser and buy it?
How about we just lease the land instead – on a month by month basis.
Huh. First I’d like to comment on the apparent inconsistency between this post, which appears to be demanding rights to someone else’s private real property, and the October 5th post berating PP Aurora for “targeting” Dominick’s. Interesting that you find it objectionable for PP to do exactly what you are advocating here.
The other thing I would like to comment on is the suggestion that the City of Aurora pour sidewalks along the access road. Just so you know, that one is a total non-starter. The access road isn’t a public access road (I assume you are talking about the road that runs east-west from Oakhurst to the Domnick’s parking lot). It is a private drive, owned by Gemini/PP. They appear to have granted a limited easement along the drive for ingress/egress to the businesses located adjacent to them, but I doubt that you’re going to get them to grant an easement for a sidewalk.
To suggest that Aurora march onto the property of both Gemini/PP and Dominick’s/Safeway and pour sidewalks isn’t within the realm of possibility. That would require that both property owners agree to sell easements for the purpose of sidewalk construction to the City of Aurora. I would guess that the chances of that happening are pretty much nil.
I understand that you are all upset that you can’t stand/march/protest in the location that you desire, but I think that you’re grasping at straws at this point.
PL Laura,
Young men 18-25? That’s the demographic group that most strongly supports abortion. I wonder why?
Correction to earlier post…I was told that the lot line between the Gemini/PP property and the Dominick’s/Safeway property runs down the middle of the access road. It is apparently jointly owned.
Geez, I just can’t stop talking today for some reason….but based on some of the comments on this post I wanted to point out that I doubt that protesting is a permitted use within a B-2 district. Under the zoning ordinances, I doubt that you would be able to lease the vacant lot for that purpose. Also, I sincerely doubt that you could raise enough to lease it at market value.
Take heart all…the only reason this is even an issue is because we’re being effective.
To quote Ghandi about standing up against injustice: “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”
The harder PP gets hit in the wallet, the louder they will squeal. That backfired on them at our local 40 Days of Life Prayer Vigil. They said we couldn’t have our little 18″ table with 4 candles on it sitting in the city’s dirt strip between the sidewalk and the street. So we took it away and now have candles for everyone to carry at all times….they got what they wanted. Our 4 candles went away…..of course now there are 20 walking around instead.
You can turn the volume up on peace too.
Laura,
I had to get a waiver of liability when I had my tubal. It included the preliminary court hearing, completion of a psych. evaluation, and the final court hearing.
If each of your protesters are willing to pay to file, pay for a psych. evaluation, and pay for two court appearances each, I don’t see why not…
—————————————-
That’s not how it works with property. I had to sign a waiver of liabiliy with my apartment complex for the garage. I had to sign a waiver for use of a health club, and I had to sign a waiver for my son to take “roller-blading” through the public school PE class. No court appearances, no psych. evaluations, etc. Just a signature needed!
Carol,
You might be suprised to learn what unoccupied and undeveloped land will lease for. Just how much do you think farmers lease an acre of land for?
Charles –
I doubt I would be too surprised at the lease value of unoccupied and undeveloped land. However, that isn’t exactly what we’re talking about here.
Isn’t the real estate cliche “location, location, location?” Farmland may lease out for a certain value, but business district land with established businesses and a lot of traffic would lease for an entirely different, and much higher, value.
Maybe I’m missing something here, but how come there are so many police in riot gear! And what’s with this:”apparently Aurora police intend to establish roadblocks on New York Street at the entrance of the access road into the Dominick’s mall past PP to inquire of US citizens’ planned excursions.” Does this mean if someone wants to go shopping at that mall than they have to submit to a barrage of questions from police? Is it the protesters or PP that’s causing the upset for businesses?…Or both? It seems a whole bunch of peaceful protesters or would be protesters are having their rights trampled on here. Don’t people have a right to be able to occupy a public space like a parking lot for protest?!
Carol,
I would agree with that argument if there was an established business (and vacant building) on the property or the lessee would be attempting to improve the property. In either case, this would not be applicable to this situation. Therefore, I believe the lease value of this vacant lot would be rather low – in a comparative sense.
Nicole,
People can occupy a public space for protest. In some cases they may be required to file for a permit before doing so. Also, please keep in mind that most parking lots are private property (as in this case.) And on such property the land owner can discriminate as to which people can assemble on it.
Hi Charles –
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on the lease value of the vacant lot for a couple of reasons. First, it is in a planned development business district surrounded by high traffic businesses. It’s really a pretty choice spot for a stand-alone commercial property.
Second, you have to consider the lease value from Safeway’s perspective. For them, this is investment property. I already mentioned that I don’t think that it would be possible to lease the property just so that it could be used as a spot to stand on for a protest.
Assuming that it could though for the sake of argument, why would Safeway risk possibly missing out on leasing or selling to a legitimate commercial investor/developer just to provide a few people with a patch of grass to stand around on? Answer: they wouldn’t risk it, unless you made it worth their while economically. Again, just my two cents.
Per Carol:
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on the lease value of the vacant lot for a couple of reasons. First, it is in a planned development business district surrounded by high traffic businesses. It’s really a pretty choice spot for a stand-alone commercial property.
__________
You mean it “was” a choice spot until PP moved in.
Second, you have to consider the lease value from Safeway’s perspective. For them, this is investment property. I already mentioned that I don’t think that it would be possible to lease the property just so that it could be used as a spot to stand on for a protest.
___________
Again, the lease value is now probably pretty low. I’m sure it “was” much higher before PP moved in on the block. Kinda like the Munsters moving into the neighborhood.
Assuming that it could though for the sake of argument, why would Safeway risk possibly missing out on leasing or selling to a legitimate commercial investor/developer just to provide a few people with a patch of grass to stand around on? Answer: they wouldn’t risk it, unless you made it worth their while economically. Again, just my two cents.
____________
Again, who would want to lease this property or buy it? I’m sure it “was” a great spot before Herman, Lilly and the gang showed up.
“Per Laura”
I had to get a waiver of liability when I had my tubal. It included the preliminary court hearing, completion of a psych. evaluation, and the final court hearing.
_____
Interesting……………why don’t they require the same thing for women seeking abortion??
I think it would be more appropriate to mandate psych evals for women who seek to kill their own children. If you are willing to kill your very own child, what else could you be capable of??
Hard to believe our society blesses women with the right to kill their own children and will even escort them into the death chambers cheering them on, but how dare a woman make decision on her very own to ensure she doesn’t get pregnant in the first place.
Interesting……………why don’t they require the same thing for women seeking abortion??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shouldn’t they require the same standard before a woman is ALLOWED to have a child?
Wasn’t Dominicks in the news for fighting the regulation that their pharmacists be required to dispense abortifacients?
I had to get a waiver of liability when I had my tubal. It included the preliminary court hearing, completion of a psych. evaluation, and the final court hearing.
So how did that psych evaluation go, Laura?
Maybe I’m missing something here, but how come there are so many police in riot gear!
Nicole, I haven’t been on site for any of the recent protest hijinks so I can’t speak to anything you might have seen there, but if you are referring to all the pictures of riot police that appear in Jill’s posts on the Aurora PP subject, they appear to be stock photos placed there for dramatic effect, rather than based on anything factual.
So how did that psych evaluation go, Laura?
Posted by: Tony at October 7, 2007 10:27 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The shrink I picked off the list turned out to be the father of a girl I went to school with. He thought the whole thing was ridiculous, so we went next door and had tacos while we gossiped about Sarah and he did the paperwork.
On some level it was still kind of humiliating.
I won’t contest that protesters have no right to be on private property, if the owner of that property doesn’t want them to be there.
I just think its ridiculous that land is bought, sold, owned, and lorded over for private use.
He thought the whole thing was ridiculous, so we went next door and had tacos while we gossiped about Sarah and he did the paperwork.
What unparalleled professionalism!
Laura and Sandy,
“Interesting……………why don’t they require the same thing for women seeking abortion??”
“Shouldn’t they require the same standard before a woman is ALLOWED to have a child?”
Both of these statements make me cringe. The level of misogyny found in mainstream society and the presence of paternalist attitudes in society toward women scares me.
Asking for certain safeguards before self-mutilization (tubal ligation) that sabotages a functioning organ
and
Asking for certain safeguards before unborn baby-mutilization (abortion) that increases women’s likelihood for suicide, eating disorders, drug abuse, alcoholism, depression, etc.
Hmmm…sounds perfectly reasonable to me. They require the same of men who wish for a vasectory or men who are transgendered and desire their penises to be sliced off. Such is standard procedure for those that wish to do something so unhealthy, unnatural and permanent.
Laura –
“Shouldn’t they require the same standard before a woman is ALLOWED to have a child?”
I’m so glad you are for choice. ;-)
(I’m assuming a level of sarcasm in that statment)
________________
The waiver of liablity is for almost all medical procedures now a days. If I remember correctly Laura had her Tubes tied very young in her adult life. The psych eval was so she wouldn’t come back and sue them. (This has happened) For most other procedures all you have to do is sign.
I’m not sure, but everything I hear is that alot of women do not sign waivers even though an abortion is considered “one of the safest surgeries”
___________________
Enigma –
“Both of these statements make me cringe. The level of misogyny found in mainstream society and the presence of paternalist attitudes in society toward women scares me.”
I think this odd considering a father doesn’t have any rights to their child until after birth. Even a Wife can have an abortion without her husbands knowledge. I had my tubes tied without anyone asking my husband questions. A woman can have the child and force the father to pay child support even though his ‘choice’ was abortion. Men really don’t have much control when it comes to family planning now a days. Yet we still hear how mysoginist society is.
John M, I brought this forward in time since it’s been a few days:
John, to Enigma: I have to smile a bit, because it is exactly these that make life wonderful … things like: courage; fidelity; patience; respect … on and on. I suspect that you too (and Doug) thrive on such intangibles – we ALL do! Gotta admit though, proving something like courage is a frightful task – something I sure do not strive to do. Simply acknowledging this in a person is sufficient for me.
John, some of that is quite tangible, but yes – most people are quite the same in a lot of ways. On courage – there will be conflicting desires at work. One desire will win out, and if an observer is glad of that, then they will say that it was courageous. If not, they’ll say foolhardy, wimpy, cowardly, etc.
And then of course there is Dutch courage…. ; )
……
I am sorry about the concept of flaw and freedom. As I get older (and things are obviously more prone to fall apart), is freedom tied to these aspects or can I actually become freer with age. Or, can a person in prison be free? Can a severally disabled person (whose body is his/her prison cell) be free. In a similar way a person is loved not in-spite of their faults, but they are loved BECAUSE of their faults.
You can become freer in some ways, sure, but that doesn’t mean you don’t lose freedom in other areas. A person in prison is not free with respect to some things, by definition. Yet you could say his mind may “wander” anywhere it wishes. (Wouldn’t really have anything necessarily to do with prison in the first place.) I don’t mean to get improperly personal with you, but you are more free in some aspects of life than many others around the world, and less free in other aspects. If a fault is seen as “lovable” then it’s not really seen as a fault at all, i.e. a weakness or failing that would be desired to be absent.
……
To me this aspect of freedom puts the coffin nails to Doug’s understanding of freedom, as the exercising of ‘wanted’ and ‘unwanted’ status.
You’re pretending it is all one thing, and it’s not. There will definitely be the legal freedom or not to have an abortion. That is but one type of freedom, among many.
Doug
Jaqueline,
“Asking for certain safeguards before unborn baby-mutilization (abortion) that increases women’s likelihood for suicide, eating disorders, drug abuse, alcoholism, depression, etc.”
Multiple studies have concluded that women who are not prone to psychiatric problems and who have abortion are not at a higher risk for abortion, eating disorders, drug abuse, alcoholism, or depression.
“They require the same of men who wish for a vasectory or men who are transgendered and desire their penises to be sliced off. Such is standard procedure for those that wish to do something so unhealthy, unnatural and permanent.”
I have nothing against waivers. I’m in favor of waivers. What I’m against is the idea that someone needs a psychiatric evaluation to get a procedure done.
Women do not all want to have children. To treat them as though they do is to subject them to false, paternalist stereotypes of what it means to be a woman.
Valerie,
“I think this odd considering a father doesn’t have any rights to their child until after birth.”
As he shouldn’t. A fetus is inside a woman’s body, not his. Therefore, he should have no say about what a woman does with her body.
“Even a Wife can have an abortion without her husbands knowledge.”
Ideally, I would prefer for a woman to discuss this with her husband.
“I had my tubes tied without anyone asking my husband questions.”
“A woman can have the child and force the father to pay child support even though his ‘choice’ was abortion. Men really don’t have much control when it comes to family planning now a days.”
Our system is inherently unfair. I will not disagree with that. However, there are few ways to make the system completely fair. I believe that the system we have now in probably the best system that we could have for society.
Enigma,
Multiple studies have concluded that women who are not prone to psychiatric problems and who have abortion are not at a higher risk for abortion, eating disorders, drug abuse, alcoholism, or depression.
Multiple studies have concluded that women who have abortion are prone to psychiatric problems and suffer a higher risk for abortion, eating disorders, drug abuse, alcoholism, or depression (typically 9 times higher). I don’t know what studies you’ve read, but I know what I’ve read. I also know many post-abortive women in anguish that are still pro-choice who say, to the effect of, “I did the right thing, so why do I feel so bad about it? Why do I numb the pain with drugs and want to kill myself to escape?” That pain is not something we lifers planted in her head, now, is it?
What I’m against is the idea that someone needs a psychiatric evaluation to get a procedure done.
Permanent, elective procedures? Isn’t there a professional obligation to make sure someone is of sound mind and body before they mutilate themselves? Mind you, if you self-mutilate, you’re put into 24 hour lockdown and get get psychiatric care. So it shouldn’t involve a psychiatric evaluation before a doctor can do it? Waivers are about liability, not patient care.
This isn’t about idemnifying the provider of the elective surgery- it’s about the best interest of the patient.
Women do not all want to have children. To treat them as though they do is to subject them to false, paternalist stereotypes of what it means to be a woman.
Killing one’s own child whilst it lives and grows inside you and mutilating ones own female sex organs is misogynistic self-loathing. The capacity (whether used or not) to create and carrying human life is a definitive characteristic of womanhood. Not a stereotype- natural law. I said the “capacity” not the act. Not everyone wants to bear children, but going so far as to be cut open, sliced and burned because you loather that capacity is a sign of a deeper chauvenism.
Not wanting children isn’t a requirement for womanhood, but multilating your female reproductive organs or assaulting them with a suction machine to kill your child is an unequiocal anti-woman act.
Ideally, I would prefer for a woman to discuss this with her husband.
Why, Enigma?
Enigma –
“As he shouldn’t. A fetus is inside a woman’s body, not his. Therefore, he should have no say about what a woman does with her body.”
However, the baby would not have gotten there without the man’s help. 1/2 of the babies DNA is his. So now, we believe he should be punished because nature selected the woman to be the one who carries the child. He cannot help how biology works. But he sure can be punished and become a victim of it. Father’s care for their unborn just as much as a Mother. It doesn’t matter who “carries” the child. What matters is that the baby would not be there without him. He should get a say. If not, we are just as bad as men who tried to “put women in their place”. We are now telling men what they can and cannot have – something we fought very hard against, now we are doing it. That is hypocrisy and just wrong – plain and simple.
“Our system is inherently unfair. I will not disagree with that. However, there are few ways to make the system completely fair. I believe that the system we have now in probably the best system that we could have for society. ”
How can a system that condones child sacrafice for the betterment of one be a good system? Society is about the community, not the one. This is why we don’t steal – it benefits one but not the community. This is why we don’t lie – it benifits the one but not the community. Everything in our society is about the betterment of the whole, not the one.
I too, rebuke this curse in the name of Jesus. God love you, Laura.
“I rebuke your curse in Jesus’ mighty name. I also invite any other believers to rebuke this curse on me in the powerful name of Jesus. It’s a good thing that your hateful, demonic wishes are no match for my God.”
I have no idea what you’re talking about…
I have no idea what you’re talking about…
Of course you wouldn’t, Hal. You’re not a believer. Hence why I said I invite any other believers to rebuke those words…
I have no idea what you’re talking about…
Posted by: Hal at October 8, 2007 3:48 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Isn’t it great!
It’s just like the time the Pentacostals held hands and formed a prayer circle around my car.
(It’s always polite to avert your eyes and move out of earshot before you laugh your azz off…)
The demon-filled are often oblivious to the fact that they are demon-filled.
That’s not an insult. Even Saint Mary of Magdala (I think it was) had demons. But one has to be contrite and desire them to flee to end up a Saint. Laura tends to enjoy hers and spewing them forth.
“demon filled” is not an insult. good to know.
Hey Everyone –
I can see this line of thought getting a bit touchy, so lets be careful okay?
Jacqueline –
Curses cannot work (I don’t think they work at all, but just my opinion) unless the person giving the curse is a believer.
Hal –
“”demon filled” is not an insult.”
I think that depends on how you look at it doesn’t it?
;-)
Curses cannot work (I don’t think they work at all, but just my opinion) unless the person giving the curse is a believer.
I disagree. But this is just my interpretation of scripture. I’m thinking of psalms. Nonetheless, prophesying evil (like, for example, “You’re going to be raped.” or “You’re going to be barren”) are both invitations for the enemy because they indicate a desire and willingness for such things to occur.
Besides, isn’t that against posting rules, also?
And I’m not touchy, Valerie. I said nothing to Laura and was assaulted with her declaring that I will be barren. How personal and evil is that?
And how condascending of you- For someone to assault me unprovoked and you to rebuke me with your blanketed,
“Let’s all play nice.”
I didn’t address Laura at all, and she’s allowed to personally wish evil on me like that?
I guess the posting rules are completely arbitrary and those of us who don’t want to endure the juvenile insults will just have to leave.
Enjoy the anti-intellectual banter that will ensue when those of us believers are finally fed up with having evil prophesied over us.
a “believer” complaining about “anti-intellectual banter.” Now I’ve heard everything.
Jacqueline –
In my opinion it is better to show evil as it is rather than cover it up.
I agree that what she said was inappropriate however I think you handled it greatly without any true intervention on my part.
I however did not take her curse seriously, and I appologize that I upset you by that. You have a strong faith with a strong conviction which means a curse is nothing to you. As you said, Jesus will protect you because you asked for his guidance and help.
I also appologized that you thought I said you were touchy. I meant the subject, that was not created by you, was touchy. I’m also not sure where I said “let’s all play nice” however that is how you interpreted it so I appologize for that as well.
Also think about this: we have been thrown off the subject. I’m sure telling the truth is something that some don’t want us to do.
Laura’s comment had been deleted….
Jacqueline,
Perhaps I mispoke slightly. These studies have also concluded that women who are prone to psychiatric issues can have them triggered by abortion.
“Multiple studies have concluded that women who have abortion are prone to psychiatric problems and suffer a higher risk for abortion, eating disorders, drug abuse, alcoholism, or depression (typically 9 times higher). I don’t know what studies you’ve read, but I know what I’ve read.”
Sources please.
This is the only one that I can grab off the top of my head:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_post.htm
“That pain is not something we lifers planted in her head, now, is it?”
If you know anything about psychology, you now that, indeed, it could be.
“Permanent, elective procedures? Isn’t there a professional obligation to make sure someone is of sound mind and body before they mutilate themselves?”
First, it’s not mutilation. Its manipulation of the body. There is a difference.
There’s a difference between making sure that someone is of sound mind and body and patting a woman on the head and going “now, dear, I know that you think you want this, but really I know better.”
It is possible to reverse having one’s tubes tied. Its hard to do and doesn’t always work, but it is possible.
“This isn’t about idemnifying the provider of the elective surgery- it’s about the best interest of the patient.”
Which is determined by the patient and not the doctor. No one knows what is in one’s ‘best interests’ better than the person herself.
“Killing one’s own child whilst it lives and grows inside you and mutilating ones own female sex organs is misogynistic self-loathing.”
Not at all. Its a woman choosing to manipulate her own natural body and bodily functions. It’s not a sign of self-loathing or misogynistic tenancies. Rather, I would charge that you are the one who is so caught up what your own narrow perceptions of being a woman are that you the one who is guilty of self-loathing and misogyny.
“The capacity (whether used or not) to create and carrying human life is a definitive characteristic of womanhood.”
So is a woman who is barren somehow less of a woman because she cannot bear children?
“Not a stereotype- natural law.”
What is natural law and what makes you think that your interpretation of it is correct?
“Not everyone wants to bear children, but going so far as to be cut open, sliced and burned because you loather that capacity is a sign of a deeper chauvenism.”
Having an abortion/using birth control/having one’s tubes tied is not a sign of loathing. It’s a sign that a woman wishes to have control over her body and its capacities. Its an indication of the fact that the woman wants to consciously control her own life instead of merely being subject to her body’s natural capacities.
“Not wanting children isn’t a requirement for womanhood, but multilating your female reproductive organs or assaulting them with a suction machine to kill your child is an unequiocal anti-woman act.”
Nope. It’s anti-women to say that women should be slaves to their bodies.
“Why, Enigma?” (Previous comment: Ideally, I would prefer for a woman to discuss this with her husband.)
Because, even though he has no right to influence her decision, in a marriage couples are supposed to discuss important things and abortion is not a procedure that should be taken lightly.
Valerie,
“However, the baby would not have gotten there without the man’s help.”
So? Once the sperm left his body and entered the woman’s he lost his say over them and anything that they could possible create as long as either they or a fetus they helped create are inside a woman’s body.
“So now, we believe he should be punished because nature selected the woman to be the one who carries the child. He cannot help how biology works. But he sure can be punished and become a victim of it.”
And what would you prefer? Should men be able to force women to have abortions so that they aren’t forced into fatherhood?
“Father’s care for their unborn just as much as a Mother.”
Maybe they have some sentimental attachment but that doesn’t change the fact that the fetus is inside the woman’s body. Therefore, she should have the only right to dictate whether or not that fetus can have access to her body.
“It doesn’t matter who “carries” the child.”
I beg to differ.
“What matters is that the baby would not be there without him. He should get a say.”
He does get a say–after birth.
“We are now telling men what they can and cannot have – something we fought very hard against, now we are doing it. That is hypocrisy and just wrong – plain and simple.”
We are telling men that they cannot compel a woman to yield up her body for nine months. There’s nothing hypocritical about that.
As to a man becoming a father when he would’ve preferred abortion, that situation simply stinks and it is unfair. But there isn’t a feasible alternative. Current law is set up so that the biological father–and not society at large–will have to bare the burden of paying for that child.
“How can a system that condones child sacrafice for the betterment of one be a good system?”
Sacrifice implies that what is being sacrificed is being sacrificed for something. Abortion does not qualify.
“Society is about the community, not the one.”
What is good for the individual is good for society.
“This is why we don’t steal – it benefits one but not the community.”
Actually, we don’t steal not because it benefits the one but because this form of society could not exist if there wasn’t a prohibition against stealing.
“This is why we don’t lie – it benifits the one but not the community.”
Speak for yourself. Everyone lies. No one is honest about everything all the time.
“Everything in our society is about the betterment of the whole, not the one.”
Not true. Laws are in place to protect society, not people.
a “believer” complaining about “anti-intellectual banter.” Now I’ve heard everything.
Because no one that beleives a man that healed the sick, restored sight to the blind, helped the lame walk, fed 5,000 with 5 loaves and two fish, raised the dead, and rose from the dead Himself, and, by the way, whose disciples did many signs and wonders after His ascension—No! Noone who believes such could possibly be intellectual! Despite the I.Q’s and educational attainments of Christians around the world, apparently just the acceptance of a higher power automatically declares one irrational in Hal’s view. And of course, Hal’s lack of beliefs are the authority in the absence of beliefs. Does arguing in defense of nothingness ever get exhausting, Hal?
So, just to get the absence of your beliefs straight: Everything was sponteously created- bodies that heal themselves when injured and protect themselves from disease; humans that inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide while plants take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen; ecosystems that work symbiotically to maintain a life-sustaining environment. Yep- the world, life and their complex relationships therein is a mere consequence of chance. No one created it, let alone Christ, the only human to demonstrate complete power over death.
I’d call Christianity the pinnacle of intellectualism. I’d call anything else a hearty case of denial.
Bobby, Jasper, and Jacqueline,
To start off, I’m asking because I’m curious and honestly don’t know, not because I’m trying to poke fun at anyone or their beliefs.
I’d always thought that curses were not a part of Christianity and that Christians did not believe that curses had any power. Clearly, my views are slightly misinformed.
Where in the scripture does it deal with curses and how to protect oneself against them?
Is this a Catholic belief or a more universal one?
abortion is not a procedure that should be taken lightly.
Why, Enigma?
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the enemy. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray. And may the prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, cast into Hell, Satan and all the evil spirits, who prowl about the world, seeking the ruin of souls. Amen. May all the holy angels protect us and pray for us. May all the saints pray for us. Holy Mother of God, pray for us. Saint Joseph, terror of demons, pray for us. St. Gerard, pray for us.
Dear believers in Christ Jesus,
Let us not be distraught over the attempts of the evil one or anyone else to create disunity among us. Let us be united with each other in the Holy Spirit, in charity. Pray for one another and for the enemies of God, for it is not against flesh and blood that we war, but against principalities and the powers of the air. Christ has won the victory over death, sin and the prince of darkness. Therefore, we give to Our Lord Jesus Christ the King, all the praise, all the honor and all the glory, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, to God the Father. Amen.
Peace be with all of you. Amen.
Jacqueline,
If you’ve read my previous posts, I believe that abortion is a tragedy. It destroys potential human life and is a choice that no woman should ever have to make.
“I’d call Christianity the pinnacle of intellectualism. I’d call anything else a hearty case of denial.”
And I would say exactly the opposite.
Thank you, Anonymous!
If you’ve read my previous posts, I believe that abortion is a tragedy. It destroys potential human life and is a choice that no woman should ever have to make.
Then why the focus on keeping it legal- Why not focus your efforts on eliminating the reasons women feel they “have” to make such a tragic choice rather than fight so hard to keep 4400 daily tragedies legal and commonplace?
Jacqueline,
I’m going to insist that you respond to my previous posts before I continue to respond to yours.
Enigma,
I’m headed out the door, but I will be pleased to answer your posts tomorrow, as well as elaborate on the curse question.
To answer in short: I always held the belief that life and death are in the power of the tongue according the the psalm, and the Bible makes it clear that we have the power to summon angels and rebuke demons, as well as heal the sick in Jesus’ name. Likewise, stating something out of your mouth declares your willingness for it to happen. Some things are so horrible that one would never speak them (Like death on someone’s mother, for example- You’d never even joke about something horrible happening to your mother. It’s so awful, you wouldn’t even fathom it). To joke about something indicates a willingness, surrender to it happening. For this reason, my parents won’t even mention the word “divorce” because to mention it means that it’s somehow an option. It’s not an option- thus it’s never spoken of.
Earth is controlled by human beings. God gave us dominion over the earth and we invite God into it via prayer and invite the enemy into it via disobedience and sin. To prophesy something horrible on someone, like, “You’ll never have kids.” is almost like a prayer to the enemy- “I will that that woman never have kids.” Which is why I swoop in with the powerful name of Christ and declare otherwise- “I will have a whole quiverfull of kids, God’s Will be done.”
Whether my view be Catholic of otherwise- I don’t know. I’m a new Catholic and held my view on this for years as a Protestant Christian. My Catholic ex-boyfriend called me superstitious for holding this view and if it’s not Catholic, I’m sure my Catholic brethren will correct me. Nonetheless, I try to only speak blessings and goodness over people, never evil, because the tongue is a powerful thing. I heard it said that it’s the only tool that gets sharper every time you use it. :)
I’ll respond to the rest tomorrow. Have a great evening all.
Enigma,
You wrote:
Jacqueline,
If you’ve read my previous posts, I believe that abortion is a tragedy. It destroys potential human life and is a choice that no woman should ever have to make.
Posted by: Enigma at October 8, 2007 5:28 PM
Abortion is a choice no woman ever has to make, right?
Anyway, many people for reasons of their own pressure women to have abortions, then say it was her “choice.”
Enigma –
“So? Once the sperm left his body and entered the woman’s he lost his say over them and anything that they could possible create as long as either they or a fetus they helped create are inside a woman’s body.”
oh..okay…WHAT???
So the father doesn’t have rights until the baby is born even though he was a part of the creation. Just because the sperm left his body doesn’t mean that he isn’t the owner of those sperm. The DNA say that he is. In your analagy then once the baby leaves the mother body then she should have no control over the baby since it has left the body. Sperm leaves body – man doesn’t have rights to it anymore. Baby leaves womans body – doesn’t have right to it anymore. The conflicts and hyposcrisy of this belief must make you dizzy? In your analagy, a woman who is a surrogate for another woman’s child should be allowed to abort even though the woman’s egg and man’s sperm arent’ hers at all. It’s her body, she can do what she wants right? The real mother and father no longer have rights to their creation because it isn’t in their body.
“And what would you prefer? Should men be able to force women to have abortions so that they aren’t forced into fatherhood?”
No one should force anyone to have an abortion. But someone should be allowed to force someone to have a child? Here it is – the fair way to handle this. A woman wants an abortion; man doesn’t. Then the woman gives the baby to the man after childbirth, and since she didn’t want the baby she has no other connection with that child. Personally, financially and emotionally. She walks away. Now – A woman wants the child but the man wants an abortion – man should be allowed to walk away with no connection to that child. Not personally, financially or emotionally. Since the woman can walk away from her responsibility by having an abortion then it must be that a man can walk away as well. Now, that is what compromise and fairness is about.
“Maybe they have some sentimental attachment but that doesn’t change the fact that the fetus is inside the woman’s body. Therefore, she should have the only right to dictate whether or not that fetus can have access to her body.”
She dictated it was okay for that baby to be there when she had sex. Sex isn’t for procreation only, but procreation is for sex. Can’t have it any other way. All the barriers in the world doesn’t mean you didn’t consent to pregnancy when you willingly had sex. Unless you are ignorant of how babies are made, but in today’s society that would not be likely. The fetus has every right to access the woman’s body – the woman allowed the procreation to happen. (less than 1% of abortions are a pregnancy resulting from rape and incest – according to Guttmatcher)
“He does get a say–after birth.”
Why? If he doesn’t have a say before birth, why does he miraculously have a say after birth? Just because you can see the baby now? What happens if a decision has to be made while the mother is unable to make any kind decision? If she gets injured, or is in a coma etc.. Does that mean the woman has to die or be forced to be uncomfortable because the father doesn’t have a say about the baby while the baby is in the woman’s body? Or does he magically get a say now for some hocus pocus reason? Watch the wand carefully ladies and gentlemen the rules are about to change on the whim of the pro-choice movement.
“We are telling men that they cannot compel a woman to yield up her body for nine months. There’s nothing hypocritical about that.”
Once again. She willingly went to bed with him. She could have told him no, or did other things, but she had intercourse. The very thing that creates a baby. We all know the science behind this. It really isn’t that difficult.
“As to a man becoming a father when he would’ve preferred abortion, that situation simply stinks and it is unfair. But there isn’t a feasible alternative. Current law is set up so that the biological father–and not society at large–will have to bare the burden of paying for that child. ”
Can we have a man’s opinion on this one. Remember: you have no say but you will be forced to pay in more ways than one.
“Sacrifice implies that what is being sacrificed is being sacrificed for something. Abortion does not qualify.”
What? The baby is being sacraficed so the woman can go to school, advance a career, isn’t ready yet, go to the prom, doesn’t want the child….that is “something”? How does abortion not qualify. If the baby isn’t sacraficed then the woman cannot live to her desires.
“What is good for the individual is good for society.”
you will have to back this up with something. Does this mean that if it is good for me to molest a child I should be allowed? That would be good for me, the individual. Who draws the lines? Who says when the individual has gone to far when what is good for the individuale is good for the society. Are we all watching the wand, Ladies and Gentlemen? The rules are about to change again.
“Actually, we don’t steal not because it benefits the one but because this form of society could not exist if there wasn’t a prohibition against stealing. ”
rewording the concept doesn’t change the fact. Why wouldn’t that form of society exist? Why? You just said that what is good for the individuale is good for society – so it is good for an individuale to steal right? And what makes stealing wrong anyway? ahh…that’s right. Because stealing takes away from another. And then that other has now been injured, which will then injure that persons family and friends. Unless people turn into unfeeling mongrels and don’t care when a loved one is hurt. In turn this injures society. So – it is in the benefit of society to not allow stealing.
“Speak for yourself. Everyone lies. No one is honest about everything all the time.”
I have a friend who has a group of people who are about to take a bunch of drugs and then jump off of cliff. oh – Come on, everyone is doing it. So therefore it is right and won’t hurt anyone right? Just because people make mistakes doesn’t mean it is right!
I said – “Everything in our society is about the betterment of the whole, not the one.”
Then you said: “Not true. Laws are in place to protect society, not people.”
Please read those two statements again. I’ll help. Laws are in place to protect society, not the one. Remember, you wouldn’t have a society without people. You protect the people, you protect the society. You dont’ protect the people, you don’t protect society.
Huh?
Laws are in place to protect society, not people.
society = people
Jacqueline,
“Then why the focus on keeping it legal- Why not focus your efforts on eliminating the reasons women feel they “have” to make such a tragic choice rather than fight so hard to keep 4400 daily tragedies legal and commonplace?”
Abortion may be tragic, but it is far less tragic than the alternative.
Valerie,
“So the father doesn’t have rights until the baby is born even though he was a part of the creation.”
Yep.
“Just because the sperm left his body doesn’t mean that he isn’t the owner of those sperm. The DNA say that he is.”
Matching DNA does not indicate ownership. For example, I decide to donate a kidney. That kidney still has my DNA. Do I still own my kidney? Of course not. Why? Because I willingly surrendered it and its now in someone else’s body.
“In your analagy then once the baby leaves the mother body then she should have no control over the baby since it has left the body.”
Misapplied analogy. She no longer has the right to destroy the fetus since it no longer resides within her body.
“The conflicts and hyposcrisy of this belief must make you dizzy?”
Since you’re misunderstanding my beliefs, no.
“In your analagy, a woman who is a surrogate for another woman’s child should be allowed to abort even though the woman’s egg and man’s sperm arent’ hers at all. It’s her body, she can do what she wants right? The real mother and father no longer have rights to their creation because it isn’t in their body.”
This is a completely different issue. If a surrogate needs to abort (for medical reasons or some such), she should be able to. I don’t know much about surrogate legislation, so I can’t argue this point. I would, however, argue that a woman, by consenting to be a surrogate, has consented to allow the fetus access to her body for nine months.
“No one should force anyone to have an abortion. But someone should be allowed to force someone to have a child? Here it is – the fair way to handle this. A woman wants an abortion; man doesn’t. Then the woman gives the baby to the man after childbirth, and since she didn’t want the baby she has no other connection with that child. Personally, financially and emotionally. She walks away. Now – A woman wants the child but the man wants an abortion – man should be allowed to walk away with no connection to that child. Not personally, financially or emotionally. Since the woman can walk away from her responsibility by having an abortion then it must be that a man can walk away as well. Now, that is what compromise and fairness is about.”
No, it’s not. You’ve missed my point on many levels. Individuals cannot impose on one another bodily. Ever. It’s simply not permissible in a liberal system.
Would it be fairer to the reluctant fathers if they could refuse to pay child support? Undoubtedly. Would it be worse for society? Yes. Since laws defend society and not the individual, men have to pay child support.
“She dictated it was okay for that baby to be there when she had sex.”
Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
“Sex isn’t for procreation only, but procreation is for sex. Can’t have it any other way. All the barriers in the world doesn’t mean you didn’t consent to pregnancy when you willingly had sex.”
Actually they do. When one consents to an action, one does not consent to all of the possible consequences of that action. Or are you going to try to tell me that by driving on a Friday night I’ve consented to dying in a head-on collision with a drunk?
“The fetus has every right to access the woman’s body – the woman allowed the procreation to happen.”
The fetus has no rights to the woman’s body unless she has explicitly given them to said fetus. A woman’s consent to sex gives one other individual access to her body–her partner.
“Why? If he doesn’t have a say before birth, why does he miraculously have a say after birth?”
Because now he is no longer infringing upon a woman’s rights to her body.
“Just because you can see the baby now?”
Its not a baby until after birth.
“What happens if a decision has to be made while the mother is unable to make any kind decision? If she gets injured, or is in a coma etc..”
If the woman is married to the father, her spouse would have a say. Otherwise, it’s based on the decision of her family, or, in cases of emergency, the doctors.
“Once again. She willingly went to bed with him. She could have told him no, or did other things, but she had intercourse. The very thing that creates a baby. We all know the science behind this. It really isn’t that difficult.”
Sex is not consent to pregnancy.
“What? The baby is being sacraficed so the woman can go to school, advance a career, isn’t ready yet, go to the prom, doesn’t want the child….that is “something”? How does abortion not qualify. If the baby isn’t sacraficed then the woman cannot live to her desires.”
There is no baby involved. A fetus is destroyed but it is not sacrificed. A fetus is removed from from a place where it has no right to be. That is not sacrifice.
Valerie,
“What is good for the individual is good for society.”
This is a statement which recognizes that rights and privileges which benefit individuals also benefit society. I would like to note that the rights and privileges included in this statement are extended to all individuals, not just one.
“Does this mean that if it is good for me to molest a child I should be allowed?”
Nope. That would violate the concept I’ve just outlined.
“Why wouldn’t that form of society exist? Why?”
Because capitalist societies are based on private property and the rights of the individual. If private property and the rights of the individual to accumulate said property were not defended, capitalist systems would collapse.
“I have a friend who has a group of people who are about to take a bunch of drugs and then jump off of cliff. oh – Come on, everyone is doing it. So therefore it is right and won’t hurt anyone right? Just because people make mistakes doesn’t mean it is right!”
Such ill-founded and baseless attacks are beneath you.
“Please read those two statements again. I’ll help. Laws are in place to protect society, not the one. Remember, you wouldn’t have a society without people. You protect the people, you protect the society. You dont’ protect the people, you don’t protect society.”
Sigh. You have no idea what you’re talking about. The difference in those statements is the intent. In yours, you argue that laws are designed to protect people and that this protection then benefits society. In mine, I argue that the laws are designed to protect society and continue its survival. These laws must necessarily protect people because, as you pointed out, society cannot exist without people. But their primary aim is to protect the existing structures and systems within society that will allow it to continue to thrive. Any protection of people is secondary.
Enigma –
“Because I willingly surrendered it and its now in someone else’s body.”
But the man willingly surrendered his sperm and now it is in someone else’s body. What is the difference?
I said: “In your analagy then once the baby leaves the mother body then she should have no control over the baby since it has left the body.”
You said: “Misapplied analogy. She no longer has the right to destroy the fetus since it no longer resides within her body. ”
I said control, not destroy. You are saying that a man has no control over what happens to his baby while in the mother’s body and that the mother has all the control because the baby is in her body. by this logic, she should lose control once the baby is out of her body since DNA proves nothing. Also, if the baby is outside of the body he/she is no longer a fetus – by your definitions.
“I would, however, argue that a woman, by consenting to be a surrogate, has consented to allow the fetus access to her body for nine months. ”
Wait a minute, so a woman does not consent to pregnancy if she has sex – one of the very few ways to get pregnant – but a woman who goes through in vitro has consented? both actions makes one pregnant. Both women know that both actions make one pregnant. How is that possible?
“Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.”
Prove it. One of the few ways to get pregnant is through sex. When you have sex you know that this causes pregnancy. When you say “no” to sex is when you didn’t consent to being pregnant, like in rape or incest. When you say “yes” to sex you consent to all ramifications of your actions. I’m sure my friend didn’t consent to getting HPV. I’m sure another friend didn’t consent to AIDS. They had sex. They didn’t consent to these deseases, yet they still got them. both of them were/are big condome supporters, so they had the proper “non-consent” barrier. Why do they have to have this when they didn’t consent to it?
“Actually they do. When one consents to an action, one does not consent to all of the possible consequences of that action. Or are you going to try to tell me that by driving on a Friday night I’ve consented to dying in a head-on collision with a drunk?”
Does it matter if you consented to the accident? It still happened and your still dead. You still have to pay the consequences of this non-consented action. Every day, day in and day out we have to deal with things we didn’t consent to. I didn’t consent to lose part of my hearing, but I did. I didn’t consent to having a premature child, but I did. This whole “I didn’t consent” thing is a smoke screen in an attempt to justify destroying human life.
“If the woman is married to the father, her spouse would have a say. Otherwise, it’s based on the decision of her family, or, in cases of emergency, the doctors.”
So, if the couple is co-habitating and she is living with the father of her baby, he has no right to decide what happens to that baby? what if they decided not to marry and break up but stay close friends? He doesn’t have a say? Even though the baby is his?
“There is no baby involved. A fetus is destroyed but it is not sacrificed. A fetus is removed from from a place where it has no right to be. That is not sacrifice. ”
so does that mean that since I am a developing adult someone who has completed that development has say over my future? A fetus is a baby. Nothing changes when she/he is born. The phsyiological being doen’t change. Nothing in the chemicals, blood make up, facial structure, body structure changes. Just because you give a baby a scientific name doesn’t mean that a baby isn’t there.
“Nope. That would violate the concept I’ve just outlined. ”
How?
You know about NAMBLA right? They are a group of individuals who believe that they should be allowed to be with children in a sexual manner. Who has the right to tell them otherwise? Remember, they are a group of individuals that make up a society and using your analogy what is good for the individual is good for society. We have an example of a group of individuls who agree that society would be better if they could be with children.
“Such ill-founded and baseless attacks are beneath you.”
Actually I was trying to lighten things up a bit with a stupid analogy that showed that just because everyone does it doesn’t mean it is good for society or that it is right. Sorry you thought it was an attack. I have a dry, sarcastic sense of humor that doesn’t play well on here sometimes.
“The difference in those statements is the intent. In yours, you argue that laws are designed to protect people and that this protection then benefits society. In mine, I argue that the laws are designed to protect society and continue its survival. These laws must necessarily protect people because, as you pointed out, society cannot exist without people. But their primary aim is to protect the existing structures and systems within society that will allow it to continue to thrive. Any protection of people is secondary.”
HUH?
I know what I am talking about, but this is wonky. You protect the people – “These laws must necessarily protect people because, as you pointed out, society cannot exist without people.” But then that protection is secondary – “Any protection of people is secondary.”
I missed something here. I honestly believe we are saying the same thing. Society = people. protect society, you therefore protect the people. Protect the people, you are protecting the society. My point is many times the individuals do not agree on what is right and it is up to society to set forth those rules. (At least I think that is my point. very late…very tired… If I confused myself, which has happened, I will correct myself in the morning.)
Valerie,
“But the man willingly surrendered his sperm and now it is in someone else’s body. What is the difference?”
There isn’t one. That was the point of my analogy. Whether its a kidney or sperm that one has willingly donated, once it has left the original owner’s body and entered someone else’s the original owner has no more say over it.
You are trying to confuse the issue and extending an analogy somewhere where it was never supposed to apply. A fetus can never properly be said to be a part of the woman’s body. Therefore an analogy dealing with a person’s control over donated body parts cannot apply.
“since DNA proves nothing.”
I argued that DNA didn’t prove ownership and then gave you a reason why it didn’t. If you can refute my logic, I’m all ears. Personally, I don’t think its possible to argue that DNA is a definitive indication of ownership due to donations but, hey, you’re free to believe what you want.
“Wait a minute, so a woman does not consent to pregnancy if she has sex – one of the very few ways to get pregnant – but a woman who goes through in vitro has consented?”
You’re confusing issues again. To become a surrogate, I’m pretty sure there are legal forms and waivers that the woman must sign before she is impregnated. She is legally obligated to act in a certain way by the forms that she has signed. These legal forms are conspicuously absent from the sexual act. There’s no lawyer lurking behind your bed and asking you to sign consent forms before you have sex.
“Prove it. One of the few ways to get pregnant is through sex.”
So? Simply because pregnancy sometimes results from sex does not mean that one has consented to pregnancy by having sex. Most sex encounters do not result in pregnancy. Over half of the ones that do end in natural miscarriage or the egg never even implants. So how is it fair to say that a woman has consented to a rare outcome when she agrees to have sex?
“When you say “yes” to sex you consent to all ramifications of your actions. I’m sure my friend didn’t consent to getting HPV. I’m sure another friend didn’t consent to AIDS. They had sex. They didn’t consent to these deseases, yet they still got them. both of them were/are big condome supporters, so they had the proper “non-consent” barrier. Why do they have to have this when they didn’t consent to it?”
So let me get this straight. Your argument is that, since sometimes we can’t control what happens to us in life and sometimes consent is irrelevant, that we should be even further limited when we can control it and when consent does matter.
“This whole “I didn’t consent” thing is a smoke screen in an attempt to justify destroying human life.”
To you. Not to me. And its not human life, it’s potential human life.
“So, if the couple is co-habitating and she is living with the father of her baby, he has no right to decide what happens to that baby?”
If you’re talking about a baby, of course he does. If you’re talking about a fetus, legally he does not.
“what if they decided not to marry and break up but stay close friends? He doesn’t have a say? Even though the baby is his?”
Repeat: If you’re talking about a baby, legally, he has rights. If you’re talking about a fetus, he has no say whatsoever.
“so does that mean that since I am a developing adult someone who has completed that development has say over my future?”
You’ve completely lost me.
And parents (ie. adults) do have a say over their offspring. They can effect you future.
“A fetus is a baby.”
A fetus is a potential baby. Simply because it has the potential to become a baby does not make it a baby. If you argue that potential is actuality, I have one question for you. Why isn’t a child an adult? The child has everything within it that will enable it to become an adult. The only missing element is time (like with a fetus). So, using your logic, why isn’t a child an adult?
“Nothing changes when she/he is born. The phsyiological being doen’t change. Nothing in the chemicals, blood make up, facial structure, body structure changes.”
Many things change during development. This is blatantly untrue even if you want to argue that a fetus is a baby.
It is true that little changes between a near-term fetus and a baby but it is not true that little changes between the time of conception and birth.
“Just because you give a baby a scientific name doesn’t mean that a baby isn’t there.”
Here I was thinking that the term Homo sapiens meant humans. Scientific names don’t deny the reality.
Baby is a postnatal state. Fetus is the correct term for when the entity is in the womb.
“Nope. That would violate the concept I’ve just outlined. ”
You seem to be confused on one part of my argument. I’m not talking about a single individual in my quote. I’m talking about the individual rights and privileges which extend to all human individuals. Actions that certain individuals undertake which would conflict with or negate the rights of other individuals are not permitted under this system because it violates the principle of individual rights and privileges for everyone.
“Actually I was trying to lighten things up a bit with a stupid analogy that showed that just because everyone does it doesn’t mean it is good for society or that it is right. Sorry you thought it was an attack. I have a dry, sarcastic sense of humor that doesn’t play well on here sometimes.”
I’ve done that on AIM more times than I can count. I tend to simply refuse to use humor while online.
“I know what I am talking about, but this is wonky.”
Society is more than simply the people. Society also contains certain structures and systems. Laws are designed to protect and perpetuate these structure. Since it is impossible to do this without protecting people, the people are protected as well. But that is not the main thrust of this protection.
“I missed something here. I honestly believe we are saying the same thing. Society = people.”
Not exactly. Society is more than people.
“My point is many times the individuals do not agree on what is right and it is up to society to set forth those rules.”
And I never disputed that. By your very argument, you have recognized that society is more than simply people. Which is what I’ve been arguing all along.
Enigma said, Abortion may be tragic, but it is far less tragic than the alternative.
This is the alternative:
I don’t see anything tragic about that!
Please explain to me how a dead, dismembered baby* is somehow less tragic than a whole, living baby in someone’s arms.
*I could have pictures of dead, dismembered babies for contrast, but I don’t want to take away form the shear beauty of the living babies.
Jacque, AAAWWWWW, look at how sweet! You just made my morning.
Enigma, I don’t know how strong your stomach is, but type in “The Choice Blues” to view an actual abortion in progress. You will see the trauma that the cervix is put through. You will see small hands and feet scraped out.
Also, they will freeze the tape on some parts for you to see that it IS a baby coming out. It is a human. I always thought that abortion would just look like a small blood clot. Boy was I wrong.
Jacqueline,
Babies aren’t the alternative. The alternative is telling all women, everywhere, that they and their lives don’t matter to society nearly as much as the potential lives of those that they may unwilling harbor within them. The alternative is to have a government that can arbitrarily seize control of a woman’s body without the slightest hint of wrongdoing on her part for the benefit of another. The alternative is a system that routinely dehumanizes women and strips them of their individual rights.
Well, maybe the best thing for you guys would be to have some government intervention. You guys are always asking the government to remain silent when it comes to your reproductive choices. So, the government kept abortion legal for you. What’s happening? You guys are abusing it! I think the government needs to make abortion illegal. The sooner, the better.
Enigma,
Response, as promised:
Sources, please.
M. Gissler et. al., “Injury deaths, suicides and homicides
associated with pregnancy, Finland 1987-2000,” European J.
Public Health 15(5):459-63 (2005).
M Gissler et. al., “Pregnancy Associated Deaths in Finland
1987-1994 — definition problems and benefits of record
linkage,” Acta Obsetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
76:651-657 (1997).
DC Reardon et. al., “Deaths Associated With Pregnancy Outcome: A
Record Linkage Study of Low Income Women,” Southern Medical
Journal 95(8):834-41 (2002).
M. Gissler, et. al., “Methods for identifying pregnancy-
associated deaths: population-based data from Finland 1987-2000,”
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 18(6): 448-55 (2004).
Just a few…
First, it’s not mutilation. Its manipulation of the body. There is a difference.
Yes, there is a difference. Manipulation is a change. Mutilation is a destruction. Birth control pills manipulate/sabotage the female reproductive organs. Sterilization destroys them. Just because (in relatively few cases) the tubes can be salvaged doesn’t change the fact that the point of sterilization is the permanent destruction of reproductive capacity. Both are foolish and unhealthy, but one is intended to be permanent while the other is not. That is why it qualifies as mutilation.
So is a woman who is barren somehow less of a woman because she cannot bear children?
Not at all. I didn’t say that, nor did I imply that- nor would I EVER insinuate that. I said that our reproductive organs are the key difference between “it’s a girl” and “it’s a boy.” Unlike boys, our organs are inside rather than out. What I said is that, to hate our reproductive organs because of their capacity to create and sustain life is to hate womanhood- at least hate the fundamental difference between males and females.
A woman that never has a child is just as much a woman as a biological mother of many. A adoptive mother is just as much a woman. Think of all the nuns in the world- many are the epitome of femininity. We’ll neglect to mention that many are called “Mother” nonetheless. My point is that real women aren’t at war with their own reproductive organs. Real women don’t hate their reproductive organs so much so that they slice them up or take daily pills to keep them dysfunctional .
Not at all. Its a woman choosing to manipulate her own natural body and bodily functions.
This is implying that there is something inherently wrong with female bodies that they would necessitate manipulation! There’s nothing wrong with working ovaries, working tubes and a working uterus! In fact, when they don’t work, that is a sign that something is wrong.
We wear glasses or have laser eye surgery because our sight is less than perfect. We wear hearing aids because our hearing isn’t sufficient. A fertile body is working perfectly. So it doesn’t need manipulation. Why do you abhor reproductive health that you would go to such lengths to be unhealthy?
Rather, I would charge that you are the one who is so caught up what your own narrow perceptions of being a woman are that you the one who is guilty of self-loathing and misogyny.
Thank you! However, let me point out that I am not the one who hates my body. I don’t feel the need to slice and burn my tubes, temporarily arrest my ovaries so they don’t ovulate and do all other unnecessary and unhealthy things to sabotage my female-exclusive organs.
Let’s talk about my “narrow perceptions” of womanhood. Womanhood is the state of being a woman. A woman is a woman because she has female reproductive organs, female hormones, and secondary sex characteristics as a consequence of being biologically female. I don’t see that as narrow, I see that as science. Women that hate one or more of those female attributes so much to go medically dismantle them has issue with their womanhood. Not me. All of my factory-installed parts and functioning as intended, and I would never throw a wrench in there.
What is natural law and what makes you think that your interpretation of it is correct?
Natural law is that human women can carry human children and human men can not. This isn’t just my interpretation. I’m sure most human beings that finished grade school would agree.
Nope. It’s anti-women to say that women should be slaves to their bodies
I use the bathroom around 4 times a day (I’ve never counted, but I think that’s a fair estimate). I have to stop my life 4 times every single day and go use the bathroom! I have to stop my studying 4 times a day! I have to stop my career- 4 times a day! UGH! I’m such a SLAVE to my own body! See how ridiculous that sounds?
You may see yourself as enslaved, I’m a slave to nothing. I control my body; it doesn’t control me. I got news for you Enigma: Babies don’t spontaneously appear inside female bodies. A penis has to go in first. You don’t catch a baby like you catch a cold. Exercise control with your body and you won’t feel like it owns you. In fact, the body is quite clear when it’s fertile (take your temp and check your discharge). You’ve got a 99% certainty that you won’t get pregnant if you don’t let a penis in during that short window of time, but then again, even short bursts of self-control is an unreasonable expection, right?
Secondly, how sad is it that you and other women see your bodies as a ball and chain, a slave master, rather than a glorious gift. I love my body. It is gorgeous and fun- soft and curvy. I put nice clothes on it. I can make it dance. It’s great. I enjoy it on a daily basis. It doesn’t control me. Even on those rare occaisions when I’m sick and my body is fighting the disease on my behalf (yay immune system), I’m not a slave to my body.
Enigma- how is saying that healthy female reproductive organs are ENSLAVING not anti-woman? Is a penis enslaving? Are testicles enslaving? So then being a woman is a liability and being a man is an asset? If being biologically different from men is some sort of bondage, should all we women just have our reproductive organs taken out at birth and have them sew a penis on? Keep your penis. I like being a woman! Every aspect of it!
Listen, WOMAN-HATERS. There is nothing wrong with a functioning female body! There’s nothing wrong with menstration, ovulation, implantation, lactation or anything else about our bodies. Nothing about our biology needs to change.
abortion is not a procedure that should be taken lightly.
Why not? It’s not like you’re killing a baby, right? I’m having my wisdom teeth out in two weeks and I’m not running that past the man I;’m seeing (although, when I told him, he offered to take me, drive me home and feed me soup. What a doll!).
By the way, this surgery is 355 dollars. So I’m putting these 4 teeth under my pillows and that damn tooth fairy better pony of the dough!
Jacque, excellent post! This is the problem with the PC crew. The get all up in arms about anyone trying to control their bodies. Who is really lacking the control? They are. Don’t allow a penis into your vagina, if you don’t want a possible pregnancy to result. My friend has HIV, and like it, or not, he has lost control over his body. Enigma, you just can’t control everything. Some people will have heart attacks, strokes, and seizures today. Some people will die. That’s the way it goes.
Also, you have free will to make smart choices about your body. Please make them.
Babies aren’t the alternative. The alternative is telling all women, everywhere, that they and their lives don’t matter to society nearly as much as the potential lives of those that they may unwilling harbor within them.
And you’re saying that women matter MORE than the lives of their babies. That’s OPPRESSION, Enigma. When one life matters more than another, you have sexism, racism, and genocide. I don’t more rights than my child because I am a woman. It was this rationale that once would have denied me rights because I am a woman!
Because I am a woman does not mean that I matter more than an infant or an unborn child. In fact, in the case of abortion, every child was created by his/her mother. Had she not had sex, that baby wouldn’t be growing and sucking his/her thumb in that mother’s womb. Where’s the responsibility towards life (even what you mistakenly call “potential” life)? That baby didn’t invade that uterus, after all. He/She was put there by the actions of his/her parents.
The alternative is to have a government that can arbitrarily seize control of a woman’s body without the slightest hint of wrongdoing on her part for the benefit of another.
You are responsible for your own body and the kids you put in it. The government isn’t seizing control of anything. Saying, “You can’t legally kill this child you created.” is seizing control? CPS says this all the time. You can’t kill, burn, beat or neglect your kids. Likewise, you can’t kill, burn, beat or neglect your unborn kids.
The alternative is a system that routinely dehumanizes women and strips them of their individual rights.
How dehumanizing is it to declare an unborn human as a non-person in order to rip their little limbs off? No one has the right to violate the individual rights of another (the child in this instance). And I’m not dehumanized by being told I can’t murder my child any more than I am dehumanized by being told I can’t have sex with a child, steal from store, rape my neighbor, etc. I think the most inhumane you could be is wanting to kill your own child. If your “freedom” is infringed upon by being told you can’t do horrific things to other humans, I’m glad at least some laws exist to restrain you.
The alternative is a system that routinely dehumanizes women and strips them of their individual rights.
Heather,
Jacque, excellent post! This is the problem with the PC crew. The get all up in arms about anyone trying to control their bodies. Who is really lacking the control? They are. Don’t allow a penis into your vagina, if you don’t want a possible pregnancy to result.
The problem is, they want to do what they want to do with whomever they want to do it and have someone else (their children) accept the consequences for their behavior. If it were them that were being torn limb from limb, I doubt they’d take such chances.
Why are people so irresponsible?
To add to what Jacque said: Enigma, would you care to explain why abortion is so abused? Why do I meet more and more women who have aborted more than once? I knew one woman who aborted 7 times. Another woman aborted 9. Keep your legs closed ladies. This is not acceptable. How many abortions are too any? Care to respond, Enigma?
Jacque, I tend to think that since abortion on demand is legal, most women think it’s also acceptable. So, they feel that all women and men should be understanding. I just don’t happen to be one of them.
Also, think about this. How many post abortive women have been infected with HIV? Now the government is going to assist you with your health care needs. The very people that you thumbed your noses at now have to help you.
Also, think about this. How many post abortive women have been infected with HIV? Now the government is going to assist you with your health care needs. The very people that you thumbed your noses at now have to help you.
Posted by: heather at October 9, 2007 10:41 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What the HELL does being post-abortive have to do with being HIV positive or thumbing your nose at the government?
Because the government has to pay for your poor choices.
Over a million PCers attend the death march. When they get diseases from sleeping around, I don’t want my money going for their health care.
Because the government has to pay for your poor choices.
Posted by: heather at October 9, 2007 11:16 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The govenment doesn’t pay for abortions. The govenment does pay for every lazy, unemployed loser’s children. Wouldn’t you consider that a worse choice?
As a taxpayer, I’d much rather pay for an abortion than somebody’s expensive childrearing hobby.
As I have stated before, the PCers are them only ones who ask the government to stay out of their bodies. Okay, I want a choice not to pay for your medical care.
The govenment doesn’t pay for abortions. The govenment does pay for every lazy, unemployed loser’s children. Wouldn’t you consider that a worse choice? As a taxpayer, I’d much rather pay for an abortion than somebody’s expensive childrearing hobby.
Of course! It’s cheaper and easier to kill innocent people than to care for them! While we’re at it, rather than just stopping at killing the unborn children of the poor, let’s kill those poor welfare recipients, too! Let’s kill the homeless, the institionalized- all those people that cost so much money.
Oh wait- I’m a Christian. I believe in caring for the poor, the defenseless, and the needy…It’s expensive and time-consuming to take care of people, but killing them ain’t a option.
At least I know that if I should ever become needy, there are people that will feed and care for me rather than kill me. That’s comforting.
As I have stated before, the PCers are them only ones who ask the government to stay out of their bodies. Okay, I want a choice not to pay for your medical care.
Posted by: heather at October 9, 2007 11:28 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Really? What if the goverment told you that you HAD to have an abortion.
EVERYBODY wants the govenment to stay out of their bodies.
Jacque, the truth is that I’d pay for any sick person. I could also be cruel and say the same. What if I said, I don’t want to pay medical expenses for loose women who use the abortion clinic as a hobby.
If I ever see a poor pregnant woman, who wanted to keep her baby, holding up a sign that says “KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OFF OF MY BODY” I’d say: yank welfare from her!!! No questions asked.
Enigma –
There is so much I want to say, but unfortunately I am very busy today and don’t have time to get it all out. (I’m a slow reader and a slow writer.)
One thing does stand out though:
“Why isn’t a child an adult? The child has everything within it that will enable it to become an adult. The only missing element is time (like with a fetus). So, using your logic, why isn’t a child an adult? ”
a child is a potential adult. Here it is in a nutshell: A zygote is a potential embryo; an embryo is a postential fetus; a fetus is a potential baby; a baby is a potential toddler; a toddler is a potential tween; a tween is a potential teenager; a teenager is a potential young adult; a young adult is a potential middle aged adult; and a middle aged adult is a potential senior citizen. There are no guarentees that from one stage to the next that we will make it to the next potential stage. However, it is only okay to force the development to stop if the human being is a fetus. But if you force the development to stop in any other stage it is called murder. Did you know that the latest studies have shown that the brain isn’t even fully developed until around the age of 25? I posted that link before, I will try to find it later. From conception to death we are constantly developing; constantly changing, but we are all still human beings.
Zygote, embryo, fetus, baby….ect. The DNA says that we are human beings at all stages. From a scientific standpoint that is a fact. The only change is if you are considered worthy enough to be born. If the mother says that her baby is not worthy enough to be wanted by her and her alone then it is okay for her to terminate the development of a human being.
Why is it considered infanticide when someone terminates the development of a human while that human is still in the womb? Why did Scott Peterson get charged with 2 murders? If the mother says the child is wanted, it is murder. If the mother says the child is unwanted, it is an abortion. However, nothing about that child has changed, just the perception of worth. When a human is deemed unworthy of something that is called discrimination.
Discrimination: 1 a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment
Like I said there is much more, but that is all I have time today. However, something tells me we will be discussing this again in the future.
;-)
Really? What if the goverment told you that you HAD to have an abortion. EVERYBODY wants the govenment to stay out of their bodies.
Thanks to pro-lifers, this won’t happen. If China was a Christian nation, it would not have happened to them.
And by the way, it’s not the government that goes into women’s bodies with suction machines and curettes. Those are companies and organizations who do that for fistfuls of cash. And for someone screaming “EVERYBODY wants the govenment to stay out of their bodies,” it was Roe v. Wade that welcomed instruments in uteri. Roe v. Wade welcomed the government into our bodies, not forced them out.
Also, who is paying for all of the victims of botched abortion? Your quacks couldn’t do the job right, so the taxpayers have to pick up that tab too.
Oh wait- I’m a Christian. I believe in caring for the poor, the defenseless, and the needy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Scandal Brewing at Oral Roberts U.
By JUSTIN JUOZAPAVICIUS
Overturning Roe would send a message to women that their lives, and the lives of their unborn children, are valuable enough to protect from the ravaging and savaging of abortion profiteers. See http://www.realchoice.0catch.com, and go put your coathanger to some constructive use in your closet, where it belongs.
Regarding ORU: OBJECTION: RELEVANCE? You just like to gloat over the faults of others because you are too cowardly to deal with your own.
Choicers love to veer off the subject and personally attack people (or groups of people) when they can’t respond to an argument. The way to handle this is to just ignore the impertinent posts. In intend to from now on, but for the last time:
I don’t defend supposed believers who do nasty things- I say they be punished to the full extent of the law. Furthermore I remind the Godless that accuse all Christians based on the actions of a few that those that do such things are likely NONbelievers or if they are believers, more responsible and guilty for their crimes than others would be- but that will be God that dispenses the perfect judgement. All that can be done down here is the put them in jail where they rightly belong.
I know that I care for the poor, defenseless and needy. I know that I really am a follower of Christ. Even when I mess up, I reconcile. Christians aren’t expected to be perfect, just to strive for perfection through contrition and repentance.
Regarding ORU: OBJECTION: RELEVANCE? You just like to gloat over the faults of others because you are too cowardly to deal with your own.
It’s easier to irrelevantly attack Christians or individuals than it is to form a coherent argument. And some people are just wicked and like to be hateful. I can’t imagine how sad someone must be to need to insult people for some sadistic relief from their pain. Those people are justly rewarded in life by living a life devoid of goodness and love. I just hope they repent before they meet their eternal reward.
You just like to gloat over the faults of others because you are too cowardly to deal with your own.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have faults?
I have faults?
I know I do and I don’t go around spontaneously attacking strangers on comment boards. So I’m thinking, yeah, you might have faults.
@Enigma,
we got into this before … the word ‘fetus’ is a development stage word but is not species-specific whereas the word ‘baby’ is both specific for stage
(although non-medical) as in: ‘Let’s have a baby-shower!’…. as well as for species … ie, human. You responded with … then why not call it a ‘human-fetus’.
Just thinking about this: ALL rights are ‘human’ rights ….. not fetal, not baby. not child and not teen and not senior, but they are ‘human’ rights – begun at existence not birth.
Doug often talks of legal personhood and birth. And he is right … at birth a whole set of other ‘human’-rights are recognized by us that a legal ‘person’ begins at birth. But his/her ‘humanness’ begins 9 months earlier [as well, as this is the timing for the initial set of ‘human’ rights … the very FIRST of these is LIFE as in the US-constitution: ” … life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness …”]. The human-rights endowed at birth, are additional rights. Even if now, they are a ‘legal person’ because of birth, these new-rights do not negate the earlier set of rights … a human-fetus is not subject to the approval of his/her mother for existence. The human at this stage has enough of a chore obtaining sufficient nutrients for its own maturation. Placating an obstinate mother is not human-fetus’ concern … but that of the pregnant mother’s: ‘Treat the despondency/depression and do not kill any human.’ … fetus … baby … person … whatever.
There are also a whole set of voting rights not enacted until later … a person’s parents do not vote several times to represent each child in his/her family.
I know I do and I don’t go around spontaneously attacking strangers
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You accused me of being a self-mutilator, godbot. You got exactly as good as you gave.
Laura,
I’ve never given you anything, but you always come out of left field with your personal attacks. You may mistakenly equate my arguments with personal attacks, but they are not. And by the way, if I equated all your arguments into personal attacks, then you’ve accused me of defrauding Oral Roberts University! How dare you accuse me of defrauding ORU! I’ve never even been there! Do you see the absurdity?
I never called you a self-mutilator. I called tubal ligation self-mutilation which is why I oppose it. You took it personally because you’ve had a tubal (which flatters me that you would care about what I think so much as to recieve my opinions so close to your heart, although I didn’t mean it to offend). By the way, pro-lifers oppose abortion because we think it’s murder, but I would never a point finger as post-abortive women and call her a murderer. Anyone that can’t have a debate about abortion/tubals because they take it personally obviously shouldn’t be debating at all.
I have never called you a name. But keep it up with your juvenile name calling (i.e. Godbot), and you’ll keep having your posts deleted.
P.S. Being associated with my God is hardly an insult and more of a compliment. Thank you!
Clever, Laura-
Once again you’ve got us off the subject! Bravo!
Godbot….I like that. I think I’m going to start calling myself Jacqueline the Godbot. Jacque the Godbot. Sounds like a cartoon- like a really cool Transformers character.
then you’ve accused me of defrauding Oral Roberts University!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Show me where I did that.
Show me where I did that.
Show me where I called you a self-mutilator. Show me where I used the term “self-mutilator” to refer to anyone on this comment board. Show me where I have ever given you an insulting epithet.
By the way, I love my new moniker. Jacque the Godbot just rolls right off the tongue.
Jacqueline the Godbot –
I love it. Ya know, with how much society relies on technologies and robots (especially in industrial plants) it really is a compliment. Life is easier with the “bots” in our lives, right?
;-)
Per Laura:
“The govenment doesn’t pay for abortions.”
Laura,
Really?
If you pay taxes in Minnesota, you are helping to fund abortion on demand for women on public assistance. Doe v. Gomez, is the 1995 Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that forces taxpayers to subsidize the destruction of unborn babies in our state.
Show me where I called you a self-mutilator. Show me where I used the term “self-mutilator” to refer to anyone on this comment board. Show me where I have ever given you an insulting epithet.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jaqueline:
“The only way you can compare any breast surgery to a tubal ligation are measectomies for no medical purpose- that would be self-loathing mutilation.”
“Permanent, elective procedures? Isn’t there a professional obligation to make sure someone is of sound mind and body before they mutilate themselves? Mind you, if you self-mutilate, you’re put into 24 hour lockdown and get get psychiatric care.”
Jacque Godbot, I love your new name! *winks*
Better a Godbot than a Roebot! God’s so creative, and Roe’s so destructive!
Killing one’s own child whilst it lives and grows inside you and mutilating ones own female sex organs is misogynistic self-loathing. The capacity (whether used or not) to create and carrying human life is a definitive characteristic of womanhood. Not a stereotype- natural law. I said the “capacity” not the act. Not everyone wants to bear children, but going so far as to be cut open, sliced and burned because you loather that capacity is a sign of a deeper chauvenism.
Not wanting children isn’t a requirement for womanhood, but multilating your female reproductive organs or assaulting them with a suction machine to kill your child is an unequiocal anti-woman act.
Posted by: Jacqueline at October 8, 2007 2:01 PM
Is a man getting snipped a sign of ‘deep chauvenism’?
You make it very obvious that you have not experienced pregnancy. It is indeed an assualt upon a woman’s body. It causes damage even if the damage is welcome. An abortion is much less damaging and dangerous than continued pregnancy.
Being a virgin, you must know that sexual relations will damage your hymen. Image what happens when a woman gives birth.
Sally, I have given birth. It’s not bad. Pregnancy is not an invasion.
The demon-filled are often oblivious to the fact that they are demon-filled.
That’s not an insult. Even Saint Mary of Magdala (I think it was) had demons. But one has to be contrite and desire them to flee to end up a Saint. Laura tends to enjoy hers and spewing them forth.
Posted by: Jacqueline at October 8, 2007 3:59 PM
…………………………………..
Mainstream Protestant Christians do not believe in demons.
I realize that everyone has a difference of opinion on plastic surgery. I very well may have mutilated myself, and if Jacque thinks that I did, I am fine with her saying so. I don’t take offense to the differences in opinion. On that note, carry on:]
Sally, what’s gotten you so angry tonight? Why do you always seem so upset? Yesterday you told us about the ballon accident. We were all sympathetic. You blaste4d us anyway. Is there something wrong?
typos balloon and didn’t mean for that 4 to appear. I hate typos!
And I’m not touchy, Valerie. I said nothing to Laura and was assaulted with her declaring that I will be barren. How personal and evil is that?
And how condascending of you- For someone to assault me unprovoked and you to rebuke me with your blanketed,
“Let’s all play nice.”
I didn’t address Laura at all, and she’s allowed to personally wish evil on me like that?
I guess the posting rules are completely arbitrary and those of us who don’t want to endure the juvenile insults will just have to leave.
Enjoy the anti-intellectual banter that will ensue when those of us believers are finally fed up with having evil prophesied over us.
Posted by: Jacqueline at October 8, 2007 4:20 PM
…………………………..
Aren’t you 30 or pretty close and a declared virgin until marriage? Your reproductive clock is ticking and there isn’t a potential husband in sight. It’s a pretty good guess that you will never experience pregnancy let alone successfully gestate at the rate you are going. Laura touched a sore spot with you and you are huffing and puffing over it.
Well, maybe the best thing for you guys would be to have some government intervention. You guys are always asking the government to remain silent when it comes to your reproductive choices. So, the government kept abortion legal for you. What’s happening? You guys are abusing it! I think the government needs to make abortion illegal. The sooner, the better.
Posted by: heather at October 9, 2007 9:41 AM
……………………………….
I find the concept that a freedom can be abused quite disturbing. You practice freedom of speach more often than my church says you should? You participate in elections too often?
Well, why do we want to keep abortion rare? Would you want to keep freedom of speech rare?
Isn’t that the PC mantra? Let’s keep abortion safe, legal, and rare. Why keep it rare?
Enigma said, Abortion may be tragic, but it is far less tragic than the alternative.
This is the alternative:
I don’t see anything tragic about that!
Please explain to me how a dead, dismembered baby* is somehow less tragic than a whole, living baby in someone’s arms.
*I could have pictures of dead, dismembered babies for contrast, but I don’t want to take away form the shear beauty of the living babies.
Posted by: Jacqueline at October 9, 2007 9:17 AM
……………………………………
How cute! My kids were and are a great deal cuter.
You have pics of ‘babies’ born dead? Really? Where did you find them? Who is ghoulish enough to take such pictures? Mom never thought to even visit the graves of her born dead. Including the last one that was born in rotting ‘dismembered’ pieces. Ripped to pieces by god don’tcha know.
Why not? It’s not like you’re killing a baby, right? I’m having my wisdom teeth out in two weeks and I’m not running that past the man I;’m seeing (although, when I told him, he offered to take me, drive me home and feed me soup. What a doll!).
By the way, this surgery is 355 dollars. So I’m putting these 4 teeth under my pillows and that damn tooth fairy better pony of the dough!
Posted by: Jacqueline at October 9, 2007 10:09 AM
………………………………
What have those teeth done to you? Hmmmmmmm? They are there for a reason and unless they are threatening your life they should stay. God put them there and you are kowtowing to the devil by having them removed. The dentist only wants to render you under the influence of narcotics to have his wicked sexual way with you. Harlot!
What have those teeth done to you? Hmmmmmmm? They are there for a reason and unless they are threatening your life they should stay. God put them there and you are kowtowing to the devil by having them removed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
She claimed that women who had their tubes tied were self-mutilators. She’s gonna mutilate her head?
Sally, what’s gotten you so angry tonight? Why do you always seem so upset? Yesterday you told us about the ballon accident. We were all sympathetic. You blaste4d us anyway. Is there something wrong?
Posted by: heather at October 9, 2007 7:45 PM
…………………………………..
Heather, your attempt at graciousnes is a breath of fresh air. And no. I can’t spell in English to save my life.
I have PTSD. I have been abused on any level that one could consider abusable. I’ve dealt with all causes of my tollerance for abuse but the religious basis of it all. I find a voice here. No listeners but that is ok. And that would be why I post on this board. I’m more honest than most of Jilly’s worshipers can handle. Religion can be and is abusive. In it’s practice and in it’s message.
“Is there something wrong?”
Yes, Sally needs Jesus…..
Sally –
“It is indeed an assualt upon a woman’s body. It causes damage even if the damage is welcome. An abortion is much less damaging and dangerous than continued pregnancy. ”
I have proven on here multiple times the truth of this. I will, for you, explain briefly. (I feel you do not need the basics of mathematics so I will not insult you by going through all that.)
1st – the CDC admits that all abortion statistics are voluntary and all childbirth statistics are mandatory. This means that the health departments/hospitals/clinics etc. do not have to report anything on abortion. This includes a woman who is injured or dies because of abortion. Go to any of the CDC’s MMWR and you will find that info. Starting around 1998 California stopped reporting. California is approxamately 17% of the abortions in the US – according to Guttmatcher. For approx the past ten years the CDC has only received partial reports from the 52 reporting areas – NYC and DC report seperatly making the # 52. There have been times when only 47 areas reported their stats.
2nd – The Guttmatcher Institute, although seeming to be more accurate, still has its flaws in its reporting on abortion. They do not get statistics every year. What they do is statistical analysis and do an educated guess on the years they do not retreive information. And once again, reporting data is voluntary. Many free standing abortion clinics that are not Ambulatory care centers only give partial reports if they report at all. This is all according to the CDC and Guttmatcher Institute.
3rd – According to JAMA (journal of the AMA) the maternal mortality rate for abortion is 0.6 out of 100,000. The maternal mortality rate for childbirth is 9.6 out of 100,000. Although these numbers sounds high for childbirth and low for abortion, this really isn’t the case. In mortality reporting and statistics it is always based on 100,000. American are accustomed to everything based on 100. So, if we base the mortility rates out of 100 and not 100,000 we have a probability factor of .000085. This means that you are 0.0085% more likely to die in childbirth than in abortion. In other words and in the medical world the difference is minuscule. This means that neither one is safer than the other.
4th – According to the CDC, the UN, WHO, and Guttmatcher the maternal abortion deaths are included in the maternal childbirth deaths. When doing statistics they do not remove the maternal abortions deaths from the maternal childbirth deaths. This means that abortion is being counted twice and then being compared to each other.
5th – Many complications from abortion go unnoticed. For example – some studies show that women who have had abortions are more likely to have an ectopic pregnancy. These ectopic pregnancy account for 12% of all pregnancy related maternal deaths. However, some studies have shown that there isn’t a connection between abortion and ectopic pregnancy. All we can go by are the statistics on this. According to The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services the incidence of ectopic pregnancy was 4.8 per 1,000 births in 1970 but by 1980 it was 14.5 ectopic pregnancies per 1,000 births.(In pregnancy related statisitcs on irregular pregnancy/abortion they go by the number of live births. This means that out of every 1,000 women who gave birth there were 4.8 ectopic pregnancy. I’m only explaining this because I got confused when I first read it…..)
6th – In 1984 it was reported in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (november 1984; pages 669-703) that Pelvic Inflammatory Disease was reported in almost 30% of abortions reported. Now – that was then, this is now so I know that number has significanty decreesed – but this shows that there is a danger of this. Now a woman can get PID through childbirth, however a woman cannot hide the fact that they had recently given birth. In abortion, some woman do not tell anyone they had an abortion so they may not tell their doctor when problems occure; this puts them at risk. Also, with abortion there are more risk of infection due to surgical instruments being inserted into the cervix and uterus – something that many doctors avoid in childbirth. There is also risk of infection do to pieces of the fetus being left behind. Also an ectopic pregnancy has a greater chance of going undetected for a longer time if the woman thought the abortion was successful. In abortion your cervix may be cut, torn or damaged – this can happen in childbirth, however the body is naturally dilating the cervix which means the tissue has been preparing for this and has more elacisity to it, in abortion it is forced in a short time span. There can be scaring of the uterine lining, perforation of the uterus, damage to the organs due to any perforations. In abortion the womans body is not prepared for the pregnancy to end. In a miscarriage and in childbirth the body is preparing, the hormones are being triggered to react to help the muscles, tissues..etc. There are complications in childbirth however the typical complications are usually more damaging to the baby than the mother. Umbilical cord wrapped around the neck; breech..etc. Most of the complications of childbirth are due to some other medical problem that causes the problems. High blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, STD’s or any number of other ‘ailments’. This means that doctors can prepare for the worse case scenerio based on the patients needs. (all this information was obtained from several organizations: Webmd.com; CDC; Gutmatcher; JAMA and the Journal of American Medical Associates.)
7th – Almost all studies I have read state that the more abortions someone has, the greater chance of complications for future pregnancies. According to Guttmatcher and the CDC 40% of abortions being done now are done on women who have had at least one prior abortion.
Sally and Laura,
I won’t dignify your attacks against me by pointing out their absurdity. They were only meant to offend me- and they failed. You make the false presumption that I care what you think about me.
You’ve reduced this message board to juvenile (and quite pathetic) attempts to insult me- and you don’t seem to desire any productive conversation (which is why I’m here). I have neither called you names nor attacked either of you personally and I don’t intend to begin.
Since I have done nothing to either of you to provoke or otherwise incur your wrath, I can only assume that who I am and the life I live is so offensive to you that you are compelled to try to hurt me with your words. In that case, I am flattered. For people that delight and gloat about their wickedness put so much time and effort in directing attacks on you, that’s just a sign that you’re doing something right!
Thanks, girls. You’ve encouraged me greatly. That being said, defame me all you please. I won’t respond nor address you again.
Jacque, I couldn’t have said it better! LOL!
Heather, your attempt at graciousnes is a breath of fresh air. And no. I can’t spell in English to save my life.
I have PTSD. I have been abused on any level that one could consider abusable. I’ve dealt with all causes of my tollerance for abuse but the religious basis of it all. I find a voice here. No listeners but that is ok. And that would be why I post on this board. I’m more honest than most of Jilly’s worshipers can handle. Religion can be and is abusive. In it’s practice and in it’s message.
Posted by: Sally at October 9, 2007 8:29 PM*************************** Sally, who abused you? Care to elaborate? This could explain a lot.
Okay, there’s no way that I can answer all of these at once so I’m going to do it little by little. If I haven’t gotten to you yet, it doesn’t mean that I’ve forgotten.
Heather,
Jacqueline,
I can find problems in Mr. Gissler
Jacqueline,
Heather,
Okay, there’s no way that I can answer all of these at once so I’m going to do it little by little. If I haven’t gotten to you yet, it doesn’t mean that I’ve forgotten.
It’s okay, Enigma!
And this is like Monopoly- it might never end! :)
One?s physical body should not be the sole determining factor in what one can and cannot do in life.
What I want to know is why you think having a female body rather than a male one holds you back. I’ve done everything I’ve wanted to do (except write my name in the snow, and I wouldn’t trade my feminity for that, anyhow.)
One?s physical body should not be the sole determining factor in what one can and cannot do in life
I’m not saying steriliztion should not be allowed-I’m saying it’s immoral and a violent attack on the female body which is why I oppose it. I wouldn’t outlaw it. A tubal ligation/vasectomy doesn’t hurt me or anyone else, so it’s none of my business.
I suppose you?re also going to argue that having one?s wisdom teeth removed is bodily mutilation.
I just finished a round of antibiotics to kill an infection in my wisdom tooth. If I don’t remove them, they will continue to get infected, the infection could spread to my brain and kill me. That’s why there is a reason for removing wisdom teeth- because they are working improperly and doing damage to my body. If they were working correctly (and they have for years now), I certainly wouldn’t endure surgery to remove them.
However, people get tubal ligations because their organs ARE functioning properly! Otherwise, they wouldn’t have to slice them up to get them to stop working. I know many women that had hysterectomies because of diseases reproductive organs because they were a threat to their health/life. A tubal/vasectomy is a person mutilating their healthy bodies to make them unhealthy. This is foolish and immoral.
The genetic code is the ultimate determining factor. Individuals with male genes can be born with female genetically. People can also be hermaphroditic.
Okay then, my “narrow view of womanhood” is possessing two X chromosomes. My point stands. It’s nothing about gender roles: it’s biology.
Trying to control that capacity is not indicative of hate.
Temporarily or permanently sabotaging that capacity and claiming that we’re slaves if we can’t is indicative of hating females (or atleast functioning female parts).
I?d also counter that a real woman is a woman who celebrates her sensuality and delights in the possibilities of her body while seeking to ensure that her body is never able to control her.
Your body is never able to control you! Once again, you can’t get pregnant by osmosis. Take responsibility for one’s role in reproduction and stop acting like we’re a “victims” of a lesser gender. You control you! Not your body. YOU control your body.
Sensuality is worth celebrating. Sensuality is a wonderful gift from God- but if you have to take pills or have surgery to avoid possibilities- I don’t think you’re delighting in them.
I don?t abhor reproductive health. What I abhor is being told that my body and my body?s reproductive capabilities should be able to dictate my life.
Here we go again! They DON’T dictate your life. You dictate your life. Your uterus won’t develop a baby in it without your active participation. My uterus doesn’t control my actions, nor do my ovaries.
But consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
This is a whole ‘nother discussion. But to refute it in two words, “My ass!”
Once again, don?t tell me what I think.
I’m telling you what you say. You say that women are slaves to our bodies and we should have access to scapels and pills and patches so our bodies don’t control us.
Nor do I. Don?t tell me what I think.
You’re referred to it as enslaving you are controlling your life. That’s not a loving attribute to give your body.
Why do you think that manipulating the body is inherently unhealthy? It?s not
But you’re manipulating the body to make it unhealthy. Fertility is health- the body working as it should. You make it infertile.
Sorry, I don?t suffer from penis envy. Freud would be disappointed in me.
Me, either-although I do want to pee in the snow. I also think their should be a female equivilent called “boob envy”. I know if I didn’t have boobs, I’d want them. I couldn’t justifying buying any, but I’d still be envious.
Why are you so insistent that everyone who disagrees with you must hate women and their bodies?
Insidiously. Actions speak louder than words, Enigma.
No, but you are destroying potential human life.
A actual human life. It is what it is when created. It doesn’t magicly morph into a human at some undetermined point.
The government doesn?t fund abortions. Check the Hyde amendment if you don?t believe me.
I never said it did. Where’d that come from? What I said is that I don’t consult with my boyfriend before my wisdom tooth surgery the way you think couples that creat a baby should talk before the women decides (independently) to kill said baby. The tooth fairy thing was a joke. Apparently it didn’t amuse you.
They?re not babies, they?re human fetuses.
Besides location- what’s the difference. You want to say fetus insistead of baby in an attempt to dehumanize the victim.
Abortion fits none of these categories
You’re saying the woman has more rights than the child. That’s oppression.
No individual has rights to forcefully impose on another?s body.
I couoldn’t agree more! What do you think that abortionists is doing to that baby with those forceps? That’s forceful impostion on his/her body.
If it?s a creation that she never consented to, she has no obligation to sustain it.
Again: my ass. And it’s a creation that was her doing. She may have not wanted to make a baby, but she did. Now that baby relies on her. Her choice has been exercised that that point.
I would simply like the government to stay out of mine.
Likewise. If abortion were illegal, no one would be in your body with instruments.
Because by consenting to have a child and then deciding to raise it, one has assumed responsibility towards it.
So responsibility is assumed rather than mandated. Does this apply to the girl that consented to have a child, chose to place to adoption and instead drowned her baby in the toilet at birth. She didn’t consent to raise it! She assumed no responsibility, but she is responsible nonetheless and deserves to be imprisoned. If I saw an accident victim I would render aid. Not calling for aid or rendering aid is irresponsible although I didn’t assume this responsibility. Responsibility isn’t assumed. Sometimes it is mandated.
A human fetus isn?t a child
Fetus means offspring or young one. It’s a developmental stage like infant, toddler, adolescent, etc. It qualifies as childhood.
I?ve touched on this before. Human life is determined by brain function. If one doesn?t have a brain or a functioning brain, one does not have human life.
So if my brain ceased to function, what do I become? A deer? Can you stuff me and hang me on your wall? Human beings have human DNA. Brain function is irrelevant.
It?s not dehumanizing to be told that your human rights aren?t being respected? It?s not dehumanizing to be told that your body doesn?t really belong to you? I beg to differ.
The first human right to be respected is LIFE, Secondly, that body in your womb DOESN’T BELONG TO YOU. If you want to tear off your limbs with forceps, that’s your body. You’re baby’s body however, DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU.
That isn?t what freedom means to me and you know it. In debates, people only take cheap shots at their opponents when they cannot make valid arguments.
You said [not verbatim] freedom to you is the ability to have a fetus ripped limb-from-limb. Since no laws keep you from doing so, you would. This is not a cheap shot. It was an argument that laws must restrain people that take freedoms at the expense of other’s lives.
Laura,
The govenment doesn’t pay for abortions. The govenment does pay for every lazy, unemployed loser’s children.
If these would be the same women that you would prefer get abortions to avoid having unwanted children, are you then saying that women that have a abortions are lazy, unemployed losers? Ohhhhh, Laura, shame…
From the book Interview with an Exorcist by: Fr. Jose Antonio Fortea
What is a curse?
A curse is an action that is done to harm another with the help of demons.
The former rite of exorcism states in its introduction: Do command the demon to tell ou if it remains in that body by some magic work, signs, or curse instruments;
Many people as if curses are truly effective. Well, the first thing that has to be said is that whoever does the curse-as well as the person who may hav asked for the curse to be done-will be the first ones affected by the demonic. Without a doubt, they will suffer some type of demonic influence, possession, or sickness. The evil they wish on another will come back to them. A demon is never invoked in vain.
But is a curse effective against the person to whom it is directed? This depends on the will of God. That is to say, it is the same as with accidents, illnesses, or misfortunes. During our time on earth, God allows us to experience both good and evil because this life is a period of trial, of purification. Of cours, the person who prays and lives in God’s grace is protected. The more one prays and lives a spiritual life, the more one is protected.
Father Corapi tells the story of how when he was dealing drugs, one of the drug lords used to put a curse on all his cocaine before he sold it, knowing that the curse would cause addiction and insure return customers…
oh for heavens sake, I go away for a few days and the computer forgets who I am…
Anonymous 1,2 and 3 are all me….
Sally, I have given birth. It’s not bad. Pregnancy is not an invasion.
Posted by: heather at October 9, 2007 7:33 PM
Heather……..I’ve given birth twice and I never voted for you to dumb down the experience to my teeny tiny little female mind. Never ever ever attempt to speak for me. Ever.
Dominick’s has erected a fence
Received information from reader Dennis that beginning at 10p last night and completed by 11:30p, a fencing company erected a fence around the perimeter of the vacant lot owned by Safeway/Dominicks across from Planned Parenthood Aurora. Just spoke with…
Does anyone know if safeway and gemini are linked in anyway?do they have the same intentions? I think they do and I think that way PP’s first move as well as naming their parent compnany. Has anyone read ‘This Present Darkness’ by Frank Peretti? God’s People need to stand for what they believe and give to God- first to thier church and then to those in need as the Bible (God’s holy Word) points out. Jesus, the Word made flesh stated I am the Way The Truth and the Life Noone comes to The Father but through me. Go where god calls or else we are doing for God what we think is best. Trust in God he has everything in his hands. But we are not to sit idle we are to stand against the devil’s schemes and to cast out the demons in the name of Jesus. Be sure of this though, the devil will fight back and we need to stand strong in these days like Israel did in Egypt and just like in Egypt nothing will affect strong firm Christians filled with the Holy Ghost