Quote of the Day 7-17-10
“Then you are resigning.”
~ What bus driver Edwin Graning’s supervisor told him when he refused to drive a woman to an Austin, TX, Planned Parenthood on January 29. Graning worked for the Capital Area Rural Transportation System but is also an ordained minister. He said his conscience wouldn’t allow him to ameliorate an abortion, even though he was unsure of the woman’s intent. Graning refused to resign and was fired. The American Center for Law and Justice filed a federal lawsuit July 14 on Graning’s behalf. Quoting KSAN.com:
“I think we have a very good case,” said one of Graning’s attorneys,
Edward White…. “Once Mr.
Graning expressed his religious objection to his employer, his employer
had an obligation to attempt to accommodate Mr. Graning.”
All quotes from KXAN.com.
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.
Ashley,
There are certain assumptions that can be made about any given job. It would be extremely stupid for a vegan to take a job in a steak house. The bus driver has no more an obligation to drive a woman to an abortion clinic than to drive a visibly armed man to a day care center. His conscience would prevent him from doing so in either case, and a court of law should uphold his right to do so.
Ashley, your examples are completely idiotic. A serious vegan who believes in it to the point of refusing to serve meat would never seek work in a steakhouse to begin with, any more than a pro-lifer would seek work in an abortion clinic. People do not seek jobs that are opposed to the things they believe in.
I have no idea where you got the idea that a Muslim doctor would refuse to treat women. I have been treated any number of times by two Muslim doctors at a local clinic. If for some reason there were such a doctor and the hospital knew in advance that he would refuse to treat half of all his patients, they would be an almost insuperable barrier to him getting hired in the first place. Neither of these people, by reason of their beliefs, would belong on their jobs. But that has nothing to do with conscience clauses.
What is going on in this case and other conscience cases is that someone is being asked to do something immoral that is incidental to their job. It is a bus driver’s job to transport people, but it is NOT part of his job to aid and abet murders. (Save me your spiel Ashley, I KNOW you know that abortion is murder as well as I do).
In the case of doctors and medical personnel who refuse to participate in abortion, they are only obeying the rules of their profession, set forth over 2,000 years ago, not by a fundamentalist of any kind, but by a pagan Greek named Hippocrates, who said that doctors must refuse to perform abortions. Medical personnel are completely within their rights to refuse to perform something that is not medicine at all, but killing. It’s doctors who do perform abortions who should get out of the business.
Janet, You are so awesome!! :)
Ashley,
When you use the word “fundies” are you talking about me? Or just anyone else who holds an opinion that differs from yours and has a religious belief?
Anyway, conscience clauses are a good thing. You cannot force a nurse to assist in an abortion either.
Carla,
So are you! (Thank you for your kind words.)
* * *
“In the case of doctors and medical personnel who refuse to participate in abortion, they are only obeying the rules of their profession, set forth over 2,000 years ago, not by a fundamentalist of any kind, but by a pagan Greek named Hippocrates, who said that doctors must refuse to perform abortions.”
Posted by: Lori Pieper at July 17, 2010 11:52 AM
What a great reminder that abortion hasn’t always been an acceptable solution! Somehow, he knew that the unborn were human well before we had the scientific technology to show us the truth!
Hippocrates said: “Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance.”
Wow, I really disagree with this. The vegan equivalent of Ashley’s example would be, I suppose, a vegan bus driver refusing to drive someone to the butcher. An atheist bus driver refusing to stop near the church. etc.
What if the woman in question had gone to buy a pair of shoes to WALK to the abortion clinic, since the bus wouldn’t take her there, and the salesman had refused to sell her the shoes? At a certain point, you have to do your job or accept the consequences.
No one should be forced to perform an abortion – but if, in the course of doing your job AS NORMAL, according to the rules and routes and guidelines you previously accepted, you DO NOT PREVENT an abortion, I don’t think you should have any legal protection from consequences in the event that you refuse to fulfill your normal job duties.
I would have a huge issue as a bus driver taking a woman to Planned Parenthood to kill her own child but then I would probably offer her help and support and a ride to the nearest Pregnancy Resource Center.
Your fundie friend Carla
Why is it always the Taliban or Islam with you, Ash??
Ashley, the extreme types of Muslims you mention would undoubtedly never get a job in the U.S. because they are so extreme.
However, there is nothing “extreme” about what pro-lifers object to. It is not only legitimate but necessary to object to murder in the medical profession, because abortion is killing, which has nothing to do with real medicine. This is completely apart from anyone’s actual religious beliefs.
Vegans also don’t even come close as a similar case. I know vegan people, and none of them would refuse to drive someone to the butcher shop or to a restaurant for a meat-filled meal. The director /producer of a short film I worked on was a vegan, and had to have special meals ordered in for herself, but she had no difficulty at all in ordering and paying for meat-based meals for the rest of the cast and crew. It’s just not a question of conscience in the same way that abortion is.
Have a good night, Ashley.
Ashley, please stop making sweeping judgments. I don’t consider myself a conservative, much less a fundamentalist. I think very few people here who are Christians would call themselves fundamentalists (a word you evidently don’t even understand).
And I noticed that you didn’t address at all my point about abortion being completely opposed to the whole purpose of medicine. Though I can guess why.
Ashley, if you continually (and insultingly) refer to Fundamentalist Christians as “Fundies”, and you disagree with Muslim extremists, why aren’t you also referring to THEM as “Muzzies”?
Ashley, you’re not going to get anyone to truly listen to your point of view if you go around talking about “fundies” and comparing law-abiding American Christians to terrorists who blow up buildings and stone women to death. If you don’t like various things various religious people do, fine. Criticize them for what they actually DO.
As for “I can see comparisons,” some things are different no matter how many comparisons you can find. Example: Both John Wayne Gacy and Harvey Milk were politically active Democrats who were photographed with a member of the Carter family, wore a clown costume at least once, were most prolific in the 1970s, used to be salesmen, and were attracted to younger men. That doesn’t mean Harvey Milk was a serial killer.
Personally, I think the guy should have driven the woman there because he had no idea why she was going there. Theoretically, she could have been Lila Rose on another undercover operation.
“It’s hilarious (but sad) how Christian fundies in the US think they’re so much better and more moral than the Taliban, but they’re not. Their goals are quite similar.”
Wonderful Ashley, Daily Kos has a job waiting for you.
“Personally, I think the guy should have driven the woman there because he had no idea why she was going there. Theoretically, she could have been Lila Rose on another undercover operation.”
Posted by: Marauder at July 17, 2010 8:24 PM
That is true and I agree with you. But if this was his regular route and Planned Parenthood was a regular stop on that route, he inevitably will be transporting someone who is going there for an abortion. In that case, if he really feels strongly about it, he could ask to be transferred to another route, or trade routes with someone. Then he could avoid these types of situations.
Anyway, I think in Catholic terms, this type of thing might possibly be called “remote material cooperation with evil.” If he were purposely driving a person in his car to get an abortion he approved of, that would be a deliberate cooperation with evil. But a bus driver doesn’t know who will be going for an abortion and doesn’t will it, and it is not his purpose in driving the bus. A better case though, would be the shoe salesman. He can’t spend his time worrying about whether someone might possibly someday use the shoes he sells her to walk to the abortion clinic. I can’t imagine a case where he would ever know. No one, believe me, is going to walk up to him and say “Hey, I need some shoes to go get an abortion.”
But if it were a case where the bus driver actually did know for certain someone was going for an abortion, and is opposed in conscience, then he would be right to try to avoid driving her and tell her to take the next bus.
Lori,
You make excellent points.
Thanks, Jasper!
Ashley,
Putting aside your puerile barbs (which diminish you and your argument), I’ll address the substantive portion of your commentary.
Those of us who have gone to school and studied to become pharmacists, nurses, doctors, etc., have done so at great personal expense in terms of time, money, and effort. We do not trade our humanity for a diploma or a state license. We remain human beings, each with their own moral conscience.
We do not become clinical vending machines on graduation day. Certain medical procedures may indeed be legal, but they may not be moral, whether that morality arises from revealed religion, natural law, or local custom. Each of us retains the right to refrain from that which we deem to be immoral behavior. Laws such as the Miss. code which you reference are part of an age-old legal tradition that recognizes clinicians as fully human, with all of the attendant rights of one who is fully human–including the right of conscience.
What you proffer is an Orwellian model of the state as all, and the human individual stripped of all moral sensibility and autonomy. The Third Reich was an excellent example of the logical end of such thinking. and practice.
Before that, the owning of slaves, the sterilization of the developmentally disabled, the alienation of Native American lands and creation of reservations in barren regions were all constitutionally protected activities (The latter two still on the books). Being legal didn’t make these activities moral, and laws compelling citizens to engage in such activity would be regarded by you, Ashley, as an outrage.
Blessedly, there were no laws compelling participation by citizens who were not the targets of those barbarisms and atrocities. In each case, those armed by nothing more than their Christian “Fundie” morality prevailed. I take it you have no objection to the outcomes.
The same will happen with abortion. With the appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick, the new rationing czar for healthcare, the spreading practice in Europe of involuntary euthanasia (with its devotees here), states here adopting euthanasia, a perfect storm is brewing. Pray Ashley that your argument, for health care professionals being compelled to act in a manner they deem immoral, fails dramatically.
If it doesn’t, the Third Reich will be made to look like Disney World.
More pro-choice arrogance that we come to expect from people who use demeaning and dehumanizing vocabulary to justify killing unborn humans.
“If the Taliban drink water, then everyone else who drinks water is just like the Taliban, thus drinking water is evil.”
Ashley,
Your guilty conscience is driving you mad. Literally.
As for this gem,
“I’m going to get a job as an OBGYN in Mississippi and refuse to deliver babies to religious fanatics who don’t use birth control.”
You’ll need a side job to pay the bills if you choose to do so in Miss.
As for your puerile name-calling, you’re losing it Ashley. You have reduced your level of function to being so shallow as to be out of your depth in a rain puddle. Is that all you got out of college? If so, I think you’re entitled to a partial refund on the tuition.
I had a coworker once whom I just detested. But every now and then he was right about something, and as much as it galled me, I had to sometimes agree with him. I wonder if some ‘pro-choice advocates’ might be struggling with the same thing. They can see that pro-lifers are right, but they just can’t stand us. Well, I direct them to the secular pro-life people. I was on at least one website like that and they were pretty cool.
I know I struggle with Ashley’s comments. Sometimes she comes so close to our side of the fence, other times the very polar-est of opposites.
Ashley,
I deleted some of your posts. There is no name calling. But you already know that. Just as a reminder- there is no swearing either. But you already know that as well.
“We’re talking about people who intentionally get jobs that might require them to do something they morally object to.”
I think this guy should have driven the woman, but it doesn’t sound as though stopping at Planned Parenthood was part of his regular job. Lots of jobs “might” require a person to do something they morally object to, but sometimes the odds are high and sometimes the odds are low.
I can definitely understand your frustrations with conscience clauses – I’m from Minnesota, where there’ve been disputes involving Muslim cab drivers and passengers with alcohol – but once again, calling people names is not going to convince anyone to listen to you or take you seriously. Do you want to change people’s minds, or do you want to tell them “I’m right and you’re wrong, I’m smart and you’re dumb”?
Ashley,
You have the temporal sequence backward.
Medical professionals have never been required to perform functions that are considered to be morally objectionable. The abortion agenda is the game changer here.
When I was a teen in the 1970’s, condoms were sold from behind the counter, and pharmacists routinely denied the sale of condoms to high school students. Physicians in training were never compelled to learn abortions. Nurses were never required to assist.
As for your allegation that being anti-abortion is somehow a Christian issue, I remind you that Jews, Muslims, atheists, and a host of other faiths condemn it as well. It’s primarily a human rights issue, and not a sectarian issue–which you would love it to be labeled as such. In that way, you could invoke a twisted First Amendment injunction.
Finally, modern fascism is the removal of time-honored conscience clauses, not the continued honoring of them.
That’s great, but you’re missing out on the whole “I have a right to not do my job” aspect. You’re saying that in the 70s, drugstore owners ALLOWED their employees to refuse to sell condoms. And I can’t really argue with that; business owners can set their own policies, and if the customers don’t like it, they can go somewhere else.
But Christianists are demanding the right to not perform a job duty and not get fired for it–a right not offered to others, like animal-rights activists working in restaurants. That’s why I call it the “special rights for fundies” law.
I’m not missing anything Ashley. Again, temporal sequence. Conscience exemptions have been the norm until now.
“PS: St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Pope Innocent, to name a few, supported abortion before “quickening.” From the 15th century (under Pope Gregory) until 1869, the church supported abortion until 16 1/2 weeks of pregnancy.”
Ashley, I defy you to give me one reliable source that supports your version of Catholic history on abortion. I know you can’t because it is 100% false. At no time in Catholic history has any abortion been declared OK or “supported” by any Pope or the Magisterium of the Church. It has always been considered an extremely grave sin at all stages of pregnancy.
What you are talking about, at most, is the opinion of a few theologians about at what point an abortion could legally be proven to be homicide, because of the question of when the unborn child acquired a soul.
St. Augustine suggested that “vivification” took place at 40 days after conception for a male and 90 days for a female (but certainly not as far as 16 1/2 weeks, and long before “quickening”). He also said that abortion was a grave sin at ANY stage of pregnancy.
Of course Augustine also lived at a time when practically nothing was known about the biology of fetal development; something about which we know a great deal more; we know know the child is a living human being from the first moment of conception. And it is a blessing that the Church has always preserved her understanding of the immorality of abortion from conception, even without this knowledge; I take that as a sign that the Church is indeed guided by God.
You may remember that Nancy Pelosi tried out this nonsense during the 2008 campaign and was immediately contradicted by every Catholic historian and theologian around, as well as by about half a dozen bishops and if I’m not mistaken, the U.S. conference of Catholic bishops itself. I wouldn’t be surprised if she were the source for your ignorant remarks. You evidently don’t do a lot of thinking or research for yourself.
PS: I myself have a Ph.D. in medieval history and have studied the sources, so you needn’t try to contradict me.
PPS: Gerard, do feel free to jump in at any time.
Someone needs to switch to decaf.
I’m going to have to agree with Gerard. Also, your knowledge of history is faulty. Abortion advocates want people to believe that abortion is a time honored procedure throughout history. Wrong. Before the US Civil War, there were few invasive procedures of any kind because the risk of infection was so great. The thing people did was expose their infants outdoors, not abort them in utero. That was far too dangerous for the mother. Archeology is proving this, as do the ancient writers such as Josephus and Eusebius.
About the decaf? I was right about that, too.
“Maybe they didn’t *support* abortion, but it wasn’t considered “killing babies.” ”
Ashley, Ashley, Ashley. That the Church “supported abortion” was YOUR original contention. Those were YOUR OWN WORDS. Now you are forced to back down on them — and you say that I am the one who is proven wrong? Nice try.
“Abortion was not considered murder until 1869.”
Even the ridiculous anti-Catholic site you linked to gives abundant evidence, from the Didache onward, that early Christians thought abortion to be “murder.” The word occurs again and again in the sources cited.
Go back and look again. You need a remedial reading course.
Here are some more quotes from Popes and Church councils — which did not make any distinctions about stage of pregnancy or ensoulment in regarding abortion to be murder.
(Canon 63). The Sixth Ecumenical Council (AD 692), stated in Canon XCI: “Those who give drugs for procuring abortion, and those who receive poisons to kill the foetus, are subjected to the penalty of murder.”
Pope Stephen V (d. 891): “If he who destroys what is conceived in the womb by abortion is a murderer, how much more is he unable to excuse himself of murder who kills a child even one day old” (Epistle to Archbishop of Mainz).
The distinctions made by Augustine and in Aristotelian philosophy with St. Thomas Aquinas affected somewhat at what stage abortion was to be considered murder both in civil law and in the Church, but it didn’t affect at all whether abortion was considered grave sin. But for Sixtus V, evidently, these considerations did not affect the gravity of abortion at any stage in the slightest.
Now, as for Gregory XIV’s bull, “Sedes Apostolica,” it is extremely difficult to find any skeptical or anti-Catholic site that will actually QUOTE it – I wonder why — but not really to be wondered at, given that they all say wildly different things about it (one site even claimed that Gregory said abortion was OK as long as abortion was not used as birth control, which is ridiculous). However I finally did find a quote from a catholic site (ewtn.com), which means that someone is actually more likely to have actually read the whole bull. In it, Catholics are told:
“where no homicide or no animated fetus is involved, not to punish more strictly than the sacred canons or civil legislation does.”
In other words, whether or not abortion is murder (and medicine and law did recognize “quickening” as a marker at the time) it was still both a sin and a crime to be punished; the question was who was to determine the punishment, and what it was to be. Evidently Gregory thought it wrong to apply the death penalty in all cases, as his predecessor had done.
Almost immediately after Gregory’s time, however, the idea that the soul was infused at conception began to take hold, due, among other things, to advances in medical science, and this understanding was expressed by later Popes.
***
Do you still continue to wonder why no one will address your “arguments” about conscience clauses? Are you still flattering yourself that your arguments are unbeatable? In reality, they are barely coherent enough to understand, much less answer. Do yourself a favor and at least try to think before getting over your ahead again in subjects you know nothing about.
It’s important to recognize that Gregory XIV in this bull was not making a dogmatic definition as to whether abortion was equivalent to homicide; he was simply referring to categories recognized at that time in common law, medicine, etc., according to which penalties were to be fixed. These had arisen independently of any judgment by the Church.
Lori,
Sorry to miss the conversation last night. My two cents for Ashley…
Ashley,
Simple ignorance is nothing about which one need be ashamed. It’s impossible to know everything, and in reality most of us know very little. However, when one pretends knowledge, and then uses those imaginings as actual facts in argumentation, we see simple ignorance give way to arrogance and arrogance yielding to self-delusion. That’s you on this thread (among other threads).
The Catholic Church has condemned abortion since the first century A.D., beginning with our oldest document from the Apostles, the Didache (Teaching of The Twelve Apostles):
“The Lord’s Teaching to the Heathen by the Twelve Apostles:
1 There are two ways, one of life and one of death; and between the two ways there is a great difference.
2 Now, this is the way of life:…
The second commandment of the Teaching: “Do not murder; do not commit adultery”; do not corrupt boys; do not fornicate; “do not steal”; do not practice magic; do not go in for sorcery; do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant. “Do not covet your neighbor’s property; do not commit perjury; do not bear false witness”; do not slander; do not bear grudges. Do not be double-minded or double-tongued, for a double tongue is “a deadly snare.” Your words shall not be dishonest or hollow, but substantiated by action. Do not be greedy or extortionate or hypocritical or malicious or arrogant. Do not plot against your neighbor. Do not hate anybody; but reprove some, pray for others, and still others love more than your own life.”
(Reference:http://priestsforlife.org/magisterium/didache.htm)
Then we have all of the following:
“The Apocalypse of Peter (ca. 135)
“I saw a gorge in which the discharge and excrement of the tortured ran down and became like a lake. There sat women, and the discharge came up to their throats; and opposite them sat many children, who were born prematurely, weeping. And from them went forth rays of fire and smote the women on the eyes. These were those who produced children outside of marriage and who procured abortions.” 2:26
“Those who slew the unborn children will be tortured forever, for God wills it to so.” 2:64
Read on here for a small mountain of teaching against abortion in the first five centuries of the Church:
http://priestsforlife.org/magisterium/earlychurchfathers/fatherscover.html
Then read here for the Papal Encyclicals:
http://priestsforlife.org/magisteriumencyc.htm
From Congregations and Councils of the Vatican:
http://priestsforlife.org/magisteriumvatican.htm
Then for a larger mountain of source material:
http://priestsforlife.org/magisteriumteachings.html
Each document is richly footnoted and the original can be gotten from the Vatican’s website.
All of that said, you don’t have a leg to stand on. I defer to Lori’s expertise in Medieval Theology {I’m green with envy Lori ;-) }
In past threads I have shredded your weak, pathetic attempts at constructing biological realities of the embryo and fetus that run contrary to fact. Lori and I have demolished your attempts at falsely portraying the Church as having once been tolerant of abortion.
Game over for the pro-aborts Ashley. The pro-life movement is filled with scholars who are shredding the tissue of lies. More importantly, it is filled with good, holy, and motivated people from every walk of life whose decency stands in stark contrast to your craven apologias for the slaughter of innocent babies in their mother’s wombs.
You’ve lost the biological argument.
You’ve lost the medical argument.
You’ve lost the theological argument.
You’ve lost the moral/constitutional argument.
All you have left is the putrifying corpse of the pro-choice argument, which is the narcissistic, radical autonomy that has animated your particular brand of feminism. And it is a pathetic feminism that maintains women’s only path to the top rests atop the corpses of over 52 million babies.
God’s forgiveness awaits you Ashley. You only need to ask with a contrite heart. But you are pretty much finished here as an abortion apologist. You have no more arguments. They have all been defeated by facts, and you have been reduced to vulgarity and name-calling. All you do now is plug your ears and try to shout over the opposition.
It’s time you asked God’s forgiveness and joined us. Use your great talents for God and for good. Join women like Jill, Carla, and Lori in an authentic feminism that celebrates the fullness and magnificence of womanhood. YOUR womanhood.
“If today you hear His voice, harden not your hearts.”
-Psalm 95
That’s right Ashley. Don’t bother reading the truth that contradicts your calumnies. Just move on.
Thanks, Gerard (My Ph.D was actually in medieval history, not medieval theology, though I know a little of that too).
Ashley, if you are still reading, I agree completely with what Gerard said. There is really only one reason you are still railing constantly against the Catholic Church. That is because as a Catholic you know beyond a doubt that the Church, which offers Christ’s forgiveness, is your salvation from your life of sin, and from your the guilt of your abortion (yes, that is the guilt we are all talking about). And you are just not ready to take it yet. Hence your anger and your screams and your fighting tooth and nail against it. But you will come someday and find forgiveness. And only then will you have peace. Believe me, it’s much more beautiful than you could ever imagine over here.
Lori and Gerard,
Thanks for your awesome commentary. The middle ages is a fascinating period in history.
Ashley,
None of the job scenarios you present, with their various “conscience objections” carry the moral weight that abortion does. (Killing cows, polluting the earth, etc… is not equal to abortion.)
That said, you don’t find vegans taking jobs in animal slaughterhouses , or environmentalists taking jobs in coal plants unless they are actually looking for a battle in the courts. In that case, they deserve to lose their court cases for wasting their employers’ time and money.
An infertility counselor who won’t counsel a couple wanting more than one child could not perform his job on most days. It hardly compares to this case of a bus driver who may only need to make a stop at a Planned Parenthood clinic once a year.
Lori,
Thanks. Did you ever read Barbara Tuchman’s “A Distant Mirror”? If so, is it worth the read? I never quite got around to it in college.
Ashley,
Your analogy is as corrupt as your morality.
If you worked for a fertility clinic, whose very essence and raison d’etre is to assist couples in conceiving, then you would be acting in a manner contrary to the very mission of the clinic. You deserve to be fired.
Medical personnel train with a view toward healing and nurturing life. The overwhelming majority in the field look with disgust upon those who butcher babies. It is a violation of all that we hold sacred. Thus, medical professionals in every medical society have honored conscience clauses for what has always been regarded as the right to not be compelled into barbarism.
Now, I would agree with you that an employee of an abortion clinic has no right of conscience that prohibits their participation in abortion. That’s because they know the purpose of the center when they are hired.
However, in a general hospital setting where abortions may occur, no administration has the right to compel employees to participate in abortion. Again, this is because abortion remains outside of the ethical mainstream for the majority of professionals.
In the original case of the bus driver, if he was driving a route that passed by the PP clinic, then he could either have sought transfer to another route or realized that he bears zero moral responsibility for the actions of his passengers.
However, if he was specifically tasked with a direct drop at the facility, a drop that would have been off-route, he has a case.
Eventually Ashley you must come to terms with having killed your child. I don’t know the reasons why you did it, and I’m certain that as with most women there are abundant circumstances which mitigate and attenuate the amount of subjective culpability that you actually bear. Nevertheless I seriously urge you as a fellow Catholic to purge yourself of this guilt that is driving you mad. Look at your pattern of posting lately. It’s disjointed, sputtering, and perseverative.
Come Home.
Ashley, do you really still wonder why no one engages your arguments? It’s because you have no arguments. You have screams, rants, non-sequiturs, and insults against just about any religious group you can name. You shift the ground of an argument constantly so you can claim victory, and even claim victory without even bothering to try and answer the case against you.
I know you are way smarter than this, so you might try to clear your head and engage in some rational behavior if you want a real debate.
For the record, you could try to re-read the various comments that I and other people made up above explaining what a conscience clause is and how it can be defended. Your basic contention, such as it is, appears to be that since conscience exceptions at work shouldn’t be allowed for frivolous reasons, they should never be allowed for any reason, which once again is a complete non-sequitur.
Yes, I know you enjoy your sinful life. But it is perfectly obvious that it is not bringing you peace. You childishly refuse to recognize the difference. And deep down, you know the reason why. But Ashley, it can’t last forever. You need to wake up.
Ashley, Janet and Gerard’s arguments are very cogent, and I agree with them 100%. Be careful what you wish for when you ask for someone to engage your arguments.
Gerard, I can’t recall ever reading “A Distant Mirror,” but I did hear it was terrific!
P.S. Ashley,
Regarding your smear of the clergy. The pedophiles have been cleared out. They were less than 4% of the clergy. The men remaining are good and holy men.
I think it safe to say that far greater than 4% of women have had abortions. Further, as one who has not only killed her own child, but vociferously defends the practice, I hardly think you have a moral leg to stand on and crow about the molestation of children.
Really.
Grow up and come home.
Ashley,
I’d just like to add to an earlier comment regarding the term “fundie” that you like to use –
“Fundamentalism” has many meanings and it would serve you well to be more specific. Look at short excerpt from WIKI for starters –
“Fundamentalism is commonly used as a pejorative term, particularly when combined with other epithets (as in the phrase “Muslim fundamentalists” and “right-wing/left-wing fundamentalists”).[7][8] Richard Dawkins has used the term to characterize religious advocates as clinging to a stubborn, entrenched position that defies reasoned argument or contradictory evidence.[9] Others in turn, such as Christian theologian Alister McGrath, have used the term fundamentalism to characterize atheism as dogmatic.[10]
***
Lori,
Hardly as impressive as your commentary; thank you.
Ashley,
Obviously you barely skimmed our comments. Did you forget this blog happens to be pro-life blog, and you are the one who brings up religion all the time. Having a conscience is an intrinsic part of being human, not religion.
Ashley’s rants remind so much of those of my still-pro-choice-post-abortive friends. After an abortion, one must come to 1 of 2 conclusions: either you did the right thing, or you did the wrong thing. If you think you did the right thing, you must go through extreme mental, emotional, and spiritual acrobatics to hold onto thinking you’re right. If you think you did the wrong thing, you must face the ramifications of that but you also face the peace of mind that comes with embracing truth. Twisting and turning your intellect doesn’t make you feel better, nor does it help the brain function efficiently, and it sure as heck doesn’t help you to be more articulate. In other words, you’re not making sense to us, because you don’t make sense to yourself.
Ashley, I’m glad you got out of a bad relationship and improved your life. I think you’d probably acknowledge, though, that you didn’t need to have an abortion in order to do that. The abortion isn’t part of the things that have made your life better.
Why are you assuming that people have given up or can’t respond to your arguments because no one answered you for about an hour or so? You know that sometimes people just aren’t online, and if you were away from the computer for an hour, I don’t think you’d appreciate people claiming that you couldn’t respond to their arguments.
I think you’re pretty much defeated on the Catholic Church’s history on abortion. When it comes to conscience clauses, I’m with Janet: “An infertility counselor who won’t counsel a couple wanting more than one child could not perform his job on most days. It hardly compares to this case of a bus driver who may only need to make a stop at a Planned Parenthood clinic once a year.”
You’d get so much further, and probably merit more sincere consideration, if you didn’t insult people. “Fundies” might be short for “fundamentalist”, but then again, “homo” is short for “homosexual.” Who wants to listen to someone who insults them? You’re making it personal instead of sticking to your argument, and that’s part of why everything gets derailed and devolves into people making personal comments about each other.