2010 Election: Significant pro-life gains in the states
The states are where it’s at as far as passage of pro-life laws are concerned as well as legal and regulatory enforcement. Several judicial appointments are also made by state elected officials.
Pro-lifers made significant gains in the states yesterday. Americans United for Life Action has just released a couple great lists. Pro-life gubernatorial pick-ups:
Alabama: Robert Bentley – pro-life gain Alaska: Sean Parnell – pro-life hold Arizona: Jan Brewer – pro-life hold Florida: Rick Scott – pro-life gain Georgia: Nathan Deal – pro-life hold Illinois: If Bill Brady wins – pro-life gain Iowa: Terry Branstad – pro-life gain Kansas: Sam Brownback – pro-life gain Maine: Paul LePage – pro-life gain Michigan: Rick Snyder – pro-life gain Minnesota: If Tom Emmer wins – pro-life hold Nebraska: Dave Heineman – pro-life hold New Mexico: Susana Martinez – pro-life gain Ohio: John Kasich – pro-life gain Oklahoma: Mary Fallin – pro-life gain Pennsylvania: Tom Corbett – pro-life gain South Carolina: Nikki Haley – pro-life hold Tennessee: Bill Haslam – pro-life gain Texas: Rick Perry – pro-life hold Utah: Gary Herbert – pro-life hold Wisconsin: Scott Walker – pro-life gain Wyoming: Matt Mead – pro-life gain
AUL also distributed a list of 19 state legislative chambers that have switched from Democrat to Republican majorities, which AUL reminds us, will “enable new pro-life legislation”:
Alabama House & Senate* Indiana House* Iowa House Maine House & Senate Michigan House Minnesota House & Senate* Montana House New Hampshire House & Senate New York Senate North Carolina House & Senate* Ohio House * Pennsylvania House * Wisconsin House & Senate*
* denotes an important switch
Fox News today explained more about the magnitude of this shift in state governments and its importance – for years to come:
[T]he state legislatures take on outsized importance ahead of the 2012 cycle. State governments are responsible for redrawing the congressional districts in accordance with the results of the 2010 Census, and the GOP now has a much stronger voice in that process….
The state-level GOP wave could help their congressional counterparts build a bigger majority in the next cycle. [GOPAC chairman Frank] Donatelli noted that it also gives Republicans an immediate chance to push their agenda while the U.S. Congress potentially falls prey to political deadlock.
“We can now begin the reform process in a lot of these states right now. We don’t have to wait for 2012 to happen,” he said.
Overall, more than 6,100 state legislative seats were up for grabs in 46 states. Republican state legislative candidates made a net gain of more than 500 seats on Tuesday, giving them more seats than at any time since 1928, according to the NCSL….
[Top photo via AP, caption Fox: “Maine Republicans celebrate victories in both houses of the Legislature at the State House in Augusta, Maine. Shown at center is outgoing Republican Minority Leader Josh Tardy.”]
“Significant gains by politicians who happen to be pro-life” – there, fixed.
Maybe if economic times were much better they may actually try to do something about changing abortion laws but I don’t think it’s going to happen.
But that’s just my opinion, lets see what happens.
Lovely, Jill. Lovely.
Atrocities all eventually come to an end. We have a long way to go, but I sense the nation wearying of this atrocity’s corrosive influence on the body politic. As we grow stronger, as the scientific evidence of just how harmful abortion is to women becomes better disseminated and understood, the nation will slowly come to the conclusion that this just isn’t worth it.
It’s all breaking our way.
yes!!!!!!!!
“Atrocities all eventually come to an end” – yes Dr. Nadal. Like slavery. The denial of political rights. Inequality for women. The entrapment of women. Soon homophobia as well.
Your optimism is impressive. I just don’t see how you can claim that it is breaking your way.
cranium, you sound a tad depressed. ;)
we will win in the end. Maybe not this year or 10 years from now. But eventually we will win because we have the truth on our side. Unborn babies are human beings with the right to life. That is a biological truth and it is a moral truth.
Have a nice evening. :D
No, I’m not depressed angel. I’m also an optimist.
You will not win.
The ‘truth’ is that people want and will have abortions. It is the ‘truth’ of their lives and that’s what matters.
Have a good evening too.
Absolutely no legislation got passed last night. Nothing in the pro-life laws have shifted. While there might be good things on the horizon, now is not the time to even think about celebrating. 20 of 28 years the GOP held the Presidency and nothing got done. Hold feet to the fire.
cran, I agree that you sound down. Has your proabort lady love ever had an abortion?
I’m optimistic angel that we will see the fall of legalized abortion within the next ten years. Today was a great start but I agree Ex-GOP that we need to constantly and consistently hold their feet to the fire.
Every time a mother chooses life for her child and turns from the evil that is abortion it is a win.
Every time someone who claims to be “prochoice” honestly sees what abortion does to a living human child and becomes prolife that is a win.
Every time prolifers have a child that they raise to be prolife that is a win.
It all adds up, cran.
We win because life and love win.
I’m just trying to be a litle more ‘gentle’ in my approach (only for today and only on this thread ;-) )because I acknowledge that the dems got routed. But the reality is that obama and the dems will bounce back . Just like happened with reagan and clinton in their presidencies.
It doesn’t ‘add up’ to enough. When that child is late teens, early twenties and studying or starting a career and ‘oops’. Then its a matter of “this is what I want so this is what I’ll have”.
Why is your mindset ABORT OR FACE A LIFE OF CERTAIN MISERY?
Women can be strong and determined and can overcome and have a child or put that child up for adoption, still go to school and have a career!! All without darkening the doorstep of PP!
“We win because life and love win.”
Exactly, Carla!
~ ~ ~
Then its a matter of “this is what I want so this is what I’ll have”.
Cranium,
So it’s a “ME, ME, ME,” mentality that validates the abortion decision? Did you ever see the movie “Alfie”? He was one of the more selfish characters you’d ever meet. The lyrics to the title song kind of “sum it all up”. It begins “What’s it all about, Alfie?”
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Alfie-lyrics-Joss-Stone/F8197096C4EC6763482570B4000EF1E2
Yes, women are strong and determined. That’s why if they do not wish to proceed with a pregnancy, they won’t. No matter what you may say.
I promote CHOICE, not ‘abort or face a life of certain misery’. Your attempts at verballing do your argument no good.
The funny thing is….Republicans won because of the economy, because of the irrational health care fears (the dreaded death panels!!!!), because of paranoia. They did not win because of abortion. That is a FACT. I look forward to the time when abortion is the only issue worth voting over…because when that time comes…..unemployment will be below .5%, terrorism will be eliminated, and health care will be granted to all citizens. And when that time comes, when everything is focused on the abortion debate….the Democrats will win in a landslide, and then Gay marriage will be a right across the union, marijuana will be legal, and women will continue to have the right to choose what is best for THEIR bodies!!!!
Some ruminations on the significance of last night:
http://gerardnadal.com/2010/11/03/victory-what-does-it-mean/
“yesterday’s events were nothing less than seismic in their dimensions for the pro-life movement” – you’re getting better and better at this dreaming malarky Dr. Nadal!
If small or local authorities or politicians actually do something which restricts access to abortion the feds will come down hard on them.
“In the absence of abortion’s repeal, we can work to ensure that women are afforded the opportunity to make fully informed choices” – I agree with you!
“that the centers who currently work to aid women in crisis not be punished” – as long as they operate honestly and tell the truth.
“should receive the same amount of funding from the federal and state governments” – “but protected from governmental intrusion’ – nothing like having your cake and eating it is there.
Colorado Proposition 62 ended up on the trash heap of insanity. And nutjobs like Christine O’Donnell and Sharon Angle did, too.
Gerard and others, your theocracy will NEVER occur in our lifetimes. Thank God.
Jack/Pedro, if you could choose just ONE name for these boards, that would be helpful. Thanks.
Pedro,
I don’t see where offering women ALL of the facts about abortion from the medical literature has anything to do with God or the Devil. It is no different than any other surgical procedure where the patient is sat down and shown anatomic drawings and models of what exactly is to be done, and then apprised of all of the potential side effects and possible limitations and functional losses following the procedure.
Only in abortion is it permissible for the patient to have vital information withheld from them. Abortionists lie about the developmental status of the baby, and for good reason. When women are shown sonograms of their baby in CPC’s and PRC’s, 90% of them keep the child.
Only in abortion do we see school nurses referring children for surgery without parental notification or consent.
Only in abortion do we see groups like Planned Parenthood fight in court to prevent parental notification and consent.
Only in abortion is it acceptable for the doctor to determine what risks the woman ought to be told.
This has nothing to do with theocracy. This has everything to do with a standard of uniformity for informed consent in the medical community.
But all you trolls can do is rise up from your sewers and screech “God” “Theocracy” “Choice” without even hearing what the other side is saying. If you are not in favor of fully informed consent for women, then you are nothing more than butchers. If you can’t get on board with fully informed consent, then you are rank misogynists.
I haven’t even gotten around to discussing the moral worth of the baby because I realize that it’s too much red meat for your little tummies, but I really thought that something as benign a topic as informed consent could be a basis for common ground.
I guess I overestimated you.
cranium said,
“It doesn’t ‘add up’ to enough. When that child is late teens, early twenties and studying or starting a career and ‘oops’. Then its a matter of “this is what I want so this is what I’ll have”.”
cranium,
The results of the election is an overt sign of the coming sea change. You have it exactly wrong about the next few generations of these adolescents. The ‘science’ of abortion is leading these mothers to realize the truth about the person growing in their womb. The pro-abort side is no longer able to keep them in darkness. And the pro-life side is riding the wave with the conservative sea change.
Which will crash with a big dump on the shore in two years time. Then, once the conomy is in better shape, people will be pushing for things like gay marriage.
This crash is building stronger over the next couple years and will be more like waves hitting the shore at high tide in 2012.
Gosh, do pro-choicers ever listen to themselves? Reducing abortion access means women will loose the right to vote, the right to attend college, and 50 years of other rights and return to the days of being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen? That’s an awfully large conclusion to jump to and an illogical one at that. Do you guys even have any fact-based evidence to support this claim? Sounds like hysterics and scare tactics to me.
“I’m also an optimist…. The ‘truth’ is that people want and will have abortions.”
Wow. So much for “tragic decision” or “rare” or “options.”
No, thinking that people want abortions and will have them is optimistic. Not, “Not every child will be wanted and so sometimes, a woman will end up deciding to dismember her baby, which will be a hard decision for her and we should respect her decision because it was right for her.”
Just, People want abortions and are gonna have them. Yay!
cranium said: It doesn’t ‘add up’ to enough. When that child is late teens, early twenties and studying or starting a career and ‘oops’. Then its a matter of “this is what I want so this is what I’ll have”.
I recently had a discussion with a group of teens about pregnancy, fetal development and eventually, abortion. Some of the girls were giggling and making inaccurate statements, and another girl jumped into the conversation and said it wasn’t like that at all. Eventually she told her story – she had been pregnant and her own step-mother took her for an abortion. She didn’t want to, and said she got into a fight and left the clinic without getting one. She went to her child’s father, but he was completely unsupportive. That really hurt her. It hurt her even more when her older brother told her she should get the abortion. No one in her network was supportive or even considered what it would mean to her or how she felt about it.
She eventually was brought back to the clinic by her step mother where she tried to get away again, but couldn’t. She then gave a pretty accurate description of the abortion process. They didn’t tell her what was involved, or the risks etc. prior to starting – that was done with her step-mother.
So if you told her she was “making her own decision” or a she had a “choice” – you’d get an earful – just like the other teens did.
Later when we talked, she told me two things: she’d never do that to a child of hers, and she was hoping God would forgive her for not fighting more for her child.
Yes, there were tears.
Most of your discussion about abortion is philosophical/political, but you need to talk with women and men who’ve suffered from abortion. You’ll learn that pushing abortion betrays the confidence of those we love. There’s a whole generation of kids who got pregnant in their younger years who simply had no choice in the matter.
There’s a wave building of a younger generation in the United States that’s tired of being lied to and bullied by older generations. They want the authentic truth – without evasion or semantic word games. They want the details, all of them. I’m talking about kids on the streets, every where. They’re fighting back against a culture that didn’t want to see them live.
To them, abortion is not philosophical or political – it’s personal.
So is the change that’s coming.
And it will be more than enough.
Amen, Chris.
“It doesn’t ‘add up’ to enough. When that child is late teens, early twenties and studying or starting a career and ‘oops’. Then its a matter of “this is what I want so this is what I’ll have”.”
Plus, there is an entire culture reminding them in no uncertain terms that is what they want. There is the relentless and unyielding message that this is what they are supposed to want and that if they want something else, they are stupid.
So tell us cran, how much you respect and admire the smart girls graduating from high school who say they don’t want to go to college but rather get married and have a large family. Go ahead, tell us. Since it is so important that women choose for themselves what they really want. Is the choice to have a large family still respected as the valuable contribution to society like it was when my mother graduated high school? Or is it met with such sneering and derision that any woman who would choose that will have to cover it up with some phony story about going to college, blah, blah, blah?
We live in an age so depraved that normal behavior shocks people.
“She didn’t want to, and said she got into a fight and left the clinic without getting one. She went to her child’s father, but he was completely unsupportive.”
However, folks totally sympathize with the guys in this situation. Why should a guy have to marry a woman and support his child when he never really liked her in the first place? He was just having a little fun. She has a duty in our society to give him a no strings, good time.
This what passes for female empowerment in this day and age.
“Which will crash with a big dump on the shore in two years time. Then, once the conomy is in better shape, people will be pushing for things like gay marriage.”
So, even cran thinks the republicans will fix the economy. Freudian slip?
Well said Hippie.
The big problem is that people are having sex, the most intimate of acts, before they decide whether or not they want to get to know the person. So, of course the guy usually doesn’t want to stick around if she becomes pregnant.
A great and tragic error is made in this kind of sex-as-dating-as-recreation.
People often think that jumping into bed when dating is a great way to have intimacy. It’s actually a great way of avoiding intimacy. Spending three hours over dinner forces one to reveal their true self in ways that superficial sex cannot. Further, the sex cannot be anything BUT superficial until the person reveals their true self.
Jake wrote:
The funny thing is….Republicans won because of the economy, because of the irrational health care fears (the dreaded death panels!!!!), because of paranoia. They did not win because of abortion. That is a FACT.
All right, I’ll bite: if it’s fact, then it’s provable. Where’s your proof? I hope you’ll understand if we don’t simply take your word for the matter.
I look forward to the time when abortion is the only issue worth voting over…because when that time comes…..unemployment will be below .5%, terrorism will be eliminated, and health care will be granted to all citizens.
Er… at the risk of being picayune: if unemployment is less than 0.5%, won’t that still be an issue worth the votes of those 0.5%? I fully join you in yearning for an end to terrorism (though I don’t see that happening before Christ comes again at the end of time), and I’d love to see everyone with adequate health care (which is not at all the same thing as “everyone with government-sponsored, government-controlled health insurance“). But I think there’d still be many issues in play on which to vote, even if all those were resolved. Euthanasia, same-sex “marriage”, embryonic stem-cell research, and a thousand other issues will keep voters quite busy (and at least somewhat divided) for many years to come, I think.
And when that time comes, when everything is focused on the abortion debate….the Democrats will win in a landslide,
See, I have at least three large problems with your statement:
1) It’s raw opinion (though I commend you for presenting it as such).
2) It’s completely dependent on the idea that Democrats keep the “cloak of silence” over abortion, and keep people (especially women who are unexpectedly pregnant) ignorant about what it is, and what it does. What, do you envision Planned Parenthood dropping all resistance to the use of graphic abortion images, or high-quality ultrasound machines, or informing the mother that a real person is about to die by her pending “choice” (or, more likely, the choice of whomever has coerced her to abort), etc? Why is your enthusiasm for “choice” so far away from the idea of “free, informed” choice? Is coercion and manipulation okay with you, so long as an abortion results?
3) You envision the Democrats as embracing abortion forever and ever, rather than rejecting it eventually. You’re in favour of abortion far more than you’re in favour of the Democratic party, based on what you’ve said here; you’re truly “pro-abortion”.
and then Gay marriage will be a right across the union
Except where it isn’t. There’s a small matter of the 10th Amendment, you know…
marijuana will be legal
(*sigh*) Why am I not completely surprised at this one?
and women will continue to have the right to choose what is best for THEIR bodies!!!!
Er… I support that, too. But… what does that have to do with abortion?
“I recently had a discussion with a group of teens about pregnancy, fetal development and eventually, abortion.”
Was this a group of teens in your church? If so, the results of the conversation are not unexpected. Maybe you should try talking to a group of older teens in colleges (not bible colleges, of course), particularly in liberal areas, because the results of the conversation might have been very different. Perhaps its a denial mechanism; but the anti-abort movement seems to cling to the notion that every woman regrets her abortion and by making abortion unavailable, women, who are thus forced to bear a child, will be so much happier. Thing is that there is a substantial number of women who have no regrets at all about the procedure. And I do love the anti-abort sentiments that if a woman doesn’t want a baby, all she has to do is carry the fetus to term and she will either a) suddenly realize the error of her thinking and magically start to love the baby b) just give it away for adoption. The second premise is particularly misoynistic as it rests on the notion that a woman is an incubator and the “rights” of the fetus supercede the rights of woman who carries it.
And good luck with the “pro-life” governor thing. The governor is limited by the legislature and not all GOP held legislatures have 100% “pro-life” Republicans, especially in areas that are socially liberal or moderate. If “pro-life” legislation is passed and is challenged, there will be court cases which might not turn out favorably for the forced childbirth crowd. Interestingly, many of these “pro-life” governor elects didn’t even mention abortion during their campaigns.
When that child is late teens, early twenties and studying or starting a career and ‘oops’. Then its a matter of “this is what I want so this is what I’ll have”.”
What’s wrong with that? An education and career is very important for everybody especially women because if their future “bread-winning” husband departs the household, they are going to need an education and career to support their family. That you are suggesting that women put aside education and career to produce babies is the essence of misogyny. And yes, women can continue with their careers and education even if they’re pregnant and unmarried; but it’s very difficul especially with no support system and a country where support systems are disappearing. If she does’t want to do that, who are you to tell her that she should!
“informing the mother that a real person is about to die by her pending “choice”
Not a universally held belief. See results of Colorado Personhood Amendment.
“(or, more likely, the choice of whomever has coerced her to abort),”
Oh, please. This belief that most women are “co-erced” into abortions is another part of the misogyny of the ”pro-life” mind set as it assumes that women are just too child like or too stupid to make their own decisions. The many women, that I know, who have had abortions did so of their own volition. And yes, I will agree that some women can be intimidated into doing things especially if they are the victims of domestic violence. But it cuts both ways. Funny, I never see any disussion here about women who are co-erced not to have an abortion by boyfriend, husband, family, and parish priest.
DD,
A quick question, if I may: when do you think “human personhood (with basic human rights)” begins? At conception? At birth? When? I ask, because the vast majority of your position seems to be based either on the non-personhood (or, at very least, the lack of basic human rights) of the unborn child, or else on a complete lack of ability to prioritize human rights (e.g. right to life vs. right to vote, etc.). Clarify, please?
“Funny, I never see any disussion here about women who are co-erced not to have an abortion by boyfriend, husband, family, and parish priest. ”
Funny, I never seem to hear the women who complain bitterly that they wish they had killed their child. Something about the experience of motherhood, I guess. How about you DD? Are there any children you wish you could go back and have killed?
Wow, the abortion advocates sure are mad! I find that very encouraging.
Young people are waking up to the real facts of life: sex is procreative. If you don’t want to risk being tied to that other person by your new child’s DNA, then maybe think twice and wait a few more weeks or months for a more suitable risk-mate. That’s not hating or outlawing sex (as poor Amanda thinks), that’s just using common sense. A generation just grew up getting everything handed to them by divorced parents sinking deeper into debt. Young people aren’t stupid, abortion advocates, they are connecting the dots. They are seeing that instant gratification leads nowhere. They will have to work hard to make their way in the world that WE did not improve for them. And we, of the older generation, have to step up, shake off our complacency and help them. Killing small innocent human beings is no way to solve your problems, abortion advocates. The abortion experiment is an epic fail. Bu-bye to it.
ninek for President!
Welcome back, Artemis. Are we using a bra size now as a moniker? :D
Ah, so it’s artemiserable! Good one, Kel!
Well that explains the gratuitous slap at priests. It gives me a certain cold comfort to know that there are some constants in the universe.
“Welcome back, Artemis. ”
Ah, nice work, Kel.
Had she mentioned the Episcopalian religion or Rhode Island I would have picked up on it too…
ninek for President!
:) Heck, I’d vote for her!
Hi DD,
I was coerced into an abortion I didn’t want. It is the prochoice side that continually says that we THINK women are stupid. Total lie. Women are not stupid but when in a crisis they can be easily deceived and led to do something that wouldn’t normally do out of fear. Instead of being lied to and led to kill my child I would have been grateful for help and support and compassion in my time of need.
Have you brought anyone for an abortion? Paid for one? Why is the killing of a children by abortion so important to you?
Here are some facts.
the synergy of coercion
Many women face a “perfect storm” of coercive forces: disinformation, significant threats, expert deception or even blackmail and personal pressure that can escalate to violence (the #1 killer of pregnant women5) … all working in concert at a time when they most need a helping hand.
the UnChoice …
“They said I made the right decision … but I was never given a choice.”
64% felt pressured by others.1 Coercion can escalate to violence.
Deceptive, inaccurate or incomplete information presented as fact by licensed professionals, health officials, clinic staffers, advisors and even religious counselors also acts coercively.
Up to 83% of abortions are unwanted.2
The majority felt rushed and uncertain, yet 67% had no counseling before abortion.1
79% not informed about available alternatives.1
84% not given enough information to make an informed choice.1
Taken from
http://www.theunchoice.com/Coerced.htm
“A quick question, if I may: when do you think “human personhood (with basic human rights)” begins? At conception? At birth?”
At birth.
And Carla – your stats come from an anti-choice website so the credibility is a little questionable.
DD,
Oh yes of course. of course. LOL Always question the cred of the stats. Good golly Miss Molly do ya think the stats came from interviewing post abortive women and finding out that an uninformed choice is no choice at all?? Naahhhhhhhhhhhh.
You skipped right over my personal experience and the questions I asked. Why?
Hi DD.
So since human rights begin at birth, does the unborn in the woman’s womb have no rights?
Artemis wrote:
[human personhood (with basic human rights) begins] at birth.
Okay. Do you have reasoning behind that idea, as opposed to raw opinion?
And Carla – your stats come from an anti-choice website so the credibility is a little questionable.
(*sigh*) Oh, for crying out loud…! This is one of the most illogical canards in the book. “Don’t trust the recommendations to eat right and exercise, in that health manual; it’s from a pro-health website!” “Don’t quote the words of that 19th century fellow who railed against slavery; he belonged to an anti-slavery-choice organization!” This is a thinly-veiled (with transparent cellophane) attempt to couch your opinion-based, biased dismissal of whatever you don’t like, in a veneer of objectivity. Try again.
“Have you brought anyone for an abortion? Paid for one? Why is the killing of a children by abortion so important to you”
Drove my sister-in-law to the clinic for her abortion. I don’t believe that abortion is killing a “child.” A women’s right to an abortion is important, I believe, because without safe and legal abortion, women are merely chattel. I also know that when abortion was illegal, many women suffered serious health consequences as a result of self induced abortions (ever read “Revolutionary Road” – it’s based on reality) and back alley butchers. The attempt to control a women’s reproductive organs is the most insidious form of misogyny. As seen by the number of states with less restrictive abortion laws and the number of pro-choice men and women involved in the fight for abortion rights, I’m not the only one who believes this.
So since human rights begin at birth, does the unborn in the woman’s womb have no rights?
No rights at all and I believe that the law is consistent with that position. I don’t believe that the death of a fetus, as a result of an accident or crime of violence is treated as the death of an individual. Rather, the crime or damages from the incident are predicated on the woman carrying the fetus. But I’m not an attorney. Are there any who blog here? And here’s a question for you. If “personhood” is established at the moment of conception, would that allow child protective services to take “custody” of the fetus of a woman who is abusing alcohol or drugs or who might be in an abusive relationship? And how would you take custody of a fetus without taking custody of the mother. If so, that would mean an increase in already cash strapped state budgets for more social workers and family court personnel as these cases would swamp the system. Funny, I thought conservatives wanted less government but they don’t have a problem with government mandating what a woman can do with her body.
And Carla – your stats come from an anti-choice website so the credibility is a little questionable.
DD,
Oh so we’re ONLY supposed to trust websites that aren’t pro-life? In my experience they don’t tell the whole story…in fact, they almost never tell the whole story.
Yep, I’ve been on the PP website. Yep, I’ve seen what they say about a variety of things (including chastity and adoption and abortion). They mention those things only in PASSING. As if it’s an after thought, but not a real option. They gloss over the difficulties and poblems women face with abortion. In fact, they thrive on putting up half-truths and the like.
I’ve been pregnant…I know that a baby is alive, growing and developing even before he or she comes out of the womb. I’ve experienced hearing the heartbeat for the first time, seeing a picture on the ultrasound screen.
I got the 4-D ultrasound done probably around 6 or 7 months. Believe me, that being inside totally looked like a baby and totally looked like a human being and a life (and this was before I even held my kid in my arms after giving birth!)
Even before the 4-D ultrasound I had clues that I was carrying a life within me. Like I said, heartbeat, the fact that my body changed to accomodate the growing and developing life within me.
I also had a pregnancy book, so I knew month by month what was going on. My doc explained what foods to avoid and what was fine. He also talked about vitamins and exercise.
If that developing human inside of me wasn’t a life, why would my body and why would I and the doctor go through so much trouble to provide for said being? It wouldn’t make any sense.
Instead of fighting against the pre-born baby, the body goes to great lengths to ensure said baby’s survival.
I wrote: So since human rights begin at birth, does the unborn in the woman’s womb have no rights?
You replied: No rights at all and I believe that the law is consistent with that position.
Okay, super. Consider the following thought experiment. In some parts of Africa, the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) is quite rampant. Sometimes those parents who practice it on their children come over to the US and would like to have it done on their newborn daughters. Of course, this is a horrific and brutal act of mutilation, as I am sure many pro-choice feminists would agree. There should be no tolerance for FGM in our civilized society.
However, there is a compromise. Since the unborn in the woman’s womb have no rights at all, as long as the mother wished, she could (hypothetically) have her unborn daughter’s genitals mutilated while teh daughter was still INSIDE her mother. Though we probably don’t have the science behind doing this down yet, I’m sure we could figure it out. It would probably be easiest to do right before birth, the time at which the fetus gains rights. Thus, since the fetus has no rights, there should be no moral qualms about mutilating a female fetus’s genital while it is still in teh womb.
Does that make sense, DD? Do you support in utero FGM?
” I don’t believe that the death of a fetus, as a result of an accident or crime of violence is treated as the death of an individual. Rather, the crime or damages from the incident are predicated on the woman carrying the fetus.”
The question I originally asked asked about MORALITY, not legality. I can look up the law, and if the law says it, then it says it. I don’t care what the law says. I am trying to discuss whether certain things are moral or not, or whether or not their are inherent rights “out there” apart from the law that should be recognized (like, I am sure you would argue, the right for gays to marry) regardless of the law.
“would that allow child protective services to take “custody” of the fetus of a woman who is abusing alcohol or drugs or who might be in an abusive relationship? ”
No, obviously you can’t do this, as you go on to say. I’m not sure what the argument is suppose to show. Is it
If the unborn is a person, then it needs to be treated exactly like a newborn.
The unborn cannot be treated like a newborn.
Therefore, the unborn is not a person.
I’m not trying to be flippant here, I just really don’t know what I’m supposed to get out of your question.
DD,
Maybe you should stop treating women like chattel.
Try again.
Back alley meant that women went in the back door of a dr.’s office. Abortions were done by doctors prior to 1973.
The wounding of women by killing their female babies in their wombs, cheered on and paid for by the men who helped conceive them and desire only to walk away from paternal responsibility is the most serious form of mysogyny.
Hatred of women.
The attempt to control a women’s reproductive organs is the most insidious form of misogyny. As seen by the number of states with less restrictive abortion laws and the number of pro-choice men and women involved in the fight for abortion rights, I’m not the only one who believes this.
oh good grief, DD. WAKE UP! The reproductive system is there to provide FOR the reproduction of the human species. That’s pretty much what it’s there for. The pro-life movement isn’t about “controling women” it’s about keeping women from killing a pre-born baby and revolting against her own sexuality, feminitity and their own body.
Have you EVER been pregnant? If you have, you understand the great lengths the body goes to to provide for said pre-born baby. I have (as I posted above) so I know EXACTLY how this all works.
I know what a baby looks like on an ultrasound picture IN PERSON (not just in books or on the internet). I know how tough it is to give birth (that’s why it’s called “labor”)
I also know what it’s like to be tempted to abortion…to be afraid, to wonder if one is really prepared to be a mom.
Abortion will never take the place of the accomplishment a woman can feel knowing that in spite of any fear, in spite of any risk, she DID it. She was able to give birth to that child (whether it’s through C-section or vaginally) and while it wasn’t easy, it was possible to do.
I know a lot of women who have given birth. I know some who have placed their children for adoption. I also know women who have had abortions. The ones who have given birth and/or put their children up for adoption have been the happier ones.
DD,
Do you ever think about the niece or nephew you did not advocate for? Were you so financially destitute that there was nothing you could have contributed to this preborn relative but to drive his/her mom to the slaughter house?
You had enough money for a running vehicle so that says something. Sounds like you are attempting to rationalize the role you played in the death of a human.
DD,
I think you are delusional. There is a lot of women and men who regret their abortions. Something inside dies because of abortion. The fact that there are thousands of groups for post-abortive people that try to find healing speaks volumes about how abortion hurts people. There are tons of websites against abortion that also give tons of information on human development and consequences. How many websites, not including abortion business, are there for women to voice their pride in aborting. Most blogs that advocate abortion tend to censor any prolife message. In contrast most prolife blogs are open to discussion. There are few groups for post-abortive women who claim that they don’t regret their abortion, but these groups are small and insignificant. Most post abortive women don’t wear a shirt claiming that they are proud for their choice to abort. Most post-abortive women wear a regret message. I have never met a post-abortion woman that is a recognized speaker about the right choice she made. Most people who advocate abortion might have never had one and usually are male. However, there are plenty of post abortive women that speak about their hurt because they don’t want the same pain to ever happen to another human being. If you don’t understand that, then you are living a small myopic world. A world that doesn’t have a religious, scientific or moral stand.
(*sigh*) Oh, for crying out loud…! This is one of the most illogical canards in the book
So if a quoted from, say, a NARAL publication, you’d be OK with that?
And regarding why I say personhood begins at birth – prior to birth a fetus is my property which only I have jurisdiction over. Prior to birth, my belief is that a fetus is only potential “life” in the spiritual sense that determines “personhood”‘ vis-a-vis “ensoulment.” A gallbladder doesn’t have a soul and neither, I believe, does a fetus. Obviously, there is range of opinion on “personhood” but I, and a whole lot of other respected politicians, scientists, and clergy, support a woman’s right to determine her own reproductive destiny.
Do you ever think about the niece or nephew you did not advocate for? Were you so financially destitute that there was nothing you could have contributed to this preborn relative but to drive his/her mom to the slaughter house?
Paraxedes,
I can tell you from experience, nothing is more painful than wishing you had been able to do more for a pre-born niece or nephew when his or her life was on the line. Unfortunately, I was unable to save the life of my pre-born niece or nephew. I cried buckets and blamed myself. I’ve tried not to, knowing that I gave life-saving information to my in-law, but I was over-ruled by other people (not my husband, he was on my and his pre-born niece/nephew’s side the whole time–someone else convinced my easily-influenced in-law to have the abortion, but it wasn’t me or my husband).
It was absolutely devestating and I can’t imagine how anyone can just shrug off that kind of thing. It breaks my heart and everytime I read stories like DD’s it just brings the whole thing fresh to me.
A friend of mine recently found out she lost yet another one of her nieces or nephews to abortion because of an in-law’s choice–she wasn’t even granted the opportunity to try and save the child’s life and she was just really upset over it (she and her husband haven’t as yet been able to have their own children–they said even if they could have their own children they still want to adopt since they’re both adopted). (She wasn’t granted a chance to save this pre-born baby’s life because the in-law in question never called her to talk to her about it and I don’t think she had a number to contact her in-law—very long story and not something I can reveal here either).
I don’t know how DD can just shrug the whole thing off and not care. That was a niece or nephew she helped end the life of–and as an aunt of 10 nephews and 4 nieces, I can tell you, having nieces or nephews is a huge joy (second only to having one’s own child).
“Most post-abortive women wear a regret message”
Until I can see some hard, scientifically valid data on this, you and I will have to agree to disagree. Women I have had contact with do not regret their abortions. The ones you encounter do. Bottom line is that some do and some don’t. It depends on the person and their life circumstances and their world view.
“Do you ever think about the niece or nephew you did not advocate for? Were you so financially destitute that there was nothing you could have contributed to this preborn relative but to drive his/her mom to the slaughter house?”
Not sure what you’re talking about here. Why would I have offered to give money when money wasn’t an issue here? She made a good decision and has no regrets. And BTW, I forgot something. She didn’t have her abortion at a clinic but at a very well respected women’s hospital – not a slaughter house. Hospitals are where women with good health care plans go for their care. Too bad, women with less means have to walk the gauntlet of screaming harassers at “the slaughter house.” My sister-in-law wasn’t subject to that.
Artemis wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
(*sigh*) Oh, for crying out loud…! This is one of the most illogical canards in the book [re: dismissing information from any source which disagrees with you]”
[Artemis]
So if a quoted from, say, a NARAL publication, you’d be OK with that?
That depends entirely on what they’re saying. If NARAL said that the earth was the third planet from the sun, I’d have no problem; but if NARAL says that “a woman deserves the right to choose” (or some other vague nonsense), then I’d criticize it as thoroughly as if it’d been said by a religious leader. Logic is logic; illogical propaganda is illogical propaganda. Does that clarify?
And regarding why I say personhood begins at birth – prior to birth a fetus is my property which only I have jurisdiction over.
Okay… you’ve now stated your opinion. But in order to demonstrate that your opinion is actually CORRECT (and not a mistake or other falsehood), you’ll need to supply reasoning for that opinion. You really can’t reasonably expect us to accept it, simply on your say-so.
Prior to birth, my belief is that a fetus is only potential “life” in the spiritual sense that determines “personhood”‘ vis-a-vis “ensoulment.”
All right. Now: any evidence/reasoning for that?
A gallbladder doesn’t have a soul
Not in and of itself, no; that’s true. I do wonder whether you have a clear definition of “soul” in mind, here; do you?
and neither, I believe, does a fetus.
See above, re: giving reasons for your belief.
Obviously, there is range of opinion on “personhood” but I, and a whole lot of other respected politicians, scientists, and clergy, support a woman’s right to determine her own reproductive destiny.
Well… aside from your “waxing lyrical” at the end, there, your statement is true: many people are abortion-tolerant (or even pro-abortion). But surely you know that this makes no difference at all, regarding the truth of things? If “a whole lot of other respected politicians, etc.” believed that black people were non-persons (i.e. property, which the owners can abuse or destroy in any way or form that pleases them), would that make it “true”? I hardly think so… and I doubt that you think so, either. And yet, such an idea was USA case law, as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court (cf. Dred Scott vs. Sanford); it’s not far-fetched.
Beyond that: if two groups of people believe polar-opposite things, they can’t both be right; at least one group must be wrong. Lots of people are abortion-tolerant; lots of people are pro-life; simply “counting noses” may serve some political purposes (or gauge popularity), but it does nothing to settle the question of, “who’s RIGHT?”
So… simply appealing to the idea that “lots of people agree with me, so it’s right” (which is a textbook fallacy) simply won’t do. Do you have other reasons for your view which might be more durable?
DD,
Most women I met that regret their abortion are the ones that come out of the clinic, and I met a lot in the past seven years that I have been at abortuaries. Average of 2-3 on a given day. If you count the ones I met just on one day of the week that is about 100-150 a year. In seven years that is 700-1050 women. It is so depressing and sad that nowadays I actually tend to leave the abortuary before they come out just because I feel tired emotionally from dealing with their grief. Obviously the plethora of data available in the number of post-abortive support groups and organizations that decry this is not enough for you. I challenge you to take a poll at your local abortuary. You may know some women who don’t regret their abortion but I assume that number is smaller than the ones I met in seven years.
Artemis uses the typical pro-abort non-logic and non-science. Moral relavitism! Please. It’s not surprising that she thinks the unborn are the mother’s “property.” And, she proves once again that in order to kill a human being, you must first insist it is not a human being. I like how she uses words like “jurisdiction.” Yeah, that’s what this is about. *eye roll*
Pro-abort arguments can be boiled down to one word: “ME!”
Artemis has no scientific basis for her claims; and her logic is completely flawed. It’s really something that pro-aborts don’t hear how ignorant they sound.
“Drove my sister-in-law to the clinic for her abortion”
I’ve never gone after women for having abortions because they are usually not operating in an objective mental framework at the moment.
However, the abortionists and family who drive them there are really disgusting human beings. We can’t reason with such people, as they are hip-deep in their own evil and its deadening effects on conscience.
That’s the ‘miserable’ in artemiserable.
I can’t run for office; too checkered of a past, lol!
The pro-abort logic is astounding is it not? “Don’t treat women like property; baby women are property that can be killed.” “Your statistics are wrong, but most people agree that abortion is ok.” Keep it up, abortion advocates and don’t forget to burn those biology textbooks. We wouldn’t want the facts getting in the way of your argument.
Keep it up, abortion advocates and don’t forget to burn those biology textbooks.
ninek,
Shhhhh… don’t give them any ideas. :(
“An education and career is very important for everybody especially women because if their future “bread-winning” husband departs the household, they are going to need an education and career to support their family. That you are suggesting that women put aside education and career to produce babies is the essence of misogyny. And yes, women can continue with their careers and education even if they’re pregnant and unmarried; but it’s very difficul especially with no support system and a country where support systems are disappearing. If she does’t want to do that, who are you to tell her that she should!”
Hmm… so many problems with this.
You say an education and career is important especially for women, but then imply they’ll have bread-winning husbands? At very least, you’d think that education and career is more important for the bread-winning husband.
Why is it that everyone is so danged concerned about what should happen if stay-at-home moms divorce or their husband dies? What about when both spouses need to work to make ends meet? No one criticizes them (nor do I), but they’ll be the ones who are really stuck if their spouse dies, I would think. So clearly this widespread canard about “what if something happens to the husband/marriage” is just about criticizing those who CHOOSE to be stay-at-home moms.
I didn’t see anyone suggest women put aside career or education to produce babies. It seems like some people are against that CHOICE, though. Why are pro-aborts always about making sure women can take the “choice” of abortion and not about making other choices easier or more available? It’s the so-called “anti-choicers” who are making sure that women can choose to continue with their lives, afford their babies/children, know all of their options. The only choice you are supporting is abortion. If someone wanted support from you, would you help them do anything other than kill their baby? I don’t think so.
Why does everyone assume that sex is so unavoidable? You just assume that any young woman must be having sex and never bring up not having sex as an option. Sex is a distraction and a risk that young people should be encouraged to avoid before marriage. It is not a lynchpin of freedom, the only method of self-expression, or a necessary part of college or beginning a career. You’d think someone who’s about true empowerment and true choice would extoll the benefits and freedom of not having sex, not having to worry about birth control, not having heartbreaking emotional entanglements, not letting strangers use one’s body. But no, you don’t even bring up that it’s a possible CHOICE. Only the “anti-choicers” support the choice to be abstinent. I was abstinent before marriage. It was hard (in part because I was young and stupid) but I am so glad that I was. I am so glad that when I had sex for the first time, it was to my husband, we were married, and nothing about it was wrong, and having sex with my husband has never been wrong. I’m not better than anyone else; anyone can wait until marriage, and their marriage will be the better for it. And if they don’t desire marriage, or don’t have the opportunity, they can throw their whole hearts and lives into a career or cause without having anything to hinder that, without all the worries of STDs, pregnancy, children, or broken heart.
ninek,
No, you don’t understand. You’re pro-life and not a scientist. What the hell do YOU know about science??? Leave it to the scientists who do…
Oh, and except for Dr. Nadal. Dr. Prentice at FRC, Dr. Lanfranchi, Dr. Brind, Dr. Kahlenborn, Dr. Harrison, etc… They’re all M.D.’s and Ph.D.’s but because they’re pro-life, they can’t be trusted to report the science truthfully or accurately.
No, ninek, you need to trust pro-aborts. You need to trust pro-abort Ph.D.’s who publish consistent links between abortion and breast cancer, then tell the public that the data they published is false and misleading. So you should trust people who publish false and misleading data.
You should trust Dr. Julie Palmer and Dr. Lynn Rosenberg who each were paid expert witnesses by the abortion lobby to testify in court against parental notification and consent laws in Florida and Alaska. You should trust women who were paid to argue in favor of deceiving parents.
You should trust Planned Parenthood who has done the same in every state where this has been debated.
You should trust people like artemiserable who did nothing to save the life of her niece/nephew, to adopt the child or provide for it, and instead gladly drove that child to its death.
These are the people to trust. Their ardent bloodlust notwithstanding, they are the model of objectivity, of truthfulness, of goodness and decency.
Don’t you get it? Artemiserable is the only genuinely morally, intellectually, scientifically enlightened person here, and we are all in her debt for showing us the error of our ways.
ninek
November 4th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
I can’t run for office; too checkered of a past, lol!
Um, don’t some (probably not all) politicians have some kind of “checkered” past? Like voting records?
Shoot, pro-aborts think we pro-lifers are so discrimintory or “hindering women” why should we hinder you from being president? LOL
Ninek for president 2012! LOL ;-)
Gerard,
Thanks to you and all pro-life scientists (and everyone, for that matter) who endure scorn for their work. The facts speak volumes and you are wonderful conveyors of the truth!
Prior to birth, my belief is that a fetus is only potential “life” in the spiritual sense that determines “personhood”‘ vis-a-vis “ensoulment.”
All right. Now: any evidence/reasoning for that?
My belief is informed by teachings such as this:
Reprinted with permission from Biomedical Ethics and Jewish Law, published by KTAV.
Let us first establish the time that a fetus legally acquires the status equal to an adult human being. The Talmud states in part that if the “greater part was already born, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person’s life for that of another.” Thus the act of birth changes the status of the fetus from a nonperson to a person (nefesh).
So, if you disagaree with that, Paladin, go find yourself a rabbi and argue with him/her.
“Religious traditions holding that personhood rests in the presence of a non-physical soul differ with respect to the question of when the soul is implanted. Some traditions hold that this occurs at the moment of conception, but most hold that this occurs much later in the pregnancy, at or near quickening. Religious traditions that do not include belief in a soul do not generally tend to define fetal personhood in explicit terms”
Obviously, I’m at the far end of the spectrum.
And BTW, I realize that you probably have no affection for the ACOG (the use the term “fetus”) but they don’t seem to have a problem with abortion. And while you can find anti-choice medical professionals, we also have Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health. I’m not hearing a clamor in the scientific community for a ban on abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
Unlike Paladin, I’m not locked into a worldview that I believe is correct. (Tell me Paladin, do you believe that the Catholic Church is “the one true church?”) I don’t really know if there is a soul, let alone when it comes into being (at what point did the evolving primate get a soul?) It’s irrelevent. What is really relevent is that women have the choice to do what they want, supported by the law, with their bodies and that, “young Christian woman,” includes protected sex whether or not one is married.
Oh, and Dr. Nadal. If I find out if a young woman is thinking about an abortion can I give her your name so you can adopt the baby? Just joking…
Hi DD.
“What is really relevent is that women have the choice to do what they want, supported by the law, with their bodies and that, “young Christian woman,” includes protected sex whether or not one is married.”
Why is this true but other aspects of your worldview could be false as you stated above? In other words, you mentioned that you don’t necessarily believe your worldview to be correct. Okay, fair enough. But why is the above statement correct? Why is your quoted statement not subject to the skepticism of the rest of your worldview?
“And Carla – your stats come from an anti-choice website so the credibility is a little questionable.”
.
Hilarious.
.
Compare that to NARAL where the founders admitted they lied.
.
Talk about casting apersions.
.
No evidence that it isn’t true, just the classic ad hominem.
.
Pro aborts have tons and tons of documented lies. Oh, no problem believing known liars and criminals. No, of course not. However, always suspicious of those who have not been shown to be liars.
.
Irrational.
“Oh, and Dr. Nadal. If I find out if a young woman is thinking about an abortion can I give her your name so you can adopt the baby? Just joking…”
.
Right because we all know the bazillion newborns that no one will adopt.
.
Irrational, as usual.
“What is really relevent is that women have the choice to do what they want, supported by the law, with their bodies and that, “young Christian woman,” includes protected sex whether or not one is married.”
.
Right because we all know that guys want no obligations and it is first and foremost important that women be able to satisfy the guys. No need for guys to satisfy the woman’s desire for a relationship. He can just fake it for as long as she is young and fun. Then he can decide he is ready to move on.
“An education and career is very important for everybody especially women because if their future “bread-winning” husband departs the household, they are going to need an education and career to support their family. That you are suggesting that women put aside education and career to produce babies is the essence of misogyny.”
.
He, he. Nice try.
.
I was talking about your disdain for women who don’t want what you insist they must want.
.
Your absurd insistence that, “An education and career is very important for everybody especially women because if their future “bread-winning” husband departs the household,”
.
So, in other words all women must want it because you think it is important. You are totally confident in demanding that they want it. You don’t give a crap about what they want. You just fanatically impose your judgement in place of the judgement of individual women. You have no respect for their judgement.
“Oh, and Dr. Nadal. If I find out if a young woman is thinking about an abortion can I give her your name so you can adopt the baby? Just joking…”
Yes you may. And I’ll furnish a list of pro-life friends looking to adopt. In the interim, you need to come to terms with driving a member of your family to its death. Blessedly, God is always waiting with an ocean of mercy and forgiveness. Contemplate that between now and your next snark.
Also, click here to see four pro-lifers who put their money where their mouths are. One is post-abortive who adopted and the other three have embraced their profoundly handicapped children. So stuff it!
http://gerardnadal.com/2010/11/01/happy-warriors/
Did DD seriously comment HERE that the ACOG doesn’t have a problem with abortion? Hahaha! The ACOG also doesn’t have a problem with legal clerks changing their findings either, lol! (DD obviously was taking a nap when Jill re-posted Elena Kagan’s lovely editing skills.)
Also, I DO hear members of the medical community expressing their disdain for abortion. Hullo McFly!
Artemiserable is the only genuinely morally, intellectually, scientifically enlightened person here, and we are all in her debt for showing us the error of our ways.
Oh, no, Gerry, you’re forgetting a couple others, like cranium, Megan, et. al. After all, we know that eliminating those weaker than ourselves when we deem they should be eliminated is just the only way to be enlightened.
Mother in Texas, I’m so sorry to hear your story. Another devastating example of abortion negatively touching the lives of more than just the mother and child.
A gallbladder doesn’t have a soul and neither, I believe, does a fetus.
Great comparison DD! Do you believe the gallbladder acquires his/her soul when it is viable, when it takes his/her first breath or when it is completely outside the body?
If I find out if a young woman is thinking about an abortion can I give her your name so you can adopt the baby?
Feel free to give her my name DD. This site can put us in touch with each other.
How absolutely heartbreaking that you didn’t ask around for a home for your own niece/nephew. You would have certainly found one.
Ok, I’ve just got to ask: if a fetus isn’t alive (scientifically only the mother can make that determination), so, if the baby er I mean fetus kicks the mother’s belly er I mean, host body’s belly, does that indicate that the mother (sorry) host might have epilepsy? Or some other neurological condition? Because if it’s her body (and natch her “choice”) and not scientifically alive, then a kicking fetus cannot be healthy. I mean, if the host didn’t will the kick and the kick just happened, er, maybe her neurons are misfiring? Right? Huh?
“Wowbowwow!”
“What’s that Mrs. Jones?”
“Brwowwow!”
“I got an F?! Biology is what I decide it to be, Mrs. Jones, now stop talking like a Peanuts grown up and give me my A!”
“Mowwahowrowro!”
“The principal’s office?! Again?!”
I absolutely would adopt. If for whatever reason I could not, I’d find someone who could.
hippie, if a young lady chooses to get married and have a large family that is fine. The operative word here is choice.
It will not be the activities of the republicans which improve the economy.
Wow. And I thought the people here were vicious and mean to me. But even I’ve never been accused of “driving a member of [my] family to its death” and being a “really disgusting human being” yet. You need a thick skin to interact with this bunch of loving Christians if you don’t agree with them 100%, that’s for sure.
Joan,
When you drive your pregnant sister-in-law to an abortion clinic for the purpose of having the child killed, then you have driven that child to its death. Knowingly, I might add.
Those were artemiserable’s revelations, not our inventions. You have the paradigm backward. Being Christian means confronting a brother or sister with the truth of their deeds and their attitudes and opening the door to conversion. Politely allowing one to glory in having driven a niece/nephew to its death is an abdication of one’s Christian duty.
But you’re a pro-abort, and so you have necessarily bought into the world of lies necessary to sustain such evil intent and action.
There is a time and place for everything, and it is simply surreal to make a pretense at polite chit chat with a troll who conspired in a family member’s death when she should have done all within her power to protect her brother, his wife and their baby from the course of action that was taken. Rather than regret or remorse, she comes here reveling in her complicity.
Some family member!
Authentic Christian love means calling her on her foul pride in helping to kill that baby, rather than being the voice of reason and hope to the mother.
joan
Rather than accept that there is a diversity of opinion, these folks just denigrate those who don’t subscribe to their “one true faith” – which is funny considering that the Catholic Church really doesn’t feel that other churches, no matter how “pro-life” are, hare an acceptable path to salvation. When you read their dogmatic pronouncements, you need not question why more and more people are not identifying themselves as members of established religious groups. Jesus loves you – except if you had an abortion – but if you say you’re sorry, it’s all good. Dr. Nadal (who works at a Roman Catholic college) is particularly vicious, especially towards those free thinking women who dare question what holy father (in the macrocosmic sense) says. But hey, he’s a good Christian, so it’s all good…. He, in particular, is why the anti-choice movement is limited to a group of (for the most part) uber religious Christians who do so love to “judge.”
And this: “Your absurd insistence that, “An education and career is very important for everybody especially women because if their future “bread-winning” husband departs the household”
“Hippie” is saying that if a woman decides to forgo an education, in order to have children, it’s not a problem if the sole source of support leaves the household? Hello? This is why education, for a woman, is important even if SHE BECOMES A HOMEMaker because (d’uuh) if her husband is no longer available what is she going to do? It’s liberal women, like me, who support education programs for women like these, who are suddenly faced with the loss of support; but conservatives are the ones who are cutting these programs. The bottom line is that a woman without an education is behind the proverbial 8 ball especially if she’s left with children and no support. Right?
Well artemiserable, your arrogance and evil seem to be rivaled only by your ignorance. The Catholic Church states explicitly in the documents of the Second Vatican Council that all religions provide a way to salvation. But then, you’ve never read them and rely on caricatures as truth.
As for being “vicious”, in Brooklyn it’s simply called being truthful. It seems vicious to you because it is an accurate depiction of who and what you are; your own words being reflected back on you by someone who is unafraid to let you know how ugly your worldview truly is.
Your attitude is disgusting and sexist, even by “pro-life” standards. The poster’s sister-in-law is a rational adult who made her own decision to have an abortion and you are treating her like an imbecile who can’t think for herself or be responsible for her own actions. DD did what any good friend or loved one would do and helped her sister-in-law out in a time of need. Though I’ve never had occasion to drive anyone to an abortion clinic, I would consider it an honor and a privilege if I was asked.
”The Catholic Church states explicitly in the documents of the Second Vatican Council that all religions provide a way to salvation.”
But only if they believe that abortion is an “intrinsic evil” right?
Also, setting aside the abortion issue for a second, you have a very curious way of “opening the door to conversion” for a “brother or sister” by calling them “miserable” and attacking them. You make me ashamed to call myself Catholic. You’re extraordinarily vindictive and a poor representative of your faith.
Wow, tag-teamed by a pro-abort duo with the chutzpah to question other people’s Christian charity because they are being called on their evil in arguing for the murder of babies.
Joan, when St Paul heard of a mother and son having sex in Corinth (which is like people eating pasta in an Italian restaurant), he threw them out of the Church and exercised his Apostolic authority in pronouncing judgement on them. Only when they repented did he permit their return.
In the same way, abortion carries with it excommunication. Only this crime is so severe that the excommunication is incurred in the very act of aborting the baby, or cooperating formally in the baby’s death. Bishops, under Canon Law, are the only ones who can accept the individual back, and sometimes delegate this function to their priests, though not all.
You should be ashamed to call yourself a Catholic for advocating the murder of babies, and not because a fellow Catholic hurt your precious feelings for calling you on your evil.
There is no setting aside the abortion issue.
The Catholic teaching is that salvation comes from God, therefore it is God’s business who is saved and who is not. The Dalai Lama, for example, lives in a very righteous way and so we can easily expect that God will have a very charitable reception for him in the afterlife. However, Gerard is correct: abortion is no white lie, it is not like telling your wife she doesn’t look fat in her jeans. Abortion is a grave sin. In fact, the gravest of grave sins and does indeed subject one to self-excommunication. When I returned to the Church, I enrolled in the full RCIA program and made a full confession, even though many people think they can just walk through the door, plop their tuckus into the pew and pronounce themselves Catholic. Gerard is absolutely correct.
Also, in what we call the New Testament (no offense meant to our Jewish neighbors), St. Paul re-affirms the directive given to Ezekiel by God: if you see your brother sinning and you do nothing to save him, you are held responsible for his death. In this way, DD is responsible not only for his part in his relative’s death, but also shares responsibility for the mother’s spiritual illness/death.
If you don’t want to obey the magisterium, you could at least obey the word of God.
You make me ashamed to call myself Catholic
Notice jane doesn’t say she is ashamed to BE Catholic but she is ashamed to CALL herself a Catholic. It’s all about using the word when it works for her.
The reality is jane that if you allow someone to make you feel ashamed to call yourself Catholic, you’re not really a Catholic.
If you are so darn ashamed of calling yourself Catholic, why don’t you just stop calling yourself Catholic? No one is forcing you to attend Mass on Christmas and Easter, are they?
“The Dalai Lama, for example, lives in a very righteous way and so we can easily expect that God will have a very charitable reception for him in the afterlife.”
Very righteous way? Does that include the part about him owning slaves? But hey, what do you care: he’s condemned abortion, and that’s all that matters.
“The reality is jane that if you allow someone to make you feel ashamed to call yourself Catholic, you’re not really a Catholic.”
It’s called a rhetorical device. Obviously one mean-spirited little man sharing my faith is not enough to literally make me ashamed. What can I say? I’m sorry that the nuances of conversational English are lost on you? Of course, you can’t even be bothered to spell my name right, I guess it’s a bit too tall of an order to ask that you recognize obvious sarcasm.
Joan,
Your Catholic faith teaches that if you persist in error, then you are a heretic in persisting publicly. If that makes me a mean-spirited little man, then so be it. You are bound for hell for all eternity unless you change your witness and your heart.
As for what Praxedes had to say, nice attempt at a smokescreen and avoiding the issue. Obviously it was a rhetorical device, because you have no shame, and have made that abundantly clear on these threads. All you have is lies, obfuscations, wild allegations and name-calling of your own. You refuse to play civilly, so I’m taking a page from your playbook. True to form for pro-aborts, you can dish it out, but you can’t take it. You act like wet hens when you get a dose of your own medicine.
Over at my blog, I have a woman who goes by “L.” who is rather pro-choice. We have wonderfully civilized conversations because she is a wonderfully civilized woman. Through our discourse, I have come to know much about her, and while we disagree, we respect oneanother.
You and your fellow trolls could take a lesson from her. That said, I stand by my every word here.
is not enough to literally make me ashamed
I admit I am simple and will never hope to become as elite as you oh smarty pants jean. Prax should know better. Of course, you not ashamed to call yourself Catholic or anything else.
After all, if you can’t feel shame about promoting the killing of humans, jan, there is nothing left to feel shame about.
“You are bound for hell for all eternity unless you change your witness and your heart.”
So all religions offer a path to salvation but falling on the wrong side of a political issue is an instant, one-way ticket to hell. Interesting.
“You refuse to play civilly, so I’m taking a page from your playbook.”
Oh please. You are the least civil person here by a country mile. I’m pleased to say that I have met few people here or elsewhere who are as utterly angry and vengeful as you are. You should be honest and just drop any pretense that your behavior here is what it is because you are trying to fulfill your “Christian duty” and admit that all this fanatical ranting about how everyone who is pro-choice supports “murder” is an emotional release for you.
“Over at my blog, I have a woman who goes by “L.” who is rather pro-choice. We have wonderfully civilized conversations because she is a wonderfully civilized woman. Through our discourse, I have come to know much about her, and while we disagree, we respect oneanother.”
I’ve never once seen you show that kind of respect for anyone here who doesn’t agree with you 100%. But I’m glad that you can find some kind of reconciliation with someone who openly supports murder in your view and is therefore hellbound.
“and admit that all this fanatical ranting about how everyone who is pro-choice supports “murder” is an emotional release for you.”
Dr. Phil meets Planned Parenthood. All pro-lifers here are fanatical ranters according to the trolls, according to PP. Come on Joan, get some original material.
If the choice IS murder, then supporting choice is supporting murder. The ‘choice’ in question is not regular or decaf.
Ninek,
If you keep using the word murder, Dr. Phil is going to accuse you of getting an emotional release. Careful!
“Funny, I never see any disussion here about women who are co-erced not to have an abortion by boyfriend, husband, family, and parish priest.”
Proaborts consistently argue that if a woman wants an abortion, she will have one. Now you say a woman can be “co-erced” not to kill her child. Can you give some examples?
Find me a support group for women who were co-erced into having their children. Do they cry and ask forgiveness about NOT killing their children? Do they protest outside of churches and pregnancy centers with signs saying “Choose Death” and “Giving Birth Continues a Beating Heart” or “Rip Off my Hand and Then Take My Life”? Do they show pictures of living children that say “Please Stop This Atrocity”?
Maybe you could start up a group. Or invite us to their blog.
When my brother and his girlfriend conceived, she wanted to abort. They had not dated very long and his girlfriend was unsure of her feelings for my brother. My brother got on his knees, cried and begged her to have the baby. He told her he would raise the baby alone if she didn’t want to. Once she felt the baby move, she realized she wanted to share custody and my godchild is now a beautiful young woman. She is GREATLY loved by both her parents and all members of both sides of the family. She is the only child either parent could ever have.
I am so proud of my brother for fighting for life. And I am so proud of my niece’s mom that she was willing to listen to my brother’s pain even though she was young and scared. She has zero regrets about being “co-erced” into not killing her daughter.
Gerry,
“The Catholic Church states explicitly in the documents of the Second Vatican Council that all religions provide a way to salvation.”
I hate to be nit-picky on this detail, but we do have to be very careful about this. In Chapter II of Lumen Gentium (one of teh Vatican II documents for those who may not be farmiliar), it reads:
“Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”,(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
What I would like to emphasize is that teh Church never says that all religious provide a way to salvation; in fact, it says just the opposite- that someone can be saved IN SPITE of tehir religion. It talks about invincible ignorance and how those who do not know that they are rejecting the truth of Jesus Christ and his gospel MAY be saved by their embracing of the truths that they do know about. As it says, “every truth they know of is looked upon as preparation for the gospel.” The gosepl of Jesus is always the ends that we have in mind.
So while a Hindu or Muslim or whomever CAN be saved without knowingly acknowledging Jesus, it is NOT because of their Hindu or Muslim faith. Rather, it is because they seek the truth in all that they do and are INVINCIBLY IGNORANT of who Jesus was and his desires for us. God love you.
HI DD,
Gerard said: ”The Catholic Church states explicitly in the documents of the Second Vatican Council that all religions provide a way to salvation.”
You replied: But only if they believe that abortion is an “intrinsic evil” right?
No. Unfortunately all this question shows is that you do not at all understand the Catholic Church’s doctrine of “no salvation outside the Church” (which you had already proved in your above post). All these questions of specifics can be subsumed if you understand teh principle. The principle is that God does not punish those who are not responsible for their own ignorance. So you can take that principle and apply so specific cases, whether it be support of abortion, a Muslim, or a Catholic who is in rebellion against teh Church. We cannot ever judge anyone’s heart or say who is responsible for their own ignorance and who isn’t, who is knowingly rejecting truth and who isn’t, etc. That is up to God.
DD and Joan,
I’d have to agree with Dr. Gerry and the many Catholic PL’ers here about the full-fledged intolerance of abortion by the Church. At no time in its 2000-year history has ANY other ‘moral’ issue caused an automatic excommunication as abortion has. This involves not only the aborting women, but also the folks who have simply counseled her to have an abortion. Obviously, this abortion issue (and there have been numerous moral issues in that 2000 years), has there EVER even been one that approaches the sheer depravity of abortion. It is not just-one-more.
I think you two (unlike cranium) should look seriously into your future. I am one of those baby-boomers who is severely disabled. Death may come to me from euthanasia, via a gift-of-deliverance from PC’ers. Like killing our own through abortion, (I will first become not-a-human but ‘unfit’.)
Abortion of pre-born babies is a slowly dying issue. What is going to merit much of your attention in the future is your willingness to seek death (of others) as a solution to your life. This is called ‘euthanasia’. The pressure will be enormous. The number of people-killed-via-abortion will pale when compared to those killed via-societal-euthanasia that will be employed in a very few years.
Have a wonderful LIFE, but will voices like mine be-no-more? Am I your enemy?
“Dr. Phil meets Planned Parenthood. All pro-lifers here are fanatical ranters according to the trolls, according to PP. Come on Joan, get some original material.”
I don’t recall using the word “all” in there. I am specifically singling out you, a man who by virtue of his supposed educational pedigree should be capable of interacting with people who disagree with him without flying into a rage and condemning them to hell. You have an extremely short fuse and I fear for the safety of any women in your life who make the mistake of crossing you; your personality here definitely suggests a predisposition towards resorting to violence when vitriolic screeds just won’t cut it.
“I think you two (unlike cranium) should look seriously into your future. I am one of those baby-boomers who is severely disabled. Death may come to me from euthanasia, via a gift-of-deliverance from PC’ers. Like killing our own through abortion, (I will first become not-a-human but ‘unfit’.)”
This is a ridiculous and offensive suggestion. There isn’t even a remote possibility of some sort of slippery slope here; there is simply no logical path from “a woman should be able to do what she wants with her body” to “KILL THE DISABLED!” It’s as ridiculous as saying that holding the belief that a person has the right to physically defend themselves could possibly lead to holding the belief that serial murder is an acceptable preemptive deterrent to being assaulted. It simply is a completely spurious implication to make and its only value or purpose is to smear the original claim it is being compared to.
John McDonell
Your belief that those who support reproductive choice also support euthanasia of the disabled is wrong and patently offensive. I don’t know if you receive support service; but if you do, you might consider that those liberals who lobby for and participate in services for the disabled are those who also support a woman’s right to an abortion.
That the Catholic Church considers abortion to be most greivous sin just underscores what I (and many others) consider to be the misogyny of this church which gives its “best in show” sin award to a decision made by a woman about her body. Meanwhile, the molestation of children, by priests, doesn’t qualify for instant excommunication. But it is nice to know that pro-choice “non Catholics” won’t be punished for their “ignorance.” And again, neither I nor my relative are Catholics so Catholic punishment doesn’t apply here. Oh, and about excommunication – Roman Catholic Hitler was never excommunicated which means that Catholics, who are involved in abortion, will earn a spiritual punishement that Hitler never received.
And “support groups” for those who decided to give birth, as a result of peer pressure, to have a baby and who regret not having an abortion – it’s called therapy.
Joan,
Flying into a rage? Fear for the women in my life? My dear, you are coming unglued. What next?
And “support groups” for those who decided to give birth, as a result of peer pressure, to have a baby and who regret not having an abortion – it’s called therapy.
Are you kidding me?
I just called my therapist friend and she has never heard any parent state they wished they had aborted and she’s counseled women for 30 plus years. She has heard parents talk of their struggles with their children and parenting skills but this is hardly the same as someone wishing they had aborted. I talked of my struggles in my marriage and with my mother but never wished I had killed them. She has heard many, many women state the opposite though, wishing they had never aborted and on the men who abuse are also the ones who pressure abortion.
I’m not saying that there are not the few individuals (are you included?) who wish they would have killed their children and therapy/mental institutions are the absolutely best place for them but to make it sound like a huge percentage of women receive counseling because they wish they had killed their child is greatly misleading.
Gerry, ooooh you are frightening. I’m mainly afraid by the fact that you speak out for the least among us. I’m glad you don’t live near me or I’d have to keep my mace close-by.
Jeesh. Proaborts are grasping at anything.
Thanks Joan and DD,
I’m afraid ‘the slippery-slope’ argument is real here, very real Joan. You might intellectually assert all sorts of scenarios, but I experience this every day. And the obvious vitriol that DD has for Catholicism, will not extend to Joan (a Catholic)?
So you can sleep better, knowing at-birth you as an American owe $(50K +), will be deciding to give Mom/Dad a bullet-in-their-brain upon retirement … nice to have (a-future) choice, eh? Of course this ‘choice’ will be given to your kids too – nice. Isn’t life/choice grand.]
BTW DD, you concepts of ‘salvation’, ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’ needs to be updated/revised a tad. when we die we LIVE IN/THROUGH GOD, so ‘heaven’ is living (as one) IN God; ‘hell’ is being without God [You might think that you are already there, but you have little knowledge of what ‘alone’ means.]; ‘salvation’ is the ‘Welcome, home!’ – gift of God.
“I’m afraid ‘the slippery-slope’ argument is real here, very real Joan. You might intellectually assert all sorts of scenarios, but I experience this every day.”
What exactly is it that you experience every day? Being euthanized by abortion supporters-turned-Nazi doctors? Having people tell you to your face that they want to put you down like a sick dog?
“So you can sleep better, knowing at-birth you as an American owe $(50K +), will be deciding to give Mom/Dad a bullet-in-their-brain upon retirement … nice to have (a-future) choice, eh? Of course this ‘choice’ will be given to your kids too – nice. Isn’t life/choice grand.]”
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. It literally makes no sense whatsoever.
Praxedes,
“Gerry, ooooh you are frightening. I’m mainly afraid by the fact that you speak out for the least among us. I’m glad you don’t live near me or I’d have to keep my mace close-by.”
Mrs. Nadal needs to use her mace 3-4 times per week! Seriously, though, this is predictable stuff. The science contradicts their lies, and the harm done to women continues as the number of casualties mount. It’s anything but a safe procedure.
When the pro-aborts get called on science, they switch to misrepresenting theology.
When they fail at that, they point to the homosexual men who infiltrated the priesthood and raped children, as though that small minority of priests (less than 3%) represented anything other than a particular pathology found in a subset of homosexual men.
Then when that fails, it’s time to get hysterical and start alleging that the pro-lifer is a wife-beater, that witnessing the truth is somehow “flying into a rage”.
The reality is that women who have abortions are every bit as much the victim as the baby who dies. They are lied to, coerced, abandoned physically/emotionally/financially. They need our prayers and our support.
Another reality is that DD drove her sister-in-law to the abortuary, and in so doing bears a greater responsibility for the death of that member of her own family than the mother she betrayed by her willingness to have the child die. She could have begged and pleaded for the life of the baby and finally refused to participate.
She didn’t.
So now I am the one with anger issues for reflecting that truth back onto DD. It isn’t rage.
It’s contempt for the pride with which that evil deed has been recounted here.
there is simply no logical path from “a woman should be able to do what she wants with her body” to “KILL THE DISABLED!”
joan, why do some women make a choice to abort based solely on the results of tests that show a fetal disability? These woman are not making a choice on aborting because of a disability that they have (although I argue they have huge spiritual disabilities) but rather they choose to kill their children because the child may be/will be disabled in some way. As Gerry points out, the abortionists and family members who push women to kill rather than love and support them are the truly guilty ones.
A woman who aborts a disabled person bases her ‘choice’ not on what she wants to do with her own body but bases it solely on her wanting to “KILL THE DISABLED”.
The next logical step is to “KILL MORE OF THE DISABLED”. By choosing to be a proabort you are promoting the killing of more disabled persons. John is the one who should be frightened by the proabort mentality but some of us can see who he gets his strenth from.
Is it starting to make sense yet?
“I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. It literally makes no sense whatsoever.”
I’m not at all surprised Joan. John is speaking a language called “LOVE”. But you have hardened your heart so terribly that you cannot understand that language. It has a vocabulary and syntax all its own. Quite aside from the vocabulary differential, you cannot grasp the syntax because the Culture of Death has a very different ordering in its language.
Thus the logical placement of words and thought constructs in love’s language seem oddly incoherent to you. This is what many of the Catholic mystics tell us the nature of Hell is all about. It is merciful for God to not embrace those who have rejected His language, as they would be tormented by its incoherence.
You mentioned your Catholic faith, and this is central to that faith. Read the last judgement scence in Matthew 25 if you wish to see the standard that Jesus has established for when He returns. He identifies with the poor, the disenfranchised, the least among us.
That you can’t make sense of John’s words is pretty alarming stuff Joan. It doesn’t bode well for you spiritually.
“Mrs. Nadal needs to use her mace 3-4 times per week! Seriously, though, this is predictable stuff. The science contradicts their lies, and the harm done to women continues as the number of casualties mount. It’s anything but a safe procedure.”
Oh yeah, you’re a real man of science alright. When you’re not ranting about natural law and telling people they’re going to hell for supporting “murder”, you’re… wait, that’s all you do here. I’ve seen precious little “science” coming from you, though I imagine it wouldn’t be any less mediocre than your theology, which has already gotten you chastised once in this thread from someone who apparently is a more studious and less pugnacious reader of Vatican documents.
“When they fail at that, they point to the homosexual men who infiltrated the priesthood and raped children, as though that small minority of priests (less than 3%) represented anything other than a particular pathology found in a subset of homosexual men.”
Since you’re so interested in talking about percentages, I’ll point out that while a majority of the child molesting priests may or may not be homosexual, 100% of them are Catholic, and 100% of their enablers in the Church bureaucracy who shuffled them around in order to avoid prosecution and negative attention are also Catholic, which makes it curious to me that you try and deflect that rightful, appropriate criticism of the Church by essentially saying “blame the gays” instead. Maybe you’re willing to overlook the organized wrongdoing perpetrated at all levels of the Church but I’m not.
“Another reality is that DD drove her sister-in-law to the abortuary, and in so doing bears a greater responsibility for the death of that member of her own family than the mother she betrayed by her willingness to have the child die. She could have begged and pleaded for the life of the baby and finally refused to participate.”
Your sexism is remarkable. Why don’t you just come out and say what you really think: women are total idiots who can’t be held responsible for their own actions and therefore they can never be at fault for committing what you consider to be murder.
“joan, why do some women make a choice to abort based solely on the results of tests that show a fetal disability?”
Obviously many women feel that they cannot shoulder the additional burden of taking care of a disabled child. That’s their prerogative and their right.
“The next logical step is to “KILL MORE OF THE DISABLED”.”
No, it’s not. You’re comparing a situation where women personally feel they cannot carry a burden and act accordingly to mitigate that personal burden with a situation where society determines from top-down that people who are already citizens and therefore have rights can be forcibly stripped of those rights for some kind of utilitarian good, which is blatantly different.
“I’m not at all surprised Joan. John is speaking a language called “LOVE”.”
There you go. I speak a language called “ENGLISH” and when I’m conversing with someone I expect them to also communicate in “ENGLISH”.
Joan,
If you want the science in depth, I have a blog where that is done.
As for the rape of children in our church, the John Jay Study ascertained that 81% of the victims were male. So yes, the blame goes where it is appropriate. But that’s just a smokescreen issue for you anyway. It makes you feel absolved for supporting the murder of children.
As for the theological quibble with Bobby, I would point out that St. Paul establishes in Romans 2 that “All men have the law of God written on their hearts” and goes on to say that salvation is open to them as well by virtue of how well they adhere to the interior law. That’s scriptural, and the Church supports that. The issue surrounding Lumen Gentium is one which I will take up with him in a more appropriate venue.
For now, it is you who cannot offer any logical or coherent line of argumentation, other than the assertion of your own will.
You spit at Catholic moral norms.
You spit at Natural Moral Law
You spit at the scientific literature.
You spit at the prolife witness by people here.
You ignore facts and counter with the old 70’s standards of screaming sexism and making wild insults.
You love the institution of butchering babies, and defend it with all of your might.
We love the babies being butchered, and the mothers who are deceived; and defend them with all of our might.
That’s the great difference between us.
Bobby,
While your points from Lumen Gentium are well made, they must also be evaluated in light of Nostra Aetate. From the document:
“2. From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense.
“Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.(4)
“The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.”
The rest of the document is as beautiful.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html
I don’t want to give fodder to trolls like Joan for starting internicene wars here, especially when she is motivated by such obvious malevolence. Let’s email.
“As for the rape of children in our church, the John Jay Study ascertained that 81% of the victims were male.”
That statistic alone says nothing about the sexual identities of the actual perpetrators. Heterosexual men having sexual relations with young boys (or even other men) is not new or unprecedented. Especially when they are categorically forbidden from having sexual relationships with women. Using your logic, one could look at the rape statistics in a prison and conclude, based on the fact that 100% of the victims are male, that the majority of the perpetrators are homosexual, an assertion that anybody even vaguely familiar with the penal system could tell you is not the case. Of course, even with all that said, the fact still stands: 100% of the child-molesting priests and 100% of the Church bureaucrats who covered for them are Catholic. Maybe you’d like to actually address that point instead of attempting to side-step it, and explain to me why the child molestation scandal really reflects poorly not on the Church whose members perpetrated and covered it up, but instead on homosexuals?
“You spit at the scientific literature.”
I can’t very well spit at something that isn’t there, can I?
“For now, it is you who cannot offer any logical or coherent line of argumentation, other than the assertion of your own will.”
I guess if your idea of a “logical or coherent line of argumentation” is “you love butchering babies! You’re going to hell!” then you are quite correct.
“I don’t want to give fodder to trolls like Joan for starting internicene wars here, especially when she is motivated by such obvious malevolence. Let’s email.”
Too bad. I bet Bobby mops the floor up with you.
Joan,
You don’t understand the theology, and in fact you show nothing but contempt for it. You mistake normal discourse between Bobby and me as a contest. There is none. We both have immense regard for one another.
Now, this really is very simple. When men prefer sex with men, they are homosexual by definition.
When men prefer sex with boys, then by definition they are a subset of homosexual men. They are homosexual pedophiles.
Homosexual pedophiles infiltrated the priesthood. You love it because you get to argue that raping children is a greater crime than tearing them apart before birth. BOTH are reprehensible!
Finally, I’ll say this again, as it bears repeating:
You love the institution of butchering babies, and defend it with all of your might.
We love the babies being butchered, and the mothers who are deceived; and defend them with all of our might.
That’s the great difference between us.
“Now, this really is very simple. When men prefer sex with men, they are homosexual by definition.
When men prefer sex with boys, then by definition they are a subset of homosexual men. They are homosexual pedophiles.”
And when heterosexual men have sex with other men or boys because they crave physical intimacy and have been forbidden from satisfying that need with women, they are still heterosexual men.
“Homosexual pedophiles infiltrated the priesthood. You love it because you get to argue that raping children is a greater crime than tearing them apart before birth. BOTH are reprehensible!”
Oh, I’m sure that some genuinely homosexual pedophiles certainly were attracted to the priesthood. However, considering the fact that one’s sexual identity is not defined by who they have sex with, you simply have no standing to claim that all or most of the offending priests are homosexual. What’s more, you have consistently refused to respond to a simple factual observation: all child molesting priests and all Church bureaucrats who covered for them are Catholic, something that logically is implicated when apportioning blame for the scandal. You would like to lay responsibility at the feet of homosexuals rather than the Church, despite (A) having no proof that a majority or even significant minority of the priests were homosexual, and (B) ignoring the fact that the one and only shared characteristic they all had was their religion.
Honey, that slippery slope has slid. Back in the 60’s, 100% of pre-born children with Down’s syndrome were naturally carried to term. In 2010, thanks to prenatal testing and Roe v Wade, ninety percent of Down’s Syndrome children are MURDERED.
“When men prefer sex with boys, then by definition they are a subset of homosexual men. They are homosexual pedophiles.” – what unadulterated nonsense! So a woman who violates her son with a broom handle is a… what? Most paedophiles will attack children of either sex. Priests mainly do so with boys because that is what is available to them. If they did not have to practice celibacy they would match the normal rate of heterosexuality as the general populace.
“Homosexual pedophiles infiltrated the priesthood” – more make-believe!
“You love the institution of butchering babies” – you really are demonstrating anger and frustration now aren’t you.
Heterosexual men having sexual relations with young boys (or even other men) is not new or unprecedented. Especially when they are categorically forbidden from having sexual relationships with women.
You show more and more of your hatred of your own gender with every sentence. This can only mean that the most hate is directed at yourself.
It’s not enough that you hate women by supporting them in killing their own children but now I read that you actually believe that it is a woman’s job to keep a man sexually satisfied in order that he not molest children. Where’s my pillow, I need to scream! Ugh….
You do realize that priests molest at a lower rate than the rest of the population, don’t you? Children are at higher risk with a coach or teacher but much higher risk by a relative. What about married men who molest children? Damn wives. If they would just put out more often or become better lovers.
You are a classic example of an enabler. Unfortunately, it’s those who need the most help who often refuse to get it.
“…but now I read that you actually believe that it is a woman’s job to keep a man sexually satisfied in order that he not molest children” – how? How did you get this from what was said??? HOW?
The point being made was that paedophilic priests are less likely to molest if they were permitted to participate in loving, sharing, personal, intimate relationships.
At no point was there so much as a hint that it is up to women to ‘provide’ this.
It is all about having the chance, the opportunity, to create and be a part of a consensual relationship.
many moons ago, I attended a seminary where close to 1/3 were homosexuals … many of them were actively gay (and proud of it). We did not know this at the time, but the ‘pedophile sex scandals’ came from this cadre. [Even two of our prof’s were charged with molestation of young teen boys.]
The want of physical intimacy and having sexual urges being caused by celibacy are both falsehoods that are widely believed. If a man enters priesthood to avoid intimacy with women is this ever the wrong calling. The vast majority of an active parish are women. Our Anglican clerics who can marry, had the same precipitous drop in their ranks as celibate Roman clergy . So, it ain’t celibacy that’s the problem.
It is all about having the chance, thje opportunity, to create and be a part of a consensual relationship.
Priests are around other adults all the time but you want people to believe that priests who molests children do so because they are not allowed to marry. Men who molest are pedophiles. Men who molest only boys are homosexual pedophiles. Priests are much less likely to molest children than any other segment of men but you and joan can’t seem to focus on anything but your hatred of Christians, women and children.
Who do you believe is responsible when men in a consensual relationship molest children?
FYI – It is NO ONE’s job to keep someone from molesting children. It is nobody’s job to make sure others have the chance, the opportunity to create and be a part of a consensual relationship. Molesters are responsible for their own sick behaviors. You also are a classic enabler of the worst kind.
The more you proaborts type, the more the rest of us can see how disturbed your world-views really are.
Type on . . . . . . .
The bulk of pedophilia in society occurs in the home.
So much for celibacy as the root of this evil. The Dept of Justice evaluated all priest personnel files going back 52 years and came up with a total of 11,000 allegations in that time period. Currently in America, DOJ estimates that there are 39 million victims of sex abuse who live here. That means if all 11,000 of those people are alive and part of the 39,000, they constitute 2/100 of 1 percent of the total number of victims.
Again, so much for celibacy as the root cause.
“Damn wives. If they would just put out more often or become better lovers. ”
ROTFL
“You show more and more of your hatred of your own gender with every sentence. This can only mean that the most hate is directed at yourself… etc. etc. etc.”
What can I say, Praxedes? You’re a true dullard. I seriously can’t even bother trying to get through to you, because the act of reading and comprehending simple English strains you so much that your mind invents these wild theories and implications about what I’m saying and meaning that simply are not there.
“The point being made was that paedophilic priests are less likely to molest if they were permitted to participate in loving, sharing, personal, intimate relationships.”
They’re not even necessarily pedophiles or homosexuals to begin with (although they may be one or both of those things). They are men who can’t cope with the lack of physical intimacy that is incumbent on their chosen lifestyle and so they resort to preying on vulnerable, easily-controlled targets for their sexual gratification: targets who are easy to keep quiet, and even if they do speak up about their abuse, adults are less likely to take them at their word when it implicates respected figures of authority such as priests.
“So much for celibacy as the root of this evil. The Dept of Justice evaluated all priest personnel files going back 52 years and came up with a total of 11,000 allegations in that time period.”
And you believe that number is even close to being representative of the actual number of incidents of abuse that have occurred? Even if the total number of incidents of child sexual abuse is “only” 11,000 and therefore identical to the number of allegations made, nobody in their right mind could say that it still doesn’t reflect poorly on the Church. Rather than congratulating the Church for the great personal restraint shown by its priests, who managed to only commit a paltry 11,000 sexual assaults, any decent person would instead consider it the most stinging indictment of the Catholic Church that God’s representatives on earth have ruined that many lives for their own sexual gratification.
Joan,
I’m loving watching you disintegrate on this thread and revealing your imperiousness for all the world to see.
John can’t speak English
Praxedes is a dullard
I’m a wifebeater
That’s what happens to a soul that is so firmly committed to tearing babies apart. Rant on Joan. It’s quite a show.
Joan, Cranium, DD–
I spent about an hour reading through all of these comments because I happened upon this blog while reading election news. It is heartbreaking. I cannot determine whether you realize how lost you are but are compelled to defend your views out of emotional self-preservation, or whether you sincerely believe you have the truth. One thing I do know: it is never too late, while you still have life, to open your soul to the light. Please, give it a chance.
Well I must at least say that Praxedes has demonstrated an amazing ability to reinterpret language written with a clear intent as to its message and meaning.
Praxedes has done so to such an extent that it could lead people to wonder about Praxedes intellectual honesty or ability for intellectual comprehension.
You’re a true dullard
I’ve admitted before I am simple (dullard if you prefer). I never hope to be such an educated elite as yourself. I much prefer to be a dullard if it keeps me from being a enabling coward and a bully.
I don’t advocate killing small humans nor do I blame any church for men who sexually abuse children.
Back to the topic at hand. What do you think about the elections? I hope your state is seeing red.
“I’m loving watching you disintegrate on this thread and revealing your imperiousness for all the world to see.”
And I’m loving watching you sputter and spin trying to defend and deflect any and all criticism leveled at the Catholic Church for the role its employees at all levels of the hierarchy have played in perpetrating sexual abuse and covering it up.
No, wait. I’m not loving it. I’m appalled that someone can have such cult-like devotion to an organization that they will defend its every action instead of simply doing the decent thing and recognizing the culpability that it necessary possesses for decades of willful, organized wrongdoing.
If you happen upon this Paladin my apologies. I fell off the wagon again tonight.
I missed my 12 step Tro-anon meeting.
I’ll pay for it in the morning when I remember why my back aches.
That darn darn pooper-scooper gets heavy. Thank goodness John and Gerry scooped for awhile!
Joan,
I’ve never defended the rapists. I’ve only defended the honorable clergy, who make up 97% of our priests. The gay men who raped children are reprehensible, as are trolls who argue in favor of murdering babies.
That would be you.
“I’ve never defended the rapists. I’ve only defended the honorable clergy, who make up 97% of our priests.”
It’s certainly an assumption on your part that the priests who have managed to restrain themselves from sexually assaulting children are not engaging in other dishonorable behavior. Nonetheless, I am not blaming every single Catholic priest for the actions of those who did perpetrate abuse.
“The gay men who raped children are reprehensible”
But the straight men who raped children are fine? Your strategy here is shameless and transparent: you are trying to deflect criticism of the Church and its clergy and bureaucrats by shifting the blame onto a favorite scapegoat of Catholic apologists: homosexuals. I’ll draw up a parallel situation here and demonstrate how absurd your continued antics are by analogy. Let’s assume that there is an urban police department with a high degree of corruption, manifested at all levels of authority. Eventually the hammer of justice falls and the corrupt members of this organization begin to be apprehended for their crimes. A good number of the police officers implicated in this corruption happen to be black. A department official, therefore, concludes that it is not the department itself at fault for hiring people who act illegally and then covering for them to prevent controversy, but rather African-Africans as a race, on account of the fact that many of the corrupt police officers happened to be black. That is how absurd your arguments here are.
I’d like to ask if Joan or Cranium actually know any Catholic priests as personal friends. I know many as personal friends, and they are all upright men of character and heart. They would die for their flock – and indeed they die daily with the weight of a few that sullied the environment for the rest.
No defending the guilty, the sinful – and there is still time for each of them to repent and amend their ways. All of us are not beyond the loving embrace of God and his healing mercy and love.
We are all sinners – and we all have improvement to do. That does not excuse in any way the frightening horror of hurting children – thru molestation, usury, abortion, torture or any other such thing.
And all who do these despicable things - all sinful things – can be re-made by God as long as one has a heart that will let Him in.
No defense of sin … I’m a huge believer in God and the way of love.
Joan,
You argue for the murder of babies. That’s who and what you are.
To the pro-choicers here who are quick to stereotype all pro-lifers here as belonging to the Catholic Church, what do you have to say to those of us who are not Catholic, or even Christian for that matter and base our pro-life views on science and ethics, not religion? I am one of several such pro-lifers here. There are varying pro-life views represented here on a broad spectrum and I suggest you keep this in mind. And why did we get off topic into issues with the Catholic Church anyways when we were discussing the issue of abortion. I think this would be a good time to remind the pro-lifers here not to feed the trolls (or else you have to clean out the troll barn for a week ;-) ) or allow yourselves to be drawn into a diversionary argument (such as attacking/defending the Catholic Church). I’m also going to ask that the moderators step in and tone things down a bit.
Hi Rachael C,
I empathize with your suggestion, however as abortion has a broad-range of political/societal effects it also has multiple psychological/spiritual consequences. There ARE plenty of PL’ers here (eg. Carla), who will attest to that!
BTW, like Gerry, I too have a little science background (chemistry). And for the life of me, could never ever understand the phrase ‘JUST a blob of tissue’. I really mean all human life is incredibly complex (from only a very elementary/cursory science-perspective).
One experiment had scientists duplicate exactly the composition of sea water. It remained sterile/without-life, until just a single drop of actual sea water was added. The once sterile water soon was teeming with many forms of life.
Hi Rachael,
I am not Catholic. So many people I love are. :)
I volunteer to clean out the troll barn for a week. Ugh. Somebody has to do it!!
Ok. Deep cleansing breaths. Breathe in. Breathe out.
DNFTT
Do
Not
Feed
The
Trolls
Sorry Rachael. I really did try to behave last night and my last post even states, “Back to the topic at hand. What do you think about the elections?” but never got a reply back.
I’m paying for it this morning with an extreme troll hangover but at least when we keep them busy here, we know they’re not out there reaking havoc with unsuspecting innocents.
I better go or I’ll miss my Tro-Anon meeting.
P.S. Hey Carla, thanks for doing the pens. I am Catholic but so many people I love aren’t. :)
“I’d like to ask if Joan or Cranium actually know any Catholic priests as personal friends. I know many as personal friends, and they are all upright men of character and heart. They would die for their flock – and indeed they die daily with the weight of a few that sullied the environment for the rest.”
Why do you seem to think that I’m vilifying all Catholic priests here? I’m not. Maybe you missed it the last dozen times I mentioned it, but I myself am Catholic. All I’m arguing is that the Church proper bears responsibility for the role it played in the systematic and sustained pattern of sexual abuse that its employees perpetrated and covered up.
“You argue for the murder of babies. That’s who and what you are.”
Oh, cutting rejoinder there, “Doctor”. Feel free to substantively respond to my actual arguments rather than personally attacking me. But since that’s the only language you seem to understand (well, that, and “LOVE”, apparently), I’ll play along: I find you to be a hack with a substandard mind who is incapable of civilly engaging in any kind of discourse where your opponent is not in complete agreement with you.
hey joan,
you seem to be an articulate person. Please give http://www.drjiltaylor.com site a parousal, and let me know what you think,
Carla,
NO YOU WILL NOT CLEAN OUT THE TROLL BARN!!
I fed them, so I’LL muck out the stalls. ;-)
Rachel, you’re right. If people don’t wish to come at this material from a faith perspective, then the science and technology can do the job nicely.
I just don’t get it – Joan keeps saying she is Catholic and yet with every post she says nothing to defend the faith, the teachings or even the immorality of abortion.
It’s a terrible waste to claim to be Christian and not defend the weakest among you. It’s a terrible waste to call oneself Christian, and want to perpetuate the largest genocide known to man.
Every abortion ends a human life. All people of good faith and good heart must step up and call abortion for what it is – a crime against humanity and against our very natures.
Joy,
Benedict Arnold was a general in the American Army during the Revolution, one who won us some pivotal battles.
He was also a traitor.
Because of his traiterous actions, if Washington had caught him, Arnold would have hanged–his heroic past contributions notwithstanding. Jesus said that we can expect the same from him on the Last Day:
“Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'” Matthew 7:22-23
Claiming family membership doesn’t cut it when one argues passionately for the slaughter of babies. My last word as I go in to muck out the stalls.
Joan is Catholic when it works for her. You know, like at Christmas and Easter when some parade themselves with their families to the front of the church and sit down with all their fine new clothes and jewelry not really noticing or caring much about anyone else but themselves.
And some in the pews are whispering, “oh, I hope we have new members!”
Joan, I can only know this because I too was once a Creaster but now am the one hoping for new members.
When you attend Mass this Christmas and after the Eucharist, I hope you take an extra-long look at the Nativity set (especially the little guy in the manger) and think about the little preborn humans in our world.
P.S. It doesn’t matter what outfit you wear. He‘s not wearing anything too fancy. :)
Thanks Gerard and Praxedes. I guess I needed to hear it the way you both said it…
Thanks, man.
I’ll stick around and keep you company. :)
Praxedes,
I’m apparently working off some of my own purgatory (by grading 4 classes’ worth of 2-part tests), but, re: falling off the Troll Feeders Anonymous wagon: one day at a time! ;) I’ll be back when the grading load gets to be less than 10 pounds, or so…
Anyone with graphic arts skills, and more time than I have, who could work up a Troll graphic with someone following it with a pooper-scooper?
I’ll point out that while a majority of the child molesting priests may or may not be homosexual, 100% of them are Catholic, and 100% of their enablers in the Church bureaucracy who shuffled them around in order to avoid prosecution and negative attention are also Catholic, which makes it curious to me that you try and deflect that rightful, appropriate criticism of the Church by essentially saying “blame the gays” instead.”
.
Gee, maybe the shufflers were gays too. Maybe that is why they sympathized. Or maybe they were just too tolerant of gays. Of course I don’t know.
.
However, it seems that if most of the victims were male, then it is more of a gay problem than a Catholic problem.
.
My favorite sarcastic line on the whole scandal:
.
That gay priests molested kids tells you a lot about the Church but absolutely nothing about gays.