He who laughs last laughs best.

I found this on the openline blog:

"....a red pickup truck that was outfitted with signs on both sides and the back of your truck with the most horrific dead baby photos you should be ashamed of yourself. Yesterday I saw a dozen kids at Blockbuster just start crying when you drove by..."

Would this person support those kids' access to an abortion, say, today at 10:00? Since PP says minors are entitled to have abortions, certainly they should be allowed to see abortions.

Why shouldn't they see it before they "buy" it?

It is education not indoctrination. It is scientific fact.

Hippie,

Is there any concern for the gore and violence kids see in movies and video games? If anything, producers of these movies try to outdo each other in stomach churning gore.
I've even heard of programs that took teenagers to emergency rooms and morgues to see the results of gang violence and drunk driving. Hopefully, it would dissaude these young people from being involved in these activities.

I have been following this story since it broke...not only from a pro-life standpoint, but also from a land development standpoint. My husband and I are both in the Land Surveying industry and our specialty is entitlements and zoning....I smelled a rat the moment the mayor "declared" PP broke no rules and could open today. If this was any other entity that had tried to pull this the city would have shut them down like a sledgehammer and probably ordered demo of the structure. Now, if the permit is allowed to stand after the filing of the appeal then the entire Planning Dept. should be sued ALONG with the "mayor" and each member of the city council....if I owned property within 250 feet of this facility I would have ALREADY filed suit. I understand how this process works and it is NOT ambigous...there is so much corruption here it makes me sick. The only reason this is unfolding like this is PP is greasing the wheels. There is NO OTHER WAY to get around zoning laws. I hope the mayor enjoys his bloodstained sports car/speed boat/Jamacain vacation/summer home that PP just bought him.

After spending over 20 years in the veterinary medicine/animal control feilds, I believe that I can say with complete confidence-

HORSE DEAD! STOP BEATING!

Theresa,

An excellent and informative post. My husband is a contractor and when it comes to obtaining permits for anything, even if you want your basement remodelled, he makes certain every "t" is crossed and every "i" dotted.
Any mistakes or misinformation means a building torn down or an order to stop a remodelling or addition project on someone's home, about which homeowners will not be too pleased, and we would have to absorb the cost.

Laura,
I know you'd probably like that, but all along, it's been about laws being broken. I, an Aurora resident, along with countless thousands of other Aurora residents also, would like to see the truth come out. We'll stop beating the horse when he falls to his deserved demise. :)

Laura,

And we can say with complete confidence, "its not over until its over".

yeah,
I don't hear the fat lady singing yet...

In fact, always keep in mind, that in the grand scheme of things, we know who wins...

Dear Catholic bloggers--

Just bought my mom's birthday present, it is a theology book called Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians." Apparently it got rave reviews from Catholics and non-Catholics alike. At first I thought the title looked harsh but since protestants gave it 5 stars it seemed pretty safe. I thought since mommy is Catholic (obviously) it would be a good read.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0898701775/sr=8-1/qid=1191348195/ref=olp_product_details/104-4287644-3707164?ie=UTF8&qid=1191348195&sr=8-1&seller=

Here is the book on Amazon. Anyone here ever read it? Or heard of it?

Heck yeah PIP! That book is fanfriggintastic! It is one of my favorite apologetics books. Keating is very fair, I believe, to our separated brethren. He hits on all the major issues that sill divide us and the "mainstream" fundamentalists. Excellent choice, my friend. God love you.

http://www.saveroe.com/images/Picture%20032.jpg

Laura, after working in horticulture for 7 years I believe I can say in full confidence that it is manure that is spilling from the mayor's mouth, not the truth.

Oh Good! Glad I made the right decision. I'll make an effort to read it after she does :)

PIP,

I just checked out Karl Keating, he looks good. I like him,... I haven't heard of him before.

...now that I like him, are you tempted to take the book back from your Mom? LOL!

Hey PIP,
Why is your Mom Catholic but you're not?

I have been following this story since it broke...not only from a pro-life standpoint, but also from a land development standpoint. My husband and I are both in the Land Surveying industry and our specialty is entitlements and zoning....I smelled a rat the moment the mayor "declared" PP broke no rules and could open today. If this was any other entity that had tried to pull this the city would have shut them down like a sledgehammer and probably ordered demo of the structure. Now, if the permit is allowed to stand after the filing of the appeal then the entire Planning Dept. should be sued ALONG with the "mayor" and each member of the city council....if I owned property within 250 feet of this facility I would have ALREADY filed suit. I understand how this process works and it is NOT ambigous...there is so much corruption here it makes me sick. The only reason this is unfolding like this is PP is greasing the wheels. There is NO OTHER WAY to get around zoning laws. I hope the mayor enjoys his bloodstained sports car/speed boat/Jamacain vacation/summer home that PP just bought him.

...and didn't someone on the Families Against Planned Parenthood website say the Mayor is "Catholic"??

What Parish does he belong to and who is the Pastor of the Parish?

Mike

Hey Jasper. You should like Karl Keating. He's the president of Catholic Answers, catholic.com . They're are very orthodox and faithful to the magesterium, much like our hero Fr. Corapi. I podcast to their radio show everyday. Really great stuff, I've grown amazingly since listening to them. God love you, Jasper.

"I podcast to their radio show everyday"

I'm going to check this out, thanks Bobby -God Bless...

Laura,

About your link. I understand a permit is required to display a banner. Do you know if PP bothered to get one?

Mary -

No, PP didn't get a permit. I called the City (Mayor's office and permits)and supposedly the Mayor told them they needed a permit. I went to the site at about 11:00 - 11:30 and it hadn't been taken down. I spoke with Eric Scheidler about it but I don't know if he's going to try to get the City to enforce the permit requirement.

I've been thinking about this clinic building, it could make a nice Crisis Pregnancy Center. This would really help pregnant women and give them and their children the dignity they deserve....oh well, it's just a pipe dream I guess....

PIP
I own that book. I am a Catholic married to a Fundamentalist (and we both got serious about religion AFTER we were married!)

Keating is an entertaining writer, makes theology easy to read and understand. I would recommend it! Also, he treats all sides fairly, without sensationalism.

Another good book is David Curries Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic.

Keating's book focuses on the differences (and similarities) between the faiths; Currie's is his own conversion story to Catholicism.

Kristen,

Thanks for the info. Amazing how PP can thumb its nose at city officials.

"Catholic Answers" is my favorite media outlet. If you never listened to their programs, you are really missing out. They cover every topic imaginable.

Go to ...

http://www.catholic.com

Then click on "Radio" and then click on "View Calendar".

------

Look what's coming up on 10-17-07.

"The Great Option of Adoption".

------

Here's a relevant show you can listen to from the Audio Achives on 9-19-07.

"Are You Suffering From Post Abortion Stress"

Mike

"I've been thinking about this clinic building, it could make a nice Crisis Pregnancy Center. This would really help pregnant women and give them and their children the dignity they deserve....oh well, it's just a pipe dream I guess...."

Brilliant Jasper....in fact, it's large enough to house both a crisis pregnancy center AND adoption center. The would even have room for a store-front for a used maternity/children's charity thrift store for raising funds for the centers. Hmmmm, wait a minute...they probably couldn't get past the ZONING CODE

Milehimama,

I just looked at your blog, you have a beautiful baby- God-Bless.

Sorry--I hit a button before I was done typing! Here's my whole comment:

"I've been thinking about this clinic building, it could make a nice Crisis Pregnancy Center. This would really help pregnant women and give them and their children the dignity they deserve....oh well, it's just a pipe dream I guess...."

Brilliant Jasper....in fact, it's large enough to house both a crisis pregnancy center AND adoption center. The would even have room for a store-front for a used maternity/children's charity thrift store for raising funds for the centers. Hmmmm, wait a minute...they probably couldn't get past the ZONING CODE ON THAT ONE. Seeing as how that would be a "non profit organization which would require advanced notice of all contiguous property owners within 250 feet and a public hearing, blah, blah blah..." I wonder if the Zoning Adminisration and Planning Dept. hear only Charlie Brown's schoolteacher when anyone but $$ talks?

I have already put out word to buy the property which is that big field next to Aurora PP and build both an Adoption Agency and Crisis Pregnancy Center.

How many people do you know who would financially support this?

If we did this, we would probably drive Aurora PP out of business.

Mike

"Hmmmm, wait a minute...they probably couldn't get past the ZONING CODE"

LOL, yes, good point Teresa.

Also, if they made it an CPC/Adoption center, the women would leave feeling good about themselves, etc.

As long as we are this far off topic, my favorite Christian book is a novel called The Memoirs of Pontius Pilate:

http://www.amazon.com/Memoirs-Pontius-Pilate-Ballantine-Readers/dp/0345443500

Another good book is David Curries Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic

Milehimama, that's the book God used to convert me to Catholicism!

Mary,

"Thanks for the info. Amazing how PP can thumb its nose at city officials."

Posted by: Mary at October 2, 2007 2:01 PM

PP is not thumbing its nose at city officials, because the officials support them. Did you see that memo from Bill Weit that Jill posted showing that the mayor was meeting with Planned Parenthood directly months ago? PP and city officials together are thumbing their noses at the citizens of Aurora.

Filing proper permits is for peons not PP.

Those city council meetings are the appearance of propriety, not the actual thing.

This is contempt for democracy. It is a charade.

There is zero transparency.

No one answered my question yet?

Would you support buying the land next to Aurora PP (that big field) and putting a Crisis Pregnancy Center and Adoption Agency there?

Mike

"that's the book God used to convert me to Catholicism!"

Oh cool! I'll be sure to read that one too! God love you, Jacq.

Mike, sounds like a good idea. I'd donate money to help make it happen.

"Would you support buying the land next to Aurora PP (that big field) and putting a Crisis Pregnancy Center and Adoption Agency there?"

yes Mike, of course ... and I would make a good donation and contribute to the cause, etc.

After spending over 20 years in the veterinary medicine/animal control feilds, I believe that I can say with complete confidence-

HORSE DEAD! STOP BEATING!

Posted by: Laura at October 2, 2007 1:07 PM

Oh no, Laura, This has only just begun.

*sigh* Well, I guess some people just can't take a loss gracefully.

I'm pretty sure that this is the end of the line for this center. They're open for business, and they're going to stay open.

It's reality. Sorry.

About your link. I understand a permit is required to display a banner. Do you know if PP bothered to get one?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is a VERY stylish church about two blocks from my home. (The architect was nothing short of genius...) Every week they rotate banners with cheerful messages like "Hear the Good News!"

Who's protesting their lack of banner permits?

THAT ONE WOMAN WE ALL HAVE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD!

THE ONE WHO PHOTOGRAPHS YOUR TRASH BINS IF YOU LEAVE THEM ON THE STREET OVERNIGHT. THE ONE WHO CALLS THE COPS IF YOUR GUESTS ARE PARKED AT THE CURB FOR OVER TWO HOURS. THE ONE WHO CALLED ANIMAL CONTROL BECAUSE SHE SAID MY DOGS WERE TOO BIG - NOT LOOSE, NOT BARKING - TOO BIG!

Do you REALLY want to be that woman?

Mike - I would also donate. I think there is already something in the works for a crisis pregnancy center near there, it would be great if it was directly in front of PP!

>Would you support buying the land next to Aurora PP (that big field) and putting a Crisis Pregnancy Center and Adoption Agency there?

Mike, what would you say to the women who are just going in for a pap smear and walk into your "CPC" by mistake? "You are wicked for having a vagina! Wicked!"

I think there is already something in the works for a crisis pregnancy center near there, it would be great if it was directly in front of PP!

If it were directly in front of PP, it would no doubt put PP out of business.

Drew Mariani will be talking about PP Aurora on his radio show in a few minutes. In Chicago his radio show is on AM 820 and AM 930 or you can listen online...

http://www.relevantradio.com/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?&pid=534&srcid=-2

Mike

Jacq and Milehimama, will check out that book.

Jasper,
My mom converted when she was younger (my grandma is Methodist), and went to Rockhurst, the Jesuit college in Kansas City. My dad is not Catholic (a form of Buddhist), but per their marriage agreement we kids were all raised Catholic, and dad comes to mass on special occasions.

My religious beliefs are sort of a long story (Bobby you know!). But suffice it to say I still believe in God, Jesus, etc. I just don't feel I can go to church again for a while, for various reasons. When I do come back, it will be to Catholicism though no doubt about it, there is no way I could be a Protestant.

Ok, thanks PIP. Good-luck

"Mike, what would you say to the women who are just going in for a pap smear and walk into your "CPC" by mistake? "You are wicked for having a vagina! Wicked!"

News flash to Ignorant Ray from a vagina: Crisis Pregnancy centers offer all types of reproductive health services to women short of abortions and birth control. And guess what: PP is not the only place to get a discount Pap Smear...I got free one's at the County Health Clinic while a starving student for years. Get an education if you can't at least get a life.

To Mike: LOVE the idea....It would be the first geographic face off I'd ever heard of and I would bet a MILLION DOLLARS that PP's clinic would close in less than 2 years.

Thanks Jasper! :)
We think we'll keep him.

If it were directly in front of PP, it would no doubt put PP out of business.

Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 3:02 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Uh, people...

You do know that CPCs outnumber abortion clinics at a better than 2-to-one ratio, and that virtually every abortion practice in this country has a CPC within 400 yards?
Fire up your CPC. You can help the women who want to carry a crisis pregnancy, and Planned Parenthood can help those who don't.
Everybody happy!

So, it's come down to a dispute of a Banner Permit. That's big news. What other business in the state has ever been in trouble about a permit for a temporary banner? Holy Cow everyone, this is one clinic out of what, thousands? why are you getting so bent out of shape. No matter how it turns out, this battle over the Aurora clinic building permit will not make abortion more legal, less legal, or anything else. You're not advancing your agenda, and I don't understand your energy you're spending on a side-issue.

Laura,

http://www.saveroe.com/images/Picture%20032.jpg
Posted by: Laura at October 2, 2007 1:35 PM

Our tax dollars at work.

Laura,

There is a VERY stylish church about two blocks from my home. (The architect was nothing short of genius...) Every week they rotate banners with cheerful messages like "Hear the Good News!"
Who's protesting their lack of banner permits?
THAT ONE WOMAN WE ALL HAVE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD!
THE ONE WHO PHOTOGRAPHS YOUR TRASH BINS IF YOU LEAVE THEM ON THE STREET OVERNIGHT. THE ONE WHO CALLS THE COPS IF YOUR GUESTS ARE PARKED AT THE CURB FOR OVER TWO HOURS. THE ONE WHO CALLED ANIMAL CONTROL BECAUSE SHE SAID MY DOGS WERE TOO BIG - NOT LOOSE, NOT BARKING - TOO BIG!
Do you REALLY want to be that woman?

NO WAY! They're aborting babies in a church? That's horrible! Of course I'd complain about the banners! The nerve!

Our tax dollars at work.

Posted by: mk at October 2, 2007 3:53 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://irregulartimes.com/dead.html

That must be the same church that all those dead-horse-beaters attend....

>http://www.saveroe.com/images/Picture%20032.jpg

Thanks, mk. I hadn't seen this yet. It looks great!

Incidentally, while Jesus had a much more open mind than most Christian seem to think, I am sure that even "He" would be opposed to performing abortions in a church, at least for money. He wasn't a fan of the money changers in the temple, and all. Good call!

NO WAY! They're aborting babies in a church? That's horrible! Of course I'd complain about the banners! The nerve!

Posted by: mk at October 2, 2007 3:55 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nah, they hardly ever have abortions there.
(They do, however, have a very cool children's art fair. I buy pieces there so the children can go to a Jesus camp where they DON'T make the children speak in tongues, hold plasic fetuses, and cry. Mostly just food fights and the songs...)

That must be the same church that all those dead-horse-beaters attend....

Posted by: Theresa at October 2, 2007 4:01 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

They serve the most tender barbeque there!

Laura,

Wasn't that movie frightening?

Hmm. I was watching the news just now and a psychiatrist has three women accusing him of 'inappropriate touching'. Ouch, a creepy doctor who ISN'T and abortionist. No good for the generalizations about abortion doctors.

Laura,

Wasn't that movie frightening?

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 2, 2007 4:23 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I thought it was abuse.
Breaking children down until they're shrieking and Wailing?
Indoctrinating them into some kind of violent Christian jihad?
Check out "Friends of God." http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/friends_of_god/
I think the doc. replays starting at the end of this month. It features the camp kids and Ted Haggard before they became famous in other venues...

And now, there are baby monkeys on the news. Awwwww...

Speaking of news-
Breaking:

Nation's top court won't hear NJ abortion case
by Kate Coscarelli Monday October 01, 2007, 4:32 PM
The nation's highest court today declined to hear a case involving a former Somerset County woman who sued her doctor after having an abortion.

The court's order offered no reason why the justices decided not to hear the issue of whether Rosa Acuna should be able to sue her doctor, Sheldon Turkish, for wrongful death of her fetus. The case was one on a long list of matters the court said it would not take up as it started its new term.

Both lawyers in the case - John Zen Jackson, who represents Turkish, and Harold Cassidy, who represents Acuna - declined to comment.

Acuna, formerly of South Bound Brook, sued Turkish, who practices in Perth Amboy, claiming he did not give her enough information when he recommended she end her pregnancy in 1996 because it exacerbated a kidney disorder.

The wrongful-death portion of Acuna's lawsuit was dismissed by state courts, and Cassidy went to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to have it reinstated. Today's denial ends that effort.

Acuna also contends she suffered emotional distress when she came to believe the abortion had killed a child. On Sept. 12, the New Jersey Supreme Court dismissed that claim as well, finding that a doctor does not have to tell a woman seeking an abortion that the procedure would kill a human being.

Last week, Cassidy asked the court to reconsider that ruling, and said if it won't, he'll again go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read more in Tuesday's Star-Ledger.

See more in News, Supreme Court

I believe McDonald's has to put "This beverage is HOT" on all their coffee cups for the same idiotic reason.

Laura,

I don't have HBO :/

Is it on video?

I believe McDonald's has to put "This beverage is HOT" on all their coffee cups for the same idiotic reason.

Posted by: JKeller at October 2, 2007 5:00 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While I was stripping out my jungle-like back yard, I had to sign a rental waiver stating that I would not put my limbs or head in the wood-chipper.
(I'll show THEM! I'll throw in nothing but my torso!)

Haha!

Supposedly you can't use your hairdryer in the bathtub, but they didn't say anything about the swimming pool.....

I have been following this story since it broke...not only from a pro-life standpoint, but also from a land development standpoint. My husband and I are both in the Land Surveying industry and our specialty is entitlements and zoning....I smelled a rat the moment the mayor "declared" PP broke no rules and could open today. If this was any other entity that had tried to pull this the city would have shut them down like a sledgehammer and probably ordered demo of the structure. Now, if the permit is allowed to stand after the filing of the appeal then the entire Planning Dept. should be sued ALONG with the "mayor" and each member of the city council....if I owned property within 250 feet of this facility I would have ALREADY filed suit. I understand how this process works and it is NOT ambigous...there is so much corruption here it makes me sick. The only reason this is unfolding like this is PP is greasing the wheels. There is NO OTHER WAY to get around zoning laws. I hope the mayor enjoys his bloodstained sports car/speed boat/Jamacain vacation/summer home that PP just bought him.
Posted by: Theresa at October 2, 2007 1:02 PM

Hmmm. Fascinating analysis, and yet so wrong at the same time. My husband is also "in the Land Surveying industry", although he usually just calls himself a surveyor, and his firm actually did the layout for the PP Aurora facility. According to him, a person who actually did work on the project, PP followed all the rules.

Laura,

per:
http://irregulartimes.com/dead.html

I agree that that is terrifying. How do we know it was "our side" that caused those injuries? I'm not saying we didn't, just honestly wondering? Isn't it possible that that is what we are over there trying to stop?

Hmmm. Fascinating analysis, and yet so wrong at the same time. My husband is also "in the Land Surveying industry", although he usually just calls himself a surveyor, and his firm actually did the layout for the PP Aurora facility. According to him, a person who actually did work on the project, PP followed all the rules.
Posted by: Carol at October 2, 2007 5:19 PMCarol,

Of course that is what your husband is going to say. His hands have been all over this mess. Why would we have any reason to believe what he is saying. Could it be that maybe he was lead to believe that the city had all of their bases covered.

Laura,

I don't have HBO :/

Is it on video?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yup, you can Netflix it. They also have "Soldiers in the Army of God."

What motive would her husband have to cover anything up? He works for an independent firm, not PP.

Laura,

Thank you for the post.

http://irregulartimes.com/dead.html

I agree that that is terrifying. How do we know it was "our side" that caused those injuries? I'm not saying we didn't, just honestly wondering? Isn't it possible that that is what we are over there trying to stop?

Posted by: mk at October 2, 2007 5:25 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If this administration was even vaguely interested in stopping injustice and genocide we'd be in Darfur.

Silly Laura, there's no oil in Darfur..........

Laura,

I can't argue with you because after what happened in Rwanda, I have been sickened by our pick and choose approach to war.

I understand that there are terrorists out there, and that obviously we have to protect ourselves, but I do not understand how we could sit by and watch what happened in Rwanda.

I also want to point out that it is graphic pictures like these that drive home the horror of these wars.

Just like it is the graphic pictures of the mutilated unborn that drives home the horror of abortion.

One situation should not cancel the other out. If
we know about these atrocities, be they war or abortion, we must speak out and do all that we can to stop them.

I feel exactly the same things when I see "your" children as when I see "mine"...heartsick.

Of course that is what your husband is going to say. His hands have been all over this mess. Why would we have any reason to believe what he is saying. Could it be that maybe he was lead to believe that the city had all of their bases covered.

Posted by: Sandy at October 2, 2007 5:31 PM

Why should you have any reason to believe what he's saying? Because land surveying is professionally licensed by the state, and they have regulations that govern their behavior in a professional capacity. If they violate the regulations by which they are licensed, they get their licenses yanked. No license = no job.

If he had "smelled" anything funny, he would have had an obligation to do something, and he would have. But there wasn't anything "funny" about any of it, so he didn't have to do anything except his job.

Laura,

Don't get me started on conspiracy theories...I'm just crazy enough to buy into a few of them...

Depleted Uranium is a particular sore spot with me.

http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

and once again, it's the pictures that best tell the tale.

Posted by: mk at October 2, 2007 5:47 PM

One situation should not cancel the other out. If
we know about these atrocities, be they war or abortion, we must speak out and do all that we can to stop them.
I feel exactly the same things when I see "your" children as when I see "mine"...heartsick.

Then you're doing a lot of pretending. How can you compare the death of an embryo with the unimaginable pain and suffering of those poor victims of war?

Hmmm. Fascinating analysis, and yet so wrong at the same time. My husband is also "in the Land Surveying industry", although he usually just calls himself a surveyor, and his firm actually did the layout for the PP Aurora facility. According to him, a person who actually did work on the project, PP followed all the rules.
Posted by: Carol at October 2, 2007 5:19 PMCarol,

Carol, your sarcasm about my husband says a lot for you...perhaps I should have been more specific: My husband is a LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR who specializes in Zoning, Permitting and Entitlement processes...that means he's not a stick monkey with a lath bag, he's a suit and tie, legalese expert who knows the process better than most PLANNERS that work the counters. And "according to him" who did NOT process the permits, but is parroting what someone who worked on the project said, PP "followed all the rules"...newsflash: I don't care what muni you are in, withholding information/lying on your permit applications is dealt with VERY severely unless (obviously) you are PP. No, I'm not parrotting my husband, I am a project surveyor who has spent 6 years doing entitlements, zoning and developement permits, and title research and if I worked on a project where I'D been lied to by my client I certainly wouldn't be defending their tactics....and I would be distancing myself from them as quickly as possible least my reputation be associated with their tactics. It is clear to me that your husband's firm either employs people who themselves don't understand the process completely, or they are simply trying to save face. I guess repeating a he-said-she-said twice removed from you entitles you to be holier than me.

Libby,

How can you compare the death of an embryo with the unimaginable pain and suffering of those poor victims of war?

For the same reasons...
The graphic pictures speak volumes.
And I'm not the one pretending.
How can you compare the death of these tiny little human babies to blobs of cells? To me, these unborn children are victims of a different kind of war. One between mothers and their children.
But a war just the same.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/

Wow, someone is on their high horse.....

Maybe the "suits" should start valuing the "stick monkeys" a little more, lest they be stuck with the undesirable work....

Carol --

I take it you are proud that your husband had a hand in clinic.

In 1940, there were probably several proud surveyors who help construct some camps and furnaces.

Sleep well in your pride.

Of course that is what your husband is going to say. His hands have been all over this mess. Why would we have any reason to believe what he is saying. Could it be that maybe he was lead to believe that the city had all of their bases covered.

Posted by: Sandy at October 2, 2007 5:31 PM

Why should you have any reason to believe what he's saying? Because land surveying is professionally licensed by the state, and they have regulations that govern their behavior in a professional capacity. If they violate the regulations by which they are licensed, they get their licenses yanked. No license = no job.

If he had "smelled" anything funny, he would have had an obligation to do something, and he would have. But there wasn't anything "funny" about any of it, so he didn't have to do anything except his job.

Sandy--thanks for piping up! Carol's response could use a little professional clarification: Yes, the Land Surveying industry is state regulated and they can yank your license for un-professional conduct. These rules are mostly concerned with Surveyor negligance and fraud...ie "I'll pay you more to put my monument over THERE.." The fact that PP lied on their applications doesn't implicate the Engineering/Surveying firm because that firm can simply say "that's what they told us!" It is also possible that "G.O.D." simply did their own applications and did not submit them through the Engineering/Surveying firm, in which case the firm is not subject to any disciplinary action if fraud is found. As for anyone at their firm "smelling anything funny" I'd say the only thing they were smelling was the smell of money. In today's land development market a spendy client like PP isn't going to get too much scruitiny as long as the firm can keep it's hands clean with something akin to "don't ask, don't tell."

Wow, someone is on their high horse.....

Maybe the "suits" should start valuing the "stick monkeys" a little more, lest they be stuck with the undesirable work....

He spent MANY years paying his dues in the field my friend, and is no stranger to lath bags. Maybe you shouldn't make assumptions. My high horse is a direct result of a sarcastic slam on my husband.

"Carol --

I take it you are proud that your husband had a hand in clinic.

In 1940, there were probably several proud surveyors who help construct some camps and furnaces.

Sleep well in your pride"

Amen Betty.

Hey Library Betty,

During the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, there were probably several surveyors who helped the Catholic church erect some buildings with lots of bars and chains and platforms for proudly burning "heretics" at the stake. They strangled them first if they confessed...if not, they burned them alive.

Sleep well in your pride.

I've been thinking about this clinic building, it could make a nice Crisis Pregnancy Center. This would really help pregnant women and give them and their children the dignity they deserve....oh well, it's just a pipe dream I guess....
Posted by: jasper at October 2, 2007 1:58 PM

..................................
Why don't you simply run your CPCs out of your churches and save the overhead? You could provide some free day care with the savings.

have already put out word to buy the property which is that big field next to Aurora PP and build both an Adoption Agency and Crisis Pregnancy Center.

How many people do you know who would financially support this?

If we did this, we would probably drive Aurora PP out of business.

Mike
Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 2:15 PM
.............................

Cool! Make a mini mall. Men and women could still visit PP parenthood for the medical needs that they provide. When women get positive pregnancy results from PP and wish to remain pregnant they can toddle over to the CPC for a pat on the head and some free diapers or start negotiations over the price she'll get if she in fact delivers a live baby within the specifications of the adoptees.

Ray --

Times do change, that's true. Such historical cases are not something I am proud of. Reflection, confession and penance by many Catholics has and is going toward such historical calamities.

But at least a heretic got to plead their case and had a life. The Jews of the Holucast as well as the babies killed by PP and other organizations had no chance at living and were innocents. People did profit from their deaths.

The fact that people are proud to profit from the deaths of infants, whether by taking money from the desparate woman or but collecting a check from PP for services rendered makes no difference. Either way they had a direct part in the brutal killing.

I for one didn't burn a heretic in the Middle Ages and I don't take pride in that occurance. I am now standing up and protesting the current abomination that is taking place in my neighborhood. I will never profit from the death of innocents if there is EVER anything I can do to prevent it.

I myself was a desparate single woman, scared about an unplanned preganancy and had people pushing your choice on me. I chose life for my daughter who is a teenager now and my pride and joy. I am the proud aunt of 5 adopted nephews and nieces who were also unplanned or unexpected pregnancies. I take pride in the power of hope and the gifts given by God. Where this is life, there is hope.

Abortion, I realized 16 years ago is a very permanent solution to a temporary problem.

So Ray, what are you truly proud of, what have you done for real, innocent, persecuted life?
Yes, I hope both you and Carol reflect on the idea of pride and profit and wonder at the real costs involved.
Take heart, as long as you have life, you have hope and be sure that I will pray for you and others who are misguided on this issue.

think there is already something in the works for a crisis pregnancy center near there, it would be great if it was directly in front of PP!

If it were directly in front of PP, it would no doubt put PP out of business.
Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 3:02 PM

............................

How do you figure?

Sally,

Why don't you simply run your CPCs out of your churches and save the overhead? You could provide some free day care with the savings.

If I ran the world...

Sally- that actually sounds like a great idea. There'd be a lot of problems in terms of the finances on that, though, considering that churches aren't taxed and anyplace that provides medical services often has to charge exponentially to compensate for losses, and so on, and so forth.

"Mike, what would you say to the women who are just going in for a pap smear and walk into your "CPC" by mistake? "You are wicked for having a vagina! Wicked!"

News flash to Ignorant Ray from a vagina: Crisis Pregnancy centers offer all types of reproductive health services to women short of abortions and birth control. And guess what: PP is not the only place to get a discount Pap Smear...I got free one's at the County Health Clinic while a starving student for years. Get an education if you can't at least get a life.

To Mike: LOVE the idea....It would be the first geographic face off I'd ever heard of and I would bet a MILLION DOLLARS that PP's clinic would close in less than 2 years.
Posted by: Theresa at October 2, 2007 3:38 PM
...................

I had no idea that CPCs provided STD screening and treatment, cancer screening etc. Are their doctors volunteers?
I would bet you that million and buy a Starbucks franchise close by for the fanatics that need coffee while they keep count, snap shot license plates, toss around catsup encrusted Betsy Wetsy dolls.........What a hoot!

Mike,

"I have already put out word to buy the property which is that big field next to Aurora PP and build both an Adoption Agency and Crisis Pregnancy Center."

"If we did this, we would probably drive Aurora PP out of business."

Actually you wouldn't. PP offers services other than abortion. Additionally, adoption is not a solution to an unwanted pregnancy. It is a solution to an unwanted child.

Mike
Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 2:15 PM

Library Betty,

"But at least a heretic got to plead their case and had a life. The Jews of the Holucast as well as the babies killed by PP and other organizations had no chance at living and were innocents. People did profit from their deaths."

That whole post was an amazingly articulate response to Ray...thoughtful and very well said. Being my first day on this blog, I can't help but notice that the sarcastic and hostile posts are from the "pro-choice" camp.

"Yes, I hope both you and Carol reflect on the idea of pride and profit and wonder at the real costs involved. "

Is is an accident or just coincidence that pride and profit can be abbreviated PP?

Bravo.

I have a root beer float.

It is glorious.

Hey Enigma --

Is PP going to offer Female Circumsion as an additional service?

That is the choice of many people around the world concerning their reproduction rights. It would be something that other providers and the Crisis Pregnancy folks probably won't offer and PP could turn a nice buck on it. After all they really want to get that demographic in the door -- you know the pre-teen minority girl.

I hope they consider it as a business plan. All their decisions are business ones -- no moral limits when it comes to women or children with PP. It could be part of that 90% of services that can be offered at a low cost.

In fact they could put up a banner to attract clients and be proud to offer such service to an underserved population.

Laura,

per:
http://irregulartimes.com/dead.html

I agree that that is terrifying. How do we know it was "our side" that caused those injuries? I'm not saying we didn't, just honestly wondering? Isn't it possible that that is what we are over there trying to stop?
Posted by: mk at October 2, 2007 5:25 PM
...................................

Within the first month of the invasion of Irag, a picture was shown in a BBC news article of a pregnant woman running towards a military road block. She was shot dead. Of course it wasn't ascertained until she was dead that she was probably running to them for help rather than a pretend pregnant woman with a crap load of explosives strapped to her abdomen.
I can imagine how frightened the young soldier was in a country where he didn't understand the culture or the language. I can imagine what he must have felt when he pulled the trigger and what he felt when he realized that he had just killed a pregnant woman for no good reason. Hopefully he felt remorse. But then soldiers are trained not to care about those they kill.

"I had no idea that CPCs provided STD screening and treatment, cancer screening etc. Are their doctors volunteers?
I would bet you that million and buy a Starbucks franchise close by for the fanatics that need coffee while they keep count, snap shot license plates, toss around catsup encrusted Betsy Wetsy dolls.........What a hoot!"

My point, Anonymous, is that PP is NOT the ONLY free or low cost option for female reproductive healthcare. You all run around chanting it like a mantra when there are thousands of women who get paps, std screenings, birth control, etc. all for little or no cost through the local County Healthcare system...I know because I did. Stop acting like PP is the only place on the planet where these things can be obtained.

Regarding your Starbucks rant: thank you for making my previous point.

Therese,

Welcome on your first day blogging on this site.
I sincerely hope that it won't be your last. New blood, from both sides, is always welcome.

And honestly, many of the pro choice crowd on here are awesome in spite of their one teeny, tiny, little, bitty, HUGE flaw. Most of them are very respectful and quite pleasant to talk with.

A few, like yourself, are new and haven't been "trained" properly (I'm kidding!)...

And trust me, our side has it's nasty side too.
Maybe not as often, and maybe not as nasty, but it's there.

Hmmm. Fascinating analysis, and yet so wrong at the same time. My husband is also "in the Land Surveying industry", although he usually just calls himself a surveyor, and his firm actually did the layout for the PP Aurora facility. According to him, a person who actually did work on the project, PP followed all the rules.
Posted by: Carol at October 2, 2007 5:19 PMCarol,

Of course that is what your husband is going to say. His hands have been all over this mess. Why would we have any reason to believe what he is saying. Could it be that maybe he was lead to believe that the city had all of their bases covered.
Posted by: Sandy at October 2, 2007 5:31 PM

.....................

Good grief Sandy. Land surveyors are not legal specialists. My daughter is a Civil Engineer. Her firm relied upon their lawyers to know the legalities for any specific location.

Laura,

I can't argue with you because after what happened in Rwanda, I have been sickened by our pick and choose approach to war.

I understand that there are terrorists out there, and that obviously we have to protect ourselves, but I do not understand how we could sit by and watch what happened in Rwanda.

I also want to point out that it is graphic pictures like these that drive home the horror of these wars.

Just like it is the graphic pictures of the mutilated unborn that drives home the horror of abortion.

One situation should not cancel the other out. If
we know about these atrocities, be they war or abortion, we must speak out and do all that we can to stop them.

I feel exactly the same things when I see "your" children as when I see "mine"...heartsick.
Posted by: mk at October 2, 2007 5:47 PM

..................

That kinda sickens me mk. To compare an aborted embryo to a raped, murdered, starving to death 3 year old is sick. Imagine how many women are greatfull for miscarrying in these horrid places. Especially the products of inhuman rapists and murderers. Boo hooing over abortion sounds shallow to me.

*waves at Theresa* Like me. I am a good girl. Also pro-choice and an atheist. But I behave! Unless I'm having a bad day. But that happens to everyone, nu?

"Good grief Sandy. Land surveyors are not legal specialists. My daughter is a Civil Engineer. Her firm relied upon their lawyers to know the legalities for any specific location."

Sorry, Anonymous...you are a surveyor? Yes, Civil Engineers do rely on lawyers...guess who the lawyers rely on?

Answer: Surveyors...yes they are specialists in the law when it pertains to zoning, planning, setbacks, land use, etc. That's what surveyors do. They also spend a lot of time on the phone with lawyers explaining those laws to the lawyers. I have met very few land use/real estate lawyers who can understand the Subdivision Map Act without having their hand held by a surveyor.

No, we don't just stand on the side of the road and take pictures with our funny camera.

"Is PP going to offer Female Circumsion as an additional service? That is the choice of many people around the world concerning their reproduction rights."

Many women and young girls are forced to submit to this barbaric practice. Those who are not are deluded by a male patriarchy. Female circumcision provides no health benefits and exposes the woman/child involved to many risks, both from the procedure itself and later in life. It's only purpose is to ensure that women take no pleasure from sex and exist solely for the pleasure of men.

"I hope they consider it as a business plan. All their decisions are business ones -- no moral limits when it comes to women or children with PP."

It's a medical center. I cannot speak to the morality of the individual doctors because morality is something that each individual decides for herself. You do not define morality for the entire population.

Your analogy is crude, offensive, and based on nothing but speculation and misinformation. I would suggest that you read up on FGM before continuing to compare it with a woman's choice to have an abortion.

To mk and Erin:

Thanks for the warm welcome!

mk- speaking of the PL nasty side, did you ever hear from heather? I know she kind of flipped out, but I hope she's all right. I thought maybe some external stressors might have brought it on.

Hey Enigma,

Haven't you ever heard of demonstrating absurdity by being absurd?

Loosen up those chonies a little....

I feel exactly the same things when I see "your" children as when I see "mine"...heartsick.
Posted by: mk at October 2, 2007 5:47 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MK-
1) I don't think that anything under 20 weeks gestation has the physical mechanisms required for suffering.
2) As often as I pimp this picture - and as terrible as this sounds - I wish this kid had never been born, and abortion would have been kinder (contraception better still..):
http://www.bike4sudan.com/files/images/wanting_a_meal.jpg

Theresa,

"Haven't you ever heard of demonstrating absurdity by being absurd?"

Of course. But there is no absurdity to demonstrate.

Laura,

Don't get me started on conspiracy theories...I'm just crazy enough to buy into a few of them...

Depleted Uranium is a particular sore spot with me.

http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

and once again, it's the pictures that best tell the tale.
Posted by: mk at October 2, 2007 5:50 PM
.......................

Do you think that Uranium poisoning is a conspiracy theory? I assure you it isn't. My ex mined uranium right here in -glow in the dark- New Mexico. It's a lot safer to mine it than have a weapon of destruction spew it all over the country side.
Those pictures remind me of the deformities attributed to acid rain and industrial waste upon the great lakes and the impact upon the peoples of the Midwest when I was a child.
mk, you are obviously a thoughtful and caring person. If you want abortion to go bye bye, you really need to address the issues that actually necessitate abortion. Lack of education, available and affordable BC, lack of real support for pregnant women, lack of real support for women with children, rape, domestic violence, incest, chemically damaged sperms and ovums due to harmful chemical exposure either self inflicted, governmentally inflicted or corporate inflicted......I can go on if you like.
If you have a really big problem with abortion you should have an even bigger problem with why women seek them and the people that refuse to fix the problems that precipitate them.

Laura,

While I hear what your saying, I wish that that poor child had never been placed in that situation. Abortion wouldn't solve the problem. It would just eliminate one more victim of it.

Wouldn't you rather get mad and attack the people that put that poor little fella in that place to begin with. I know I would.

So what's the real solution? Tell me. Like I wasn't depressed enough after yesterdays defeat! Sure, just pile on some more desparate souls. And I thought we were friends! :)

Laura,

http://www.bike4sudan.com/files/images/wanting_a_meal.jpg

Posted by: Laura at October 2, 2007 7:43 PM

That picture is so sad. I hope the photographer was able to help.

Situations like that remind me that the number one cause of death worldwide is starvation and the second is violence.

People are most likely to die because of the actions of their fellow human beings.

Love is the answer.

Anonymous,

As I said to Sally...if I ran the world.

Look, I'm just one person. I'm raising a large family. I volunteered for four years at a homeless shelter, and four more on an alzheimers floor at a senior home. (I'm not braggin' here, honestly, just saying that I'm trying!) My son came home with his girlfriend pregnant, and I'm helping to raise their two kids (with a smile on my face), I taught immigrant kids preschool for 12 years, fostered a child from Guatemala so she could have facial surgery and took in a kid from the inner city to get him out of a gang...

For whatever reason, the unborn has been my deepest calling. I can't save everyone. I shouldn't have to. But if everyone did something, whatever their called to do, then there surely would be enough compassion to go around. I don't neglect everyone except the unborn...but I'm just one person.

(And when I said conspiracy theory, I meant that we aren't being told about the atrocities that are government is using in the name of peace. Depleted Uranium is awful! And most people have never heard of it, let alone realize that we are using it all over the world...)

Rotten teenager needs the computer for homework...
what is the world coming to?

Good night all.

Peace.

I really just wanted to share a story about rising STD rates.

The article includes some info about a young man "Anthony" who although he took sex ed classes and was screened for STDs, persisted in risky behavior until he found himself HIV positive. The article tried to end on a positive note by saying he is now trying to use condoms.

Other gems from the article include comments about teens not feeling comfortable telling a partner to use a condom because they don't know their partner well enough.

It is almost surreal. It is out of St. Louis.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/sciencemedicine/story/45E2CAE8329750EF8625734F000CBBB2?OpenDocument

So a "pro-choice" person sees a picture of a person suffering and thinks, "That person would be better off dead." A pro-life person sees a picture of a person suffering and thinks, "How can we help that person live a better life?" This would seem to be one of the fundamental differences between the two groups.

"I had no idea that CPCs provided STD screening and treatment, cancer screening etc. Are their doctors volunteers?
I would bet you that million and buy a Starbucks franchise close by for the fanatics that need coffee while they keep count, snap shot license plates, toss around catsup encrusted Betsy Wetsy dolls.........What a hoot!"

My point, Anonymous, is that PP is NOT the ONLY free or low cost option for female reproductive healthcare. You all run around chanting it like a mantra when there are thousands of women who get paps, std screenings, birth control, etc. all for little or no cost through the local County Healthcare system...I know because I did. Stop acting like PP is the only place on the planet where these things can be obtained.

Regarding your Starbucks rant: thank you for making my previous point.
Posted by: Theresa at October 2, 2007 7:15 PM
................
Starbucks 'rant'? Where did I rant about Starbucks? I mentioned the name of a business. And you have made no point of any kind of rational nature.

Hi Laura.

"I don't think that anything under 20 weeks gestation has the physical mechanisms required for suffering."

Funny you should mention this. I just read an article in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly about 2 hours ago that referenced a paper from the British Medical journal that talked about this. From my paper

"According to the British Medical Journal, the neuro-anatomical structures that are needed in order to "feel" pain, i.e. the thalamus and the motor nerves that send a message to the base of the brain, are present in the fetus by the eighth week of pregnancy."

He references
H.B. Valman and J.F. Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Medical Journal (January 26 1980)

Of course, he also goes on to say that it is debated whether or not the fetus ACTUALLY DOES feel the pain, but it looks like there is no debate on whether or not the fetus has the needed structures to feel pain. Pretty interesting stuff. God love you, Laura.

"Good grief Sandy. Land surveyors are not legal specialists. My daughter is a Civil Engineer. Her firm relied upon their lawyers to know the legalities for any specific location."

Sorry, Anonymous...you are a surveyor? Yes, Civil Engineers do rely on lawyers...guess who the lawyers rely on?

Answer: Surveyors...yes they are specialists in the law when it pertains to zoning, planning, setbacks, land use, etc. That's what surveyors do. They also spend a lot of time on the phone with lawyers explaining those laws to the lawyers. I have met very few land use/real estate lawyers who can understand the Subdivision Map Act without having their hand held by a surveyor.

No, we don't just stand on the side of the road and take pictures with our funny camera.
Posted by: Theresa at October 2, 2007 7:34 PM

............................
Reading for comprehension is obviously not your forte. Along with pretending that surveyors understand law.
I think that it is totally groovy that you have found a calling but that doesn't make you an expert in construction let alone zoning legal crap over such construction. Hearsay is just that.

Sally,

Why don't you simply run your CPCs out of your churches and save the overhead? You could provide some free day care with the savings.

If I ran the world...
Posted by: mk at October 2, 2007 6:55 PM]
...........................

What would you do mk?

"Reading for comprehension is obviously not your forte. Along with pretending that surveyors understand law.
I think that it is totally groovy that you have found a calling but that doesn't make you an expert in construction let alone zoning legal crap over such construction. Hearsay is just that."

Come again?? If you're going to rant, would you at least try to make it an intelligible one? If you'd like to discuss the fine points of zoning law let's discuss....I'm armed with professional industry knowledge on the subject. You, apparently are only armed with mud.

Sandy--thanks for piping up! Carol's response could use a little professional clarification: Yes, the Land Surveying industry is state regulated and they can yank your license for un-professional conduct. These rules are mostly concerned with Surveyor negligance and fraud...ie "I'll pay you more to put my monument over THERE.." The fact that PP lied on their applications doesn't implicate the Engineering/Surveying firm because that firm can simply say "that's what they told us!" It is also possible that "G.O.D." simply did their own applications and did not submit them through the Engineering/Surveying firm, in which case the firm is not subject to any disciplinary action if fraud is found. As for anyone at their firm "smelling anything funny" I'd say the only thing they were smelling was the smell of money. In today's land development market a spendy client like PP isn't going to get too much scruitiny as long as the firm can keep it's hands clean with something akin to "don't ask, don't tell."

Posted by: Theresa at October 2, 2007 6:16 PM

Theresa,

My this certainly has gotten contentious. I would like to apologize to you for what you saw as an insult. Yes, I am a somewhat sarcastic person, but I honestly just thought your turn of phrase was funny. I've never heard anyone refer to it as the "Land Surveying industry" before, much less put it in caps, and it struck my funny bone.

My husband is also a licensed professional who worked his way up from a field crew to a principal. And for whomever else it was who ripped into me for my "pride" in him, yep, you sure got that right. He kicks butt. He works for a highly reputable firm that he's now a major player in, and I'm pretty darn proud and completely unashamed of it.

But back to the topic of PP's alleged deception. My husband's firm did all of the layout for the building as well as the work for the occupancy permit. PP is in an area zoned for medical use, and that is the purpose for which the development sought permits, and that is the purpose for which it will be used. There is no zoning violation, much less any permitting violations, and you have three separate reports from area attorneys along with the conclusion of the SA to bear that out.

By the way, to "anonymous"....you would be surprised at how much surveyors know about property law that applies to their particular area of expertise.

So a "pro-choice" person sees a picture of a person suffering and thinks, "That person would be better off dead." A pro-life person sees a picture of a person suffering and thinks, "How can we help that person live a better life?" This would seem to be one of the fundamental differences between the two groups.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 2, 2007 8:20 PM

Nonsense. Anyone can think it would have been better had a starving child not been born while at the same time wanting desperately to help the unfortunate youngster live a better life. Pro-life, on the other hand, just wants every fertilized egg to be gestated no matter what the living conditions are for the pregnant woman. A large number of pro-lifers want poor, starving women to be denied contraception, punished, guilted, harassed, and/or demonized for seeking abortions under even the most horrible circumstances.

maybe John L. has hit upon something or perhaps he missed entirely,

I've re-read many of the posts here and like MK, I too am saddened and don't quite know where to go next! So maybe, I'll give out a little understanding of the kind of life humans are called to embrace.

One of the oldest stories in the Bible is the story of Cain and Able. Cain kills (his brother) Abel. [This story has always be very poignant for me, because I have 4 brothers ,, 2 older and 2 younger.] God asks Cain (after this event): 'Cain, where is Able?' Cain's reply: 'Am I my brother's keeper?'

It would be very easy to just point fingers about who are the perpetrators and who are the victims. [it becomes even harder to bear when you allow 'others' to be so distant that you can call other folks - 'them'.

This is where MK is. She sees us as family ... brothers/sisters all. Laura's kid (starving to death) is a little son/brother, as is Laura herself. She is that kid's sister and so are the rest of us .... and, we let our little brother die ... of starvation! We are so proficient in saying (like Cain) 'Am I my brother's keeper?' Now, through the magic of PP our brothers/sisters now called fetuses/products-of-conception/non-sentient-beings (to placate our cruelty) will be cut up and some will be put through a garbage disposal >>> 'Am I my brother's keeper?'

Such is bad enough ... but Jesus issued in an even closer tie ... He stated many times a bond of union so tight He said things like 'whatsoever yo do to the least of these, you do to me.' and 'I pray for them Father, that they might be one
as you and I are one.' As Jesus is on His Cross, He is the little starving kid in Sudan + also all the victims of mayhem .... I am too, and so is Laura, and so are we all ... >>> 'Am I my brother's keeper?'

Jesus, says 'yes' and even more 'you ARE your brother' - that's tight.

[little aside - a person in the Cartesian box cannot experience this-pain//this-gift. The 'box' is a safe place to judge the world, not embrace the world.]

How can you compare the death of an embryo with the unimaginable pain and suffering of those poor victims of war? -- Libby

For the same reasons...
The graphic pictures speak volumes.
And I'm not the one pretending.
How can you compare the death of these tiny little human babies to blobs of cells? To me, these unborn children are victims of a different kind of war. One between mothers and their children.
But a war just the same.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/

Posted by: mk at October 2, 2007 6:00 PM

You're pretending if you think banning abortion will magically make the problem of unintended pregnancy and abortion go away. Banning elective abortion won't change the circumstances under which women choose to abort. It won't make life any better for poor, minority young women, which is the group who aborts at 4 times the rate of any other group. Making the abortion procedure illegal might make you feel better, but it won't make it go away.

Libby-

Check out Femenists for Life. We have the same line of thinking. Abortion is a sign that society is not meeting women's needs. Women deserve better than abortion! Women should not have to choose between a career and a child. Making abortion illegal is more than just a law for us, its a holistic change.

Bears repeating:

"Humanity was, for the most part, a matter of personal opinion. But I suppose its acceptable for humanity to be in the eye of the beholder, right?"

Carder: Depends on who you ask, Mary. Doug for example, will wholeheartedly agree with you. The baby/fetus/ organism DOES NOT matter. It's all about mom, will only be about mom, who cares about about anybody/anything else. End of discussion.

Once again, we see the most willful desire to avoid the truth, and the weak attempt to attack the truthful side with straw man arguments.

No, Carder, it is not that the unborn "do not matter." Those are you words, not the words of the Pro-Choice side.

They may matter a great deal. They may matter a massive, enormous, amount. It is up to the woman who is pregnant, and/or the couple who would be the parents.

"Humanity" means different things. To some extent the unborn qualify, and to other extents they do not. No, Carder, it is not necessarily only about Mom - most Pro-Choicers are okay with the restrictions per the Roe decision.

Doug

Libby-

Check out Femenists for Life. We have the same line of thinking. Abortion is a sign that society is not meeting women's needs. Women deserve better than abortion! Women should not have to choose between a career and a child. Making abortion illegal is more than just a law for us, its a holistic change.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 3, 2007 12:08 AM

I'm familiar with FFL. Contrary to what the website says, making abortion illegal only serves to punish women.

Jill, thank you for existing and doing what you do. That's all.

anonymous,

A large number of pro-lifers want poor, starving women to be denied contraception, punished, guilted, harassed, and/or demonized for seeking abortions

No, we want them to be fed, clothed, safe and free so that all of their children will be born into a place where they don't have to worry about starving or being killed.

We DO NOT want them to feel guilty, which is why we DO NOT want them to kill their children. Death is not an answer to life's problems. And as for harassing, that would be a little difficult since the only other countries I have ever been to are Ireland and Canada. Hard to harass someone from 3,000 miles away!

Libby,

You're pretending if you think banning abortion will magically make the problem of unintended pregnancy and abortion go away.

No one here EVER claimed that banning abortion would magically make unintended pregnancy go away. Only the parties involved in illicit sexual relations have that kind of control.

Abortion would simply make the legalized murder of 15 million babies go away. No more, no less.

Libby,

You're pretending if you think banning abortion will magically make the problem of unintended pregnancy and abortion go away.

You mean, just like you're pretending, that bringing abortion to these countries will suddenly make poverty and destitution go away.

Abortion is not the answer. To any question. Ever.

Only the parties involved in illicit sexual relations have that kind of control.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh yeah.
Married people never have abortions.

John McDonell,

but Jesus issued in an even closer tie ... He stated many times a bond of union so tight He said things like 'whatsoever yo do to the least of these, you do to me.' and 'I pray for them Father, that they might be one

I don't think I tell you often enough, just how much I love you!

The fact that there are children in the world like the little boy in the picture Laura posted, says more about me than it does about him.

You are so right John! We ARE family. And my brothers and sisters are in trouble. The poor will always be with us. We will never eliminate poverty. BUT...this is a chance for us to practice charity and be Christ to the world. If we feed that little guy, he will be replaced by another little guy...true...but in the eternal picture, eventually we will all end up in the same state...and when asked what we did to alleviate his suffering, I want to be able to say "Everything in my power" and not "I eliminated him". This life we have been given is a spiritual test. We will all suffer and we will all die. We cannot change God's will, but we can cooperate with it. He watches, and suffers when He sees the wee ones living like our boy, but he suffers more when He watches us ignore him. Or worse yet, desire that he go away by killing him.

Wouldn't decency dictate that we treat the creation of life with the utmost respect? Doesn't looking at that little boy make you cherish life all the more? Don't images like that make you ashamed to use sex purely for personal pleasure instead of treating it with the dignity it deserves. Reverting to animalism is what brings about hunger and unwanted children, war and poverty. Human beings, unlike beasts, have the power to control their urges, whether it is raping a woman simply because you are a man in a country where women are considered less than human, or rutting here in the US because it "feels good"...

We are all responsible for the life we create, and when life is created irresponsibly, then we are responsible for the life that others create. We are family. And family takes care of it's own. Or at least it should.

Instead of pointing fingers at each other, and trying to make the "bad feelings" go away, we must ask ourselves "What am I doing to make things better?"

Laura,

If a married couple is having sex without being open to life, then in my mind they too are having illicit sex. Sex without openness to life, ceases to be a life affirming act of sharing and becomes a selfish act of self-pleasuring. Which is irresponsible whether you are married or not.

Doug,

"They may matter a great deal. They may matter a massive, enormous, amount. It is up to the woman who is pregnant, and/or the couple who would be the parents."

You've proven my point. At the end of the day, it boils down to the wishes/desires of the pregnant woman. It MAY matter a great deal, it COULD matter a massive, enormous amount.

But if she says, "Nope", then it's time for us to back off and let her exercise her choice. In fact, Pro-choice SUPPORTS that choice. It's not for us to make the decision for her.

Once the switch is flipped and the contents of her uterus emptied, one can only stare at the remains and say with whatever emotion the wind blows that day, "IT didn't matter."

The Down's baby that Jill comforted didn't matter.

Neither did the 4,000 terminated organisms from yesterday didn't matter.

And the 4,000 non-sentient, pain-free blobs that will be terminated today won't matter.

To repeat your valuation:"It is up to the woman who is pregnant..."

And that's all that matters.

Doug,

" most Pro-Choicers are okay with the restrictions per the Roe decision."

Doug

Posted by: Doug at October 3, 2007 12:14 AM

What restrictions, specifically are they okay with?

It seems to me that every restriction has been fought and that none of the restrictions in the Roe decision are meaningful, partly because of the Doe vs. Bolton case.

Do you know of any restriction that Planned Parenthood, NAF or NARAL have supported?

where's my buddie Heather?

Anonymous wrote,

"A large number of pro-lifers want poor, starving women to be denied contraception, punished, guilted, harassed, and/or demonized for seeking abortions under even the most horrible circumstances."

Posted by: Anonymous at October 2, 2007 10:24 PM

If you look worldwide, access to abortion is widespread among the most affluent nations, who were affluent before they legalized abortion. If there are fewer poor, the rich don't need to feel guilted or demonized for not sharing with them.

The people of the world's most desperately poor countries cry out for food, safety and justice, not for abortion. It is the outside agencies who come in and see abortion as a way to reduce the number of poor and their burden on the rest of us. I think this is misguided, at least. When offered abortion, do they take it? Sure, because their needs haven't been met, because they aren't offered what they need. They also drink polluted water because it is all they have.

Laura,

If a married couple is having sex without being open to life, then in my mind they too are having illicit sex. Sex without openness to life, ceases to be a life affirming act of sharing and becomes a selfish act of self-pleasuring. Which is irresponsible whether you are married or not.

Posted by: mk at October 3, 2007 6:30 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MK, I am going to be 45 in November.
I've been sexually active since the age of 21, had my tubes tied at 23, and am with the third sexual partner I've had in my entire life. We will have been together 10 years next 4th of July. (The shortest sexual relationship I ever had was almost 7 years)
I think branding my behavior as "illicit" or "irresponsible" would be a little harsh, even though none of my sexual activity ever involved marriage or reproduction. (I did the 80's in a big way, but any of my girlfiends would have referred to three sexual partners as "a weekend in Cancun" - not a lifelong sexual history...)

Laura,

Then I guess I wasn't talking about you. Obviously if you're tubes were tied, then the possibility of bringing an "unwanted" child into the world was eliminated.

I would still call your relationships illicit, but that would be coming from a strictly Catholic point of view. Ideally, from where I sit, all marriage would be treated as sacred and a sacrament.

But coming from a secular point of view, your sexual history, while "illicit", would not fall under the "irresponsible" heading. Good work.

Surely, tho, you know what I'm talking about. Since you have never set foot in an abortion clinic, you don't qualify as someone that is willing to "eliminate" the result of your sexual relationships. But many, many, many women are.

To me, even from a secular standpoint, these women are acting irresponsibly. If you can't stand the heat, you get out of the kitchen. You don't demolish it.

If you can't accept the natural consequences of your actions, then stop practicing the behavior. Don't kill the results.

I'm sure the same thing applies in your line of work. If you can't take care of a puppy, don't get one. Getting one and then killing it would be nuts! Think before you act. Can you afford to feed it? Will you take it for walks? Will you get it vaccinated? If not, then stay out of the pet store! (Actually, stay out of the pet store if you want a puppy to begin with, but that's a whole other debate).

Laura,

I no longer entertain the idea of astrology, but if I did, I'd find it curious that both of us are Scorpios...

Hippie,

Sure, because their needs haven't been met, because they aren't offered what they need. They also drink polluted water because it is all they have.

Excellent points!!!!!

Laura,

Maybe you have some insight into the availability of female sterilization for the under 25 crowd.

I have heard some say it is hard to get.

What have you heard?

I have heard some say it is hard to get.

What have you heard?

Posted by: hippie at October 3, 2007 7:40 AM

I'm curious too hippie. I have a 26 year old neighbor that just had her second child and wanted her tubes tied. The doctor refused because of her age. She said that it was common practice to wait until after 30. It could have changed since Laura had it done.

Laura,

In Catholicism, we believe that God has given us many gifts which are meant to be enjoyed. However, in our sinfulness, we often abuse these gifts and turn them in something that they were never meant to be.

There are seven sins, called the seven deadly sins, that are so grave, and pervert their opposites, the seven holy virtues, to such a degree that they warrant condemnation to hell.

We are given good things to eat. We are meant to enjoy them. We should not feel guilty because we have good food to eat.

However, when this gift is perverted, we have the deadly sin of gluttony, or over indulgence.

It's polar opposite, the holy virtue of temperance, is the self control it takes to monitor our intake of these gifts and avoid their abuse.

When it comes to sex, we were given one of the most beautiful gifts that God had to give. The opportunity to unite with one another on the spiritual as well as physical plane and to culminate this union with the opportunity to share in God's creative powers, by producing new life.

But like all of His gifts, Chastity too, has become perverted. Of course we are supposed to find pleasure in the sexual act. We are supposed to find pleasure in all of His gifts. But when we seek that pleasure without accepting the act of creation that goes with it, we pervert it and make it something it was not meant to be.

Sex is good. Sex for the wrong reasons? Not so good...

"Lust (Latin, luxuria)
*
Lust is usually thought of as involving obsessive or excessive thoughts or desires of a sexual nature. Unfulfilled lusts sometimes lead to sexual or sociological compulsions and/or transgressions including (but obviously not limited to) sexual addiction, adultery, bestiality, and rape.
*
Dante's criterion was "excessive love of others," which therefore rendered love and devotion to God as secondary. However, lust and love are two different things; while a genuine, selfless love can represent the highest degree of development and feeling of community with others in a human relationship, Lust can be described as the excessive desire for sexual release. The other person can be therefore seen as a "means to an end" for the fulfillment of the subject's desires, and becomes thus objectified in the process. In Purgatorio, the penitent walks within flames to purge himself of lustful/sexual thoughts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins

I had my tubes tied in 85.
I had to get a court-ordered waiver stating that I wouldn't litigate if I changed my mind later. (I notice that they don't make you get one in order to have a child...)
I had to obtain and pay for a psych. evaluation.
I had to pay court costs and pay for the procedure.
I had the judge ask me if I had discussed my plans with my boyfriend and my father(!?)

Nothing has changed except for the fact that the society has become even MORE litigious, and now it's even HARDER to get a tubal or a vasectomy if you're under 35 or have fewer than three children.

I personally believe that if you're over 18 and know what you want, then it should be a personal choice.
Heck, you can get a tattoo, a piercing, new boobs, or even a BABY at that age, you should be able to get something like a tubal!
(I think it's a little silly that I was issued a shotgun in my line of work at that time, but I was apparently too stupid to own and operate my own uterus without supervision...)

hippie

Right on! Exactly my point.

Anonymous-

We simply disagree on this point. I think abortion exploits women because it is promoted as a solution to all of your problems. Killing your child is never a solution. Women should not feel like they have to have an abortion. The answer is meeting the needs of pregnant women and women with children. Killing is never the answer.

The answer is meeting the needs of pregnant women and women with children.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Great, but what are you going to do for women who no longer wish to be pregnant nor have children?
I've known plenty of affluent, educated women who have had abortions.

Laura,

I agree. It's weird that they are so adament about that. If a woman truly wants it, that is her choice. We can avoid more abortions if such procedures were more available, I think.

mk,

Even people who use contraception and sterilization can be open to life.

Many of my friends have children due to contraceptive failure. They love and cherish these children and figure that is what was meant to be.

Remember also the lady who was over 50 and had her tubes tied years before, yet went on to unexpectedly have twins. She was open to life, despite being sterilized.

I don't want you to think I am arguing against your personal religious beliefs because I am not. That is personal.

I just want to point out that many contraceptive users are open to life. Some may even be using contraceptives for the most selfish, irresponsible, and illicit reasons (such as prostitution), yet accept pregnancy and love their children.

PIP,

"Women deserve better than abortion! "

I agree. But I also believe that outlawing abortion is not the way to go.

Hippie,

I second MK on your excellent post. We wealthy nations, when dealing with poor nations, always assume WE know what's best for THEM. Talk about patronizing. Do we ever think to ask these people what they think is best for them? In fact, some of the methods of birth control that we so caringly push on them might be dangerous for the ignorant, malnourished, anemic woman who's only access to medical help is a day long ride on a donkey to some dilapidated "clinic".
As you say, we don't address the real problems of poverty, inequality, abuse, disease, or ignorance. We also do not take into consideration the cultural and religous differences of people in poorer nations, people who, unlike us, do not see children as the problem and in fact greatly cherish children.
I remember reading what one poor woman said. That if you take her children away, you will not cure her poverty, she will still be desperately poor. Her children are her only joy.

I agree. It's weird that they are so adament about that. If a woman truly wants it, that is her choice. We can avoid more abortions if such procedures were more available, I think.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 3, 2007 8:35
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've always thought the argument was pretty lame myself.
I've never heard anyone ask a pregnant women "what if you change your mind in ten years and don't want it anymore?"
It's doubly puzzling now that the technology has improved. I had my tubes tied because the women in my family are as fertile as wharf rats. I bet I could have successful IVF if I so chose, and strangely, my insurance would cover it.

Laura,

I totally agree with birth control, and tube tying and what have you. I think that preventing pregnancy in the first place is a big part of it.

John,

"I've re-read many of the posts here and like MK, I too am saddened and don't quite know where to go next! So maybe, I'll give out a little understanding of the kind of life humans are called to embrace."

How are you so certain that humans are called to do anything? What makes your interpretation of life or 'higher' life more correct than someone else's?

In fact, some of the methods of birth control that we so caringly push on them might be dangerous for the ignorant, malnourished, anemic woman who's only access to medical help is a day long ride on a donkey to some dilapidated "clinic".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yikes!
Would you have that woman carry a full-term pregnancy and go through labor and delivery?
How about we let her decide.
(Frankly, I don't know how these women watch their kids starve one after another. ONCE would be too much for me.)

"I've never heard anyone ask a pregnant women "what if you change your mind in ten years and don't want it anymore?""

Haha, exactly. Now that we have more technology and it is safer, readily available, etc. there really is no reason why not.

Good grief Sandy. Land surveyors are not legal specialists. My daughter is a Civil Engineer. Her firm relied upon their lawyers to know the legalities for any specific location.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 2, 2007 7:20 PM

That was my point.

Laura,

That is a rough situation. I do think we should focus on humanitarian efforts though, and not abortion. If this means distributing birth control, go for it.

MK,

"Sex without openness to life, ceases to be a life affirming act of sharing and becomes a selfish act of self-pleasuring. Which is irresponsible whether you are married or not."

Sex is not an illicit act if the individuals involved are not "open to life." There's absolutely nothing wrong with having sex for purposes other than procreation. Heck, if the only purpose of sex was procreation, humans would never have sex except when the woman happened to be fertile (approximately 4 days out of a 28 day cycle.)

Simply because someone sees something differently than you do does not mean that he/she is wrong.

Do you REALLY want to be that woman?

If my neighbors are killing babies, then hell yeah, I want to be that woman.

Laura,

What you went through is atrocious, and an absolute affront to women's rights and dignity. I have to say how disgusted I am at the paternalistic attitude of the legal and medical profession. This truly is an undue burden and prevents at least some women from exercising their reproductive rights. If they want sterilization instead of some other method, there shouldn't be a group of men (or women) standing in their way.

Why do they act like anyone who wants to make this choice is an idiot? You sign a consent form for every medical procedure, this should be no different.

Even if one changes her mind, it was her choice. She can still adopt or perhaps get a reversal or IVF etc.

Bravo to you for standing up for yourself.
And shame on them for standing in your way.

Laura,

How about we do something to truly improve her life situation so that she doesn't watch a child starve? We replace dangerous pregnancy and childbirth with dangerous methods of birth control? How kind of us. Let her decide? Sure, let's ask her what we can do to truly improve her life instead of assuming that WE know what's best for HER.
Also Laura, its been shown that where the standard of living improves, the birth rate stabilizes, even declines. Women are inclined to have fewer children when they do not have to worry about losing children to disease and starvation. This comes with improved standard of living.

Laura,

you wrote

"(Frankly, I don't know how these women watch their kids starve one after another. ONCE would be too much for me.)

Posted by: Laura at October 3, 2007 8:46 AM

So true and so tragic. Unlike those of us in the west, many of these women, however have practically no choice in refusing sexual activity. They are controlled from birth to death by men.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with having sex for purposes other than procreation.

If you're not manipulating the sex specificly to avoid procreation. If you are, you are perverting the act. Many couples have sex not to concieve, but to enjoy eachother- but they are open to conception if it occurs (and they don't break their bodies or use devices to take what they want from sex while denying God the opportunity to bring about what He wants from sex).

You're right about the limited fertility window. This is because God intended for spouses to have sex for love, bonding, fun, and physical pleasure-not just the procreation (although the creation of human life is His most prized achievement). But when you say, "No, 28 days is not enough! I must have 30 days of non-procreative sex. So in yo' face, God!" I hear a child say, "More! I want more. If I don't have more I'll just DIE!"

Then again, what I'm saying only makes sense if you are a God-loving Christian. If you support the slaughter of the unborn, I don't expect you to care about offending God in lesser ways.

"....a red pickup truck that was outfitted with signs on both sides and the back of your truck with the most horrific dead baby photos you should be ashamed of yourself. Yesterday I saw a dozen kids at Blockbuster just start crying when you drove by..."

Wait a tick! We didn't kill those babies- YOU DID. You support the killing of those babies, but you don't want to actually see what evil you have done. So who should be ashamed?

Jacque -perfect.

Enigma,

I never said sex was only for procreation. I said sex must always be open to procreation. There is a difference. And if you read my post to Laura thoroughly, I said that this was strictly from a Catholic standpoint.

However, your assertion that right or wrong lies in the eyes of the beholder, is a sad, sad view of right and wrong. And dangerous. You have the right to see it that way, and I have the right to say that you are wrong. I am exercising that right.

How do I know that sex without being open to procreation is wrong?

Well, as in all matters of discernment, I look to the fruits of an action.

The fruits of sex that is open to procreation is wanted children, healthy marriages, responsible activity.

The fruits of "illicit" sex, or sex that is closed to procreation, is disease, dysfunction, objectification and death.

That's all I need. The fruits of gluttony are being overweight, and bad health. The fruits of sloth are apathy, depression and lethargy. The fruits of wrath are war, hatred and violence. The fruits of greed are theft, poverty and manipulation.

Look at the fruits, then determine the right or wrong of a thing...

Hey there MK.

" I said that this was strictly from a Catholic standpoint."

Actually, the evilness of contraception has nothing to do with Catholicism and everything to do with the natural law. God love you.

Jacqueline,

"If you're not manipulating the sex specificly to avoid procreation. If you are, you are perverting the act."

No you're not. We 'manipulate' natural acts all the time in order to avoid certain outcomes. Why should sex be any different?

"(and they don't break their bodies or use devices to take what they want from sex while denying God the opportunity to bring about what He wants from sex)."

And why should God have any say in sex?

"Then again, what I'm saying only makes sense if you are a God-loving Christian."

Since I'm a dedicated atheist, it doesn't make sense to me.

"If you support the slaughter of the unborn, I don't expect you to care about offending God in lesser ways."

I know Christians who support a woman's right to have an abortion. There is nothing about supporting abortion rights and Christianity that is incompatible.

"I know Christians who support a woman's right to have an abortion. There is nothing about supporting abortion rights and Christianity that is incompatible"

You couldn't be more wrong.

MK,

"I never said sex was only for procreation. I said sex must always be open to procreation."

Those are your values, not mine. Embrace them if you wish, but don't force them on me or condemn me because I don't share them.

"You have the right to see it that way, and I have the right to say that you are wrong. I am exercising that right."

Which also gives me the right to say that I think you are wrong. Well, not wrong exactly but simply viewing things in a non-universal light.

"The fruits of sex that is open to procreation is wanted children, healthy marriages, responsible activity."

Not really. I've seen very unhappy marriages between people who were "open to life."

"The fruits of "illicit" sex, or sex that is closed to procreation, is disease, dysfunction, objectification and death."

If you use of illicit sex includes married couples who are not willing to have children, then 'illicit' sex does not have to lead disease, death, or dysfunction. I know many happy couples who are childless by choice. They're not suffering for it.

"Look at the fruits, then determine the right or wrong of a thing..."

But 'illicit' sex doesn't always lead to your negative fruits. It can, but that doesn't mean it has to. So why should I condemn every sexual act based on the 'fruits' of a few?

Enigma,

How are you so certain that humans are called to do anything? What makes your interpretation of life or 'higher' life more correct than someone else's?
Posted by: Enigma at October 3, 2007 8:45 AM

We have often been called "fetus-centric" by the other side on this site. I won't argue with that, but I'd like to expand it...We are "other-centric" while you and your side are "self-centric".

Everything you promote, everything that you say, is always centered around "me, I, my"...my rights, what I want, who is standing in my way...

Being a Christian means putting others before yourself.

When a world exists solely to give individuals the opportunity to focus on themselves and their own needs and desires you end up with a pretty twisted world.

Why do you think those kids are starving? Because the people around them are saying that their version of right and wrong is just as valid as anyone elses. And their version of right, is to take what they want from the world and let everyone else be damned. Why do you think there are no more rainforests? Or rape? Or war? Or genocide?

Because people are focused on "self".

It is only by focusing on others that these problems will become solved.

Here's a story that I've told before, but most of you weren't here then, so I'll tell it again.

A man was taken to hell by an angel in order to understand what it was like.

When he arrived he saw a large circle of people wailing and moaning around a cauldron of soup. The soup smelled delicious and all of the people had spoons, and yet they continued to wail, crying out that they were hungry.

The man asked the angel why this was. The angel replied: "While it is true that all of these people have spoons, and the cauldron is filled with soup, they do not have arms. The spoons are long enough to dip soup out of the cauldron by holding the spoons between their teeth, but they have no way of turning the spoons around to get the soup into their mouth and so they are condemned to hunger for eternity."

Then the angel took the man to purgatory. Here too, there was a group of people sitting around a cauldron of soup. Here too, they had spoons, but no arms. And yet they were smiling and laughing.

Why? Because they were dipping the spoons into the cauldron using their teeth, and then they were turning to their neighbors and feeding them.

Fetus centric? Other centric? Self centric?
Which one feeds the people? Which one ends the need for abortion? Which one makes more sense?

You're way of looking at the world is, as John says, boxed in. You see yourself, and when you look outward, you see a mirror.

Perhaps this is self preservation. Perhaps you have been so hurt by life that you don't dare look too far to the left or right. Perhaps you feel safest in your box.

But really, you are just trapped. You're not alone in this world and to determine your morality as if you are is to miss the whole point of life.

When people reach out their hands to others, you no longer see war, poverty and hunger. You see peace, love, joy and hope. This is why I can say with certainty that John and my way of looking at right and wrong is better. Because of the consequences that come from me-centric or other-centric. Look to the fruits.

Jasper,

"You couldn't be more wrong."

Tell that to them, not to me. I'm not the one who believes in a Christian God, reveres Jesus as the savior, and views the Holy Bible as God's word.

To me, it's simply an academic debate.

Now I really must depart. I have way too much to do and not enough time to do it in.

Enjoy your day everybody.

No, we want them to be fed, clothed, safe and free so that all of their children will be born into a place where they don't have to worry about starving or being killed.

We DO NOT want them to feel guilty, which is why we DO NOT want them to kill their children. Death is not an answer to life's problems. And as for harassing, that would be a little difficult since the only other countries I have ever been to are Ireland and Canada. Hard to harass someone from 3,000 miles away! -- MK

Poor, frightened, desperate pregnant women living in unsafe conditions seeking abortions are harassed here by anti-abortion protesters, no?

You're pretending if you think banning abortion will magically make the problem of unintended pregnancy and abortion go away. --Libby

You mean, just like you're pretending, that bringing abortion to these countries will suddenly make poverty and destitution go away.

Abortion is not the answer. To any question. Ever.

Posted by: mk at October 3, 2007 6:08 AM

I'm not claiming abortion is the cureall for poverty.

Abortion is the answer to a pregnant woman who doesn't want to gestate and give birth.

Bobby,

You are correct as usual. However whether it is Catholic Law, or Natural Law, it doesn't really matter. Both require the acknowledgment of a higher "law", which Enigma does not believe in. To accept Natural Law, you must admit that there is an absolute Truth, and an absolute moral code.

The Enigmas and Dougs of the world accept only one law. The law of self. Subjective morality.

Enigma: "To me, it's simply an academic debate."

Yes, I agree Enigma, I don't think you would care either way, whether you know it or not, you are under Satan's rule.....sorry to say, I hope you turn to Jesus.

being "pro-choice" and Christian are totally incompatible. These pro-choice people who call themselves Christians are in fact not Christian at all, in-fact they are worse kind of pro-choicer because the distort and blaspheme Jesus Christ.

There is a difference between a idea held by individuals and a "party line"

Enigma wrote,

I know Christians who support a woman's right to have an abortion. There is nothing about supporting abortion rights and Christianity that is incompatible.

Posted by: Enigma at October 3, 2007 9:24 AM

Well I know, atheist prolifers, Jews that commit adultery, and Muslims that drink alcohol. These are individuals. Their behavior is not controlled by an organization.

Many religious organizations clearly state that they are prolife.
They clearly state that supporting abortion is contrary to their position.

Enigma,

Embrace them if you wish, but don't force them on me or condemn me because I don't share them.

I have not forced anything on you, nor have I tried to when it comes to contraception. Neither have I condemned you. You make choices, and thereby condemn yourself.

Enigma,

So why should I condemn every sexual act based on the 'fruits' of a few?

You call 1/2 of all marriages ending in divorce few? You call 50,000,000 deaths few? You call 1/3 of the black population killed before they have a chance to "live" few?

Well, once again, your view and my view are very different. I don't call that few. I call that a crisis.

Laura and Hippie,

Several years ago my next door neighbor "Donna" decided to have a tubal ligation. Donna had her first child when she was 17y/o and her son 7 years later. Donna was in her late 20's, her husband was on disability and they lived on a fixed income, and her son was an extremely difficult child. She and her husband were adamant about no more children and she did not want to risk a birth control failure and would not have considered abortion.
You wouldn't believe the flack the doctor gave her because of her age. I mean this is a grown woman with two children, for heaven's sake, not a high school girl.
Donna was deeply upset. She felt she was being responsible and sensible, and I couldn't have agreed more. The doctor certainly knew her circumstances, but this didn't deter him from advising her to "think about it" some more.
Donna told him she's thought about it plenty for some time and was adamant. Finally the doctor relented. How big of him. Anyway, Donna has never regretted her decision.

Laura's picture moved me a great deal. If we focus on our 'wantings/cravings', things IMO tend to get a wee bit skewed.

An actual case was on a Canadian tv show 'Man Alive'. [The show itself has been off the air for decades.]: Apparently the Sahara desert moves around somewhat. In one of these moves south, it caught a city of 60,000 people in a drought. A German industrialist heard of their plight and offered his well-drilling equipment free, as well he would send his own men to do the drilling. All he asked for was the $140,000 the pay the wages of the men. [It really was surreal. They approached the UN for the funds and were rejected. They could have obtained a grant of $250,000 from the UN, if they ran a birth control program to the very same people.]

The drought hit the 60,000 inhabitants hard - 16 survived! That's 10 + 6 .... (in case you think this a typo). Fine birth-control, eh? [I just wonder if sex-ed was the way to go.]

Hippie,

mk,
Even people who use contraception and sterilization can be open to life.

I touched on this before in another post...

If a woman is on contraception then she is not cooperating with life, she is trying to control it.

Instead of working with God, she is trying to play God.

I understand what you are saying, and I wouldn't dream of telling you and your husband(Partner) how to run your sex life. I'm just sharing what Catholic Christians believe. Bobby might be able to do a better job from a Natural Law standpoint.

For obvious reasons, we are against birth control that can also act as an abortifacient. These we would like to be outlawed. But as to condoms, or other non-abortifacient methods, well, while I believe they are not the most right way to go, I wouldn't want them outlawed. Nobody is dying as a result of their use.

If you were Catholic, I would do everything in my power to make you understand that you risk your soul by using contraception, but if you are not, then I can only say, this must be your own personal decision.

"To accept Natural Law, you must admit that there is an absolute Truth, and an absolute moral code."

Good point.

John McConnell,

Since its my opinion that the UN is the most worthless organization on the planet, this does not surprise me. By the way, are a German industrialist and his crew the best qualified people to be teaching birth control? Is the UN so desperate that anyone will do?

Bobby,

Yeah well, back to square one.

Actually, the evilness of contraception has nothing to do with Catholicism and everything to do with the natural law.

Thank you, Bobby. I was a protestant evangelical who became convinced of the evil of contraception against protestant teachings (or lack thereof) stating that contraception was morally acceptable.

You know what changed my mind? I learned that prior to the sexual revolution, all Christian denominations and faith traditions condemned contraception as immoral. So this wasn't a Catholic dogma that was rejected in the reformation, this was protestants changing their morality based on a changing, corrupt society. I asked myself, "Okay- all Christians agreed that birth control is immoral. Did God change His mind, or did some denominations cave to social pressure?" The answer is obvious.

And look, now we have platforms of major denominations like Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc. saying that the child sacrifice of abortion is morally acceptable! Let's not forget that God's word makes it clear that child sacrifice is the ultimate abomination. So first it was birth control (sex without procreation) and then abortion. Fruits of the same tree.

Being anti-birth control isn't merely a Catholic thing, it's a Christian belief regardless of those that have fallen away in recent years.

Hippie wrote:

If you look worldwide, access to abortion is widespread among the most affluent nations, who were affluent before they legalized abortion. If there are fewer poor, the rich don't need to feel guilted or demonized for not sharing with them.

If you look worldwide, poor women and their children are most negatively affected in nations where elective abortion is illegal.

@Mary,

I don't believe that the industrialist was in any way involved in the UN negotiations. I can't recall, but the city officials themselves, must have done the negotiating.

I know Christians who support a woman's right to have an abortion. There is nothing about supporting abortion rights and Christianity that is incompatible.

Thou shalt not kill is pretty darn clear. So supporting abortion is both anti-Christian and anti-Jewish, as we're governed by the same law.

And why should God have any say in sex?

Because He invented it and gave us certain parameters for our protection, well-being and fufillment. Disobeying Him leads to pain, ill health (mental if not physical) and lack of fufillment. Like I said before, there are going to be some lonely widows rotting in nursing homes because they didn't want children to care for (and now have no one to care for them).

No you're not. We 'manipulate' natural acts all the time in order to avoid certain outcomes. Why should sex be any different?

Because babies are a good outcome! It's not putting on sunblock to avoid a sunburn. It's not applying contact lenses to restore sight. It's manipulating a natural act to avoid a positive outcome because people are too self-centered to see a child as a positive outcome. And God, who's masterpiece of creation is human life, doesn't appreciate your saying no to His blessings.

Since I'm a dedicated atheist, it doesn't make sense to me.

Of course it doesn't. But let me ask you something. How could one be dedicated to the absence of something? Doesn't that make you dedicated to nothing? Isn't that empty?

No Libby,

They are most negatively affected in nations where there is poverty, hunger, illiteracy, corrupt and oppressive governments, inequality, and lack of opportunity.

John McDonnell,

Thanks for the clarification.

No Libby,
They are most negatively affected in nations where there is poverty, hunger, illiteracy, corrupt and oppressive governments, inequality, and lack of opportunity.

John McDonnell,

Thanks for the clarification.

Obviously, the poor are negatively affected by poverty, but when access to legal, safe abortion is unavailable, who do you think can afford to travel to places where abortion is legal? Who do you think is more likely to be harmed if abortion is illegal? You can't deny that women abort in large numbers in countries where the procedure is banned.

No Libby,
They are most negatively affected in nations where there is poverty, hunger, illiteracy, corrupt and oppressive governments, inequality, and lack of opportunity.

John McDonnell,

Thanks for the clarification.

Obviously, the poor are negatively affected by poverty, but when access to legal, safe abortion is unavailable, who do you think can afford to travel to places where abortion is legal? Who do you think is more likely to be harmed if abortion is illegal? You can't deny that women abort in large numbers in countries where the procedure is banned.

Oops! I apologize to everyone for the double post.

Who do you think is more likely to be harmed if abortion is illegal?

No one! When abortion is illegal then countries are forced to find real solutions to social problems rather than killing the victims.

Bottom line: those women who harm themselves in self-aborting harm themselves in self-aborting. Themselves. Not the law. They chose to harm themselves. If they had chosen not to kill their babies rather than attempt to kill them themselves, no one would be harmed.

It's responsibility 101.

Libby,

You're missing my point. These are the problems that plague these poorer nations and no amount of abortion, legal or illegal, will cure it.
Its these serious problems that have to be addressed if you want to truly better women's lives.
Where do women go for legal abortion? How about where do women go to be protected from inequality and abuse? Where do women go for better health care, and I don't mean birth control and abortion, but rather to be rid of parasites, malnutrition, anemia, and infectious disease? Where do women go for better educational opportunity?

"It's responsibility 101."

But Jacq, that takes away my personal autonomy! I can't do anything I want to do! Me, me, me!

Who do you think is more likely to be harmed if abortion is illegal? -- Libby

No one! When abortion is illegal then countries are forced to find real solutions to social problems rather than killing the victims.

Bottom line: those women who harm themselves in self-aborting harm themselves in self-aborting. Themselves. Not the law. They chose to harm themselves. If they had chosen not to kill their babies rather than attempt to kill them themselves, no one would be harmed.

It's responsibility 101.

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 3, 2007 11:32 AM

So, you agree that banning elective abortion disproportionately harms poor women and children?

Please state the countries where banning elective abortion has eradicated unintended pregnancy, poverty, and illegal, unsafe abortion procedures.

It's responsibility 101."

But Jacq, that takes away my personal autonomy! I can't do anything I want to do! Me, me, me!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 3, 2007 11:37 AM

You don't care what a pregnant woman's circumstances are. It's all about you, you, you, and YOU want for pregnant women and their bodies.

But Jacq, that takes away my personal autonomy! I can't do anything I want to do! Me, me, me!

Hey, I'm not telling you that you can't engage in the behaviors you want! I'm just saying that you can't cop out of the consequences at the expense of others.

Case in point: I don't beleive in premarital or extramarital sex. But someone that does that behavior and gets infected with a VD, I wouldn't deny that person medication (although contracting that disease was a natural consequence of their foolish behavior).

However, if someone does that behavior and gets pregnant, I would deny them an abortion, because that it hurting (killing) another human being.

I use drinking as an example. If you get drunk every night and pass out in the recliner- I think you're stupid. That's a stupid choice that might cost you your liver or your life. Now, I'm not going to take your autonomy to drink away because you're an idiot (I'll just pity you). But- BUT, the second you get into a car and drive, possibly maiming or killing other people, you're damn right I'm going to stop you.

So be autonomous! Be stupid for all I care! Just don't hurt others to avoid responsibility for your choices. Autonomy requires responsibility.

P.S. I appreciate the sarcasm Bobby. I think the entire pro-choice movement can be summed up with "Me, me, me!"

"You don't care what a pregnant woman's circumstances are"

Tell me more about what I care about Libby. God love you.

We care about the circumstances, Libby. We want to avoid the circumstances that result in a pregnancy being unwanted. We don't think abortion is ever the answer, even if it is promoted as the "easy way out."

Libby,

You're missing my point. These are the problems that plague these poorer nations and no amount of abortion, legal or illegal, will cure it.
Its these serious problems that have to be addressed if you want to truly better women's lives.
Where do women go for legal abortion? How about where do women go to be protected from inequality and abuse? Where do women go for better health care, and I don't mean birth control and abortion, but rather to be rid of parasites, malnutrition, anemia, and infectious disease? Where do women go for better educational opportunity?

Posted by: Mary at October 3, 2007 11:35 AM

You're missing my point. Of course, access to safe, legal abortion won't cure the ills you list, but legal, elective abortion wouldn't make those ills anymore severe. I only want what's best for the WOMEN and children who are suffering in those countries. Unlike the vast majority of anti-choicers, I don't have a personal agenda. It makes YOU feel better knowing these women don't have access to abortion.

Anonymous,

Please give examples where legal abortion has eradicated poverty and unintended pregnancy.
Also please give an example of just one criminal activity, whatever it is, that was stopped altogether by any law.

"You don't care what a pregnant woman's circumstances are"

Tell me more about what I care about Libby. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 3, 2007 11:47 AM

YOU'RE the person who made the initial assumption that YOU know what others who disagree with you about abortion care about. God love you.

Jasper,

"Yes, I agree Enigma, I don't think you would care either way, whether you know it or not, you are under Satan's rule.....sorry to say, I hope you turn to Jesus."

How can I be under someone's rule if I don't acknowledge that he exists? The choice that I made all those years ago to reject that there was a God was a necessary one.

"These pro-choice people who call themselves Christians are in fact not Christian at all, in-fact they are worse kind of pro-choicer because the distort and blaspheme Jesus Christ."

So you mean that all those "pro-choice" churches are distorting and blaspheming the word of Christ? I think they might disagree with that.

MK,

"You make choices, and thereby condemn yourself."

That's a good quote. My choice don't condemn me. They set me free.

"You call 1/2 of all marriages ending in divorce few? You call 50,000,000 deaths few? You call 1/3 of the black population killed before they have a chance to "live" few?"

You cannot draw a casual connection between birth control and abortion with the increase in the divorce rate. There have been no experimental studies establishing such a link.

"I don't call that few. I call that a crisis."

I call that people making their own choices about how they want to run their own lives.

Libby,

Until you address these real problems, abortion will only be a band-aid solution that makes YOU feel like something is really being done and that women in desperate circumstances have been given some kind of choice. If they truly had a choice, they wouldn't be living in such desperate circumstances.

It just seems to me that killing someone for your own benefit is selfish.

So, you agree that banning elective abortion disproportionately harms poor women and children?

And where in anything I said could you draw that conclusion. I specifically said that banning abortion hurts NO ONE. In fact, it save millions of little "someones."

Please state the countries where banning elective abortion has eradicated unintended pregnancy, poverty, and illegal, unsafe abortion procedures.

Please state the countries where having abortion has eradicated unintended pregnancy, poverty, and unsafe abortion procedures. More women die from legal abortion in America than died from illegal ones. And last time I checked, an impoverished women that submits to an abortion in America doesn't leave the clinic rich. She's still impoverished a few hundred dollars poorer. You didn't solve a thing, she's still in poverty but you've increased her risk of suicide 9 fold. Some help!

I return to responsibility 101. If women didn't submit to these dangerous illegal abortions to kill their babies, they wouldn't end up butchered or dead. Likewise those women that submit to supposed safe and legal abortions and end up just as dead, wouldn't be dead had they not submitted to murdering their child.

You don't care what a pregnant woman's circumstances are. It's all about you, you, you, and YOU want for pregnant women and their bodies.

Apparently we, we, we care more about women than you do. Show me a pro-choice organization that houses homeless pregnant women. Show me a pro-choice organization that provides financial support for pregnant women. Show me a pro-choice organization that mentors and supports pregnant women. Show me a pro-choice organization helps pregnant women apply for government assistance for them and any other children they may have. Show me a pro-choice organization that helps women completed high school or obtain a GED. Show me a pro-choice organization that teaches pregnant women valuable computer skills to help them attain better employment. Show me a pro-choice organization that does anything for women besides shredding their babies, taking their money and kicking them back out of the street while they're still bleeding.

We, we, we care deeply about pregnant women enough to fix the circumstances that lead them to kill their children rather than taking their money, killing their children and sending them back out into those exact same circumstances. I'd say we, we, we care very much about women's circumstances. Our money is where our mouths are.

And may I ask you- what exactly do we, we, we, prolifers gain from giving our time, our money, our support and our love to pregnant women? Exactly what is our vested interest? It's about women and children- not about us.

Now, let's be honest, Libby. You support abortion not because you care about women or their circumstances- You support abortion because you have either had one (or more) or may want to have one in the future. Abortion allows you to continue your lifestyle without the consequences of carrying and giving birth to a baby. You are pro-choice for YOU. So don't try to act like your love for dismembering children has anything to do with helping women. There are real ways to help women where they don't end up bleeding and requiring pain medication.

Jacqueline,

"Thou shalt not kill is pretty darn clear. So supporting abortion is both anti-Christian and anti-Jewish, as we're governed by the same law."

Actually, Judaism addresses the issue quite clearly. A fetus is considering a part of the woman's body and it is permissible to abort/kill a fetus until the baby is more than halfway out of the woman's body.

"Because He invented it and gave us certain parameters for our protection, well-being and fufillment."

God didn't invent anything. Actually people invented God in order to explain things they couldn't understand.

"Like I said before, there are going to be some lonely widows rotting in nursing homes because they didn't want children to care for (and now have no one to care for them)."

How patronizing and paternalist. Not all women want children.

"Because babies are a good outcome!"

That depends on your point of view. If you're in school and don't have time for a pregnancy, if you're poor and can't afford a child, or if its just the wrong time, babies are not good outcomes.

"It's manipulating a natural act to avoid a positive outcome because people are too self-centered to see a child as a positive outcome."

One person's positive outcome is another's curse.

"And God, who's masterpiece of creation is human life, doesn't appreciate your saying no to His blessings."

Since I don't believe that he exists or is responsible for anything on this earth, I don't really care what the bible or the church says about Him.

"How could one be dedicated to the absence of something? Doesn't that make you dedicated to nothing? Isn't that empty?"

I am dedicated to my lack of a belief in anything.

Anonymous,

Please give examples where legal abortion has eradicated poverty and unintended pregnancy.
Also please give an example of just one criminal activity, whatever it is, that was stopped altogether by any law.

Posted by: Mary at October 3, 2007 11:57 AM

So you're fine with imprisoning women who would abort illegally? Treating them like common criminals? How is that "loving" women? I'm not claiming legal abortion has stopped poverty. I said that if abortion is banned, the poor will be negatively impacted to a much greater degree as poor minority, women abort at a quite larger percentage than any other group.

Jacqueline,

"Now, let's be honest, Libby. You support abortion not because you care about women or their circumstances- You support abortion because you have either had one (or more) or may want to have one in the future."

I can't speak for Libby, but I can speak for me. I support abortion rights because I feel that it is the right thing to do.

How can I be under someone's rule if I don't acknowledge that he exists?

You are certainly doing his bidding in your efforts to keep child murder legal. Whether you acknowledge Satan or not, by rejecting God, you are Satan's minion. And unless you accept God, you and Satan will be together for eternity.

And by the way, just because you don't beleive something exists is irrelevant to whether it exists or not. I can not believe that you exist- it doesn't change the fact that you do. And if I were wrong about God's existance, my believing He is real wouldn't change the fact that He was not real. But you see- reality is not subjective. Either you're wrong or I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, all I did was love my neighbor as myself, help the needy, free the oppressed, fed the hungry, etc. If you're wrong, hell awaits.

All I can say is, for your sake, you better be right.

I support abortion rights because I feel that it is the right thing to do.

Like you don't tuck it in your back pocket for personal use someday?

Libby,

You use my post to Anonymous but don't address the questions I raised in it.
Libby, the "poor" have been an argument for legal abortion since the earliest days of the movement to legalize abortion. I don't know if you're old enough to remember. Its always had tremendous emotional appeal. Trouble is, its never been poor women talking, only WE who assume to know what THEY want. I've never seen so many well-to-do, even wealthy people, assume to speak for the poor as they do where abortion is concerned.
Much hasn't changed. The only "concern" for the poor is when they can't have abortions. When they can, great. After the abortion we can send the woman back to her poverty and hardship, and pat ourselves on the back for our "concern" and for giving her a "choice".
If you agree abortion will not solve poverty, that's a great start. Now maybe you will focus instead on ways of truly eliminating poverty.

I just don't get it. I've been using NFP for a good long time. I NEVER got pregnant when I didn't want to and actually found it easier to get pregnant when I did want to.

No hormones, no taking a pill everyday, no foreign object lodged in my body. It took me and my husband (who was not required to be there) a class of three hours, one hour a month for three months, to learn. I'm so good at it now that I wish I was less good and maybe would have an oops. Yet I hear that the pill will “set me free, why be tied down?” I’m the one "imprisoned" by my religious belief.

Does it require my husband and I to say "no" a couple of days a month? Yes. But as many people have pointed out, I am not an animal that cannot curb my desires, nor am I an immature 5 year old that wants what I want NOW! It makes sex, when I have it, all the more pleasurable. Ever hear the phrase "Absence makes the heart grow fonder?"

""Absence makes the heart grow fonder?""

This is so true in my marriage, Kristen. When we abstain from the conjugal act, it makes the next time just that much more enjoyable. And before I was married, I could have explained all the benefits of NFP and the theology of the body, but after actually living it out in marriage, it takes it to a whole new level. While my best arguments for NFP used to be through reason and logic, what convinces me the most is from my personal experience and living it out. As you know, Kristen, the Church is so wise! What a gift we have been given! Just wanted to share that with you. God love you.

Bobby, I couldn't agree more! Your posts are great BTW!

So you're fine with imprisoning women who would abort illegally?

I'm more for imprisoning those that commit the act rather than receive the act. The abortionist. it's like going after drug dealers rather than junkies. That's my first attempt for logistical reasons.

But to answer your question- absolutely. I'm not one of those who fall for the "Oh women are ignorant victims who can't be held responsible." BS. I'm an intelligent women and should be treated as such. Now, seeing how there are no ex-post-facto laws, 47% of post-abortive women would be off scott-free. For those that abort after abortion is illegal again, I don't think there should be a blanketted sentence for women who abort (like their are varying degrees of murder). Women lied to by abortionist that consented to abort because it was "just tissue" would be like manslaughter. Those women that know about fetal development, however and abort anyway- that's murder one. Then again, I'm not a lawyer.

Treating them like common criminals?

If they abort after abortion becomes illegal- then they ARE criminals.

How is that "loving" women?

There are a lot of women in jail for committing crimes. It's not that we don't love them, it's that they have a debt to pay to society. It's that they can't be trusted with freedom for the sake of others.

I'm not claiming legal abortion has stopped poverty.

Really- you haven't claimed that it helps, either.

I said that if abortion is banned, the poor will be negatively impacted to a much greater degree

No they won't. If there is no abortion, we will actually fix these social problems rather than expecting women to kill their kids to lessen their financial burden. Either way, killing the impoverished is no more a solution for poverty than killing the homeless is a solution for homelessness. We don't kill human beings. Period.

as poor minority, women abort at a quite larger percentage than any other group.

YES! And why is that? How sick and sad is that? Abortion is EXPLOITING the poor and historically oppressed! You're saying that if you're black or hispanic, abortion is all we'll give you (killing your kids is all we'll give you) to help you be less poor? You're saying that only rich, white women should be able to have babies and poor minorities are so poor that they can't have children? So we should keep abortion legal so they can keep killing their children out of desperation because they can't afford to have them? How destitute! How bigotted! You're not helping them at all, are you? You're participating in their oppression when they are forced by circumstances to abort because you fail to offer them real solutions.

If no one wants an abortion, how are you helping them not to feel like they need abortions? You're not helping them at all. Perhaps like Margaret Sanger, you want the poor minorities to eradicate themselves?

I've got work to do. Talk amongst yourselves; I'll give you a topic.

Debates where the oppostion offers nothing but bumper sticker cliches and the same old tired mantra are neither productive nor intellectually stimulating.

Discuss.

This is going back to the questions of contraception and openness to the transmission of human life.

Hippie said: "Even people who use contraception and sterilization can be open to life."

This statement is an oxymoron because the intention is what is fundamental in being open to life, not the accidental consequence. Contraception and sterilization (which is an intended form of contracepetion, as well as self-mutiliation) are intended to prevent the procreation of human life, and are illicit according to Natural Law and Divine Law. It is also implicit in the Old Testament (Onanism), and developed and explained by Catholic
doctrine in Paul VI's Humanae Vitae and other magisterial (official Church teaching) documents.

"One person's positive outcome is another's curse."

You're right, Enigma.

Anybody remember that pro-life poster which showed the angels gathering the corpses in the dumpster and taking the little souls back to Our Lord? Titled, "Earth's trash, Heaven's treasure"?

MK wrote: "To accept Natural Law, you must admit that there is an absolute Truth, and an absolute moral code."

Whether one accepts the existence of the Natural law, (which is self-evident from reason alone), does not mean that a person is not subject to it. The same principle applies to Divine Law. All of God's laws apply to all people, regardless of whether they believe in Him, his laws and his Church or not.
The immorality of contraception is only fully understood and explained through Catholic theology. The Catholic doctrine of marriage and the proper use of human sexuality is complete and covers all aspects relating to the procreative powers.

Bobby wrote: "Actually, the evilness of contraception has nothing to do with Catholicism and everything to do with the natural law."

The question of contraception is not an "either - or" but a "both - and." Whether or not one is a Catholic Christian or a non-Catholic Christian, or a person of another religion or no religion, the law regarding the truths of marriage and sexuality apply to all, and this includes the immorality of using any form of contraception. MK, the reason why any form of contraception is immoral is because of the nature of the conjugal act between a husband and wife, which is both unitive and procreative. This applies to all married couples. [Contraception between two people who are not married to each other involves two moral evils: fornication and/or adultery, and, contraception, which is an attempt to justify the illicit use of the procreative powers.]

Culpability is another issue. In order to be fully cupable for a serious or mortal sin, one must have full knowledge and consent of the will. This may not always be easy to determine, but it does not change the fact that contraception and/or illicit use of the procreative powers is grave (serious) matter.

To state emphatically once again, there are not two sets of moral and Divine laws: one for Catholics, and one for others. There is only one Divine Law, one moral code for all people. We Catholics have an obligation to live our lives in such a way as to be witnesses to the truth of God's laws and the teachings of the Church.

Posted by: mk at October 3, 2007 10:08 AM:

For obvious reasons, we are against birth control that can also act as an abortifacient. These we would like to be outlawed. But as to condoms, or other non-abortifacient methods, well, while I believe they are not the most right way to go, I wouldn't want them outlawed. Nobody is dying as a result of their use.

MK, Please, do not confuse Catholic teaching. All forms of birth control, whether condoms or the pill, or others, are immoral because they separate the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act, which is only licit between married persons. And people ARE dying as a result of using them: from AIDS and possibly other diseases, like HPV.

If you were Catholic, I would do everything in my power to make you understand that you risk your soul by using contraception, but if you are not, then I can only say, this must be your own personal decision.

Even non-Catholic couples who practice birth control are committing serious sin. Whether or not they are aware of the seriousness of the sin may lessen their culpability, but does not change the moral absolute involved. Please, do not use phrases like "... this must be your own personal decision." That is the same phrase the pro-abortion, pro-"choice" people always use to justify abortion!!

"So you're fine with imprisoning women who would abort illegally? Treating them like common criminals? How is that "loving" women?"

Feminists for life can help.

http://www.feministsforlife.org/taf/2005/PWA2005.pdf

Hi Enigma,

"I am dedicated to my lack of a belief in anything."

Sorry, just cannot believe you. All communication (of any kind) presumes a belief that whatever anyone communicates will be understood. It also presumes/believes that anything communicated is understandable.

There were some philosophy students in ancient Athens (the story goes), that came upon a Senna-follower (called a cynic today) just wagging his finger, not saying a single word. 'Wonder what he means by that!' says the student. Every attempt to communicate is a belief.

If you were consistent, then like the follower of Senna, you would not write here at all. Of course such a take would make you very lonely ... an isolate, really; or, maybe just Enigma-goddess, eh?

Trick one: LISTEN not hear, but listen. On an old post, I specifically asked you about forced abortion on a felon. You harped about how sex does not make you a felon. You did not LISTEN: I said nothing about how she became a felon (bank robbery), but because her rights are suspended, she can be forced to have an abortion ... and her consent just does not matter.

I still would like your opinion, though!

Paul,

you wrote,

This is going back to the questions of contraception and openness to the transmission of human life.

Hippie said: "Even people who use contraception and sterilization can be open to life."

This statement is an oxymoron because the intention is what is fundamental in being open to life, not the accidental consequence. Contraception and sterilization (which is an intended form of contracepetion, as well as self-mutiliation) are intended to prevent the procreation of human life, and are illicit according to Natural Law and Divine Law. It is also implicit in the Old Testament (Onanism), and developed and explained by Catholic doctrine in Paul VI's Humanae Vitae and other magisterial (official Church teaching) documents.

Posted by: Paul at October 3, 2007 1:00 PM

I agree with the oxymoron thing on in theory.
I can't argue with your views from a religious perspective.

I will clarify, however, that there are many people who will use contraceptives, but are 100% against induced abortions.
Many in the prolife movement fall into this category.
My own brother has four kids, all from contraceptive failure, all loved and cherished.
Maybe his intentions violated natural or divine law, but when push came to shove, he did the right thing.
People need to know that whatever they have done in the past, it is just fine to step up now and do what is right.
No one has to persist in bad behavior.
Anyone can change.
We should all applaud good behavior even from those with whom we disagree.

Carol--First I want to thank you for the apology...Sarcasm and dry humor can easily be confused in writing...I actually appreciate both, but have found I have to restrain myself from using them in emails, etc. because it's so easy for someone to misunderstand me. The reason I started using the term "Land Surveying Industry" is that it is easier in a passing conversation then taking the time to define the difference between a "licensed surveyor", and "project surveyor" (which where I am is a term often used for someone who has an LSIT cert but not the license yet) and all the differing levels of "survey technician" that are out there. I do not yet have my IT, but my skill set and experience level is that of a project surveyor...so does that mean I call myself a Project Surveyor or a Senior Level Survey Technician....I think you can see why I choose the path of least resistance in casual converstation! I too am very proud of my Surveyor who spent many years working his way up the ranks and is currently second-in-command in a pure surveying firm (which is how firms that aren't multi-dicipline engineering firms are referred to locally). The day he got his license probably meant even more to me than it did to him, honestly...so I do understand your pride in your husband's professional accomplishments...which is why I will snarl at any perceived slight to him! Sorry if I overreacted.

This is my first time on a blog/bulletin board I was almost turned off by the lack of civil discussion, but I appreciate your articulation in your last post, so with a deep breath and the hope that we can have a civil debate/discussion, I will dive back in:

"But back to the topic of PP's alleged deception. My husband's firm did all of the layout for the building as well as the work for the occupancy permit. PP is in an area zoned for medical use, and that is the purpose for which the development sought permits, and that is the purpose for which it will be used. There is no zoning violation, much less any permitting violations, and you have three separate reports from area attorneys along with the conclusion of the SA to bear that out."

I totally agree with your take on this statement. The caveat is that according to the Zoning Code where the clinic sits, PP is required as a non-profit to apply seperatley for a new permit as a new tenant. So yes, Gemini has all their t's crossed and i's dotted...but you cannot deny that they have been interveiwed as saying they were deliberatly using this front to cover for PP's eventual opening there. What has everyone (particularly the contiguous property owners) so up in arms is the "cahootanizing" going on that is allowing PP to open for business without filing for the special permit and going through the proper notification process...they simply skipped that step, talked the mayor into a favor and moved in open for business. The three reports you mention do not focus on this step from B to C...they focused on Gemini's movements, not the transition to PP occupancy. So I will grant you that its POSSIBLE your husband's firm did not know what was planned ultimately...and proceded on good faith that Gemini had no subtrefuge in the works. If his firm was also involved in the design of the building I'm afraid they loose the benifit of reasonable doubt on that because the architects would have known about the reinforcements going into the construction...and nobody builds a bulletproof store front on a medical building without knowing why, or at least having reasonable suspicions. So the real issue is not "did the engineering firm conspire in fraud", but to simply admit that Gemini and PP have gone on public record as stating this is what they had in mind all along and have somehow managed to totally avoid the additional special permitting and public notification procedure that is required by the zoning law in order for PP to get a permit to operate out of that building.....

Rebuttles? Thoughts?

"I don't think that anything under 20 weeks gestation has the physical mechanisms required for suffering." --Laura

"How can you compare the death of an embryo with the unimaginable pain and suffering of those poor victims of war?" -- Libby

"That depends on your point of view. If you're in school and don't have time for a pregnancy, if you're poor and can't afford a child, or if its just the wrong time, babies are not good outcomes."--Enigma

Doug,
I'm accused of pronouncing words that are not representative of the pro-choice side and yet here we have three posts out of many that would prove otherwise. The unborn are considered less than meritorious, thus signifying that if the mother so decides, they are not worthy of continued development. Laura and the feeling pain issue (which you've expressed as well); Libby seeing comparisons between a dead embryo and a dead victim of war as unthinkable; and Enigma valuating that under certain circumstances the baby is not a good outcome, which I think I'm safe to say that you would agree with her. Even SoMG has called abortion "justifiable homocide"!

If the unborn DID matter such venom wouldn't be spewing out of their keyboards. But as such, they agree that we should not be giving the unborn the same measure of importance. While the words "do not matter" are not specifically typed out, what isn't said sometimes speaks louder than what IS said.

My valuation.

I guess you already figured it was me, Carder, that posted that. Didn't mean to go anonymous.

@Paul,

you did point-out the classical value of sex - both unitive and procreative. However, too often these aspects are considered only within the act itself. The effects go far a field of the couple-in-the-sac and is the source of the unity/cohesiveness dimension we know as 'family'. Far too often, these effects are neglected. So, we have young people shacked-up and pretending to be married (note: there is no family implied) ... but when there is no physical reservoir for these aspects of marriage, the marriage itself becomes close-to-hollow!

My ex-sister-in-law used to emphatically proclaim that she only married my brother - not us (his sibs)! She could not take that profound intimacy found within a good-family.

In my opinion, there is a distorted view of sexual expression even/especially within Catholic doctrine. Instead of the silly notion that we Catholics know-it-all, we should perhaps be humble enough to realize that we know less than 5% of all there is. And it's not about 'we're-so-good', but we as a species have so much yet to learn and experience.

And folks who are not Catholics are often at 4% (some at 6%). So place your-hand-in-mine and we'll discover together! ... 4% // 5% // 6% --- why quibble?

Hi Theresa, and thanks for the response. I really didn't mean to start off so badly there.

And yes, unsurprisingly I do have some thoughts on the zoning/permitting issue. I think where we differ in opinion is whether PP falls into the "special use" category as a non-profit, even though they are operating as a medical clinic.

I think we can both agree that the purpose of the PP Aurora facility is to operate as a medical clinic regardless of PP's non-profit status?

What the City of Aurora has said about this issue, and I agree, is that if indeed the zoning ordinances have two potentially applicable definitions (i.e., either "medical clinic" or non-profit "health-related facility") that the one that is more specific to the facility's purpose applies. It's a basic rule of statutory construction where you have opposing definitions. I looked at the zoning ordinance pdf that's posted somewhere on this site, and it looks to me as thought the "health-related facility" is not intended to apply to medical clinics, regardless of their profit status. If so, the ordinance would clearly read "medical clinic" on the one hand, and "non-profit medical clinic" on the other.

Another rule of statutory construction is to look at the terms that surround the disputed term to determine its meaning. The terms surrounding "health-related facility" under the non-profit definition don't suggest "clinic," but instead seem to suggest certain counseling type services, like AA perhaps.

And one last thing I think is important when interpreting the application of zoning ordinances is the actual purpose to which the facility is going to be put. In this case, medical clinic use. All of this meaning, of course, that the "special use" issue is really just a last-ditch, futile effort to throw another obstacle in the way of the clinic's operation.

Anyway, that's my reasoning on the topic.

Carol, are you a lawyer?

Carol, are you a lawyer?

Posted by: Paul at October 3, 2007 4:28 PM

Guilty as charged. I'm not practicing anymore though.

Hippie, I can't give a long response as I'm pressed for time right now, but I do appreciate your response. My quick response is to say that contraception is wrong because of the reasons I have stated above, which, I realize may not be easy to understand or accept without more theological and philosophical explanation and background, and God's grace, which we must always be praying for.

I'm not judging anyone's intentions. But human acts, in and of themselves can be judged as intrinsically good or evil. An individual's intentions are another and important consideration. Only God can truly judge a person's heart.

As far as chemical contraceptives, theological reasons notwithstanding, everyone should be aware that all of them can and do act as abortifacients, which for pro-life people should be enough to preclude their use.

Posted by: Carol at October 3, 2007 4:39 PM

Guilty as charged. I'm not practicing anymore though.

Oh, okay. Just wondering.

But all these unresolved issues certainly need to be addressed publicly and legally, don't you think, given what is and is not known about these ordinances and whether there is any violation of the same. Vince Tessitore, a zoning attorney specialist of Aurora is of the legal opinion that they need to be addressed. And the way the mayor of Aurora made a unilateral and extremely fast decision, without consulting the city council in any way, shape or form, seems to be a calculated and brash political action, that we might have predicted, given his history.

That PP *is* a not-for-profit entity cannot be disputed. It is a not-for-profit health clinic or medical clinic, whichever type of clinic you may prefer to call it.

Paul,
MK, Please, do not confuse Catholic teaching. All forms of birth control, whether condoms or the pill, or others, are immoral because they separate the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act, which is only licit between married persons. And people ARE dying as a result of using them: from AIDS and possibly other diseases, like HPV.
*
Even non-Catholic couples who practice birth control are committing serious sin. Whether or not they are aware of the seriousness of the sin may lessen their culpability, but does not change the moral absolute involved. Please, do not use phrases like "... this must be your own personal decision." That is the same phrase the pro-abortion, pro-"choice" people always use to justify abortion!!

Please do not tell me what to say...It really comes across as arrogant. While you are entitled to your opinion, please respect mine.

I never, ever, ever said that I condone the use of any form of contraception, and there are many people here that know I abhor contraception in all of it's forms.

There is a difference between what is right and what is wrong but must be legally allowed because it is not our decision to make.

I could tell you that you should never ever ever eat green beans and you would tell me that it is your choice and none of my business and I could accuse you of sounding "Just like the pro-abortion group"...

Condoms do cause harm to the people that are using them. But God gave those people free will, and while I have every right to express my dislike of their use, I have no right to force others to share my opinion.

There is a difference between immoral behavior and criminal behavior. While I speak freely about the immorality of many behaviors, I do not feel justified in making my belief's into law. However, when it comes to taking another person's life, I feel perfectly justified in fighting for the illegality of such actions.

Contraception is immoral, but should be between the people using it and God. Abortion is criminal, and should be forbidden by law.

And that is the point I was making to Hippie. She is prolife, but uses contraception. What she does in her bedroom is up to her. Not you, not me. But her.

I feel the same way about homosexuality. It is immoral, but it is not a crime.

I think you have a hard time distinguishing between the sin and the sinner sometimes.

Carol--

Being as that you are a lawyer, perhaps you can shed some light for me on why the appeal that was filed yesterday morning did not produce the stay on the permit that was issued by the mayor as it apparently was supposed to? I would appreciate your clarification from a legal standpoint on that.

Jacqueline,

"You are certainly doing his bidding in your efforts to keep child murder legal."

Since he doesn't exist, I'm not doing his bidding. I do what I feel is right.

"And unless you accept God, you and Satan will be together for eternity."

Your belief in a God and in a Satan does not mean that either of these entities exist. As you so rightly pointed out, belief does not make something true.

"Either you're wrong or I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, all I did was love my neighbor as myself, help the needy, free the oppressed, fed the hungry, etc. If you're wrong, hell awaits."

Not Pascal's Wager again. Its way too easy to counter.

"All I can say is, for your sake, you better be right."

I'm not worried.

"Like you don't tuck it in your back pocket for personal use someday?"

People don't always support something because they have a personal stake in the outcome or because it will directly influence their lives. I'm in favor of ending the genocide in Danfur. Does that mean that all I'm doing is anticipating an attempt to wipe out my ethnic/racial/ect. group someday?

Well, Carol, I have been back through all the lawyers reports on this and I have to tell you that we are going to have to agree to disagree. Yes, I follow all the technical reasoning, however even Leutkehans points out at the end of his report that it boils down to PP having to define what types of abortions they are providing in order to properly determine the clinic definitions of major/minor surgery. Since short of being infiltrated, that information is unlikely to come out anytime soon without a proper investigation, it seems to me that the city rolled over on the mention of a Civil Rights lawsuit if they required PP to divulge such information. The fact is there in black and white on his report that if the city (AND PP) was really interested in defending a completely tenable position they would simply ask PP to disclose and define what procedures they intend to practice. That would seem to me an absolute death-knell to the whole argument because if PP is only going to perform the procedures outlined in the findings, then they simply hand the city a list of those procedures on a statement that those are all that will be performed at that facility, then they, and the city, can say “told you so!” to all of us hysterical fanatics that are raising Cain….we lick our wounds and everyone goes on their merry way with no further fighting about the legality of it. It seems logical to me that PP would be better off to submit this information to clear the matter up and solidify their position….as it stands, the threat of a lawsuit (or the hint of it anyway) if that information is requested is enough to raise reasonable doubt that they are going to limit themselves to the procedures outlined as “minor surgery”. The fact that the city is not requiring this information in order to clear the matter up decisively tells me that they are hoping by railroading this through without further investigation that the citizens who are upset about this will just give up and go away. The bottom line is that any other company/organization who participated in the fudging of permit information (as was clearly admitted to in both lawyer's findings) would have been shut down without appeal (or should I say without an EXPENSIVE appeal?) In my take, this all boils down to a lack of spine on the part of the elected officials follow reasonable due process in determining which permitting scenario is required (that is, after all the whole POINT of a Zoning Code)…which apparently, is quite simply, have PP provide a list of procedures they will be performing. That is not an unreasonable request since it is a surgical procedure (major or minor depending on the nature of it) and obviously paramount in the legal determination of the legality of their occupancy.

I would put out there that on these grounds alone (discovery of what specific procedures are going to be performed there) that the appeal that was filed yesterday should hold a stay for further clarification on the nature of the procedures. You may define this as “grasping at straws”. I define it as legal wrangling, and you know darn well both sides are going to do it to the bitter end. If PP gets backed into a corner they’re going to start “grasping at straws” too. That is the nature of interpretation…and for that matter: loopholes.

Paul,

And how do you know that your 'divine' or 'natural' law is real?

If there really were natural laws, wouldn't disaster strike every time someone violated them?

Natural laws (aka physics and such) aren't that easy to break. You'd think that if there was a natural/divine law of morality it would be just as difficult to break as well.

Paul,

"All forms of birth control, whether condoms or the pill, or others, are immoral because they separate the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act, which is only licit between married persons. And people ARE dying as a result of using them: from AIDS and possibly other diseases, like HPV."

Condoms significantly lower the risk of transmission for a majority of STDs (if used correctly). How does that kill people?

"Even non-Catholic couples who practice birth control are committing serious sin."

According to your religion and your values. Other people have different religious beliefs and different values. Theirs are just as valid as yours.

John,

"Sorry, just cannot believe you. All communication (of any kind) presumes a belief that whatever anyone communicates will be understood. It also presumes/believes that anything communicated is understandable."

Generally I use the term "devout" but thought that it might offend a few people in here. One can be deeply committed to the belief that there is not God and no one out there to save us.

"Every attempt to communicate is a belief."

And I choose to embrace a belief that there is no God. In essence, my belief is a lack of belief.

"If you were consistent, then like the follower of Senna, you would not write here at all."

I don't see how that follows. I have my own beliefs as does everyone. But I enjoy engaging those with different beliefs because I like knowing what other views are out there. I could be wrong. (Before anyone starts jumping for joy, I am fully convinced that I am not. However, my argument requires me to recognize the possibility.) In any case, the best way to find truth is not to refuse to engage any but those who share your views.

"Trick one: LISTEN not hear, but listen."

That's hard to do when others try to twist my words to support their position. I don't think you have but others have before.

"On an old post, I specifically asked you about forced abortion on a felon. You harped about how sex does not make you a felon. You did not LISTEN: I said nothing about how she became a felon (bank robbery), but because her rights are suspended, she can be forced to have an abortion ... and her consent just does not matter."

In theory, abortion could be forced upon a felon. She has committed a crime and has been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The government has a right to to seize her "life, liberty, and property" until she has served her time. However, she must first be given the opportunity to present her case and be tried as per "due processes of law." (Quotes from either the Bill of Rights or an amendment. I don't remember which)

MK,

“We are "other-centric" while you and your side are "self-centric". Everything you promote, everything that you say, is always centered around "me, I, my"...my rights, what I want, who is standing in my way...”

You don’t know enough about me to make this kind of statement.

“Being a Christian means putting others before yourself.”

One doesn’t have to be a Christian to do that. One’s being a Christian does not even necessarily mean that one acts in such a manner.

“When a world exists solely to give individuals the opportunity to focus on themselves and their own needs and desires you end up with a pretty twisted world.”

Agreed.

“Why do you think those kids are starving? Because the people around them are saying that their version of right and wrong is just as valid as anyone elses. And their version of right, is to take what they want from the world and let everyone else be damned. Why do you think there are no more rainforests? Or rape? Or war? Or genocide?”

Wow. So incomplete moral relativism is responsible for all the evil in the world? I think not. Plenty of the people responsible for terrible atrocities in the world didn’t believe in moral relativism. They simply believed that they were right and that everyone else was wrong.

“Because people are focused on "self".”

Focusing on the self is not the problem. Focusing only on the self is the problem.

“It is only by focusing on others that these problems will become solved.”

One has to understand oneself and solve one’s own problems before one can aid another.

The story is interesting. Personally, I have a different take one. The individuals in hell were simply too dim-witted to see that the only way to help themselves was to help others. That’s not being other-centric. That’s not being altruistic. That’s an example of how, even when one focus solely on the self, others may benefit.

“Which one feeds the people? Which one ends the need for abortion? Which one makes more sense? (Answer choices: Fetus centric? Other centric? Self centric?)”

I’d say enlightened self-interest makes the most sense.

“You're way of looking at the world is, as John says, boxed in. You see yourself, and when you look outward, you see a mirror.”

I will not deny that I am trapped but not in the way you think.

“But really, you are just trapped. You're not alone in this world and to determine your morality as if you are is to miss the whole point of life.”

I’m aware of the fact that I’m not alone in the world. I don’t determine my morality as though I am. Generally I don’t get into the nitty-gritty of my beliefs because it’s easier not to but I do not believe that all morals are relative.
“When people reach out their hands to others, you no longer see war, poverty and hunger. You see peace, love, joy and hope.”

So when people finally reach out to one another the world will be awash in peace, love, joy and hope? It’s a compelling hope but I’m not naïve enough to believe.

“This is why I can say with certainty that John and my way of looking at right and wrong is better. Because of the consequences that come from me-centric or other-centric. Look to the fruits.”

One doesn’t have to be other-centric in order to help others. It’s possible to be other-centric and act in ways that can only harm the world and all of its inhabitants.

You think you way is right because all you can see is a false dichotomy.

I honestly don't know why there was no stay upon appeal, because I haven't reviewed it all that closely. There could be a variety of reasons, but I don't have the information.

As far as agreeing to disagree, that's ok by me. I was pretty sure that I wasn't going to convince anyone here anyway :-)

However, I would point out that according to the Leutkehans report, a permitted-use "medical clinic" does not contain operating rooms or in-patient rooms. I imagine that the Aurora City Council has access to the building plans, which would show whether those types of rooms were part of the building.

Enigma,

Everything you promote, everything that you say, is always centered around "me, I, my"...my rights, what I want, who is standing in my way...”
*
You don’t know enough about me to make this kind of statement.

I didn't say "who you are" precisely because I don't "know" you. I said everything you promote, and everything you say...

And I find it interesting that in one post you say: I don't see how that follows. I have my own beliefs as does everyone. But I enjoy engaging those with different beliefs because I like knowing what other views are out there. I could be wrong. (Before anyone starts jumping for joy, I am fully convinced that I am not. However, my argument requires me to recognize the possibility.) In any case, the best way to find truth is not to refuse to engage any but those who share your views.

But in the next post you say: Generally I don’t get into the nitty-gritty of my beliefs because it’s easier not to but I do not believe that all morals are relative.

This doesn't sound like discussion so much as eavesdropping. You tell us absolutely nothing about yourself, and then accuse me of "not knowing you". You say you want to hear what we think and how we view life, but you are not willing to share your own views.

Not only doesn't this seem fair, but it feels dishonest.

Of course, if it's the only way you feel safe enough to come here, then it's fine. Keep yourself closed. But try not to get upset when we make assumptions considering how little you give us to work with. I mean, your name says it all.

For some reason, I think I rub you the wrong way. I wish that wasn't so. I'd like to find a way to make you more comfortable, but maybe we are just destined to be like water and oil. Or maybe not. But I honestly don't mean to be so antagonistic.

So for what it's worth, I am sorry if I am one of those people that have twisted your words. Can't say it won't happen again, just that I'm sorry.

MK,

"I didn't say "who you are" precisely because I don't "know" you. I said everything you promote, and everything you say..."

That may be your perception of what I say, but it is not mine.

"Generally I don’t get into the nitty-gritty of my beliefs because it’s easier not to but I do not believe that all morals are relative."

Admittedly, I could've explained this better. I don't believe that all morals are relative. The problem is identifying which ones are objective.

"You tell us absolutely nothing about yourself, and then accuse me of "not knowing you"."

For the point of argument, I simply mentioned that you have made blanket generalities which you cannot know apply to me.

"You say you want to hear what we think and how we view life, but you are not willing to share your own views."

I've shared the ones that I can explain.

"Keep yourself closed. But try not to get upset when we make assumptions considering how little you give us to work with. I mean, your name says it all."

I don't get upset. I simply correct you.

Enigma is actually a long-standing nickname.

"For some reason, I think I rub you the wrong way."

Not as much as you probably think. I am cautious because, let's be honest, this is the Internet and I don't know any of you.

"So for what it's worth, I am sorry if I am one of those people that have twisted your words. Can't say it won't happen again, just that I'm sorry."

I'm sure I do it to. But that is why I am so careful.

Hmmm....I haven't visited in a while and I'm missing all of my favorite moderators. Although....I see MK!!!!

Did you miss me? :)

Your favorite moderator is right here....Hi Lyssie...

Lyssie,

Yes Lyssie I missed you. Welcome back!

Oh Jasper, you silly thing. How's the family, the boys, the dog?

I feel loved. :D

How have you been, Mary?

And where is that pesky MK!?

*Lyssie*

Wait, Bethany's painting a new mural!? I have got to see this. I'm so jealous of her talent...but isn't envy a sin? Help me, MK!?

I'm seeing mullets....so many mullets....and not the cool fishy kind...I'm talking hillbilly "business in the front party in the back" type of mullets....AHHHH!!

:D

Lyssie,

You are loved dear. I've been just fine thank you very much. MK is around here somewhere, look around on some other threads. I've seen her around most of the day. If I see her I'll tell her you're looking for her.

"Oh Jasper, you silly thing. How's the family, the boys, the dog?"

Good. Thanks. Hope everthinhg is going well for you...

Lyssie,

I found MK in the World Net.thread, just above this one. I told her you were looking for her.

Thanks, Mary! I'll be practicing for a speech I have to give on Friday for a class, but I'll be sure to check in later. Have a wonderful night! (You too, Jasper).

Oh, and anyone else here....have a great night. Just pray for me and this speech I have to give. Ugh. (on that other thread, the one about suffering...I might just offer mine up to the Big Guy over this speech). LOL. :D

*Lyssie*

Lyssie,

A speech, ugh. Good luck to you and you'll be in my thoughts. Nothing puts fear in me like getting up in front of people, and no speech class ever cured me of that! I remember one high school speech teacher who made me pound the podium and yell at him in front of the class to try to make me less fearful. Didn't work. Everyone else was jealous because they wanted to yell at him!
I know you'll do a great job!

Carder: You've proven my point. At the end of the day, it boils down to the wishes/desires of the pregnant woman. It MAY matter a great deal, it COULD matter a massive, enormous amount.

But if she says, "Nope", then it's time for us to back off and let her exercise her choice. In fact, Pro-choice SUPPORTS that choice. It's not for us to make the decision for her. Once the switch is flipped and the contents of her uterus emptied, one can only stare at the remains and say with whatever emotion the wind blows that day, "IT didn't matter."

It's time to back off regardless of what the woman wants in the matter. I don't think we should force gestation, abortion, or adoption. I think it most certainly DOES matter to women - most are not going to say "it didn't matter," they're going to be glad of whatever they chose, on balance, whether it was to end a pregnancy or to continue one.
......

The Down's baby that Jill comforted didn't matter.

I didn't say that, and don't know the situation.
......

Neither did the 4,000 terminated organisms from yesterday didn't matter. And the 4,000 non-sentient, pain-free blobs that will be terminated today won't matter.

"Didn't matter" isn't the way it really is. If they were unwanted, that did matter, same as if a pregnancy is wanted.
......

To repeat your valuation:"It is up to the woman who is pregnant..." And that's all that matters.

I am saying that she is the one who is pregnant so it should be her choice. I fully realize this issue matters to many people. The question is if we take away the freedom that women currently have in the matter, and I don't see any good reason for that, regardless of which "Because I say so" we pick from those opposed to the woman having free choice.

Doug

What restrictions, specifically are they okay with?

Hippie, the bans on elective abortions after viability.
......

It seems to me that every restriction has been fought and that none of the restrictions in the Roe decision are meaningful, partly because of the Doe vs. Bolton case. Do you know of any restriction that Planned Parenthood, NAF or NARAL have supported?

Does Bolton negate the Roe-approved restrictions? Clinics only doing elective abortions to viability, and not afterward, are found even in the nine or ten states without specific legislation there.

I don't know if PP, etc., were actually "for" restrictions, but I don't see great dissatisfaction with them after viability. Also think that few pro-choicers in general are worried about it after viability.

Doug

The Enigmas and Dougs of the world accept only one law. The law of self. Subjective morality.

Oh baloney, MK. We're fine with what society says on most issues, just as most people are. We want to be in society and realize that it's not just "the self."

Doug

"I don't think that anything under 20 weeks gestation has the physical mechanisms required for suffering." --Laura

"How can you compare the death of an embryo with the unimaginable pain and suffering of those poor victims of war?" -- Libby

"That depends on your point of view. If you're in school and don't have time for a pregnancy, if you're poor and can't afford a child, or if its just the wrong time, babies are not good outcomes."--Enigma

Carder: Doug, I'm accused of pronouncing words that are not representative of the pro-choice side and yet here we have three posts out of many that would prove otherwise. The unborn are considered less than meritorious, thus signifying that if the mother so decides, they are not worthy of continued development. Laura and the feeling pain issue (which you've expressed as well); Libby seeing comparisons between a dead embryo and a dead victim of war as unthinkable; and Enigma valuating that under certain circumstances the baby is not a good outcome, which I think I'm safe to say that you would agree with her. Even SoMG has called abortion "justifiable homocide"!

If the unborn DID matter such venom wouldn't be spewing out of their keyboards. But as such, they agree that we should not be giving the unborn the same measure of importance. While the words "do not matter" are not specifically typed out, what isn't said sometimes speaks louder than what IS said. My valuation.

Carder, "venom"? Good grief.... I think that Laura is certainly right, but it's just a matter of physical reality. It's not any pronouncement of the morality of abortion. Libby also has a good point. I'd say the comparison can be made (of course), but the differences are plain. And what logical argument can there be with what Enigma said?

It's not generalizing about the unborn to say that in certain situations a baby is not a good outcome. There's nothing there about the unborn being worthless, per se.

A pregnancy may be wanted to a great extent, and have huge importance to the woman or couple. Nothing that's been said here negates that.

Doug

Doug,
I can shake hands with you that some, not most pro-choicers favor restrictions at certain points of pregnancy.

You'll need to elaborate on something...

"What restrictions, specifically are they okay with?

Hippie, the bans on elective abortions after viability."

I recall the furor the Partial Birth Abortion Ban caused when it was upheld in the Supreme Court. Some would argue that it was necessary for certain medical conditions, others have stated that such a procedure was never medically necessary. At any rate, I believe all the major abortion heavy-hitters were beyond angry. PBA's are specifically for late term pregnancies (past viability). They didn't seem to be okay with that particular restriction.

"The Down's baby that Jill comforted didn't matter."

"I didn't say that, and don't know the situation."

Yes, Doug, I'm aware you didn't say that. I was simply extending the reasoning to different abortion scenarios.

To know the situation, click on Jill's bio.

MK,

I haven't gone into my beliefs on morality because they're difficult to argue with and they don't really proved any answers.

I believe that morality has both objective and subjective elements. Some aspects of morality are purely subjective while others are objective. The rub is that we can never be certain which ones are objective because people get caught up in their subjective interpretations of objective morality.

Enigma,

I haven't gone into my beliefs on morality because they're difficult to argue with and they don't really proved any answers.

And yet when we take a chance, open up and give you our views you say that they aren't provable and to each his own. Just doesn't seem fair to me. We're taking all the risks. You just criticize.

How about you start by sharing something that you consider an objective moral?

MK,

"How about you start by sharing something that you consider an objective moral?"

This is where it gets complicated. I don't believe that I know what the objective morals are because, I too, am caught up in my subjective interpretation of the objective morals. I can't even tell you which morals are objective.

Everyone's interpretation of morality is heavily influenced by the society that they grew up in. My morals tend to be informed by the liberal emphasis on the sanctity of the individual.

@Doug,

glad carder is giving you a hard time ... yesterday, I asked Enigma her take on this true-scenario. A felon (bank robber) who is pregnant in the US can be 'forced' into an abortion ... (wantedness/unwantedness just does not matter). This situation sends both PC'ers and PL'ers screaming ... because to 'force' any woman against her will is a no-no; for PL'ers it means the death of a (innocent of the mother's crime) child. Doesn't a viable babe have rights not contingent on the mother? Are these rights not violated?

So, what is your take[ ... her 'wanting' to be pregnant may be only to avoid any immediate harsh punishment ... a born baby should not be incarcerated either] ... on this?

@Enigma,

Tis a problem ... Diana (a previous PC-blogger here) talked of the Golden Rule as being almost universally accepted ... how's about most of the 10 Commandments ... ?????????????????

John,

I know this isn't addressed to me, but I figured I'd take a stab as well.

"Doesn't a viable babe have rights not contingent on the mother? Are these rights not violated?"

A viable fetus does have certain rights in and of itself that are not contingent upon the mother. But it does not have the right to remain inside the womb against the woman's will. Forcefully imposing upon another's body is not a right that any human possesses.

This is why, in a case of a viable fetus, I would prefer to see the fetus removed intact as long as that is not an undue burden to the woman. As law currently stands, that is not an option and the only choice is abortion. I will always support a woman's right to control her own body over the fetus's right to life (which, I would like to add, is a right that I believe only viable fetuses possess).

John,

"Tis a problem ... Diana (a previous PC-blogger here) talked of the Golden Rule as being almost universally accepted ... how's about most of the 10 Commandments ... ?????????????????"

This is why I sum up my beliefs by arguing that morals are subjective. In practice, they all are.

I believe that all existing interpretation of "objective" morality are inherently subjective. Thus, we cannot be certain that either the Golden Rule or the Ten Commandments (I have to admit, I don't remember all of them) are truly objective.

unconscionable power......portraying the child as a competitor, an intrusion... Satan could'nt of said it better.

Jasper,

"unconscionable power......portraying the child as a competitor, an intrusion... Satan could'nt of said it better."

Sigh. This statement really has no meaning to me. Appeals to religion simply cannot resonate with me because I don't believe in any religion. If you debate with the intent of changing someone's mind (as I know some people here do), I would recommend a different tactic.

"Sigh. This statement really has no meaning to me."

I know Enigma, you are bounded by nothing.

Enigma, I wasn't addressing you and I won't respond to your questions because:

a) they are silly, and

b) you don't exhibit right reasoning or logic, which must be the basis for any sound argument.

Just as an example, your statement that all beliefs or values are equally valid is totally illogical. That is the same as saying that there is no absolute truth, which is to say there is nothing. That is nihilism.

Jasper,

“I know Enigma, you are bounded by nothing.”

I am bound by what I believe. By my morals, my standards, and my conceptions of justice, truth, and decency.

Paul,

“Enigma, I wasn't addressing you and I won't respond to your questions”

Excuse me for thinking that in a public forum I could comment on your comments directed to someone else.

“a) they are silly,

b) you don't exhibit right reasoning or logic, which must be the basis for any sound argument.”

This I don’t see. Actually, if you want to get technical, I’d argue that your comments about condom usage are the ones that are silly and don’t exhibit any logic whatsoever. Its my position that the Catholic Church’s work in Africa is immoral.

“Just as an example, your statement that all beliefs or values are equally valid is totally illogical. That is the same as saying that there is no absolute truth, which is to say there is nothing. That is nihilism.”

A.) I never addressed all beliefs. I said other religions and other value systems could be just as valid as yours. There’s nothing illogical about that statement. What’s illogical is clinging to the belief that only you and others who think like you could possibly have valid beliefs about God and what God wants for the world.

B.) And how do you know that there is an absolute truth? All of your statements presume that such a truth exists but I have yet to see any proof that your definition of absolute truth is the correct one.

C.) Saying that there is no absolute truth is not akin to saying that there is nothing. What we perceive to be real is our reality.

D.) You’re making some real leaps of faith there. Saying that there isn’t one truth religion does not indicate a belief that nothing is worthwhile or that authority should be destroyed. Heck, with my beliefs it doesn’t even work for disbelieving in objective truth. Objective morals do exist but we can never hope to know which morals are objective since we are all trapped by our subjective interpretations of truth and of morality.

@Paul,

I hear and feel your frustration - its something many of us share. One of the intellectual
'tricks' I made (and still often do) is to place my theories in absurd scenarios, to see if they still have viability ... or 'stretch'-ability. Guess it's the philosopher in me, and I falsely presumed others did likewise. From first-hand experience in this debate, I have had it pounded into me by Doug (and now Enigma) that their acceptance of moral principles is not based on anything rigorous ... like objective truth, but on relativism .... which is an intellectual comfort zone. When someone finds objective truth, they 'follow' it, conforming their moral outlook to this truth. On the other hand, if relativism is embraced, you are the final-decision maker .... the big problem with this is YOU have to be always correct; else having a final outcome means little next to the '"freedom/pride" of deciding. As long as a person decides, anything decided is fine.

Even the notion that relativism is intrinsically foolish [ie. the words morally-relative are considered an absolute truth]. Enigma, to her credit, finds the necessity of objectivity in her reasoning.

... there is much more , but my computer is acting-up and must quit ....

try finding opposing arguments within their mental framework ... very tough work!

PAX

Enigma, you're arguing in circles. Something you are good at. bye.

John, I sort of understand what you are trying to say. But Enigma is certainly not objective in any sense.

Actually this blog is just one big waste of time.

Paul,
Actually this blog is just one big waste of time.

Why Paul, because you can't come in here and force everyone to bow to you?

You talk a good game about faith and morals, love and compassion, prayer and Truth...

But I see very little of it in action.

You chose not to pray with us, you bully everyone that disagrees with you, and now when they won't kowtow to you, you take your ball and go home.

What did you think? You'd just come in here, announce the "Truth" as you see it, and every pro-choicer on the planet would slap their foreheads and say "Wow, what was I thinking? That Paul sure makes a lot of sense?"

These are people you are dealing with. Real live people. Not words on a page. They have feelings and pasts, and problems and hopes, just like you.

You remind me of the Pharisees, throwing around the "letter of the law" but not living the spirit of it.

Every time you claim to be a "Catholic" I cringe!

Enigma,

It seems the first time you take a chance and open up to us, you got slapped in the face. No wonder your gun shy!

Your questions weren't stupid, and while I find your logic weak at times, it is not "a waste of time"...

As you said, how will you ever know the truth if you aren't willing to be open to new ideas. And one way to gain insight is to ask questions...so ask away.

I have so much more I want to say to you, but I need to go out for a few hours. If this post is gone, would it be all right with you if we pick this up on another one?

Thanks,
MK

as poor minority, women abort at a quite larger percentage than any other group.

YES! And why is that? How sick and sad is that? Abortion is EXPLOITING the poor and historically oppressed! You're saying that if you're black or hispanic, abortion is all we'll give you (killing your kids is all we'll give you) to help you be less poor? You're saying that only rich, white women should be able to have babies and poor minorities are so poor that they can't have children? So we should keep abortion legal so they can keep killing their children out of desperation because they can't afford to have them? How destitute! How bigotted! You're not helping them at all, are you? You're participating in their oppression when they are forced by circumstances to abort because you fail to offer them real solutions.

If no one wants an abortion, how are you helping them not to feel like they need abortions? You're not helping them at all. Perhaps like Margaret Sanger, you want the poor minorities to eradicate themselves?
Posted by: Jacqueline at October 3, 2007 12:38 PM

Do you always make stuff up about people with whom you don't agree? Good grief! I've never seen anyone make such ridiculous assumptions about another person!

Now, I'm not discounting the good work some pro-life organization are doing for the poor. Isn't it quite hypocritical, however, to want to help women who might have otherwise chosen abortion while at the same time wanting to ban a procedure that would make these very same women criminals? Why not just keep on doing the good work of helping these women instead spending millions of dollars fighting to ban abortion and loads of time harassing poor, pregnant women outside of abortion clinics?

How do you know these poor, minority women won't be exploited (as you claim) by abortionists as they are now if elective abortion is banned? How would you prove a woman really didn't know what she was aborting? Desperate women take desperate measures.

Again, making abortion illegal WON'T bring the poor out of poverty; it won't eradicate the reasons why women abort; it won't prevent women from aborting. Many of the same women you claim you love and want to help WILL be same women you claim you'd like to see put in prison. Nice opinion you have of those poor, black women, Jacqueline.

Hey Enigma. Just like MK, I too would like to continue/begin a nice, friendly conversation along the same lines. One of the reasons that I can tell that you care is that you do put forth, as far as I know, the best argument in favor of "abortion rights," the so-called question of a right to another persons body. I don't know if this is where you first learned about it, but Judith Jarvis Thompson's famous article "A Defense of Abortion" goes through your argument in a lot of detail, and is still considered (I think) to be one of the best articles that defends abortion. While she seems to make a credible case, I believe there are several flaws in her argument. But alas, I don't mean to be "putting articles in your mouth" so hopefully we can pick this up later with MK and such. Take care, Enigma.

Libby, can you name one problem that abortion[s] has solved? I can't think of anything at all. Generally the post abortive woman will continue on her abortion spree. Giving her an abortion is a "quick fix" for the REAL issue at hand. It's not unusual to see the post abortive woman pregnant within a month or two of her last abortion. She will either continue with the pregnancy, or she will abort over and over again.

Carder: You'll need to elaborate on something...

"What restrictions, specifically are they okay with?"

"Hippie, the bans on elective abortions after viability."

I recall the furor the Partial Birth Abortion Ban caused when it was upheld in the Supreme Court. Some would argue that it was necessary for certain medical conditions, others have stated that such a procedure was never medically necessary. At any rate, I believe all the major abortion heavy-hitters were beyond angry. PBA's are specifically for late term pregnancies (past viability). They didn't seem to be okay with that particular restriction.

No - D & X was done as early as 14 or 15 weeks gestation. In no way is it "specifically for ..past viability." It's one procedure, not a time frame in gestation. "Never medically necessary" may be true, but only to a point. It is sometimes the best procedure, but not the only one available. Now, the fetus is dismembered within the uterus, which brings certain disadvantages with it. The fetus is going to be dead anyway, and D & X being banned just means increased risk for women, at times, and thus the objections some people have with the ban.

I think it's 40 or 41 states that have restrictions on abortion at viability, and in practice I don't know of any clinics in any state that will do abortions after 26 weeks on an elective basis.

Doug

John: glad carder is giving you a hard time

He's not. (Carder, I'm assuming you're a guy.)
......

... yesterday, I asked Enigma her take on this true-scenario. A felon (bank robber) who is pregnant in the US can be 'forced' into an abortion ... (wantedness/unwantedness just does not matter). This situation sends both PC'ers and PL'ers screaming ... because to 'force' any woman against her will is a no-no; for PL'ers it means the death of a (innocent of the mother's crime) child. Doesn't a viable babe have rights not contingent on the mother? Are these rights not violated?

So, what is your take[ ... her 'wanting' to be pregnant may be only to avoid any immediate harsh punishment ... a born baby should not be incarcerated either] ... on this?

John, if it really does happen, then the state is saying, in effect, "unwanted," and also saying that that takes precedence over the woman's wishes (if she wants it). I really doubt that the state will mandate an abortion after viability, however. Still, if so, then yeah - pro-choicers aren't going to be for that.

My feeling is that the state should not force an abortion on the woman. Agreed that the born baby shouldn't be incarcerated, so this would mean that the baby and woman would be separated after birth. I have no doubt that this is preferable to many women, versus having an abortion.

Doug

John: From first-hand experience in this debate, I have had it pounded into me by Doug (and now Enigma) that their acceptance of moral principles is not based on anything rigorous ... like objective truth, but on relativism .... which is an intellectual comfort zone.

Holy Crow, partner.... There is objective truth about morality - people have desires and make valuations. Enigma knows that and so do I, and I think that everybody knows that, down deep.

If there is a "comfort zone," here, it's the unprovable beliefs that some people subscribe to.

To pick one subject, and a nasty one at that, how about female genital mutilation? In some countries it's considered the right thing to do. They feel just as strongly about it as you do about abortion. The morality of it is relative to the country, or the religion, or the group of people, and even to the individual.

Doug

MK,

"It seems the first time you take a chance and open up to us, you got slapped in the face. No wonder your gun shy!"

Its amusing in a way. Refusing to engage the other point of view at all or to defend your own position in the face of criticism is a weakness, not a strength.

"I have so much more I want to say to you, but I need to go out for a few hours. If this post is gone, would it be all right with you if we pick this up on another one?"

That's fine with me. You may find that my views on this topic (morality) are difficult to extrapolate. I'm not entirely sure that I understand them myself.

Have a good day.

__________________________________________________
Bobby,

"Hey Enigma. Just like MK, I too would like to continue/begin a nice, friendly conversation along the same lines."

As long as it stays nice and friendly, I would open to that as well. I enjoy engaging other people but I don't enjoy being insulted. (Not that I'm accusing you by any means. I'm just stating the fact in light of Paul.)

"One of the reasons that I can tell that you care is that you do put forth, as far as I know, the best argument in favor of "abortion rights," the so-called question of a right to another persons body. I don't know if this is where you first learned about it, but Judith Jarvis Thompson's famous article "A Defense of Abortion" goes through your argument in a lot of detail, and is still considered (I think) to be one of the best articles that defends abortion. While she seems to make a credible case, I believe there are several flaws in her argument. But alas, I don't mean to be "putting articles in your mouth" so hopefully we can pick this up later with MK and such."

I've never read the article. It sounds interesting though.

"Take care, Enigma."

You to.

@Doug,

The experience of objective truth for me was/is such a powerful reality - and it made my concept of good seem cold and dark by comparison - that I soon found myself aligning all my moral precepts to be in sync with this. The former way on viewing morality, one could easily say it was only-one-among-many. But it's like you had 100 light bulbs, and just one was lit. Still can't see the problem? How about the room these hundred bulbs are in is dark as night - total darkness? The difference/unusualness of this light becomes very apparent.

This is a very different way to perceive Truth rather than truth (even if objective). Enigma is quite correct, attempting to locate any truth is a daunting task. This task is made much simpler if Truth is a guide .... the American Charter of Rights have many of these basic truths in their drafting.

Anonymous,

As I said to Sally...if I ran the world.

Look, I'm just one person. I'm raising a large family. I volunteered for four years at a homeless shelter, and four more on an alzheimers floor at a senior home. (I'm not braggin' here, honestly, just saying that I'm trying!) My son came home with his girlfriend pregnant, and I'm helping to raise their two kids (with a smile on my face), I taught immigrant kids preschool for 12 years, fostered a child from Guatemala so she could have facial surgery and took in a kid from the inner city to get him out of a gang...

For whatever reason, the unborn has been my deepest calling. I can't save everyone. I shouldn't have to. But if everyone did something, whatever their called to do, then there surely would be enough compassion to go around. I don't neglect everyone except the unborn...but I'm just one person.

(And when I said conspiracy theory, I meant that we aren't being told about the atrocities that are government is using in the name of peace. Depleted Uranium is awful! And most people have never heard of it, let alone realize that we are using it all over the world...)

Posted by: mk at October 2, 2007 8:06 PM
..........................
Darn it! Sometimes I forget to add my name.
I would be very interested in your views over depleted uranium. We don't have to discuss abortion ALL the time do we?

By the way, to "anonymous"....you would be surprised at how much surveyors know about property law that applies to their particular area of expertise.

Posted by: Carol at October 2, 2007 9:48 PM
............................
I'm sure that you are quite right. In the context of this discussion, they have no legal authority. Obviously the PL couldn't find a single constructural violation and in desperation have gone the dotting I's and crossing T's route.

Libby,

You're pretending if you think banning abortion will magically make the problem of unintended pregnancy and abortion go away.

You mean, just like you're pretending, that bringing abortion to these countries will suddenly make poverty and destitution go away.

Abortion is not the answer. To any question. Ever.

Posted by: mk at October 3, 2007 6:08 AM
................................

I thought the same until I was posed a question I hadn't anticipated. Beware of such absolute certainty of anything in life. Life might just shake you by the tail.

Hi Laura.

"I don't think that anything under 20 weeks gestation has the physical mechanisms required for suffering."

Funny you should mention this. I just read an article in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly about 2 hours ago that referenced a paper from the British Medical journal that talked about this. From my paper

"According to the British Medical Journal, the neuro-anatomical structures that are needed in order to "feel" pain, i.e. the thalamus and the motor nerves that send a message to the base of the brain, are present in the fetus by the eighth week of pregnancy."

He references
H.B. Valman and J.F. Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Medical Journal (January 26 1980)

Of course, he also goes on to say that it is debated whether or not the fetus ACTUALLY DOES feel the pain, but it looks like there is no debate on whether or not the fetus has the needed structures to feel pain. Pretty interesting stuff. God love you, Laura.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 2, 2007 8:47 PM
.........................
1980? I gave birth to my son in 1980.
I remember when one could purchase a house from Sears. While all of the parts were included, they weren't actually structures until assembled.

Laura,

If a married couple is having sex without being open to life, then in my mind they too are having illicit sex. Sex without openness to life, ceases to be a life affirming act of sharing and becomes a selfish act of self-pleasuring. Which is irresponsible whether you are married or not.

Posted by: mk at October 3, 2007 6:30 AM
...........................................

Being poeticaly dismissive over the process of gestation and the danger of pregnancy to women is dehumanizing to women.
The concept of sex being an act of sharing and unselfish is silly. Try to tell a man that he can't have an orgasm until his wife does or the wife that she can't just tell him to get it over and let her alone.
Don't try to tell me that every sexual encounter with your husband has been some life changing experience. Some parting of the clouds and angels singing kinda thing.
You won't go to hell if you have illicit sex with your husband and he'd probably dig it.

Hi Sally. Well, if you think 1980 is too long ago to believe that journal, then the ball is in your court now. Find an article in a peer-reviewed science journal written after 1980 that claims that the thalamus and the motor nerves are not present in an 8 week old fetus. God love you.

"....a red pickup truck that was outfitted with signs on both sides and the back of your truck with the most horrific dead baby photos you should be ashamed of yourself. Yesterday I saw a dozen kids at Blockbuster just start crying when you drove by..."

Wait a tick! We didn't kill those babies- YOU DID. You support the killing of those babies, but you don't want to actually see what evil you have done. So who should be ashamed?

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 3, 2007 9:03 AM

..............................................

HMMMMM. Grand idea! I'm going to work up concepts of my mother's 6 failures to produce a child and post them at every CPC I can find. The one born in rotting pieces should be a real tear jerker right after the hydrocephalic. First would be that almost sister that strangled to death during birth.
I'll label them with 'You might give birth to this... are you sure you can handle it?'.
Your catsup dolls might prevail or real life might benifit from education.

Anonymous wrote,

"A large number of pro-lifers want poor, starving women to be denied contraception, punished, guilted, harassed, and/or demonized for seeking abortions under even the most horrible circumstances."

Posted by: Anonymous at October 2, 2007 10:24 PM

If you look worldwide, access to abortion is widespread among the most affluent nations, who were affluent before they legalized abortion. If there are fewer poor, the rich don't need to feel guilted or demonized for not sharing with them.

The people of the world's most desperately poor countries cry out for food, safety and justice, not for abortion. It is the outside agencies who come in and see abortion as a way to reduce the number of poor and their burden on the rest of us. I think this is misguided, at least. When offered abortion, do they take it? Sure, because their needs haven't been met, because they aren't offered what they need. They also drink polluted water because it is all they have.

Posted by: hippie at October 3, 2007 7:06 AM

..................................................................................

I fail to see where you have any concept of what anyone calls out for.

Now Sally,

Try to tell a man that he can't have an orgasm until his wife does or the wife that she can't just tell him to get it over and let her alone.

The difference between how you see sex and how we see sex is that you would "tell" a man and a man would "tell" his wife, while we would "ask" our man and he would "ask" us....

Sally,

HMMMMM. Grand idea! I'm going to work up concepts of my mother's 6 failures to produce a child and post them at every CPC I can find. The one born in rotting pieces should be a real tear jerker right after the hydrocephalic. First would be that almost sister that strangled to death during birth.
I'll label them with 'You might give birth to this... are you sure you can handle it?'.
Your catsup dolls might prevail or real life might benifit from education.

First off, I abhor ketchup.
Secondly, if you feel that you must, then go ahead. It is your right. I can't see you getting up at 6:00 on a frigid January Morning to stand outside of a CPC just to show pictures of your moms kids...but okay. And why did your mom take these pictures anyway? ;)

Enigma,

First, may I ask you a personal question? How old are you?

Second, anytime you don't want to answer something, just plead the fifth. I don't want you to feel like I'm cornering you...okay?

Now, I understand that what I am about to say could be a deal breaker, but here goes.

When I read your posts, the first thing I notice, is that you seem defensive. Not defensive like you are being attacked, but defensive like you are afraid that you might be attacked.
I sense a really thick wall around you.

These are strictly my perceptions and I could be way off base, but like I said, you don't give us much to work with.

The second thing I notice is that you sound sad. Like you are carrying around one big ol' hurtin'.
And I sense a sort of hopelessness in you.

I almost, almost get the feeling that in between every sentence, every paragraph, every idea that you put out there, there is a tiny, quiet voice, saying "help me". Help me to believe in something, anything, again.

But something holds you back. Back from acknowledging the tiny voice, back from letting the tiny voice get louder, back from letting anyone reach you...

Am I totally wrong? Cuz, I swear, I just want to hug you. All my mother instincts come out. Yes, I get frustrated, but I also have a compelling urge to comfort you...

Am I way off the planet here?

John McDonell,

but Jesus issued in an even closer tie ... He stated many times a bond of union so tight He said things like 'whatsoever yo do to the least of these, you do to me.' and 'I pray for them Father, that they might be one

I don't think I tell you often enough, just how much I love you!

The fact that there are children in the world like the little boy in the picture Laura posted, says more about me than it does about him.

You are so right John! We ARE family. And my brothers and sisters are in trouble. The poor will always be with us. We will never eliminate poverty. BUT...this is a chance for us to practice charity and be Christ to the world. If we feed that little guy, he will be replaced by another little guy...true...but in the eternal picture, eventually we will all end up in the same state...and when asked what we did to alleviate his suffering, I want to be able to say "Everything in my power" and not "I eliminated him". This life we have been given is a spiritual test. We will all suffer and we will all die. We cannot change God's will, but we can cooperate with it. He watches, and suffers when He sees the wee ones living like our boy, but he suffers more when He watches us ignore him. Or worse yet, desire that he go away by killing him.

Wouldn't decency dictate that we treat the creation of life with the utmost respect? Doesn't looking at that little boy make you cherish life all the more? Don't images like that make you ashamed to use sex purely for personal pleasure instead of treating it with the dignity it deserves. Reverting to animalism is what brings about hunger and unwanted children, war and poverty. Human beings, unlike beasts, have the power to control their urges, whether it is raping a woman simply because you are a man in a country where women are considered less than human, or rutting here in the US because it "feels good"...

We are all responsible for the life we create, and when life is created irresponsibly, then we are responsible for the life that others create. We are family. And family takes care of it's own. Or at least it should.

Instead of pointing fingers at each other, and trying to make the "bad feelings" go away, we must ask ourselves "What am I doing to make things better?"

Posted by: mk at October 3, 2007 6:27 AM
...............................

I blame you. I have 2 very educated and accomplished children that are planning on leaving this country behind. For good reason. This is a crappy place to have children. This is a crappy place to raise children. While you are obsessing over voluntary abortion you are doing absolutely nothing to ensure the health of women or their children if a pregnancy could possibly produce one. You muddled minded folks forever put the cart before the horse.

Sally,

Each person on this blog is so different from the others. There are those that wield a good vocabulary, some who possess a wicked sense of humor, others that plod on and present the facts and nothing but the facts, and still others that just poke, poke, poke until there is an explosion.

Now, I think it is the same in the world on a grander scale. And I could take this even farther and use it with our military.

One year Mr. Vocabulary might be making the calls, while another Mr. Nothingbutthefacts is calling the shots.

Some focus on the cause, some on the battles, some on the wars and some only care about winning.

I believe that someone, somewhere (perhaps more someones/somewheres than I'd like to think about) got so focused on winning, that when they found a weapon that could guarantee more wins than losses, without being too obvious about it, they used it. I don't know whether they knew all of the ramifications of their choice, It's possible it was done with the best of intentions, but I don't think so.

This person/persons used depleted uranium as a way to "win", and I don't think they gave a damn what the consequences would be. I think they were so focused on winning that a few (thousand?) american soldiers health and offspring was a small price to pay. An even smaller price to pay was the offspring of the enemy.

I think they used depleted uranium with full knowledge, but even if they didn't, they certainly knew when children were being born without limbs, and soldiers were sick and dying after the gulf war. And much like the priest scandal, instead of owning up to their actions, they covered them up.

I'm not attacking the US, the US army, or anyone in particular, because I know very little about war and war games. But I know this. Depleted Uranium was a horrible, horrible war crime and someone needs to answer for it.

Why. What do you think?

Sally,

I thought the same until I was posed a question I hadn't anticipated.

And that question waaaaaaaaaaas?

"Sally,

I blame you. I have 2 very educated and accomplished children that are planning on leaving this country behind. For good reason. This is a crappy place to have children. This is a crappy place to raise children. While you are obsessing over voluntary abortion you are doing absolutely nothing to ensure the health of women or their children if a pregnancy could possibly produce one. You muddled minded folks forever put the cart before the horse.

I swear as the evening wears on, you're posts get more absurd. I'd almost think you were drinking and that you aren't one of those drunks that gets funny and happy.

Now why exactly are you blaming me? How could you possibly know what I have or have not done to help women that find themselves in unwanted pregnancies?

Hi Sally. Well, if you think 1980 is too long ago to believe that journal, then the ball is in your court now. Find an article in a peer-reviewed science journal written after 1980 that claims that the thalamus and the motor nerves are not present in an 8 week old fetus. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 4, 2007 7:07 PM
.....................................

Bobbie. You won't find a peer reviewed study by any scientist after 1980 that would even deem your antiquatied religous notions of gestation or any thing else in the least bit itellectual, factual or of common sense.
Malhelvetinen. : )

Sally,

I blame you. I have 2 very educated and accomplished children that are planning on leaving this country behind.

And come to think of it, why are you highly educated children leaving the country instead of doing something to make it better? You blame me? Why not blame them? What are they doing to help pregnant woman? What are they doing to make this country better? Cutting and running? Oh, yeah, now there's an answer!

Psssst...
I'm sorry they're leaving? Is it killing you? Where are they going? Can you visit? What will you do about your grandbabies? Isn't your heart breaking? I really am sorry. It must be really hard...

"You won't find a peer reviewed study by any scientist after 1980 that would even deem your antiquatied religous notions of gestation or any thing else in the least bit itellectual, factual or of common sense. "

Exactly which notion of gestation do you believe won't be found in a journal? God love you.

Sally,

HMMMMM. Grand idea! I'm going to work up concepts of my mother's 6 failures to produce a child and post them at every CPC I can find. The one born in rotting pieces should be a real tear jerker right after the hydrocephalic. First would be that almost sister that strangled to death during birth.
I'll label them with 'You might give birth to this... are you sure you can handle it?'.
Your catsup dolls might prevail or real life might benifit from education.

First off, I abhor ketchup.
Secondly, if you feel that you must, then go ahead. It is your right. I can't see you getting up at 6:00 on a frigid January Morning to stand outside of a CPC just to show pictures of your moms kids...but okay. And why did your mom take these pictures anyway? ;)

Posted by: mk at October 4, 2007 7:37 PM
............................................

I'm quite dissapointed in your response. My son runs marathons. I spent many a frigid morning as a volunteer for my son's cross county team. Are you ok?

Sally,

I didn't say you would NEVER get up at 6:00am...just not to stand around showing pictures of your deceased brothers and sisters.

Shall I bring the hot chocolate?

MK,

"First, may I ask you a personal question? How old are you?"

I'm a twenty-one year-old college student.

"When I read your posts, the first thing I notice, is that you seem defensive. Not defensive like you are being attacked, but defensive like you are afraid that you might be attacked.
I sense a really thick wall around you."

It's the Internet. I'm not going to reveal personal stuff on public forums where anyone can read it.

"The second thing I notice is that you sound sad. Like you are carrying around one big ol' hurtin'."

No one goes through life without pain.

"And I sense a sort of hopelessness in you."

Never. I learned long ago that nothing could ever make me give up.

"I almost, almost get the feeling that in between every sentence, every paragraph, every idea that you put out there, there is a tiny, quiet voice, saying "help me". Help me to believe in something, anything, again."

Beliefs can be remade. One can be exchanged for another. There is always something for one to believe.

"But something holds you back. Back from acknowledging the tiny voice, back from letting the tiny voice get louder, back from letting anyone reach you..."

Everyone is held back. Our experiences make us who we are and they limit us. They change us irreparably.

"Am I totally wrong? Cuz, I swear, I just want to hug you. All my mother instincts come out. Yes, I get frustrated, but I also have a compelling urge to comfort you..."

I appreciate the thought, but there is little to comfort.

Hi Enigma,

Follow Jesus Christ. You won't regret it.

God-Bless.

( I know we had some strong disagreements, but I wish you the best. )

MK,

I often have those thoughts. I miss the days where you were able to trust everyone, where the world made sense. I'd give anything to have that innocence back.

Enigma,

You totally crack me up...I know less now than when I asked the questions! lol

Except your age.

Okay, so are you saying that yes you are in pain, yes the past has affected you (whose hasn't), no you're not hopeless (If hopeless means giving up), that you believe in whatever fills your need at the moment and that those beliefs can and do change depending on the situation, and that while you might be carrying a load, you don't need to be comforted.

Or are you saying that no, you are not in pain, the past hasn't affected you anymore than anyone elses, you have all kinds of hope, and you don't need to be comforted because you are a very content and happy person?

See, now I want to hug you even more.

"When I read your posts, the first thing I notice, is that you seem defensive. Not defensive like you are being attacked, but defensive like you are afraid that you might be attacked.
I sense a really thick wall around you."

It's the Internet. I'm not going to reveal personal stuff on public forums where anyone can read it.

I've made the offer before, and it still stands.
You can always email me. I will not share what you say with anyone. I'll take it to my grave.

I probably sound nosy, but honestly, it comes from caring, not being a busybody.

While I have many faults, (oh so many, don't get me started) gossiping isn't really one of them.

Not that I'm above venting, myself, but I rarely if ever, talk about other people for the sole purpose of talking about them. Just doesn't do it for me!

Now if we're talking about impatience, gluttony or pride...there you've got me! But not gossip...

So the offer is ALWAYS there.

Meanwhile,
We'll just have to keep our debates intellectual, which is difficult, because I prefer to get to the "root" of things...but I'll do my best.

And if we ever do the camping trip I talked about on the Eric Zorn post with PIP, I'd be thrilled if you'd come too.

We can roast mushrooms and hunt baboons!

MK: "Am I totally wrong? Cuz, I swear, I just want to hug you. All my mother instincts come out. Yes, I get frustrated, but I also have a compelling urge to comfort you..."

Enigma: I appreciate the thought, but there is little to comfort.

There have been some great exchanges between you two of late. You both have done a lot of good thinking in your lives.

Doug

See? I like Doug! I think if we knew each other, we would hang out, even though we have completely different outlooks on life. God love you, Doug.

See? I like Doug! I think if we knew each other, we would hang out, even though we have completely different outlooks on life. God love you, Doug.

Thanks, Bobby, and I have no doubt we could hang out and have a fine time. I'm a big math-head too, though not to the extent you are.

I work with some pro-lifers and it's not a big deal at all for us. Doesn't really even matter.

Doug

MK: "Am I totally wrong? Cuz, I swear, I just want to hug you. All my mother instincts come out. Yes, I get frustrated, but I also have a compelling urge to comfort you..."
*
Enigma: I appreciate the thought, but there is little to comfort.
*
There have been some great exchanges between you two of late. You both have done a lot of good thinking in your lives.
*
Doug

Doug,
If you were pro life, you'd be perfect...

Wow, you hear that Doug? I'm pro-life and I'm 50 billion light years away from being perfect! Not many people have an opportunity to be perfect... :)

MK,

"You totally crack me up...I know less now than when I asked the questions!"

I'm good at that.

"See, now I want to hug you even more."

That could be problematic. I tend to be a bit standoffish.

"I've made the offer before, and it still stands.
You can always email me. I will not share what you say with anyone. I'll take it to my grave."

I know. I do appreciate the offer.

"I probably sound nosy, but honestly, it comes from caring, not being a busybody."

You don't come across as nosy.

"While I have many faults, (oh so many, don't get me started) gossiping isn't really one of them."

I've never really been one of those people that's fun to gossip about in any case.

"And if we ever do the camping trip I talked about on the Eric Zorn post with PIP, I'd be thrilled if you'd come too."

That would be fun.

"We can roast mushrooms and hunt baboons!"

Hunt baboons? Where would we be camping exactly?

Doug,

"There have been some great exchanges between you two of late. You both have done a lot of good thinking in your lives."

Indeed I have. Thanks for the compliment.

Jasper,

"Follow Jesus Christ. You won't regret it."

At this point in my life, I cannot.

"( I know we had some strong disagreements, but I wish you the best.)"

Thanks. The same to you.

Sally,

Each person on this blog is so different from the others. There are those that wield a good vocabulary, some who possess a wicked sense of humor, others that plod on and present the facts and nothing but the facts, and still others that just poke, poke, poke until there is an explosion.

Now, I think it is the same in the world on a grander scale. And I could take this even farther and use it with our military.

One year Mr. Vocabulary might be making the calls, while another Mr. Nothingbutthefacts is calling the shots.

Some focus on the cause, some on the battles, some on the wars and some only care about winning.

I believe that someone, somewhere (perhaps more someones/somewheres than I'd like to think about) got so focused on winning, that when they found a weapon that could guarantee more wins than losses, without being too obvious about it, they used it. I don't know whether they knew all of the ramifications of their choice, It's possible it was done with the best of intentions, but I don't think so.

This person/persons used depleted uranium as a way to "win", and I don't think they gave a damn what the consequences would be. I think they were so focused on winning that a few (thousand?) american soldiers health and offspring was a small price to pay. An even smaller price to pay was the offspring of the enemy.

I think they used depleted uranium with full knowledge, but even if they didn't, they certainly knew when children were being born without limbs, and soldiers were sick and dying after the gulf war. And much like the priest scandal, instead of owning up to their actions, they covered them up.

I'm not attacking the US, the US army, or anyone in particular, because I know very little about war and war games. But I know this. Depleted Uranium was a horrible, horrible war crime and someone needs to answer for it.

Why. What do you think?

Posted by: mk at October 4, 2007 7:55 PM

.....................

I think that I haven't heard of your particular theory. EI: What the h e double hockey sticks are you talking about? A PL Hiroshima study on the fate of embryos after a nuclear attack? What?

MK: Doug, If you were pro life, you'd be perfect...

Bobby: Wow, you hear that Doug? I'm pro-life and I'm 50 billion light years away from being perfect! Not many people have an opportunity to be perfect... :)

Bobby, MK likes to argue. But hear me, Dude, you rock pretty well.

Doug