Souls, posterity, and species
Some, even certain Christians, argue humans don’t become persons with souls until birth. Therefore, human embryos can be dissected and preborns can be aborted. (See examples here and here.) They base this argument on Genesis 2:7:
Then the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the earth and blew the breath of life into his nostrils. The man became a living being.
They say this shows God doesn’t impart life or a soul until a human has been born. I have responded with Scripture passages like Jeremiah 1:5 and Psalm 139:13-16 and by saying this is illogical since Adam was created an adult….
But my friend Colleen sent a Scripture reference last week for another reason that I had never read in context with the aforementioned argument but have become quite excited about. It is Ecclesiastes 11:5:
Just as you don’t know how the breath of life enters the limbs of a child within its mother’s womb, you also don’t understand how God, who made everything works.
We see this logic in the U.S. Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
And we also see this logic in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, as commenter reality 101 pointed out on my Singer post:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America….
Reality 101 added, “Posterity would include embryos and fetuses, since all posterity goes through those phases as part of existence.”
Webster’s defines “posterity” as:
1 : the offspring of one progenitor to the furthest generation
2 : all future generations
Hadley Arkes, who devised the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, applied another slant on the logic of this post in a speech he gave Saturday at Valparaiso University. He asked of pro-aborts, “Does a species change before and after birth?”
[HT: for reality 101’s post, moderators MK and Valerie]
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.
I’m moving this up from another thread.
MK,
“Men didn’t CONSENT to not getting pregnant. We have no right to force them to remain barren. What about their rights?”
So you mean that they should be able to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will? They should be able to “use” her body to achieve their own ends without her consent?
“It means consent to the possibility of dying in a car crash. Or just getting into a car crash.”
I’m not going to argue this at the moment, it’s too early.
Regardless, one could not argue that this type of consent means that one willingly forgos treatment when the possible consequences are realized and the person needs aid.
“We know that not only is pregnancy a consequence of sex, but that physically, it is the intended consequence.”
It is one purpose, but it is far from the only purpose of sex. If that were true, people who were barren or menopausal wouldn’t have sex. Humans also wouldn’t have sex except for during those times of the month when it is possible for women to get pregnant. Since none of those statements are true, the only purpose of sex cannot be procreation.
“Getting into a car accident is NOT the primary goal of driving.”
Neither is pregnancy the primary purpose of sex. (See above.)
“I guess the problem is that you view pregnancy as a negative consequence of sex (like getting clean from a shower) while we view getting pregnant as a “natural” consequence of sex.”
It is neither a negative nor a positive consequence. It simply is.
“We have a hard time imagining why you would engage in it in the first place if you aren’t willing to accept the natural consequences.”
And I have a hard time understanding why you have a monopoly on defining what the purpose of sex is and why all of you are unable to understand why telling a woman that she cannot control her own body is inherently misogynistic and a thinly disguised effort to control women via controlling their bodies.
MK, I don’t know which post Enigma is referring to. But as to the first comment of yours she responded to…were you trying to make a point that a man has a right to determine whether or not a woman he impregnates STAYS pregnant (because he should be able to use his fertility), or whether or not he has a right to impregnate, say, his wife without her consent because he has a right to be fertile, too?
Two very different implications. This goes back to the Brad Pitt/Jennifer Aniston thing. I think he’s an @$$hole for leaving her because she didn’t want to jeopardize her current career to have kids. She wanted them later. But he was a big, impatient loser and left her for Jolie so she’d have his kids. Just because they were married doesn’t give him a right to impregnate her if she doesn’t want to be, considering it would have been her life, her career, and her sacrifice on the line. Yes, men have a right to be fertile, but when their right to be fertile has to go through another person to achieve an ends, their right is severely curtailed.
An addition to that, MK…. I could see you making an argument for a man that wants to have the woman he impregnated maintain a pregnancy that has already started, but I cannot justify siding with a man who says his rights to be fertile trump a woman’s right to not be pregnant if she doesn’t want to be, even if it’s his wife. I cannot agree with a man who wants to make a woman pregnant against her will if she isn’t already. Understand?
Have you seen the story about the attempt to abort this twin…who wouldn’t die
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=491443&in_page_id=1770
And I have a hard time understanding why you have a monopoly on defining what the purpose of sex is and why all of you are unable to understand why telling a woman that she cannot control her own body is inherently misogynistic and a thinly disguised effort to control women via controlling their bodies.
Posted by: Enigma at November 5, 2007 7:38 AM
Nature has the monopoly on defining the purpose of sex. We are not the only sexually reproducing species. Sexual reproduction is a naturally occuring phenomenon.
Plenty of folks want to tell women what to do with their bodies, including those who decry the teen pregnancy and birth rates. Society definitely promotes the idea that people who have fewer kids and have them later are better people and better parents.
Why so much external pressure to delay childbearing from those who claim they don’t want to control women’s bodies? Why so much interest in teen pregnancy even going so far as to include 18 and 19 year old adults in statistics? Is society decrying it “for their own good”?
If 60% of pregnant teens in Texas give birth but only 40% in California, why the descrepency? Maybe teens in California are under more pressure to abort. Pressure from those who want to control what she does with her body.
Or it could be the opposite of that, Hippie…that more teens in Texas are pressured to maintain their pregnancies. I wonder if there are stats on this…it would be interesting to find out. :D
Enigma, all: I’d like to discourage moving comments from one post to another, if you don’t mind. It confuses lurkers who want to read thoughts on a particular post and discourages commenting on that post as well. Thanks.
Jill –
I love it! This is a great post.
Enigma,
The intended purpose of legs, are to move you from one spot to another.
We know that some peoples legs don’t work. Does this mean that they should not move from one place to another.
We also know that legs are used for other purposes, like playing soccer or jumping rope, things that are done for the pleasure and nothing else. Does this mean that the main reason for having legs is no longer moving from one place to another?
We are talking about the MAIN reason for sex. It is to procreate. While it is possible to find many uses for many things, most things were MEANT to perform a certain task.
10 bucks says that when and if you want to get pregnant, you’ll use the tried and true method. Why? Because that’s what it is intended for.
Yes, of course there may be more pressure to continue the pregnancy for teens in Texas. Pressure like, babysittsing, help with rent, a loving husband, loving parents, supportive friends, financial help. You know, pressure.
Pressure to abort is what, getting kicked out of the house, abandoned by boyfriend, called a loser, etc. You know, pressure.
Lyssie, Brad Pitt had a choice to move on from a pro choice lady who didn’t want children. That’s the way life goes. I think Aniston is the ass. I really don’t think that the woman wants any kids anyway. She was stringing him along, and I don’t feel sorry for her at all. *Team Jolie!!*
And I have a hard time understanding why you have a monopoly on defining what the purpose of sex is
If procreation is not the intended purpose for sex (and some sort of fluke), why then do nearly 100% of people become conceived through sex?
Lyssie,
MK, I don’t know which post Enigma is referring to
That’s not at all what I was trying to say. I was saying that Enigma and others claim that they didn’t consent to give birth, just because they consented to sex.
And men didn’t consent to not being able to get pregnant.
The point being that there really isn’t any consent to be given in either case. It just is what it is.
No matter how much a man wants to carry a child, nature has set it up that he can’t.
No matter how much a woman wants to claim that she didn’t consent to pregnancy, the fact remains that nature has set it up that having sex leads to pregnancy.
No consent involved really, in either situation.
It’s out of their hands.
Sex gets you pregnant. Men can’t carry babies.
Nature is what nature is.
Jill,
Would it be all right if we move conversations to different posts as long as they are not the newest posts? Most people have read those already by the time you post new stuff?
It’s really hard to follow through on a complicated debate when it just gets cut off…
????????
Jacquie,
WHere have you been? I posted pics of your future husband. Lyssie thinks he’s cute.
As to this posterity issue…
What do we make of that. It’s right there. Our “posterity” is protected. Ironically, I don’t see any mention of “Posterity is protected provided it doesn’t use someone elses body”…
have a little clean up with Doug re. Thomas Aquinas’ proofs for God’s existence. He said such proofs had been debunked. As I was unaware that such ever occurred, I asked for citations. Doug’s answer to this was that Thomas was ‘fixed’ in a 3-dimensional mindset so that would make his proofs dated-false in a spacetime universe.
So I re-read Thomas’ proofs last night http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm and they do indeed hold up in a spacetime universe, because he does not argue from space nor time. The one argument that seems to contradict spacetime and the Big Bang theory is #3.
However, it is an argument about ‘generation’. We all experience a reality that comes-from-somewhere … like rain comes-from clouds or plants come-from seeds … etc, etc So, in Thomas’ mind (I think) the universe came-about via God. I think that perhaps Doug got caught-up with the ideas found on the Internet. The actual argumentation may be harder to follow (in English) but these still remain beyond refute.
Even my characterizing of motion was very limited to what Thomas actually wrote.
Jasper,
Great quote!
MK!
Yes. He is veryveryvery cute, veryvery. Even with bad hair. :) How is it that he’s still single? Does he have ridiculously high standards too?
Sorry I’ve been out-of-pocket. I had the most FUN conclusion to the 40 Days down here is Dallas. A Jericho March (2 miles) around Planned Parenthood. I got to lead kids in the Divine Mercy Chaplet as we marched, which is so much more fun and fufilling than leading chants at Roe memorial marches (I think I’m going to suggests we do prayers instead of chants this year)… We also had a mass on Sunday and a potluck, which is like my family reunion, because I know everyone I love will be there. Lauren went with me. We had a great time.
Anywho, I’m back. How was your weekend, future mother-in-law?
MK, I hate to say no to you. But one other reason to keep thoughts about one topic in one post is for achive purposes. If you break them up, the train of thought gets lost forever, and people read posts for various reasons long after they’ve left the home page.
For instance, I’m still getting emails on Bethany’s post almost 7 months after the fact: https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/03/bethanys_baby.html
It and the comments are helping people.
And sometimes students use these posts and the comments for research and papers.
So you’re not just commenting for the here and now, which is only 2 weeks. (After that, comments are blocked.)
You’re commenting for posterity, drawing us back to the topic of this post… :)
Ok?
Lyssie, Brad Pitt had a choice to move on from a pro choice lady who didn’t want children. That’s the way life goes. I think Aniston is the ass. I really don’t think that the woman wants any kids anyway. She was stringing him along, and I don’t feel sorry for her at all. *Team Jolie!!*
Posted by: heather at November 5, 2007 9:26 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
She’s right. Marriage isn’t worth the piece of paper it’s written on, and any man who isn’t 100% happy at all times should dump his wife.
Nature has the monopoly on defining the purpose of sex. We are not the only sexually reproducing species. Sexual reproduction is a naturally occuring phenomenon.
Well, if we’re going to let nature determine everything we do, then teenagers should be encouraged to have unprotected sex as soon as they want to, and have as many babies as possible, because abstinence is most definitely unnatural. Do you know of any other creatures in the world that willingly wait years beyond sexual maturity to begin having sex? Abstinence is just as unnatural as any other form of family planning. The purpose of having functional sexual organs is to use them.
But because we are humans, and we know how our reproduction works, we can make choices about our reproduction. We can choose whether we want to have sex or not, and we can choose whether we want children or not. We can even choose to have sex while choosing not to have children. We don’t have to let nature make our choices for us.
Plenty of folks want to tell women what to do with their bodies, including those who decry the teen pregnancy and birth rates.
That’s not telling women what to do, it’s agreeing with what women want to do. How many teens want to become teen parents? The overwhelming majority do not.
If 60% of pregnant teens in Texas give birth but only 40% in California, why the descrepency? Maybe teens in California are under more pressure to abort. Pressure from those who want to control what she does with her body.
Texas has stricter anti-abortion laws than California. California even covers abortion for women on Medicaid. It’s not that women are pressured to abort in California, it’s that they’re forced to give birth when they don’t want to in Texas.
Okay Jill,
This I understand. How bout if I email you that a really intense dialogue is taking place and you put up a blank post…or one that says cont…?
Laura, Brad Pitt must have been pro choice. He chose to dump her.
OMG, perhaps I’m more pro choice than I ever believed I was.
they’re forced to give birth when they don’t want to in Texas
I live in Texas. Have for 27 years. I’ve never been forced to give birth when I haven’t wanted to.
And because Jill seems so desperate to get discussion back on her original post…
Webster’s defines “posterity” as:
1 : the offspring of one progenitor to the furthest generation
2 : all future generations
A fetus wouldn’t qualify as “offspring.” It hasn’t sprung off yet if it’s still inside the woman.
It’s true that all born people must go through the embryonic stage, but most embryos do not become born people. It’s also true that all born people must go through the unfertilized ovum stage, but that doesn’t mean that all unfertilized ovums are the same as born people. The line must be drawn somewhere, and drawing it at the embryonic stage makes as little sense as drawing it at the ovulation stage.
He asked of pro-aborts, “Does a species change before and after birth?”
And I ask of pro-lifers: Does species change at conception? Are you under the mistaken impression that a human sperm cell is not part of the human species? What species is it?
MK,
“We are talking about the MAIN reason for sex. It is to procreate. While it is possible to find many uses for many things, most things were MEANT to perform a certain task.”
If sex was meant for and only for procreation, then why do humans still have sex even when procreation is not possible? Most animals have sex only when procreation is possible yet humans have sex regardless of whether or not procreation is even possible. So how is it possible that the main reason that humans have sex is to procreate when we have clear evidence that directly contradicts that premise?
I live in Texas. Have for 27 years. I’ve never been forced to give birth when I haven’t wanted to.
Fantastic! But it doesn’t logically follow that because you’ve never been forced to give birth, no one is forced to give birth. In other words, you are not everyone in Texas.
Jill,
Thanx for the reminder.
I got distracted by Enigma’s post.
I do want to say something about today’s topic.
Ultimately abortion is a human rights issue.
Many religions have perspectives on human rights.
However useful these may be to individuals or groups, human rights can be universally codified without respect to any particular religious tradition while at the same time satisfying the cultural sensibilities of the various religious and non religious groups. Building consensus on the issue is not impossible, but it is challenging to say the least.
Certainly those who feel women should not have children for their own good, the good of others or the good of society are polar oppostites of those who see children as the wonderful contributions to society that they are regardless of the situation surrounding the parents at the time they were conceived.
The right to live until natural death is a human right.
Whether you believe in natural or supernatural origins, you can still build concensus on human rights.
Fantastic! But it doesn’t logically follow that because you’ve never been forced to give birth, no one is forced to give birth. In other words, you are not everyone in Texas.
Posted by: tp at November 5, 2007 10:05 AM
I haven’t seen reports of these people forced to give birth.
Could you share some?
In other words, you are not everyone in Texas.
That’s true. But there are no laws that force women to get pregnant in this state. It’s hard to give birth without being pregnant, so Texans have some choice in the matter about whether or not they give birth.
Beyond that, I’ve sidewalk counseled at a clinic that aborts babies up to 24 weeks. Here’s a baby at 24 weeks:
So you can kill your kids with relative ease in this state.
Laura, I just love it. You are so quick to swing up and defend some pro choice celebrity. Are you actually expressing sympathy for Aniston? Yes. Let’s give sympathy to a woman who’s husband divorces her, yet you will be the first to berate the post abortive woman who expresses sorrow.
MK, yes, anything for you.
And to clarify, I don’t mind comments going wherever they go on a topic. I don’t believe in sticking to a topic or else. Conversations develop and meander, and conversations are good for building relationships.
I just don’t think it’s a good idea to interject thoughts from one post into another. It’s interrupting, actually.
Here you go:
Texas began enforcing a law mandating that clinicians notify parents of minor girls (those younger than 18) at least 2 days before performing an abortion. In this report, investigators examined rates of abortion and birth among Texas teens during the 2 years before and after implementation of this law.
After the law?s implementation, abortion rates among girls aged 15 to 17 fell significantly, compared with rates among 18-year-olds (i.e., those not subject to the law). Because birth rates differ greatly between younger and older teens, the researchers compared rates between the oldest teens affected by the law (those aged 17 years, 6 months to 17 years, 9 months at conception) and those between 18 and 18 years, 3 months at conception. They found that birth rates were significantly higher among the 17-year-olds than among the 18-year-olds (relative rate ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00?1.08). This same subgroup of 17-year-olds, who would not turn 18 until after their first trimester, were significantly more likely to undergo second-trimester abortion than were girls aged 18 or older at conception (odds ratio, 1.34).
From this data, we can conclude that the parental notification law in Texas has forced some younger teenagers to give birth when they would have otherwise chosen abortion. We certainly know they haven’t stopped getting pregnant.
But there are no laws that force women to get pregnant in this state.
Irrelevant. We are discussing women forced to give birth.
By the way, I love the Lennart Nilsson photos. I keep a copy of A Child Is Born right by my desk, as a matter of fact.
tp,
Enigma asked about someone defining the purpose of sex, not abstinence. I am not against abstinence, contraception or sex.
Nature defines sex and to great extent sexual desire.
I think I understand what you mean about cheap easy abortion access, but the restrictions in the US just aren’t that restrictive.
In Texas, you have to receive a pamphlet and wait 24 hours, in California, you have to go to a short class about contraception before an abortion. No courts have found these restrictions an undue burden.
To account for the 50% higher continuation rate in Texas, there likely have to be some cultural differences.
No matter how you phrase it pressure from others to abort is basically, get an abortion so we don’t have to help you with your baby or your pregnancy.
Whereas pressure from others to continue is basically, we will help you, love you and support you now and into the future.
From this data, we can conclude that the parental notification law in Texas has forced some younger teenagers to give birth when they would have otherwise chosen abortion.
Oh no! And younger teenagers are forced to stay home instead of stay out late on school nights, they’re forced into having headaches because they must get permission before getting a Tylenol from the school nurse, they’re forced into keeping their ears unpierced (since before they can have their ears pierced, they must have parental permission). Younger teenagers are forced to remain sober (since they can’t legally buy alcohol). They’re forced to take the bus (since they’re too young for a driver’s license). They’re forced to stay in school rather than go to the museum (since they must get permission from parents before they can go on a field trip).
Younger teenagers are forced to do countless things for their own good and the good of others. If parents insist on the CHILD giving birth rather than killing their grandchild and enduring a life of emotional trauma, that makes sense to me.
Irrelevant. We are discussing women forced to give birth.
Getting pregnant is irrelevant to giving birth? I think they have a cause and effect relationship.
*shakes head*….Are you also forced to have sex?
Jacque: “Beyond that, I’ve sidewalk counseled at a clinic that aborts babies up to 24 weeks. Here’s a baby at 24 weeks:”
regarding the picture: how in Gods name can anybody kill a defenseless baby like that in the picture.
pro-aborts? Laura? what excuse do have this time?
I think I understand what you mean about cheap easy abortion access, but the restrictions in the US just aren’t that restrictive.
In Texas, you have to receive a pamphlet and wait 24 hours, in California, you have to go to a short class about contraception before an abortion. No courts have found these restrictions an undue burden.
Those aren’t the only restrictions, though. In Texas, a teenager has to get parental consent, or ask a judge. Teens and poor women have to scrape together hundreds of dollars, because Medicaid doesn’t cover abortion. Those are two significant hurdles that don’t exist in California, and they make a difference.
No matter how you phrase it pressure from others to abort is basically, get an abortion so we don’t have to help you with your baby or your pregnancy.
Whereas pressure from others to continue is basically, we will help you, love you and support you now and into the future.
What pressure to abort? There is no pressure to abort. Abortion is taboo in the US. It’s frowned upon in Texas and in California. Even when it’s easily available, it’s still seen as wrong and unfortunate. Even when an individual woman feels pressured to abort by her boyfriend or family members, she always has other family and friends as well as the whole society that supports giving birth. Medicaid pays for pregnancy and birth in every state of the union. There are pro-lifers everywhere, Catholic churches and charities everywhere, pro-life pregnancy centers and adoption agencies everywhere. Our society is very pro-life.
Jacqueline, wow. That is so tragic. Those poor little ones. *crying right now*
Jacque —
Oh no!
I didn’t ask you to care. You asked for proof that some Texans are forced to give birth when they’d rather abort, and I gave it to you.
Getting pregnant is irrelevant to giving birth?
I’ll repeat it for you: We are discussing women forced to give birth when they’d rather abort, not women forced to become pregnant.
tp, you have to have sex in order to become pregnant. That’s first. Who is forcing you to give birth? Who?
I didn’t ask you to care. You asked for proof that some Texans are forced to give birth when they’d rather abort, and I gave it to you.
They’re not FORCED. It’s natural law.
If you inhale, you’ll exhale. If you eat, you’ll defecate. Are we forcing people to defecate? Likewise, if you don’t inhale, you won’t exhale. If you don’t eat, you won’t defecate.
If you get pregnant, you’ll give birth. If you don’t get pregnant, you won’t give birth. There is a inexorable link there.
The only way you can claim someone was forced to give birth if they were forced into sex and impregnated. That’s the only way that claim is valid.
I didn’t ask you to care.
I care very much. I care for those girls and their babies. But I don’t boohoo over children birthing those babies rather than dismembering them, especially since it hurts both the girls and their babies immensely. I’ve talked to enough post-abortive teens to know how bad abortion hurts them.
Likewise, young teenagers are NOT adults. They have to be supervised and told what to do since they can not care for themselves. So trying to illicit sympathy because little girls can’t go and have surgery to dismember their babies without their parent’s consent and supervision doesn’t tug at my heartstrings. If I could do so without breaking confidentiality, I would post some stories from post-abortive teenage girls that DO tug at the heartstrings.
I care. The pro-life movement cares. That’s why we have our Project Gabriels/Rachel’s and CPCs, etc. We care A LOT.
tp, are you still there? I’m still waiting for your answer.
They’re not FORCED. It’s natural law.
No, it’s state law. The state of Texas requires minors to get consent from their parents or a judge before they can have an abortion. The entire purpose of this law was to enable pro-life parents to force their daughters to give birth instead of aborting, and that is exactly what it has done. Why do you now object to the idea that this law forces some girls to give birth?
It’s almost as if you’re ashamed of the fact that pro-life laws have forced some minor girls to give birth. Why should you be ashamed of that? Is there something wrong with forcing girls to “choose” life, in YOUR opinion? If not, then why are you so upset at my calling a spade a spade?
heather —
Your comment merely echoes Jaqueline’s argument.
tp, Why was this girl having sex? If she knew that her wicked pro life parents would force her to give birth, wouldn’t that be all the more reason for her to abstain?
heather —
Why was this girl having sex?
What girl? I provided data that proves the parental-notification law in Texas reduced the abortion rate and increased the birth rate among minors, ergo, it forced some minors to give birth when they would’ve otherwise aborted. That much we know. Why they had sex is entirely irrelevant.
Woahwoahwoah.
Why do you now object to the idea that this law forces some girls to give birth?
I don’t. Where did I say I did? I oppose you saying birth is forced. Natural law is cause and effect. The cause (pregnancy) results in the effect(birth). There is no force involved. It’s not like you hold a gun to the head of a woman and say, “Give birth or I’ll shoot.” It’s nature. It doesn’t work that way.
It’s almost as if you’re ashamed of the fact that pro-life laws have forced some minor girls to give birth.
Absolutely not! I’m absofrigginlutely delighted that minor girls have been spared the foolish immature “choice” to wound themselves while killing their babies. They weren’t forced to give birth, but they weren’t allowed to have abortions.
Why should you be ashamed of that?
I’m not. I supported that law.
Is there something wrong with forcing girls to “choose” life, in YOUR opinion?
Girls can’t make their own choices when they’re that young. They can’t choose to drive without a license, buy alcohol, get tattoos. There are many things they can’t “choose” to do because they are too young and immature to make such decisions. An elective surgery such as abortion fits that category.
If not, then why are you so upset at my calling a spade a spade?
First off, I’m not upset. I’m offended that somehow prohibiting instruments in uteri for the sole purpose of killing human beings is somehow forcing women to do something. That’s an insult to humanity to say that our choices to get pregnant somehow assault our free will, when it’s an exercise of that free will.
If I jump off a cliff, I’m not FORCED to die. It’s a natural consequence, like birth is a natural consequence of pregnancy.
It’s a natural consequence, like birth is a natural consequence of pregnancy.
If I’m a teenager and I get pregnant in California, I can have an abortion.
If I’m a teenager and I get pregnant in Texas, and my parents refuse to give consent, and a judge refuses to give consent, I am forced by the law to give birth. For me to have an abortion anyway, in Texas, would be illegal.
Laws exist to force people to do certain things. The parental notification law in Texas was created so pro-life parents could force their pregnant daughters to give birth. It has done exactly that. The law forces some minors to give birth.
Like it or not, there is a difference between becoming pregnant and giving birth. Not everyone who becomes pregnant gives birth. One can be forced to give birth without being forced to become pregnant. To argue otherwise is silliness.
Laws exist to force people to do certain things.
Why? Because if we didn’t have laws in place, immoral people would hurt others. Such is the case with abortion.
I think the better wording of this would be:
Laws exist to force people NOT to do certain things.
Like rape and stealing. So by this token, a law prohibiting rape FORCES the rapist to do without sex? A law prohibiting theft FORCES the theif to do without other people’s property? A law prohibiting abortion FORCES women to carry rather than kill their kids?
Tp,
Do you not recognize how unnatural entering a cervix with rods is for the purpose of cutting the unborn child into pieces? It’s the antithesis of giving birth or having a miscarriage. It’s FORCING yourself inside a womans’ body and FORCING the baby out. It’s not a natural consequence.
We thwart natural consequences all the time (aloe vera for sunburn, antibiotics for STDS) and I have no problem with that- because in those cases, no one gets killed. An abortion kills a child that would otherwise be born and live. That’s the primary reason I oppose it.
If procreation is not the intended purpose for sex (and some sort of fluke), why then do nearly 100% of people become conceived through sex?
Posted by: Jacqueline at November 5, 2007 9:28 AM
***********************
If procreation was the only intended purpose of sex then why can women be sexually active 24/7 365 days a year but can only conceive for one or two days each month?
Lyssie, Brad Pitt had a choice to move on from a pro choice lady who didn’t want children. That’s the way life goes. I think Aniston is the ass. I really don’t think that the woman wants any kids anyway. She was stringing him along, and I don’t feel sorry for her at all. *Team Jolie!!*
Posted by: heather at November 5, 2007 9:26 AM
*********************************************
So an adultress is *better*?
I didn’t ask you to care. You asked for proof that some Texans are forced to give birth when they’d rather abort, and I gave it to you.
They’re not FORCED. It’s natural law.
If you inhale, you’ll exhale. If you eat, you’ll defecate. Are we forcing people to defecate? Likewise, if you don’t inhale, you won’t exhale. If you don’t eat, you won’t defecate.
If you get pregnant, you’ll give birth. If you don’t get pregnant, you won’t give birth. There is a inexorable link there.
The only way you can claim someone was forced to give birth if they were forced into sex and impregnated. That’s the only way that claim is valid.
Posted by: Jacqueline at November 5, 2007 10:58 AM
*****************************************
Along those same lines, if you develop cancer or have a ruptured appendix or develop a brain tumor you DIE because thats “natural law”. Agreeing to sex is not agreeing to pregnancy. If you prevent someone from having an abortion then you are compelling them to continue the pregnancy and give birth against their will. Whining ‘natural law’ is one more way antichoicers make themselves look ridiculous.
Beyond that, I’ve sidewalk counseled at a clinic that aborts babies up to 24 weeks. Here’s a baby at 24 weeks:
***********************************
That is SUCH a lie. I love when antichoicers prove they are the bottom of the barrell when it comes to honesty and integrity.
If procreation was the only intended purpose of sex then why can women be sexually active 24/7 365 days a year but can only conceive for one or two days each month?
Because it’s not JUST for procreation, but you try to divorce the two. Naturally, we have a majority of our cycle to have sex for fun- but apparently that’s not good enough for you?
That is SUCH a lie. I love when antichoicers prove they are the bottom of the barrell when it comes to honesty and integrity.
Really now? Here’s the website to the clinic where I counseled:
http://www.awhc.net/
I’m also good friends with a women that worked there for 2 years. I don’t think she, nor the website are lying…
What’s that about my honesty and integrity?
Along those same lines, if you develop cancer or have a ruptured appendix or develop a brain tumor you DIE because thats “natural law”.
If the “treatments” for cancer of appendicitis involved killing an innocent person, then I’d oppose them. But the doubt. Abortion does.
From this data, we can conclude that the parental notification law in Texas has forced some younger teenagers to give birth when they would have otherwise chosen abortion. We certainly know they haven’t stopped getting pregnant.
Posted by: tp at November 5, 2007 10:21 AM
Could it be that these girls didn’t feel they’d get support from their parents and, with the law, the parents let them know they would support them that they chose to give birth?
It seems strange that since PC is the “majority” view why would parents stand in the way of their children aborting? More likely they found they would get support and they decided to give birth.
If anyone is interested in the truth about Texas law they can do the research – NARAL gives Texas an F. Whimpering that abortions are performed in Texas ‘until 24 weeks’ if flat out contemptible lying dishonesty and misinformation. And I love it every time an antichoicer proves how little respect they have for honesty and the truth.
I believe Nilssons photographs are of feti which are the results of spontaneous abortions.
Enigma is flopping around again being confused about words, again..
“If sex was meant only for procreation….”.
First, let us ask this Enigma, the definition of the word “sex”, as Enigma is using it within that sentence? Define that three letter word Enigma. 6 definitions are offered. Pick one Enigma.
Second, what is the definition of the word “means” within that sentence Enigma? There are 6 definitions of the word “means”. Pick one definition please, so confusion is dismissed and a rational discussion, may then begin Enigma.
Enigma is confused between the word “mean” and “purpose”.
You think Enigma would be confused about the meaning, of a “heart”? Or the purpose of a “heart”?
Or the meaning of the liver, and the purpose of the liver?
Or the “meaning” of the lymph glands and the “reason” for the lymph glands?
Oh Enigma means what Enigma means
and the meaning of sex
is the purpose of sex
unless the reason of sex
is meant for meaning
whatever Enigma is dreaming.
Ps. Enigma, give us a soliloquy on what your lymph glands meant to you. Then give us a soliloquy on the purpose of your lymph glands.
Then bless us with a soliloquy on the reason for your lymph glands.
Oops, my 10:47 post was referring to the picture Jacqueline posted. Sorry, I didn’t referrence the picture.
Here are Texas laws regarding late term abortion
Texas
Post-Viability Abortion Restriction
Texas’ post-viability abortion restriction provides that no abortion may be performed in the third trimester on a viable fetus unless necessary to preserve the woman’s life or prevent a “substantial risk of serious impairment” to her physical or mental health or if the fetus has a severe and irreversible abnormality. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann.
Along those same lines, if you develop cancer or have a ruptured appendix or develop a brain tumor you DIE because thats “natural law”.
If the “treatments” for cancer of appendicitis involved killing an innocent person, then I’d oppose them. But the doubt. Abortion does.
*************************************************
Youre the one whimpering about ‘natural law’. Youre the one whining that somehow ‘natural law’ means that women have some obligation to give birth. If such is the case then ‘natural law’ also means we have an obligation to die of cancer since that is ‘natural’ too. And since abortion doesnt kill a person youre also being dishonest, yet again.
What’s that about my honesty and integrity?
************
WHAT honesty and integrity? Youre showing you have none. If you’d had any integrity, if you wanted to be honest, you’d have told the truth about all the restrictions on late term abortions in Texas if you were going to mention late term abortions. You didnt. Big surprise.
Whimpering that abortions are performed in Texas ‘until 24 weeks’ if flat out contemptible lying dishonesty and misinformation.
I just sent you the link to my clinic that does abortions up to 24 weeks. How is that dishonest?
By the way, 24 weeks is 2nd trimester, not third.
If procreation was the only intended purpose of sex then why can women be sexually active 24/7 365 days a year but can only conceive for one or two days each month?
Because it’s not JUST for procreation, but you try to divorce the two. Naturally, we have a majority of our cycle to have sex for fun- but apparently that’s not good enough for you?
***********************************************
What isnt good enough for me? Factual information? I have a great deal of respect for factual information and the truth. You, on the other hand, dont seem to have even a nodding acquaintance with either one.
WHAT honesty and integrity? Youre showing you have none. If you’d had any integrity, if you wanted to be honest, you’d have told the truth about all the restrictions on late term abortions in Texas if you were going to mention late term abortions. You didnt. Big surprise.
I said abortions are legal through 24 weeks. THen I showed you proof of that. I have not lied.
And frankly, being chided on my integrity by someone that believes in killing the tiny and defenseless is laughable. I have more integrity than you have in my stool.
TexasRed,
You’re just contemptuous and want to baselessly call names.
I’d prefer it if you posted comments that contained evidence of abstract thought. Because now I’m bored.
I have more integrity than you have in my stool.
How I wish Doug was around…He’d have appreciated that one… *sigh*
Heather, the fact remains that Brad left Jennifer because he expected HER to put her life and career on the line for HIS whims. Saying “I don’t think she ever wanted kids and was stringing him along” doesn’t prove she was, nor does it justify him leaving her just so he could spread his wild oats to another woman. If he intended to have kids, it was his responsibility BEFORE getting married to determine whether or not Jennifer was interested in bearing children at the time he wanted them. His wishes did not override the fact that it would be a sacrifice on HER part, not his, to have kids. Sure, he is allowed to leave her to go to another woman so he can get her knocked up, but it doesn’t make him less of a jerk for doing it. He wasn’t the only one in the relationship with a career on the line. He should have determined BEFORE getting into a relationship with Jen if and when she’d have kids, and he could have made the decision then. Period.
I don’t feel sorry for her. She’s better off without his impatient, babyish @$$. “I WANT KIDS NOW. GET PREGNANT BECAUSE I WANT KIDS NOW. I DON’T CARE IF YOUR CAREER OR BODY IS PUT ON THE LINE, BECAUSE I WANT WHAT I WANT NOW.” That’s basically the message he was sending to Jennifer.
Whimpering that abortions are performed in Texas ‘until 24 weeks’ if flat out contemptible lying dishonesty and misinformation.
I just sent you the link to my clinic that does abortions up to 24 weeks. How is that dishonest?
By the way, 24 weeks is 2nd trimester, not third.
********************************************
At 24 weeks the probability of viability is 50/50 if I remember correctly. I posted the laws regarding abortion that late in gestation, the restrictions and the limitations. You didnt have the integrity to do that. If a woman has an abortion that late in gestation in Texas then its going to be for very atypical reasons and its going to happen rarely. These are going to be situations where the womans welfare is an issue (which I know means nothing to you) and the fetus is not yet potentially viable, or there is something profoundly wrong with the fetus. You couldnt be honest about that.
tp, you have to have sex in order to become pregnant. That’s first. Who is forcing you to give birth? Who?
**********************************************
The person who prevents me from obtaining an abortion if that is what I view is my best course of action, that’s ‘who’.
Are you being honest Tex Red that “abortion does not kill a person”? You silly redneck. Direct me to a dictionary that you decide has a definition, which you and I may agree upon first. Or post a dictionary definition from a realistic dictionary which I may read Texas Redneck.
Ps. May I check your redneck-y-ness by asking you what the etymology of Texas is? Now, a honest person, with integrity would know the etymology of the word Texas, and might know when one is being a hypocritical Texan, ya know, Redneck? Or are you that typical Texan that enforces the stereotype of what a redneck is?
And a bonus point Redneck, being that Texas is heavily populated by Catholic Mexicans, what does the black sash on their icon, The Virgin of Guadalupe, signify? Bet being a typical redneck you don’t know out of being a typical unfreindly Texan. Hint Hint, Redneck.
TexasRed,
I’m impervious to people like you attempt to discredit me, especially when people that would attack an innocent baby are basically sh!ts for human beings.
All I said is that abortions are done up to 24 weeks- 6 months into the pregnancy. I then gave a link showing that the clinic where I counsel does them up to 24 weeks. You then grasped at straws and called names and blah, friggin’ blah da blah blah.
Enjoy talking to yourself.
TP,
Definition: Species
EverythingBio.com
A group of organisms belong to the same biological species if they are capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring. However the biological test of a species is not always available, and so there is also a morphological species concept based on anatomical similarities.
sperm do not make more sperm. They are not “human beings” If left to their own devices they would not become something else. They would most certainly not turn into a child.
A sperm must be united with an egg and then yes, it does become something else. I’m pretty sure this is basic biology.
And I ask of pro-lifers: Does species change at conception? Are you under the mistaken impression that a human sperm cell is not part of the human species? What species is it?
I believe it is you who are mistaken, as to the biological definition of what a species is.
LOL
I said abortions are legal through 24 weeks. THen I showed you proof of that. I have not lied.
And frankly, being chided on my integrity by someone that believes in killing the tiny and defenseless is laughable. I have more integrity than you have in my stool.
Posted by: Jacqueline at November 5, 2007 1:26 PM
***********************
You were dishonest and you continue to be dishonest. Antichoicers lack integrity and you prove it over and over again. And the only ‘stools’ involved here are what you continue to smear across the board – but then considering what obviously fills your head, it is inevitably.
Enigma,
If sex was meant for and only for procreation, then why do humans still have sex even when procreation is not possible?
I thought I made that clear with the “leg” analogy. Apparently not.
I never said that sex was used for and only for procreation. I said that that was it intended use. That is what it was created for. Many things can and are used for purposes other than what they were created for (see baking soda) but they were created with a specific purpose in mind.
TexasRed,
You’re just contemptuous and want to baselessly call names.
I’d prefer it if you posted comments that contained evidence of abstract thought. Because now I’m bored.
Posted by: Jacqueline at November 5, 2007 1:28 PM
****************************************
bored? you made a fool of yourself and now youre trying to cover your backside – and youre failing miserably
I don’t feel sorry for her. She’s better off without his impatient, babyish @$$. “I WANT KIDS NOW. GET PREGNANT BECAUSE I WANT KIDS NOW. I DON’T CARE IF YOUR CAREER OR BODY IS PUT ON THE LINE, BECAUSE I WANT WHAT I WANT NOW.” That’s basically the message he was sending to Jennifer.
***********************************************
I agree. The only thing that mattered to him was what HE wanted. He expected her to make the sacrifices so he could have things his way. You dont hear of men losing a role or not getting a job or losing a promotion because their significant other is pregnant. They leave her behind and go on with their career.
MK,
Isn’t she a treat?
I have more integrity than you have in my stool.
How I wish Doug was around…He’d have appreciated that one… *sigh*
***********************************************
Doug would have looked down on you for a comment like that – I’ve known him a very long time – but then HIS stools have more intelligence than you show
And by the way, MK:
If I do marry Danny, I promise I won’t shrivel into that when I grow old.
You silly redneck.
***********************************
And an antichoicer again proves the antichoice assumption that being an imbecile is an asset.
Enjoy talking to yourself.
*************
I love seeing the stupid chiennes on the antichoice side make complete and total fools of themselves.
You then grasped at straws
*************
IM the one who was honest about abortion laws in Texas – not you. Telling the truth is hardly grasping at straws, but trying to cover your capacious backside and get your hoof out of your maw definitely IS.
Jacquie,
Isn’t she a treat?
I recall having something like that stuck in my tooth once…man was that irritating.
Jacquie,
The thing is, I’ve read all of your posts and nowhere does it say that they illegally perform 2nd trimester abortions, nor did you give any reasons for performing them. You simply stated that they give them up to 24 weeks, which is exactly what their website says.
Also, what difference does it make where Lennart Nilson pictures came from. It’s still a fetus at 24 weeks. Born, aborted, miscarried…what difference does it make?
I recall having something like that stuck in my tooth once…man was that irritating.
***********************
What a typical hypocrite you are – and I do love seeing that happen with antichoicers
Well that was just unpleasant!
The thing is, I’ve read all of your posts and nowhere does it say that they illegally perform 2nd trimester abortions, nor did you give any reasons for performing them. You simply stated that they give them up to 24 weeks, which is exactly what their website says.
Also, what difference does it make where Lennart Nilson pictures came from. It’s still a fetus at 24 weeks. Born, aborted, miscarried…what difference does it make?
********************************
Typical antichoice dishonesty – she made the comment regarding how *easy* it was in Texas to *kill children*. I gave the laws listing the restriction on abortions that late, and showed just how difficult it would be to have one that late – she made no effort to be honest about those facts. That is so typical of antichoicers – lies, half truths, misinformation all to show how ‘godly’ they are. I find it amusing that you try to use Nilsson to tout the ‘wonders of birth’ when he is photographing the product of abortion.
Well that was just unpleasant!
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 5, 2007 2:18 PM
*************************************
Antichoicers frequently are – perhaps its part of proving they are *godly*
Bobby,
I see a distinct differences between the old pro-aborts and the young ones. The young ones are pleasant, while the old ones are bitter, angry, shriveled and vile.
Note that the ages of the pro-lifers never seem to matter. We’re pretty much joyful and sweet from conception to natural death. :)
Gee, Texasredneck, answer those simple questions I asked you. Give me a definition of person from a dictionary, Texas redneck.
The strangest part of you is to even read a sentence and know just what you wrote.
Written by the redneck from Texas.
And a antichoicer again proves the antichoicer assumption that being a imbecile is an asset.
Shorter; A antichoicer proves the antichoicer assumption(taking possess or asserting a claim)ion that being a imbecile is an asset.
Yes, you are a imbecile racist redneck who is a asset to rednecks in Texas. I claim your a imbecile from being from being a redneck Texan.
But, even if I was a imbecile, what does that make you, for reading a imbeciles post? Why it makes you imbecilic, for reading imbiciles post.
Or is reading imbiciles post what rednecks do in redneck Texas, so as to not expose their redneck-y-ness to other Texans? Quit hiding your redneck-y-ness, it makes you a imbicile.
Ummmm….Texas Red,
No one was using his photos to tout birth. Just trying to show what a 24 week old fetus looks like.
And no one has agree that that child was aborted except you. I only said it didn’t make a difference one way or the other, since it was only being used to show the childs age.
As to claiming that it is easy to kill children in Texas, if abortion is legal, then it is easy.
I don’t think she claimed it was easy to kill 24 week old children in utero.
Also, Your laws don’t mean squat.
Post-Viability Abortion Restriction
Texas’ post-viability abortion restriction provides that no abortion may be performed in the third trimester on a viable fetus unless necessary to preserve the woman’s life or prevent a “substantial risk of serious impairment” to her physical or mental health or if the fetus has a severe and irreversible abnormality. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann.
Oh yes, Jacque. Conversations never digress into name calling with people like Enigma, Lyssie, Erin, Doug, Hal, midnite, and others, like they do with a certain person above. It really shows the lack of depth of any sort of arguments that certain people have. But alas, I’d better stop typing so I too can be insulted. I wonder if I’ll be called a moron, stupid, or an idiot? Or maybe my integrity will be questioned? I can’t wait to find out! It’s like Christmas morning!
ohhhhhhh, I want a Christmas present too!!!!
Call me a name! Call me a name!
MK, Jacque, and Bobby – you guys are too funny! This is the most entertainment I’ve had all day.
Monday at work, always a pleasure…
Oh, Oh, another hypocrite is accusing others of being a hypocrite. Texasred is accusing someone of being a hypocrite, when Texasredneck is being a hypocrite to his name. Well, at least the first word of his name, Texas. Would a honest person with integrity permit itself to such hypocrisy towards one’s name?
Texas means “friendly”. Texas, or Tejas is the Spanish pronunciation of a Caddo Indian word meaning “friends”. Hence, the friendly state.
Now, Texasred is not practicing being friendly to others on this board. Yet, Friendlyred is being a hypocrite to its self made name!!!
A honest person with integrity would remove that first word from their self made name, the word Texas/Friendly, and be true and honest to themselves by doing such a honorable action.
Well at least we know Texasred is a self made hypocrite and no one can stop a self made hypocrite from being a imbecile.
BTW, Redneck, I am still evaluating your redneck-y-ness. Did you know what the sash signifies on the Virgin of Guadalupe? I must assume you did not from being a redneck. Check off racist for Texasred. Or a narrowminded bigot as a minimum.
Ps. TEXASRed, do you realize your self made name is a oxymoron? Which makes you a imbicilic moron.
MK,
I’ve gotten moron, idiot, stupid and imbecile, so you can have one if you want! :)
Glad to make you smile, Kristen :)
Kristen,
You’ll have to thank Texas Red…always clownin’ around…what a gal!
yllas, I think I have become your biggest fan!
MK, Bobby, Jacque, LOL!! I second what Kristen said…this has been so much fun to read. Too bad I haven’t had time to participate!
Jacqueline,
You do know you were having a conversation with a redneck from Texas? It is expected from rednecks to always end a conversation with name calling. That is why dentist have more work then they can handle here in the Friendly State.
Did you know that Texasred has a bumper sticker on his/her car? It reads, Welcome to Texas, now get out. Excuse my redneck oxymorons living in the Friendly state Jacqueline. Afterall, they can’t help themselves, they’re damaged from going to bars late at night and thinking they are in a “virtual bar”.
But I love you guys…I don’t want to call you mean names and be a jerk!! *Hugs to Jill, Bethany, Jacqueline, MK, Bobby, John, etc..*
Anyone I might have missed, sorry. :D
Yllas, can you tell me what the black sash means? I’m curious now (I’m a silly yankee who is clueless.)
Awwww….lyssie…you flatterer you. Stop it some more.
http://www.bridegroompress.com/snippets/guadhandout.pdf
Lyssie,
This is a PDF site (I hate ’em) and it explains all of the symbolism of Our Lady Of Guadalupe.
Read especially the part about the constellations and what they mean…
In the Aztec world the black sash denoted pregnancy. That’s why she is our patroness of the unborn.
Hugs right back at you, Lyssie. Plus, you actually want to discuss the issue, listen to what we have to say, and respond in a way that addresses our arguments. God love you, my friend.
“Does a species change before and after birth?”
Nope.
Eh, Doug….
…Did you see my comment about my stool…
bwhahahahah.
MK,
That’s really cool. I love symbolism in art and literature…it drives me wild! Ohh…black sash…very cool. :)
:D
have a little clean up with Doug re. Thomas Aquinas’ proofs for God’s existence. He said such proofs had been debunked. As I was unaware that such ever occurred, I asked for citations. Doug’s answer to this was that Thomas was ‘fixed’ in a 3-dimensional mindset so that would make his proofs dated-false in a spacetime universe.
So I re-read Thomas’ proofs last night http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm and they do indeed hold up in a spacetime universe, because he does not argue from space nor time. The one argument that seems to contradict spacetime and the Big Bang theory is #3.
However, it is an argument about ‘generation’. We all experience a reality that comes-from-somewhere … like rain comes-from clouds or plants come-from seeds … etc, etc So, in Thomas’ mind (I think) the universe came-about via God. I think that perhaps Doug got caught-up with the ideas found on the Internet. The actual argumentation may be harder to follow (in English) but these still remain beyond refute.
No they don’t, John. The first three and not “proof” anyway, just regressions where Aquinas assumes that “God” started it all. And Aquinas does indeed argue from the standpoint of time – going back along a one-dimensional time axis. As I said before:
“Aquinas thought of time as one-dimensional – why did he think that? Why would he think there was a beginning of time, unless he got it from the account of Creation in the Bible? Aquinas points “back in time” and just states that it had to be God that got things going. Yet the idea of Creation supposedly comes from God, and it’s not logical to use that authority as proof of its existence. This was about proving God in the first place, not assuming that God told us about Creation. It gets into circular thinking, or you could say a tautology, we’re trying to prove God, and it’s illogical to say that “God told us about Creation” or “God proves Creation.” I think this paragraph alone is a good argument against what Aquinas was saying.”
Doug
“I have more integrity than you have in my stool.”
Jacqueline: How I wish Doug was around…He’d have appreciated that one… *sigh*
Just how much of one’s integrity can be in somebody else’s stool?
Doug-
It wasn’t so much the substance of the statement but the fact that it’s that genre of my statements that tend to take you back a bit.
Nonetheless I think it’s a poignant statement despite it’s crassness.
Just how much of one’s integrity can be in somebody else’s stool?
My point was that I excrete more integrity than she actually has; a play on the whole, “I have more _____ in my little finger, than you do in your whole body.”
Lyssie,
Yes the black sash is from the Aztecs.
She was with child.
The Aztecs practiced child sacrifice.
Within the history of the Aztecs, before Columbus, the Aztecs would kill thousands(babies and children) on a feast day. The Virgin “stands” in front of the sun. To the Aztecs, this meant she was greater then their deaded sun God, “Huitzilopochtil”. Also, the stars strewn across her mantle signified she was greater then the stars they worshipped. Another words, before she appeared, babies in the womb were “seen’ just as Doug, or that Redneck from Texas saw them. Yes, the baby in the womb may be killed before they were born into the world. And after they were born too.
Millions changed from being pagans, to being Catholic, since the Virgin of Guadalupe wanted babies and children to be born. She welcomed them into the world whereas, the pagans could be, well TexasREDnecks.
Which is why there a millions of descendants of the Aztecs running around to this day, and fewer of those Texasrednecks running around in Texas. Once in awhile a TexasRed shows up and trys to convince others to commit genocidal suidice by abortion.
Jacqueline and Bobby,
I’m addressing these comments together since they’re on the same topic.
“Oh yes, Jacque. Conversations never digress into name calling with people like Enigma, Lyssie, Erin, Doug, Hal, midnite, and others, like they do with a certain person above. It really shows the lack of depth of any sort of arguments that certain people have. But alas, I’d better stop typing so I too can be insulted. I wonder if I’ll be called a moron, stupid, or an idiot? Or maybe my integrity will be questioned? I can’t wait to find out! It’s like Christmas morning!”
“I see a distinct differences between the old pro-aborts and the young ones. The young ones are pleasant, while the old ones are bitter, angry, shriveled and vile. Note that the ages of the pro-lifers never seem to matter. We’re pretty much joyful and sweet from conception to natural death. :)”
Can some of the pro-abortion rights posters on here get nasty? Of course they can. But I’d like to remind you that we (pro-abortion rights advocates) do not have a monopoly on that. Some of the anti-abortion rights advocates are just as offensive and digress into name-calling and taunts just as often. And then almost every other “pro-life” poster congratulations them on making a good point and really putting us in our place. Hypocritical, no?
Poor Enigma, when your taken back to elementary school for word definitions, you get all puffy and defensive. I am trying to communicate with ya Enigma, but your inability to know word definitions effects your ability to communicate.
Enigma, I was serious. You and the others I mentioned don’t name call, and I appreciate that. I will admit that I also appreciate sarcasm and “zingers”/one-liners, but what is written above goes a bit beyond that, I think. But I would never congratulate any pro-lifer for simply responding with “What a typical hypocrite you are – and I do love seeing that happen with pro-aborts.” It has no substance to it, nor is it clever. I just think she went too far.
Interesting Islamic perspective on abortion and the soul.
http://www.un.org/ga/children/saudiE.htm
In Saudi Arabia, we do not believe that it is an achievement worthy of us as a people and a government to simply list a child’s rights in a fine document and consider it a done job. Indeed, a child’s rights are a responsibility of parents, society, and the state and these institutions are to be held accountable for these rights. We believe that a child’s relationship with his parents and with the other institutions of society should not be solely a legalistic, contractual dimension based on materialistic mutual benefits, but, rather, should be founded an faith, a system of beliefs and values, love and compassion.
A child’s first right is to be born within a legitimate marriage. This is his pre-natal right guaranteed in Islam by forbidding and outlawing sexual relationships outside marriage. As Muslims, we believe that a family founded on a legitimate marriage is the first cell in the building of human society; it is the nucleus and pillar of society where a child is born, nurtured and fed the seeds of good and virtue or the seeds of evil and deviation. Clause to of the Basic Law of Governance in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia states the following, ” The state is determined to strengthen family bonds and to protect the Arabic and Islamic values of the Saudi family, to protect its members, and to provide suitable means for the development of their talents and abilities.”
A child’s right to be born, to survive, and to grow., as ascertained in the International Agreement on the Child’s Rights, starts at the moment he is imbued with a soul in his mother’s womb, according to Islamic Sharia Law. His life is God’s gift and his right to live is God’s prerogative that cannot be usurped by abortion. Abortion is premeditated murder, so it cannot be used as a means of birth control or family planning and should not be considered except when a mother’s life is in danger.
Lyssie, I still disagree with you. Jennifer Aniston is a rabid pro abort. I do not respect her because of this. Prove that Brad cheated. FTR, I’m not a “Brad fan” either. I just feel that Aniston is a spoiled brat. He moved on from that spoiled brat. He had every right to move on. Nobody really knows what happened there. It’s a done deal though. I wish him happiness. I wish her happiness in her career. That is all she cares about. Oh, and she’s REEEEAAALLY concerned about the loss of her figure.
Jacqueline: I see a distinct differences between the old pro-aborts and the young ones. The young ones are pleasant, while the old ones are bitter, angry, shriveled and vile.
Listen here you little whippersnapper, I’m almost 49 years old….
……
Note that the ages of the pro-lifers never seem to matter. We’re pretty much joyful and sweet from conception to natural death.
So you’re saying that John L, Zeke, HisMan, yllas, etc., are not pro-life?
@Doug,
Your argument seems ridiculous…. especially from a 3-D universe. The theory of timespace was developed only in the 20th Century (a while AFTER Aquinas’ thoughts). You are correct about a linear concept of time from Exodus, but Thomas considered himself a bible scholar. There is little doubt that post-Ressurection stories make mincemeat of any time continuum. (And the whole thrust of the Christian mystic tradition is so anti-linear-time, it is almost comical the way you characterize Thomas’ thought.)
There is also the word used about for time-in-Heaven as being ‘present’. The word used is ‘eternal’ and is NOT the same as ‘everlasting’.
Also you seem to find fault with his method. If you were in a dark room looking for a way out… would you say – because I cannot see I must assume there is no way out (and the sole ‘proof’ that is valid) is the one that has me locating the door by accident. This reminds me of the fellow searching for his lost keys. A friend joins the search because it is a dark night. After an exhaustive search the helper says, “Are you sure, this is where you dropped them?” “Ah no, over there!” – pointing to a very dark spot. “then why are we here?” “Because the street-lamp is here… and we can see!”
Heather,
I respect why you don’t respect her…because of her views. But in my opinion, it doesn’t matter whether or not she’s pro-life or pro-choice, he still can’t force her to become pregnant when she doesn’t want to. I can see you being angry if she deliberately aborted his child (since that is what you’re vehemently against), but if there’s no child to be aborted, and she wants to prevent that from happening so that both herself AND Brad could pursue their careers without anything standing in the way, then that should be fine. She has a right to her career, and yes, her figure, as much as he does. Why should she put her career goals on the line to appease him? Why is she the one expected to sacrifice before she’s ready? Why can he carry on with his goals while she’s stuck pregnant and unable to do anything until after the birth and recovery, which might take over a year? By that time, she could have lost an opportunity that meant a great deal to her, while her husband could have been off pursuing whatever he wanted.
I never said we could “prove” that Brad cheated…but shouldn’t you, as a Christian, find him at serious fault for leaving his wife for another woman? He was the brat, having a woman already lined up after leaving Jen, just so he could have his “willing breeder” to carry his seed. Spoiled? I didn’t see Jen with a man the day after the split (perhaps a few weeks down the line to show that she was “over” the loser that dumped her because he valued her ability to breed more than her potential as an entertainment professional). It’s typical devaluation of women- he only thought Jen was good enough if she’d use her body to carry offspring. Anything else she was capable of was less than valuable because it didn’t fit into HIS plans.
I am more than my womb…and Jen should be proud to be rid of a man that didn’t love her enough to see her as more than a walking uterus. I feel bad for Angelina. She’ll eventually realize that all he used her for was a pretty face and a willing womb to make his babies. He’s a piece of sh*t.
Lyssie, whatever you think is okay by me. Maybe so, but she’s a piece of sh*t too. She probably contracepted Brad’s kids out of existence. I am entitled to my opinions as well. I have read that Aniston refuses to talk to her own mom. She has not done so in years. Why? Because her mom made fun of her hairstyle in a TV interview. SPOILED! After I read that she was a colossal bit*h on the set of “Friends”..I was over her. She’s a witch.
Brad Pitt wanted children. Jennifer Aniston wanted a career. It wasn’t meant to be. He knew his biological clock was ticking. He knew that Aniston wanted a career. They just weren’t meant to be together. Now she’s unhappy. I’m sorry. I don’t feel sorry for her. She had her chance.
Honestly Heather, reading your posts is like reading a middle-school slam book. Grow up. Good grief.
Heather,
When you get married, you commit to that person and it is not right to leave them just because they don’t make you happy all the time or give you whatever you want. Jennifer was a career woman when he married her so leaving her for that reason is ridiculous. His first obligation is to love the woman he married even if she is a brat sometimes.
PS…I am no Brad Pitt fan either. I just so happen to take his side instead of Anistons.
Your argument seems ridiculous…. especially from a 3-D universe. The theory of timespace was developed only in the 20th Century (a while AFTER Aquinas’ thoughts). You are correct about a linear concept of time from Exodus, but Thomas considered himself a bible scholar. There is little doubt that post-Ressurection stories make mincemeat of any time continuum. (And the whole thrust of the Christian mystic tradition is so anti-linear-time, it is almost comical the way you characterize Thomas’ thought.)
If the truth is comical, then so be it – Aquinas did look back in time, and presuppose that “God” had to be at the beginning of the regressions in the first three (?) “proofs.”
……
There is also the word used about for time-in-Heaven as being ‘present’. The word used is ‘eternal’ and is NOT the same as ‘everlasting’.
Okay….
……
Also you seem to find fault with his method.
Well yeah – here’s some of what I said before:
Again from Aquinas:
1. All real things have a real cause.
2. Most causes are effects of preceding causes.
3. One effect – the very First – has a cause which itself isn’t an effect.
4. First effect is Creation.
5. God is the cause of Creation.
I don’t insist that God doesn’t exist – no way to prove such. And yeah – there’s a lot of “space,” although there may be neutrinos, “dark matter,” or “anti-matter,” etc., theoretical constructs if they’ve not proven (much as I see God as a theoretical construct). There’s still a lot we don’t know… You’re thinking three-dimensionally but things may not be as “empty” as all that.
I would argue with Aquinas thusly:
Quantum physics and relativity – the nature of spacetime – make his point #3 suspect. In his argument, he wants it to be that way, but it really is not that way. His premise is that things can’t go back “forever,” but his view of time was not correct, as we now know. If #3 isn’t provable, then the last two points don’t follow, logically.
Also, even taking Aquinas’ God, let’s see how it goes with the argument’s premises. If God causes Creation then that’s a real effect, and hence God would have to be “real.” But if God is real then there’d have to be a cause for God. If there’s a cause for God, then his argument is done for.
So for Aquinas to be right, God cannot be “real” in that way. He wouldn’t “move” or exist as we think of “real” meaning. (But how then could he cause matter and energy to be?)
I think theologists are fairly happy with the contradictions, since it allows them to have God in an imagined “separate” place from spacetime, sort of “real” but “not-real,” and they can then go with whatever is convenient to the religious matter at hand.
……
If you were in a dark room looking for a way out… would you say – because I cannot see I must assume there is no way out (and the sole ‘proof’ that is valid) is the one that has me locating the door by accident.
No, I wouldn’t say that.
…….
This reminds me of the fellow searching for his lost keys. A friend joins the search because it is a dark night. After an exhaustive search the helper says, “Are you sure, this is where you dropped them?” “Ah no, over there!” – pointing to a very dark spot. “then why are we here?” “Because the street-lamp is here… and we can see!”
So the guy just wanted to be in the light, above finding his keys. Reminds me of those who just want to believe what appeals to them, rather than going with what is provable.
Doug
Rae and hippie, I don’t have to agree with you. Why do I sound as though I am in middle school? Is it because I disagree with Lyssie??? You have nerve.
Well, he had his chance to figure out what their individual goals were (before getting married). Men don’t have a terribly fast biological clock…they’re fertile long after women hit menopause, so that’s not an issue. If she was using contraception, that’s her prerogative, as she is the one who gets pregnant, not him. If they weren’t meant to be together, HE shouldn’t have strung her along in a relationship either when he knew he wouldn’t get kids EXACTLY when he wanted them. Period.
Oh wow, you’re going off of tabloids to determine Jennifer Aniston’s character. I’m sorry, but being a brat on the set of a TV show does not a spoiled b*tch make, and the hair thing…well, that’s unbelievable. Either way, she deserved the same opportunities as Brad, and seeing as how only she would suffer career-wise because of pregnancy, it was her decision to use contraception or not. She had every right to use it to not become pregnant, no matter what Brad wanted. He could only achieve his ends by USING HER BODY to do so. Personally, I’m happy for both of them…Brad found a willing broodmare for his offspring, and Jennifer can pursue what she wants without having some guy breathing down her neck, trying to get her pregnant and disregard her opportunities. They could both very well be at fault for miscommunication early on in the relationship, but I find him to be the most childish one. He had nothing to risk by getting someone pregnant, while Jennifer had everything to lose by being pregnant. She had a right to decide when children were a part of the equation, since it was all a sacrifice on her part.
hippie and Rae, women aren’t always right!! How do you know what Brad did? How do you know what Aniston did? I can take the side of whomever I so choose. Please don’t push your opinions down my throat!
I have to think, though, Heather…if it was your career at stake because your husband wanted you to get pregnant again, would you perhaps see why Aniston shied away? I personally know that I will have a career that will not be conducive to my having a whole large brood of children. I should not have to sacrifice everything I’ve worked so damned hard for because the man in my life wants me to give him a child. That’s not fair to me and everything I’ve tried so hard to accomplish. If I get pregnant, fine, I’ll have the kid. But I will not PURPOSELY put my career at risk. I will not actively agree to throwing my opportunities down the drain because some man wants to use me as his personal womb.
I understand how you feel this way, but it’s ridiculous to me how you, as a woman, can justify a man’s leaving his wife because she wouldn’t bear his children at the EXACT time he wanted. That’s woman-hating at its finest. He felt justified leaving the woman he married because she wouldn’t let him use her womb directly jeopardizing her opportunities. That’s callous disregard for her as a professional and a female human being.
Thanks, Rae and Hippie.
Of course women aren’t always right Heather! I’m not pushing my opinion down your throat, quit being so bloody defensive.
I was merely commenting that your posts are really immature because all you seem to want to do is attack the character of a woman you’ve never, ever met. And no, I’m not criticizing you because you disagree Lyssie, as you are entitled to your opinion. I am critiquing the way you are voicing your opinion, which is in a very childish manner.
Heather,
The only opinion I am pushing is that marriage is very important and so is faithfullness and love. Your spouse is who you commit to first, then any children you may have. It is wrong to put the possibility of children ahead of your spouse. Remember Henry the 8th?
Wow, Heather…we’re not saying you can’t have opinions…but you’re not using sound logic to justify them. Honestly, going “NAH NAH NAH I can’t hear you and won’t listen to what you say just because I don’t agree with this b*tch because she was pro-choice and wouldn’t have babies like all good women should because that’s all they’re good for blah blah blah” is ridiculous. Why don’t you look up Pitt’s pro-choice or pro-life stance? All he was was pro-coerced pregnancy to make sure his seed was passed on. Go ahead, take his side…but just like you said, we don’t know who’s right in this situation. I tend to say they’re both at fault…with him being the most culpable.
Well, I’ve never met her, but have you ever met Brad? 2 sides to a coin.
Heather, I’m not taking either side. I don’t see a point mostly because I don’t give two fritzes about celebrity’s love lives and careers.
Ugh- Rae, I really don’t give a rat’s @$$ about celebrity’s love lives, either…I just used this as a simple example up above and it spiraled out of control. Damn. Lol.
I’m not discussing celebrities any longer. This is what I have heard/read. Perhaps they were both wrong. Whatever the case may be, they don’t belong together. It’s over!
That’s fine, Heather…I realize we have two very diametrically opposed viewpoints on a situation that we, in reality, know very little about, and should care even a smaller amount for. Truce? Hug? How’s your baby? :D
Lyssie, she’s great. Thanks for asking. She’s on the floor rolling aroud as we speak [er, ah, type]…I’m not mad. Truce? Of course. We are all entitled to feel different here. It makes things interesting:}!!…..I really don’t care about celebrities too much anyway….I was just saying that I supported Brad. Okay, moving on.
Lyssie,
Are you still there?
The thing about the image of Our Lady Of Guadalupe is that it isn’t art. It was created miraculously.
Juan Diego was going to visit his sick uncle when a woman dressed as an Aztec princess appeared to him. She told him to tell the bishop to build a church, but the bishop refused until, like Doug, he had some proof.
Juan went back to Our Lady and told her the bishops response. She told him to go to the top of the mountain and pick the roses he would find there (which is odd, because it was winter) and to wrap them in his cloak. He did as she asked, and brought them to the bishop thinking that the roses themselves would be the proof he needed. But when he opened the cloak, there were no roses. Only the image that we now call Our Lady of Guadalupe, Patroness of the Americas and the Unborn.
It still exists today, and much like the Shroud of Turin, no one can explain it.
Recently, someone realized that on her cloak (there were stars) the stars formed the exact constellation of the stars in both the right hemisphere and left hemispheres on that night.
AND if you look with a microscope in her eyes you can see Juan and his Uncle.
Plus, people have heard a heartbeat coming out of her womb.
And the image doesn’t fade.
So if you like symbols in Art, then God is your man. He’s all about symbols. Actually, he invented them!
MK, have you read In Search Of Mary,The Women and The Symbol? I am reading it and it is a wonderful book. It analyzes images of Mary in art from the early Church to modern times. Here’s a quote from the back, “As we struggle for greater unity in a divided world, In Search of Mary shows us a woman who can touch all people, regardless of their backgrounds. She is a profound reminder of the presence of the holy in ordinary life.”
Carrie,
I haven’t read that one. But I will now.
What I find so wonderful about her is that she appears to EVERYONE. Muslims in Egypt, Aztec Indians, Communist China…it doesn’t matter. She is EVERYONES mother.
She’s the bomb.
Hi Doug,
from your comments, I assume you think that creation could not have happened the way that Thomas thought. Because God is not the Creator (if He exists at all) He has to be a creature within spacetime. Therefore He must have substance … etc like all creation. All then that we can know is through our sensory apparatus and since God is non-sensory His existence is non-provable. (I have to wonder if you read my link to Thomas’ proofs, because most of what you have repeated here is an elaboration on our past discussion …. it is not even close to what he says … read it, please.)
Just within ‘our’ world … Does ‘0’ or, ‘nothing’ exist? Is void, emptiness real? How about: ‘best’ or ‘worst’? If these do not exist, why are there words for them?
John and Doug,
I am in the process of reading CS Lewis’ “The Great Divorce”.
I feel like Dorothy when she wakes up and finds all of her friends and family standing around her bed and she says “And you were there. And you. And you…”
I swear C S Lewis met some of the people on this site before he wrote the book.
Doug, you are portrayed so perfectly, that I laughed until tears came to my eyes. Did you know C S Lewis personally?
What’s the book about? I’ve never heard of it before.
Of course, that could be because the Chronicles of Narnia were forever ruined for me when I realized that they had Christian themes.
Enigma, hello!
Enigma, I left you a post on our thread that fell off. Hope you will read it. Well, good night all.
Heather,
Have a good night.
I did read it. Or I think I read it, if we’re talking about the same thread. The Peter Singer one?
Doug, you are portrayed so perfectly, that I laughed until tears came to my eyes. Did you know C S Lewis personally?
MK, no, but I know people like him, and I imagine he knew people like me.
John M: from your comments, I assume you think that creation could not have happened the way that Thomas thought. Because God is not the Creator (if He exists at all) He has to be a creature within spacetime. Therefore He must have substance … etc like all creation. All then that we can know is through our sensory apparatus and since God is non-sensory His existence is non-provable.
John, I’d say that some things can be proven without being sensed by us. Deductions and inductions can be made. “Flatland” – good book about two-dimensional creatures on a three dimensional world, among other things. They can “see” two dimensions but not the third, as they don’t perceive “height.” So they go along, moving left-right, and forward-back. Finally, one of them goes “straight” on their world, in what he thinks is one direction, and he ends up back where he began. From this he can deduce that there is another dimensional, though it is unseen.
My point about Aquinas and creation is that it would be a “real” effect (which could be sensed). I’m not saying that Creation could not have happened like that (that’d be trying to prove the negative) but inserting a theological construct – the magical or outside-of-time-and-space god – is just an assertion, and not a proof at all.
……
(I have to wonder if you read my link to Thomas’ proofs, because most of what you have repeated here is an elaboration on our past discussion …. it is not even close to what he says … read it, please.)
Well, the first three “proofs” really are regressions to the past, with Aquinas just stating that “God” is at the beginning. John, we may just have to disagree on this.
Aquinas thought in what has come to called the “Newtonian” way, i.e. three spatial dimensions and one time dimension, and we now know that’s not the way things really are. We don’t “see” spacetime, but it is real and can be proven just as our two-dimensional friend above proved three dimensions. Gravity “curves” spacetime and we move along that “curved” surface and see events in that context. We think of things orbiting each other, moving “around” or going in circles, but if we could directly perceive spacetime we’d see that the motion was actually “straight” and taking the path of least resistance. There’s no proving the negative about Creation and there’d be no logical point in trying that, but the way Aquinas thought about time was not correct.
……
Just within ‘our’ world … Does ‘0’ or, ‘nothing’ exist? Is void, emptiness real? How about: ‘best’ or ‘worst’? If these do not exist, why are there words for them?
0 is for lack of quantity, and as an idea it most certainly exists. Same for “nothing” and as with “void” and “emptiness” it can be defined in terms of quantities, i.e. the perceived distance between them, etc.
“Best” as an adjective is the superlative of “good.” The extreme of whatever we’re talking about in that respect. Like “worst” it’s a judgment, mental concept, etc., so no surprise there are words for them.
Doug
Lyssie, If you like art history and art. Go to http://www.agdei.com. This site is H.R. Armstrong.
He will take you from universal symbols, such as the mandala and the bindu in the center, to explanations of Fra Angelico’s paintings. How painting/icons are meant to be viewed as a symbolic cross. Up and down, left to right. Even the history of labrynth is explained. “The best known description of a labrynth or maze however, with a clear insight into its meaning is found in the Greek myth of Theseus and the Minotaur. According to the legend invented by the Attic Greeks, Pasiphae, the wife of King Minos of Crete, under a spell became enamored of a huge black bull sent by Poseidon, Lord of the Deep. The result of this unnatural lust was the Minotaur, a loathsome and furious beast which had to hidden away in a special place from which there could be no escape. This was of course, The Cretan Labrynth.” A complete history of art and religion presented by a artist who has a tremendous knowledge of art. Yllas.
Enigma,
What’s the book about? I’ve never heard of it before.
*
Of course, that could be because the Chronicles of Narnia were forever ruined for me when I realized that they had Christian themes.
Wasn’t it Dan that said “Hey, it’s just fiction! Don’t take it so seriously?!?”
Seriously tho, He is a Christian Writer. That’s his entire focus. Just like Tolkien wrote everything that he did with a Catholic/Christian slant.
Anyway, this is the story of a bunch of people who die, and are living in a “grey” town until a bus arrives. They all get on the bus and get dropped off in a “wierd world” where the grass is sharp as glass and the water as hard as diamonds. Each of them brings “baggage” that keeps them from acclimating to the new world. They are met by “beings” that try to convince them that if they stay, the grass will get softer eventually and the further towards the mountains they go the more they will love this new place.
Most of them, of course, are blinded by their own prejudices, refuse to accept the truth of it, and get back on the bus.
But the main character, the one whose eyes we see through, is open to the idea, and much like Peter responds to our Lord, take the view “Where would I go?”
Here is an excerpt with Doug’s character…
“Discuss Hell reverently? I meant what I said. You have been in Hell; though if you don’t go back you may call it Purgatory.”
“Go on, my dear boy, go on. That is so like you. No doubt you’ll tell me why, on your view, I was sent there. I’m not angry.”
“But don’t you know? You went there because you are an apostate.”
Are you serious, Dick?”
Perfectly.”
“This is worse than I expected. Do you really think people are penalized for their honest opinions? Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that those opinions were mistaken.”
Do you really think there are no sins of intellect?”
There are indeed Dick. There is hide-bound prejudice, and intellectual dishonesty, and timidity, and stagnation. But honest opinions fearlessly followed – they are not sins.”
“Of course. Having allowed oneself to drift, unresisting, unpraying, accepting every half conscious solicitation from our desires, we reached a point where we no longer believed the Faith. Just in the same way, a jealous man, drifting and unresisting, reaches a point at which he believes lies about his best friend: a drunkard reaches a point at which (for the moment) he actually believes that another glass will do him no harm. The beliefs are sincere in the sense that they do occur as a psychological event in the man’s mind. If that’s what you mean by sincerity they are sincere, and so were ours. But errors which are sincere in that sense are not innocent.”
“Well, tis is extremely interesting,” said the Episcopal Ghost. “it’s a point of view. Certainly, it’s a point of view. In the meantime…”
“Will you come with me to the mountains? It will hurt at first, until your feet are hardened. Reality is harsh to the feet of shadows. But will you come?”
“Well, that is a plan. I am perfectly ready to consider it. Of course I should require some assurances…I should want a guarantee that you are taking me to a place where I shall find a wider sphere of usefulness-and scope for the talents that God has given me-and an atmosphere of free inquiry-in short, all that one means by civilisation and -er-the spiritual life.
For me there is no such thing as a final answer. The free wind of inquiry must always continue to blow through the mind, must it not? “Prove all things”…to travel hopeful is better than to arrive.”
“You have gone far wrong. Thirst was made for water; inquiry for truth. What you now call the free play of inquiry has neither more nor less to do with ends for which intelligence was given you than masturbation has to do with marriage.”
“If we cannot be reverent, there is as least no need to be obscene. The suggestion that I should return at my age to the mere factual inquisitiveness of boyhood strikes me as preposterous. In any case, that question and answer conception of thought only applies to matters of fact. Religious and speculative questions are surely on a different level. I should object very strongly to describing God as a “fact”. The Supreme Value would surely be a less inadequate description. It is hardly…”
“Do you not even believe that He exists?”
“Exists? What does Existence mean? You will keep on implying some sort of static, ready-made reality which is, so to speak, “there”, and to which our minds have simply to conform. The great mysteries cannot be approached in that way. If there were such a thing (there is no need to interrupt, my dear boy) quite frankly, I should not be interested int it. It would be of no religious significance. God, for me, is something purely spiritual. The spirit of sweetness and light an tolerance and , er service, Dick, service. We mustn’t forget that, you know. Which reminds me…Bless my soul I’d nearly forgotten. Of course I can’t come with you. I have to be back next Friday to read a paper. We have a little Society down there. Oh yes. There is plenty of intellectual life. Not of a very high quality, perhaps. One notices a certain lack of grip-certain confusion of mind. That is where I can be of some use to them. There are even regrettable jealousies…I don’t know why, but tempers seem less controlled than they used to be. Still, one mustn’t expect too much of human nature. I feel I can do a great work among them…Oh, must you be going? Well, so must I. Goodby, my dear boy. It has been a great pleasure. Most stimulating and provocative. Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye…
MK, there are those who cannot be emotionally satisfied without the “grip-certain” sense of mind (rather than what is perceived as “confusion”).
However, a trip to the mountains doesn’t sound bad to me.
Doug
Yllas, MK…
Thanks a whole bunch! I will check out that site, Yllas, when I have some more time (I have classes and studying to get to…ugh).
:)
Doug,
The trip is yours for the asking…
Care to join me?
You’ll have to let go of your need for proofs, and you’ll have to open your mind. You’ll have to trust someone other than yourself.
This is the dilemma that our friend from the book had. While it all sounded well and good, it didn’t fill his need to “search”…He gets back on the bus by the way. Even when he is standing in a world with glass grass, and talking to the spirit of a friend that died, he still refuses to believe what is in front of him. He “sees” the proof, but doesn’t recognize the proof. He is blind. Blinded by his desire for physical affirmation of that which isn’t physical. What a dilemma. Poor guy. Poor Doug.
The problem Doug, is that to get your “proofs” you have to take a leap without them.
Believing is seeing. Seeing is NOT believing.
Sorry, no mountains for you.
By the way Doug,
You were strangely quiet on that post. Did you not see yourself in our “friend”?
@Doug,
your perceptions are indeed accurate but for-me far too safe. I have found a site (on the old computer) where quantum theory and relativity are strongly challenged. Do these exist? You contend that God (apart from the fixed patterns of the universe) remains unproven. However, the concept of spacetime (that is so difficult to grasp it gives you headache) is more real??????
the fundamental idea behind the words was to help explore just what ‘0’ or ‘nothingness’ means. True to form, you spoke of quality and quantity … of what Doug of ‘nothing’? Can there be a quality or quantity with no subject …. no space, no time … zip? This is real headache country … ‘spacetime’ is by comparison a cakewalk!
There are two other terms that fit here – ‘finite’ and ‘infinite’. Once you find that ordinary reality has many qualities far beyond our intellectual grasp, then ‘proof’ or ‘intellectual certainty’ becomes muted. (It is also the first step out of the Cartesian box.)
@Doug,
just though of this: while it is true Aqunas does talk of a Beginning, it is your notion that beginning must be ‘in time’. All beginnings in a 3-D universe are in time, but such does not apply to the Beginning, because time itself must start …. the same applies to the theory of the Big Bang. Time is one expression of expansion of the matter of the universe. Thomas notes that physical reality is caused by an agent we call God …. the agent need not have matter (been created) nor be situated in time, because time itself is a creation … so are ALL dimensions … even ‘nothing’-ness). Are you beginning to understand what God entails?
The problem Doug, is that to get your “proofs” you have to take a leap without them.
MK, not everybody has the same emotional needs. There are any number of people in other countries, other religions, who want the same things as you, though their beliefs are not the same. I won’t start a big thing about the nature of religion, etc., but not everybody needs it.
……
You were strangely quiet on that post. Did you not see yourself in our “friend”?
I’ve read some of CS Lewis. Yes – undoubtably there is some of me there.
John M: your perceptions are indeed accurate but for-me far too safe. I have found a site (on the old computer) where quantum theory and relativity are strongly challenged. Do these exist? You contend that God (apart from the fixed patterns of the universe) remains unproven. However, the concept of spacetime (that is so difficult to grasp it gives you headache) is more real??????
I’m not the biggest physicist in the world, John, and really don’t know much about quantum mechanics, though at least parts of it are not seriously challenged, though I’m interested to read that site you mentioned.
Relativity is well-proven and even much less disputed. Yeah – it’s hard and sometimes head-hurting to think about spacetime after a lifetime of almost all 3-D and separate time perception. Still, spacetime isn’t in doubt.
……
the fundamental idea behind the words was to help explore just what ‘0’ or ‘nothingness’ means. True to form, you spoke of quality and quantity … of what Doug of ‘nothing’? Can there be a quality or quantity with no subject …. no space, no time … zip?
Quantity of anything. Doesn’t matter what items we’re talking about. Best I can do with the quality with no subject – no space or time – is that it would be a false perception, as in thinking of a singularity, as with what would be the Big Bang, and picturing “space” all around it. In reality, that’s not the way it’d be, since everything would be in the singularity.
This is real headache country … ‘spacetime’ is by comparison a cakewalk!
Well, I don’t think so, but sometimes you’re gonna have that. Our universe is not infinite. Yet there are no boundaries to it. Finite, yet unbounded – as with the 2 dimensional creatures on a 3 dimensional world.
And – some traditional Scottish Highland dancers keep the tradition of the cakewalk alive to this day.
……
There are two other terms that fit here – ‘finite’ and ‘infinite’. Once you find that ordinary reality has many qualities far beyond our intellectual grasp, then ‘proof’ or ‘intellectual certainty’ becomes muted. (It is also the first step out of the Cartesian box.)
Seems to me that stepping out of the box just means accepting imaginary stuff. No question that reality has stuff beyond our grasp, as far as direct perception, and very probably beyond what we can think of, ideas of God included. I think it’s mathematically proven that there have to be at least ten dimensions overall, 8 spatial and 2 of time. This stuff is way beyond me, but it would apply during conditions around a Big Bang, if not always.
As far as proof and intellectual certainty, I don’t say we can prove the non-existence of many things.
Doug
John, you’re right that what we think of as a 3-D universe would not apply at a “Beginning.” Yet it also doesn’t really apply right here and now. It’s not greatly inaccurate in our Newtonian world, but the error is there, and it grows greater as mass and speed increase, for one example.
I assert that Aquinas was indeed thinking in terms of time, standing alone, with his first 3 “proofs.” The First Mover, First Cause, and Necessary Being (at a time when there would have been nothing otherwise) all do regress back to what he thought of as a “beginning.”
You’re thinking the same way when you say “time itself must start.”
I see that the notion of God often entails picturing him outside space and time, sure.
5 proofs of Santa Claus:
The first and most evident way is the argument from Christmas trees. It is certain and evident to our senses that some things in this world are Christmas trees. Now no fir tree becomes a Christmas tree unless it is trimmed. But to be trimmed means that one receives an ornament. And since one cannot go on to infinity in the passing on of Christmas tree ornaments, there must be a First Untrimmed Trimmer, and this everyone understands to be Santa Claus.
The second way is from the notion of Christmas presents. In this world we find the giving of Christmas presents. Now he who gives Christmas presents either made them in his workshop, or got them from someone else. And since, if no one makes presents in his workshop, there will be no giving of Christmas presents, there must be a first giver of Christmas presents, to whom everyone gives the name of Santa Claus.
The third way is from the plastic image of Santa Claus. In all department stores we see plastic images that represent Santa Claus. Now these are representations of Santa Claus either because of Santa himself, or because of some other imageof Santa. Now there can be no infinite regression in representation, and so there must be something which is like Santa Claus because it _is_ Santa Claus.
The fourth way is taken from the degrees of Christmas Spirit. We see that people in the world have more or less of the Christmas Spirit. But “more” or”less” is said only with reference to “most”; and so there must be someone who has the most Christmas Spirit, and this someone we call Santa Claus.
The fifth way is taken from the conduct of children. As Christmas approaches we see children, who lack intelligence, acting for an end, which is shown by their always (or almost always) being good. But children would not be good for Christmas unless someone ensured that they were good. This someone is known by all to be Santa Claus.
Doug, Santa Claus is mom and dad:}
and God ?
God is Dad, too :)
@Doug,
your point being …. ?????
note: that the words ‘Mom and Dad’ are as apt … as is ‘Doug’ … prove you exist Doug and that I am not only responding to a bunch of electric signals with my own set of electric signals.
Doug,
The first and most evident way is the argument from Christmas trees. It is certain and evident to our senses that some things in this world are Christmas trees. Now no fir tree becomes a Christmas tree unless it is trimmed. But to be trimmed means that one receives an ornament. And since one cannot go on to infinity in the passing on of Christmas tree ornaments, there must be a First Untrimmed Trimmer, and this everyone understands to be Santa Claus.
I don’t believe that Santa Clause ever decorated a tree. It’s triangular shape is meant to denote the trinity. (We’re talking “Christ”mas trees here right? Not Yule logs or Winter trees?
The second way is from the notion of Christmas presents. In this world we find the giving of Christmas presents. Now he who gives Christmas presents either made them in his workshop, or got them from someone else. And since, if no one makes presents in his workshop, there will be no giving of Christmas presents, there must be a first giver of Christmas presents, to whom everyone gives the name of Santa Claus.
Actually, the first Santa Claus was St. Nicholas. (Santa=Saint/Claus=niCHLAUS) A real man. And we emulate him by giving to others as he did.
The third way is from the plastic image of Santa Claus. In all department stores we see plastic images that represent Santa Claus. Now these are representations of Santa Claus either because of Santa himself, or because of some other imageof Santa. Now there can be no infinite regression in representation, and so there must be something which is like Santa Claus because it _is_ Santa Claus.
I think you have to credit that one to the Coca-cola company.
The fourth way is taken from the degrees of Christmas Spirit. We see that people in the world have more or less of the Christmas Spirit. But “more” or”less” is said only with reference to “most”; and so there must be someone who has the most Christmas Spirit, and this someone we call Santa Claus.”
Where I come from, we call it Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Not Santa Claus.
The fifth way is taken from the conduct of children. As Christmas approaches we see children, who lack intelligence, acting for an end, which is shown by their always (or almost always) being good. But children would not be good for Christmas unless someone ensured that they were good. This someone is known by all to be Santa Claus.
Face it, they’re good for the toys. It’s all about the loot. But when they become adults they understand a bit better that it’s all about “Love”. And others. And celebrating “LIFE”. New Life. Both literally as well as figuratively.
Heather: Doug, Santa Claus is mom and dad:}
Hal: and God ?
Bobby: God is Dad, too :)
So Santa Claus is Jesus’s father?
“So Santa Claus is Jesus’s father?”
Mwahahaha!
Many many years ago when I was twenty three,
I got married to a widow who was pretty as could be.
This widow had a grown-up daughter
Who had hair of red.
My father fell in love with her,
And soon the two were wed.
This made my dad my son-in-law
And changed my very life.
My daughter was my mother,
For she was my father’s wife.
To complicate the matters worse,
Although it brought me joy,
I soon became the father
Of a bouncing baby boy.
My little baby then became
A brother-in-law to dad.
And so became my uncle,
Though it made me very sad.
For if he was my uncle,
Then that also made him brother
To the widow’s grown-up daughter
Who, of course, was my step-mother.
Father’s wife then had a son,
Who kept them on the run.
And he became my grandson,
For he was my daughter’s son.
My wife is now my mother’s mother
And it makes me blue.
Because, although she is my wife,
She’s my grandmother too.
If my wife is my grandmother,
Then I am her grandchild.
And every time I think of it,
It simply drives me wild.
For now I have become
The strangest case you ever saw.
As the husband of my grandmother,
I am my own grandpa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeYIOT-MqJY
MK, LOL!!!
My hubby and I used to listen to that song all the time LOL
Johnny the big M: note: that the words ‘Mom and Dad’ are as apt … as is ‘Doug’ … prove you exist Doug and that I am not only responding to a bunch of electric signals with my own set of electric signals.
Can’t really do that, John. What, beyond the fact of its own consciousness, can a consciousness really be sure of? The old hypothetical about “waking up” and finding that everything that one had thought one had experienced thus far was but as a “dream,” and that reality is much different.
As I’ve said before – we all make unprovable assumptions, and it’s where they diverge that the arguments begin.
I assume that you are another, separate consciousness, and if you really are then I assume you’re doin’ the same deal.
Doug
@Doug,
This would have been my response a few years back. There are many, many reasons to adapt the Cartesian box including constitutional-independence and the parallel assertion of the will in the last few centuries has made this mindset a tour de force. There exists a very different sort of mindset-being.
It has to do with love. That weird sensation that you and the target of your love are one. This is easiest to see among twins. My cousin would begin a sentence only to be completed by her twin sister. One would only say the first few words of a joke, before the other would burst out laughing. This closeness is perplexing to us singular folk, and we falsely assume it must be suffocating. On the other hand, we must seem awfully lonely and isolated. ((They are closer to the mark than we are in-our-boxes.))
This is a primary aspect of love, that you feel secure enough to discard your box and become one with your beloved. The symbol of this oneness is a kiss; holding hands; hugging; sexual intercourse; waisting time together; laughing together and crying together; wishing and hoping and trusting each other ….. yeah, twins have life much better, eh?
My wee carpet-meditation is meant to help you take the first steps in this journey.
Thanks, John.