Rick is right: Prenatal genetic testing increases eugenic abortions
The rapid growth of prenatal testing has had some undeniably positive effects: A woman who knows she will bear a child with a handicap can plan to deliver in a hospital equipped for risky births. And many couples prefer the opportunity to prepare psychologically for the work of raising a disabled child.
By far the most profound effect of prenatal testing, however, has been a staggering increase in the number of abortions.
The trend is clear: More testing invariably leads to more — many more — abortions of Down Syndrome children….
Far fewer than 90 percent of women support abortion, at least in the abstract, so there is some question as to why so many are choosing it when they find they are carrying children with Down Syndrome. A number of studies have attempted to provide an answer. One, conducted by the Canadian Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, found that, because of pressure from hospital staff, one in four pregnant women “felt obliged” to undergo amniocentesis. Of those who tested positive for a birth defect, one in three believed she was “more or less forced” to have an abortion.
~ Tucker Carlson, in Slate’s reprint of his 1996 Weekly Standard article on the eugenic nature of prenatal testing, February 21
GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum came under fire this week for his comments against Obamacare’s free prenatal testing provisions, stating that it “ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society.”
[Photo via genethique.org]
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.
Sarah Palin, hardly pro-choice, defends pre-natal testing.
“prepare psychologically for the work of raising a disabled child“
Ugh. There is no psychological preparation. You meet challenges are they come. Many people become disabled after birth and you deal with it. Babies are tiny, portable and don’t require building a wheelchair ramp. Need to know about pre-existing disabilities in only merited when those abilities affect the child in the womb or at birth. Downs testing does no such thing. It exists to find Downs children simply so they can be killed.
“Psychological preparation”- That’s some BS. Take it from me, someone with a child with Down Syndrome.
Palin considered killing Trig, too. She merely decided against it. That doesn’t sound “pro-life” to me.
Speaking as a mother who has gone through prenatal testing and also the mother of a child with Down Syndrome (this photo is GORGEOUS BTW- such a pretty baby!) I can see how a mother might feel forced into an abortion if she had been on the fence at all about the decision. I was never considering aborting my daughter, but the doctor who informed me that our daughter had trisomy 21 said ” unfortunately the fetus is still viable” and the social worker who came to talk with me later acted like I was stupid because I wanted to keep the baby. She really seemed to think I was not prepared to deal with a special needs child ( of course I had already had 2 special needs children by then, whose issues could not have shown up in any prenatal testing) and acted so condescending towards me. The ob gyn who was MY doctor never reacted that way. in fact his wife was also pregnant at the time and their baby had some kind of complication. He said to me, My wife and I would NEVER consider Termination”. Good Doctor- Dr Hussy at Rush Pres. in Chicago.
Provida says:
Palin considered killing Trig, too. She merely decided against it. That doesn’t sound “pro-life” to me.
**
Having a Down’s Syndrome baby is not for everybody. Lots of people who would generally be pro-life would choose to have an abortion or at least think twice about having a Down’s baby.
Having a baby with Down Syndrome is no different than having a baby without that extra chromosome. It’s not like the chromosome is an appendage that could get caught in the birth canal!
Now, raising a baby with Down Syndrome is different and if someone does not want to raise that child, they need not KILL that child. My son’s birthmother didn’t want to raise a child with Down Syndrome, so she placed him for adoption where he could be utterly adored. She didn’t pull the, “If I can’t have him, no one can!” and abort the light of our lives. Maybe she didn’t have pre-natal tests or maybe she chose not to, but I am grateful no matter what. Raising a child with Down Syndrome “wasn’t for her” but she had him and he gets to live his life.
The bigotry you espouse that letting a disabled child live is “not for everybody” reduces children to commodities “for” adults. Children are for children and have rights- the right to live and be cared for. Anyone who would violate a child’s right to live because the child has a disability and it’s “not for them” is NOT pro-life.
Killing a child because the child’s disability is “not for you” is sick, selfish thing. Someone’s life isn’t measured by how it benefits someone else. Vomitous.
Provida, I wish I could like your comment a thousand times! Beautifully said!
Our society is geared so much towards preventing suffering and treating especially poor people as weak, feeble burdens on society and incapable of taking responsibility for their own actions or other people. This I think is why so many doctors and nurses try to shove abortion down the throats of parents of children with disability. Where is the vitality in society? Wasn’t feminism supposed to be about empowering women and mothers? Isn’t self-esteem supposed to be about telling someone “you can do it!”? Wasn’t disability rights supposed to be about respected people for who they are? What a negative age we live in.
I regret my comment about Sarah Palin, who honestly admitted her thoughts. I have considered doing a lot of horrible things I would never actually do. I don’t readily admit to these thoughts because I don’t want people assassinating my character unjustly for them, like I just did to Sarah Palin. People consider things that they don’t act on all the time and at the end of the day, it is the action taken that matters.
With my last baby, I was considered an “older mother” and was given the option of amnio. (i thought, older mother?? I just ran a marathon! Who could you possibly be talking about??)
Abortion would never be a possibility for us, but I wonder if knowing ahead of time that your baby is going to have a trisomy issue would help you prepare emotionally. I don’t know–would know or not knowing be better IF abortion was never an option?
Provida says:
Having a baby with Down Syndrome is no different than having a baby without that extra chromosome.
**
If that were true, then genetic testing wouldn’t be an issue, and so many people wouldn’t be choosing to end Down’s pregnancies. Not to say that “you have to have an abortion because of “Down’s” – of course not. Just as Down’s babies aren’t for everybody, so is abortion not for everybody; we know that anyway.
But yes, having a Down’s baby is different, way, way different, and it’s definitely a big deal.
Mariposa, congratulations on your daughter and I am SO GLAD you had a good OB!
I still categorically oppose DS testing. DS testing is DANGEROUS for mother and child, risking miscarriage later in the pregnancy than most miscarriages naturally occur. Baby could die and hurt mother in the process. Furthermore, it has NO BENEFITS. Risking life and health of mother and child is only warranted when some action can result that makes those risks worth it, and with DS, no action can result to change the situation- EXCEPT ABORTION, which also kills the child and injures the mother. These tests only serve to open the door to the question of whether the mother wants to abort the “imperfect child” because why else would she have screened for DS? DS screening is used 90% of the time as “search and destroy” missions because they parent would risk losing a “perfect” child simply to destroy an “imperfect” one. So DS testing is dangerous and can only result in dead children and injured mothers- There are no reasons to support it, especially this tripe about “being psychologically prepared.” DS isn’t fatal! There is nothing to “prepare” for.
Jenn, it’s no different in this respect:
there is a child, created in the image of God, who is looking to his mother to provide him safe entrance into this world. Killing your own child because he has already failed to live up to your expectations is, to quote Provida, vomitous.
PS–abortion IS for nobody. Think about it.
Making argument based on one’s religion doesn’t go very far here. Are we going to ban many medical treatments and procedures because Jehovah’s Witnesses are against them? In the Middle Ages, people had to sneak around “Christians” to work on cadavers and learn anatomy. From some standpoints, almost anything can be considered “unnatural.”
Does genetic testing increase the number of certain types of abortions, as well as having many other effects? Of course it does. It’s still not going to “go away.” I don’t know what things Sarah Palin thought about, but it’s good that she was able to know as much as she did.
Jenn, it doesn’t matter if what you say is true or how “difficult” it is for some to love all of their children, you and everyone who has ever thought this way owe an apology to every person with Down Syndrome and their parents.
I have to say I hate this topic because I hate the posts. I find some people will say the worst things ever.
Actually forget the politness….Ms. Sterger keep your comments to yourself. You sound like Hitler.
If that were true, then genetic testing wouldn’t be an issue, and so many people wouldn’t be choosing to end Down’s pregnancies.
It is true. Without pre-natal testing, you wouldn’t know the child had DS until after birth. It is a standard birth. People choose to end pregnancies with children with DS because they don’t want a child with DS. It has nothing to do with the pregnancy- they just don’t want a child unless he/she is genetically normal. Be honest.
Not to say that “you have to have an abortion because of “Down’s” – of course not.
Thanks for your permission!
Just as Down’s babies aren’t for everybody, so is abortion not for everybody; we know that anyway.
“Downs babies” sounds like a slur to me. Do you have any kind of disability of abnormality that I can label you with in a bigotted fashion? Children can have Down Syndrome like they can have other characteristics. They aren’t a dog breed that “aren’t for everybody.” They are children with certain special needs that can’t be known until they grow. Most “normal” people don’t go to college, but some people with DS have! But having a “normal” kid is one thing- but having a child with DS “isn’t for everybody.”
But yes, having a Down’s baby is different, way, way different, and it’s definitely a big deal.
RAISING a child with DS is different- and it is a big deal. An awesome deal. But not killing a child with DS is not different from having a “normal” child. My son is a big deal. He’s exceptional in many ways.
Just as Down’s babies aren’t for everybody
No, children, any children of any genetic make-up aren’t for everybody. Anyone that views a child as “for” them should not have the privilege of raising a child, let alone an exceptional child. Your bigotry toward the disabled matches your selfish entitlement regarding children in general.
I hate that my son has to share a world with you.
The thought crossed Sarah Palin’s mind. And then she knew in her heart that she wouldn’t do it.
I thought that was brutally honest of her to admit that. And now that Trig is 4 I have yet to hear how she “regrets” having him.
I prefer child with Down Syndrome or baby with Down syndrome.
Child first. Always.
No baby is “perfect,” and good for you – those who have disabled kids and love and take good care of them. Nobody is telling you to do other that what you want, there.
But if Santorum wants to do away with genetic testing, then he’s going to cut his own throat, politically. If he answers “yes” to the question of, “If you were President, would you try to force me (or my wife) to continue a pregnancy if we knew that Down’s Syndrome was present?” then he’s going to lose too many voters to be a viable candidate.
Ms. Sterger just because your heart is the size of a peanut doesn’t mean everyone else’s is or should be.
The challenges of having a child with a disability is not accommodation of the disability- It’s dealing with the ignorance and bigotry of the abled people. Those that want to “praise” you for caring for your own child like your son/daughter is a charity case rather than a priceless child- or ask you “how you cope” with challenges or labeling your child like some exotic pet rather than a unique human being with a personality and soul. I can deal with walkers, wheelchairs, speech therapy, sign language- all that, all day every day, NO PROBLEM. But what I can’t “cope” with are people who devalue my son.
If you have aborted a Down Syndrome baby you should repent, repent now, and the Lord will forgive you…. Get down on your knees and ask the Lord to give you back your humanity, to rip apart the steel cage you have encased your heart in.
Tyler, you’re essentially just stomping your feet and insisting that your position somehow has to be followed by everybody else. Things don’t work that way, especially with something as severe as Down’s Syndrome.
“Hitler…” Come on, man – a sure way to lose the debate and anyway – if anything Hitler felt like you do – that just because he thought something, that everybody else should be forced to follow it. Is your argument so weak that you immediately jump in with that kind of thing, and silly ad hominems, talking about peanut-sized hearts, etc.?
No baby is “perfect,”
Mine is.
and good for you – those who have disabled kids and love and take good care of them.
Taking care of my own child does not require praise because he has a disability. Children deserve to have someone take good care of them, no matter what. Parents caring for their children is decency. Children getting cared for is JUSTICE.
Nobody is telling you to do other that what you want, there.
I will tell people to do something other than what they “want”- I don’t care what they “want”- There is a child involved. If people don’t want to take care of a child, they are required to do so until an alternative can be found. The child has a right to be cared for a the parents “wants” don’t trump that right.
“If you were President, would you try to force me (or my wife) to continue a pregnancy if we knew that Down’s Syndrome was present?” then he’s going to lose too many voters to be a viable candidate.
Obama was a viable candidate for supporting the killing of children before, during and after birth. Selling your soul and the lives of others for votes WILL buy votes, but it won’t buy mine.
severe as Down’s Syndrome
Do you even know what DS is? There can be severe characteristics (like heart defects), but most of the time, there is nothing severe about it. People with DS are otherwise healthy. This is bigotry against intellectual impairment- which I find is most often found in those who are unintelligent themselves.
Correct Mac, and are you doing differently?
At least I am stomping my feet for life, you are stomping your feet for eugenics.
Mac, you better be a perfect human being because if I find one fault that you have that I don’t have myself I am going to request that you be terminated. In fact, since I am not perfect, and you hold yourself out to perfect, I think you deserve to die for your perfection since you are not like me.
No matter how nice the words you use are – every point you make with them reveals how egotistical you are. This isn’t about arguments, etc…. This is about respecting human life… something that you have completely lost sight of.
The Pro-Aborts have attacked the site again.
Provida, the intellectual impairment is often quite severe – you’re contradicting what you already know to be true by stating, “there is nothing severe about it.”
Jenn Sterger said, “If that were true, then genetic testing wouldn’t be an issue, and so many people wouldn’t be choosing to end Down’s pregnancies.” This is correct. If it was “no big deal,” who would be worrying about it? It’s the fact that it’s often really severe that makes the difference here.
While the abortion of so many children with Down Syndrome is a tragedy and a symptom of our very broken society, it is a mistake to classify all prenatal tests of any sort as useless. After all, surgeons can repair and correct things like spina bifida in the womb now. And who knows, perhaps in the future, we’ll be able to do the same for Down Syndrome. We don’t need to fight science. We need to fight the attitudes and people who use it to destroy, rather than build up.
Having a Jenn Sterger baby is not for everybody. Lots of people who would generally be pro-life would choose to have an abortion or at least think twice about having a Jenn Sterger’s baby
Tyler, you would have a rational argument if I was demanding that anybody with a Down’s pregnancy have an abortion. I’m not.
“Lots of people who would generally be pro-life would choose to have an abortion or at least think twice about having a Jenn Sterger’s baby”
You’re not serious. You know that’s false.
Mac you are right, my previous post is false – a pro-life person would never kill a Jenn Sterger’s baby or a Down Syndrome’s baby! …. But a Mac baby…well now that is an entirely different question…
Good day Dr. Mac Evil.
Provida, the intellectual impairment is often quite severe – you’re contradicting what you already know to be true by stating, “there is nothing severe about it.”
Is blindness “severe”? If deafness “severe”? Is paralysis “severe”? Each disability requires some sort of accomodation. DS is no different. Would you advocate killing the blind, deaf or paralyzed? No- because your bigotry is only towards intellectual impairments.
And who knows, perhaps in the future, we’ll be able to do the same for Down Syndrome.
OH MY GOSH, you people don’t even know what Down Syndrome IS! You can’t “fix” a chromosomal condition! You can address attributes, but you can’t ever “fix” Down Syndrome. You can’t excise the extra chromosome in the womb.
So yes, all prenatal DS screenings are dangerous and pointless.
Tyler, you’re just as wrong about “a Mac baby.” You know that, too. It seems that in your world anybody who does not agree with you – even where you know you are false, even where you admit it, is somehow “evil” and “hard-hearted” and possibly even “like Hitler.” Think about what you are saying. Or, yeah, just “Come on, man…”
There are reasonable and rational people who come to the discussion from both sides, but the ranting and raving quickly puts one in a different area.
It’s the fact that it’s often really severe that makes the difference here.
The child could be high-functioning, but because a child *could* be low-functioning, we just kill every child with Down Syndrome just to be sure. We can’t have any children with “severe” cases slip through- like my low-functioning son, right?
My point is made! The fact that people would risk killing a normal child with a dangerous amniocentesis and will abort a child with DS regardless of that child’s potential just proves how bigotted people are towards intellectual disabilities.
Severity, then is not the issue. You just take issue with mental retardation.
Oh, you gotta love threads like these, where the TRUE bigotry comes to light. Prejudice against the disabled. You should be very, very proud.
Nothing draws out the eugenics fans like posts about Down syndrome.
Some people are genetically “normal” but mind-numbingly stupid. I just wanted to point that out because people seem to forget that the absence of intellectual disability doesn’t imply that NASA will be knocking at your kid’s door. If we had a pre-natal IQ test, God knows who would survive.
I am waiting for the world to realize that human value is intrinsic and not qualified by intelligence, health, strength, income, etc. Especially not qualified by if someone else “wants” you or not.
Provida, Alice has a point. She did say “perhaps,” after all. In the past few decades we’ve come a very long way, mapping the human genome, etc. – including things that were until recently considered impossible or even were undreamt of. The more we know about chromosomal aberrations, the better we’re able to deal with them, and possibly prevent their causes.
“Is blindness “severe”? If deafness “severe”? Is paralysis “severe”? Each disability requires some sort of accomodation. DS is no different. Would you advocate killing the blind, deaf or paralyzed? No- because your bigotry is only towards intellectual impairments.
Honestly, that’s ranting and raving. I’m not “advocating” that anybody do anything with regards to a Down’s pregnancy. If you’re the one pregnant, it’s your decision. Sure – blindness, too, is severe. If people knew they were going to have a baby that was blind, deaf, and paralyzed, you too know that many would choose to have an abortion. Where would YOU draw the line? What if there’s really no “brain” at all, as with anencephaly?
RICK HAS NAILED IT with his words about reducing costs of care by culling the ranks of the disabled in our society. I’ve said it before, and will say it all again:
Socialist/statist tyrannies view those they rule as dispoable property, plain and simple.
To them everyone is a mere resource, commodity; either an asset or a liability; you are either making or costing them money. They will provide for you only so long as you are to them an asset; when they see you as a liability, they will seek to destroy you. If they even think you will become a liability…the search and destroy mission is on. The March of Dimes has been enabling this ”mission” for decades now in utero by supporting amniocentesis, and the only purpose of it is to search out for destruction children with Down’s Syndrome, especially, though I know of a number of abortions that were pushed on mothers for possible fetal handicaps…who did not get them…and gave birth to perfectly healthy babies.
And then there was the case, since Roe, in which a young mother named Marla was pushed by a hospital social worker to abort her second child because some antidepressants she had taken could, she was told, cause damage to the baby. She was told there was an 8% chance that the baby could be damaged by these – meaning a 92% chance that the baby was fine, but farbeit from these vultures to look for anything positive in a situation they can exploit to harm the innocent. Anyway, Marla asked for testing to be done for the possible damage. The tests were done, and showed no abnormality, no damage. The social worker did not divulge those tests to Marla, but instead railroaded her into getting an abortion in the hospital. Marla died from that abortion as well as her healthy baby.
Oh, and there’s another case I recall here, in which an Austrian physician some years ago delivered two babies on the same day. One was a healthy little boy, whose parents were very proud and happy that he was very strong. The other was a little girl whose parents were rather saddened to learn that she had Down’s Syndrome. The doctor who delivered them both followed their lives well into their adult years.
The little girl grew up to nurse her aging mother successfully through a long, serious illness, though history does not record her name. The little boy died in a bunker in Berlin; and history, however it tries, is not likely forget the name of one Adolf Hilter.
The little girl was admittedly mentally challenged, the little boy came out, apparently like Obummer, morally defective. It’s pretty certain, to me, that just about anyone who can read this would prefer to have the little girl caring for them in the proverbial dawn, shadows, or twilight of life than the little boy… but society seeks to destroy the Downs babies, and votes Hitler’s counterpart into office. Should either of them been aborted? I don’t think so; but millions of lives would have been spared had Hitler not been voted into power, or anyone else with his moral bankruptcy.
The costs to society of caring for the disabled are small when compared with the cost to society of failing to deal with the morally defective; and the essential difference between a barbaric tyranny and an optimally free, just and civilized society is that the former encourages the strong to prey upon the vulnerable with impunity; in the latter, the strong are encouraged to use their advantages to protect and assist the vulnerable. Hubert Humphrey, I think it was, said it another way, that history will judge a society by how it treats those in the dawn of life (the children), the shadows of life (the handicapped, poor, disabled, sick) and the twilight of life (the elderly).; In a word, the vulnerable.
When the state, in collusion with the medical community, arrogates to itself the prerogative of determining, based on “quality of life” and not a legitimate conviction of capital crime, what lives are and are not “worthy of life”, the doors are wide opened to the horrors of Auschwitz, Dachau…and worse.
GOOD ON SANTORUM for calling Obummer’s hand on this.
OH MY GOSH, you people don’t even know what Down Syndrome IS! You can’t “fix” a chromosomal condition! You can address attributes, but you can’t ever “fix” Down Syndrome. You can’t excise the extra chromosome in the womb.
First off, relax. I do know what Down Syndrome is (extra chromosome; child has three where there should be two). And I am pro-life. I agree with you, and I’m on your side. In fact, barring your initial comments about Sarah Palin (from which you have since backed away), I’ve agreed with nearly every comment you’ve made.
Second, you are right…at the moment. Removing an extra chromosome is not only impossible it is, from our current medical position, a ludicrous suggestion on its face. However, at one point in time, people would have said the same things about brain surgery. The problem is not people looking at Down Syndrome, or any other developmental differences, as things that medicine may one day be able to treat. The problem is looking at them as if they are a value judgement on the people who have them. Which they aren’t. Someone with Down Syndrome is–to any thinking, civilized human being–just as valuable as someone without it. Obviously.
“But if Santorum wants to do away with genetic testing”
This is what happens when we live in a world where everything must be reduced to a soundbite and no one wants to actually LISTEN and READ to find out the full truth. Santorum does NOT want to “do away with” genetic testing. He doesn’t want the government to mandate that genetic testing be covered for FREE in EVERY insurance policy. Big difference.
God bless you Provida!
I hear you loud and clear!
Hug your son for me. :)
PS Haters gonna hate. And the other haters will “like” their comments 25 times.
“But if Santorum wants to do away with genetic testing”
This is what happens when we live in a world where everything must be reduced to a soundbite and no one wants to actually LISTEN and READ to find out the full truth. Santorum does NOT want to “do away with” genetic testing. He doesn’t want the government to mandate that genetic testing be covered for FREE in EVERY insurance policy. Big difference.
YES! Thank you. You said what I was going to say. :D
PS Haters gonna hate. And the other haters will “like” their comments 25 times.
Yep. People insist eugenics and discrimination against the disabled aren’t really an issue in our society, but threads like these show otherwise.
Alice,
I agree with what you’re saying here. And, as you mentioned earlier, there are conditions such as spina bifida that can be detected through prenatal testing and fixed earlier.
It’s truly a shame that people are choosing to end their children’s lives over the results of some of these tests.
Mac: the whole point is that WE DON’T DRAW THE LINE.
“Tyler, you’re just as wrong about “a Mac baby.” You know that, too. It seems that in your world anybody who does not agree with you – even where you know you are false, even where you admit it, is somehow “evil” and “hard-hearted” and possibly even “like Hitler.” Think about what you are saying. Or, yeah, just “Come on, man…”
There are reasonable and rational people who come to the discussion from both sides, but the ranting and raving quickly puts one in a different area.”
Mac, false smalse. I guess you have never heard of sarcasm Mac. You’re all talk Mac and no substance – you say my statement is false – then prove it, you are the one making the claim, please prove you have more of a right to life than a person with Down Syndrome, or Cancer, or blindess, or deafness. Or does your hatred confine itself to people who have Down Syndrome? How many different types of “imperfect” people do you need to kill in the womb in order to satiate your blood lust? Have you ever considered what you are advocating from the perspective of the Down Syndrome person? Or is that too much for your pea-sized imagination and heart to handle? Like I said before, you can’t spew out hatred and cover it up by calling it tolerance. Tolerance of killing people is not tolerance at all – it is being complicit with evil.
Consider some of the remarks above, which advocate or defend destroying girl and boy fetuses with DS.
Then imagine the same people making such remarks made about genetic testing and abortion for homosexuality. The bigotry against people with mental disabilitites becomes crystal clear.
Re: the remark that DS children “aren’t for” everyone …
From what I’ve observed, read and heard, there is virtually no one that DS people, at any age, are hostile towards, or against; in fact, it’s hard to find any friendlier, more warmhearted people anywhere than DSers.
And many who’ve accepted the adjustments of having and raising children with DS have testified that they became much more flexible, understanding, and less selfish people for having welcomed special needs accomodation into their lives. How is that a bad thing? Perhaps God determines who needs these influences, and sends DS babies – or any other baby, for that matter- where He chooses. If only the parents have eyes to see, and ears to hear.
That said, I’m not opposed to prenatal testing, provided that the benefits outweigh the risks; but it should be done with a view, per the Nuremburg code, to helping the one tested, not harming or destroying the patient, or anyone else, in the process, or with any knowledge gained from the testing. Recall the Nazi submersion, castration, and other atrocities committed under the guise of “medical experimentation”…and definitely rule out aborting children diagnosed with a handicap.
I don’t see why Mac is so concerned with anencephaly…not that I think (s)he is really concerned with anything other than trying to justify the murder of the defenseless in the name of “choice”. Anencephalous babies simply cannot live long longer than maybe a week, I understand, outside the womb; but induced abortion is dangerous to the mother’s reproductive health, regardless of the condition of the child (or the circumstances under which the child was conceived…). If someone has only a short time to live, it seems especially heinous to kill him/her, and endanger his/her mother, if the dying person is in infancy? Safer for women to kill congenitally handicapped persons after they are born…though I so do not recommend this. I’ve known congenitally handicapped individuals to lead amazingly productive lives that benefitted millions of others. They simply focus on doing the best they can with what they have, and not focusing on what they don’t have; it’s called adapting, and it’s what creative people normally, and instinctively, do with setbacks of all sorts.
Exceptional cases make for very bad laws.
“Tyler, you’re just as wrong about “a Mac baby.”
Mac, I guess it hurts when the hatred is directed at you, doesn’t it?
Mac, your Mom let you live and you have a heart like a raisen.
Where would YOU draw the line? What if there’s really no “brain” at all, as with anencephaly?
I had an aunt born with anecephaly who lived for 3 days after she was born. Should my grandma have killed her in utero instead? Are you going to be one of the d!ckweeds from Twitter who told me that my aunt wasn’t a “who”, but a “what”? That she was “just a meat bag”? That my mom’s sister was less than a human being?
Mac,
What if you and your wife were “forced” to have a kid who was learning disabled because there was no detectable genetic abnormality present, nor any physical indicators of mental retardation? How DARE that child FORCE his/herself upon you and your wife, right? And since there was no way to know, and you were FORCED to have them, you should be able to dispose of the little retard as you see fit, right? If they hadn’t lied to you and made themselves appear “normal” during gestation, you would’ve done away with them then, but nooooo, they had to FORCE themselves on you and your wife, and now they’re gonna have to pay for it, huh!
Also, as someone born with a birth defect, I find Mac and everyone who thinks like him absolutely repulsive. I consider myself to be lucky I was born to parents who cared for me and loved me for who I was despite my outward appearance. I can only imagine what my life would be like if I had been born to someone like him.
I think what Sarah Palin actually said was that, JUST FOR A SECOND she panicked. She said she understood what other women felt in this situation, what made them feel like they couldn’t cope with the situation.
Anyway…
There are different “degrees” of DS, some more “challenging” than others, but there is no way to know- prenatal testing or not- to what degree your child will be “challenged”.
Some young people with DS have gone on to COLLEGE, many have jobs, some are even PUBLIC SPEAKERS and ADVOCATES for people with Down Syndrome!
My sister has what used to be called “borderline retardation”. She was in “special” classes at school, and during several summers as a teenager, she was even a SWIMMING INSTRUCTOR for people with “mental challenges”, so I have had many opportunities to interact with people with DS.
There was one man, Billy who was probably in his late 30’s-early 40’s, but he had a “mental age” of about 4, I’d say. He was a big, hulking man, but he was SO sweet! He LOVED hugs, and he LOVED people. He would walk up to you and say “Hi! I like you! You wanna be my friend?” and if you said “Sure, Billy, I’ll be your friend.”, he would break out in the happiest grin you ever saw!
People with DS feel the same emotions as people without it, but for MOST (not ALL, MOST), that extra chromosome just seems to fill them with extra JOY at the world around them.
The world doesn’t know what it’s missing without all that extra joy…
No wonder the world is in such a sad state these days. :(
xalisae says: “Mac, What if you and your wife were “forced” to have a kid who was learning disabled because there was no detectable genetic abnormality present, nor any physical indicators of mental retardation? How DARE that child FORCE his/herself upon you and your wife, right?”
xalisae, I’m not saying the child is doing anything – and I don’t see anybody else in this thread saying that either.
On your grandma, it was her decision. She could have had an abortion, and I’m not saying it’s a bad thing that she didn’t.
MEA CULPA! Make that Geneva Code, not Nuremburg, in my last.
Anyway, Wachet Auf, everybody…and NEVER AGAIN!!!
Since I suffered Rh factor hemolytic anemia in utero, the doctor recommended abortion to my mother because he thought I would be born severely disabled. Fortunately my mom found a new doctor and was ready to embrace my life no matter how I was born. Turns out the first doc was wrong anyway. I was not born disabled, although some trolls here think I drag my knuckles on the ground.
Tyler says: “Tyler, you’re just as wrong about “a Mac baby.”
Mac, I guess it hurts when the hatred is directed at you, doesn’t it?
Tyler, if that really was “hatred” then it’s in line with the fact that the “haters” here seem to all be on the pro-life side. Looking at the tone of the comments, it’s pretty clear.
I only took it as yet another factually incorrect statement from you.
“I guess you have never heard of sarcasm Mac. You’re all talk Mac and no substance – you say my statement is false – then prove it”
Sarcasm is fine, but if it’s a false statement – and in your case you’ve made several – then to maintain that it’s germane to the argument is hardly rational.
You made the assertions, why should somebody else have to “prove they are false”? Do you not see how silly that is? You could say ANYTHING and act like it has sensible weight merely because there can be no proof of it being wrong, and that is a logical fallacy. By your logic, you could say that “God is going to turn the moon into green cheese,” and then you’d be thinking you’d made a good point, just because it cannot be proven false.
Moreover, you admitted to being false. I noted it, and the next thing you do is admit it and agree, and…. now you’re still going on about it and acting like somebody else has to “prove it’s false”?
xalisae, I’m not saying the child is doing anything – and I don’t see anybody else in this thread saying that either.
But in your original comment you said:
“If you were President, would you try to force me (or my wife) to continue a pregnancy if we knew that Down’s Syndrome was present?”
If getting rid of genetic testing would “force” you and your wife “to continue a pregnancy”, because you would have that child killed in an abortion if you found some sort of condition that would limit that child’s intellect, it seems that a child with a learning disability that presents no detectable symptoms would be forcing themselves upon you, because if they HAD presented with detectable symptoms, you would’ve aborted.
On your grandma, it was her decision. She could have had an abortion, and I’m not saying it’s a bad thing that she didn’t.
That doesn’t answer what I asked. I asked if you share the opinion that my aunt didn’t qualify as a human being/person.
Carla says: Haters gonna hate. And the other haters will “like” their comments 25 times.
The hate’s really coming from pro-lifers, though. All the talk of “Hitler,” etc. Are you going to say that “Catholics are evil because most of them use birth control”? It is very understandable that many people use birth control, and very understandable that many people would choose to terminate Down’s pregnancies. For all the foaming-at-the-mouth posts from pro-lifers here, not one person has said that Down’s pregnancies “has to mean” abortion or anything like that.
Tyler, if that really was “hatred” then it’s in line with the fact that the “haters” here seem to all be on the pro-life side. Looking at the tone of the comments, it’s pretty clear.
Silly pro-lifers. We equate wanting to kill a certain group because they’re viewed as “inferior” to hate for that group.
It’s the OPTION of abortion that is hateful, Mac. That we can kill our unborn because they do not suit us. Why that is so hard to understand by folks like you immediately bring Hitler to mind. And, no foam here.
PS–you don’t terminate a pregnancy, you terminate a HUMAN BEING.
I’m sorry Mac, I just disagree that it’s “very understandable that many people would choose to terminate Downs pregnancies”.
While I understand the fear and panic that parents might feel when faced with such a diagnosis, I DON’T understand the urge to KILL that child, the child that was loved, wanted and anticipated BEFORE the diagnosis.
A child is a CHILD…. “imperfect” or not.
Kel wrote:
Oh, you gotta love threads like these, where the TRUE bigotry comes to light. Prejudice against the disabled. You should be very, very proud. Nothing draws out the eugenics fans like posts about Down syndrome.
You’re not kidding! It also brought out a silent swarm of what I can only describe as “seminar trolls”; 30+ “likes” for a comment about killing a child who’s “not for you”? (Where’s EGV, when we need to show him an example of something that’s objectively evil?)
Also, as someone born with a birth defect, I find Mac and everyone who thinks like him absolutely repulsive. I consider myself to be lucky I was born to parents who cared for me and loved me for who I was despite my outward appearance. I can only imagine what my life would be like if I had been born to someone like him.
:) Amen, Xalisae!
(And excuse the forwardness, but for the record: I think you’re really cute! :) )
(And if you’d be so kind as to tell your significant other not to hunt me down with a shot-gun for that remark, I’d be much obliged…)
xalisae, I’m not saying the child is doing anything – and I don’t see anybody else in this thread saying that either.
But in your original comment you said:
“If you were President, would you try to force me (or my wife) to continue a pregnancy if we knew that Down’s Syndrome was present?”
If getting rid of genetic testing would “force” you and your wife “to continue a pregnancy”, because you would have that child killed in an abortion if you found some sort of condition that would limit that child’s intellect, it seems that a child with a learning disability that presents no detectable symptoms would be forcing themselves upon you, because if they HAD presented with detectable symptoms, you would’ve aborted.”
–No, it’s not the child “doing” anything. If we get rid of genetic testing, that would be the “why,” for many people. And if Santorum would answer “yes,” there, then it’s a big political liability for him. If somebody is so “far out there” (beyond what most of the populace agrees with) then he’s not electable. This is so whether or not you or I would agree with the stated position. Same for abortion exceptions for rape and incest. If somebody runs for office on the sole platform of “I will not allow exceptions for rape or incest, then they’re not going to be elected. (I know that Santorum doesn’t have only one issue, thus I’m not saying he could “never win no matter what.” I’m just saying he’s got his political liabilities, and this would be one of them.)
On your grandma, it was her decision. She could have had an abortion, and I’m not saying it’s a bad thing that she didn’t.
That doesn’t answer what I asked. I asked if you share the opinion that my aunt didn’t qualify as a human being/person.”
— what you said was “Should my grandma have killed her in utero instead?” And I said that was your grandma’s decision.
Haven’t seen anybody say your aunt wasn’t a “human being.” You mean just physically?
“Person” or not – some would say yes, some would say no. My feeling is that had the brain been normal, “all there” and functioning, then there would have been much more of a person. Here too, do we mean just physically? If all brain activity ceases, and we have a “dead person,” we could say yes it’s a person (just a dead one). It’s still a question of where do we draw the line – it’s a fact that we treat dead bodies much differently than we do living people, even though it could be said that it’s a “person.”
Ergh. To engage, or not to engage.
1) At least one “bland troll” named “Mac” (i.e. say outrageous and inflammatory things, and then affect a “why on earth is this rabble screaming and yelling?” demeanour)…
2) At least 25 “silent troll troopers” (perhaps from a blog or FB page)… perhaps real, perhaps a few people with multiple e-mail accounts and/or IP’s… who arrive only to click “Like” (in an impressive frenzy of speed) on every pro-death comment.
This isn’t looking promising for actual intellectual exchange. My personal verdict: to the extent that it’s psychologically possible, don’t feed the trolls!
Looking at the tone of the comments, it’s pretty clear.
The hate’s really coming from pro-lifers, though. All the talk of “Hitler,” etc.
Tone. Argument. I can not believe that’s even being brought up.
I’m going to through this one step by step. It is not relevant that you are not defending abortion in every case of a child with Down Syndrome. It is relevant you are defending it in the case of any case of a child with Down Syndrom. To use your own words, ” It is…very understandable that many people would choose to terminate Down’s pregnancies.” That is the money quote. And you are doing this using language that the parent of a child with Down’s Syndrome has directly and specifically labeled as offensive in this thread. By marginalizing your offensive behavior towards her, and defending your view that it is indeed acceptable to kill children with Down Syndrome as long as that is the choice of that child’s parents, you are being offensive. Your whole argument is demeaning, dehumanizing, bigoted, and wrong-headed. That being the case, you do not get to be confused or upset when people get angry at you as a result of your insulting behavior. Even if you did not intend it to be insulting.
If someone chooses to respond in a polite manner to you, then that’s fine. However, when you are arguing for the “unpersoning” of a whole group of humanity simply because their parents may not want them, that is not a view that anyone is obligated to respond politely to. It is not a reasonable or understandable position. It is hatred, bigotry, and prejudice. Plain and simple.
Here’s what we do, Mac, and it’s REALLY SIMPLE:
we treat all human life with the same worth and dignity. We don’t grade it.
Pamela says: I’m sorry Mac, I just disagree that it’s “very understandable that many people would choose to terminate Downs pregnancies”.
Pamela, I certainly don’t mean you have to feel the same way. However, I do assert that it’s very understandable that many people would so choose. The fact is that they DO choose that way, already, so I’d say it’s a given, and this is even before we get to saying right or wrong, morally.
Alice says: I’m going to through this one step by step. It is not relevant that you are not defending abortion in every case of a child with Down Syndrome. It is relevant you are defending it in the case of any case of a child with Down Syndrom. To use your own words, ” It is…very understandable that many people would choose to terminate Down’s pregnancies.” That is the money quote. And you are doing this using language that the parent of a child with Down’s Syndrome has directly and specifically labeled as offensive in this thread. By marginalizing your offensive behavior towards her, and defending your view that it is indeed acceptable to kill children with Down Syndrome as long as that is the choice of that child’s parents, you are being offensive. Your whole argument is demeaning, dehumanizing, bigoted, and wrong-headed. That being the case, you do not get to be confused or upset when people get angry at you as a result of your insulting behavior. Even if you did not intend it to be insulting.”
Alice, again – it is simply a fact that many people are going to choose to end Down’s pregnancies. This is so whether or not we think it’s right or wrong, “offensive” or not, etc. We can later discuss things, give our opinions, etc., but it doesn’t change the fact that the statement is true. It’s not “bigoted” etc., to see that.
Oh, very clever. Now, having been called out in your bigotry, you now claim that you’re only setting up some sort of framework for a larger point. One which you have made absolutely no attempts to actually make at any place in the thread. An old stand-by. How unimaginative of you.
Mac, this is THE DELINEATION between us and you and your proabort buddies:
To us it will NEVER be “very understandable” to kill an DS, or ANY baby. And tot hose who think it is, there is something very, very wrong with you.
Er… just in case it was missed the first time:
I realise that engaging trolls, especially new and novel specimens (especially from a new sub-species) can be enthralling, but: you’d do your blood pressure a good deal of help by resisting the thrall and glamour! I speak from experience. :)
Knowingly bringing a child with Down Syndrome or some other chromosomal infirmity into the world (or not availing oneself of the opportunity to determine if that’s the case using amniocentesis) makes as much sense to me as buying a car with a severe mechanical problem, just to prove how welcoming you are of all motor vehicles, no matter their flaws.
Here’s your chance to test your resolve, everyone! Two trolls: one new, and one old. Will you have the stamina to resist?
Think of it this way: you could say that you’re giving up troll-feeding for Lent! :)
(I really do need to stop dithering, and write that book on troll taxonomy which I keep putting off…)
Joan, you just never disappoint. Consistency is key, right?
There she is!! Right on time!!!
Joan, you make our work easy some days! Keep talking!!!
Mac – “You made the assertions, why should somebody else have to “prove they are false”? Do you not see how silly that is? You could say ANYTHING and act like it has sensible weight merely because there can be no proof of it being wrong, and that is a logical fallacy. By your logic, you could say that “God is going to turn the moon into green cheese,” and then you’d be thinking you’d made a good point, just because it cannot be proven false.
What?? Mac this statement makes no sense. I was asking you to defend your statements that a Downs Syndrome person doesn’t share the same right to life as other people. You have failed to do so. If you have a problem with any of my assertions can you please, at least, identify which statements of mine you would like me to support!!! Shesh!! Furthermore, can you please explain your understanding of my logic to me because your comments above make no sense to me whatsoever.
Moreover, you admitted to being false. I noted it, and the next thing you do is admit it and agree, and…. now you’re still going on about it and acting like somebody else has to “prove it’s false”?”
Mac, thanks for proving my point that you are all talk and no substance. When you actually make an effort to defend your assertion that babies with Down Syndrome have less of a right to life than other people then I will respond to your reasoning. Until that day, I am not going to respond to your immature and unsupported statements. Your tactic of double speak and misdirection is highly unethical.
Babies are morally equivalent to cars, got it.
I didn’t care to “avail myself of the opportunity to determine if that’s the case using amniocentesis” when I was pregnant with my daughter and was told she “showed markers for Down Syndrome” because amniocentesis runs the risk of CAUSING MISCARRIAGE. We didn’t want to lose our baby just to check if she “might” have Down Syndrome because it didn’t matter to us WE LOVE HER.
As it turned out, their “markers” were WRONG, Joan. Those kinds of tests, even the doctors THEMSELVES admit are “flawed” and often give WRONG results.
Our daughter is perfectly fine.
Of course, bringing a child with DS into the world doesn’t make sense to YOU, Joan. People don’t bring babies with DS into the world to “prove” anything.
Your posts just PROVE that it’s your heart/soul that’s”flawed”, if not your intelligence.
Proof:
Down Syndrome babeis are part of the human species.
All human species deserve to live (have a right to life)
Therefore, Down Syndrome babies deserve to live (have a right to life).
Joan, what about those defective humans, like yourself, who lack human compassion – can we abort those babies too?
Humans without compassion are like cars without engines – they don’t “move” you.
Joan never disappoints!!
Keep it up!! You do us a huge favor every time you plunk away on the keyboard.
Tyler, you know very well there is not a prenatal test for that.
Joan, your most recent comment was so hideous that I’m deleting it.
JDC, not yet…but who knows when. Perhaps, one day we will be able to abort all human beings would be pro-choice.
Tyler, you would have a rational argument if I was demanding that anybody with a Down’s pregnancy have an abortion.
Intellectual honesty, please! You can’t have a “Down’s pregnancy” – you can be pregnant with a child that has Down Syndrome. There is no difference in a pregnancy with a child who has DS than a child who does not. Somewhere around 4,000 women in America will abort a child without DS today. I have found that people who defend abortion like to talk about the “pregnancy” to avoid talking about the child. People abort children with DS not because there is something wrong with the pregnancy (like pre-eclampsia) but because they don’t want a child with DS. If someone would abort a child with DS because the child has DS, it’s because they don’t want a child with DS. It’s straightforward.
I’m not “advocating” that anybody do anything with regards to a Down’s pregnancy.
Again, you mean a child with DS. I didn’t imply that you were suggesting that all mothers with children with DS get abortions. I don’t care! Its disgusting that you think that aborting a child with DS is an acceptable choice because of the child’s disability. In fairness, you probably support abortion as an acceptable choice even when aborting children with no disabilities.
If you’re the one pregnant, it’s your decision.
I wasn’t the one pregnant and able to protect my son, so your cavalier attitude toward a woman just being able to choose to kill him hits close to home.
Sure – blindness, too, is severe. If people knew they were going to have a baby that was blind, deaf, and paralyzed, you too know that many would choose to have an abortion.
Nice hyperbole! I mentioned single disabilities and your rolled into one sensational case. Please tell the next person you see with any of those conditions that you think life with a disability isn’t worth living and can justify killing them in the womb. Devalue humans who can actually DEFEND themselves rather than the unborn.
And no, I know NONE who would kill their baby for any of those reasons. I don’t keep the company of such people. They disgust me.
Where would YOU draw the line? What if there’s really no “brain” at all, as with anencephaly?
I don’t kill anyone! I have no right to decide any criteria to determine who lives and who dies. It’s not my life- it is theirs. It is pretty simple. I draw the line at no killing whatsoever. I love, though, that you mention the brain again. It does seem that you base the value of a human life by her higher cognitive functioning although you did imply that blindness, deafness and paralysis were grounds for death. So I guess the question is where do YOU draw the line? Since you believe humans can decide for their babies who lives and who dies, what criteria do you use?
I guess you have never heard of sarcasm Mac.
Tyler, would you grow a pair already!?!?! You say something insulting under the veneer of “sarcasm” and then cowardly hide behind it. Or you fake cordiality while insulting people and then act like they “don’t get it” when they respond to you. If you want to insult people- INSULT PEOPLE. If you don’t- don’t. But have the integrity to do either openly, especially since you espouse virtue and are quick to call others to repentance.
For all the foaming-at-the-mouth posts from pro-lifers here, not one person has said that Down’s pregnancies “has to mean” abortion or anything like that.
So we shouldn’t be opposed to abortion, just FORCED abortion? Whether a woman freely chooses abortion or is forced, a child dies either way. We foam at the mouth over suggestions that killing a child is ever acceptable- especially when the child is killed because he/she has DS. You are degrading everyone who has DS.
“Person” or not – some would say yes, some would say no. My feeling is that had the brain been normal, “all there” and functioning, then there would have been much more of a person.
Personhood is mutually-exclusive. Either you are a person or you are not. So someone is right and someone is wrong. The arrogance with which you give yourself the power to define who and who is not a person is terrifying. Persons are individual human beings, members of the species Homo Sapiens with human DNA. Any human being is a person. There are not “degrees” of personhood where someone is more human than another. A 200lb man isn’t twice as much of a person as a 100 lb woman. A 3 ft tall person isn’t half as much of a person as someone 6 ft. My I.Q. is 136- am I twice the person with an I.Q. of 68? All humans are people. They are dead when all vitals indefinitely cease. This is only complicated when you are finding rationalizations to kill people you don’t want around.
It’s still a question of where do we draw the line – it’s a fact that we treat dead bodies much differently than we do living people, even though it could be said that it’s a “person.”
You can’t kill someone who is dead. Don’t kill someone who is alive. THERE! Line drawn!
Ah, another great joan quote for MPQ.
Mac,
I hope you’ll read this blog:
http://babyfaithhope.blogspot.com/
It tells the story of a baby girl with anencephaly that lived 3 months.
Knowingly bringing a child with Down Syndrome or some other chromosomal infirmity into the world (or not availing oneself of the opportunity to determine if that’s the case using amniocentesis) makes as much sense to me as buying a car with a severe mechanical problem, just to prove how welcoming you are of all motor vehicles, no matter their flaws.
People are not a utilitarian construct that exist to serve the wants of other people. Children don’t exist to make parents happy or fulfill their dreams or prove points about their parents virtues. Parents exist for children, not the other way around. Children deserve parents, but parents are blessed with children. The idea of entitlement in “owning” a child and demanding that child be free of health problems so they can be out of your house at 18 and give you grandchildren and make you happy- you you you you you. It doesn’t work that way. People who would never kill their children (and have no need to test) aren’t proving a point about their “acceptance”- They are simply fulfilling the role of parent to protect their child. Caring for your children as they are is human decency, not a virtue. Killing your children because they aren’t what you wanted or when you wanted them, etc.- this is human cruelty. Children are not cars.
It would be poetic if you started breaking down, Joan and others found it makes more sense to strip you for your working parts rather than fix you.
Lrning wrote:
Mac,
I hope you’ll read this blog:
http://babyfaithhope.blogspot.com/
Beautiful site; I first heard of her story some months ago (and heard of the monstrous attacks she experienced by anonymous trolls/cowards… but I digress). One warning: for those with a functioning heart, you’ll probably need some tissues….!
Joan’s comment comparing babies to purchasing cars is precisely the negative eugenics that we’re opposed to. People are not merely things. All of us are together and need to work together. You don’t just hit the delete button on a person’s life. Human beings are cooperative mammals. Just because you have the technology to kill the weakest among you doesn’t make it civilized. We want to live in a civilization where all human life is valued and treated with dignity. We have a right to modify our civilization! Just keep up the cold-hearted arguments, I’m sure people hearts are just melting in sympathy for the pro-abortion cause..not.
Mac this statement by you:
Alice, again – it is simply a fact that many people are going to choose to end Down’s pregnancies. This is so whether or not we think it’s right or wrong, “offensive” or not, etc. We can later discuss things, give our opinions, etc., but it doesn’t change the fact that the statement is true. It’s not “bigoted” etc., to see that.
is different from this statement by you:
It is…very understandable that many people would choose to terminate Down’s pregnancies.”
Do you enjoy annoying pro-lifers?
Provida, perhaps, you have missed this comment by me:
“Having a Jenn Sterger baby is not for everybody. Lots of people who would generally be pro-life would choose to have an abortion or at least think twice about having a Jenn Sterger’s baby”
and this one:
“Mac you are right, my previous post is false – a pro-life person would never kill a Jenn Sterger’s baby or a Down Syndrome’s baby! …. But a Mac baby…well now that is an entirely different question…
Good day Dr. Mac Evil.”
Were these comments not sarcastic? Ironic? Now, what do I do with the extra pair?
Actually this review brings me to another point. Mac has to explain why he did not point out that the original comment by Ms. Jenn Sterger’s (see below) was factually false?
“Having a Down’s Syndrome baby is not for everybody. Lots of people who would generally be pro-life would choose to have an abortion or at least think twice about having a Down’s baby.”
“People are not a utilitarian construct that exist to serve the wants of other people. Children don’t exist to make parents happy or fulfill their dreams or prove points about their parents virtues.”
You’re telling that to the wrong person. I constantly see people, in defending the act of knowingly birthing retarded babies, explain how children (mentally, if not physically, for those children can never truly become adults) with Down Syndrome bring such joy and happiness to everyone around them, as if to justify their human worth in reference to the warm and fuzzy feelings they bring to others. I reject that reasoning because the things that define human excellence–flourishing in the ways that make humans unique from other animals; for example, the appreciation of higher forms of art, literature, and music, or the ability to continually reflect on one’s actions and experiences and use that capacity for reflection to self-improve in a recursive process–are categorically inaccessible to them. They live for immediate gratification and understand nothing else. That’s a pathetic, meaningless and debased existence, and it is because I have such a deep reverence for human potential that I feel this way. An unexamined life is not worth living.
“They are simply fulfilling the role of parent to protect their child. Caring for your children as they are is human decency, not a virtue.”
Parenthood is fundamentally a biological role, not a moral one.
“We want to live in a civilization where all human life is valued and treated with dignity.”
In that case, maybe you should consider moving to one of the paradises on earth where abortion is completely illegal, like Nicaragua or El Salvador?
Provida says: “Tyler, would you grow a pair already!?!?! You say something insulting under the veneer of “sarcasm” and then cowardly hide behind it. Or you fake cordiality while insulting people and then act like they “don’t get it” when they respond to you. If you want to insult people- INSULT PEOPLE. If you don’t- don’t. But have the integrity to do either openly, especially since you espouse virtue and are quick to call others to repentance.”
Provida, you and I obviously disagree about a few things, but this was quite good and perceptive. :) ;)
If we look at Jill Stanek’s ‘commenting rules,’ it’s the pro-lifers who are the “trolls” on this thread.
“Quick to call others to repentance” = downright poetic. :)
Oh, wow. Screenshotting that comment of joan’s in case it disappears. Because, my word. This is such a perfect example of everything that is wrong with the pro-abortion mindset, and the culture of death writ large, really. Elitism, bigotry, condescension, and ignorance all rolled into one tight, ugly, little package. Just…wow.
… the things that define human excellence–flourishing in the ways that make humans unique from other animals; for example, protecting weaker members of the species from being killed by stronger ones.
There, fixed it for ya.
Joan, have you ever even met anyone with down syndrome?
Alice says: Oh, very clever. Now, having been called out in your bigotry, you now claim that you’re only setting up some sort of framework for a larger point. One which you have made absolutely no attempts to actually make at any place in the thread. An old stand-by. How unimaginative of you.
It’s not “bigotry” to say what I said. Bigotry would be saying that all Down’s babies should be aborted.
“Larger point?” No, that is not what I meant or said. ‘Derailing” would be pretending that it doesn’t apply to us all. Again, it’s simply a fact that many people are going to choose to have abortions in some circumstances, Down’s Syndrome being one of them. This applies for all of us. This isn’t saying that as individuals we have to think it’s good or bad or anything, really, nor that the individual himself would so choose, but many people are still going to do it. It’s a given at the start of the discussion; it’s like rape or incest when talking about exceptions for anti-abortion laws or opinions – it definitely makes a difference to a lot of people, (again) whether or not that’s true for you, personally.
You can’t deny that and be sensible. Same as you can’t rationally say that “nobody cares about the unborn” or “nobody cares about women’s rights.”
Joan, I’ll move to Nicaragua after YOU move to CHINA. But in China, a smarty-pants elitist like you will end up getting relocated to a farm where you can kiss your elitist pleasures good bye and grab your pitchfork. (Oh, that was so apt. Go me.)
Mac, it is so lovely of you to promote conflict.
Do you have any logical proofs for your assertion that DS babies don’t have the same right to life as other babies?
<<<<crickets>>>>
Provida – God bless you – thank you for your witness to the dignity of every life.
Tyler – your coarse manner is unlikely to win over many people – I am with you on your sentiments – just try to remember our ultimate objective is to change hearts
@Mac: I’m going to try one more time, and then I’m abandoning you as a lost cause.
It’s a given at the start of the discussion; it’s like rape or incest when talking about exceptions for anti-abortion laws or opinions – it definitely makes a difference to a lot of people, (again) whether or not that’s true for you, personally.
Even assuming I believed you said all the horrible, ugly stuff you said simply to set a stage for some other discussion (which, by the way, I don’t), having given all the stuff you feel is necessary to “start the discussion,” then start it already! You have claimed it’s “understanable” people want to kill children with Down’s Syndrome (and done so using language the parent of such a child has deemed very offensive, something for which you have not apologized), and then you said, “Well, we just have to all be on that page to start off with, before we discuss these other things.” Right, well, you’ve put the page out, you’ve set your framework, now either make a point or shut up. Answer Tyler’s comments at 2:04 PM or 3:48 PM. Or respond to Provida’s comments at 3:02 PM. Or, hey, maybe make a statement that you actually will claim ownership of and expound a little bit on why you think that way. Contribute something to the discussion beyond “Oh, well that’s just what some people thing about it!”
And, for the record, I stand by the words I used. Bigotry. Hatred. Prejudice. I did not use them unintentionally, lightly, or for shock value. Even if you are trying to set a stage for a discussion of the morality of abortion in the case of children with Down Syndrome or something like, you’ve done it in an incredibly offensive and angering manner. And if you’re not planning this a springboard for some such discussion, then you have simply used this thread as an excuse to say hateful things for shock value. And that doesn’t just make you a troll, it makes you a really vile person.
How do we know Joan’s comment was truly hideous? Kel got 8 likes for announcing its deletion.
Me –“You made the assertions, why should somebody else have to “prove they are false”? Do you not see how silly that is? You could say ANYTHING and act like it has sensible weight merely because there can be no proof of it being wrong, and that is a logical fallacy. By your logic, you could say that “God is going to turn the moon into green cheese,” and then you’d be thinking you’d made a good point, just because it cannot be proven false.”
Tyler — “What?? Mac this statement makes no sense.”
Oh yes it does make sense, Tyler. “Prove me wrong” is not necessarily proof itself. You said, “you say my statement is false – then prove it”
This was after you’d already admitted “Mac you are right, my previous post is false.” So why in the heck would you be asking somebody to prove it? ;)
And, even without you already having admitted it, if you are logical then you have to see that relying on somebody else’s inability to prove the falseness of a thing is not proof of the thing itself. Thus my example of “God is going to turn the moon into green cheese.” You can’t prove that’s not going to happen. Is it somehow then a given? Of course not – it would be a logical fallacy, same as you were engaging in.
Next:
Tyler – I was asking you to defend your statements that a Downs Syndrome person doesn’t share the same right to life as other people. You have failed to do so.
Just where do you think I actually stated that? Please – if you think I did, then quote what I said Saying that many people will choose to have abortions in the case of Down’s babies isn’t asserting anything about rights. Let’s take the next 500 times a murder is mentioned on TV. You and I would agree that the people killed had the right to life (were murder actually the case). That doesn’t mean that murders are not going to happen. And whether I or anybody else agrees with you or not on the morality of abortion, the fact remains that Down’s pregnancies make a difference to many people.
Next:
Tyler — If you have a problem with any of my assertions can you please, at least, identify which statements of mine you would like me to support!!! Shesh!! Furthermore, can you please explain your understanding of my logic to me because your comments above make no sense to me whatsoever.
I don’t have a problem with any of your assertions. Either they will be true, or false, or perhaps it can’t be proven either way. I’m just saying it’s silly to say “prove my statement is false” when you’ve already admitted it’s false. It’s also silly to maintain that something is true just because it’s not yet been proven false, or because it cannot be proven false.
Bryan, the pro-aborts are coarse. They are talking about killing human beings. Changing hearts over a blog page is very unlikely. Nonetheless who knows what is going to change a person’s heart. Politeness may work on some, but others need to be bluntly told they wrong.
joan says:
I reject that reasoning because the things that define human excellence–flourishing in the ways that make humans unique from other animals; for example, the appreciation of higher forms of art, literature, and music, or the ability to continually reflect on one’s actions and experiences and use that capacity for reflection to self-improve in a recursive process–are categorically inaccessible to them. They live for immediate gratification and understand nothing else. That’s a pathetic, meaningless and debased existence, and it is because I have such a deep reverence for human potential that I feel this way. An unexamined life is not worth living.
It must really suck to be you.
Mac Says:
“Tyler – I was asking you to defend your statements that a Downs Syndrome person doesn’t share the same right to life as other people. You have failed to do so.
Just where do you think I actually stated that? Please – if you think I did, then quote what I said.”
So here is what you said:
“It is…very understandable that many people would choose to terminate Down’s pregnancies.”
So prove that is understandable?
Mac aren’t you coy when you say the following:
“And whether I or anybody else agrees with you or not on the morality of abortion, the fact remains that Down’s pregnancies make a difference to many people.”
Isn’t the morality of the issue the point? You are trying to say that these “facts” have meaning? It is a fact that innocent people were murdered by Hitler, does the fact that it is a fact mean we must have a neutral opinion about that fact?
Please remove your halo before responding, it might break due to the load of crap you have resting on it.
Tyler — “Mac has to explain why he did not point out that the original comment by Ms. Jenn Sterger’s (see below) was factually false?”
“Having a Down’s Syndrome baby is not for everybody. Lots of people who would generally be pro-life would choose to have an abortion or at least think twice about having a Down’s baby.”
I don’t think it’s factually false, Tyler. Don’t see how you can argue with the first sentence. You might think that abortion in the case of Down’s is just the worst thing, ever, but the fact remains that it’s not for everybody. They might decide to have an abortion or they might decide to have the baby and put it up for adoption, but not everybody is going to willingly have a Down’s baby.
For the second sentence, hey – wait a minute, just how do you know that ‘Jenn Sterger’ is female? :)
The second sentence – are you really saying that is not true? There’s definitely people going to be thinking twice. It makes a difference (yet again – regardless of whether a given reader here thinks “it should” or “should not” make a difference, or if they’re neutral about it).
Most of us know that the percentage of pregnancies due to rape and/or incest is really pretty low. The same for Down’s pregnancies – I don’t know exact figures but it’s gotta be a couple hundred to one, or even greater odds against it, for all women (if we look at all women who can get pregnant as one group). So, looking at all these “low incidence” or low rate of occurrence things, there are indeed “lots of people” who would generally be pro-life. I mean for the 95% or whatever the exact amount of pregnancies where they don’t come into play.
When they do come into play, it makes a difference. The polls show that it makes a difference – the “in general pro-life” people often make exceptions on abortion for rape or incest. And do you think that nobody who chooses abortion in the case of Down’s would not keep the pregnancy were Down’s not the case? It’s the same as considering people who describe themselves as “born again” and/or “fundamentalist Christians.” I think you’d agree that they are generally pro-life, but some of them end up having abortions willingly. It’s definitely at a lesser rate than for all women, but it’s 15% or more, as I recall. So, here we have people not only “thinking twice about it,” we have people who would in general be pro-life having abortions just because the pregnancies are unwanted. If it’s a case of Down’s Syndrome, then can we logically say that nobody who would generally be pro-life will choose to have an abortion? I do not think we can. And this is a group of many millions of people, so in the end I think the claim of “lots of people” is correct.
From Spinmaster Mac
Tyler — “Mac has to explain why he did not point out that the original comment by Ms. Jenn Sterger’s (see below) was factually false?”
“Having a Down’s Syndrome baby is not for everybody. Lots of people who would generally be pro-life would choose to have an abortion or at least think twice about having a Down’s baby.”
I don’t think it’s factually false, Tyler.
By definition, as many a pro-abort has pointed out before, a pro-life person would not kill anyone.
Holy Crow – I look at ‘Latest Comments’ and I see “Prenatal testing increases eugenic abortions” up and down. Y’all are having a rootin’ tootin’ hootenanny here!
Carry on – go get ’em, Mac!
You too, Tyler, old buddy! :) :)
I think we already have a contender for most commented post of the year!
Mac Says:
“Tyler – I was asking you to defend your statements that a Downs Syndrome person doesn’t share the same right to life as other people. You have failed to do so.
Just where do you think I actually stated that? Please – if you think I did, then quote what I said.”
So here is what you said:
“It is…very understandable that many people would choose to terminate Down’s pregnancies.”
So prove that is understandable?
Thanks for the direct quote, Tyler. For starters, it “being understandable” is not the same thing as saying “doesn’t share the same right to life.” So, let’s take ’em both here….
Yet again, and as I meant with my reply to Alice, no matter what you think about it, it is fact that many people choose to have abortions in the case of Down’s Syndrome. If I were female and pregnant, I don’t know what I would do myself. There too, regardless – it’s still factual that Down’s babies are different than non-Down’s babies. And still again – this isn’t me saying that it “has to make a difference.” But it DOES make a difference to a lot of people, and thus it’s understandable that they choose as they do.
Did you not read my example about murders on TV? Even if you and I agree on the “rights,” it doesn’t change the fact that some things happen. For that matter, I think it’s pretty irritating when some guy comes into the bathroom, talking on the telephone, loudly. Yet whether I like it or not, many people choose to do stuff like that, and it’s understandable – they want to keep talking….
For ” doesn’t share the same right to life as other people” – I really have not claimed that. And here too I don’t think it matters what our individual opinions are. You’d say the unborn should have the right to life, I’m pretty sure. Some other people will disagree with you. No matter what the case is, there – I don’t really see any necessary difference between Down’s babies and non-Down’s babies. You can say “they both should have rights.” Okay, per that, they’re the same. Somebody else can say, “neither one has rights.” There too, the same. I’m not saying there is any difference about rights, on that score.
If I or someone else would say, “Down’s babies should be aborted, and non-Down’s babies should not be aborted,” now THAT could well be a position where a “difference in rights” is said, implied, etc.
Proof:
Down Syndrome babeis are part of the human species.
All human species deserve to live (have a right to life)
Therefore, Down Syndrome babies deserve to live (have a right to life).
Tyler, the problem is that your second sentence is just an assertion on your part. You can’t logically jump from there to your conclusion.
You might as well skip the first two sentences, there, and just say, “I think Down Syndrome babies deserve to live.” Same deal.
You’re telling that to the wrong person. I constantly see people, in defending the act of knowingly birthing retarded babies, explain how children (mentally, if not physically, for those children can never truly become adults) with Down Syndrome bring such joy and happiness to everyone around them, as if to justify their human worth in reference to the warm and fuzzy feelings they bring to others
Joan, I hate that, too. Even if people are a hated, burden to others, I believe in intrinsic human worth not measured by our “usefullness” to others. When someone talks about how “inspiring” children with DS are or how much they make us “better people” or blech, I am offended that a group of people (DS) is defined merely in how they serve another group of people. I hate that because it implies that they are “para-human” and their value lies in improving the lives of the fully-human. I reject this because it’s offensive to their humanity. You reject it because you don’t recognize their humanity at all.
I reject that reasoning because the things that define human excellence–flourishing in the ways that make humans unique from other animals; for example, the appreciation of higher forms of art, literature, and music, or the ability to continually reflect on one’s actions and experiences and use that capacity for reflection to self-improve in a recursive process–are categorically inaccessible to them. They live for immediate gratification and understand nothing else. That’s a pathetic, meaningless and debased existence, and it is because I have such a deep reverence for human potential that I feel this way. An unexamined life is not worth living.
I don’t know how to put this diplomatically, so I will just point out the obvious. You are capable of all these things you value because you have no genetic impairment. You can appreciate art, literature and reflect on your actions and improve yourself. You don’t need instant gratification. Yet, in spite of you examining yourself and your actions to improve, you enthusiastically champion evil. You support immediate gratification by scorning people who wait for sex. Everything you support is for self-seeking, personal gratification like aborting a child rather than placing her for adoption. You have examined your life and you are devoid of joy and compassion. Yet, a child you claim isn’t capable of examining his life exudes joy and compassion. Someone who can’t examine their life (untrue, by the way) still lives a life full of love. His “pathetic, meaningless existence” being loved and loving others exceeds any value from appreciating art or introspective, narcissistic self-improvement. For all that effort put into becoming a better person, you hatefully degrade people, most of whom would exceed you in virtue without trying. I would rather be ignorant of the humanities and be humane than “invested in human potential” but hateful towards humans, especially those most vulnerable.
Parenthood is fundamentally a biological role, not a moral one.
Not in this species. It’s not acceptable to create a child and not meet the child’s needs. That’s called neglect. People are jailed for it.
joan says:
I reject that reasoning because the things that define human excellence–flourishing in the ways that make humans unique from other animals; for example, the appreciation of higher forms of art, literature, and music, or the ability to continually reflect on one’s actions and experiences and use that capacity for reflection to self-improve in a recursive process–are categorically inaccessible to them. They live for immediate gratification and understand nothing else. That’s a pathetic, meaningless and debased existence, and it is because I have such a deep reverence for human potential that I feel this way. An unexamined life is not worth living.
My father has been a WWII buff ever since I can remember. I have seen almost every program concerning Nazis, the war, our forces, and the attitudes of the time on both sides. What we have witnessed here today is THE EXACT MENTALITY of the Nazis back then in regards to individuals with handicaps, and don’t ever let anyone tell you otherwise. I never thought I’d see someone come out and admit clearly to espousing such a Nazi-esque supremacist attitude, but here it is for all the world to see.
Provida, I like the cut of your jib. Now, is a jib a sail or a coat? I never could remember. Whatever it is, I like yours! Your comments have been very articulate.
Mac, if you disagree with, “All human species deserve to live (have a right to life)”, then you are going down the same path as Germans in the 1930s. They began thinking — quite primitively — not all humans have a right to life, and it is the more powerful who determine life or death of others …. hardly a progressive idea.
Alice says: @Mac: I’m going to try one more time, and then I’m abandoning you as a lost cause.
Alice, just because you are against a thing does not necessarily mean that it’s not understandable that many other people will do it. That’s what I said, and that’s what I meant. I’m a little surprised that this is a big deal to you.
I haven’t said I want all Down’s babies aborted, or that I think that ANY pregnancy “has to be aborted.” Just saying that when we look at certain groups of people (which include “many people”), they’re going to choose to end Down’s pregnancies, and it’s understandable that they do so. I mean that it’s not “impossible” or “unbelievable.” It’s occurring, no matter what you or I feel about it.
Alice — Even assuming I believed you said all the horrible, ugly stuff you said simply to set a stage for some other discussion (which, by the way, I don’t),
What have I said that’s actually “horrible” or “ugly”? I get that you don’t like abortion, and that you think Down’s Syndrome doesn’t mean that abortions should be had, but that does not change the facts of what I’ve said.
having given all the stuff you feel is necessary to “start the discussion,” then start it already! You have claimed it’s “understanable” people want to kill children with Down’s Syndrome (and done so using language the parent of such a child has deemed very offensive, something for which you have not apologized), and then you said, “Well, we just have to all be on that page to start off with, before we discuss these other things.”
I didn’t say it’s understandable that people want to kill children with Down’s Syndrome. For what I did say, again, how is it “offensive” to note facts that apply to all of us? The mental impairment with Down’s syndrome can be severe. Lots of people choose to end Down’s pregnancies. What’s wrong, ugly, offensive, etc., about saying that? Must we all engage in some “imaginary scenario” where the facts don’t apply, to placate you or others, to not be seen as “horrible,” etc?
I don’t say ” we all have to be on the same page.” But whether we are or not, there are things here which aren’t just a matter of opinion, and for people to say, in effect, “I don’t like abortion so those facts are not true, or don’t apply” is wrong.
Personally, I don’t know what I would do if pregnant and Down’s Syndrome was the case. I’m single and male, so it’s a long ways off, to say the least.
Tyler, if you have to explain something as sarcasm to a cadre of intelligent folks, then a.) you suck at sarcasm or b.) it wasn’t sarcasm. The answer is clearly b., since you are quick to hide behind “it was sarcasm” when you are called on it. Either way, a or b, whatever your goal is with “sarcasm” is clearly failing. Your flippant, snarky, juvenile comments are counter-productive, not merely annoying. I assume you are either really young (college age) and you will grow out of it, or you are just an a-hole. You can be an a-hole- all I ask is that you be a forthright a-hole.
Changing hearts over a blog page is very unlikely.
So you are just here to abuse people who disagree with you? Or are you just here to assert your spiritual superiority? If a good outcome is unlikely, the goal is not to LOWER the odds just because you are gratified by it.
Nonetheless who knows what is going to change a person’s heart.
Name-calling and antagonizing those willing to talk doesn’t seem a likely tool.
Politeness may work on some, but others need to be bluntly told they wrong.
But you do NEITHER. You are not polite not blunt- instead you are snarky, rude and feign “sarcasm.” Like I said, if you want to insult people, have at it! But have the chutzpah to do it plainly.
Mac aren’t you coy when you say the following:
“And whether I or anybody else agrees with you or not on the morality of abortion, the fact remains that Down’s pregnancies make a difference to many people.”
Tyler, not being “coy.” Yet again – no matter how bad you think the situation is, isn’t it understandable that many people choose to have abortions when Down’s Syndrome is the case?
Next:
Isn’t the morality of the issue the point? You are trying to say that these “facts” have meaning? It is a fact that innocent people were murdered by Hitler, does the fact that it is a fact mean we must have a neutral opinion about that fact?
I’m saying the facts are not changed by your feelings about them. No, of course we don’t have to have a neutral opinion about Hitler (or anything else for that matter) – you seem to be trying to work things backwards, there, but as in your example, that does not mean that we don’t believe that Hitler had people killed, nor that it is somehow “not understandable” that many people have abortions when Down’s Syndrome is there.
“Isn’t the morality of the issue the point?” Not to the extent that one’s feelings will negate things that are givens, here, things that apply to us all. I guess some people feel that saying “it’s understandable that people do this” is the same as saying “they should,” or that “I approve of it,” or “I always want that to happen.” Well, it’s not.
Next:
By definition, as many a pro-abort has pointed out before, a pro-life person would not kill anyone.
In a given situation, yes, but we’re comparing different situations. There are those people – many of them – who are generally pro-life when rape or incest isn’t present. They make exceptions for rape and incest. And there are people for whom the same is true with Down’s Syndrome, who would and do even choose to have abortions themself in that case. How can you say that Jenn Sterger isn’t correct? There ARE people who would think twice about it, or have an abortion, there.
Next:
Mac this statement by you:
Alice, again – it is simply a fact that many people are going to choose to end Down’s pregnancies. This is so whether or not we think it’s right or wrong, “offensive” or not, etc. We can later discuss things, give our opinions, etc., but it doesn’t change the fact that the statement is true. It’s not “bigoted” etc., to see that.
is different from this statement by you:
It is…very understandable that many people would choose to terminate Down’s pregnancies.”
Do you enjoy annoying pro-lifers?
Tyler, for about the tenth time, why is that “annoying”? Sheesh – go ahead and say “evil, bad, nasty, fallen angels, hell in a handbasket, gloom and doom” etc. I am saying that it is fact that the difference between Down’s Syndrome and not having it be present matters to a lot of people. This is not saying you have to agree with that feeling. But the fact that those people feel that way explains why we have the reality that we do, there.
Above, I guess the two statements are somewhat different, yes. But what logical objection to either one can you really have? It’s like somebody saying, “It’s bigoted to say that people choose between things.” No, it’s not.
Thanks for all the supportive comments!
The bottom line is such: when it comes to bigotry and one group of humans thinking they are superior to another group of humans, beyond pointing out the bigotry, no assertion of the group’s worth is going to change their minds. People tried to win over racists with anecdotes that show the successes of the groups they hate. In a way, this validates the bigotry when you dignify arguments to ‘prove” the value of a group of people when that value lies not in what they people do. Human value is self-evident. When people fail to see this value, this is typically only corrected when they are confronted with the people they hate and actually get to know them. Empirical experience then trumps the lies they once believed, which is why racism has waned after de-segregation. When you come to love someone you hated, that is when your heart changes.
That being said, anyone arguing that people with Down Syndrome are less than human would assuredly eat crow by spending any time with them. Those that think disabilities make life not worth living need to experience the company of people with various disabilities. The “I wouldn’t want to live like that” statements people make are out of ignorance and fear. Seeing people “live like that” and have happy, fulfilling lives is the best way to fight bigotry. Sadly, many people kill babies with disabilities before they get a chance to see what they stole from their child and themselves. But then again, people kill babies without disabilities, too if that suits them. That just reinforces that killing a child “out of concern for the child” is rarely such, but that is just a rationalization for not wanting a child with a disability. If people understood disabilities, perhaps that would change. Then again, I am being charitable.
Eric, the Germans in the 1930s both banned abortions for some, and mandated them for others. Again, I am not saying that all Down’s pregnancies “should be ended,” not at all.
Some good comments on this thread. Yes, some of them have a lot of “likes.”
the other haters will “like” their comments 25 times.
You can click on it 25,000 times and it still only gives you 1 vote.
Mac,
Let’s simplify. You haven’t told me where you draw the line. Down Syndrome could be irrelevant if you support abortion when there is no DS. So let’s take a step back.
At what point and in what circumstances should abortion be restricted?
Currently, abortion is legal through all 9 months of pregnancy for virtually any reason in the U.S. and any reason in Canada. If you support that, your answer would be “never”. My answer is “always.” Many people have distinctions somewhere in the middle like a gestational age cut-off, viability, sex-selection, quickening, reduction of multiples to a singleton, heartbeat, brainwaves, etc. Do you support abortion on-demand or with restrictions.
Are there unacceptable reasons to abort a child?
If you say DS is an acceptable reason to abort a child- are there unacceptable reasons? Would wanting to fit in a particular dress be acceptable? Would hiding an affair be acceptable? Would wanting a boy and not a girl be acceptable? Would not wanting to give up alcohol be an acceptable reason? Are there any reasons a woman might have that you think are unacceptable justification for an abortion?
If you believe women can evict a baby from her body at any time for any reason, then the reason (Down Syndrome) doesn’t matter. If you do not believe this and think there should be some restrictions, why would aborting a child with DS be an exception for you?
There. That is straightforward.
What have I said that’s actually “horrible” or “ugly”?
Saying that having a child with Downs would be so terrible from your POV that you could understand someone ending that child’s life in utero with an abortion is both horrible AND ugly. Oh, wait…did you not know what happens in an abortion? Did you think the kid was whisked away perfectly healthy to Disneyland before his/her mom could wake up, then mom just goes on living a perfect life as does child? Because that’s not what happens. The child is killed and the mother becomes the mother of a dead child.
Provida, so far you are the only intelligent person to miss the sarcasm.
BTW, I have liked all of your posts except your two against me. For certain, I do not feel the need to reciprocate in kind.
On a separate note. you wouldn’t to happen to know Praxedes, would you?
However a little self-awareness would be nice, just re-read your following comment:
Tyler, if you have to explain something as sarcasm to a cadre of intelligent folks, then a.) you suck at sarcasm or b.) it wasn’t sarcasm. The answer is clearly b., since you are quick to hide behind “it was sarcasm” when you are called on it. Either way, a or b, whatever your goal is with “sarcasm” is clearly failing. Your flippant, snarky, juvenile comments are counter-productive, not merely annoying. I assume you are either really young (college age) and you will grow out of it, or you are just an a-hole. You can be an a-hole- all I ask is that you be a forthright a-hole.
Can someone please delete these two comments by Provida, or at least the offensive parts.
Proof:
Down Syndrome babeis are part of the human species.
All human species deserve to live (have a right to life)
Therefore, Down Syndrome babies deserve to live (have a right to life).
Tyler, the problem is that your second sentence is just an assertion on your part. You can’t logically jump from there to your conclusion.
You might as well skip the first two sentences, there, and just say, “I think Down Syndrome babies deserve to live.” Same deal.
Ok, Mr. Singer but didn’t you just simply assert your opinion that it is my opinion? Why don’t you explain your logic so we can have fun tearing it down. Or does change too much? Is it situationa? Do you need a context? Is it all relative? Are courageous enough to say what you believe?
Just saying that when we look at certain groups of people (which include “many people”), they’re going to choose to end Down’s pregnancies, and it’s understandable that they do so. I mean that it’s not “impossible” or “unbelievable.” It’s occurring, no matter what you or I feel about it.
And again with the offensive language. “Down’s pregnancies?” Seriously? Do you ever plan to apologize for using an offensive term like this? Or maybe, perhaps, stop using it?
What have I said that’s actually “horrible” or “ugly”? I get that you don’t like abortion, and that you think Down’s Syndrome doesn’t mean that abortions should be had, but that does not change the facts of what I’ve said.
I don’t “dislike” abortion. Abortion is not ice cream. I reject abortion as having any place in society, because it is wrong. It is not wrong “in my opinion,” it is wrong in fact.
As for what you’ve said that’s horrible and ugly, let’s go with the first of your paragraphs that I quoted. “Just saying that when we look at certain groups of people (which include “many people”), they’re going to choose to end Down’s pregnancies, and it’s understandable that they do so.” That right there is both horrible and ugly. That we would look at a person who has chosen to destroy an unborn child simply because that child has Down’s Syndrome and, instead of the appropriate reaction of horror, react with “Oh, that’s understandable. I get that.” This also, by the way, serves to refute your statement “I didn’t say it’s understandable that people want to kill children with Down’s Syndrome.” Because, yes, you did. You said it in precisely the same post where you claimed not to.
What’s wrong, ugly, offensive, etc., about saying that?
You said this. “The mental impairment with Down’s syndrome can be severe. Lots of people choose to end Down’s pregnancies. What’s wrong, ugly, offensive, etc., about saying that?” So, let’s try this same comment in a way where you will have no trouble seeing the bigotry in it. “The sexual deviance with homosexuality can be severe. Lots of people choose to end gay pregnancies. What’s wrong, ugly, offensive, etc., about saying that?” And don’t you even dare to suggest that this is different because gays are “born that way” or any other lame excuse. You think people with Down Syndrome aren’t? Honestly, I can’t see where are you missing the boat on this one, because it really is not confusing.
Even if your point is, “Many people have abortions because their children have Down Syndrome.” then so what? Many people abuse their spouses because they see them as targets. That also happens all the time. Is that “understandable,” too? What point are you trying to make here? At all?
Alice, again – it is simply a fact that many people are going to choose to end Down’s pregnancies. This is so whether or not we think it’s right or wrong, “offensive” or not, etc. We can later discuss things, give our opinions, etc., but it doesn’t change the fact that the statement is true.
You have said this over and over. And if you really did think that “discussing things, giving our opinions, etc.” was the next step here, you’ve had plenty time to take it. And yet you’ve made no move to actually discuss anything or give your opinion. You disavow, disclaim, and disassociate as fast as you post the hate. My second option was right: troll and vile person.
Palandin, you win. I am done feeding the troll. I should’ve listened to you the first time around.
Provida
The way I see it is that we pro-lifers are a team, each given our own gifts, fighting the pro-abort monsters like Mac. Provida, you and Alice attack the head, xalisae goes in and gives the thunderous body shots, and I, well I, attack… the ankles…. Sorry, I do my best.
I almost forgot our secret and most effective weapon… she is the meaney of the bunch…. Carla. She steps in and steals their heart.
Provida,
I haven’t seen you post at this website before, but you seem quite comfortable doing so. Have you ever been to this website before today?
By the way, if your criticisms were in part an inquiry as to why I write what I do, I will let you know that yes I do feel that I am equipped with a much smaller IQ than yourself and many of the pro-aborts who visit this website. So perhaps it is insecurity why I write what I do. Perhaps it is because I feel like a David fighting Goliath. My puny IQ, like David’s slingshot, shouldn’t be in this fight, but yet, here it is – in the fight.
Disagreement with the statement, ““All human species deserve to live (have a right to life)”, implies some humans do *not* deserve to live or have a right to life. These humans would be Lebensunwertes Leben, the Nazi term for Life Unworthy of Life. The term was first published in a 1920 book by eugenicists Karl Binding and Alfred Hoch, and they used it to describe those who were psychiatrically ill, brain damaged, or mentally retarded, to include those with Down Syndrome. The term was only later applied to those racially impure, ie Jews and Gypsies.
Homosexuals were also considered unworthy of life under the Nazis, so Alice’s analogy is appropriate. Once you consider one group unworthy of life, it takes no effort to consider any number of other groups unworthy due to perceived deviancy.
“pro-lifers are a team, each given our own gifts… Provida and Alice attack the head, xalisae goes in and gives the thunderous body shots, and I, well I, attack… the ankles… I almost forgot our secret and most effective weapon… Carla. She steps in and steals their heart.”
Tyler, anyone who can come up with this has been equipped with a gift for creative writing.
FYI, I didn’t like Provida’s attack on Ms. Palin. I too thought that was bit off color, and self-righteous too.
We also need to remember that a society cannot afford limited government if the family and marriage are not supported morally and financially by the government. If young people continue to have children out of wedlock, if men continue to abandon pregnant women, or if women continue to fall into single motherhood or view babies as fashion accessories, then the government cannot be small. It will have to be big, it will have to have government programs to help these young single mothers. So whether you view the breakdown of the family as a moral problem or a public health problem, it is definitely a financial problem for any country. A restoration of the Family will mean that more families will have the funds and tools to welcome, without discrimination, all human life whether pre-natal testing is done or not.
Alice wrote:
Paladin, you win. I am done feeding the troll. I should’ve listened to you the first time around.
:) If only I could count the number of times I said that very thing to my good friend Socrates (on another board)! No worries… you’re in good company!
Tyler,
Just as a point of information: Provida *did* apologise for that, at February 23, 2012 at 9:27 am.
By the way: I’ve very much enjoyed your comments, as well, Provida!
Paladin: He knows. He was just being an a-hole, although still cowardly and nuanced to attack something someone recanted hours ago. It is typically bad form to throw something in someone’s face that they apologized for long ago and is no longer relevant anyway. It was just juvenile retaliation against me for having called him juvenile. The irony couldn’t be tastier if it were batter-dipped, fried and dusted in powdered sugar.
Tyler, I can’t abide the false humility. It is as transparent as hiding behind sarcasm. The “lil ole me, I am not as smart as anyone else. I just bite ankles and fight valiantly with my quaint little slingshot- Sorry, I do my best!” You obviously think quite highly of your opinions enough to name-call but the second you are called out you cower and try to gain sympathy as some sort of demure victim. Everyone sees right through you (or maybe just me, but now I have pointed it out so everyone will). Again, be hot or cold. Be humble or be arrogant. But don’t fake either! If you are so convicted that you are on the side of rightness and justice, have the guts to be plain. Joan is plain about her positions which is why I would much rather speak to her in spite of my disdain for her positions- at least she is forthright in what she says. You are offensive to many, many people and deleting your comments that were offensive would render you silent- but you request my offense to you be deleted. I don’t advocate that your comments be deleted, I am merely pointing out the plank in your eye. All in all, you really need to grow up. If you choose to engage in dialogue, accept the consequences for your words, apologize (like I did) if you regret your words, and you need to expect people to call you out when you conduct yourself as you do.
Although you were trying to be endearing (in spite of dripping with insincere earnestness), we are not a team. Teams work together synergetically to achieve a mutually-agreed upon goal. Your goal is self-amusement. I don’t share that goal. Likewise, you have been called out for impeding the goals of your self-proclaimed “teammates.” You don’t help me! I have no desire to help you unless your goals (and behavior) change. I am offended that you’d have the audacity to think we are some de-facto team because we happen to agree that killing children is unacceptable. My goal is to stop that killing. You goal is to just taunt those that support the killing, which doesn’t do anything to stop the killing. Rather, it turns away people that need conversion. And it causes your “teammates” to have to stick up for the civil people you antagonize to demonstrate that pro-lifers can have an adult conversation. You are dragging the cause down. Me wasting keystrokes to point this out is a prime example. I have no desire to talk about this. I just wanted to point out how prenatal DS testing bears nothing but rotten fruit. That is a good topic!
Provida, if you desire civility keep your own comments civil. Don’t complain about my comments that parody the degrading and dehumanizing comments made by pro-aborts.
Do you have anything else to say to me or have you finished your morning rant? I want you to get it all out.
We also have a different view on the comments made by pro-abort. For the example, I believe that some of the pro-abort commentators make comments just to rile us up with no intention of coming to a consensus. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think from reading some of the posts a few other prolifers feel this way about the pro-aborts as well.
General inquiry:
Why is it that anyone issuing a dissenting opinion in favor of abortion is a troll, even when they state their opinion in a courteous manner—while anyone issuing a majority opinion against abortion is not a troll, although they are name-calling and antagonizing? Civil people who support abortion and follow the rules are “trolls” while rude people who consistently break the rules are told “not to feed the trolls.”
Do you want only pro-lifers for a cyber mutual-admiration society to pat eachother on the back for being right because they agree with you? Do you want only pro-lifers for the sake of co-miserating over all the evils in the world? Because without dissenting opinions, that is all these comment threads would be.
I agree with rules of conduct but the double-standard on labeling someone a “troll” when they disagree with you- who hasn’t attacked or bullied anyone without caring to note the abhorrent behavior of those with whom you agree- this lacks integrity. Either extend expectations across ideologies or cease calling civil people “trolls”- either option is consistent and good.
Like I said Provida I have never seen your label at this website before… feel free to tell us who you really are.
“Why is it that anyone issuing a dissenting opinion in favor of abortion is a troll, even when they state their opinion in a courteous manner—while anyone issuing a majority opinion against abortion is not a troll, although they are name-calling and antagonizing? Civil people who support abortion and follow the rules are “trolls” while rude people who consistently break the rules are told “not to feed the trolls.””
Stick around and perhaps you will find out why.
Paladin it seems Provida is calling you out now.
Tyler,
You are making rationalizations to justify your behavior. People who state that they don’t think certain humans are humans earnestly hold that opinion. It is not to offend you. It is their reason for supporting abortion. Likewise, my honest opinion is that homosexuality is self-destructive behavior. That opinion is not to offend homosexuals, rather it is my reason for opposing gay marriage. When I issue my opinion about gay marriage and my reasons why I oppose it, some people think they have a right to act with the immaturity you display because I “want to strip rights away from a group of people” and that I was offensive and degrading! I civilly stated my position, and they uncivilly attacked back rather than responding like adults. That is what you are doing! You think any opinion that offends you because it is wrong, even when it is not intended to offend, grants you the right to be rude. Have you not heard 1 Peter 3:9 “Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.” RISE ABOVE IT rather than become guilty of it. You are guilty of it and now you are the one who should repent.
Provida, please tell me how someone who advocates abortion can be civil? Please don’t be blinded by the beauty of the words they use so that you end up failing to see the ugliness of the ideas and realities they represent.
“People who state that they don’t think certain humans are humans earnestly hold that opinion.”
Hitler was certainly earnest as well. Was Chamberlain wise to be polite and appease Hitler? Or was Churchill more on point, when he identified the evil that Hitler represented?
I can’t change who and what an abortionist is. Is that Hot enough for you – or is that lukewarm as well?
I am not blinded by anything as my posts clearly state. I have no sympathy for a position that advocates murdering the most vulnerable. However, I know many, many people who once held that position who no longer do. I have seen many conversions and those conversions have saved lives and souls.
Tyler, WHY DO YOU TALK TO PEOPLE if you don’t think they can be civil? You are uncivil. Your motivation is clearly just to be abusive because you hate what they advocate. You enjoy abusing them, as an ersatz form of justice that also makes you feel holy. If you have no honourable intentions but merely want to take out your frustrations (at the expense of possible conversions), then you should hit a pillow with a fists and not a person with your words through a computer. You are not saving lives or souls. You are a tool of the enemy because you are hateful. Your anger may come from a righteous place, but it is manifested in an unrighteous way.
“I civilly stated my position, and they uncivilly attacked back rather than responding like adults. That is what you are doing! You think any opinion that offends you because it is wrong, even when it is not intended to offend, grants you the right to be rude. Have you not heard 1 Peter 3:9 “Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.” RISE ABOVE IT rather than become guilty of it. You are guilty of it and now you are the one who should repent.”
Provida, I don’t think that is what I am doing although you do think that is waht I am doing. We all don’t have to respond in the same way. When I point out to an abortionist that they are not being compassionate I am not insulting them. Rather I am telling them the truth about themselves.
You are incorrigible and not worth my time.
“Your motivation is clearly just to be abusive because you hate what they advocate. You enjoy abusing them, as an ersatz form of justice that also makes you feel holy. If you have no honourable intentions but merely want to take out your frustrations (at the expense of possible conversions), then you should hit a pillow with a fists and not a person with your words through a computer. You are not saving lives or souls. You are a tool of the enemy because you are hateful. Your anger may come from a righteous place, but it is manifested in an unrighteous way”
They are abusive, they are advocating that we kill people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am not hateful. I hate what they advocate. It is God’s grace who will change people, not me or you. Do you hate me or just my style?
Tyler, WHY DO YOU TALK TO PEOPLE if you don’t think they can be civil?
This is a mystery of life, a mystery of being a Christian. As Christians we know we can’t change anyone, but that is God who changes hearts. Yet we must, and are called to still reprimand people nonetheless (sort like what you are doing to me)!
Furthermore, I never said that they can’t be civil just that they are being civil currently when they advocate and promote abortion. I am also saying that abortion isn’t civil.
Paladin, the reason I made the post clarifying that I didn’t like Provida’s comment about Sarah Palin was because I an earlier post I said that I liked all of Provida’s comments save two. I just wanted to clarify that in addition those two mentioned I didn’t like that comment by her as well.
Provida, for the record, although I think abortion is evil. If you review my posts closely you will note that I very rarely call people evil. I generally try not to do this.
I hope that I am worth your time, especially since you advocated that pro-aborts are worth your time!!! (sarcasm)
“You are uncivil.”
Please provide an example Provida?
“You are incorrigible.”
You are just not that persuasive!!
Provida, if people were concerned about their actions as much as they are concerned about the words that they use this world would be a better place.
My post didn’t go through. You overestimate yourself, Tyler. You are not talking to an abortionist about compassion. You are not talking to clinic workers on the sidewalk or abortion-minded women. You are talking to random people in a COMMENT BOX on a WEBSITE. This isn’t the trenches, kid. I can show you the trenches. When an abortionist held hateful signs through his car sunroof to insult us, our response wasn’t to insult him back, but to tell him that God had a plan for him and killing children and wounding women wasn’t it. I said the same thing to a woman who worked at the late-term abortion clinic that I helped find another job. These were people who actually killed babies, but I didn’t abuse them. And these are random people on a website and you feel justified to be abusive. The “rough measures” you think are called for are not called for. They weren’t called for in REAL LIFE. They certainly aren’t called for here on a stupid website. I am glad you aren’t anywhere where you actions would really matter, but I laugh that you try to justify bad behavior as the ends justify the means. What ends?
Provida wrote:
Why is it that anyone issuing a dissenting opinion in favor of abortion is a troll, even when they state their opinion in a courteous manner—while anyone issuing a majority opinion against abortion is not a troll, although they are name-calling and antagonizing?
The first difficulty lies in your first claim (i.e. “anyone issuing a dissenting opinion in favour of abortion is a troll, [etc.]”, which is not true; there are many abortion-tolerant people on this board who are not recognised as “trolls” at all (Doug comes immediately to mind… along with Hal, on his good days).
Secondly: the term “troll” actually MEANS something; it’s not simply being used for insult value. (We’ve had this discussion several times, on this board, though much of it was before your appearance.) A “troll” is one who has shown credible evidence of engaging the members of the board for the purpose of inflaming/aggravating other members who share the board’s world-view, or for other purposes quite apart from a sincere exchange of ideas (which is the whole point of a discussion board, yes?); and since the “constitution” of this board is a pro-life one, it’s rather easier to be a “pro-abortion troll” (since pro-life comments are far less likely to be off-topic and/or contrary to the mission of the board and its owners) than a “pro-life troll” on this board. (The reverse would be the case on, say, “RHRealityCheck”.)
Civil people who support abortion and follow the rules are “trolls” while rude people who consistently break the rules are told “not to feed the trolls.”
I hope you can see that this statement of yours is so grossly sweeping and generalised as to be not only false, but silly. A few examples:
1) Some habitual posters have proven themselves to be dedicated only to posting inflammatory comments, resistant to all efforts to engage logically/reasonably/etc., sometimes after REPEATED and EXTENSIVE efforts by (very patient) members of this board to engage them in substantial debate. These were, after a suitable time, recognised as “trolls” with whom further discussion is practically pointless.
2) Other posters, though less habitual, proved themselves insincere by some extremely crass and/or gross attacks on others, or treating utterly sacred/sensitive issues (such as the miscarriage of a particular member) with laughter, contempt, etc. Such people are also (rather more quickly) categorised as “trolls”.
3) Still others come in with a “flavour” of commentary which is so troll-like as to put most experienced members of the board on a “yellow alert”, of sorts; and when the person in question persists in offering concrete evidence of insincerity and/or seemingly-willful resistance to substantial debate, then they claim the title of “troll” for themselves, as well.
Is it possible to make a mistake, in such a diagnosis? Of course; but such mistakes are, so far as I can tell, quite rare… and virtually all who indignantly decry the label for themselves eventually prove the label correct (and sometimes spectacularly so).
In short: I do think that “troll” and “snarky/obnoxious” are very different things; the second could be of either camp (and anyone who is offended by them is welcome to take them to task), while the first really cannot easily be a sincere “pro-life” contributor… since the very definition of “troll” virtually requires that the “troll” be trying to de-rail the thread, conversation, mood and/or spirit of the board at large.
I’m not at all sure you’ll find my answer satisfying, but: there it is. At least you might do me the courtesy of knowing that I don’t throw the term “troll” about lightly, or as a simple insult/taunt; when I use it, I consider the case as thoroughly as I can, and I try my best not to be rash in doing so.
Provida, enough of this crap… please point out which specific comments that I made that were so abusive. If you can’t be specific then just apologize and let’s move on.
Provida was this comment by you civil:
“Psychological preparation”- That’s some BS. Take it from me, someone with a child with Down Syndrome.”
I suggest you go back and re-read some of your comments. You’ll find that some of them were less “civil” than my own. So please come down from your high chair. And don’t bother quoting this one, as I am responding to your direct comments about me.
Paladin,
Thanks for explaining all of that. Clearly, my definition of “troll” was way more narrow than yours. My definition is obnoxious, non-substantive attacks of others- which I see far more on the majority side than the dissenting side. Your definition has many other factors and is not an insult to disregard people who disagree. Rather, it’s a “best practice.”
P.S. I am singing in my head, “Have gun, will travel reads the card of a man! A knight without armour in a savage land!”
:) No worries, Provida. If you’d like evidence of my point, listen in on any thread in which Ex-GOP Voter (EGV) and I go at it, sometimes with hammer and tongs; he exasperates me to no end, on many occasions (and sometimes makes me genuinely angry), but he’s no troll; he’s genuinely trying to communicate what he knows and/or believes.
(*sigh*) My life, for one, would be much simpler if there were only one sub-species of troll, rather than the manifold variants, some of which are not at all obvious at first glance (e.g. concern troll, bomb-and-run troll, sock puppet, mockery-only troll, etc.)!
Excellent response Paladin – May I copy it?
Provida, you may not think that I have the same ability to discern Trolls as Paladin does but I do my best. Sometimes my intuition is spot on, other times not so much. I think at the end of this post Alice sort of declared Mac a Troll (albeit after Paladin).
Some trolls come back under different names. (I am not implying you are a troll, as Paladin pointed out – you can’t be since you are sincerely pro-life.)
See the following post:
Alice says:
February 23, 2012 at 8:11 pm
“but to tell him that God had a plan for him and killing children and wounding women wasn’t it.”
Provida you think telling people who don’t believe in God that God has plan for them is going to change their opinion? Talk about beating your head against the wall. I do hope you have other things that you say and do.
“I am glad you aren’t anywhere where you actions would really matter, but I laugh that you try to justify bad behavior as the ends justify the means. What ends?”
Provida, what bad behaviour of mine are you talking about?
I have explained that my behaviour is not in need of justification. You still haven’t provided any specific examples of my so-called “abuse” or “rough measures.”
Waiting patiently for your response.
Doug said:
“Holy Crow – I look at ‘Latest Comments’ and I see “Prenatal testing increases eugenic abortions” up and down. Y’all are having a rootin’ tootin’ hootenanny here!”
When you said that, I thought of this scene from Family Guy! LOL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WqoHyG-uIM
“Waiting patiently for your response” means many many more posts by Tyler until I give him attention and answer his questions. That’s not going to happen, in large part because this tantrum is really funny to watch.
Provida, I am sorry that you had an abortion. If you want to talk about it I suggest Rachel’s Vineyard. They have a website rachelsvineyard.org
I can talk about it with you a little bit if you would like or you can contact them. They are very good listeners and have lots of experience with women who have gone through abortions.
God bless. I love you as a Sister in Christ. Let me know what you decide.
If you see Carla’s name up above click on her name and go to her blog. She can also help you out.
Tyler wrote, in reply to Provida:
Provida, I am sorry that you had an abortion. [etc.]
(?!?)
Pardon me for not getting back to your earlier comment before now (and you’re welcome to copy any comment of mine that you please, though I don’t know what worth it would have, outside of this thread), but: where on earth do you see anything about Provida stating that she had an abortion?? I see no evidence of that at all; did I miss it?
Paladin I will let you handle it from here. This is not my forté.
No, Paladin. I have never had an abortion. I have never even used birth control. I have had sex out-of-wedlock. I worked for abstinence education for a number of years and have been both a sidewalk counselor and am currently crisis pregnancy counselor. Tyler was just trying to hurt me, to assassinate my character in retaliation because I won’t indulge him in fruitless discourse. He is trying to incite me to give him attention and this is just a part of his tantrum. All I can do is rebuke him for being hateful (which I have done before) and his response was to be even more hateful. His goal was to hurt me. He didn’t hurt me- he merely validated everything I have said about him being abusive.
Tyler, I forgive you for bearing false witness against me and trying to hurt me. You publicly claim to be a Christian but seek to hurt other people, which also serves the enemy’s purpose by causing people to run from Christianity rather than be a part of such nastiness. You not only did something evil to me- but you did it in Jesus’ name which should frighten you greatly. But you aren’t just hurting yourself- your actions have other, perhaps eternal consequences when you sully the faith by using it as a weapon to hurt other believers. You are choosing to be a tool of the enemy. I will be praying for you for your sake and all who cross your path.
Rachael C: When you said that, I thought of this scene from Family Guy! LOL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WqoHyG-uIM
Ha! ‘Family Guy’ rules!!
OOPS! That was a typo. My above post should read “I have NEVER had sex out-of-wedlock.” Not that it matters, but still.
Provida: Why is it that anyone issuing a dissenting opinion in favor of abortion is a troll, even when they state their opinion in a courteous manner—while anyone issuing a majority opinion against abortion is not a troll, although they are name-calling and antagonizing? Civil people who support abortion and follow the rules are “trolls” while rude people who consistently break the rules are told “not to feed the trolls.”
*Truly* excellent post here, Provida. (I”m pro-choice and don’t agree with all you say, but you’re awesome in saying things. :) )
____
Do you want only pro-lifers for a cyber mutual-admiration society to pat each other on the back for being right because they agree with you? Do you want only pro-lifers for the sake of co-miserating over all the evils in the world? Because without dissenting opinions, that is all these comment threads would be.
I’ve thought similar things many times, i.e. just having the “Amen chorus” will lose its appeal pretty quickly. There would be vastly fewer visits to the site, page views, etc. I wonder if the site would even continue…. I’ve read and posted here, on-and-off for at least 4 years, and saw Jill Stanek say early on that she wanted a “spirited discussion” – her exact words I believe. That said, it’s basically a pro-life site, and I have no problem with the Commenting Rules, which includes no “blasphemy,” etc.
I agree with Paladin on some of his meanings for “troll.” If the purpose is really just to make people mad, to “cause trouble,” especially if of the “drive-by” variety where they are just toss-off posts, then you never see the poster again, well, yeah, that’s a troll.
____
I agree with rules of conduct but the double-standard on labeling someone a “troll” when they disagree with you- who hasn’t attacked or bullied anyone without caring to note the abhorrent behavior of those with whom you agree- this lacks integrity. Either extend expectations across ideologies or cease calling civil people “trolls”- either option is consistent and good.
Agreed, or – perhaps we should just have a free-for-all where anything goes. ;) Just pick a day, or a thread, and have there be no rules. Gratuitous, hilarious profanity, etc. No-holds-barred discussion, rants, soul-bearings, stream-of-consciousness relations.
Really, though, I don’t think almost any pro-lifer would want the playing field so leveled.
Tyler, no offense meant here.
Provida, I think Tyler is young and gets really fired up when he’s reading and posting.
Paladin: In short: I do think that “troll” and “snarky/obnoxious” are very different things; the second could be of either camp (and anyone who is offended by them is welcome to take them to task), while the first really cannot easily be a sincere “pro-life” contributor… since the very definition of “troll” virtually requires that the “troll” be trying to de-rail the thread, conversation, mood and/or spirit of the board at large.
Well said, Sir. I’d say that the “contribution” really does matter, and that if all a poster did was be very snarky, period, then that could well be considered trolling. As for the possibility of pro-life trolls, hey baby – they exist all over, too. Not saying they are here much at all, but would be no problem to have somebody just saying mean-spirited things to pro-choicers, and that would be about it. Voila, troll.
Provida, I think Tyler is young and gets really fired up when he’s reading and posting.
We can only hope! Not that it is an excuse, as actions have consequences, but if he as young as he acts, then there is hope that he’ll just grow out of this.
Agreed, or – perhaps we should just have a free-for-all where anything goes. Just pick a day, or a thread, and have there be no rules. Gratuitous, hilarious profanity, etc. No-holds-barred discussion, rants, soul-bearings, stream-of-consciousness relations.
Really, though, I don’t think almost any pro-lifer would want the playing field so leveled.
Ha! I think it’s good that we don’t have guerilla warfare- because it doesn’t level anything, it simply descends into madness and refuse. If you have ever seen the message boards where pro-lifers aren’t welcome, the profanity isn’t hilarious, it is just vile. Forcing people to “clean up” for something seems a better course than allowing people to wallow in filth. So I am down with rules, but just an equitable application of them. Right now, it appears that all people are allowed to behave badly and the only consequence is having people point out that behavior. Sadly, some have no shame and are impervious to egg of their faces.
Provida I don’t want to hurt you, I want to help you. There is something that is bothering you very deeply and it can’t be me. We don’t know each other!! I hope you have never had an abortion and If I was wrong I apologize. Moreover, I hope God blesses you and that you use my referral to Rachel’s Vinyard nonetheless.. Since you are a Christian and say that you know that a Christian doesn’t rebuke a fellow Christian publicly, and without evidence (falsely) I will now expect you to refrain from making more unjustified disparaging comments and attacking my character. I won’t need to retaliate if you are nice.
Well said, Sir. I’d say that the “contribution” really does matter, and that if all a poster did was be very snarky, period, then that could well be considered trolling. As for the possibility of pro-life trolls, hey baby – they exist all over, too. Not saying they are here much at all, but would be no problem to have somebody just saying mean-spirited things to pro-choicers, and that would be about it. Voila, troll.
Sadly, if you say anything in any spirit of any substance on 90% of pro-abortion sites, you are instantly labeled a “troll.” That was my concern. Paladin demonstrated that wasn’t the case here.
By the way “retaliate” was your word, Provida.
This reeks of anti-social personality disorder. We have a sociopath among us. It is textbook. Lies, narcissism, sanctimony, lack of remorse, manipulation, accusations against others and continued threats. I am actually afraid of Tyler.
Provida I don’t want to hurt you, I want to help you.
Again, another lie hidden under an attempt to hide or manipulate. Just like the false humility and the sarcasm he hides behind.
There is something that is bothering you very deeply and it can’t be me.
Because he is perfect in his own mind.
I hope you have never had an abortion and If I was wrong I apologize.
He just accused me of lying and his apology was not sincere. The “if I was wrong,” implying he is not, then he apologizes, but not really. It’s another front to hide behind.
Moreover, I hope God blesses you and that you use my referral to Rachel’s Vinyard nonetheless.
Read as: “Because Rachel’s Vineyard is for women who have had abortions and I am continuing to slander you and suggest that you had an abortion, although there is no evidence and you clearly stated that you didn’t.” Worse, he hopes “God blesses me” in the same sentence he attempts to hurt me. No contrition or remorse here. Blatant mockery.
Since you are a Christian and say that you know that a Christian doesn’t rebuke a fellow Christian publicly, and without evidence (falsely). I will now expect you to refrain from making more unjustified disparaging comments and attacking my character.
Read as: “I am getting back at you for rebuking me” – Although my rebukes were for things he’d clearly done, not made-up accusations like an abortion. There is ample evidence to attack his character by his own words. There is no evidence anywhere that I have had an abortion. It was merely a lie he concocted to get back at me. He admits this in the next sentence with his final threat.
I won’t need to retaliate if you are nice.
Read as: “I wouldn’t have to hurt you if you didn’t make me angry.” That is the scariest statement of all. It is a threat, not just a validation that all he has said was to hurt me. This line of thought is pure sociopath- “I wouldn’t have had to kill him if he hadn’t screamed!” or “If wouldn’t have had to shoot the clerk if he had just given me the money.” Nothing is the fault of a sociopath. Everyone else “makes” them do the evil things they do. And this threat is saying that he intends to do evil things to me in the future if I am not “nice.”
We aren’t just dealing with an immature kid here. There are larger issues here- psychosocial attachment issues at the very least. I am downright nausiated and rightly terrified of people who lack a conscience. I am glad a computer exists between me and Tyler.
Provida you think telling people who don’t believe in God that God has plan for them is going to change their opinion? Talk about beating your head against the wall. I do hope you have other things that you say and do.
WOW! LMAO! Pot, meet kettle!
In light of this statement from you, Tyler, what on EARTH did you think quoting Timothy to me the other day and telling me about “subservience” was going to accomplish?! ROFL!!!
Also, being an @$$ and accusing someone of having an abortion just because they think you’re acting like a dillweed only confirms their earlier suspicion.
Well done, Provida! Brava!
Tyler, Provida, ENOUGH already! Sheesh.
Thanks Lrning!
Time to let it go.
You are free to walk away, ladies. It is easy when a.) you are not involved in any conversation with anyone and b.) someone isn’t maliciously slandering and threatening you. So if you don’t want a part in this conversation, then don’t have one. This isn’t a audible conversation. You have to come here and read it. If it comes to your email and you don’t like it, unsubscribe. But I will defend myself and speak to anyone I choose. You don’t have to listen or involve yourself, but you don’t tell me when I should talk. Pretty simple.
Xalisae: what on EARTH did you think quoting Timothy to me the other day and telling me about “subservience” was going to accomplish?! ROFL!!!
:) That probably is one for the Hall of Fame. ;)
Xalisae: what on EARTH did you think quoting Timothy to me the other day and telling me about “subservience” was going to accomplish?! ROFL!!!
For the record, the clinic worker I spoke to and told her that God had a plan for her, and it wasn’t working in abortion. Her response was that she agreed! I offered help finding another job. She quit the clinic and took a hall director job at a Christian university to do a masters in counseling. So in my case, appealing to God actually worked. Of course, I did it out of love and Tyler does it out of, well, something else.
xalisae
I as said in my post to you I was sharing an idea with you much more than I was trying to convert you. I beleive conversion to Christ cannot take place until people at least believe in God.
Courtnay thanks and I agree. I will no longer be responding to Provida. Happy journeys Provida. As much as you won’t believe what I am about to say I will say it nonetheless: I wish you the very best.
How do we know Joan’s comment was truly hideous? Kel got 8 likes for announcing its deletion.
Because the people who were subscribed to the comments for this thread likely got the comment in their email inboxes despite the fact that I deleted it from the comment board.
Let’s try and get this thread back on topic, please, so that people’s inboxes aren’t flooded with “other people’s conversations” that appear to be more of an off-topic sort of bickering.
We welcome varying viewpoints and comments here, but it appears this thread has become more of an attack on people rather than ideas. Since “criticize ideas, not people” is one of the rules of this comment board, let’s try to get it back on track, please, so that comments do not need to be deleted and this thread can remain open.
Thank you! :)
Well I missed a fun thread. :) I am cracking up at Xalisae’s comment.
On topic so Kel doesn’t delete me… Anything that smacks of eugenics is sick. I do think there are valid reasons for genetic testing rather than aborting a baby that has issues, but the risks seem a bit much for a lot of otherwise healthy pregnancies.
The way you accomplish getting something on topic is to post something on topic for responses, not admonish those off-topic. Just telling people the shut up doesn’t create better conservation. It just makes the conversation cease. Courtnay wasn’t trying to redeem the conservation, she was just trying to stop someone else’s conversation because she didn’t like it, as if she has any right. Again, if people don’t want their inboxes full of comments, they can unsubscribe. They chose to opt in- They can choose to opt out. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. The world and other conversations don’t revolve around them.
The entitlement people feel to control others is baffling. If you sit next to someone at a theatre who’s scent or loud laughter offends you, then that’s your problem. You can get up and move. You have no right to tell that person to use less AquaVelva, more Dial soap or to laugh softer. I was in D.C. once at a Starbucks after the March for Life and a homeless man entered after being recently released from the hospital. He bought a coffee, had a smell and was very “chatty”- I opted to discretely change tables and move the the other end of the store near the counter. Some man indignantly approached the counter and demanded the manager do something about that homeless man, who was a customer just like he was and had every right to be there just like he did. Yet instead of changing his world, this vile man demanded the world change for him. I left the Starbucks completely because I didn’t want to be even in the same store with THAT man.
So Kel, get people back on topic! Post something that cultivates discussion. I don’t think anyone else has anything more to say here, but I wouldn’t condescend to tell anyone to shut up especially people who aren’t even talking to me.
Provida, perhaps you’re unaware that there are moderators on this site, and it is our job to moderate all comments. You can find out who the moderators are by looking in the sidebar under “Team.”
If anyone is entitled to ask commenters to refrain from a certain line of discussion, it is the moderators of this site.
I tried to be as polite as possible, but obviously that didn’t work, so further comments on this thread which are nothing more than off-topic bickering between commenters will be deleted. Thanks.
On topic so Kel doesn’t delete me
Normally I don’t have to intervene at all. I’m just behind the scenes with the other moderators doing what I’m supposed to be doing. But if you guys want to gripe about it, you can email me directly and gripe. Email’s in the right hand sidebar.
I was only joking, Kel. If I had ab issue I would get hold of you.
Kel, you deleted Courtnay’s statement that Provida needs to get help but you let her use swear words in a bunch of her comments, and comments that were directed at people (and not just me). Please review Provida’s comments and you will see what I am talking about. Just because Provida intersperses her vile comments with legitimate comments doesn’t mean they should stay on the board.
Furthermore, she mischaracterizes the intention of other people. Rather she ascribes intentions to other people – please ask Provida how she knows what Courtnay’s intentions were when Courtnay simply asked her and I to stop bickering.
As Christian one should not return insult for insult, etc… when the insulted is directed at oneself; however, when that insult is directed at your Christian brother you are called to protect them. Pro-aborts direct their comments at entire groups of people – the unborn. In fact, by definition anything said by a pro-choice person is hate speech and is not equivalent to a pro-life person pointing this out to them.
Pro-Life people do want an area that is a mutual admiration society. That is the whole point of the pro-life movement. We want everyone to be pro-life. I don’t want dissenting opinions on this topic. I don’t feel they are justified, and they can never be justified – they are hate speech plain and simple. It does not matter if we are talking about DS babies, gay babies, or any type of person, they all deserve to live and not be exterminated by their own Parents. As Pamela said I can’t believe we live in a society where Mother’s are screaming in the streets for the right to kill their own children. Kel stop playing nice with the pro-aborts. They can’t be charmed as much as some people would like to think otherwise.
(*sigh*) Oy, vey…
Tyler, at the risk of another minor digression: Kel is one of the most fair-minded and kind people I “know” (though not “in person”, face-to-face, more’s the pity); and she’s not trying to “charm pro-aborts”, or treat them with anything which she wouldn’t use with anyone else. Do try to keep a level head in this, eh?
As for your main points: the person who has ultimate authority to decide the character of the blog is Jill Stanek, the owner; it is she (often through her moderators and co-owners) who decides whether the site will be a “pro-life commentary only” blog (which she does not do) or a “discuss the issues” blog (which she does, within reasonable and right limits).
Finally: you seem to have allowed your enthusiasm/zeal to rush you into some logical (and other) difficulties. First: you’ve started using what logicians call the fallacy of “equivocation”: referring to two disparate things as if they were equivalent (e.g. someone articulating an abortion-tolerant position vs. someone intentionally vilifying someone else; many abortion-tolerant people are genuinely deceived, rather than intentional spreaders of malice). Second: you’ve made some very rash (and sometimes bizarre) comments, such as your flat-out accusation that Provida had an abortion… and continuing to recommend Rachel’s Vineyard to her, even after she flatly denied any and all abortion history or sympathies (which was a bit like watching a doctor press antibiotics on me, even after I protested that I was in perfect health!), and which even your supposed conditional admission of error didn’t dissuade!
Finally, you wrote:
As Christian one should not return insult for insult, etc… when the insulted is directed at oneself; however, when that insult is directed at your Christian brother you are called to protect them. Pro-aborts direct their comments at entire groups of people – the unborn. In fact, by definition anything said by a pro-choice person is hate speech and is not equivalent to a pro-life person pointing this out to them.
Now, surely you can see the problem with this, once it’s pointed out? This rationale could be used to “excuse” any action of your against your opponents, regardless of whether those actions (i.e. the MEANS by which you seek to achieve your ends) are morally licit, or not… and it simply won’t do. The mere fact that some are abortion-tolerant (which is certainly an outrageous position, and we can rightly be angry at the fact that they hold it) does NOT justify an “anything goes” mentality… from you, or from anyone. Not only is it ineffective (anyone will react badly to calumny, rash judgment, etc., and rightly so), but it’s immoral. Do try to stick to morally upright tools when debating/responding; we Christians, especially, are obligated never to use the devil’s own weapons to try to defeat his initiatives in the world. (They always turn around and bite us, eventually, and they cause a great deal of evil to others in the process.)
I say this as a former “troll”, actually; in years past (on the old .usenet discussion groups), I was more rabid and heedless than the vast majority of trolls who’ve ever haunted this site. It takes patience and humility to endure a position which is radically removed from one’s own; I know… since I failed miserably in that respect, for more years than I can count (and the memory still pains me, even now). Do learn from my mistakes, eh?
What a pity I hadn’t met you sooner, Paladin! I bet you’d have been even more of a hoot than you are now. ;P
I can have sympathy for female who tempted into the pro-choice position. But men have no excuse for being pro-choice.
Now, surely you can see the problem with this, once it’s pointed out? This rationale could be used to “excuse” any action of your against your opponents, regardless of whether those actions (i.e. the MEANS by which you seek to achieve your ends) are morally licit, or not… and it simply won’t do. The mere fact that some are abortion-tolerant (which is certainly an outrageous position, and we can rightly be angry at the fact that they hold it) does NOT justify an “anything goes” mentality… from you, or from anyone. Not only is it ineffective (anyone will react badly to calumny, rash judgment, etc., and rightly so), but it’s immoral. Do try to stick to morally upright tools when debating/responding; we Christians, especially, are obligated never to use the devil’s own weapons to try to defeat his initiatives in the world. (They always turn around and bite us, eventually, and they cause a great deal of evil to others in the process.)
I understand your point and Provida’s point for that matter. But Paladin I disagree. Let me explain why. I view that the pro-choice have declared war on the unborn. To me this situation is analagous to a war. Defenced is called for. Finally, you understanding is not nuanced enough because neither you, me, or Provida discuss any actual means. I do see that some means are not called for, but the situation is serious enough that the pro-choice need to understand the seriousness of what they are actually saying – most of them, I would say 99.9% fail to understand what they are talking about. Some of them are ignorant enough to compare cells in their hand to embryo and some even compare those hand cells to a fetus. I have not advocated “anything goes” strategy – I am still confining my actions to talking!!! This pro-aborts are using violence themselves – so you tell me Paladin is a comment that bites a person’s conscience too much? Is telling Pro-aborts that they lack compassaion and have a heart like a raisen too mean? I don’t think I need perspective, I think they do. In fact from their silly perspective/logic they should find absolutely nothing wrong with me saying that I would like women to abort every pro-choice baby – after all it would be the choice of those women.
BTW, I like Kel. I just feel the accomodation to the pro-aborts sometimes go to far. The pro-aborts will alwsy to dress their rhetoric in civility, if they didn’t everyone would see the ugliness of their ideas. They would rather protray themselves as victims, as people being denied a chance to speak their opinon, yada – then actually considering the content of what they are saying. Staying on topic means not advocating for your right to spew garbage. The pro-aborts/choicers should spew their garbage and leave but not lecture pro-lifers about manners.
The topic of this thread simply invites too many ignorant selfish people to spew their hatred and elitism.
xalisae,
after the topic on contraception a while back. I just want to say that the pro-lifers who are pro-contraception are holding the pro-life movement back. The failure of these so-called pro-lifers to accept responsibility for life at all of its stage, in fact, its most vulnerable stage lumps them in with the pro-aborts. There is no difference. They need to deal with it. They need to get a back bone.
They hurt the Pro-Life movement by spewing the same silly logic of my body – well as one Pro-life I know said once: it is the women’s responsibility if she has sex. She made her choice when she consented to sex. OC’s just mask her ultimate responsibility.
The liberals and progressives within the GOP are trying to bring down Santorum’s campaign. Evil knows no bounds. If Santorum fails to win the Presidency – America is going to be Socialist Europe guaranteed. Sanorum may not always “sound’ the best but when you read or listen carefully he has a lot of good to say.
I have no problem with Romney, but will he advocate the pro-life agenda? Without a firm prolife agenda there will be no tax reforn, no economic policy that is going to be bold enough to affect the change that is necessary.
There are pro-choicers/pro-aborts in the GOP!!!! The American should vet the GOP members more thoroughly.
In comparison to Rick Santroum I pretend at being pro-life,
He is real Father and Man. He is truly pro-life. His judgment is good.
“many abortion-tolerant people are genuinely deceived, rather than intentional spreaders of malice”
Not the ones coming to this site.. You could say this comment ten years ago… but not with internet and the efforts of the pro-life movement over the last 10 years.
Furthermore, Paladin you should really try to use specific examples of the person’s wrong doing if you want to correct them.
You are just being too “nice” to me and the pro-aborts.
Remember the topic is abortion – not football, Ye haw!
As the GOP Presidential Candidate Race has made clear – once you become the frontrunner you get a traget on your back. Jill has one for sure, as does the entire Pro-Life movement – now. And it will only get tougher, not easier, as more progess is made. They pro-aborts are going to claw at the Pro-Lifers as the Pro-lifers climb the ladder of success/pull away from the pro-aborts.
The last few miles of a marathon are always the toughest.
and, once again, I know I’ve told you this before but, I don’t really give a rat’s @$$ what you think, Tyler.
You know my feelings to the contrary, as well. Deal with it.
xalisae,
If you really think about being pro-life and your comments about the effects that caffeine and alchohol can possibly have on an embryo then the only pro-life position is abstinence outside of marriage (wanting children) and being chaste within in marriage. Poetically, abstinence is an equally shared commitment by both sexes, and it harms (or puts chemicals into) neither partner.
Does the desire for recreational sex give a right to those persons engaged in such activity to potentially kill their offspring?
That is what it comes down to, those are the two values that must be weighed:
1) Recreational sex vs. 2) harming your potential child
It is one thing for a woman to get an abortion and it is entirely another thing for a person to visit a website in order to advocate the pro-choice position. It is impossible to advocate for the pro-choice position and not have malice in one’s heart. The woman who undergoes an actual abortion, more often than not, has less malice, if any, in her heart than the pro-abort advoocates that post on this site. Indeed, some of these Moms may be confused and think they are doing something good. In contrast, the very desire of the pro-abort advocates must have evil in their heart since abortion is a negative act, an absence of good. They think they can talk themselves and others into believing abortion is a GOOD knowing full well in their heart they are lying to us.
Don’t confuse the victims (Moms) and the victimizers (advocates)
“Alice, again – it is simply a fact that many people are going to choose to end Down’s pregnancies. This is so whether or not we think it’s right or wrong, “offensive” or not, etc. We can later discuss things, give our opinions, etc., but it doesn’t change the fact that the statement is true.”
Alice: You have said this over and over. And if you really did think that “discussing things, giving our opinions, etc.” was the next step here, you’ve had plenty time to take it. And yet you’ve made no move to actually discuss anything or give your opinion. You disavow, disclaim, and disassociate as fast as you post the hate. My second option was right: troll and vile person.
Let’s take that first. Poor you, not everybody agrees with you and if you don’t outright melt down, you feel like picking up your ball and going home.
Hey – not everybody agrees with you. Welcome to the real world.
Almost all my posts have been in response to what others have said. There’s the discussion, thus far. Here is my very first post on this thread:
“No baby is “perfect,” and good for you – those who have disabled kids and love and take good care of them. Nobody is telling you to do other that what you want, there.
But if Santorum wants to do away with genetic testing, then he’s going to cut his own throat, politically. If he answers “yes” to the question of, “If you were President, would you try to force me (or my wife) to continue a pregnancy if we knew that Down’s Syndrome was present?” then he’s going to lose too many voters to be a viable candidate.”
–It’s my opinion there, and anybody is free to discuss, agree or disagree. Pretty quickly it came to me responding to what other people said, including some of which was frankly ranting and raving, and Provida and a few others have made good points about it.
Just saying that when we look at certain groups of people (which include “many people”), they’re going to choose to end Down’s pregnancies, and it’s understandable that they do so. I mean that it’s not “impossible” or “unbelievable.” It’s occurring, no matter what you or I feel about it.
And again with the offensive language. “Down’s pregnancies?” Seriously? Do you ever plan to apologize for using an offensive term like this? Or maybe, perhaps, stop using it?
Yes, a Down’s pregnancy – a pregnancy where Down’s Syndrome is the case, same as with a risky pregnancy, where increased risk is the case. How is this “offensive”?
What have I said that’s actually “horrible” or “ugly”? I get that you don’t like abortion, and that you think Down’s Syndrome doesn’t mean that abortions should be had, but that does not change the facts of what I’ve said.
I don’t “dislike” abortion. Abortion is not ice cream. I reject abortion as having any place in society, because it is wrong. It is not wrong “in my opinion,” it is wrong in fact.
There, you’re confusing your opinion with fact.
“As for what you’ve said that’s horrible and ugly, let’s go with the first of your paragraphs that I quoted. “Just saying that when we look at certain groups of people (which include “many people”), they’re going to choose to end Down’s pregnancies, and it’s understandable that they do so.” That right there is both horrible and ugly. That we would look at a person who has chosen to destroy an unborn child simply because that child has Down’s Syndrome and, instead of the appropriate reaction of horror, react with “Oh, that’s understandable. I get that.” This also, by the way, serves to refute your statement “I didn’t say it’s understandable that people want to kill children with Down’s Syndrome.” Because, yes, you did. You said it in precisely the same post where you claimed not to.”
No I didn’t. “Children” is your word, not mine. The point is that some people who have unwanted pregnancies will terminate them. Even more people, including those who would otherwise be pro-life, would terminate in the case of a pregnancy where Down’s Syndrome is the case. That is simply fact. Same as rape and incest make a difference to some people, so does Down’s Syndrome. You’re stomping and raging around, but this isn’t me saying it’s “good” that that happens. It’s me saying it happens, period. This is what I mean about the “real discussion coming afterward.”
It overlaps with a post that I owe Provida, I think, and if it’s “my personal position” you want, it’ll be there.
“What’s wrong, ugly, offensive, etc., about saying that?”
You said this. “The mental impairment with Down’s syndrome can be severe. Lots of people choose to end Down’s pregnancies. What’s wrong, ugly, offensive, etc., about saying that?” So, let’s try this same comment in a way where you will have no trouble seeing the bigotry in it. “The sexual deviance with homosexuality can be severe. Lots of people choose to end gay pregnancies. What’s wrong, ugly, offensive, etc., about saying that?” And don’t you even dare to suggest that this is different because gays are “born that way” or any other lame excuse. You think people with Down Syndrome aren’t? Honestly, I can’t see where are you missing the boat on this one, because it really is not confusing.
Even if your point is, “Many people have abortions because their children have Down Syndrome.” then so what? Many people abuse their spouses because they see them as targets. That also happens all the time. Is that “understandable,” too? What point are you trying to make here? At all?
It’s not “bigotry” to say what I said. While I don’t think people “choose to end gay pregnancies,” I think some people would do so if they could know beforehand if a “gay gene” was present. I don’t think there is a consensus on being gay, i.e. whether it’s genetic or environmental or a mixture. I think there’s certainly genetic stuff involved, at the least. I also think the ones who would be thinking about having an abortion the most would be those who would normally be pro-lifers, stemming from many of the same religious convictions. Yes – this would be a tough one for lots of those people. And I imagine some readers of this would say, “No! No true pro-lifer would ever have an abortion!” Yeah, that would hold true for some, but not for all. Some who describe themselves as “born again” and/or “Christian fundamentalists” already choose to have abortions, just on the basis of the pregnancy being unwanted. A lesser rate than for women as a whole, in the US, but still meaningful – 15 to 20% Now, add Down’s Syndrome to the mix, and I’d say that percentage would only go up.
“Sexual deviance”? Okay – some people have that opinion. If you say that “it’s nature to reproduce sexually,” then being gay doesn’t follow that. It’s still “nature,” however, for some portion of the population to be homosexual. So who’s to say? Meanwhile, that fact that Down’s can mean severe mental impairment remains.
Why would saying that “gay people are born this way” be an “excuse”? I personally believe that. And it’s also obviously true that it’s the same with Down’s Syndrome.
“Let’s simplify. You haven’t told me where you draw the line. Down Syndrome could be irrelevant if you support abortion when there is no DS. So let’s take a step back.
At what point and in what circumstances should abortion be restricted?
Currently, abortion is legal through all 9 months of pregnancy for virtually any reason in the U.S. and any reason in Canada. If you support that, your answer would be “never”. My answer is “always.” Many people have distinctions somewhere in the middle like a gestational age cut-off, viability, sex-selection, quickening, reduction of multiples to a singleton, heartbeat, brainwaves, etc. Do you support abortion on-demand or with restrictions.
Provida, most states in the US do have restrictions. Very late-term abortions, like in the third trimester, are exceedingly rare as a whole, and certainly – so are the exceptions to the restrictions such as true medical emergency for the pregnant woman. I don’t support abortion on an elective basis that late, but I do go past the first trimester. I wouldn’t change it, I wouldn’t have it be “later” for Down’s.
a
Are there unacceptable reasons to abort a child?
I see a child being after birth, so it doesn’t apply. As far as legal abortion, I wouldn’t change things, as above – wouldn’t have different times within gestation or exceptions for most conditions with the embryo or fetus. With anancephaly – or something as profound as that, then I might. If there is no conscious brain at all, and never will be, and the pregnancy is 7 months along, do we make it illegal for the parents to end the pregnancy? There may be other very rare (and profound) things that would be similar – I’m not sure, but in any case they’d be darn rare.
If you say DS is an acceptable reason to abort a child- are there unacceptable reasons? Would wanting to fit in a particular dress be acceptable? Would hiding an affair be acceptable? Would wanting a boy and not a girl be acceptable? Would not wanting to give up alcohol be an acceptable reason? Are there any reasons a woman might have that you think are unacceptable justification for an abortion?
If you believe women can evict a baby from her body at any time for any reason, then the reason (Down Syndrome) doesn’t matter. If you do not believe this and think there should be some restrictions, why would aborting a child with DS be an exception for you?
There. That is straightforward.
Yeah, you have a very good mind, Provida. Some truly excellent posts you’ve put down here, and addressing quite a few things in a widely-ranging thread. I would not “change the rules for” Down’s. Same as just about everything else – per the woman through a time in gestation.
Mac: It’s not “bigotry” to say what I said. While I don’t think people “choose to end gay pregnancies,” I think some people would do so if they could know beforehand if a “gay gene” was present. I don’t think there is a consensus on being gay, i.e. whether it’s genetic or environmental or a mixture. I think there’s certainly genetic stuff involved, at the least. I also think the ones who would be thinking about having an abortion the most would be those who would normally be pro-lifers, stemming from many of the same religious convictions. Yes – this would be a tough one for lots of those people. And I imagine some readers of this would say, “No! No true pro-lifer would ever have an abortion!” Yeah, that would hold true for some, but not for all. Some who describe themselves as “born again” and/or “Christian fundamentalists” already choose to have abortions, just on the basis of the pregnancy being unwanted. A lesser rate than for women as a whole, in the US, but still meaningful – 15 to 20% Now, add Down’s Syndrome to the mix, and I’d say that percentage would only go up.
Good points, Mac. “Is there a good enough reason” and “where do we draw the line” are pertinent and tough questions.
Tyler: I have no problem with Romney, but will he advocate the pro-life agenda? Without a firm prolife agenda there will be no tax reforn, no economic policy that is going to be bold enough to affect the change that is necessary.
Tyler, no GOP President, this time around, anyway, is going to do squat about “tax reform” – as you mean it, nor about the deficit or the debt. Paul is the only one who would even approach that area, really, and it ain’t gonna be him. “Pro-life agenda” has nothing to do with it.
Mac: It’s not “bigotry” to say what I said. While I don’t think people “choose to end gay pregnancies,” I think some people would do so if they could know beforehand if a “gay gene” was present. I don’t think there is a consensus on being gay, i.e. whether it’s genetic or environmental or a mixture. I think there’s certainly genetic stuff involved, at the least. I also think the ones who would be thinking about having an abortion the most would be those who would normally be pro-lifers, stemming from many of the same religious convictions. Yes – this would be a tough one for lots of those people. And I imagine some readers of this would say, “No! No true pro-lifer would ever have an abortion!” Yeah, that would hold true for some, but not for all. Some who describe themselves as “born again” and/or “Christian fundamentalists” already choose to have abortions, just on the basis of the pregnancy being unwanted. A lesser rate than for women as a whole, in the US, but still meaningful – 15 to 20% Now, add Down’s Syndrome to the mix, and I’d say that percentage would only go up.
Mac, you are lucky I am not a moderator I would not have allowed you to post this blatant lie about pro-lifers. And you pretend to be so tolerant and civil and above name calling and bigotry and libel. What proof/evidence do you have that pro-lifers or Christians would abort gay children? Your generalizations, and desire to spread hate and division is evil. You revel in the sufferings of others.
Tyler, you sound so “hard.”
Don’t take it the wrong way – I don’t know you, and we can’t get body language or hear voice tones on the internet, but you come off as almost scary, really. Do you envision yourself marrying a woman, eventually?
If I was pregnant and the diagnosis was Down Syndrome, I’d be scared, but I’d still have the baby.
Tyler: Mac, your Mom let you live and you have a heart like a raisen.
Is that like “A Raisen in the Snu”? ;)
This thread is amazing…
Mac, you are lucky I am not a moderator I would not have allowed you to post this blatant lie about pro-lifers. And you pretend to be so tolerant and civil and above name calling and bigotry and libel. What proof/evidence do you have that pro-lifers or Christians would abort gay children? Your generalizations, and desire to spread hate and division is evil. You revel in the sufferings of others.
Tyler, you simply do not know what the truth is. For almost the past 20 years I’ve seen studies about “who has abortions” and the reasons for them. You are mistaking common sense for “evil” in your desire to rant and rave about “the other side.”
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/prabort2.html
There’s a study from the mid-1990s, finding that ” one in five women having abortions are born-again or Evangelical Christians.” FWIW, I think that rate may have declined a little, since then, as have some of the other statistics mentioned.
I’m also not saying the exact percentage matters. The point is that “some have abortions.” And if you would really think about it, it’s undeniable that homosexuality is a big deal to those who are “born again” or “Evangelical Christians.” Again, not saying that every single one of them has to think that way, but within that group you can’t tell me it’s not “an issue,” in general.
In relation to this thread’s topic, we know that this group of parents chooses genetic testing a lesser amount of time than do people in general. And there isn’t a test for being gay, as far as I know at this time.
But – apparently as Alice was theorizing – let’s say there was. Okay, “X” amount of people in this group have abortions, without knowing about homosexuality or not. This is the case at the present time. Now, if this group were to know if the baby would be gay, you can’t tell me it would not make a difference. That simply does not make sense.
Mac, The point is “that some have abortions.” So what? What does that mean to Mac? Why do you care? The fact that there were six million Jewish people killed in the Holocaust doesn’t mean that the Holocaust should have continued. You are using your head but not your heart to understand these statistics.
Furthermore, I am sure at least one of these women regretted her abortion. And you seem unconcerned by this reality. You also seem unconcerned that this fact probably pains a lot of fellow Christians, who may feel that they somehow failed their Christian sister in her time of need. You are only looking at these statistics from one perspective: how they can be used to support abortion. It is a very cold and uber-rational way to look at these statistics. I am not debating the statistics, I am questioning your love affair with them.
Doug says:
February 25, 2012 at 11:17 pm
Is that like “A Raisen in the Snu”?
What’s “Snu”?
Megan: What’s “Snu”?
I don’t know – what’s snu with you? ;)
Hahahahahaaa!!!!!
(I totally saw that one coming.) :) :) :) :) :)
Mac, the aborted babies in the statistics are not trophies for the Pro-Choice movement. They should not be treated like “heads” of animals collected during a hunt.
Mac, The point is “that some have abortions.” So what? What does that mean to Mac? Why do you care? The fact that there were six million Jewish people killed in the Holocaust doesn’t mean that the Holocaust should have continued. You are using your head but not your heart to understand these statistics.
Yeah – let’s stay with that “using our head” for a moment. You don’t seriously maintain that what I said isn’t logical, now, do you? I didn’t put forth any “should continue,” and that was my point to Alice, who also seemed to always imagine that it magically appeared. It didn’t.
As far as heart, you know you and I have some disagreements, and had some before I even found this website. Your take on things, your “understanding,” isn’t going to apply to everybody else, not by a long shot. There are, however, conditions, statistics, facts – things which don’t depend what you and I believe – that are in place before our discussion even begins. They do apply to you, me, and to everybody – it’s an outer reality.
Man, again – like I said to Alice – my very first post on this thread began like this: ““No baby is “perfect,” and good for you – those who have disabled kids and love and take good care of them. Nobody is telling you to do other that what you want, there.”
Oy vey – is that so bad?
Furthermore, I am sure at least one of these women regretted her abortion. And you seem unconcerned by this reality.
WHAT? :: calling Provida… :: ;)
Yeah, dude, I’m sure of that too. It doesn’t make sense that it would be any different. Why is this so easy for you to understand, yet the fact that Down’s Syndrome and homosexuality – if detectable – would make a difference to some people is just impossible to you, or somehow at least anathema to think about?
Okay, let’s talk about those who regret having abortions, NOW that you mentioned it…. You cannot go through life never expecting to not regret some things. A certain religion isn’t required here or there for this to be true. This is the human condition. If you believe in free will, then that’s the deal.
Okay, there’s the polite response. Now then, where in the heck do you get this saying, “And you seem unconcerned by this reality.”? We had not been talking about this. I’ve never said anything like “I think nobody regrets abortions” or “they shouldn’t feel that way.” Sheesh!
You also seem unconcerned that this fact probably pains a lot of fellow Christians, who may feel that they somehow failed their Christian sister in her time of need.
Who knows? Seriously, and as others have commented here, your approach is “pretty extreme” in some respects, so much so that I suspect you have more pain-causing in you versus most people, and I do wonder what’s ahead…. Dude, I think you’re a “zealot” and that road makes many a wrong turn for people.
As for Christians versus Christians, what do you want me to say? What do the interpersonal relationships between people who believe different things have to do with me, especially when I don’t know them personally, anyway? Is Tyler all broken-up about the feelings of those with different religions, or none at all? Once again, come on, man….! ;)
You are only looking at these statistics from one perspective: how they can be used to support abortion. It is a very cold and uber-rational way to look at these statistics. I am not debating the statistics, I am questioning your love affair with them.
No, no, no. Where in this whole thread have I presented anything with an eye to “supporting abortion?” Hear me – I don’t care if nobody has an abortion due to Down’s Syndrome or anything else, from here on out. I’m single, and male, and (I’m getting older already) I really doubt that abortion will ever have anything to do with me, myself. If it was my pregnant wife, I don’t know if I’d be for having a Down’s baby or not. Not saying “oh yeah, we’d have an abortion.”
It’s not that I have a “love affair” with the facts, it’s that you apparently have a “hate affair” with them.
Mac, the aborted babies in the statistics are not trophies for the Pro-Choice movement. They should not be treated like “heads” of animals collected during a hunt.
And what does that have to do with anything? What have you seen me or anybody else say on this thread that has anything to do with “trophies for the Pro-Choice movement”?
Nuttin, Homie.
Youse guys got de whole site to yerselves, I tink….
This site never ceases to amaze me..
Hey JDC. :)
Guess I was wrong.
““No baby is “perfect,” and good for you – those who have disabled kids and love and take good care of them. Nobody is telling you to do other that what you want, there.”
Oy vey – is that so bad?
Yes, because with that statement you implied that you are equally fine with those people who have terminated and will terminate the life of a disabled child.
Mac, everyone should have respect for the dead no matter how they died and show sensitivity to the relatives that may have lost someone in the numbers you quote. That too is “outer” reality.
Hey Doug:) Great to see others following the fun at this time of night.
Yeah… The thread I really like is the one about what would you tell your 15 year old self. Good question there…
I am up as well, and thoroughly enjoying the thread. :)
Mac, I don’t think you can compare saying “Down’s pregnancy” to saying “risky pregnancy”. A risky pregnancy would be referring to the effects that carrying the baby has on the mother’s body. A mother is not having a “Down’s pregnancy”, she is carrying a human with Down’s syndrome. It sounds like ableism to me to frame it the way you did.
“No baby is “perfect,” and good for you – those who have disabled kids and love and take good care of them. Nobody is telling you to do other that what you want, there.”
Oy vey – is that so bad?
Yes, because with that statement you implied that you are equally fine with those people who have terminated and will terminate the life of a disabled child.
No, man, not “a disabled child.” That’s different. Do you really think I have something against the disabled? If so, you are wrong.
I would not have “different rules” for Down’s Syndrome or not Down’s Syndrome.
Mac, everyone should have respect for the dead no matter how they died and show sensitivity to the relatives that may have lost someone in the numbers you quote. That too is “outer” reality.
1.) No, that’s how you and many others, including me, feel. But you don’t have anything I’ve said as “disrespectful to the dead.” Dude, that’s lame….
Pro-Lifers as well as Pro-Choicers deal with “the numbers” here all the time. 1,200,000 or so abortions in the US every year, right? You cannot be sensible and act like “quoting numbers is disrespectful.”
2.) You’re just trying to play “pin the tail on the Mackie” – you’ve accused me of lying, you being totally in error there; you’ve conjured up things that you claim I said, which I did not; you’ve misinterpreted and fired up logical fallacies to a quite large extent. I don’t think I’ve said a personally mean-spirited word to you, either.
JackBorschja
Hey Buddy, nice new threads you got there. ;)
Hi Jack. Well, it’s in the literature. I’ve seen references to “Down’s pregnancies” from the National Institute of Health.
“A risky pregnancy would be referring to the effects that carrying the baby has on the mother’s body.”
Not necessarily. It ‘could’ be referring to that, but that possibility doesn’t disprove what I said. It can also be where there is greater risk than normal of having a miscarriage.
So, “more risk” being the case, and “Down’s” being the case.
“Hey Buddy, nice new threads you got there. ”
Heh. Apparently my touch screen decided I needed a new fake last name. ;)
“ Hi Jack. Well, it’s in the literature. I’ve seen references to “Down’s pregnancies” from the National Institute of Health. ”
Yeah… I still think it’s ableist language. Just like I have seen doctors refer to people with autism spectrum disorders as “autistics” and found that offensive as well. They are not disorders, they are people who have disorders. I am pretty touchy on the subject as I have a niece with pretty serious disabilities (cerebral palsy and cognitive disorders), so I have avoided commenting as to not lose my temper. I am tired of seeing children like her referred to as if they were nothing more than what makes them not “normal”). A lot of people with disabilities and their families are trying to change the way that these disorders and the people who have them are referred to and talked about.
Mac, would the Nazi’s have to say a mean spirited thing to you before you became offended by their actions against the Jewish people?
It does not matter whether you say something bad about me. Call me all the names you want. Others have on this thread.
I don’t like your cavalier attitude toward abortion and all unborn. It is offensive. The fact that you are guy makes it that much worse, and reveals that you keep abortion as a back-up plan, sort-of, maybe, kind of. You probably are really a fine person aside from your support of abortion. And supporting abortion makes you complicit with the ending of the life of another human being - and that too is a fact.
So do your fancy foot work, spin your wonderful logic, and dance your way out of that reality.
Okay, so what does “ableist” mean? ‘Search, search, search….’
Wikipedia, FWIW, says, “Similar to many of the assumptions underlying the medical model of disability, amongst many clinicians the “ableist” societal world-view is that the able-bodied are the norm in society, and that people who have disabilities must either strive to become that norm or should keep their distance from able-bodied people.”
Jack, so the feeling is that referring to someone in that way is discriminatory because it focuses on that one thing? “Nothing more than what makes them not “normal” – okay, that’s a good way to put it. I do see what you mean, there.
Is it really “worse” to say “autistic” versus saying “diabetic” or “psychic,” etc.?
Perhaps for the individual concerned, it could be. If it is hurting somebody, personally, then I can understand the objection to it. When we are talking about pregnancies in general, I don’t think that applies – there’s “nobody” there yet, certainly “nobody” that can understand about terminology.
To be fair, I think there’s a continuum of terms, including at one end the old-time usage of “monster” for a baby born with very severe deficiencies. And I know that would offend people to no end around here. At the other end, it may come down to splitting hairs, as with “diabetic,” etc.
I promise not to argue this point after this post, but with “I have seen doctors refer to people with autism spectrum disorders as “autistics” and found that offensive as well. They are not disorders, they are people who have disorders,” – I think there is a difference.
No, people are not disorders, but autism is a disorder, and to say “autistic” is to mean somebody that has it. Epilepsy/epileptic, and so forth. IMO “political correctness” can quickly go too far. Okay, arguing done.
I appreciate you not losing your temper, and so, what would you suggest? “A pregnancy with Down’s Syndrome”? Or “pregnancies where the woman is carrying a human baby with Down’s Syndrome”? Things are getting pretty cumbersome there.
Mac, to Jack: I appreciate you not losing your temper
Mac, Jack is one seriously good guy. Solid, down-to-earth, just all-around pretty darn cool.
Mac, would the Nazi’s have to say a mean spirited thing to you before you became offended by their actions against the Jewish people?
No, Tyler, and what does that have to do with anything?
It does not matter whether you say something bad about me. Call me all the names you want. Others have on this thread.
No need on my part to do that. Would that all were that way.
I don’t like your cavalier attitude toward abortion and all unborn. It is offensive.
You’re offended that others do not agree with you. So be it. But it’s no more “cavalier” on my part than it is on yours.
The fact that you are guy makes it that much worse, and reveals that you keep abortion as a back-up plan, sort-of, maybe, kind of.
Well, yes, there is a “kind of” at work here. It’s you getting kind of ridiculous, to say the least. What are the odds that what you say would actually come to be? Hey, abortion is a “back-up plan” for anybody who can get pregnant, if you look at it that way. Me, personally, at my age and not married, and the way my life is going and will go, as far as I know and want – we’re not talking much chance of me getting anybody pregnant, even in the context of a future marriage or relationship with a woman. What are the odds? 20%? Heck no, way less than that. Less than 15%, less than 10%, I’d be very surprised if they even approached 5%. Really, I’m saying it’s just about zero. Even if I would be involved with a woman where pregnancy would be possible, we’d either want a pregnancy, or prevent one. I’m a careful guy, and to me an unwanted pregnancy is definitely something to be prevented. The odds of us failing in that are very, very small. So, obviously a lot less “keeping abortion as a back-up plan” here than for those who are “born again” and/or “Christian Fundamentalists” in general. The CDC/Guttmacher figures are from 15 to 20% for that group.
If you just want to rant and rave, carry on…. Otherwise, I’m just sayin’….
You probably are really a fine person aside from your support of abortion.
Well, Tyler, thank you for that. :) You know, you and I disagree on quite a bit more than abortion – I can tell that from your comments.
And supporting abortion makes you complicit with the ending of the life of another human being - and that too is a fact.
Yeah, just like you’re “complicit” in all the wife-beating, etc. – all the myriad and practically never-ending horrors done in the name of “Christianity” over the years. Yet again – come on, man, you’re stretching the meaning of “complicit” so far that it’s going to snap back and hit you on the head. And then Xalisae will say something about the boo-boo it gives you.
Mac, sounds like you spent quite a bit of time thinking about this issue and it also sounds like you are a committed pro-abort.
Mac: “you’ve conjured up things that you claim I said, which I did not; you’ve misinterpreted and fired up logical fallacies to a quite large extent.”
like what?
“Mac, would the Nazi’s have to say a mean spirited thing to you before you became offended by their actions against the Jewish people?
No, Tyler, and what does that have to do with anything?”
Why do you then reference the amount of abortions as some kind of sign/support that it is morally fine for a scoiety to continue to have more abortions. On the question of the morality of abortion, or even its future legality, the number of abortions performed in the past is entirely irrelvant unless you are using the fact to expose the lie espoused by other pro-aborts that it is rare, or that increased contraception reduces the number of abortions. Slavery was once legal in the US but that doesn’t mean it should have remained legal. You also mentioned that you have not said one mean spirtied thing to me, like that matters:
“I don’t think I’ve said a personally mean-spirited word to you, either.”
Mac, sounds like you spent quite a bit of time thinking about this issue and it also sounds like you are a committed pro-abort.
Tyler, one response to this would be that you sound like a misogynistic ‘Nazi’ where women are concerned. Now, I don’t actually mean that, but if we want to spin other people’s positions, then that’s not the same as calm and rational discussion.
It’s not that I want people to have abortions when Down’s Syndrome is the case. I really, really, do not ever expect to be involved with abortion, personally, for any reason – same as for any number of other things, even though I would not prohibit people from doing them, legally.
Mac: “you’ve conjured up things that you claim I said, which I did not; you’ve misinterpreted and fired up logical fallacies to a quite large extent.”
Tyler: like what?
We’ve been through them, in my replies. Any future occurrences will be noted and replied to, as well, I imagine. ;)
However – here are a couple – one is where you said: “this blatant lie about pro-lifers.” Uh, no, it was the truth. You claimed there was a lie there – the only “lie” was on your part. A case of you just plain denying reality.
Another is you (and Alice) acting like noting the presence of facts, seeing that something happens or has happened, is the same thing as approving of it and/or advocating it, and that is false as well.
“Mac, would the Nazi’s have to say a mean spirited thing to you before you became offended by their actions against the Jewish people?”
“No, Tyler, and what does that have to do with anything?”
Why do you then reference the amount of abortions as some kind of sign/support that it is morally fine for a scoiety to continue to have more abortions.
First, I simply have not done that. Second – if I’m against the treatment of the Jewish people, there, why would it matter what the Nazis said to me? Thus my question.
On the question of the morality of abortion, or even its future legality, the number of abortions performed in the past is entirely irrelvant unless you are using the fact to expose the lie espoused by other pro-aborts that it is rare, or that increased contraception reduces the number of abortions.
I don’t think pro-choicers and pro-lifers really disagree, much, on the number of abortions, Tyler. Sounds like a straw man argument from you, there. I agree that the number of abortions would not weigh directly on the morality of abortion, necessarily. And I haven’t said it does – you and Alice seemed to be acting as if I had, though.
“Increased contraception reduces the number of abortions.” – It would not have to, every time, no. Past a point, I’d say it’s obvious it would no longer make any difference. But let’s look at the other end of things, i.e. no contraception at all. I’d say there’d definitely be a lot more abortions then.
Yes, birth control is not 100% sure, innately, at times, and also due to people not using it as well as they could, but it still prevents a huge number of pregnancies.
It’s also hard to quantify things, exactly, as there are other factors which make a difference. With a constant amount of contraception, the abortion rate could go up or down due to other influences. Are we then to point the finger at conception, itself? No, that would be silly.
Slavery was once legal in the US but that doesn’t mean it should have remained legal. You also mentioned that you have not said one mean spirtied thing to me, like that matters:
“I don’t think I’ve said a personally mean-spirited word to you, either.”
Just as people don’t want those who would formerly have been slaves to lose the rights they now have, so do I and many others not want women to lose the rights they now have.
About the “personally mean-spirited word” – it was in the context of you being untruthful, being in error, making up things you claimed I said, and engaging in some logical fallacies. My point was that with all that being the case, I hadn’t even directed one such a word at you.
Not saying it’s oh-so-important, either. Like you said, “Call me all the names you want.”
My point is that it’s rather fatuous for the name-callers, etc., to act like they are “magically better” than those on the other side of the debate. That’s the case, anyway, but all the more so when one’s argument is shown as weak due to the need to engage in ad hominem stuff. Provida and others have noted this and commented on it, as well.
Okay… I just “liked” a comment by Megan (February 25, 2012 at 11:56 pm). The apocalypse may now officially begin. :) And Doug, you had me laughing like a fool at your new nom de plume…
Sorry for my absence, all; “real life” has gone rather berserk, over here. I’ll chime in substantially when I get a chance.
Xalisae wrote:
What a pity I hadn’t met you sooner, Paladin! I bet you’d have been even more of a hoot than you are now. ;P
:) You’re being extremely generous, milady; I would describe myself (at least in the anonymity of the lists–I was usually rather shy, in person) as intense, brash and obnoxious… and without any on-line sense of humour within the human ability to detect. In other words: “Yech.”
Paladin
I have been thinking about what you have said recently in your last post and I wanted to get your perspective on some ideas I have been thinking about it as result of your post.
This is a war on the unborn. It is not war on women as the other side has called it. The Catholic Church said that it is left to the laity to sanctify the temporal world. Cardinal Wuerl has written a new book encouraging the laity to do this. As Catholics we have for too long looked to our Bishops to sanctify the temporal world by censuring pro-abort politicians and the like. However, if we laity accept the teaching of the Church contained in the Vat II documents we must accept responsibility that it is our failure to sanctify the temporal world that has contributed to the world we now live in and the morality we now have. Catholics for tool long went to Mass and did not bring their faith into the world. We left our faith inside the building. We did not exercise our freedom of religion sufficiently. We followed the example and teachings of Jack Kennedy instead of the teachings of the Magisterium.
Now it is up to the laity to correct their fellow man, their neighbour. It is up to us to correct our misguided Catholic brothers and sisters in public office. We must point out to the public and our fellow Catholics that Pelosi and Sebelius are not Catholics in good standing, that they have ex-communicated themselves from the Church. We need to show to the public which sections of the Catechism and Canon law they have violated. The sin of supporting abortion publicly has caused these two politicians to lose their liberty as Christians, and made them susceptible to the law of the Church. They are at risk of losing eternal life. However, if they have a change of heart, a re-conversion, to live a virtuous life in conformity with Church teaching there would be no need for such legal talk. Pelosi et al are free to walk away from the Church but they are not free to call themselves Catholic while promoting something the Church teaches is intrinsically evil. In short, we, the laity, must start helping our Bishops and Priests, we must accept our responsibilities, our cross, to sanctify this world. We must declare our religious liberty. If we do this our Bishops can focus on what they should be doing: saving souls.
Now with respect to the issue of abortion, and non-Catholic supporters of it. We the laity should not play nice with evil. We must stand strong in the public arena while praying for their conversion at Church. We treat the individuals with respect but we also point out how their ideas are wrong.
Paladin,
In short, it wasn’t our Bishops and Priests who failed the American people/temporal world it was we the laity.
Maybe our Bishops and Priests failed to teach us the faith, but this failure does not justify our own failure to sanctify the temporal world.
Paladin:
I would describe myself (at least in the anonymity of the lists–I was usually rather shy, in person) as intense, brash and obnoxious
Oh, Paladin, you just named my 3 best personal qualities! ;P
Tyler:
If you would urge me to forsake a part of my relationship with my husband because of something that could possibly happen that I have no way to determine actually does or does not, you’re pretty insane. I expect you to never have sex with your wife EVER, EVER AGAIN, because you might have sex and then afterward have some stressful news delivered or something.
Tyler says:
February 27, 2012 at 5:13 pm
“In short, it wasn’t our Bishops and Priests who failed the American people/temporal world it was we the laity.”
***
I heard people’s defense along those lines even with respect to the child abuse perpetrated by priests and the aiding, abetting, covering up, hiding priests, etc., done by the bishops, if not actually engaging in the abuse themselves. This heinous behavior then is laid-off as “other people’s failure”?
It’s a given that some individuals get comfort from religion, but the mass-organizations are more a curse on earth than good.
xalisae,
Do I owe you a congratulations for getting married? If so, congrats and when was the day?
xalisae, there is NFP that allows married couples to remedy the weakness of their spouse if the couple has singificant reasons for not being open to (more) children. I hope what I have said about sexual relations does not come across as being puritanical, I only hope to elevate the importance of sexual activity and as well, without sounding corny, its beauty. I don’t see new life as stressful. I see as beautiful. I just think before having sex, if a person is not practicing NFP, that a person should ensure that they are open to having children. It is about keeping the horse (desire for children) before the cart (children).
I agree that there were very bad Priests and Bishops. I was going to make reference to this problem. As much as civil authorities have dealt with these despicable Priests the Church hierarchy need to deal with this problem and ensure it never happens again. I have no desire to defend bad Priests and Bishops.
I have never heard anyone say that the sexual abuse problem was the fault of anyone else aside from the Bishops and Priests involved. However, if there were laity involved in the cover-up of guilty Priests and Bishops then they are definitely part of the problem as I have said. Furthermore, the problems in the temporal are vaster than the sexual abuse scandal. This scandal is only one of many problems in the temporal world, and the declining values in our culture. The relativistic culture has even infected the thinking of some of our Priests and Bishops.
I only hope to elevate the importance of sexual activity and as well, without sounding corny, its beauty. I don’t see new life as stressful. I see as beautiful. I just think before having sex, if a person is not practicing NFP, that a person should ensure that they are open to having children. It is about keeping the horse (desire for children) before the cart (children).
Ummm…Glad that you’ve made yourself judge of my sex live and seem to claim to know what my attitude is about sex. You should take your mind-reading act on the road and make some money there, buddy.
Trust me. As a mother of 2, I perfectly understand the gravity of sexual activity. As a devoted fiancee (getting married on paper in June, with a ceremony to occur in October) in the healthiest, most committed and serious relationship of my life I can tell you I CERTAINLY see and feel the beauty of it. But thanks for your concern for a dirty ‘ol barbarian like myself.
I see new life as beautiful, as well. Did you miss the part that I’ve been stressing now for literally weeks? That my fiance and I are eager to have children of our own, and if anything happened, we’d be ECSTATIC? Not to say children can’t be stressful-they can. Do you have children of your own? If so, are you or have you ever been his/her/their primary caregiver on your own? Also, you do realize some people are barely scraping by these days financially, right? And that, although some people are perfectly and completely open to new life, if/when that happens, it creates a logistical dilemma for them that can be very stressful to solve?
And, as far as the NFP things goes…
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/fertilityawarenessNFP.html
How effective is fertility awareness?
When fertility awareness is used correctly and consistently, it may reach effective rates around 90%. The effectiveness depends on your diligence to track and record your fertility pattern and your commitment to abstaining from sexual intercourse or using a barrier form of birth control during your fertility window.
Typical use, which refers to the average use, shows a failure rate of approximately 25%. If you are committed to tracking and recording your fertility information, you can achieve much higher success rates.
Sounds like a PITA that isn’t that effective. No, thank you.
Also, some people hypothesize that since NFP users time sex to some times in a woman’s cycle when the uterine lining is less hospitable to any possible embryos, NFP might even result in just as many embryos getting flushed as any other method of contraception. Don’t worry though, I’ll try and prosecute you and your wife for getting rid of all your embryonic babies just as soon you can prove how many embryos I’ve flushed in my lifetime.
Also, please tell me how NFP would’ve helped me when my ex was planning on raping me. Thanks.
xalisae, I apologize if you think I was referring to you directly. I was simply trying to express what I think is healthy and appropriate attitude to sex. You are correct when you imply that I don’t know you. I was not trying to offend you.
As I have said/implied before, I have a respect for your pro-life statements, actions and attitude. I don’t for minute think that you fail to understand the gravity of sex.
Let me extend to you an advance congratulations for your upcoming legal nuptials in June and a wish that it is beautiful fall day for your wedding celebration in October. (Sorry if this sounds too sweet or insincere.)
Yes I have children. Yes I understand the financial burdens family face. Yes I understand that children cause logistical sacrifices for Parents. I think as parents we need to accept these difficulties and find the beauty in them. Deciding to stay home with one’s children is not only a financial sacrifice, but also a social sacrifice. The stay-at-home parents often forgoes career advancement, etc.. but most importantly, the stay-at-home parent can often sacrifice adult compansionship and friendship, depending on where they live and how many other parents stay-at-home with their children. Yet stay-at-home parents get something that working parents don’t get: a deeper relationship with their child. The working parent makes sacrifices – which are equally heroic sacrifices. Deciding to stay-at-home with one’s children can be very rewarding – the family may have to do without the latest video game system and tv but they might get something better in return (obviously there are extreme family situations in either direction in terms of family wealth). Due to the current political leadership, it is hard or near impossible for poor families to afford to have a stay-at-home parent – even if they wanted to. (The Left however, think/assume that every man or woman parent that works wants to be working instead of being at home with their children.)
NFP is not simply fertility awareness. It is a more active process and takes more involvement then simply being aware of one’s own fertility. And it certainly doesn’t involve using a barrier method of contraception during your fertile periods!!!!! You misunderstand what NFP is.
NFP is 99% effective:
http://www.johnpaul2center.org/NazarethProject/HumanSexuality/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.htm
http://ccli.org/nfp/effectiveness/compare-methods.php
Because you have brought up your potential rape a couple of times I will make comment even though this is obviously sensitive topic. So before I make my statement I just want to say that I am sorry that you experienced that threat.
Do you think this guy would have dated/married you if you were practicing abstinence and planning to use NFP during your marriage. NFP would have forced you to understand this man’s understanding of sex, intimacy, and children. NFP may have allowed you to weed this guy out of your life. HOWEVER, NONE OF WHAT I JUST SAID MEANS I CONDONE WHAT HE WAS PLANNING TO DO OR GAVE HIM SOME KIND OF PERMISSION TO DO WHAT HE DID.
“Yes I understand the financial burdens family face. Yes I understand that children cause logistical sacrifices for Parents. I think as parents we need to accept these difficulties and find the beauty in them. ”
Heh. Tell that to my mother, who was forced to stay home and homeschool 6 kids, and couldn’t handle it. Guilting people into lifestyles that don’t work for them is really not a good idea.
“ Do you think this guy would have dated/married you if you were practicing abstinence and planning to use NFP during your marriage. ”
Screw you for that, Tyler. What you are doing, no matter how you couch it in niceties, is victim-blaming. You don’t know her life, and you can’t use a traumatic situation to push your agenda, and try to make her feel like she did something wrong. Seriously, you should back the f of.
“Heh. Tell that to my mother, who was forced to stay home and homeschool 6 kids, and couldn’t handle it. Guilting people into lifestyles that don’t work for them is really not a good idea.”
I agree with this statement. I wouldn’t want to guilt anyone into doing anything. To me if you guilt your spouse into doing something you are not being a good or considerate spouse.
“Screw you for that, Tyler. What you are doing, no matter how you couch it in niceties, is victim-blaming. You don’t know her life, and you can’t use a traumatic situation to push your agenda, and try to make her feel like she did something wrong. Seriously, you should back the f of.”
I am not trying to victim blame at all – thanks Jack. But you can’t tell me that the guy who wanted to rape X didn’t have a perverted understanding of sex, intimacy and children. I am sorry for your pain Jack but that doesn’t give you a right to lash out at me.
Jack, do you want solutions or silence?
Please explain to me how a condom, or the Pill is more effective at preventing rape than NFP? Her statement makes no sense.
And is xalisae saying the child that would have been conceived as result of the potential rape should die? Her thinking is still traumatized by the event. If she was more objective she would be horrified by her own statement.
“I agree with this statement. I wouldn’t want to guilt anyone into doing anything. To me if you guilt your spouse into doing something you are not being a good or considerate spouse.”
You don’t see how insinuating that “good” parents would make sacrifices that someone else defined would be seen as guilting by some people. Society can pressure people into doing stuff that isn’t okay with them, you implied that yourself talking about how people feel like they “have to” work.
“I am not trying to victim blame at all – thanks Jack. But you can’t tell me that the guy who wanted to rape X didn’t have a perverted understanding of sex, intimacy and children. I am sorry for your pain Jack but that doesn’t give you a right to lash out at me.”
I am not in pain, I am irritated with you, and I hate victim blaming. I don’t care if you aren’t trying to blame her, the fact is that you are. Of course he was a perverted POS, but implying that if only she had followed your version of sexual morality she would have not been in an abusive relationship, that’s putting the blame onto her whether you mean to or not. You also have a severe misunderstanding of how abusive relationships work.
And btw, plenty of good, faithful Catholics have abused people too. Get off your high horse, NFP is not some time of Godsent magic bullet to cure all social ills.
“And is xalisae saying the child that would have been conceived as result of the potential rape should die? Her thinking is still traumatized by the event. If she was more objective she would be horrified by her own statement.”
That’s not what she is saying AT ALL. But I will let her take that one since it’s more her personal life.
yes many Catholics have abused people and been abused. Humans are not perfect. But this fact doesn’t change my point or your point – it is a platitude.
NFP is not a Godsend to cure all social ills. However, it should not be flatly rejected or rarely talked about either. It is simply a method to help a committed couple respect life. The hostility to this method reveals there must be something else going on in society. Why should anyone get upset at mentioning it as alternative, and natural way to plan your family. I think the fact that is free has something to do with upsetting people!! I also think that because Catholics support it, some non-Christians are going to hate just for that reason alone.
“You don’t see how insinuating that “good” parents would make sacrifices that someone else defined would be seen as guilting by some people. Society can pressure people into doing stuff that isn’t okay with them, you implied that yourself talking about how people feel like they “have to” work.”
You have spun my words and their meaning. If we follow your line of thinking no one will ever be able to advise anyone about anything. There will always be pressure, however, sometimes people feel pressure without real outside influence but only perceived outside influence. This discussion would require us to talk about what it means to be human, and what is good for humans. Too big of a topic.
Lastly, I never said or implied that if she followed NFP she would not have been in an abusive relationship guaranteed. I only said or meant to say that it may have helped. I don’t think any reasonable should deny the positive benefits of the discussions that NFP fosters and promotes and requires of couples.
Tyler,
Where did I say that a child conceived had I been fertile when my ex would’ve intentionally impregnated me without my consent would’ve been killed? I don’t think I did. Because I wouldn’t have. I would’ve felt bad for my child having to be conceived under those circumstances. I would’ve been outraged at my ex for doing that to us. I would’ve pressed charges. But, I wouldn’t have killed my baby. You ASSUMING (you know what assuming does, right Tyler?) that I would’ve killed ANY of my children is just absolutely beyond the pale and HIGHLY offensive to me. And what does that have to do with the fact that NFP wouldn’t have done a damned thing for me under that circumstance? We could’ve had the best NFP-based, Catholicism-grounded relationship EVAR, and that wouldn’t have changed the fact that after he started physically abusing me, I had to get out of that relationship, and he would’ve used my fertility as a weapon against me when I tried to leave.
Also, you’re a douchebag.
And also, Tyler, FYI, after I became pregnant and her father wasn’t interested in me giving live birth to our daughter, I gave him the option to leave and forget that either of us existed, no strings attached. He stayed, because, despite his absolutely screwed-up ideas of love/sex/etc., by his ideas of it, he loved me. So, contrary to your seeming belief, it wasn’t an issue of “oh, well, if you just weren’t so much of a slut, he wouldn’t have been interested in you anyway and you wouldn’t have had to deal with him.”
I am glad that the whole event is your past and that you are now happy.
I am glad that you recognize that the problem is not with NFP per se but your ex’s behaviour.
In the future I will be sure to advise any women I talk to about NFP about the possibility of getting pregnant by a rapist while using NFP. Thank-you for making me aware of this.
you people, all of you. ridiculous. yes you are allowed your opinion, it matters, to you. and that’s it. stop harping on other women for being honest.with themselves about wanting to reduce or prevent stress in their lives. if I want to abort a baby I damn well will. it is nobody’s business what I do with my uterus or the fetus that may one day be in it. if I had testing and found out my child would have a disabilty you had better believe I would abort. so ladies, kindly shut your traps about other women, you don’t see them talking smack about your pathetic religious beliefs, or your ugly clothes, or your dated hair. just leave it alone, because in the end the only person who cares about your opinion, is you.
Uh-oh, you’re gonna get letters, now. ;)
Does pregnancy frighten some women?
well Tyler, its not the pregnancy that is scary, its the thought that I might have to go through with a pregnancy because some religious nutcases think its ok to tell me what I’m allowed to do. there’s a reason I’m not religious. I don’t need some idiotic fanatic telling me I’m evil. also, I actively use birth control, if I get pregnant it wouldn’t be from not be careful. I am in a monogamous relationship, i’m in college, and we don’t want or need kids. abortion would be the only option for us at this point.
secularprolife.org
You don’t have to be religious to recognize the humanity of gestating human beings and want to fight for their basic human rights to be protected. Nobody wants to tell you what YOU should do/are allowed to do. It’s a matter of protecting the life of another human being. Were you to become pregnant (and I hope you don’t! I’m sincerely glad you’re using birth control, and I would urge using several overlapping methods from personal experience), that new human being inside your body would be your biological child of whom you would have custody by default. Parents who have default custody of their minor children have obligations to them-to provide for them and protect them-and it should be no different simply because they’re younger than born children. Abortion wouldn’t be your only option. There are many people and organizations that would help you carry to term while you continue your education and adopt out, if you’re not ready or willing to parent.
Brittanyzick.com
yes xallsae, let’s.force young women to go through the trauma of pregnancy and delivery because it offends your beliefs. I would never allow myself to ruin my body to go through with a pregnancy I was trying to prevent in the first place, that’s why the use of birth.control. I thought that was a no brainer. your control issues and messiah complex are showing sweetie. I suggest you choke that down with a tall glass of idiocy. I’ll be selfish about my body, that’s my right.
The problem, Brittany, is that the body killed in an abortion IS NOT YOURS. That’s the point. THAT body belongs to someone who is not you. And “the trauma of pregnancy” is a small price to pay when compared to another human being’s life-the life of your child. Also, “ruin” your body? Really? First of all, if you’re willing to kill your child just because you think it might “ruin your body”, you’re incredibly shallow. Secondly, you’re absolutely incorrect. I think Madonna, Angelina Jolie, Cindy Crawford, and countless (quite a few I know personally) others evidence of this.
Go ahead and be selfish about YOUR body. Don’t destroy someone else’s though.
and also:
No one “forces” anyone to go through pregnancy/labor. It’s a natural consequence of sexual reproduction in mammals. Are you new to the species?
you are such a twit. I AM USING BIRTHCONTROL TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING. did I write that big enough for you to see this time? and don’t try to foist that a fetus is a person be on me. it cannot survive on its own. and no I’m not new to the species, that’s why I use birthcontrol. I shouldn’t be punished for using preventative measures. I wish I could abort you from this forum.
I’m glad you’re using birth control. However, no method on its own is 100% effective. And yes, I saw that and read it the first time. That is why I remarked on the statement and urged the use of several overlapping forms. Also, just because you are using contraceptives, it is not an excuse to kill any child that might be conceived. They don’t consent to being brought into this world, either, and that doesn’t give you the right to kill them.
There is no “punishment” involved. It’s just a natural occurrence, and you have to deal with it in a way that doesn’t kill your child. Sorry. Just because they tore up your favorite stretch of road and put a playground there does not a.) mean you’ve been punished, b.) give you the right to run over any children who might be in your way due to the change in circumstances.
You can’t survive on your own, either, I’d wager, if placed at the bottom of the ocean or in outer space. The womb is a gestating human being’s natural environment. If you were removed from your natural environment, you couldn’t live, either. Does that mean you’re not a person?
per·son
? ?[pur-suhn] Show IPA
noun 1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child:
human being
?
noun
1.
any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
fe·tus
? ?[fee-tuhs] Show IPA
noun, plural -tus·es. Embryology . (used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb
young
? ?[yuhng] Show IPA adjective, young·er ?[yuhng-ger] Show IPA, young·est ?[yuhng-gist] Show IPA, noun
10. young offspring:
off·spring
? ?[awf-spring, of-] Show IPA
noun, plural -spring, -springs.
1.
children or young of a particular parent or progenitor.
I can see why you have such a fascination with Hitler. You guys have a lot in common. You like to dehumanize other human beings to try and legitimize your killing of them.
I also get inspired by injustice in the world for my art. Abortion is a HUGE injustice perpetrated against the youngest and most vulnerable human beings amongst us.
Hey abbortitall
If you should be mad anyone it should be me. I have the real Messiah complex. I think oral contraception is bad thing for women (causes breast cancer, etc..) – just ask xalisae. Not only do I tell women not to take birth control, I tell them to cook me dinner as well (My Mom hates it when I do that).
By the way abbortitall you should keep any baby that you conceive – it is the nice thing to do. I have friends that had a horrible long wait when trying to adopt children.
Remember there are two choices in any reproductive decision: 1) to obtain your autonomy; 2) to terminate the life of the child. These two decisions are not causally related, nor dependent on one another.
abortiall
Thanks for answering my question regarding pregnancy. I can see that pregnancy and having a child can be a big change in a person’s life. Sometimes stuff happens. So seriously, I can understand your desire not to want people to tell you what to do. And if you are not religious, it would not make much sense for a person to talk to you about religion and about how God sees all human life as dignified and worthy of love. So the decision is ultimately up to you. We live in society where it is legal. However, if you could find it in your heart to carry any baby you conceive to term I am sure there would be many people who would be extremely thankful that you did. Moreover, there is plenty of help for new mothers in most areas if these Mothers decide to go through with the pregnancy and raise the child. It is amazing how many complete strangers will befriend an expectant Mother in need. The help of these strangers is one of the best things on this planet – better than Disney World. If you get a chance to experience their love you will not be the same person again – I can guarantee it.
God bless you and good luck (Never forget the love of complete strangers.)
And don’t forget that if you ever want to talk to someone who’s been-there, done-that without religion and has the 9 year old to prove it, I’m around. It’s really not that bad, and life for everyone is a lot better because she’s here to live it.
xallsae, I can’t believe you were pathetic enough to go through my social networks.to get dirt. you are a sad.little fucked up religious.nut. go screw your daddy sweetheart.
lol, you put the link in your info, sweetheart. You shouldn’t be too surprised.
Your reading comprehension (not to mention your spelling) is not so good. Did you miss the bit where I said I was not religious? I clicked the link on your name. I’m an artist, too, so I wanted to see your art since I have a deviantart account myself, I figured you would, too. It didn’t take much digging for “dirt” once I got there…you mention it on your DA homepage.
I notice in lieu of actually commenting on the actual content of anything I said, you’ve opted to fling insults. That speaks volumes for your position. Thanks.
When you’re ready to grow up and stop throwing tantrums, let me know. Maybe we can talk about how grown-up, adult activities should be left to adults, rather than toddlers who throw baby-tantrums shouting “ME ME ME, MINE MINE MINE, NOW NOW NOW!”
I wouldn’t argue with this abortitall. She’s pretty sharp. She knows all the pro-life women here have dated hairdos. I wonder if she can tell I’m left-handed?
well sorry for typing on a smartphone. and just like I couldn’t care to read that you aren’t religious you obviously don’t care to read or understand that a fetus is not .person, it is a clump of cells. or a partially formed.body. not a person. I did.however see that you didn’t deny the daddy screwing, is that why you have a child you probably didn’t want. how sad that the world has brainwashed you into.thinking you have to be tha sacred vessel of a special child. geez lady, go get laid and chill.
A troll or a not-so-super villian? Can’t tell. Where’s Nightcrawler when we need him?
I definitely see why you copped out and decided to go art student instead of learning actual facts. Although, when I’m usually talking to an art student, the exchange consists of “Skinny mocha latte, no whip please.” so this has been refreshing departure.
The reason I don’t understand that a fetal human being is “is not .person, it is a clump of cells. or a partially formed.body. not a person.” is because that is patently false, as I tried explaining to you earlier. However, you seem to be absolutely ignorant of basic biology and human development.
You also seem to be wont to confuse philosophical ideas (like the concept of “person”) with scientific/biological ones, like “human being (a living organism of the human species)” or “a human”. You cannot seem to grasp basic scientific concepts like stages of growth and development of an organism, as human beings in the embryonic and fetal stage are not “clumps of cells” or “partially-formed bodies”, but they are complete organisms that possess a fully-formed body FOR THE STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT THROUGH WHICH THEY ARE CURRENTLY GOING. A 3 year old girl is not a partially-formed non-person just because she hasn’t developed breasts. She just simply isn’t at that stage in her growth cycle yet.
I didn’t deny the “daddy screwing” because I don’t give attention to vulgar children when they’re throwing a tantrum. I’m only trying to debate the talking points you’re lobbing in your half-assed attempt at sounding like a rational human being. (SPOILER: YOU FAILED)
how sad that the world has brainwashed you into.thinking you have to be tha sacred vessel of a special child.
The world didn’t brainwash me. This is the result of quite a bit of rather expensive educating in things that matter, like science. You know…the laws that govern the natural world around us in which we live.
I was never a mere vessel, sacred or otherwise. When I was pregnant with my child (you were right about the special part, she certainly is!), I was the same person I am now, in complete control of all my faculties.
It’s rather insulting to women that you would reduce us down to nothing but a “vessel” simply because we’ve gone about executing one of our bodily functions. Have you eaten recently? That makes you the coarse, ignorant vessel of a turd. How do you feel, being nothing more than a turd vessel?
geez lady, go get laid and chill.
Honey, if my fiancee and I had a more vigorous sex life than we already do, I wouldn’t be talking to you right now because I’d be passed out from exhaustion. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a sex-hating biddy. Sorry to shatter your delusions.
Goodnight, little girl. Have fun playing with your Play-Doh, and let me know when you’ve grown up so that we can have a REAL conversation.
WAIT A MINUTE!!! I JUST HAD MY HAIR DONE LAST FRIDAY!! IT LOOKS TERRIFIC!!!
Response from the peanut gallery: That was interesting!! And educational.
You probably won the intellectual argument..
Thank you, Tyler.
I’m actually eager for her to respond.
Now I know we’re like brothers and sisters on this site. We fight like cats and dogs one day and make nice the next. :)
Sorry for the delay,
What else did you want to say to her?
I could use a few more sisters, but I have a couple of brothers I could due with out!!!
And here I thought this thread had petered out… It’s been a good one.
Hans: A troll or a not-so-super villian? Can’t tell. Where’s Nightcrawler when we need him?
Perhaps a psychic? They did know about the “dated hair.”
Apologies for being late to the resuscitated party, everyone! Being slowed in, coupled with some various family crises (long story), kept me away from all but the most perfunctory internet activity (i.e. occasionally typing a line or two, or clicking “like”).
Tyler wrote:
Paladin, I have been thinking about what you have said recently in your last post and I wanted to get your perspective on some ideas I have been thinking about it as result of your post.
All right.
This is a war on the unborn.
True.
It is not war on women as the other side has called it.
Right.
The Catholic Church said that it is left to the laity to sanctify the temporal world.
In the sense that it is our duty, AS WELL as the duty of the clergy and consecrated religious, yes.
Cardinal Wuerl has written a new book encouraging the laity to do this.
(*sigh*) Now, if only he would enact Canon 915 against a certain Nancy Pelosi, et al…
As Catholics we have for too long looked to our Bishops to sanctify the temporal world by censuring pro-abort politicians and the like.
(??) Pardon me, but: do you think they do NOT have this responsibility? I agree that we must not LEAVE it to them, EXCLUSIVELY (and the Church has never advocated anything of the sort); but do be careful that you don’t suggest the sanctification of the world to be a “laity-ONLY” activity… which would be nonsense.
However, if we laity accept the teaching of the Church contained in the Vat II documents we must accept responsibility that it is our failure to sanctify the temporal world that has contributed to the world we now live in and the morality we now have.
Certainly, the laity have shared a large portion of the blame; no sane person could deny that.
Now it is up to the laity to correct their fellow man, their neighbour.
Yes (cf. Matthew 18:18ff, etc.), though it is not up to them ALONE. I do want to be clear on that point.
We must point out to the public and our fellow Catholics that Pelosi and Sebelius are not Catholics in good standing, that they have ex-communicated themselves from the Church.
Yes, indeed. However: it would be a grave error to dismiss the grave responsibility which lies on the shoulders of the Bishops and pastors. To whom much is given, much will be required (cf. Luke 12:48); and Holy Orders magnifies a man’s responsibility (and gravity of his final judgment) before God. Canon 915, for example, is primarily directed at Bishops and pastors. The responsibility to pronounce excommunications (long since jettisoned by many modern and misguided bishops as an “unpastoral relic of the past”) is a solemn one, not only for the education of the public (to prevent scandal), but for THE SAKE OF THE SOUL OF THE OFFENDER. If a bishop “soft-pedals” his reaction to a notorious sinner and excommunicant, he is, in essence, saying: “I really don’t care whether you go to Hell or not; I’m far more concerned about avoiding trouble with the press, and with appearing tolerant and nice.” Such a stance cannot be considered anything but dereliction of duty… and involving a very grave matter.
In short, we, the laity, must start helping our Bishops and Priests, we must accept our responsibilities, our cross, to sanctify this world. We must declare our religious liberty. If we do this our Bishops can focus on what they should be doing: saving souls.
My dear fellow, I agree with some of what you say, but let us not run too far: “saving souls” and “pronouncing excommunications (or other penalties, warnings, firm teachings, etc.)” are hardly mutually exclusive; the latter is an ATTEMPT to ENACT the former!
Now with respect to the issue of abortion, and non-Catholic supporters of it. We the laity should not play nice with evil. We must stand strong in the public arena while praying for their conversion at Church. We treat the individuals with respect but we also point out how their ideas are wrong.
Of course, we must point out error when it appears, especially when the error involves a grave evil (such as abortion). That has never been my objection with your comments. Rather, I admonished you to remember that even good ends never justify evil/illicit means. War-time does not justify massacre of civilians, or the torture of combatants, or the massacre of combatants who have surrendered, and so on. As such: when we admonish those who err, we (Christians, above all others) cannot allow ourselves to throw insults, vitriol, or other tools of the devil in an attempt to fight the devil; it is not allowed, and it will not work, anyway, in the long run.
Case in point: when you suggested that Kel was “playing nice with pro-aborts”, she was merely trying to apply fair standards and keep illicit attacks from flying to and fro; she was not suggesting (in the least) that the pro-legal-abortion position has any merit, whatsoever… and yet, you decried it. That was a mistake, on your part; you started to confuse temperance with weakness, which is always an unwise thing to think.
In short, it wasn’t our Bishops and Priests who failed the American people/temporal world it was we the laity.
It’s not a “zero-sum game”; the two (i.e. failure of many bishops and other members of the clergy) are not mutually exclusive. I agree (whole-heartedly) that the laity has failed miserably; but it does not follow that many of the bishops, etc., have NOT failed, or continue to fail.
Maybe our Bishops and Priests failed to teach us the faith, but this failure does not justify our own failure to sanctify the temporal world.
A failure in teaching was bad enough; but failures continue… often in the realm of discipline, administration, and canonical responsibilities. When a shepherd does nothing as Satan rips the soul of Nancy Pelosi to shreds, that shepherd should not hope to escape judgment for that grave responsibility. He will, upon meeting Our Lord at the end of his life, be asked: “I gave my daughter into your care; why did you stand by and watch her die eternally?” I tremble at the fate of such wayward and lukewarm shepherds… without in any way minimising my own role in sickening the Body of Christ by my own sins.
…and for the record, I left my 1970’s hair-cut firmly in the 1990’s. :) (All right, so I was 20 years late in getting rid of it.)
Paladin, thanks for your clarifications.
Do you have any ideas on how the laity can help sanctify the world, and change the moral direction that the culture is going in? Specifically, I would like to discuss how the laity can change the moral direction of the culturre in the context of the pro-life debate.
My concerns are about the Pro-Life situation are the following:
1) there are a lot of pro-choice Catholics, what can be done about this;
2) the secular pro-choices use any means necessary to win the argument and converts (from posing as pro-lifers and Catholics in good standing, to insults, distortion, omission, evasiion, profusion/verbosity, distraction, minimization and other forms of deception
What are the laity’s defences? How do we protect the unborn? What are the means available to us? What should we be doing aside from simply trying to ensure that our kids know the faith?
Finally, a moment to breathe…
(And no, EGV, I’m not ignoring you; regrettably our “master thread” [re: Barack Obama and the definition of “evil”] has closed; we’ll need to start on another, newer thread, methinks.)
Tyler wrote:
Paladin, thanks for your clarifications. Do you have any ideas on how the laity can help sanctify the world, and change the moral direction that the culture is going in?
My wife is fond of quoting the maxim: “The best and first way to sanctify the world is to sanctify yourself.” For Catholics, this means staying very close to the Sacraments (especially Holy Confession and the Holy Eucharist, which help us to draw more cleanly and fully from the sources of Grace opened by our Baptism and Confirmation and [whichever is applicable] Holy Matrimony/Holy Orders), scouring your life of all sin and (to the extent that it’s possible) all near occasions of sin, all vices, and even all “neutral” things which consume our time and energies which could better be spent on becoming holy. The more clean and holy we become (through cooperating with the grace God gives us), the healthier the Body of Christ will become, and the more effective we’ll be in our Christian witness and walk.
Summary: 1 Corinthians 12:26, Luke 6:42, and related verses.
Specifically, I would like to discuss how the laity can change the moral direction of the culture in the context of the pro-life debate.
My first recommendation would be to take the following Scripture and weld it irrevocably into your brain (as I try to do):
For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 6:12)
Our enemies are not the abortionists, nor are (God forbid) the post-abortive women, nor are even the most rabid, foul and mockery-laden supporters of abortion. They are mere tools, children of Our God Who have been warped, imprisoned and deceived by temptation, sin, ignorance, etc.; our true enemies are the devil and his angels. Never forget that. Never let hatred of the sin change into hatred of even the most obnoxious, hate-filled or cruel sinner. Never.
1) there are a lot of pro-choice Catholics, what can be done about this;
This may seem to be a platitude (it is not), but: pray. Fast. Offer sacrifices for them; offer small mortifications (Lent is an especially good time for this type of spiritual warfare), offer the sufferings of your life for their intention and conversion, train yourself in holiness (by studying at the feet of the spiritual masters, the Saints and Doctors of the Church). Obey God and His Church, even in the tiniest details (despite the incredulity and scoffing which that will bring down on your head, from Catholics and non-Catholics alike), and offer that obedience up to God for the sake of their souls. You know, it’s quite common for people (including myself) to lament that the fires of faith have gone out, when we are at the very same time failing to throw so much as a hand-ful of twigs (i.e. small sacrifices, done out of love for God and neighbour) on the fire to feed it! We need to rouse ourselves to greater faithfulness, in that regard.
2) the secular pro-choices use any means necessary to win the argument and converts (from posing as pro-lifers and Catholics in good standing, to insults, distortion, omission, evasiion, profusion/verbosity, distraction, minimization and other forms of deception. What are the laity’s defences?
Against the insults, etc.? Our defense is the same as that of Christ: speak the truth, but offer the other cheek when the first is struck. The pain we suffer isn’t the point, anyway; the point is to win souls for Christ… and that is not done by raging and/or by trying to pick up the same tainted and evil weapons used by the evil one. Not only do such weapons always turn to bite you and your loved ones (and the very ones you sought to protect!), but it’s also a grossly missed opportunity to offer one of the most powerful sources of intervention that we humans have: suffering. I’ll explain more on that, in a moment.
How do we protect the unborn? What are the means available to us?
We must use the weapons of light. We must love, even when we bring hatred on ourselves (and our loved ones) because of it. “Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” (1 Corinthians 13:4-7) These are not platitudes, Tyler. These are our weapons of war. We do not fight against flesh and blood; we should not expect our weapons to cause explosions, or splashes of blood, or produce the stench of scorched wood and flesh. Our weapons look different, feel different, and behave differently than do any weapons of which the mere world is aware. Do not let that deceive you into thinking that they are weak and/or ineffective.
What should we be doing aside from simply trying to ensure that our kids know the faith?
Pray. Fast. Offer up your sufferings for the sake of their souls. An obedient and humble acceptance of suffering (and surely you know that all lives will have sufferings aplenty to offer?), offered to the Father in union with the perfect Sacrifice of Christ (through which all other sufferings have meaning, and without which no suffering, no matter how horrid, has any meaning or merit), is unutterably powerful. Read Colossians 1:24, where St. Paul writes:
“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ for the sake of His Body, that is, the Church […]”
First: we have cause to rejoice in our sufferings. Why? Because they hurt? Not in the least! We rejoice, because in them we can complete what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ… which (as Scripture promises us) can build up the Body of Christ: the Church. (I don’t think I need to convince you of the fact that the Church is bleeding from a thousand wounds, and She needs to be built up, rather badly!)
Secondly, and most importantly: whatever is LACKING in the sufferings of Christ? Were they not perfect and complete, once and for all? Certainly, they were… but, as Fr. Samuel Tiesi once put it: “The only thing lacking in the sufferings of Christ is OUR PARTICIPATION IN IT.” If Our Divine Head (of the Body, of which we are members [1 Corinthians 12]) suffers, then His Body will suffer, as well. It is our free choice, however, to suffer in accord with Him and build up the Body, or to suffer apart from him (by sin and the sufferings it produces) and become a cancerous growth in the Body.
I once heard it said that suffering is like lead: by itself, it is largely of little value, it is heavy, and it is dull and ugly. But when submitted to the Divine Alchemist, that suffering can become spiritual gold, by which we can “buy” graces from our Heavenly Father for the sake of souls… for the sake of the whole Church (especially those most deceived and imprisoned by evil). True, it’s very like (to steal an example from C.S. Lewis) approaching one’s father and saying, “Father, please give me 6 shillings, that I may buy you a birthday present!” The father will doubtlessly do so, and he will still be very pleased with the gift… but, as Dr. Lewis rightly mentions, only a fool would think that he was “6 shillings to the good” in the transaction! No… all the grace is freely given by God… but for the express purpose of training us in self-sacrifice (i.e. love, as God loves: agape).
Does that help, a bit?
Paladin,
Yes, that helps. Thank-you very much for sharing your thoughts. In terms of converting secular pro-choicers and protecting the unborn what do you think about preaching as a means to wield the weapons of light and love? If preaching is an acceptable way of showing love, and illuminating the minds of others why is it so rarely done in the public arena by the laity?
Paladiin, if I may say so, I think you are well versed in the faith (and I know it takes effort and an obedient mind to become so). Personally, I would like to hear you preach or communicate the faith more in the public square. I would like to hear you tie Jesus’s message of love to the issue of abortion. My gut tells me that our faith is not just heady stuff, but something that reaches down to the depth of our soul and body and is, therefore, very practical and can address even such earthly matters as abortion. I feel this way because all earthly matters/issues have a spiritual component IMO. Anyway, I would really appreciate your thoughts on “preaching”, on its importance, and on its effectiveness in converting the unbelievers, etc…
Thanks again Paladin.
By the way, I do want to say that I agree and believe that the Bishops should be involved in correcting politicians and sanctifying the temporal world; but, I just want to make sure they are not the only ones doing so – from a purely numbers perspective it is an efficient use of the Church Miltitant.
Tyler wrote, in reply to my comment:
Paladin, yes, that helps. Thank-you very much for sharing your thoughts. In terms of converting secular pro-choicers and protecting the unborn what do you think about preaching as a means to wield the weapons of light and love?
By “preaching”, I assume you mean something akin to “giving witness/testimony” (not to be confused with preaching at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is reserved for those in Holy Orders)? I find it not only good and valid, but necessary… and in fact, a refusal to do so (within one’s capacity, commensurate with one’s station in life, and adapting with prudence to the situation at hand) may well jeopardise one’s salvation!
— quote —
The disciple of Christ must not only keep the faith and live on it, but also profess it, confidently bear witness to it, and spread it: “All however must be prepared to confess Christ before men and to follow him along the way of the Cross, amidst the persecutions which the Church never lacks.” Service of and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation: “So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1816; quoting Lumen Gentium 42 and Matthew 10:32-33).
— end quote —
If preaching is an acceptable way of showing love, and illuminating the minds of others why is it so rarely done in the public arena by the laity?
The reasons are legion; some reasons are good, and some are not good. On the one hand, it is not good to sit in silence while evil is done (Edmund Burke’s aphorism comes to mind: “The only thing required for evil to triumph is for the good to do nothing”); on the other hand, it is a mistake to assume that the popular stereotype of “street preaching” (which is often a licit and good thing to do, by the way, though not mandatory) is the only valid paradigm for such efforts. As St. Francis of Assisi once said: “Preach the Gospel always; if necessary, use words.”
Personally, I would like to hear you preach or communicate the faith more in the public square.
:) Well… thank you for the kind words; but do be aware that my time on the forum is rather limited; I do have a wife to attend and accompany, as well as a full-time job and various faith-sharing initiatives (e.g. RCIA, Bible studies, Adult Faith eduction groups, etc.). I’m rarely sitting on my hands, in that respect (though some days find me day-dreaming about a nice, boring day of hand-sitting!).
I would like to hear you tie Jesus’s message of love to the issue of abortion.
I’ve certainly done so, even on this forum (as many other readers could attest). I agree that, given the holocaust which surrounds us, we cannot afford to be apathetic, or morally relativist, or luke-warm, or even people who prefer “more socially acceptable causes” or merely political band-wagons. (I’ve gone round-and-round with EGV on that point, interminably.)
My gut tells me that our faith is not just heady stuff, but something that reaches down to the depth of our soul and body and is, therefore, very practical and can address even such earthly matters as abortion.
Absolutely; I don’t see how any sane person could disagree with that.
I feel this way because all earthly matters/issues have a spiritual component IMO.
Absolutely. I was not using euphemism or allegory when I called this “spiritual warfare”; it is truly a war, with true casualties. People die in the war… both physically (which is horrifying, but the lesser evil) and spiritually/eternally (which is the ultimate horror, and which is treated with a spectacular sort of blandness, even by nominal Christians).
Anyway, I would really appreciate your thoughts on “preaching”, on its importance, and on its effectiveness in converting the unbelievers, etc.
I would offer a few guide-lines:
1) We must purify our motives. If we approach this battle for any reason less than the salvation of souls and the ambition to resist evil in all its forms (giving precedence to grave evils), we’ll be more of a hindrance to God than a help.
2) Remember that God is in control, not we. When we are surrounded by so much evil and death, we can be tempted to think (even unconsciously) that God “can’t stop it all” and that He “needs us in order to fight the evil”. Well… yes, and no. God could cure every last evil with a mere thought; He could stop abortion in an instant (even if only by bringing about the end of time!), and He doesn’t “need” our help in the absolute sense. However: since the whole point of human existence is to learn to love Him (and our neighbour, who is a beloved child of God)… to learn to unite fully with God and with each other, perfectly, in Heaven… then we must allow God to make us “fit” for Heaven, by cooperating with His grace and “working out our salvation with fear and trembling” through good works (empowered fully by His grace). In short: we must become better and better at loving others… which is not at all the same things as being “nice” or “pleasant” in all circumstances (good though those things are), but it does mean that we must be patient, kind, loving, and thinking at every moment: “What would I do now, if my object were to love this person and bring him/her to Heaven?” It helps prevent us from demonising our mortal opponents, among other things.
3) Be prudent in choosing your audience. It is neither productive nor wise, for example, for me to go to a pro-abortion blog (such as RHReality Check, etc.) and start denouncing its members in scathing terms, spreading tactless rebukes like water, and the like; that would simply make me a troll… and it would likely do more harm than good. We must be tactically wise, in addition to being passionate. Wars are won with resolve (i.e. a decision, an act of the will, to pursue the ultimate goal), not with rage. We must not allow our efforts to be ruled by our merely human passions/emotions (understandable though they might be).
By the way, I do want to say that I agree and believe that the Bishops should be involved in correcting politicians and sanctifying the temporal world; but, I just want to make sure they are not the only ones doing so – from a purely numbers perspective it is an efficient use of the Church Miltitant.
No argument, there!
Thanks again Paladin for response.
I appreciate the guidelines on how to effectively preach in the public square. I also appreciate your reminder to always remember that our actions speak as loud, or sometimes louder, than our words. The quote from St. Francis was particularly helpful.
Before the reminder you mentioned that “street preaching” is a type of preaching that is a licit though not mandatory. This is really what I wanted to get your thoughts on and in particular what you think should be the content of that street preaching.
For example, how do talk about Jesus in public and to unbelievers? How do we explain that his life, though victorious in achieving eternal after-life, was a life full of suffering, and that his acceptance of the suffering that life brings, is what we Christians try to imitate? That life, including new born life, involves parents in a sacrificial love that burdens the heart at the same time it expands the heart? How do we explain that the Jesus’s teaching on showing compassion to our brother, involves subjecting our own wants and needs to that of our brother, sons and daughters, and that through this sacrificial love we are granted a spiritual communion with the God who become Man in order to embody that very same sacrificial love the parent has for their own child(ren)? How do we explain to the unbeleiver that when they see the Cross and, more importantly when they experience the Cross in their own life, that this a moment of true happiness – because suffering for others is love? How do we explain that if they do not love in this way, if their heart does not burst open with compassion at the sight of new life, they are missing out on experiencing this sacrificial love, a true and deep experience of being alive and human?
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Paladin, do we need to quote the Bible and the Catechism? Is it possible to talk about Jesus’s sacrificial love and resurrection without quoting the Bible or quoting the Catechism to the unbeliever and the abortion minded? Is Jesus’s message of love trapped in the words of the Bible and the Catechism? Indeed, is His love trapped in the Eucharist, or does the consumption of the Eucharist change us and compel us to act in His way?
Paladin – How do we speak about Christ, his meaning and his message in public without the Public asking us: “What have you been smoking?”
To many young non-Christians I think a male Christian who speaks about his love for Jesus sounds like a closet homosexual while a female Christian who speaks about loving Christ sounds either like a hard-up woman or like an adulterer depending on whether she is married or not. I think these misconceptions present obstacles to non-Christians hearing Jesus’s message of love.
Paladin, what obstacles do you see that non-Christians may have to hearing Jesus’s message of Love?
Paladin, which parts of the Christian message are not included in the 100% Pro-Life message? Are all parts of the Christian message in the Pro-Life message in some kind of beginning form? If so, can we use the Pro-Life message as a starting point to discuss Christianity rather than using our Christianity to explain our Pro-Life position?