Vatican: abortion = terrorism

From Reuters, April 23:

The Vatican's second-highest ranking doctrinal official on Monday forcefully... denounced abortion and euthanasia as forms of "terrorism with a human face"....

In an address to chaplains, [Archbishop Angelo] Amato said newspapers and television bulletins often seemed like "a perverse film about evil." He denounced "evils that remain almost invisible" because the media presented them as "expression of human progress."

He listed these as abortion clinics, which he called "slaughterhouses of human beings," [and] euthanasia....

head2.jpg

After denouncing "abominable terrorism" such as that carried out by suicide bombers, he condemned what he called "terrorism with a human face," and accused the media of manipulating language "to hide the tragic reality of the facts."

"For example, abortion is called 'voluntary interruption of pregnancy' and not the killing of a defenseless human being, an abortion clinic is given a harmless, even attractive, name: 'centre for reproductive health' and euthanasia is blandly called 'death with dignity'," he said in his address....


Comments:

Jill~

If you and Bethany dont knock it off with the pictures, Im going to have to stop eating before getting online...

Do you know if that baby was killed thru abortion, and if so, how long gestated? It is remarkable and disgusting that something so profoundly human can be killed for no reason. As MK said, where was my brain?

Posted by: SamanthaT at April 25, 2007 1:54 PM


Yes, Samantha, that is a photo of an aborted baby. Due to the hair, I can tell s/he's late term, but that's about all. It's one of the photos most often used at pickets. It helped change my mind about the use of graphic photos.

I used to be skittish about them, but at one picket I was standing next to someone holding that photo and I began to stare at the baby. Up close, 3'x5', you can see how beautiful his face was, and his hair. I imagined how his/her hair should smell like baby lotion. I realized this was his/her only baby photo and became ashamed that I was embarrassed to show it to the world. If I didn't, s/he died in vain. From then on, I've held graphic photos at pickets.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 2:12 PM


Samantha T.,you always had your brain.[and a darn great one at that] You were just standing on the wrong side of the tracks. Don't feel so bad. I used to straddle them myself.What were WE thinking??

Posted by: Heather4life at April 25, 2007 2:24 PM


Oh that picture. How awful that the poor soul had to suffer an agonizing demise. The pictures are a great thing, even though they are painful to view. If not for the pics., I never would never have seen the grim reality of abortion.I sit here and hold my newborn daughter. Her skull is just as big as the pictured baby. If this baby's mother had given him a chance,either she or a loving adoptive mother could be loving him too.

Posted by: Heather4life at April 25, 2007 2:32 PM


Jill,

Is that the pope in the picture??

This is about as lazy as His Man cutting and pasting scripture.

Posted by: Cameron at April 25, 2007 2:41 PM


Cameron, I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce.

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 2:54 PM


The Pope?? I'm afraid you've lost me on that one Cameron.

Posted by: Mary at April 25, 2007 2:58 PM


My bad mary!

not the pope.. the "second highest" vatican official.

Posted by: Cameron at April 25, 2007 3:03 PM


That picture makes me sad :(

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 3:12 PM


Cameron,

Let me break this to you gently, you're not making any sense.

Posted by: Mary at April 25, 2007 3:13 PM


"Cameron, I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce."

You should probably avoid battles of wit, unless they allow you to bring actual weapons.

Posted by: Cameron at April 25, 2007 3:14 PM


Cameron, please stop using cutting, below-the-belt, petty insults! You are not doing the pro-choice any good by such. We are trying to maintain credibility on a pro-life site, and you are NOT helping! You are not helping us, and you are not hurting them. You are just making yourself and other pro-choicers look like a group of thirteen-year-olds who just throw insults at one another.

Take your immaturity elsewhere. Others of us are trying to have a real discussion. Thank you.

Posted by: Leah at April 25, 2007 3:16 PM


"Let me break this to you gently, you're not making any sense."

Well... it's not that big a deal, so don't hurt yourself trying.

Posted by: Cameron at April 25, 2007 3:17 PM


Cameron, how old are you?

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 3:20 PM


Thank you Leah. Cameron,are you being serious? I really doubt it. I think you are doing this on purpose.

Posted by: Heather4life at April 25, 2007 3:22 PM


"Others of us are trying to have a real discussion."

Yes, we were discussing the picture. I asked if it had something to do with the adjacent cut-n-paste.

Posted by: Cameron at April 25, 2007 3:23 PM


Hint: The post is about abortion.


Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 3:25 PM


Leah, thank you!

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 3:25 PM


"Cameron, how old are you?"

Again, you're clearly not cut out for insults, so if you have nothing else to contribute here....

Posted by: Cameron at April 25, 2007 3:26 PM


That is a cut and pasted picture?

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 3:27 PM


"Cameron, how old are you?"
Again, you're clearly not cut out for insults, so if you have nothing else to contribute here...

Cameron, I wasn't insulting you. I honestly want to know. How old are you?

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 3:28 PM


Yes, you were indeed. By the adjacent picture, do you mean the one of the aborted fetus? Were you not comparing it to the Pope? Perhaps I have misunderstood something, but that doesn't mean that there haven't been many other times when you've had nothing to say but petty insults. I seem to remember something about Jill painting her face with the blood of an aborted fetus ...

Come on. That was disgusting and humorless and disrespectful. Imagine a pro-lifer coming to a pro-choice site and doing the same. To me, the pro-life side would lose a lot of credibility in my eyes.

Try saying something constructive, please. The pro-choicers here are trying to maintain an image.

Posted by: Leah at April 25, 2007 3:29 PM


Cameron,

I rest my case.


Leah,

Amen to that!!

Posted by: Mary at April 25, 2007 3:30 PM


Cameron, How is asking someone their age being insulting? We are NOT here to discuss YOU Cameron. If you want to goof off, you should go to another blog. Hey,go put your 2 cents in on the Rosie/Trump fight......Many blogs for that.

Posted by: Heather4life at April 25, 2007 3:31 PM


"Cameron, I wasn't insulting you...."

"I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce."

It's a little hard to taking asking my age seriously given precedence. My age shouldn't really be of any interest to you beyond the fact that I'm not a kid.

Posted by: Cameron at April 25, 2007 3:34 PM


Oh come now, Cameron, you were the first one to insult in the thread. I was only returning the favor. So how old are you? I'm 26.

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 3:39 PM


According to Andrew Sullivan, "Archbishop Angelo Amato ... directly equated suicide bombing with civil unions or civil marriage for gay couples. Yes: the human desire to seek out one other person and commit to him or her for a lifetime is† "terrorism with a human face" and "equally repugnant" as the acts of al Qaeda. "

What a weird, bigotted old man. And what a weird, bigotted organization the Catholic Church is.

Posted by: SoMG at April 25, 2007 3:41 PM


SoMg, you and Cameron really take the athiest cake today!

Posted by: Heather4life at April 25, 2007 3:44 PM


I don't know where you've been Leah, but by any unit of metric, the pro-lifers here have far exceeded my own capacity for juvenile antics. For an example, scroll through yesterday's T-shirt discussion. Pick any discussion from any day for that matter.

Despite a constant barrage of insults, I usually keep it mature, unless it's exceedingly funny... e.g. the too-close-to-home image of Jill charging clinic with bloody fetus in hand.

Today, I have started by criticizing Jill's cut-n-paste, and the useless picture which doesn't really advance the cut-n-past except in the very broadest sense.... unless of course, that picture is the Vaticanís second-highest ranking official.

Does anyone want to actually defend Jillís post today, or you all just going to be a bunch of weasels and pick on lilí olí me for lack of any merit in her blog??

Posted by: Cameron at April 25, 2007 3:51 PM


You all know how I feel about gay marriage...and although I try to understand all of your positions I find it difficult to relate to a comparison of homosexuality and terrorist attacks..

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 3:52 PM


Why does Jill need any defending?

Posted by: Heather4life at April 25, 2007 3:52 PM


But SOMG had something constructive to say, eh?

I also have a problem with the Catholic Church as an organization, though I see nothing wrong with Catholicism in itself. I could expand ... but I am horribly, horribly dirty and in need of a shower.

Don't go away! I am rarely present in the midst of a debate ... being in France at the mo' and whatnot.

A tout de suite! Je reviens.

Posted by: Leah at April 25, 2007 3:53 PM


Cameron,Again I don't follow you. Besides, you have been one of the MOST insulting men on this board. Was it not you that called me gestator of 3?

Posted by: Heather4life at April 25, 2007 3:55 PM


"unless it's exceedingly funny... e.g. the too-close-to-home image of Jill charging clinic with bloody fetus in hand"

That is not funny. That is disgusting. What a horrible thing to say to ANYONE--abortion arguments aside! For heaven's sake, get a grip on yourself!

Shower. Going. Now.

Posted by: Leah at April 25, 2007 3:56 PM


Speaking of manipulating language to hide the tragic reality of the facts...

Is abortion really done to in order to coarce or intimidate for political ends??

Posted by: Cameron at April 25, 2007 4:00 PM


Bethany,

"Cameron, I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce."

I wish I'd said that!

:)

MK

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 4:04 PM


PIP,

That is a cut and pasted picture?

Actually it's more of a "cut and paste" abortion.

Without the paste.

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 4:06 PM


Bethany,

"Cameron, how old are you?"

Again, you're clearly not cut out for insults, so if you have nothing else to contribute here....


Bethany he never answers you because he can't count that high.

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 4:07 PM


Ugh. That picture is so sick.

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 4:12 PM


Leah,

"That is not funny. That is disgusting. What a horrible thing to say to ANYONE--abortion arguments aside! For heaven's sake, get a grip on yourself!"

If I recall, it [charging/ululating Jill] elicited a fair number of "LOL" "ROFLMAO" and "YOMANKS" from the pro-choice camp.... as opposed to His Man calling me a fart or whatever. See... thereís funny/ribbing... then thereís juvenile insulting. Somehow, I still manage to mostly pursue a discussion though.

Leah, I think youíre confusing your interest in maintaining appearances here with humorous merit. I can appreciate that you donít want to provide them with any fodder of any sort, but I think theyíre going to tenuously demonize all that oppose them anyhow, and the absence of my glibber comments arenít going to change that.

So... does anyone want to talk about the inherent blatant hypocrisy of accusing the media of "manipulating the language" while comparing abortion to terrorism???

Posted by: Cameron at April 25, 2007 4:14 PM


Hey all!

I found another pictures of Archbishop Angelo...

http://sibbyonline.blogs.com/sibbyonline/images/abortion2201.jpeg

Posted by: Cameron at April 25, 2007 4:25 PM


Ohhh... wait a minute...

http://www.30giorni.it/foto/1086278242735.jpg

Posted by: Cameron at April 25, 2007 4:28 PM


According to Andrew Sullivan, "Archbishop Angelo Amato ... directly equated suicide bombing with civil unions or civil marriage for gay couples. Yes: the human desire to seek out one other person and commit to him or her for a lifetime is "terrorism with a human face" and "equally repugnant" as the acts of al Qaeda. "


After denouncing "abominable terrorism" such as that carried out by suicide bombers, he condemned what he called "terrorism with a human face", and accused the media of manipulating language "to hide the tragic reality of the facts".

They must know you SOMG. Considering how well you manipulated the archbishops words to hide the tragic reality of the facts.

Where exactly does he compare gay marriage to suicide bombers?


And speaking of " weird, bigoted old men."...

No. I won't stoop as low as you...my back couldn't take it!

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 4:28 PM


Funny, I don't recall any such reactions, Cameron. Must have slipped my mind ... or something.

Anyhow, terrorism:

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government

Anyone think abortion fits into these categories? (source: dictionary.reference.com)

Posted by: Leah at April 25, 2007 4:31 PM


Leah,

If you are looking at it from the babys point of view, then yes. I see all of those points.

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Politicians proclaiming to be pro choice to get votes.

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

I know I would be terrorized if I saw a vacuum cleaner hose comin' at me...with the intention of sucking me through it.

3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government

Re Roe vs Wade, the government has sanctioned these murders, so I would say that to a baby about to be aborted the government would be considered terroristic.

I think this was the archbishops point. That from a "seconds away from being aborted babies" viewpoint, abortion is terrorism.

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 4:38 PM


Hi Jill,

Thank-you for showing what abortion looks like.

America will not reject abortion until it see's abortion.

Posted by: jasper at April 25, 2007 4:41 PM


Thank God I left the Catholic church when I did: if I hadn't, this would have been the final straw. I can't believe someone would be so ignorant as to compare abortion with euthanasia. Frankly, I would loath to be hooked up to tubes, and if I had such brain damage as my mind no longer functioned, I would want to die. I would bless the person who pulled the plugs or otherwise gave me that mercy. I do not understand why this cannot be my choice. If I chose to die, why not let me?

As for homosexuality, well. There is no good secular reason to not allow homosexual marriage. As I firmly believe religion should be completely extinguished from government, homosexual marriage ought to be allowed. It is, however, this poor, backwards, man's right to think that homosexuality is evil. It's a pity, however, that he manages to make his entire organization look like bigots by his remarks.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 4:48 PM


MK, the "baby" doesn't has a viewpoint, as it is not developed enough, in most cases, to have the brain capacity to even understand the concept. Fetuses cannot be frightened, as they are not developed enough. Therefore it follows that fetuses cannot be the object of terrorism.

Jasper, I've seen all these pictures and more, and seen the "documentories." Guess what? I'm still pro-choice.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 4:51 PM


I don't think abortion is terrorism, but neither do I think pro-life people hate women. If the first is a careless use of language by pro-life advocates, the second is a disingenuous use of language by pro-choice advocates. Talk of hypocrisy can be almost unbelievably cheap.

I think abortion -- or at least, its guarded practice and calculated advocacy -- is quite the opposite of terrorism. It's intended not to shock, but to avoid shock at all costs. It hopes to engender complacency, not a fight/flight reaction. It's calculated not to intimidate, but to opiate any potential outrage concerning what it is and who it victimizes.

But between terrorism per se and abortion there's always the matter of comparative body counts . . .

Posted by: rasqual Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 4:51 PM


"1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."

Like bombing abortion clinics and murdering abortion doctors???

"2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization."

Like telling a woman she should die and go to hell if she uses birth control pills??

etc....

Give up MK. Archbishop's comments, and your defense of them, in no uncertain terms, are hyperbole.

Posted by: Cameron at April 25, 2007 4:56 PM


"There is no good secular reason to not allow homosexual marriage"

That could be true -- but making such a certain claim implies pretty profound knowledge of all potential consequences of allowing homosexual marriage.

What I want to know is why marriage has to be between "sexuals" at all. Why can't a couple dorm roomies get married?

Can anyone here make an argument (as secular as you wish) against utterly platonic marriage between three consenting adults who wish to take advantage of the legal benefits of marriage without any sex or even affectionate attraction factoring in at all?

In short, imagining that a thing has no consequences can invite the observation that there a number of other things that also have no consequences, for which likewise no reasons for legal proscription seem obvious.

Posted by: rasqual Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 4:57 PM


MK, the "baby" doesn't has a viewpoint, as it is not developed enough, in most cases, to have the brain capacity to even understand the concept. Fetuses cannot be frightened, as they are not developed enough. Therefore it follows that fetuses cannot be the object of terrorism.

There is some evidence that the fetus experiences pain, as well as emotional responses such as anger or pleasure, at least as early as 14 weeks, when amniocentesis is performed. During fetal blood transfusion, a 590% rise in beta endorphin and a 183% rise in cortosol have been documented in the fetus. The presence of both of these hormones in such high levels, as a response to a stimulus, is chemical evidence of pain ( 3. ). Fetuses respond in a variety of ways to amniocentesis, from shying away from the needle to kicking at it ( 4. ). The variety of responses in different fetuses of the same age to the same experience seems to indicate that these responses are not instinctual, but individual responses of fear, curiosity or aggression. A fetus will experience fluctuations in heart rate during and immediately following amniocentesis, and breathing motion patterns may not stabilize for days. Ultrasonographers have observed male fetuses experiencing erections as early as 14 gestational weeks in conjunction with thumb-sucking, which may give evidence to the fetus's ability to experience pleasure ( 3. ). These emotional responses, taking place before the limbic system is fully formed and long before the cerebral cortex, thought to be responsible for conscious thought, is completed, are further evidence that the brain is functioning long before its individual structures are complete.

In case you deny that there are sources proving these claims, take a gander at these:

References

Atkinson, J. and Braddick, O. (1982). Sensory and Perceptual Capacities of the Neonate. In Psychobiology of the Human Newborn. Paul Stratton (Ed.), pp. 191-220. London: John Wiley.

Birnholz, J., Stephens, J. C. and Faria, M. (1978). Fetal Movement Patterns: A Possible Means of Defining Neurologic Developmental Milestones in Utero. American J. Roentology 130: 537-540.

Birnholz, Jason C. (1981). The Development of Human Fetal Eye Movement Patterns. Science 213: 679-681. Busnel, Marie-Claire, Granier-Deberre, C. and Lecanuet, J. P.(1992). Fetal Audition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 662:118-134.

Chapman, J. S. (1975). The Relation Between Auditory Stimulation of Short Gestation Infants and Their Gross Motor Limb Activity. Doctoral Dissertation, New York University.

Chayen, B., Tejani, N., Verma, U. L. and Gordon, G.(1986). Fetal Heart Rate Changes and Uterine Activity During Coitus. Acta Obstetrica Gynecologica Scandinavica 65: 853-855.

deVries, J. I. P., Visser, G. H. A., and Prechtl, H. F. R.(1985). The Emergence of Fetal Behavior. II. Quantitative Aspects. Early Human Development 12: 99-120.

Fox, H. E., Steinbrecher, M., Pessel, D., Inglis, J., and Angel, E.(1978) Maternal Ethanol Ingestion and the Occurrence of Human Fetal Breathing Movements. American J. of Obstetrics/Gynecology 132: 354-358.

Giannakoulopoulos, X., Sepulveda, W., Kourtis, P., Glover, V. and Fisk, N. M.(1994). Fetal Plasma Cortisol and B-endorphin Response to Intrauterine Needling. The Lancet 344: 77-81.

Montagu, Ashley (1978). Touching: The Human Significance of the Skin. New York: Harper & Row.

Roffwarg, Howard A., Muzio, Joseph N. and Dement, William C. (1966). Ontogenetic Development of the Human Sleep-Dream Cycle. Science 152: 604-619.

Salapatek, P. and Cohen, L.(1987). Handbook of Infant Perception. Vol. I. New York: Academic Press.

Schaal, B., Orgeur, P., and Rognon, C. (1995). Odor Sensing in the Human Fetus: Anatomical, Functional, and Chemeo-ecological Bases. In: Fetal Development: A Psychobiological Perspective, J-P. Lecanuet, W. P. Fifer, N. A., Krasnegor, and W. P. Smotherman (Eds.) pp. 205-237. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Shahidullah, S. and Hepper, P. G. (1992). Hearing in the Fetus: Prenatal Detection of Deafness. International J. of Prenatal and Perinatal Studies 4(3/4): 235-240.

Slater, A., Mattock, A., Brown, E., and Bremner, J. G. (1991). Form Perception at Birth: Cohen and Younger (1984) Revisited. J. of Experimental Child Psychology 51(3): 395- 406.

Smotherman, W. P. and Robinson, S. R.(1995). Tracing Developmental Trajectories Into the Prenatal Period. In: Fetal Development, J-P. Lecanuet, W. P. Fifer, N. A. Krasnegor, and W. P. Smotherman (Eds.), pp. 15-32. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tajani, E. and Ianniruberto, A. (1990). The Uncovering of Fetal Competence. In: Development Handicap and Rehabilitation: Practice and Theory, M. Papini, A. Pasquinelli and E. A. Gidoni (Eds.), pp. 3-8. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 4:58 PM


Frankly, rasqual, I see no problem with that situation. I can't see it happening, but I don't see the problem with it.

I suppose you could argue that a fundamental aspect of marriage is monogamy, and I can see that sort of argument. I tend to define marriage as a union between two concenting adults, but hey, want to go for a permanent threesome? I have no issue with it.

Also, I have pretty profound knowledge about both Biblical and "secular" arguments against homosexual marriage, so I feel pretty comfortable making that statement.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 5:01 PM


"There is some evidence that the fetus experiences pain, as well as emotional responses such as anger or pleasure, at least as early as 14 weeks, when amniocentesis is performed."

There's plenty of hormones and reflexive responses early on Beth, but the bottom is the nervous system doesn't even begin myalination until around week twenty or so and doesn't finish until well after birth. As result, each nerve cell in the central nervous system is like phone without a cord...

without brain cells that can talk to each other, a fetus does not experience anything in any meaningful way.

Posted by: Cameron at April 25, 2007 5:05 PM


Less,

As I firmly believe religion should be completely extinguished from government,

Truthfully, I think you just want to make religion extinguished, period.

Incredible how you want the right to decide when a person should live and when a person should die at both ends of the life spectrum, but still don't consider your view pro death.

And ironic that you say we can kill a "fetus" because it "doesn't has a viewpoint, as it is not developed enough, in most cases, to have the brain capacity to even understand the concept. Fetuses cannot be frightened, as they are not developed enough.

and then turn around and say that: " if I had such brain damage as my mind no longer functioned, I would want to die. . I would bless the person who pulled the plugs or otherwise gave me that mercy."

By your own definition, an unborn baby has no brain function, therefore no ability to "want" anything, therefore no rights.

By your own definition, a person with "that kind of brain damage" would also have no brain function, therefore no ability to "want" anything, (let alone to "bless the person who pulled the plugs), and therefore no rights.

By your own definition, you can decide to end the babys life, and we can decide to prolong yours. After all, if you are "that brain damaged" you won't be aware enough to know whether you wanted to live or not.

Looks like you may have painted yourself into a corner with this one...need a hand getting out?

If we "forced" you to live due to your lack of ability to understand what is happening to you as you want to be able to "force" the unborn to die due to their lack of ability to understand what is happening to them, would you call us terrorists?

Would you say that keep you hooked up to machines and soiling diapers, and being spoon fed against your will (which you claim you no longer have) would be terrorism?

I bet you would. And our response would be...how is that terrorism. Less isn't able to be terrorized or frightened. She's just a blob of cells in a hospital bed. Let her Live...

mk
.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 5:10 PM


MK,

"1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Politicians proclaiming to be pro choice to get votes."

Violence or threats or coerce. That's stretching it to start with mere "claims". And anyhow, that works on both sides. Politicians in conservative areas would claim to be pro-life to get votes.

I have a fun sidebar, sort-of related example.

During some elections in Canada (I don't know which--I'm getting this information second-hand from a friend), the Prime Minister went to far to get votes as to address the English-speaking Canadians saying one thing, and then addressing the French-speaking Canadians saying another. Mostly stuff about Quebec separating and such. Frankly, I don't trust ANY politicial--pro-life OR pro-choice.

As for your other arguments, I cannot respond to them. They are of a different genre--the one assuming that the fetus is of consciousness and awareness as it is being aborted. Since I do not believe this to be true, I cannot comment.

No Canadian stories on that one though. :)

Posted by: Leah at April 25, 2007 5:10 PM


Bethany, it's bad form to post references to articles you haven't read.

How many of the articles on your list of references have you actually read?

Just wondering.

Posted by: SoMG at April 25, 2007 5:10 PM


I don't trust any "politician"

Sorry

Posted by: Leah at April 25, 2007 5:11 PM


By the way, by medical standards those references are fossils. Pick something more current...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=human+fetus+myelination&hl=en&lr=&scoring=r&as_ylo=2002

Posted by: Cameron at April 25, 2007 5:11 PM


Bethany, animals also experience pleasure in the form of repeated stimuli: animals will occasionally aquire a set of behaviors known as pica (eating or sucking on non-food items) and certainly experience pleasure from it. Are you a vegetarian?

Also, all of your references are from 1995 or later. More recent studies indicate that fetuses don't experience pain from anywhere to 20 weeks to after birth.

"Noxious stimulation produces a cortical response in preterm infants from 25 weeks"
Link Here

"By this line of reasoning fetuses cannot be held to experience pain. Not only has the biological development not yet occurred to support pain experience, but the environment after birth, so necessary to the development of pain experience, is also yet to occur."
Link Here.

Scientists have also formed theories that say that the fetus is actually asleep during most of the pregnancy.

Link Here.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 5:12 PM


I think we should leave marriage to the church to do whatever the hell they what to do with it.

Then make every civil union exactly that: a civil union. That's what most countries do. By trying to make something a little less than marriage but not quite marriage, you will introduce several options in terms of committment and marriage just might be left behind. Think about it.

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 5:12 PM


Woman marries dolphin

*
* Email
* Print
* Normal font
* Large font

Jerusalem
January 2, 2006
AdvertisementAdvertisement

Sharon Tendler met Cindy 15 years ago. She said it was love at first sight. This week she finally took the plunge and proposed. The lucky "guy" plunged right back.

In a modest ceremony at Dolphin Reef in the southern Israeli port of Eilat, Tendler, a 41-year-old British citizen, apparently became the world's first person to "marry" a dolphin.

Dressed in a white dress, a veil and pink flowers in her hair, Tendler got down on one knee on the dock and gave Cindy a kiss. And a piece of herring.

"It's not a perverted thing. I do love this dolphin. He's the love of my life," she said Saturday, upon her return to London.

Tendler, who said she imports clothes and promotes rock bands in England, has visited Israel several times a year since first meeting the dolphin.

When asked in the past if she had a boyfriend, she would always reply, "No. I'm going to end up with Cindy." On Wednesday, she made it official, sort of. While she acknowledged the "wedding" had no legal bearing she did say it reflected her deep feelings toward the bottlenosed, 35-year-old object of her affection.

"It's not a bad thing. It just something that we did because I love him, but not in the way that you love a man. It's just a pure love that I have for this animal," she said.

While she still kept open the option of "marrying human" at some stage, she said for now she was strictly a "one-dolphin woman".

She's hardly the jealous type, though.

"He will still play with all the other girls there," she said, of their prenuptial agreement. "I hope he has a lot of baby dolphins with the other dolphins. The more dolphins the better."

- AP


Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 5:15 PM



I think we should leave marriage to the church to do whatever the hell they what to do with it.
Then make every civil union exactly that: a civil union. That's what most countries do. By trying to make something a little less than marriage but not quite marriage, you will introduce several options in terms of committment and marriage just might be left behind. Think about it.

PIP, I totally agree with you. :)

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 5:16 PM


Bethany, animals also experience pleasure in the form of repeated stimuli: animals will occasionally aquire a set of behaviors known as pica (eating or sucking on non-food items) and certainly experience pleasure from it. Are you a vegetarian?

No, animals aren't human beings.

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 5:17 PM


Meta search for fetal pain

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&scoring=r&q=fetal+pain&as_ylo=2002

Posted by: Cameron at April 25, 2007 5:18 PM


Marriage is a word with a definition. An accepted definition since the beginning of time. Now, in 2007, we want to change that definition.

If you want to make up a new word to define the union of same sex couples, go ahead. But why must you hijack ours.

And where does the changing of that definition end.

Rasqual wants it to mean 3 people getting married for convenience sake. Gay people want it to mean same sex couples getting married. And the woman in the above story wants it to include humans marrying animals.

Where does it end?

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 5:18 PM


"Frankly, rasqual, I see no problem with that situation. I can't see it happening, but I don't see the problem with it."

If homosexual marriage is construed as a civil right, though, do you understand that it's no less a civil right for our platonic campus threesome?

The question then boils down to "just what the hell IS marriage, anyway?" Once we've discarded answers long confidently espoused (pardon the pun) by a culture, there simply aren't any answers left.

Posted by: rasqual Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 5:18 PM


MK, as I am spiritual, if not religious, I see no reason to completely extinguish religion. A religion is a personís choice, and a private one at that, and I have no desire to force that choice upon others. Government, however, ought to be unbiased: and while politicians have the same right as everyone else, to have whatever religion they choose, they have a responsibility to put that aside.

Very well, Iíll rephrase that. If I had consciousness at that point, I would want to die. Right now, I say that if I was in that position, I would want to die. I would no longer even be me, so youíre correct: that was poorly phrased. Youíre also right in that I would have no rights at that point: unfortunate, but true. Luckily for me, Iíve thought ahead, and therefore that problem is resolved.

If you forced me to live, Iíd call you cruel, not a terrorist. Just as if you forced a woman to undergo pregnancy, Iíd call you cruel. Not, however, a terrorist.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 5:20 PM


Less, since you're here, maybe you wouldn't mind taking a peek at this thread again:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/04/national_prolif.html
And letting me know your thoughts.

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 5:22 PM


Less,

Well then perhaps the bishop should have called the pro-choice crowd cruel instead of terrorists. But I bet you would have objected to that too.

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 5:23 PM


MK, marriage ought to remain between people who can concent. Can animals concent? Not in any language that we understand. Now, in the above story, if we knew what dolphins were "saying" when they communicated, and said dolphin concented, that's great. I couldn't care less.

Frankly, I'm fine with discarding marriage altogether. It's an outdated concept. Give me the tax break without the fancy ceremony and the swearing and the freakish patriarchal undertones, and I'm content. But if it has to remain, change the definition to something like this:

Marriage: the union of two or more concenting adults in a legal binding.

There we go, simple. If you don't want a threesome marriage, don't get one. You're against gay marriage? Again, don't get one. But don't force your views on everyone else. Also, can you prove that marriage has had an "accepted definition since the beginning of time" without using the Bible?

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 5:28 PM


MK -- it's not that I want it to. It's that once you've made it an issue of civil rights (as many homosexuals would argue), it DOES mean that -- precisely because civil rights are universal. Therefore, holding that marriage should only be available to hetero- or homosexuals is to deny those who wish to marry for platonic reasons, their civil rights.

You see, if heterosexuality is an unjustly narrow definition for marriage (as many homosexuals would claim), then the number "3" is an unjustly arbitrary number for marriage. If monogamy arising out of a long tradition is a discardable condition, then surely 2 is a discardable number.

MK, if I comment around here much at all, be aware that my tendency to describe implications doesn't constitute my advocacy for them. To the contrary, I often consider such implications to better understand the consequences of things I would oppose.

Posted by: rasqual Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 5:29 PM


Les --

You propose:

"Marriage: the union of two or more concenting adults in a legal binding."

But you also insist:

"But don't force your views on everyone else."

Wouldn't any law codifying the former quote be a case of the latter quote? Would you advocate for a law advocating your first quote, if by dint of being law it ran afoul of your second?

Just wondering. ;-)

Posted by: rasqual Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 5:32 PM


MK, marriage ought to remain between people who can concent.

Why do you get to decide what marriage should remain between?

I say marriage should remain between two people of opposite sexes.

You say it should remain between two people who consent.

In India it remains between two people that the parents choose whether the couple consents or not.

And the woman above thinks it should remain between her and her dolphin.

So why do you trump us?

MK

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 5:32 PM


Which bit, Bethany? I saw your question about the pro-choice side making things up; sorry I didn't answer sooner. Frankly, I think anyone who makes claims up, especially without at least researching first, is doing their side a disservice. Honesty on both sides is paramount to having civil discussions about this. That's why I'm so against pregnancy centers, and so for given women all the options they have: including those pregnancy centers.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 5:33 PM


"the number '3' is an unjustly arbitrary number for marriage"

My bad -- that should be a number 2.

Posted by: rasqual Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 5:34 PM


Less, you haven't even given a shred of evidence that pregnancy centers have lied about anything.

But thank you for admitting that you think that it is repugnant....it certainly is repugnant that the pro-choice media consistently lies about the number of maternal deaths in order to serve their pro-abortion agenda.

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 5:35 PM


Rasquel, that was just an idea. I have no intentions of ever trying to force that through government, believe me. Just seems like it would be a nice compromise, is all.

MK, the woman never said she wanted to change the state of marriage. She knows her marriage has no legal standing. And frankly, the definition I proposed would leave room for both your definition and, aparently, all of India. Like I said, I'm not going to try and force it through government. It just seems like it'd be a good way to compromise.

All that being said, I have a newspaper meeting that I need to be getting to. G'afternoon, all.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 5:36 PM


Recorded history can be defined as history that has been written down or recorded by the use of language, whereas history is a more general term referring simply to information about the past.[1] It starts in the 4th millennium BC, with the invention of writing.

Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends or religious beliefs concerning the origins of marriage.[9]


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 5:40 PM


The thing is, MK, that in the US and many other countries, married couples get benefits, while homosexual couples don't. That's why I suggest civil unions for everyone to get their benefits, marriages only within churches to get the sacrament.

And all countries and cultures have different rituals concerning marriage, and even our own ideas of marriage has changed. Women are no long subservient to men, and in the past most marriage had to do with economics and not with love. History isn't supportive of any position, in that respect.

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 5:45 PM


PIP,

I have no problem with civil unions. I have said this many times. Just, please, don't call it marriage. Marriage to most of us is sacred and to many of us a sacrament to boot.

Share your insurance, pay off the mortgage together, just don't call it "marriage"...

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 5:47 PM


In France they have PACs, which is a marriage contract-esque sort of thing, but just not a "marriage" per se. Couples who use PACs get all the economic and social benefits of traditionally married couples as well. In fact, I have not lived with a single family where the parents have been married (except one woman was a widow).

PACs, I think--good idea. But that's just me.

Posted by: Leah at April 25, 2007 5:49 PM


MK,

I guess I really don't understand what's the big deal with the word. If people want to call themselves married because they had a civil union, you can't legally out law that. You can call their civil union certificate whatever.... but I think they're still going to call what they have together a marriage... and they'll probably get an additional marriage document from whatever religious affiliation they have which will accomodate.

Posted by: Cameron at April 25, 2007 5:53 PM


"Rasquel, that was just an idea. I have no intentions of ever trying to force that through government, believe me. Just seems like it would be a nice compromise, is all."

I don't think you're understanding my point; pardon the subtlety. ;-)

The point is, there's always someone's point of view that IS forced on everyone, under the rule of law. And that point of view is the majority's -- consistent with a Constitution the courts are tasked with leveraging to arbitrate between minorities standing in need of protection and these majorities.

In other words, railing that someone is trying to "force" their viewpoint on others is a ridiculous objection to any kind of advocacy, because whether it's the prevailing or a challenging point of view, it's ALWAYS an issue of something being ensconced in the coercive instrument that is Law.

It might make rhetorical points to make it seem as if one's opponents are somehow unreasonably trying to force their view, but this kind of thing only works among people who are vulnerable to the force of rhetoric divorced from reason. Advice: don't do that. ;-)

In a good humor, seriously. Taken that way and considered, it'll spare you a spank by the next feller that comes along with the same observation. ;-)

Posted by: rasqual Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 5:57 PM


Yes, what a great thing the Vatican has done for us and continues to do for us.

I, for one, am extremely proud to be a member of about the only religion that is not afraid to call it like it is.

"slaughterhouses of the innocent" - what a great line...

Posted by: Andrew at April 25, 2007 6:05 PM


"I know the plans I have in mind for you, plans to give you a future full of hope. When you look for me, you will find me."

ÔŅĹ Jeremiah 29:11-13

Andrew,

I just went to you website. Found this quote, a great picture of a bleeding egg (can you put it on here) and a picture of a really really good looking young man with ?his mother?

Could that be you?

You are an amazing gentlemen. If so many of the girls on this site weren't pro-choice I might play matchmaker...

Samantha, ya paying attention. Don't know what the age difference is but this guy is a "great catch" (she says waiting for a barrage of misogyny attacks.)

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 6:54 PM


I would like to say something about fetal pain.

If a 'fetus' doesn't feel pain, then why did the 24 week gestation baby cry when they put put the needle in to start the catheter?

Is there something miraculous about the womb that says a baby can't feel pain, but when she is outside the womb then she can?

My son cried when they were drawing blood from the heel of his foot. He didn't cry when the nurse touched his foot. Didn't cry when the nurse pushed his foot towards his leg. But he did cry when the needle was put in. He was born at 31 weeks.

I saw the same thing with the 24 week gestation baby.

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 6:55 PM


Andrew,

Just stole this from your site...Where have you been hiding son?

In yesterday's Dallas Morning News, there is a letter from Dr. Abel M. Tomatis who comments on an earlier column about laws mandating that women see an ultrasound of their child before an abortion;

"You have mostly young women under 24 who are emotionally immature and lack the basic skills to make appropriate choices regarding their own health and well-being. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of someone you want raising a child for 18 years..."

His message and the title of his letter is "Don't trust these moms."

And yet, Nancy Keegan, the President of NARAL Pro-Choice America says exactly the opposite when talking about the exact same law in South Carolina that would mandate that all women going in for an abortion actually see a sonogram of their child. In being asked about the new law she said:

"The women of South Carolina are fully capable of asking their doctor for information they need to make private, personal medical decisions. Politicians don't belong in the examining room."

Well, which is it? Are women capable of making these kinds of decisions or not, and why is the question of whether or not a woman can decide for herself always dependent on what kind of law pro-aborts are opposing (or supporting) or point they are trying to make?


Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 6:58 PM


Cameron,

Pay attention. This (Andrew) is what a real man looks like.

Keep trying. One day you too can leave the world of mice (coulda said rats, but I didn't) and join the world of men.

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 6:59 PM


Andrew,

I just saw Jill's post about your wedding.

Sorry Samantha. But there's gotta be more Andrews out there that are younger and single.

Andrew, everything else I said stands.

You're great! (sir, not son)
mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 7:05 PM


MK

going by the old saying, "What you don't know can't hurt you," I'd have to conlude that you are practically invulnerable.

Posted by: Cameron at April 25, 2007 7:28 PM


Cameron, Why did put that pic. up about Archbishop Angelo? That was really mean spirited.Do you find the picture of the aborted child funny? I just don't believe the level you have just stooped to.

Posted by: Heather4life at April 25, 2007 8:13 PM


Seriously Cameron,Low as low can get.*shaking head*

Posted by: Heather4life at April 25, 2007 8:18 PM


Regarding the picture:

God help us if we in this country allow this to take place. That poor little baby. We need more people like Jill and rest of the concerned pro-lifers here.

when I think of my awful Senators; Kerry and Kennedy, their voting record just makes me sick.

Posted by: jasper at April 25, 2007 9:03 PM


Valerie and MK, thanks for your kind words.

I like to blog when I can but don't find much time for it. Sometimes though, you just have to speak out when something truly outrageous is said or written.

Fortunately, the Dallas Morning News provides much ammunition for this kind of thing, and they wonder why they continue to loose subscriptions and advertising.

My wife and I are expecting our first child (Cecilia Jane) on June 6th, D-Day (delivery day) :) We are praying for a healthy and on-time delivery.

Posted by: Andrew at April 25, 2007 9:45 PM


MK, I know the feeling.

There's a guy from the Boeing group that comes and volunteers with us once a month, and I've developed a little girl crush on him...and we were talkign today and he is engaged!

I know he is like 7 years older than me, but that is beside the point!

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 9:53 PM


Oh Andrew,congratulations! I just gave birth to a little girl on 4-19-07. I also have a son named Andrew.

Posted by: Heather4life at April 25, 2007 9:56 PM


Andrew, Heather,

Congratulations!

Posted by: jasper at April 25, 2007 10:03 PM


Jill,

Isn't is sad that we have to show a baby in this condition and what our society has degraded to that it can do this to a defenseless innocent child?

I really don't have any words for my heart is crying too loud.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 25, 2007 11:32 PM


Thanks jasper.

Posted by: Heather4life at April 26, 2007 3:29 AM


HisMan, 11:32p: Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries photos have been used by social justice movements to educate the public or change public opinion. What many/most people don't see, they ignore.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at April 26, 2007 6:21 AM


It's entirely appropriate to use photos, for another interesting reason. Pro-choice advocates can make sweeping metaphysical claims based almost entirely on the morphology of the fetus. "It looks like a fish" at this stage, so it's of little more importance than one.

The extent to which what a thing looks like when photons bounce off it into our eyeballs has been amazingly determinative of people's esteem for the unborn. Personally, I don't understand the deference to the eyeballs instead of the mind. But it's been effective for pro-choice in dehumanizing the fetus; it's good that it's also effective for humanizing it.

Posted by: rasqual Author Profile Page at April 28, 2007 11:10 PM



There's a little hypocrisy here as well concering these photos. In the early days of the abortion movement, abortion advocates had no problem with displaying heart wrenching pictures of abused children, even though there was never any proof that legalized abortion would eliminate child abuse. Child abuse had tremendous emotional appeal and abortion advocates played it for all it was worth, pictures and all, and I don't recall any "concern" as to how traumatic these pictures were for the observer. I've seen horrific photos of the Holocaust, of various wars, of poverty, abuse, prison conditions, etc. I see no hesitation about showing pictures of the refugee crisis Darfur or the bombings in Baghdad. No one asks if these photos should be shown or questiones how traumatic they may be to the viewers. This "concern" about children being traumatized by the photos of aborted children is laughable. Has anyone seen what's on the TV news, and what kind of "entertainment" is out there.
Let's face it, photos of anything, no matter how horrific, are fine so long as I like the reason you're showing them.
What we should really ask is why these photos disturb us so, not blame the person who shows them to us.

Posted by: Mary at April 29, 2007 7:38 AM


rasqual and Mary -

Thank you!

excellent points.

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 29, 2007 9:04 AM


Um yeah sad pic, if it is a late term abortion,
1. how do we know it was taken in the US?
2. How do we know it wasn't to save the life of the mother.
3. How the heck do you even know it is of an actually abortion, being as it is illegal to take pictures during the procedure...

Posted by: forlifeandchoice at April 29, 2007 9:50 PM


We know it wasn't to save the life of the mother since it would never be necessary to hack a baby up like that. There are far more humane methods of handling a situation where the mother is truly endangered.

Posted by: Mary at April 29, 2007 9:55 PM


forlifeandchoice, What difference would it make if the picture wasn't taken in the US? Abortion is still violent. I am sure it is a real picture.We just wish it wasn't.

Posted by: Heather4life at April 30, 2007 7:17 AM


forlifeandchoice.

Why don't you use your brain.

1. Doesn't matter what country it was taken in, we are against abortion. Not just American abortion.

2. See Mary's response above.

3. Do you see the jar under the baby's head? Do you really think they have jar's like that all ready and prepared during the abortion? Do you think the abortionist would allow a picture like that to be taken? No.? Well perhaps that picture was taken at a funeral home to be preped for creamation. The majority of aborted babies sent to funeral homes don't have information on who the parent is so consent isn't an issue. OR it could be an autopsy photo. I have a list somewhere on the blog of all states that have autopsy photo's as matter of public record and since info on parents isn't usually available it can be shown like this.


If it isn't a late term abortion than what do you propose it is? Why would the head be remvoed like that? During an autopsy the jaw isn't removed in that fashion. See the excess and mutilated tissue, not the work of an M.E. Do you notice the top of the babies head? See how the skull isn't fully formed on the top. It is more than just soft spot, it is a pre-term baby.

Any more comments or questions you would like for us to answer?

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 30, 2007 7:56 AM