Weekend question
Anti-torture activist Dr. Steven Miles was scheduled to speak before Masses tomorrow at St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church in Minneapolis until the Archdiocese there nixed him Wednesday because he is pro-abortion. In response Miles stated an interesting position, according to the Star Tribune:
Miles believes passionately that torture violates fundamental rights of life and dignity. And causes abortions.
“Torture causes women to abort at a horrendous rate,” Miles says, “and people who have been tortured are much more likely to commit suicide. The point is that an anti-torture campaign is a pro-life campaign.”
I find several holes and inconsistencies in that argument. Do you? Or perhaps you agree with Miles. If so, about what forms of torture do you think he is speaking?
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.
Perhaps he means that when an abortionists tortures and unborn baby with sharp instruments, perforating their skulls, or injects them with solutions that will burn their skin off, or sucks them through vacuum cleaner hoses…that he is causing “abortions”…
See, he’s right…Torture (of the unborn) causes abortions. Simple, really.
Hm.
On one hand he could be trying to argue that the stress of torture leads to spontaneous abortions (miscarriages), but on the other he could be saying torture coerces women into aborting because they don’t want their child to ever suffer that sort of pain and suffering.
I dunno, he makes a crap, not very clear argument, but I do agree, being anti-torture is pro-life because it reaffirms the dignity of human beings in addition to saving people from the horrors of torture (which he’s right about, those who are tortured have really high rates of suicide).
Ah crap, I didn’t read that clearly, and I missed the fact he was PC.
Disregard the first bit I said. The second still stands.
Jill, Would love to get some dialogue on your site about Jaspers Quote of the Day. I just look at the site where this came from and these people are a sad and evil group.
(Here is the quote:
Horrifying new law”
~Title that pro-abort Chingona gave his blog post at Shakesville.com about a new Oklahoma law requiring that at least an hour before an abortion an abortionist must perform an ultrasound and display the image of the unborn baby for his or her mother to see if she chooses. )
Hi Jill,
this concept does fit the abortion scenario. In many ways abortion is about human/self identity. If during sex or shortly afterwards (after finding out she is pregnant) any woman learns very quickly re. the kind of support she will have during a pregnancy. She also learns implicitly how valued she herself (and other humans) are.
if degraded and abused (like in torture) a concept of loathing is soon brought forward. Under pain, habits/attitudes often cultivated for years are suddenly ‘iffy’. The idea that abortion and suicide are strongly linked is testament to this.
Torture is meant for control of free humans. Abortion is a capitulation to a view that humans have no worth. Abortion is a confirmation of this! ‘If I kill my baby, I can’t be worth much, after all my baby isn’t worth much either.’
It’s not at all strange that almost no value is assessed early (in the 1st trimester). Just when protective instincts should be so-strong/all-embracing because the developing baby is most dependent here … it is the precise time of betrayal … . This phase can point out the devastation of both torture and abortion.
Is their unseen ripple effects on abortion far from those directly involved, for both torture and abortion … are not many pregnant-women, their bf; their parent; their families all victims? Are we not victims too?
Just who will win … Aren’t humans precious? (On purpose I did not say born-humans; nor person-humans.) Are not ‘rights’ just legalize for being valued as precious?
John, you’ve identified one of the holes I found in Miles’ argument. He infers abortion is wrong like suicide and both are committed in response to another wrong, torture. Yet he supports one of the 3 wrongs he identifies: abortion.
Lovethemboth: The QOD is ridiculous. That was jasper’s point. It is “horrifying” to provide a mother with complete informed consent before she aborts? Further, she is given the “choice” to learn the complete facts. The abortionist is merely being forced to be “pro-choice” rather than pro-abortion.
I honestly am completely confused by his statement. It sounds to me like an answer to a question a politician would give..you know..a roundabout answer that doesn’t really answer the ACTUAL question.
Or does he mean pregnancy is a form of torture on women and that is what is causing them to abort at horrendous rates?
And furthermore, what rates of abortion would he deem to be not horrendous?
“Torture causes women to abort at a horrendous rate,” Miles says, “and people who have been tortured are much more likely to commit suicide. The point is that an anti-torture campaign is a pro-life campaign.”
Miles is not a very good liar. Gotta give him credit for trying, though!
From the Star Tribune article:
“By the way, according to a poll published by the National Catholic Reporter, Catholics are more likely than other Americans to approve the use of torture.”
….interesting. I wonder why.
Hi JLM!!
Are you in the Twin Cities?
Hi Carla!
**waves**
Nope. Aurora, IL
This almost sorta Catholic definitely does not approve the use of torture.
Hi Jill,
I see the dilemma. This concept is ‘clearer’ to see with euthanasia rather than abortion. Such is in clear violation of historic Western medical ethics … the thrust then to alter medical ethics results in some wild matches like MD’s who are pro-choice or pro-abortion. The recent phenomenon that has doctors sedating babies prior to killing them (to relieve fetal pain) is sick … sick … sick!
Abortion is a moral problem. So to say that abortion is between a woman and her doctor is to falsely presume that he/she is a moralist and is helping. Any doctor who practices abortion perceives that humans are ‘broken-things’ in need of bio-‘fixing’, a technician. This slogan could read (and not lose it’s specialness) if: ‘abortion id between a woman and her plumber!’
Hi again JLM,
My ears always perk up when I read Star Tribune…
you are where the action is!! :)
Hi John M.
I appreciate your posts very much. They make me think, even when that is the last thing I want to do! I always wonder about “the woman and her doctor” I did not have a physician and the abortionist did not even look at me or talk to me. Do they mean him?!
“I honestly am completely confused by his statement. It sounds to me like an answer to a question a politician would give..you know..a roundabout answer that doesn’t really answer the ACTUAL question.”
I agree Elizabeth, what the heck is this guy talking about.
“Torture causes women to abort at a horrendous rate”
what a loser.
@Carla: Did you hear about the student at St. Thomas University in the Twin Cities that was not allowed to volunteer at Planned Parenthood for credit in law school because it violated the principles of the Catholic Church?
I did read that and all of the comments too! :) Most were very supportive of St. Thomas. I would have to agree.
The Catholic Church itself does not support torture, JLM.
You know, McCain always painted himself as anti-torture, which I respected, and then he voted against a measure that would ban the use of torture. Lost quite a bit of respect from me.
The Catholic Church itself does not support torture, JLM.
PIP,
do you mean the heirarchy or the pew-dwellers?
“After a quote from John Paul II, the statement says:
JLM,
We’ve discussed this before…3 out of 4 Catholics don’t have a clue what being a Catholic means. 3 out of 4 don’t attend mass weekly, go to confession, abstain from birth control..
Again, it’s not what Catholic people do…it’s what the church teaches. I’m tellin’ ya, stay off those goofy websites…lol.
mk,
I simply followed the link in Jill’s article to the National Catholic Reporter article itself.
Here, you can find it here:
http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006a/032406/032406h.htm
Is the National Catholic Reporter a “goofy website” that I should stay away from???
“Is the National Catholic Reporter a “goofy website” that I should stay away from???”
Yes, they have an agenda (liberal) which is not inline with church teachings…
“@Carla: Did you hear about the student at St. Thomas University in the Twin Cities that was not allowed to volunteer at Planned Parenthood for credit in law school because it violated the principles of the Catholic Church?”
Hopefully the school made her watch the abortion video.
Yes, they have an agenda (liberal) which is not inline with church teachings…
Which then caters to 75% of those who are Catholic, but don’t follow the teachings of the church but still call themselves Catholic (per mk’s post).
Thanks, Jasper.
And, WOW!
mk & Jasper…
Do you guys condone torture in any situation at all?
on another note, IMO, I think the church should have let him speak. However, I think they should have followed his speech up the following week or so with a pro-life (anti-abortion) speech to show the congregation how abortion is torture to the baby.
@Jasper: I doubt it. She’s still going to volunteer at PP, she just can’t do it on the school’s time.
“@Jasper: I doubt it. She’s still going to volunteer at PP, she just can’t do it on the school’s time.”
Maybe they should kick her out or something. or have her transfer to some other school.
@Jasper: On what grounds should they kick her out? However, I agree, why bother going to a Catholic school if you don’t accept or at least respect the ideology?
Hi JLM,
Good to see you back. I hope you’ve been ok! We are close geographically, do you want to do lunch sometime? If you are interested, send an email to mk and she can forward it to me.
If not, that’s perfectly fine! God bless you.
“Jasper: On what grounds should they kick her out?”
For working at an abortion mill which kills unborn children….Shouldn’t a Catholic education mean something…about integrity, character, etc.
You have to keep in mind that the term “torture” has become completely political. People mean different things by it, based upon what agenda they are trying to push.
There is a legitimate debate going on in this country about whether or not waterboarding as our US interrogators do it should be an option for use against terrorist leaders. Since 9/11 we have waterboarded three high-ranking al Qaeda members, yet the issue of waterboarding has been completely blown out of proportion if you ask me.
Discussions about waterboarding almost always descend into insane, irrelevant discussions about the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and other isolated incidents of torture which have always resulted in those who were unlawfully torturing people being prosecuted. Why do these discussions go off the tracks? Because of Bush Derangement Syndrome. President Bush’s detractors want so to believe that he likes to torture people. And on top of that, they want to believe that he tortures them in the worst ways he can possibly think of, and that he does it just for kicks. Any rational person should understand that that’s 100% pure bat guano.
Obviously it’s a very different question to ask someone, “Should waterboarding be an option for use against al Qaeda leaders?” or “Should the US military stab, shoot, rape, and murder prisoners for fun?”, which seems to be what a lot of people think they’re doing. And yet both questions are asked as, “Do you support torture?”, and political candidates are said to be either “pro-torture” or “anti-torture” based on an oversimplified version of their answer when it comes to the potential waterboarding of al Qaeda leaders.
In this thread and elsewhere, John McCain’s view on torture has been inaccurately presented, just as Howard Dean continues to intentionally take his “100 years in Iraq” words completely out of context for political gain. It’s 100% politics, which is extremely unfortunate, because we should have a serious debate in this country about what constitutes torture. It’s too important of an issue to be plagued by all of this political BS. And yet, more likely than not, Miles is nothing but a left-wing ideologue who is intentionally misrepresenting the issue of torture in order to promote his liberal politics.
And yes, the National Catholic Reporter is a goofy website. Not just goofy; I would call it an evil website and newspaper which seeks to distort and pervert Catholic teaching to fit with the politics of the Democratic Party.
For a REAL Catholic newspaper, go to the National Catholic Register. They aren’t Democratic, they aren’t Republican – they’re just CATHOLIC.
Good morning.
The oldest legal recognition that torture causes abortion, was a renaissance law that required midwives to certify that women about to be tortured were not pregnant. If they were, the torture was deferred. During that same time, torture techniques were modified for pregnant women to “protect” the pregnancy, for example buring the woman up to her chest so that the abdomen was touched.
About 40% of women who are raped in the course of torture (rape itself is a common means of torture both for the pain it causes and for the destruction of the woman’s standing in her family) go to have elective abortions.
Women in tortuing prisons are subjected to deprivation of food and vitamins and prenatal care which causes increased fetal death as does the exposure to diseases like tuberculosis which are endemic in torturing prisons.
In addtion, torture causes depression and post truamatic stress disorder which are associated with high levels of decisions for abortion after discharge from prison.
@Jasper: They can’t do that.
Though I say the girl is at fault and she should go to a different school if she is so at odds with Catholic teachings (St. Thomas isn’t even a very good law school, Macalester is much better, so why she’s going to St. Thomas says more about her than anything).
Steve Miles – are you the Steve Miles the post is about?
If so why do you support abortion?
Dear Patricia,
My views on abortion are well known and do not bear repeating. Until now, they have not been a problem at many presentations at Roman Catholic churches, colleges, universities, hospitals, and conferences. I have served on a panel with the Bishop of South Dakota. Joseph Cardinal Bernadine asked me to speak at one of his conferences on end of life care. I have published in Linacre quarterly.
Of note, my wife and I were foster parents for medically challenged childrens and adopted a child with a severe learning disability into our family. I would urge you–indeed every one of you in the anti-abortion community–to witness with by making a similar commitment. 450,000 children in the US are awaiting adoption–a number that is far smaller than the number of anti abortion households.
For anyone who is interested in what I was going to say at St Joan, a text is here.
http://minnesotamonitor.com/upload/StevenMilesTalk.pdf
Sincerely,
Steven Miles
thank-you for commenting Dr. Miles.
Why are you in favor of unborn children being tortured, like the one below:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/LateTermAbortions/abortedbaby05.html
thanks Steve,
your speech is very good, but IMHO does not go far enough … nor does John L’s post at 12:39. There are two problems not addressed well enough – what torture attempts to do: it is a political-control measure used to pacify people and to make them accede to their control. I think ‘reality’ on this board is vehemently anti-PL because of the huge potential in our movement to force compliance.
There are techniques that make ‘water-boarding’ child’s-play. I would tell you some, but the depravity would have you wretch at the mere thought of this being done.
We should take lessons of recent history into account here … all too often we miss what is obvious … many of Paul Pott’s soldiers/torturers n Cambodia were specifically very young boys … these pre-pubic boy-children used to release a ferocity because they have not yet learned the complexities involved in an emotion-based life and would not be squeamish about perpetrating atrocities. (This ‘lesson’ is being utilized in many present-day ‘wars’ in Africa.) Steve implies that children need adoption. This is all very true, but does not hint at the involvement necessary to reach some children!
It is not strange that SoMG (himself an abortionist) permits only logical discourse … as a young male (pre-puberty) does.
I’m curious Dr. Miles – and you must forgive me, because sincerely I don’t know your position on abortion, and I am unable to easily find it on google. The following question is sincere and is based on reading of the talk you were going to give at St. Joan.
Clearly you are framing torture as a political tool of persuasion, albeit with a certain kind of brute force, however, I’d like to know how you’ve come to believe that abortion issue is not a similar kind of tool. As an issue it is wielded with considerable force within the political arena.
One need not apply torture directly to the one who is to be persuaded. Could it not be said that morally our very nation is being tortured by the destruction of 50 million lives, and the psychological and moral impacts on the parents? How is abortion not used as a torture? Have you ever had a child of yours aborted at the 5th month? What about the process used – is that humane? Clearly the child is a human being.
What about the brutality involved in the coercion of those women who choose life, but then are beaten into an abortion, or are simply killed along with the child?
On what basis is it possible to compartmentalize one’s moral integrity?
You call for responsible abolition for one kind of torture, but not another? Is this not a plank in your eye?
I’m looking forward to your reply.
Chris Arsenault
—
BTW – Yes, I agree with the substance view of humanity as presented by Robert P. George, Christopher Tollefsen, Francis Beckwith, Greg Koukl, Stephen Schwartz etc.
Heh, you guys and your charity never cease to amaze me.
I won’t hold back, though. After reading Miles’ planned speech (and his pompous replies here), it’s rather plain to me that he is indeed a leftist ideologue who seeks to conflate the issue of waterboarding with every other form of torture which has ever existed in history. His comments on Abu Ghraib make that clear.
As we know, hatred of Bush/Cheney/Republicans justifies anything, including unbelievable dishonesty. But as long as Miles can sell books and make money, what does he care? What a joke.
Another person who is for a killin(baby in the womb), while not being for torture. Some studies have suggested that 50% of German women were raped and beaten severely(torture?) by the soldiers of the U.S.S.R.
Again, in the gulags,forced work camps,(White Sea Canal) of the Soviet Union, rape was common. Robert Conquest noted such actions with Solzhenitsyn confirming the common rape and torture as a eyewitness. Young males, known as “Raskolnicks” were especially brutal towards women. This tends to confirm exaclty what John, the son of Donell, is referring to, with young males being easily infected with a torture/rape/brutality amorality. Afterall, being incapable of having any “religious identity”,or rejecting such identity, most human males would find sexual pleasure and torture a simple good of life. And, to confirm such actions in human males, one could refer to Dogma Doug, and his thoughts on “abortion being universal for all written history”, and nothing more then “human culling by and miscarriage”. All one has to do to confirm such common morality amongst pro-abortionist is to insert the word rape for miscarriage. “Human culling by rape/torture”. Or, to tie it all together. Human culling by rape/torture produces suicide.
Was there a high incidence of suicide amongst survivors of the rape,torture, starvation of German women and Russian survivors of the gulag? Not during their confinment and torture, but murder was common amongst men and women in such conditions. Especially towards those that were “trustee’s” or suki who “worked for the guards” for favors.
But, one might ask yourself, if Miller is being a misogynist by stating that women commit suicide because of torture and rape(having a miscarriage or bearing a hate sex child)? The suggestion is that women are weaker then men when torture and rape are applied to “accede to their control”.
Afterall, the suicide rate for those in the Hanoi Hilton was less then males/females in USA prisons, where torture is prosecuted.
In fact, suicide and rape are a torturous connection to make, since any study would have to have a note written by the person who committed self murder, stating their self murder was from being raped, a miscarrige, or bearing a rape child.
I have yet to find a study that found survivors of torture and rape committed suicide because of having a miscarriage of a rape child.
And you will not.
What you do find is a pro abortionist appealing to the worst of human nature as a pessimist towards the strength of women to survive torture and rape.
I would LOVE to see the Catholic Church excommunicate all pro-choice American Catholics.
The Church would lose more than half its political influence.
Chris A, you wrote: “What about the brutality involved in the coercion of those women who choose life, but then are beaten into an abortion, or are simply killed along with the child? ”
How often do you think this happens?
Chris A, you wrote: “Yes, I agree with … Robert P. George, ”
Robert P. George thinks the government should be able to forbid (private) masturbation.
Really.
I agree with JLM who said: “Miles is not a very good liar. Gotta give him credit for trying, though!”
Except that I wouldn’t give him any credit for trying to tell that lie.
Dear Mr. Miles,
First, using the National Catholic Reporter and Cardinal Joseph Bernardine to back up your position, actually has the opposite effect to Catholics in good standing. Had I never read your speech, or known what your topic was, my “liberal Catholic leanings” radar would have sounded and I would have dismissed you on the spot as unworthy to speak at a Catholic School.
Second, I read your speech. I’d like to see some sources on the rape/abortion connection, but sans statistics, let me just say that the horrors of rape through torture in no way justify the horrors of torture through abortion.
That’s right up there with more birth control means less abortions. Evil is evil is evil, and all the correlations in the world do not justify any of it.
It is possible to agree with you, that torture is abhorrent and ineffective but still hold that you are way off the mark on the abortion issue.
I personally am tired of the Lisa Madigans of the world getting recognized as pillars of the community in Catholic school settings. I applaud St. Joans for having the guts to say that you do not qualify as a representative of a humanitarian poster child in a Catholic setting, as long as your views on abortion remain unchecked.
Abortion is the worst type of torture as it tortures INNOCENT victims…not terrorists, not murderers, but babies in their mothers wombs. All credibility is lost for me, when out of one side of your mouth you say that torture is inhumane, and out of the other you say that systematically killing our unborn is justified.
Personally, I abhor both forms of torture. Until you also see the correlation between torture in the context of war, and torture of our children for the sake of convenience, I think you would do best to give your speeches in a secular setting.
I do not wish you ill will, but neither do I want to see you speaking in Catholic schools.
Opening the worlds eyes to the insanity of torture is a good thing, and you should continue to do it. But you should also open your own eyes to the insanity of abortion.
Peace and continued success,
MK
John L, you wrote: “After reading Miles’ planned speech (and his pompous replies here), it’s rather plain to me that he is indeed a leftist ideologue who seeks to conflate the issue of waterboarding with every other form of torture which has ever existed in history. ”
Do you think Catholics should support the use of waterboarding, or oppose it?
The comparison between torture and abortion
is specious.It is known that a fetus in the
first trimester cannot feel pain.
And even if abortion were painful,if I were
a fetus,I would rather experience a few minites of pain than a whole lifetime of poverty,
hunger and disease.
“Robert P. George thinks the government should be able to forbid (private) masturbation.”
Interesting. Where does George write about this, Anon?
That anon was me. I don’t remember where, but I’ve definitely read an interview in which he confirmed it while acknowledging that enforcement of such a law would be difficult.
Ah, OK SoMG. I love George, but it is true that such a law would be impossible to enforce. In fact, so much so that it wouldn’t even be worth it to pass it. Despite this, I wonder what his reasons for wanting such a law are…
Check this out: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2006/02/ponnuru_digs_in.html
Bobby B, you wrote: “I wonder what his reasons for wanting such a law are…”
Ummmmmm…. Because he thinks the USA should be governed according to Catholic doctrine, rather than according to the Constitution?
Just a guess.
And even if abortion were painful,if I were
a fetus,I would rather experience a few minites of pain than a whole lifetime of poverty,
hunger and disease.
Aren’t you then projecting your wants and desires onto another human being who may well not feel the same way as you? Just because *you* would rather have a few moments of pain rather than go through normal suffering in life, doesn’t mean that everyone else feels that way .
This is interesting too:
http://www.memoryhole.net/kyle/2006/01/robert_p_georges_essay_samesex.html
The author attributes to George the following points:
…that humans become one biological organism during the act of reproduction,
…that difficult moral questions MUST be codified in law so as to explain the correct answers in straightforward ways to the public,
…that without the law to teach people, they will lose the desire to have heterosexual monogamous relationships.
If the author is correct that George honestly believes these three points, then George is deluded about human reproductive biology and what it means to be a biological organism, and is also a facist of a sort.
SoMG, I am not an expert on interrogation techniques. But I have seen videos of waterboarding, and if you ask me, is it torture? The answer I would have to give you is, “I don’t know.”
Unlike other forms of torture which are obvious, I truly don’t believe it’s obvious in the case of waterboarding as our government carried it out on the three al Qaeda leaders. We put a wet rag in their mouths and poured water on it for a few minutes, causing them to believe they were going to drown. Is that really to be considered to be on the same level with stabbing, shooting, raping, and other atrocities committed against prisoners?
Obviously that which was done to the prisoners at Abu Ghraib was pointless and abusive, if not also psychological and physical torture, and should never be condoned. Everything else Miles talks about is clearly torture. The problem is when ideologues try to equate waterboarding with things which are obviously torture.
That’s why I say we need a serious debate on exactly what torture is. If waterboarding as our government does it is truly torture, then let us never do it to anyone, not even al Qaeda leaders. Unfortunately the debate is completely polluted by dishonest people who want to play politics with people’s lives.
Oh, and Robert Berger? You’re an idiot.
Well, SoMG, if George comes on here to debate you, feel free to call him a “facist”. But I don’t see him around here, do you?
John L, do you disagree that believing that difficult moral questions must be codified in law so as to explain the correct answers in straightforward ways to the public, qualifies the believer as a facist of sorts?
I’m on the raod this week so haven’t posted much.
I guess one would be anti-torture since it is assumed that one loved or cared for their fellow man.
However, I would disagee with the statement that torture causes abortion.
A truer and more logical statement would be that evil causes torture and abortion.
Oh, and John L, Robert Berger may be an idiot but he’s right that first-trimester fetuses cannot feel pain.
John L, you should do what Bill Maher did: get some friends to waterboard you and then you can tell from personal experience whether or not it is torture.
“John L, you should do what Bill Maher did: get some friends to waterboard you and then you can tell from personal experience whether or not it is torture.”
SoMG, we used to play waterboarding all the time in the pool when we were kids.. com’on SoMG, you don’t mind babies having their rimbs ripped off but then you get all upset over Kalid sheik Mohammand getting dunked in water.
It’s a screwed-up world we live in when you can either be against torture or against abortion, but so few people can bring themselves to be against both.
Oh, and John L, Robert Berger may be an idiot but he’s right that first-trimester fetuses cannot feel pain.
Posted by: SoMG at May 4, 2008 11:30 AM
As a medical professional yourself, isn’t an abortion an abortion no matter what? Does it matter when the baby feels pain?
It’s a screwed-up world we live in when you can compare 3 terrorists being “tortured” against 48,000,000 innocent unborn being tortured and killed.
Mr. Miles: “Torture causes women to abort at a horrendous rate,” Miles says, “and people who have been tortured are much more likely to commit suicide. The point is that an anti-torture campaign is a pro-life campaign.”
( From the text of Mr. Miles speech:)
In such facts and examples, we can discern the path of reconciliation.
We must summon the courage to be inconvenienced by the culture of torture.
We must accept responsibility for rejecting the culture of torture in our personal and
collective actions, including our acts of citizenship.
We must lift our voices and hands in solidarity with civil communities of justice and
lovingkindness in order to move from confession to the abolition of torture.
Dear Mr. Miles:
It would be very interesting to see Ms. Hathaway’s research at Yale regarding her statistics. Is rape always an integral part of the torture of women? Is it pregnancies directly resulting from torture (rape) that you refer to as being aborted? How many abortions are attributed yearly to pregnancies resulting from the rape of tortured women? Are there post-traumatic abortions that are occurring years after torture which you are also counting?
I must say, given the numbers of abortions each year, I can’t imagine that abortion is less of a problem in our culture, or any, than torture is.
I would hope and pray that you might consider joining us in “lifting our voice and hands in solidarity” for the abolition of abortion as well. Obviously, your heart is in the right place on the torture issue. God bless you!
Sincerely,
Janet
Jill,
Very interesting to address the issue of torture on your abortion blog. It’s enlightening to see how many similarities there are between both abortion and torture. Obviously the dignitiy of human life is at the core of each. Excellent post!
Umm, Jasper, one of the major reasons we should NOT torture our victims is because it encourages other countries to torture any of our soldiers/citizens that it may happen across.
Janet, you wrote: ” …Isn’t an abortion an abortion no matter what? Does it matter when the baby feels pain?”
Yes, it matters to me. If I did late-term abortions, I would cause fetal demise (by an ultrasound-guided, intracardiac injection) first, before doing anything that might be painful to a well-developed fetus. Even without the law against “partial-birth” abortions. There’s enough pain in the world.
Jasper, you wrote: “SoMG, you don’t mind babies having their rimbs ripped off but then you get all upset over Kalid sheik Mohammand getting dunked in water.”
Did you say “rimbs”? What are you, Chinese?
And waterboarding is not like “getting dunked in water”. It’s more like getting held under water until you are forced to inhale the water. Again, do what Bill Maher did: try it. There’s a reason it is outlawed by the Geneva Convention.
Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward (the Trendelenburg position), and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.[1] Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent.[2] In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex.[3] Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death.[4] The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.[5]
Via.
By the way, the name of the Cambodian
mass murderer is Pol Pot,not Paul Pott.
I may be an idiot,but I know how to spell.
John and SOMG, I don’t think Robert Berger is an idiot.. I completely disagree with his stand on abortion, but he’s usually pretty polite about getting his point across.
SoMG, we used to play waterboarding all the time in the pool when we were kids.
Posted by: jasper at May 4, 2008 11:48 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You have no clue what waterboarding is.
It’s a screwed-up world we live in when you can compare 3 terrorists being “tortured” against 48,000,000 innocent unborn being tortured and killed.
Ah yes, the “”look over there!” defense.
It’s a screwed-up world we live in when you can compare 3 terrorists being “tortured”
Posted by: jasper at May 4, 2008 12:32 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Terrorists?
Funny, we’re known to kidnap and torture people who have nothing to do with terrorism:
September 19, 2006
Canadian wrongfully kidnapped, tortured, panel finds
An official review panel completely vindicated a Canadian citizen who was kidnapped and tortured on wrongful suspicion of terrorist ties:
The report, released in Ottawa, was the result of a 2 1/2-year inquiry that represented one of the first public investigations into mistakes made as part of the United States’ “extraordinary rendition” program, which has secretly spirited suspects to foreign countries for interrogation by often brutal methods.
The inquiry, which focused on the Canadian intelligence services, found that agents who were under pressure to find terrorists after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, falsely labeled an Ottawa computer consultant, Maher Arar, as a dangerous radical. They asked U.S. authorities to put him and his wife, a university economist, on the al-Qaeda “watchlist,” without justification, the report said.
Arar was also listed as “an Islamic extremist individual” who was in the Washington area on Sept. 11. The report concluded that he had no involvement in Islamic extremism and was on business in San Diego that day, said the head of the inquiry commission, Ontario Justice Dennis O’Connor.
Arar, now 36, was detained by U.S. authorities as he changed planes in New York on Sept. 26, 2002. He was held for questioning for 12 days, then flown by jet to Jordan and driven to Syria. He was beaten, forced to confess to having trained in Afghanistan — where he never has been — and then kept in a coffin-size dungeon for 10 months before he was released, the Canadian inquiry commission found.
O’Connor concluded that “categorically there is no evidence” that Arar did anything wrong or was a security threat. [WaPo]
The case of Maher Arar illustrates many of the potential pitfalls of the US approach to counter-terrorism.
First off, when you dispense with all legal safeguards, you increase the chance of kidnapping and torturing innocents.
Furthermore, Canadian authorities are now acutely aware that a bad tip could result in one of their own citizens being kidnapped and tortured. Agents may be less than eager to share tips and hunches with their American colleagues, even if the routine exchange of information would be valuable.
The American policy of extraordinary rendition poses an ethical dilemma for Canadian officials. Is it ethical to pass along inconclusive or fragmentary evidence about innocent people, knowing that these tips might get one of your citizens kidnapped and tortured?
I predict that extraordinary rendition will have a chilling effect on Canadian officials–to the detriment of the US and counter-terrorism generally.
Email this
John,
Not sure if anyone else addressed this, but if you are wondering if it is torture, read a first hand account from a conservative here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=448717
I don’t think Robert Berger is an idiot either. I was just teasing John L.
“Umm, Jasper, one of the major reasons we should NOT torture our victims is because it encourages other countries to torture any of our soldiers/citizens that it may happen across.”
How about for unborn children Edyt? one of the reasons we should not allow abortion is because it can encourage other to do it. …I’ll be against torture terrorists(I already am actually) if you’ll be against abortion…a deal?
Pro-aborts,
where are your hearts when it comes to unborn children?
Edyt, SoMG, Laura,
We post pictures here of aborted children all of time, you have never acknowledged the horror of abortion, yet you all quickly jump to show the horror of terrorists being tortured.
From Steve Miles response to me: Posted by: Steve Miles at May 3, 2008 2:27 PM
I would urge you–indeed every one of you in the anti-abortion community–to witness with by making a similar commitment. 450,000 children in the US are awaiting adoption–a number that is far smaller than the number of anti abortion households.
Unfortunately, many prolifers like myself are not in a position to adopt children. As a single mom with 4 kids I know well enough how difficult life can be. However, the fact that prolife people cannot adopt does not detract from their position against abortion. And many, many prolife couples are living a very sacrificial life by having large families and doing without many of the materials perks their peers with fewer children have. Some of these children are themselves born with disabilities.
Unfortunately, Dr. Miles, the personal good work you have done is marred by the promoting of the heinous crime of abortion – which is really the torture of an unborn child until death. We don’t use these methods to euthanize animals. Is it because we don’t see the suffering of the child?
A good responsible Catholic works on all levels to the best of his/her ability to promote the dignity of ALL our brothers and sisters. Abortion will never be the answer to a difficult pregnancy. And it can NEVER promote and protect the dignity of either mother, father or child.
Patricia, I’m just curious about your viewpoint on this…
Wouldn’t it be better to hold off having children of your own to save money to adopt one child? What good does having a large family do when there are children that go unadopted for one of the reasons you stated — inability to afford another child, or the costs of adopting a child?
Well thanks, pip. The debate is over now. Some guy on the internet said so.
Okay, John. I guess listening to other viewpoints is beyond your grasp.
Till next time.
Because Edyt when a couple marries (and that BTW is the best circumstance to bring children into the world) children are (or use to be considered) the raison d’etre of their love and committment to one another. That is not to say that couples who cannot have children are lacking in their marriages.
When a couple loves one other, their love becomes incarnate in the being of their child. Their love speaks and demands to be given birth to. To deliberately refuse to have a child and adopt another in fact thwarts their marriage and their love for one another. They can chose to adopt, but many don’t because adoption is not for everyone. The purpose of marriage is to have children. I think people have forgotten this today – the contraceptive mentality and so forth.
Hi gang,
first off I’d like to apologize to Robert for misspelling Pol Pot’s name …. Perhaps we should all think about what the de-sensitization process has done to us. I think, we fool ourselves into believing that we are ‘so strong’ that we are unaffected by cruelty.
I shudder every time I recall Laura’s posting a picture of a starving child being targeted by a buzzard as the bird’s next lunch. Someplace deep within this is an outrage. A very similar reaction is elicited even thinking about torture.
The actual knowing that this happens far too often, makes me what … a ‘softee’. I remember what Ed Bradley of ’60 Minutes’ said. He loved the Cambodian people. When much younger and a cub-reporter during Pol Pot’s reign. He heard the story that one night The Commir Rouge raided a village and promptly exterminated everyone.
Upon entering one of the thatched houses where 4 people slept on the floor – a Mom. a Dad and their 2 children … a boy 10-yrs and his sister 7-yrs. They promptly executed the parents, but decided to have a-little-fun with the kids. So, they thrust a gun into the little boy’s hands and demanded that HE kill his sister. If he refused to do so, both he and his sister (like their parents) would be killed. HE SHOT (and killed) HIS SISTER!
Ed was visibly shaken by retelling the episode … and like Laura’s picture, it haunts me – the cruelty.
This same sense fills the hearts of PL’ers who sense the destruction of fellow humans and the impotence of these feelings. Asking us to disengage our feelings on torture (or abortion) is like saying to the starving Ethiopian girl … “Hey kid! Just walk another two miles ’til you reach some food!” Isn’t the 2 miles just too far? … isn’t killing (via abortion), or torture just too much?
And remember, we are all victimized … the tortured … the torturer, the humane in the human society, too …. all of us!
Hmmm. I see. I guess what I don’t understand is that it makes adopted children seem less valuable (not produced out of marriage and love of a couple). :( Poor things.
If a couple does not want children, should they not get married?
John, thank you. I think you’re right on the mark about being desensitized — clearly, in addition to overly sexual messages, we’ve also seen and heard a lot of overly violent ones. After 9/11, so many people were in shock and angry, that the natural response seemed to be to go out and maim, torture, and kill those who would wish us harm. The outrage and subsequent torture may have been justifiable, but certainly no better a solution than abortion is to end an unwanted pregnancy.
No, adopted children are not less valuable Edyt. Stop reading things into my statements that are not there. However, not everyone can adopt and not everyone will be allowed to adopt. If you’d get off your snarky stool and try to understand a person, you’d do much better Edyt.
Dr. Miles was saying that prolife people are not really prolife because they won’t take all the adoptable and abandoned children in the world and adopt them. Even if we did, there will always be a child abandoned. The solution is to build stronger families and stronger marriages. And a big help would be to get off the abortion contraception train we are currently on.
However, I do have an example for you Edyt. A good friend of mine is currently expecting her NINTH child. They homeschool their children. They have been foster parents and wanted to adopt 2 children whom they fostered for about 3 years. This boy and girl came to them in terrible condition. The boy who was about 2 when he arrived, could not talk, but only grunted. When he was tested 8 months later, he was AHEAD of children his age in all areas. They were not allowed to adopt these children because they had TOO MANY of their own children. The case worker fought tooth and nail for them without success. When the test results came back for this boy, the social worker broke down and cried. She enlisted this woman to find any and all her friends to sign up as foster parents. Many of our friends did just that. I think you’d be surprised Edyt just how many prolife people do foster and adopt – and not just healthy children but the ones who are truly unwanted. Actor and prolifer, Jim Caviezel has just adopted 2 disabled children.
To Robert Berger:
“And even if abortion were painful,if I were
a fetus,I would rather experience a few minites of pain than a whole lifetime of poverty,
hunger and disease.
Posted by: robert berger at May 4, 2008 8:43 AM
What a ridiculous statement. How can you know if you will experience a lifetime of poverty, hunger and disease. This smacks of fatalism and the idea that man can never overcome his circumstances. Many a person has been born into terrible conditions and has overcome them to move on to something better. Life is sweet to us all. You can’t predict what life will be like for anyone. Hardly a reason for abortion.
John McD,
Applause and more applause…
Patricia,
Applause and more applause…
Edyt,
The outrage and subsequent torture may have been justifiable, but certainly no better a solution than abortion is to end an unwanted pregnancy.
Posted by: Edyt at May 4, 2008 6:28 PM
Huh? Did I hear you right???? Did you say what I think you said????
If so…
Applause and more applause!
Patricia,
I did not say they were less valuable. I said your argument makes them seem less so because they were not created the same way as children out of marriage.
Personally, I’d rather adopt than birth my own, but I’ve been told before that I’m selfish for wanting to use contraceptives and later adopt, because if I had children now I wouldn’t be able to afford to adopt. I’d rather wait to have children, save money, use contraceptives, and then adopt. I don’t view that as a selfish act, personally. It’s a lot more “convenient” to have children of your own, but I believe the most loving act a person can do is to take care of someone who is not wanted. (Hence why both my cats were adopted rather than bought at a pet store.)
I am trying to understand you, but the messages you’re posting are confusing, which is why I’m asking questions. If you view that as snarky, then I’m sorry.
… MK, I’m not going pro-life, so you can stop clapping. :P
It’s possible to be a polite idiot, you know, and Robert Berger demonstrates that perfectly. Unfortunately I have no patience for idiots who post insane nonsense, regardless of how polite they are.
PIP, would you like me to post some random guy on the internet who stuffed plastic bags in his mouth saying that waterboarding is not torture, or should we have a serious discussion here?
How about this; if waterboarding is indeed inhuman torture and is worse than having your fingers smashed as the person on the other end of your link stated… then why is it used to train our military? Are we then subjecting our own military men and women to inhuman torture?
The very important question that needs to be answered is, is waterboarding always torture or is waterboarding sometimes torture? Does it depend upon exactly how it is done? Or is it just always torture no matter what? If it’s always torture, then it should never be allowed. If it’s sometimes torture, and if it is an effective interrogation method, then that is a little bit different, don’t you think?
To repeat myself, I think this is a very serious topic, and I don’t appreciate the fact that so many people are playing politics with this issue, just as they do with the abortion issue. If waterboarding is always torture under any circumstances, then it should never be used, period.
How about this; if waterboarding is indeed inhuman torture and is worse than having your fingers smashed as the person on the other end of your link stated… then why is it used to train our military? Are we then subjecting our own military men and women to inhuman torture?
Yes, we are.
We do the same thing to our police officers when we Mace them. The point is not to torture. The point is to make our military men and women and police officers aware of how it feels to be on the other side. It’s meant to prevent torture.
Waterboarding is always torture under any circumstances. If a friend does it to a friend, it’s still torture. The big problem here is that we have our respectable military doing it, which paints a very bad image of the U.S.
“I believe the most loving act a person can do is to take care of someone who is not wanted.”
Thats good Edyt, I’m glad to hear that.
Do you feel the same way for unwanted unborn children?
Folks, I think Edyt is on the verge of becoming pro-life, this is good-news. God-Bless Edyt.
Edyt
My argument does not make children who are born outside of wedlock seem less valuable than children born in marriage. Children deserve and have a right to be born in a marriage because that is what’s best for them – to have a mother and a father. Study after study has shown this so.
It would be best for children to be adopted into a family with a mother and a father. However, Dr. Miles was saying that people are not truly prolife unless they rid the world of unwanted children through fostering and adoption. He felt that prolife people should put their beliefs into action. What I am saying is that many many prolife people do EXACTLY this through fostering, adopting or working with women and families in difficult situations. But not everyone is called to the same way of ministering. It’s an argument proaborts commonly use to deflect discussion away from the fact that there really is no NEED for abortion.
You are suggesting that people should not have children but look after those that are abandoned. I am saying that this is incompatible with the sacrament of marriage as I understand and belief it to be. Married couples are called to have children and sometimes called also to help those children that need a home too.
“I believe the most loving act a person can do is to take care of someone who is not wanted.”
Might this statement also be applied to the unborn – those not wanted by their parents? Instead of aborting them, at least allow them to be born and to be adopted by the many families looking for children. Why do you think that so many couples are going to China and other third world nations to adopt children? We’ve pushed the view in North America that these children are better off aborted than undergo the “horror” of adoption. Many many childless couples are frustrated beyond belief and would love to take a new baby into their lives.
There you go again Patricia, using your religion to justify selfishness. It’s not a calling, it’s the evolutionary drive to procreate in one’s own image, just cloaked in religiosity.
The reason many adoptive parents go to China is the same reason many people buy new cars instead of perfectly good used ones. They want to have that fresh start – unfortunately when one applies the analogy to existing, older kids languishing in foster care, it’s a very uncomforatble truth.
A lot of liberals on this site make especially spacious claims, i.e., Robert Berger stating that if he were a fetus facing a life of poverty, disease, etc., he’d rather be killed in some sort of ludicrous thought process justifying abortion. He assumes all babies to be aborted are assigned this common destiny.
And Phylo’s recent post expressing a gross generalization about why people go to China to adopt babies. Perhaps Phylo, these couples have prayed earnestly about this and God is directing them to do so? Perhaps to save a baby from a godless society?
Using Mr. Berger’s and Phylos combined inane logic, Christians should encourage the wholesale abortion of babies in the womb of all atheistic societies?
Both Berger’s and Phylo’s assertions assume a vast about of knowledge which I would say border on omniscience.
And you liberals call conservatives prejudiced, judgemental, bigoted and closeminded?
And regarding torture and abortion. Torture does not cause abortion. Evil causes both and their author is the father of lies, satan himself.
Regarding the weekly poll question on the right here: A pastor or priest can say anything about a particular issue from the pulpit. He can’t however, endorse a particulr political party or candidate. There is so much misinfomration about this subject it is a shame that Christians are intimidated by this lie of the devil.
The main reason all you pro-aborts have a law that legalized the brutal and vicious murder of 50,000,000 babies in the womb and caused one of the greatest holocausts in history was because of the 501c3 legislation introduced in the 1950’s that gave tax exempt stauts to churches and non-profits willing to buy into this satanic scheme. The love of money is the root of all evil.
We are keenly aware of the plan and it is the Church which will repent from this evil and legalized abortion will be repealed.
I call on all churches to stop consorting with satan and renounce your tax exepmt status. Is God your source or not?
Proclaim God’s word from the rooftops and that without fear or intimidation from any man made or satanic entity.
Patricia,
I don’t think we have done enough studies on homosexual couples to have fully determined that children would not also do well with two parents of one sex. Of course, it would be very difficult to do such studies because we prohibit homosexual couples from adopting in many cases. And yes, children do better with a mother and father simply because it allows for a balance. I can easily say if it weren’t for my father’s healthy dose of reason at the end of the day, myself and four brothers probably wouldn’t have made it to adulthood. Two parents also allows for one or both parents to work and still have time to spend with the children. In single-parent households, that parent often spends time working and not with the kids.
I’m not sure about your statement that there is no “need” for abortion, however. Certainly there are justifiable reasons to abort — one being medical problems. I will not ever argue the life of an unborn child over the life of its mother.
Might this statement also be applied to the unborn – those not wanted by their parents? Instead of aborting them, at least allow them to be born and to be adopted by the many families looking for children. Why do you think that so many couples are going to China and other third world nations to adopt children? We’ve pushed the view in North America that these children are better off aborted than undergo the “horror” of adoption. Many many childless couples are frustrated beyond belief and would love to take a new baby into their lives.
There are plenty of children up for adoption in America. The fact of the matter is, many of those children are difficult, disabled, or colored. It’s selfish of a parent to want a child, but only want a perfect baby that matches their race. On top of that, it’s easier to adopt in other countries. Less paperwork, less expensive, less complicated and time consuming. If I knew there were couples willing to adopt coming out of the woodwork, maybe I’d be less pro-choice. But with sentiments like yours, that it is the duty of a couple to produce children, I doubt that we’ll ever be to the point where children will be readily adopted.
Again, I’ll ask: If a couple does not want to have children, should they not get married?
I call on all churches to stop consorting with satan
Posted by: HisMan at May 5, 2008 1:28 AM
You are surely crazy.
Edyt,
Your question is legitimate, but the answer is twofold.
Coming from a Catholic standpoint, not being open to children defies our understanding of the marriage union. The union, to us, of a man and a woman transcends the physical and enters the metaphysical/spiritual realm. When a man and woman unite in a sexual way, they are metaphysically becoming one person. They are no longer two people, but one soul. I call it soul dancing. And the fruit of this union is life. Understood that sometimes life is “impossible” as one or the other member of the couple can be incapable physically of producing a child. However, the openness, the willingness, to create this new life, must be there.
From a secular viewpoint, each couple will have to decide for themselves.
Keep in mind, that we Catholics, don’t even view marriage outside of the church as valid. Any marriage. In our minds, 80% of “married couples” are not really married. To us, marriage is a sacrament. A covenant, not a contract.
But we don’t live in a theocracy, so we can’t very well expect the rest of the world to abide by our standards…
So the answer to your question would be, it depends…is the couple in question Catholic?
If a couple does not want to have children, should they not get married?
Posted by: Edyt at May 5, 2008 2:07 AM
NO. The main purpose of marriage is to produce children. Therefore if you marry with the intent of not having children you don’t understand what marriage is. It is not solely for the mutual satisfaction of the couple – although I realise that many people on this board will disagree with me. However, until recently this was society’s understanding of the purpose of marriage. Couples were brought together or chose to marry to create families and a life together. It was always consider one of the best ways to attain happiness in this life.
I would ask the question “Why is it that the couple (although in my experience, it’s usually the woman) doesn’t want to have children.”
I have met one woman who was living with her boyfriend at the time I knew her who adamantly did not want children. She found pregnancy disgusting – to my mind this was pathological.
“If I knew there were couples willing to adopt coming out of the woodwork, maybe I’d be less pro-choice.”
This is like the specious argument people make for homosexual marriage, saying that until homosexuals can marry, I won’t be marrying but will choose to live together.
The fact of the matter Edyt is that many people don’t have the resources or abilities to look after disabled children. I never stated that married couples looking to have their OWN children want a perfect child or a child who matches their race. That is your ASSUMPTION. What you’ve stated implies that all the disabled children in America are abandoned by their parents and just left drifting in foster care. Many families I know who have their own children have problems of their own. The mother of nine that I mentioned to you has 3 children with severe psoriasis. Both her and her husband are carriers of the gene. Maybe that isn’t disabled enough for you? Another family of five has a child with Tourettes syndrome. A third family I know with eight children has a 13 year old with aplastic anemia. I could go on, but I think you get my point.
“Certainly there are justifiable reasons to abort — one being medical problems.”
If abortion were only allowed for actual medical problems Edyt, I doubt very much we’d be seeing the 1.5 million abortions in America every year. Maybe 20. Abortion is NEVER EVER a solution to a problem pregnancy.
Mk,
That’s correct. It is a Catholic position. In fact if a couple who marries in the Catholic Church and one of them at the time of marriage does not want to have children – this is grounds for annullment. I do know of a young man who was in this situation – his wife absolutely did not want children. He eventually left the marriage and was divorced and annulled.
I just thought of one other thing. Years ago, if a couple was unable to have children, they often adopted. Sometimes, in a strange twist of fate, after they adopted, they would then get pregnant! We use to joke about situations such as this, saying that “they needed a working model!”
However, with abortion, the idea of adoption was presented as a real tragedy and that the child would be better of aborted than born into such a situation. I remember this being the mantra of feminists in the 70’s and 80’s in particular.
Now, if a couple are unable to conceive they travel down the arduous road of IVF and hormonal treatments – sometimes to no baby. After spending thousands of dollars, there might not be money left for adoption.
MK,
“Keep in mind, that we Catholics, don’t even view marriage outside of the church as valid. Any marriage. In our minds, 80% of “married couples” are not really married. To us, marriage is a sacrament. A covenant, not a contract.”
This isn’t quite right, I believe. If two Protestants who were never once Catholic get married, we assume that their marriage is valid. We as Catholics are bound by canonical form, but that is just a disciplinary measure, and hence non-Catholic marriages are valid because they are not bound by canonical form. In fact, this is why one often hears Catholics saying that Protestants have two valid sacraments; baptism and matrimony. We recognize non-Catholic marriages.
In fact, any marriage of two baptized persons is considered valid unless shown otherwise. A marriage between two non-baptized persons is what’s called a natural marriage, and this is also recognized by the Catholic Church. A natural marriage, however, can be dissolved.
The bottom line is that if two people who have never been Catholic are married, the church a priori assumes their marriage valid.
“Keep in mind, that we Catholics, don’t even view marriage outside of the church as valid.”
This is not quite correct Mk. The church does recognize marriages outside of the church including civil ones, but they are not sacramental in character. This is my understanding of the church’s position.
Another way to see this is to realize that baptism and matrimony are the only sacraments that do not require a priest to confer. Anyone can baptize anyone else, and in marriage, it is the SPOUSES who confer the sacrament on EACH OTHER. So it’s not like a priest is absolutely necessary in all cases for marriage. God love you, MK.
yes, good point Mr. Bambino! How IS the bambino anyway?
Same ol, same ol. Currently feeding the baby, trying to write a dissertation, the usual. Still haven’t learned French yet… that’s really looming over my head…
Pac:
Did you read the post?
When churches are muzzled by their tax exempt status and the fear of losing it and compromise the truth, who’s tune do you think they are playing?
Thanks for clarifying guys…
By church, I meant any Christian church, and by invalid I meant if you were a Catholic.
We recognize the marriage “legally” of course, but as one of you said not sacramentally. I should have explained the whole thing better, but I was just trying to point out that Catholics view the whole picture through a different lense, while recognizing that the rest of the world doesn’t see it the same way.
So I didn’t mean to imply that non christian marriages were a scam. The whole example was to show the difference between life in the context of the church as opposed to the secular view, and that while I am held to the Catholic standard, I cannot hold the rest of the world to the same standard.
I did not say that ALL unwanted children
will have lives of”poverty,hunger and disease”,
but certainly MANY do.Poor children who do not
get adequate nutrition suffer from stunted
mental development and lower intelligence.
There is already plenty of that in America.
Do we want MORE of this is abortion becomes
illegal here? Why don’t we do more to provide
for poor children?
Well, it’s settled! Kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out.
Robert,
You are asking two different questions. Before abortion was illegal, we weren’t inundated with mentally challenged, starving children, were we?
What did we do with them then? And why do you imply that lower IQ’s mean less quality of life?
Of course we should do more to provide for poor children, but the leap to “until we do, we should just kill them before we have a chance to help them” is dangerous.
Abortion is never, never, never and answer. It is a copout. A lie.
I don’t remember where the statisics are right now, but awhile back we showed that there is actually a very small number of children waiting to be adopted…small when you consider how many children exist today. Most of those children in foster care are NOT adoptable for various reasons.
The question I want YOU to answer Robert, is, Other than advocating killing our children through abortion, what are YOU, ROBERT, doing to alleviate hunger and poverty among our children?
Pacman:
I assume you are pro-life. Your statement asserting that I am crazy demonstrates your ignorance of the what’s going on regarding the church/state relationship on the subject of abortion and oterh evil practices being normalized in our society. In fact, it’s people like you and your attitudes that have, perhaps unintentionally, contributed to the slaughter of 50,000,000 unborn babies in the womb since Roe v. Wade.
Do you think Roe v. Wade would have passed had the church rose up as a mighty voice against it? Do you think God and prayer would have been taken out of public schools if the Church had risen as a mighty voice against it? Do you think the liberal/homosexual agenda would be gaining ground if the Church would speak God’s Word against it and without fear?
What do we see now? We see a church buying into the lie of being pro-choice as if God were an imbecile to create life and then allow a human being to terminate His decision and then not call it a sin. This is blasphemy! Or perhaps you don’t know what blasphemy is?
I spent 8 months of my life while running two businesses helping a 100% pro-life candidate run for governor agasint a lesbian incumbent. The vast majority of churches and pastors would not get involved because they either did not understand fully what they could and could not say regarding political issues and candidates. They were muzzled by the government as a church in a communist country would be muzzled. I’m sorry Pacman, but many people gave their lives fighting for the freedom to say anything in this country. 501c3 legislation in fact violates the Consitution because it has made a law regarding religion and the practice thereof.
I’ll say it again here. Churches are not doing God’s will when they, in fear of losing their tax exempt status, do not speak against the evil of abortion. And Jesus said you cannot serve two masters. Tell me, which master is the church serving when it does not speak the Word against a heinous evil like abortion but in fact, starts to buy into its practice?
And when will God grant His promise of healing our land as stated in Chronicles. “If my people who are called by name….?
Where’s the outrage now being spoken from the pulpit against the likes of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?
Would Jesus be intimidated from speaking the truth? Perhaps you would think Him crazy too?
Stop practicing Churchianity.
Hisman, I unequivocally agree with you on this issue. It is a burden to me to see how many churches refuse to speak from the pulpit because they are afraid of losing their tax exempt status. I think it is ridiculous and if even only half the churches in this country would take a bold stand in politics, against abortion, etc, we would see the country turn around in an unbelievable way!
Bobby: Ah yes, feeding the baby. I saw the most beautiful baby in the drivers license office today. Oh boy do I miss babies!!
Robert: your argument is an old one and has never been born out by abortion on demand (no pun intended).
Abortionists claim that by performing abortions they are doing society a service by ridding us of unwanted babies who will only grow up to be criminals etc. You would think that at the rate of 1.5 million abortions per year, America would now be crime free. This is not the case however.
MK: I believe you are probably correct that there are not a whole lot of kids in foster care or up for adoption. Many of those who are in the system have been there for many years and sadly are not adoptable.
One of my acquaintances became foster parents about 4 years ago. They were persuaded to foster a 12 year old girl. The first night they had her in their house, they had to LEAVE and call police and the foster care aagency. At first, the agency refused to remove the girl from the home, telling my friend that they would have to wait until Monday morning (it was Friday night!). Her husband told the police and the woman case worker that they had better go in and remove the child NOW or he would sue their a$$es off. Their house was demolished inside. They had fled in fear of their lives!
This couple was not put off by the experience and eventually fostered and adopted a young boy.
So it’s one thing to ask families to take on this kind of responsibility and quite another to actually do it.
I wonder how many PP exec’s have adopted or fostered children?
@HisMan,
I took a whole different slant on Pacman’s comments than you did.
Many years ago, a fellow attempted to convert me. In concluding frustration, he asked: “Don’t you fear Satan?” He was perplexed when I said ‘No!’
Jesus gave us two commandments. Neither of which are about fearing Satan. The problem surfaces because we humans tend to give exclusive attention. So even if we spend countless hours fearing-the-devil, it does not mean we spent even a single second loving God.
Perhaps we fear because we have spent so much time fearing … Satan, the government, that we haven’t ‘enough stuff’, the world is going to h** in a hand-basket, etc. We display what we know best – fear.
“Many years ago, a fellow attempted to convert me.”
Just out of curiosity, what were they trying to convert you to, John?
@Bobby,
to being a Christian = Satan fearer
You are Catholic though, right?
I would reverse the statement-“pro-aborts,
where are your hearts toward the unborn” and say,
anti-choicers,where are your hearts toward
those who ARE born?
I would reverse the statement-“pro-aborts,
where are your hearts toward the unborn” and say,
anti-choicers,where are your hearts toward
those who ARE born?
MK,
Does it matter if the couple is Catholic? I mean, you’re under the impression that Catholicism is the correct belief, right? So shouldn’t those beliefs apply to all? Why don’t you believe others should be held to the same standard?
Patricia,
Well, I know a few people (including myself) who are hesitant/unwilling to have kids due to genetic reasons. Several people in my family have come down with leukemia, and since it’s been shown to skip a generation, any kids I produce have a chance of getting leukemia. Of course, other couples I know have more debilitating genetic illnesses in mind. Or another reason would be in case of abuse — abuse is OFTEN passed down. Some people may not want the opportunity to be abusive right there. Some people don’t even like children! Are those bad reasons for not wanting children?
@Robert,
you may think you’ve found a telling question, but you’re very new here. There is little doubt that MK is perhaps one of the most articulate and giving people you will ever meet anytime or anywhere.
So, if she asks you a question and you cannot answer it accurately, then you are just ducking-the-query. There are all sorts of folks from both sides of this issue, here. You will meet almost none who do not try to give the most straight answer.
@Edyt (3:08),
here’s my ANSWER to your question posed to MK about conformity to a standard. St Paul often uses the imagery of an athletic competition to help explain some Christian principles.
So the ‘standard’ may be 100 meters for the 100-dash. There are all sorts of runners (with varying abilities) who will run that race. But some will be held to a higher-standard/level in their running. Some folks are highly gifted (are Catholic) and will have a demand from God to use this special gift.
re. genetic inherited stuff …. including leukemia … the authors who wrote ‘Zinc and Copper in Medicine’ eds Sarper and Karcioglu, were of the opinion that over 90% of all genetic aberrations could be prevented with the woman consuming sufficient zinc and vitamin B6 during pregnancy.
John:
Many Christians do thd devil’s bidding by being unaware of what God requires of them as believers for whateer reason. To be a Christian takes a liftime of study, prayer and reasoning with God.
There are sins of commission and sins of omission. To not stand against abortion could be a sin of omssion unless you are made aware of it’s evil and then choose to do nothing.
Should we fear satan? Absolutely not. He is a liar and a thief and a murderer. No we should fear God who can cast us into hell along with satan.
Edyt,
God, if you believe in Him, gave us free will. This sort of goes back to the animal vs human conversation.
We are invited to follow Him. If we say yes, then our journey begins.
We start out small (it’s referred to as being fed milk) and as we grow in our faith, more will be expected of us.
More is expected of me than Rae, more is expected of a priest than me, more is expected of a bishop than a priest and the most is expected of the pope.
As human beings, we have “reason”, the ability to think things through to their logical conclusions and we have the ability to tell right from wrong.
Animals do not. This is what makes us different than animals. We call this the soul. The piece of us that is made in the image of God.
It is also what allows us, unlike animals, to make choices. Rational choices. Animals behave the way they are meant to behave because they have no choice. All cows eat grass. They couldn’t choose a steak. If a child is pestering a dog and it bites her, we must understand that that dog was just being a dog. It didn’t make a conscious choice to bite the child. It did what dogs do.
But humans are different. If a child is pestering a man, and the man bites her, we would assume that the man is either mentally incompetent, or evil.
We know that the man would have “chosen” to bite the child.
This free will comes into play with Catholicism. Dogs and cats cannot choose to be Christians. They just are what they are. But humans can choose this path or not.
If you choose it, you have entered into a covenant with God. A covenant you have entered freely. This is the true meaning of love. And God desires, above all else, our love. Freely given, as He freely gives His to us.
For me to insist that EVERYONE, whether they wanted to or not, believe in and follow the Catholic “rules” would be to reduce them to animals. God did not do this. I must not either.
I can put forth sound reasons for becoming a Catholic, but to force the world to become Catholic would be, in a word, anti Catholic.
We desire everyone to be Catholic, but it must be freely chosen.
Once it is, we are held to that standard. While others, who have chosen differently, are not. This is God’s decision. Not ours.
As I said once before, being Catholic is not really about “following rules” tho. It’s about entering into a relationship. Where both partners desire to please the other. It doesn’t begin with “I promise to follow all the commandments”, it begins, as I have said, with “hello”…
You can’t force people to have a relationship with someone. You can stick them in the same room, lock them in a car…but you cannot actually make them relate. So even if we insisted that everyone followed Catholic teaching, we’d be missing the boat. Truly being Catholic, begins with a conversation…
Are those bad reasons for not wanting children?
Posted by: Edyt at May 5, 2008 3:08 PM
Well Edyt, I think it’s possible to have children in those situations without going through abortion. I think it all depends upon your life view. If you believe in a loving God, then you accept what he gives you, knowing that somehow things will work out for the best.Where does one draw the line at not having children? What genetic conditions qualify? What if you first baby has Down Syndrome?
I just think that today people have little room in their hearts for their own children and so they have little room in their hearts for adopting children. They seem to go hand in hand.
MK, that’s an interesting religious perspective and I’ve never heard anyone phrase it quite like that. Thank you.
I don’t know about the animals bit though. I think animals in general do have a system of right and wrong, yet not in the same ways we do. A lot of bird species, for example, mate for life. There’s no punishment for NOT doing so, yet they often remain single if their partner dies. I think a system of laws governs the animal kingdom and all animals abide by it in one way or another. Their society is just not complex enough that it needs the kind of rigorous lawmaking the way we do. In other words, they lack “civilization” (though I hate to use that word because I don’t believe animals are any less civil than humans) and culture.
I think you can say they cannot be Christians, per se, but according to most religions, they were created by God and therefore should be considered precious beings as well, even if you don’t equate them with humans.
As an atheist, I’m aspiring to be as patient and loving as my cat. :) I don’t think that’s a bad goal. For only being 2 years old, he puts up with an incredible amount of “loving” I’m sure he finds quite annoying!
Patricia, I think a lot of people have room in their hearts for children. Some of them just express it in different ways. Teachers, for example, may be childless but spend their lives doing the best they can to educate young minds.
And I agree, it is possible to not have abortions, but putting abortion aside for a moment, is it really wrong for a couple to make the effort to not have children?
I don’t think I’d be good at being a parent, but I would like to mentor young people some day. I used to tutor in math and science, and I found it quite exhilarating when a student walked away feeling more confident. So I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t feel everyone is cut out for having children, but there are ways they can contribute positively to the lives of children.
Patricia, you wrote: “Abortion is NEVER EVER a solution to a problem pregnancy.”
That’s not true.
A large hydrocephalus can necessitate abortion if the fetal head is too big to pass the cervix.
It’s rare, but it does happen.
A large hydrocephalus can necessitate abortion if the fetal head is too big to pass the cervix.
And a C-section couldn’t be just as effective without killing the child first?
I raised my kids to believe that name calling and rudeness are signs of being argumentative rather than wanting to debate. This list needs a moderator and some rules,
http://www.youtube.com/user/raguelles
nice job guys!look video about this
http://www.youtube.com/user/raguelles
nice job guys!look video about this
Hmmm… As you probably know . . . http://vigravivo.info/vicerex/site_map.html >vicerex online ITS anyway thanks for the post.
Emm.. Here are some examples… http://vigravivo.info/vagra/site_map.html >vagra mail order Or Thank you for your suggestions.
Just went through your pages. Sounds interesting and revolutionary (in a positive sense). http://vigralocal.info/viara/order-cheap-viara.html >order cheap viara Its Good article. Keep it up
I read some of the posts and I think it is a great place! But you know what else? http://livregra.info/vigra/order-vigra-online.html >order vigra online its Good article. Keep it up
It gets even better… http://cialias.idoo.com/viara/site_map.html >viara buy</a> Or Great job!
OK, let me repeat that I will try this, but i dont know if will help me Might want to try this week. http://buylevirta.com/growth-pills/site_map.html >growth pills cheap usa</a> and Keep up the good blogging.