Sunday extra: Notorious, Obama-loving priest reinstated
For backstory read my May 3 post, “Notorious, Obama-loving priest suspended.”
According to Fox News Chicago, May 20:
Chicago – Cardinal George has reinstated the controversial Father Michael Pfleger as pastor of St. Sabina Church, saying the two have met and taken a step toward resolving their “confusion.”…
Pfleger said in a statement that during conversations with the cardinal they “recognized that the church has been hurt” and he would “do all in my power to foster healing for all.”…
On Friday, the cardinal’s statement said, “I asked Father Pfleger to take time to pray about his personal faith and his commitment to the priesthood. In the past month, Father Pfleger and I have discussed how the Church has been wounded and how necessary it is to find a way to heal the hurt and confusion.”
The statementt [sic] said that Pfleger’s statement, released simultaeously [sic], is a “genuine step” to that end.
Pfleger apologized for remarks that were interpreted to mean he wanted to leave the priesthood, to which he said he is committed.
“I believe all who know me well that I want to be a Catholic priest.”
He said he and George realized “the church has been hurt, and this concerns us both. For the people of St. Sabina and the church as a whole, I will do all in my power to foster healing for all.”
He also said that George had asked him to create a “plan of transition for the future of St. Sabina,” a plan he has agreed to present by Dec. 1.
So it sounds as if the plan is still for Fr. Pfleger to pull up stakes at St. Sabina. We shall see. Here’s more:
Father Michael Pfleger Reinstated as St. Sabina Pastor: MyFoxCHICAGO.com
An update today from the Chicago Tribune:
Returning to the pulpit of St. Sabina Catholic Church to celebrate mass and his 62nd birthday today, the Rev. Michael Pfleger apologized to his congregation for the drama of his 3-week suspension, which ended Friday.
“I’m back,” he declared to parishioners in a statement during the 11:15 a.m. mass. The statement preceded his sermon.
“I am sorry to have put you through this,” he said.
Pfleger also expressed his gratitude to Cardinal Francis George and encouraged parishioners to do the same. He said George lifted the suspension after 3 in-depth conversations.
“He made it possible for me to be here today,” he said.
[Photo via NBC]
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.
The beauty of the Catholic Church goes way beyond anything a human being could possibly truly and fully understand.
Fr. Pfleger is the woman at the well, “Go and sin no more”
Cardinal George needed to reassign Father Pfleger yesterday! Those parishioners who attend St. Sabina have been done a terrible injustice by Father Pfleger. I would NOT feel comfortable attending Mass there. This is not what St. Paul intended when he said we are all one body. If, during this period of reassessment, Cardinal George wasn’t able to get it through that man’s skull, then there is no hope for this situation, and he is only putting him back there to avoid a mass exodus of the parishioners out of St. Sabina. Maybe that would be best. From all indications, they haven’t got a clue as to what it means to be Catholic. They belong in Wright’s “church.”
Pfleger should be defrocked.
Of course he will continue to sin. He supports abortion.
Lauren – we all sin. I had an abortion and yet Holy Mother Church, in her wisdom, embraces me, a sinner. I have no right – nor does anyone else – to judge this priest. I do have the right to judge the actions and words – but his superior, Cardinal George has made a decision and I am good with that.
I do love the Catholic Church – we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater – we do, always, try to reconcile and to bring those who are wounded (and wounding) back to His Love.
Oh, to be a fly on that wall…
For all his flamboyancy, I’ll give Fr. Pfleger the benefit of the doubt.
I’ve not read very many accounts of him apologizing for anything, so if this is what it took for this to finally get through his conscience, then here’s hoping that he’ll submit, be obedient, and knock it off.
I think there’s an element not being noticed here: the parishioners of St. Sabine.
I haven’t followed this saga until recently, but it seems that these parishioners have a hard time of letting go of Fr. Pfleger. Based on that newscast, it’s not the first time the parishioners have “rallied” to Pfleger’s support and that they’ve “come to expect this”.
Note to parishioners: You’ve GOT TO move on. There’s a reason why priests are periodically re-assigned, and your parish is exhibit A.
What exactly did he do wrong? From what I understand, not much…
What does his connection to President Obama have to do with anything?
Thanks for clearing these questions up for me!
Controversy during 2008 presidential election
On May 25, 2008, Pfleger gave a sermon at Trinity United Church of Christ, then Presidential candidate Barack Obama‘s church, where he made controversial statements concerning Senator Hillary Clinton, Obama’s opponent for the Democratic Party nomination. Pfleger said, “I really believe that she just always thought, ‘This is mine. I’m Bill’s wife. I’m white, and this is mine. I just gotta get up and step into the plate.’ Then out of nowhere came, ‘Hey, I’m Barack Obama,’ and she said, ‘Oh, damn! Where did you come from? I’m white! I’m entitled! There’s a black man stealing my show!'” He then pretended to wipe tears from his face, a reference to Clinton’s emotional speech before the New Hampshire primary, and added, “She wasn’t the only one crying. There was a whole lot of white people crying.”[23]
After hearing about Pfleger’s remarks, Obama said he was “deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger’s divisive, backward-looking rhetoric”. Pfleger later released a statement through St. Sabina that read, “I regret the words I chose Sunday. These words are inconsistent with Sen. Obama’s life and message, and I am deeply sorry if they offended Sen. Clinton or anyone else who saw them.”[23] On May 31, 2008, Obama resigned his membership in Trinity Church, saying that his campaign had caused the church to receive excessive media attention.[24] On June 1, 2008, Pfleger released a longer apology to the St. Sabina parish regarding the incident and its aftermath.[25]
On June 3, 2008, Cardinal George asked Pfleger to take a disciplinary leave of absence from St. Sabina. George said in a statement, “I have asked Father Michael Pfleger, Pastor of St. Sabina’s Parish, to step back from his obligations there and take leave for a couple of weeks from his pastoral duties, effective today. Fr. Pfleger does not believe this to be the right step at this time. While respecting his disagreement, I have nevertheless asked him to use this opportunity to reflect on his recent statements and actions in the light of the Church’s regulations for all Catholic priests. I hope that this period will also be a time away from the public spotlight and for rest and attention to family concerns.”[26] Pfleger resumed his parish duties on June 16, 2008.[27] – From wikipedia
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz… Jill, why do you purport to live in Chicago? People who live in the suburbs always say that, and it is so irritating. Is it a jealousy thing? Do people feel it affords them some sort of legitimacy or ‘street cred’?
Not totally pertinent to the article, but I do have to question your connection with the city I actually live in.
Father Pfleger still at St. Sabina’s? Could it be that nobody else wants him? Just wondering. . . .
Ergh. I’ve watched the Fr. Pfleger saga for quite some time, and–though the Cardinal has the authority to make the call–I disagree with him on this one. Fr. Pfleger is seriously misguided, and I see no serious evidence that he recognizes that fact; his “recantations” have the flavour of a political calculation, based on the “blow-back” from his past actions. I’ve once heard it said, “If the only thing keeping you from sinning is a lack of opportunity, then you’ve got a serious problem.”
My heart goes out to this wayward, deceived, ill-catechized, ill-formed priest, but he’s unqualified to lead in a pastoral position, and his parish’s “cult of personality” attachment to him is downright pathological; he needs to be transferred to a place where his bad formation, disobedience and theological errors don’t cause any more scandal, and where the St. Sabina parishioners can go through whatever grieving process they need (which might well involve some or many of them leaving the parish, in an indignant huff), and finally get back to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than the “Gospel of Politics (and race-baiting, and abortion-tolerance, and disobedience, etc.)”.
Ashtar, you’re aware that priests in the Catholic Church take a vow of obedience to their bishop (and his successors), aren’t you? If you do a bit more digging (beyond Wikipedia), you may find Fr. Pfleger’s many examples of flat-out defiance of Cardinal George (along with the ongoing disobedience re: the rubrics of celebrating Holy Mass, which he ignores freely, and other smaller examples).
I heard Fr. Pfleger’s homecoming “I AM BACK!” speech. What saint would do this?
I think that’s an excellent point, Regina. How would an Augustine, or Catherine of Siena, or Padre Pio, or any other humble and obedient saint respond in such a situation?
Well articulated, Paladin.
No one wants to see a priest go off the deep end. Speaking for myself, anyways.
Lee,
You shouldn’t speak to Lauren that way- The accusations made about her character aren’t true and you completely missed the very valid point about what she said, choosing to project your own experience and ascend a high-horse when it was completely inappropriate. Lauren did not suggest what you claim she did.
Lauren clearly said in the PRESENT tense that Fr. Pfleger is in sin for his active support of abortion. This is true. She did not say that he SUPPORTED abortion in the past, which, if that were the case, redemption and reconciliation is just as available and desired for him as it is for the rest of us. But this man consecrates the very Eucharist that he damages his own soul for receiving while in a state of mortal sin- he also leads his flock down a deadly path. If he were contrite instead of boastful and arrogantly persisting in his errors- which are a direct affront to the Church- and Lauren were saying that he were still in sin, only then would Lauren be out of line. She was not. Furthermore, even if Fr. Pfleger had repented, he needs a post where he can become sanctified and learn, not in charge of people’s immortal souls. He knows abortion is wrong and contrary to the Church’s teachings and defied those teachings, but moreover, someone whose conscience is so poorly formed that they accept abortion regardless of Church teachings is not someone who should be a spiritual authority. Reinstating him is wrong in any scenario, but it’s especially egregious given the fact that he openly and often defies the Church he represents. There is no way anyone could make a case for allowing this man to persist in leading others to Hell.
We can disagree on Fr. Pfleger’s reinstatement- that’s fine, but what you said to Lauren was out-of-line.
I really wish everone would get off Father Pfleger’s merry-go-round. He is a manipulative, showboating, defiant, cult-of-personality. Period. He is only remaining a Catholic priest, in my observations over the years, in order to remain in the limelight.
I am beginning to think that Cardinal George has some of these same character flaws, because he seems to play happily into Pfleger’s roller coaster performances.
I’m getting worn out praying for these kinds of priests, bishops and cardinals. I feel like I’m bailing out a foundering ship with a teaspoon.
This all really has very little to do with President Obama.
Hal,
The obvious connection to Obama is Plegers open support for him even though Obama is a rabid pro-abort. Even up to railing against legislation designed to protect babies that are delivered live but supposed have been killed in the womb prior to delivery. Pleger’s support for Obama shows his propensity to work against the catholic church and her teachings. Which is one more (and an overt) sign that Pleger is an unfit priest.
So, if a priest molested a young boy and the church does nothing that’s ok, but if a priest says anything positive about abortion he should be defrocked?
Just out of curiosity how many Catholic Priests have been defrocked because of molesting and sodomizing children? I am just wondering what the total number is worldwide.
I am not trying to take shots at the Catholic Church in the post I am just wondering what the actual numbers are?
Tragically, most people don’t have a clue regarding the eternal consequences for supporting abortion: the pain, the torment, the torture, the hopelessness…
It matters not that this charlatan considers himself holy. He is profane.
I earnestly pray for his conversion, that he might recover himself from his current path of destruction.
Thanks, Jaque, that was exactly my point. He is actively sinning, with absolutely no hint of repentance. He does not need to be in a position of leadership right now. Heck, he should not even be receiving communion right now!
I did not mean that someone who has had an abortion can not be forgiven, Lee. Of course you can! My point was simply that the Church should not reinstate someone who seems to have no qualms actively advocating for abortion.
Lee, I understand your point but can I as a Baptist put my two cents in? If a Baptist preacher were to speak in support of a man that supports ungodly, unbiblical things we would not “throw him out of the church”. So I agree with you that this priest should be allowed to stay in the RCC. However, he isn’t just a parishioner. He is a PRIEST. He is in a position where he has access to the “pulpit” and access to the hearts and minds of his parishioners. In my church we would remove such a person from spiritual leadership but certainly encourage them to stay in the church. Church is for sinners after all. But the ministry is not. The pulpit is not. Only those walking close to the Lord should have the opportunity to lead a flock. And THAT is biblical!
truthseeker, a priest could support Obama despite his views on abortion. If Father Pfleger is pro choice himself, he has bigger problems with his Church than his support of Obama.
No, Hal, HE CAN’T. You can’t support a murderer simply because you like things he does *besides* murder i.e. “I don’t like that he dismembers children, but I like that he wants to lower fuel prices.” Vital issues trump all other issues.
And Biggz- Molesting children and killing children are both heinous evil acts. The difference between us is that we oppose them both, and you only oppose one of them. Think about that.
First, Biggz, please stop the ridiculous pretense that you are not trying to “take shots” at the Catholic Church. You do almost nothing here but bash the Catholic Church (when you’re not bashing pro-lifers, that is).
Second, no it has never been considered OK in the Catholic Church for priests to molest young people. That is why the Church has had rules in place literally for centuries about ousting priests who do this. Unfortunately in the 60’s and 70’s, many bishops ignored these rules in favor of therapy, etc., which is how the huge explosion in molestation cases came about. Things are different now. The Vatican came out with even more stringent regulations jut the other day.
Third, there is no such thing in the Catholic Church as “defrocking.” I don’t believe that term is even recognized in canon law. You mean laicization of priests. A large number of have been laicized for this over the years. I don’t know the exact statistics. You might spend some time with the two-part John Jay report on sexual abuse, which deals with cases in the United States. Google it. It might have what you’re looking for.
I’m saying this because having to look for information for yourself might actually force some facts into your ill-informed brain. You might want to check that your mouth is at least semi-engaged with your brain before talking nonsense about the Church next time.
Biggz, Just out of curiosity how many abortionists have been jailed because of molesting, sodomizing and or murdering children and women? I am just wondering what the total number is worldwide.
I am not trying to take shots at Planned Parenthood, I am just wondering what the actual numbers are?
I have yet to see one priest go to prison for their crimes. Am I mistaken? Has anyone from the Catholic Church been sent to prison for their crimes against children?
Also, what help can you offer a 17yo girl who is pregnant but does not want to be pregnant or go through childbirth? Can you give her an answer that is better than “Sorry here are some diapers…”
Every time I bring up these two questions you all dodge them. Please answer me.
Prax – No I have never heard a story about any abortion provider molesting, sodomizing, or murdering children. Most are parents who go to church like Dr. Tiller.
I answered you on the Doug Joan animated thread where you originally asked that question, Biggz.
“I have yet to see one priest go to prison for their crimes. Am I mistaken? Has anyone from the Catholic Church been sent to prison for their crimes against children?”
Yes, many have
Father Geogan was sent to prison and beatened to death.
articles.cnn.com/2003-08-24/us/geoghan_1_joseph-l-druce-worcester-county-district-attorney-defrocked-roman-catholic-priest?_s=PM:US
“truthseeker, a priest could support Obama despite his views on abortion.”
Your right Hal, even here in Boston, Cardinal Sean O’Malley’s lead people is the archdiocese are big contributors to the Obama campaign. Cardinal Omalley doesn’t seem to care at all…
Also, what help can you offer a 17yo girl who is pregnant but does not want to be pregnant or go through childbirth? Can you give her an answer that is better than “Sorry here are some diapers…”
I would sing her a little song that I’ve sung to my own teens when they want me to save them from something they got themselves into:
You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
But if you try sometimes well you just might find
You get what you need
Then I’d tell her my story and add, “Congratulations, here are some diapers.”
I have yet to see one priest go to prison for their crimes. Am I mistaken? Has anyone from the Catholic Church been sent to prison for their crimes against children?
Yes, at least one did. (Has this become your life’s work?) A very quick Google search will give you your answer. I’d rather not comment on his name here.
Also, what help can you offer a 17yo girl who is pregnant but does not want to be pregnant or go through childbirth? Can you give her an answer that is better than “Sorry here are some diapers…”
Unless you are suffering from amnesia, you know this has been answered over and over.
Call five Catholic parishes and they will give you at least five different options. Call five CPC’s. Call Catholic Charities.
Every time I bring up these two questions you all dodge them. Please answer me.
You can’t say that now.
Praxedes,
Ha! That’s great. If it were MY daughter, I’d do the same. I should have mentioned this to Biggz…. I’d offer her (the 17yo) a lifetime of prayers.
Biggz –
I cringe at even wasting my breath to respond because it’s clear your heart is hardened because of some past hurt that you feel was done to you personally by someone “representing” the Catholic Church. I will, however, keep praying for your conversion.
To answer your question about helping a 17 year old facing a pregnancy – I would first give her a big, fat hug and tell her to take a deep breath and try not to plan the rest of life before she figures out the next few days/weeks. I would then explain to her what I DID when I was faced with a pregnancy at 19 – freshman in college and dating a zero. My life was not defined by those 9 months – they still aren’t. This is because I have no regrets because I carried my baby to term and placed him for adoption. With abortion there is ALWAYS regret – I don’t care what womyn say and I don’t care what PP says and I don’t care what people that have had one or multiple abortions say – there is ALWAYS regret at some point. This regret may take place immediately or it may take place later (perhaps in adulthood when one realizes that they are unable to have children and they aborted the one they could have) No one that has had an abortion ever does it with a smile and a skip and why is that? Because it’s permanent – it’s forever - there’s no turning back from that decision. There is healing and forgiveness and redemption but there is never a chance to undo it.
I would then get her in touch with a career counselor (there are people that do this for no cost) I would get her pre-natal vitamins, I would get her in touch with a loving pregnancy care center that could help her with education and options counseling (like adoption) I would then do what I could to help her in telling her family and then we’d walk through the next process. That’s what I would do to START.
Does this answer your question, Biggz? Tell me, Biggz, what would YOU do to help her?
Well As I stated on the other thread, I would offer her options that would not affect her life or future plans in any way. I would offer her several option that would make so she would not have to go through pregnancy or childbirth and her life could go back to the way it was before she found out she was pregnant. I would literally say “take these two pills and go back to your life like nothing every happened.” Also I can offer her choices on how to not get pregnant until she wants to be.
This is why abortion will always be legal in America, because you guys can offer no alternative except “Sorry you are a mom, live with it sinner.”
I would offer her options that would not affect her life or future plans in any way. I would offer her several option that would make so she would not have to go through pregnancy or childbirth and her life could go back to the way it was before she found out she was pregnant. I would literally say “take these two pills and go back to your life like nothing every happened.” Also I can offer her choices on how to not get pregnant until she wants to be. This is why abortion will always be legal in America, because you guys can offer no alternative except “Sorry you are a mom, live with it sinner.”
Sigh. Biggz, I know you think your answer is “compassionate,” but it is the opposite of that. You can’t give a pregnant woman two pills and reverse what happened, or make things the way they were before she was pregnant. Because if she is pregnant, she already has a child, she is a mother. If she takes the pills, she is the mother of a dead child that she killed.
Things are never going to be the same for her because of that. Is that really so difficult to understand?
You might sneer about sin, but think about this: the choices a girl or woman (or a man) make about sex as about many things, are often irrevocable. They can change her life permanently for better or worse. There will not be a perfect way out that changes nothing. None. Zip. Nada. Keeping a baby you’re not ready for or giving him or her up for adoption may be a difficult or heart-wrenching choice. But abortion is always the wrong choice. In the end, there is simply no way of avoiding the difficulties when you make the wrong choice. There is no compassionate way of dealing with reality that ignores reality.
That is why we keep saying that sex is not a game, a joke, a toy or a recreation; it is nothing to take lightly. That is why it belongs in marriage and frowned on outside of it. What we should be doing is discouraging young people in schools at ALL COSTS from having sex; not encouraging it like Planned Parenthood does. That is the way to stop a lot of heartbreak.
About the priestly abuse debate — interesting how you quickly shifted your ground from “why are they not defrocked” to “why are they not in jail”? Many of them are. In the cases where they aren’t, you might try blaming the police and justice system. Many of the famous cases in the news this past year or two were of cases (like the Fr. Murphy case) where the police knew all along about the abuser and did nothing. Don’t blame everything on the Church.
Well we could offer her several methods of stopping her pregnancy so she would not have to go through childbirth. Also we can offer her several methods of birth control so she is not caught off guard by pregnancy in the future. We can offer her two pills that will allow her to continue living her life the exact same way as she was before she found out she was pregnant. Also we can offer her financial help and counseling if she would like to have the baby. We can offer her everything you guys offer plus a few more options to consider that you guys don’t offer. Planned Parenthood is just a CPC with way more options available to its clients. There is nothing you can get at a CPC that you can’t get from Planned Parenthood and unlike CPC’s Planned Parenthood has actual trained medical staff like certified doctors and nurses on the premises.
Lori – The Catholic Church covered up the abuse for over 40 years… That’s where the blame starts. You are blind if you cannot see that. I refuse to take shame from a organization that is so shameful itself.
I know a lot of women who have abortions, especially the morning after pill, which never felt a thing. There was no depression and disruption to their daily lives. In short they took the pills and went back to living their lives the way they see fit. Like I said this country is majority Pro-Choice because so many women have had abortions and had no side effects or regret. For those that do there is counseling to help them come to terms with the decision that they made.
Jacqueline ???? I never said anything about Lauren – I said “I” as in me, myself and I. I did address Lauren because she made the statement” Of course he will continue to sin. He supports abortion” We ALL do … and continue to … I am hardly high and mighty, please, Jacqueline. I am far, far from that … I sin as we all do . . .
Sydney -you want to bet that the Baptist church throws out of ministry those who sin? Let me tell you about my friend, whose father was and is currently a Baptist minister who molested her – incest – for years. I am not saying that any man should molest any person – but I don’t think one needs to take the position that the Baptist church tosses those who are ministers out, who sin.
Cardinal George has made a decision based on his conversations with Fr. Pfleger – and here the commentators are judging Cardinal George’s decision.
Lauren, do you know what the conversation was between Fr. Pfleger and the Cardinal? Was it about abortion? When you find out, let me know.
Biggz –
You mean to tell me that you (and, by proxy, PP) actually take the time to do post-abortion counseling? Do you/they call the victims, er clients, and ask them how they are feeling? Do you/they offer them continuing support days, weeks, months, years later if, gasp, they do have regret (and they do AND they will) from the abortion. How do you know so many women that have had abortions? I can honestly tell you, in my 40 years on this planet, it’s not normally a subject that is readily brought up and so I, quite honestly, don’t believe you when you say you know “a lot of women that have had abortions” – you’ve read blogs, you’ve listened to the propaganda that PP puts out, and you’ve been bullied by womyn-libbers that have lied and lied and lied about abortion being simply about taking a few pills and carrying on with their lives. Abortion is a multi-million dollar industry and it just wouldn’t be good marketing for them to even hint that there will be regret (emotional, physical, spiritual) after an abortion. They’re crafty and, by the way, The Women’s Care Center, which has 10 pregnancy centers at this moment, does indeed have medically licensed people on staff that give ultrasounds and even provide pre-natal care. Check youtube for a few quaint videos of the type of staff that PP hires – real gems!
Like I said this country is majority Pro-Choice because so many women have had abortions and had no side effects or regret. For those that do there is counseling to help them come to terms with the decision that they made.
Cold comfort, Bigzz. Why not ask Carla and other post-abortive women here if they’d rather have counseling or not had their baby aborted to begin with?
Lee,
Don’t be disingenuous. It’s unbecoming.
Jacqueline – I don’t understand your character assassination of me – but that is on you, not me. Can’t help you – sorry. I did not attack Lauren and will not attack you.
Come to terms with the decision they’ve made to have their own child killed via abortion.
So what do you offer women who finally come out of denial of their child’s death and are drinking, using drugs, struggling with nightmares, suicidal thoughts and attempts? How do you help her come to terms with the FACT that her child died?
But WHY in the world would a woman have to come to terms with a simple medical procedure anyway? I mean it’s just like having a tooth pulled, right?
Huh, Biggz? You can’t have it both ways.
Carla – I would say that you are talking about women who already have emotional problem and an abortion is a trigger not a cause.
Some women “like some of the stories you have pointed me to” are women who need attention. In some cases it was this need of attention that led to them being pregnant in the first place. It’s funny you can always tell which women need attention because they take the most offence to someone pointing it out. I think a lot of the women on this blog are seriously damaged and looking to point their guilt of a procedure that they themselves choose to have at someone else.
Women are emotional creatures and some are stronger than others. There are quite a few scorned women on this blog looking to take their anger out on other women who after having the same procedure in their own lives now feel it necessary to shame other women for doing the same thing. They have somehow risen above their feelings of guilt and shame of their own by projecting it onto other women who disagree with them about feeling shamed or guilty at all.
Carla – There is counseling available for many operations. My father went through counseling for all three of his cancer surgeries. My uncle had counseling after his quad-bypass. There is a whole host of counseling options for anyone in almost any kind of issue they maybe having. With abortion it is the emotional state of women we are talking about. It is the same as having a miscarriage chemically in the brain if the pregnancy is out of the first couple weeks. Most women who take morning after pills do not suffer the same emotional/chemical imbalance because there has not been enough time for the brain to change chemically. Planned Parenthood offers referrals to counseling, adoptions services, and even parenting classes. The only place they will not refer to is a CPC because they give out medically false and politically bias information.
Please stop projecting your perceived guilt onto other women because you regret the decision that YOU made for YOURSELF and YOUR FAMILY. Take responsibility for your own actions and decisions. Nobody made you do it no matter what the circumstances were. If you didn’t want an abortion then all you had to do was say no. No one tied you down, no one drugged you, you walked in under your own power and signed the dotted line. You could have turned around anytime you wanted, but you did not so please take responsibility for your decisions.
I am always amused when people have to turn to personal attacks when they are unsuccessful at countering my message.
Abortion hurts women. Abortion hurt me and killed my daughter. Here’s a tip, Biggz. When a woman tells you how abortion hurt her, ACCEPT IT. :) The guilt and the shame are gone. I have been set free. Free to tell my story and let others know that abortion isn’t simple, quick, painless or safe.
You would be hard pressed to find any posting of mine where I have not taken responsibility. I was there. I own it. I live with it. I paid for the death of my daughter. And I didn’t sign anything.
I love it when folks tell me what my abortion was like for me or how my recovery from it has gone. Yes. Tell me what I should have or could have done or how I should feel or not feel. Cause you were there right?
Whatever, Biggz.
If you are reading Jill’s blog and are struggling after your abortion there is help and hope and healing for you!!
Please call the National Helpline for Abortion Recovery
1-866-482-LIFE
or you can find a Rachel’s Vineyard Retreat near you
http://www.rachelsvineyard.org
Your nearest CPC may have abortion recovery as well.
You can also get in touch with me here
carla@jillstanek.com
(*slight clearing of throat*) Should I pull out the “please don’t feed the trolls” sign, again? :)
PALADIN!!!
See? You haven’t been around much to post the sign and well I need a gentle reminder now and again. :)
:) Don’t we all…?
I’m getting within sight of the end of the school year, so my “lurk-dom” might lighten up a bit, soon. I’m re-painting my “troll” signs and sharpening my sword, in the odd free moments…
(You’re still awesome, BTW, Carla! You, and that conspiracy-worthy-photogenic family of yours… ;) )
:)
Thank you, Paladin!!
I will take heed of the sign once again!!
Yeah. Just like I got pregnant “on purpose” to “keep a man” when I struggled through hell with my ex about whether or not to have our daughter killed in an abortion, and how obviously devastating her birth was to myself and my body. I love it when pro-abortionists tell us the how’s/why’s of our own lives. 9_9
Also, HI PALADIN!!! ^_^
:) :) Xalisae!! A hearty and heart-felt hello to you, too!!
Seriously… I think it’s time for the Jill Stanek “Wisconsin lurker-and-non-lurker barbecue”…! It’s not as if we’re lacking numbers of potential participants, or anything…
Just like I got pregnant “on purpose” to “keep a man” when I struggled through hell with my ex about whether or not to have our daughter killed in an abortion, and how obviously devastating her birth was to myself and my body. I love it when pro-abortionists tell us the how’s/why’s of our own lives.
Well sure, Xalisae, because of course you know better, there, than other people, and what you describe is generalizing from the particular, in the first place. But pro-lifers are often wont to do it too.
I certainly believe your experience as you tell it, and the same for Carla and others. Yet when a woman says that on balance she doesn’t regret having an abortion, that abortion was the right choice for her, or that she doesn’t regret it at all, it’s common for some pro-lifers to act like that cannot be the case. Come on….
(*sigh*) Part of me would really like to answer you, Doug… but the probable benefit-to-frustration ratio isn’t nearly high enough. If I could rely on you taking logical points and responding logically (rather than spinning rhetorical wheels in canard-laden mud), I’d be willing to try, even now.
In the meantime, perhaps I could offer you what I offer most people to whom I speak on points of logic: “Question your starting assumptions.”
Great idea, Paladin! We should get Jill in on it and meet up in Chicago! ^_^
she doesn’t regret having an abortion, that abortion was the right choice for her, or that she doesn’t regret it at all, it’s common for some pro-lifers to act like that cannot be the case. Come on….
Not at all. People are capable of all sorts of horrors without batting an eye. Most are involved in a great deal of self-deception though as to what/who those human beings they’ve killed/had killed actually are, and this facilitates such behavior, as it has throughout human history.
Doug- I’m with you (only with an eternal perspective and an understanding of truth). I can believe a woman who says that she doesn’t regret her abortion because people can be that depraved. Now, I don’t believe it could ever be the “right” choice for anyone, because it kills and child and deprives that mother of something more priceless than whatever she wants that she has chosen over her baby. But I do believe that women can feel no regret over killing their babies and think that it was a good decision. They are wrong, but I think they can truly think this.
After all, there are unrepentant rapists, murderers and thieves in this world that feel better off for their crimes against humanity. They did it for themselves, certainly not their victims, and they gained gratification or wealth from it. Now, my eternal perspective and understanding of truth says that they ARE NOT better off, that they have damaged and stolen from themselves immensely no matter what they supposedly “gained”- That’s the irony of selfishness- things done for self at the expense of others rarely benefit the selfish in the long run. And eternally, justice is done and all wrong is made right- so even people that live lavish, indulged lifestyles on Earth end up justly attended to after death.
So those women that claim that they don’t regret an abortion, that abortion was the right choice for them- they actually believe it because they are too foolish to see what they’ve lost. But from an eternal perspective, it’s important to tell them that failure to be forgiven for what they’ve done before they suffer forever on the other side, especially when forgiveness can mean reunion with their child and not eternal damnation.
I can even take an eternal perspective out of it and just make a temporal argument that destroying your priceless, irreplaceable child in exchange for a few years of not having to care for anyone but yourself/pursue dreams is a bad trade. A person is worse off for having lost something she can never replace in exchange for anything she may gain. Those who say, “I will abort this baby I made in college with a stranger in exchange for having a baby later with a man I marry after I have a degree” fail to note that IT IS NOT THE SAME BABY. That baby aborted is gone. Having another baby later in different circumstances doesn’t replace him. In short, these women can never know what they missed out on.
Hm. I see your point, Jacqueline… though I’ve watched/heard many unrepentant post-abortion women (and unrepentant grave sinners of many stripes) a bit, and listened to what they say; and the “warp-age” in their personalities is cringe-worthily and painfully obvious. They might possibly be unaware of this psychological “withering” on the highest of the levels of consciousness… but I have a somewhat difficult time believing that their lives are all a bed of roses. Even the ones who publicly declare their “fun and frolic, peace and cheer” lifestyles (and perhaps *especially* those) usually leave me with the thought, “methinks she doth protest (or party/yell/cheer/celebrate) too much”.
Here’s a rather powerful litmus test: how do these “peaceful, well-adjusted, unrepentant pro-abortion women (or men)” handle prolonged periods of true silence? Not well, I’d wager. When the noise with which you surround (and distract and self-medicate) yourself is removed, the molten lava of their soul, just under the surface, has a tendency to erupt… sometimes spectacularly.
Yeah. I had to wonder about a post-abortive grown adult who was cheering about taking a trip to Disneyland. Really? Disneyland?
Part of me would really like to answer you, Doug… but the probable benefit-to-frustration ratio isn’t nearly high enough. If I could rely on you taking logical points and responding logically (rather than spinning rhetorical wheels in canard-laden mud), I’d be willing to try, even now.
In the meantime, perhaps I could offer you what I offer most people to whom I speak on points of logic: “Question your starting assumptions.”
Paladin, I think that’s the best place to start – we all make unprovable assumptions, and it’s where the assumptions diverge that the arguing begins.
she doesn’t regret having an abortion, that abortion was the right choice for her, or that she doesn’t regret it at all, it’s common for some pro-lifers to act like that cannot be the case. Come on….
Xalisae: Not at all. People are capable of all sorts of horrors without batting an eye. Most are involved in a great deal of self-deception though as to what/who those human beings they’ve killed/had killed actually are, and this facilitates such behavior, as it has throughout human history.
The reality of the unborn isn’t the issue here, and I agree with you that they are living human beings and that they die in an abortion. But the “horror” and your take on it are your feelings, and it’s still the same thing – you’re projecting them onto other women, just as some people might portray your experience in error.
Jaqueline, you’re also using your take on the whole issue and proceeding as if it necessarily applies to other women, when the truth is that it does not, necessarily. If everybody believed as you do, from the get-go, there wouldn’t be the debate that there is.
Your experience and beliefs won’t necessarily be shared by another woman, and of course vice-versa.
I do think it’s a valid point about how the woman feels later on, as opposed to soon after having an abortion. It’d be interesting to see a study on just that.
The reality of the unborn isn’t the issue here, and I agree with you that they are living human beings and that they die in an abortion. But the “horror” and your take on it are your feelings, and it’s still the same thing – you’re projecting them onto other women, just as some people might portray hour experience in error.
Whoa- you agree that the unborn are living human beings and they die in an abortion- how can coming to this realization not result in horror? Unless of course, we are dealing with a depraved person who has no regard for other people. Your suggesting that women who react in a normal, healthy, logical fashion to an abortion are projecting when we expect other people to react in a normal, healthy, logical fashion? How should we respond to people who lose loved ones to cancer? I have, and when I hear that someone else has, I remember that grief, assume they must be grieving as I was and offer to comfort them. And I “projecting” or am I compassionate? What Carla does is the utmost of compassion, because if women realize it or not, they need healing and redemption, no matter how much they supposedly gained in killing their child. The reality of the unborn is THE issue, because if they were removing an appendix, there would be nothing to mourn.
This begs a more important question: How can you “agree with you that they are living human beings and that they die in an abortion” and still support abortion without admitting that you are depraved yourself? You admit you support women killing human beings. How can this ever be justified?
This begs a more important question: How can you “agree with you that they are living human beings and that they die in an abortion” and still support abortion without admitting that you are depraved yourself? You admit you support women killing human beings. How can this ever be justified?
Not JUST “human beings”, but living human beings who are their biological children, no less. Well-stated, Jacqueline, and I’ve been wondering this same thing myself, about many others besides Doug.
Doug, it doesn’t matter what anyone “believes.” The truth is objective and exists beyond my desires or comprehension. The truth applies to EVERYONE whether they believe it or not. Case in point: You can believe that gravity is a myth and that you can step off a cliff and float safely above the earth- but since gravity is not a myth, you will be seriously injured, likely die. As someone who cares for you, I won’t just “accept that you don’t believe as I do” and let you plummet to your death. I will explain that every action has a reaction, consequences and that these consequences won’t give you what you want.
I don’t decide what’s true, I just recognize it. There will always be debates about things with one party saying the earth is flat and another saying it’s round. Someone is right and someone is wrong. NAMBLA insists that molestation is pleasurable and healthy for young boys- but they are wrong. With consequences so dire, we can’t merely say, “to each his own”, especially when we are talking about children.
X- Doug is intellectually honest enough not to defy physics. After all, no human being has ever given birth to anything but a human being, the last time I checked. Human beings don’t bear and birth goats, puppies or dolphins, and the little heart that stops beating is the baby’s heart. This isn’t rocket science.
So if he has no energy to delude himself into defying science and logic, the only way abortions are justified (i.e. It’s not a human!), then why does he have the energy to make arguments in favor of killing human beings.
This sounds like someone who “wants” to be pro-choice for whatever reasons, but has simply thought about this issue too much. You are either pro-life, Doug, or you are a self-admitted supporter of child killing. Pick one.
Jacqueline: Whoa- you agree that the unborn are living human beings and they die in an abortion- how can coming to this realization not result in horror?
My point is that it’s a greater horror to take away the freedom that women now have. Miscarriages – which have the same unborn life ending – happen all the time, and while I grant that it can be incredibly sad for a family that wants to have the baby, I see no comparable “horror,” there, on a societal scale, nor with abortion, compared to us denying the ethical consideration of the woman
Doug, it doesn’t matter what anyone “believes.” The truth is objective and exists beyond my desires or comprehension. The truth applies to EVERYONE whether they believe it or not. Case in point: You can believe that gravity is a myth and that you can step off a cliff and float safely above the earth- but since gravity is not a myth, you will be seriously injured, likely die. As someone who cares for you, I won’t just “accept that you don’t believe as I do” and let you plummet to your death. I will explain that every action has a reaction, consequences and that these consequences won’t give you what you want.
Jacqueline, well yeah, when it comes to the abortion argument, it definitely matters what people believe.
Yes, there is external physical reality, such as gravity, energy, matter, etc. They are there whether anybody is aware of them or not. Morality is a different deal. Even if we postulate the existence of a God or gods, or other “higher beings” than us earthly humans, while they too may have their moral opinions, that is not the same as physical reality, which is external, while opinions are internal to the mind that holds them.
What goes on within the abortion debate is that different people have and give their opinions. Each of us, here, has our say, but that saying – regardless of anything we might ascribe it to – is never “objective” since it’s subjective to the person doing it, nor is it external to them, nor “absolute.”
Jacqueline: the only way abortions are justified (i.e. It’s not a human!), then why does he have the energy to make arguments in favor of killing human beings.
No, “it’s not a human” is not the only reason. Huge numbers of people acknowlege that “human being” applies, while valuing the liberty of the women more than the fact that not every pregnancy is continued, by miscarriange or by conscious choice.
____
This sounds like someone who “wants” to be pro-choice for whatever reasons, but has simply thought about this issue too much. You are either pro-life, Doug, or you are a self-admitted supporter of child killing. Pick one.
No, not at all. You are making a subjective, emotional argument, and while that’s all fine and good, in no way will it necessarily be agreed-to by other people, nor should it be, necessarily (for at the least you are entirely bypassing the woman). “Child” or not is entirely subjective, from the get-go.
If I’m intellectually honest enough not to defy physics (nor to confuse physical reality with a mind’s opinion), how about you be honest enough not to insist that subjective opinion is anything more than just that?
My point is that it’s a greater horror to take away the freedom that women now have.
Doug believes it is “freedom” to kill one’s developing child.
Doug believes this because Doug does not believe developing children have equal instrinsic worth to their mothers. Because human worth is apparently deemed by other, more subjective factors such as wantedness, size, level of development, and whether they contribute to society or not.
this is the second thread from the second person trying to equivocate miscarriage to abortion. Do you guys send out memos on your Argument of the Day or something?
Any rational thinking person can comprehend the difference between an abortion and a miscarriage, Doug. You can comprehend that one is the intentional killing of a human being by his/her mother and the other is a natural death due to sickness of some sort. It’s the difference between a mother stabbing her toddler to death and that toddler dying of leukemia. BIG. FREAKING. DIFFERENCE.
“Child” or not is entirely subjective, from the get-go.
No it’s not. Is he/she a human being? Do they share the genetic pattern consistent with one who would be the child of the pregnant woman? If so, then they are that woman’s child, no two ways about it.
Doug believes this because Doug does not believe developing children have equal instrinsic worth to their mothers. Because human worth is apparently deemed by other, more subjective factors such as wantedness, size, level of development, and whether they contribute to society or not.
Kel, “child” is no more of an argument than is “not a child.”
What do you think “worth” is? Where do you think it comes from? If you think it comes from God, okay – we don’t agree on everything there but that’s easy to understand anyway – it’s still a concept of the mind, it would be God’s thoughts, God’s opinion. That’s really all I’m saying – that the worth, the value, all the “shoulds” and “should nots” and the good/bad/right/wrong of the moral realm are concepts of the mind.
No, the unborn do not all have the same value to the pregnant women. This is a given.
No, Doug, it’s not a “given.” You’ve just reinforced exactly what I said. Thanks.
this is the second thread from the second person trying to equivocate miscarriage to abortion. Do you guys send out memos on your Argument of the Day or something?
Ha! Pretty good, Xalisae.
____
Any rational thinking person can comprehend the difference between an abortion and a miscarriage, Doug. You can comprehend that one is the intentional killing of a human being by his/her mother and the other is a natural death due to sickness of some sort. It’s the difference between a mother stabbing her toddler to death and that toddler dying of leukemia. BIG. FREAKING. DIFFERENCE.
I wasn’t trying to equivocate miscarriage and abortion. Granted, there are some differences. There are also some similarities, and those are what I was talking about. What I am saying is there is some effect on society from them both, and there would be some effect on society were we to take away the freedom that women currently have in the matter. I see the later as being worse than allowing women to end unwanted pregnancies (to a point in gestation).
Not saying that “an abortion is nothing” nor that a miscarraige is. There is often a big difference for the woman involved, however. Granted that a miscarriage can be a terribly sad thing. An abortion is often not that way. With such an abortion, it’s your opinion against that of the pregnant woman, and I think she is the one who should be allowed to decide, not you – by extention not the rest of us who might seek to bring legal force against her.
Doug, absolutes are not “concepts” of the mind. Human beings don’t have value because other human beings say so. It’s not a “market value”- it’s an intrinsic value. Let me show you: Imagine there was a homeless man that did nothing but search for cigarette butts to smoke, panhandle, spend the money on booze, etc. Sometimes he’d drunkenly wander into the streets, causing people to swerve and nearly hit other pedestrians. No one wants him around! No one loves him. Many would be better off and relieved if he disappeared from the street corner. Since value is not innate, can I then kidnap him, vivisect him for his fully-functioning organs to save the lives of good, productive people who are very loved and wanted? I hope to God you say no. Even if this man has no value to anyone, even himself, he is still a human being with the right to live.
People all the time vivisect their babies in the womb because they don’t have value TO THEM. But to 10 million infertile couples, that child has priceless value. Even if that child had no value to anyone, like the homeless man, that child is a human being with a right to live.
Do you not see the danger of your amorphous moral ambiguity? What if everyone on the planet decided that Doug had no value and wanted to dismember you? Would that be okay?
No, Doug, it’s not a “given.”
Kel, here is what I said: “No, the unborn do not all have the same value to the pregnant women. This is a given.”
It most certainly is a given. In no way do all women see the unborn the same way. It sounds to me like you are postulating some valuation that completely ignores what the woman thinks, and if so then you are talking about something which cannot be proven to be anything more than imaginary. Meanwhile, the woman’s feelings are undeniably there.
“Child” or not is entirely subjective, from the get-go.
No it’s not. Is he/she a human being? Do they share the genetic pattern consistent with one who would be the child of the pregnant woman? If so, then they are that woman’s child, no two ways about it.
X, that is confusing biological reality – and granted that the genetic identities are just as you say – with a stage in development, which is a different thing. “Child” is commonly applied after birth, perhaps even some time after birth, as well as applied before birth and even at conception by some people. It’s the same as with “baby.”
Sorry, Doug. I read your comment as “same value AS the pregnant women.”
Regardless, you are claiming that the fetus only has value if the pregnant woman says the fetus has value.
Doug,
Something you can bank on is that people are fools and don’t know a good thing when they see it. People can be evil, too. Most of the things I treasure most were thrown away by fools and abused by evil people. My goddaughters, the most priceless, precious, beautiful, wonderful things ever were abused, molested and thrown away by their mother- twice. I would give anything to be their adoptive mother, to give my life for them, but the law favors the fools, so until I get my miracle, all I can do is love them as much as the fools let me see them.
My dog, Daisy- she was beaten, abused and thrown out to wander until she died. Luckily the pound stumbled across her, wonderful people rescued her and now she’s asleep at my feet. I adore her. She is the sweetest thing that ever happened to me- and some fools bred her over and over again, even when she wasn’t healed, hit her in the head causing permanent damage and when she got too old to make them more money, threw her out to die. I would give anything for those first 6 years of her life to have been with me. I would love 6 more years with her as it is. But nope- human beings are evil and they are fools.
A woman who has a priceless child within her but chooses to kill that child is a fool. She’s choosing the wrong thing. Any “benefits” she gets from not carrying that child is not worth the loss of that child to her and to the world. Any reason a woman gives to have an abortion is what she’s trading her child for and none of those things are as valuable as her son or daughter is. She’s a fool and is doing the ultimate evil.
See, value exists whether people recognize it or not. People too foolish to see treasure in front of them does not make a good case for throwing away something that could never be recreated. Human beings are the greatest art form that exists. There is nothing truly priceless but a human.
Doug, absolutes are not “concepts” of the mind.
Jacqueline, when it comes to morality and other things not of physical or logical reality – things that are internal to the mind rather than external to it, then oh yes they are.
_____
Human beings don’t have value because other human beings say so. It’s not a “market value”- it’s an intrinsic value. Let me show you: Imagine there was a homeless man that did nothing but search for cigarette butts to smoke, panhandle, spend the money on booze, etc. Sometimes he’d drunkenly wander into the streets, causing people to swerve and nearly hit other pedestrians. No one wants him around! No one loves him. Many would be better off and relieved if he disappeared from the street corner. Since value is not innate, can I then kidnap him, vivisect him for his fully-functioning organs to save the lives of good, productive people who are very loved and wanted? I hope to God you say no. Even if this man has no value to anyone, even himself, he is still a human being with the right to live.
You can’t kidnap him because society says so. It’s a “saying” right there, just as you’re having your say on the value of the unborn. There is no proof of any “intrinsic value – this is a construct behind which there is nothing more than some people taking it on faith. Now, if society would say different, then you could kidnap him without legal penalty.
_____
People all the time vivisect their babies in the womb because they don’t have value TO THEM. But to 10 million infertile couples, that child has priceless value. Even if that child had no value to anyone, like the homeless man, that child is a human being with a right to live.
I fully agree that others – you included – value the unborn positively. Since we aren’t talking about you being pregnant, and in this case it would be a woman who didn’t want to be pregnant, then I’m going to go with her wishes over yours and the infertile couples. Sure, they might like to adopt a baby, but she does not owe them that baby to the extent that we should legally compel her against her desires.
____
Do you not see the danger of your amorphous moral ambiguity? What if everyone on the planet decided that Doug had no value and wanted to dismember you? Would that be okay?
In the opinion of the “everyone” you mention, yeah, it would be. But what, really, is the argument for that? If I was inside the body of a person, it would be a whole different deal. You can bring up an unlimited number of such hypotheticals, but where would be the ethical importance to a society that would equal the weight we give to freedom and personal liberty?
It’s not “moral ambiguity,” it’s saying that being inside the body of the woman makes a difference. And it’s always been that way – even when abortion was illegal, it was not that the unborn had the right to life – all it took was the say-so of 2 doctors and an abortion could be had.
It most certainly is a given. In no way do all women see the unborn the same way.
How people “see” things is not an accurate estimation of what it truly is. Like a charming conman can make you feel good about yourself and take off with your life savings, whereas someone that gives you the creeps and is socially awkward could be the one that gives you a kidney when you need it. Things can look good and be bad, like a tomato that will give it’s consumer botulism. Things can look bad and be good, like a spiny pineapple.
How people “see” things should not be a litmus test for what human gets to live and what human has to die.
you are claiming that the fetus only has value if the pregnant woman says the fetus has value.
Kel, I’m saying that her opinion matters the most since she’s the one who’s pregnant. No question that you may disagree with her.
You can’t kidnap him because society says so.
What if society didn’t say so? What if society decided, like it has a million times for a million years that it’s okay to kidnap and enslave him, and as my property, I vivisect him. WOULD THAT BE OKAY?
And for the record, if society said it was okay to kill Doug, I would defend you and try to save you even though you don’t defend other human beings from a similar fate. In many ways, I think it would be poetic justice if people that cavalierly support dismembering unborn human beings lives became at the whim of another and they could see the injustice and understand how merciless have been. Kind of like “A Christmas Carol” but without the Muppets.
How people “see” things should not be a litmus test for what human gets to live and what human has to die.
Jacqueline, what beyond that can you really prove is at work?
It’s our “seeing” that determines it, as individuals, as groups, as a society. “This dude did so-and-so, so he gets the death penalty. This girl was attacking the cop with potentially deadly force, so she was shot.” Wartime, self-defense, etc. Other than that type of situation, we go with the right to life being there at birth. Whether or not you agree that it should be that way, that’s the way it is now. I grant you that it could be different, too.
And of course I’m not saying the unborn are guilty in any comparable way. There is no capacity for guilt there, in the first place. Yet with the Birth Standard in place for full rights and personhood, it’s not that as a society we’re saying that guilt is there. Rather, we’re saying that the liberty of the woman is worth enough to let her decide – in the case of the US, to a point in gestation.
See, value exists whether people recognize it or not. People too foolish to see treasure in front of them does not make a good case for throwing away something that could never be recreated. Human beings are the greatest art form that exists. There is nothing truly priceless but a human.
Jacqueline, you’re a good, kind-hearted person, I have no doubt. You realize that not everybody agrees with your beliefs, though. One can also say that “freedom is priceless.”
____
“You can’t kidnap him because society says so.”
What if society didn’t say so? What if society decided, like it has a million times for a million years that it’s okay to kidnap and enslave him, and as my property, I vivisect him. WOULD THAT BE OKAY?
As previously stated: In the opinion of society it would be. Again, the “okay” or “not okay” is always going to be in the eye of the beholder, in the mind of some entity, held as thought by “somebody.”
Yes, slavery has been legal on and off in many places on earth for a long time. And once again – what is the ethical argument than can be made for slavery that has as much weight as the ethical concern we have for the pregnant woman?
Ah, but there you go! You just demonstrated that it’s your standard that’s wishy-washy. You claim it’s the Birth Standard and then end with “to a point in gestation.” Well that’s not birth! It’s still someone not yet born. So which is it?
You’re advocating something you know to be [B.S]. Just because I see something a certain way doesn’t mean it’s true. I could see my 2-year-old godson as a fish and hold him underwater. He’d drown. Because regardless of how I see him, he’s a human. So women seeing their babies as a clump of cells, a dragon or whatever- this doesn’t change what humans truly are. How can you not believe humans deserve protection just because the very woman that chose to conceive that child decides she doesn’t want that child (circumstances that I assure you were the same when she had sex and conceived that child)? You obviously think the Birth Standard is flawed since you give pre-birth limitations. What should be the standard?
I suggest the Human Standard. If you are a human being, which you are from conception- this grants you the right to live. It’s easy to prove that human beings are human beings. Any pregnant woman is gestating a human being according to the Law of Biogenesis. It’s scientific fact. A tissue sample from that child would also show uniquely human DNA. There is no doubt here. This is the only consistent way to protect all human beings. And your example is also why I oppose the death penalty. People perceptions should not decide who dies.
Edited by moderator for profanity
Jacqueline, you’re a good, kind-hearted person, I have no doubt. You realize that not everybody agrees with your beliefs, though.
Yes, and we have established that those people are fools. They are wrong. And I would be fine with them throwing out their treasure for me to snatch up if they weren’t killing human beings. That I’m not okay with at all.
One can also say that “freedom is priceless.”
You can’t have freedom if you’re dead and in a dumpster, Doug. You have nothing, not even freedom, without the right to live. Freedom ends when other people’s rights begin. And when did having surgery to kill a baby become the litmus test for freedom? I’ve never killed a baby and I am free.
In the opinion of society it would be. Again, the “okay” or “not okay” is always going to be in the eye of the beholder, in the mind of some entity, held as thought by “somebody.”
Does society think for you, Doug? Because society is a f&^%$*# moron. Slavery is a great example. Luckily, people who think for themselves opposed slavery and it was their work that abolished it! I am one of those people. You are one of the sheeple. There is room on the other side for you. You can be a good, kind-hearted person too rather than someone that supports cutting up little babies because it’s the status quo.
Ah, but there you go! You just demonstrated that it’s your standard that’s wishy-washy. You claim it’s the Birth Standard and then end with “to a point in gestation.” Well that’s not birth! It’s still someone not yet born. So which is it?
Jacqueline, two different things. Abortion restrictions are not the same thing as attributing the right to life, i.e. even after the restrictions take effect, an abortion can be had for danger to the mother, for example.
I did say “the Birth Standard for full rights and personhood.” That is much different from having restrictions on abortion.
____
You’re advocating something you know to be bullshit.
No, it’s not that. It may not be perfect – societies and the concepts and application of laws are too complex for that, but I’m satisfied with the way things are because of my empathy for the pregnant woman, when I don’t see “anybody” there yet in the unborn, i.e. no personality, no emotion, no mental awareness, etc.
____
Just because I see something something a certain way doesn’t mean it’s true. I could see my 2 year old godson as a fish and hold him underwater. He’d drown. Because regardless of how I see him, he’s a human. So women seeing their babies as a clump of cells, a dragon or whatever- this doesn’t change what humans truly are. How can you not beleive humans deserve protection? You obviously think the Birth Standard is flawed since you give pre-birth limitations. What should be the standard?
Physical reality – where you and I are totally or close to it in agreement – isn’t the issue. When you say “what humans truly are” – I think you are not just referring to physical reality, but to your own take on valuation.
On the Birth Standard – I’m okay with it at birth. I don’t see any need to attribute personhood before that. This allows for abortions later that when the restrictions take effect if the danger to the woman is great enough. I realize that this is a very, very rare thing, too.
I’m also okay with the restrictions we have on abortion, i.e. at 24 weeks or thereabouts in most states. Around that time in gestation, I do see “somebody” starting to be there – sensation, mental awareness, emotions, etc. This is not the same thing as deeming personhood to be there on the part of the unborn, this is saying that the time to end pregnancies, if desired, is before that.
“In the opinion of society it would be. Again, the “okay” or “not okay” is always going to be in the eye of the beholder, in the mind of some entity, held as thought by “somebody.”
Does society think for you, Doug? Because society is a f&^%$*# moron. Slavery is a great example. Luckily, people who think for themselves opposed slavery and it was their work that abolished it! I am one of those people. You are one of the sheeple. There is room on the other side for you. You can be a good, kind-hearted person too rather than someone that supports cutting up little babies because it’s the status quo.
No, I won’t always agree with society, but you did ask about “What if society decided….” and then “would that be okay?”
I’m not for slavery – and my objections to that figure into me favoring the freedom that women now have in the matter of abortion.
Around that time in gestation, I do see “somebody” starting to be there
Science says that somebody was there from conception. See what I mean about what we “see” not being the standard for who lives and who dies?
Doug wrote:
I’m not for slavery – and my objections to that figure into me favoring the freedom that women now have in the matter of abortion.
I may regret asking this, but: you’ve caught my interest, here. Could you explain clearly what objections you do have to slavery, and on what grounds/principles?
Everyone opposes slavery now that it’s not the status quo. I’m sure that if it were 1860, all the pro-abortion folks would be in favor of it. Slavery was justified the same way abortion is, by legality, by stripping personhood, by calling it “pro-choice.” In fact, the abolitionists turned into the women’s movement, women who were also staunchly pro-life.
History will look back on disdain at those who supported legal abortion just as it now looks back on slavery.
Around that time in gestation, I do see “somebody” starting to be there
Science says that somebody was there from conception. See what I mean about what we “see” not being the standard for who lives and who dies?
Again, that’s two different things, Jacqueline. You are looking at it on the basis of the living, human organism being there at conception – and I agree it’s there. But I don’t see “somebody” there yet – to me that implies some mental awareness, cognizance, etc. If, after conception, no mental awareness ever developed, then I would not see “somebody” being there, just a body. Likewise, scoop out my brain but keep the body alive by pumping oxygenated blood and nutrients through it – yeah, there’d be a “human being” there, but to me, the person that I was would be long gone.
I’m not for slavery – and my objections to that figure into me favoring the freedom that women now have in the matter of abortion.
Paladin: I may regret asking this, but: you’ve caught my interest, here. Could you explain clearly what objections you do have to slavery, and on what grounds/principles?
I don’t think those who would legalize slavery or own slaves have a good enough reason. I see the liberty of the slaves as trumping the slavers’ interest. I see slavery as causing suffering, without there being anything as far as a “good” to offset that.
Jacqueline: Everyone opposes slavery now that it’s not the status quo. I’m sure that if it were 1860, all the pro-abortion folks would be in favor of it.
That’s silly.
____
Slavery was justified the same way abortion is, by legality, by stripping personhood, by calling it “pro-choice.” In fact, the abolitionists turned into the women’s movement, women who were also staunchly pro-life.
No, that’s incorrect. Personhood had never been attributed to the slaves in the US.
____
History will look back on disdain at those who supported legal abortion just as it now looks back on slavery.
That is very far-fetched. However, it may be that abortion again becomes generally illegal in the US.
Things arguing against that are that, just as the Supreme Court (and for that matter – the legislatures of most of the states) found that individual states did not have a good enough reason for having slavery legal, so was it found that the states did not have a good enough reason for having abortion be illegal.
This is due, in both cases, to a perception of individual liberty versus the interest of the state – even if it would be said to have a desire to have slavery be legal, for example. The liberty of the slaves trumped those who would keep them slaves. We don’t want to take away the freedom that those who would be slaves now have. Personally, I don’t want to take away the freedom that women now have, either.
Doug, how do you “see” someone’s mental awareness? How do we test the preborn child’s awareness?
Personally, I know my children recognized my voice when they were born. Hearing develops at about 4 months in utero. One of my sons immediately distinguished between light and dark (he would fixate on the contrast between my hair and my light clothing, shadows on the wall in comparison to light, etc.). My other kids didn’t do this. Each one of them was different. One came out looking for food, one came out sleepy and really didn’t seem to care if she ever ate, and one came out screaming. These aren’t mindless robots we’re talking about, here. Sleep patterns are often carried from womb to post-birth, as well.
I guess I’m wondering what criteria you’re looking for that would determine “mental awareness.” That’s an incredibly subjective thing. I saw personality differences in all my children immediately after birth – and the most “fiery” one was the most active in the womb, as well.
“Mental awarness” or perceived lack thereof can lead to a lot of actions, even dealing with born humans, that are downright disturbing and possibly unethical. I just don’t see how this is a good measure of humanity/personhood.
Kel, agreed that personalities start developing in the womb, and are noticeable prior to birth, many times. I also think there is a genetic component to it, too, i.e. some things are determined by the DNA. It’s not all “nurture,” there is “nature” involved too.
Brainwaves, for one thing. As gestation progresses, we see brainwaves – as we associate them with true consciousness – rather than merely as “electrical activity in the brain. Easily detectable by modern medical means. If they’re not there, they’re not there.
I’m not sure on the hearing deal – but okay, once the senses are developed enough that impulses can be sent to the brain, and once the connections are there and once the parts of the brain involved with consciousness are “up and running” enough, then I think mental awareness is there. Doesn’t have to be all the senses, but I do think there has to be some mental processing going on, not just nerve impulses being generated.
Well, Doug, brain waves have been recorded as early as 6 weeks, 2 days. http://www.ehd.org/resources_bpd_illustrated.php?page=8
I don’t think those who would legalize slavery or own slaves have a good enough reason. I see the liberty of the slaves as trumping the slavers’ interest. I see slavery as causing suffering, without there being anything as far as a “good” to offset that.
So let me get this straight- Slavery isn’t wrong insomuch as it violates human rights, but those that would violate human rights don’t have a good enough reason to violate those rights? So if I came up with a compelling reason to own a human being, that would be acceptable?
You don’t see the can of worms you open when you don’t have absolute human rights?
Kel, it says “primitive brainwaves.” Those are not what we associate with consciousness. Any electrical activity at all can be called “primitive brainwaves.” I grant you that some rudimentary activity is going on around 6 weeks – reflexive movement, after all, is seen quite early in gestation, often, and it has an electrical component, though not a conscious one.
Jacqueline: So let me get this straight- Slavery isn’t wrong insomuch as it violates human rights, but those that would violate human rights don’t have a good enough reason to violate those rights? So if I came up with a compelling reason to own a human being, that would be acceptable?
You don’t see the can of worms you open when you don’t have absolute human rights?
No, it certainly violates what I see as human rights. I definitely believe in freedom up to a point. No yelling “fire” in a movie theater, blah blah blah – again, not enough of a good reason to do so, while in general I’m still for free speech. But is it okay to say “crap,” outside. Yes, I think so, even there are those who would restrict that speech, or at least much of similar speech. I don’t agree with them, and don’t think they have a good enough reason to restrict freedom, there. Same with those who would restrict the freedom of those who would be slaves – don’t think they have a good enough reason.
If you came up with an idea for slavery that was acceptable to some entity – an individual, a group, a society, etc., then yes – it would have to be compelling in their eyes. Pretty much like anything else.
Slavery is a much different deal than the abortion issue. Slavery has been accepted in some cultures at some times, but when you say “absolute human rights,” that is a whole ‘nother thing entirely. Abortion has been both legal and illegal, but in both cases it was not that any “absolute rights” were claimed or said to be present, it was just that in the case of when abortion was illegal, that act was against the law. Not the same thing as saying that rights were there on the part of the unborn. For example, when abortion was illegal in the US, all that was needed was two doctors saying an abortion was indicated, and it could be had. Nothing about rights of the unborn involved.
The real “opening of a can of worms” would be personhood for the unborn, since then they’re still inside the body of a person. How far would we then go in controlling the behavior of the pregnant woman?
Kel, it says “primitive brainwaves.” Those are not what we associate with consciousness. Any electrical activity at all can be called “primitive brainwaves.” I grant you that some rudimentary activity is going on around 6 weeks – reflexive movement, after all, is seen quite early in gestation, often, and it has an electrical component, though not a conscious one.
Well, Doug, according to a HIGHLY anti-life website I found, “But the human part of the brain—the cortex—is not fully developed, as shown by “brain waves” on an EEG, until very late in gestation; in fact the EEG continues to change and mature into childhood.”
So. Are you sticking with “conscious brain waves” as your criteria for personhood? Because if so, you’re still in highly, highly subjective territory.
Kel, the cortex keeps developing for many years after birth. That doesn’t change the fact that true mental awareness is there for most fetuses later in gestation, tending toward the awareness that a full-term born infant has. There are the defined patterns of organized activity in the brain, then, that we associate with consciousness. Definite sensation, emotion, personality, etc., while this is not true earlier in gestation.
Sure, my criteria for personhood is subjective. It’s the same for any entity, be it the individual, group, society, etc.
Doug, who says a newborn has any more self-awareness than a fetus? They probably have the same!
I can’t remember my life before age 3. Does that mean I was not self-aware? Did I not become human till my first memories at age 3?
Hey Sydney. I don’t say that a newborn has more awareness, necessarily. In or out of the womb doesn’t affect it, as far as I know. What does matter is if it’s developed in the first place, and that takes time during gestation.
“Human” or not doesn’t really have anything to do with being conscious, self-aware, etc., per se. I fully agree that the zygote is just as “human” as you or me. For that matter, so are the egg and sperm. There is the sense of “being” that involves consciousness, as opposed to not having it, but that’s a different deal.
Before age 3, or for that matter, for any little kid, there is less self-awareness than what will almost always be there later on. And heh – no, you don’t have to have certain memories to be self-aware or human. Can’t remember some things from a couple nights ago, myself.