Barack Obama pro-infanticide media coverage II

Conservative and new media are all over National Right to Life's August 11 revelation that, contrary to multiple statements otherwise, Barack Obama as state senator did indeed vote against identical legislation as the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act, putting him to the left of NARAL and every other US senator.

mums.jpgBut as Warner Todd Huston writes today on NewsBusters.org, MSM has gone "mum".

I happen to know one of the big 3 network news organizations has been sitting on this since last Thursday, going so far as to pass up the chance to break the story.

Meanwhile, The Weekly Standard has a piece on this today.

And look for something by Wall Street Journal's John Fund tomorrow....

Here's a nice example of a liberal trying to hide the truth about Obama's support of infanticide. John Wilson in yesterday's Huffington Post wrote:

Freddoso is so obsessed with attacking Obama's support of abortion rights that the photo section of the book includes a full-page photo of Gianna Jessen, who "survived a saline abortion in 1977." What does this have to do with Obama? Absolutely nothing.

Well, actually, if Wilson had included David Freddoso's entire quote from his best-selling book, The case against Barack Obama, his readers would have concluded differently, which Wilson didn't want. Here's the page from the book (click to enlarge):

Gianna in Freddoso book 001.jpg

Interestingly, the title of Wilson's piece was, "David Freddoso's hatchet job."

And here's another little tidbit that should chill Obama's peeps. In an anti-Bush, pro-ACLU, pro-terrorist rights op ed in The Morning Call today, Nat Hentoff wrote:

I agree with Obama's reaction to the [Hamdan war crimes] trial; but if I vote for him, it will be with repugnance because he is so extreme a pro-abortionist that he opposed, in the Illinois legislature, a bill to preserve babies born alive after botched abortions.

"If"? Wow, that's coming from Obama's base.

So here's a strong opponent.


Comments:

Hentoff has always been passionately pro-life. I'm much more chilled by your characterization of his opinion as "pro terrorist rights." He believes in the Constitution, that used to be a mainstream opinion.

Posted by: Hal at August 13, 2008 5:15 PM


83 days to the election, 83 more "infanticide" posts. I doubt this "issue" will ever attract any attention from anyone other than the hard-core Obama haters, but since someone mentioned Jill's name, we will never hear the end of it...

Posted by: PPC at August 13, 2008 5:25 PM


The linked article by John Wilson in 11 pages deconstructs not only Fredosso's book, but many of the other hate smears against Obama.

Fredosso was one of the "Swift boaters" like the notorious hatemonger and bigot Corsi, who wrote the other Obama smear book.

I expect these smears, to the extent they have any effect, will backfire against McCain, whose campaign has crawled into the sewer. It is too bad, because I think McCain is a far better man than the yahoos running his campaign...

Posted by: PPC at August 13, 2008 5:53 PM


C'mon Hal:

You've got to admit that the MSM is missing the boat here and "swiftly". They are actually doing more damage to Obama than they are good in the hopes that this festering wound would not go septic. The Born Alive scandal or BOagate wasn't a scandal until he lied about it and tried to obfuscate what he did. And no amount of wound denial will heal this puppy.

PPC:

This is too big to ignore as it goes to Mr. BO's character. And Obama is not a god, immune from the consequnces of his sin which will find him out. The American public has not forgotten the consequences of having one Bill Clinton as Liar in Chief for 8 years, resounding as thoughts that will echo in the voting booth as, "do we really want another moral reprobate in office during such a time as this"? Their self-serving, self-interest answer will certainly be "no" in the majority.

Also, your post is merely an expression of wishful thinking and unfortunenatley reveals a character seemingly common among Liberals summed up as, "the truth is not worth the paper it's printed on unless of course it's in our interest to tell it".

You'd think the media would learn after Dan Rather, after Clinton, after Edwards, that it does more damage than good to withhold the truth from the American public or worse, to be found complicit in the fibbing. The MSM apparently cannot see past their own long and growing noses. They are like quack doctors who treat a curable cancer with pain killers and group therapy sessions. Might make the doctors feel good but kills the patient.

Here's the ironic part. I don't think people would have been so shocked to learn that Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. After all, he was just an inexperienced state Senator back then and has just changed his view. But, I find it impossible for Obama to admit wrong. You see, he's so wrapped up in himself and his fragile ego, he can't admit wrong. He proved it when he was willing to diss his own Pastor. He's got a charater flaw which is simply that he's arrognat and prideful, both deadly.

So, it's not simply that he voted monstrously against a bill to protect the most innocent and most vulnerable amongst us, it's just that he's been deceptive about it when the light of truth exposed it as a relevant issue. The fact that he distorted what he did rather than own up to it is trmendously damaging as he transformed it into an issue of inexperience to an issue which a voter could really be concerned about. "This guy's a liar and can't be trusted". That goes right to a voter's self interest decision making black box where the Born Alive issue went to a political position to a trust issue. Big, big, big difference and a gift to McCain.

Now, contrast this to McCain, who admitted that he did wrong when he didn't support an AZ holiday for Martin Luther King. He simply said "I was wrong". What can an opponet do with that? Beat him up and make himslef look like an idiot. McCain turned a negative into a positive and that's why Mccain will be the next President. Obama has cut his own throat, the media and Liberals sense it and subconsciuslu know it and are not wiulling to admit it. The proverbial house of cards built by Barack and Michelle on his fragile ego is about to collapse. It's as clear as day to me. He will not win the election.

And regarding your insults towards Jill. I am absolutely posiive that if abortion were to be defeated Jill would simply take her ball and go home, of course, with a huge smile on her face. You are wrong to characterize her as a fame and attention seeker. If she wanted to do that, she'd be a pro-abort, like, well, Obama. Your insults are directed at the wrong person.

Posted by: HisMan at August 13, 2008 6:24 PM


I expect these smears, to the extent they have any effect, will backfire against McCain, whose campaign has crawled into the sewer. It is too bad, because I think McCain is a far better man than the yahoos running his campaign...

Posted by: PPC at August 13, 2008 5:53 PM
...............................

I think it too bad as well. I expected dignity in McCain's campaign. I'm very dissapointed.

Posted by: Sally at August 13, 2008 6:35 PM


"The Born Alive scandal or BOagate wasn't a scandal until he lied about it and tried to obfuscate what he did. And no amount of wound denial will heal this puppy."

HisMan, there is simply no scandal here.

Posted by: Hal at August 13, 2008 6:42 PM


Hal:

Read the paper trail. It's a bona fide scandal.

Sally:

You expect dignity in McCain's campaign? Guess you're doubly dissappointed with Obama's as well then? Pastor Wright, Louis Farrakan, his Muslim and radical leftist ties, his abortion rights record....his flip flops, his bi-directional positions, his inepxerience....Obama's campaign is a quagmire of wrong.

Posted by: HisMan at August 13, 2008 6:49 PM


Freddoso is so obsessed with attacking Obama's support of abortion rights that the photo section of the book includes a full-page photo of Gianna Jessen, who "survived a saline abortion in 1977." What does this have to do with Obama? Absolutely nothing.
Well, actually, if Wilson had included David Freddoso's entire quote from his best-selling book, The case against Barack Obama, his readers would have concluded differently, which Wilson didn't want. Here's the page from the book (click to enlarge):

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

This picture has nothing to do with Obama whether enlarged or not. Clearly if Gianna's story is even true, she was not 'left to die' or 'denied life' as is your accusation to begin with. The addition of the picture is and was pointless.

Posted by: Sally at August 13, 2008 6:49 PM


If Gianna's story is true, shows the law is unnecessary since she lived long before it was passed.

HisMan:"Read the paper trail. It's a bona fide scandal."

There is no scandal here. You want scandal, how about McCain supporting Georgia (which is a fine thing to do) while not disclosing his chief foreign policy advisor was a long time paid agent/lobbiest for the government of Georgia?

Posted by: Hal at August 13, 2008 7:06 PM


Sally:

You expect dignity in McCain's campaign? Guess you're doubly dissappointed with Obama's as well then? Pastor Wright, Louis Farrakan, his Muslim and radical leftist ties, his abortion rights record....his flip flops, his bi-directional positions, his inepxerience....Obama's campaign is a quagmire of wrong.

Posted by: HisMan at August 13, 2008 6:49 PM
........................................

I expected a level of dignity appropriate for a man with experience. His campaign has taken on a childishness innapropriate for a man his age and experience. I am very dissapointed with him.
I found no validity in irrational, illogical aspersions to anyone's character.
Do you have a problem with Muslims?

Posted by: Sally at August 13, 2008 7:06 PM


There is no scandal here. You want scandal, how about McCain supporting Georgia (which is a fine thing to do) while not disclosing his chief foreign policy advisor was a long time paid agent/lobbiest for the government of Georgia?

Posted by: Hal at August 13, 2008 7:06 PM
...............................

Hal. If Jill could find a way to connect the conflict in Georgia with abortion, it would become a major concern on this blog. Give her some time.

Posted by: Sally at August 13, 2008 7:13 PM


Does anyone else think that Gianna Jesson looks rather like Jessica Lang?

Posted by: Sally at August 13, 2008 7:17 PM


Jill, HisMan, et al, the reason this issue is not gaining traction in the MSM is that there is no issue here. Zorn did a great job of debunking the whole thing here:

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/08/early-warning-h.html

Enjoy the reading. Of special note is this statement released by the Obama campaign during the senate race when Keyes tried to raise this issue the first time: "Barack Obama would have voted for H.R. 2175, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act that passed the (U.S.) Senate." Pretty much puts this thing to bed.

Posted by: Ray at August 13, 2008 7:20 PM


The MSM is badly corrupt and is basically another wing of the Democrat party. (90%) of them are vote Democrat.

They are hoping Obama wins the election. They are not on the side of pro-lifers.

Posted by: Jasper at August 13, 2008 8:12 PM


The MSM is badly corrupt and is basically another wing of the Democrat party. (90%) of them are vote Democrat.

Ha ha ha, was it the corrupt MSM wing of the Democratic party that kissed up to George Bush during the election and the first few years of his administration (until they could no longer credibly deny what a disaster it was)? Democratic MSM...that's a good one!

Incidentally, Jasper, since you seem intent on calling the Democratic party the "Democrat" party (a political epithet), is it OK if I call the Republican party the "Repugnant" party?

Posted by: Ray at August 13, 2008 8:29 PM


The MSM media has given GWB a free pass. How many MSM stories have we seen about the forged letter connecting Iraq and 9/11? Not too many.

In an explosive new claim, Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Ron Suskind details how the White House directed the CIA to forge and leak a letter to help buttress its case for invading Iraq. The letter, which found its way into the hands of a reporter from London's Sunday Telegraph, seemed to show proof that the 9/11 hijackers, including Mohammad Atta, had received training from Saddam Hussein's government.

Posted by: Hal at August 13, 2008 8:39 PM


Hal:

If you hadn't noticed Georgia is a democracy that has been invaded by Russia whose president is a former KGB agent and whose desire is to return Russia back to the glory days of the Soviet Union. And yes, Russia is in general an atheistic nation that supports unfettered abortions. They too will fall under God's condemnation.

Sally:

As a matter of fact I do have a problem with a guy who claims to be a Christian with no clue as to what being a Christina means, terms an unwanted pregnancy a punishment from God, has an angry black woman for a wife, was mentored by a militant pastor who welcomed Louis Farrakan (who thinks Judaism is a gutter religion) and curses his country, voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was anti-gun and is now pro-gun, was against offshore oil drilling and is now for it.....etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Yes, especially in this day where the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims and want to "change" our country. Yes, that's change we will be forced to believe in. So no, I don't ever want a Muslim to run this country founded on Christian principles or perhaps you've never heard this quote by Patrick Henry, one of the Founding Fathers of our country: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

Tell me this Sally. Would you expect a Muslim, who rejects Christ as the Son of God, to run our country as a Christian or a Muslim?

Or didn't you know that America's very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said:
"Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."

I know, these brilliant men were just joking.

You bet I don't want a guy like Barack to be president or anyone like him. If you've got a problem with that, go discuss it with your political correctness guru or Liberal Shrink while you bow towards Mecca.

And no, it's not because Barack's black, it's because he's a dark soul. My first choice for President is the constitutional genius Alan Keyes, a black man with principles, who I believe one day, when our country is being torn about from within, as you are so willing to allow, will be the one to lead us back to our roots of freedom.

Posted by: HisMan at August 13, 2008 8:56 PM


Ray, Hal,

How many pictures of abortions have you seen from the Old Media? Why did I have to find the truth about abortion on the internet?

why the black-out?

Hal,

was George Tenet in on the scam as well? not according to him.

Ray,

the MSM/Nytimes has always hated Bush.

Posted by: Jasper at August 13, 2008 8:58 PM


HisMan: ". . .terms an unwanted pregnancy a punishment from God"

He didn't say "punishment form God."

Here's the quote (I agree with every word):

ďWhen it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include ó which should include abstinence education and teaching the children ó teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include ó it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, Iíve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I donít want them punished with a baby. I donít want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesnít make sense to not give them information.Ē

Posted by: Hal at August 13, 2008 9:15 PM


Good to know everyone here still bickers about crap...

Where is MK?

Posted by: midnite678 at August 13, 2008 9:16 PM


Hi Midnite,

MK is on vacay this week.

It's nice to hear from you again. I read that you did really well in school. Congrats.

Posted by: Jasper at August 13, 2008 9:19 PM


Thanks Jasper...Too bad she's on vacation. I am going to be super busy in fall semester (damn anatomy class) and might not be able to come by and chat..

Oh well. Hows the fam Jasper?

Posted by: midnite678 at August 13, 2008 9:25 PM


Here is some real news for everyone to fight over:

http://news.aol.com/article/gunman-kills-state-party-chairman/132098?icid=100214839x1207251337x1200400227

Posted by: midnite678 at August 13, 2008 9:29 PM


The fam's pretty good, thanks...

We'll, there's light at the end of the tunnel for you since you graduate in December... You might want to drop MK an email, she'll be glad to hear from you.

Posted by: Jasper at August 13, 2008 9:35 PM


Awesome Hal! You've shown that Obama didn't claim unintended pregnancy was a punishment from God -- just a punishment on a level with an STD.

"I donít want them punished with a baby. I donít want them punished with an STD."

I'd like to know what the hell Obama's thinking, based on any standard definition of "punishment."

If it's punishment, is it just? If so, then why evade it with contraceptives? If not, then who's perpetrating the injustice?

Good grief, what a shallow, merely rhetorical fool.

Posted by: rasqual at August 13, 2008 9:56 PM


Rasqual, Here's one conservative's take on it (who, by the way, wasn't offended)

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15074.html

If you don't like Obama because he supports abortion rights, fine. That's a legitimate dispute you have with him and more than sufficient reason not to vote for him. Do you really have to go past that and make up fake outrages and "scandals"

Posted by: Hal at August 13, 2008 10:03 PM


Hal, 10:03 p.m.

I gotta say that I agree with that assessment. The Obama-thon going on here is kind of boring to me. At least NOW it is anyway. I think the majority of people who come here have already decided who they're voting for. I personally think most of the country has as well. And if they haven't, well a few articles on the subject is fine. But article after article makes me a wee bit bored.

Not that I'm telling Jill what to write. Just sharing my opinion.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at August 13, 2008 10:09 PM


Nothing wrong with a bit of constructive cricisim Elizabeth. Good night to you and Gabriella.

Posted by: Hal at August 13, 2008 10:17 PM


"I gotta say that I agree with that assessment."

what fake outrages and scandels has Jill made up Elizabeth? nice cheap-shot.

Maybe if the MSM would cover the truth about Obama's voting record Jill wouldn't have too. It's important that as many people as possible know the truth.

and no, much of the country has not made it's mind,

Posted by: Jasper at August 13, 2008 10:36 PM


Jasper, I made up my mind MONTHS ago that I wouldn't be voting for either candidate this year.

Stephen Colbert '08! :D

Posted by: Rae at August 13, 2008 11:20 PM


Rae, I wish!!

Posted by: Amanda at August 13, 2008 11:23 PM


"Stephen Colbert '08! :D "

Rae,

That's funny, but not very mature if you are going to write in his name.

Posted by: Jasper at August 13, 2008 11:26 PM


G'sMom,
I thought you had a fire in your belly for protectiing the unborn? Why not the ones who are killed after birth? Why let Obama get away with his outrageous votes? He is a pandering sociopathic liar. The only difference in his stance today is that it has been made illegal so he doen't support it. The sum total of his convictions towards protecting the life of the unborn is to keep them from being conceived.

Posted by: truthseeker at August 13, 2008 11:27 PM


Tell me this Sally. Would you expect a Muslim, who rejects Christ as the Son of God, to run our country as a Christian or a Muslim?

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

Do you honestly think that your disconnected ramblings make any kind of sense?

Posted by: Sally at August 13, 2008 11:39 PM


Hal -

Conservative?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-benen
Really?

Not too clear a thinker, either. He says "My radar must be a little off, because I didnít see the conservative outrage coming," but then he idiotically goes on to prove he's disingenuous: "far-right bloggers were in predictably high dudgeon." So his radar was off so things surprised him, but it was all predictable?

"Does anyone seriously believe that Obama thinks of parenthood as 'punishment'?"

I just know that I'd never choose those words.

Maybe Obama doesn't choose his words well. This, from the guy who's touting his ambition to set a new diplomatic tone for America in the world?

LOL

Chicago Democrats, schooled in their Trivium by Richie Daley. Brilliant.

Posted by: Hal at August 13, 2008 11:48 PM


Hal:

I think Obama knows where babies come from so, OK, I extrapolated that the punishment he was referring to could only mean one thing.

Midnite678:

I know. I still love Hal though. I think he loves me too. You know as antagonistic buddies. He's really a good guy, we just disagree.

I know you don't like all the bickering, my wife can't stand it either. Just laugh at us and chime in with some sanity as you see fit.

Remember, iron sharpens iron.

If Obama gets elected, I'll have 4 years to torment Hal with all the screw ups and he'll have just about 100 days to say I told you so. Let's see 365 x 4 versus 100.....either way, I win. The pay back for Bush's crucifixion will be so much fun.

Rae:

Sometimes, Colbert looks real good. I mean he could torment the terrorists with laughter and meaningless jokes. You might be onto something.

I can see it now, Colbert giving Aminajad a snuggy at an Iranian/Israeli peace talk at Camp David and Aminajad signaling to his bodyguards to off Colbert's head. Do Iranians wear Fruit of the Loom or camel skin for underwear....only Colbert knows for sure....and wishes he didn't. God help us.

Hi Liz:

So you think the election is already decided? Well, if you're right, McCain wins, no? I agree, the arguning back and forth about Obamamama gets tiring, but, it's so much fun.

Imagining an Obamamanian Administration, I see him faced with an extremely angry Republican minority that will reek havoc on his ability to do anything. Every conservative will be pushing their reps to block every single judical nominee he submits and the tables will be turned on him. The Nancy Pelosi fiasco with offshore oil drilling is only the start of the chaos. And teh Dems will lose the house in 2010 signaling a conservative revolution.

Why do I say this? Because under Obama, the country, which is only about half way through this financial crisis, will be the guy in charge and all the changes we can beleive in he will make will become his programs of economic disaster. A lame duck president after only 2 years. Yeah baby.

He's not going to win though and McCain knows that to hurry up the economic cycle were going through will require a restructuring of the tax code, etc.., etc., etc. He's also going to have to get this country on an infrastructure rebuilding program that, apart from a WPA, type system, will require massive business incentives.

To put it bluntly, an Obamanable Adminstration would surely spell a depression for the country.

Posted by: HisMan at August 14, 2008 12:01 AM


Elizabeth, MK, and Rae -

My weekend in Minnie playing the leading role in "Meet The Parents" went really really well (especially considering he's just using me for sex...hahaha), but next time I'm out in that general area, we HAVE to get together. Or else. =)

Posted by: Amanda at August 14, 2008 12:11 AM


Jill, we need to keep at least one Obama expose live outside of the archives at all times.

Posted by: truthseeker at August 14, 2008 12:12 AM


I'll only vote for Colbert if he gets to bring his writing staff along with him.

Posted by: Ray at August 14, 2008 12:12 AM


Amanda,

has your boyfriend given you a ring? Has he proposed?

Posted by: Jasper at August 14, 2008 12:23 AM


No, as I said, he's just using me for sex. He paid to fly me out to meet his family just to get my hopes up. hehehe. =)

Posted by: Amanda at August 14, 2008 12:30 AM


Good times for the McCain fans..

"And also I feel that - and I'm not trying to equivocate here - that Americans want us to work together," McCain added. "You know, Tom Ridge is one of the great leaders and he happens to be pro-choice. And I don't think that that would necessarily would rule Tom Ridge out."

Posted by: PeachPit at August 14, 2008 12:39 AM


@Amanda: I would have met yah had I not pwn'd my elbow the night before (I was soooo mad, I was spitting nails...or at least I would have been if that were biologically possible).

@Jasper: it's totally mature to vote for Stephen Colbert- it's better than not voting at all, which is my other option. Leaving the "presidential" vote blank.

I'm voting 3rd party for Minnesota's senator election (because Coleman is a Bush lapdog and Franken's a crook).

Posted by: Rae at August 14, 2008 12:39 AM


You know this is all too funny. McCain tries to get us into a war in the Republic of Georgia and he's the pro-life one. He doesn't want to leave Iraq or Afganistan. He even sang - bomb iran - bomb iran! Obama is a bit too conservative for me, but I think he's better than someone than a wife-ditching war-monger. You read that right... McCain ditched his first wife, while she was in the hospital!

The narrow lens by which you condemn others while leaving others to seem blameless is either horrible ignorance or blatant partisanship. I'm trying to think of which would be a more kind description....

Posted by: Yo La Tango at August 14, 2008 2:11 AM


Jill,
great job and keep it up. the fact that Obama sends his spies to dig on this blog shows that it is working. Did you see OReilly last night. One of Baracks defenders actually said that Jesus would be even more radical on abortion than Obama.

Posted by: maria at August 14, 2008 7:36 AM


Yo,
Yet, you condemn McCain.....

Posted by: Carla at August 14, 2008 8:00 AM


Does anyone else think that Gianna Jesson looks rather like Jessica Lang?

Sally, I see a cross between Jessica Lang and Brooke Shields.

Posted by: Doug at August 14, 2008 8:38 AM


No, you guys all didn't get what I was trying to say here. I mean, most people here already have decided who they're voting for. I could even tell you who most people here are voting for, so I really don't think the non-stop Obama articles are going to change anyone's mind. Especially the people who AREN'T voting for him already.

THIS is what I agreed with what Hal wrote just to reiterate:

"If you don't like Obama because he supports abortion rights, fine. That's a legitimate dispute you have with him and more than sufficient reason not to vote for him."

I think most of us can agree with that, RIGHT?

I don't need it played over and over for me to not be voting for Obama. I don't think many others do either, they've already made up their mind *I* think. Like I said, I wasn't telling Jill what to write, just stating my opinion on what she DOES write.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at August 14, 2008 9:26 AM


G'sMom,
new people visit this blog all the time.

Posted by: truthseeker at August 14, 2008 9:49 AM


Elizabeth,

I agree for us, we know the story.

But, this site gets tens of thousands of hits (90,000) last month I believe. So, they are many people who view the site but do not comment.

Posted by: Jasper at August 14, 2008 9:58 AM


Sending out the same old hit men to smear Obama as smeared Kerry in 2004 certainly suggests that McCain = Bush.

Corsi got sliced and diced on Larry King last night. When confronted with his racist, anti-semitic and anti-Catholic hate rants, Corsi said he "apologized for them". Turns out, one of his "sources" is a nutball who has been permanently enjoined from filing frivolous lawsuits, and who was sanctioned for calling a federal judge a "dirty Jew". What a guy!

So where is the post on McCain's statement that he might pick a pro-choice vp? The MSM is all over that one.

Posted by: PPC at August 14, 2008 10:03 AM


"No, as I said, he's just using me for sex. He paid to fly me out to meet his family just to get my hopes up. hehehe. =)"

Amanda,

We're just looking out for you. There are men out there who are just in it for sex with no other attachments.

Posted by: Jasper at August 14, 2008 10:04 AM


Yes, Amanda you women-folk get all flustered and need men to "look out for you". The foundation of the "pro-life" movement- a bunch of old white guys telling women what to do, and not to do.

So let's all vote for the best old white guy of all! Mc Cain in '08!

Posted by: PPC at August 14, 2008 10:36 AM


Yes!! Let's!!

Posted by: Carla at August 14, 2008 10:42 AM


a bunch of old white guys telling women what to do, and not to do.

Hmm...racism?

Posted by: Bethany at August 14, 2008 10:55 AM


Bethany, you can't be serious.

Posted by: Hal at August 14, 2008 11:25 AM


Of course not, I was being sarcastic to make a point. ;) I'm in a goofy mood today.

Posted by: Bethany at August 14, 2008 11:46 AM


Okay. Phew.

Have a nice day

Posted by: Hal at August 14, 2008 12:15 PM


You too, Hal.:)

Posted by: Bethany at August 14, 2008 1:00 PM


Hi folks,

I see you are still at it, but sadly have resolved little. Over many months I kept wondering if Doug is right when we presume certain attitudes, then what is vital is these underlying attitudes. Perhaps we mouth the same words but 'speak' (mean) very different things ... for PL 'life' is a cherished reality, with an inestimable high value.

For PC 'life' is ho-hum/definitely within MY(human) control and is far within the rubrics of choice. 'With death life is over.' - is a paraphrase of this attitude AND IT IS A STATEMENT OF FAITH.

Maybe, just maybe, this 'fight' is about the concept of control-by-death. Just as the ultimate practitioner of this is suicide, its all FAITH -really- BELIEVING 'That's it!' Another age-old axiom asks us to 'kill the bastards'. PC gladly follows this 'rule' .... Doug justifies it ... Hal embraces it. Since quite literally the unborn are unwanted bastards .... the only way to 'solve' this problem is to kill the bastards. And they are not even persons, just 100% BASTARDS ... always (at any stage) only bastards.

Maybe Shakespeare should have written: "To kill or not to kill, that is the question."


John McDonell .... I'm back!

PS ... PAX Midnite, glad you are doing so well in academics.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 14, 2008 4:16 PM


John McDonell!!! It's great to see you again!!!!!

Posted by: Bethany at August 14, 2008 4:56 PM


John:

Welcome backkkkkkkkkkkkkk my friend.....awesome!!!!!

Hope you're doing well.

Posted by: HisMan at August 14, 2008 6:38 PM


John,

It's nice to hear from you again!!

Hope everything is well :)

Posted by: Jasper at August 14, 2008 6:40 PM


Hello John McD!
So good to hear from you again. How are you?

Posted by: Janet at August 14, 2008 7:53 PM


Johnny McD - welcome back, Buddy.


Over many months I kept wondering if Doug is right when we presume certain attitudes, then what is vital is these underlying attitudes.

Ha! Right out of the gate you lost me. We have attitudes and make unprovable assumptions, but I don't see what you mean by "presume certain attitudes" (other than perhaps with respect towards other people.

And that is what you do when you say For PC 'life' is ho-hum. Some Pro-Choicers want kids more than some Pro-Lifers. There are some kids of Pro-Choicers who are loved more and treated better than some kids of Pro-Lifers. Seems to me you're the one generalizing incorrectly and presuming about other people.
......


Another age-old axiom asks us to 'kill the bastards'. PC gladly follows this 'rule' .... Doug justifies it ... Hal embraces it. Since quite literally the unborn are unwanted bastards

Is this referring to kids without married parents - the "age-old" thing? You know it's not nearly the stigma it once was.

I don't justify that or anything similar. Hal doesn't embrace it. And in no way are the unborn "unwanted bastards" - you are greatly mischaracterizing things and generalizing incorrectly. Things are not all one way.

Posted by: Doug at August 14, 2008 8:11 PM


Avoid Naming Party of Democrats in Scandals, But Identify Republicans Media Double Standard
In recent years the mainstream media have repeatedly demonstrated a double standard in properly identifying the party of Republican politicians in scandals, but rarely highlighting the party affiliation of Democrats mired in bad behavior.

(?) Detroit Mayor Kilpatrick Leads a Democratic Group, Yet Nets Refuse to Name His Party
(R) Nets Don't Hesitate to Properly Identify Ted Stevens as Republican
(?) ABC, CBS and NBC All Fail to ID Indicted Mayor as a Democrat
(?) 'Straight Arrow' Governor 'Eliot Ness' Spitzer (?-NY)
(?) For Second Night, ABC and NBC Refuse to Utter Spitzer's Party ID
(?) ABC Finally IDs Spitzer as Democrat, NBC Fails to for Third Night
(R) Study: No (D) for Spitzer, But Vitter and Craig Always Tagged as GOP
(?) Study: How Disgraceful Democrats Maddox and Traficant Lose the "D"
(?) Study: Nets Fail to Label Gary Condit as a Democrat in 92% of Levy Stories

Posted by: Jasper at August 14, 2008 9:19 PM


Ah Doug,

blind as ever ... all the unborn are bastards because they are not 'persons' ... aren't legal ... but they are living human progeny - just denied their 'human' place ... or should I say: their human face ((( all the talk of 'fetus' as if some kind of invader from Mars )))

I finally have some way out of 'the box'. Many in 'the box' firmly believe that all reality is an intellectual extension of their mind. ie. God exists as a quasi-extension of human belief systems. If so, explain fabrication/non-existence of a physical opposition like pain.

John
John

Posted by: Anonymous at August 14, 2008 9:53 PM



Very well written John.

I titled Doug, "Dogma Doug" and basically was called upon to stop such attacks upon "Dogma Doug". Thoughts precede a single letter being written, and one's "attitude", writes the words in your mind before they "hit reality", on paper or a keyboard.

When a person(Doug) writes that " no one has a good argument against" killing human beings "at this post board", you know you have come upon a true dogmatic preacher for killing human beings.

Interestingly John, Dogma Doug doesn't think that absolute truth/morals exist, but absolute truth/morality drips from every word that Dogma Doug writes in his faith for killing human beings.

A simple question for Doug is; Do you have faith and believe that the words you write in matters concerning abortion,are absolutely truthful Dogma Doug?

To which the dogmatist Doug must reply that all words he writes in matters of killing human beings are absolutely true.

Now that's a attitude that has boxed Dogma Doug into never firing a new neuron in his brain.

Posted by: yllas at August 15, 2008 12:23 AM


Hey John, welcome back!

"If so, explain fabrication/non-existence of a physical opposition like pain."

Exactly. Experience of incorrigible sensations point to the existence of a mind; some part of our being that is immaterial.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 15, 2008 8:14 AM


And welcome back, Yllas.

Just drop the "Dogma" part when speaking to Doug and we can sing kumbaya together.

Posted by: carder at August 15, 2008 9:44 AM


all the unborn are bastards because they are not 'persons' ... aren't legal ...

Okay, John, I can see the parallel there, yet with "illegitimate" children it was a classification for all (kids whose parents weren't married at birth), while in the matter of elective abortion it's a case-by-case basis. So again, you're generalizing.
......


but they are living human progeny - just denied their 'human' place ... or should I say: their human face ((( all the talk of 'fetus' as if some kind of invader from Mars )))

Well, that's what we're discussing - their "human place," if you will.
.....


I finally have some way out of 'the box'. Many in 'the box' firmly believe that all reality is an intellectual extension of their mind. ie. God exists as a quasi-extension of human belief systems.

John, as far as "the box," referring morality to a 'fixed point' like "God" is just about the most Cartesian deal going, eh? (Heh.)

There are things like physical reality, logic, etc., which exist independently of the mind, which are not mental perceptions, whereas morality does not exist independent of the mind, and is a mental perception.
.....


If so, explain fabrication/non-existence of a physical opposition like pain.

How about saying that in "layman's terms"?

Non-existence? There is the conscious response to various stimuli that we call pain - so, uh...?

Posted by: Doug at August 15, 2008 11:47 AM


I titled Doug, "Dogma Doug" and basically was called upon to stop such attacks upon "Dogma Doug". Thoughts precede a single letter being written, and one's "attitude", writes the words in your mind before they "hit reality", on paper or a keyboard.

Yes, yllas, the weakness of your "argument" (heh - if it can even be called that) is such that you're reduced to silly ad hominems, and everybody saw it. Your frustration with being confronted by the truth mounted to the extent that you had a couple remarkable meltdowns, after which, so to speak 'the men in the white coats' - in this case the moderators, wrapped you up and set you down for your own good. As I've said before, you are nothing new - this has happened over and over on internet message boards since they began.
......


When a person(Doug) writes that " no one has a good argument against" killing human beings "at this post board", you know you have come upon a true dogmatic preacher for killing human beings.

:: chuckle:: No, you know that you asked me a question (one that already you're attempting to change the wording of), and that I gave you an honest answer. I realize how foreign such a thing is to you, but once again, when confronted by the truth, you try to mischaracterize things. I gave you my opinion. I leave the dogma to you.
......


Interestingly John, Dogma Doug doesn't think that absolute truth/morals exist, but absolute truth/morality drips from every word that Dogma Doug writes in his faith for killing human beings.

:: yawn:: Again, straw man arguments from you. There is no "absolute morality," no, but there is plenty that exists independently of the mind - logic, physical reality, etc. Syllogisms and existence are there whether you or I acknowledge them or are even aware of them. When something is a matter of opinion then in no way do I claim any differently.
......


A simple question for Doug is; Do you have faith and believe that the words you write in matters concerning abortion,are absolutely truthful Dogma Doug?

That's more than one question. I have told you the truth, yes, but that is not the same as saying that everything I say is necessarily true for everybody else. It's a given that much in the abortion debate is opinion, personal preference, etc., and I make no bones about it. It can be "absolutely true" that my opinion is a certain way, and if I tell you that, then I've been "absolutely truthful" on that matter, but this is not to say that my opinion is "absolutely true" in any external sense. (And even you can understand that.) You make that mistake (to be charitable) while I do not.
......

To which the dogmatist Doug must reply that all words he writes in matters of killing human beings are absolutely true.

No, that's just one more outright lie from you. Once again, lies, absurd fantasies, and things taken out-of-context are your approach.
.....

Now that's a attitude that has boxed Dogma Doug into never firing a new neuron in his brain.

:: snicker :: Being boxed for two weeks didn't do much for you.

Posted by: Doug at August 15, 2008 12:05 PM


Bobby: Experience of incorrigible sensations point to the existence of a mind; some part of our being that is immaterial.

Bobby, granted that we don't know everything about the mind - heck, there is a lot that we don't know, but why do you see it as being necessarily immaterial?

Posted by: Doug at August 15, 2008 12:16 PM


Hey Doug. The reason is because in order for two things to be the same, they must share a common category and have all the same properties. So some will equate an idea of say a Cathedral with neurons firing off in the brain. Granted there is a correlation there. But to quote everyone's favorite blow-off-of-evidence phrase, correlation does not imply causation. The neurons in my brain that fire off when I think of a cathedral have certain spacial relations. What are the spatial relations of my idea of a cathedral? The neurons have a particular color, shape, size etc. What is the color, shape size, etc of my idea of the cathedral? An idea does not have the same kinds of physical properties that materialists would like to equate to neurons in the brain. Hence they can not be the same thing because in order for two things to be the same, it is NECESSARY that they share all properties in common. Thus there is some part of me (an idea) that is not material.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 15, 2008 12:27 PM


Bobby, we don't know if the "mind" is material or not. Perhaps we are not detecting the type of 'material' that it is yet. We don't really know what thoughts are, what ideas are, but to say that they are not material is to insert something which is unproven in what for now is a gap in our knowledge.

There are physical effects - a thinking brain versus an unthinking one gives off different emanations, as does one with one of several emotions.

"Cathedral" - cool word from which you can make a whole slew of other words. An idea doesn't share all properties with the physical object, no, of course not, but just because they aren't all the same does not mean they don't share any properties at all, such as being material.

Posted by: Doug at August 15, 2008 2:44 PM


incorrigible sensations

Had to laugh, here, also, Bobby. At first it didn't seem right to me, and I thought, "I bet he means 'incorporeal,'" but then I figured you did mean it.

Posted by: Doug at August 15, 2008 2:47 PM


"Your frustration with being confronted by the truth mounted to the extent that you had a couple remarkable meltdowns, after which, so to speak 'the men in the white coats' - in this case the moderators, wrapped you up and set you down for your own good. As I've said before, you are nothing new - this has happened over and over on internet message boards since they began."

Doug 12:05 P.M.


Amanda said it best, about yllas:

Yllas -

honest question...

when you post all of this garbage, do you think you're being deep and profound?

I'm not trying to be mean, but if you haven't noticed, even people who probably agree with your basic points don't respond or discuss your posts, and many pro lifers as well as pro choicers completely ignore your posts because they're ususually just rambling, insult riddled tangents. No one thinks you're clever except you. It might benefit you to cool down the alliterations, stupid nicknames, and rhetoric, as well as your lovely habit of making assumptions and putting words in people's mouths.

I've found the people who post here, even if I vehemently disagree with them, have at least a little something to say thats worth thinking about. You are the only exception. Again, I'm not trying to be mean...unless you enjoy not being taken seriously...in that case, by all means...

Posted by: Amanda at June 25, 2008 2:53 PM

Posted by: Simone Simone at August 15, 2008 6:20 PM


Sorry Doug,

have just returned from shopping ...

"all the unborn are bastards because they are not 'persons' ... aren't legal ...

Okay, John, I can see the parallel there, yet with "illegitimate" children it was a classification for all (kids whose parents weren't married at birth), while in the matter of elective abortion it's a case-by-case basis. So again, you're generalizing.
......"
=That is just the point Doug ... bastards ARE illegitimate children .... so we have children-preborn and therefore all of 'em (wanted or unwanted)are NOT legal-persons .... illegitimate. The huge discrepancy between being 'wanted' and 'not-wanted' is not even recognized in law.

you asked for layman's terms .... well if you were kicked in the nuts ... you would have a tremendously hard time saying that the sensation of pain is only a fabrication and is not
universal ... can any mind be so detached from shearing pain that it believes it is a fabrication.

Pain is not so simple when a child dies - run over by a truck. Yep, it is pain! And Christians share pain (of the Cross, when we in-the-name-of-religion, kill God.) Not believing is s-o-o-o- easy! The agnostic is a fence-sitter!

The notion of immateriality is quite simple if you follow Aquinas ... the mind is immaterial because it is the source of thought which is immaterial. Neurons circulating are the parts of a material brain ... mind =/= brain.

John

Posted by: Anonymous at August 15, 2008 7:44 PM


John,

I've been studying a lot of philosophy since I last "saw" you, and I'm finally starting to understand your posts, haha. It is very well worth it to start to comprehend what you're saying. You're just on this level, man. God love you, bro.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 15, 2008 9:45 PM


That is just the point Doug ... bastards ARE illegitimate children .... so we have children-preborn and therefore all of 'em (wanted or unwanted)are NOT legal-persons .... illegitimate. The huge discrepancy between being 'wanted' and 'not-wanted' is not even recognized in law.

John, "illegitimate" was a common perception, but that is not nearly as much the case anymore. And they had legal rights in the first place - being born citizens, etc. There is no "absolute" ARE that necessarily applies there. Society's position can change, and it did with respect to kids whose parents weren't married when they were born. You don't hear much about "bastards" anymore except in the pejorative sense as with most "curse words."

Likewise, being wanted or unwanted makes a difference. It indeed is recognized in law - it's legal for a woman/doctors to end her pregnancy, without restriction, to a point in gestation. That's the unwanted case.

In the wanted case, it's not legal for somebody else to harm the embryo or fetus.

For clarity - woman goes in to see a doctor since she doesn't want to continue the pregnancy. Doctor aborts the embryo/fetus. Legal.
Another woman goes in to see a doctor since she is due for a checkup in relation to her wanted pregnancy. Doctor aborts the embryo/fetus. Not legal, the doc is in big trouble, etc.

The difference is whether the unborn were wanted or not.
......


you asked for layman's terms .... well if you were kicked in the nuts ... you would have a tremendously hard time saying that the sensation of pain is only a fabrication and is not
universal ... can any mind be so detached from shearing pain that it believes it is a fabrication.

Ha! Okay, Dude, good job. I wouldn't deny the pain, indeed. What seemed odd to me was where you said:

explain fabrication/non-existence of a physical opposition like pain

Odd because I don't think it's "fabricated" in the first place. Granted that we can feel pain - that's a premise I'm willing to accept. ; )

Some minds can be very detached from pain, but that is not to say that the belief will be that pain is "fabricated," since the nerve impulses are still there. So, anyway, yes - in general we certainly feel the physical, mental and emotional types of pain.
.....


Pain is not so simple when a child dies - run over by a truck. Yep, it is pain! And Christians share pain (of the Cross, when we in-the-name-of-religion, kill God.) Not believing is s-o-o-o- easy! The agnostic is a fence-sitter!

John, on the religious stuff - no point in arguing back and forth about it. Some people have certain beliefs, some don't. It's awfully easy to embrace unprovable beliefs when the emotional need to do so is there, rather than really look at what is true for all of us.
.....


The notion of immateriality is quite simple if you follow Aquinas ... the mind is immaterial because it is the source of thought which is immaterial. Neurons circulating are the parts of a material brain ... mind =/= brain.

"Quite simple" yes, and quite circular. Granted that neurons are material, but though we don't know all of the nature of thought, that does not necessarily mean that thought is immaterial. There's the old "God of the Gaps" thing and what are we tending toward now - the "Immateriality of the Gaps"?

Is it possible for a brain/mind to have thoughts is there is no electrical activity? What's the most we can say? "Maybe"?

Posted by: Doug at August 15, 2008 9:52 PM


Ah Doctrine Doug,

It's quite simple.

Do you believe every thought you make known to others in the matter of killing human beings(abortion) are absolutely consistent with fact and reality?

Being the subjective kinda guy you are Doug, I bet you have to answer yes. Because if you answer that you are not absolutely consistent with fact and reality in matters of killing human beings, you might give this board one or more examples of your not being absolutely consistent with facts and reality in matters of abortion.

I admire a person with such a powerful, consistent, authority of facts and reality.

Now, no person begins as a absolute system of ideas of right and wrong conduct that is consistent of facts and reality in matters of killing human beings.
Do they Dogma Doug?

Is that not absolutely true Dogma Doug?

Is that not a absolute objective, consistent fact of reality independent of your internal self?

Is abortion nothing more then a thought brought to physical reality by action of a neuron commanding the physical action, Dogma Doug?

Now, you have declared your thoughts to this board, that abortion is a action that pre-dates recorded history Doug. You have written that statment to me several times.

Is that statement,concerning the fact that abortion pre-dates history, a absolutely consistent fact of reality, consistent with your ideas of right and wrong conduct, Doug?

Be careful Doug, remember you have written you know "internally" that you always have thought consistently of fact and reality in matters of abortion, or killing human beings.

But, let me ask you a simple question Dogma Doug, if there is no history of abortion since it pre-dates history, how do you know that abortion was performed before history?

So, Doug, one must conclude your statement concerning pre-history abortion is not based on a consistent with fact or reality, or you have a time machine that let you "internally know" pre-history abortion,and now knows the history of pre-history abortion facts and reality.

Or, your unable to know that your not being consistent to facts and reality from being absolutely "internally" consistent about facts and reality in matters of abortion.

Or, does a liar know he is not being consistent to with facts or reality when the liar knows every word that he writes is internally consistent to his facts and reality, Doug?

Care to admit you have written a statment that is not consistent with facts and reality concerning pre-history abortion Dogma Doug?

Rationalize the answer Doug. But, when one separates the mind from the truth, one enters the world of facts and reality of the dogmatic pro-killer of human beings.

P.s. Look up the definition of this word Doug, at houghton miflin;TRUE.





Posted by: yllas at August 16, 2008 3:17 AM


Ah Doctrine Doug,

It's quite simple.

Do you believe every thought you make known to others in the matter of killing human beings(abortion) are absolutely consistent with fact and reality?

Being the subjective kinda guy you are Doug, I bet you have to answer yes. Because if you answer that you are not absolutely consistent with fact and reality in matters of killing human beings, you might give this board one or more examples of your not being absolutely consistent with facts and reality in matters of abortion.

I admire a person with such a powerful, consistent, authority of facts and reality.

Now, no person begins as a absolute system of ideas of right and wrong conduct that is consistent of facts and reality in matters of killing human beings.
Do they Dogma Doug?

Is that not absolutely true Dogma Doug?

Is that not a absolute objective, consistent fact of reality independent of your internal self?

Is abortion nothing more then a thought brought to physical reality by action of a neuron commanding the physical action, Dogma Doug?

Now, you have declared your thoughts to this board, that abortion is a action that pre-dates recorded history Doug. You have written that statment to me several times.

Is that statement,concerning the fact that abortion pre-dates history, a absolutely consistent fact of reality, consistent with your ideas of right and wrong conduct, Doug?

Be careful Doug, remember you have written you know "internally" that you always have thought consistently of fact and reality in matters of abortion, or killing human beings.

But, let me ask you a simple question Dogma Doug, if there is no history of abortion since it pre-dates history, how do you know that abortion was performed before history?

So, Doug, one must conclude your statement concerning pre-history abortion, is not based on being consistent with fact or reality, or you have a time machine that let you "internally know" pre-history abortion,and now knows the history of pre-history abortion facts and reality.

Or, your unable to know that your not being consistent to facts and reality from being absolutely "internally" consistent about facts and reality in matters of abortion.

Or, does a liar know he is not being consistent with facts or reality, when the liar knows every word that he writes is internally consistent to his facts and reality, Doug?

Care to admit you have written a statment that is not consistent with facts and reality concerning pre-history abortion Dogma Doug?

Rationalize the answer Doug. But, when one separates the mind from the truth, one enters the world of facts and reality of the dogmatic pro-killer of human beings.

P.s. Look up the definition of this word Doug, at houghton miflin;TRUE.





Posted by: yllas at August 16, 2008 3:21 AM


Do you believe every thought you make known to others in the matter of killing human beings(abortion) are absolutely consistent with fact and reality?

See above, yllas. You're just playing stupid as far as not recognizing that while an individual can make a true statement as to their beliefs, in no way is that the same thing as stating that it's true for all/necessarily true in any external way.
.....

Being the subjective kinda guy you are Doug, I bet you have to answer yes.

We're all subjective to an extent, but of course not - external fact and reality are not all there is within this discussion, your purposeful obtuseness notwithstanding.

Again, with you it's outright lies, taking things out of context, absurd fantasies, etc., same old same old.

Posted by: Doug at August 16, 2008 11:00 AM


Hi Doug.

the classic example of immateriality is in the word 'seat' ... as in 'seat of government'. One would waste much time in searching Washington to find such a 'seat'. Any thought is immaterial ... has to be .... human thought is based on comparison ... part of abstraction. In a concrete universe of 'unique thing-ness', there will always be a distinction, even one infinitely small. But in a world of comparison like human thought such fine distinction can be dismissed. We humans insist on the superiority of abstraction over actuality.

The world of so-called 'concrete-ness' is boring. As true, is immateriality like love, courage; faith; peace; hope; fidelity; avarice, honesty, integrity ... on and on!

Posted by: Anonymous at August 16, 2008 11:13 AM


yllas: Now, you have declared your thoughts to this board, that abortion is a action that pre-dates recorded history Doug. You have written that statment to me several times.

No, again you're lying.

I quote you when I reply to you. Why don't you quote what you are replying to, rather than just make stuff up?

There are descriptions of abortions, mentions of them, going way back, thousands and thousands of years, to the times of the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, etc. Nobody told you anything about stuff that "pre-dates recorded history" (chuckle) - that's something that arose within your own mind.

Posted by: Doug at August 16, 2008 11:16 AM


The world of so-called 'concrete-ness' is boring. As true, is immateriality like love, courage; faith; peace; hope; fidelity; avarice, honesty, integrity ... on and on!

John, you're quite a romantic at heart, and I agree with Bobby - You're just on this level, man.

I think that all or most of us have the desire for there to be "something more," something "out there," etc., to varying degrees.
......


the classic example of immateriality is in the word 'seat' ... as in 'seat of government'. One would waste much time in searching Washington to find such a 'seat'. Any thought is immaterial ... has to be .... human thought is based on comparison ... part of abstraction. In a concrete universe of 'unique thing-ness', there will always be a distinction, even one infinitely small. But in a world of comparison like human thought such fine distinction can be dismissed. We humans insist on the superiority of abstraction over actuality.

Very nice, John. I hear you, and I do understand about abstractions.

Tell you what, though - in Washington you'll find plenty of BIG seats.... if you know what I mean.

Seems to me that you're insisting on the superiority of immateriality over a physical nature that we don't understand yet for thought, emotion, etc., or at least the presence of it.

Always interested in what you have to say,

Doug

Posted by: Doug at August 16, 2008 11:23 AM


John, in thinking about it, there's a continuum of people figuring out that what was once thought to be supernatural or immaterial is in reality accounted for by our physical universe, i.e. the "aether" and lightning/thunder, etc.

Of course, in no way does this rule out the presence of immaterial things. But the door is open to discovering the way things work and what they're made of, nevertheless.

The nature of thought is a very cool subject, IMO.

Posted by: Doug at August 16, 2008 11:30 AM



Well Doug, you have written that "abortion pre dates" history.



There are descriptions of abortions, mentions of them, going way back, thousands and thousands of years, to the times of the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, etc. Nobody told you anything about stuff that "pre-dates recorded history" (chuckle) - that's something that arose within your own mind.

Posted by: Doug at August 16, 2008 11:16 AM

Now, Doug, since you need your words to be seen to be believed by you, notice the above statement of yours at 11;16 AM.

Care to direct me to the source of such interpretations of "desciptions" of killing human beings by abortion?

You and I know that the bible is open to "description", much less some scratching on stone, that is being "interpreted" by some person that empircally was not there, when those scratching on stone, were put on the stone,don't we Doug?

So, are your sources and your interpretations of those sources of stone scratchers absolutley consistent with the facts of reality at the time the thoughts were put to stone?

What faith you have in those that "describe" reality, and make them absolute facts of reality, when they were not alive when those thoughts were put to stone.

It's a guess is all it is Doug.

But, your mind has internalized the facts of your reality as being absolutely consistent with the reality of some long ago time, so you may be consistently right in your conduct of killing human beings.

Your quite powerful Doug, your absolutely consistent with the facts of reality.

Why, in your reality and facts of your thoughts, you never wrote the words that "abortion pre-dates history", right Doug?

You absolutely did not write that "abortion pre dates history"?

Are you absolutely consistent with the facts of reality that you did not write those words Doug?

Do you remember every thought you have written at this site Doug?

Such authority and power of your neurons ability to remember every word you wrote is..... why God like.

Again, one must conclude a certain percentage of dogmatic reality occurs internally within Doug when his facts of reality are simply asked of him.

Given time, you'll write the same words at this site, and once again think that others are not being absolutely consistent with the facts and reality of your thoughts, because they are disphemistically.... nothing but liars of your facts and reality.

Aint' that absolutely true Doug?

I like you Doug, your a invincible authority, and your ability to never not write a thought that is not consistent with the facts of reality arising in your mind.

P.s. I knew you were intelligent enough to rationalize away the fact of reality that you wrote "abortion pre dates history" with a denial of the fact that you wrote those words Doug.
Hey, "that's just the way it is", Doug.
Think Doug, did you write those words in quotes Doug?


Posted by: yllas at August 16, 2008 2:01 PM


Over many months I kept wondering if Doug is right when we presume certain attitudes, then what is vital is these underlying attitudes.

John, here, did you mean that what would be vital is that which is within us, versus that which is external to us?

Posted by: Doug at August 16, 2008 5:45 PM


Well Doug, you have written that "abortion pre dates" history.

yllas, I don't think I have. I've said that abortion goes way back in history, well before biblical times, but what evidence would there be "before history"? That's why I don't think I've said that.

if you have a quote of me doing so, let's see it. Otherwise it seems that it's just one more of your "errors" to put it fairly kindly. Abortion pre-dates biblical times, and that is what I think you are remembering. Now, if you want to speculate, then would the first abortion have been done before somebody wrote about it or otherwise recorded it in such a manner that we know of it today? Very likely, eh? So, as a guess, I'd now say that abortion pre-dates the history of it. That's not saying it "pre-dates" history, necessarily, but now I think you have a better grasp of things.
.....


Care to direct me to the source of such interpretations of "desciptions" of killing human beings by abortion? You and I know that the bible is open to "description", much less some scratching on stone, that is being "interpreted" by some person that empircally was not there, when those scratching on stone, were put on the stone,don't we Doug? So, are your sources and your interpretations of those sources of stone scratchers absolutley consistent with the facts of reality at the time the thoughts were put to stone?

Again, this isn't about the Bible, here. I guess it's a fair enough question about where I read it - it's come up numerous times over the years, and the fact that some people had abortions in the time "before Christ" isn't really at issue. Seems silly for you to ask, since you have the resources of the internet at your fingertips, and for example you could start with "Middle Assyrian Laws" We're talking over a thousand years before biblical times here.

At some time it became illegal for a woman to self-induce an abortion. There is debate whether this was a general prohibition against abortion or if the law was protecting the right of the husband to decide, either way, akin to the rule in ancient Rome where the "man of the house" basically could do just about anything.

Here is one mention of it: http://tinyurl.com/6rzoxb

Anyway, it's no secret that abortions were performed back then and that there were laws against it some places and in others there weren't laws. While the Assyrians prohibited it, at least in some situations, the ancient Romans and Greeks approved abortion, and promoted it as population control. That's not saying that everybody in those countries was for legal abortion. There were definitely some that were against it, while Plato and Aristotle, for example, were for it.

Furthermore, it's hard to believe that you're questioning this stuff....
.....


You absolutely did not write that "abortion pre dates history"?

I don't think so, or else you're taking something way out of context, which you have a massive propensity to do. As I said, if you've got a quote, let's see it.

Now that I think about it, as above, it would seem to make sense that the practice of abortion pre-dates the history of that, but again - that's not saying it simply "pre-dates history," and that's why I don't think I'd have said that.
.....


I like you Doug,

I don't believe you. I've pointed out your errors, falsehoods, logical failings, the things you've conjured up out of whole cloth, etc., so many times....
.....


your a invincible authority, and your ability to never not write a thought that is not consistent with the facts of reality arising in your mind.

No, I'm just sensible and truthful, things which appear to be mighty foreign to you.


Posted by: Doug at August 16, 2008 6:29 PM


Hi Doug,

"Over many months I kept wondering if Doug is right when we presume certain attitudes, then what is vital is these underlying attitudes.

John, here, did you mean that what would be vital is that which is within us, versus that which is external to us?
Posted by: Doug at August 16, 2008 5:45 PM"

Great thought because that keeps asking "Will the real me come foreword?" I'm afraid the habit comes from my Dad. He would have strangled any one of my 6 sibs (or me) if we had not mulled over our thoughts first before speaking them. This is now so routine that such is common practice and much of that which has remained unspoken is garbage ... much of what is spoken by my lips also has an 'odour' .... of innocence maybe ...

No, like you, I think that debate is more about hidden presumptions and not so much about what has been expressed in words. Much too often a debate is about the clash of often irrational/religious presumptions.

Unlike you though, (MK's forte) triumphing in a debate is about hugging a new friend, rather than wiping-out the opposition. The attitude then is not one of competition and superiority but of seeking ... searching and seeking ... and listening for the pain that we all have. ... as close to universal as anything I've encountered.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 16, 2008 7:39 PM


John, yeah, I guess you are an "innocent" in some ways.

We are complex beings, and the bringing out of those hidden presumptions, into our understanding, both from other people and from ourselves, is a very important part of the abortion discussion, IMO.

I also don't think there is any presumption about abortion that is necessarily "rational" or "moral" in a vacuum - it always has to start with something that's wanted, some premises accepted and then we can go on our way, be it logical or illogical.

MK can argue like crazy, too, "like a dog with a bone" was her own self-description at least once, I think.

and listening for the pain that we all have. ... as close to universal as anything I've encountered.

Love ya, man. You're a sweet guy, John.

Posted by: Doug at August 16, 2008 9:30 PM


I don't think so, or else you're taking something way out of context, which you have a massive propensity to do. As I said, if you've got a quote, let's see it.

Posted by: Doug at August 16, 2008 6:29 PM


Wait a minute, Doug doesn't think sooo???
Are you now having some problem with consistent facts and reality of your own thoughts Doug?

You wrote "abortion pre dates history" as surely as you wrote " no one has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do".

You see Doug, you aren't able to understand a consistent fact of reality from doing what comes natural to a person unable to understand yourself.

What you accuse me of, is really your self acting upon your own your errors, falsehoods, logical failings, the things you've conjured up out of whole cloth, etc., so many times.

Notice your own thoughts there Doug?

I didn't use a quote or time stamp in the above sentence, but your words are within that paragraph above.

But, I shall have to make it more simple for ya Doug, since you have this ability to parse every person's words at this site.

You just did it with my post by taking a few sentences of mine, and making your facts of reality fit into your consistent facts of reality, and conduct.

A sentence here, a sentence there, of the other person, and soon Doug has fabricated his consistent facts and reality that allow his invincibility of facts and reality to triumph once again over any and all human beings he shares his reality with.

Another words, it's the words that you don't copy/paste from other human beings that move past your consistent facts of reality.

As for some link to abortion and Babylon,etc, I find that nothing more then some person interpreting acts of human beings from a time before they were born.

My point was your invincibility to be absolutely consistent with facts of reality, and the contradiction of writing that abortion pre dates history, as a fact of reality.

I thought you might be capable of stating that murder pre-dates history as a analogy of your dogmatic thoughts for the killing of human beings, by abortion. You didn't. Or defecating, or breathing, or eating.

You silly boy, can't admit writing one inconsistent fact of reality on matters of abortion which arises from your interpretation of your own facts and reality.

Who you gonna believe Doug, yourself, or another person that actually is mimicking you down to your own words being used and not knowing that fact of reality???

Do you absolutley know that I'm being consistent with facts and reality of your words Doug, or not just using your reality of facts as a mimic of yourself?

Oh well, that's just the way it is, with Doug. A failure to know when another is mimicking him from trying to be as invincible and authoritative in matters of abortion and the attributes of abortion.











Posted by: Anonymous at August 17, 2008 5:28 AM


Above post was me, Yllas.

Posted by: yllas at August 17, 2008 5:31 AM


Posted by: Doug at August 15, 2008 12:05 PM:

No, that's just one more outright lie from you (yllas). Once again, lies, absurd fantasies, and things taken out-of-context are your approach.
______________

Doug, don't you think you are wasting your time with yllas?

Posted by: Elizabeth at August 17, 2008 6:06 AM


Well Elizabeth,
this whole post board is lies, absurd fantasies, and things taken out-of-context.

Sheer propaganda is a consistent fact of reality at this board. Is it not? Or do you think that your not a propagandist and everyone else is the propagandist? That your consistent with facts and reality, as is Doug, who can't even admit making one inconsistent thought in his facts and reality?

Here's a fact of reality Elizabeth.
Many days at this site there are more pro-death advocates posting, then those that want to stop their pro- death progress.
Why is that a fact of reality at this post board?

Hey, abortion, "that's just the way it is" Elizabeth, and your not able to muster enough posters to outnumber those that have made abortion legal,safe, and abundant.

Well, at least that is what Doug uses to end a argument against his consistent facts of reality.

And when one states that it is just the way it is Elizabeth, that's just the way it is.




Posted by: yllas at August 17, 2008 8:21 AM


Doug, don't you think you are wasting your time with yllas?

Elizabeth, several people have suggested that I am, but who am I to get impatient with other people?

We post because we like to do it.

Posted by: Doug at August 17, 2008 1:54 PM


Many days at this site there are more pro-death advocates posting, then those that want to stop their pro- death progress. Why is that a fact of reality at this post board?

yllas, for the love of all things holy, this is a message board on a blog.

"Post board" - that just sounds awkward.

No, "pro-death" is in your mind. You are either confused or just being willfully obtuse - that's not what Pro-Choicers are about. If you find somebody who is actually pro-death or pro-abortion, then they are just as anti-choice as you.

Posted by: Doug at August 17, 2008 1:57 PM


Above post was me, Yllas.

Girl, like we'd never have known....

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


"I don't think so, or else you're taking something way out of context, which you have a massive propensity to do. As I said, if you've got a quote, let's see it."

yllas: Wait a minute, Doug doesn't think sooo???

:: laughing :: I knew you'd like that. ; )
......


Are you now having some problem with consistent facts and reality of your own thoughts Doug?

No, I just don't remember every phrase I've written here, that's all. I've said that abortion pre-dates biblical times, that there are references to it going back thousands or years beforehand, but I don't think I've said that it necessarily "pre-dates history" period.

Do you remember everything you've written here? Perhaps you do, and if so that's gotta be fairly painful for you....
......


You wrote "abortion pre dates history" as surely as you wrote " no one has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do".

That's where I don't believe you. You don't have any quotes, and with your penchant for making up baloney, this seems like just one more item in what is a massive pattern for you.

If you seriously are maintaining that I said it, what was the context?
.....


What you accuse me of, is really your self acting upon your own your errors, falsehoods, logical failings, the things you've conjured up out of whole cloth, etc., so many times.

So you can copy what other people say? So what? I admit when a thing is my opinion. I admit that a thing may not be provable, and if we are to consider "abortion pre-dates history" in a vacuum, then a case could be made for it.

How far back does "history" go? If somebody had an abortion prior to that, then there you go.
......


you have this ability to parse every person's words at this site.

Many times we see somebody begin with a falsehood or a logical error, etc., and then they try to build upon that. Going step-by-step to reveal the errors is often a good way to approach it.

Or, as I often do with you, one can just point out the first lie or illogical action, thus rendering the rest moot.
......


As for some link to abortion and Babylon, etc, I find that nothing more then some person interpreting acts of human beings from a time before they were born.

:: chuckle ::

"Babylon"?

The point is that far back in history, people were having abortions, laws were made about them, and the treatment of abortion as to legality and as to those who had abortions varied from society to society. Surely you don't think it's false that abortion was known and practiced more than a thousand years before Christ?

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


Hi Doug,

One of my quad-buddies who calls himself 'lucky' shared the following with me ...

At a fundraising dinner for a school that serves learning-disabled children, the father of one of the students delivered a speech and offered this question: "When not interfered with by outside influences, everything nature does is done with perfection. Yet my son, Shay, cannot learn things as other children do. He cannot understand things as other children do. Where is the natural order of things in my son?"

The audience was stilled by the query. The father continued. "I believe, that when a child like Shay, physically and mentally handicapped comes into the world, an opportunity to realize true human nature presents itself, and it comes in the way other people treat that child."
Then he told the following story:

Shay and his father had walked past a park where some boys Shay knew were playing baseball. Shay asked, "Do you think they'll let me play?"
Shay's father knew that most of the boys would not want someone like Shay on their team, but the father also understood that if his son were allowed to play, it would give him a much-needed sense of belonging and some confidence to be accepted by others in spite of his handicaps.
Shay's father approached one of the boys on the field and asked (not expecting much) if Shay could play. The boy looked around for guidance and said, "We're losing by six runs and the game is in the eighth inning. I guess he can be on our team and we'll try to put him in to bat in the ninth inning."
Shay struggled over to the team's bench and, with a broad smile, put on a team shirt. His Father watched with a small tear in his eye and warmth in his heart. The boys saw the father's joy at his son being accepted.
In the bottom of the eighth inning, Shay's team scored a few runs but was still behind by three. In the top of the ninth inning, Shay put on a glove and played in the right field. Even though no hits came his way, he was obviously ecstatic just to be in the game and on the field, grinning from ear to ear as his father waved to him from the stands.
In the bottom of the ninth inning, Shay's team scored again. Now, with two outs and the bases loaded, the potential winning run was on base and Shay was scheduled to be next at bat.
At this juncture, do they let Shay bat and give away their chance to win the game? Surprisingly, Shay was given the bat. Everyone knew that a hit was all but impossible because Shay didn't even know how to hold the bat properly, much less connect with the ball.
However, as Shay stepped up to the plate, the pitcher, recognizing that the other team was putting winning aside for this moment in Shay's life, moved in a few steps to lob the ball in softly so Shay could at least make contact. The first pitch came and Shay swung clumsily and missed.
The pitcher again took a few steps forward to toss the ball softly towards Shay. As the pitch came in, Shay swung at the ball and hit a slow ground ball right back to the pitcher.
The game would now be over. The pitcher picked up the soft grounder and could have easily thrown the ball to the first baseman. Shay would have been out and that would have been the end of the game.
Instead, the pitcher threw the ball right over the first baseman's head, out of reach of all team mates. Everyone from the stands and both teams started yelling, "Shay, run to first! Run to first!" Never in his life had Shay ever run that far, but he made it to first base. He scampered down the baseline, wide-eyed and startled.
Everyone yelled, "Run to second, run to second!" Catching his breath, Shay awkwardly ran towards second, gleaming and struggling to make it to the base.
By the time Shay rounded towards second base, the right fielder had the ball ... the smallest guy on their team who now had his first chance to be the hero for his team. He could have thrown the ball to the second-baseman for the tag, but he understood the pitcher's intentions so he, too, intentionally threw the ball high and far over the third-baseman's head. Shay ran toward third base deliriously as the runners ahead of him circled the bases toward home. All were screaming, "Shay, Shay, Shay, all the Way Shay"
Shay reached third base because the opposing shortstop ran to help him by turning him in the direction of third base, and shouted, "Run to third! Shay, run to third!"
As Shay rounded third, the boys from both teams, and the spectators, were on their feet screaming, "Shay, run home! Run home!" Shay ran to home, stepped on the plate, and was cheered as the hero who hit the grand slam and won the game for his team.
"That day", said the father softly with tears now rolling down his face, "the boys from both teams helped bring a piece of true love and humanity into this world". Shay didn't make it to another summer. He died that winter, having never forgotten being the hero and making his father so happy, and coming home and seeing his Mother tearfully embrace her little hero of the day!

AND NOW A LITTLE FOOTNOTE TO THIS STORY:
I believe that we all can and do make a difference. We all have thousands of opportunities every single day to help realize the "natural order of things." So many seemingly trivial interactions between two people present us with a choice: Do we pass along a little spark of love and humanity or do we pass up those opportunities and leave the world a little bit colder in the process?
A wise man once said every society is judged by how it treats it's least fortunate amongst them.

May your day, be a Shay Day
May the Sun bring you new energies by day,
May the moon softly restore you by night,
May the rain wash away any worries you may have,
And the breeze blow new strength into your being,
And then,all the days of your life,
May you walk gently through the world and know its beauty and yours.


there are so many lessons to learn here: 1) One could very easily place their own name wherever 'Shay' appears. or 2) if you are Christian, it would be just like Jesus to be Shay. I can just hear the protesting now! 3) instead of 'have a Shay Day' .... shouldn't it be ...'have a Doug Day'? Do'nt we all need to be encouraged to meet life's challenges ... like Elizabeth and Carla ... and not think that death/killing will solve anything!

John

Posted by: Anonymous at August 17, 2008 2:43 PM


John, (you "innocent" you) I've seen "Shay" before. It's an old theme that's undergone many alterations over time. Snopes.com or other urban legend sites go into it quite a bit.

A real-life version of a thing somewhat similar is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fw1CcxCUgg
.....


Don't we all need to be encouraged to meet life's challenges

Hard to say. What if one is already meeting them? What if one is seen by others as already too-compelled to seek out challenges? Just how much "challenge" does a given person need? Aren't these really philosophical questions?
......

... like Elizabeth and Carla ...

Two very good people that I like very much. With regard to what I think is the best bet for their long-term happiness, I'm not sure - they both seem to be in a pretty good place right now. Do they really need encouragment? To me, they seem pretty sure of their course at the present time.
.....

and not think that death/killing will solve anything!

That makes it a much different question, with much more presupposed.


Posted by: Illiterate Doug at August 17, 2008 4:09 PM


shouldn't it be ...'have a Doug Day'?

John, for a long time I've felt that we all are quite separate from one another, thinking our own thoughts, wearing them as our daily skin.

There can be great communication, but it's not like two brains can really be "wired" together so that two people could truly experience as the other does.

There is great value in understanding others, IMO, and it'd be great to really be "in the other person's shoes" for awhile, most times.

In thinking about what you said:

the pain that we all have... as close to universal as anything I've encountered.

I have to disagree with that. Aren't there those who are "basically happy"? I've seen sadness, sometimes profound sadness, in some people, but then there are those like a few of my co-workers and myself (IMO) where I really don't think "the pain" is present.

Sure, not everything is perfect and there are ups and downs, and some degree of challenge and struggle is good, but I just don't think "the pain" is even close to universal.

Posted by: Doug at August 17, 2008 4:19 PM


Well Elizabeth, this whole post board is lies, absurd fantasies, and things taken out-of-context.

Posted by: yllas at August 17, 2008 8:21 AM
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
______________________________________


Elizabeth knows as well as anybody that you're dissembling and being disingenuous. How many people even bother replying to you? You get freakier and freakier and lose control and then the real yllas comes out, characteristics of sexual repression and perversion in full display.

This followed a time when Carder bent over backwards to try and be nice to yllas, and all yllas did was crap all over her.

From the Moderators' "Deleted" file, some revealing quotes from yllas:


[What is the name of a person that is having sex with a parent? Mother-fu--er.]

[You are one low life SOB]

[Posted by: yllas at June 29, 2008 12:00 AM]


[until this low life SOB]

[Posted by: yllas at June 29, 2008 12:09 AM]


[you low life SOB]

[Posted by: yllas at June 29, 2008 12:21 AM]

[Jess are you having sex with your parent]

[Posted by: yllas at June 29, 2008 12:30 AM]


[I don't want a damn thing deleted soo you can look at your words until you understand that your SCUM.]

[Posted by: yllas at June 29, 2008 12:40 AM]

Posted by: Ghost of Christmas Past at August 17, 2008 5:41 PM


WE SHALL NOT FORGET

It's hilarious that "Laura" got banned, given Yllas's performance the last two nights.

I'm going to copy the posts, since the moderators will delete them. Wouldn't want anybody to forget, though.... Muhahahahahahahahhaahahaa

Posted by: Laura Laura at June 29, 2008 1:37 AM

Yllas, you are not suitable for Jill Stanek's blog.

Not that you have any shame, but please - shut up. If you claim to be pro-life then you are an embarrasment to us.
Miriam

Posted by: Miriam at June 29, 2008 2:42 AM

Posted by: Ghost of Christmas Past at August 17, 2008 5:56 PM


the 'pain',

that I speak of is much closer than most of us acknowledge. How 'deep' can it be? Well as 'deep' and abiding as fear ... a few souls call it 'a thirst'. others 'the desert'. Its like the pain of loneliness when someone is married.

Humour and pain are often like two sides of a coin rather than opposites ... ask an Irishman at the wake of kinfolk. Often the most devout are hilarious people. I remember one gent - the caretaker of a church - who could keep a person in stitches for literally hours. And not a single put-down; curse word or sexual reference would happen. He was so jolly I think his ruby coloured cheeks developed crease lines to make him appear to be always cheerful.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 17, 2008 5:57 PM


"Some of my posts have been deleted before for saying something personal about someone."

LOL - Jess, Yllas is certainly going to have quite a few posts deleted after her psychotic break tonight.

Ah well... the signs have been there all along.

The first moderator who comes along is going to whack a whole bunch of posts hee hee hee..

WHEEEEEEEEEEE

Posted by: Terry G. at June 29, 2008 1:06 AM

Posted by: Ghost of Christmas Past at August 17, 2008 5:58 PM


Yllas, you idiot. What's to prevent children from reading Jill's blog?

Posted by: Velma at August 17, 2008 7:46 PM


the 'pain', that I speak of is much closer than most of us acknowledge. How 'deep' can it be? Well as 'deep' and abiding as fear ... a few souls call it 'a thirst'. others 'the desert'. Its like the pain of loneliness when someone is married.

Humour and pain are often like two sides of a coin rather than opposites ... ask an Irishman at the wake of kinfolk. Often the most devout are hilarious people. I remember one gent - the caretaker of a church - who could keep a person in stitches for literally hours. And not a single put-down; curse word or sexual reference would happen. He was so jolly I think his ruby coloured cheeks developed crease lines to make him appear to be always cheerful.

John, I've met people like that too. Somebody once said, "We laugh that we may not cry." I think the Irish know the deal with wakes. If I had to pick "the best person I know" it could well be a Father Keyes - a Catholic priest who married my sister (who performed the marriage ceremony for her and her husband) ten years ago. My sister lives north of Boston, Massachusetts, and the Catholic Church there has been through some stuff, but to talk to Father Keyes is amazing. He simply has good will toward people. That sentence there isn't very dramatic, but he affected me profoundly.

So, I wonder what is that best thing for me to do.

I wanted to take you up in a hot air balloon. Triumphing in a debate is about hugging a new friend. This you said and this I do believe is true. You and I have been at times implacable foes (so to speak) yet I felt friendly toward you from the beginning.

We all have our deserts, and I think we should all go through them. And/or we should always keep a piece of them with us. I don't see "the pain" as such an individual deal. I'm a Pisces and I've felt pain all around, in many people, part of the human condition, etc. Oh, what suffering there is out there!

I'm very glad you're back, and I feel there's been a coming-closer for you and me.

I gotta ask you - what do you mean by the pain of loneliness when someone is married?

Posted by: Doug at August 17, 2008 11:26 PM


Hi Doug,

"I gotta ask you - what do you mean by the pain of loneliness when someone is married?
Posted by: Doug at August 17, 2008 11:26 PM"

loneliness seems to be kind of a doorway to the kind of pain we are speaking about. There is a very disturbing sense of inadequacy about us. And this isn't stage-fright as it is about the fear of somehow not being a good-enough Dad/brother/lover .... not of sexual performance but knowing you belong here ...

For many years I've wondered why so many people get married (aside from the sex and love part) and I think marriage is a type of affirmation/belonging ..... being complete/whole. It is an abrupt 'learning-pain' when we learn that marriage does not remove any loneliness (this 'pain' is not escaped via marriage) ... the way it is expected to.

I chose both Elizabeth and Carla because they are such superb people - and super strong. But they, like me, know that our 'strength' comes from a deep sense of being held and comforted by ANOTHER. Hard to explain! HisMan (and MK and Bobby B.) are very close.


John

Posted by: Anonymous at August 18, 2008 10:44 AM


John, very nice conversation. Let me say once again - I've never met anybody like you in my whole life.

I thought you were going to say that when someone else got married it made you feel lonely.

I think we all have that "feeling of inadequacy" you mention, but it varies so greatly that some of us are paralyzed by it, while others are almost unaffected, leaving the masses somewhere in the middle.

The sense of "belonging" you mention is very important in my opinion. How hard not to feel that one "belongs." I also think the individual does a lot to affect that, i.e. it's not all coming from outside, from other people. We make our own place.
.....


For many years I've wondered why so many people get married (aside from the sex and love part) and I think marriage is a type of affirmation/belonging ..... being complete/whole. It is an abrupt 'learning-pain' when we learn that marriage does not remove any loneliness (this 'pain' is not escaped via marriage) ... the way it is expected to.

I was 37 when I met my wife-to-be online, and she was 35. She moved in with me within 6 months, and we lived together for almost 3 years before getting married.

We didn't view getting married as "removing pain." She really wanted it, and I was okay, either way - I was committed to her in my own heart, and that was enough. There are some matters of long-term security (I guess) and there is some social status to being married versus just living together, though of course the difference is nothing like it once was.

We did pledge to each other, and now we've been married almost 9 years. A great thing about our marriage was the ceremony and party that followed - both families and many friends having a great time, a time that nobody forgot, I assure you.

Afterwards, my wife was somewhat bummed out that I really didn't feel any differently now that we were married. But heck - I felt the same as before, and I felt the same about her. I'd known it was good all along. Our getting married was indeed an affirmation, but not one that was essential to me. My wife may feel some of that pain you mention (that's not removed by marriage) but I have little if any of it. She's always had the feeling that she'd never be "totally happy," from childhood.

I don't see it that way. How can one be "totally happy"? That implies that one would want for nothing, want nothing, etc., i.e. have nothing to look forward to, and how is that "happiness"? I guess that's philosophical.
.....


I chose both Elizabeth and Carla because they are such superb people - and super strong. But they, like me, know that our 'strength' comes from a deep sense of being held and comforted by ANOTHER. Hard to explain! HisMan (and MK and Bobby B.) are very close.

Perhaps it is hard to explain, but I don't think it applies as universally as you feel. "Another" - could be God, could be other people, eh? Does everybody really need that? That's what I question. I am glad to be married to my wife, and to have her whole family and mine, all our friends and co-workers and acquaintances, etc., but often I am very solitary, at work, in a motel room like right now, etc., and I'm quite happy with the way things are.

I would say that a great amount of the strength of an individual comes from within them, versus coming from others.

Posted by: Doug at August 18, 2008 11:26 PM


Bobby, we don't know if the "mind" is material or not. Perhaps we are not detecting the type of 'material' that it is yet. We don't really know what thoughts are, what ideas are, but to say that they are not material is to insert something which is unproven in what for now is a gap in our knowledge.

DOUG,

Couldn't you say the same thing about God? We don't know if God is material or not? Perhaps we are not detecting the "kind" of material HE is yet?

You accuse us of believing in fantasies, and yet you have chosen NOT to believe via the same route.

There is no proof that God is real. There is no proof that He is not. So a choice must be made.

We choose to believe that His "Material" has not been captured/confined/defined, you have chosen to believe that without that concrete box, He does not exist.


We don't really know what God is, Who He is, but to say that He is not material is to insert something which is unproven in what for now is a gap in our knowledge.

Why are you able to think this way when it comes to "thought" but not to the ultimate "THOUGHT"?

For John and I (and others) God is the ONLY real thought, the thing that we draw everything else from. To claim to know anything, without acknowledging it's source, to us, is like discussing a tale of two cities while claiming that Charles Dickens did not exist. Taking all of the lessons, and truths from the book, but denying the author. It just doesn't make sense to us.


Posted by: mk at August 19, 2008 8:26 AM


Couldn't you say the same thing about God? We don't know if God is material or not? Perhaps we are not detecting the "kind" of material HE is yet?

MK, most def.
....


You accuse us of believing in fantasies, and yet you have chosen NOT to believe via the same route.

No, because I'm not stating there are no gods.
.....

There is no proof that God is real. There is no proof that He is not. So a choice must be made. We choose to believe that His "Material" has not been captured/confined/defined, you have chosen to believe that without that concrete box, He does not exist.

Nope, again, that's not my position. You're right - there's no proof either way, so why not just say "maybe" and "we don't know"?

The reason many people go with "yea" or "nay" without real, independently verifiable proof is because they have the emotional need to do so. People don't like uncertainly, in general, and way back when it was comforting to think that a god was responsible for thunder & lightning, rather than just admitting the cause was unknown.

I don't agree with atheists who say there is no God, but it's not a big deal to me - they're welcome to their beliefs. Same for those who state there is a God. The trouble starts when people begin acting like their beliefs in this area must necessarily apply to other people.
.....


We don't really know what God is, Who He is, but to say that He is not material is to insert something which is unproven in what for now is a gap in our knowledge.

Agreed - and it doesn't make sense to me for people to go that route since there's no proof of such a negative in the first place.
.....


Why are you able to think this way when it comes to "thought" but not to the ultimate "THOUGHT"?

Well, I am able.
.....


For John and I (and others) God is the ONLY real thought, the thing that we draw everything else from. To claim to know anything, without acknowledging it's source, to us, is like discussing a tale of two cities while claiming that Charles Dickens did not exist. Taking all of the lessons, and truths from the book, but denying the author. It just doesn't make sense to us.

I think you want an "ultimate" thing. Long before we get to a deity, the individual has to be conscious, etc., otherwise there wouldn't be any such thinking. So I think you're putting the cart before the horse as far as saying that God is the source of everything. I understand the belief that way, but feel that the greater truth, the truth that applies to all of us, is that we are conscious individuals who are capable of belief, and also capable of saying we don't know.

Posted by: Doug at August 19, 2008 10:20 AM


Okay, then how about this?

If I say I don't know, but choose to believe and you say you don't know and choose not to believe why is it okay for you to apply the rules of your disbelief (ie the right to abortion) while it is not okay for me to apply my belief (ie: abortion is wrong and should not be allowed) in the same way?

Why does your unbelief take precedence?

More people believe than don't, so it can't be the numbers?

The law of the land has been decided by one group, a group that is not so huge that it far outnumbers the other group. It's pretty evenly split. Yet your side rules. Why?

My belief leads me to the conclusion that life is sacred and should be protected. Your belief leads you to believe that life should be protected up to a point.

Yet your belief rules. How is that addressing what is true for all of us?

Posted by: mk at August 19, 2008 10:50 AM


Thanks Doug,

you would not believe how difficult it is to find someone interested in these ideas. Decades ago, I had a friend who was horrified that I would even pursue emotional reality with my intellect. For him, I somehow was treading on things sacrosanct ... a form of bastardizing emotions.

you also wouldn't believe how happy you have made me by writing your thoughts.

When I wrote the word ANOTHER, I was/am referring to God. St. Paul makes a queer statement when he writes 'Jesus is our peace.' Like I could half-expect: 'Jesus gives us peace.', but Paul is touching the very foundation of Christianity when he writes that 'Jesus IS our peace'. Absolutely mind numbing!

Never would I place the burden of being God on myself or any other human being .... the job is much to difficult. You are correct to say that we seek the ultimate ... but it is not a philosophical ultimate but an experiential one. Both Carla and Elizabeth (and many more) find their strength right here ... and we all know that this comes from Him who dwells within ... Who makes us His kids.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 19, 2008 12:36 PM


Doug,

This is not even a picture of a human being. It is simply a facial expression caught in sea salt...and yet, I'm sure that it evokes an emotional reaction in you, just as it does me.

What process causes this? Chemical reaction? Why? I'm not the one feeling sad. Memory? Empathy? How can I feel empathy (I do), when I don't even know what's making this guy so sad? For that matter, how do I know that he's sad?

My point is that these material manifestations of immaterial feelings, cannot only be felt by the person themself, but can be evoked with just an image. How is that possible?

So often, I ask you where it all comes from, and your answer is always "It's enough for me to know that it is, I don't need to know where it comes from"...

I'm asking you again...where did WE come from. Where does the ability to feel pain/share pain, laugh etc., come from.

The answer "I don't know" will do, as you pointed out in your earlier post, but the answer "it doesn't come from anywhere", begs the question how can you be so sure? How do you "know" that it "just is'?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you are willing to stop in this quest way sooner than Bobby, John or I. We aren't satisfied with looking at "what is true for all"...because we believe that a whole lot more is true for all than you do. Not recognizing that truth doesn't negate it. We believe that abortion is wrong IS true for all...and you have not shown us one reason that isn't subjective as to why we're wrong. No objective truth from you either...

Posted by: mk at August 19, 2008 2:07 PM


If I say I don't know, but choose to believe and you say you don't know and choose not to believe why is it okay for you to apply the rules of your disbelief (ie the right to abortion) while it is not okay for me to apply my belief (ie: abortion is wrong and should not be allowed) in the same way? Why does your unbelief take precedence?

MK, it's not like I'm forcing anybody to have abortions, nor that I want anybody so forced. If you and I would be pregnant women, we are both free to follow our beliefs, to apply them in the same way.

When it comes to the legality of abortion, at least say to the end of the first trimester, there's a good majority that's for it. Is a minority going to be able to vote away the freedom that women currently have? I don't think so.
......


More people believe than don't, so it can't be the numbers?

Yet it's not true that more people want abortion to be illegal in the first trimester, for example. In many countries, even with a large plurality of one religion, it's much more a private thing - people are amazed at how concerned many Americans are over the religion if any of political candidates. They see a person's religion as a private matter for that person.
......


The law of the land has been decided by one group, a group that is not so huge that it far outnumbers the other group. It's pretty evenly split. Yet your side rules. Why?

Because we are for the freedom of the individual. Mostly, we don't vote on rights. It's not impossible - if there was enough sentiment for it, and two-thirds of the state legislatures proposed a right-to-life amendment, for example, and three-fourths of the state legislatures approved it, there you go, Congress not involved.

I know you might say, "Well, we are for the freedom of the unborn," but they've not been attributed rights. They are not citizens, not individuals with the same legal status as the pregnant woman. First, the Constitution would have to be changed.
......

My belief leads me to the conclusion that life is sacred and should be protected. Your belief leads you to believe that life should be protected up to a point. Yet your belief rules. How is that addressing what is true for all of us?

It's also true that people believe in freedom and not having the gov't impact peoples' lives without a good reason. It's true for all of us that we have opinions. In this case, my desire for women to keep the freedom they now have and your desire for the unborn lives to be protected from conception are incompatible.

One is going to prevail, and it's not because of any absolutes or externals that abortion is legal right now. There is no way that legal or illegal abortion would address what's true for all of us - there is no such thing, there, since there are differing opinions such as yours and mine. It's just a given that somebody's going to be dissatisfied. Somebody's "should" is going to take legal precedence and for now it's mine, due to the Constitution and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it. I know it was 1973 for the Roe decision, but it could have been made clear back in 1820 or whenever the first state abortion law came into being.

Posted by: Doug at August 19, 2008 4:18 PM


John, I don't know if you place any stock in astrology, but I'm a Pisces, and we're a "watery" and emotional group. I love talking about this stuff.

I thought that you meant God by "ANOTHER." I think I do understand a good bit of the belief in God though I don't share it myself. (Tell you what - I've learned a lot from the people on Jill's blog.)

I've wondered what people would believe had they grown up in the total absence of any such stated beliefs from anyone else.

I've thought a lot about what you said about the "pain that is in us all." I still have to disagree - I think some people don't have that. If we hypothesize that everybody has it, then where would mine be? I've tried to answer that and don't come up with much. I know other people, some of whom have that pain, in spades, and then there are those who I think really have no such thing.

Posted by: Doug at August 19, 2008 4:29 PM


Oh MK, awesome questions.


This is not even a picture of a human being. It is simply a facial expression caught in sea salt...and yet, I'm sure that it evokes an emotional reaction in you, just as it does me. What process causes this? Chemical reaction? Why? I'm not the one feeling sad. Memory? Empathy? How can I feel empathy (I do), when I don't even know what's making this guy so sad? For that matter, how do I know that he's sad? My point is that these material manifestations of immaterial feelings, cannot only be felt by the person themself, but can be evoked with just an image. How is that possible?

Yes, a strong reaction to the picture. The lined face, the eyes squeezed shut, the furrowed brow, the mouth drawn back a little as if there's some tension.... Sadness? Or just very strong emotions in the face?

There are chemical reactions and electrical impulses involved, but I think what causes it is that we've learned to associate emotions with facial expressions. As we grow up, we know what sadness, for example, feels like, and we identify with it when we see it in other people, or when we see it reflected in a sculpted face. We see the sculpture and we think of a person with that face. Many of us even see "faces" in natural formations, etc. I think we are feeling empathy for such a person as would have that face.

I don't agree that emotions are immaterial. There are things we don't know, but there are brain chemicals, endorphins, etc., that certainly do affect moods or even "make" them.
......


So often, I ask you where it all comes from, and your answer is always "It's enough for me to know that it is, I don't need to know where it comes from"... I'm asking you again...where did WE come from. Where does the ability to feel pain/share pain, laugh etc., come from. The answer "I don't know" will do, as you pointed out in your earlier post, but the answer "it doesn't come from anywhere", begs the question how can you be so sure? How do you "know" that it "just is'?

I don't flatly state that it doesn't come from anywhere. Perhaps we were created by a "higher" being, etc. I don't know whether thought/emotion/the "mind" is material or immaterial. It seems that a mind of a certain complexity will generate emotions, but that doesn't explain exactly what they are.

I'm really saying that I see no proof, either way.
.....


I guess what I'm trying to say is that you are willing to stop in this quest way sooner than Bobby, John or I. We aren't satisfied with looking at "what is true for all"...because we believe that a whole lot more is true for all than you do. Not recognizing that truth doesn't negate it. We believe that abortion is wrong IS true for all...and you have not shown us one reason that isn't subjective as to why we're wrong. No objective truth from you either...

Seems to me that you are the ones who have stopped, you've stopped in one relatively small slice of the pie, common to your beliefs.

There are no objective truths about morality, and I'd not presume to state any. There will always be a desire as a premise, and that's true even for God or any other "higher" beings than us earthly humans. I've heard it said many times that "God wants...." and for those who believe that makes plenty of sense to me.

As far as objective truth, the one thing I can say is that I'm conscious, that there is a "me." Beyond that, how can I really prove anything? How can anybody? It could all be akin to a "dream" where later we wake up and find out that what we had thought was reality was not true at all, except for the fact of our own consciousness.

So, right away I get into assumptions, like the energy and matter around me, the other individuals I perceive, etc. By the time we get to individual beliefs and moral feelings, we're well into subjective assumption territory.

I love that face.

Posted by: Doug at August 19, 2008 4:52 PM


Doug,

perhaps it is the word 'pain' that you find limiting. Pain is very strongly connected to physicality. However, there certainly are pains that remain forever untold. My sister-in-law felt pain as her son graduated from being a baby in a crib to having his own bed .... he was growing less dependent on her.

Much too often it ils negated as a downer of joy. Physical pain often is a warning that something is wrong. If someone feels no pain then either leprosy or a sn be felt. but the site-of-injury can become increasingly compromised. (In either circumstance, a further grievous injury cannot ever be ignored.)

Similarly psychic pain shows 'damage'. A young man can learn to not reverence his feelings so that in the military he can/does kill. (He's a 'real MAN. eh?) There is a dark side to desensitization. How many men feel compelled to grow in sensitivity? By ignoring our own emotions are we being less human? Is not our indifference to the pregnant woman's difficulties a condemnation of sorts?

Posted by: Anonymous at August 19, 2008 6:01 PM


MK, it's not like I'm forcing anybody to have abortions, nor that I want anybody so forced. If you and I would be pregnant women, we are both free to follow our beliefs, to apply them in the same way.

But we see the abortion as the taking of a life and a direct offense against our moral system. You don't see it that way. It's not a debate about a womans right to do what she wants with her body, it's a debate about whether ending human life is morally acceptable.

We say it is not. You say it is. Forget about the woman for a moment. The argument is about the life that is being taken.

It would be like us saying that we don't think you can hit old ladies over the head with baseball bats...ever. And you saying, sure you can. If the old lady is standing on your porch, you have the right to clobber her.

You say that you're not forcing anyone to clobber her. I don't HAVE to clobber her, and you CAN clobber her. See? Everybody is happy. Except for the old lady. Who is looking out for her best interests.

So again. Why is it okay for you to force us to accept the legal killing of human life, but not okay for us to force you not to...?

Posted by: mk at August 19, 2008 6:56 PM


I've wondered what people would believe had they grown up in the total absence of any such stated beliefs from anyone else.

Obviously, somebody did. And that person came to the conclusion that there had to be "something/someone" else. But there had to be a first. Someone that had never heard of "God". Unless of course it was God Himself that they heard it from...which is what we believe...and the point of this argument.

Posted by: mk at August 19, 2008 7:02 PM


Doug,

I've thought a lot about what you said about the "pain that is in us all." I still have to disagree - I think some people don't have that. If we hypothesize that everybody has it, then where would mine be? I've tried to answer that and don't come up with much. I know other people, some of whom have that pain, in spades, and then there are those who I think really have no such thing.

Then you should be on your knees thanking God for such a blessed life...what a gift. But if tomorrow your true love was killed in a car accident, or you were diagnosed with cancer...you too would feel that pain. Nobody escapes it really. Your day will most likely come. If not, you have truly been blessed.

Posted by: mk at August 19, 2008 7:05 PM


Doug,

There are chemical reactions and electrical impulses involved, but I think what causes it is that we've learned to associate emotions with facial expressions. As we grow up, we know what sadness, for example, feels like, and we identify with it when we see it in other people, or when we see it reflected in a sculpted face. We see the sculpture and we think of a person with that face. Many of us even see "faces" in natural formations, etc. I think we are feeling empathy for such a person as would have that face.

That would explain why we recognize that facial expression, but it doesn't explain why we actually feel the pain. Where does the empathy, the ability to feel what another person is feeling even when it is not affecting us, come from. What allows you to empathize with a pregnant woman that wants an abortion, when you yourself are neither a woman nor capable of being pregnant, let alone having an abortion? Why do you empathize with her, while we empathize with the unborn?

Posted by: mk at August 19, 2008 7:11 PM


Doug,

I'm really saying that I see no proof, either way.

Is this the same as saying that you don't know?

Posted by: mk at August 19, 2008 7:12 PM


Doug,

Seems to me that you are the ones who have stopped, you've stopped in one relatively small slice of the pie, common to your beliefs.

If, as we believe, God is EVERYTHING, then how is stopping there a small slice of the pie? We believe that there is a being so huge, so powerful, so complete that He encompasses all. You believe in yourself, and yourself alone. Whose slice seems smaller to you? Mine is the whole pie, you are the one settling for a small crumb, your own ego.

There are no objective truths about morality

By your own reasoning you cannot make that statement. You have no proof either way, and yet you unequivocally state that there IS NO objective moral truth. Do you mean that you don't see it? You don't accept it? Due to a lack of proof, you don't believe it? Because otherwise, you have just stated a moral objective truth. That morality is subjective.

Again, saying you don't know is not a crime. I'd much prefer that to telling me that I cannot state there is moral objective truth because there isn't any, which is just another way of saying that there is moral objective truth, even if it's just that objectively speaking, morality is subjective...

Posted by: mk at August 19, 2008 7:18 PM


John,

perhaps it is the word 'pain' that you find limiting.

I agree. Pain is misunderstood. Sometimes joy can be so great it is actually painful.

Staring at the ocean, all by yourself. A walk in the woods. Looking in the mirror. All of these things can bring a quiet, contemplative pain. A hollow, empty, silent sort of ache...it doesn't have to be a hammer on the toe or the death of a loved one. Sometimes, just "being" is painful. In a beautiful sort of way. It sure lets you know you're alive.

Feeling no pain usually means you're not feeling much of anything else either...

Posted by: mk at August 19, 2008 7:25 PM


Doug,

What if a person with Alzheimers were to look at that picture? Her memory is gone. So she couldn't be relying on past experience to draw on...Would she be able to look at that face, and empathize, even without the ability to make the "connections"? If so, why? How?

Posted by: mk at August 19, 2008 7:34 PM


John, excellent line of thought. Yes, there can be desensitization, and I think that by ignoring our own emotions we indeed are being less "human" and less ourselves. Men in our society do get some encouragement to keep a lid on their emotions as they grow up. But it's also very "human" to want to keep emotions in, at times, eh? Or, is that a result of societal conditioning too? I think some cultures are different, there.

"Pains that remain forever untold" - that has a nice ring to it. Do you see some of the pain as being part and parcel of the human condition, rather like an "original sin" type of thing? A fact of our existing? Is it that universal?

What I see as universal is the capacity for pain, rather than every individual having it or having much at all of it. And seems to me that without the capacity for pain, true joy also couldn't be felt, that one's range of emotions must be able to go "down" into the pain as well as "up" into joy.

It's not like it could start from "neutral" and only go up. Then, either the "neutral" would be perceived as "bad/pain," or, more likely, there wouldn't be much of a range of emotion at all. Just me theorizing here....

And I have to say that it's oh so relative. I've not experienced the pain you have. What's the worst thing I can think of? It'd be something like a parent seeing all their kids killed in a horrible manner. There has been nothing even remotely like that in my life. I've had grandparents die, and a couple uncles. I've had girlfriends break up with me. I've really disappointed my wife.

Short-lived pain, there, and my wife says that I'm "basically a happy person," and she looks at me sometimes like I'm an alien. She's felt from a very early age that there would always be something or somebody that would prevent her from being happy. Now, she's 47 and has had a lot of happyness, yet that feeling never totally leaves her (down deep) - I guess that would be some of the 'pain' you are talking about. Fear of not being fulfilled?


Is not our indifference to the pregnant woman's difficulties a condemnation of sorts?

Yes. Yet aren't we all condemned to be on our own to an extent? I think the "we" there - those who will be indifferent to an extent, are going to draw the line somewhere and in effect say, "Beyond this you're on your own, yes." Society will do so much, and then there will be a limit. I don't know where the limit should be, either - I haven't thought much about it, and my opinion will differ from many others.

You know I've talked about suffering before, and that it looms large in my consideration of things. I will say that a woman who feels she must have an abortion because she has not the means, and who otherwise would really want to have the baby - now that is one sad situation.

One of my wife's students came from Louisiana after hurricane Katrina. She's 18 years old now, and has one daughter. There have been some hard times (neither of her parents are anywhere in the picture, nor is the father of the child), but the young woman has a good head on her shoulders, has a job and is going to college.

There are times that I shudder to think... but this young woman is going to make it, and be a great mom. We've taken them out to eat, and she's very matter-of-fact, the mistakes she's made, etc., and her hopes for the future, and her willingness to work for it. After an evening with them, it's like [gulp] "Oh Bless You" and that coming from an agnostic guy.

Posted by: Doug at August 19, 2008 7:50 PM


Good thoughts Doug,

When you talked of being mesmerized by another (in this case the 18yr-old mom), I thought of Ida. She has the same disease as I do, but much worse. I am completely spellbound that she attends life so straight-on with such grace and pluck. I am forced to conclude that it is not so much the pain/suffering we have, but how we deal with it. Avoidance (which is abortion) is NOT dealing with anything but shirking a fully 'human' life.

Is it OK to support a choice for treason?

I listened to a Hindu from India talking about those in North America whose lives have conflict. He said that Westerners pray to never have pain (and found this concept 'strange'). Indians, on the other hand pray for the strength to endure the pain that will inevitably come.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 20, 2008 2:09 PM


John, right on about the Hindu - I've heard that saying too. You know, it was probably from you right here months ago, now that I think about it...?


I am forced to conclude that it is not so much the pain/suffering we have, but how we deal with it.

So it's more important to deal with it well, versus the raw amount of pain we have? I agree with that. A person debilitated by a lesser amount of pain is worse, IMO, than a person who has more but deals with it well.
.....


Avoidance (which is abortion) is NOT dealing with anything but shirking a fully 'human' life.

I guess the life is "shirked" (or "shed"), but again, we're back to our differing assumptions here. Abortion does avoid continuing the pregnancy, but you're saying that it's necessarily better to continue the pregnancy and I'm saying it's not necessarily so. If the pregnancy is ended it's dealt with, just not the way you'd like. As above, the "dealing with it well" part is dependent on what we want in the first place.

I don't "blame" you for wanting the unborn life to continue. Yet I think of Erin, who has posted on Jill's blog, and would I tell her that she did wrong by having an abortion? I really would not, same as I wouldn't tell another woman that it was wrong for her to want to have the baby.
......


Is it OK to support a choice for treason?

If a greater good is served, then yes. Allow me a "Hitler" reference here, just because it's so extreme. Legally, I imagine that for a german citizen to have killed Hitler or conspire to do so would have been treason, but, early enough in Hitler's life and it would have been a greater good since it would have resulted in a better world, IMO.

So I guess the question is what is achieved by the action - by the choice being taken, and what authority, country, sovereign, etc., would the treason be against. I don't think we're going to agree on that one, with regards to people having abortions.


Posted by: Doug at August 20, 2008 6:06 PM


Doug,

the 'treason' is to herself ... for preferring to walk the road of convenience, rather than one where she becomes more human. This 'lesson' comes from the experience of older folk in a community ... so remaining indifferent (which is what PC is) ... is even more treasonous, no?

John

Posted by: Anonymous at August 20, 2008 7:53 PM


the 'treason' is to herself ... for preferring to walk the road of convenience, rather than one where she becomes more human. This 'lesson' comes from the experience of older folk in a community ... so remaining indifferent (which is what PC is) ... is even more treasonous, no?

John, it all depends on how you look at it. I mentioned Erin before, and there's just no way I can think of her being "treasonous" just because she had an abortion. And it's certainly not like she's "less human" than if she hadn't had an abortion.

There are plenty of older folk who are Pro-Choice, some who've had abortions, some who haven't.

Yes, it's convenient for some women to have abortions, just like it's convenient for us to do hundreds of things every day. Do we as a society have a good enough reason to try and legally force women to go the "inconvenient" way in this matter? I know you disagree, but I say no.

I also don't mean to just go back into straight back-and-forth arguing mode.

I wondered - do you drink alcohol? Have you ever been drunk?

Doug

Posted by: Doug at August 21, 2008 1:10 PM


AS TO BOOZING,
nope and nope - never could quite figure out why people would spend money to be the way I am 24/7. Some FA'ers have spent a night in their local jail to sober-up.

#2 - the doctor who first named my affliction - Dr. N. Friedreich - thought that it may be alcohol-induced because of the strong presence of booze.

#3 - I learned to stay away from booze from my Dad ... who was such an alcoholic that I can hardly remember a single sober day after I was 10.

If a woman lives in a society that perceives that she becomes freer and happier by killing her own offspring, then it is not only a non-supportive society, it is one that is NOT free, in much the same way a skydiver who uses no parachute is free.

John

Posted by: Anonymous at August 21, 2008 5:17 PM


Hi Doug,

there is a reason that I left Erin out of this and that has to do with Jesus' words on the cross. He said, "Abba, forgive them for they know not what they do." I too am in that very same boat, so I tread very cautiously about accusing anyone.

I wrote before I left for my holiday from this blog, that God tends to hide right out front ... this is likely why we continue to miss Him. In Genesis: 'God walks with Adam in His garden'. I cannot think of a more intimate description than this .... others are not even close!

First off, is the notion of extreme tranquility and peace. Adam is there at the invitation of God. He is privileged to exist and to share in the presence of God .... just think of the very small boy who absolutely loves to be with his Dad, so much so that he'll even attempt to walk like him.

I could spend my life there, but I'm sure others want more action. God is still there. We have napalmed and bombed his garden - we have exploited each other and maimed each other in our competitive frenzy. Why do we not support each other? We have even killed His Son.

Just a wee tiny start! Quite often we attempt to gain entrance by force ... eg. 'we like to carry a big stick', but Jesus' Life is not this at all. He accepts His death/resurrection as His admission to live in Abba's garden.

John

Posted by: Anonymous at August 22, 2008 8:25 AM


John, beautifully written.

Without considering the woman, abortion does seem sad to me. Just on its own, I'd rather see the pregnancies continued or prevented.

As far as changing our countries so that fewer women would want abortions, it seems like a fairly tough go to me.

One of the top reasons that women have abortions is finances, and the only one where I see a good possibility of things being altered. Yet I also think we're going into some relatively "hard times" economically, and I'd say things will likely be going the other way, overall - that there will be more women wanting abortions due to their financial position.

Posted by: Doug at August 22, 2008 7:48 PM