(Long) weekend question
This question is for abortion proponents:
Would you mind if an abortion clinic located in your neighborhood?
Sep.03, 2007 7:52 am |
Site updates, Weekend question |
Commenting Rules
Do's
- “Criticize ideas, not people.”
- Create one original moniker and stick with it.
- Please use a unique name.
- Be civil and considerate.
- Read fully and consider carefully before responding.
Do Not's
- Blasphemy will not be tolerated.
- No swearing or slandering of others.
- No deliberate inflammatory comments.
- Do not violate another’s privacy.
- Do not threaten fellow commenters or anyone else.
- No personal, racial, ethnic or gender-based insults/slurs.
- Do not post private personal information about yourself or others.(ie addresses, phone #s)
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
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.
This is a tough question and honestly I am not truly sure how I would feel. Maybe it wouldn’t be ideal or the best situation but I don’t think it would bug me to much. I think I would be more bothered with the protesters that may come from both sides of the issue. Not just those with views different than mine. But I guess I can’t be to sure… maybe it would bother me. Great question.
JM, appreciate the honest grappling. As an aside, Aurora residents were concerned at last week’s City Council meeting that the abortion clinic’s presence would lower their property values. I thought that was a valid point.
uh….. thats a good point. I didn’t think about that. I bet it would lower the value of their homes.
Then again, it might raise their property values. Don’t successful businesses in the neighborhood usually do that?
There’s some high-end townhomes across the street from one of the abortion clinics in Dallas. I always wonder what those neighbors think about having an abortuary literaly in their back yards.
I wouldn’t mind at all. In fact, I’d be out there supporting abortion rights (counter protesting) or maybe even volunteering at the clinic.
You guys need to realize that to most americans, right-to-lifers who care enough to protest at clinics are just weirdos.
As a general rule, I think all abortion clinics should be built in the middle of Antarctica under a bunch of ice. Or maybe at the bottom of an ocean. Or perhaps on the inside of an active volcano.
Medical facilities have to be somewhere. I might be concerned with more traffic, but not a big deal.
Doug
“You guys need to realize that to most americans, right-to-lifers who care enough to protest at clinics are just weirdos.”
I’d say some Americans are like that SoMG, not most, and the ones who think like that are asleep in their own little worlds.
I wouldn’t want protesters (from either side) camping out in my front yard. I’m willing to say many people wouldn’t really mind having an abortion clinic in their neighborhoods as long as there’s not a lot of fanfare going on around it.
“I’m willing to say many people wouldn’t really mind having an abortion clinic in their neighborhoods as long as there’s not a lot of fanfare going on around it.”
No, can’t have that fanfare. Killing ok, but not fanfare.
Would you honestly want hundreds of people camping out in front of your house, carrying giant posters of dead fetuses, bringing in all kinds of news media set ups and giving your town and neighborhood bad publicity?
Some people just want to be able to sit in peace on their front porches.
“Some people just want to be able to sit in peace on their front porches.”
Some people just want to be able to live too, and not be killed before they are born.
Jasper: Some people just want to be able to live too, and not be killed before they are born.
Well, the unborn really don’t think about this stuff, nor have any such desire at all. This comes down to what you want against what the pregnant woman wants.
Doug
I wouldn’ mind at all. And as for protestors, I would give them my bloody tampons since they care so very much about my uterus contents.
“Well, the unborn really don’t think about this stuff, nor have any such desire at all.”
You have no idea what they desire Doug. Even if they had no desire, why does it matter?
“This comes down to what you want against what the pregnant woman wants.”
No, it comes down to the fact that we think the most innocent and weakest humans have a right to life and pro-choicers don’t.
“I wouldn’ mind at all. And as for protestors, I would give them my bloody tampons since they care so very much about my uterus contents.”
Spoken like a true pro-deather…Ignorant.
Jasper: You have no idea what they desire Doug.
Sure we do, since we know that no consciousness, no brainwaves, etc., are there, at least to a point in gestation. No desire at all.
……..
Even if they had no desire, why does it matter?
That would be because you said:
Some people just want to be able to live too, and not be killed before they are born.
So this “wanting not to be killed” thing really isn’t the deal.
……..
“This comes down to what you want against what the pregnant woman wants.”
No, it comes down to the fact that we think the most innocent and weakest humans have a right to life and pro-choicers don’t.
Same deal, and “innocent” isn’t at issue – you don’t see people “blaming” the unborn or saying “guilty” – that’s not part of the Pro-Choice platform. You want right-to-life to be attributed, and it’s still your desire there against that of pregnant women.
Doug
Ok jasper, so you don’t mind what I do with my uterus? What if there’s a fetus inside? Can I still put pointy objects in it?
Okay, say it was something different, a factory that made fur coats for instance. PETA was camping out in your neighborhood. Lets say you were indifferent to animal rights, and you wouldn’t mind owning a fur coat, though you really can’t afford one. You would still hate the hoopla and wish that the protesters and/or factory would go away and leave you alone.
There’s a reason that real estate ads always mention when a property is in a quiet secluded area. Its because people desire peace and quiet when they are in their homes. You never see “Hey this is near an airport, wouldn’t it be cool to hear the roaring of jet engines 24 hours?” Because who in their right mind would want to live there?
I don’t think it matters why the property values would go down…just that they would go down. And I’m pretty sure the good people of Aurora understand this. Where Planned Parenthood goes, so does the pro-life movement…
“Ok jasper, so you don’t mind what I do with my uterus? What if there’s a fetus inside? Can I still put pointy objects in it?”
No….I’m not sure what you mean.
Jasper, don’t bother, it really makes no sense, she’s just trying to be as disgusting as possible, what a surprise.
“right-to-lifers who care enough to protest at clinics are just weirdos.”
I would much rather be that than what is in the clinic doing the opposite, so that really isn’t much of an insult
Jess, you are absolutely gross and disgusting!
SOMG, you must realize that you, yourself are a weirdo before you make judgement calls on other “weirdos.”
Jess, you sound like a typical reproductive slob.
Stop Republican Pedophilia!
Republican legislator Ted Klaudt was charged with raping girls under the age of 16.
Republican city councilman Joseph Monteleone Jr. was found guilty of fondling underage girls.
Republican congressional aide Jeffrey Nielsen was arrested for having sex with a 14-year old boy.
Republican County Commissioner Patrick Lee McGuire surrendered to police after allegedly molesting girls between the ages of 8 and 13.
Republican prosecutor Larry Corrigan was arrested for soliciting sex from 13-year old girls.
Republican Mayor Jeffrey Kyle Randall was sentenced to 275 days in jail for molesting two boys — ages ten and 12 — during a six-year period.
Republican County Board Candidate Brent Schepp was charged with molesting a 14-year old girl and killed himself three days later.
Republican Congressman Mark Foley abruptly resigned from Congress after “sexually explicit” emails surfaced showing him flirting with a 16-year old boy.
Republican executive Randall Casseday of the conservative Washington Times newspaper pleaded guilty to soliciting sex from a 13-year old girl on the internet.
Republican chairman of the Oregon Christian Coalition Lou Beres confessed to molesting a 13-year old girl.
Republican County Constable Larry Dale Floyd pleaded guilty to charges of soliciting sex from an 8-year old girl. Floyd has repeatedly won elections for Denton County, Texas, constable.
Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.
Republican Party leader Bobby Stumbo was arrested for having sex with a 5-year old boy.
Republican petition drive manager Tom Randall pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 14, one of them the daughter of an associate in the petition business.
Republican County Chairman Armando Tebano pleaded guilty to fondling a 14-year-old girl.
Republican teacher and former city councilman John Collins pleaded guilty to sexually molesting 13 and 14 year old girls.
Republican campaign worker Mark Seidensticker is a convicted child molester.
Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.
Republican Mayor Tom Adams was arrested for distributing child pornography over the internet.
Republican Mayor John Gosek was arrested on charges of soliciting sex from two 15-year old girls.
Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.
Republican Committeeman John R. Curtin was convicted of molesting an underage teenage boy and sentenced to serve six to 18 months in prison.
Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.
Republican zoning supervisor, Boy Scout leader and Lutheran church president Dennis L. Rader pleaded guilty to performing a sexual act on an 11-year old girl he murdered.
Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.
Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.
Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.
Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.
Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.
Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer was sentenced to six years in prison for molesting two 8-year old girls, one of whom appeared in an anti-Gore television commercial.
Republican fundraiser Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
Republican Congressman Donald “Buz” Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.
Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.
Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.
Republican campaign chairman Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child and was arrested again five years later on the same charge.
Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.
Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.
Republican Judge Ronald C. Kline pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer.
Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.
Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. “Republican Marty”), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.
Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.
Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.
Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced prison after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.
Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl.
Republican anti-gay activist Earl “Butch” Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.
Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.
Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl.
Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.
Republican legislator Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).
Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was found guilty of molesting a 15-year old girl.
Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.
Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.
Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.
Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.
Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.
Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.
Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.
Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.
Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.
Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a “good military man” and “church goer,” was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.
Republican campaign worker, police officer and self-proclaimed reverend Steve Aiken was convicted of having sex with two underage girls.
Republican director of the “Young Republican Federation” Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.
Republican president of the New York City Housing Development Corp. Russell Harding pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer.
Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was found guilty of raping a 15-year old girl. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.
Republican Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the rape of children in Iraqi prisons in order to humiliate their parents into providing information about the anti-American insurgency.
Can we stop Democratic pedophilia too?
The most interesting item on the list is John Allen Burt.
John Burt ran a right-to-life “sanctuary” for unwed mothers and pregnant women in Pensacola. It was called “Our Father’s House”.
Now he’s in prison for molesting his underage “clients”.
SOMG, there are a few bad apples in every profession. You’re living proof of that! LOL!
Everyone who commits these crimes deserves to have their names spashed all over anywhere and everywhere regardless of who they pretend to be publicly. I haven`t double checked that list but I don`t doubt it either. Republicans should be the loudest voices denouncing these criminals who have circulated among them. Yes, of course there are also more out there besides just these from the Republican party. But hey, the truth is the truth, no one should get a pass just because they are from this or that group.
“Jess, you are absolutely gross and disgusting!”
My uterus contents really disgust you? Then let me handle what’s in my uterus, ok?
And besides, menstral blood was highly prized in some ancient cultures but I guess you guys are just closed minded…
And how do you know I’m pro-choice? Maybe people who wave signs of dead babies around piss me off.
Jess,
what is your religon, if I may ask.
If people don’t like the fact that we hold up signs with aborted babies on them and say that it doesn’t help change people’s minds then pray tell, what would then? Not to mention that it has changed peoples minds though.
I am hopelessly Catholic. I feel certain that I will go straight to hell because I am pro choice yet no matter how hard I try I cannot bring myself to call myself pro-life. I believe women have the right to abortion, plain and simple. Confused? Imagine how I feel. And yes, my family and a good deal of my friends are pro-life. I am honestly a good person off of this site because I do have many friends who have many different viewpoints. And my family is very involved in my church and we are very close to many of the priest who consider me to be a nice, good girl.
No, really you won’t believe this but I am a really good person just a little ball of fire when it comes to my reproductive rights.
Do you guys think I’m going to hell?
Every pro-lifer on here –
“of course you’re going to hell, you use tampons”
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0999/cotton.html
“Do you guys think I’m going to hell?”
Not for us to say, however I do think you are not Catholic.
Jess: No, really you won’t believe this but I am a really good person just a little ball of fire when it comes to my reproductive rights.
Do you guys think I’m going to hell?
I don’t, Jess. Lots and lots of Catholic women have abortions, too. I don’t know the percentage, but for women who describe themselves as “born again” or “fundamentalist Christians” it’s roughly half the rate for US women as a whole – last I saw was 18% versus 35=40% for all US women. Higher than what I would have thought.
Doug
Well I believe in Jesus, so what am I?
Jess asked:
“Do you guys think I’m going to hell?”
Based on what you’ve said I think you’re lost and can expect to be thrown into Hell unless you repent and accept the forgiveness and mercy that God made available to the entire world through Jesus Christ’s willing sacrificial death on the cross.
You can’t claim ignorance Jess. You know enough to make a decision to accept it or not.
Jess–
I LOVE TrueChristian.com! That’s who supports that site, right? I bought a shirt from them, and people laugh at it all the time! But occaisionally people do take it seriously. At times people were like, “huh, I didn’t know that was in there. Leviticus? Let me write that verse number down.”
I don’t, Jess. Lots and lots of Catholic women have abortions, too. I don’t know the percentage, but for women who describe themselves as “born again” or “fundamentalist Christians” it’s roughly half the rate for US women as a whole – last I saw was 18% versus 35=40% for all US women. Higher than what I would have thought.
That should be comforting considering it comes from a man who believes in neither hell nor Catholicism…and I misrepresent myself? Doug is now speaking for the Catholic Church…that’s priceless.
Doug
Well I believe in Jesus, so what am I?
Satan believes in Jesus. What is he?
Muslims believe in Jesus. What are they?
Since when did “believing” in Jesus make someone Catholic?
SOMG, 9/1, 7:30p, said: “You guys need to realize that to most americans, right-to-lifers who care enough to protest at clinics are just weirdos.”
I realize that, SOMG. I used to be one of the people who thought that.
Then I started hanging out with the weirdos and found them intelligent, articulate, and so dedicated to their faith, the preborn, and pregnant mothers in crisis situations that they were willing to hand over quite a chunk of their income on a consistent basis to back up their talk as well as endure persecution on the frontlines at the clinics and on street corners.
I decided, these people perfectly fit this Bible passage, I Cor. 1:27:
Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful.
And I became one of the weirdos.
Jess,
The Catholic Church’s view on sex, marriage, and the dignity of women is so much more beautiful than you believe. Your view of the human body is is very crass. The “uterus contents” that is the subject of our discussions is a human life, not a tampon or merely blood tissue. It is a tremendous gift that woman has been given to participate in the creation of life, to provide a safe place for the baby to grow, and to nurture the baby when she is born.
If you are truly Catholic, please educate yourself on what your church teaches. Spend time in prayer. I feel very sorry for you for being unable to see the beauty of the human person and for being unwilling to learn what it is your church teaches.
“Lots and lots of Catholic women have abortions, too.”
NO, none do.
The point is that one’s morals might have been different had one grown up in another environment. Had you been born many years ago, and/or in another country, you might see things very differently too. I know how I feel now, but that isn’t saying that I’d necessarily feel the same way back when – and the same is true for everybody: our environment makes a lot of difference.
I don’t think that it’s necessarily true. There are a lot of morals that my family adheres to that I do not. There are things that I internally knew were wrong, that they see no problem with.
Again, no way to really know. I might try to convince others that the slaves were thinking and feeling people, just like the slaveowners themselves.
Okay, Doug…how would you do that, when black people were not legally persons? How would you prove to them that their feelings mattered?
What would be your first argument?
Heck yes (and a good point there) – but it was quite a different can. The slaves weren’t inside the body of a person.
Did that matter to those who didn’t consider blacks human beings?
That “wanting” or valuing positively is where the “deserve” comes from. You are right – society isn’t valuing the unborn any certain way, to the point where restrictions kick in, and is leaving it to the pregnant woman, first and foremost. Society isn’t saying yea or nay.
Go Bethany! Good line of questioning. I do vote, sometimes, not every time, and there’s some input there. But I don’t feel so strongly against anything that I feel compelled to take other action. Not that I don’t care, but that I don’t think much can be done. I don’t want for people to suffer, but also don’t think it’s human nature that there won’t be suffering – it’s not our nature to constuct perfect systems or even always look out for our personal long-term good.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Apathy is a monster.
In general I don’t support abortions after that point. I’ve said I’m fine with the restrictions that most states have after viability, which corresponds well with when I think sentience may be there or shortly to arrive for most fetuses.
Don’t you think your lack of fighting for the rights of the unborn after viability is in actuality, supporting it? Because if you’re not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
The people who sat back and said, “Well, slavery is wrong, but I don’t really know what I could do about it, and I’m really not going to worry about it since it doesn’t affect me.” ….weren’t they, in fact, contributing to the fact that it was still legal, by not taking any action against it?
“I do not feel that slavery is right. Again – thinking, feeling people, and it’s not worth it to me to have their desires trumped by those who would own them.
No, they weren’t legally “people”, Doug, and anyone that you tried to argue that with in that time would have laughed you to scorn, using your own arguments about the fetus, in regards to the black person (with the exception of the mother’s body argument).
They would say to you, Doug, silly, it is not a person, it is a ni**er. And ni**ers don’t have any rights. You say they are a human being? Well, that is not the legal definition for them. Where do you get this crazy notion that we should care about a ni**ers feelings? It’s not “worth it to you”? Well, why should your idea of their worth trump mine, their slaveowner? I own them, and I can do whatever I want with MY property!
What could you possibly have said to have convinced these people? It took a war before they were given back their rights.
Likewise, it’s not worth it to me to have the will of pregnant women trumped by those who would tell them what to do with their pregnancies.”
Your analogy doesn’t compare at all. An unborn child cannot be compared to a slave owner. Did black people create their slave owners? Do unborn children have cruel intent towards their mothers by being in their womb?
Regardless of what society says, I don’t think there is any demonstrable reason why we really *need* to force a woman to remain pregnant. She is a thinking, feeling person, and why do I need her will trumped by the will of others? I don’t. Same as I don’t need the will of minorities, etc., trumped by slaveowners.
And I don’t think that her desire to be unpregnant trumps the baby’s right to life. The baby did not ask to be conceived, and did not do anything deserving of death. A short term inconvenience in my opinion is not something that a baby should be worthy of death over.
The slave here in this analogy is the baby, who is helpless and who is being labeled a non-person when in actuality is a human being. NOT the mother. The mother caused the individual to come into being by her own actions, in the vast majority of cases. Even in cases of rape, the baby is not the culprit here, it is the rapist. And the rapist is the one who deserves the penalty, not the innocent baby.
If I saw some serious need to increase the world’s population faster than what is already the case, that’d make a difference, for example. For now, I don’t think there is a good enough reason not to let her do what she wants in this matter. I would indeed want abortion to be legal again, and would advocate for that.
So it boils down to you, and your needs? YOU don’t see a need for a baby, so YOU don’t think that you need to protect them. Well, you could say the same for infants, you could say the same for toddlers, you could say the same for the elderly, etc. You don’t feel the “need” more people, so the fact that people kill these people sometimes shouldn’t anger anyone because you don’t “need” them?
How crazy is this argument?
I don’t know that it’s worth it for us to go around and around on this. I understand what you mean, but the bottom line is that this is still what you say, and in effect you are saying it to pregnant women. You believe it comes from elsewhere, but in this matter you’re still giving your opinion, your desire, your valuation, etc. This is what you think, even if you think it’s from God.
Actually, you just said above that it was your desire which kept you from protecting the unborn. I took it to mean that if we were in danger of becoming extinct, you would fight for the rights of the unborn, so that your “needs” could be fulfilled.
See, I am not fighting for their lives, for ME. It isn’t about ME, it’s about THEM. What am I personally gaining by saving their lives? Will I ever meet any of these children who are saved from abortion? Possibly, but that’s not my concern. My concern is that these unique individuals will not be harmed or killed because of the selfishness of another human being. Just as I would fight for the right for a baby who was being abused to be removed from her abuser, I will fight for the right of an unborn child not to be tortured and slayed in the womb, the place where nothing but peace and security should be for that child. It isn’t about MY feelings, MY needs, MY wants, MY dreams, MY goals, it’s about THAT CHILD’s right to live, THAT CHILD’s future, THAT CHILD!
No – by definition we are perceiving value here. You have your “shoulds” and “should nots” just as I do, though we don’t ascribe them to the same origins. You can say that the most valuable thing is “life” for whatever reason, and I can say no – the given life isn’t worth denying the pregnant woman her desire. You really are valuing the unborn positively, though you say it comes from God, etc.
But you are valuing desire, based on what? Please tell me where your proof is that desire is more important than the basic right to life? This is simply an opinion, based on your desire.
It’s not that simple. I say that both our positions are not reflecting any external absolutes. I don’t claim to be “right” as far as my own position on abortion beyond my own feelings in the matter. But for validity I would argue, not based on absolutes but on the fact that in general we people favor letting others do what they want, to a point. I don’t see that abortion is past that point, because I don’t see any demonstrable need for more people on earth, nor any other persuasive reason why abortion is necessarily “bad,” at this time.
I’m sorry, but we don’t let people do whatever they want with their bodies.
We don’t let women sell their bodies for profit. Is this a violation of their autonomy? I would think so. But the fact is, women can’t do anything they want with their bodies, it’s just not true.
We don’t let women use or sell certain drugs, just because it’s their body, their choice. Isn’t this also a violation of the bodily autonomy?
The idea that women have a right to full bodily autonomy is silly. They don’t. There are limits to what they are allowed to put in their body, and what they can use their body for.
And I would say that the “right” to kill a living human being in your body should also denied them.
Because that is not a freedom. It is not a right. It is abuse.
I do not think I have been deceitful. I don’t say that my desire – for the woman to be free to make her own choice – “has” to be.
Okay, well then at least I don’t have to worry about you fighting me along the way as I fight for the rights of the lives of these babies. When abortion is once again illegal, you won’t have a problem with it. Right?
If I boil it down, it’s something like this – similar to what I said to MK: We all have our preferences, but when it comes to taking away the freedom that women have in the matter, then I think there really should be something provable as far as reasoning and motivation – something we all or pretty much all can agree upon, me included.
The very fact that the unborn child is a human being and an individual is enough reason to support protecting their life. You don’t, but you don’t give me definitive proof of this. You give me your opinion, and your valuation. What makes your valuation any more solidly valid than mine? Don’t tell me because it’s legal. Don’t tell me because the woman has a sentient mind, because it is your valuation that a sentient mind is more valuable than a developing mind in a human being. I want to see the definitive proof that desire trumps the basic right to life. There is none. If it all comes down to valuation, you must explain to me why your valuation that desire is the most important is definitively valid.
Dang, Bethany, that was a heck of a post….
“The point is that one’s morals might have been different had one grown up in another environment. Had you been born many years ago, and/or in another country, you might see things very differently too. I know how I feel now, but that isn’t saying that I’d necessarily feel the same way back when – and the same is true for everybody: our environment makes a lot of difference.”
B: I don’t think that it’s necessarily true. There are a lot of morals that my family adheres to that I do not. There are things that I internally knew were wrong, that they see no problem with.
I’m not saying it would definitely change how we feel (I did say might have been different), but the environment does make a lot of difference. I guess it’s the old Nature versus Nurture deal.
……..
“Again, no way to really know. I might try to convince others that the slaves were thinking and feeling people, just like the slaveowners themselves.”
Okay, Doug…how would you do that, when black people were not legally persons? How would you prove to them that their feelings mattered? What would be your first argument?
I’d guess I’d try to demonstrate that they did have emotions, cares just like non-slaves, loved each other and other people just like non-slaves, etc.
……..
“Heck yes (and a good point there) – but it was quite a different can. The slaves weren’t inside the body of a person.”
Did that matter to those who didn’t consider blacks human beings?
No, or not enough for them to change their mind.
……..
“Go Bethany! Good line of questioning. I do vote, sometimes, not every time, and there’s some input there. But I don’t feel so strongly against anything that I feel compelled to take other action. Not that I don’t care, but that I don’t think much can be done. I don’t want for people to suffer, but also don’t think it’s human nature that there won’t be suffering – it’s not our nature to constuct perfect systems or even always look out for our personal long-term good.”
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Apathy is a monster.
I don’t see society as “evil,” though. It’s not perfect but all in all I’m quite satisfied with it. There are “evils” that occur, especially on an individual basis, as person-to-person, but I don’t think society can prevent that, all in all. If there was something that I felt was “bad enough,” I would do something. This morning, it’s the third perfect day in a row here in Ohio, not a cloud in the sky, warm but not too hot or humid, and all I’ve done this long weekend is run the weed-eater (I have a monstrous amount of grass I try to keep cut) and be online. There’s nothing else I want more than that right now.
……..
“In general I don’t support abortions after that point. I’ve said I’m fine with the restrictions that most states have after viability, which corresponds well with when I think sentience may be there or shortly to arrive for most fetuses.”
Don’t you think your lack of fighting for the rights of the unborn after viability is in actuality, supporting it? Because if you’re not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. The people who sat back and said, “Well, slavery is wrong, but I don’t really know what I could do about it, and I’m really not going to worry about it since it doesn’t affect me.” ….weren’t they, in fact, contributing to the fact that it was still legal, by not taking any action against it?
Geez, you’re making me think pretty hard again… No, overall I don’t think that no action is “contributing.” And I think that the “not part of the solution = part of the problem” is bumper sticker mentality, not the reality of our lives. If nobody wanted to have abortions, then I would not want there to be abortions, for example. I support legal abortion because some people want them, not because I desire abortions, per se – I’m not “supporting” abortions in a vacuum.
Additionally, we already have the restrictions on abortion late in gestation that we do, while the slaves did not have the rights. Why do I have to fight for the rights of the unborn after viability, if they already have them?
I also think that it’s rather a nebulous form of “right” late in gestation, not nearly as overall as after birth, even for right to life alone, which, now that I think about it, is really all that’s there, even partially. Whew, that was rather a nasty sentence. I also see “late in gestation” as vague – I feel it makes a difference if we’re talking 30+ weeks or if we’re talking 24. If there is a “gray area,” I think it’s in the 22-26 week range.
I’m gonna bust this up into two or three smaller posts, Bethany. No doubt peoples’ eyes glaze over anyway.
Doug
“Lots and lots of Catholic women have abortions, too.”
Rosie: NO, none do.
I know what you mean, Rosie, but I just plain disagree.
Doug
“I do not feel that slavery is right. Again – thinking, feeling people, and it’s not worth it to me to have their desires trumped by those who would own them.
Bethany: No, they weren’t legally “people”, Doug, and anyone that you tried to argue that with in that time would have laughed you to scorn, using your own arguments about the fetus, in regards to the black person (with the exception of the mother’s body argument).
They would say to you, Doug, silly, it is not a person, it is a ni**er. And ni**ers don’t have any rights. You say they are a human being? Well, that is not the legal definition for them. Where do you get this crazy notion that we should care about a ni**ers feelings? It’s not “worth it to you”? Well, why should your idea of their worth trump mine, their slaveowner? I own them, and I can do whatever I want with MY property!
What could you possibly have said to have convinced these people? It took a war before they were given back their rights.
I told you how I feel. Some people back then would not have been convinced. The fact remains that the slaves had feelings.
……..
“Likewise, it’s not worth it to me to have the will of pregnant women trumped by those who would tell them what to do with their pregnancies.”
Your analogy doesn’t compare at all. An unborn child cannot be compared to a slave owner. Did black people create their slave owners? Do unborn children have cruel intent towards their mothers by being in their womb?
I wasn’t comparing with the unborn. Slaveowners want their will to trump that of the slaves. Pro-lifers want their will to trump that of pregnant women.
……..
“Regardless of what society says, I don’t think there is any demonstrable reason why we really *need* to force a woman to remain pregnant. She is a thinking, feeling person, and why do I need her will trumped by the will of others? I don’t. Same as I don’t need the will of minorities, etc., trumped by slaveowners.”
And I don’t think that her desire to be unpregnant trumps the baby’s right to life. The baby did not ask to be conceived, and did not do anything deserving of death. A short term inconvenience in my opinion is not something that a baby should be worthy of death over.
The slave here in this analogy is the baby, who is helpless and who is being labeled a non-person when in actuality is a human being. NOT the mother. The mother caused the individual to come into being by her own actions, in the vast majority of cases. Even in cases of rape, the baby is not the culprit here, it is the rapist. And the rapist is the one who deserves the penalty, not the innocent baby.
I don’t say the unborn are “guilty” and I don’t “blame” them. But though you wish there was right to life for the unborn, our society doesn’t see it that way. It could be different but as of now it’s not, and it’s your will against that of the pregnant woman.
……..
“If I saw some serious need to increase the world’s population faster than what is already the case, that’d make a difference, for example. For now, I don’t think there is a good enough reason not to let her do what she wants in this matter. I would indeed want abortion to be legal again, and would advocate for that.”
So it boils down to you, and your needs? YOU don’t see a need for a baby, so YOU don’t think that you need to protect them. Well, you could say the same for infants, you could say the same for toddlers, you could say the same for the elderly, etc. You don’t feel the “need” more people, so the fact that people kill these people sometimes shouldn’t anger anyone because you don’t “need” them? How crazy is this argument?
I was giving my opinion – of course that “boils down to me,” same as it does for all of us. And yes – anybody can say anything, but I don’t say the same for infants, toddlers, etc., and neither does society and neither does a significant amount of humanity.
……..
“I don’t know that it’s worth it for us to go around and around on this. I understand what you mean, but the bottom line is that this is still what you say, and in effect you are saying it to pregnant women. You believe it comes from elsewhere, but in this matter you’re still giving your opinion, your desire, your valuation, etc. This is what you think, even if you think it’s from God.”
Actually, you just said above that it was your desire which kept you from protecting the unborn. I took it to mean that if we were in danger of becoming extinct, you would fight for the rights of the unborn, so that your “needs” could be fulfilled.
See, I am not fighting for their lives, for ME. It isn’t about ME, it’s about THEM. What am I personally gaining by saving their lives? Will I ever meet any of these children who are saved from abortion? Possibly, but that’s not my concern. My concern is that these unique individuals will not be harmed or killed because of the selfishness of another human being. Just as I would fight for the right for a baby who was being abused to be removed from her abuser, I will fight for the right of an unborn child not to be tortured and slayed in the womb, the place where nothing but peace and security should be for that child. It isn’t about MY feelings, MY needs, MY wants, MY dreams, MY goals, it’s about THAT CHILD’s right to live, THAT CHILD’s future, THAT CHILD!
In that same vein I would then say that it’s not about me, it’s about pregnant women. I have feelings, you have feelings. Pregnant women have feelings, but the unborn – where I advocate the woman ‘s choice – do not.
If my desire was different – and if we were becoming extinct that could well change things, just as it would for huge numbers of people – then I’d be for more pregnancies being continued.
Doug
“No – by definition we are perceiving value here. You have your “shoulds” and “should nots” just as I do, though we don’t ascribe them to the same origins. You can say that the most valuable thing is “life” for whatever reason, and I can say no – the given life isn’t worth denying the pregnant woman her desire. You really are valuing the unborn positively, though you say it comes from God, etc.”
Bethany: But you are valuing desire, based on what? Please tell me where your proof is that desire is more important than the basic right to life? This is simply an opinion, based on your desire.
Our values come from our desires. This is not “desire versus right to life.” It’s fact that people have desires, but the right to life is not attributed to the unborn in this argument (and that’s why you’re up in arms in the first place). Between you and I, you would rather have the unborn live, and I would rather have the woman be free to choose either way. You are saying the most worthy thing is the unborn life. I’m saying the most worthy thing is the woman herself, and what she wants in this case.
……..
“It’s not that simple. I say that both our positions are not reflecting any external absolutes. I don’t claim to be “right” as far as my own position on abortion beyond my own feelings in the matter. But for validity I would argue, not based on absolutes but on the fact that in general we people favor letting others do what they want, to a point. I don’t see that abortion is past that point, because I don’t see any demonstrable need for more people on earth, nor any other persuasive reason why abortion is necessarily “bad,” at this time.”
I’m sorry, but we don’t let people do whatever they want with their bodies. We don’t let women sell their bodies for profit. Is this a violation of their autonomy? I would think so. But the fact is, women can’t do anything they want with their bodies, it’s just not true. We don’t let women use or sell certain drugs, just because it’s their body, their choice. Isn’t this also a violation of the bodily autonomy?
Nobody told you that autonomy was absolute. What all can a person do? A practically unlimited number of things. A relative few of them are considered harmful enough to society that they are made illegal. For the vast majority of them, society does not see a good enough reason to forbid the person from doing them.
……..
The idea that women have a right to full bodily autonomy is silly. They don’t. There are limits to what they are allowed to put in their body, and what they can use their body for. And I would say that the “right” to kill a living human being in your body should also denied them. Because that is not a freedom. It is not a right. It is abuse.
I would say that with respect to some things, autonomy is limited, while for most things full bodily autonomy is there, as above. The “should also be denied them” is your opinion, your valuation. Anyway….
……..
“I do not think I have been deceitful. I don’t say that my desire – for the woman to be free to make her own choice – “has” to be.”
Okay, well then at least I don’t have to worry about you fighting me along the way as I fight for the rights of the lives of these babies. When abortion is once again illegal, you won’t have a problem with it. Right?
Heh heh – nope. I’m saying that there is no external absolute that says women have to be free in this matter. If society changed it’s laws, that does not mean that my desire would change.
……..
“If I boil it down, it’s something like this – similar to what I said to MK: We all have our preferences, but when it comes to taking away the freedom that women have in the matter, then I think there really should be something provable as far as reasoning and motivation – something we all or pretty much all can agree upon, me included.”
The very fact that the unborn child is a human being and an individual is enough reason to support protecting their life. You don’t, but you don’t give me definitive proof of this. You give me your opinion, and your valuation. What makes your valuation any more solidly valid than mine?
There is no “definitive proof,” there. It’s a matter of opinion. I don’t claim to be stating absolutes about the valuation of the unborn – there is no such thing. Why should we protect the life of the unborn, to the extent of denying the woman what she wants? If I am to be in favor of denying the woman what she wants, then I want to see some reasoning showing *why* we should do it. I know the unborn here are human and I know they are individuals. Okay, granted. I still do not think we need every pregnancy continued enough that we tell the woman she can’t have an abortion.
……..
Don’t tell me because it’s legal. Don’t tell me because the woman has a sentient mind, because it is your valuation that a sentient mind is more valuable than a developing mind in a human being. I want to see the definitive proof that desire trumps the basic right to life. There is none. If it all comes down to valuation, you must explain to me why your valuation that desire is the most important is definitively valid.
No, legality or not isn’t the end-all of it for me. Nobody told you there was “definitive proof” here, nor is there “externally valid” in the moral realm. I’ve said all along that the argument is about desire and valuation. It does make a difference to me that the woman is sentient. She can suffer, and I don’t want her to suffer. I do not see the unborn as suffering in this argument (not to viability). I do not see society suffering from one woman ending a pregnancy, nor from many women doing so. Most pregnancies are already willingly continued. We don’t know how a given pregnancy would turn out if continued – don’t know how “good” or “bad” the resulting person would be. But we do know that not all pregnancies are wanted.
I’m for less suffering, and all I can do is simply tell you that some women really do suffer if denied the abortion they want.
Society leaves the choice up to the woman, and I think that is proper – I do not see society needing to tell her “no” anymore than I see it needing to tell a woman with a wanted pregnancy to end it.
Doug
If my desire was different – and if we were becoming extinct that could well change things, just as it would for huge numbers of people – then I’d be for more pregnancies being continued.
I think this comment relates to social factors like population size and the impact of the size of one generation on the next.
I mentioned once that I am reading “The Coming Generational Storm” which is about the impact of the size of the previous generation on the economics of the future of the US. Please note the book is not about abortion (it isn
“I don’t, Jess. Lots and lots of Catholic women have abortions, too. I don’t know the percentage, but for women who describe themselves as “born again” or “fundamentalist Christians” it’s roughly half the rate for US women as a whole – last I saw was 18% versus 35=40% for all US women. Higher than what I would have thought.”
MK: That should be comforting considering it comes from a man who believes in neither hell nor Catholicism…and I misrepresent myself? Doug is now speaking for the Catholic Church…that’s priceless.
MK, you have often misstated what I have said. There is a difference between that and misrepresenting yourself.
I am not “speaking for the Catholic Church.” I am noting that quite a few women end up having abortions even though one would think it unlikely for them. I think it’s obvious that of those women, many would have thought abortion “wrong” until they found themselves actually in the situation, and then they saw that for them, in that particular situation, abortion was their best choice.
Doug
Doug,
Many of your comments make me think of Kohlberg`s theories of the stages of moral development.
Link in case you don
Hippie: I mentioned once that I am reading “The Coming Generational Storm” which is about the impact of the size of the previous generation on the economics of the future of the US. Please note the book is not about abortion (it isn
Hippie: When these folks retire, it is estimated that the SS and Medicare benefits they voted for themselves will require about $50 trillion more than they contributed. This will be a crushing burden on the few workers they produced.
The problem is not “lack of people.” The problem is the tremendous, heinous fiscal improprieties by our government. If “more people” for the sake of money is the deal, than I say let foreign people with Doctorate degrees, certain training, etc., emigrate, people who will make a lot of money and start paying into social-security programs right away.
……..
I wonder if the generation that legalized abortion so that their children would not be a burden to them will be promoting such severe and spartan measures to ensure that they are not a burden to their children.
Well, the majority of pregnancies are continued willingly, already, even with legal abortion. Not having kids can mean a huge increase in the wealth of a given couple over their lifetimes. Kids are expensive. My wife and I have no kids. I have 21 nieces and nephews (I know what kids cost). I’m not going to be a “burden” on anyone in retirement because I’ve been concerned with it all along, and have saved money and invested all along (I save 25% of my gross pay to this day, and invest anything I can scrounge beyond that). I would not have been able to do it to nearly the extent had I had kids.
This is not to say that kids are bad or that kid’s aren’t worth having – of course to many they are, no matter what. And I do treasure the nieces and nephews and have helped out with them, at times, financially. I’m saying that if “not having kids” is seen as somehow bad, economically, that is seriously not the case.
I’m 48 – born in 1959, and I don’t count on anything from Social Security. Sad to say…. I’ve put in a lot over the years. Even now, after working and paying into SS for 32 years (I worked while still in school), I’d let the gov’t keep the contributions and not owe me anything, just don’t take any more from me.
I’ll be 70 in 2029, and I think I have to wait until then to get max benefits. And that’s right about the time that serious trouble is supposed to be closing in on SS… I think it’s around 2040 that the real “Crunch,” comes. Plus – those dates are based on what I consider fairly rosy economic predictions; might bet nasty well before then.
Doug
If abortion is a factor, it’s not a big one, certainly not larger than other influences.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at September 3, 2007 11:59 AM
I agree that abortion is not the only factor. However 45,000,000 lost to abortion is still a lot of workers. US population is now 300,000,000. 45,000,000 is a big chunk missing. 15% is a lot, especially because they would be working when these folks retire.
Also, abortion is a much more severe and harsh method of birth control, and yet was legalized so that they could be doubly sure they would not have to be burdened by children.
My point is: will they be pushing for such severe cuts to their benefits in order to spare the younger generation the burden of their expenses.
Will they be as harsh on themselves as they were on others?
If a miracle happens and they don
Doug,
I wasn
From http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/christianity_abortion.html
Christians Have as Many Abortions as Everyone Else, Catholics Have More
Compiled and Edited, Edward T. Babinski
A new study by The Center For Reason (www.CenterForReason.com) finds that Christians have just as many abortions as their non-Christian counterparts. The study concludes that in the year 2000, Christians were responsible for 570,000 abortions. Catholics were found to be the worst offenders, with abortion rates higher than the national average.
Doug,
I found your following comment interesting:
From 1931 to 1941, when abortion was “illegal” just about as much as ever in the US, the rate was 0.732% per year.
I have heard economists say that a low birth rate indicates a society under severe stress. Surely 1931-1941 fits that bill. I wonder if the marriage rate declined as well. I don`t know where to find that directly although I probably can find it.
Very interesting idea.
Forgot to enter my screen name again….
Also, http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
Cites a survey which shows “Catholic women have an abortion rate 29% higher than Protestant women. “.
Henshaw, S.K. and G. Martire. 1982. Abortion and the Public Opinion Polls: 1. Morality and Legality. Family Planning Perspectives. 14:2, pp 53-60, March/April.
SOMG, they obviously weren’t that Catholic to begin with. Hopefully they will repent of their mistakes. When people ask me if I am a practicing Catholic, I reply with “Yes, I am practicing until I get it right.”
Hippie – my mom was a “hippie” too, even though she was perhaps a little older than most. She was 30 years old in 1967, for example. Not that appearance really matters, but she had the bell-bottoms, the indian beads and scarves, the “different” look and a different outlook from “the Establishment.” Long time ago now, but I smile to think of those times (I was just getting old enough to be aware of “adult” stuff like that). She’s 70 now, but I imagine she still feels that way about herself.
Hippie: Many of your comments make me think of Kohlberg`s theories of the stages of moral development.
Link in case you don
Also read http://www.beliefnet.com/story/63/story_6301_1.html
Hippie, yeah, 45,000,000 is a lot of people, but they wouldn’t all be contributing. Some would draw from the system their whole lives, and some would never contribute or contribute little. I think there’s also an argument to be made that they’d contribute less, on average, than for people as a whole because they’d be relatively disadvantaged – born into single-parent homes, abusive homes, poor families, etc., the very reasons that many pregnancies are unwanted.
Also, abortion is a much more severe and harsh method of birth control, and yet was legalized so that they could be doubly sure they would not have to be burdened by children.
I don’t get you here – if a birth is prevented, it’s prevented, and the net result is the same – the population doesn’t go up.
……..
My point is: will they be pushing for such severe cuts to their benefits in order to spare the younger generation the burden of their expenses. Will they be as harsh on themselves as they were on others? If a miracle happens and they don
“From 1931 to 1941, when abortion was “illegal” just about as much as ever in the US, the rate was 0.732% per year.”
Hippie: I have heard economists say that a low birth rate indicates a society under severe stress. Surely 1931-1941 fits that bill. I wonder if the marriage rate declined as well. I don`t know where to find that directly although I probably can find it.
Very interesting idea.
Hippie, yes indeed – and the Depression made a difference, for sure. Since President Carter and the high inflation and high interest rates, we’ve had an environment of generally declining interest rates and an “easy-money” policy from the Federal Reserve Board.
I would think this has contributed to a higher-than-would-have-been-the-case birth rate for the last quarter-century. However, the “house of cards” has just grown higher, along with personal and corporate debt, and especially gov’t debt,
Doug
Doug,
MK, you have often misstated what I have said. There is a difference between that and misrepresenting yourself.
I am not “speaking for the Catholic Church.” I am noting that quite a few women end up having abortions even though one would think it unlikely for them. I think it’s obvious that of those women, many would have thought abortion “wrong” until they found themselves actually in the situation, and then they saw that for them, in that particular situation, abortion was their best choice.
The woman asked if, as a Catholic, she would be going to hell for being pro-choice, and you said no. To me that is misrepresentation. You have no idea whether the church teaches that she is going to hell or not, and the fact that you weighed in at all when you don’t believe in hell is outrageous. If you had said, “gee, Jess, I wouldn’t worry about it too much, as I don’t believe anyone is going to hell because I don’t believe in hell” that would have been different.
And exactly where did I misquote you on this one?
Doug,
“Lots and lots of Catholic women have abortions, too.”
Rosie: NO, none do.
I know what you mean, Rosie, but I just plain disagree.
And as an American you are free to disagree. But therein lies the beauty of the Catholic Church (praise Jesus), your valuation doesn’t mean squat.
It is a mortal sin to have an abortion, and I believe you are excommunicated for having one. Thus you are no longer considered Catholic. This is FACT…you know why? Cuz the Catholic church gets to make up it’s own rules without checking with Doug or any other members.
Yes, MK, you are correct–any catholic who has an abortion is AUTOMATICALLY excommunicated the moment she has the abortion. No ceremony, no formal excommunication by a priest or anyone else is necessary–excommunication occurs automatically (the technical term is “latae sententae”).
That’s “latae sententiae”. Sorry for the misspelling.
The same applies to anyone who helps her get the abortion.
If you’re catholic, and you drive your friend to the clinic for an abortion, you’re excommunicated, again automatically. If you try to take communion afterwards, you’re lying into God’s face.
Doug,
Thanks for your comments.
“People, especially including gov’t policy-makers, do often take a short-sighted view of things.”
I really think this can apply to abortion. Abortion is short sighted. It doesn
SoMG,
The same applies to anyone who helps her get the abortion.
If you’re catholic, and you drive your friend to the clinic for an abortion, you’re excommunicated, again automatically. If you try to take communion afterwards, you’re lying into God’s face.
Posted by: SoMG at September 3, 2007 2:24 PM
True SoMG…thank you for that, it saved me the trouble. So may I assume that you are an ex-catholic? What made you leave? Or are you excommunicated and it just “happened”?
SoMG,
I knew that we had had this conversation before and was going to ask you what we finally settled on…imagine, me going to you for info on abortion and the Catholic Church. Am I softening or are you?
Dang, Bethany, that was a heck of a post….
Thanks…I was responding to another heck of a bunch of posts in the other topic. lol
I’m not saying it would definitely change how we feel (I did say might have been different), but the environment does make a lot of difference. I guess it’s the old Nature versus Nurture deal.
So which do you believe it is? Nature, nurture…. both, or neither?
I’d guess I’d try to demonstrate that they did have emotions, cares just like non-slaves, loved each other and other people just like non-slaves, etc.
You mean, as successfully as I have demonstrated to you that there are sentient (as per your definition) babies in the womb in the late second and early third trimester? Yet, you still argue that a woman has the right to end the life of her sentient baby as long as it is disfigured, diseased badly enough (unfit), or is destined to die anyway. You say you don’t like the idea, but that it should be the mother’s right, even AFTER “viability”, when the baby is no different at all than a newborn child.
Do you think your argument to these slave owners, that they are hurting thinking, feeling people, would really have accomplished anything, if the people you were arguing with were as apathetic as you towards the situation? And would you not be discouraged – even angered- at their indifferent responses?
It could be wishful thinking, but I seriously doubt that you would allow a mother to kill her born child, who she has discovered AFTER birth, is terminally ill, or diseased, or with a genetic disorder, etc. Regardless of her intentions, she is taking the life of a human being if she does so. Even if she is doing it to prevent the child from suffering, it is still wrong. Do you agree, when this is a born child? And if it became legal to terminate the lives of born children for these reasons, would you object? And if so, on what grounds? If not, why not?
No, or not enough for them to change their mind.
Exactly.
I don’t see society as “evil,” though.
I didn’t say “society” was evil. I said that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Where does that imply that a society is evil? It implies that evil can happen even in a good society, if the good people in the society are too unresponsive to fight the evil.
It’s not perfect but all in all I’m quite satisfied with it. There are “evils” that occur, especially on an individual basis, as person-to-person, but I don’t think society can prevent that, all in all.
But we should prevent what evils we can. And we can prevent abortions.
If there was something that I felt was “bad enough,” I would do something.
What would be “bad enough” for you to fight, Doug?
Geez, you’re making me think pretty hard again… No, overall I don’t think that no action is “contributing.” And I think that the “not part of the solution = part of the problem” is bumper sticker mentality, not the reality of our lives.
Explain to me how it doesn’t apply. Tell me, Doug… if I witnessed a person who was beating her dog, every single day. And it hurt me to see it, but I didn’t want to get involved, and I just decided to keep quiet about it. Would I not be contributing to the problem, by not reporting it to someone? Maybe I don’t even really care, as long as it’s not my dog. Maybe I just look at that dog and think, “at least it’s not me”. Now, if that is my attitude, do you think that dog ever has a chance of getting away from it’s cruel owner? Perhaps there are others like me, looking at that woman beating her dog, and just figuring that the problem will sort itself out…or someone else will probably take care of it, but they are not going to get involved. Each one has become part of the situation, because they are made aware of it happening. Once this is true, they each become part of the problem ,by failing to report it, when it is within their ability to do so. They may mean well, they may be people who would never, ever beat their own dogs. But because they ignore this horrible dog owner, they have become part of the problem instead of part of the solution. I agree, it would make a great bumper sticker but not because it just sounds good…but because it holds a truth.
If nobody wanted to have abortions, then I would not want there to be abortions, for example.
See, again, Doug…this is why I think that you worry too much about what the majority thinks, and not enough about what’s actually right or wrong.
As long as there are people who have abortions, you will support it, right?
Well, people will always want abortions. And people will always want to rape other people, and people will always want to kill other people, and people will always want to steal, and people will always want to manipulate and deceive and lie, and people will always want to cheat on their spouses…. but that doesn’t mean that I have to support it just because they want it! I recognize that sometimes what a person WANTS isn’t always what is RIGHT.
I support legal abortion because some people want them, not because I desire abortions, per se – I’m not “supporting” abortions in a vacuum.
Read the above.
Additionally, we already have the restrictions on abortion late in gestation that we do, while the slaves did not have the rights. Why do I have to fight for the rights of the unborn after viability, if they already have them?
They don’t, Doug. You have been deceived. Even if there is just ONE state that allows them to term, that is too much. Don’t you agree? Even ONE murder being justified is too many. But there are many places where a woman can go in America, to have an abortion, up until the day of birth. I know you people seem to think that’s a joke, but it’s not. Check out Dr. Tiller’s own site, and see what his ranges are. Leroy Carhart will also perform extremely late abortions. Why doesn’t your heart cry out against these? Do you just see abortion as a word now, do you only fight with words, and not with your heart?
I also think that it’s rather a nebulous form of “right” late in gestation, not nearly as overall as after birth, even for right to life alone, which, now that I think about it, is really all that’s there, even partially.
I’m not sure what that sentence means?
I also see “late in gestation” as vague – I feel it makes a difference if we’re talking 30+ weeks or if we’re talking 24. If there is a “gray area,” I think it’s in the 22-26 week range.
Yes, the very fact that it’s vague should be a clue. Viability is an arbitrary concept that people have used to justify killing human beings without having to feel guilty about it. You don’t really know for sure whether 2nd trimester babies feel pain or not. Yet, you’re willing to take that risk on the CHANCE that they might not. Doesn’t sound like you really are that concerned with the suffering to me.
Hippie,
That was awesome!
Good grief, Hippie, it really was awesome! Great job.
I can’t seem to be able to find any documentation, but I’m pretty sure that in order for the canonical penalty for excommunication for procuring an abortion to occur, on must also have full knowledge and know that procuring an abortion is an automatic excommunication. Just like the conditions for a mortal sin to occur, knowledge as well as full consent of the will are a prerequisite. God love you.
That’s just retarded Bobby Bambino!
Think about this for a moment. You are saying that for someone to be excommunicated because they murdered someone they have to know that murdering someone automaticly excommunicates them? And if they don’t know that murdering someone excommunicates them then they are not excommunicated?
Using this kind of rationale you could then claim that Antonin Scalia is not excommunicated for his pro-abortion opinions he’s given on the Supreme Court (the last case involving the PBA ban especially) just because he was unaware that his promoting the legality of killing innocent babies through other methods such as the navel partial-birth abortion (“less shocking methods”) in the Gonzales v Carhart decision resulted in his automatic excommunication.
Scalia is excommunicated whether he acknowledges it or not because his promotion of abortion is inexcusable and indefsensible as the last pope made clear in paragraph 74 of The Gospel Of Life.
I told you how I feel. Some people back then would not have been convinced. The fact remains that the slaves had feelings.
Likewise, even though you will remain unconvinced, the unborn child has an inherent right to life, regardless of the stage of his or her development.
I don’t say the unborn are “guilty” and I don’t “blame” them. But though you wish there was right to life for the unborn, our society doesn’t see it that way. It could be different but as of now it’s not, and it’s your will against that of the pregnant woman.
Okay, well maybe one day we’ll see about that then.
I was giving my opinion – of course that “boils down to me,” same as it does for all of us. And yes – anybody can say anything, but I don’t say the same for infants, toddlers, etc., and neither does society and neither does a significant amount of humanity.
Again, majority rules in your world.
In that same vein I would then say that it’s not about me, it’s about pregnant women. I have feelings, you have feelings. Pregnant women have feelings, but the unborn – where I advocate the woman ‘s choice – do not.
If it had not been for that pregnant woman’s mother, carrying her and giving her life, she wouldn’t even be here today. life is the MOST basic of rights.. at least, without “bodily autonomy” for a few months, a woman will still live, the woman will still be able to carry on as usual after the pregnancy is over. She still has a chance to live and prosper. The baby who is aborted has NO CHANCE OF ANYTHING. This is why LIFE is more important than a right to convenience.
If my desire was different – and if we were becoming extinct that could well change things, just as it would for huge numbers of people – then I’d be for more pregnancies being continued.
What does that mean? Do you mean you are for less pregnancies being continued now (as in, you WANT less pregnancies continued to term)? Or that you would fight to end abortion later? Or that you would fight SOME abortions later? What does that sentence actually imply?
It’s not that simple. I say that both our positions are not reflecting any external absolutes. I don’t claim to be “right” as far as my own position on abortion beyond my own feelings in the matter. But for validity I would argue, not based on absolutes but on the fact that in general we people favor letting others do what they want, to a point. I don’t see that abortion is past that point, because I don’t see any demonstrable need for more people on earth, nor any other persuasive reason why abortion is necessarily “bad,” at this time.
Allright then, then according to you, both of our opinions must be equally valid, and equally correct. One cannot be right and one cannot be wrong, because the entire basis of both of our arguments is our own perceptions and feelings, in your opinion. Correct?
Heh heh – nope.
So does this mean you WOULD fight for the right to abortion, if abortion was made illegal?
There is no “definitive proof,” there. It’s a matter of opinion.
Then we are both correct. Or we are both holding equally valid conclusions. There should be no argument then, right?
Zeke, I am telling you right now. Speak respectfully or I will start deleting your posts. Words like “retarded” are not necessary to make your point.
Just wanted to point out a few things about what the Catholic Church teaches, and does not teach, about excommunication.
There are three conditions that have to be met for a condition to be sinful. The first is that the act committed has to be in itself an evil or sinful act. We know that abortion fits the bill on that one.
Second, there has to be full knowledge that the person committing the act knew that the act was evil.
And third, there has to be full consent by the person to the evil or sinful act.
If any of these three conditions are not met fully, then no sin was committed.
If these three conditions were met fully, then you can say that the person is in sin.
The issue becomes whether or not women going into the abortion mill has full knowledge or full consent. Having prayed in front of these places for years now, and having seen over and over women and young girls who were literally dragged into these places and strongly pressured by boyfriends and mothers to kill their children, I think a reasonable argument can be made that they neither had full knowledge or full consent.
If this is true, then the issue of ex-comunication becomes pretty moot because the only way for anyone to know definitively that an ex-communication has taken place is when the Bishop or Pope makes a formal declaration stating so. One great example of this is Bishop Fabian Bruskowitz and his ex-communication of anyone in his diocese (Lincoln, NE) who worked for organizations that support abortion about 10 years.
We have to be very careful in saying that someone has been excommunicated. Very hard to prove and more importantly, pointless to argue.
Hi Zeke. I’m not so sure that Scalia would be excommunicated either. Check this out http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/edpeters_excommun_nov06.asp It’s an interview with a renowned canon law expert Ed Peters. About half way down hes asked about Catholic politicians who support abortion and he says there really isn’t anything in cannon law that allows it.
“Think about this for a moment. You are saying that for someone to be excommunicated because they murdered someone they have to know that murdering someone automatically excommunicates them? And if they don’t know that murdering someone excommunicates them then they are not excommunicated?”
Yes. I’m pretty sure I heard Jimmy Akin say that they must have full knowledge, although I can’t find where it would say it in canon law at the moment. But it does make sense. Remember, one’s culpability is diminished if they do not know that what they are doing is wrong as it says in paragraph 1857 of CCC. I could be wrong about them having to know that abortion incurs an excommunication, though. I’ll try and see if I can find some documentation. God love you, Zeke.
P.S. As a moderator on a pro-life blog, I am stricter with posters who claim to be pro-life, than I am with the pro-abortion crowd, because this is a pro-life site and we don’t need people here who are going to be a stumbling block for others.
Abortion and Excommunication
May 20, 2004
Any Catholic who obstinately denies that abortion is always gravely immoral, commits the sin of heresy and incurs an automatic sentence of excommunication.
Canon Law and Church Teaching
Canon 1398:
P.S. As a moderator on a pro-life blog, I am stricter with posters who claim to be pro-life, than I am with the pro-abortion crowd, because this is a pro-life site and we don’t need people here who are going to be a stumbling block for others.
Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2007 3:14 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Isn’t that funny?
As obnoxious as I am, I’m nothing compared to some of the hard-core pro-choicers on some other boards. When one of the militant comes on with a load of rage & a bad case of PMS I think to myself “don’t embarrass me, don’t embarass me, PLEASE don’t embarass me,” but they always go ahead and humiliate me anyway.
I think it’s worse for people of faith on both sides of the issue when someone hijacks scripture to justify their hate speech.
Zeke, check this out http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/abortio2.htm
From the link,
“NOTE WELL To actually incur the excommunication one must know that it is an excommunicable offense at the time of the abortion.”
Thats from EWTN website, so it should be reliable. God love you, Zeke.
Zeke and Bobby,
While I know that you must be aware that something is a mortal sin in order to be culpable, I can’t find anything that requires this for excommunication…If it’s important, I can ask Father Rob…let me know.
But these are the conditions for a mortal sin…
In order for a sin to be mortal, it must meet three conditions:
* Mortal sin is a sin of grave matter
* Mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the sinner
* Mortal sin is committed with deliberate consent of the sinner
http://www.saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html
Isn’t that funny?
As obnoxious as I am, I’m nothing compared to some of the hard-core pro-choicers on some other boards. When one of the militant comes on with a load of rage & a bad case of PMS I think to myself “don’t embarrass me, don’t embarrass me, PLEASE don’t embarrass me,” but they always go ahead and humiliate me anyway.
I think it’s worse for people of faith on both sides of the issue when someone hijacks scripture to justify their hate speech.
Thanks Laura…I’m glad to see you understand. I like being able to agree with you now and then. :)
Thank you Bobby…there you have it Zeke. Retarded it may be, but it is still the truth.
Hey MK.
“When such a vote indicates that the Catholic politician believes that abortion is not always gravely immoral, such a politician incurs a sentence of automatic excommunication, under canons 751 and 1364, because of heresy.”
I am certainly no canon law expert, but according to Ed Peters who is a canon lawyer in the interview I linked to above, it seems that excommunication for politicians who support abortion does not have a basis in canon law. Don’t get me wrong; I do think it should be, but I’m not convinced that it is. God love you, MK.
MK, that’s right. But if someone did not commit mortal sin then there cannot be an excommunication.
This is the crux of the matter and where I think the discussion should go. If we are truly trying to save the souls of the women who are having abortions, then we need to tell them the seriousness of what they are doing, or about to do.
Laura,
And I thank you as well. You are a perfect example of what we mean by hard core pro-choicers finding a safe haven on this site. We can and do get heated, no doubt, and I can be worse than anybody. But we try to be fair, let everyone speak and forgive each other when we cross the line.
I can’t tell you how happy I was when you decided to stay with us and share your point of view. I’m growing quite fond of you…
What do you say girls? Should we put her on the breakfast list?
Doug,
On Kohlberg, I agree about stage 6. If you had to plot folks on a normal curve, the folks at stage 6 would be at least several standard deviations from the mean. Stage 6 is really hypothetical. I see your valuation point somewhat.
I will not assert that I am stage 6. I will argue that some might be, even some as yet unborn.
I would argue that someone who is stage 6 would be generous in granting rights to others even those without feelings or from whom no gain could be easily imagined. You might see that as an unreasoned valuation. I assert it nonetheless.
I think I just want to argue the most generous point possible when it comes to protecting the unborn.
If a 20 week fetus responds to stimuli then that is possible evidence that he or she could feel pain. Let
Okily dokily…sounds good to me! Fried mullet? :)
Andrew,
It’s not “what” Zeke is saying, it’s “how” she is saying it. Right now, I’d be willing to bet that every pro-choicer here has tuned her out, become angry at the pro life movement and the Catholic Church and has the immediate impulse to defend themselves…
While those that read the posts from Bobby and myself will be able to read the ‘words” without getting defensive, possibly take some to heart, understand our stance better and look more favorably in the future on the Church and the pro life movement.
Do you see the difference? The ideas are the same, the delivery is different!
Oh def. With extra lemmings and Olea europaea. And maple syrup.
Whatdoyousay Laura, you in?
Hippie,
I would just like to add that 1 through 5 deal with selfish motives, while 6 is purely unselfishly motivated. Perhaps Jesus would have been a six. Given that Jesus was God, perhaps according to Kohlberg only God could attain a 6. Perhaps this is a proof of God…? And the reason why us “fantasy lovers” are constantly striving to attain a moral high ground where right and wrong are NOT motivated by valuations…but by number 6.
Bethany,
In regards to your example:
“if I witnessed a person who was beating her dog, every single day. And it hurt me to see it, but I didn’t want to get involved, and I just decided to keep quiet about it. Would I not be contributing to the problem, by not reporting it to someone? Maybe I don’t even really care, as long as it’s not my dog. Maybe I just look at that dog and think, “at least it’s not me”.”
I found somebody the other day quoting JFKenney quoting Dante:
“the hottest places in hell await those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality.”
Just what your example brought to mind.
How can anyone claiming to be Catholic and claiming that what JPII wrote in The Gospel Of Life is authoritative believe that someone like Scalia or any of the other allegedly Catholic Supreme Court justices are not excommunicated for giving opinions that SUPPORT the legality of abortion “through less shocking methods” as the last big majority opinion said?
Read paragraph 74 and then read the majority opinion authored by Kennedy and signed on by the others and just try to argue that they did not knowingly promote a pro-abortion decision.
Everything that is needed for excommunication to occur automaticly is there. All 3 requirements. To argue otherwise is to argue that Scalia, Alito and others did not know what was written in the majority opinion or that they were temporarily insane when they signed onto it or that they were forced into signing onto that majority opinion.
hippie said:
“the hottest places in hell await those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality.”
Excellent! I am gonna put that on the flier I pass out at the Indy RibFest today :)
MK,
Your comment about summarizes what the professor said in class about examples of stage 6.
Zeke, is this the passage from Evangelium Vitae you refer to:
“when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law . . . This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”
Regarding excommunication, I am no expert, but I don’t think it means that someone is out the door and can’t come back. I think it means that a grave sin has been committed, and the one who has excommunicated themselves through grave sin is no longer allowed the Sacraments unless they repent. Once someone who has incurred excommunication by their grave sin confesses through the Sacrament of Reconcilliation, they are no longer excommunicated. My understanding is that forgiveness is always available through the Sacrament of Reconcilliation, as it is in reality Jesus’ forgiveness, which is always available.
Excommunication sounds like a very final word, but I don’t think it is.
Does this sound right?
Doug,
I can
Ellie,
Absolutely not…you can ALWAYS come back…
The point of excommunication is to cause you to reflect, rethink and re-enter.
“It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
If you think that’s rough…look at this.
“Clearly those who think the availability of chemical abortions will settle the abortion issue are deluded. It will only widen to drug manufacturers, pharmacists and family physicians those guilty of grave sin and subject to excommunication. [It should also be noted that many contraceptive pills are already abortifacient in operation. Theoretically, the knowing use of such a pill for its abortafacient purpose could also subject one to excommunication. Pill manufacturers have recently been touting this capability of their deadly wares.]”
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/abortio2.htm
As to absolutiion:
A. 2. It means that anyone who has an abortion, participates in an abortion, or supports an abortion, he or she, by the previously mentioned actions, is automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church. (C.C.C. # 2273)
Accordingly, that person can no longer receive any of the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, be it the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist (Communion), Marriage or the Sacrament of Confession. For an excommunication to be lifted (ended), the sinner must approach the local Bishop, inform him of his/her “latae sententiae” excommunication through the sin of abortion and ask the Bishop to have the excommunication lifted (ended) and to be absolved of the sin of abortion. The Bishop may authorize a priest to specifically deal with this absolution on his behalf. (C.C.C. # 1463) Contrary to the popular belief of Catholics, this does not mean that all priests can absolve a penitent of the excommunication. Only a priest who is specifically appointed by the Bishop to do so, may do so.
Q. 3. Does that mean that if a woman had an abortion and confessed it to a priest who had not been specifically appointed by the local Bishop to lift her excommunication, that her sin was never forgiven?
A. 3. That is correct! There have been many instances where priests did not realize that an abortion incurs an automatic excommunication. As such, while they may enjoy the authority to forgive sins, they do not have the authority to lift excommunications. Consequently, while a person is excommunicated, that person cannot validly receive any of the Sacraments, that including the Sacrament of Confession. (Exception: In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, any priest can absolve from every sin and excommunication.)
http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu70.htm
The Catholic Church is not for wimps…
hippie said:
“Ending a life is harsher than abstinence or contraception.”
Really? In what way is abstinence harsh?
Andrew,
Of course abstinence is not harsh. It is effective as birth control and is mentioned in contrast to the harshness of abortion.
Well considering that I live in an apartment complex, it wont “pop” up in my back yard anytime soon. There is one near my school though (the one that Rudolph bombed). And it honestly doesn’t bother me at all. It’s right next to my favorite late night restaurant (Al’s). Great food BTW.
I would say abstinance is the most harsh of all! If you’re aborted, at least you’ve gotten to live a short life in utero. But if you’re never even conceived because the woman who should have been your mother was abstaining, how much worse for you! Not even a short, intrauterine existance. Nothing.
“But worse than that, you might be a WASN’T!
A WASN’T has no fun at all, no he doesn’t.”
–Dr. Suess.
Somg, how stupid.
SoMG,
You sound positively cheerful…I think you are softening!
In response to Jill’s original question: there’s already an abortion clinic in my (general) neighbourhood. And since I work there, I find it quite convenient. :)
Pedgehog,
In response to Jill’s original question: there’s already an abortion clinic in my (general) neighbourhood. And since I work there, I find it quite convenient. :)
SoMG,
There has been a hole in my heart ever since the passing of our dear Cameron…will you be my new Cameron? I don’t gots nobody to torment, and I’m soooo sad! Let’s be friends so we can be enemies.
Pweeeze?
Laura, You do get better each time you come. MK, I’d say add her to the breakfast list!
Heather,
If she’s willing to eat with the likes of us (I talk with my mouth full, chew with my mouth open, and hog the salt) she is more than welcome…
Where’s Rae? Where’s Leah? Where’s Midnite?
I want my GIRLS BACK!
Where is Samantha T.?
“I’m so sorry to hear about your troubles…we’ll all be praying for you…Be Not Afraid.”
I wasn’t aware of any troubles…and the only thing I’m afraid of is getting punched by protesters. Thanks for the prayers though. Perhaps I’ll say a couple to my own gods in return. :)
pedgehog, why do you think that pro lifers would punch you?
JM and JKeller,
you too are invited of course. This all started just before Cameron married SoMG and Valerie spent the nite wasted on rum in the garage with Johnny Depp on the nite of the wedding…
Then we decided that if we were going to use technical terms for “babies” we would use techinal terms for everything…hence the “Olea europaea/Arvicolinae hold the Mugilidae pizza washed down with fluoridated water pizza started…
Lemmings was just a funny word, but I got tired of using it and switched to mullets (which are a funny fish that jumps out of the water and no one knows why)
which led to me inviting all my new friends (after the wedding we were all MUCH closer, especially Val and Johnny) to breakfast and it became the breakfast club. The one place where pro-lifers and pro-choicers can all let their hair down (keep it out of my food) and we like to fancy that it’s a great honor to be asked to join. Sort of like the Skull and Bones society.
OOOOOO…we need a secret handshake!
I miss Rae and Val and Leah and Less and Danielle and Amanda and Alyssa and Midnite and Cameron (he was allowed to come but he had to wear his wedding dress)…wahhhhhh…Bethany, I need an emoticon!
Phooey!
“pedgehog, why do you think that pro lifers would punch you?”
I don’t really. Ours aren’t TOO violent, although they have their days. But you never really know, do you? It’s just the only think I could think of that I’m actually afraid of. Besides reflective surfaces in the dark.
Just a thought. I have many girlfriends who are pro choice. We can still maintain a friendship.
I definitely think people on both sides of the issue can be friends. I think it’s difficult to be friends with extremists, however (like the people that protest outside our clinic). How do you strike up a friendship with someone who calls you “satan’s minion” on a regular basis? It makes me sad. :(
pedgehog, what is your job at the abortion clinic?
Well I volunteer as an escort on clinic days, and the rest of the week my actual job is receptionist/office manager/laundry girl/general lackey.
THE WEDDING and HOW IT BEGAN…
MK:
They can’t handle the truth…….
Please don’t act your age, I love you just the way you are.
Remember what our Dear Savior said, “Unless you become as one of these little ones you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven”.
My goal is actaully to become more childlike as I get older. I don’t want to miss the boat.
Calling you childish is like calling Cameron the Queen of England.
Posted by: His Man [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 6:25 PM
Cameron’s gay?
Posted by: Jill Stanek [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 6:26 PM
Dang it Jill,
I was busy answering midnite and I wanted to be the one to say that…
Only I was going to say:
Hmmmm…I wouldn’t doubt he was the “queen” of something…that would explain alot!
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 6:34 PM
Jill,
I didn’t know that.
Is the Queen gay?
Posted by: His Man [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 6:37 PM
I don’t think Cameron’s gay. BTW, Has anyone ever been to a gay wedding? they’re really fun!!
Posted by: Kim at May 8, 2007 6:40 PM
Cameron’s getting married? To the queen? And she’s gay? AND you’re invited? Wow…wait til I tell my friends…
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 6:43 PM
HM, only if she can sing the falsetto in “Bohemian Rhapsody”
Posted by: Jill Stanek [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 6:44 PM
Wait!
Who’s gay?
I’m confused.
MK – Do we still have the Lemmings around here some where?
I see spots.
Posted by: Valerie [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 6:45 PM
Now we all need to hear it, don’t we?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irp8CNj9qBI
Posted by: Jill Stanek [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 6:46 PM
Actually a gay wedding sounds like a hoot! I couldn’t attend of course on moral principles, but I bet it would be a blast. Very colorful. And great food. Hmmm. maybe I’d bend my principles if I really liked the couple…would that be bad?
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 6:46 PM
Valerie and Kim, catch up. Cameron is a former gay member of Queen.
Posted by: Jill Stanek [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 6:47 PM
Weddings?
I love weddings
DRINKS ALL AROUND!
Posted by: Kelly at May 8, 2007 6:47 PM
Can’t have a wedding without Queen : ).
Posted by: SH at May 8, 2007 6:48 PM
Or rum . . .
Posted by: SH at May 8, 2007 6:49 PM
Valerie,
I’ll fill you in…Cameron is marrying a gay lemming. Actually the queen of the Lemmings.
And we’re invited. But we can’t start any trouble.
What should we wear? Boas. Gotta wear boas.
And that’s when we can do breakfast. After the wedding…
What should we get him/them? I like crock pots myself…pun intended.
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 6:49 PM
Jill,
Using the words gay and wedding in the same sentence is an oxymoron.
Fun, yeah I bet. The reprobate minister might say, “’til a blast from a cold water hose do they part”.
Posted by: His Man [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 6:50 PM
Wait Jill,
I’m confused, which one of those guys is Cameron marrying?
Now we all need to hear it, don’t we?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irp8CNj9qBI
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 6:51 PM
“Using the words gay and wedding in the same sentence is an oxymoron.”
Nope, perfectly fine in a legal sense, maybe in your belief system it is.
Gotta love Massachusetts, always ahead of the times
Posted by: Dan [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 6:52 PM
Hisman, Some may find that offensive.
Also,
(On a completly random note)
“New&Improved” is an oxymoron.
Posted by: Kim at May 8, 2007 6:52 PM
go Kim, I didnt wanna point it out since i know im gunna get a preaching to >
Posted by: Dan [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 6:54 PM
And Cameron’s gay wedding reception has to end with “Shout.” I insist.
Oh, my, I’m going back to the 70s here. Someone pull me back. Now I’m having a Queen fix. If I move on to Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon I may need to find a drug dealer.
Posted by: Jill Stanek [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 6:56 PM
Where is the groom [aka My strip-poker buddy?]
Posted by: Kim at May 8, 2007 6:56 PM
Dark Side of the Moon = Amazing album
Posted by: Dan [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 6:57 PM
Oh, Dan and Kim, you kids, you. So serious. Major role reversal going on tonight.
We will we will rock you…..
Posted by: Jill Stanek [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 6:57 PM
I think the cold water hose would be a great time…
But we’d have to let the queen change first. Wouldn’t want to ruin the boa…
Did anybody check with midnite to make sure this wedding thing wasn’t against the rules?
Is it an afternoon or evening wedding?
I hope it’s not gonna be outdoors…I hate mosquitos.
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 6:58 PM
Where is the groom [aka My strip-poker buddy?]
Wait a minute! I draw the line at a nude wedding!
Phooey!
And I had such big plans!
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 6:59 PM
Sorry, D&K, I see we were posting at the same time. Glad you’re joining the party.
Do we ACTUALLY HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON?
Dark Side of the Moon?
Well slap my face and call me abused.
Posted by: Jill Stanek [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 6:59 PM
Kim,
Hisman, Some may find that offensive.
Also,
(On a completly random note)
“New&Improved” is an oxymoron.
I think he knew that…
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 7:00 PM
I’m actually more of a Led Zeplinn person, You’re not a true pisces until you love “Stairway to Heaven”
Posted by: Kim at May 8, 2007 7:02 PM
Actually, when I miscarried, it pretty much did look only like a lump of blood. It’s not like a big ol’ baby pops out of you at 5 weeks in. If I don’t get in trouble for miscarrying, I don’t see why I should get in trouble for having an abortion. I was originally pregnant with twins, miscarried one, and aborted the other. And HisMan, I saw my ultrasound. I’m sure it will have a much greater meaning to me when I am actually ready to parent children.
Ahhh, I went to a gay wedding once, it was fantastic. The reception was the most fun of any wedding reception I had ever been too.
Posted by: Erin at May 8, 2007 7:02 PM
Mind you, I don’t have a problem coming nude (I can always stategically place my boas so as to cover my ravishing body)
Just don’t think I could stomach seeing Cameron sans clothes…tho I do like poker…
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 7:02 PM
im fairly sure being slapped can constitute abuse, yweve already had that argument here, i assume you dont wanna repeat ;)
Pink Floyd in general is good. I have such diverse taste though. Pink Floyd,. Metallica, Smile Empty Soul, Matchbox 20, Frank Sinatra, Creed, Alkaline Trio, random jazz artists, REM, Disturbed, ACDC, Barenaked Ladies, etc.
my musical taste is EVERYWHERE
Posted by: Dan [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 7:03 PM
wow, sorry for my misspellings.
And how the heck did I forget Zeplinn!
Posted by: Dan [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 7:04 PM
I’ve been to one.. .In Montreal. Ironically, the mother of 1 of the grooms refused to come because it wasn’t in a Catholic Church.
Posted by: Kim at May 8, 2007 7:04 PM
Well slap my face and call me abused.
Oh Jill, now they’re gonna bring up the “Jill is for spousal abuse” stuff again…
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 7:06 PM
Hey OTHER SIDE —- Lighten up!
It’s a wedding, not a funeral!
sheesh.
mk
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 7:06 PM
Kim/Dan, about Stairway to Heaven, it became a caricature after awhile… so overplayed we made fun of it. So you young turks like it again?
Dan, like your varied taste in music. Mine similar.
Posted by: Jill Stanek [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 7:07 PM
Well slap my face and call me abused.
Oh Jill, now they’re gonna bring up the “Jill is for spousal abuse” stuff again…
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 07:06 PM
Too late…I see Dan beat me to it…I should have bet someone…
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 7:07 PM
lol MK, I was foolin around with it, no worries
Stairway to Heaven is good, but it is still overplayed on some radio stations, which im guessing is a scary thought to you ;)
Posted by: Dan [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 7:11 PM
Jill,
Kim/Dan, about Stairway to Heaven, it became a caricature after awhile… so overplayed we made fun of it. So you young turks like it again?
Right up there with “Color my World” and “Lorelei” by Chicago and Styx…
Man do I feel old…
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 7:11 PM
Poor Cameron…He’s missing his bachelorette party!
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 7:12 PM
Rush said something today about we’re losing our right to free speech not by the government but by liberals and political correctness. I refuse! FREEDOM!
Posted by: Jill Stanek [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 7:12 PM
Zepplin/Guns n’ Roses/ Queen/ Kurt Kobain – prevail on my Ipod. (Along with the mandatory Shakira/Sean Paul/Christina Aguilera songs
Posted by: Kim at May 8, 2007 7:13 PM
FREEBIRD!!!!
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 7:13 PM
Nah, not scary. Just interesting.
What’s most interesting is when one of my daughter’s songs comes on the radio and I start singing it because it’s really an oldie. Freaks her out. I love it.
Posted by: Jill Stanek [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 7:14 PM
Kurt Cobain… Now there’s one of many books I want to write. All these people died at the age of 27: Kurt Cobain, Janice Joplin, Jimmy Hendrix, and Jim Morrison.
Posted by: Jill Stanek [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 7:16 PM
Okay,
I have to go read to the midgets so I guess I have to leave the wedding early. I’ll swing by in a bit and see if you guys are fallin’ down drunk yet…
Jill, save me a cigar!
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 7:16 PM
MK, me and the Priests for Life boys have a rule about smoking cigars with us. You have to be able to blow a smoke ring. Well?
Posted by: Jill Stanek [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 7:19 PM
I can blow smoke rings out of my nose. I learned from Gandalf. Does that qualify?
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 7:20 PM
Priest guys eh?
Thats okay, I like a challenge ;)
Jks, jks
Posted by: Kim at May 8, 2007 7:22 PM
Midnite,
I meant that re-naming a living human being “fetus” does not make it less human, just as “D&C” is scraping out a small person from their mother. (i know they are also used to remove polyps and the like from the uterus as well.)
SH,
I totally agree with your law post. Thanks.
Posted by: Janet [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 7:36 PM
Na, Zepplin is inferior compared to Hendrix. I’m going to get a lot of sh*t for this I know. But I think he’s sorta overrated. The music is good, but not as good as EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON CAMPUS thinks he is. Now Hendrix, on the other hand…
Posted by: prettyinpink [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 7:39 PM
Zeppelin*
Posted by: prettyinpink [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 7:40 PM
And yes, Nirvana rocks my world. But Blind Melon does too. Ol’ Shannon was such a bada**. But he died of an overdose too early to become as famous! All he is known for is the one song, but I have two CDs, both of which are delicious.
Posted by: prettyinpink [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 7:42 PM
Thanks Janet!
Posted by: SH at May 8, 2007 7:48 PM
MK: smoke rings out the nose? You know I automatically thought of the Chicago Bulls. Gotta see this. You’re invited.
PIP: At the time, Led Zeppelin didn’t do anything for me, for the most part. Robert Plant’s voice got on my nerves. Same thing with Rush. Now when I hear LZ, I have a new appreciation. Still hate Rush.
Jimi Hendrix vs. Jimmy Page: yes, Jimi Hendrix.
I actually didn’t like hard rock back in the day. Liked Beatles, Paul McCartney solo, Eagles, Pink Floyd, etc. Then my sons got into Metallica and I belatedly did, too, and now enjoy certain classic heavy metal like Deep Purple, Smoke on the Water.
Posted by: Jill Stanek [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 7:49 PM
Pip, Do you like the NIN ?
Posted by: Heather4life at May 8, 2007 7:50 PM
Jill: Pink Floyd and Beatles also high on my list.
Heather: why yes, I do. However I like their old stuff (ala the Fragile) rather than this new stuff (With Teeth). My exboyfriend was the opposite. I knew from then on out we were doomed as a couple ; )
Posted by: prettyinpink [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 7:53 PM
Humorous story about NIN.
I dished out the ridiculous 40 bucks to see them here at STL. My best friend Eva, who lived in Boston at the time, told me she was going to see them in NYC. I call her after the concert to tell her how awesome it was and asked her if she thought the same. I ws surprised at her answer: she got kicked out! Apparently she wasn’t in her assigned seat and refused to leave the new one (that was unoccupied). When they tried to force her to leave she tried to break free from the security officer and found herself pinned on the ground and forced to leave.
Hilarious! I laughed for so long. Kind of sad it was a waste of 60 bucks for her, though.
Posted by: prettyinpink [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 7:59 PM
The NIN are from my town! *Head Like a Hole* My fav. song.
Posted by: Heather4life at May 8, 2007 8:19 PM
And no MK, gay weddings are fine with me. I would *love* to see you attend one and not say anything horrid. And yes I do accept your apology that you gave me earlier (the 2nd one). Bad day at work (dealing with teenagers wanting a limo for prom), I am sick, & tired from school & work (I average maybe four hous of sleep a night). So yes, you’re post (I shall not repeat it) irritated the ever living crap out of me, but no you did not hurt my feelings. Sorry, you dont have that kind of power. With that and everything else going on in my life that your comment was the icing on the cake to set me off. So, once again, forgiven and I do apologize for calling you names.
Peace? (and please stop with the whole midnite’s rules thing, it is a little bit much.)And no that is not the only bible verse I know either.
Posted by: midnite678 [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 8:21 PM
Very nice!! Classic NIN. Pretty Hate Machine is pretty grand. That, The Fragile, and Downward Spiral are my faves. I really don’t know if I can pick a favorite song of theirs! It depends on my mood.
Posted by: prettyinpink [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 8:23 PM
One of the former members is in Filter now.
Posted by: Heather4life at May 8, 2007 8:25 PM
Are they good? Haven’t heard of em.
Posted by: prettyinpink [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 8:27 PM
Yes. Not bad.
Posted by: Heather4life at May 8, 2007 8:29 PM
Sweet.
Posted by: prettyinpink [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 8:31 PM
I went to a Deep Purple concert in 1985, in was very good, but Richie Blackmore (lead guitarist) messed up “smoke on the water”, it almost like he forgot the notes.
Posted by: jasper at May 8, 2007 8:53 PM
Jasper – hard to imagine!
Posted by: Jill Stanek [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 8:57 PM
How about Peter Frampton?
Midnite,
Peace.
Can you blow smokerings?
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 8:59 PM
No, MK. actually I’ve never tried. I am in the process of quitting smoking(although it’s not going so well).
Posted by: midnite678 [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 9:01 PM
Oh, Peter Frampton, yes!
Posted by: Jill Stanek [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 9:03 PM
Hmmm…could explain the mood.
Well, we can still smoke the peace pipe.
I’ll teach you.
And seriously, if you were anti-social you wouldn’t have cared so much…so you’re in the clear.
mk
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 9:04 PM
Well, that is nice to know.
*inhales peace pipe smoke*
and yes, the quitting smoking really puts me in a crappy mood. Doing good today, only one so far.
Posted by: midnite678 [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 9:07 PM
I smoke too. If I quit I’d be perfect and nobody would play with me anymore…
Oooooh, narcissistic personality disorder anyone?
also inhaling…
hey, what’s in this pipe. I’m seeing elephants in my den…oh, sorry, that’s the hubby.
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 9:10 PM
hmmm, leaning towards histrionic disorder myself.
MK, did you “spike” this peace pipe, I am seeing rainbows….
Oh no wait that’s the glare on my old tv (it’s older than I am)
Posted by: midnite678 [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 9:14 PM
I’m getting sleeeeeeepy…
No date raping, kay?
See you in the morning…
Glad we’re not going to bed mad…
Did you say something…I thought I heard…Oh never mind…
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 9:23 PM
Thanks guys!
I laughed so hard I woke up both kids!
I walk away to take care of the kids and you guys go to a gay wedding without me!
*sniff, sniff*
I hope you saved some of the peace pipe for me! Or at least a boa I can wear in memory of missing the party.
*sniff, sniff*
WAAAAAAA!!!!
I missed the Lemmings.
Posted by: Valerie [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 9:56 PM
Valerie, can you blow smoke rings?
Posted by: Jill Stanek [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 10:10 PM
HUGE NIN fan here, plus a big fan of the Eagles(the band, not the football practicers…coughcough), ZZTop, Collective Soul, Donna Summer, the Pointer Sisters, Fleetwood Mac, Journey, Foreigner, Boston, Goo Goo Dolls, Joe Walsh, Clapton, almost all 80’s music,
Posted by: Alyssa at May 8, 2007 10:11 PM
Sorry…accidentally pressed “post” too soon…. lol…I was gonna finish up by saying I like more music that came out before I was born than I like from today. Although I have a like Shiny Toy Guns, Muse, and 4 Strings a lot, with a bunch of techno and all different kinds of rock mixed in. Not a huge rap/country fan, although I like hip hop to an extent.
I’m mostly an 80’s child…though I was born in ’88. Hehehe…
Posted by: Alyssa at May 8, 2007 10:14 PM
Jill —
cough, cough, ack, ack.
nope, don’t think so….
I’ve got mild asthma. How about blowing bubbles? It is a gay wedding right?
Posted by: Valerie [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2007 10:32 PM
I think my faux cyber sex was funnier.
Posted by: Cameron at May 8, 2007 11:23 PM
Oh darn…I missed “Bohemian Rhapsody”. One of the best bloody songs by Queen besides “Under Pressure”.
I missed teh partay…*shakes fist at studying for finals and watching “House”*
Posted by: Rae at May 8, 2007 11:26 PM
Rae- Bohemian Rhapsody and Under Pressure are both very enjoyable.
But there are some “greatest hits” that dont’ get talked about that I just love. How about “Somebody to Love” “Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy” “Save Me” and “Fat Bottomed Girls”?? Anyone?
Posted by: prettyinpink [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 9, 2007 12:15 AM
btw..cigar smoker here, but still need to learn how to blow smoke rings :/
Posted by: prettyinpink [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 9, 2007 12:20 AM
“second on the fat bottomed girls” Queen rocks my socks.
Posted by: Lynn at May 9, 2007 12:22 AM
Alyssa, A friend of mine is friends with Joe Walsh.
Posted by: Heather4life at May 9, 2007 5:22 AM
Queen rocks!
Posted by: Heather4life at May 9, 2007 5:35 AM
Long Live The Queen! And his bride, Cameron!!!!
Huzzah!!
Wow, what was in that peace pipe last night? My head is throbbing. There six or seven boas in my bed, elephant droppings on my floor and three lemmings sleeping on my couch.
And do I remember correctly or was that a dream?
Did SOMG really catch the bouquet? Slept with cake under my pillow and now I have frosting in my hair.
Hope everyone got home okay…no DUI’s…
PIP you can really dance. Valerie the bubbles were a great idea. Has anyone seen my shoe?
Did we remember to pay the band?
Where’d they go on their honeymoon? I vaguely remember something about the “Dark side of the Moon”?
Oh man, talk about cotton mouth…I’m gonna go take a shower…
See you guys when you crawl out of bed…Remember, what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas…
mk
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 9, 2007 6:41 AM
MK, Did I miss a party or something?
Posted by: Heather4life at May 9, 2007 6:46 AM
Alyssa, 10:11p: yes on Fleetwood Mac. “Rumours” is one of my top five albums of all time.
Valerie, 10:32p: lol on blowing bubbles at gay wedding. Can you do that with a lisp? (sorry, couldn’t help that)
Rae, 11:26p: Good girl, studying. There will be another party, altho you and Val were missed. I think I’m going to buy a Queen greatest hits album today. Don’t forget “We will rock you.”
PIP, 12:15a: I recently learned “Fat Bottomed Girls” was about incest. Am I the last to know?
PIP, 12:20a: Smoke rings, one of my greatest accomplishments. I’ll teach you.
Posted by: Jill Stanek [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 9, 2007 6:56 AM
I missed it too, Heather…too bad, it looked like it was so much fun!
Posted by: Bethany [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 9, 2007 7:10 AM
Jill, Is it really about incest?
Posted by: Heather4life at May 9, 2007 7:12 AM
Heather, yes, here are the lyrics:
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Fat-Bottomed-Girls-lyrics-Queen/01FECDA021BB25A84825689400039B68
Posted by: Jill Stanek [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 9, 2007 7:25 AM
WOW!
Posted by: Heather4life at May 9, 2007 7:29 AM
Heather,
Cameron married the gay queen of England (or one of the guys from the band – we’re not sure as Valerie is the one that gave us the info and you know how confused she gets), they went on a honeymoon to the Dark Side of the Moon, we all smoked a peace pipe, at some point we played strip poker but when Cameron lost we had to leave the room, SOMG caught the bouquet, we were all fined for smoking cigars in a non smoking establishment, Val got confused and drank bubbles instead of bubbly (quick trip to the ER), elephants and lemmings crashed the party (the police responded promptly but got sidetracked when the Queen asked them to perform a Village People song, SH showed up with Johnny Depp and rum (that’s where it gets kind of foggy) and the whole thing ended when HisMan got out the hose and sprayed everyone with cold water…
Now I’m picking frosting and feathers out of my hair, Jill is in jail for smuggling in Cuban cigars, Valerie has the hiccups (too funny, every time she hiccups bubbles come out of her mouth), Cameron and the Queen shacked up at Mick Fleetwoods place (but not with each other), SH and Johnny are passed out in the garage with the lemmings and the whole thing was filmed and will be shown on O’reilly tonite…Sorry you couldn’t be there. You missed a great party, but on the bright side you didn’t have to see Cameron naked…
mk
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 9, 2007 7:53 AM
lol MK :D
Posted by: Bethany [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 9, 2007 7:58 AM
Yes, that’s about right, MK, altho I got foggy earlier, when blowing smoke rings with my cigar. Unused to smoking, I got light-headed.
So I didn’t remember my arrest until this morning when I awakened next to Cameron in the slammer. He’s still there, having no friends who would bail him out.
The police gave the poor naked boy one of their old uniforms to wear, which caused him to break out with “YMCA.” I claimed not to know him at that point.
Posted by: Jill Stanek [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 9, 2007 8:32 AM
Now, I may just be in a pregnancy daze and imagining things but WHAT?!
Posted by: Lauren [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 9, 2007 8:36 AM
I actually just read the blog entry this post is about, and I have to say, the little girl (Darby, I think) has got some class. That seems to be something seriously lacking these days, and she doesn’t seem to have learned it from her mother.
Posted by: Heather B. at May 9, 2007 8:53 AM
Heather, thanks for reorienting the comments. You’re right. And it’s interesting that kids immediately abhor abortion when they learn of it. Smarter than adults.
Posted by: Jill Stanek [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 9, 2007 9:12 AM
Lauren,
We didn’t invite you because we know in your condition you can’t drink, smoke or see naked Camerons without getting morning sick…but next year.
Watch O’reilly for photo ops.
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 9, 2007 9:15 AM
LOL, MK!! Just dragged myself out of the garage and in to work. Have the lights off and am on my 5th cup of coffee. Hope our pictures don’t pop up in some paparazzi mag. Jill, did you snap any picts of Cam doing the YMCA in jail, sorry I missed that!
I think Johnny will definitely have to make an appearance next time. Love that guy. With more rum, of course . . . : )
Posted by: SH at May 9, 2007 9:37 AM
SH,
The way I figure it when the Queen finds out that Cameron was shacking up with SOMG (oops I promised not say anything, oh well) the Queen will divorce him, SOMG and Cam will get engaged and we’ll have another wedding in no time. We’ll be sure to invite Johnny.
(Have you checked the garage…you left with him last night and nobody has seen him since…just follow the rum trail…and tell him I have one of his gold teeth…)
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 9, 2007 9:41 AM
Jill, really?! I just thought those lines were about a non-relatve nanny.
Posted by: prettyinpink [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 9, 2007 11:18 AM
HIC!
Posted by: Valerie [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 9, 2007 11:20 AM
Ahhh…good times, good times.
Don’t you just love looking at wedding albums?
Pedge,
I don’t really. Ours aren’t TOO violent, although they have their days. But you never really know, do you? It’s just the only think I could think of that I’m actually afraid of. Besides reflective surfaces in the dark.
and milk?
New slogan: “Menstruation is murder!”
…milk?
monk.
I’m confused.
http://www.usanetwork.com/series/monk/
He’s afraid of milk…
I’m confused.
You and Val are going to be great friends.
By the way, welcome and while I stand outside of clinics I have never called anyone a Satans Minion. We often bring muffins and share…
Well then I wish you protested at my clinic. I quite dislike being called names, and I love muffins.
Now, Now SoMG,
New slogan: “Menstruation is murder!”
I do believe your “cycling”…take your depakote. Your manic phase is showing…
Pedge,
A lot of you guys won’t take them tho. But a few of you are nice. We try to strike up conversations all the time…and always say good morning. Hey, you have your views and I have mine but we’re all part of the same “family” when you get down to it…stick around long enough and I bet you get invited to breakfast…and I promise, no milk or shiny surfaces.
Pedge,
What state are you in?
I think part of the problem for escorts is that even if some of them want to respond/take the muffins (and I acknowledge that some of us really don’t), there are certain rules. At our clinic the escorts sign an agreement wherein the number one rule is DO NOT ENGAGE with the protesters. Unfortunate when there are nice people on both sides, but the philosophy is that there is a time and a place and this ain’t it.
There are lots of other reasons too, of course. But the point is, I wouldn’t take it personally if the escorts aren’t taking your muffins.
I’m in Fredericton, New Brunswick. Canada.
Pedge,
I don’t take it personally (but that is one nice thing about workin’ for the Man Upstairs. He doesn’t mind if we chat with enemy. Encourages it in fact).
Canada huh? I’m afraid the muffins would be stale by the time I got them there…drag! Well you didn’t sign any agreements that you couldn’t converse here…did you?
Pedge,
I have to put the kids to bed…I’ll try to get back, but stuff happens. I hope you come back. It is truly lovely talking with you…
If I don’t get back here, I hope I’ll see you tomorrow.
Haha no. It really has everything to do with the patients – if the protesters and escorts end up in an argument, it’s very intimidating for the women coming in; and of course, the whole point of the escorts being there is to help the women come in without feeling intimidated/threatened.
I think you might be working for a different Man Upstairs than our protesters, because they certainly have a different approach to it than you do. Oh well, keeps life interesting, right?
Maybe I’ll get my muffins when I’m in the states next – whereabouts are you?
No worries mk, I’m going to bed myself (it’s a bit later this far east). Hope to talk to you again.
Come on back pedge. Have a good night.
Andrew I am referring to paragraph 74 of it. Its numbered.
It specificly says that someone may need to lose their job as a result of not promoting evil laws.
74. The passing of unjust laws often raises difficult problems of conscience for morally upright people with regard to the issue of cooperation, since they have a right to demand not to be forced to take part in morally evil actions. Sometimes the choices which have to be made are difficult; they may require the sacrifice of prestigious professional positions or the relinquishing of reasonable hopes of career advancement.
I just utterly defeated Bethany and mk in a discussion/debate on Bethany’s blog. The schooling I gave them was delicious and they were greatly enlightened if they retained my responses to their questions.
Then she deleted all of the comments and disabled comments so no one could see it.
A friend of mine has a saying: The winner is the one promoting the debate.
Hey Pedge!
Please say you will be my “confused buddy”! I can’t seem to find the last one I had.
MK –
I Loved that night! Even though I didn’t participate much. Kept waking up the kids with my horrible laughing snort that I do!
I still have the boa by the way. Beautiful pink! Love it!
Did anyone say Rum? Where did Johnny go? Did we ever find him?
WOW MK,
I forgot about Cam’s gay wedding to the Queen, and the smoking of the peace pipe. Shows how great my memory is now a days (been a ROUGH couple of days with the boyfriend, we’re not getting along so well).
YAY FOR ALBUMS!!
Val: I got some Captain Morgan’s at my place and I am sure I can find Johnny if need be to get the party started again….
Hi Midnite,
How are you feeling?
Midnite,
You are still with him? That concerns me. I already made my feelings known so I’ll say no more, only that I am concerned. I must say that a rough couple of days does not surprise me.
Captain Morgan? Party? Finding Johnny? I’m there! Just make sure we invite the Lemmings. MK has been a bit harsh on them lately since she became obsessed with the Mullets. I think their feelings are hurt. ;-(
“MK, you have often misstated what I have said. There is a difference between that and misrepresenting yourself.”
“I am not “speaking for the Catholic Church.” I am noting that quite a few women end up having abortions even though one would think it unlikely for them. I think it’s obvious that of those women, many would have thought abortion “wrong” until they found themselves actually in the situation, and then they saw that for them, in that particular situation, abortion was their best choice.”
MK: The woman asked if, as a Catholic, she would be going to hell for being pro-choice, and you said no. To me that is misrepresentation. You have no idea whether the church teaches that she is going to hell or not, and the fact that you weighed in at all when you don’t believe in hell is outrageous. If you had said, “gee, Jess, I wouldn’t worry about it too much, as I don’t believe anyone is going to hell because I don’t believe in hell” that would have been different.
And exactly where did I misquote you on this one?
I don’t think you did, here, but what she asked, and what I responded to, was:
Do you guys think I’m going to hell?
What a church “thinks” or not has no necessary bearing, there.
Doug
Update:
At Amnesty Meeting we talked about the abortion issue. We think Amnesty Int’l has handled their stance on abortion rather horribly but from the experience of people at conventions and national meetings, they were pressured to make a stance from both sides.
http://web.amnesty.org/actforwomen/sexual_and_reproductive_rights-eng
From their website they don’t seem to promote abortion as a human right, just that they go against:
death penalty or torture for people who get them,
forced abortion or sterilization,
denying access to safe abortions in case of rape, sexual assult, or incest
denying access to safe abortions where there are grave health risks with pregnancy,
denying access to obstetric care,
denying access to health care as a result of an illegal abortion or other high-risk pregnancies that may result in the death of mother and/or fetus.
Generally, Amnesty is looking at a world-wide persective in terms of human rights abuses, so our world in the U.S. is much different than the kinds of things we see elsewhere. On that website they go through examples they determine as human rights abuses.
Yeah well Thursday night we got into a HUGE fight over something silly. So at midnight he decided he wanted us to “take a break” from eachother. Then he trotted his happy ass into my bedroom and went to sleep like nothing was wrong. So I was up unitll 4am near a psychotic rage b/c I was so pissed off. Friday he got up to go to work, took a shower and came and kissed me on the forehead like he always does in the mornings.
So I was upset all day Friday and then that afternoon he came to my work and acted like nothing was wrong. So I left and he had the balls to ask me “Whats wrong”?
So that night a bunch of us went out and I got housed off of vodka and redbulls and made him jealous by dancing with some random dude and then went home. Saturday he went to the football game and then went to the lake (where I was supposed to go too). But since he went, I stayed home all weekend by myself (at least I had the time to clean and do laundry like I needed to do, but that is not the point)while him and all of our friends partied.
So today he called me and informed me that he was on his way home from the lake and he would see me in a little bit. So now he is asleep in my room while I am outside pondering WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON.
Why does someone say they need a “break” (not a break up) and then proceed to be around you almost the same amount of time and act like nothing is wrong??
PLEASE SOMEONE SHED SOME LIGHT ON THIS SITUATION FOR ME! I AM IN HELL AND CONFUSED AS SHIT!!
Hippie: I can
Hippie: If a 20 week fetus responds to stimuli then that is possible evidence that he or she could feel pain. Let
Midnite,
He sounds passive-aggressive. He’s making you madder than a hornet by doing absolutely nothing, and playing dumb to the whole thing. Look what its doing to you! He’s got a great mind game going here.
Until you make up your mind you’ve had enough of this and him, it won’t stop. Leopards do NOT change their spots. It sounds like you are in an emotional trap, which can be just as bad as a physical one. I’ve been there a few times myself, and didn’t even realize it. Its not until you get out and look back that you see the light. Believe me, you never feel more free.
Midnite, I have told you before you are young, beautiful, intelligent, and the world is your oyster. You have to make some very difficult and painful decisions, but only you can make them, and once made, you must stick to them, difficult as that may be. It will be a long and painful road but one you will be very thankful you travelled. I’m afraid that’s the best and only advise I can offer you. It comes from deep concern for you on my part and a few similar experiences in my own life.
Mary:
That’s the problem, I love him, and I dont want to lose him. He’s actually the best boyfriend I’ve ever had. I’ve got some deep trust issues with males and most of the time I think I deserve to be treated like this or even worse (past relationships). I am just so confused and pissed off at the moment it’s not even funny.
“I told you how I feel. Some people back then would not have been convinced. The fact remains that the slaves had feelings.”
Bethany: Likewise, even though you will remain unconvinced, the unborn child has an inherent right to life, regardless of the stage of his or her development.
Okay, B – matter of belief.
………
“I don’t say the unborn are “guilty” and I don’t “blame” them. But though you wish there was right to life for the unborn, our society doesn’t see it that way. It could be different but as of now it’s not, and it’s your will against that of the pregnant woman.”
Okay, well maybe one day we’ll see about that then.
Indeed.
……..
“I was giving my opinion – of course that “boils down to me,” same as it does for all of us. And yes – anybody can say anything, but I don’t say the same for infants, toddlers, etc., and neither does society and neither does a significant amount of humanity.”
Again, majority rules in your world.
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying it is fact that the majority feels that way about born people. What I think does not matter there – it’s external fact, and I could disagree or agree with that opinion.
……..
“In that same vein I would then say that it’s not about me, it’s about pregnant women. I have feelings, you have feelings. Pregnant women have feelings, but the unborn – where I advocate the woman ‘s choice – do not.”
If it had not been for that pregnant woman’s mother, carrying her and giving her life, she wouldn’t even be here today. life is the MOST basic of rights.. at least, without “bodily autonomy” for a few months, a woman will still live, the woman will still be able to carry on as usual after the pregnancy is over. She still has a chance to live and prosper. The baby who is aborted has NO CHANCE OF ANYTHING. This is why LIFE is more important than a right to convenience.
You are right about the cause and effect of the woman’s mother, but that rights are not attributed to the unborn changes things. The baby does not care, and while I know that you think the unborn life is more important than what the woman wants, others do not – if nothing else that is a big part of the argument.
……..
“if my desire was different – and if we were becoming extinct that could well change things, just as it would for huge numbers of people – then I’d be for more pregnancies being continued.”
What does that mean? Do you mean you are for less pregnancies being continued now (as in, you WANT less pregnancies continued to term)? Or that you would fight to end abortion later? Or that you would fight SOME abortions later? What does that sentence actually imply?
No – I don’t see the population as currently arguing for messing with the woman’s choice, either way. We don’t need to tell women with wanted pregnancies to end them and we don’t need to tell women with unwanted pregnancies to continue them.
……..
“It’s not that simple. I say that both our positions are not reflecting any external absolutes. I don’t claim to be “right” as far as my own position on abortion beyond my own feelings in the matter. But for validity I would argue, not based on absolutes but on the fact that in general we people favor letting others do what they want, to a point. I don’t see that abortion is past that point, because I don’t see any demonstrable need for more people on earth, nor any other persuasive reason why abortion is necessarily “bad,” at this time.”
Allright then, then according to you, both of our opinions must be equally valid, and equally correct. One cannot be right and one cannot be wrong, because the entire basis of both of our arguments is our own perceptions and feelings, in your opinion. Correct?
Outside of opinion – yes, since there is no good/bad/right/wrong there. However, the whole abortion debate is about opinions, and from some viewpoints your opinion is more valid, more correct, etc., and from some mine is. It really does come down to valuation – if what is most valued is the unborn life, then abortion will be “wrong” per that, while it won’t be if the woman’s freedom in the matter is what’s most valued.
……..
“Heh heh – nope.”
So does this mean you WOULD fight for the right to abortion, if abortion was made illegal?
Yes – or at least that I’d still be pro-choice.
……..
“There is no “definitive proof,” there. It’s a matter of opinion.”
Then we are both correct. Or we are both holding equally valid conclusions. There should be no argument then, right?
You asked for “definitive proof” of my valuation, and there isn’t any, same as for any moral opinion. The validity of our opinions depends on the desire and valuation of the observer, and obviously many people agree with you and many agree with me. I see this as quite simple – if the primary desire is for the unborn life, then you’re right. If the primary desire is for the freedom and autonomy/rights of the woman, then I am.
Doug
Ah, everyone, let’s raise a glass in salute to Zeke, an unyieldingly crass bigot with a hard-on for punishment and an overzealous use of violent retribution passages in the Bible. He systematically has driven away even the people on the pro-life side he supposedly supports, and only gives ammunition to the pro-choice side with his truly idiotic rants. *drinks to Zeke*
And now, a round of premarital relations in his honor!!! (That was a joke, Jill, Bethany, and MK). Although it is funny imagining him going beet-red with indignation over that remark. He’d have me executed, wouldn’t he? LOL. :)
Oh god Lyssie, I need a stiff jack and coke please…
Midnite, I have Jack in my room… and wine?
*hug*???
Tacklehug and Jack please…
“I’m not saying it would definitely change how we feel (I did say might have been different), but the environment does make a lot of difference. I guess it’s the old Nature versus Nurture deal.”
Bethany: So which do you believe it is? Nature, nurture…. both, or neither?
I think overall it’s some nature, but more Nurture. For a given person, on a given topic – I think it could vary widely.
…….
“I’d guess I’d try to demonstrate that they did have emotions, cares just like non-slaves, loved each other and other people just like non-slaves, etc.”
You mean, as successfully as I have demonstrated to you that there are sentient (as per your definition) babies in the womb in the late second and early third trimester?
:: chuckling :: Hey, you didn’t prove that to me, did you? Heck, I’ve thought that all along – for years anyway.
Yet, you still argue that a woman has the right to end the life of her sentient baby as long as it is disfigured, diseased badly enough (unfit), or is destined to die anyway. You say you don’t like the idea, but that it should be the mother’s right, even AFTER “viability”, when the baby is no different at all than a newborn child.
I did not say merely “disfigured.” There are matters of degree here. If the fetus is anencephalic, for example, I would go with the desire of the mother, whenever. What purpose does it serve to continue the pregnancy, there, against her will? Many times, with the kind of deficiencies I’m talking about, the fetus won’t be sentient. There are conditions where sentience can be there, and the prognosis is for a very short life with a lot of suffering. Even in those cases, I’d let the mother/parents decide. IMO in those cases it’s not worth it to force the continuation of the pregnancy.
……..
It could be wishful thinking, but I seriously doubt that you would allow a mother to kill her born child, who she has discovered AFTER birth, is terminally ill, or diseased, or with a genetic disorder, etc. Regardless of her intentions, she is taking the life of a human being if she does so. Even if she is doing it to prevent the child from suffering, it is still wrong. Do you agree, when this is a born child? And if it became legal to terminate the lives of born children for these reasons, would you object? And if so, on what grounds? If not, why not?
There are already cases where the decision between the parents and the doctors is not to resuscitate. Maybe this isn’t really “taking the life,” but it’s letting the life end without going to medical measures to continue it. I don’t have an argument with that – again, I’d say it serves no good purpose to go against the wish of the parents in some situations.
If it’s just a “genetic disorder,” then I’d probably be against the mother “killing her born child.” I’d have to see the specific situation in question, Bethany.
……..
“I don’t see society as “evil,” though.”
I didn’t say “society” was evil. I said that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Where does that imply that a society is evil? It implies that evil can happen even in a good society, if the good people in the society are too unresponsive to fight the evil.
I was saying that I’m basically okay with society. I don’t see any great evil taking shape due to my inattention, especially any that I can really affect – as with gov’t practices.
…….
“Geez, you’re making me think pretty hard again… No, overall I don’t think that no action is “contributing.” And I think that the “not part of the solution = part of the problem” is bumper sticker mentality, not the reality of our lives.”
Explain to me how it doesn’t apply. Tell me, Doug… if I witnessed a person who was beating her dog, every single day. And it hurt me to see it, but I didn’t want to get involved, and I just decided to keep quiet about it. Would I not be contributing to the problem, by not reporting it to someone? Maybe I don’t even really care, as long as it’s not my dog. Maybe I just look at that dog and think, “at least it’s not me”. Now, if that is my attitude, do you think that dog ever has a chance of getting away from it’s cruel owner? Perhaps there are others like me, looking at that woman beating her dog, and just figuring that the problem will sort itself out…or someone else will probably take care of it, but they are not going to get involved. Each one has become part of the situation, because they are made aware of it happening. Once this is true, they each become part of the problem ,by failing to report it, when it is within their ability to do so. They may mean well, they may be people who would never, ever beat their own dogs. But because they ignore this horrible dog owner, they have become part of the problem instead of part of the solution. I agree, it would make a great bumper sticker but not because it just sounds good…but because it holds a truth.
You would not be taking action on the problem, but you yourself would not be part of the problem. I don’t want the dog to suffer, and I’m glad you don’t either. I’m saying it is fine to take action, because that’s what we want to do and because I’m for less suffering. But that does not mean we’re part of the problem if we don’t. The problem exists, whether we even see it in the first place, or not. You can say “we have a duty to take action,” and I would agree with you, because we both want the same thing there. We need to act on our desire, per our desire.
……..
“If nobody wanted to have abortions, then I would not want there to be abortions, for example.”
See, again, Doug…this is why I think that you worry too much about what the majority thinks, and not enough about what’s actually right or wrong.
Ay Yi Yi…. The majority has nothing to do with that. I mean that if abortion was not desired, then I would not desire it either.
…….
As long as there are people who have abortions, you will support it, right?
Unless I see some greater need, yes.
……..
Well, people will always want abortions. And people will always want to rape other people, and people will always want to kill other people, and people will always want to steal, and people will always want to manipulate and deceive and lie, and people will always want to cheat on their spouses…. but that doesn’t mean that I have to support it just because they want it! I recognize that sometimes what a person WANTS isn’t always what is RIGHT.
No, you don’t have to support them, and there really isn’t much argument about all the others except abortion. (Except maybe the “cheat on their spouses” – in some countries that’s not nearly so big a deal.)
…….
“Additionally, we already have the restrictions on abortion late in gestation that we do, while the slaves did not have the rights. Why do I have to fight for the rights of the unborn after viability, if they already have them?”
They don’t, Doug. You have been deceived. Even if there is just ONE state that allows them to term, that is too much. Don’t you agree? Even ONE murder being justified is too many. But there are many places where a woman can go in America, to have an abortion, up until the day of birth. I know you people seem to think that’s a joke, but it’s not. Check out Dr. Tiller’s own site, and see what his ranges are. Leroy Carhart will also perform extremely late abortions. Why doesn’t your heart cry out against these? Do you just see abortion as a word now, do you only fight with words, and not with your heart?
Tiller says elective aborttions to 26 weeks, I think. This has come up before. What actual proof do you have that those guys do truly elective abortions in the third trimester? In the third trimester, outside of the rare situation, why would an abortion be done if delivery can be induced to end the pregnancy?
………
“I also think that it’s rather a nebulous form of “right” late in gestation, not nearly as overall as after birth, even for right to life alone, which, now that I think about it, is really all that’s there, even partially.”
I’m not sure what that sentence means?
:: rueful grin :: Yeah, I coulda done better. The right to life is the only one I see attributed to the unborn, even partially. But it’s not nearly as “absolute” as it is after birth. I say “nebulous” as it’s situational – there are still some pregnancies that can be ended due to danger to the mother, etc.
……..
“I also see “late in gestation” as vague – I feel it makes a difference if we’re talking 30+ weeks or if we’re talking 24. If there is a “gray area,” I think it’s in the 22-26 week range.”
Yes, the very fact that it’s vague should be a clue. Viability is an arbitrary concept that people have used to justify killing human beings without having to feel guilty about it. You don’t really know for sure whether 2nd trimester babies feel pain or not. Yet, you’re willing to take that risk on the CHANCE that they might not. Doesn’t sound like you really are that concerned with the suffering to me.
Nope – I have no problem with anesthesia if pain is a concern, whether provable or not. Viability is not arbitrary – it just means whether the unborn can survive outside the womb or not. If the woman wants to end the pregnancy after viability, then the baby can be delivered.
Doug
“People, especially including gov’t policy-makers, do often take a short-sighted view of things.”
Hippie: I really think this can apply to abortion. Abortion is short sighted. It doesn
Regarding the quote of the day:
1. RU-486 (mifepristone) already had a strong history of safety and effectiveness in Europe, Asia, and South America when the FDA approved it for use in the USA.
2. Six maternal deaths from 560,000 abortions is a very GOOD safety record. Just a little more than one per hundred thousand–that’s still safer than injecting penicillin into a patient, and almost an order of magnitude safer than childbirth. RU-486 (mifepristone) is not “dangerous” to the women who take it.
3. Even without RU-486, non-surgical abortion would have come to America anyway. You can use methotrexate, a common chemotheraputic and anti-inflammatory drug, instead of the RU-486 and it works just as well. Also, methotrexate is cheaper.
Doug,
“In the end what?”
In the end, those with courage and conviction will sacrifice and persevere till they make the world a better place in spite of the apathy around them. They will die trying, like ML King.
I don
Midnite,
You told me exactly what I expected to hear. It sounds to me dear like you are in an emotional trap, and its the worst kind.
I remember an old Eagles song with a verse that was so truthful about all of us sometime in our lives, and I think it applies to you Midnite. It said that it happens so often that we live our lives in chains, and we never even know we have the key.
Good luck to you Midnite. I think the world of you and I think you deserve better than this, but you have to decide that for yourself. I’m sorry I can’t offer you an answer. I can only say that key is there when you’re ready to use it.
Midnite, I am only going to echo Mary’s words strongly. I know how heartbreaking this is going to be for you. I know you love him dearly. But I promise you are worth more than that.
Zeke,
I just utterly defeated Bethany and mk in a discussion/debate on Bethany’s blog. The schooling I gave them was delicious and they were greatly enlightened if they retained my responses to their questions.
Then she deleted all of the comments and disabled comments so no one could see it.
A friend of mine has a saying: The winner is the one promoting the debate.
Posted by: Zeke13:19 at September 3, 2007 8:43 PM
Good heavens girl! You do have some imagination!
Utterly defeated? Whatever…let’s just take a vote on that…
1. 9/3/2007 4:10 PM Zeke13:19 wrote:
So what? It means execution. What do you pretend it means just bcause it says “die the death” instead of “be put to death”?
When Jesus references His words in Ex 21:17 He says “die the death” in some kind of Aramaic or Greek in Matthew 15. Did He mess up the reference to His words in Ex 21:17 there in Matthew 15?
(KJV) Exodus 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
(KJV) Matthew 15:3-4 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
(KJV) Mark 7:9-10 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
“Let him die the death” CLEARLY means that they are to be put to death. If you claim otherwise then Jesus Christ is NOT referencing Ex 21:17 as He claims to be doing in that passage.
Let him die the death = he must be put to death
What do you imagine “let him die the death” means if not “let him be put to death”? Do you think God wanted the person to just be taken somewhere where God could then drop a boulder on him from the sky?
Don’t let this question get in the way of the more important question: Did Jesus Christ misquote Himself when He referenced the command He gave to Moses in Ex 21:17?
Reply to this
1. 9/3/2007 4:21 PM Bethany wrote:
Zeke, before Jesus died on the cross is when Jesus said those things about the law. Jesus had not yet fulfilled the law. He now has. I do not see why you are trying to bring back the law when it has already been fulfilled.
I do believe that the greatest commandments are to love God with all your heart, soul and mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself.
Reply to this
1. 9/3/2007 4:47 PM Zeke13:19 wrote:
The criminal justice code that God gave is the best ever given. God’s criminal code is better than yours. You must first acknowledge this if you are to learn what is just and unjust.
Because I love God and my neighbor I want to make sure that all murderers, rapists, kidnappers and adulterers are given a swift and fair trial and upon conviction surely, swiftly, painfully and publicly executed.
That is loving my neighbor as myself.
You, on the other hand, seem to not care if your neighbor is raped, murdered, kidnapped or a victim of adultery. At least, you don’t care enough to want to see justice brought about for your neighbors and for your community so that these crimes don’t happen as often.
The apostle Paul, the author of Hebrews (probably Peter) and the apostle John all promoted the death penalty for capital criminals. You would know that if you had paid attention to what was in the article I gave you the link to.
Read it again to see all of the support for the death penalty AFTER Jesus died and rose and ascended.
Reply to this
2. 9/3/2007 4:49 PM Zeke13:19 wrote:
Hey! You never answered my question!
How is “die the death” any different from “be put to death”? Did Jesus misquote Himself when He quoted Ex 21:17 or what?
If you now concede that “die the death” = “be put to death” then just say so.
Reply to this
9/3/2007 4:17 PM Bethany wrote:
Zeke, what do you think that Jesus died on the cross for? I am genuinely curious as to what your thoughts are on that.
Reply to this
1. 9/3/2007 4:42 PM Zeke13:19 wrote:
Jesus died for the sins of the world. His death did NOT do away with the government’s responsibility to punish murderers, rapists, kidnappers and adulterers or other lesser criminals.
That’s what you believe right? You believe that Jesus’ death on the cross made it where government’s no longer have the responsibility that God gave them to protect the innocent by executing murderers. Correct?
You think that the dispensation of human government that Christ began in Genesis 9 is over, right? Jesus Christ gave this command to all of humanity and this is referred to as the beginning of the dispensation of human government.
(NKJV) Genesis 9:6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.
Notice that the government is to execute murderers because God made man in His image.
Also, after Jesus rose from the dead He told His Jewish disciples to teach men to obey ALL that He had commanded them (Matt 28:20). What did Jesus teach them during His 3 years on earth? He taught them to obey the Mosaic law (Matt 5:17-20; 23:23).
Reply to this
9/3/2007 4:55 PM Bethany wrote:
That’s what you believe right? You believe that Jesus’ death on the cross made it where government’s no longer have the responsibility that God gave them to protect the innocent by executing murderers. Correct?
No, actually I support the death penalty for murderers who have been proven to have murdered with malice aforethought.
But I don’t support it for other crimes, in which a life has not been taken or abused. I support punishments, some harsher than others, but not death. I do think there need to be stricter laws, especially conserning rape and pedophilia.
Zeke, do you keep the Sabbath? Do you deserve the death penalty for not keeping it? Do you still sacrifice a pure, unspotted lamb on the altar every year, to ensure that your sins are forgiven?
Are you careful not to eat Shellfish, or pork, for fear of breaking the law?
Are our works what brings us to Christ, in your opinion?
As for the “put to death”, “die the death” thing, yes, I concede that they mean the same thing, but within the context of what Jesus said I do not concede that Jesus was trying to tell them to execute more people. He was pointing out their hypocrisy in having traditions and pretending to serve God when really they were doing no such thing.
Reply to this
1. 9/3/2007 5:12 PM Zeke13:19 wrote:
Great! So, you concede that what you said before, that “die the death” is very different from “put to death” is wrong and that the two phrases mean exactly the same thing. That Jesus Christ was upholding the law that HE gave in Ex 21:17. Great.
I can tell that you have never really considered what the difference is between a SIN and a CRIME. I am promoting God’s criminal justice system for moral crimes. Working on Saturday is not morally wrong. Its not a matter of absolute morality. Murdering someone is absolutely wrong.
Get it?
When Paul says that its OK for someone to have a special day or to not have one where each day is alike in Romans 14, he is not talking about absolute morality. He could not have said that its OK if someone steals from some people or not.
Get it? Eating shellfish is not a moral matter.
I am a real Christian who has taken Paul’s statement about “rightly dividing the word of truth” to heart. I know how to rightly divide the bible based upon what God has revealed.
If you disagree with God and think that your punishment for adulterers, kidnappers and rapists is superior to His, on what basis do you make such a judgment?
This is the basic criminal code I want to see enforced.
http://shadowgov.com/Constitution/AmericasCriminalCode.html
Reply to this
9/3/2007 5:01 PM Bethany wrote:
Zeke, why did God save Paul, when he was a murderer?
Reply to this
1. 9/3/2007 5:18 PM Zeke13:19 wrote:
Paul thought he was doing God’s will by obeying his teachers and working to stop the spread of those in Israel who accepted Jesus Christ as their savior and king.
God had picked out Paul to have a special role in His plan for Israel while Paul was still in his mom (Gal 1:15). Paul was misguided, but when he encountered Jesus Christ he obeyed what Christ wanted him to do. Paul became the FIRST (protos) member of the Body of Christ (1 Tim 1:15).
Paul said that if he had committed anything worthy of death that he did not object to dying. Paul supported executing murderers and other capital criminals (1 Tim 1:8-11).
Acts 25:11 “For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar.”
Reply to this
9/3/2007 5:20 PM Bethany wrote:
1Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
2A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
3For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
4For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
6But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Reply to this
1. 9/3/2007 5:40 PM Zeke13:19 wrote:
This passage has nothing to do with enforcing God’s criminal code which is based upon absloute morality. Nothing in that passage says that it is somehow NOW allright to led rapists live in prison funded by taxpayers instead of being executed swiftly, painfully and publicly as God commanded be done in order to bring about justice.
Reply to this
9/3/2007 5:23 PM Bethany wrote:
Luke 16:16
The law and the prophets were until John [the Baptist]: since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached.
Romans 6:14
Ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Romans 7:4, 6
Ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ …. We are delivered from the law, that being dead.
Romans 10:4
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
2 Corinthians 3:14
But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ.
Galatians 3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law.
Galatians 3:24-25
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Galatians 5:18
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Ephesians 2:15
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.
Colossians 2:14
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances … nailing it to his cross.
Reply to this
1. 9/3/2007 5:44 PM Zeke13:19 wrote:
Those passages are about the relationship of those in the Body of Christ to the law. They have nothing to do with enforcing criminal justice which is the responsibility of the government.
Paul talks about this in some detail in Romans 13 which you failed to reference.
If someone who claims to be a member of the Body of Christ murders someone and is convicted of it in a fair trial, then that person is to be executed.
Or do you believe that someone who claims to be a member of Christ’s Body is not to be executed like any other convicted murderer? Are you going to argue that now?
Reply to this
9/3/2007 5:29 PM Bethany wrote:
14For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
19I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
20For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
21What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
22But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Reply to this
1. 9/3/2007 5:46 PM Zeke13:19 wrote:
Again, this is not about criminal justice. Its only about the relationship of those in the Body to the law.
If someone who claims to be a member of the Body rapes a woman they are to be tried and upon conviction executed like any other criminal.
Reply to this
9/3/2007 5:38 PM mk wrote:
Ahem, If I may Zeke…
Capital Punishment
2266 The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67]
2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
“If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
“Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ [68]
Reply to this
1. 9/3/2007 6:00 PM Zeke13:19 wrote:
This is the primary reason WHY I have next to no respect for the catholic church. This passage from their teaching is an excellent example of how they attempt to circumvent what God has explicitly commanded.
God never gives some other option for punishing capital criminals such as murderers or adulterers. Don’t take my word for it, read exactly what God says MUST be done in order for justice to be brought about. God doesn’t give bloodless options to satisfy the squeamish Catholic priests and women who hate God for commanding death for capital crimes.
Exodus 21:12 ” He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 21:16 ” He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 22:19 ” Whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 20:11 ‘The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death. Their blood [shall be] upon them.
Numbers 35:17 ‘And if he strikes him with a stone in the hand, by which one could die, and he does die, he [is] a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death.
Numbers 35:31,33 31 ‘Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who [is] guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death. 33 ‘So you shall not pollute the land where you [are;] for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it.
Putting a capital criminal in prison is “taking a ransom” because instead of executing the capital criminal you are taking taxpayer money to feed, cloth and shelter the criminal who should have been executed.
“And will you profane Me among My people…
killing people who should not die,
and keeping people alive who should not live…?”
Ezekiel 13:19
The Catholic church will definitely profane you God by keeping people alive who should not live.
The Catholic church is undeniably profane.
FYI – God’s criminal justice system results in FAR LESS murder, rape, adultery and kidnapping occuring than does the Vatican’s system which shows mercy to capital criminals and profanes God.
Reply to this
9/3/2007 6:11 PM mk wrote:
Ahhh, but Zeke as Bethany has pointed out you keep quoting from the Old Testament. The New and I might add, everlasting, covenant has different rules.
So you hate the Catholic Church…are you a Christian in any sense of the word? Or are you Jewish? Or Muslim? I’m just curious, because you don’t quote the New Testament, you hate the Catholic Church (which is the mother of whatever Christian Church you could possibly belong to) and your actions and tone say that you are anything but a Christian. So I’m curious…what faith do you adhere to?
Reply to this
1. 9/3/2007 7:42 PM Zeke13:19 wrote:
To prove some things about what God said about punishing capital criminals I have only referenced the Old Testament because that is where God first said it and the truth of God’s criminal code stands unless it can be shown that God no longer requires that murderers, rapists, kidnappers and adulterers be executed in order to bring about justice.
God made it clear that there were no other options other than execution for capital crimes. Prisons existed back when He gave those commands, but prisons are one of the most obviously unjust forms of punishment the world has ever seen and that fact is proved each day in the USA when a prisoner is released and rapes or murders again.
God CONFIRMED the goodness and justness of the law He gave in the Old Testament in the New Testament when Jesus Christ upheld the ENTIRE law including the punishment for capital crimes in Matthew 5:17-20 and Matthew 23:23. Then He told His disciples to go and teach men to obey what He taught them which was the law that He gave in the Old Testament. The only new command Jesus gave during His earthly ministry was “love one another as I have loved you”. That’s it.
If you will actually take a couple minutes to read and pay attention to what is in the article I linked to at the very beginning you will read a large amount of New Testament support for the death penalty and for the promotion of God’s moral criminal code. Here’s a few examples to show the New Testament support for the death penalty which is also a repudiation of the “Catholic” teaching that its OK to respond to capital crimes in some other way then by executing them.
Matthew 5:17-19
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets… Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great…”
Acts 25:11
“For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar.”
Romans 13:4
For [the governing authority] is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
Hebrews 10:28-29
Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies (present tense) without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot…
1 Timothy 1:8-10
But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless… and for sinners… for murderers… for sodomites, for kidnappers, for perjurers…
Reply to this
2. 9/3/2007 7:54 PM Zeke13:19 wrote:
I reference whatever I need to reference in order to support the specific claim I make. Sometimes I have to refer to what Jesus Christ said as recorded in the Old Testament and sometimes I have to refer to what He or the apostle Paul said in the New Testament. Its really not a difficult concept for the average person to grasp.
FYI – the Old Testament is still the inspired word of God and has some application to the present. You may want to relay this message to your friends and those you go to church with.
I am a Grace Believer. You can get a good, fairly detailed rundown of how I come to my beliefs and why my beliefs are better and more accurate than yours and others as a result by reading this article here http://www.biblicalanswers.com/book_12dispensations.htm
I only despise the Catholic church because it teaches people that God wants injustice rather than justice and that bringing about justice in your community would do more harm to people and their souls than letting injustice occur forever.
You yourself made the statement that if justice is brought about then more people will go to Hell. Where did you pick up such a vile belief!? It was from the Catholic church and those who claim that injustice leads to more souls being saved than does bringing about justice.
What does the bible say about that though? Paul commented on this specific topic in Galatians.
Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. Gal. 3:24-25
How is that so Bethany? How is it that the law is our tutor to bring us to Christ?
Reply to this
9/3/2007 6:24 PM mk wrote:
FYI – God’s criminal justice system results in FAR LESS murder, rape, adultery and kidnapping occuring than does the Vatican’s system which shows mercy to capital criminals and profanes God.
And far less hope for the salvation of sinners…
or do you have a corner on that market.
“Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins and save us from the fires of hell. Lead ALL souls to heaven, especially those who have MOST NEED of your mercy”
Mercy:
# Mercy is a term used to describe the leniency or compassion shown by one person to another, or a request from one person to another to be shown such leniency or compassion. One of the basic virtues of chivalry and Christian ethics, it is also related to concepts of justice and morality in behaviour between people.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercy
# Mercy is the act of not administering justice when that justice is punitive. Because of our sinfulness we deserve death and eternal separation from God (Rom. 6:23; Isaiah 59:2), but God provided an atonement for sin and through it shows us mercy. That is, He does not deliver to the Christian the natural consequence of his sin which is damnation. That is why Jesus became sin on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21) and bore the punishment due to us (Isaiah 5345). It was to deliver us from damnation. …
http://www.carm.org/dictionary/dic_l-o.htm
# Is withheld punishment for judgment, God’s mercy provides the need for sinful man in Jesus sacrifice.
http://www.calvarychapel.com/redbarn/terms.htm
# a virtue, is compassionate treatment, especially of those under one
Midnite, I’m glad you’re better. EESSHH. I hate to give advice, because nobody ever takes it. Anyway, I agree with Mary. I would turn the tables on him and say “How about if we just stay friends for now.” Tell him that you care about him, but stick to your guns. Don’t let him walk all over you, and tell him to go home for his naps.
I just utterly defeated Bethany and mk in a discussion/debate on Bethany’s blog. The schooling I gave them was delicious and they were greatly enlightened if they retained my responses to their questions.
Then she deleted all of the comments and disabled comments so no one could see it.
A friend of mine has a saying: The winner is the one promoting the debate.
Zeke, I’m sorry but last night I didn’t have a chance to explain. I showed your comments to my husband and he mentioned how it would probably deter people from my blog, having all of those negative and hateful posts on it. He was right, and I immediately saved then deleted the posts.
If you’ll notice, my blog isn’t a debate blog. It’s a “mommy blog”, a nice little place that I go to write about the things that I love. (hint, I don’t love death) I noticed that you chose to post these terrible things under a photo of my three children smiling on a bench.
I did invite you to question me again, but I did not know I would end up with 26 comments in less than an hour. My blog simply isn’t intended for that type of hate speech.
I would prefer to debate you here at Jill’s blog, if you don’t mind.
And I did save all of our conversation, so when I do have time (today I will be gone to the pregnancy crisis center and voice lessons), I will be sure to respond in full. Rest assured you didn’t “defeat” me, although, I don’t really know what you are trying to defeat me for anyway. What is it the Bible says about a “prideful look”, and a “haughty Spirit”… oh that’s right- they’re abominations. And pride cometh before a fall.
Ha, thanks Marykay, I’m glad you reposted that for me. :)
Good morning Bethany and MK!
Good morning, Heather! :)
Hey Heather!
Midnite, Alyssa…
MY BABIES CAME HOME!!!! I was missing you guys something awful last night…
Midnite,
I understand that you love your boyfriend. I really, really do…but.
You can only have a healthy, thriving relationship if both parties feel the same about each other. He may even love you in his own way, but is that enough?
What it really comes down to is what do you want out of a relationship? Me? I don’t need too much emotional stuff, and couldn’t care less if he ever hugged me in public. But I simply could not function if I thought my husband wasn’t listening to me. Other people might need, emotional support. Others might need intellectual stimulation. Others might need security. And still others might be happy if things are good in the bedroom…or they might need a combo of a couple of things. The bottom line is that you need something, and your boyfriend either “can’t” or “won’t” give it to you. He probably never will…sorry, but that’s the truth.
So now you have to ask yourself. How important is it that I get what I need out of this relationship? Can I be satisfied without it? Is it enough to settle for being “satisfied” or do I want to go for more…If he won’t change, can I still be happy in this relationship?
Am I staying with him because of fear…fear of lonliness, fear of rejection, fear of not meeting someone else, fear of feeling like a failure?
It is totally possible to feel two things at one time. That doesn’t mean that you are crazy. I mean you are crazy, but not because you have conflicting emotions. Loving him, but being unhappy with him are not mutually exclusive. You can change you. But you can’t change him…
Repeat that…You can change you. But you CAN’T change him.
Knowing that, are you willing to accept him the way he is, or will you continue to lie to yourself and believe that if only…then things will be different.
Personally, I think you could have your pick of guys. You say that you have a hard time trusting them, but this might be because you keep settling for guys that aren’t trustworthy. (And I know you don’t mean trust in the sense of “cheating” on you). If you can’t trust him to think of you and your needs then why are you still there? Take a cold shower, dump the leftover cold water over his head, and go…find a guy who thinks the sun rises and sets on you…find a guy who loves as intensely as you do. Find guy that doesn’t need to be “told” over and over what you need. Find a guy who gives you what you need without prompting because he’s the kind of guy that wants what you want…
Or ignore this and call me a busybody! I just hate to see my babies hurting!
You know that “I” love you…and you can always borrow my mullet to whack him with when you leave.(Then leave it under his bed…the smell will drive him crazy!)
AMEN to MK’s post, and also:
find a guy who thinks the sun rises and sets on you…find a guy who loves as intensely as you do.
This guy DOES exist, Midnite, I promise!
“In the end what?”
Hippie: In the end, those with courage and conviction will sacrifice and persevere till they make the world a better place in spite of the apathy around them. They will die trying, like ML King.
Okay, a worthy sentiment.
……
I don
Midnite –
I agree with Mary and MK. Read their words carefully.
I wish I had them in my life before my “boyfriend” put me in the hospital! It started with the mental abuse and took a couple years before it became physical abuse. I felt that if I didn’t have him I would be a nothing to society. I was terrified of loosing all of my friends, because they were his friends too. (I found out that they all wanted me to dump him and they dumped him right along with me – some of them knew him first.) I was afraid that I would never find love again – later I discovered that it was him that was giving me the idea that I wouldn’t love again. I was afraid I would be left alone, and that terrified me the most.
A wonderful song writer/singer came out with a CD around this time in my life. Tori Amos’ CD “Little Earthquakes”. It is about severe physical and psychological abuse as well as rape. Some of it is graphic. But it woke me up. I realized I didn’t want to be there. I didn’t want to be put in the situation that the song “Me and aGgun” is about. I didn’t want to be “Silent All These Years”. And the Lord knows that no one wants to be the “Happy Phantom”. The most powerful song is “Crucify” – it asks the important question that you should be asking yourself right now.
If you haven’t heard any of these songs before, I strongly recommend it. Tori Amos was raised in a very religious household ( I think her father was a preacher) so there is alot of religion in it. But it is not preachy, most of it is her questioning God.
This is the only CD of hers that I liked. She has many more but the didn’t speak to me the way this one did.
Midnite,
Looks like you’re getting some good advice here, from what I’ve seen.
I’m a 48 year old guy, but have been “where you’re at” a few times. Well, really only once, but it was a doozy.
Both people have to be able to communicate with the other, and should want to.
Easy for me to say, now, and it’s always easier to look at other peoples’ relationships and make pronoucements about them, but I strongly feel that both people have to want to hear the other person and have to care about what the other feels, if the relationship is to be good.
Good luck.
Doug
Valerie,
I used to love Tori Amos, but if you read some of her lyrics she seems very anti-Christian, and unfortunately she donates money to PP. However, “Little Earthquakes” is probably the best one yet, and true, very powerful, it gives you the kick in the rear end that you need.
TORI AMOS LYRICS
“Crucify”
Every finger in the room
is pointing at me
I wanna spit in their faces
Then I get afraid of what that could bring
I got a bowling ball in my stomach
I got a desert in my mouth
Figures that my courage would choose to sell our now
I’ve been looking for a savior in these dirty streets
looking for a savior beneath these dirty sheets
I’ve been raising up my hands
Drive another nail in
Just what God needs
One more victim
[Chorus:]
Why do we
Crucify ourselves
Every day
I crucify myself
Nothing I do is good enough for you
Crucify myself
Every day
And my heart is sick of being in chains
Got a kick for a dog
Beggin’ for Love
I gotta have my suffering
So that I can have my cross
I know a cat named Easter
He says will you ever learn
You’re just an empty cage girl
If you kill the bird
I’ve been looking for a savior in these dirty streets
looking for a savior beneath these dirty sheets
I’ve been raising up my hands
Drive another nail in
Got enough guilt to start
my own religion
Please be
Save me
I cry
[Chorus:]
Why do we
Crucify ourselves
Every day
I crucify myself
Nothing I do is good enough for you
Crucify myself
Every day
And my heart is sick of being in chains
TORI AMOS LYRICS
“Silent All These Years”
Excuse me but can I be you for a while
My dog won’t bite if you sit real still
I got the anti-Christ in the kitchen yellin’ at me again
Yeah I can hear that
Been saved again by the garbage truck
I got something to say you know
But nothing comes
Yes I know what you think of me
You never shut-up
Yeah I can hear that
But what if I’m a mermaid
In these jeans of his
With her name still on it
Hey but I don’t care
Cause sometimes
I said sometimes
I hear my voice
And it’s been here
Silent All These Years
So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thougts
What’s so amazing about really deep thoughts
Boy you best praya that I bleed real soon
How’s that thought for you
My scream got lost in a paper cup
You think there’s a heaven
Where some screams have gone
I got 25 bucks and a cracker
Do you think it’s enough
To get us there
Cause what if I’m a mermaid
In these jeans of his
With her name still on it
Hey but I don’t care
Cause sometimes
I said sometimes
I hear my voice
And it’s been here
Silent All These…
Years go by
Will I still be waiting
For somebody else to understand
Years go by
If I’m stripped of my beauty
And the orange clouds
Raining in head
Years go by
Will I choke on my tears
Till finally there is nothing left
One more casualty
You know we’re too easy Easy Easy
Well I love the way we communicate
Your eyes focus on my funny lip shape
Let’s hear what you think of me now
But baby don’t look up
The sky is falling
Your mother shows up in a nasty dress
It’s your turn now to stand where I stand
Everybody lookin’ at you here
Take hold of my hand
Yeah I can hear them
But what if I’m a mermaid
In these jeans of his
With her name still on it
Hey but I don’t care
Cause sometimes
I said sometimes
I hear my voice [x3]
And it’s been here
Silent All These Years
I’ve been here
Silent All These Years
Valerie,
What a harrowing story. It sounds like my very first boyfriend when I was in high school. A total controller who did nothing but denigrate me while trying to turn me into his little Barbie doll. I found out later he even went to a close male friend of mine behind my back and ordered him to stay away. Being so young, naive, and immature, I accepted his insults as truth. Thank God he moved, because I have no doubt he had the potential for physical abuse and I know he would have stalked me had I tried to end things. These people truly have the potential to be very dangerous, as you so tragically learned.
Midnite,
Mental abuse is a start, as Valerie points out, and even alone, mental abuse can be as cruel or even more cruel than physical abuse.
I could give you another account about my involvemnt with someone like that but I won’t bore you. I wasn’t kidding when I said I had some experience to back me up! Anyway Midnite, please know that advise and support from posters on this blog comes from people who love and care about you and see all too well what is being done to you.
Rosie –
Thanks for posting the lyrics. I debated on whether or not to do that. Re-reading them, I’m glad you did.
I do think that one of the reasons “Little Earthquakes” is her best is because of the emotion in her voice. You can hear and feel her pain and confusion. It’s amazing. Not that many singers can do that.
Last I read, she is anti-Christian. But if you really read her lyrics, She definatly questions her faith which to me is a good sign that she is at least still thinking about it. Who knows what her final answer will be. I guessed she donated to planned parenthood – Almost everyone in the entertainment business does.
Doug,
When I see apathy toward the rights of the unborn, I wonder if people just deny them their rights because it is easier. I mean if they don
WTF!!??
There was no “hate speech” in any of my comments Bethany and you know it! Just because I answered ALL of your detailed questions taht you asked and backed up each answer with Scripture that does not qualify it as “hate speech”. Just because you lost the debate and feel bad or humiliated about it does not make what I said “hate speech”.
A wise friend of mine once said “truth is hate to those who hate the truth”.
I shared all of that Scripture (truth) to prove my points and you refer to it as “hate”.
If anyone is hateful in a negative way, its you for calling Scripture “hate speech”.
Here’s some more hate speech for ya.
“And will you profane Me among My people…
killing people who should not die,
and keeping people alive who should not live…?”
Ezekiel 13:19
“Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying… `He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say…” Matthew 15:3-4
FYI – Matthew is one of the four gospels found in the New Testament for anyone who claims that the Old Testament is completely worthless and unprofitable for those alive today. Bethany and mk made that claim yesterday, so yeah, I am saying this with you two in mind.
Zeke,
FYI – the Old Testament is still the inspired word of God and has some application to the present. You may want to relay this message to your friends and those you go to church with.
Oh my Gosh! You were so right! I called the Pope and he agrees. Zeke had the answers all along…and to think of all those billions and billions of misled Catholics. Benedict told me that tomorrow morning he is declaring the Catholic Church null and void, and requesting all Catholics to immediately join the Church of Zeke…(who will be proclaimed it leader)…Thank you Zeke. You win!!!! Amen. Hallelujah!!!!
Now will you go away?
Hippie,
“with certain inalienable rights, among them life…”
*
Specifically that the right cannot be separated from the human being.
*
That is what they, said and I intend to hold them to it. That is the government that I support.
Posted by: hippie at September 4, 2007 5:32 PM
HEAR, HEAR!!!! (insert one of bethany’s emoticons applauding!)
“all men are created equal”
Hippie: It may have been a long time ago, but these men weren
Doug –
“That didn’t come up. Abortion to a point in gestation was legal before, during the writing, and after, too. They meant “men,” as they said, and in practice only white, male landowners. Women didn’t get to vote, slaves didn’t get right-to-life, etc.”
Hmmm….so it was legal to have human slaves? It was legal to forbid women to vote? How dare they change what is legal. As you know – “It’s not murder becasue it is legal” is the mantra of the Pro-Choice movement. Therefore why did they change their laws?
It’s not oppression because it is legal to own slaves. It’s not persecution to forbid women to vote because it’s legal.
I wonder how many times those words were uttered? I wonder how many people believed them back then? If it wasn’t for the people who stood up for morality and the good of society, we would still have slaves. Women would still be unable to have a voice. However, people like Jill demanded that the truth be told. People like Jill stood up against the machine of government and told them that they were wrong. and guess what? There are no longer slaves. Woman can vote.
BTW – I would like to see some information on abortion “to a point” being legal at the time of the constitution. All the research I have done on mid-wifery for the book I am writing has said otherwise.
“That didn’t come up. Abortion to a point in gestation was legal before, during the writing, and after, too. They meant “men,” as they said, and in practice only white, male landowners. Women didn’t get to vote, slaves didn’t get right-to-life, etc.”
Valerie: Hmmm….so it was legal to have human slaves? It was legal to forbid women to vote? How dare they change what is legal. As you know – “It’s not murder becasue it is legal” is the mantra of the Pro-Choice movement. Therefore why did they change their laws?
It was a different “they” with different desires. That’s why slavery ended in this country. (Although I think somebody should let my boss know about that development.)
……..
It’s not oppression because it is legal to own slaves. It’s not persecution to forbid women to vote because it’s legal.
You know how most people feel about it now. The Founding Fathers felt differently. My point was that in no way were they talkin’ ’bout “everybody” let alone the unborn.
…….
I wonder how many times those words were uttered? I wonder how many people believed them back then? If it wasn’t for the people who stood up for morality and the good of society, we would still have slaves. Women would still be unable to have a voice. However, people like Jill demanded that the truth be told. People like Jill stood up against the machine of government and told them that they were wrong. and guess what? There are no longer slaves. Woman can vote.
Sure – there was sufficient opinion for those changes to take place.
…..
BTW – I would like to see some information on abortion “to a point” being legal at the time of the constitution. All the research I have done on mid-wifery for the book I am writing has said otherwise.
English common law, which was in the US until specific abortion laws started appearing around 1820 (?) held that abortion was okay to “quickening,” when the fetus became “quick” or started moving around. From the text of the Roe decision: (sorry about all the capital letters…) And watch out – male embryos were supposed to be animated earlier than females – they had to wait until they got to put their Fetus pins on…
IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT AT COMMON LAW, ABORTION PERFORMED BEFORE “QUICKENING”– THE FIRST RECOGNIZABLE MOVEMENT OF THE FETUS IN UTERO, APPEARING USUALLY FROM THE 16TH TO THE 18TH WEEK OF PREGNANCY — WAS NOT AN INDICTABLE OFFENSE. THE ABSENCE OF A COMMON-LAW CRIME FOR PRE-QUICKENING ABORTION APPEARS TO HAVE DEVELOPED FROM A CONFLUENCE OF EARLIER PHILOSOPHICAL, THEOLOGICAL, AND CIVIL AND CANON LAW CONCEPTS OF WHEN LIFE BEGINS. THESE DISCIPLINES VARIOUSLY APPROACHED THE QUESTION IN TERMS OF THE POINT AT WHICH THE EMBRYO OR FETUS BECAME “FORMED” OR RECOGNIZABLY HUMAN, OR IN TERMS OF WHEN A “PERSON” CAME INTO BEING, THAT IS, INFUSED WITH A “SOUL” OR “ANIMATED.” A LOOSE CONSENSUS EVOLVED IN EARLY ENGLISH LAW THAT THESE EVENTS OCCURRED AT SOME POINT BETWEEN CONCEPTION AND LIVE BIRTH.
THIS WAS “MEDIATE ANIMATION.” ALTHOUGH CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY AND THE CANON LAW CAME TO FIX THE POINT OF ANIMATION AT 40 DAYS FOR A MALE AND 80 DAYS FOR A FEMALE, A VIEW THAT PERSISTED UNTIL THE 19TH CENTURY, THERE WAS OTHERWISE LITTLE AGREEMENT ABOUT THE PRECISE TIME OF FORMATION OR ANIMATION. THERE WAS AGREEMENT, HOWEVER, THAT PRIOR TO THIS POINT THE FETUS WAS TO BE REGARDED AS PART OF THE MOTHER, AND ITS DESTRUCTION, THEREFORE, WAS NOT HOMICIDE. DUE TO CONTINUED UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE
PRECISE TIME WHEN ANIMATION OCCURRED, TO THE LACK OF ANY EMPIRICAL BASIS FOR THE 40-80-DAY VIEW, AND PERHAPS TO AQUINAS’ DEFINITION OF MOVEMENT AS ONE OF THE TWO FIRST PRINCIPLES OF LIFE, BRACTON FOCUSED UPON QUICKENING AS THE CRITICAL POINT. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF QUICKENING WAS ECHOED BY LATER COMMON-LAW SCHOLARS AND FOUND ITS WAY INTO THE RECEIVED COMMON LAW IN THIS COUNTRY.
WHETHER ABORTION OF A QUICK FETUS WAS A FELONY AT COMMON LAW, OR EVEN A LESSER CRIME, IS STILL DISPUTED. BRACTON, WRITING EARLY IN THE 13TH CENTURY, THOUGHT IT HOMICIDE. BUT THE LATER AND PREDOMINANT VIEW, FOLLOWING THE GREAT COMMON-LAW SCHOLARS, HAS BEEN THAT IT WAS, AT MOST, A LESSER OFFENSE. IN A FREQUENTLY CITED PASSAGE, COKE TOOK THE POSITION THAT ABORTION OF A WOMAN “QUICK WITH CHILDE” IS “A GREAT MISPRISION, AND NO MURDER.” BLACKSTONE FOLLOWED, SAYING THAT WHILE ABORTION AFTER QUICKENING HAD ONCE BEEN CONSIDERED MANSLAUGHTER (THOUGH NOT MURDER), “MODERN LAW” TOOK A LESS SEVERE VIEW. A RECENT REVIEW OF THE COMMON-LAW PRECEDENTS ARGUES, HOWEVER, THAT THOSE PRECEDENTS CONTRADICT COKE AND THAT EVEN POST-QUICKENING ABORTION WAS NEVER ESTABLISHED AS A COMMON-LAW CRIME.
Doug,
this is only because they didn’t have the technology back then to know when life actually starts. We know now that life starts at conception. Science is in our favor.
Hey mk
All of your actions shout that I came out on top in that discussion.
Bethany even conceded that when Jesus said “die the death” in Matt 15 when quoting what He said in Ex 21:17 that that phrase is equal to “be put to death”.
So, yes, I did win. There is TONS of New Testament support for the death penalty. God has made it clear over and over again that prisons are NOT just punishemtns for capital crimes (despite what the catechism claims). And it still profanes God and pollutes the land when murderers are kept allowed to live.
Buh bye
Doug –
Did I read what you wrote correctly? That was in the Rowe decision? I have to look that up. All the mid-wife history books say that the quickening was when Life was felt, but by no means meant that is when life began. But this may be the difference between the thought process’ of the mid-wives and the politians/philosophers. Actually, I never thought to go beyond the mid-wife history. Thanks for the info on this……..
Okay – so I went from making a point to history student nerd! So now ya know!
Jasper,
Good point. Wasn’t this also the era when epilepsy was thought to be caused by demonic possession?
“Good point. Wasn’t this also the era when epilepsy was thought to be caused by demonic possession?”
huh, thats interesting Mary, then my son would’ve been demonic… LOL
Jasper,
Just another example, in addition to yours, of the ignorance and lack of scientific knowledge of that era.
Zeke, poor Zeke,
I already told you you won. It’s clear to everyone here. Me, Val, Bethany, the pro choicers and Pope Benedict XVI…we give already. Uncle. You’re the best and the smartest and you know how to cut and paste scripture…your medal is in the mail…I bow to your expertise. No one is questioning this. You are number one.
See ya.
When I was a teenager, we had a bull named “Zeke.” He was a beef breed, which usually means the bulls aren’t as mean and dangerous as dairy-breed bulls.
Zeke was only about 2/3 grown too, which helped.
You could grab him by the ears, and he’d shake his head back and forth, trying to get rid of you. He wouldn’t back away or charge you, just mess around with you that way.
I don’t think he was truly “playing” and maybe he didn’t like it all that much, but we did it a lot.
You had to really hold on, and if you were little you’d go off the ground at times.
Doug
Did I read what you wrote correctly? That was in the Rowe decision? I have to look that up. All the mid-wife history books say that the quickening was when Life was felt, but by no means meant that is when life began. But this may be the difference between the thought process’ of the mid-wives and the politians/philosophers. Actually, I never thought to go beyond the mid-wife history. Thanks for the info on this……..
Okay – so I went from making a point to history student nerd! So now ya know!
Valerie, yes – and I don’t know what the thinking was back then about “when life began.”
But as far as about abortion being legal to “quickening” in 1776 or 1789 (when the Constitution was written – I think) there’s no doubt about it.
Jasper – I agree that way back when they didn’t know what we know now about conception. Yet in 1973 they knew that “human” and “alive” and “organism” etc. applied, so I don’t know what sure difference science now makes.
Doug
Counting down my favorite biblical quotes:
# 2:
Deuteronomy 23:1
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
That always cracked me up.
And the # 1 biblical quote: (drumroll….)
Proverbs 31:6-7
Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.
Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.
Now THAT’S what I’m talkin’ about.
Doug
WTF!!??
There was no “hate speech” in any of my comments Bethany and you know it!
Here, look at it this way. I don’t know how you personally feel about the Phelps family. Maybe you haven’t heard of them before, but if you have, it’s sort of similar.
The thing that I have a problem with is not the Scripture, but the way you get your message across, and the way you use Scripture.
You could have a debate with Fred Phelps and never, ever win, because he “knows” the Bible, he “knows” God “hates” everyone who is a sinner, and he “knows” that God “hates” America. You couldn’t show him the Bible verses that prove that God loved the world so much He sent His Son to DIE for the world, to prove to Him that God loves sinners. Oh no, God doesn’t love them, He claims…says so right here in this verse taken out of context! He and his family stand outside picketing with signs that say “God hates fags” all day long. I completely am opposed to homosexuality because I know it is wrong, but to say God hates these people is absolutely wrong. I agree that he hates the SIN but I do not think it is Biblical to say he hates the sinners themselves. But you couldn’t convince Fred Phelps (leader) of that, regardless of how much of the bible you showed him…why? Because he only believes the bits and pieces he wants to believe, and only in the way he wants to receive them.
When you send people a message of hate, and not love, it is very difficult for people to see Christ in you. Perhaps He is in you, but it is very hard for me to detect. If you came across a little more polite, more respectful, a little more humble, I’d be more than willing to hear your viewpoints, but you come across as “I’m smarter than you. I know all and you know nothing.”
With that type of attitude, you definitely will not attract people who support you and what you believe.
Just because I answered ALL of your detailed questions that you asked and backed up each answer with Scripture that does not qualify it as “hate speech”. Just because you lost the debate and feel bad or humiliated about it does not make what I said “hate speech”.
No I didn’t “lose” the debate- this isn’t about who’s wittier or who’s smarter….as I said, I will be responding to these, but it will take a while so bear with me.
A wise friend of mine once said “truth is hate to those who hate the truth”.
I shared all of that Scripture (truth) to prove my points and you refer to it as “hate”.
I definitely do not hate the Scripture. I believe it is 100 percent God inspired, God breathed.
If anyone is hateful in a negative way, its you for calling Scripture “hate speech”.
Here’s some more hate speech for ya.
“And will you profane Me among My people…
killing people who should not die,
and keeping people alive who should not live…?”
Ezekiel 13:19
See, there you go, distorting what *I* said. What I actually said was that your words are hateful and spiteful.
I love the Bible.
“Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying… `He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say…” Matthew 15:3-4
Entire context please….why not post it here, so we can see what Jesus actual point was in this chapter?
On quickening, Doug said: “English common law, which was in the US until specific abortion laws started appearing around 1820 (?) held that abortion was okay to ‘quickening.'”
No, it did not say that. It said abortion was illegal at quickening, which was their only medical determination at that time of pregnancy.
Please refer to my June 20 post:
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/06/us_abortion_his.html
Thanks Jill!
I knew something wasn’t adding up, I just could figure out what……
“On quickening, Doug said: “English common law, which was in the US until specific abortion laws started appearing around 1820 (?) held that abortion was okay to ‘quickening.'”
No, it did not say that. It said abortion was illegal at quickening, which was their only medical determination at that time of pregnancy.
Please refer to my June 20 post:
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/06/us_abortion_his.html
Jill, hard for me to imagine we actually have any argument here. I am saying common law had abortion okay to quickening. For abortion to be “illegal at quickening” isn’t at odds with that.
Quickening was where the line was drawn.
Doug
Doug, there is a big difference between what we are saying.
You are saying abortion was legal to quickening.
I am saying abortion was illegal at quickening because medicine did not know a mother was pregnant before that time. It made illegal what it knew to be true. It could not make illegal what it did not know.