Quote of the Day 12-15-10
This should be a time of peace, yet my gaiety was completely curtailed when I pulled up behind a car that had a bumper sticker that read, “If Mary was Pro-Choice, There Would Be No Christmas.” Is this really necessary?…
In the spirit of the holiday season, would it be so bad to drop the agendas and REALIZE that we all basically agree on the same goal – to lower the number of abortions…. Instead of arguing about the immorality of abortion, efforts should be made to advocate solutions to the prevention of unintended pregnancy….
How about a bumper sticker that reads, “Against Abortion? Don’t Have One” – because when it comes down to it, all Roe v. Wade has done is provided women with choice. What we each do with that choice, is personal and private. And what Mary would have done with that choice, is speculation that is pointless to consider and really just serves to undermine the whole spirit of the season.
~Dawn Stacey, Contraception.About.com, December 11
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
REALIZE that we all basically agree on the same goal – to lower the number of abortions
Uh, no, Dawn. Some of us want to stop ALL abortions.
Explain to me why you want to lower the number of abortions.
Wow, Dawn, seems like the truth makes you really angry, like all pro-aborts.
Well, if Mary WERE pro-choice then there WOULD be no Christmas. That’s true. This isn’t about “choice”–it’s about killing.
“Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one” is another stupid slogan.
“Don’t like slavery? Don’t own one.”
I am amazed at the lengths pro-aborts go to to justify the dehumanization and killing of innocent babies, and I’m also amazed at the lengths they will go to in order to humanize themselves and make themselves look sympathetic. It makes my skin crawl.
REALIZE that we all basically agree on the same goal – to lower the number of abortions
Uh, no Dawn. Some folks want to INCREASE the number of abortions.
For Planned Parenthood, it’s a business and they are working diligently to increase business, backed by the good old United States government (that’s us!).
It’s not enough to lower the number of abortions.
This kind of comment from a pro-abort makes my skin crawl. Denigrating the Blessed Virgin is WAY over the line. To even hint at a remote suggestion that Mary might have “chosen” to abort Jesus is so offensive. Every human being alive owes Our Lady a debt we could never pay. Only because of her is Emmanuel born to us. Because of her, we are given a Savior.
Ave Maria, gratia plena… ora pro nobis.
Dawn, either you are pretty dumb or you are actually a genius but think WE’RE dumb. I say that because you should know the abortion industry talks about lowering the number of abortions while doing everything in their power to increase them, from increased federal funding of their businesses to more advertising of their baby killing services, to fighting tooth and nail to close CPC’s that offer women the other side of “choice”…the choice to have the baby and not abort. So either you’re a clueless robot who can only reiterate the ridiculous slogans you’ve been spoon fed (“don’t like abortion? Don’t have one!”…yes, very original, Dawn) or you’re an evil genius who understands exactly what abortion is and how much money is at stake and hope to dupe pro-lifers into believing we could actually have common goals with those who think nothing about tearing limbs off infants growing inside their mothers.
Btw, so sorry your gaiety was curtailed. Imagine how quickly your gaiety would be curtailed if you saw a doctor coming at you with steel instruments and proceeded to pull off your legs and pluck out your bowels. Happens every day to innocent children inside abortion clinics. Merry Christmas.
This is the most disgusting thing I’ve ever read:
And what Mary would have done with that choice, is speculation that is pointless to consider and really just serves to undermine the whole spirit of the season.
Dawn’s article included: For those of us in the real world, it can’t be denied that birth control and abortion both represent alternative means of achieving the same goal: the prevention of unwanted babies.
Uh, earth to Dawn: We want to prevent babies from being called unwanted. We want people to stop using “unwanted” as an excuse for murder. How about adoption, Dawn? Ever heard of that?
“Unwanted” describes not a condition of a child, but an attitude of adults.
-Randy Alcorn
“This is the most disgusting thing I’ve ever read:
And what Mary would have done with that choice, is speculation that is pointless to consider and really just serves to undermine the whole spirit of the season.”
What’s so disgusting about it? She’s right. That kind of speculation is pointless and really only serves to create disharmony. The broader point she’s making with the article is also well-founded. The bumper sticker itself is patently offensive for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that it assumes that any woman who is pro-choice is necessarily going to have an abortion if she gets pregnant, which obviously is untrue.
Since when are you concerned with creating disharmony, Joan??
What’s that supposed to mean?
“Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one!” is a satanic lie in bumper sticker form. It conveys the (VERY false) impression that only people who “like” abortion are climbing on the abortion table. It totally ignores the coercion, the lies, the manipulation, the abortions performed on unwilling patients who revoked consent (or never gave it in the first place).
So totally aside from the fact that abortion is inherently evil because it kills babies (which ought to be enough to get EVERYBODY to oppose it), it’s also performed under false pretenses on women who DON’T WANT ABORTIONS. Under the guise of “choice”.
The bumper sticker itself is patently offensive for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that it assumes that any woman who is pro-choice is necessarily going to have an abortion if she gets pregnant, which obviously is untrue.
If there’s nothing wrong with abortion, why is it offensive to assume a pro-choice woman would have one?
Because it stereotypes pro-choice women as being completely unwilling to give birth.
So? Why should a pro-choice woman HAVE to be willing to give birth? What if she isn’t willing to give birth… EVER? Who are you to judge, Joan?
“So? Why should a pro-choice woman HAVE to be willing to give birth?”
Where did I say that?
“What if she isn’t willing to give birth… EVER?”
Then that’s her choice too. What I said is that it’s wrong (not to mention stupid) to stereotype pro-choice women as being categorically unwilling to take a particular course of action simply on the basis that they support the right to choose a different course of action. If Mary was pro-choice, that would only mean that she believes in having the option to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, not that she’s necessarily going to do so.
This does highlight the irony of the pro-choice Jew: If you are waiting for the Messiah, why would you be willing to snuff him? By the same token, if you believe in reincarnation, why would you keep making a new person suffer? What if the reincarnated soul gets aborted like a dozen times in a row? Wouldn’t that be bad kharma for the mothers?
If Mary had been pro-choice, then the Blessed Mother would have been someone else, like her sister or another woman of her day. However, Mary was immaculately conceived, without sin, and so she would not have been pro-choice.
So since it’s Advent, let’s bring it back around: When Jesus returns, would he return as a child again or will he return in the form he was in when he ascended? I believe he will return as he ascended (in the renewed form that looks like an adult human) but WHAT IF he’s coming back as a baby again? In that case, all those “pro-choice christians” are thwarting the Christ’s return. And who, as Church Lady might ask, also wants to thwart Christ’s return? Could it be….?
Joan, it’s disgusting because of the insinuation that Mary would even THINK of aborting her son. It’s disgusting because abortion is disgusting. It’s disgusting because whatever God you pro-aborts believe in, I cannot bring myself to understand how you think that it would EVER be okay to kill your own child, EVER.
I’m having a reluctant conversion back to Catholicism, but my pro-life views remain secular. As a Catholic, I find it repugnant that one would use a facet of my faith in order to justify the slaying of a baby. As a pro-lifer with secular views, I find her argument dishonest and manipulative.
I can understand the idea of wanting to “rid” oneself of something that “stands in one’s way.” I can understand that we did not know about fetal development decades ago. But there is no excuse now. It’s just selfishness.
Yes – Mary would have fit the mold of a woman that pro-choice abortion proponents would have encouraged to have an abortion: she was poor, with limited education, no insurance, poor job prospects – a woman in a persecuted class, forced to endure a census that drove her from her home city to another, forced her to have a baby far from home, and even forced to leave her homeland for the safety of her family.
Yes – Mary would have been encouraged to have an abortion – after all – how archaic to be in an arranged marriage, and she deserved to live as she wished to follow what ever path she wants.
Oh, sorry – I just remembered that she was a handmaid of the Lord, and was obedient to Him. And because of her ‘yes’ without knowing all the details and having her future magically mapped out for her – she provided the human form and function for mankind’s Savior.
A mighty job, indeed. She made the moral, good and self-less choice that benefited everyone, whether they recognize that or not. Praise God.
“It’s disgusting because whatever God you pro-aborts believe in, I cannot bring myself to understand how you think that it would EVER be okay to kill your own child, EVER.”
I think what’s disgusting is saying that people who belong to the same faith as you don’t worship the same God as you do simply because they are pro-choice.
“As a Catholic, I find it repugnant that one would use a facet of my faith in order to justify the slaying of a baby.”
What do you care? It’s not a “facet of your faith” that you even put much stock in, considering that you justify your beliefs on abortion in secular terms.
Against wife-beating? Don’t get married.
Joan, everything you say is empty. You have no actual, logical arguments for abortion. It is an insult to ANY God, from any religion. Any God is a God of life and justice, not of destruction, death, and selfishness. What God would condone rape? What God would condone stealing? What God would ever, ever, ever condone the killing of the most beautiful and innocent of all of us?
“Joan, everything you say is empty. You have no actual, logical arguments for abortion.”
No, you’re just unwilling to accept any argument in favor of abortion as reasonable or logical. You’ve already made up your mind and you’re not even willing to entertain arguments and beliefs to the contrary. Of course, you could prove me wrong here by sharing with me what you would consider to be an example of a good argument in favor of abortion.
“What God would ever, ever, ever condone the killing of the most beautiful and innocent of all of us?”
I maintain that God is neutral on the topic of abortion, neither condoning nor condemning it. Abortion is a surgical procedure that has no moral character on its own. A moral element is only introduced when considering the positive or negative consequences that could result from it and affect society or other people. It’s really a question of public policy.
Joan, I am simply following through with your argument. You said its wrong to stereotype pro-choice women as not wiling to give birth ever. WHY? WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? WHY IS THAT STEREOTYPE OFFENSIVE? Really? My capitalization means I’m “shouting” because you drive me batty with your inability to present one cohesive argument or answer one freakin question honestly and succinctly!
If there is nothing wrong with a woman choosing to NEVER give birth EVER then why is it offensive or wrong or stupid to stereotype a pro-choice woman that way? The stereotype cannot be offensive if you support any woman’s choice to fit that stereotype.
joan December 15th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
“The bumper sticker itself is patently offensive for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that it assumes that any woman who is pro-choice is necessarily going to have an abortion if she ets pregnant, which obviously is untrue.”
============================================================
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
‘Jumping to a conclusion’ would be an understatement.
Let us consider Mary’s circumstances.
She is bethrothed, which in her culture is the same as being married, except the marriage has not yet been consumated.
She is pregnant and the father of her child is not her fiancé.
Therefore the only conclusion to be drawn is she has committed the equivlent of a adultery which is against the law and the penalty is death by stoning.
Mary claims the same God who gave the law against adultery, is the one responsible for her conception.
The ‘God made me pregnant’ defense probably won’t gain Mary any sympathy with a jury of her peers.
I suppose Mary could submit to a gynecological exam to prove that her hymen is still intact but that would just bring her back to the ‘GOD made me pregnant’ defense.
So faced with the ‘choice’ of being stoned to death for committing adultery/fornication or destroying the evidence before she is found out, what would a pro-choice Mary do?
If the bumper sticker assumes anything, it is that a ‘pro-choice [to kill her prenatal child] woman, would cave to the pressure and terminate her pregnancy [kill her baby] rather than be subjected to public ridicule and execution by stoning.
Fortunately for Mary, she had real man for a fiancé and he would not publicly humiliate her by divorcing her, but leaned in way far and took one for the team [Mary and her child] and honored his commitment to her, even when it looked like she had not honored her commitment to him.
You dead babies r us/satan’s posse folk are so predictable.
You get offended that someone would suggest that you would kill your own pre-natal child just because you are so indifferent to any other woman killing hers for any reason.
Joan,
Me thinks thou art just a wee bit insincere and that your indignance is just the act of a desperate drama queen.
joan December 15th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
“I maintain that God is neutral on the topic of abortion, neither condoning nor condemning it. Abortion is a surgical procedure that has no moral character on its own. A moral element is only introduced when considering the positive or negative consequences that could result from it and affect society or other people. It’s really a question of public policy.”
==============================================================
Joan,
I maintain that Bill Clinton did NOT have sex with that woman ms Lewinsky and John Edwards is NOT Rielle Hunter’s sperm donor and O J did NOT murder Nicole.
Joan,
When yo mama was pregos wit dyu what species of embryo/fetus was present in her uterus?
Beheading someone could be considered a “surgical procedure” too.
I maintain that God is neutral on the topic of abortion, neither condoning nor condemning it. Abortion is a surgical procedure that has no moral character on its own. A moral element is only introduced when considering the positive or negative consequences that could result from it and affect society or other people. It’s really a question of public policy.
Wow, Joan… that is a stunning disconnect from reality and any semblance of morality. God is neutral on the extermination of babies? Abortion is simply a surgical procedure? You know, I can’t think of any other “surgical procedure” that exists solely to end a life. I can’t imagine what kind of god you believe in that you seriously believe he cares not one way or the other about babies being snuffed out in the womb, but I assure you, poor Joan, that God cares very much about the evil of abortion. It’s amazing how far you have gone (the whole pro-abort society as well) to justify in your own mind the “choice” to kill babies in the womb. What a convoluted, nonsensical mess.
Twice during pro-life events, we’ve been heckled with “it’s just a surgical procedure.” To be fair to Joan, she isn’t the inventor of the phrase. Someone is advertising it. Abortion is a business. It has been advertised for decades now. Like ‘my baloney has a first name,’ a generation of people in our culture have accepted it.
Fortunately, a huge number of people are pro-life. No one’s going to believe this in the future, that a civilization would allow such widespread killing of innocents. Archeologists and anthropologists will have something to say, won’t they?
When Jesus returns, would he return as a child again or will he return in the form he was in when he ascended? I believe he will return as he ascended (in the renewed form that looks like an adult human) but WHAT IF he’s coming back as a baby again
Um… I’m not sure I understand you correctly… are you saying you don’t know what form Christ will take when He returns? I believe Matthew 24:23-31 answers this question. Also, as far as I’m aware (please correct me, though, if I’m wrong), I don’t believe Christ is referenced as a baby/child again in the New Testament accounts following His birth – not in Matthew or Revelation or in Paul’s writings. To speculate that Christ would be “reborn” as a baby again is not a concept I find anywhere in Scripture.
Abortion is a surgical procedure that has no moral character on its own.
Do you believe this strictly because the unborn human is in utero? Do you feel the same about, say, Mengele’s experiments on Jewish children? What if someone were to perform a “surgical procedure” on you which would directly take your life (through its sole purpose)? Or what about a surgical procedure on a disabled person who could in no way consent or object to the procedure?
Joan, I was a pro-abort like you once. Then I did research—eleven years worth. Biology, psychology, law, philosophy. I came to the conclusion, though it was not convenient, that there is nothing healthy about abortion, nothing good at all. It is destructive. The pro “choice” movement uses obfuscation, slogans, excuses, and out-and-out lies…You have NO no actual scientific evidence to prove any argument. It merely comes down to this argument: “You can’t tell me what to do.” That is not good enough. This is a human rights issue. If a mother can kill her own child for any reason, then there is no hope for this world.
This isn’t a surgical procedure. No other “surgical procedure” ends the life of another human being for the sake of convenience. Have your tonsils removed, your appendix, have your breasts augmented or your nose whittled, that’s your choice. But abortion kills a baby. Abortion kills someone who has no reason to be killed. Abortion takes life away. That is not a surgical procedure, and it is certainly not necessary. It is abhorrent. That is not medicine….That is destruction.
As for God…..God, whatever you want to call him/her….could never, ever be “neutral” on the subject of killing. A unique individual, a PERSON by all accounts (except for the pro-abortion habit of dehumanization), has the right NOT TO BE KILLED. No God–no force of love, compassion, goodness, life–could ever, ever approve of the killing of the most innocent of us. I am not saying that God will send you to hell….I am saying that it is a grotesque and frightening act of defiance and selfishness to claim that any source of love and goodness and health would either condone or be “neutral” on the dismemberment and incineration of an innocent baby. The fact that you use all kinds of delusions to excuse this unnecessary and destructive and anti-feminist procedure really blows my mind. You aren’t a stupid person. Imagine if you channeled your energy into life-affirming choices, not “choices” that spill the blood of women and their babies.
Wow – Dawn Stacey must have missed PP’s “Choice on Earth” holiday greeting cards.
joan – why do you call yourself Catholic? It just makes you look bad. I don’t remember the Pope assigning you the job of official spokeswoman for The Roman Catholic Church. What is “sin” to you? Putting aside the unconscionable legal double standard for a minute, would it be a sin to murder a pregnant woman and her baby, or would the sin only cover the mother’s killing? When did God transfer the power of determining who lives or dies exclusively to women? Since when did arbitrary become logical? BTW – I share Carla’s surprise at your sensitivity concerning “harmony” here. It appears that most of your posts, especially those concerning the Catholic faith, are intended to create disharmony.