Jivin J’s Life Links 4-17-09
by JivinJ
She said she learned she was pregnant with Trig while she was out of the state at an oil and gas conference.
“There just for a fleeting moment I thought, I knew, nobody knows me here. Nobody would ever know. I thought, wow, it is easy. It could be easy to think maybe of trying to change the circumstances. No one would know. No one would ever know.”…
Ultimately, Palin said she realized she had to stay true to what she’d been saying for years — that “life is valuable because it is ordained”.
“I had just enough faith to know that trying to change the circumstances wasn’t any answer,” Palin said. But the Governor said the experience gave her an appreciation for what women and girls facing an unwanted pregnancy go through.
“I do understand what these women, what these girls go through in that thought process.”
Will Douglas Kmiec affirm the proposition that a new human being exists as of fertilization, the coming-to-be of a zygote? If so, can he identify any human beings who are not persons? Not legal persons, just… persons?
If there are any human beings who are not persons, what must happen to convert these human non-persons into human persons? Is there any stage of development, change of condition, or characteristic of identity we might choose for this decisive transition to “personhood” that would not be wholly arbitrary as a defining threshold? Is there any natural fact other than fertilization that can serve properly as the marker of our coming into being as distinct, individual human persons?
These are matters for reason, are they not? By declaring that such judgments are, for him, matters for “faith informed by love,” Kmiec encloses this great public issue in a little box called “religion” and tucks it away in the back of a cupboard. It’s a clever rhetorical maneuver that “religionizes” and thus radically privatizes each of our views on “personhood,” just the way abortion advocates have done for the last 35 years.
By this gambit, President Obama is off the hook. He merely has his own private view, which reason cannot show to be inferior to any other view. We all just have our own different faith commitments about these things!
One of the great triumphs of the pro-life movement is that it has managed to stigmatize abortion so thoroughly that even pro-abortion advocates are forced to admit there should be fewer of them. Erbe’s cheerleading for abortion is the vestige of an old and tired advocacy that will not gain traction, no matter what happens to the economy.
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.
Franck’s comments are SO spot on.
“The pregnant woman consents, though not always fully informed, but the prenatal child, though never consenting, is fully informed of the violent act of abortion.”
——————————————————–
People like Doug Kmiec are dangerous. They have every appearance of being a sane logical person.
Then they open their mouth or put pen to paper or fingers to keypad and betray the semblance of rationality.
It used to be that when you saw someone walking around carrying on a conversation with a non-existant second person you had good reason to believe they might not be mentally sound.
But with the advent of cell phones you see the same scenario played out so often that you automatically assume people who are talking outloud to an invisible second party are having handsfree cell phone conversation.
If they have one of those blasted handsfree things hanging from their ear you never know when they are talking to you, or when they are talking to the person on the phone, or if they are talking to a six foot white rabbit named Harvey.
Delusional people should be considerate enough to clearly identify themselves.
Similarly, people like Kimec ought to include the Obama logo on their stationary, emails, license plates, bumper stickers, tie pins, lapel pins and brooches so we can easily identify who they are. (You know,kind of like the German Nazi’a proudly displayed their Swastika.)
According to White House spokesweasel Gibbs pbho is unaware that on April 15th in more than a thousand communities across the United States’ citizens, who’s numbers totaled in the hundreds of thousands, gathered to petition and redress their eleced representatives concerning the proposed deficit spending of trillions of dollars borrowed money.
I believe the consensus for all these concerned citizens could be summed up in the following statement from the United States Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed,”
We
do
NOT
‘CONSENT’
to the proposed borrowing, spending, and accumulating of trillions of dollars of debt which can only be satisfied by confiscating the hard earned wealth of us, of our children and of our grandchildren and perhaps of even our great grandchildren.
We do NOT consent!
Anyone who would suggest that our dissent is racially motivated is either as stupid and/or deliberately disingenous as pbho who said he was unaware of the tea parties on April 15th, 2009.
yor bro ken
This Father Kmiec is more disgusting, more dangerous and more harmful to the youth of our country than all the pedophile priests put together, IMO. He is supporting the slaying of thousands of innocent young people, not just molesting some. And he is doing it in the open, while thumbing his nose at his own church.
Ken,
“Anyone who would suggest that our dissent is racially motivated is either as stupid and/or deliberately disingenous as pbho who said he was unaware of the tea parties on April 15th, 2009.”
He was unaware? I hadn’t heard that. He must have been busy with the Easter egg hunt on Monday and walking his namesake, Bo.
* * * * *
Kel,
I agree. I love the word “religionize”. Perfect!
* * * * *
Doyle,
Kmiec is not a Catholic priest, thank goodness. He’s considered a legal scholar….
* * * * *
Re: Sarah Palin
Kudos to her for her honesty.
Sarah Palin was allowed to make her choice to have (or adopt) Trig, but she doesn’t want any other woman to have any choice in the matter, and would compel all other women, at gunpoint if necessary, to bear the child of their rapist.
That certainly shows her “understanding” of what other women are going through.
Bystander, she went through a crisis pregnancy that showed her that life is always precious. Nice spin though.
Wow! That took great courage for Sarah Palin to be able to say that. I have personally remained quite indifferent towards her (not cold or against her or anything, I just never really gave Sarah Palin much consideration) until now. I have a lot of respect for her now for acceptance of a disabled child, even when there was “a way out” right in front of her.
Hooray, Palin!
Thats our Palin!
WTG Woman!
In an ironic twist, Palin’s parental notification bill died in committee, on the last day of the AK legislative session, while she was in Indiana promoting her national image as a pro-lifer.
WOW !
How wonderful to hear Sarah Palin, a woman who is so much in the public eye, speak candidly about her decision to keep her child ? And how good does it make you feel to live in a nation that provides all of us with the right to choose to continue a pregnancy or to terminate it? So many have fought and died to preserve all of our rights. We should be grateful. And we should be thankful for the Governor of Alaska,for reminding us about the importance of freedom of choice for all American women when it comes to reproductive rights.
What does exactly is involved in “terminating a pregnancy” Ethel?
Bobby,
“Terminating a pregnancy”, or abortion, is a simple medical procedure that stops the development of the fetus. In many ways, it’s not that different from the procedure you would have if you chose to cease your body’s ability to create and deliver sperm.
In my previous comment, I was just expressing my happiness at hearing such an antiabortion advocate as Sarah Palin speak openly and honestly about having the choice to continue with her pregnancy, or not.
For an American woman, it was a warm and fuzzy moment.
And what is a fetus?
Ethel, I assume your postings are intended to be ironic or sarcastic, as I am sure you are aware that Sarah Palin opposes a woman’s right to choose, to the extreme that she would require a woman to carry her rapist’s child to term.
“she would require a woman to carry her rapist’s child to term. ”
Ah ha! So you admit its a child.
Now suppose a woman is raped immediately after she has sex with her husband. She becomes pregnant and thinking that the child is her husbands, has the baby only to find out that it’s the rapist’s child and not that of her and her husband. Can she slice it up right then and there?
Ethel,
“So many have fought and died to preserve all of our rights. ”
Who? Which rights are those? Certainly not life or liberty for the unborn.
* * * * * * * *
” In many ways, it’s not that different from the procedure you would have if you chose to cease your body’s ability to create and deliver sperm. ”
How is this like abortion?? Sperm is not a living human being.
* * * * * * * *
Bystander,
Whether a child is conceived by rape or conceived in love, this child has done nothing wrong and does not deserve death by abortion. Adoption would be the most loving option if a rape victim was not comfortable raising her child. It’s sad how you denigrate anyone/anything “pro-life” and seem to delight in abortion. Do you have children? If you do, I hope they bring you much joy.
Posted by: Bystander at April 17, 2009 6:36 PM
“Sarah Palin ….would compel all other women, at gunpoint if necessary, to bear the child of their rapist.”
——————————————————
I am not aware of a government on the face of the earth that ‘forces’ women to bear children at gunpoint.
I am aware of a couple that force women to abort at gunpoint:Communist China and Communist N. Korea, both secular humanist states.
Let us be absolutely clear about what freedom and reproduce mean.
Women are free to attempt to reproduce if they so choose.
Women are free not to reproduce if they so choose.
That is ‘reproductive freedom’.
The freedom you seek to preserve is the freedom for pregnant women to murder their child after they have reproduced.
At least be intellectually honest enough to put away your intentionally deceptive euphemisms and take the lipstick off your ugly pig of an arguement.
No matter who is the father of the pregnant woman’s child, no matter what the circumstances surrounding the child’s conception, the child is no more, no less the pregnant woman’s child.
If the pregant woman ‘chooses’ to abort the pregnancy then she is a willful accomplice in the murder of her own child.
“The pregnant woman consents to an abortion, though not always fully informed, but the prenatal child, though never consenting, is fully informed of the violent act of abortion.”
yor bro ken
Ethel says: “Terminating a pregnancy”, or abortion, is a simple medical procedure that stops the development of the fetus.”
What happens to the child whose development is “stopped”, Ethel? Does it live on as a midget, frozen in time? Or does it DIE?
I’m sure you would not hesitate to use the word “kill” if that’s what you meant, right? I mean, you’re not ashamed of the idea that abortion actually KILLS unborn children, are you?
Sarah Palin’s “confession” reminds me of the old saying that you can’t stop birds from flying over your head, but you can stop them from building a nest in your hair. None of us can control the fact that odd thoughts do pop up from time to time, but we can control our reaction to them. Sarah needs to feel no shame for admitting that she did have to deal with the birds flying overhead.
Bro,
If you think China and North Korea are “secular, humanist states”, you’re sadly misinformed. They are deeply entrenched in a cult of personality. Their governance is both paternalistic and viciously oppressive at the same time.
Come to think of it, they share startling similarities to the pope’s grip on the catholic church. And you certainly wouldn’t call him a humanist. ;o)
Doyle,
When I cut my hair, I’m not actually murdering it. It’s a part of my body, and I suppose it’s “alive” on some level of understanding. But like a fetus, it’s part of MY body. You have no right to stop me from cutting my hair or terminating my pregnancy. And I’m thankful that my government agrees with me.
Ethel, I think it’s time to go back to biology class. There is a fundamental difference between your hair and a fetus. The fetus is a seperate, living human being that contains only its own DNA.
Is your hair a seperate, living human being with its own DNA? No, of course not.
Your analogy is akin to saying I can kill a bug in my house so I can also kill my 3 year old! What, I’m allowed to kill a bug! What’s the difference?
You really can not be expected to be taken seriously with an argument like that.
Posted by: Ethel at April 19, 2009 8:56 AM
Bro,
If you think China and North Korea are “secular, humanist states”, you’re sadly misinformed. They are deeply entrenched in a cult of personality. Their governance is both paternalistic and viciously oppressive at the same time.
Come to think of it, they share startling similarities to the pope’s grip on the catholic church. And you certainly wouldn’t call him a humanist. ;o)
——————————————————
Ethel,
Suggest you lay off the feminista crack pipe.
You are losing/have lost your perspective.
It sees you have embarked on a flight of fantasy.
You may have sat through one too many ‘women’s study classes’.
If the pope were induging himself in flights of humanistic fantasy, I would not hesitate to point it out.
But as evidenced by the results of our recent presidential election the majority of catholics casted a vote for bho.
I would have to say either the pope endorsed bho and it escaped my notice, or american catholics are not slaves to the pope or to catholic teaching.
I suggest you recalibrate your metric system.
yor bro ken
Ethel, you need a little high test today.
You say: “When I cut my hair, I’m not actually murdering it. It’s a part of my body, and I suppose it’s “alive” on some level of understanding.”
Response: No, the shaft of your hairs are not alive in any sense at all.
You say: “But like a fetus, it’s part of MY body. You have no right to stop me from cutting my hair or terminating my pregnancy.”
Response: No, a fetus is not a part of your body, it has it’s own body which is INSIDE your body. If you have an unborn male child, does that mean you also have male sexual organs? And cutting your hair does not kill an innocent human being, but having an abortion does.
What is a cult of personality??
Bystander:
You are a very dishonest person.
Sarah Palin on the other hand is a very honest person.
People like you are why I am NOT a Liberal.
Ethel and Bystander:
Why are you serving evil? Why do you hate children? Why do you want them dead so badly?
I do not understand how you could support the killing of a baby. It is unconscionable; it is completely and totally evil.
You can repent of your evil and turn to Jesus, who can save you. Jesus can give you forgiveness for even the blackest of evils–and He wants to! On the cross, he paid the price for your sins, even though you may not choose to accept it. He awaits you with open arms, despite the pain you cause His children and Himself. Repent, and live.
YCW,
Like you, I serve Christ. I don’t hate children or want them dead. And like you, I could never support the killing of a baby. Infanticide is surely the most evil of crimes.
You believe that I’m going to hell for the work I perform in a clinic that provides access to world class reproductive health care. Safe..secure..free.
And I’m convinced that you’re going to hell for trying to stop me from providing that health care.
Let’s pray that we’re both wrong.
Ethel how is it that you believe infanticide to be the “most evil of crimes,” and yet you support the killing and dismemberment of preborn children?
The preborn children are equally alive and equally human. Killing them results in them being equally dead. Their deaths are often far more violent than those of children killed via infanticide.
The two views are not consistent.
Lauren,
I am a mother, a teacher, a physician and above all else, a Christian. In none of these aspects of my life are the “two views” inconsistent.
Infanticide is a crime. Abortion is not. And with each passing day, developed nations around the world move inexorably away from your view, and towards mine.
I can wait.
“Now may the God who gives comfort and strength in waiting make you of the same mind with one another in harmony with Christ Jesus…”
Romans 15:5
Ethel, I’m glad you’re here.
Ethel,
You didn’t answer the question unless it was masked in one of two statements, both of which need clarification:
“Infanticide is a crime. Abortion is not.”
Does legality determine morality?
“And with each passing day, developed nations around the world move inexorably away from your view, and towards mine”
Does the majority determine morality?
God love you.
Bobby,
I don’t believe morality is determined by either laws or majorities. Common sense should always be the deciding factor.
Our Bible supports slavery and the stoning of children for bad behavior. We all know in our hearts that both are wrong. So we govern our actions accordingly.
Where the issue of abortion is concerned, it just makes common sense that all women have the right to freely choose what happens to our own bodies.
God love us all.
Does common sense determine morality?
Ethel, so if abortion were a crime you would consider it to be wrong. Gotcha. So, to be consistent, you consider spousal rape to be a-ok in Muslim nations because the laws say so?
Slavery was a-ok when the law said it was? Slaves weren’t full people because judges decided that to be the case?
You’ve got to do better than “the law says so” when describeing the difference between infanticide and abortion and your support for the latter.
Oh, I’m sorry. This is all about common sense? So you were cool when “common sense” said that slavery was cool, that slaves weren’t full people, and that spousal rape is groovy.
Gotcha.
Lauren,
Some answers to your questions:
“.. if abortion were a crime you would consider it to be wrong?”
No, if abortion was a crime, it would still be morally right.
“..you consider spousal rape to be a-ok in Muslim nations because the laws say so?”
No, rape of any kind, anywhere is wrong.
“Slavery was a-ok when the law said it was?”
No, slavery has always been morally wrong.
“..do better than “the law says so”..”
I’m not sure it’s possible to do better than to say common sense dictates that infanticide is wrong and abortion isn’t. One is an issue of murder, while the other is an individual health care concern. I’m afraid there’s not much wiggle room there.
“So you were cool when “common sense” said that slavery was cool, that slaves weren’t full people, and that spousal rape is groovy.”
Clearly, I wasn’t alive when slavery was “cool”. It’s hard to imagine a world with such a crazy moral compass. As for spousal rape being “groovy” in our time…
This too shall pass.
Ethel, you are a truly evil individual. You do not serve Christ– the loving, living God. The Christ I serve said that all children are blessings. The Christ I serve did not need to put qualifiers on His statement that we should not murder. We should not murder unborn people, or people with a different skin color, or people of a different religion, or old people, or people with extra chromosomes, because murder is wrong. The command stands on its own. Jesus said “Let the little children come to me,” and we are to be like Him. He did not say that children are blessings only when we have enough money, a big enough car, and college education savings accounts for each one. I take your assertion that personhood begins at birth as a personal insult on many of my children, and your assertion that Christ is on your side as a grave affront to my God.
I repeat that you are evil, that you do not know God. You don’t know the Bible. You don’t know Jesus Christ. If at one point you knew Him and have now turned away, you would be better off never having known Him. I know the god you serve, the Prince of this World. Either he has deceived you, or you have deceived yourself. I cannot save you or convince you of the error of your ways. Throw yourself on the mercy of the True Christ–not the facsimile you serve–because your soul depends on it.
Ethel,
Where does the Bible “support” slavery and stoning children? How, as a professed follower of Christ, do you support the morality of abortion? Have you ever performed an abortion?
Ethel, the point is that common sense dictated that all of these things were or are right. You can not rely on “common sense” to determine ethical issues.
It is not enough to say that infanticide is murder and abortion is a medical issue. There must be underpinnings for your beliefs. Is the child killed by abortion any less human than the child killed by infanticide?
Ethel,
Where does the Bible “support” slavery and stoning children? How, as a professed follower of Christ, do you support the morality of abortion? Have you ever performed an abortion?
Posted by: Eileen #2 at April 20, 2009 1:26 PM
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.” (1 Peter 2:18)
“Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.” (Titus 2:9-10)
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism.” (Colossians 3:22-25)
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 to kill their disobedient children with stones?
“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death.”
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. — Psalm 137:9
My point in asking, Hal, is that people quote biblical text without really knowing what they are quoting. St. Paul was not condoning slavery — he was saying that whatever your situation is; use it to glorify God. Nothing in those texts say anything about slavery being morally acceptable. The Psalm is referring to vanquishing Israel’s enemies by eradicating future generations. It is not a blanket decree to stone your children.
The Bible on slavery:
“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.”
Leviticus 25:44-46
The Bible on misbehaving children:
“All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. Leviticus 20:9
Hal, you are a heathen, and know not of what you speak.
The Bible’s instructions to slaves does not prove that he supports slavery. That is as silly as saying that because the IRS says that you must report income from illegal activities, it supports those activities.
In Philemon, Paul pleads with Philemon for the freedom of his slave Onesimus, calling freeing him the right thing to do. Galations also says that slaves should gain their freedom if they can. Israelites are encouraged not to let other Israelites to remain slaves to foreigners, and are forbidden to keep another Israelite as a slave permanently. Furthermore, sin is described as keeping people enslaved, while Christ frees them. This makes it clear that slavery is not a prefered condition or a good thing.
The young man in Deuteronomy 21 doesn’t sound like a child. Perhaps a teenager or young adult. How many 3-year-olds do you know that are “profligates and drunkards”? No, that is not the way we deal with sin anymore, but it is hardly the stoning of a child, as you and Ethel put it.
The passage from Psalms is not prescriptive and is not even talking about something that was being done–it is a lament by a person who thirsted for vengeance. I don’t find that a particularly appealing picture, but it is not an example of the Bible recommending the stoning of a child.
“Hal, you are a heathen, and know not of what you speak.”
Correct!
You are also missing my point as Hal did, Ethel. These things must be interpreted within a cultural and historical context, etc. You can’t just grab any text and apply it superficially to an argument.
Please answer my other question.
Thanks, YCW!
Thanks to you too, for admitting your ignorance! :)
Thanks to you too,Hal,for admitting your ignorance! :)
Sorry YCW, that post at 2:21 was supposed to be for Hal.
Ethel, the Old Testament law only stands where it does not conflict with New Testament law.
In the New Testament, we are told that it is good for a slave to seek his freedom, though he is also told to respect his master as long as he is a slave–much like we are to respect and obey even an evil government insofar as it does not cause us to disobey God. Obviously, this provision for slavery has no place in a New Testament church, where there is no slave or free and no Jew or gentile. How can an Israelite own a gentile when they are stripped of that status? There is no provision among those who consider others better than themselves to own one another.
And even Jesus, who had no sin, would not stone a woman who was clearly a sinner. The death penalty is no longer an acceptable punishment, because Jesus took death on the cross that all might be saved. Of course, you make a mockery of that by advocating death not for a criminal and breaker of the law, but the only people who are incapable of breaking the law.
HisMan, can you help me out here too?
Eileen#2 at 2:23, I figured :)
Eileen,
The answer to your other question is – Yes.
Ethel,
Suppose a woman who is pregnant gets terrible nausea. In order to stop nausea, she takes thalidomide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide , which is perfectly acceptable to take when not pregnant. However thalidomide is very well known to cause tremendous birth defects in the fetus, like being born with no arms. The doctor warns here about this adverse side effect, but she says she is perfectly happy to raise a child with no arms if it means that she won’t be nauseous for the next several months. Applying the principle that a woman is allowed to decided what goes into her body, what does not go into her body, how and who uses it, etc. there should be no moral qualms about a woman knowingly taking thalidomide while pregnant. However, it seems that common sense would tell us that any woman who would willingly put her child at risk for being born with no arms is a moral monster. Should a woman be allowed to take thalidomide while pregnant and if not, how does she still have a right to her own body?
Bobby,
Ethel sounds familiar to me……
Yup, I was thinking the same thing, Carla, though it seems coincidental to me right now…
Bob,
It’s not clear that you understand the term “common sense”.
We as a society have agreed to prohibit Thalidomide as a prescribed drug for pregnant women. I suppose you could try to twist that specific loss of a right the loss of all rights.
Good luck with that.
“We as a society have agreed to prohibit Thalidomide as a prescribed drug for pregnant women”
Why, Ethel? This is what I’m asking- why? If the woman has a right to her body as you say she does, not allowing thalidomide is inconsistent with your justification to a right to an abortion.
You seem to fall back on society as the norm for morality. So let’s be very clear here. Absolutely speaking, where do objective moral values come from? Where does a “right” come from?
“Bob,
It’s not clear that you understand the term “common sense”.
Oh little Ethel, you don’t know who you are taking on! hahaha…
Ethel,
How do you justify aborting babies — as a Christian?