(Prolifer)ations 6-2-08
by JivinJ
This policy does not apply to religious organizations,” said Massa. “It only applies to groups whose sole purpose is to spew anti-choice rhetoric on our campus.”…
But what about religious organization whose sole purpose is to spew anti-choice rhetoric?
Dr. Phil Campbell’s statement would be laughable if his ignorance weren’t so sad but I think the one taking the cake for stupidity is by Jann Halloran’s, “Until a baby is born, you don’t know what you have.”
Yeah, because sometimes a submarine sandwich or a goldfish is growing in a woman’s womb and you don’t know what you have until it comes out.
Jun.02, 2008 7:19 pm |
Blogs |
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.
Yeah, because sometimes a submarine sandwich or a goldfish is growing in a woman’s womb and you don’t know what you have until it comes out.
OMG! That’s gotta be a quote of the MONTH!
I do not know of a religious community that would support this amendment – the view that life begins at fertilization – and supports its proposed goal in their own religious practice. For instance, adherents to the idea that life begins at fertilization (or conception) do not expect a fetus to be named. Nor do they support invitro baptismal ceremonies, naming ceremonies, or conduct burials for a miscarried fetus according to their religious tradition as they would for a person who has died.
Reeeeaaaaalllllly?
If woman could get ahold of their miscarried children, we would bury them, coffin and all. But hospitals dump them like so much trash.
I named everyone of my children before they came out of the womb. Many women do.
And if the I could have found a priest willing to baptize them in the womb I would have done so. Perhaps we should propose this to the church. He actually makes a good point. I see no reason to wait until the child is “born” to baptize it. Wonder who you’d propose this to. Father Pavone, I suppose.
“Until a baby is born, you don’t know what you have.”
The thing about that quote is that he HAD to have meant something else… right? But what was he trying to say? Such a bizarre thing to say…
I’m sure he has plenty of theology to load on that one.
” For instance, adherents to the idea that life begins at fertilization (or conception) do not expect a fetus to be named. Nor do they support invitro baptismal ceremonies, naming ceremonies, or conduct burials for a miscarried fetus according to their religious tradition as they would for a person who has died.”
This isn’t an argument against the personhood of the unborn. All it does is point out the way that we do things, one of which I will justify below, the others MK pointed out. And naming someone after they are born is just a cultural tradition. Who was it, Peekaboo Streak’s parents who waited to name her until she said her first word, which would be her name? That’s just the way they did it. It doesn’t imply that her parents didn’t believe she was a person until she could speak. It’s such a poor, poor argument.
MK wrote “And if the I could have found a priest willing to baptize them in the womb I would have done so.”
If I recall correctly, MK, I think canon law says that under normal circumstances, a person must be born in order to administer the sacrament of baptism. This is probably due to the fact that many scrupulous people would go crazy trying to baptize an unborn in the womb, earlier and earlier, which could result in some bad consequences trying to sprinkle water on a say, 6 week old fetus. It’s kind of like the limit on only being able to receive the Eucharist twice in one day. If there wasn’t this limit, some people would obsess about trying to receive it as many times as possible in a day, which really misses the point of the Eucharist. But true, some babies will die in the womb without baptism, but as the CCC points out, we entrust them to the mercy of God, our loving and heavenly Father. God love you.
Bobby,
That’s true…hadn’t thought it thru. There are sacramentals involved. Can’t very well sprinkle holy water on baby that’s still in it’s mothers womb…lol. Not in 2008 anyway.
Plus, without an ultrasound, you couldn’t really name the baby til you knew whether it was a boy or a girl.
But the point is the same. Personhood and baptism have nothing to do with each other really. Protestants don’t baptize their babies. Does this mean they aren’t persons til they reach their teens?
@MK: My parents didn’t name any of us till we were born because they wanted to make sure we “looked” like our names.
Now I’m not sure *how* they decided I “looked” like an Alison when I was like…2 minutes old (or however old I was when they named me).
Hey Rae,
Obama is coming tomorrow night!! I will be there with my Silent No More and Operation Outcry girls! :)
Gilary Massa? I think “Massa” Gilary would be more appropriate. “It only applies to students whose sole purpose is to spew anti-choice rhetoric on our campus”.
PL students must always remember their “place” on this plantation.
@Carla: O rly? That should be interesting. I say beware of the feminazis who will call you liars and probably set up a counterprotest.
Katherine of Aragon once thought she was pregnant but then it turned out to be some kind of infection. Some other woman once thought she was pregnant, missed periods and everything but it it turned out to be a pair of scissors some doctor left in her after a surgery.
I will be in silent protest, except for in my head. :) I’ve been called worse than a liar.
7th and Kellogg, girl!!
@Carla: I’d stop by but I won’t be in the area because I’m staying with my parents this week because my apartment lacks A/C and there are freaky flying ants all over it. Fortunately my lease ends next week (w00t for subleasers!) and I get to move into my new, air conditioned place with no freaky flying ants. :)
Wow. Flying ants! Yes, you have your hands full and I am so glad you are at your parents! :)
But the point is the same. Personhood and baptism have nothing to do with each other really. Protestants don’t baptize their babies. Does this mean they aren’t persons til they reach their teens?
Posted by: mk at June 2, 2008 8:21 PM
…………………….
It means that one cannot be a Christian until one can understand the concept of accepting Christ as a personal savior.
To most Protestants, ritual is not a substitute for personal meaning. Symbolism is extraneous.
Why do Catholics have so many additions to the Bible if getting splashed with water does the job? Do they worship the power of Christ or the power of the RCC and it’s employees?
And no, it certainly doesn’t have anything to do with the legal concept of personhood. As well it should not.
Jann Halloran actually seemed to be saying that there was no set agreement on whether life began with conception or birth. She seemed to lean toward birth (as to not cast blame on a woman who miscarries), and argued that one religious idea shouldn’t dominate others that DO believe life begins at birth.
It feels like there is one religious perspective but there’s not. It seems so monolithic to say that from the second an egg is fertilized that this is now a person. And the woman that is carrying that person is now enslaved to whatever happens next.
There is a lot of guilt with miscarriage. Every woman wonders, ‘What did I do wrong?’ And now you’re saying it was a murder. It’s so cruel and it’s so harsh.
To simply say that this is when life begins the second an egg is fertilized is dancing on the head of a pin. None of us really knows and we have to make the most complicated moral decisions we can make in the best interest of our health, our families and the potential new life.
This issue is so rife with sexism. Religion and men telling women how to live their lives, how to control their sexuality and how to control their reproductive systems. They don’t give women the ethical agency that we were born with to make these decisions.
It’s very scary. There are so many ramifications around birth control, fertility and how women have to deal with these issues in their real lives.
I don’t think there are grounds for this in the Christian or Jewish tradition. Until a baby is born, you don’t know what you have. That doesn’t mean that anything that happens before birth isn’t worthy of tears or anger or celebration or fear. But until the incredible gift of life is given and it comes out of the womb, that’s as reasonable and moral a position of when life begins as when an egg is fertilized.
I also respect the passion of the religious right to hold very different positions and that’s why I don’t want one particular position in our constitution.
“monolithic” / “enslaved” / “sexism” /”ethical agency”/
Jann Halloran, minister of the Prairie Unitarian Universalist Church of Parker, maternity unit counselor and member of the Colorado Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
These are words she uses to describe a pregnant woman’s experience? It’s crazy.
Mmmmmm….let’s not interject what God thinks about life….before conception even occurs…
Oh, I just can’t help myself:
Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
There is no such thing as a fertilized egg. Once conception occurs the egg ceases to exist as an oocyte – it has merged with the sperm to become a human being. Don’t argue the point, go study embryology.
Eggs don’t grow, but human beings do.
These folks are either completely ignorant of basic embryology, or they have an agenda.
You don’t know what you have until they open their mouths.
Has anyone been following THIS story?:
http://www.wftv.com/news/16348047/detail.html
While I believe that underage girls are often the victims of creepy older guys, this little witch has ruined the lives of two men.
She does NOT qualify for “victimhood status,” and perhaps SHE should have to register as a sexual predator. (Her parents should be neutered…)
The second case really disturbs me. When the guy found out that the witch was underage, he went straight to her father, and STILL was convicted.
I can’t believe her parents still let her have internet access, much less let her create a new Myspace page.
Story from my previous post ^.
Man Sentenced To Prison After Girl’s MySpace Page Lies About Age
POSTED: 7:22 am EDT May 21, 2008
UPDATED: 10:02 pm EDT June 1, 2008
ORANGE COUNTy, Fla. — A 13-year-old girl’s sexual shenanigans have put a second man behind bars. Morris Williams, 22, told the judge he thought the girl was 18-years-old, but he found out Tuesday that ignorance is not a defense.
Morris Williams’ mother wailed as he went off to jail. The judge asked for media not to show 13-year-old Alisha Dean’s face in court, but her pictures are all over her MySpace page and they portray a sexy, 19-year-old divorced woman.
“She told me she had just turned 18,” Williams said.
Williams said Dean picked him up on the street and after a few conversations they had sex. When he heard she was not 18, he went to her father.
“He was like ‘well, she’s 13,'” Williams said of a conversation with Dean’s father.
Williams said he never did it again, but Dean has done it before with 24-year-old Darwin Mills. Mills was sentenced to five years in prison.
Dean’s father wanted Williams to join Mills there.
“One of the reasons for the law is the fact that minors have poor judgment,” said Jerry Dean, the girl’s father.
Williams’ father believes the jail sentence sends the wrong message to Alisha.
“I guess we just sit back and count how many after this,” Henry Smith asked after his step-son was sentenced to jail.
Dean’s family admits Alisha still stays out late and has yet to delete her misleading MySpace page.
Williams will serve six years probation with the first year in jail. The other five years he will have to wear an ankle monitor. His attorney says he will come back to court to ask again for a shorter sentence.
Dean’s family admits Alisha still stays out late and has yet to delete her misleading MySpace page.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
She really needs to be put in a new home. There aren’t any competent adults in the home she has now…
Naming, recognition etc. are all cultural identifications – they have nothing to do with the human being.
Apparently only Pastor Brent Cunningham, Spiritual Formation, Timberline Church in Fort Collins understands what intrinsic means.
As for Jann Halloran:
Given? By whom? Born with? That implies she had ethical agency before she was born, and that it’s not bestowed upon her by some nebulous “They” at some point.
So are human beings given rights (like names) or are you born with them already?
Laura @ 5:41 AM
What’s that have to do with this thread and two basic topics?
Do you need your own blog?
What’s that have to do with this thread and two basic topics?
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 3, 2008 6:09 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, Arse, it’s germane to the subject as many people on this site maintain that Planned Parenthood should be shut down because they treat the poor, innocent victims of sexual exploitation by older men.
While I believe in gassing pedophiles as much as the next guy, I have a hard time believing that all underage girls having sex are “victims,” and that this story illustrates that.
Laura and Chris,
It’s a paradox that we hand out birth control to 14 year olds and tell them that since they are going to have sex, they might as well do it responsibly and then send the men they have sex with to jail…
While it is true that many, many young girls are taken advantage of by older men (and that can mean anyone over the age of 21), it is also true that we have set it up so that there is no longer a clear delineation for where it is consensual sex or statutory rape.
Either 14 year olds are mature enough to have sex or they aren’t. If they are, then it shouldn’t make any difference how old the fellow is they are having sex with, if they aren’t then 14 year old boys should be held as accountable as 42 year old men.
At least 42 year old men can be made to accept the responsibility for any children that are produced, unlike a fourteen year old kid. (think Juno) Both scenarios turn my stomach!
Sally, Sally, Sally,
Do hate lots of things, or is that special privilege reserved only for pro lifers and Catholics? Lucky us, lol.
Laura @ 6:26 AM
Laura – you know the rules about personal insults.
Ew Laura that girl is disgusting and evil : C How many more men until one of them decides to kill her and throw her in a ditch?
“You’re not 18? Well I can’t let you go home and tell your parents about this…”
Laura,
And that’s the reason why you should never hesitate to look up your lover/spouse/SO on Google. You never know what might turn up!
But until the incredible gift of life is given and it comes out of the womb, that’s as reasonable and moral a position of when life begins as when an egg is fertilized.
This from somebody who claims to want to keep religious views out of it.
The view that the life of a human being begins at birth is simply contrary to reality. Now, if she’s saying that that’s when that individual becomes a part of the human family that we are bound to protect, then fine. I disagree, but we’re in the realm of philosophy and theology at that point. In the realm of science, it’s nonsense to say that the new human being’s life begins at birth.
mk said: It’s a paradox that we hand out birth control to 14 year olds and tell them that since they are going to have sex, they might as well do it responsibly and then send the men they have sex with to jail…
Completely disrespectful of men if you ask me!
Jen R: 2:58:
Excellent point.
Chris,
I caught that nuance, too.
Laura, that newstation happens to be in my area. I didn’t catch that story, though.
Would you like to push the envelope again?
Sally, Sally, Sally,
Do hate lots of things, or is that special privilege reserved only for pro lifers and Catholics? Lucky us, lol.
Posted by: mk at June 3, 2008 8:02 AM
……..
Mary, Mary , Mary…
Apparently you weren’t asking a question but rather attempting a derogatory quip aimed at Protestant beliefs. Interesting that you would find the truthful answer to your pseudo question to be hateful.
I hate ignorance, intolerance and bigotry mk. Your respect for Protestant beliefs are not mandatory. But please do stop whimpering when lack of respect is shown for your beliefs.
I am not required to respect or even consider anyone’s beliefs, only tolerate them.
You posed a question. I answered. You respond with a personal attack punctuated with a childish lol. @@
As a point of information, MK, many Protestants do baptize their infants. Anglicans do, Methodists do, Presbyterians do.
But, Sally, why the heated reaction? There’s nothing in MK’s comment to suggest it was meant as a derogatory quip. It’s simply a reductio ad absurdum: the initial premise (baptism is necessary for personhood) leads to an absurd conclusion ([some] Protestants don’t believe their children are persons), so the initial premise must be wrong. As you and MK certainly agree.
There’s no need, though, Sally, to stoop to a gratuitous swipe at Catholicism, which is not what the post was about. And it’s ironic that for someone who claims to hate ignorance and bigotry, you plainly understand very little of what you were criticizing, namely, Catholic sacramental theology.
Sheepcat, right on – sheep rule.