Jivin J’s Life Links 3-16-11
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- A girl at a Catholic high school in Canada was sent home after wearing tape on her uniform to symbolize her pro-choice opinion:
The anti-abortion message her schoolmates wore inspired Alexandria Szeglet to don her opinion too. Instead of the word “life” written along strips of red tape, the 15-year-old Thunder Bay resident wore the word “choice” written on strips of green tape stuck to her Catholic high school uniform….
Alexandria left, but the soft-spoken Grade 10 student had started a movement: In a show of solidarity, 24 of her peers followed suit, adhering green tape to their uniforms. 4 of them were also sent home, some for a 2-day suspension….
The students who wore an anti-abortion message were allowed to remain at school because their event had been approved by the school’s administration. The stickers were part of an annual Day of Silent Solidarity in which students take a vow of silence in order to raise money for an anti-abortion student group.
The students who wore a pro-choice message hadn’t asked for permission and some swore or were belligerent to teachers….
- Delaware Online has a story about DE’s lack of a late-term abortion law after their former law (which prohibited abortion after 20 weeks) was ruled invalid. The last page of the article also quotes a Planned Parenthood representative misstating Roe v. Wade effects on 3rd-trimester abortions:
After Roe v. Wade, then-DE Attorney General W. Laird Stabler issued a detailed written opinion identifying portions of the state’s abortion law that the office believed were no longer constitutional. 4 years later, then-Attorney General Richard Weir conceded in a federal lawsuit that the state’s abortion statutes were unconstitutional and told the court that they would not be enforced.
The only way a doctor can be prosecuted in DE for performing late-term abortions would be under the state’s homicide statutes, “which seems a bit drastic given it is a woman’s health care issue,” said former federal Judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr. “Delaware presently lacks a definitive enforcement scheme with regard to pregnancy terminations.”
- Delaware Online also has information on the ongoing attempts to keep valid medical licenses away from the 2 abortionists who worked with Kermit Gosnell at former NAF abortion clinic in Delaware:
State prosecutors charged at a hearing Tuesday night that Dr. Albert Dworkin signed a letter that was vital in keeping Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s alleged “house of horrors” clinic operating in West Philadelphia.
Deputy Attorney General Barbara Gadbois also said Dworkin, 84, of Kennett Square, Pa., was the medical director at Atlantic Women’s Medical Services in Wilmington and was therefore responsible for Gosnell’s activity at that clinic. The comments came at a hearing to determine if an emergency suspension of Dworkin’s medical license should be lifted or made permanent.
- A FL woman going to Planned Parenthood for an annual gynecological exam claims people with the local 40 Days for Life tried to intimidate her. It seems like she’s just extremely paranoid:
Kerry Fagan tells WINK News due to her insurance she’s left with little options for gynecological exams, so she goes to PP. On a recent trip to the clinic she felt the picketers tried to intimidate her, and found it to be borderline harassment when she went for her annual exam. Fagan says about 20 picketers were outside on the day she went in.
“My heart started racing like someone was going to come out of the bushes or something,” she explains.
People with the organization tell WINK News that is never their intent.
Pam Kessen with 40 DFL tells us, “we sit here and pray. We do not harass, we do not intimidate.”
[Photo via vraarlis2011.wordpress.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
So, wait, it’s okay to stifle pro-life students in public schools, but pro-aborts will defend a this girl because she is for “choice”? I don’t get it. I believe in freedom of speech. For everyone, even if I disagree with you. Of course, this girl doesn’t know what “choice” really is, and none of her defenders, but if they’re going to have a fit because of this, then they should stop penalizing pro-life students in public schools who wear pro-life T-shirts. ARGH I’m not even making sense, I’m so frustrated.
Yes, pro-life expression has been repeatedly suppressed, including cases in connection with the pro-life day of silent solidarity. I understand how tempting it must be for a pro-life school to “strike back” by banning the pro-abortion event. But they should have allowed it. Let the pro-abortion students spout their nonsense, but make sure the pro-life students are well-equipped to influence their peers for good.
Thank you, Kelsey! That’s what I meant. This is what happens when my blood sugar is perilously low.
I agree with you both. I don’t believe in curbing free speech even for the silly pro-“choicers”. I say let the kids have a debate. The pro-life side will ALWAYS win when the facts come out.
It’s a private school with a dress code. All the students had to do was ask permission first, according to the article. If permission had been denied, then they can take another step. Permission wasn’t denied, because it wasn’t asked. However, I can’t help but notice that in Canada where students are adults, they cannot even have their pro-life club recognized on one of the college campuses.
This may be a good opportunity for the school to gather together the parents of all the students and explain to them, with photos and video, what ‘choice’ really means.
I have absolutely no problem with people self-identifying, like those who decided to label themselves with “Choice”.
It makes it easier to ask them serious questions, like:
Self-identify all you want, but don’t rip off the label when you realize you’re making an ass of yourself, and don’t lash out non-sensically and irrationally when truth is displayed to your face.
Doing that just shows you’re akrasia.
Okay, now that I’ve eaten and had some orange juice….WHEW.
What I meant was that I believe this girl has a right to free speech, even if I don’t agree with her. HOWEVER, pro-aborts should allow pro-life students to express their opinions without harassment as well.
Chris, I agree that knowing people are pro-choice provides an opportunity to ask them questions, but it’s seriously none of anybody’s business if they are or have been promiscuous. That’s over the line and into way-too-personal territory; besides, if you asked them that question, I doubt they’d want to speak to you about anything, much less abortion.
I agree with those who have said that this girl’s opinion should not have been censored. Her thoughts on the matter are as wrong as you can possibly get so her internal logic train was obviously derailed somewhere along the line, but she has a right to be wrong. Free speech is not something we should extend only to those with opinions we like (and yes, I know this was a private school, but that doesn’t mean they are not engaging in censorship).
That said, I’m not going to deny experiencing some schadenfreude here. After this has happened time after time after time to pro-life students, there is some measure of satisfaction in seeing the pendulum swing the other way every so often.
Ech, enough with the “promiscuity” nonsense. How pregnant was your wife before you got married, Chris?
Just went for an annual GYN exam at my local family planning clinic. Was greeted by protesters, one of whom told me that he wouldn’t “put flowers on my grave” if I died from breast cancer. That’s so life-affirming! Thanks, pro-lifers. :)
I’m with ninek. It sounds like there was no attempt to have their protest through the proper channels. I wonder what the school would have done if the student(s) who wished to protest for the pro-abortion side had lodged their request through the appropriate channels.
I’m not saying the school would certainly have allowed it, but it would reflect well on the students and poorly on the school rather than the other way around.
To me it is significant that it is a CATHOLIC high school. That the girl was pro-choice shows how poorly catechized she is. Epic fail on the part of the school. At a Catholic school, I do not support students raising support for abortion. She should not be receiving communion if she doesn’t accept the teachings of the church. That’s part of HER CHOICE. That the administrators went with “they didn’t ask permission” was a bit of lame reason to punish them – shouldn’t undermining the educational mission of the school be reason enough? Ie, if they had asked for permission, it should have been denied because it is a Catholic school. The whole rest of the world supports abortion – a Catholic school should be an unequivocally pro-life haven.
Megan,
Oh yes, blame all of us, Megs. Right. Like you haven’t read anything we have written or learned a thing about who we are……..go read the responses to the post on the woman suffering after abortion. That is who WE are. That is what WE do.
I am sorry that happened to you! I find that kind of crap despicable and NOBODY I know that is affiliated with 40 Days is ALLOWED to do anything but pray. We have to sign something in fact. Those that harass are asked to leave.
“That the administrators went with “they didn’t ask permission” was a bit of lame reason to punish them”
I agree, Denise. I thought that was a pretty pathetic “excuse” when I read that too. It is a Catholic school, and she was openly and publicly supporting something that is not in line with Catholic principles. That is the only reason you need. Period. Didn’t have permission… how ludicrous…
This may be a good opportunity for the school to gather together the parents of all the students and explain to them, with photos and video, what ‘choice’ really means.
ninek, I think that’s an excellent idea. The school could add a few lessons in the classroom on the Catholic Church’s teachings on the dignity of human life. (It’s something they should already be teaching but maybe it’s not.) These days Catholic parents need to be especially vigilant about what is and isn’t being taught to their children in Catholic school. Some kids have never seen nor heard of the Cathechism, for goodness sake.
“Shut-up!” Megan explained. No. I. Won’t.
My wife was very pregnant – married 1 week before delivery. Is that pregnant enough for you?
Been there – done that.
Regret those wrong deeds.
Don’t regret our wonderful son.
Other sexual experiences of mine I don’t know the outcome.
Could that make me post-abortive? Maybe.
Speaking from experience. Reality.
Marauder – I won’t shut up about personal promiscuity.
Abortion kills a very personal human child. It sends women into depressive cycles. It impacts fathers. It destroys families. It costs $$$. It’s taking up my time – my life. I see the destruction all the time, all around me.
Sex is more powerful than an atomic bomb – it’s not to be taken lightly or casually.
Pro-choicers – abortion choicers – Planned Parenthood, the homosexual lobbies, the media, all have made casual sex a very public topic – in fact my children can’t get away from such discussions anywhere.
So let’s talk sex.
Let’s get personal.
I don’t care if you walk away pissed off.
Your personal sex life impacts me. Seriously.
Did you know pregnancy is a legal medical diagnosis? That’s legal oversight of sex. “Birth” is a matter of public record. Having a child is a matter of public record. Being pregnant means having a child. Parental laws are all matters of public record – I have to adhere to . There’s the state – getting involved in my sex life. Even in your precious Roe v Wade opinion, Blackmun understood the state had an interest in the well being of the child. I and every other citizen is the state.
I’m providing tax-dollars to provide medical care for women who have sex with men, who get the living daylights beaten out of them when they refuse to have abortions. Here – go to this link to hear a story:
http://www.thrufire.com/blog/2011/03/planned-parenthood-victimizes-woman-and-children/
$2-billion in my state tax dollars go to families, mostly women and children, who have fathers who are absent from their lives because women have sex “without consequences” with men who want their freedom to satisfy their sexual urges, then walk away.
So you better believe I want some real personal answers for why someone wants a particular “right” when it comes to promiscuous sex. It’s because they are responsible to me and everyone else for their actions. It personally costs me and everyone else in all sorts of ways.
And I’ve had it with dancing around the subject.
BTW Megan – I’m really pro-choice.
It’s my time to choose.
I doubt that promiscuity had as much to do with the young students’ ‘pro-choice’ green tape as rhetoric they’ve heard, either from the media or their parent or other people. Even though Bernard Nathanson admitted that deaths from illegal abortion were simply made up numbers, I doubt your average high school student is even aware of that or even know Dr. Nathanson’s name. Even I was taken in by the ‘women will hurt themselves’ rhetoric for a few years.
It’s also sad that parents still today tell their daughters, “Don’t you dare come home pregnant” when they should ideally say, “If you find yourself pregnant, I want you to come and talk to me.” It’s even sadder how many parents threaten their children with being kicked out of the home if they don’t abort their children. The whole situation stinks.
Chris Arsenault: contrary to the criticism, I didn’t gather you intended students to answer the questions and reveal personal information to some form of Big Brother but rather to think about them. Reflection on questions like this can help them as they become adults — responsible, consequence assuming, non-narcissist adults.
Eric – right, while it’s good to ask a rhetorical question – I really want a personal answer, but not given in an open-public forum.
You’re right – it’s not because I really want to get involved in their sex lives, but because they’re not even being honest with themselves or their sexual partners. And often they never even think of the greater impacts their sex lives have on others.
Here’s what I’ve found talking face to face with professed pro-aborts and we get down to the personal level: The real reason why most guys (and some girls) support abortion-choice is so they can kill the relationship without any “seeming” lasting impact. Basically, that is, they want the sex without the commitment.
For all practical purposes – this is prostitution. (Yes, you can quote me – casual sex without an eternal commitment is prostitution.)
When I ask guys (and the guys stayed engaged and discussed this) if they’ve talked about that with their girl/s – most say they’d be crazy to admit that. So their relationship is built on very shallow (impersonal) reasons – sexual gratification.
In cases where guys have admitted among other guys, there’s joking, but often another guy will reinforce the truth – that’s really the wrong thing to do.
In discussions with girls – they don’t want to admit it, but often they do want the relationship to last. And there still is a pecking order of girls who play too fast and loose. They don’t want to be perceived as being one of those.
For all Planned Parenthood’s overtures about reality and sex talk – that’s the last thing they really want to do. When you discuss the deep issue on a very personal one on one basis, it slips a considerable stone into their shoe – one they have a real hard time ignoring.
“$2-billion in my state tax dollars go to families, mostly women and children, who have fathers who are absent from their lives because women have sex “without consequences” with men who want their freedom to satisfy their sexual urges, then walk away”
Women who have “sex without consequences” – Oh, those slutty women!
BTW, here’s the actual human services budget figure per our new governor’s budget:
”By function, spending by Human Services agencies represents the largest share with expenditures, totaling $1.260 billion, or 39.8 percent, of the general revenue budget.” $2 billion on “slutty” women is just factually incorrect. The monies spent on human services are spent on programs for the disabled and long term care (which constitutes the major allocation). Subsidized child care is also part of the equation. And BTW, many of these women who “have sex without consequences” were married to these men. It’s not about the sex, it’s about parental responsibility. Why is the focus on sex which is natural and good?
Poor Chris. He lives in a state with a fully pro-choice congressional delegation and a pro-choice (oh, those Satanic Episcopalians) governor. I know, I live there, too!
”Some kids have never seen nor heard of the Cathechism, for goodness sake”
And my generation of Catholic School students were immersed in it from dawn until dusk for 12 long years. Thing is it didn’t work. We rejected the proscriptions against sex. Those of us who were smart went to Planned Parenthood for birth control – those who didn’t had to leave school because of “mono.” And regarding the Cathechism – any system that requires memorization of answers to questions is hardly an intellectually sound system which fosters a system of inquiry. And that’s why so many of us rejected it. But if the RC school requires strict adherence to the fetus cult, that’s their right.
“We do not harass, we do not intimidate.”
Right, the “counselors” who shout “you’re killing your baby” – nothing to see here, move along….
It is not terribly honest to assert the Roman Catholic Church has “proscriptions against sex,” when its teachings are against sex outside marriage.
“Teaching against sex outside marriage”
Given the latest revelations from Philadelphia, this teaching seems quite hollow.
Again – broad brush strokes – painting all sidewalk counselors as shouting “you’re killing your baby.” Nope – never done that.
CC – try not to bash the Catholic Church. BTW, it’s Catechism. And EVERY normal in-class subject requires some memorization – otherwise we would not know 2+2=4 in the normal mathematics system, or that WWII was in the 1900’s not the 1700’s, etc…
The real sad part is that the Teaching (purposely capitalized – and as a well-taught Catholic you should know why) is beautiful, and there for our sanctity. And yes – those priests SINNED and should not have had ANY sexual contact with anyone of any age. But I am sure this just confirms in your own mind that the CC (Catholic Church) is just garbage.
If you really did not care, you would not have to say one word about it – ever – especially here on a blog.
”
Alexandria left, but the soft-spoken Grade 10 student had started a movement: In a show of solidarity, 24 of her peers followed suit, adhering green tape to their uniforms. 4 of them were also sent home, some for a 2-day suspension….”
they should be expelled. kicked out of the school.
It was wrong to send her home. Punishing her for (apparently peacefully) stating her beliefs only encourages hostility. We must not ever try to force students (or anyone for that matter) to think like drones.
And I apply this, of course, to the pro-life students who have been sent home for equally non-violent actions, too. There have been young people who have been punished by their schools or sent home for wearing pro-life t-shirts.
We cannot condone censorship. We must stand for dialogue and understanding.
Nice try CC – Chaffee’s budget is a 2012 recommendation.
RI Dept of Human Services has had a $1.8 billion budget.
Pg 189 on Rhode Island Owner’s Manual 2009-2010 – published by Office of Secretary of State A. Ralph Mollis. Add in the additional services of Dept of Children, Youth and Families @ $209,941,252.00 (pg 148) and you’re at $2 billion.
You might also consider the impacts on Dept of Corrections, @ $192,198,867.00, never mind city and town expenditures to deal with the side effects.
Well, you’ll state – “that’s only a budget” (which is what you just offered as evidence I was wrong), “that’s not good enough”.
So I’ll have to slam you with the actual expenditures from the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report published on 6-30-2010, which on pg 24 states that actual program expenses for Human Services was $2,900,673,000.00 or you can look on pg 28 of the same report in the Expenditures Statement – the number is slightly less due to accounting variations, but still $2,884,410,000.00.
Gee – those look a lot closer to $3 billion. As in every other case, you try to be deceptive and use nonsense numbers, spout someone else is wrong, then offer up trash.
If it’s all about parental responsibility – there’d be little to no need to reach into my pocket or other working citizens to meet that state handout.
If it’s all about parental responsibility – then why kill your own defenseless child?
See – you completely miss the whole point of parental responsibility when it comes to sex and like to shove words in my mouth, from behind your anonymous mask.
I know you don’t really care about the women (you pump Planned Parenthood with funds) but you overlook my condemnation of men who fail to be there?
The poison you’ve been huffing on has toasted your brain.
Don’t pity me because I’m in Rhode Island CC, – among the sick and wounded is exactly where the Great Physician needs to be. I’m just helping Him bring real Hope to Rhode Island.
CC,
My comment was directed to practicing Catholics who are concerned about the Catholic education of their children, not ex-Catholics such as yourself.
Vannah,
You must have missed the part about the school being Catholic. They don’t have to be politically correct or tolerate the promotion of views inconsistent with Church teachings. Parents pay good money for that educational atmosphere for their children.
I don’t think that it’s correct to say or imply that people are pro-choice because they are promiscuous. Lots of people are pro-choice because they ideologically believe that it’s right. The most ardently pro-choice years of my life were well before I ever had sex, which didn’t happen until I was an age lots of people get married at. All the melodrama and smug accusations about “you are pro-choice because it supports your own promiscuity” often falls on majorly deaf ears, with good reason. It was a pretty quick eye-roll and exit-stage-right for me, that’s for sure. It’s the mirror equivalent of pro-choicers claiming that pro-lifers hate sex – it’s just a pretty big, “you….don’t even know what you’re talking about” moment.
My two cents.
“If it’s all about parental responsibility – there’d be little to no need to reach into my pocket or other working citizens to meet that state handout.”
Well thank you Father Christmas, how magnanimous of you! You could have just posted a picture of a black woman in a Cadillac to save us the trouble of sifting through your vitriolic whining. From this statement of yours, readers can glean three things:
1. Single mothers are hos
2. Single mothers are lazy and don’t work
3. Single mothers don’t care about their families
Yep, that sums it up. Sociologists can halt their research on poverty because Chris Arsenault has it all figured out. But I can’t resist: if you’re concerned that low-income women face high rates of domestic violence, then why would you blanketly condemn single mothers, many of whom have probably left abusive marriages?
Carla,
Women on their way to get Pap smears or HIV tests should not have to walk a gauntlet of fiercely conservative, anti-premarital sex protesters. These men knew nothing of the life situations of the women walking into the clinic. The other woman in the waiting room had a big ‘ole wedding ring on her finger. Frustrating.
By the way, I am looking to do research for a pregnancy resource center (no religious affiliation, I might add) this summer that wants to do long-term follow-up with their teen clients. I was wondering, what are your thoughts on doulas? Random, but I’d appreciate the response.
And regarding the Cathechism – any system that requires memorization of answers to questions is hardly an intellectually sound system which fosters a system of inquiry. And that’s why so many of us rejected it
CC, I disagree that you rejected the Church’s teachings because it required rote memorization. After all, you spell pretty well and many of our words are sight words, requiring memorization (example: Catechism). I contend you rejected the Catechism for the same reasons I did; that being, we are all sinners and Christ’s teachings don’t always fit into OUR plans.
After years of doing it my way, I started opening my heart, mind and soul to His Way. I now teach a high school class called Theology of the Body for teens.
Videos. Group discussions. Skits. Guest Speakers. Volunteering. Games. Music. Laughter. Fun. Prayer.
No worksheets. No grading system. No homework. Last but Not Least, NO required memorization.
I’d like to welcome you to my class. If I am too far away, you can find a class near you or order the program online. Now you have no reason for any rejection unless His teachings still don’t work for YOU.
Game?
Megan – you and CC don’t bother really reading (and considering) what I write, so it’s not surprising you’re popping blood vessels and throwing racist accusations at me (and like CC, from behind your anonymous, paranoid mask).
Your projection doesn’t work.
In fact, your response says a lot more about your insecurities than it does about my need for a state to have citizens who are responsible, respectful and mature in how they deal with other human beings – more specifically, those they are having sex with, the result of that sex – their children. There are broader implications to having casual sex.
You’re assuming I’m condemning single mothers – that’s your sad straw-man. Sex has consequences – abortion has consequences. These impact both men and women. Women aren’t single mothers because they spontaneously conceive. And I clearly stated many men are irresponsible to the point of violence due to sexual urges. Abusive marriages? What marriages? – try abusive relationships – if you can even call them relationships.
When people throw tantrums about rights – it’s because they want to avoid genuine responsibilities. So you’re only chanting the same tired old victimization mantra.
People are simply fed up with that bull.
I had a state representative comment about meeting the needs of her constituents – “My people keep asking – where’s the Pampers?” My very sharp wife had a great response: “Where’s the penis? He can provide them.”
The sad part is – the guys don’t want to provide the Pampers or anything else, but they seem to feel entitled to all the sex they can get – and live off the efforts of others.
As I said – I’m now Pro-Choice. And I choose not to pay.
You guys don’t understand Canada. In America, Catholic schools are private, paid for by parents who want their children immersed in Catholic values and teaching. In Canada, Catholic schools are just another form of public school, paid for by tax dollars, where anyone can go, Catholic or not. Keep that in mind.
That being said, no student should be censored in a public venue when the viewpoint is presented respectfully. Green tape is respectful, cursing at teachers and others is not. The students have every right to express their viewpoints, but like most people of the pro-death persuasion, they lack any degree of chastity in their speech and action. I vehemently oppose their censorship, but the blame is squarely on them for not following the rules created to keep order in these situations and prevent disruptions. Had they gone through the channels the pro-lifers went through and were denied freedom of speech, then there is a problem. There is not a problem YET. This is a public school with a dress code to keep order that can choose, with warning, to suspend it without endorsing the student’s beliefs, but merely allowing them to be expressed. As a member of a movement routinely persecuted when trying to express my freedom of speech, I know how important it is to respect everyone’s freedom.
Back to Canada, many of my friends have been arrested on their college campuses for expressing pro-life views, therein highlights the need to not impose censorship on anyone. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
They weren’t being “picked on” and Jasper, don’t be hipocritical. If you want freedom of speech, it goes both ways.
Megs,
Women going into an abortion clinic to get HIV testing and pap smears can and will be prayed for by those involved in 40 Days for Life.
Anyone screaming should be escorted away. Did you catch that part? That I AGREE with you?? I agree with you. There is no excuse for yelling BABY KILLERS at women. There. We agree. Clap hands, jump for joy.
Love doulas, Know doulas. 2 of my best girly friends are doulas. Had a doula. We are talking about REAL doulas aren’t we? The ones that help mothers deliver their precious babies?
If you would like more info on my experience with a doula you can email me. Birthing stories are a little TMI. :)
carla@jillstanek.com
It doesn’t matter if the Catholic schools are funded with tax dollars. It’s still a Catholic school and catholic teaching has to be followed, especially teachings related to life and death issues. All of these smart ‘pro-choicers’ should be expelled and never allowed in a Catholic school again.
I would imagine that this would fall under the category of a dress code violation, assuming that the pro-life students got permission to dress as they did.
Or it could fall under the category of disruptive behavior, after all, going into a Catholic institution advertising your support for legal abortion is kind of like going there wearing a T-Shirt that reads “I Hate Jesus”, “The Catholic Church is an Evil Cult” or “The Pope is a Nazi”.
“If it’s all about parental responsibility – there’d be little to no need to reach into my pocket or other working citizens to meet that state handout.”
What Chris fails to note is that the majority of the spending on “Human Services” is spent on reimbursements to nursing homes and home health services for medicaid costs on the elderly and the disabled – and not those “slutty” women. He also fails to note that under TANF, “welfare” (which is time limited and has work requirements) also goes to intact families – that was part of the Clinton era welfare reform. He also lumps in Department for Children, Youth, and Families. Child abuse has nothing to do with women having sex without consequences as evidenced by a caseload which consists, in large part, of neglected/abused/wayward children from intact families many of whom are from middle class homes.
And Chris, if you have a problem “paying” for “irresponsible” sex which results in an abortion, what say you about “paying” for an “irresponsbible” woman who gives birth and does need public assistance?
BTW, Chris -DCYF & DHS – Been there, done that.
Children don’t, and shouldn’t, lose all of their constitutional rights the second they walk into a school. They have a right to free speech within reason. As much as it disgusts me, pro-abortion views generally don’t put anyone in the school in immediate danger. (If a fellow student is pregnant, I would hope that any administration that considers itself pro-life and Catholic would bend over backwards reaching out to and helping pregnant students take care of themselves and their babies, rather than leaving them to the “mercy” of those pro-abort students.)
As for these students getting thrown out of school, the school may have a right to send them home for the unauthorized activity, but another advantage to allowing students free speech in a parochial school is that when a student expresses views contrary to the school’s moral teachings, the school is then aware of where their teaching has fallen short. You can’t help pro-abortion students unless you know they exist.
I think it would have been more productive to hold a conference with these students and ask them why they feel the way they do, and explain what the RCC teaches. I’d guess a good number of them are probably of the “abortion is bad, but it’s better than sticking a poor woman with a baby she can’t afford” school. Those students could be encouraged to volunteer with their parish’s pro-life initiative and see first-hand how beautiful it is to help a new mother welcome her baby. And for anyone who actively thinks abortion is good, perhaps a reminder of the hows and whys of RC teaching on the subject will help them have a change of heart.
This would have accomplished a lot more than simply pitching them out of school in such a draconian fashion.
CC, what is wrong with you? Why do you keep referring to women as sluts? No one else has called women such a thing, only you!
I agree Sydney – no one here on the pro-life side is calling women “s…” Just stop it already CC. It just confirms the point that many pro-choicers don’t’ have chastity in their speech.
People need decorum. And that goes for in school, on the job, at the abortion clinic and everywhere else. If anyone talked that way during 40 days while I was there, I would insist that they leave. if they can not control themselves in speech and deed, they need to go home.
CC – please respect everyone here and refrain from those remarks, and the anti-Catholic sentiment. If you were brought up Catholic, then remember that you are slighting your parents (and other relatives) too when you make anti-Catholic remarks,
CC said : Child abuse has nothing to do with women having sex without consequences…
It doesn’t get more abusive than killing your own child – which you endorse.
Ah – the complex question fallacy.
You’ve got a lot of assumptions built into that one – for instance needing public assistance. Where’s the man? You let him off the hook because he’s abusive, but you also let her off the hook because its okay for her to have sex with him? They can’t control themselves?
As I said before – that’s basically prostitution – except you want to reach into my pocket and pay for their failure to commit to their relationship, and treat each other with love.
You continue to make disparaging remarks about women, in terms I don’t use (proving my point that you maintain a pecking order about degrees of promiscuity) and completely avoid the man’s involvement.
Your question infers a eugenic solution – wipe out the child before birth to solve social problems. What a sour outlook on human nature. More than likely you’ve experienced great pain throughout your life – it really shows.
“You let him off the hook because he’s abusive, but you also let her off the hook because its okay for her to have sex with him? They can’t control themselves?”
Oh, stupid women who get involved in abusive relationships and marriages! Maybe if low-income women weren’t so lazy they could get out of the ghetto and find nice, loving husbands with solid middle class values! And isn’t it just.so.fortunate that your own “lack of control” didn’t impinge on anyone else’s bank account…oh wait, you do know that childless property owners in your state probably helped finance your kid’s public education, right? Are they wailing moralizing diatribes about middle class parents spewing out too many kids? I don’t think that kind of discourse would be allowed.
By the way, financing social service programs and education is a much stronger investment in human capital than bailing out cavalier Wall Street crooks. Unless, that is, you don’t think poor people are worth it.
“They can’t control themselves?”
II guess it’s fine to talk about people like they’re animals as long as we don’t use explicit descriptors, hmm?
Megan,
I shall remind you, lest you forget that there are at least 4 maybe 5 of us that comment here that have been in abusive relationships or marriages. Myself included.
Carry on.
and find nice, loving husbands with solid middle class values!
I know people that live in poverty who have solid values and also know people who are rich who have no values.
It’s not about finding the right person Megan, it’s about being the right person.
You and CC’s anger is palpable.
The notion that pro-choicers are pro-choice because they believe that sexual promiscuity is perfectly okay and that they themselves are automatically guilty of being irresponsible and ebauched is just plain ludicrous.
I’ve never been guilty of this myself. Being promiscuous and sexually reckless has abslutely nothing to do with whether one is pro or anti-choice, This kind of reprehensible behavior exists and always has, but to assume that pro-choicers approve of it it is to put it mildly,unfair.
Or that they like abortion, want abortions to happen, and want them to increase.
It’s not unfair. Being pro-choice inherently requires one to be overly accepting of (female) promiscuous behavior. If there is a woman who has unprotected sex with multiple men per week and gets pregnant, are you going to tell her that she shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion because she should have been more responsible? That she should’t be allowed to have an abortion because she should have thought of the consequences? Of course you won’t. It won’t matter one lick to you how promiscuous and how reckless she is. So let’s not pretend here. You don’t consider said actions to be too reprehensible, because you’re perfectly willing to let a woman engage in such ‘reprehensible’ behavior and later bring harm to someone else.
The most ardently pro-choice years of my life were well before I ever had sex, which didn’t happen until I was an age lots of people get married at. All the melodrama and smug accusations about “you are pro-choice because it supports your own promiscuity” often falls on majorly deaf ears, with good reason. It was a pretty quick eye-roll and exit-stage-right for me, that’s for sure. It’s the mirror equivalent of pro-choicers claiming that pro-lifers hate sex – it’s just a pretty big, “you….don’t even know what you’re talking about” moment.
This makes perfect sense to me. I never told you to “shut up” about anything, Chris, but I do think asking people questions about their sex lives or asking if they’re promiscuous is just rude. I mean, would you appreciate it if someone asked you immensely personal questions aboout your sex life? It’s one thing to volunteer information about it. It’s another thing to ask someone about it as if you think they somehow owe you an answer.
I don’t think the whole “promiscuity equals pro-choice” thing works at all. People have all sorts of rationale for why they do what they do. Recently I was watching a documentary about the Children of God cult, currently known as The Family International. For a few decades they advocated “flirty fishing,” the practice of their female members having sex with men in order to bring them into the cult. Lots of promiscuous sex both inside and outside of the cult, lots of babies.
Somebody could easily be pro-choice and not promiscuous. Maybe they’ve only had sex with one person but they don’t want children, or they don’t want children for several years. Maybe they’ve never had sex but they worry about what would happen if they were raped and got pregnant. Are there pro-choicers who use legalized abortion as an excuse to sleep around? Sure. Is that some kind of defining factor of pro-choicers? I don’t think so.
Jasper- ENGAGE YOUR BRAIN. Once something is paid for with public money, it becomes public. That is precisely our opposition to government-funded health care. This is why we should oppose vouchers. If you want something to be private, it must be paid for privately.
Catholic schools is Canada are PUBLIC schools, not Catholic schools. The student body is in fact, 90% non-Catholic. Submitting to the Catholic label doesn’t change that fact.