I just don't understand why these people even *want* to be Catholic. If they disagree with the Church's teaching, why not leave?

The Church can do whatever it wants, but I wonder why it picks this issue above all others. The last Pope asked Bush not to invade Iraq, but politicans who supported that war are still in the Church. The Church is against the Death Penalty without exception, but you can vote to support it and stay a Catholic. I imagine they haven't refused communion to politicans who are okay with birth control.

Jill - Don't you understand that the Church is suppose to change their definition of morality based on what society wants to do? You sound like you want the Church to teach us morality.

I believe they do it out of defiance. They're arrogance is quite disgraceful.

regarding Hal; this is what the pro-death side always does, compares the fighting of terrorist and murderers with the most innocent -the unborn.

Murdering murderers also makes you a murderer.

And think of how many pregnant Iraqi women may have perished because of this needless war.

Hal -

You need to read 'Evangelium Vitae' the Encyclical Letter of John Paul II.

You also need to understand what the Pope means by "Canon law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion,"

This is not excommunication as they cannot go to Church. This is excommunication from the Eucharist.

The Church has the same belief's on your other points as well. But the reporter wasn't asking the Pope about those.

"Murdering murderers also makes you a murderer.

And think of how many pregnant Iraqi women may have perished because of this needless war."

Nice way to distact the conversation.

and tell me JK, who is it exactly that is killing civilians in Iraq? please tell me.

how about the 150,000 kurds who were murdered under Sadamm Hussian (the butcher or bagdad).

Thanks Valerie. I understand the Church believing "the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion." Women who have had abortions, doctors who perform them, etc.

I don't understand how that extends to politicians who don't kill an innocent child, but who say publically that they are against abortion but don't want a law banning it.

Lets, see, the last time I checked soldiers were outfitted with weapons, the same as terrorists. So no one can count who exactly kills who, how convienent for our government. And why do you think the terrorists have come to Iraq? BECAUSE OF OUR PRESENCE THERE. Bush's warmongering attitude have killed thousands of people, both innocent and otherwise, both American and foreign; but all you want to harp on is the sexual issues of the last president, which I might add, killed 0 people and ruined one dress.

There are civilians getting killed in Iraq.

"Lets, see, the last time I checked soldiers were outfitted with weapons, the same as terrorists. So no one can count who exactly kills who, how convienent for our government."

So what your saying JK is that our soldiers are killing innocent civilians like the terroist do on a daily basis?

"And why do you think the terrorists have come to Iraq? BECAUSE OF OUR PRESENCE THERE. Bush's warmongering attitude have killed thousands of people, both innocent and otherwise, both American and foreign"

oh, I see, so Bush and our American troops have killed innocent civilians. Are our troops also planting IUD (bombs) in cars and running them into markets filled with innocent people?

thats was suppose to be "IED"s

and ruined one dress.

Posted by: JK at May 18, 2007 12:48 PM

ROFLMAO, Thata was bloody brilliant JK, thanks for the laugh, I needed it today!

midnite (barbara boxer),

when are you going to answer my question:

->whay is it not OK to abort a 39 week old fetus? you said it wasn't really living until it was born?

Bill Clinton was the worst president ever!

I'm sorry Heather, but by ANY standard, Bush II is the worst president ever.

jasper: Are you really as naive as to believe that it is only the bad guys that get caught in our crossfire?

Heather: Our economy was good, our gas prices were lower, there were more jobs, our tax dollars didn't go directly to funding an endless quagmire, American soldiers weren't dropping like flies, you're right, Clinton was a HORRIBLE president.

I believe its a toss up between Dubya and William Henry Harrison

Jasper:

Please quit calling me that. I dont try to make up condesending names to call you. And I answered your question the other day on another thread. If you want to know my answer, look at the answer in the other thread (I dont remember the name of it though).

Hal -

"I don't understand how that extends to politicians who don't kill an innocent child, but who say publically that they are against abortion but don't want a law banning it. "

This would be like saying; "I personally do not agree with incest but I'm not going to have our laws prevent this."

You can't say, I don't agree with murder, but I'm not going to ban it. That makes you guilty of not trying to stop a crime when you are in a position to do so. An example would be if an on duty police officer watched a crime happen and didn't do anything to prevent it. That police officer will be punished for not doing his job to protect the people. The Politicians are like Police Officer's. They have a duty to protect the people, especially the weekest ones.

And babies were slaughtered left and right. I'm right. Clinton WAS a horrible president!

Valerie, if the police officer is off duty he has not legal obligation to do anything about a crime happening in front of him.

I have a niece who was in Iraq. She is a US marine, and she is proud to serve her country. Men and women in the service want to protect and serve their country!

Valerie, so a politician who voted against an incest ban (even on federal grounds or other issues) would be excommunicated?

I doubt it. I don't see any pro-death penalty politicans in trouble with the Church.

sorry, should be "federalism"

Clinton had to keep abortion legal, because he couldn't keep his OWN pants on. Remember his mistress Gennifer Flowers? She had to have an abortion after Bill inseminated her. Hillary likes abortion too, because of Bill's numerous sexual escapades with other women.

Abortion still happens today under your hero George "If I Only Had A Brain" Bush. So why is he not seen as horrible in your eyes?

I think Clinton, as governor or President, would have been able to get a woman an abortion whether it was legal or not.

There are people who support abortion rights for reason other than self interest.

you may disagree with Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, but I think it's safe to believe their position on this issue is the result of their true convictions.

Heather: Clinton had to keep abortion legal, because he couldn't keep his OWN pants on. Remember his mistress Gennifer Flowers? She had to have an abortion after Bill inseminated her. Hillary likes abortion too, because of Bill's numerous sexual escapades with other women.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yeah! I remember how shocked I was to hear that 'Dumbya had knocked up his own twin daughters and performed third-trimester D&Xs on them using a shopvac right on his desk in the oval office! (If Heather gets to spew BS, then I get to also!)

I may not agree with everything that any president does, but at least Bush is trying to tighten the laws on abortion. And yes, abortions do still happen today, and women are still dying from LEGAL abortions. Go to the Cemetery of Choice web site. Why don't the feminists rant and rave about these deaths? Where are NOW and NARAL?

JK, I asked you a simple question, you had indcated that you were not sure who exactly was killing innocent civilians in Iraq.

JK: "Lets, see, the last time I checked soldiers were outfitted with weapons, the same as terrorists. So no one can count who exactly kills who, how convienent for our government."

so I'll ask you again:

Are our troops also planting IED (bombs) in cars and running them into markets filled with innocent people?

Laura, how do you figure that's BS? Gennifer wrote about it in her book.

The church is the body of Christ here on earth and His bride for which He will return to get. The Catholic Church has the mantle assigned by God to speak authoritatively against abortion and we would all do well, Catholic and otherwise to heed their words as I believe they come from the mouth of God.

If politicians don't agree with what their church is saying they should leave that church and join another or start their own, of course, at their own eternal peril. We have freedom of religion.

However, to dictate to a church on what they see as God's revelation to be spoken forth from the Word as a result of much prayer, study, teaching and mediation is blasphemy since it makes one's personal authority higher than God's. I

Politicians, especially those in high office are held to an even higher standard by God and they put their souls in jeopardy by speaking against His chosen oracles.

Not every casualty of the Iraq war was killed by a roadside bomb, and if we hadn't started the war in the first place none of our soldiers would be killed by roadside bombs. And if Bush could grow a pair and admit he was wrong and bring the troops home, no other Americans (or Iraqis) would be killed by roadside bombs.

His Man, nice to hear from you today!

so, why are the pro-death penatly politicans being thrown out of the church?

Is abortion worse than the death penalty for the Church? Can Catholics pick and choose what parts of Church teaching they can accept?

As I said in the beginning, I have no problem with the Church enforcing its views on abortion on its members, but I do wonder why it's only this issue they are speaking out about.

The only reason we're talking about Iraq here is I pointed out that Pope John Paul was against the war and asked Bush not to invade, yet the Senators and Congresspeople (and Hannity) who support the war have faced no consequences for their anit-Church position.

Hal,

Porn queen or should I say reprobate Debbie Jameson came out and said she would like to have Hillary as president because the porn industry skyrocketed when Bill was in office.

If you can't see a relationship between immoral leadership and a decline in societal moral values as a whole and the the resulting destruction, sorry, you're beyond reaching. In fact, your views are a direct result of that decadence.

Bill Clinton was the worst president in history and I am sure history will judge him as such when, 50 or 100 years from now, all of the societal ills that resulted from his dereliction in duty, including making terrorists peceive us as weak, will be evident.

I pray earnestly that Hillary will not ever become president. This for sure would be a disaster.

"And if Bush could grow a pair and admit he was wrong and bring the troops home, no other Americans (or Iraqis) would be killed by roadside bombs."

Oh really, can you guareentee that? I know you're a terroist sympathiser, but how exactly do you know this.

50 or 100 years from now?

I thought you believed the rapture was just around the corner?

over 80% of the killing in Iraq is by IED's

So, I'll try asking JK(who's not sure who's killing the civilians in Iraq) one more time:

JK, are our troops also planting IED (bombs) in cars and running them into markets filled with innocent people?

Yeah, jasper, being anti war is being a terrorist sympathiser, how does that work by the way?

80% does not equal 100%

Would American troops be getting killed by IED's in Iraq if they were not in Iraq? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Hisman, The porn industry might have skyrocked while Clinton was in office, but that doesn't me it was *because* he was in office. Other things were happening at the same time, such an the internet, increased DVD and video sales, etc. (maybe even an increase in the demand for porn)

And, I don't believe Clinton showed "immoral leadership." I think he showed wonderful leadership and was a great president.

I don't know Debbie Jameson, is she the porn actress Bush invited to the White House?

this is how JK:

I asked you: JK, who is killing civilians in Iraq

and your outrangeous statement putting our brave servicemen on the same moral plane with terrorist was this:

"Lets, see, the last time I checked soldiers were outfitted with weapons, the same as terrorists. So no one can count who exactly kills who, how convienent for our government."

JK,

We should bomb Iran nuclear facilities now. I think you fail to realize how these nutjobs think over there. Their mindset is patholgical. They believe that the Koran says, that if someone refuses to acknowledge Allah, they should be killed, pay tribute or become your slaves.

I can't imagine someone like yourself living under that kind of system. So, we're not supposed to fight these maniacs? You want your mom and dad, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, nephews ansd nieces and cousins to live under the control of these people?

It is unimaginable to think that you don't understand that they want to control the world. They want to either subject you or kill you and all who you love. Why can't you liberals see that?

When will you understand, when Iran lauches nuclear weapons at Israel, the whole Middle East and Europe will be turned into a parking lot and the US will have to get involved?

Don't think that this won't affect you personally. No job, no money, no food as a result of the economic collapse. Are you that spoiled that you can't see that? Tell me why you think this won't happen if we don't fight and oppose these Islamofascists and do it forcefully before they get the upper hand?

It was liberals like you that wanted to appease Hitler and as a result of waiting, caused the destruction of 50,000,000 people.

We have to beleive what Aminejad is saying, i.e. to wipe Israel and the US off the face of the map and bring world domination. By the way, this includes you.

Hmmm......I'm pro-bringing the troops home, as to get them out of harm's way, you seem to be pro-leaving them in harm's way. Your moral compass seems to be a little faulty there, jasper.

When an attack is ordered on a specific site where terrorist leaders might be hiding, there is no guarantee that there are not civilians in the area. I know you would like to believe that only the big bad Muslims are the ones killing civilians, but the truth still remains that sometimes it is inevitable that civilians can inadvertantly get caught in our crossfire.

Yeah, Heather - Gennifer Flowers is a compulsive liar - here are a few examples (OK, here are 50 examples...)
http://www.americanpolitics.com/032798Gennifer.html

The last thing you should do to a person holding a nuclear bomb is to make them angry, HisMan.

And blowing up nuclear facilities would in fact, ignite the chemicals inside them, which is a truly stupid thing to do.

HisMan, the fact that I didn't actually think people like you existed shows how terrifying I find your mind set. How are you any different from the Muslim extremists? Islam is not a morally bankrupt religion- in fact, by and large, it's quite peaceful. You have the same God as them. And the ONLY person insane enough in modern times to actually send a nuke somewhere is Kim Jong Il.

And JK, I disagree, I think it's Bush II and Buchanan who were worst- Buchanan basically let the Civil War happen.

OK, you think it's bad that JENNA Jameson said something nice about Clinton?
Heck! The Bush administration has been known to INVITE porn stars to dine with our Commander-in-Chimp:

Porn Star Mary Carey to Dine With Bush
Porn star and former California gubernatorial candidate Mary Carey is slated to attend a dinner with President Bush in Washington next month.

Carey, who plans to run for Lieutenant Governor of California next year, said, "I'm especially looking forward to meeting Karl Rove. Smart men like him are so sexy. I know that he’s against gay marriage, but I think I can convince him that a little girl-on-girl action now and then isn’t so bad!" Read more…
Friday May 20, 2005 | comments (0)

Hal,

I don't expect someone who killed two of his unborn children to agree with me that Clinton was the worst or the worst of the worst.

This guy had an intern give him a blow job in the oval office. He lied to a grand jury. He was a coward with no values.

Now he's courting Middle east powers and having anti-American views promoted so he can collect $10,000,000 a year in speaking fees. The guy is a reprehensible traitor, a reprobate, a moral midget, a cancer in politics.

Bush lied to a WHOLE NATION about why he was sending us off to war.

Hisman, I did a bit of research, the porn star the Republicans embaced was not Jameson, but this woman :

WASHINGTON – Pornographer Mark Kulkis says tonight's presidential fund-raiser, which includes him and his date, XXX porn star Mary Carey, will make pop-culture history.

But the National Republican Congressional Committee seems more intent on using President Bush's $2,500-a-plate speech to make political fund-raising history.

Congressional Republicans expect to add at least $23 million to their party campaign funds at the event featuring the president. . . .

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44763

Erin,
You're right, I forgot about Buchanan, but you have to put Harrison on the list because he did nothing for the three months he was president, and was in love with the sound of his own voice.

:-)

Midnite -

"Valerie, if the police officer is off duty he has not legal obligation to do anything about a crime happening in front of him."

This is why I specified an ON DUTY police officer.

Hal -

"so, why are the pro-death penatly politicans being thrown out of the church?

Is abortion worse than the death penalty for the Church? Can Catholics pick and choose what parts of Church teaching they can accept?

As I said in the beginning, I have no problem with the Church enforcing its views on abortion on its members, but I do wonder why it's only this issue they are speaking out about."

Please listen, you are a smart person, I know you can do it.

The reason this is in the news is because a reported asked the Pope about politicians and abortions. This question was asked because of what is happening in Mexico right now. The media has taken off with it and our politicians are making statements about it.

This was not the Catholic Church making a statement and condemning only abortion. This was in RESPONSE to a question. The question did not include the death penalty. The question did not include any other pro-life issue. JUST abortion.

This is why I recommneded that you read 'Evangelium Vitae'. Your answers are in there. If a politician supports the death penalty and is in the postition to end it and doesn't, then that politician will be asked not to take communion. Catholic Governors have had consultations with Bishops before someone is about to be executed in their state because those governors understand Cannon Law.

They are not "being thrown out of the church". They are being asked, or possibly will be denied, communion. They can still attend Church.

What many on here have asked is if they do not agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church then why do they consider themselves Catholic? It is not the Church that is telling them to leave. It is the people questioning their faith.

Do you understand now?

Valerie:

Read the post wrong, thought it said an off duty police officer, my bad.. Carry on then! ;-)

Valerie, yes, I understand now. Thank you. I was unaware that the Evangelium Vitae spoke about the death penalty, (and would have looked it up myself in response to your earlier invitation when I had some time.)

The Church seems consistent, that's all we can ask.

Good question people are asking about why call yourself a Catholic if you're in favor of abortion, birth control, or the Death Penalty. I'll stay out of that one, since I don't call myself a Caltholic.

Hisman, and I don't expect you to agree with me either. (isn't our "truce" fun?)

However, I'm not appalled by a blow job from an intern. I'm not happy about the grand jury testimony. I can forgive him for that. I don't see evidence that he's a coward or a was a bad president. Generally he did the best he could based on what he thought was right. That's all any of us can do.

JK, I'm sorry you think our troops are also planting IED (bombs) in cars and running them into markets filled with innocent people.

since you wouldn't say they weren't.

But, you got me off of the abortion topic which you cannot discuss.

Sorry Erin,

Yahweh and Allah are not the same. Allah is a false god.

To call Yahweh and Jehovah by the name Allah is blasphemy and you would be wise not to do so. Islam does not recognize Jesus Christ as God and by definition are therefore, anti-Christs.

We were attacked on 9/11. It is becoming clear that Iran is involved in most of the state sponsored terrorism around the world. I have no desire to kill anyone, but, I am not a coward, and I will do anything to protect my family and country. If it takes wiping out an enemy before they do it to us, so be it. Iran is clearly developing nuclear weapons for one reason, to destroy Israel. That will not, I repeat, will not ever happen. In fact, if a person does not stand with Israel they are cursed, but, if they stand with Israel they are blessed.

By their own admission Iran wants to wipe Israel and the US off the face of the map. So, by decree and their own choice they are cursed of God. Apparently you don't believe that, I do. In light of 9/11 and what is going on in Iraq, I choose to take the Iranians ans Islamofascists at their word.

Sorry, all the pollyanna thinking,i.e., we all worship one God, etc. is total lie and will not change what's going on and what will happen in the Middle East, a cosmic battle between God and satan being played out with Jerusalem at the center. If you can't see the coming conflagration, you will fail to prepare yourself and your soul for it.

Politicians, especially those in high office are held to an even higher standard by God and they put their souls in jeopardy by speaking against His chosen oracles.

But priests who molest little children are sheltered by the church. Hm, that makes loads of sense.

jasper, soldiers might not bomb cars: instead, they rape Iraqi women and burn the house to cover it up. They lie about friendly fire incidences. I've had family members over there, and the things they've told me are absolutely atrocious.

Jill,

you have yo check out this gem, it's from an abortionist responding to the PP investigation by Lila.

http://feministing.com/archives/007048.html

she says:

My facility is one of only two dedicated abortion providers in my state that provides terminations to 24 weeks and 6 days in a pregnancy (yes, that’s 6 months; a fact that can sometimes challenge even the most pro-choice among us and is not lost on the small percentage of women who have terminations at that stage in pregnancy). What differentiates us from the other provider is our dedication to a holistic approach to abortion care. In our world abortion is not just about the physical removal of a pregnancy from the body, but it’s about the heart and emotional well being of our patients as well.

Hal,

I have to ask you this: does anything of a sexual nature outside of marriage have an immoral component to it for you? Does your wife know how you feel about this.

I mean the reason God put so many restrictins on sex was because the results of sex outside of marriage are always disastrous and the boundaries placed on it by a loving God are for our protection.

I mean Bill was married to Hillary at the time he recieved a blow job. Does that mean you would accept same and then go tell your wife about it and she would be OK with it? Or, perhaps you wouldn't tell her or just lie about it. That's alright?

What if some guy serviced your wife? That would be OK? Let me see, ignorance is bliss?

You are hard to understand Hal.

If my wife cheated on me, that would deeply hurt me. She has pledged faithfulness and I take her at her word. To break those vows is a direct betrayal. I would forgive her, but it would hurt tremendously. But in light of that, oral sex outside of marriage is OK with you?

Remember, this is the leader of our country, Bill Clinton, setting a standard and you agree with it? What does this say about any pledge he made, including to protect out country from enemies both domestic and foregn? He's obviously breaking these vows by what he and the liberal hate machine are saying about President Bush while we are at war. God please help us.

"To call Yahweh and Jehovah by the name Allah is blasphemy and you would be wise not to do so"

Not quite true. The authority for that would be Wycliffe, whose translation credentials and bona fides -- as well as faithfulness to the gospel -- are unimpeachable.

Christian evangelism of Muslims does, in fact, rely on the word Allah.

Theologically, the Muslim referent of that signifier certainly doesn't match with the Christian Trinity, but neither do Jews think Yahweh does.

Actually, when it comes to what God is called I generally wince at "Jehovah," which is an unfortunate accident of history, being a mispronunciation of the German translation. ;-)

"This is why I recommneded that you read 'Evangelium Vitae'."

Good heavens, yes. Anyone who pretends to treat Rome's engagement on the question of abortion (inter alia) without some literacy with this EC, is really missing the action and, if they're people of good will, some serious chin-scratching moments. It's a magnificent document.

Erin,

No Bush didn't lie. The WMDs are in Syria. READ.

If you don't think Saddam Hussein was a menace and deserving of death for what he did to his own people, I don't know what else to tell you.

What do you think of Aminejad? Should we ignore him thinking he will go away? Is it worth the risk and would you will be willing to take responsiblity for all that results from his leadership?

Hisman, when I said I wasn't bothered by Bill Clinton's blow job, I meant as a citizen. I didn't mean to imply Hillary shouldn't have been bothered. I just think it was between the two of them, and it doesn't mean he was a bad President. We all have failings. I can accept this kind of sexual failings in a President who I otherwise admire. I would not accept such failings in a spouse. If Hillary wants to, it's not my problem. Doesn't mean to me he won't defend the constitution and the country to the best of his ability.

I know that history shows that unhappy people will eventually revolt. Always. Saddam was a bad man. I'm not unhappy that he's gone. But I am unhappy that the pretenses under which we invaded Iraq were false ones. There aren't any WMDs in Iraq. I know this BECAUSE I read. I have faith in the natural evolution of civiliations, because what history shows me is exactly that- that civilizations will morph and change with the tide of their people. It might take a while, but it will happen.

Rasqual:

For one reason, and one reason alone, since the Muslims do not accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God, we cannot accpet any name they use for God, including Allah.

Since Jesus Christ and the Father and the Holy Spirit are One, to eliminate one of the God-head as a member and to call that God-head Allah one and the same is a disconnect.

I will study it and get back to you.

The results of sex outside of marriage are always disastrous...

Untrue. I'm not married, never have been, and I'm no virgin. I don't have any STDs, I never got pregnant, and I was never emotionally scarred by my experiences. The guy and I broke up, but we're still friends, and I was never particularly brokenhearted over it. My fiance doesn't care that I've had sex before, and I certainly don't think my lack of virginity is a big deal.

HisMan:

So just b/c they dont believe in the same god as you do, they're what exactly? Condemed to hell, deserve to die? What exactly??

midnite,

why is it not ok to abort a 39 week old fetus? It is not living, like you said.

...please don't tell it's because the mother has already decorated the baby's room......

Less- I have a feeling HisMan's response is going to be something like "You may not realize that it is a terrible thing now, but later, or on Judgement Day, you will realize that you are an EVIL EVIL TRIPLE EVIL person for liking to have an orgasm. Besides, everyone knows a woman is just supposed to lie there anyway ;-)

So Jews are going to Hell because they don't believe that Jesus is the the Son of God? You do realize that Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all derived from Zoroastrianism, correct?

Rae, there's also a theory that Judaism is a "normative inversion" of Egyptian polytheism: basically, the Israelites took everything that the Egyptians believed in and reversed it, just to be spiteful. There's also a theory that Moses was a deposed worshipper of the Aten, from the Amarna period, who taught his faith to the Israelites. If Judaism is derived from the Egyptian religion, what does that say about Christianity?

(The book is called Moses the Egyptian and its a translation from German, so the phrasology is a bit weird, but it's a great book.>

Rae, that is what they believe. I've heard Rev. Falwell say it several times. You must accept Jesus Christ as your personal savioir (or some such thing) or you're going to Hell. Being a good person will not get you to Heaven, being an observant Jew will not get you there. You must accept Jesus. Some powertrip that guy's on, eh?

Another thing, apparently you're not supposed to "mock" him. God will not be mocked. He's made that clear.

@Less: That is interesting, I've never heard that before.

I am very amused/annoyed with Jasper and His Man calling Muslims evil heathens. I sort-of dated a Lebanese Muslim boy who was probably the nicest guy I've ever met, he treated me like a queen. Unfortunately his life was really complicated and I didn't want to deal with it and be a burden. He used to say that on the whole, Muslims are not like the morons you see on TV like the President of Iran or the Taliban...they make Islam look bad.

I had to read the book for a Biblical Heritage class, and it ended up being absolutely wonderous.

Rae, I've never met a Muslim who was anything like the ones on TV or in the various governments. All the ones I've ever met are real party animals, and a riot to be around.

Erin, but missionary is sooo booooring......*sadface*

@Less: I know quite a few and have met quite a few as I live in Minneapolis and we have a large Somali population and majority of Somalians are Muslim. They aren't bad people and they do in fact recognize Jesus Christ as a prophet, like the Jews do, only they see him as a greater prophet but he isn't held in the esteem of Muhammad (though he is close).

Less,

You haven't seen the disastrous spiritual effects of immoral sex, yet.... The Bible says your sins will find you out.

Also, I suggest you take a trip to Iran and date a Muslim and then tell me about your experience.

Finally, your assumptions on Judaism and Christianity are completely WRONG.

Midnight,

Read the bible and come to your own conclusion about who will be saved and who won't...of course, you can reject the Bible as God's word...at your own risk.

Rae and Hal,

Never called Muslims evil heathans. I reject that statement as completely false and a lie. I said Muslims reject Christ as the son of God, I said Islamofascists attacked us on 9/11. Please retract your lies.

Erin,

DO NOT and I REPEAT, DO NOT put words in my mouth.

All of you,

Have a good weekend and please stay safe. I'll pray that God will continue to spare your lives until you come to a saving knowledge of Him who died for you.

Jasper,

Peace brother.

Hisman:"You haven't seen the disastrous spiritual effects of immoral sex, yet.... The Bible says your sins will find you out."

Erin's impression of Hisman: "You may not realize that it is a terrible thing now, but later, or on Judgement Day, you will realize that you are an EVIL EVIL TRIPLE EVIL person for liking to have an orgasm."

Pretty close if you ask me.

Good work Erin. (but remember, no mocking)

@His Man: No, I'm not going to retract my statement as that is how I interpret what you say. You may not have said in those words, but you definitely imply that they are inferior to Christians.

HisMan:

We've been through this again and again. I dont read the bible b/c I AM AGNOSTIC. And I DONT need or want you to pray for me and my heathen self. Serisouly, when will you get this through your thick skull?

HisMan:

"For one reason, and one reason alone, since the Muslims do not accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God, we cannot accpet any name they use for God, including Allah."

Linguistic problems are complex with this issue, but it's important not to confuse Islam with Arabic. One is a faith, the other the language common in the part of the world where, it turns out, most folk are Muslim.

Paul was able, on Mars Hill, to take the name "unknown God" and use it for his purposes. Granted it's more complex to take a name that's usually freighted with Islamic baggage and put it in service of Yahweh -- but no one said our job would be easy. ;-)

The Catholic Church is clearly violating the requirement that they refrain from political activity.

It's tax-free status should be revoked.

Tax the Catholic Church!

"So just b/c they dont believe in the same god as you do, they're what exactly? Condemed to hell, deserve to die? What exactly??"

I know this sounds terribly stupid and unfair, but if you think about it, it makes sense. Please give me a shot at explaining.

The Bible, while comparing Hell to a fiery pit, never gives us the Greek visions of demons whipping tortured souls, burdens being carried uphill only to roll down again, rivers shrinking away from devastating thirst. Most Biblical descriptions of what happens to those who reject Christ centers around the idea of the absence of God. God is life and all that is good and just; His absence in and of itself would be torture enough. However, if a person spends his whole life rejecting God, what should He do? Drag us kicking and screaming through the pearly gates into Heaven?

God loves us. He created us just for the joy of being around us. In fact, He loved us enough to give us a choice about whether we love Him back. He could have created a race of slavering drones who thought of nothing but serving His every whim for all eternity. He could have banished the concept of sin from the universe so that we would not even be capable of choosing to turn against Him. He knew that given the choice we would rebel, and He still allowed it because He knew that the alternative was not love.

In the beginning man chose not to listen to God. We'd rather have our own way and do whatever we want. We'd rather create gods who are whatever we like, who don't ask anything of us that we are unwilling to give, who don't "send us to hell" for things we enjoy doing. In short, we create gods who are limited by everything He refused to limit in us.

I think I would have understood if God had just thrown up His hands and said, "Fine, have it your way. Do whatever you like and I'll just leave." Instead, He chose to come live among us and endure all that we endure -- and more. He chose to be born the bastard child of an unwed mother (not even her fiance's son!), grow up poor and running from the law, live in a country oppressed by foreign armies, be rejected by the people of his hometown and the leaders his homeland, suffer the death of those he loved, and finally be executed as a criminal. All that just to give us a second chance, to say, "Ok, I know I can't expect you to be perfect. I realize that you sometimes reject my ways, and sometimes even reject me. Just accept this olive branch and say you'll be my people."

It must be very upsetting for Him when we choose the gods of our own creation over the God Who Is.

I suppose you'll say that I am very arrogant to believe that "my" religion is the one that's right. But if nothing else, please accept that I have to be. Christ insists that He is the only way, and I must forsake all others. If He is right, and I don't believe, I am lost. If He isn't, and I believe, I am lost. It only makes sense to either believe whole-heartedly or dismiss it completely. Half-way is pointless.

"The Catholic Church is clearly violating the requirement that they refrain from political activity.

It's tax-free status should be revoked.

Tax the Catholic Church!"

If that's the way it must be, then tax me. I'd rather pay my whole fortune than deny God before men.

I actually find it kind of irritating that churches aren't taxed. Don't Christians have a whole saying, "Pay Caesar what is due Caesar and pay God what is due God."

Michelle, excellent post!

There seems to be some confusion about what the Catholic Church teaches (and does not teach) about abortion, war and capital punishment.

Let me explain. Abortion is considered an intrinsic evil, which means that the act itself is always wrong and there is never a case where it could be considered correct.

This is not the case with war and capital punishment. These two things are not intrinsically evil and there are circumstances where Catholic's can support both.

Please note that although Pope John Paul II was "against" the war in Iraq, he in no way ever said that it is intrinsically evil and that Catholic's should not participate.

Politicians will not be removed from communion with the Church if they are in a position to abolish the death penalty and they do not. I know this because I have worked with many of them who are in this exact position.

Note that euthanasia is also considered an intrinsic evil as it is the direct killing of an innocent human being.

I have not followed this whole conversation through so I may be stepping on some toes so please forgive me if I do. I am just trying to clear the air with regards to the teaching of the Catholic Church.

One more thing. As an ex-police officer, I can tell you that you do indeed have an obligation to respond to an emergency if it happens in front of you and you are off-duty.

Wow, I missed quite a bit today!

Andrew that is not always the case (as a daughter of two of cops)

Erin:
"I actually find it kind of irritating that churches aren't taxed. Don't Christians have a whole saying, 'Pay Caesar what is due Caesar and pay God what is due God.'"

So government tax policy should be based on Christian scripture?

But no, that quote's wrong.

midnight, beyond the obligation to respond to an emergency, any police officer should feel compelled in their heart to respond to such things due to the nature of their vocations as servants of the public.

What type of Emergency would a police officer not be obligated to respond to, if it happened in front of him/her while off-duty, Midnite?

Laura, I'm sorry but I didn't see a thing about Gennifer Flowers lying about her abortion. Clinton is a BIG liar too. If it came from his mouth I would never believe it anyway.

It just kills me that all of you women that howl like banshees about respect for women and women's rights,are supporting a womanizer who cheated on his wife. Bill was screwing Gennifer Flowers for 11 years. He then went on to proposition Paula Jones, Eleanor Mondale, and then received a BJ from Monica. God only knows how many others were in between.

HisMan, they aren't assumptions, they're theories put forth by psychologists, Egyptologists, theologists, and Biblical scholars. The particular theory I was speaking of is nearly as impossible to prove as Christianity, but it's facinating nevertheless.

As the prevailing pro-life opinion on premarital sex seems to be "you will get pregnant and DIE," and I have neither gotten pregnant nor died, I'm not too concerned. If I suffer "disasterous spiritual consequences" because I had sex, well, that's fine, I'm not too concerned.

It just kills me that all of you women that howl like banshees about respect for women and women's rights,are supporting a womanizer who cheated on his wife.

That is pretty funny.

Less, the prevailing pro-life opinion on premarital sex is that it is harmful in and of itself.

Additional concequences are simply cherries on the top. (Horrible Pun not intended)

I posted this earlier but I can't get over the gall of this abortionist at PP going after Lila PP investigation. This sicko is aborting babies at 6 months. The link is below.... check out the comments from the nutty people on this blog...

http://feministing.com/archives/007048.html

she says:

My facility is one of only two dedicated abortion providers in my state that provides terminations to 24 weeks and 6 days in a pregnancy (yes, that’s 6 months; a fact that can sometimes challenge even the most pro-choice among us and is not lost on the small percentage of women who have terminations at that stage in pregnancy). What differentiates us from the other provider is our dedication to a holistic approach to abortion care. In our world abortion is not just about the physical removal of a pregnancy from the body, but it’s about the heart and emotional well being of our patients as well.

Less, you stated that you know very little about baby killer George Tiller. Please educate yourself about what an evil twisted person that he really is.

Glad to know that they're not just about killing children.

I'd like to see exactly what kind of emotional support they offer. Denying the suffering of post-abortive women doesn't exactly heal hearts.

Oh good God. These abortionists don't care a wit about women! All they want to do is give you some lip service, take your money, and kick your rear end out the door! Most abortionists hate women who seek abortions. I read about more than a few that called the women "tramps." This was behind their backs, of course.

It's sad too because they always advertise about how "compassionate" they are. Please don't fall for that! They are there for one reason. They will kill your baby for $.

abortionist: "In our world abortion is not just about the physical removal of a pregnancy from the body, but it’s about the heart and emotional well being of our patients as well."

how do you remove a pregancy from a body?

It's a baby that you're killing!!

See, they lie to themselves to cover up their evil deed.

You know what, Heather? I go to the hairstylist when my hair needs to be cut. They cut it, the take my money, and that's it. When I need my birth control renewed, I go to the OB/GYN: she does a pap, gives me a perscription, and that's it. I'm a journalist: when I do interviews, I ask questions, write a thing, that's it. Doctors who preform abortions are doctors: not psychologists, therapists, or anything else. Frankly, if you're feeling depressed after an abortion, its the woman's reponsibility to seek outside help.

Oh good God.

Taking the Lord's name in vain, much?

And Lauren, I've not suffered any harm from having premarital sex. As I don't put virginity on some high plane of perfection, don't associate it with purity, and don't put any unnecessary trappings on sex, I'm not too concerned.

I was reading about former abortionists one day. I was really shocked about the things they had to say about women. One abortionist said that women who obtained abortions were very irresponsible and "not very well grounded" Another said, " Women who abort are usually very "flighty" and they aren't the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree.

Less, abortionists are baby killers. Doctors heal! I would never let an abortionist touch me!!!

Andrew:

I agree, most would respond even though they were off duty and most would feel morally obligated to do so.

Bethany:

For example (my own personal experience), I was with my mother inside a bank when it got robbed (I was seven). She was a police officer at the time. She did not respond as a cop b/c her obligation as a mother to protect me came first.

That's great, if I got pregnant, I would. And why should you decide for me?

Less, I already knew you would say that. I can't stop you,but it won't stop me from getting the truth out to others.

Andrew:

"Politicians will not be removed from communion with the Church if they are in a position to abolish the death penalty and they do not. I know this because I have worked with many of them who are in this exact position. "

I believe this to be untrue. How would you explain what was said in Evangelium Vitae "Human life is sacred and inviolable [53-57]

"From man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life" Gen 9:5

Valerie:

You're against the death penalty?

For example (my own personal experience), I was with my mother inside a bank when it got robbed (I was seven). She was a police officer at the time. She did not respond as a cop b/c her obligation as a mother to protect me came first.

Oh ok, that makes sense.
Did anyone get hurt, just curious?

By the way, there was a bank robbery the other day at the Wachovia bank in Bessemer, where two women were shot and killed, did you hear about that?

Bethany:

No, thank goodness, no one got hurt in that one. Yeah I heard about that robbery and two more happened the next day!

It's just terrible that that kind of thing seems to happen so often. How scary. :-(

midnite,

why is it not ok to abort a 39 week old fetus? It is not living, like you said.

...please don't tell me it's because the mother has already decorated the baby's room......

I'd really like to have ANY abortion supporter answer that question, in an honest way.

Valerie,

I am just attempting to shed light on what the church officially teaches.

The reference to it can be found in the catechism (para. 2263-2267) where it is clear that individuals have the right to defend themselves against an unjust aggressor, even if that defense results in the death of the aggressor. It is also clear that the state, in the same way, has the right to protect itself from those who are a threat to the common good of society.

We say "the state" because the Church is not formally involved in the task of protecting the people of a particular state.

All of this is reflected in the catechism and is clearly spelled out. Read those paragraphs. Many people have never actually read them and the result is confusion and dissension among good Catholics.

I'm not certain why a Catholic politician would be asked to remove themselves from communion for abiding by the clear teaching of the Church in relation to capital punishment. Are you aware of any situations where this has happened?

Less,

Do you know what a heart hardened by sin is?

Less:
"And Lauren, I've not suffered any harm from having premarital sex. As I don't put virginity on some high plane of perfection, don't associate it with purity, and don't put any unnecessary trappings on sex, I'm not too concerned."

Sounds to me like the damage is already done. But not from premarital sex. That's just a symptom.

Summarizing your own indifference to that doesn't disprove the notion of sin; it summarizes the Biblical view of humankind -- of all of us. Such brave alienation from God is just our problem.

Rasqual,

Here's my answer:

There are a number of scholars who believe that Allah, was originally the name of the moon god of Northern Arabia. It is important to remember that the word "Allah" simply means "the god" and corresponds to "ho theos" in the Greek New Testament as "the God" which refers to the Father in John 1:1 and the Son in John 20:28 and Heb 1:8. What is interesting is that Hubal was the top pagan moon god of the Kabah. So Allah is the generic and Hubal, may have been the actual name, in the same way that "the God" is generic and "Jehovah" is the name. The Arabs may have referred to "Hubal" as "Allah", just like Jews would refer to "Jehovah" as "The God".

Michelle Potter:

You took the words right out of my mouth....thank you so much.

Apparently HisMan, a heart hardened by sin is someone who disagrees with you. Frankly, if that's the case, I'm proud to be in such a group. Also, do you have any proof whatsoever of your assertations regarding Allah and the Christian god?

Rasquel, not everyone agrees with your views on sex. Not everyone conforms to the Biblical notion of humanity, as not everyone believes in the Bible. I don't. You might consider my actions a sin, based upon your religious views, but why should your views and opinions influence my decisions?

Today's News:
National news

May 18, 2007, 7:39PM
Long Island diocese loses abuse lawsuit

By FRANK ELTMAN Associated Press Writer
(C) 2007 The Associated Press

MINEOLA, N.Y. — A jury found the nation's sixth-largest Roman Catholic diocese and a church parish negligent Friday in a case involving a youth minister who repeatedly raped and sodomized teenagers in his care.

The jury awarded two victims a combined $11.4 million in damages in one of the rare civil cases to go to trial in the wake of the nationwide sex abuse scandal that erupted five years ago.

The jury found that the Diocese of Rockville Centre, one of its churches and a pastor were also negligent in the hiring and retention of the youth minister.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Michael Dowd, said the decision — announced in a hushed Long Island courtroom — sends a powerful message to the Catholic church. "The church can no longer be reckless in the safety of children," he said.

A spokesman for the diocese, Sean Dolan, declined to discuss the verdict. He said church officials hadn't decided whether to appeal.

The trial included graphic testimony by a female victim who told the jury that former youth minister Matthew Maiello seduced her and eventually had sex with her in a variety of locations on church property — including church pews and the elementary school principal's office, as well as at their homes.

The jury awarded the female victim about $5.5 million in damages, and a second male victim about $5.9 million. After the trial, the woman hailed the verdict as a vindication for her and other abuse victims.

"I'd just like to say that the reason for seeking justice in a civil trial was to ensure that the truth finally came out and that this might prevent the abuse from happening to children everywhere," she said.

The Associated Press generally does not name victims of sexual abuse.

Maiello pleaded guilty to third-degree rape and sodomy in 2003 and served more than two years in prison, admitting he abused four children. But since Maiello did not contest any of the allegations, the focus of the monthlong trial became St. Raphael's Church in East Meadow, its pastor, the Rev. Thomas Haggerty, and the Diocese of Rockville Centre.

The two accusers said that starting when they were 15, they were repeatedly molested by Maiello, and that church officials failed to act when confronted by reports that the youth minister was acting inappropriately.

The two, now 23, said the abuse lasted three years, from 1999 to 2002. The woman testified that Maiello took her virginity in a basement office in the church convent and eventually cajoled her into having sex with the boy in the youth ministry. Before long, Maiello was engaging in three-way sex with the teenagers, and videotaping other encounters.

"He would always tell me it was God's plan for us to be together," said the woman. "He controlled all of my thoughts — he manipulated me."

The plaintiffs' attorney, Michael Dowd, said Haggerty failed to check on Maiello's educational background and other qualifications for the $20,000-a-year youth ministry position.

"Who in God's name would let this person work with kids?" Dowd asked.

Brian Davey, a defense attorney representing the pastor, the parish and the diocese, insisted that Maiello alone was responsible for the sexual abuse.

"Matthew Maiello is a degenerate, is a deviant," Davey said. "He is 100 percent responsible."

The case is one of several civil lawsuits to arise from allegations of sexual abuse in the Catholic church. But unlike this case, very few went to trial and most were instead settled out of court.

Prosecutors said they were prevented from pursuing criminal charges because statutes of limitations had expired long ago.

The U.S. Conference of Bishops estimates abuse-related costs from lawsuits have exceeded $1.5 billion. On Long Island, a grand jury found nearly two dozen cases of abuse going back decades in the Diocese of Rockville Centre, with 1.3 million Catholics in 134 parishes.

Today's News:
National news

May 18, 2007, 7:39PM
Long Island diocese loses abuse lawsuit

By FRANK ELTMAN Associated Press Writer
(C) 2007 The Associated Press

MINEOLA, N.Y. — A jury found the nation's sixth-largest Roman Catholic diocese and a church parish negligent Friday in a case involving a youth minister who repeatedly raped and sodomized teenagers in his care.

The jury awarded two victims a combined $11.4 million in damages in one of the rare civil cases to go to trial in the wake of the nationwide sex abuse scandal that erupted five years ago.

The jury found that the Diocese of Rockville Centre, one of its churches and a pastor were also negligent in the hiring and retention of the youth minister.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Michael Dowd, said the decision — announced in a hushed Long Island courtroom — sends a powerful message to the Catholic church. "The church can no longer be reckless in the safety of children," he said.

A spokesman for the diocese, Sean Dolan, declined to discuss the verdict. He said church officials hadn't decided whether to appeal.

The trial included graphic testimony by a female victim who told the jury that former youth minister Matthew Maiello seduced her and eventually had sex with her in a variety of locations on church property — including church pews and the elementary school principal's office, as well as at their homes.

The jury awarded the female victim about $5.5 million in damages, and a second male victim about $5.9 million. After the trial, the woman hailed the verdict as a vindication for her and other abuse victims.

"I'd just like to say that the reason for seeking justice in a civil trial was to ensure that the truth finally came out and that this might prevent the abuse from happening to children everywhere," she said.

The Associated Press generally does not name victims of sexual abuse.

Maiello pleaded guilty to third-degree rape and sodomy in 2003 and served more than two years in prison, admitting he abused four children. But since Maiello did not contest any of the allegations, the focus of the monthlong trial became St. Raphael's Church in East Meadow, its pastor, the Rev. Thomas Haggerty, and the Diocese of Rockville Centre.

The two accusers said that starting when they were 15, they were repeatedly molested by Maiello, and that church officials failed to act when confronted by reports that the youth minister was acting inappropriately.

The two, now 23, said the abuse lasted three years, from 1999 to 2002. The woman testified that Maiello took her virginity in a basement office in the church convent and eventually cajoled her into having sex with the boy in the youth ministry. Before long, Maiello was engaging in three-way sex with the teenagers, and videotaping other encounters.

"He would always tell me it was God's plan for us to be together," said the woman. "He controlled all of my thoughts — he manipulated me."

The plaintiffs' attorney, Michael Dowd, said Haggerty failed to check on Maiello's educational background and other qualifications for the $20,000-a-year youth ministry position.

"Who in God's name would let this person work with kids?" Dowd asked.

Brian Davey, a defense attorney representing the pastor, the parish and the diocese, insisted that Maiello alone was responsible for the sexual abuse.

"Matthew Maiello is a degenerate, is a deviant," Davey said. "He is 100 percent responsible."

The case is one of several civil lawsuits to arise from allegations of sexual abuse in the Catholic church. But unlike this case, very few went to trial and most were instead settled out of court.

Prosecutors said they were prevented from pursuing criminal charges because statutes of limitations had expired long ago.

The U.S. Conference of Bishops estimates abuse-related costs from lawsuits have exceeded $1.5 billion. On Long Island, a grand jury found nearly two dozen cases of abuse going back decades in the Diocese of Rockville Centre, with 1.3 million Catholics in 134 parishes.

TWO IMPORTANT ARticles here:

Nice to see Hadley Arkes cited in these parts. ;-)

Less:
"Rasquel, not everyone agrees with your views on sex. Not everyone conforms to the Biblical notion of humanity, as not everyone believes in the Bible. I don't. You might consider my actions a sin, based upon your religious views, but why should your views and opinions influence my decisions?"

Not everyone disagrees with my views on a vast number of things, I'm sure.

My views and opinions should influence your decisions only to the extent that you judge them valuable. This evaluation would depend on your world view; they could be valuable if true, useful, pleasant, virtuous, etc. If abortion is indeed a moral wrong, your failure to ascribe value to the opinion that it's a moral wrong is a failure of that which distinguishes you from ammoral life on this planet. It shows that your confusion as a moral agent has left you indistinguishable from beasts in just that respect. The irony, of course, would be that people thus voluntarily deprived of their humanity would question the humanity of innocents only about to embark on their own quests for truth, goodness, utility and beauty in the world.

That you are stubbornly unconvinced of the value of unborn human life isn't a tragedy for my soul. It is for yours. And you can receive that remark in as thoroughly secular a sense as you wish. Your having no pity on the most defenseless of our cousins, sister, is something that divides you and me like nothing else can.

We could have a genial coffee together, but my understanding would be that I would be sitting with an aberration -- not a fully human person.

Still, I'd respect your own right to life. :-\

not everyone agrees, i mean. bother the no edits around here.

"A jury found the nation's sixth-largest Roman Catholic diocese and a church parish negligent Friday in a case involving a youth minister who repeatedly raped and sodomized teenagers in his care."

This man, and all those who enabled him, have seriously departed from the way they should go. I for one condemn their actions in every possible way, and pray that they would repent and completely turn from their error. There is NOTHING ok about what they have done. I pray that God will heal those they have harmed and draw them close to Him so that they may be freed from the betrayals of men.

I honestly don't understand why church officials would act this way. I'm not Catholic, but it seems to me that the youth minister would be better off repentant in prison than lost in sin and free. If there was some middle ground they were trying to accomplish, I just don't see it.

Now, I truly believe what I just wrote, and I would hope that some Christian would say these things whenever the subject is brought up. The world should know that the church universal does not approve of raping children, or enabling it. I would say this even if there was no other point to be made. However, since you bring this up basically in rebuttal to mentions of Clinton's behavior, I ask: is it not different when the immoral actions of a leader (or leaders) that contradict the group's principles are roundly condemned, and when the immoral actions of a leader are defended or applauded by the group?

Here's something a bit fascinating: secularists sometimes like to point out the failings of churchmen, as if that somehow refutes any notions that the church is a moral authority. Then people like me point out to people like Less that secular atrocities and wars in the 20th century alone killed so many people that accusations about the inquisition and the crusades seems trite.

Then someone chimes in with something showing even more injustice somewhere, and then someone tries to excuse some of it, and so forth and so on.

As this kind of conversation evolves (Except in the case of my conversation with Less on the matter, which she understandibly dropped like a hot rock), what's fascinating isn't the content so much as the direction of things. The conversation ends up proving that everyone's hypocrites, that everyone's cohort has failed, that no one is clear of accusation, and that if there's moral high ground to be found it's above all our heads.

Heh.

Why is it that arguments with Christians generally end up vindicating the Pauline theology of human depravity simply in running their course?

;-)

rasquel, just as I'm not particularly concerned about your views upon the state of my soul, your views on the state of my humanity is similarly useless: both are based upon a religion that I do not follow. You may hold whatever beliefs you wish, they simply do not affect me. That you hold me as an abberation is disturbing, but perfectly within your rights to believe. I'm just not particularly concerned by it, especially considering my views on those people like you, so blinded by faith.

Michelle, I would like to say that there is a large difference between consensual oral sex and the rape of children.

Michelle, I would like to say that there is a large difference between consensual oral sex and the rape of children.

Yes, however, you also applaud and agree with Planned Parenthood when they as they protect child molestors and knowingly allowing them to continue on doing what they do. We would never applaud such behavior from someone on our side. We openly condemn it from any source.

"rasquel, just as I'm not particularly concerned about your views upon the state of my soul, your views on the state of my humanity is similarly useless: both are based upon a religion that I do not follow. You may hold whatever beliefs you wish, they simply do not affect me."

Less, like I said before. I have nothing in common with you or your beliefs, therefore I doubt we can reach a common ground on almost anything, especially abortion.

jasper, You are correct about that. Less is okay with incest, as long as no children are conceived during the act. Less loathes the thought of ever being pregnant, but she refuses to even consider getting a tubal ligation. Less can't even figure out what's best for her, so I don't see her fit to decide what would be best for anyone else!

Yes, that's true Heather....

Less:
"I'm just not particularly concerned by it, especially considering my views on those people like you, so blinded by faith."

Blinded to what by faith, do you suppose? I realize I'm asking you to speculate, but isn't even the locution "blinded by faith" just there already quite speculative? Please, elaborate.

Hm, it appears as though rasqual and jasper are the same person. Funny how those individuals who were screaming about Ilana and Kristen aren't doing so now.

Heather, I am quite aware what is best for me: not becoming pregnant, staying healthy, having as few unnecessary surgeries as possible, eating right...want me to give you my entire philosophy? I simply don't agree with what you think is right for me, and it seems to have quite frustrated you.

Rasquel, look at HisMan's posts. They seem to be the perfect example of "blinding by faith." Those who consider their religion the epitome of all human knowledge and refuse to consider anything else are blinded by faith. Those who push their views on others incessently are blinded by faith. Those who spout on and on about how those who disagree with them are going to hell are blinded by faith.

Being blinded by faith is being blind to the thought that there could be other ideas out there, and those ideas could be correct. When one is blinded by faith, one is hidebound, stuck in their own view of the world with no way of seeing out of it. Frankly, it's a horrible way to live.

Don't you think that perhaps your views could be considered just as much "blind faith" as you consider Hisman's?

Less, I would venture to say that you have blind faith in the idea that sex is good in almost every situation, with whomever, wherever, whatever age, as long as they're consentual, with or without people who love each other, without marriage, with three or four people at a time, etc.

That takes a lot of faith to believe that sex is to be regarded highest of all, even above life itself, and is or should be completely free of consequences, good or bad, in nearly every single situation...when there is so much evidence out there that disproves this.

You refuse to be open to the thought that there could be other ideas out there, and that those ideas could be correct. When one is blinded by this type of faith, and stuck in their own view of the world with no way of seeing out of it, frankly, it's a horrible way to live. Just saying...

Less, you are a woman of great faith.

"Less loathes the thought of ever being pregnant, but she refuses to even consider getting a tubal ligation. "

I'm not entirely sure about this, but....

I think that for any legit doctor to go through with such a procedure, the patient must meet certain requirements. They usually won't perform the surgery if the woman is younger than 40 or so, or if she is not 23 and has had at least one or two children.

It's been a while since I've read up on the stuff, though, so I'm not entirely sure (and I'm not sure where to look, either).

"Hm, it appears as though rasqual and jasper are the same person."

Less, actually were not, although I hold many of Rasqual's views.

Less said: "I'm a journalist"

Well, that explains it, some of the journalists today are the worst that society has to offer. They been shooting their propaganga for the left-wing for years now. They're quite a disgraceful bunch. Sorry, but that's my opinion.

Less "Erin, but missionary is sooo booooring......*sadface*"

...you see what I mean, they're very self-centered people.

Again, they like to get off of the topic of abortion because they simply have lost the debate.

THIS BIG LIE: See, abortion has been white-washed by journalist like Less, they hold positions of power. This is the biggest hurder that us in the pro-life community have to overcome. Because Less, and other abhorrent journalist are doing everything in their power to cloud our message. They will, some day have answer for their awful sins..... the day is coming.

Less:
"Hm, it appears as though rasqual and jasper are the same person. Funny how those individuals who were screaming about Ilana and Kristen aren't doing so now."

Why should people who were once screaming about Ilana and Kristen be obliged to continue screaming about them?

As for Jasper and I, no, we're not the same person. How does it "appear" we are? I have no idea who Jasper is -- my name is Scott Marquardt.

"Rasquel, look at HisMan's posts. They seem to be the perfect example of 'blinding by faith.'"

I thought you were claiming that I was blinded by faith. What about MY posts?

"Those who consider their religion the epitome of all human knowledge and refuse to consider anything else are blinded by faith."

My epistemology is pretty agnostic, for a foundationalist realist -- so I guess you're not talking about me. Even so, I believe gravity to be a darned sure thing -- and I'm unwilling to consider, for example, the prospect that letting go of an anvil held over my foot might not leave me in pain as a result.

When a person is convinced of something, they tend to be convinced of something. But it's sophomoric to claim that those with an opposing view are closed-minded. Both sides are. That's why there are sides. It's not in the least a legitimate objection to claim that someone is closed-minded.

When I find food, I close my mouth on it. What do you do -- sit there with it sitting on your tongue, mumbling about how hard it is to chew with your mouth open?

"Those who push their views on others incessently are blinded by faith."

I don't get it. Pushing is an act anyone can perform, whether faith is involved or not. You could be describing arrogance, but on the other hand you could be describing someone who's having a hard time convincing people in a theater that there really is a fire, and so she relies on the hope that their perception of her earnestness will drive them out of the building: "You FOOLS! Get out now, I tell you! Run for your lives!!"

I can't imagine anything any more pushy, but it would hardly be being "blinded by faith" if it were indeed true that the building was on fire. And you'd think her unspeakably cruel if she'd see the fire, doubt its reality, and let everyone fry on the merits of her epistemic humility. Or maybe you wouldn't; it's darned hard to tell.

"Those who spout on and on about how those who disagree with them are going to hell are blinded by faith."

You're talking as if it's the fact that one disagrees, simpliciter, that dooms one to hell. That's a non sequitur. You're not really justifying your claim about blindness at all. You're stringing words together to explain what you think constitutes such blindness, but I assure you there's no logical connection between the acts your describing and "blindness" as such -- whether by faith or by merely having the personality of an ass (please do consider that people of faith can be asses, in which case their being asses might be a cause of what you're calling blindness, in spite of an otherwise salutary faith).

As for hell, the prospect of separation from their creator is a choice not unlike abortion. Secularists sometimes think the notion of God choosing to send people to hell is unspeakably cruel (it's a simplistic understanding of just who's choosing what, at any rate), but some of these same secularists find it the stuff of heroic authenticity to destroy the lives they create themselves. It's rank hypocrisy that stinks to the heaven they shake their fist at, I'm sure.

"Being blinded by faith is being blind to the thought that there could be other ideas out there, and those ideas could be correct."

Seems to me you're blind to the thought that being blind to other ideas could be a correct posture to assume. In other words, you have a self-referential problem.

See how this works? You're convinced of something. You've closed your mind to the alternative. Your ostensible humility -- open to anything -- is a bald-faced lie. You're not open to the possibility that this humility is hypocritical, for one thing. And yet I've just explained how it is. Ergo, you should not pretend that those who disagree with you on account of their convictions, are alone in the conversation guilty of being "closed" to alternatives.

If you were yourself an open person, why would you have an argument with them at all? And yet you do. What are you closed to? Something, obviously. Many things, perhaps. Are you so very different?

Notice: my critique of your posture isn't "you're a jerk." It's "we all have convictions, and you're wrong to imagine that those whose oppose yours are alone asses, and you're not." Either we're all asses for possessing convictions, or none of us are.

I like to think that possessing convictions is a good thing. I even think possessing wrong convictions is better than having no convictions of any kind. A person can trade in wrong convictions for right ones (in Christianity, that would be called repentence), but how can a person who finds no reason to possess convictions at all find a reason to possess convictions at all? Indifference is a tough nut to crack.

"When one is blinded by faith, one is hidebound, stuck in their own view of the world with no way of seeing out of it. Frankly, it's a horrible way to live."

Well maybe you're not speaking of merely having strong convictions, then -- because I'll wager you know a lot of people (as do I) who possess strong convictions, who do not lead horrible lives.

Most of history's heroes are such. Let's not pretend that Gandhi, MLK, Mother Teresa, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Vaclav Havel, Nelson Mandela, Winston Churchill, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, William Wilberforce, and so, so many others lacked conviction. They were absolutely closed to their convictions' antithesis. And only be being so could they compel like virtue in others.

You're welcome to hold an antithetical conviction to anything I've asserted in this note, of course. But don't pretend you don't hold convictions antithetical to those of your interlocutors -- that you're not alike closed to something.

Bethany, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. :)

My beliefs are, at least, provable. I have never seen a study that says that consensual sex is harmful. At best, there’s a correlation: no causation there. I’d venture to say that the stigma society places upon sex causes more harm than anything else. If people would just mind themselves instead of putting themselves in everyone else’s bedroom, I fancy sex would be much less of a problem.

Wanna show me some evidence otherwise?

Oh, I admit I could be wrong. Frankly, if there is a God who cares so much about my sex life and sends me to hell for it, I’d rather go to hell than worship a God that’s concerned about who’s in my bed and where and why.

Oh Gods, jasper, another conspiracy nut? If you’re going to whine about journalists, go out there and do a better job yourself. Otherwise, shut up. Fix it or you have no right to complain. This post has made you absolutely lose all credibility in my eyes. And how, exactly, is disliking missionary position selfish? You’re going to have to explain that one to me.

Rasquel, you’re either avoiding the point on purpose or simply missing it

Gravity is something that can be proven. If a theater is on fire, it can be proven. God, not so much. A definite morality, not so much. Hell, not so much. You can’t prove God’s existence, nor can you prove Hell’s existence: a theater fire, well, touching a flame leaves anything human in pain, and that’s pretty provable. Strong convictions aren’t bad, but the moment you force your completely arbitrary and unproven convictions, well, I’d consider that pretty jerky.

Martin Luther King committed adultery. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Vaclav Havel was a chainsmoker. Nelson Mandela was a member of the African National Congress, a group that has admitted to human rights violations. Churchill was racist.

Strong convictions do not a perfect person make.

"Well, that explains it, some of the journalists today are the worst that society has to offer. They been shooting their propaganga for the left-wing for years now. They're quite a disgraceful bunch. Sorry, but that's my opinion.

Less "Erin, but missionary is sooo booooring......*sadface*"

...you see what I mean, they're very self-centered people. "

HOW does wanting to have an interesting and mutually fulfilling sex life with your significant other make someone a self-centered person??

"You can’t prove God’s existence"

Against such an a priori as that claim? Of course not.

"Strong convictions aren’t bad, but the moment you force your completely arbitrary and unproven convictions, well, I’d consider that pretty jerky."

I don't think anyone's forcing God on you. If you're confused about whether pro-life is a necessarily religious view, you should know very well that it's not. That many active pro-life people are religious and attribute their view to a pedigree of religious ideas, is not in the least politically problematic in the U.S., where religious tests for the admissibility of ideas in political conversation are constitutionally proscribed.

But on the matter of proof -- would you care to venture how much of the bill of rights is "provable?" That's not a rhetorical question.

Less, you don't frustrate me at all because you contradict yourself and you talk in circles. I tried to give you the answer to your "fertility" dilemma and you replied "Well, I may want kids one day." I think you're the frustrated one.

My beliefs are, at least, provable. I have never seen a study that says that consensual sex is harmful. At best, there’s a correlation: no causation there. I’d venture to say that the stigma society places upon sex causes more harm than anything else. If people would just mind themselves instead of putting themselves in everyone else’s bedroom, I fancy sex would be much less of a problem.

STD's would not exist, if we'd just leave it alone?

And I suppose that we should all just leave those pedophiles and their "consenting" kids alone? Just the ones who "consent", of course. (Cause a kid of course couldn't possibly be manipulated into consenting against his or her will. )

Gravity is something that can be proven. If a theater is on fire, it can be proven. God, not so much. A definite morality, not so much. Hell, not so much. You can’t prove God’s existence, nor can you prove Hell’s existence: a theater fire, well, touching a flame leaves anything human in pain, and that’s pretty provable. Strong convictions aren’t bad, but the moment you force your completely arbitrary and unproven convictions, well, I’d consider that pretty jerky.

Speaking of proof...when are you going to support (with objective evidence- not SIECUS which was founded by a pedophile) your ideas that sex education has brought down the number of unplanned pregnancies? I've been waiting a while for that one.

Bethany, yes. As long as the girl's 40 year old father doesn't impregnate his "consenting" 15 year old daughter. Less has got to be kidding. I can't believe a woman could think this way.

No I think she's just stubborn (or just full of faith!), and refuses to allow evidence contrary to what she believes to enter into her head, because it's not what she "wants".

Allow me to add- selfish too.

I don't want children now, but someday I might.

I think that that's a pretty normal point of view.

Heather, how many times do I have to explain my position to you? Pedophilia has been shown to be harmful to the child, and should be banned. Parent/child incest has been shown to be harmful to the child, and should be banned. Incest between two forty year old brothers has never been studied and I can’t imagine how it would be harmful, so I don’t care if it’s legal or not.

I’d agree with Erin: right now, I never want children ever. I recognize that I might change my mind. Thus, I don’t want a permanent surgery. How is that selfish?

Bethany, STDs would still exist, but without the stigma on sex there wouldn’t be a stigma about treating them.

Bethany, STDs would still exist, but without the stigma on sex there wouldn’t be a stigma about treating them.

I didn't know there was a stigma on treating them, Less.

Pedophilia has been shown to be harmful to the child, and should be banned.

What if the child consents, Less? What is the age limit where you do not consider a child able to consent?

And could you please, please just answer this question:

"...when are you going to support your ideas that sex education has brought down the number of unplanned pregnancies? "

@Bethany: Are you familiar at all with the Netherlands policies on sex education and abortion and their pregnancy and abortion rates?

Actually, no...can you provide me with some links?

Less, I'm still waiting for some insight from you on the provability of human rights. Any ideas on that?

"This post has made you absolutely lose all credibility in my eyes. And how, exactly, is disliking missionary position selfish? You’re going to have to explain that one to me.":

Oh...I thought you were talking about chritian missionaries (who travel,etc). Not the sex position.

my bad. LOL!

Less,

You accuse me of being blinded by faith.

Well, I could conversely say same the same of you. You are blinded by the lack of faith.

Faith is the evidence of things seen, the substance of things hoped for.

The evidence for me is a world where sin has wrought destruction on mankind. If you can't see that you are blind.

Faith also shows me that the only solution and hope for mankind is redemption. Not self-extraction. We've proven to ourselves that we only make things worse.

I could go on an on but frankly I am too tired.

Have a good night.

Silly Jasper! Missionaries are people like everyone else, and while I disagree with what some of them do, I’ve heard of some amazing missionary programs. I had a friend who went in to a war-torn area with his dad and offered free grief counseling; I was so impressed.

The provability of human rights, rasquel, is not a particular area of study of mine: the way I look towards proving it rests in how the populous reacts when such rights are taken away. Not sure how this would fit in with philosophy, however.

Bethany, it would depend upon the research. What’s the average age where children are able to consent? At what age does sex no longer seem to be particularly harmful? There’d have to be a study done to determine it; it’d be difficult, but I think we owe it to ourselves to know.

HisMan, as I’ve previously posted, I admit that I could easily be wrong. I admit that yeah, there could be a God who is intrinsically concerned about who I sleep with and when. But if that supreme deity is so interested in my love life that he would send me to hell for not obeying his edicts upon it, I have no desire to worship it.

Bethany, it would depend upon the research. What’s the average age where children are able to consent? At what age does sex no longer seem to be particularly harmful? There’d have to be a study done to determine it; it’d be difficult, but I think we owe it to ourselves to know.

So if research proved that a 6 year old could consent to being sexually molested and still turn out fine, then it would be okay with you?

Most 6 year olds don't understand what sex is, so they couldn't honestly consent to it.

When you're talking about 16 year olds, however, there is more of a gray area with what is pedophilia and what is consensual.

Yes, but Less has made it clear she doesn't see anything wrong with an 11 year old being in a relationship with an adult, as long as it's "consentual". If an 11 year old can consent to sex, why not a 6 year old? Both are young children. Where is the limit?

And why does it matter if the child has knowledge of sex or not? What if the 6 year old in this hypothetical situation actually did know everything about sex that most 17 year olds know? Does that make them eligible to consent to sex? What is the criteria on which you define maturity?

Do you think that possibly the fact that young children, before they reach adulthood, whether knowledgable about the basics of how sex works, may not be mature enough to understand the ramifications of their behavior if they are young and manipulated into consenting?

And if it's about when puberty hits...some 8 year olds are getting their periods...is it allright for those children to engage in consentual sex with an adult?

Well Less, the reason I asked was because (a) you seem to advocate loudly for rights, and (b) you claimed the high epistemic ground of believing only those things that can be proven -- apparently in contrast to the benighted supersitions of religious folk.

Just here, though:
"The provability of human rights, rasquel, is not a particular area of study of mine: the way I look towards proving it rests in how the populous reacts when such rights are taken away. Not sure how this would fit in with philosophy, however."

...you clearly indicate that you have no idea whether human rights may even be "proven" to exist.

Can you explain further whether your beliefs are in fact all provable, or whether your earlier claim was merely a gratuitous and hypocritical slam against others who also, on your view, cannot prove something?

Less has made it clear she doesn't see anything wrong with an 11 year old being in a relationship with an adult, as long as it's "consentual".

Where have I “made that clear?” The vast majority of 11 year olds cannot be in a relationship with an adult without damage. Research supports that idea.

Can you explain further whether your beliefs are in fact all provable, or whether your earlier claim was merely a gratuitous and hypocritical slam against others who also, on your view, cannot prove something?

You could, hypothetically, experiment with the idea of human rights in a laboratory setting. Example: A randomly assorted sample of undergrads is divided into three groups. Group A reads a small vignette about a government that takes away perceived right A (for example, right of free speech), Group B reads a small vignette about a government that tries to take away perceived right A but fails, and Group C, the control group, reads a vignette about a government that doesn’t do anything in particular. Arousal levels (psychological term for certain behavioral/physiological cues, none sexual) would be measured throughout the experiment, and surveys would be given after.

I think that this would be absolutely fascinating to experiment with.

Frankly, rasquel, I don’t care what you believe, but bringing religion into debate is inappropriate: not everyone believes in the same religion, and no religion is provable. Do you believe God can be proven empirically?

Where have I “made that clear?” The vast majority of 11 year olds cannot be in a relationship with an adult without damage. Research supports that idea.

What about an 11 year old and a 17 year old? A man just one year prior to adult status?

Less, this is just one post that gave me that idea:

"You're missing the point: so long as something is consensual, I don't care. I think consensual drug use should be legalized, consensual fensing ought be legalized, and any consensual sexual activity possibly imagined is none of anyone else's business. If both parties agree, I do not care."

What about an 11 year old and a 17 year old? A man just one year prior to adult status?

I believe that will still be illegal, actually, as the 11 year old is below the age of concent and because of the age gap. This depends upon the state, of course, but I'm fairly sure that would be illegal where I live.

If both parties agree, I do not care." An 11 year old cannot fully agree to something like sex with a 17 year old. From what I understand, a person can't really get it until they're 15ish, though my memory on that research is sketchy at best: I'll have to find it again.

Let's see the research you've got, Less.

I'll have to find it again: I'm no longer hooked up to the on-campus research libraries and I've sold the majority of my textbooks, so it might take a while. Don't hold up the debate on my account.

Less, for someone who constantly demands resources for every statement that comes out of the mouth of pro-life people, you never seem to really back yours up.

I realize you very well may not be hooked up to an online campus research library, but you have the rest of the internet to browse around. Maybe you could try that sometime.

That would be because I have what many like to call 'a life.' I work 40 hours a week, read constantly, and the only reason I'm able to give you this smart-@$$ reply is because my fiance is asleep. Frankly, a wild few hours of not-quite-sex is far more stimulating than this site will ever be. Thus, no research yet.

So you expect us to find your research for you, or do you expect us to just take what you say as the Almighty Less's word?
Why come here and make statements, expecting people to agree with you, if you aren't prepared to back them up? You ask us this all the time. And I have taken time out of my day that I don't have, just so that I could find proof for you. I have a life...check out my blog..do I look like I sit around doing nothing all day? Didn't think so.

Frankly, a wild few hours of not-quite-sex is far more stimulating than this site will ever be.

If this is true, why do you come back so often?

Good Question Bethany! Less, you say you have a great relationship, and you're so busy. There are probably a billion things other things that you and your guy could be doing. Go have fun! It's not likely that you will ever convert a pro lifer, if that's what you're trying to do. So, what is it that you would like for us to learn from you?

I'm only here because I dislike being at home, and arguing provides a convienient way to vent frustration, frankly. I won't convert, I don't expect anyone else to convert: I just like to argue.

Bethany, if you have time to have a blog, you have more free time than I do. Notice the times I post? Its either early in the morning or late at night, when I'm not working or otherwise being productive. The only reason I'm able to (sporadically) post tonight is that I'm having surgery early tomorrow morning and have to starve myself until then.

Less, I'm sorry to hear that. May I ask what happened? I hope it's nothing too serious.

Just my wisdom teeth, no big deal. I just don't like needles, and like not being able to eat even less. :(

I have been told I should get my wisdom teeth pulled, but I'm too chicken. I even have to be sedated in order to have a cavity filled! Ugh, I am an anti-dentite! :) hehe
Hope it goes quickly for you.

They said it should last for about an hour, and most of that will be recovery. Despite my facination with piercings, I dislike needles quite a bit, so that's my major issue with the surgery. I've also watched far too much discovery channel and have heard that occasionally people aren't knocked out all the way, so that freaked me out. Sigh.

I'll let you know how the surgery goes, so you have a bit more knowledge about it? Dentists are great, but sometimes you have to talk to the patients too, you know what I mean? I've had so many cavities filled (hereditary tooth deformity thing) and eight teeth capped, so I'm pretty much immune at this point. :P

Less:

Just to be clear -- do you believe that human rights can be "proven"?

Second inquiry -- You've summarily critiqued some beliefs based on the assertion that they are unprovable. However, this ground of critique depends on knowing that such beliefs are unprovable.

Therefore, it seems to me that anyone with an epistemology like yours is running noetic risks if they believe something without knowing whether it may be proven or not.

Do you think you face this with any specific conception of human rights? Why or why not?

How do you manage to hold specific beliefs about human rights, consistent with your critique of views you deem unprovable?

@Bethany: Here are the links I tried to post yesterday but for some reason they weren't posted about Dutch sex education and their abortion/STD rates compared to the US:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0039-3665(199611%2F12)27%3A6%3C341%3ALFTDAE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/cfh/ophp/system/conference/presentations/B1bruns2006.ppt.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7971545&dopt=Abstract

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUBLICATIONS/factsheet/fsest.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12222220&dopt=Abstract

Less,

A heart hardened by sin has nothing to do with me and everything to do with your relationship to God.

Rasquel, I believe plenty of things that cannot be proven, I just don't go about forcing them on people. I've given you an experiment that could "prove" human rights, or at least people's reactions to them.

HisMan, people like you (you know, those who force their faith on people and believe everyone else is going to hell) are the reason I am no longer Christian: as people like you still exist, I shall never be Christian again, as I have no desire to be associated with that line of thought. I will never believe that one faith answers every question about life, the universe, and everything else.

Less, I'll presume you agree that the democratic process isn't "forcing things on people," or at least that the democratic process is one of civilizations legitimate ways of "forcing things on people." Whether we're talking about "forcing" minority protections on the minority, or "forcing" majority views on the minority, it's either "forcing" or it's not but it's certainly making what some people "believe" normative for those who may not "believe" what's legislated.

Now with all that in mind, what kind of "forcing" do you think is going on in this voluntary web forum?

Less:
"I will never believe that one faith answers every question about life, the universe, and everything else."

Why not? According to one school of thought, a single number does the trick. ;-)

Rae, thanks for the links. :-)

Okay... what I want to know is... why are abortion rates not lower in the USA then? We have sex education in schools, we have free birth control given to school aged kids, we have legal abortion, etc. Why have abortion rates not dropped here as well?

Or even in just the liberal areas of the US...why in California are there not less abortions than in Alabama, since they have a much more tolerant attitude towards sex education, sexuality, birth control, and abortions? Shouldn't their rate be something like 6 abortions/1000 women by now?

If it was the sex education policies and tolerance towards sexuality that made the difference in the Netherlands, why don't we see the same results everywhere that this happens? Why only one country?

Correct me if I'm wrong about any of these things, I believe I'm correct, but I could be in error about something or the other.

Bethany! I thought I'd let you know I'm back from surgery, and it was incredibly easy. I went back and they popped the IV in (stung a bit, but it hurt way less than getting my ears pierced), and bam, I was out. The next thing I remember, I was being wheeled out, and I was home. My jaw hurts a bit, but I'm still pretty numb and whatnot. I fully plan on having a starwars marathon today. :)

Honestly, if the dentist tells you to do it, I would. It isn't that bad, and it gives you an excuse to watch soap operaish sci-fi movies. :P

@Bethany: This is the case in most European countries, on the average, European countries have lower sex education rates as compared to the United States even in countries with lax abortion laws. This is also the case with Canada, they have NO abortion laws and yet they have half the rate of abortions.

I just chose the Netherlands because it's the best example.

Rae, I admit I haven't looked into all of the stuff you are talking about to know for sure what to think of all that information. If I get some time I will be sure to look into it.. I'll read more about the stuff you posted, and do some research of my own to see what I find. Thanks for forcing me to think. It's always good to learn something new.

Less, that is wonderful that it was so simple! I have heard horrible things about wisdom teeth removal...like a friend of mine got it done and a piece of her tooth was left in there, causing her terrible pain...and some little boy went into a coma from the anesthesia and never came out of it...but I realize these are not the norm at all....I'm just chicken! Maybe one day I will get the courage to do it. I appreciate you getting back to me on that. Did you get the kind of sedative that gives you temporary amnesia? When I woke up from the sedative I took for my cavity being filled a few years ago, I was not able to remember the events of that day at all. I don't know if this is normal or not.

Oh, temporary amnesia is very normal. My mom had some major surgery done a while back, and absolutely could not remember the hours before and after the surgery. Afterwards we told her about it, and she found it terribly funny. :) When I had all of my caps put on (I have about seven), they gave me upwards of seven shots of Novocain: that made me hardcore loopy and completely numb, and I forgot a bit.
The anesthesia they gave me this time made me very sleepy afterwards, but it was just a pleasant sort of warm sleepiness, like I'd just taken a warm bath and curled into a warm bed and fallen asleep. I have a very unfortunate tendency to become very, very, forgetful when I’m asleep. I am absolutely notorious for forgetting entire phone conversations when tired, so my forgetfulness was probably more of an effect of that trait than the actual anesthesia.
They also put me on Vicoden, which makes me sick and sleepy. Of all the side affects codine/vicodin can give you, I was personally hoping for euphoria…sigh. I get the nausea instead.
Yeah, sometimes wisdom teeth removal goes terribly wrong. I have a heart murmur, so dentist appointments are particularly unpleasant: I have to premedicate with massive antibiotic doses every time. Thankfully I didn’t this time, as they’ve changed the rules. I was really really afraid that my nerves would be damaged during the procedure, as that’s a risk. But thankfully, nothing seems to have gone wrong. I hope your friend ended up okay! That sounds absolutely awful…

You can't have your cake and eat it too. These crazy politicos need to learn there are moral absolutes and they have to make a choice, one way or the other.