Sunday funnies

by Gary Varvel in Townhall.com...

sunday funny.jpg

(Read my March 10 post on the harm to wildlife and humans of wasted estrogen from birth control pills in our water supply.)

And although I do agree with Geraldine Ferraro that part of America's attraction to Barack Obama is that he's black, I still thought this cartoon by Clay Jones of Creator's Syndicate was a hoot:

sunday funny 2.gif


Comments:

Again, Jill, your demonization of birth control pills borders on the unstable fanatical. Where is your outrage over other drugs in the water, drugs that could cause considerably MORE damage? Where is your outrage over the obviously substandard filtration practices of our wastewater treatment plants? Before you read the riot act to women using birth control, why don't you address the companies directly involved in cleaning the water we use? I agree that no one should have to ingest leftover pharmaceuticals from seemingly filtered water, but it is not the fault of the people using these prescribed drugs that their leftovers made it into someone else's tap water.

Posted by: Lyssie at March 16, 2008 9:12 AM


Ferraro said, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."

I think that she is correct. The problem is that it's being interpreted incorrectly. She didn't say that he's succeeding ONLY because he's black. She said that if he were exactly the same in every way but skin color, he would not be succeeding.

Obama's skin color made him stand out among the other candidates, who the media presented as nothing but a bunch of white men (and a white woman). How many people keep saying stuff like, I'm voting for Obama in order to "make history"? How many people have completely written off the idea of voting for a white man, saying something to the effect of "white men have been in charge long enough, so now it's time for a woman or a black person"? What percentage of the black vote is Obama getting, just because he's black?

If Obama were white, Hillary would be the Democratic nominee right now. For certain.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at March 16, 2008 9:38 AM


John-

I'm not so sure about that. Even if Obama were white, his ability to speak far outstrips any of the other candidates, he would still be gaing the youth en force, once youth are motivated and put to something they are a formidable force. Obama has tapped into that and the numbers and rallying against the stereotype commonly put on the youth of america when it comes to politics. Getting that youth vote has given him multiple wins, and the dedication and time youth are willing to put in when impassioned would give him an edge, even if he were white. His campaign organization and ability to fundraise does the same.

If Obama were a white man in the current position (making the assumption the wins would have panned out at least similar, which I admit is a stretch, his race does play a factor in politics, as does Clinton's gender and McCain's age) Clinton would already be gone and Obama the nominee.

Posted by: Dan at March 16, 2008 9:51 AM


Dan, if Obama were white, the media wouldn't be promoting him nearly as much as they are, and thus the kids who arbitrarily idolize him wouldn't even know who he is. If Obama were just another white guy, it's also very unlikely that he would have given the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, which the media used to catapult him to nationwide fame. The man is a media creation, and they created this mystique around him because he is black.

If Obama were white, he would have been 'just another white guy', and the votes for him would have been spread out among the other white male candidates. He would not be getting 90%+ of the black vote. Hillary would be nominee, without question.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at March 16, 2008 10:12 AM


Before you read the riot act to women using birth control, why don't you address the companies directly involved in cleaning the water we use? I agree that no one should have to ingest leftover pharmaceuticals from seemingly filtered water, but it is not the fault of the people using these prescribed drugs that their leftovers made it into someone else's tap water.

I don't recall her ever directly blaming WOMEN for the hormones in the water...I'm pretty sure she blames the big wig's as they are the ones with the most control over this issue.

But I don't really know..I can't speak of exactly what Jill means..I can only speculate. I don't blame the women, but I do think that the consumers of these products should be advised of what happens when they flush them down the toilet or something like that. We make people aware of other things that are bad for the environment, so this is just one more for them to be aware of.

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 16, 2008 2:42 PM


John, I have to say that I agree with you.

This election makes me incredibly annoyed with all the race talk. People really need to grow up..I wouldn't vote for Obama if he were white either! I don't vote for someone based on the color of their skin AND I don't think the color of your skin makes you MORE qualified or LESS qualified for anything. We live in such a superficial society that people focus on the visual when we all KNOW that what really matters is what people stand for and WHO THEY ARE.

ahhhh!

*steps off soap box now*

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 16, 2008 2:47 PM


John-

any speaker as eloquent as Obama very well could be called up. I mean, thats just the reality of it. JFK was an amazing WHITE speaker who got a shot, a large portion of it being his speaking, heck, he was younger than Obama and with less overall political experience. He came into the national limelight after losing a VP slot.

Regardless, when people can speak like Obama can, black or white, people listen (espescially after having a speaker like Bush for the last 8 years).

The media has shown time and time again they can look past any issue they want to tear someone down or build someone up regardless. If Obama were white hed face less scrutiny than he is now. McCain has very little scrutiny in comparison to either Dem candidate in all reality. The NYT was dismissed as BS (which I agree with, ridiculous article) and the only big story about him has been his age and his temper, which he is already known for. Because of his POW status people are (or at least I think) too afraid to look to closely at him.

Of course, I havent watched the news the past couple days, so hey, I may have missed something, but I doubt it was major if it didnt pop up in my firefox latest headlines tab.

The mystique isnt so much about his race than it is about him pretty much achieveing the American Dream. He went from a poverty stricken kid raised by a single mother, being raised around the world, to becoming a viable presidential nominee. Thats a HUGE accomplishment regardless of race. Im not saying his race doesnt play a factor, it does, as does hillarys gender and mccains war service and age. Its just how things are, sadly. People have prejudices, again, look at how the southern vote seems to have broken down in terms of race. Ridiculous. It just doesnt play as major a role as people like Ferraro build it up to be.

Posted by: Dan at March 16, 2008 3:03 PM


At what point did Obama reach "viability"? :)

Posted by: Carla at March 16, 2008 4:35 PM


Carla,

Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

I'm still waiting...the verdict is out on whether or not he has reached it yet!

Posted by: mk at March 16, 2008 4:53 PM


Elizabeth, I agree with you. It's turning into a dog and pony show. I wouldn't vote for Obama if he were a white man either. If he were pro life, he might get my vote I can't do pro infanticide. That would be heartless!!! No way. No how.

Posted by: heather at March 16, 2008 5:22 PM


I'm a white woman. Hillary is a white woman. It doesn't mean squat to me. She is also pro choice. I won't vote for her either.

Posted by: heather at March 16, 2008 5:24 PM


Gender and race are not the issue for me. It's what these people stand for.

Posted by: heather at March 16, 2008 5:27 PM


Jill said "part of America's attraction to Barack Obama is that he's black". And that's absolutely true, according to many polls. And if that particular part of his attraction were removed, he would not have stood a chance against Hilly. Simple math.

As to the stuff in the water, it's interesting to note that the presence of birth control chemicals in the water is being credited with the drop in male fertility. Men are being chemically castrated.

Posted by: Doyle at March 16, 2008 5:36 PM


Ferraro said, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."

John L: I think that she is correct.

Oh please. Any amount of such speculation could be done. Were he white, a Democratic John Edwards or other could have surged forward, a la McCain, and history would be different. Ya ne'er know.

That said, there would not be the resistance to him on the basis of his skin color, and he could very well be even more popular.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at March 16, 2008 7:23 PM


Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Lord have mercy, MK....

Posted by: Doug at March 16, 2008 7:26 PM


If Obama were white, the ugly whispering campaigns about how he's secretly a radical Muslim terrorist sympathizer would never get any traction.

If Obama were white, people wouldn't suggest that being mixed-race means he might be a Communist (because only Communists were in mixed-race relationships like his parents' back in the 60s, you know).

If Obama were white, he wouldn't have to repudiate everything a supporter of his own race ever said. (Compare the pressure on Obama to repudiate Farrakhan, whose endorsement Obama never sought, to the pressure on McCain to repudiate Hagee, whose endorsement McCain did seek.)

If Obama were white, he wouldn't have needed Secret Service protection 18 months before the election (the earliest a candidate has ever received protection).

If Obama were white, I wouldn't -- well, I'd be less worried about a lunatic shooting him before he could ever take office.

If Obama were white, allegedly serious commentators wouldn't be sitting around on cable news networks wondering if he were "white enough".

If Obama were white, nobody would bat an eye at his being named after his father.

If Obama were white, there wouldn't be a sizeable chunk of voters who would refuse to vote for him based solely on his race.

If Geraldine Ferraro really wants to claim that any advantages Obama might get from black outweigh all of that -- well, she can try, but the burden of proof is on her.

Posted by: Jen R at March 16, 2008 7:53 PM


Doug,

Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
*
Lord have mercy, MK....

I can so see why that would not make sense to you and sound way out there...but those of us who understand Jesus and "right relationships" know what this means. Equal in dignity...yet different roles to play. Only when we understand these differences can we understand the dignity...only when we understand how to use our differences can we hope to "compliment each other" and enter into a relationship that is ordered correctly.

The quote however, in the context that I was using it, had nothing to do with husbands and wives and everything to do with the Churches authority being subject in all things to Jesus Authority...again, "right relationships"...

Posted by: mk at March 16, 2008 8:21 PM


Doug,

This quote pretty much somes up my views on Pro-life and Christianity...maybe it will help you understand...

maybe not.

“You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.”
CSLewis

Posted by: mk at March 16, 2008 8:24 PM


Folks, it's simple mathematics. 8 Democrats ran for president this time. That's 5 white men + 1 white woman + 1 hispanic man + 1 black person.

So maybe 50% of Democrats wouldn't vote for Obama because he's black, or because his minister is freaking insane, or whatever. That just means that their votes are being spread out among 7 other candidates! That absolutely helped Obama out a great deal in the earlier primaries!

The Democratic party was determined to run a minority for president this time, and it's absolutely no surprise to me that we ended up with a contest between two minorities. The Democrats picked Hillary and Obama as their two favorites among the three minorities running, and that's really all there is to it. It's nothing more complicated than that.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at March 16, 2008 8:49 PM


I have thought a lot about that infamous quote from St. Paul, but if a husband and wife could truly live according to that ideal, they would most likely have a perfect marriage.

Yes, St. Paul wrote that wives should submit to their husbands. But the feminists ignore the second part of that. This is not so that husbands may take advantage of or abuse their wives, but rather so that husbands may lead their wives to Heaven. St. Paul goes on to say that it is the husband's responsibility to love their wives even as Jesus Christ himself loves the Church. And what did he do for the Church? He gave his own life to purify it of sin.

Indeed, if a husband and wife were to base their marriage on that principle, they would almost certainly enjoy a blissful life together. Men and women are supposed to complement each other, not be at war with each other.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at March 16, 2008 8:58 PM


mk,
Thanks for explaining that to Doug! I was wondering the same thing, and saw that you also used it over on the weekend thread.. I just thought you over-copied and pasted! Now it makes sense!

Posted by: JLM at March 16, 2008 9:14 PM


I would just like everyone to know that I just saw Jesus Christ Superstar at the Fox Theatre in Detroit with my mom and my friend. It was starring Ted Neely--the guy who plays Jesus in the film--and it was the most amazing theatrical experience of my life. I was in tears before "Heaven on Their Minds" began.

Posted by: Leah at March 16, 2008 9:23 PM


Jill:

I don't agree with Ms. Ferraro. I think Obama has charisma similar to that of JFK. It's a gift, an intangible.

However, like JFK, Obama is an empty moral suit and as such, not qualified for the most dangerous job in the world. He would be better off being a news anchor or talk show host, not the leader of the free world. His ideas are counter to sound moral philosophy and indicate a total lack of understanding of the principles espoused by a jesus he so often quotes. Such a jesus does not exist.

And John, regarding your recently posted treatise on marriage visa vi St. Paul I would like to add this.

God made marriage not to make us happy, but to make us holy. Therefore, the purpose of St. Paul's marriage prescription was not to provide a solution to marital bliss, rather it was to lay the framework and context in which a marriage was to be conducted.

Your assertion and assumption that following this formula would lead to marital bliss is in fact a recipe for disaster. What if a couple follows this formula and the resulting bliss doesn't follow? There's nothing left.

What St. Paul was saying here was that, the basis of a Christian marriage is in fact a life where a wife submits to a husband who has totally yielded his life to God.

Even Christ, before His crucifixion sweat blood at the thought of what obedience to His Father's commands meant. Also, He said, "If it be your will, let this cup pass." No bliss be espoused there.

The Terri Schiavo situation is a perfect example. Following Christ's commands in this situation, i.e., letting her live, would not have resulted in marital bliss.

Let's not set up our young people for marital disaster and say, if you just do this, and this and this, you will have a sucessful and blissful marriage.

What we should say is: The purpose of life is to know, love and serve God in obedience and total surrender and let Him take care of the rest no matter what.

"though He slay me, I will trust Him".

Posted by: HisMan at March 16, 2008 9:28 PM


John,
YOu are RIGHT ON about the St. Paul quote. So misunderstood, yet sooo full of TRUTH!

Posted by: Patricia at March 16, 2008 9:37 PM


Leah,
That's awesome!!! I've never seen the play before, but heard great reviews about it. I'm glad it moved you so much!!!

I want to go see it now!!!!

Posted by: JLM at March 16, 2008 9:44 PM


True, HisMan, but obeying God tends to lead to bliss ultimately, if not in this world then in the next.

I only disagree with one thing you said. I think that God wants us to be both holy and happy. God created the woman in order to make a companion for Adam, not in order to help make him more holy. He wanted Adam to be happy. That doesn't mean we're always happy, as there are certainly going to be hard times in our lives. But, we should rely on Him to help us endure any periods of sadness or difficulty.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at March 16, 2008 9:46 PM


Leah, you are so lucky!!! My mom saw him when he was here in Chicago but I couldn't go cause I had no babysitter. I saw him in JCS when I was 10..but I wasn't old enough to appreciate it. :tear:

I freaking love Ted Neely and JCS!!!

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 16, 2008 10:32 PM


Tomorrow I'm going to watch the movie with my friend who I saw it with. We're big nerds...

I have to admit, I have a big crush on Ted Neely even if he is a million times older than me. Whatever, man. Love knows no age.

Posted by: Leah at March 16, 2008 11:04 PM


John, JLM, Hisman,

In the Catholic Faith (I don't know if the Protestant church uses this or not) we see the "Church" (meaning ALL Christians) as Jesus' bride, and Jesus as a bridegroom.

So you can take the analogy even further. Look at how Jesus, being husband, loves us. So much so that He was willing to die. This is the love that a husband should have for his wife. And see how the church recognized Jesus as her head, and in all things submits to His authority because she knows that all He wants is for Her to be with Him forever. This is how a woman should view her husband.

John, I agree that Jesus wants His church to be happy, and Hisman you are right that He wants His church to be Holy, even at the expense of happiness.

This relationship, like a solid marriage, will have times when this is easy to achieve, and other times, where it is extremely difficult.

But always, the "right relationship" in a marriage can be understood by looking to the "right relationship" between Jesus and His Church.

Posted by: mk at March 17, 2008 5:43 AM


Lyssie, 3-16, 9:12a, said: "Again, Jill, your demonization of birth control pills borders on the unstable fanatical. Where is your outrage over other drugs in the water, drugs that could cause considerably MORE damage? Where is your outrage over the obviously substandard filtration practices of our wastewater treatment plants?"

Lyssie, this is a pro-life blog. Part of my premise is hormonal contraception (i.e., artificial female steroids ingested on a daily basis) is unnatural, kills children, exploits women, is physically harmful to women, including altering women's chemistry.

There are any number of blogs you can discuss other problems with our drinking water. Here we focus on one issue.

When I see studies and news corroborating our premise I post it. You're saying my focus makes me "unstable fanatical"?

Yet you come here simply to focus on the opposite premise. How does that not likewise make you "unstable fanatical"?

Furthermore, Lyssie, where is your outrage as a young feminist that hormonal contraceptives hurt women, but their harm is ignored, denied, or downplayed?

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 17, 2008 6:33 AM


An Irishman moves into a tiny hamlet in County Kerry, walks into the pub and promptly orders three beers. The bartender raises his eyebrows, but serves the man three beers, which he drinks quietly at a table, alone.

An hour later, the man has finished the three beers and orders three more. This happens yet again. The next evening the man again orders and drinks three beers at a time, several times. Soon the entire town is whispering about the Man Who Orders Three Beers.

Finally, a week later, the bartender broaches the subject on behalf of the town. "I don't mean to pry, but folks around here are wondering why you always order three beers?"

"Tis odd, isn't it?" the man replies. "You see, I have two brothers, and one went to America, and the other to Australia. We promised each other that we would always order an extra two beers whenever we drank as a way of keeping up the family bond."

The bartender and the whole town were pleased with this answer, and soon the Man Who Orders Three Beers became a local celebrity and source of pride to the hamlet, even to the extent that out-of-towners would come to watch him drink.

Then, one day, the man comes in and orders only two beers. The bartender pours them with a heavy heart. This continues for the rest of the evening. He orders only two beers. The word flies around town. Prayers are offered for the soul of one of the brothers.

The next day, the bartender says to the man, "Folks around here, me first of all, want to offer condolences to you for the death of your brother. You know-the two beers and all.

The man ponders this for a moment, then replies, "You'll be happy to hear that my two brothers are alive and well. It's just that I, meself, have decided to give up drinking for Lent."

Posted by: Doug at March 17, 2008 6:53 AM


Equal in dignity...yet different roles to play. Only when we understand these differences can we understand the dignity...only when we understand how to use our differences can we hope to "compliment each other" and enter into a relationship that is ordered correctly.

MK, that doesn't necessarily sound bad to me, but the idea that all men and women should have the same type of relationship just sticks in my craw. If it's that way and both people are happy, all fine and good, but to say it *has* to be that way makes me think, "Yeah, this stuff was written by men...come on....."

Doug

Posted by: Doug at March 17, 2008 6:58 AM


Doug-

great joke! lmfao

Posted by: Dan at March 17, 2008 7:18 AM


Doug-

great joke! lmfao

Posted by: Dan at March 17, 2008 7:18 AM


Doug,

The only "has to" involved in Christianity is if you want to be a Christian.

We see this as the way that God intended man an woman to relate. We are not interested in our "desires" but in becoming Holy, more like God.

You can run your relationships anyway you like. For us, the goal is different.

I do not want to live in a Theocracy. I do not want to force the entire world to live by my "rules", "standards" or "morals"...I would love if they chose to live by them, but forcing them to live by my "code" would contradict my "code"...free will, does, as you know, play quite a large part in my faith.

The only time I would impose my morals on society is when it affects society as a whole...ie: aborition. This horror that we call choice, is NOT freedom. It is tyranny at it's worst. It is the taking from the weaker by the stronger, simply because they are the weaker. It is YOU and the prochoice movement that have taken away freedom, that holds a portion of society hostage to your morals, code, and standards.

It is you, not I, that says a life must end, because it fits your ethical standard.

You look only at the woman. We look at both. The woman is free to make her choice up to the point that another life becomes involved. Pregnancy results from sexual intercourse. That is a provable fact. Not an opinion. Not a moral standard.

This is when the woman is FREE to make her choice.

Once a new life has begun, we must add their right to life, choice, etc. to the moral dilemma.

You are the one overstepping you boundaries, not us.

The need for abortion could be avoided all together, if people would take responsibility for their actions.

This is not a theological argument, but a human one.

Let your wife be boss. Let your two year old run the house. Kowtow to the cat! Makes no difference to me.

But when you start killing children in the name of freedom, I will speak up and do everything in my power to stop you.

Am I a person of faith? Yes. Does faith color my values? Yes. But it is not faith alone that sheds light on the ludicrous notion, that you, have the right, to end another persons life, because you "desire" to do so...

Posted by: mk at March 17, 2008 7:22 AM


Doug said: "Yeah, this stuff was written by men...come on....."

Um. Are you paying attention? Men are called to love their wives even as Christ loved the Church. Does that sound like something that was written by some kind of chauvinistic pig who wanted to codify his anti-woman rules into the Bible?

Christ allowed himself to be arrested, beaten, tortured, crucified, and executed in order to make his Church holy. A man who treats his wife in the same way would never abuse her, never take advantage of her, and never do anything cruel to her at all.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at March 17, 2008 7:30 AM


"God made marriage not to make us happy, but to make us holy."

Well that stinks.

Posted by: Jess at March 17, 2008 7:54 AM


Am I a person of faith? Yes. Does faith color my values? Yes. But it is not faith alone that sheds light on the ludicrous notion, that you, have the right, to end another persons life, because you "desire" to do so...

Well MK, that's just it - yes, you have your beliefs, including that of "person," there, but others don't necessarily share those beliefs, and don't think of the conceptus, etc., as a person. In no way is it "ludicrous" to note that, nor is it to see that while your beliefs may be fine for you, they don't necessarily apply to other people.

A given pregnant woman may or may not acknowledge your beliefs, but she does have the right to end a pregnancy if she doesn't want it.

Posted by: Doug at March 17, 2008 7:56 AM


John L: Um. Are you paying attention? Men are called to love their wives even as Christ loved the Church. Does that sound like something that was written by some kind of chauvinistic pig who wanted to codify his anti-woman rules into the Bible?

John, that doesn't sound bad, no, but in practice religion is often used in the subjugation of women in ways that I just don't like, the Christian religion and otherwise.

It varies culturally, as well, and I realize it could be said that it's not living up to the ideals of the Church.

Posted by: Doug at March 17, 2008 8:05 AM


Jess,

"God made marriage not to make us happy, but to make us holy."
*
Well that stinks.

If you only desire happiness in this life, then yes, I understand that it would stink. So don't live by it. Live by your own rules.

If however, your only desire is for eternal happiness, and pleasing the One that created you, in understanding your role in life, in accepting your purpose for being created, then achieving holiness is equal to happiness.

For us, nothing would make us happier than reaching heaven. To do this, we must strive for holiness.

My job as a parent is not to make my children happy. To do this, would not only be missing the point of parenting, but would also cripple my children. I am not against their happiness, but it is not my primary goal. My primary goal is to teach them to no longer need me. If they attain happiness on the way, so much the better.

But in learning life's lessons, they are bound to have some really tough moments, in which they are profoundly UNHAPPY because they got what was best for them instead of what they wanted.

In my house, we eat our peas. It makes for some very unhappy kids. I could give them Elfs 4 main food groups for dinnner, and this would make them happy. In the short run. But in the long run, it would make them toothless, malnourished and prone to every "bug" that came along. In short, it would eventually make them dead.

And it would make me a lousy parent.

My father is bedridden. My mother takes care of him. Does this make their marriage happy? Does my mother thrive on changing his diapers and spoonfeeding him pablum? no. But it sure does make for a Holy Marriage.

Christians are not satisfied with happiness. Happiness is fleeting. We will only be satisfied with Joy. And that trumps happiness by such a large margin, that the notion of chasing happiness for happiness' sake, becomes absurd.

Posted by: mk at March 17, 2008 8:18 AM


Doug, in practice, if it was ever used to subjugate women, then it was not being practiced as the Bible clearly taught it should be.

Subjugate means the man forces the woman to submit. Biblical submission is the woman's choice.

The husband according to the Bible, is the head of the home. That is his "office". But along with that office comes a great responsibility. He must love his wife with all of his heart. The Bible says that he should love her as he loves himself, because no man hates his own flesh but nourishes it and cherishes it.

See, right there we have defined exactly how it should be handled. If a man loves his wife that much, do you really think that he will subjugate her? And if he does, do you really think that he is living according to the principles of the Word of God? If you do, you are purposely ignoring what is clearly there for men to do.

I can tell you for a fact that I willingly chose to let my husband be the head of the household, and I have not once ever felt as though my opinion didn't matter. In fact, James never does anything without bringing it to me first, and asking my thoughts on the matter. And if I disagree with him on something, he ponders it.

There's no reason to think that letting the man be the head of the household should ever be a problem, unless he turns it into a dictatorship.

In fact, the marriages where this principle (both with the man being the head, and the man loving his wife as himself) is implemented are more successful and happy.

My own relationship with my husband can attest to that! We've been married for almost 10 years and our love is only increasing as the years pass by!

Posted by: Bethany at March 17, 2008 8:25 AM


Doug,

A given pregnant woman may or may not acknowledge your beliefs, but she does have the right to end a pregnancy if she doesn't want it.

That would be your opinion. Not fact.

It would be my opinion that she does not have this right. And I would and did hold that opinion independent of my Catholic Faith. That is the point I am trying to make. My faith backs up my position. My position does not come from my faith. You are confusing the two.

Saying my opinion is based on Catholic teaching is like saying you hold your opinion because you are an atheist.

You are an atheist, and you hold the opinion, but not because you are an atheist.

I am a Catholic, and I hold my opinion, but not because I am a Catholic.

Were you to become a Hindu, you would still hold that opinion.

Were I to become an atheist, I would still hold mine.

Our opinions are independent of, not because of, our faith or lack of it...

Posted by: mk at March 17, 2008 8:27 AM


Good point, Marykay. I believe this point has been brought up time after time but it doesn't seem to ever be acknowledged. Will it ever sink in?

Posted by: Bethany at March 17, 2008 8:28 AM


Bethany,

8:25 post...

Exactly! To say that a man has the right to abuse his wife based on this scriptural passage is to pervert the scriptural passage.

To say that a woman has the right to kill her own child, is to pervert both the meaning of the word "right" and the meaning of the word "mother"...

It is the perverting of moral truths that lead to unhappiness. Not the adhering to them.

There is a natural order to the world. There is objective "good" in the world. There is a "way it is supposed to be"...when we pervert these truths, we create a disordered world.

If I want to be an artist, a truly good artist, then I must first learn to be a mediocre artist. I must learn how to use the tools of the trade. I must learn how light works, and color. I must understand perspective.

In short, I must learn the RULES of art. I am not truly free to be an artist, until I am free to follow the rules that make an artist.

The only way that Picasso can be called an artist, is for Picasso to first know how to paint in a conventional way. Even a monkey can make a painting. But we wouldn't call it art. Picasso understood the rules. What he created was not because he didn't know them, but because he knew them so well, he was free to use them to paint in a different way.

There are rules in the moral world also. We are only free to be human beings, when we understand what being a human being means. And we can only do that by learning the "rules"...only then are we truly free and not slaves to freedom. Trying to operate without knowing these rules, means that these rules will control us, making us their slaves. Only by knowing and understanding them, can we hope to control ourselves.

Posted by: mk at March 17, 2008 8:44 AM


Bethany and MK, excellent posts!

Posted by: heather at March 17, 2008 8:46 AM


Doug,
John, that doesn't sound bad, no, but in practice religion is often used in the subjugation of women in ways that I just don't like, the Christian religion and otherwise.

This statement shows a complete lack of knowledge of the impact Christ had on his society. In fact, Christianity was the first religion to treat women as persons. One needs only to look at how he treated the woman caught in adultery. The men wanted to stone her, but Christ turned the tables on them asking them if they were without blame! He forgave her, treated her fairly and asked her to amend her life.

In all his dealings with women throughout his life, Christ was respectful towards women, acknowledging her special dignity. And, the Catholic Church in particular continues this regard for women.

In Pope Paul's great encyclical, Humane Vitae, he prophesied how BC would harm women most writing, "It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-contraceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion." p.14

Then there's JP II Apostolic Letter, Mulieris Dignitatem on the Dignity and Vocation of Women and his new feminism.

These are only recent efforts on the part of the Catholic Church. It was the Catholic Church who throughout the centuries, ransomed women and children, open homes for abandoned girls and sought the education of women for the betterment of society.

Posted by: Patricia at March 17, 2008 8:50 AM


Bethany, if everybody had the good relationship you and your husband do, then I certainly would feel better.

I realize we see things differently, it's just the "submission" deal that bugs me.

Best,

Doug

Posted by: Doug at March 17, 2008 9:19 AM


Patricia, I'm not saying that Christ was nasty to women, nothing like that. Yet today, many women around the world have a bad deal, IMO, in part due to religious influence where they live.

And agreed that religion can do good, and that it has done much good.

Posted by: Doug at March 17, 2008 9:23 AM


"A given pregnant woman may or may not acknowledge your beliefs, but she does have the right to end a pregnancy if she doesn't want it."

MK: That would be your opinion. Not fact.

No, MK, it's two different things. I realize that you and I disargree on whether she should have the right, but the legality of it is outside both our opinions. In some societies the woman has less rights.
......

It would be my opinion that she does not have this right. And I would and did hold that opinion independent of my Catholic Faith. That is the point I am trying to make. My faith backs up my position. My position does not come from my faith. You are confusing the two. Saying my opinion is based on Catholic teaching is like saying you hold your opinion because you are an atheist.

I didn't do that. I just noted that you have your beliefs, and that includes that "abortion is wrong." Religion doesn't even have to come into it, there. You consider the unborn as "persons" but not everybody does. I'd just say that some things you feel don't apply to others because they don't hold the same beliefs as you.
......

You are an atheist, and you hold the opinion, but not because you are an atheist. I am a Catholic, and I hold my opinion, but not because I am a Catholic. Were you to become a Hindu, you would still hold that opinion. Were I to become an atheist, I would still hold mine. Our opinions are independent of, not because of, our faith or lack of it...

I'm agnostic, not atheist. There's no more way to prove there are no gods than there is to prove they exist. I agree with you that changing religion doesn't necessarily mean one's opinions will change, but often it proves out.

Posted by: Doug at March 17, 2008 9:30 AM


I realize we see things differently, it's just the "submission" deal that bugs me.
Best,
Doug

I understand. You've seen a lot of bad examples of this rule being implemented in a perverted way.

Men, who by their selfish desires, read only the parts of the Bible that they want to read, see that part about the men being the head of the home, and say "Oh that means that I'm supposed to be the ruler of my wife!" Without also noticing the rest of the passages which say that they are supposed to love their wife as themselves. I have seen many examples of this as well, and understand where you are coming from.

One of the things I hate, more than anything in the world, is when people use God to excuse their sinful lifestyles. I don't mind if they want to use atheistic or philosophical excuses for their actions. But if they want to pervert the Word of God, that is when I get angry. It is very insulting, and gives those of us who truly do want to obey God's word a bad name. I know what the Bible says and it definitely doesn't excuse a man mistreating his wife.

So, just wanted to let you know, I do understand where you're coming from. The submission in the Bible is a willing, happy yielding of the woman to the husband...not a forced submission. I promise!

If it were the way that you picture it, I would be against it!

Posted by: Bethany at March 17, 2008 9:41 AM


mk:

Were I to become an atheist, I would still hold mine.

I became an atheist, and I still hold my view that abortion is killing a human being. :)

Posted by: Jen R at March 17, 2008 9:43 AM


"A given pregnant woman may or may not acknowledge your beliefs, but she does have the right to end a pregnancy if she doesn't want it."

This is your opinion Doug, but what is it based upon? Have you considered the act itself, the intention, the results of the act, and whether it brings about good or evil?

A person (atheist agnostic or otherwise) can know what is morally right by the use of reason and through human experience. The first precept of natural law is that good is to be done and evil avoided. However it's not enough to know the good as one needs to be a person who knows the good, chooses it and executes the good act.

Posted by: Patricia at March 17, 2008 9:48 AM


Right there with ya, Bethany! My husband is the head of our household. I submit. Does that mean I don't have a thought in my head or an opinion that I cannot share? Hardly. We are a team but Patrick is accountable to God for how he treats his wife and family. I would not want to be in that position!!

Posted by: Carla at March 17, 2008 9:51 AM


Doug,
You consider the unborn as "persons" but not everybody does.

However, I would submit that the argument that the unborn babies are not "human persons" is not a valid argument. You can say that's My opinion just as I can say that the above quote is YOUR opinion. However, my opinion is based on fact and sound reasoning which pro-aborts simply refuse to accept. They began with the blob of tissue statements in the 1970's and are now down to the "it's not a person" argument. However, their reasoning in which the (in)humanity of the unborn is based on stage of development and location are inconsistent and irrational.

Posted by: Patricia at March 17, 2008 9:56 AM


@Doug,

does a 5 yr-old desire candy? If this 'child' were diabetic, would the mother be negligent/remiss in her role if she did not forbid her child from eating the candy?

You constantly duck behind the nebulous ... 'not everyone thinks as you do' .... some people do not think st all ... are laws (freedom) a reflection of not thinking about it?

John

Posted by: Anonymous at March 17, 2008 10:06 AM


"I realize we see things differently, it's just the "submission" deal that bugs me."

Doug,

Pius XI lays out the MEANING of the whole "submission" idea in Casti Cannubii.

"27. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.

28. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact . "

Understood properly, it makes perfect sense, I believe.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 17, 2008 10:16 AM


Peter Kreeft put told this story:

There was a young man who, suffering from delusions, believed that he was dead.

His psychiatrist noticed that he had an aptitude for medicine and set it up that he should go to med school.

He graduated with honors and became a doctor.

The day after graduation, the doctor sat him down and said "Well, now that you are a doctor, tell me, do dead men bleed?"

"Of course not" replied the young man.

"You're sure? You are absolutely positive that dead men don't bleed"...asked the psychiatrist again.

"Absolutely positive" replied the young man. It is impossible.

"And you still believe that you are dead" asked the psychiatrist.

"I don't believe it" replied the young man, "I know it".

With that the doctor pulled out a pin and stuck the man in the finger. Sure enough, the young man began to bleed.

"Well, what do you say now" asked the psychiatrist.

"I say I was wrong" replied the young man. "Dead men do bleed"...

This is the fautly reasoning that the prochoice movement has employed in defending the right to abortion.

Taking innocent life is wrong.

Abortion take innocent life.

Then taking innocent life must not be wrong...

Bad logic, bad morals.

Taking innocent life is wrong.

Abortion takes innocent life.

Abortion is wrong.

Good logic, good morals.

Posted by: mk at March 17, 2008 10:21 AM


Wow, Bobby - a really good post!

Posted by: Patricia at March 17, 2008 11:51 AM


Thanks, friend. Isn't it beautiful?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 17, 2008 11:54 AM


Bobby,

Did that come from the Catholic Catechism? Really? The Catholic Catechism?

Well, I'll be dipped! And it was based on scripture and everything...;)

Posted by: mk at March 17, 2008 11:58 AM


So, just wanted to let you know, I do understand where you're coming from. The submission in the Bible is a willing, happy yielding of the woman to the husband...not a forced submission. I promise! If it were the way that you picture it, I would be against it!

Bethany - good deal. Maybe it's just the wording that gets to me, as well. If it's a partnership, should there really be "submitting" on the part of one, in the first place? If anything, both should be willing to submit to the other at times, and I think in practice that's the way good relationships work, regardless of religion or not being involved.

Posted by: Doug at March 17, 2008 12:09 PM


It's from the encyclical MK! I'm just finishing off Humanae Vitae - quite good and quite easy to read!

Posted by: Patricia at March 17, 2008 12:15 PM


"A given pregnant woman may or may not acknowledge your beliefs, but she does have the right to end a pregnancy if she doesn't want it."

This is your opinion Doug, but what is it based upon? Have you considered the act itself, the intention, the results of the act, and whether it brings about good or evil?

Patricia, based upon humans having the Birth Standard for ages, the world over, and upon women being allowed to have abortions, at least to a point in gestation. I realize that having an abortion was wrong for Janet, Carla, etc., as well as other women, yet it was right for Erin, for example, and other women too. Good or evil is in the eye of the beholder, and as always it depends on what is wanted. If the primary desire is for the unborn life to continue, then abortion will be seen as wrong, on balance. It also doesn't consider the woman, there. If, as in my case, the strongest wish is for women to be able to choose, as they are now, then abortion won't be seen as "wrong," necessarily.
......

A person (atheist agnostic or otherwise) can know what is morally right by the use of reason and through human experience. The first precept of natural law is that good is to be done and evil avoided. However it's not enough to know the good as one needs to be a person who knows the good, chooses it and executes the good act.

The reason and experience still all go to desire. More later, if you want - I gotta hop on a plane.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at March 17, 2008 12:15 PM


Doug,
Somebody has to be the "head" so to speak. Both spouses can submit to the other, but in reality, sometimes one partner may be submitting or giving 150%!
Men and women have different roles in marriage - the man to be the head in rule, the woman in the heart!
Men who don't become the head of the home cause just as many problems as women who try to rule it!

Posted by: Patricia at March 17, 2008 12:18 PM


MK,

Patricia is right. It came from the 1930 encyclical Casti Connubbi by Pope Pius XI.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 17, 2008 12:18 PM


Doug,

"Good or evil is in the eye of the beholder"

This is moral relativism at it's best! That there is no objective good or evil simply is not so.

It is irrational to hold the position that an act can be good for one person or bad for another. It is either right to kill and unborn baby or it is wrong to kill an unborn baby.

Posted by: Patricia at March 17, 2008 12:21 PM


"It is either right to kill and unborn baby or it is wrong to kill an unborn baby."

or neutral.

Posted by: Hal at March 17, 2008 1:21 PM


Jill,

As someone who uses birth control pills, I can say for a fact that all the risks you speak of were made known to me by my doctor. I still chose to use them anyway, fully aware of what I was doing. You constantly have to claim that women are being exploited, even though they know the risks. All drugs have risks, Jill. I could show you the insert my pills come with, and you would see that none of the possible side effects are sugar coated. I would never claim that birth control pills are exempt from the fact that all drugs have risks.

I daresay your blind need for every woman to want to be married and pregnant is demeaning and has no respect for the individual desires of women. Contrary to your "fact" that all women really want is marriage and children, many women choose to do other things that are not conducive to the idea of your "ideal" family.

Back to the drugs in the drinking water: if estrogen in the water supply is causing infertility in men, and other unwanted side effects in those not using birth control or HRT, what do you propose is the method of action we should take? Would you have birth control outlawed, or would you take measures to clean up the filtration practices and sewage treatments that allow tainted water to seep into the groundwater?

Posted by: Lyssie at March 17, 2008 1:25 PM


"Good or evil is in the eye of the beholder"

This is moral relativism at it's best! That there is no objective good or evil simply is not so.

Yeah it is, Patricia. You think it's better for the unborn life toi continue, regardless of the woman. I say it's better to let the woman choose, either way, even if it means the unborn life ends.
.....

It is irrational to hold the position that an act can be good for one person or bad for another. It is either right to kill and unborn baby or it is wrong to kill an unborn baby.

No it's not - and Jill's blog is a good example. There are people here for who abortion was bad, and those for who it was good.

Posted by: Doug at March 17, 2008 2:00 PM


Patricia: However, I would submit that the argument that the unborn babies are not "human persons" is not a valid argument. You can say that's My opinion just as I can say that the above quote is YOUR opinion. However, my opinion is based on fact and sound reasoning which pro-aborts simply refuse to accept.

Nope - while the physical reality of human, living organism is there - that's the factual part - personhood is an attributed status. As a society we do not grant it to the unborn, though an argument can be made that a limited form exists with respect to the restrictions on post-viability abortions.
......

They began with the blob of tissue statements in the 1970's and are now down to the "it's not a person" argument. However, their reasoning in which the (in)humanity of the unborn is based on stage of development and location are inconsistent and irrational.

We are all "blobs of tissue," in one way of looking at it. Early enough in gestation and "blob" really does apply, though IMO once the embryonic stage is underway it doesn't - my opinion.

The unborn here are just as human as you and me, but it's the fact that personhood hasn't been granted to the unborn that has you upset about the deal in the first place. Location and gestational stage don't change "human."

Posted by: Doug at March 17, 2008 2:07 PM


John: does a 5 yr-old desire candy?

Let's just say yes, for the sake of your example.

If this 'child' were diabetic, would the mother be negligent/remiss in her role if she did not forbid her child from eating the candy?

Yes, but nothing similar applies with the abortion issue. Neither you nor anybody else is analogous to the "mother" with respect to the legality of women and their choices to continue or to end pregnancies.
......

You constantly duck behind the nebulous ... 'not everyone thinks as you do' .... some people do not think at all ... are laws (freedom) a reflection of not thinking about it?

No, I don't hide behind anything. If everyone thought as you do, it wouldn't be a topic of debate. Laws are the reflection of opinions sufficient for their making, i.e. those with enough force behind them.

Posted by: Doug at March 17, 2008 2:12 PM


Posted by: Doug at March 17, 2008 2:17 PM


Bobby, let me give you a High-Five.

Well said, Pius XI !

Posted by: Doug at March 17, 2008 2:20 PM


Taking innocent life is wrong. Abortion takes innocent life. Abortion is wrong.

Maybe, MK, maybe not. Depends on the observer. It's not an "either/or" deal anyway, since there is the woman to consider.

I'm not saying the unborn are "guilty" or "to blame," but I see it as more wrong to put legal force against the woman, either way (this would include forbidding the continuance of pregnancy).

Posted by: Doug at March 17, 2008 2:24 PM


Posted by: Doug at March 17, 2008 2:26 PM


Somebody has to be the "head" so to speak.

Patricia, I just disagree with that.
......

Both spouses can submit to the other, but in reality, sometimes one partner may be submitting or giving 150%!

Yeah - have to laugh, I've heard this definition of a "partnership" as in business relationships. It's where "one person works, and two people get the money." Agreed that it's often "not fair" to an extent, by the general accepted terms of society, or by a given group's feelings, or even just between the two people.
......

Men and women have different roles in marriage - the man to be the head in rule, the woman in the heart!

No, I don't think that's right. If that's the best way for a given couple, fine and dandy, but it does not have to be that way.
......

Men who don't become the head of the home cause just as many problems as women who try to rule it!

See, that sounds like a bumper-sticker to me, acting like everybody of each sex is the same.

Posted by: Doug at March 17, 2008 2:32 PM


@Doug,


John: does a 5 yr-old desire candy?

Let's just say yes, for the sake of your example.

If this 'child' were diabetic, would the mother be negligent/remiss in her role if she did not forbid her child from eating the candy?

Yes, but nothing similar applies with the abortion issue. Neither you nor anybody else is analogous to the "mother" with respect to the legality of women and their choices to continue or to end pregnancies.
......

You constantly duck behind the nebulous ... 'not everyone thinks as you do' .... some people do not think at all ... are laws (freedom) a reflection of not thinking about it?

No, I don't hide behind anything. If everyone thought as you do, it wouldn't be a topic of debate. Laws are the reflection of opinions sufficient for their making, i.e. those with enough force behind them.
Posted by: Doug at March 17, 2008 2:12 PM
..............

Sorry Doug, just had to quote you verbatum ... this is too rich!

Though the pregnant woman may not be obvious right now, I was not specifically targeting a woman, but yours and society's role of involvement. "If her child is diabetic ( a woman is pregnant) would it be 'negligent/remiss in her role (society's role as lawmaker/supporter) if she did not forbid (pass laws) her child from eating candy (having an abortion).

It seems that your laissez faire attitude (the macho-one you are hiding behind) has many repercussions you are not willing to face. Like, whether such an attitude actually CONTRIBUTES to wishing for an abortion, realizing support just is not (nor will be) there. The staus quo has terminated the lives of millions. It's the attitude of no-big-deal that sucks, Doug. This IS a very big deal!

John

You should note that the candy was very much 'wanted' on-the-surface but such a response would result in death.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 17, 2008 3:20 PM


"
Bobby, let me give you a High-Five.

Well said, Pius XI !"

Doug, that really made sense to you? Cool!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 17, 2008 4:05 PM


Hey Patricia,

a 'head' assumes responsibility (as does being 'one who submits'). But one thing of note is the irresponsible of men, in the abortion debate' ... just ask Heather, or Mary, or ....

John

Posted by: Anonymous at March 17, 2008 5:27 PM


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html?view=screen

You guys like Schaeffer, right?

Posted by: Hal at March 17, 2008 6:56 PM


No, I don't think that's right. If that's the best way for a given couple, fine and dandy, but it does not have to be that way.
......

Doug, no one is saying it has to be that way for 'everyone'. If you'll notice, those Biblical passages are directed to the church, the body of believers. If you aren't within the church of Christ believers, you don't have anything to worry about. No one's trying to force you into anything.

Posted by: Bethany at March 18, 2008 7:54 AM


Hal,

You guys like Schaeffer, right?

What "guys"? I myself, have never heard of the guy.

Posted by: mk at March 18, 2008 8:59 AM


I was wondering the same thing, Marykay. Who is Shaeffer?

Posted by: Bethany at March 18, 2008 9:09 AM


Taking innocent life is wrong. Abortion takes innocent life. Abortion is wrong.
*
Maybe, MK, maybe not. Depends on the observer. It's not an "either/or" deal anyway, since there is the woman to consider.
*
I'm not saying the unborn are "guilty" or "to blame," but I see it as more wrong to put legal force against the woman, either way (this would include forbidding the continuance of pregnancy).
Posted by: Doug at March 17, 2008 2:24 PM

Yeah, well, Doug,

That post was about faulty logic. If you agree that taking an innocent (this is not to imply that the unborn could ever be guilty, but to point out that taking the life of a person that is guilty of a serious crime would not apply)is wrong. And that abortion is taking an innocent life (please see "innocent life clause), then logically, abortion would be wrong.

But you have just proven my point. You say taking an innocent life is wrong. Abortion takes an innocent life. Justifying abortion is more important than truth. Abortion is not wrong. Abortion takes an innocent life. Taking an innocent life is not wrong...

Posted by: mk at March 18, 2008 9:11 AM


I have to agree. If Obama was caucasian he would be one more pale face in a sea of pale faces and all his positive traits would be lost in that very sea. I think he would eventually move to the front and be recognized, but it would take awhile. Being African American (literally since his father was African) brought him to the forefront and gained him the attention of *the powers that be* - and THAT attention is really what plays. If he is the Dem candidate I will vote for him. But for the life of me every time he gives that huge grin I cant help but think of Cesar Romero playing THE JOKER in the old Batman tv series ... no insult intended since I loved Cesar Romero - but still ... it makes me giggle

Posted by: TexasRed at March 18, 2008 10:34 AM


Click on the link for an article by his son. Apparently he wrote a book called A Christian Manifesto. I had never heard of the guy, but that doesn't mean much. I hadn't heard of most of those movies you guys were talking about over the weekend. I need to get out more.

Posted by: Hal at March 18, 2008 11:02 AM


Hal,

Oh yeah that guy. I posted on him when Jill was gone. But I still don't really "know" who he is...
Jill did tho...

Posted by: mk at March 18, 2008 1:02 PM


John: Though the pregnant woman may not be obvious right now, I was not specifically targeting a woman, but yours and society's role of involvement. "If her child is diabetic ( a woman is pregnant) would it be 'negligent/remiss in her role (society's role as lawmaker/supporter) if she did not forbid (pass laws) her child from eating candy (having an abortion).

Well, this board is about abortion, John. Diabetes is going to be seen as undesirable, pretty much on a blanket basis, so you know darn well there's not going to be an argument there. But Pregnancy is much different - sheesh. It obviously won't be seen like "diabetes" by many people, heck - probably by most. Diabetic kid = one thing. Pregnant woman = another.
.....

It seems that your laissez faire attitude (the macho-one you are hiding behind)

That's silly, as is your analogy, above. If there is "macho" here or paternalism, etc., it's on your part.
.......

has many repercussions you are not willing to face. Like, whether such an attitude actually CONTRIBUTES to wishing for an abortion, realizing support just is not (nor will be) there.

I am saying that you do not have a good enough reason to have it be illegal for a woman to choose abortion, to viability. That's not "laissez faire." I am against you in your desire for women to have less freedom than they do in this matter. I don't think you can demonstrate enough real need, that we would change the law. If we are to restrict somebody, I think there really should be something provable as far as reasoning and motivation - something we all or pretty much all can agree upon, me included.
......


The staus quo has terminated the lives of millions. It's the attitude of no-big-deal that sucks, Doug. This IS a very big deal!

Yeah, it's often a big deal for a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy. I didn't tell you it's not going to be that way.

Posted by: Doug at March 19, 2008 2:43 AM


MK: That post was about faulty logic. If you agree that taking an innocent (this is not to imply that the unborn could ever be guilty, but to point out that taking the life of a person that is guilty of a serious crime would not apply)is wrong. And that abortion is taking an innocent life (please see "innocent life clause), then logically, abortion would be wrong.

No, because that's faulty logic right there, MK. "Wrong" or not is dependent on all the observer sees in the situation. Abortion is not necessarily "wrong" because the rightness of it may come from allowing the woman to do what is best.
......

But you have just proven my point. You say taking an innocent life is wrong.

Ahem. No - I said maybe, maybe not. And, even if we agreed on that point, by itself, there remains the matter of the pregnant woman, i.e. it's not by itself when we come to the abortion debate.
.....

Abortion takes an innocent life. Justifying abortion is more important than truth.

No. That is two different things. The physical reality of the life ending, and the perception of abortion.
......

Abortion is not wrong. Abortion takes an innocent life. Taking an innocent life is not wrong...

I said that I see it as more wrong to put legal force against the woman, either way - as far as forcing the continuance of pregnancy or forcing abortion.

Posted by: Doug at March 19, 2008 2:52 AM