Stanek weekend question: Which GOP presidential candidate is strongest on the life issue?
During Thursday night’s Republican presidential debate, candidates Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann got into a couple scuffles, one involving abortion. Bachmann accused Pawlenty of using the pro-life issue to get a tax hike…
During the same debate candidate Rick Santorum eloquently explained why he opposes a rape/incest exception to abortion…
Meanwhile, an article Steve Ertelt of LifeNews.com wrote at National Review Online in March, stating Pawlenty has “done as much as or more than anyone else running to advance the pro-life cause,” also got attention during the debate. Although Pawlenty holds a rape/incest exception, he cited his accomplishments, “based on results, not rhetoric”…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT0Ic27vEA0&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
Who do you think is the strongest Republican candidate or prospective candidate on the pro-life issue?
This is also a poll question. Respond to the poll at the bottom right of the home page.
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.
who is running? I’m scared we will have 4 more years of Obama
Santorum authored the partial birth abortion ban act and led on the issue. This put the pro-life issue at the center of a national debate. It was one of the greatest things that ever happened as far as raising national awareness about the humanity of the unborn child. He openly calls out President Obama on Obama’s opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Like Sarah Palin, he has a child with a mental disability (seven kids in all). He and his wife won the Poverello Medal from the Franciscan University of Steubenville for their pro-life commitment.
This question is really a no-brainer. This is not to say that there aren’t other pro-life candidates…but Rick Santorum stands head and shoulders above the rest.
Yeah… what Lisa Graas said!
@lisa – agreed. Santorum continues to impress with the pro-life issue. Too many people are unaware of his role in ending partial-birth abortion and focus only on his endorsement of Specter.
He is responsible for the huge cultural shift we are now experiencing in the pro-life movement and I say he would be a great President. Too bad it looks like he may be getting out of the race, but I am confident he will show up again somewhere..
A couple of corrections…
First, Governor Pawlenty now only holds to the life of the mother exception, not rape and incest. From the debate Thursday night: “In terms of my personal views, the only exception I can really reconcile or justify is the life of the mother. And I would sign that bill if it came in that form as president or as governor,” he said. See http://www.lifenews.com/2011/08/12/gop-presidential-candidates-push-pro-life-themes-in-debate/
Secondly, while Bachmann claimed Pawlenty used the pro-life issue not for a tax hike but to pass a budget bill in Minnesota, she got the facts completely wrong. She falsely claimed that the bill revoked pro-life protections when it actually made Minnesota the 2nd state to have a fetal pain law. And the “special interest group” she condemned was the state’s main pro-life organization, which worked with Pawlenty to add the pro-life provision to the bill. See http://www.lifenews.com/2011/08/12/bachmann-misrepresents-pawlentys-pro-life-view-in-gop-debate/
The answer to the question is that we are fortunate to have a number of candidates who are very strongly pro-life. Pawlenty, of course, has a very lengthy pro-life record in Minnesota that has resulted in dropping abortions to historic lows. But other candidates like Bachmann, Santorum, Cain, Gingrich, and Huntsman are strongly pro-life. Paul and Romney are running as pro-lifers and, if he gets in, Perry has a strongly pro-life record.
The nominee will present a very strong contrast to Obama’s pro-abortion record and that’s great news for babies!
–Steven
If the question is about which pro-life candidate is the strongest against President Obama, again the answer is Santorum…for the following reasons.
1) He’s the polar opposite of Obama on fiscal issues, social issues and national defense.
2) His pro-dignity Fourteenth Amendment stand will appeal to minorities, particularly African-Americans. He is the candidate best able to pull minority voters away from Obama because of that.
3) He is a faithful Catholic. George Soros spent millions trying to win the Catholic vote for Kerry. He lost, so he committed to muddying up the waters on what a “real Catholic” is by putting millions into “fake Catholic” groups like Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good which convinced Catholics that it was in keeping with their faith to put life issues on the back burner. He succeeded, getting more than 50% of the Catholic vote for Obama, ensuring his election. At least 27% of voters are Catholic. That’s more than one in four. Nine of the last ten presidents were elected with 50% or more of the Catholic vote. (Gore got exactly 50% and lost the electoral college but not the plurality of actual votes cast.) Rick Santorum’s faithful Catholicism is a winning asset for him. Also, it would do wonders to help a divided Catholic Church in America return to its true values.
4) Rick Santorum doesn’t look at the issues like pieces on a chess board. He sees them all as connected, with a moral foundation of the Judeo-Christian ethic as we find in the Declaration of Independence. Every position he takes is based on that, so there will not be flip-flopping in his campaign. He’ll be solid all the way through, and strong, and no one will ever have to doubt where he stands on something. This is an important asset in winning elections.
Andrew, he is NOT getting out of the race! He was answering a hypothetical question. Don’t listen to the media. I expect Rick to place anywhere from third to fifth today in Ames and would not be a bit surprised if he came in first.
I think it is easy to forget that when Rick Santorum, well meaning as he may have been, authored and Bush signed into law the partial birth abortion ban, it was the FIRST piece of legislation that ever legalized all other abortions in the United States. The Supreme Court made an interpretation of the law-a wrong one- in Roe V. Wade. The best way to handle that was not to essentially admit the high court was right.
There is one candidate who has introduced legislation which would remove abortion from the sphere of the federal government and allow each state to vote on whether abortion should be allowed. That is Ron Paul. If Republicans in Washington had any backbone and weren’t just using abortion opponents as a way of constantly getting re-elected, we could have outlawed abortion in 2/3 of the U.S. Ron Paul is a also an OB and delivered countless babies for free because he wouldn’t accept medicaid. Could have easily informed women that abortion was a “cheaper” route. But he gave his time and money to bring babies safely into the world. That is how you lead on an issue. Rick Santorum and the others are grandstanders or mis-informed.
Rick Sentorum spoke about condemning the innocent unborn child to death but he did not speak at all about the innocent victims of rape or incest which is also rape but even worse if there is such a thing. What about the lviing death that an incest victim suffers for years, a lifetime. I once met a woman who had two children by her father. She was an alcoholic a drug addict and living with a drug dealer. Sounds like a living death. Once does not know if a fetus is conscious of the pain of its death. It probably depends on the stage of its development but the pain it suffers would not be as enduring, for a lifetime that an incest victim suffers and also that many rape victims raped by a stranger suffers yet Rick Sentorum chose not to mention that living death so his answer was not so eloquent as it avoided the real issue not just the victim he mentioned but all the victims must be considered.
No, that’s absolutely false, Billy. It was a threat to Roe.
Watch the floor debate with Barbara Boxer here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoTjb9rzyEo
Ron Paul’s position is not pro-life. Here’s why. Ron Paul’s position is the “half slave, half free” position.
http://blog.lisagraas.com/2011/08/12/america-must-not-be-half-slave-half-free-america-must-be-fully-and-authentically-free/
More here on why the “states rights” position is illegitimate.
http://blog.lisagraas.com/2011/08/12/my-take-on-the-debate-states-rights-and-the-best-tweet-ever/
Further, Ron Paul’s position on “states rights” is completely incompatible with Catholicism….so say goodbye to the Catholic vote if Ron Paul wins.
Ron Paul is the only candidate running who I could not vote for against Obama. I would write in Rick Santorum’s name if Ron Paul were the nominee. I could vote for all the others running, though.
He did mention those victims, Gene. He said we should “embrace” people who are victimized and offer them help, not victimize them again with abortion.
Ron Paul.
How does having an abortion help bring you back from a living death? I personally think it would just compound things and make it harder to deal, being raped, I would think would be the cause of a “living death” in the first place, maybe focus on the issue of stopping rape from happening in the first place by making an example out of a few rapists, not the children.
ProfGene,
The living hell of the rape/abuse victim, and subsequent substance abuse, comes from having been objectified and used as nothing more than an instrument for another’s gratification, on a good day. Delving deeper, rape is all about exerting control and dominance over another human being, often accompanied by great violence and sadistic degradation.
That’s the source of the substance abuse, of the living hell of which you speak. Aborting the child ameliorates none of that, and only intensifies the feelings of self-loathing in the mother.
On the other hand, I have spoken to several mothers who had their child who was conceived in rape, and who experienced healing from the irrepressible love and affection of the child.
One of the key voting demographics is the independent vote who support legal abortion by a remarkable 20-point margin (58 to 38 percent). So the anti-choice views of the GOP could be a turn off. The Gallup poll shows that half the country believes that abortion should be legal but limited. The numbers who identify as pro-life and pro-choice are also split. So I suspect that the more radical anti-choice candidates will do well in Iowa but in the actual primaries not so much. Santorum is seen, by many, as an extremist who is also very homophobic. While that plays well in the “family values” crowd, it’s not that popular in the greater population. I want to know how the anti-choicers feel about Romney’s flip flop on abortion.
“Aborting the child ameliorates none of that, and only intensifies the feelings of self-loathing in the mother”
And the empirical evidence for this broad brush statement is….? And did you speak to any women for whom the abortion was vital for the healing process? Again, the important thing is choice. I, personally, would never bear the child of a rapist because I would fear the genetic ramifications and having to look at the real time evidence of a real time crime. But if a woman wants to be a rapist’s baby mama, that’s fine with me.
Adoption, why not?
Santorum
It also appears that he’s quite far down in the pack so the chances aren’t good for him to be the nominee.
That’s funny because I’m convinced Santorum is going to be our next President. The media coverage on him is so bad because many of the “conservative” blogs are libertarian and because he’s the worst nightmare of the leftist media.
He just needs our help getting the message out. We can do it with blogging and twitter, but too many people want to listen to the established blogs and the leftist media.
Personally I find it a bit silly to try to argue which candidate is the “most” pro life. In my mind, either they are committed to promoting pro life issues, or they aren’t, and any other bickering is simply divisive. I have a hard time believing Romney’s sincerity on the issue, considering it is one of the many issues he has flip flopped on. As a Minnesotan pro lifer, I can vouch for Pawlenty’s strong pro life record. He got a LOT of flack for it in a very liberal state. I am not aware of anything in particular that Bachmann has done to promote pro life issues, but I know she has always stated she is pro life. However, I don’t like her trying to use the issue falsely to make someone else look bad like she did with Pawlenty. I have seen people both here and elsewhere say that people like Sarah Palin are “more” pro life than others because she has a child with downs. While I celebrate the precious life of little Trig and love that she is proud of him, I hardly think that makes her “more” pro life than other candidates who have not been blessed with a special needs child. Who are you to say that they wouldn’t do the same when faced with that opportunity? As Steven Ertelt so eloquently said, no matter who the nominee is, what a refreshing contrast to Obama in the realm of life issues!
Lisa – I find your post weird. Who cares about the “leftist” media – the folks who will be deciding the GOP nominee probably watch Fox News 8 or more hours a day…independents and lefties aren’t going to play much of a roll in the GOP nominee process.
Top three – Bachmann, Paul, Romeny. Santomum finishes in the 6-8 range. That’s my pick.
I had Pawlenty as a Governor for years. On the life issue, he was pretty good. On fiscal issues, he was a train wreck.
I should be a bit more clear – those predictions are for the straw poll tonight.
I think the nominee ends up being Romey or R Perry.
As a Democrat – I’m hoping that the nominee is Bachmann.
I think Romney has the best chance of being Obama – he has the money, and he appeals to Independents because his record is center-left (on the key issues, which I would argue that abortion isn’t one of).
Of the current field Santorum has my vote…if he can sustain his candidacy until the Illinois primary. Pawlenty is a close second because he has a record of appointing conservative justices. In the end though I think it will be Romney (and he will beat Obama) because a): he represents the least objectionable political profile to the majority of the electorate, and b) because the Republicans voting in the primaries want the candidate that can win. After the miserable failure of Obama people want a return to normalcy and Romney represents normalcy.
Obama was the hope and change messiah that ended up being a major disappointment. People want safety. They do not want someone who will lurch them into another extreme…which is the way the media will present almost any of the Repub candidates. They media cannot make the “extremist” label stick on Romney. Notice the efforts that Obama’s people are already planning in an effort to destroy Romney… they see him as the most likely and most formidable opponent.
Jerry -
Little secret for you.
It is all about the money, which Romeny has a lot of.
I’d be fine with him as an option – he knows raising taxes is sometimes the answer, and he did a good job expanding health care within his own state.
at 11:42 a.m. August 13, 2011, CC says:
“Aborting the child ameliorates none of that, and only intensifies the feelings of self-loathing in the mother”
And the empirical evidence for this broad brush statement is….?
contained in Victims and Victors.
It’s not even a contest. Santorum is the pro-life champion. He and his wife have lived their pro-life convictions with their own children, more than once. They’ve been through the hell of losing a baby, and they’ve had to fight to keep doctors from killing their daughter, Bella, because her life wasn’t supposed to be worth living. The Santorums are the real deal. They walk the talk, they live their faith, they know what they believe and who they are, they know what’s right and what’s wrong and they don’t run from any of it no matter what the media does to them. That man has moral clarity and courage, period.
SANTORUM 2012. No one else even comes close.
Santorum was bounced out of his senate seat by a tidy margin. The younger voters, many of whom watch Colbert and The Daily Show, have been made aware that Santorum is bizarre. It may not be fair but when you google “Santorum” you come up with a rather off color thing. He’s viewed as an extremist and that’s why he’s doing so poorly on national polls. His “man on dog” thing didn’t exactly score points in the reality based community. But he is Catholic (as is Gingrich) so one wonders which candidate the church is supporting.
CC, that “rather off color thing” is a vicious attack from a homosexual nutjob who wants to malign and destroy Santorum because Santorum opposes gay “marriage.” It’s way beyond “not fair.” It’s a disgusting, perverted attack that this crazy Savage guy should be criminally charged for.
rapist’s baby mama?
Seriously, CC?
Feel better after spewing that?
I was thinking about deleting that as I am horrified that you would write it and my friends who kept their babies after conceiving in rape simply do not need to read your vile crap
BUT the world should read the words of one who has so little compassion for women that have been victimized.
I, personally, would never bear the child of a rapist because I would fear the genetic ramifications
What genetic ramifications, CC? Do you think there is some sort of “rape gene” that can be passed down? Are the children of rapists genetically destined to be criminals? If that’s your thinking, it’s just ignorant prejudice.
According to CC, having a rapist as a parent = genetically having no chance. Guess those of us who are genetically damaged because we have horrible parents should go turn ourselves in for the imaginary crimes we haven’t committed.
Out of the GOP candidates, I prefer Romney. I think he is the only one with a chance of ousting Obama, and the rest are too right wing or libertarian.
Carla,
I know that CC is post-abortive, but among post-abortive women she exists in a separate class of human being.
Specifically, she barely retains any shred of humanity. Having improvised with a turkey baster, she is proud of having killed her unborn child. She is so proud, indeed, that she champions the slaughter of millions of others.
She is entirely dedicated to the slaughter of other human beings. This, you would agree, is atypical within the community of post-abortive women. It represents a spiritual and psychological malignancy, a sociopathic descent into hell.
Yes, by all means leave her heartless and cruel words up for all the world to see. She represents the very essence of the evil against which we have set ourselves. Somewhere along the way she has become that evil.
Woo-hoo! Lisa Graas, taking no prisoners.
“CC, that “rather off color thing” is a vicious attack from a homosexual nutjob who wants to malign and destroy Santorum because Santorum opposes gay “marriage.” “
That would be noted sodomite and media darling Dan Savage, who also threathened to rape Santorem
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/07/16/real-time-guests-discuss-having-violent-hate-sex-michele-bachmann-and
Santorem, Bachmann, Pawlenty, any of those candidate are good pro-lifers…
I, personally, would never bear the child of a rapist because I would fear the genetic ramifications and having to look at the real time evidence of a real time crime.
True story:
I worked at a summer farm camp this past June/July, and one of our campers, whom I will call “Mia”, was the product of a rape.
She is one of seven adopted siblings from seven different countries. Her father recounted the story of the phone call he received from the hospital four hours away that his new baby was ready to be picked up on Christmas Eve.
Mia’s Italian-American mother was fourteen at the time. She was raped by a 30 yr.-old African-American who is currently in jail.
Mia has the most beautiful chocolate skin tone, a sweet, pudgy smile, absolutely loves ducks, chickens, and horses, and can carry on quite the conversation. And she’s only seven years old!
While someone like Mia might repulse you, CC, I can tell you from personal experience that she has been a joy to our little summer camp community.
But to answer the poll question, the strongest pro-life candidate is, hands down, Rick Santorum.
Now whether he will be the next prez, that remains to be seen.
I think Texas Governor Rick perry will be the strongest pro life candidate we will have. He is very outspoken about it.
“Are the children of rapists genetically destined to be criminals? If that’s your thinking, it’s just ignorant prejudice”
You do know that a number of psychiatric disorders are hereditary. A rapist, most likely, has some serious disorders and these things can be passed down. But beyond that, a majority of Americans support abortion in cases of rape and incest. That the anti-choice movement and your church would force a woman to bear the child of a rapist strikes many Americans as barbaric. Right, abortion is barbaric, blah, blah, blah.
“While someone like Mia might repulse you, CC, I can tell you from personal experience that she has been a joy to our little summer camp community”
If and when Mia finds out that her father was a rapist she’ll probably need intensive counseling as there will be so many issues to deal with. Not every baby born of rape is happy with their lives. Not every woman wants to bear the child of a rapist and that’s why we have Plan B which, depending on the state, Catholic hospitals won’t administer to rape victims. Not every rape story works out fine despite the myths of the anti-choice movement.
It never ceases to amaze me the kind of hate which is directed towards conservative women from those who supposedly are championing women’s rights. It never fails.
I don’t want to be crass but I just hope that Marcus Bachmann takes all that, you know, rage that comes from repression and denial and brings it into the bedroom with her. I hope he f–ks her angrily because, because that’s how I would. And I’ve thought about it.
WOW! I AM FEELING SO EMPOWERED RIGHT NOW! THANKS LEFTISTS!
I think CC is angry at her mother for not aborting her, because her mother was resentful and abusive to her. I think she probably attempted to abort her child with all of that rage and hatred for her mother directed in a concentrated jab at her child. I think that is a pathetically sad way to go through one’s life. Someone like Jack, who is a beautiful and compassionate human being DESPITE such an upbringing must be like a violent assault to her every time she comes here and sees what could’ve been for her had she just ended the cycle rather than perpetuate it. I pity her.
“She represents the very essence of the evil against which we have set ourselves. Somewhere along the way she has become that evil”
Ewwww, bring on the Spanish Inquisition. The iron maiden for me. But that’s only if you capture me while I’m on my crusade to slaughter babies. LOL! If I didn’t know that Dr. Nadal was serious, I’d think that he was a writer for Comedy Central.
“I think she probably attempted to abort her child with all of that rage and hatred for her mother directed in a concentrated jab at her child”
Not at all. I just didn’t want to drop out of college in order to have the child of a total psycho-case who did, years later, commit suicide. And it’s quite possible that the “baby” didn’t implant but got flushed out in a heavy period which means, according to science, that there was no pregnancy. Golly, maybe I should have had a nice funeral for the contents of that menses. I knew, in 1968, that I was not destined for motherhood. Guess it wasn’t in my DNA!
And back to the topic. Out of the current crop, Romney might be the most moderate on abortion. Maybe that’s beause he knew a woman who had an illegal abortion. It’s hard to tell because he seems to flip flop on the issues. He’s popular in the more affluent, highly educated, Northeast so it will be interesting to see if he can be beaten.
Ron Paul is interesting in that he is “pro-life” but many libertarians do not believe that the government has the right to mandate personal behavior.
The primary process will be very interesting in that the GOP doesn’t have all winner take all contests.
You do know that a number of psychiatric disorders are hereditary. A rapist, most likely, has some serious disorders and these things can be passed down.
They can be passed down, That doesn’t mean they will. And if they are, how does that justify murder?
But beyond that, a majority of Americans support abortion in cases of rape and incest.
And that automatically makes it right? A majority of Americans used to support slavery as well.
That the anti-choice movement and your church would force a woman to bear the child of a rapist strikes many Americans as barbaric.
I’m not sure what the anti-choice movement is. Another name for the pro-abortion movement? ;)
The only way to to “force a woman to bear” a child is to forcibly impregnate her. And all pro-lifers would agree that is barbaric.
Right, abortion is barbaric, blah, blah, blah.
Glad to see you take the slaughter of innocent human beings so seriously.
“If and when Mia finds out that her father was a rapist she’ll probably need intensive counseling as there will be so many issues to deal with. Not every baby born of rape is happy with their lives”
Maybe. Then again, maybe not. Would she be better off dead?
Not every baby resulting from a planned, wanted pregnancy is happy with his/her life, either.
Friendly reminder re: CC, y’all… it really does save on blood pressure, etc.!
Every time you feed a troll, somewhere in the world, a post-partum oversized canine fetus (which pro-lifers are free to call “puppy”) dies!
(Running gag, there… for those who don’t get the canine fetus joke! Thanks, Ninek! :) )
https://www.jillstanek.com/2011/08/planned-parenthoods-bad-rap-is-all-our-fault/comment-page-1/#comment-343972
You do know that a number of psychiatric disorders are hereditary. A rapist, most likely, has some serious disorders and these things can be passed down.
Got any statistics on how many men rape because of psychiatric disorders? And are those the disorders that are passed down genetically? Or are you just talking off the top of your head as usual?
If and when Mia finds out that her father was a rapist she’ll probably need intensive counseling as there will be so many issues to deal with.
Oh, so it’s not genetic then? So children of rapists don’t become psychologically disturbed because of hereditary disposition, it’s being told of their rapist father that sends them over the edge? So which is it? You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about.
LOL! It’s funny you should say that, Paladin. On a different online media forum which shall remain nameless, I suggested that I had a dog, and the dog was pregnant, and that I didn’t have the resources to afford my dog birthing canine fetuses. As an alternative to my dog having puppies, I suggested doing something to the dog which would cause the dog fetuses to die. No peep from the pro-legal-abortionists as to my actual argument, but they did feel the need to remark what a horrible person I was after that, and I can’t imagine why. ;P
Ron Paul is 100% pro life. What is at issue here? That SCOTUS, 9 unelected rulers, voted that the Constitution gives us the right to kill babies. It does not. There is nothing in Constitution that proclaims that. SCOTUS is a federal or now nationalized entity. Problem w/ most of people today is they think the federal now nationalized gov’t is to solve all issues. It is not. It was an over reach when they ok’ed this immoral thing. Now why do I bring this up? Every single candidate besides Ron Paul is a big gov’t ‘gubbmint can solve all things’ person. Just listen to them. Santorum is a very big gubbmint hack. He also wants to invade half the planet. What Catholic wants to go to war?! There are 750,000 people for every 1 representative. YOU HAVE NO SAY IN ANYTHING & if you do think you do please call me I have beach front property on the moon to sell. We are out of scale as David Livingston in an essay wrote. We need to shrink gov’t & bring gov’t back closer to the heart …enter the states … you can make real change in states & local gov’t. How? B/c they live w/ you. DC isn’t close to 99% of us. They don’t live with you. They don’t give a rip what you think. Again see 750,000 to 1 …kinda lack of representation huh?
Now Ron Paul wants to do what? Bring gov’t back to how our founders wanted it to be. Small federal gov’t where the states were the power houses. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that allows for 99% of what they do & he is the only one that wants to obey that document. The rest of them will not. How many times has a candidate promised something in morals & not come through with it? EVERY TIME
so you want to try again? & in the process put ourselves in worse situation?! Read Ron Paul’s books & see what he says on all these issues. Check youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb2zy7B-X-s great interview on this.
Now if you want liberty vote him ..if not & you want status quo then vote for the fake phoney conservatives like Perry, Mitt 4 brains, Michelle, Rick ‘I want to blow up the planet’ Santorum, etc
Steve – Question though – wouldn’t somebody who wants to ban abortion at the federal level be better for pro-lifers than somebody who wants to leave it to the states, where, undoubtedly, we’d end up with a system of buses going across the country, transporting women from non-abortion states to abortion states?
CC, it strikes me as odd how you keep harping on the possibility you weren’t really pregnant because the zygote hadn’t implanted, it was just a very heavy period, etc. Look, if you were able to figure out you were pregnant and even ask you mother to help you get an abortion, as you previously claimed, you must have been well past implantation; this takes place only a few days after fertilization, and you couldn’t even have suspected pregnancy for a week or so after that. I know this scenario may be comforting to you, but it doesn’t strike me as very likely.
CC,
You made every effort to kill your child. That was your intent. Therefore, you bear that guilt.
As for motherhood not being in your DNA, that is a nice attempt at displacing the responsibility for your homicidal selfishness onto some vague, impersonal sense of fate. The truth of the matter is that you ARE a mother, right now, this very minute. You became a mother the moment you became pregnant, and then you made an eternal choice.
You chose to become the mother of a child who would die by your own hand. And so you are the mother of a dead baby.
There is infinite forgiveness from God for that act, and thousands of women have sought and received that forgiveness. That forgiveness awaits you as well, but to date, you have spit on that suggestion for repentance, and redoubled your championing the slaughter of others.
Was the degree worth it, CC? My Ph.D. is less than dust in the balance against my children’s lives in this world. It doesn’t give me identity, or status, or moral or social standing. It’s nothing more than a union card that allows me to do independent research. Meaning comes from sacrificial love, as does all else.
And that’s what is so tragic about you and your proabort apologias. Having sacrificed your child at the altar of a college degree, you did so by buying into the false dichotomy of ‘either/or’. The truth is that you COULD have had it all, but you chose to throw away the very best of it all.
Whatever the mental illness of the man you slept with, it pales in comparison to your stone-cold heart and your dedication to the slaughter of innocents which represent the implosion of charity and reason.
Get to confession, to counseling, to Rachel’s Vineyard. You need it desperately.
You’re right, CC. A piece of paper from a college is so much more important than someone else’s life. What was I thinking?!
And I suppose the lives of my siblings and I aren’t worth much because bi-polar disorder runs in my mom’s family. 9_9
I like Santorum too, and I hope he remains in the race to the end. There’s no question about him being the strongest pro-life candidate in the race.
However, I can see him following the Brownback route of running for President to raise his credibility and then going back to Pennsylvania to run for Governor which would give him much-needed experience.
The one great sadness I see among Catholics is the desire to eat their own. It happened with Brownback and it is now happening with Santorum. Because these candidates have some flaws, however minor, they are obsessively harped on and made to appear as if they are the anti-christ. The condemnations are vile and cruel but they do have an effect which is to turn away voters from them.
I hope my fellow Catholics can learn from this…
Got any statistics on how many men rape because of psychiatric disorders? And are those the disorders that are passed down genetically? Or are you just talking off the top of your head as usual?
You might be a historian but you are so not familiar with basic psychology which has clearly identified certain mental health characteristics as hereditary. Are you saying that rapists don’t have any psychiatric disorders? Are you not familiar with sociopathic behavior which rape would appear to be part of? Do you actually think a rapist fits the definition of “normal?”
“Hereditary Basis: Sometimes children may inherit the sociopathic behavioral symptoms from the parents. Research has shown that children who have are adopted and have sociopathic biological parents can display the characteristics of this psychological illness”
Obviously there is the whole nature vs. nurture thing but “Early family studies were conducted that showed a predisposition for criminal behavior as a result of inherited characteristics, but that an individual’s characteristics and personality could still be modified by the environment (Joseph, 2001). Although these studies were void of high validity and reliability, it still raised the question of whether the environment can also influence individuals to act in a criminal manner. The debate between genetics and environment continues today with much more reliable research and data.”
So while there isn’t a lot of readily available case studies of personality/psychiatric disorders of rapists, it is still safe to question whether there could be (notice I say “could be”) predisposition toward violence in the child of a rapist. I, personally, wouldn’t want to take that chance.
“Oh, so it’s not genetic then? So children of rapists don’t become psychologically disturbed because of hereditary disposition”
You are so not a clinician. The “disturbance,” if it exists, might not have manifested itself. The issues I’m talking about are the those relating to the profound disorientation of discovering an inconvenient truth about oneself. If a child finds out about having been adopted, there can be issues in the most healthy of circumstances. If a child finds out that they were adopted and the child of a rapist, you’d have to be a total idiot to think that they would not have some anger and abandonment issues.
As I said, if women feel that they could give birth to a child that could (notice I said could) be impaired for any reason, abortion must be available contrary to your church which excommunicated everybody associated with the abortion given to a 10 year old Brazilian girl who was raped and impregnated by her father.
To force a rape victim to give birth compounds the violence and any political candidate that espouses this position is a radical extremist.
EGV, you need to cut that out; I seriously wasn’t expecting to agree with you (cf. 3:28) on a political thread, of all things, and it’s rather unnerving! :)
Obviously a president can issue executive orders relating to the “global gag rule” and embryonic stem cell research; but the really big stuff goes through congress after which it can be struck down by the SCOTUS. Given the composition of the Senate, even if the GOP gets a majority there will still be enough pro-choice senators to stop anti-choice legislation from the House as happened with the defunding of Planned Parenthood. So is having a pro-life president all that important? 8 years of Bush and not much changed. Just saying…
Thank you xalisae.
CC, cut it out. Whatever “disturbances” a child of a rapist might have, a pre-emptive slaughter of the kid is never warranted. Out of me and my five siblings, only one has severe psychological problems and none of us are sex offenders, though our father was a perv and our mother was just flat out nuts. I shudder to think of the damage you caused the abused children you “helped” in Social Services.
CC the next time you. want to put your two cents in about rape please remember that abortion clinics don’t report rape!
Those of you who are promoting Rick Santorum’s pro-life credentials need only view his vote on the war in Iraq and the propaganda he was promoting in the debate the other night on Iran.
AS president, he will lead us into more war. That is not being pro-life.
@Lisa-You must read a comment and respond to it, not make it say what you want. When Bush passed the partial birth abortion ban, it was the first piece of federal legislation ever making all other abortions legal. Sure, it’s a threat to Roe. I don’t deny that, and that’s a good thing. Nonetheless, Ron Paul’s bill would have had abortion illegal in likely 35 or 36 states. Santorum’s makes it legal in every state, just not at birth.
As for your half-free half-slave idea, I don’t know how to respond other than to say I’d rather abortion be illegal in 70% of the country than 0% of it. If you elect Ron Paul, you can have that and he will then support strict constitutional constructionists who will help reverse Roe V Wade at the federal level. That is how you beat back abortion rights, while saving as many lives in the times it takes to get the Supreme Court where we all want it.
But again…if all life is precious, and if you’re going to listen to the Holy Father…then you have to stop supporting candidates who want to protect life inside the womb, but then send our troops half a world away to fight wars of aggression under the guise of liberation.
CC there was a sick pervert in Kansas who kept getting his underage girls pregnant and. good old. dear old dad kept taking in. for abortions
i think each girl had 4 abortions each none of this was reported until one of the girls gave birth to her dad’s baby and told hospital personnel who alerted police. now those girls will be ruined. for life
(*ergh*)
May I ask, as politely and as calmly as I can, for anti-war people to be so kind as to use their own term (“anti-war” would do nicely, I think), and not try to co-opt the term “pro-life”? You know, as well, as we, that “pro-life” (in the context of the debates raging in the Western hemisphere, and even beyond) refers to the defense of innocent human life which is specifically targetted for death (e.g. abortion, euthanasia), whereas the issue of “just war” (in which there may be casualties who were not targetted specifically for death) is quite a bit murkier and distinct? Equivocating the two cases does no one any good, and it muddles a great deal.
my ex fiance got two women pregnant and asked them to abort they did we discussed it one day and he explained that it was just like a woman getting her period and i explained to him that I’d never required surgery to get my period the Guy ended up bawling. he was in school to be a pharmacist no less he knows the truthfully
CC, In the 60’s & 70’s, you fell into the same trap as I did with many of my contemporaries, believing that feminism meant lowering my standards that many men have held, instead of raising men’s standards that women have held for centuries. Check out the early feminists foremothers–they were pro-life.
You may have the chromosomes of a woman, but at this point in time, you are far from being the ultimate feminist and the best of what a women should be. You have all the clear classic signs of a post-abortive woman–been there, done that. You don’t have to be a clinician to read all the classic signs. I have been post-abortive for over 40 years. You’re clearly on a downward spiral. I can only hope that you soon get the help you sorely need with post abortion counseling. Without love and forgiveness there is no joy and/or to give love to others.
My nephew, who was 8 years old at the time of his mother’s untimely death, was conceived in rape. His mother was constantly being pressured from her colleagues and friends into getting an abortion, but she refused. She was bed ridden during her pregnancy as a result of almost miscarrying him twice and he was a preemie. He is now an outstanding citizen of his community; graduated from college with a degree in Computer Engineer; a successful businessman and is now going for his Masters in Business at one of top schools in the U.S. I was blessed with graces to continue on the road of progression from my abortion experience and help fill the temporary void to raise my nephew, replacing my baby that I killed.
Keep your mind open for healing. Contact Carla for direction and help.
You are not a clinician yourself, CC, and just as I suspected, you have no statistics in regard to rapists at all, just speculation.
No, she is not a clinician. I doubt she has statistics, and more is the pity! I would love to see how screwed up all of the millions of rapists children are, especially compared to the children of “normal” parents.
they don’t report incest either so i guess if you’re aborting after incest you’d better suck it up the abortion clinics only concern is “will this be cash credit card or Medicaid?
crying and devestated after the procedure? oh well get out
we have an assembly line of wombs to sweep! CC planned parenthood and abortion clinics have been in bed with Satan since abortion began
and before you wack me the coathanger argument there was a better way! CC people here will give you a hard time because they want to help you.
Paladin -
You and I should run for office one day. I’ll be your vice President…I like the hours better.
CC just because. you have had an abortion doesn’t mean you have to keep defending it. it was a wrong action. when i was in my 20s i had lots of affairs with married men. i fornicated for most of my life and i can now. stand here guilt free and tell you because i am forgiven. i got those sins out of my life!
Ex-GOP, congratulations on having the largest repertoire of Romney spellings! :)
That was a very good answer in the Santorum clip. I voted for him two or three times, but I doubt he can do better than v.p. I’ll have to vote “present” on this one. Hard to tell who is “correcterer” on this issue.
EGV wrote:
Paladin, you and I should run for office one day. I’ll be your vice President…I like the hours better.
Good heavens! What did I ever do to you, to deserve you wishing an elected office on me? Whatever it was, I deeply apologize…! :)
Those who don’t want power do the best with it, Paladin! I would vote for you guys, liberal and conservative, both prolife. Sounds like a good match!
(*whimper*)
@paladin-I can see your distinction and appreciate it. But the problem is this: Iraq-which is the war then Sen. Santorum supported-was unjustified and the Vatican said so. If the war is unjust than it is the unfair targeting of life. Therefore, I see it as being pro-life to protest unjust war as well as abortion. But again, when it comes to just war, I see your point.
CC just because. you have had an abortion doesn’t mean you have to keep defending it
No, I didn’t “have” an abortion. I screwed around with a turkey baster and had a late, long period. I have a tipped uterus which, prior to my uterus removal (yay!), made conception almost impossible. So maybe I had an early miscarriage and maybe I didn’t. But I so love how you guys assume that I’m “post abortive” which, BTW, is not a clinical diagnosis. And as far as being a clinician, I’ve got the paper. Do you folks?
And “h” – fornicating is having sex – if you think it’s a sin, well, whatever…
Michele Bachmann wins Iowa straw poll. Ron Paul comes in second.
CC,
Waiting on those statistics. And whatever you claim, my rapist father and my crazy mom didn’t mean that I deserved to be killed before I had a chance to live.
Paladin -
One does have to question the sanity of anyone who would want to be President (heck, or any position at the elected federal level quite frankly).
Loving that Bachmann won. Love it, love it, love it, love it.
Jack,
CC isn’t animated by statistics or devotion to the truth. She’s trying to wash the blood from her hands with the blood of millions of innocent babies. Only the blood of Jesus can clean her up, but the evil that she has welcomed into her soul makes her recoil at the very idea of uttering the two life-changing words:
Forgive Me.
Billy wrote:
@paladin-I can see your distinction and appreciate it. But the problem is this: Iraq-which is the war then Sen. Santorum supported-was unjustified and the Vatican said so.
Well… I’d rather not derail the thread into a debate on the Iraq War (which could easily happen, given the strong feelings on both sides), though I’d add that the Vatican did not, and cannot, pronounce on the moral liceity of anyone’s support (or opposition) to the war. The Holy Father gave his informed view… but the Holy Father was also quite aware of the another fact: that the responsibility for deciding when a war meets the “Just War” requirements does not rest with the Vatican (or with any member of the clergy), but with the head of state… which, in that case, was President George W. Bush (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon #2309).
If the war is unjust than it is the unfair targeting of life.
Yes, and no; even in a war that was theoretically unjust, there’s a clear difference between targetting enemy combatants, and targetting innocent civilians. The latter would be somewhat comparable to abortion (though not usually as grotesque, or directed so clearly at an utterly helpless innocent child), while the former would not. This, by the way, is why comments (such as CC has been known to make) about “children, including the unborn, being killed in combat” being somehow “comparable” or morally equivalent to abortion are utter, blithering nonsense. (If one were to find an isolated case of a soldier deliberately targetting the womb of a pregnant mother, then I’d say that you’d found a clear example of equivalence… though the war could hardly be condemned wholesale on that basis, unless the war were waged solely for the purpose of that execution!)
Therefore, I see it as being pro-life to protest unjust war as well as abortion.
I understand… and that’s a morally licit view to hold. I would still, however, caution against blurring the terms… lest some of the abortion-tolerant folk (as we’ve seen interminably, on this forum alone) start stretching the term further, enough to include “support of a given health-care proposal”, “support of social security”, and the like. (Mind you: I do not condemn either of those things, in principle, nor do I condemn even pure pacifism; I merely ask that different terms be used, so as to avoid watering down the core pro-life message.)
Oh, I know Gerard. I have no idea why I let her get to me. The things that she says are just vicious.
@Paladin:
Good enough. Thanks for responding politely. The point of my posts here, or what I’m trying to get at, is that I think the war in Iraq disqualifies Santorum from being the most pro-life candidate. Over the last three or four years I’ve just become convinced that most war is avoidable…even as our government has become more and more prone to starting them. As a Catholic Christian, I want life defended from conception to natural death. I’m just trying to take that “natural death” part as seriously as the “conception” part.
“The Holy Father gave his informed view… but the Holy Father was also quite aware of the another fact: that the responsibility for deciding when a war meets the “Just War” requirements does not rest with the Vatican (or with any member of the clergy), but with the head of state… which, in that case, was President George W. Bush (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon #2309).”
So in other words, there could not conceivably ever be an unjust war unless the head of state perpetrating one deemed it to be so. Which, of course, would be totally counter-productive and nonsensical to do, thus making the “Just War” doctrine completely toothless.
Poor & Pitiful is CC.
“If I did not love others, I would be nothing more than a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal”. CC has no love at this time & is all clang. She thirsts for attention–such a dark soul. No need to say more. She will, however, be in my prayers.
Paladin, I love the picture of the troll and the “Please don’t feed the trolls” warning. However I love all you prolifers for trying. God bless.
Sorry to go off-topic guys but prayers are needed in Indiana…
High winds associated? with a severe thundersto?rm caused the grandstand? stage at the Indiana State Fairgrounds to collaspe forward into the crowd prior to a scheduled Sugarland concert during the Indiana State Fair. Over a dozen individuals are reported injured (2 are reported to have a severe head trauma) and four fatalities have been reported thus far. Also, it’s been declared a level 1 emergency by the Department of Homeland Security :-(
Billy
I think it is very pro-life to be against unjust wars and it is also pro-life to defend a nation when they are continually provoked by any nation who wishes to do them harm. I think though that war, when possible, should be a last resort.
I wish we had a presidential candidate who was pro-life, pro-environment and pro-health care reform. And I think it should be health care reform that is carried out by the states, in accordance with the 10th amendment, and should be done in a fashion that does not discriminate against private insurers but rather gives them the opportunity to bid on state health care contracts. And all of this needs to be done in a manner that is respective of a patients bill of rights and the rights and responsibilities of hospitals. Pawlenty came close to this but I think his version violates the consumers right to chose. Those are my thoughts. And I will wait until I hear some debates to make an opinion on who I hope will be able to take on our current President. And to those of you wondering what his strategy will be it’s called fear mongering. And of course if Republicans don’t spend serious money on television ads making a clear case of the differences between them and Obama then we will probably get four more years of the current administration.
Ron Paul is certainly pro-life.
Hopefully when they start making it clear how Obama really stands on pro-life issues they will have the sense to take advantage of the opportunity they have now to really show the beauty of life in a positive way and not attack him. Part of being a leader is protecting those who can’t protect themselves.
CC says:
“But if a woman wants to be a rapist’s baby mama, that’s fine with me”
Wow. This statement is incredibly anti-woman and anti-choice. Clearly the choice to carry the baby conceived in rape to term is not “fine” with you.
CC. what do you mean you screwed around with a Turkey baster? @
I’m not sure if everybody is taking a look at the voting records of candidates but I’ve done a little research. Bachman is for doing away with the federally mandated minimum wage and she voted against increasing pell grants and government student loans. Even though she voted against increasing student aid the measure still passed.
Rachael
Praying.
was that supposed to be funny because it wasn’t. it was weird
h,
Some time ago, CC bragged here of using a turkey baster to abort her child. She wasn’t messing around. She was serious. She did this as a young woman, some 40 years ago. As Lori Pieper has ably pointed out, it was a time when the discovery of being pregnant would have come long after implantation had occurred, given the diagnostic technology of the day.
She’s now trying to backtrack by suggesting that the turkey baster somehow had nothing to do with things. Pray for CC, that she simply surrenders to God’s love and forgiveness, and that she end this crusade against life.
joan says:
So in other words, there could not conceivably ever be an unjust war unless the head of state perpetrating one deemed it to be so. Which, of course, would be totally counter-productive and nonsensical to do, thus making the “Just War” doctrine completely toothless.
I don’t think you understand the just war doctrine. It is a set of guidelines/conditions to be considered by those that would declare war to discern whether that war would be morally legitimate. God is the ultimate judge of whether the heads of state discerned properly.
oh thanks Dr. nadal. i thought she meant she impregnated herself. with. one either way it’s still creepy!
that story is up there with whooping Goldbergs. whooping claims to have aborted her baby at the age of 14. in central park using a coat hanger
i don’t. buy it and anyone who does I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. how did she pull it off and not have to seek medical attention? whooping went on to have 8 legal abortions after that
should say whoopi. her story can be found in a book called ‘The Choices We Made’ its a book about women who chose illegal abortions
“She’s now trying to backtrack by suggesting that the turkey baster somehow had nothing to do with things”
As I have stated, I don’t really know if there was a cause and effect. I squirted air into and suctioned air out of my vagina. I would like to think that is was an abortion as that puts me into the cohort of women who are examples of what happens when abortion is criminalized. But I can’t be sure because it could have been a natural miscarriage as I had a tipped uterus which makes conception difficult. But here’s the question for Catholics. Was my sin as bad as actually having causing an abortion or does the intent put it in the same “mortal” sin category? Angels on the head of a pin – or is a turkey baster!!!
CC. it doesn’t. sound like an abortion. to me at all
cc. you could have given yourself. a fatal embolism
CC. to. me right now is about as credible as Goldberg’s. how does a 14 year old maneuver a coat hanger into a closed cervix and scrape the baby out. and head home to bed before mom finds out? she’s. a bad liar
should say you are about as credible as Goldberg. sorry
CC, I just have to step in here and say that a tipped uterus does not necessarily mean that it’s difficult to conceive. I have a tipped uterus and I had 4 pregnancies in 5 years. I am so blessed with all my beautiful kids! Praying for you.
CC, my understanding of the question is that if genuinely believed you were or might be pregnant, and deliberately did something hoping to cause your body to expel your child (thus an abortion), while fully knowing this was against the law of God, then yes, you committed a mortal sin. It doesn’t matter whether you actually expelled the child, or whether you were actually pregnant. It was the intention to go against God’s law that is the sin. Sin is in the heart.
This is not an “angels on the head of a pin” argument. It is a vital one. It helps us focus on where and how we really go wrong in our lives. What is really wrong with you is not limited to one incident long ago. It is in the constant state of warfare against God you have deliberately placed yourself in for years. But God is not at war with you. He is waiting for you and you can have forgiveness at any time.
CC,
Let me answer your question. Suppose your husband put a loaded .45 caliber pistol to your head and pulled the trigger, fully intending to kill you, and the gun jammed. Would you stay with him?
Of course not. He had every intent of murdering you, and would have had the gun not jammed. The same with a misfiring turkey baster.
What matters now, today, this minute, is that you avail yourself of God’s love and mercy. That was then. This is now. As the Psalmist says,
“If today you hear His voice, harden not your heart.”
Perhaps it was a miscarriage. Perhaps you have spun off in a tailspin over guilt from what you thought was an abortion by your own hand.
In all of your posts, you have clearly demonstrated that you are driven by your mother’s difficulties and disappointments in life, which she and you wrongly blamed the Church for. I also grew up in poverty, in a ghetto in Brooklyn, New York; one of five children of Catholic parents who obeyed the Church. The Church wasn’t to blame for my parent’s poverty, nor for the hardships that molded my character, drove me to excel, and made me cognizant of the dignity of all people, especially those without a voice.
Get to confession, CC. End the rebellion and reclaim your dignity. Contact Carla.
Rick Santorum
How about the death penalty for the rapist?
Why don’t we discuss that option?
If we had a death penalty for rape, would it deter?
I know some are principled anti-death penalty, but plenty aren’t.
So, why is it fine to kill the victim but not the perpetrator?
I’m pro death penalty. i wanted Casey Anthony to be convicted and sent to death row. as far as Cindy. and George. I’d just like to give them a big hug. I’m awning a sympathy card their way
“As a Democrat – I’m hoping that the nominee is Bachmann.”
That’s what I figure.
Rick Perry has never lost a race. He has tons of political cronies. He is very lucky. I mean, he started out even poorer than Clinton. Despite his very modest ambitions, he went to college but majored in Ag. Science, he has managed to work his way up from Ag. Commissioner to Governor of Texas. Even if you have no love for Texas, its economy is the 12th largest in the world, so no small potatoes for a guy whose childhood home had no indoor plumbing.
sending a card their way
“So, why is it fine to kill the victim but not the perpetrator?”
Good God, the obtuseness here is just astounding. Where is the woman in that rant, hmm? Where is she? SHE is the victim. Her thoughts, feelings, and concern for her future count. Her REAL thoughts and feelings, not those fabricated by anti-choicers to fit an anti-choice agenda. If she wanted to carry to term, then great–I’d hope that choice would bring her great healing. If she didn’t want to give birth, I wouldn’t want some garbage piece of legislation taking away her control a second time.
These are your wives and your daughters whose lives you’re talking about, not some anonymous woman in the news. Think about that. A horrible person could violate your daughter or wife’s security and sense of self, inflicting upon her intense pain–both physical and emotional. And then you’d be perfectly fine if she didn’t have a choice to endure nine months of pregnancy, childbirth and bringing a new person into the world–in essence, having her life changed irrevocably after a horrifically violent act. That sits okay with you? If your daughter were impregnated through rape you’d call that a blessing?
Megan, I’ll break my own rules (maybe Bobby and others are rubbing off on me), and try to explain this to you, again… though, given the rant-flavoured tone you’re using, I’m a bit pessimistic about it doing much good. We’ll see.
Your argument (so far as I can tell) boils down to outrage over “not allowing a rape victim to kill her unborn child, for the ostensible purpose of making her feel better”. You’ve been told, repeatedly, how stupid this argument is (which I think you already know: it’s utterly emotion-driven, and violates all sane standards of logic and morality); the child is utterly innocent of the rape, and she does not deserve to be dismembered. You might (though I doubt it) find it easier to recognize what I mean, if you consider every *born* child who was conceived in rape; unless you think it’s perfectly acceptable to massacre/dismember all of them, I fail to see why you think your idea is any better.
Dr. Nadal has his finger on the crux of the problem, with most of our abortion-tolerant trolls and pseudo-trolls: many of them are post-abortive and unrepentant, and their thoughts run somewhat in this direction:
“I had an abortion (though this works almost as well with “my friend/family member had an abortion, etc.”), and I don’t want to think of myself as a bad person who does bad things, and I don’t want to repent of the abortion (for any number of reasons: refusal to believe in God and His Mercy, etc.), so the only way I can avoid thinking of myself as a bad person who did a bad thing (to put things lightly) is by proving to myself, and to everyone else, that abortion is not bad.”
Logic and sane morality are the first casualties, in such a self-trapping mind-set; it drives people to tolerate (or even accept) infanticide, forced abortions, and other obvious (and currently unpopular) horrors, rather than give even one inch of ground to the pro-life paradigm. It’s heart-breaking to watch.
back to Goldberg for a minute. i believe she lied to further. the pro. abortion agenda. other participants in the book. include Susan Sarandon who aborted because the dad “was a *@#%*@ jerk”!! and Anne Archer who had an abortion in Mexico journalist. Linda elerbee who had a woman abort her in a bathtub by shooting a toxic douche into her. Ellerbee later battled breast cancer as did post abortive mother Susan Somme ers
Think about that. A horrible person could violate your daughter or wife’s security and sense of self, inflicting upon her intense pain–both physical and emotional. And then you’d be perfectly fine if she didn’t have a choice to endure nine months of pregnancy, childbirth and bringing a new person into the world–in essence, having her life changed irrevocably after a horrifically violent act. That sits okay with you? If your daughter were impregnated through rape you’d call that a blessing?
Not a blessing. But I wouldn’t have my grandson/granddaughter killed for what happened, either. These human beings that are being killed in abortions are REAL PEOPLE, and who know how/what/if they think or not. But why should that matter? They are every bit as real human beings as you or I are, and deserve to have their lives ahead of them with all the thoughts and feelings we’ve been allowed to have.
So, would I “be perfectly fine” with it? No. We’d all be suffering after such a violation, and justice would be sought. But would we kill the next generation to attempt to sweep it under the carpet and pretend that it never happened, which is utterly futile anyway? Absolutely not. That’s not justice.
Megan you weren’t raped so why are you always so angry? you asked someone why they were womb obsessed? last time i checked this was am abortion blog and babies don’t grow in your nose. you are upset with you and it shows
Well said, Paladin, and so sad that it is true.
Megan,
A woman is victimized when she is raped. Agreed. What you conveniently gloss over is that the child who results is also HER child, not just the rapist’s. Santorum said it beautifully. Why victimize the child for the father’s crime?
You sound so self-righteous and sanctimonious here, Megs. You killed you baby for far, far less. I’ll say it again, NO degree (and I have four of them) is worth killing another human being over, which is what you did. It’s not like you were starving to death and fought another human for a last morsel of sustenance. So can the faux outrage. It’s getting old.
You killed your child and try to drown your guilt by washing your bloody hands in the blood of millions of aborted babies. It doesn’t work. If it did, you would be at peace and well adjusted, not bothering to comment here. You are not in control, but driven. It shows.
It’s the season for healing now, Megan. God wants you at peace, reconciled with your baby and with Himself. Do it, for your own sake. CC is far older than you and has carried that distorting burden for decades longer. You really don’t want that life for yourself, Megan. Contact Carla.
Paladin,
I agree with you. The proaborts here are all post-abortive. It isn’t a lack of knowledge that animates their position. It’s guilt. It’s desperation. It’s not wanting to believe that they did what they actually did, which is why they fight off every presentation of scientific fact. The only rights people ever fight for with such tenacity are always the rights that involve disenfranchising, enslaving, or killing other human beings.
I think there is little use in arguing further with them. It’s better to just keep up with the invitation to reconciliation.
God Bless.
Excellent advice, Dr. Nadal.
CC & others, I urge you go to confession, too. To all the pro aborts…your crosses are many; your shame is so unbearable; you try to come up with more ‘n’ more ways of your justification. It doesn’t work. Remember, I have been there & done that. I do regret that I had an abortion; however, my joy, mercy, forgiveness and hope was restored with God, when I entered into the Catholic Church. It’s never too late. Contact Carla, too.
“The proaborts here are all post-abortive”
Why can’t you just admit that those of us who are “proaborts” believe in our position based on our worldview and not because we are all “post-abortive” which, BTW, is not recognized by mainstream clinicians as a viable diagnosis. You need something to hang your sorry hats on and it’s bogus. But, based on your Christian constraints and prohibitions, you ascribe a rationale for our thinking (which you cannot even begin to understand) to something that you, yourselves, ”project” on us because otherwise, as the saying goes, ya got nothing.
That the pro-life movement is an offshoot of conservative Christianity is shown by Carol’s “advice” to “pro-aborts” that they should go to confession. I guess Carol doesn’t realize that Protestants and Jews don’t do that. But for the anti-aborts, it’s a very, very myopic religious world. The church “fathers” (and there ain’t no mothers there) would be very pleased with Carol as she has learned her catechism very, very well.
“To all the pro aborts, your crosses are many, and your shame is so unbearable;”
Here’s the thing, Carol. The “shame” that your church preaches doesn’t apply to “all” those who have an abortion as many of these woman have, long ago, rejected the medieval mindset of patriarchal religions that teach women to be ashamed of their sexuality. Times have changed, Carol and enlightened women are not burdened by the “shame” that you want us to feel. We don’t. Sorry we don’t live up to your expectations and fantasies.
“The only rights people ever fight for with such tenacity are always the rights that involve disenfranchising, enslaving, or killing other human being”
The right that we fight for is bodily autonomy. Our bodies, our rights. We are not brood sows much as you would like us to be. We reproduce if and when we want and that is such a threat to your patriarchal religious system. So doom us to hell as you do but until Roe is reversed abortion is still the law of the land. We will not be enslaved by your theology. We are not your submissive handmaidens. And BTW, your hell is your belief – not ours.
Lol, the nonreligious prolifers dont exist! We have no ethical or human rights arguments! We all want women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen!
The fact that you are throwing up ridiculous strawman arguments shows you don’t have much of an argument.
“The proaborts here are all post-abortive” – far from true. You could not know, apart from those who state that they are. I’m not for a start. Many of my pro-choice friends aren’t either. But I also know women who are pro-abort, suffer no ill effects and support womens’ right to choose. They find they are in a better place in their lives and are better parents of the children they have chosen to have.
CC, if you have such airtight, powerful, unassailable rationale for your position and worldview, why do you engage so often in emotional rants, nonsequiturs, and ignorant slams against religion? “It’s OK because it’s legal” isn’t going to cut it as an argument.
It would be far too wearying to try and tackle all your errors about the Church teaching “shame” about sexuality and about “submissive handmaidens.” You have been on this site listening and interacting with Christians long enough and you have been corrected in your errors long enough to know that what you are saying is false. No one is being fooled, so you might as well cut it out.
As for bodily autonomy, you could have had all of it you ever wanted if you had made a rational use of the tremendous gift — yes, God-given gift — of your sexuality. You lawless and irrational use of it is what got you into trouble. It led you to not only attack your own child with a turkey baster, but to ultimately attack the source of your fertility with the surgeon’s knife. Nothing there points to a healthy understanding or acceptance of your sexuality. Sexuality means a great deal more than simple gyrations and physical pleasures.
Such an understanding of sexuality could have given you a true ability to choose. No amount of pills, or turkey basters or surgeon’s knives can give you the inner freedom you lack.
I’ve. known many women who uphold abortion rights and almost all of them are post abortive. many may maintain that “oh I’m fine with it” BUT their actions say otherwise. many turn to drugs and alcohol many begin seeing a psychiatrist and taking meds you cannot kill a conscious that won’t die but you can numb it
CC,
Brood sow is exactly the identity YOU have adopted for yourself by electing to kill your child, and then glory in it.. It’s called mutilation, which is okay, ethically speaking, for barnyard animals. It isn’t okay for humans.
Brood sow. Think of that every time you look in a mirror. That’s what you have treated yourself as. That’s the source of fetal pigs for labs. You said it better than I ever could have.
You’ve traded your great human maternal dignity for that of a brood sow. And you have wallowed as such ever since. That you defend the right to treat yourself as a brood sow is the most tragic of all self-delusions.
It’s a form of self-hatred.
Human life is a gift for the mother, and an inalienable right for the child. That’s the great difference between human pregnancies and those of brood sows.
Conversely, I think that all of this cogitating on your behavior is starting to conjure the appropriate imagery for you.
Call Carla.
Reality,
At least Megan, CC, et al, can be forgiven for being in a state of post-trauma. Your self-admitted proabort apologetics, in the absence of a personal experience of abortion, places you in a category that borders on the demonic. What’s up with your bloodlust?
CC, for what it’s worth, I hope that every time you look in the mirror, you see a human being who makes some mistakes and is sometimes wrong – as we all are – but who has an inherent dignity which belongs to all human beings; someone whose dignity and humanity cannot merely be traded away by a belief or a mistake or even a cruel action. That’s what I see when I look at you (er, well, not “look at you” in a “the calls are coming from inside the house!!!” way, but you know).
I’m no spring chicken Gerard. I’ve experienced and witnessed much in life. I’ve worked in a number of fields and contributed to various social and community endeavors in a range of ways. The areas of formal and informal study I have undertaken have been diverse. Reading of the thoughts, beliefs and experiences of others via fora such as this site and many others also contribute to my worldview.
From all these factors I draw the conclusion that abortions have always been with us and always will and that the overriding necessity is that women be free to control their own procreation and that terminating a fetus which is part way towards becoming another person is not a heinous act. The fact that humanity across virtually all cultures and societies has always striven to achieve some level of fertility control and terminate unwanted pregnancies speaks for itself.
Your assumption that people who disagree with you – one who has never been pregnant let alone experienced an abortion – are in a state of trauma is wildly extravagant.
Also wildly extravagant is your accusation of bloodlust. My thoughts on abortion are related to women having the right to make a choice, not some sort of hatred or demonising of the fetus.
“Your self-admitted proabort apologetics, in the absence of a personal experience of abortion, places you in a category that borders on the demonic.” – and on what grounds to you claim your position to be of greater merit given that you have no more experience of abortion than I? If you find my stance to be demonic then you would understand that I may sometimes find yours to be little more than pious pontificating. You are no more the font of knowledge and wisdom than I am. All I plead is that women be free to choose whilst you wish to direct them.
“Post-trauma”–please, spare me the prayers. I don’t mind being called an evil, satanic witch-doctor, but I don’t need any pseudo-scientific, Dr Phil-type pathologization. I’ve been pro-choice since early high school, and experiencing an unintended pregnancy at the worst of times just solidified my beliefs. That and seeing two close friends deal with rape in college. They’ve come a long way in the healing process and are both are very grateful for the availability of a certain white pill in that secular urban hospital. I’m pro-choice for myself, for them, for my sister, and every other woman who faces zealotry as an obstacle to making intensely personal decisions.
Also, if I’m sent straight to he**, then that’s my business–not yours. It’s bad manners to pray for people who reject it, doncha know? (And Paladin, blindly adhering to a religious code that demonizes abortion in all cases but upholds the righteousness of *some* wars doesn’t exactly smack of the cool rationality you seem to think it does).
“They are every bit as real human beings as you or I are, and deserve to have their lives ahead of them with all the thoughts and feelings we’ve been allowed to have.”
That sounds very nice, but at whose expense should this life be granted? We’ll never agree. I don’t have the right to live if doing so requires me to harness myself to somebody else’s body.
Megan, none of us have the right to harm others to pursue the life we want. We don’t even have the legal right to harm ourselves in a lot of cases. I am all for freedom of choice and living the life you want, but it is injustice to harm others in pursuit of non-life or death decisions. I don’t see where it is justified to give pregnant women rights over the life of the fetuses they carry.
Reality,
I’m no spring chicken either. What you call freedom is actually reckless license. Authentic freedom is always and everywhere inextricably linked to a set of responsibilities. The freedom to have sex carries with it the responsibilities of parenthood if a child should result from one’s sexual behavior. That’s maturity.
Then there is the brand of narcissism and hedonism which you champion. It’s called sex without responsibility. 53 million+ dead babies and counting.
The choice for which you plead is rightly made before the clothes come off. That is, the choice to handle something as sacred and potent as human sex in a responsible manner, ready to embrace whatever eventuality that may arise from that encounter.
As for my experience of abortion, you should hold as many post-abortive women as I have, who were lied to by everyone in their lives about the human identity and status of that “blob of cells” that was in reality a well-formed baby. You should stand before the Supreme Court steps at the March for Life and listen to four straight hours of women’s testimonies, a litany of heartbreak that is crushing. I doubt you have the stomach for it.
As for what grounds my position has greater merit begins in my own discipline, Biology, which has pronounced firmly and unequivocally on the human identity and organismal status of the embryo, beginning in its single-celled, zygotic stage of development.
It proceeds through Natural Moral Law, the same law used at the Nuremberg Trials to prosecute crimes against humanity, a God-given law which was recognized by every civilized nation on the planet then as superseding all man-made (positive) law.
As for your first paragraph, I could have written the same. But it does not follow that because human atrocity has always been with us that we surrender and codify that atrocity in law. As for the fetus being on a trajectory toward becoming a human person, you are wrong. The fetus is an autonomous organism set on its own developmental trajectory based on its own intrinsic and unique genetic identity. “Personhood” is simply a legal and moral status that all humans have based on the kind of organisms they are, and not on some arbitrarily chosen criteria such as age, development, race, functionality, etc.
You, a self-professed non-spring chicken, have looked at life, looked at the long and hideous record of atrocities visited on this nation by the US Supreme Court, looked at the Nuremberg trials, read on this forum the truth taught by science, and have learned nothing! You have drawn every twisted and malignant conclusion, and the most twisted of all, your moniker:
Reality!
Hi Megan,
It’s me. Carla. I have been praying for you since I met you here. Not bad manners. It is because I care. Care more than you will ever know. I am waiting for you. I will wait for as long as it takes and if you ever need me you know where to find me.
IF you ever find yourself struggling with anything in regards to your abortion I do hope you will reach out for help. There is help and healing.
I think deep down you know.
carla@jillstanek.com
CC,
And to you I would say the same as above.
I am waiting for you as well. You don’t fool me. Your posts only confirm to me that you are in pain and I hate to see that. I really do.
I am here for you. You are safe with me.
Reality’s reply to Dr. Nadal, in a slightly altered (but equally supportable-from-history form:
From all these factors I draw the conclusion that infanticides have always been with us and always will and that the overriding necessity is that women be free to control their own current parenthood and that terminating a post-born offspring which is part way towards becoming a fully-actualised actual person with fully-human self-awareness is not a heinous act. The fact that humanity across virtually all cultures and societies has always striven to achieve some level of control over family membership and terminate unwanted offspring speaks for itself.
My goodness! The Romans, the Greeks, the various nations in Asia and Africa, and many other nations with millenia-long pedigrees express their gratitude for your exoneration of their infanticide, Reality!
What, exactly, was your point again?
Megan wrote:
(And Paladin, blindly adhering to a religious code that demonizes abortion in all cases but upholds the righteousness of *some* wars doesn’t exactly smack of the cool rationality you seem to think it does).
Megan, I don’t want to distract you from the more important messages from Carla and Dr. Nadal, but: there’s an undeniable moral difference between tolerance of a war that satisfies strict moral conditions (Google “Just War Theory” and “Catholic Catechism”, if you want to see them) while not deliberately targetting innocent bystanders, versus an abortion whose sole intended purpose is the deliberate targetting (for deliberately-chosen dismemberment and death, not simply accidental damage from an ill-aimed grenade or bomb) of a provably innocent unborn child. Surely you see the difference between “I choose, as my specific objective, to rip apart an innocent child for the sake of removing her from her mother’s womb” and “I, in the course of fighting a just [read that: just, but never desirable] war, accidentally caused the deaths of civilians who were in the line of fire, while trying to fight enemy combatants”? The first freely chose to kill an innocent; the second did not. Does that clarify?
Paladin,
If Megan were out for clarity, she would have contacted Carla long ago. Megan, et al. are not in the market for clarification. They are into escape from clarification through desperate attempts at obfuscation. They know all too well the reality they seek to distort.
I’m indebted to CC for bringing one point of clarity, and that is the image of the brood sow, who, if ill has her brood torn from her and thrown to the side on the floor. It’s curiously fascinating to me how evil embraces the truth about itself, twists it, then hurls it at us as an allegation of that for which we are somehow guilty.
CC just won herself a Golden Coconut Award on my blog for that great quote. I’ll be posting it within the hour.
Although it may be a bit tedious Gerard, for the purposes of clarity I shall quote and respond to your points.
“What you call freedom is actually reckless license.” – that is a matter of opinion based on one’s beliefs, yours and mine.
“Authentic freedom is always and everywhere inextricably linked to a set of responsibilities.” – yes and I believe that terminating an unwanted pregnancy is reponsible.
“The freedom to have sex carries with it the responsibilities of parenthood if a child should result from one’s sexual behavior.” – no, it doesn’t. I mentioned the eternal search for methods of contraception and termination before. That a child must be the accepted result of coitus is yet another belief system. Dealing with the situation via the endeavors of science and the ensuing actions, That’s maturity.
“Then there is the brand of narcissism and hedonism which you champion” – ad hominem.
“That is, the choice to handle something as sacred and potent as human sex in a responsible manner, ready to embrace whatever eventuality that may arise from that encounter.” – yet another belief system. Mine and that of many others is different. From your background you would be aware of just how hard the female body strives to avert fertilization. Science has added only a small level of assistance in this regard.
“As for my experience of abortion…..” – yes, and I have seen the other side of the coin.
“…the human identity and organismal status of the embryo…” – yes, it is developing and on it’s way to becoming a person. But it’s not there yet.
“…Natural Moral Law, the same law used at the Nuremberg Trials to prosecute crimes against humanity, a God-given law which was recognized by every civilized nation on the planet then as superseding all man-made (positive) law.” – ‘Natural Moral Law’?…at the Nuremberg Trials?…God-given law? Do I even need to say it?
“…human atrocity has always been with us that we surrender and codify that atrocity in law…” – abortion is not deemed to be an atrocity by everyone.
“The fetus is an autonomous organism set on its own developmental trajectory based on its own intrinsic and unique genetic identity” – so is every other form of life.
“…the long and hideous record of atrocities visited on this nation by the US Supreme Court…” – you and I would differ on what we consider to be the examples of atrocities.
“have learned nothing!” – now now Gerard, we disagree but neither of us is ignorant.
Reality
Thankfully you have a lot of confidence in science. This is what I found. Prior to 2000 what scientist actually understood about the embryo was lacking. They did not understand that at the moment of conception the embryo was complete. Complete Reality not a few cells and then more cells later. When that zygote began it had everything that a human needs to be human. So if a anyone referred to the embryo as a minature human they would be completely correct. Go to cbhd.org/content/human-embryo-afte or you can put in the search box Human Embryo Research After the Genome.
Myrtle,
You seem to be lacking in solid scientific resource material. Here are quotes from major embryology texts going back to the 1970’s:
“Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote.”[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]
“Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).“Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
“Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus.”[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]
“Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus.”[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146
“Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term ’embryo’ is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy.”[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]
“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
“Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun…. The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life.”[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
“I would say that among most scientists, the word ‘embryo’ includes the time from after fertilization…”[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel — Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]
“The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”[Sadler, T.W. Langman’s Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]
“The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum…. But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down.”[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel — Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]
“Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression ‘fertilized ovum’ refers to the zygote.”[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
“The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are…respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]
“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…. The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.”[O’Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists “pre-embryo” among “discarded and replaced terms” in modern embryology, describing it as “ill-defined and inaccurate” (p. 12}]
“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]
“[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization….“[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo….“I’ll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.“The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena — where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation — as well as in the confines of a doctor’s office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. ‘Don’t worry,’ a doctor might say, ‘it’s only pre-embryos that we’re manipulating or freezing. They won’t turn into real human embryos until after we’ve put them back into your body.’”
[Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]
I love that Lee Silver quote. It’s great because he’s pro-choice. But what do Princeton Professors know anyway?
CC People like you pro-aborts, are only pro-choice on if that choice is abortion. Carol said she was pro-choice that’s why she had an abortion. Now she regrets her decision and you jump all over her. As for as the Church being medieval it’s survived every pursucution man can throw at it and it’s still going strong. All of man’s secular societies have come and gone such as the Roman Empire. naziism, fascism and communism. By the way Hitler was a big proponent of abortion and quality of life laws. I don’t know about you but I for one don’t want the world to emulate Nazi Germany.
Hey CC,
Medieval? Like dungeons and torture instruments?
Look at what you champion: Pulling babies apart, limb-by-limb.
Medieval? You’re a caricature of yourself!
” ‘…the long and hideous record of atrocities visited on this nation by the US Supreme Court…’ – you and I would differ on what we consider to be the examples of atrocities.”
Dred Scott–slavery
Plessy v. Fergusen–segregation
Buck v. Bell–compulsory sterilization of developmentally challenged
Koramatsu v. United States–internment camps for Japanese Americans
Pick which ones that are not atrocities. All stripped certain classes of humans of their personhood status.
Thank you, Jim. Thank you, Carla, for waiting. It’s heartbreaking to see someone in pain. Love is stronger than hatred.
I’d also like to point. out that a woman can seem okay with an abortion when it’s first performed but check back with that woman 13 15 years later
my sister in law will never know. the joy of a child and her husband would have made a terrific dad
as someone. said you could have had it all! my mom raised my brother and i and owned businesses her entire life. she was also an older mother but never looked a day over 35. she’s 81 and still working. she divorced my dad when i was 13 but kept going! you don’t have to choose one or the other
Obviously I should have phrased that particular line in my comment more clearly Gerard. I keep forgetting that anything beyond black and white can be misunderstood.
“you and I would differ on what we consider to be some of the examples of atrocities.”
I’m sure that we would agree on a large number. But not all. Of course where we do differ is significant.
Gee Paladin, for a moment I considered some slightly altered (but equally supportable-from-history form prose too but why drag even more examples of irrelevancies into it :-)
Dear Dr. Nasal (couldn’t resist),
Yes, that is a terrific quote about the “pre-embryo.” Proof of what lengths people will go to manipulate language to hide reality. And this time they themselves admit it!
Dr.Nadal
I’m a little challenged you have to be very specific with me and tell me exactly where I erred. My understanding is that the human embryo happens at the moment of conception the first stage is called the zygote, then an embryo, then a fetus. But at the moment of conception it is still techincally an embryo. My understanding also is that from the beginning it possesses a complete and distinct human genome. And I thought I had also read that it could be characterized as a minature human. Biology just never interested me but now it’s easier for me to see the miraculous in it.
Hi Myrtle,
I was primarily addressing the claim that science was lacking in its understanding prior to 2000.
As for the rest, you are largely correct, and I share your vision of the miraculous in what science continues to reveal. On the issue of a miniature human, I think it’s more scientifically correct to say that starting at the zygotic stage of development we have a whole human being, in form and function, for that particular developmental stage.
Let me explain. None of my children have reached puberty. Thus none of them are capable of reproduction at the moment. That lack of ability to execute the full range of human functions does not make them less human. They are whole and complete humans in form and function for their particular stage of development.
In properly viewing the human as whole and complete at any developmental stage, we avoid the trap of “miniaturization” which then leads the proabort to argue that they do not execute all human functions. It also respects the dignity of each developmental stage without appealing to the miniaturization of adult completeness.
Beyond all of that, I hope that all is well with you.
God Bless.
Lori,
I’ll get you for that! ;-)
Oh lazy me! I should have read Dr. Nadal’s post before I just now used the term “pre-embryo” on another thread. So it’s considered redundant now.
If only they would do away with “pre-heat” on ovens and call it “defrost” like they really mean. :)
Reality
Sorry about that this is directly from the article The Human Embryo After the Genome.
In the mid-nineteeth century the German anatomist Ernst Haeckle could claim that the human embryo was a simple cell containing merely “homogeneous globules of plasm. Prior to the advent of molecular biology no one knew otherwise. Lacking a precise scientific amount of the microscopic physiology of minature human life if one believed the human embryo to be anything more than a splatter of sticky protoplasm, one had to look outside of science- and often to religion- to defend speculation about unseen details of hidden form and animation.
That the life cycle of a person could begin as one tiny cell is as amazing as anything in science. That wrapped up into the nucleus of the human embryo could be found the complete genetic design for a being capable of learning, love, and laughter, of sonnets, science, and space exploration is beyond comprehension. Having discovered one can only respond in awe.
The human embryo, from the moment of conception, possesses a complete and distinct human genome.
Thanks to science, arguments that dehumanize the human embryo now belong to a withering and overturned paradigm of the past. Those who choose to cling to that paradigm may find their place in history alongside the U.S. Supreme Court Justices who, in the 1857 Dred Scott case, ruled that African-American slaves were not persons but personal property.
Taken from the Human Embryo Research After the Genome
I really hope you take the time to read the article, for some very smart people to be able to see the wonder and to be able to document their findings and still be honest enough to admit that theres so much they still don’t know is amazing. I think if you read the article for yourself you also will have a better sense of the dignity and humanity of the embryo.
Dr nadal. looks. like I’ve started something lol. i swear of was the keyboard :)
one thing i can give the majority of the post abortive women i know did say they wouldn’t. choose it again. they didn’t let their hearts get. hard
I’m glad for that!
Reality wrote:
Gee Paladin, for a moment I considered some slightly altered (but equally supportable-from-history form prose too but why drag even more examples of irrelevancies into it :-)
Ah. So you evade and dismiss my point (i.e. that your arguments give equal support to infanticide, which–I assume–you don’t support, so your argument must be faulty), rather than engage it? And you wonder why I call you a troll, rather than a thoughtful contributor? If your only objectives are to opine and to refuse to examine your own argument for weaknesses, then I think we’re done, here.
“but to ultimately attack the source of your fertility with the surgeon’s knife”
Wow. It’s bad enough that the anti-choice crowd, it they had their druthers, would criminalize contraception but Lori says that hysterectomies attack the source of fertility. If there was ever an exhibit A for the radical, extremist mandatory fertility cult nature of the anti-choice movement, this is it. Yes, I was in my late 30’s so yes, I had “fertile” years ahead of me but I also had fibroids which were getting bigger. So according to Lori, I should have opted for fibroid removal which, at the time, was not totally effective. Is Lori saying that the womb must be open to pregnancy at all times regardless of health? Rather than wait for the inevitable operation, I chose to have it early as I was not intending on getting pregnant. But I guess in Lori’s religion, even the womb is sacred. Wow.
(Lori… you might want to give over in trying to chat with CC; sending engraved invitations on the paper of sanity, written with the ink of logic, does very little good when delivered to a troll whose principal means of communication is blasts from a flame-thrower! Your choice, of course… but no honour will be lost if you let CC stew in her troll juices for a while, quietly, and consider Carla’s offer of help.)
CC: “But I guess in Lori’s religion, even the womb is sacred. Wow.”
Yes, CC. In Christianity, the womb is sacred, precisely because that is where a new human being is formed, where you were formed.
It is sacred because, together with God, the woman enters into a divine partnership of creation with God Himself. That is the special dignity of women, YOUR special dignity which you laid waste through your abortion and malevolent championship of the violence you visited on your child.
The womb is sacred in Christianity because God Himself chose to take on our flesh by going through the same developmental process as each one of us, and today (August 15) we celebrate the highest of all feast days for Mary, her Assumption into Heaven.
Mary said yes to God, and led a life of suffering for what that yes would entail. She was your model and guide, had you chosen to follow her great example. When Mary said yes to the Incarnation, the dignity of every woman was forever elevated.
But I admit, CC, it’s easier to cast aside the richness of your Catholic Christian faith after having killed your baby by your own hand.
It’s easier to adopt the dignity and standing of a brood sow (which you so eloquently shared above), allowing a woman to have her child ripped from her womb and tossed in a pail, as being no more dignified, of no more standing than a fetal pig, than it is to admit your guilt and wrestle with your bitter sorrow.
It’s easier to let that guilt and sorrow metastasize into rage and blame directed outward for fear of not being able to withstand it being turned inward where it belongs.
It’s easier to come here and flail about, setting up strawmen than it is to accept the responsibility of having done what you did.
But somewhere, CC, you actually begin to lose your humanity in that process as years become decades, and decades become a lifetime. You begin to champion the rights of others to do the same as you, making of all women the ethical equivalent of a brood sow.
Today we celebrate Mary’s life, and the elevation of all women’s dignity because of her fidelity. It is a dignity that no amount of abortion can ever change. Yours is on the barn floor, covered in your own excrement, but readily redeemed. All you need to do is want to reclaim it.
Call Carla. She’ll show you how.
CC, I had no idea you had your uterus removed because of fibroid growths. As far as I know you never previously stated this. This is an entirely different thing. Of course, the Church permits the removal of a diseased uterus. Catholic teaching is not unreasonable and it is certainly not “radical, extremist mandatory fertility cult.” Of course, if you wanted to know this, you could have simply asked the question instead of engaging in a rant.
My original statement was based on your explanation, as I remember it, that you had your uterus removed so you wouldn’t have children; this coupled with many of your other statements about your extreme desire never to have a child led me to say what I did. It seemed fitting to me in light of your general picture of yourself. I apologize for misunderstanding you.
That is, of course, provided your latest statement is true. You’ve made many contradictory ones.
Out of the GOP candidates, I prefer Romney. I think he is the only one with a chance of ousting Obama, and the rest are too right wing or libertarian.
Once again, I concur. Great minds think alike! ;-)
Joan,
Your last comment violated the commenting policy regarding ridicule. Try again. Also, Joan, why do you keep coming here? No amount of ridiculing me or others will attenuate your guilt. It’s just one more desperate gambit by you to avoid the guilt of what it is you have done.
Call Carla.
“But I admit, CC, it’s easier to cast aside the richness of your Catholic Christian faith after having killed your baby by your own hand”
I left the church at least 8 years before I attempted to remove a fetus (not a “bab”). And BTW, I was warmly received (officially) into the Episcopal Church in the early 90’s. Although I am no longer a member (I no longer believe in God), I respect it greatly. It is an affirming and progressive religious denomination. If I weren’t an atheist, I would be attending Episcopal services and probably serving on the Vestry as I did when I was a member. It’s interesting - a large number of Episcopalians are ex Catholics.
“My original statement was based on your explanation, as I remember it, that you had your uterus removed so you wouldn’t have children.”
Right. I could have kept my uterus, at least for a while, as the doctor said that the fibroids would start shrinking at the onset of menapause. But as I didn’t want children, the operation worked out just fine.
The Episcopalian Church, CC, does not worship Jesus; it worships whatever the heck comes down the pike for a moment. Truth does not change. God is not lessened becuase you do not believe in Him, nor is an unborn fetus any less a human being because it hasn’t traveled doen the few inches of the birth canal. And here’s the stunner: a baby is no less a person because he or she is not wanted. Wanting does not confer worth. You can have sex with 5, 000 parters in a year, but when the child is here, he’s here. And none of your 70s inspired rhetoric makes him any less real, present, in the room.
CC,
The loss of a woman’s uterus is no small matter, and I am sorry that you suffered such a loss. Many women feel a certain degree of disfigurement, much as men do who lose their testes to cancer.
However, nothing can compare to the extent to which you have mutilated your psyche and your soul in the wake of your self-administered abortion. It’s time for healing.
Call Carla
“The Episcopalian Church, CC, does not worship Jesus; it worships whatever the heck comes down the pike for a moment”
And yet – I get criticized for Catholic bashing? Hmmm…. Once again the insular and intolerant religious zealotry of the anti-choice movment, which sees only anti-choice churches as the only “true” faiths, is on display. You guys must really disapprove of America’s Jewish community because they don’t worship Jesus and they are overwhelmingly pro-choice!
And BTW, the flexibility of the Episopal church, as well as other progressive churches, is done with a great deal of study and prayer. Oh, right, their prayer doesn’t count. The Reformation was all about change and the Reformation churches continue to embrace change. Meanwhile, they don’t accuse the more conservative churches of being any less valid than they are. But you guys do. Oh, that’s right. You’re in possession of the ”truth.” Right…
“Call Carla”
You’re funny!
CC, if I didn’t think what I believe is right and true, what is the point of believing it? I work and live in an Episcopal college and seminary, so I know what’s going on, thank you.
And PS–God isn’t flexible when it comes to the death of the innocent. The Episcopals lost their way when they chose not to stand up for the rights of the unborn. Either the born are persons or they’re not–they can’t sometimes be and sometimes not be. Wish-washiness is repugnant.
Oh, and PPS–I’m not a Catholic.
“Call Carla.”
Yes. Wow. Hilarious.
Email me and I will give you my cell phone number.
CC says: August 13, 2011 at 11:42 am
“Aborting the child ameliorates none of that, and only intensifies the feelings of self-loathing in the mother”
And the empirical evidence for this broad brush statement is….?
=====================================================================
CC,
you are the evidence.
CC says: August 15, 2011 at 3:09 pm
“And BTW, the flexibility of the Episopal church, as well as other progressive churches, is done with a great deal of study and prayer.”
=====================================================================
Convoluted Chirstianity,
In the straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel category, you are unsurpassed in self imposed ignorance and willful blindness.
The Broadway [Mt 7:13] churhes of the half saved [Rev 3:16] priest/priestess Luke Warm presiding; re-making a god in their own likeness on an hourly basis.
[Mt 7:23] You do not know Jesus and HE does not know you. [Mt 12:7]
You do the deeds of your father. [Jn 8:44]
If you would ask HE would give you ‘living water’ and you would thirst no more. Go your way and sin no more.
I remember my momma telling me that Jezebel painted her nails with the blood of the priests and the prophets.
Don’t know where she came up with that, but it fits the children of the devil.
Michele Bachmann made a grave error in the debates.
She gave a ‘poitically expedient’ answer to a question about ‘submission’ and in so doing compromised herself.
Eph 5:24 As the church is subject [5293, hupotássetai] to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. AMP
NT:5293 hupotasso (hoop-ot-as’-so); from NT:5259 and NT:5021; to subordinate; reflexively, to obey: KJV – be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submitself unto.
NT:5293 hupotassoo:
1 aorist hupetaxa; passive, perfect hupotetagmai; 2 aorist hupetageen; 2 future hupotageesomai; present middle voice hupotassomai; to arrange under, to subordinate; to subject, put in subjection: tini ti or tina, 1 Cor 15:27 c.; Heb 2:5; Phil 3:21; passive, Rom 8:20 (see dia B. II. 1 b.): 1 Cor 15:27 b. and following; 1 Peter 3:22; tina or ti hupo tous podas tinos, 1 Cor 15:27 a.; Eph 1:22; hupokatoo toon podoon tinos, Heb 2:8; middle voice to subject oneself, to obey;to submit to one’s control; to yield to one’s admonition or advice: absolutely, Rom 13:5; 1 Cor 14:34 (compare Buttmann, sec. 151, 30); tina, Luke 2:51; 10:17,20; Rom 8:7; 13:1; 1 Cor 14:32; 16:16; Eph 5:21 f (but in Eph 5:22, G, T, WH text omit it; Tr mrg. brackets hupotassesthe); Eph 5:24; Col 3:18; Titus 2:5,9; 3:1; 1 Peter 2:18; 3:1,5; 5:5;
2 aorist passive with a middle voice force, to obey (the English Revised Version’s (1881) subject oneself, Buttmann, 52 (46)), Rom 10:3; imperative obey, be subject: James 4:7; 1 Peter 2:13; 5:5; 2 future passive Heb 12:9.
(from Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
The Greek word hupotássetai [5293] appears 40 in the original Greek manuscripts.
Luke 2:51, Luke 10:17, Luke 10:20
Rom 8:7, Rom 8:20, Rom 10:3, Rom 13:1, Rom 13:5
1 Cor 14:32, 1 Cor 14:34, 1 Cor 15:27, 1 Cor 15:28, 1 Cor 16:16
Eph 1:22, Eph 5:21, Eph 5:24
Phil 3:21
Col 3:18
Titus 2:5, Titus 2:9, Titus 3:1
Heb 2:5, Heb 2:8, Heb 12:9
James 4:7
1 Peter 2:13, 1 Peter 2:18, 1 Peter 3:1, 1 Peter 3:5, 1 Peter 3:22, 1 Peter 5:5
The only way ‘respect’ is in context in Michele Bachmann’s answer is in ‘respect’ the law by complying with it’s demands.
A better answer for Michele would have been: The same bigoted charge was laid agianst John F. Kennedy when he was running for the presidency. “Who would be president, JFK or the Pope?”
When JFK was president is there any indication that he was seeking or following the advice of the Pope in matters of state?
Who was more sumbitted, Bill to Hillary or Hillary to Bill?
Or was it the two for one ’co-presidency’ that slick willy claimed?
CC, in the first place, there is a HUGE difference between stating that the Episcopal Church has abandoned many of the doctrines of historic Christianity (which is true) and the wild falsehoods you fling around about the Catholic. One is legitimate criticism, the other is bashing. I think you can figure out which is which.
As far as Episcopalians being ex-Catholics, a large number of Episcopalians in the U.S. — up to 100 priests among them — are about to become Catholics. It’s called the Ordinariate. They state that they want the true Church and there’s only one place it can be found. Guess that enlightened progressiveism isn’t working out so well for them.
So let’s see – after your abortion, you wanted to cling to Christianity, and chose a church that had conveniently excised abortion from among its list of sins. Got it. Check.
So if everything was so great with this church, why did you become an atheist? You never talk about that part.
I’m not surprised you had difficulty in living the lie you did as an Episcopalian. There are only two places you can really go from there — become an atheist or ask God’s forgiveness and come back to the real Church.
I was not a religious person before, during or after my abortion;
however, I sensed that I was doing something terribly evil and the ordeal
never left me. I was welcomed with loving arms and accepted by
the Catholic Church. I was told that God had forgiven me but the
hardest part was forgiving myself.
“come back to the real Church”
What makes your church any more “real” than any of the other churches which some of the pro-life folks here are members of? You are saying that their churches aren’t ”real?”
Episcopal Church has abandoned many of the doctrines of historic Christianity (which is true)
The same could be said for all Reformation Churches. And as far as “historic Christianity,” married Catholic clergy were quite common, particularly in Scandanavia, until the Middle Ages. There are gravestones and mosaics, in Italy, with the names of women and “Episcopa” after the names which suggests that they were priests. The first churches were house churches and the heads of the “hearth” were women. There was no “Pope” until the bishop of Rome declared himself the bishop over all the othe bishops. And let’s talk “infallibility” – it was established as a result of votes at a church council in 1870. The Pope, at that time, was Pius the 9th who kidnapped the Jewish child, Alberto Motera – a situation which almost caused a European war. “Historic” Christianity was defined by the Roman church. The fathers of the Reformation begged to differ. You have to admit that sale of indulgences was a bit – ah – tacky.
When I joined the Episcopal church (Just as “real” as yours) I was searching for spirituality. What I found was very nice but not in accordance to what I really felt. 12 years of indoctrination into the “one true church” didn’t work. I gave the Episcopal church a try and it failed. Now I can say, with all honesty, that I do not believe in a “Supreme Being.”
But again, Lori, are you saying that those bloggers here who are not Catholic need to embrace your church?
If, in the future, I need to connect to a spiritual community, it will be the Unitarians which, I suspect, you view as absolute heathens.
Funny, I had 12 years of Catholic education in which we were taught the glories of your church. Thanks to a college education I was exposed to all those inconvenient truths about the Roman church that the nuns never mentioned. BTW, I was Phi Alpha Theta.
Oh, and Lori. I know that you are celebrating the Feast of the Assumption. But non Catholics don’t believe that Mary was “assumed” into heaven. In fact, that wasn’t made an official “holy day of obligation” until the twentieth century. Non Catholics don’t believe that you commit a sin if you don’t attend church on Sundays and “holy days of obligation” which are constructs of your church. But it’s the “true” church. Right?
But let’s cut to the chase. Although a very high percentage of those who are pro-life are Catholic there are some who are not. Are they members of a false church?
(Don’t feed the troll, Lori!)
CC You being a self described intellectual you might be interested in what G.K. Chesterton wrote about Unitarianism. I’m also confused about the statement you made–“I’ve got the paper”, the only time I can ever recall anyone using that terminology was Jimmy Piersall. Jimmy Piersall used to tell Harry Caray during White Sox broadcasts, “I’m crazy, and I’ve got the papers to prove it.” LOL
CC, it would take far too long to refute the whole flagrant pile of nonsense you’ve managed to come up with, but let’s take this for starters. You’ve made the major mistake most non-Catholics make (only because you are/were Catholic, you have no excuse). You have confused formal definition of a doctrine with belief and practice of the doctrine. Doctrines were sometimes believed and praticed by the Church for centuries before the formal definition.
The doctrine of the infallibility of the Church is based in Scripture, and in the Middle Ages, the terms of papal infallibility were put in terms almost identical to those used at Vatican I. This doctrine was not only believed in but practiced; Pope Pius IX, for instance, infallibly defined the Immaculate Conception of Mary in 1854, sixteen years before the formal dogmatic definition of papal infallibility in 1870. That could only happen if papal infallibility was always believed in as a doctrine.
As for the Assumption, there are traces of this belief from the earliest days of the Church, and it was settled teaching in East and west by the 7th century; that is 13 centuries before its formal dogmati definition. By the way, this doctrine is believed not just by Catholics, but also by the Eastern Orthodox and by many Anglicans, neither of whom agree with papal infallibility. The Church never invents doctrines but she is often slow to confirm them by dogmatic definition because of the very
great care she takes to preserve the teaching of Christ handed down to her.
It sure would make life less complicated if you would actually use some of your brilliant college girl Phi Alpha Theta Smarts and actually study the history of the Church from credible sources, including actual Catholic documents, rather than just the ignorant prejudiced folderol of your skeptical college profs (I had the same kind of profs, but fortunately I was already well informed about my faith, and as a budding historian, knew how to look up sources). Nothing you say could have come from any credible historical sources. If you think you’ve got one, show it to me.
And no, I most certainly do not believe that everyone needs to join my Church. Nor do I believe Unitarians are heathens. I said the Catholic Cnurch is the true Church because it is historically identifiable with the Church founded by Christ. We believe that everyone who is baptized belongs in some way or another to the true Church Christ founded. Many Protestants and others have fallen away from important historical doctrines, but that does not make them not Christians. Benedict XVI has gotten a lot of criticism for declaring that the Anglican churches and other Christian ecclesial bodies are not fully church in the way the Catholic Church is. But this does not mean he doesn’t believe them good Christians. In fact, he believes the Anglicans are such good Christians that when he established the Ordinariate, he allowed them to bring in their liturgy and faith traditions almost intact because they were valid and he considered them valuable.
I halfway suspect you wrote as much nonsense and put as many words in my mouth as you did to detract from your lame non-explanation of your atheism. I’m sorry “spirituality” didn’t work for you. In reality, it never does. You don’t need spirituality, you need true faith and forgiveness. You’ve been fleeing from it all your life.
I know, Paladin, I know. But I keep thinking of the many Protestant readers of this board who believe a lot of this nonsense themselves — much more innocently than CC does. I honestly don’t know what she’d do without her Catholic bashing.
Lori,
I realize that the trolls go nuts when I say this, but their Catholic-bashing is evidence of their satanic leanings. Their hatred of what’s holy is on display here.
CC,
No more phony arguments and derailments here anymore. We’ve seen it all, and gone ’round, and ’round, and ’round on the satanic merry-go-round with you and your fellow trolls. From now on you’re going to simply be invited to come home. Call Carla.
That’s it.
Not feeding the trolls is medicinal for the trolls, not for us. Those of you who killed your babies and glory in it need to get over yourselves. You’re petty, cruel, and small. There are people here willing to help you reclaim your dignity. I suggest that you do so.
It’s time for healing.
CC You are in an elite group of humanitarians. Weren’t Hitler, Stalin and Mao atheists? Your seeming wanton disregard for human life is more sociopathic than logical. Your arguments and those of the pro-death crowd are the same used by the Nazi’s. All mass murders even confronted with photographic evidence are unmoved, they show no reactions to their heinous crimes. I’ve also noticed and it’s ironic; you seem to only go after the women but not so the men. How come?
I’m willing to stop, Gerard. CC has already eaten up enough of my time today. If you and the other moderators would just agree to delete all the falsehoods about the Church, I wouldn’t want to spend time correcting them. I think religious discussion is good, but not lies like these. As I said, many people’s false beliefs about the Catholic Church are being reinforced here.
Now if I could just get back the hour and a half I spent tonight spent looking for my house keys so I could go out, only to find them after the store was closed. . .
Without addressing any one in particularly since we’re posting about our spriritual journeys, I was raised Catholic too. The only time I attended Sunday mass faithfully was when I lived with my older brother and sister for two years. My first prayer I ever prayed I was probably 6 or 7 anyway I found a little bird on the road in front of our house the people we were renting from had left birdhouses in the back so I brought him there and just prayed that his mom would rescue him. I attended catechism faithfully and made my communion and confirmed when I was 16. I had a friend who was Pentecostal and her mom would just invite me to go to church with them so I would. I knew there was a God and I knew he loved me but something was still missing. When I was 23 I made the decision that I should be attending church regularly and started attending an Assembly of God church and friends of mine invited me to a Pentecostal church that was in revival. At this point I had two small children. Life was good I was out of an abusive situation had a job and was in a city I really liked. And had started attending church regularly. I don’t even remember what he preached on but knew enough to know that I needed forgiveness went up to the altar and received the Baptist of The Holy Ghost. That was my home church for about 2 years. That’s when the cigarettes went and other bad habits except in a Pentecostal Church you know there not called habits their called sin. That was 24 years ago and though the journey has not been easy I know I have a God and I know he loves me. When I moved to where I’m at now I hadn’t been to a Catholic church in years not long after moving here my son was diagnosed with leukemia and it was a Catholic church that really helped me out even though we didn’t go to church there they just made my job as my sons caregiver easier. My mom was in another city and didn’t drive so I’m not sure what I would have done I probably would have just kept on keeping on but their love made a very dark time easier for me. During this time I learned the importance of the cross, the sorrow of the cross, and real joy which I’ve found in no other place then in Christ. I’m not where I should be but I’m very proud of the fact that I never went back to where I was when he found me. My love for him has grown. I like the song The God of the Mountain He’s Still God in the Valley. I’ve seen my mountains and I’ve been through the valley. The valleys are where you find out who you are and it’s a time of real growth. Growth is where you find empathy so often when I was hurting sometimes I would encounter someone who had already walked where I was walking and they didn’t even have to say anything knowing that they cared made my journey easier. Sometimes you hear more in silence.
@Jim. I’m afraid we are already turning into maximum Germany with the mass genocide we have committed!?,,
typo nazi
Initially, I was sidetracked regarding Jill’s weekend topic. I am fairly new
to the comment side of blogging but love reading the blogs of Jill, Dr. Gerard,
Carla, et. al. My vote…Rick Santorum.
Personally speaking, I am Home. As Lori said it so eloquently and so true..
the Real Church. Also, I want to personally say to all my fellow
pro-lifers in other demoninations, I did not mean to sound disrespectful,
and I truly apologize if I have caused anyone discomfort.
Moving forward, I am just a small voice—a voice for the voiceless–for my
precious baby and over the 54 million other baby voices that were
killed from abortion. Besides my personal experience, I have personally
witnessed so many women and men who deeply regret their abortions, too,
which have caused so much emotional and/or physical damage.
Contact Carla for the healing process to begin.
In ending, please allow me to give this message from Pope John Paul II…
where we are and where we are headed as a nation…it says it all…
“To be actively pro-life is to contribute to the renewal of society through the promotion
of the common good. It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all the other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop.”
– Pope John Paul II, The Gospel of Life, n.101
Hello Carol,
Grateful to be walking this journey with you!
God bless you!
That sounds very nice, but at whose expense should this life be granted? We’ll never agree. I don’t have the right to live if doing so requires me to harness myself to somebody else’s body.
You know why that sounds nice? Because it is.
Tell that to my son in a few years when he’s playing with the other children in his class and feels like someone’s missing. Tell him that when he was in my tummy, you had a baby just like him in yours, and you had a doctor kill that baby. These are PEOPLE, Megan. This is not an “agree to disagree” kind of thing.
P.S. It’s not a really big expense, Megan. If you would’ve let your baby live, you would’ve learned that. You were/are somebody’s mother. I’d hope that if I ever said, “Hey mom, can I borrow some food and crash at your house for awhile? I kinda need to or I’LL F-ING DIE.” she’d be down for that. I would for my kids. I can’t believe that you weren’t for yours.
Hi, Carla! Thank you. Great to hear from you. It’s so cute & funny to me that when you start making your comments, I say to myself; “I was about make the same comment too”. LOL
Patiently waiting with hope for all to come to you to seek healing. Yep, you’re right; we know it’s a journey. We really care for you, Megan. It’s scary, but you can rest in Carla.
God bless you, too, Carla.
Jim, Good points you’ve made–Nazi-type ideology.
Myrtle: Without addressing any one in particularly since we’re posting about our spriritual journeys…. Sometimes you hear more in silence.
Myrtle, very good post from you. No criticism here from me on religion or any particular religion. All your posts have always shown as really gut-basic honest and well-meaning, and I’m always glad to see them. I’m pro-choice but I truly see the goodness in you as well as in many pro-lifers here. Cheers!
Lori: ”Many Protestants and others have fallen away from important historical doctrines…”
We’ve also fallen away from a lot of really unimportant ones. Along with many Catholics who also have. ;-)
CC: “…many of these woman have, long ago, rejected the medieval mindset of patriarchal religions that teach women to be ashamed of their sexuality.”
Ashamed of their sexuality? In context, you’re strongly implying that to be against killing unborn life is, for a woman, to be ashamed of their sexuality for patriarchal reasons?
That’s bizarre. It’s non sequitur, so I’m wondering what premises you’re supplying that aren’t present to warrant your conclusion. You’re leaving them unstated but, apparently, imagine your readers will find your remarks rational. Unless you’re wholly unconcerned with seeming rational. Something.
Lori: Darnit, forgot to also say — many Catholics have fallen away from important doctrines that Protestants still hold dear.
Once we get away from generalizations, the particulars get interesting. ;-)
As someone who considers himself a protestant of Protestants, I have to half-heartedly agree with CC’s comments about “the real church”. However, if you don’t think your church has the majority of Truth, you’re just treading water.
But, call me a religio-snob, but I think the Unitarian Church isn’t much more substantial than that Universalist Church that disc jockeys buy a liecense from so they can perform weddings.