The message was not anti-choice; the message was pro-choice. The mother *chose* to continue her pregnancy, and House should have supported that. She wasnt forced against her will to gestate regardless of her situation, as the anti-choicers would have it. She was given a choice, and in the easily created perfection of Hollywoood, that choice ended up being wonderfully on-target. The message was pro-choice.

The message was not anti-choice

No, you're right...no "anti-choice".

It was certainly had a very pro-life message though. :)

Sorry, I don't know how the "was" got worked into that sentence. lol

Hey Samantha -

Are you reading the posts on the nurse video. No one can tell if it is pro-life, pro-choice. I think the same thing is going on here. It depends on how you look at life is how it will be seen.

Kinda cool that we have both these posts going at the same time. ;-)

I think I know why people say "a picture is worth a thousand words". This time the pictures are moving.

There is none so blind as he who will not see...

Bethany is exactly right. It wasn't anti-choice.

It wasn't pro-choice.

It was pro-life.

A couple of weeks before this episode a young (12?)girl came in pregnant and House insisted she get an abortion and she did.

Two weeks? later, this episode.

For all you people hung up on the "it was FICTON" thing, so was the Wizard of Oz. The moral of that story is the your dreams can be found right in your own backyards. Everyone got the message, but no one started believing in munchkins.

I dare say, to all of you who think this was pro-choice, did you also misread the moral of WOZ and think it was "Stay away from flying monkeys"?

The point of this episode is that House, who is ALWAYS right, to the point of blatant arrogance, found himself, possibly for the first time in his life, having doubts about something he felt sure of.

He was facing the fact that he could, not was, but could be wrong about something.

You would all do well to take a lesson from his "forced" humility.

mk

Valerie I didnt even think of that! I havent been checking out the nurse video because the storyline disgusts me, regardless of the position. I *love* this picture tho; I think it is absolutely beautiful.

Bethany, anti-choice = pro-life.

Anti what choice, Samantha? You mean.... anti- abortion, perhaps?

MK.... PERFECT example, thank you for using Wizard of Oz to illustrate our ability to see moral lessons in fictional tales.

Now Samantha,

you keep saying that pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion. And you all keep saying that you love babies. Which is life affirming.

We are pro-life. We are anti-choice (when it comes to abortion).

I don't think House was making a statement one way or another about choice.

I think he was affirming life. There very may well be an episode where he clearly falls on the "anti-choice" side. But in this episode, I think he was just open to the possibility, that life is not what he thought.

Pro-life.

Not anti-choice.

Yet.

mk

Ladies, that picture is often shown as the "fetus's grabbing the surgeon's hand" posterchild for fetal connection while in the uterus. You might want to check out what the surgeon had to say about that:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/medical/thehand.asp

Apparently the fetus was under anesthetic and not moving. This surgery had occurred numerous times at Vandi without miraculous occurrence. Id say the same happened in the case of little Samuel, and the press just ran away with the picture.

Samantha,

Again. So what? It's fiction. No one believes that House is a real character. No one would like him or his show if it was ordinary. It's the fact that it is extraordinary that makes it good TV.

What does it matter if the baby was awake or asleep? The bottom line is the "BABY" was alive. Don't you get it? The BABY WAS ALIVE!!!

The picture and the show don't care what condition the baby was in. The fact remains, reflex or choice, the baby is grasping a doctors hand. And poetically speaking it is a powerful message.

Why does this strike you guys as so unnerving? I say because it does exactly what it is supposed to do. Make you stop and think. Just like it made House, STOP AND THINK! Entertain the POSSIBILITY that you may be wrong, and these are non-parasitic human persons with all the same rights that you and I have. No ones right being greater than the others...and certainly NOT for convenience sake!

mk

Even if that were the case, Samantha...what is your point?

We posted at the same time, MK ;)
hehe

My Lord,

ET was not a real alien. But I cried anyway!

MK

Samantha,
Did you read my explanation on confession?

MK

Incidentally, House has constant, unbearable pain because of a misdiagnosed leg muscle infarction years earlier, not as a result of his being shot, the second season's finale.

Ugh. The point was that the whole photo thing was so misconstrued that it has now been used in a tv plot.

MK I read it, but I still have a problem with the whole excommunication thing. I dont feel like I need a pope to tell me that Im forgiven for the big things in order to take communion. I just believe that a relationship with God is very personal and not subjective. Im really interested, tho. :-)

Ugh. The point was that the whole photo thing was so misconstrued that it has now been used in a tv plot.

"Misconstrued"

It was a fictional show, remember? The story is not going to be exactly as it would happen in real life. This is a fact which you have repeated over and over, as though we don't understand that. And now you seem confused about it yourself.

There's no reason you should be angry about this show unless it really hurts you somehow to see an outcome where a baby lives.

I honestly don't see your problem with it. It's a story, it had underlying morals within it which we have every right to perceive as such.

Bethany I dont have a problem with the show. Im uber excited that the imaginary fetus survived. Mmmkay? Jill posted the picture, and I commented on it. Sorry that was so hard to grasp, I guess Im just flying around on tangents this morning. Maybe she will be kind enough to delete the post for your benefit. Could they not come up with a true-to-life message that would be "pro-life?"

"There's no reason you should be angry about this show unless it really hurts you somehow to see an outcome where a baby lives."

You need to back up and stop trying to make every single pro-choice person you come across seem as if they are horrible baby murderers. Every time someone posts on here, you jump at what you perceive as a chance to prove them to be anti-baby. We like babies. We like healthy women more. Get over it.

Samantha,

dont feel like I need a pope to tell me that Im forgiven for the big things in order to take communion.

But why would you want to receive communion in a Catholic church if you don't believe what the Catholic church teaches?

As I said before, the true presence is virtually a solely a Catholic belief. So why wouldn't the Catholic Leaders be able to define how it is treated?

If you can't accept this teaching, that's fine, but then why not switch to a protestant church where anyone can receive?

mk

I mean what would happen if you sat down to a monopoly game and decided that you and you alone didn't have to move according to the dice thrown. You could move as many spaces as you wanted to?

And whenever you landed on someones property, you refused to pay because you were uncomfortable with Milton Bradley telling you how to play the game.
You were perfectly capable going by your own rules.

Not only would this be an inauthentic use of the game, but it would be grossly unfair to the other players.

There are times, when the people get to speak, like landing on free parking, but only if all the players agree.

If you pulled this in a poker game, you might get shot.

mk

You need to back up and stop trying to make every single pro-choice person you come across seem as if they are horrible baby murderers. Every time someone posts on here, you jump at what you perceive as a chance to prove them to be anti-baby. We like babies. We like healthy women more. Get over it.

I don't make you out to be anything but what you portray yourself to be. You are the one having such a problem with the movie's story line. You are the one objecting so loudly about it. I am only pointing out to you how it appears when you act that way.

Could they not come up with a true-to-life message that would be "pro-life?"

They can but they didn't. "Get over it."

Oddly enough,
This analogy works on the abortion issue too.

The rules are, if you have sex you might get pregnant. It's a "roll of the dice" if you will.

Using contraception is like using loaded dice. It makes the act of sex unauthentic. And leads to abortion which is unfair to the rest of the players.

Only this time, instead of being miffed at Milton Bradely, your ticked off at God and His blasted rules.

Life is a game with moral "rules". Break them and you could be accused of cheating. And even if you win the game, you've really lost something greater.

Your integrity.
mk

MK I understand the true presence is a Catholic doctrine and respect that. What I dont understand is why it is necessary for a church leader to inform the excommunicated that she has been forgiven. Why isnt her assurance from God good enough? I also dont understand the venial vs. mortal sin idea because I have always been taught that all sins are equal, so that is why I feel like it is strange that some sins require higher authority input while others can be covered with the prayer before mass.

They can but they didn't. "Get over it."

actually they did. Every dead baby pulled out of a woman's womb is a "true story" that proves this was the actual body of a once living human person.

They also have ultrasounds. But for some reason, you object to the use of fiction to portray human life, and you also object to non-fiction portraying human life.

Perhaps you just don't want to see "life" for what it really is, through either fictional or nonfictional means.

mk

Samantha,

I know this is long and written in that awful "proper" language, but read it. Really read it.
Then ask me about any of it.

mk

1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,[129] became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.
Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:
When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery.... But when the sinner's will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.[130]

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."[131]

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."[132] The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart[133] do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not set us in direct opposition to the will and friendship of God; it does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."[134]
While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call "light": if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.[135]

1864 "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin."[136] There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.[137] Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

by preferring an inferior good to him.

Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

Okay. So but why do grave sins have to be confessed and forgiven by a church elder?

PS Thank you. I really appreciate your willingness and effort in sharing your faith with me.

Samantha,

I have an ulterior motive. I recognize good material when I see it. And I want you in our army.

You are funny, strong, smart, and I sense that you would fight to the death for what you believe in.

In my book, that makes you a great candidate.

If there is any truth to the prophecies that something big is coming and Mary and Jesus are forming their "little army of the marginalized" (that being ex drug addicts, prostitutes, alcoholics...you wouldn't believe who her army is made of up these days...then I want you fighting on our side...because you make a formidable enemy.

So you see, it's for purely selfish motives that I answer your questions. It's got nothing to do with wanting your soul saved so that you can spend eternity in a good place. Nope, uh-uh, just plain old greed. :)

mk

1440 Sin is before all else an offense against God, a rupture of communion with him. At the same time it damages communion with the Church. For this reason conversion entails both God's forgiveness and reconciliation with the Church, which are expressed and accomplished liturgically by the sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation.38

1468 "The whole power of the sacrament of Penance consists in restoring us to God's grace and joining us with him in an intimate friendship."73 Reconciliation with God is thus the purpose and effect of this sacrament. For those who receive the sacrament of Penance with contrite heart and religious disposition, reconciliation "is usually followed by peace and serenity of conscience with strong spiritual consolation."74 Indeed the sacrament of Reconciliation with God brings about a true "spiritual resurrection," restoration of the dignity and blessings of the life of the children of God, of which the most precious is friendship with God.75

1469 This sacrament reconciles us with the Church. Sin damages or even breaks fraternal communion. The sacrament of Penance repairs or restores it. In this sense it does not simply heal the one restored to ecclesial communion, but has also a revitalizing effect on the life of the Church which suffered from the sin of one of her members.76 Re-established or strengthened in the communion of saints, the sinner is made stronger by the exchange of spiritual goods among all the living members of the Body of Christ, whether still on pilgrimage or already in the heavenly homeland:77

It must be recalled that . . . this reconciliation with God leads, as it were, to other reconciliations, which repair the other breaches caused by sin. The forgiven penitent is reconciled with himself in his inmost being, where he regains his innermost truth. He is reconciled with his brethren whom he has in some way offended and wounded. He is reconciled with the Church. He is reconciled with all creation.78

The above is the cathechism.

Below are the scriptural reasons.

Are all of our sins—past, present, and future—forgiven once and for all when we become Christians? Not according to the Bible or the early Church Fathers. Scripture nowhere states that our future sins are forgiven; instead, it teaches us to pray, "And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors" (Matt. 6:12).

The means by which God forgives sins after baptism is confession: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Minor or venial sins can be confessed directly to God, but for grave or mortal sins, which crush the spiritual life out of the soul, God has instituted a different means for obtaining forgiveness—the sacrament known popularly as confession, penance, or reconciliation.

This sacrament is rooted in the mission God gave to Christ in his capacity as the Son of man on earth to go and forgive sins (cf. Matt. 9:6). Thus, the crowds who witnessed this new power "glorified God, who had given such authority to men" (Matt. 9:8; note the plural "men"). After his resurrection, Jesus passed on his mission to forgive sins to his ministers, telling them, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:21–23).

Since it is not possible to confess all of our many daily faults, we know that sacramental reconciliation is required only for grave or mortal sins—but it is required, or Christ would not have commanded it.

Over time, the forms in which the sacrament has been administered have changed. In the early Church, publicly known sins (such as apostasy) were often confessed openly in church, though private confession to a priest was always an option for privately committed sins. Still, confession was not just something done in silence to God alone, but something done "in church," as the Didache (A.D. 70) indicates.

Penances also tended to be performed before rather than after absolution, and they were much more strict than those of today (ten years’ penance for abortion, for example, was common in the early Church).

But the basics of the sacrament have always been there, as the following quotations reveal. Of special significance is their recognition that confession and absolution must be received by a sinner before receiving Holy Communion, for "[w]hoever . . . eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27).

Does that help?

Remember Grace? Confession also imbues on you graces which allow to stop sinning, as well as have a conversion of the heart.

Because conversion is not something that happens once and "Now you get it and your a Catholic".

Conversion happens everyday on a smaller scale than your "Major" recommittment to God. Every day we make an examination of conscience and apologize and ask for help in becoming even more pleasing to God. Every day we recommit to living a life free from sin and going higher up and farther in. And the journey is endless. And the journey is always new. And the journey is never dull. And the journey is hard. And the journey is frustrating.

But, the journey is magnificent. Because once you get it you will say like Peter. "Where else would I go?"

mk

And in case you're confused, you don't have to confess mortal sins to the pope or bishop. Any priest will do. The only time you have to have special dispensation from the pope or bishop is if your sin was so that it would need to be examined by someone in authority, most likely to assure a truly penitent heart.
mk

that should read so grave...

MK, regarding your sex/dice/game post:

If I've pissed off your God by having premarital sex during a long term relatinship, then using a condom because I dislike newborns immensely and dislike the idea of being pregnant even more, that's great. I can live with that. I'm afraid I have no respect for a God that would get so pissy over little ol' me and my sex life. Frankly, I believe that if God didn't want abortion and hated it quite as much as you guys like to think he does, he'd have simply deleted it by now.

That's great that those are the rules that you live by. That's great that you have that faith. But I certainly don't, so why, exactly, should I be forced to live by the rules of a faith I find antiquated and distasteful?

why, exactly, should I be forced to live by the rules of a faith I find antiquated and distasteful?

Who's trying to force you, Less?

Sweetheart,

the post was addressed to Samantha because Samantha and I are discussing Catholicism. If you don't believe in God, then you certainly don't have to worry about how to behave in a Catholic church, because you'll never be in one.

And it's not my God. It's your God too. There's only one, whether you believe in Him or not.

So get off of the "nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah...you caaaa't "FORCE" me kick." No one is forcing you to do anything.

Were you raised by lion tamers and "forced" to constantly do things in your childhood under the threat of a whip...why are you soooo uptight about being "forced" to do everything?

relax girl...do it

or else...
mk

Sorry, I didn't know the post wasn addressed to Samantha: must have missed something.

Actually, I was raised by a verbally abusive Catholic father who believed that because he thought birth control was evil I shouldn't be allowed to take it, nearly kicked me out when he found out my then boyfriend was pagan and that we had fooled around (not had sex), and has threatened to stop paying for college before when I told him I was going to my fiance's Lutheran chuch. Luckily he's mellowed out since I moved out, and we get along together without screaming at each other: but yeah, I was kinda raised by a lion tamer. Figurativly, of course. Like I said, he's mellowed out: he absolutely adores my fiance now, and we can sit and talk for hours without screaming.

And as my parents are still Catholic, I am occasionally in a Catholic church. I take communion, as does my mother, who is pro-choice. As does my brother, who is pro choice. My dad will not join the Knights of Columbus as he has become pro-choice. You see, it isn't as though I don't believe in God: I wouldn't associate myself with the Christian church as I dislike the amount of dogma throw in with the very simple idea of a Father and His Son, both divinities of love. I honestly believe that God could understand why a mother would do this, even if he doesn't agree. And I also honestly believe that he'd much prefer us to have a more productive dialogue about it and do everything to solve the problem (unwanted pregnancy) rather than fight one of its symptoms. I'd tend to believe that God would prefer that we put aside our differences and compromise rather than scream about killing babies.

I mean, if you prefer to believe that God would just get really really angry that people have premarital sex, that's great. If you'd rather see God like that, it's up to you. Based on how I see things, however, I will take steps to educate people on how to properly use contraception, I will volunteer at women's shelters, I will promote a change in the foster care and adoption systems. This is how I serve my God.

Less, read what you wrote. I repeat, you're obsessed with sex. You worship the sex god. You rejected the Catholic Church based on its "dogma" about illicit sex. You "honestly believe" in a god you have made up. Your plan to serve this god in part revolves around the promotion of illicit sex.

And I'd like to clarify, are you saying you consider abortion a "symptom" of an unwanted pregnancy?

" I repeat, you're obsessed with sex. You worship the sex god. You rejected the Catholic Church based on its "dogma" about illicit sex. You "honestly believe" in a god you have made up. Your plan to serve this god in part revolves around the promotion of illicit sex."

Out of line, Jill. You know nothing about Less and her life, and that was a judgemental thing to say.

Jill, as I wrote that, I would assume that I had read it. I rejected the Catholic church because it is a sexist insitution that mixes its religion within politics, and as I firmly believe that the two ought to be seperate, I left. The moment my heart left the church was when our Bishop appointed a priest who had been accused of raping a nun as our head priest...without an inquiry into his actions. When the new pope, a man who I believe to be stuck in the Middle Ages, was appointed, I stopped going to mass.

And really, I worshop the God of sex? Funny, I wasn't aware that attending Lutheran mass was tantamount to worshipping Venus, or Pan, or any of the other assorted sex gods/goddesses. I do wish to edcuate people on the use of contraception, as everyone can use that knowledge: even married couples who are certainly not having illicid sex, even by your standards.

I do believe that abortions could be decreased if we dealt with the causes of unwanted pregnancy: poor education and the large poverty gap, for example. If the adoption and foster care systems were revamped, I believe that way be a viable option, instead of the joke it is today. While adoption solves only unwanted children and not an unwanted pregnancy, I feel that it would give women just one more option.

No, unwanted pregnancy is a symptom of abortion stupid. Get rid of unwanted pregnancies, get rid of abortion.

Though I hope you realize that abstinence is not the answer.

Less,

I honestly believe that God could understand why a mother would do this,

God can understand anything. That doesn't mean he condones it. I can understand why a mother would do this. But I also know that it is wrong.

As to your family receiving communion...I ask you the same question as I asked Samantha.

Why? Why would you disrespect our church, and the Eucharist when you don't even believe in it?

Why would you demean the whole sacrament? What do you get out of it. The Church tells you it's wrong. I tell you it's wrong. The Catechism tells you it's wrong.

But once again you say, "Ah, what does Milton Bradely know? I'll play the game by my own rules."

This is not fair to those of us who hold the rules, and the game sacred.

I'm begging you to refrain from receiving communion until you come to understand and accept what it is and then make a "good" confession.

It's the right thing to do.
MK

"He was a gunshot victim earlier in life and now walks with a cane and lives with nearly unbearable pain, which he masks with incessant gobbling of painkilling medications obtained through reluctant fellow physicians by any means necessary.... "

Small correction, not related to the debate: House had an infarction (basically a stroke) in his thigh and had some of the muscle removed. That is why he is in pain and walks with a cane. He was shot in the neck by an ex-patient's husband at the end of the second season.

Cayte: Are you a House fan?

Thanks, Cayte.

Rae,

Why yes, I am.

Jill,

No problem =)

Cayte:

Isn't he made of awesome? I mean seriously...Hugh Laurie has got to be one of the most gorgeous and amazing actors evar.

*squeels in fangirl-y delight*

Sorry if that creeps you out at all...I'm just a big fan of the show...although I'd have to say Season 3 is slipping in quality in terms of dialogue and characterizations (except House that is) since the earlier seasons.:-/

"Ladies, that picture is often shown as the "fetus's grabbing the surgeon's hand" posterchild for fetal connection while in the uterus. You might want to check out what the surgeon had to say about that:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/medical/thehand.asp

Apparently the fetus was under anesthetic and not moving. This surgery had occurred numerous times at Vandi without miraculous occurrence. Id say the same happened in the case of little Samuel, and the press just ran away with the picture."

MK and Bethany,

I believe Samantha was referring to the _original_ photograph that the show emulated two nights ago. I have not gotten the impression that she was upset over the show's storyline or outcome. In the _real_ photograph, the mother as well as the baby were anesthetized, so they baby couldn't have possibly moved and grasped the surgeon's finger.

Did you read the link that she posted? The _original_photo_ was misconstrued, and that was worked into the show.

-Cayte

Rae-

Haha I don't really think of him as dreamy or gorgeous, but I can understand why some people think that. I love the show (I have seasons 1 and 2 on DVD), the whole Tritter thing annoyed me, and I do feel that it's not up to snuff compared to the first two seasons. I also hate how people apparently can't understand the amount of pain that House is in, which is why he takes the vicodin, not to get high.

Why do pro-lifers insist on calling pro-choicers "pro-abortionists?" So far as I know, pro-choicers don't go around insisting that women be given abortions RIGHT NOW... they insist on keeping the option available to women, right?

Cayte hi :-)

This has been a continuation from the other post about the House episode (you can scroll down on the front page to see that one), so there is a lot of conversation that continues from there, which had already been discussed before we got to this page.

I'm not really sure how much Samantha herself had to say in that conversation, it may have been some of the other girls who were really getting worked up about it.

However, in this thread, after she mentioned, like you, that she felt the picture was misconstrued, I asked her what her point was. And this was her reply:
"Ugh. The point was that the whole photo thing was so misconstrued that it has now been used in a tv plot."

So that in itself tells me that she was not happy with the television show...that she was not happy with the fact that this was used to tell a tale with a underlying pro-life theme. Do you see how I am getting that?

Anyway, the story behind the photo really doesn't have any relevance to the situation... regardless of whether the baby stuck it's hand out on his own, or if someone picked the hand up, it's still a tiny, beautiful little human hand, and is proof of what precious life exists in the womb.

Why do pro-lifers insist on calling pro-choicers "pro-abortionists?" So far as I know, pro-choicers don't go around insisting that women be given abortions RIGHT NOW... they insist on keeping the option available to women, right?

The reason I do is because it means to me that you support abortion. Which you do. Not necessarily that you want people to have abortions, or are just loving abortion...but that you support it if a woman chooses to do it.

Support=pro

Pro-abortion= supports abortion

Incidentally, House referred to the fetus as a "parasite" because it was living off of another organism (the mother) but causing her harm (nearly killed her). This is the definition of a parasite.

Pro=support

Pro-fetus= supports fetuses

Hmmm...interesting argument there Bethany. :)

Incidentally, House referred to the fetus as a "parasite" because it was living off of another organism (the mother) but causing her harm (nearly killed her). This is the definition of a parasite.

Well of course he did....The character House is pro-abortion. A baby cannot be a parasite...I actually posted a whole article about it in a post below, but since I don't remember exactly where, I'll give you the link here to look at:
http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html

Pro=support

Pro-fetus= supports fetuses

Hmmm...interesting argument there Bethany. :)

Only problem is that I'm not offended by that.

Of course you don't.

But it also means you are anti-woman because you obviously favor the fetus over the woman.

Actually, MK, it doesn't seem as though the Catholic church is quite as unified as you would like to think it is:

Spiritual Youth for Reproductive Freedom: I'm sure you'll find some Catholic youth here

Catholics for choice. Quote from the site: Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC) was founded in 1973 to serve as a voice for Catholics who believe that the Catholic tradition supports a woman�s moral and legal right to follow her conscience in matters of sexuality and reproductive health.

So, it would seem as though your church isn't as unified as you would think. You can condemn all you want and complain that we're disrespecting God, but believe me: we're not the only ones. Just because the Pope says something does not mean there won't be dissent. The Pope can excommunicate all he wants, but ultimately, the harder he pushes against progression, the more and more likely it'll be that the church will either splinter, wither and die, or be pushed into the real world.

I went to see my OBGYN today. I am in my 9th month of pregnancy.He sent me for an ultrasound.Odd,the OB said "I want to have a look at the baby."Why are some people saying parasite,and why are others saying baby? What will you guys be calling it next year? A virus? Maybe a barnacle?*sarcasim*

But it also means you are anti-woman because you obviously favor the fetus over the woman.

Oh Rae. This old, tired and dead argument again?

Here's a question for you, which you'll never really answer. Why can't we love them both? You just can't seem to wrap your head around that idea.

And it's kind of funny that you're even daring to venture into the whole "I love women" argument again, after seeing what a terrible case you people made for yourself in the Terri Schiavo thread.
Oh yeah, you care about women allright...as long as their brains function on the exact same level as you,...oh... and as long as they agree with you about abortion.

Bethany:

You are definitely a bitter, bitter old shrew.

I feel sorry for you...and it's not because you're pro-life.

Rae, actually Bethany is very young.

Jill,

She acts older than my mother. My mother is not a young woman.

I'm 26.

Good for you.

My mom didn't have me until she was 26, and I was her first.

*shrugs*

But must say Bethany, I like your drawings on your webpage, I'm particularly fond of the "Spock" drawing. I love Star Trek. :)

Rae, are you ok? You sound either angry or sad, I can't tell which.

I don't mean to cause hurt feelings, Rae, even though I can get a little sarcastic at times when I feel pushed to it.

My pro-life views are very, very strong, and I really mean the stuff I say. 100 percent. Abortion, just the word, KILLS me inside.

However, Rae, I hope that you're ok. Honestly. I really didn't mean to make you feel bad. Please let me know that you're ok.

oops, I guess we posted at the same time. :)

Thank you so much!! That is so kind of you to say.

I'm not angry or sad, just very resigned. And tired.

Your welcome, I like to draw as well and it's always fun looking at other people's drawings. :)

Rae, I feel totally the same way! I am drained!

I would love to see some of your drawings if you ever want to share. :) Just send them in an email if you'd like. ;)
I think drawing is a great way to relax!

Here is a link to my art webpage:

http://kendranoelle.deviantart.com/

Wow, Rae! Those are awesome! Especially the first one that comes up "I'm Seeing sound". That is incredible.

I also like "Incredible Dream". :)

I see you're also a fan of Inuyasha. lol My husband and I watch that show.
My sister loves anime, so I'm going to show her your artwork. :)

That's cool, thank you, I'm glad you like it.

I used to love Inu-Yasha, the one problem is that I haven't watched it in so long I'm completely lost and I have nooooooo idea what's going on.

I am a really big fan of "Fruits Basket", it's such a sweet story, I'm sure you'd enjoy it if you haven't seen it already.

I also really like Rurouni Kenshin, but that one tends to be pretty violent at times, although it does have an excellent story line.

Rae, your art is beautiful! I liked Grapes of Wrath in particular.

And I LOVE Cold Stone! Although you're probably sick of it.

And Forrest Gump. I watch it every time it's on t.v. even though I have it on dvd. Go figure.

Thank you Jill.

I drew the "Grapes of Wrath" drawing when I got my new colored pencils when I was recovering from surgery this summer.

I used to work at Cold Stone, but I quit there in August when I went off to college. :D I still like the ice cream, 'tis delish.

Forrest Gump's just an awesome movie...end of story. It was fun eating at Bubbah Gump Shrimp (the restaurant) because I was the only one who was able to answer the trivia questions (my parents couldn't...:-p)

Rae,Your art work is beautiful!! You have quite a talent.I see you even drew the guy from HOUSE.I'm gonna go browse a bit more.I love to look at art.

momof3: Of course I drew "House", it's my favorite show. I

Girls,

Why don't you just read the Bible instead of trying to get some meaning out of a worthless Hollywood production whose sole purpose is to make money? The Bible is not wishy washy about murder, about how we are fearfully and wonderfully made, about right and wrong. I mean, I read Psalm 139 last night and I was blown away, again.

Lots of talk about religion and rules. Religion will get one absolutely nowhere with God. The Jews proved that. God cannot be impressed with our rulekeeping ability or our works. These are doctrines of men.

Only one Man was successful at keeping rules, God Himself. So it is not by keeping rules that His mantle is passed to us but by simple trusting and faithing, or doing trust and doing faith for a lifetime. Otherwise I am simply faithing and trusting myself and am doomed to failure.

Sorry, it's about ralationship, to Christ of course. If we're connected to Him, rule keeping becomes automatic and not forced. Read the story about the vine and branches.

I'm not married because I keep the rules, otherwise, I wouldn't be married because I don't always keep the rules and I don't mean I am unfaithful. However, I don't always listen and sometimes I am selfish. I'm married because I love my wife and I have a covenant relationship with her. The letter of the law brings death, but the Spirit gives life.

So, I can understand how SamanthaT is resisting the rule keeping stuff. Religion is boring and as has been spoken of so many times on this site, it does cause wars.

I am not a pro-deather because it's against the rules, however, I am pro-life because I know Whom I believe and trust in and it ain't myself. I'm honest enough to admit that.

If a person is trying to make it into heaven or attain God's favor by keeping rules apart from a loving relationship with Christ, nada.

However, having said all that, I still have a duty to stand against that which is evil, as my Savior would, that is, the killing of unborn children, not because I'm trying to impress God, but, because I have the mind of Christ, I naturally do the things He would do. How do you get the mind of Christ? By accepting Him and then reading and studying His word and letting it transform you. Not by letting some other man or woman tell you what it says.

Just wanted to make my position clear.

Posted by: Rae at April 5, 2007 09:00 PM

"I'm particularly fond of the "Spock" drawing. I love Star Trek. :) "

Live long and prosper! I love Star Trek too. I even went to alot of conventions in the mid '90's. Way fun!

Your drawings are awsome. I love "Return to me" even though I have no idea of anything that has to do with anime (I think that is what your comments are referring to). When I saw it, I was thinking of my Mom. March 8 would have been her 64th birthday. She died June 3 2004. The picture made me feel better! Thanks for sharing your work with us. You are very talented.

BTW - I was the only one who could answer all the questions at Bubba Gump Shrimp too! It was fun!

oh - Also, I like Evanescence too. Is their new CD good? I haven't had time to pick it up yet.

Valerie: I'm glad my picture helped you feel better. ^_^ I'm sorry to hear about your mom.

As for the Evanescence CD, I have not listened to the new CD as I heard it wasn't very good. I would suggest you try "Within Temptation", a Dutch metal band that's a lot like Evanescence (though in my opinion they're better...:D).

I think Christ would have escorted a woman seeking an abortion through the pro-life mob picketing outside, just as he stopped the stoning of the adultress. Christ was the ultimate feminist.

Cameron, read the end of the story, John 8...

10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11 "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

Jesus forgave her of past sin. But he told her stop that sin. He didn't say, "Neither do I condemn you, now let me enable you to continue your sin by committing murder."

A typically two-faced response from the infamously ignorant Jill Stanek? How unlikely! If the contention is that Jesus wouldn't forgive her if she sinned a second time, then you have a different Jesus in mind. Of course, you're also assuming that seeking life-preserving surgery is sinful.

The message was obviously Pro-Choice. The woman chose to continue her pregnancy, even though it would most likely kill her and her fetus. That's her right, the right to choose. House was correct that under any other circumstance, both would have died. A group dedicated to the preservation of life would rationally demand that at least one survive; since the survival of both was a statistical fraction of one percent, the "pro-life" perspective would demand that the woman survive and be denied the choice to let herself and her fetus die, even at the cost of the fetus. In our Pro-Choice world, however, she had the right to let herself die; as a result of her legally-protected choice, both managed to live -- again, a statistical aberration against thousands of similar cases that end with two deaths instead.

But Jill is a perfect example of people who see reality and let their imaginations warp it to fit their own devices. I also expect this post to be deleted out of the administrator's cowardice in the face of truth.

A typically two-faced response from the infamously ignorant Jill Stanek? How unlikely! If the contention is that Jesus wouldn't forgive her if she sinned a second time, then you have a different Jesus in mind. Of course, you're also assuming that seeking life-preserving surgery is sinful.

The message was obviously Pro-Choice. The woman chose to continue her pregnancy, even though it would most likely kill her and her fetus. That's her right, the right to choose. House was correct that under any other circumstance, both would have died. A group dedicated to the preservation of life would rationally demand that at least one survive; since the survival of both was a statistical fraction of one percent, the "pro-life" perspective would demand that the woman survive and be denied the choice to let herself and her fetus die, even at the cost of the fetus. In our Pro-Choice world, however, she had the right to let herself die; as a result of her legally-protected choice, both managed to live -- again, a statistical aberration against thousands of similar cases that end with two deaths instead.

But Jill is a perfect example of people who see reality and let their imaginations warp it to fit their own devices. I also expect this post to be deleted out of the administrator's cowardice in the face of truth.

Though one of the two above posts may instead be deleted for simple cleanliness. This website seems to have choked as badly as Jill does in an honest debate.