Pro-abort Stop Stupak Rally today: 500 anticipated (?)

stop stupak, abortion, healthcare.jpg

The pro-abort Stop Stupak Rally is today, and above is a fresh photo of their petition with the latest # of signers.

The focal point will be DC, but pro-aborts are apparently holding similar rallies in other cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco.

For all the build-up (I've been watching their Twitter and blog posts), The Hill reported laughable anticipated numbers:

The lobby day is expected to draw around 500 abortion-rights advocates to rally in the Dirksen Senate Office Building and door-knock on Capitol Hill, said Tait Sye, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood.

500? They've got to be kidding, what a joke. We get 500 supporters at our local tea parties. We shall see.

The MO rally, I think in Jefferson City, has 11 confirmed attendees.

Lesbians are also participating, although I don't know why they're sticking their noses into the abortion debate. If men can't, why can women who don't naturally reproduce?

Follow pro-abort tweets at #StopStupak.


Comments:

Yeah, I've never understood the GLT community's obsession with abortion either.

Posted by: Sydney M at December 2, 2009 8:57 AM


I've always been puzzled at the (usually hostile) intrusion of gays and lesbians into this matter. You'd think they'd be subject to the same criticism that some direct at men for "butting in" to women's business. But then, I have encountered at least two lesbian couples at a Dallas abortion mill (and yes, they were there for abortions).

Posted by: Courtney at December 2, 2009 9:03 AM



Men can voice an opinion on abortion so long as its in support of abortion. Otherwise, its a "woman's issue" that men have no right speaking on. Interesting that some of the leaders in this "woman's issue" were men.

I've always maintained that if a man has no right to speak out against abortion, he has no right to speak out for it.

Should women be silent on such "men's issues" as prostate screening and viagra?

Posted by: Mary at December 2, 2009 9:08 AM



Lesbians don't naturally reproduce? Uh, yes they do. Lesbians have been or are married women or women at one time or are involved in a heterosexual relationship.
They may be bisexual. Oh, and heterosexual women are artificially inseminated.

Posted by: Mary at December 2, 2009 9:12 AM


To compare numbers. Prolifers should show up the day after a pro-choice rally! 500 pro-choicers one day and 1000 pro-lifers the next.

Posted by: quietstrength at December 2, 2009 9:12 AM


Men, LGBT, and pro-choice groups all work for patients' rights and against provider refusal of health care services. Because they are all effected by denial of services, makes perfect sense that they come together to protest a national health care plan that continues to discriminate against patients.

Posted by: Ann Neumann at December 2, 2009 9:23 AM


Yeah, I've never understood the GLT community's obsession with abortion either.
Posted by: Sydney M at December 2, 2009 8:57 AM

Obsession? Pot, meet Kettle.


Posted by: Hal at December 2, 2009 9:33 AM


Ann Neumann,

Exactly what do you mean by refusal to provide health care services? What denial of care affects all these groups?

Posted by: Mary at December 2, 2009 10:04 AM


There are 600 Catholic hospitals in the US, all are tax exempt and receive 50% of their funding from state and federal government. They all operate according to the 72 Ethical and Religious Directives (ERDs) approved by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). These directives deny fertility treatments for unmarried or lesbian women, prevent sterilizations, tubal ligations, deny honoring of some advance directives, deny counseling for STD and AIDs prevention, impede administration of emergency contraceptives for rape victims, and limit fetal testing. And they are loathe to inform patients of their services or to provide referrals for services they don't provide.

Some 50 Catholic hospitals are sole providers, meaning there are no other hospitals in an area to access for non-Catholic patients. As well, four of the top ten health care administrations and the same number of hospice and retirement care networks are Catholic. And Catholic hospitals aren't just the only religious hospitals that restrict care. The issue of provider refusals is not just about abortion - though reproductive services are often reduced to mean the highly contentious abortion issue - and effect all members of a community, men, gays, the elderly.

Patients' rights are denied every day because moral reverence is given to religious health care providers; because these entities claim they better serve the poor and needy. It's a myth. Catholic hospitals do no more charity work than other non-profit hospitals. And federal law requires they serve the uninsured, like all other hospitals.

The government has allowed these organizations to impose their ideological views on patients. Serious protection of patients' rights are lacking in most every state. This is not religious freedom in any way. It is government supported denial of services to patients. If you don't want a tubal ligation, fine. But preventing others who do from getting one is immoral.

Posted by: Ann Neumann at December 2, 2009 11:02 AM


Ann, well said.

Posted by: Alana at December 2, 2009 11:20 AM


"It is government supported denial of services to patients. If you don't want a tubal ligation, fine. But preventing others who do from getting one is immoral."
=============================================

What part of "CATHOLIC" hospital don't you understand?

If it's a Muslim hospital, do you think you can do/ request anything that ISLAM forbids.

IF the government 'mandates' these hospitals do anything against their Faith...isn't that a violation of Church and State???
--------------------------------------
"Some 50 Catholic hospitals are sole providers, meaning there are no other hospitals in an area to access for non-Catholic patients"....

BIg deal...The Aurora PP has clients coming in from other States and the IL border is more than 50 miles in any direction from this abortuary...If it's 'real' healthcare..I doubt any hospital will deny giving care....but once again, abortion, IVF, sterilization..etc are non-emergency procedure..if you want it done, nobody's stopping you from getting it elsewhere.

Posted by: RSD at December 2, 2009 11:43 AM


Obsession? Pot, meet Kettle.
Posted by: Hal at December 2, 2009 9:33 AM
------

You've been hanging around now for quite some time.... that's so apropos Hal.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at December 2, 2009 11:57 AM


We have a right to be obsessed over abortion. We see abortion as cold-blooded murder. It's a moral issue. If I kill someone in your neighborhood that you don't know, and I get away with it, you ought to be outraged: not because of personal loss, but because of the miscarriage of justice.

Now, the lesbians who want abortion: maybe they feel a similar way. They see us trying to stop abortion, but they cannot see the murder. As a result, they think there is an unjust restriction of freedom, and that is outrageous to them -- even if they aren't personally affected.

So we shouldn't be surprised if they are outraged. But what if lesbians are significantly more supportive of abortion than other people?

Maybe lesbianism causes support of abortion:


  • Maybe they get more upset over the moral issues they can see, because they feel discriminated against as homosexuals

  • Maybe, because of discrimination, they have become paranoid and are trying to maximize the freedoms of born women

  • Maybe people who are vocal about their homosexuality are vocal people in general

  • Maybe their affinity for women causes bias in what moral issues they can see

  • Maybe they are being indoctrinated by their own culture, which started out as liberal, and unintentionally (but effectively) pushes all future lesbians toward support of abortion

Maybe abortion causes lesbianism (seems unlikely):


  • Some undiscovered psychological effect, where the trauma of abortion + malleability of sexual orientation = lesbian?

  • Some undiscovered hormonal changes caused by abortion?

  • Maybe, because the abortion culture is predominantly liberal, confused women are being talked into trying women?

Or maybe something else is causing both:


  • Maybe there's money or power or some corrupting influence that's causing their support of both lesbianism and abortion

  • Maybe they are being indoctrinated by some central organization that likes to plot and scheme

  • Space aliens? I don't know; I'm just brainstorming.

I'll stop talking now.

Posted by: Chris at December 2, 2009 12:14 PM



TOGETHER—ENDURING  OUTRAGEOUS   SACRIFICE—we must break the backs of their devouring habits—of conveniently borrowing life and limb from our next generation! The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent on the pleasure of anyone else!



Posted by: Numeaning at December 2, 2009 12:29 PM


Ann Neuman,

Get your facts straight. You have no idea what you're talking about. I've worked at Catholic and non-Catholic hospitals for years. I have no idea where you get his claptrap that you call information.

1.Not all hospitals, be they Catholic or not, provide fertility treatment for women, be they gay or straight. This is a highly specialized area and many OB/GYNS don't even involve themselves in it. We have two secular and two Catholic hospitals in my city. Only one secular hospital specializes in fertility treatment, including in vitro fertilization.

2.Catholic hospitals can't "prevent" sterilizations and will perform them under certain circumstances. Also, these can be done in outpatient clinics and the pt. can be discharged by noon.

3.Patients are asked about advanced directives on admission and these are honored by Catholic hospitals.

4.Deny counselling for AIDS and STDs? Ann, these patients rarely require hospitalization. More likely their private physicians are treating them.
Oh and we do treat AIDS patients and they are advised on follow up care and services on an individual patient basis as is any other patient.

5. Limit fetal testing? Our patients have routine ultrasounds and fetal testing is routinely done. One of our Catholic hospitals in town has an outstanding genetic counselling clinic.

6. When I worked ER I had yet to see a rape victim come in. The biggest problem with treating rape victims was and is and has always been about getting the victim to report the crime and come in for treatment! BTW our Catholic ER had a special protocol for such patients to protect their privacy and treat them with sensitivity. Also, the woman can get emergency contraception from a drug store or her own physician, she need not have to get it in the ER.

7. Catholic hospitals don't tell what services they provide and won't refer. Ann, you're getting pathetic.

Please give very specific examples of how patient rights are denied every day because of religious hospitals as the generalizations you did give have absolutely no basis in truth and sound like something you copied from an ACLU manual.

Oh and Ann, any number of hospitals do not provide any number of services for any number of reasons. You may not be able to get a tubal ligation at a rural hospital. A city hospital may not care for trauma patients. The hospital I work at does not do head or heart surgery.
Just think of all the people denied care and dying in the streets!!

Posted by: Mary at December 2, 2009 12:56 PM


"...preventing (those who want a tubal ligation) is immoral"...Ann Neumann

Catholic hospitals are, well, Catholic. Their mission statements reflect the moral guidelines and ethical paramenters derived from Church teachings. They are there to help promote human life and save lives, not destroy lives. Hence we do not support chemical contraception or surgical means of preventing pregnancies. Catholic moral teaching prohibits abortion, except to save the life of the mother.

But it is good that you make the point, because it shows exactly where nationalized health care will ultimately take us. Everything will be politicized, from the types of services provided (re the latest guidelines on mammograms) and who will get medical procedures/services in what order (the rationing of flu shots is just the beginning), and how much the service providers will get paid (usually far less than here presently). In countries where nationalized health care is in place, this is how it is done. Certainly, faith based providers will be under the microscope as everyone who has a issues with these will draw them into the political arena as well.

It is interesting too that many who clamor about how government dollars are being spent have at the same time no quandry about taxing those who are morally opposed to how our tax dollars are being used in schools in the types of curricula our kids are exposed to and our government paying for abortions abroad.

And if you would like to get into a discussion about morality, there is no better starting point than the willful distruction of innocent human life.

Posted by: Jerry at December 2, 2009 1:25 PM


Mary, I'm referring to a blanket set of religious doctrine instituted at Catholic hospitals that limits a community's care services according to religious ideology. If one wishes to reduce the number of abortions in the US, one should not be so dismissive of access to reproductive care (and other measures like education and condom use.)

I find your tone indicative of an unwillingness to discuss this issue based on the facts (one ideological point of view does not a society make). I hope you find the chance to read the Ethical and Religious Directives. http://www.usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml

I think we all believe in religious tolerance and freedom, in separation of church and state as the best possible way to preserve faith and religious autonomy. There is little sense and no logic in demonizing groups within society who simply do not believe in the Catholic or religious right ideology - it is our right to believe as we wish.

My only point is to answer the questions posed above and to report on practices at Catholic institutions (tax exempt and funded by the federal government) as a reason why the groups so slandered and discriminated in this thread should be in favor of patients' rights.

Posted by: Ann Neumann at December 2, 2009 1:27 PM


Ann-
I am no expert in hospitals, but it seems to me that Mary put the smack down on your baseless facts. I am, however, a historian and I have to say that your declarations regarding Separation of Church and State are equally baseless. Separation of Church and State was designed specifically to protect religious followers. It was designed to make sure that the government could not impose a belief system on a religion (as the Church of England was imposed on the colonists)--not the other way around. That's what protecting religious freedom means. That's what Separation of Church and State means. It means that government cannot superimpose one set of beliefs on to a religious group. Catholic hospitals ascribe to a religious doctrine--it's right there in their name. Therefore, the hospitals are protected from government interference in the enactment of their religious beliefs by Separation of Church and State.

Posted by: EH at December 2, 2009 1:39 PM


Bravo, Ann ! Very well said.

And yes, Catholic hospitals have a pattern of refusing to refer patients to hospitals that provide the requested service or care (emergency contraception, for example). Granted, my experience has been with St. Vincent's in NYC, where most New Yorkers know they can go to NYU or Bellevue nearby. But in suburban areas, it is a whole other story.

And I have seen crazy comments on this site about how the pill turns women in lesbians, or how most female abortion providers are lesbians, etc.. Clearly there is an obsession about lesbians on this site!

Posted by: Dhalgren at December 2, 2009 1:50 PM


A million 200 thousand abortions per year in U.S. Consider roughly half female, that equals 600,000 females aborted per year. Consider 1/10 are same-sex orientation. That equals 60,000 lesbians aborted per year. ---Some same-sex advocates get worried every time some new info comes out suggesting that same-sex orientation might be genetic, and detectable before birth. Why? Because theyt realize that one day, if a prenatal sexual-orientation test is developed and is available, as prenatal sex testing is now, then people will abort babies because the baby might be same-sex orientation.

Maybe the activist groups ought to develop policies and platforms now, before the tests become available.

As with gender-specific abortion, and disAbility-specific abortion, it will become increasingly clear what is going on, and how disgusting it is. These traditional liberal constituencies (feminists, same-sex orientation people, and people with disAbilities) will eventually become anti-abortion. As they should be. We liberals ought ot be looking out for the little guy, the voiceless, the powerless.

Posted by: Row1 at December 2, 2009 2:01 PM


BS"D

Do not assume that all lesbians (or gay men, for that matter) are all pro-abortion. Many are pro-life and have good reason to be so. What happens if and when a gene is found that correlates with homosexual tendencies and that gene can be analyzed through amniocentesis? It is an argument made by PLAGAL (Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians http://www.plagal.org), as is the view that a "heterosexual atrocity is not a gay right."

Those of us who defend the sanctity of human life need all of the allies we can get, and if that means being a little more tolerant of others even if we disagree with them elsewhere, so be it.

Posted by: Stephen Mendelsohn at December 2, 2009 2:28 PM


Thanks to those here who are willing to hear my points. The supposed "smack down" from a nurse and a historian are ideologically based and therefor represent only a segment of society, not all society. They are both based on a religious categorization of reproductive services. My point about religious freedom and patients' rights stands.

The fact that someone here has ventured to compare down syndrome with homosexuality is blatant discrimination against both. Issues of genetic testing are an old "pro-life" ruse. Along with the horrors said to come from abortion like cancer, depression, etc. Pure misinformation used to scare women in crisis.

That many do not believe a fetus is a child is well documented in society; Catholic hospitals work to enforce the belief that a fetus is a child, that women should only have sex if they wish to have children, that the old should die according to Catholic ideas of artificial nutrition and hydration, that men are not allowed to control their parenthood with sterilization, on all of us by continuing to impose their health care services on non-Catholic communities. Abortion and these other services are a legal service. Until we address ideological organizations who provide social services to entire communities in a way that supports patients' rights, many members of society will be discriminated against.

To say that a woman (or man or senior citizen) can just drive to get what she needs lacks compassion and morality and refused to account for the privilege of some in society at the expense of others. A sad "let them eat cake" kind of statement. It means that so long as your faith is enforced, non-believers or other believers can suffer. And of course, it is the suffering that religious ideology requires no?; the poor, hungry, unhealthy, infirm are those most susceptible to redemptive suffering, the lifeblood of missionary work (now done by hospitals). "I'll treat your health care needs so long as you let me hold your religious freedom hostage."

The other side of this is the false claim that patients who demand their rights belong to the "culture of death," evil, hateful people who want to kill babies and old folks. It is pure victim-hating. If a woman simply wishes to have no more children, she cannot with conscience be made to constitute a culture gone to sin and hell. But then demonization of the other is also an ideological trope, one that has long served those who wish only to care for their bodies as they see fit, as is their human right.

I won't even start on the "martyrdom" claims; that the Catholic and evangelical right are oppressed by other believers. It seems too well demonstrated by some on this list.

Posted by: Ann Neumann at December 2, 2009 2:28 PM


Ann Neuman,

I don't care what you've read, you obviously don't have your facts straight as to how these hospitals operate. Furthermore, I'm well aware of the ethical directives. Believe me, I've heard them enough over the years.

Most of the services you're talking about can be provided in the doctor's office or a clinic. People do not routinely come to hospitals for treatment of STDs, to obtain birth control, for prenatal testing, or for follow up AIDS care. Oh Ann, concerning STDs, if I had a dime for every penicillin shot I gave for STDs in the Catholic hospital ER, I could retire. So obviously Catholic hospitals will treat patients so diagnosed.

Ann, if anyone started this discussion without their facts it wasn't me, so kindly refrain from talking about my tone.

I'm as supportive of religious freedom as anyone. One little problem with religious freedom Ann, its a two way street. The Hindu grocer has a right to refuse to sell meat even if I, a non-Hindu meateater, am inconvenienced by having to walk several more blocks to a store that does.

Let me throw this one at you Ann. I know a PC OB/GYN who years ago, before ultrasound was routine, was asked to perform an amniocentesis on a woman to determine the baby's sex. If the baby was female she planned to "get rid of it". The OB's response was that she would have to find another physician, he'd have no part of it.
BTW, a woman is alive today because he refused to be involved in the deliberate destruction of what was in fact a female fetus.

Your response please. Was this doctor within his rights, based on his ethics, not religion, to refuse to perform this procedure?

Again I stress Ann that any number of hospitals do not perform any number of procedures for any number of reasons, forcing patients to either be transferred or seek services elsewhere.
Also, for protection of privacy, patients may travel great distances to seek care in other hospitals. Years ago our CATHOLIC hospital often saw AIDS patients from smaller cities and towns who were concerned mainly with protection of privacy, not that they couldn't get help locally.

Posted by: Mary at December 2, 2009 2:29 PM


Ann Neuman, 2:28PM

Maybe the nurse and the historian are just more knowledgable than you, not necessarily inspired by ideology.

You have yet to speak in specifics, only biased generalizations. Please very specific documented incidents.

Also, address the fact that many hospitals do not provide certain services and how this can be a huge inconvenience for patients.

Posted by: Mary at December 2, 2009 2:36 PM


Dhalgren 1:50PM

You're as badly informed as Ann is.

Posted by: Mary at December 2, 2009 2:40 PM


Mary, I've been incredibly specific. On the other hand, you've said that hospitals don't do STD testing then said you've administered treatment for STDs. If you're itching for a fight, you won't get one from me that contests your belief. As an individual you have that right (though I have issue with provider refusals of effective services); what I contest is institutional provider refusals. Most Catholic entities have failed to evolve, choosing to exert their doctrine over family, women, and the elderly, to the detriment of patients' rights.

The post began with stupak-pitts and abortion. If you want a run down of how reproductive services in hospitals came to be relegated to clinics and outside facilities, you need only look outside any clinic which provides reproductive services. A segment of society has worked to shame women for wishing to choose when they have children, with slander, false information, and fear for privacy. Women have gotten used to driving to be treated, when they can, to protect their privacy and not be harassed. It is sadly the climate that the culture wars have created for women.

What few are discussing is the effect this has had on those who rely on hospitals for their health care needs. If one does not have insurance, they must resort to emergency hospital care (mandated for the uninsured by law) or do without. Not only is this gender but class discrimination. And by those facilities in society (again, 20% of hospitals in the us are Catholic) which are meant to serve all, regardless of gender, sexuality, age, race, or ability.

I stand by my statement that this is not religious freedom, as determined by the constitution. It is government endorsement and funding of one ideology (in this case Catholic) within a secular society. And for the provision of a service of the utmost importance, health care.

Buying a halal steak is not the same as health care. And the grocer, in the example you mention, does not rely on tax exempt status or public funding to survive. He provides a unique service in a community where other's also sell meat. To equate access to a kosher pickle with necessary health care is unfair and insensitive to health care as a human right.

I will only touch on genetic testing, because it is off topic, to say this: your comment that "a woman is alive today" is disingenuous. If one never exists, one doesn't have an awareness of not existing. It's a odd argument that I see often among anti-abortion advocates. It presupposes a higher power and other religious concepts that are not adhered to by a majority of society.

I do believe. I was raised Mennonite in Lancaster, PA and went through catechism in college. My morality teaches me that my faith is my own and sacred. As is yours. And yet I know that preservation of my faith requires that all have the same rights to religious freedom, be they Muslim, Christian or whatever.

If 20% of all hospitals in the US were, say, not espousing doctrine you believed in, how, honestly, would you feel? But because your faith may coincide with Catholic teaching, you are willing to justify government enforcement of religious doctrine in health care?

Posted by: Ann Neumann at December 2, 2009 3:55 PM


Ann, beautifully stated. You're a wonderful writer.

Posted by: Hal at December 2, 2009 4:11 PM


Thank you Hal. You just made my eve.

Posted by: Ann Neumann at December 2, 2009 4:24 PM


I wish I had time to read all of the comments, forgive me if I'm repeating....


"I think we all believe in religious tolerance and freedom, in separation of church and state as the best possible way to preserve faith and religious autonomy. There is little sense and no logic in demonizing groups within society who simply do not believe in the Catholic or religious right ideology - it is our right to believe as we wish."

"My only point is to answer the questions posed above and to report on practices at Catholic institutions (tax exempt and funded by the federal government) as a reason why the groups so slandered and discriminated in this thread should be in favor of patients' rights."

Posted by: Ann Neumann at December 2, 2009 1:27 PM

Warning! Tolerance and freedom can be dangerous things placed in the wrong hands. You advocate "preserving" faith by removing the faith from the individual? I don't think it works that way. Those who advocate separation of church and state (as you do) rarely mean it the way our forefathers intended. Are Catholic's the demonizers? Who's doing the demonizing here, anyways?


Posted by: Janet at December 2, 2009 4:45 PM



Mary,

Great to have your medical perspective here, as always!

Posted by: Janet at December 2, 2009 4:49 PM


Sorry Ann,

You have not been specific. You have spoken very generally, making blanket statements that Catholic hospitals this and Catholic hospitals that.

I didn't say they don't do STD testing I said patients usually do not come to hospitals for treatment of STDs, I didn't say they never do.
When I worked ER there wasn't a free clinic in our city or freestanding fastcare clinics, so patients came to the ER, usually at nite. As such, we wound up diagnosing and treating patients, as well as referring them to follow up care, even though we were a, gasp, Catholic hospital.

Ann, please, you have no clue what you're talking about. Institutional provider refusals? Detrimental to family, children, and old people?
Come on Ann, you're getting a tad melodramatic here.

Ann, abortion clinics were set up for profit. Any abortionist could make a fortune working in them. Hear about the scandal in Chicago in 1978 where moonlighting novices from the local hospital were raking in money at local abortion clinics, mainly by racing from patient to patient without washing their hands or changing their gloves. BTW, these clinics were in Chicago's most exclusive neighborhood.
I trained in a secular hospital where the majority of the OR staff refused to be involved in abortions. They had to be scheduled and staffed on the basis of the people who would do them being there. It caused quite a hassle and resentment, especially among those who were "stuck" with the abortions.
I'll let you in on a dirty secret Ann. This climate against abortion wasn't created by PL people. Doctors who do abortions have long been looked down on by their colleagues. Oh sure, they'll pay lip service, even send the occasional pregnant mistress for an abortion, but dirty their own hands? Never. Gee, maybe that explains why abortionists long past retirement age are still hacking away. Ever see that lovely dive Carhart runs in Nebraska?


No. Uninsured patients do not do without care or rely on the ER. You overlook the fact Ann that some people simply take absolutely no responsiblity for their own care or that of their children. Some people do not take the responsibility of establishing themselves with a physician or taking advantage of services that are available. I wholeheartedly support insurance reform which will generate competition, free market forces and will in turn keep prices in check.

Exactly what is religious freedom as determined by the Constitution? Ann, what you are saying is absolute balderdash. Government funding of an ideology? Do you mean abortion? Abortion is not a religious issue its a moral one!! People of all faiths and no faith oppose and support it. What in the hell are you talking about?

About the grocer, all in the point of view. Is he or is he not imposing his religious beliefs on me by forcing me to walk several more blocks to another store? What if I'm a senior citizen, a diabetic, or a person with physical challenges? Meat may be absolutely essential to my diet and health. This grocer can be causing me a great deal of difficulty, even a health hazard for me. Hey, what if the guy takes food stamps issued by the gov't that my tax dollars pay for? What if my tax dollars subsidize the welfare recepients who may be shopping at his store?

You didn't address my question about the doctor Ann. Was he or was he not within his right to refuse to honor this woman's request?
Sorry Ann, fact remains a female fetus would have been aborted had she had her way. Do you specifically recall your infancy or toddler years?
Since you have no awareness of that period in your life, does it mean you didn't exist?

You were raised Mennonite? Well, I'm agnostic, so obviously this is not a religious issue to me.

Ann, not every hospital in this country provides all services needed by all patients at all times. If you have an issue with a certain hospital, don't go!! I may not be thrilled that the only hospital in my rural community cannot provide me with orthopedic care, high risk maternal care, or neurological care. I may not be happy that I have to go to a hospital in another city for certain kind of care. People do it all the time. A family I know has to travel to Texas for their son's cancer care..

So where's the Greek chorus or does it matter only when its women seeking abortions?

Ann, believe me when I tell you someone is selling you a load of crap.

Posted by: Mary at December 2, 2009 4:54 PM


"I do believe. I was raised Mennonite in Lancaster, PA and went through catechism in college. My morality teaches me that my faith is my own and sacred. As is yours. And yet I know that preservation of my faith requires that all have the same rights to religious freedom, be they Muslim, Christian or whatever."

It's no surprise then that the Mennonites are a very small minority and will remain so or go extinct. How again does one preserve their faith (for future generations, I would assume is the goal) if it it so "private"?

Posted by: Janet at December 2, 2009 4:57 PM


Janet, And who are the proper preservers of morality and justice? You? Christians? And is that only because you are such - and of course more right in your faith than others? We all think we are right in our faith. Democracy was designed to balance that.

To argue that democracy can survive without separation of church and faith is to argue for theocracy. Good for a while if you ascribe to the beliefs of the theocrats, but, as history shows, fatally bad thereafter for all.

Mary, your thrashing response exhausts me. I think still I have addressed every point you continue to toss at me. But, alas: Women are used to traveling when they can for services. I've simply brought up that assuming everyone can be so inconvenienced and still get the services they need implies a sad amount of unacknowledged privilege. I guess those who can't afford contraception should just have more kids? It is class-based discrimination you speak of, and just as ugly as all other forms of discrimination.

Doctors are members of society, not outside of society's mores and pressures. Like women, doctors have long feared ostracism for practicing their profession - or feared murder, as in the case of Dr. Tiller. I have no problem providing health services for profit. I do have problems with monopolization of services for missionizing purposes as is done by the most wealthy, powerful Church in the world, with the blessing of our government. Anti-trust laws exist for business, not for patients, unfortunately.

Janet, your idea that the best religion wins the "war" of size or influence is horrendous and disgusting, has nothing to do with religious tolerance, and betrays lack of compassion for religious diversity and your brutal attitude toward others. And if you find the Anabaptists (Amish, Mennonite, Hutterite) are close to extinction, you are wrong. Check out the amazing services provided by the Mennonite church around the world. Those little, soon-to-be-extinct Mennonites do more for world relief and charity than you know. http://mcc.org/ But of course, the Mennonites were some of the first settlers of the new country, recruited by William Penn for their farming skills and delighted to find a country predicated on religious tolerance after being slaughtered and killed all across Europe. I have learned a thing or two about religious freedom from my Mennonite heritage. Persecution for faith is as old as the idea of God. I think that's what the founding father's were addressing, no?

And because this is a thread about bigotry regarding other faiths (as well as discrimination against patients' rights), I find your comment is the best place for me to end.

For it is a loathsome testament of the hatred and persecution fostered by self-righteousness. May you find some peace and love to drown that ugly intolerance.

Posted by: Ann Neumann at December 2, 2009 5:28 PM




I don't know any Amish or Mennonites but I've read a bit about the Amish, and I respect their simpler way of life.( Is that how you would characterize it?) I visited an Amish restaurant in Fla. not too long ago. Had my first "shoe fly pie". :) It was a fun experience.

Back to the topic.. Perhaps I went a bit far, suggesting their pending extinction, but my point was to emphasize how the many religions (who are predominant in number) in this country are more vocal by nature (Catholicism and other Christian denominations to name a few) and I don't think they should be allowed to be silenced or worse denigrated in the public square, so-to-speak, by those who are not adherents.

Posted by: Janet at December 2, 2009 5:34 PM


"Janet, your idea that the best religion wins the "war" of size or influence is horrendous and disgusting, has nothing to do with religious tolerance, and betrays lack of compassion for religious diversity and your brutal attitude toward others. "
Posted by: Ann Neumann at December 2, 2009 5:28 PM

Did I say that?

Oh my goodness, Ann, your anti-Catholic bias is showing, big time. Please read my comment to Hiya. Peace to you too.

Posted by: Janet at December 2, 2009 5:42 PM


Again, sorry Ann,

You haven't addressed the points I toss at you and I suspect you are unable to. I hardly call it thrashing.

Its certainly not just women who travel for services, as I have pointed that out time and again. Can't afford contraception? Come on Ann, just how expensive is contraception? Perhaps a little better money management and establishing priorities is what's in order?
No Ann it has nothing to do with privilege or class. Its that every single hospital simply cannot provide every single kind of service. Just like every store cannot provide every product.

About the doctors Ann take my word for it, it runs deeper. Abortionist always have been and remain at the bottom of the dungheap. Though tolerated, they are viewed as dregs.

I'm at a loss to understand what you mean by "monopolization of services for missionizing purposes...". With the blessing of our government?

Ann, you really need to tell me exactly what the point is you're making here. Anti-trust laws?

Posted by: Mary at December 2, 2009 5:51 PM


"Space aliens? I don't know; I'm just brainstorming."

"I'll stop talking now."

Posted by: Chris at December 2, 2009 12:14 PM

George Noory just might agree with you on that one. :)

Posted by: Janet at December 2, 2009 5:53 PM


Chris,

Oh, wait a minute..
Noory is Lebanese. Never mind.

Posted by: Janet at December 2, 2009 5:56 PM


but my point was to emphasize how the many religions (who are predominant in number) in this country are more vocal by nature (Catholicism and other Christian denominations to name a few) and I don't think they should be allowed to be silenced or worse denigrated in the public square, so-to-speak, by those who are not adherents.
Posted by: Janet at December 2, 2009 5:34 PM

sorry charlie, you pick a crazy religion and you will indeed be denigrated in the public square by those who are not adherents. Silenced? No. Denigrated, sure, why not? It's a free country.

Posted by: Hal at December 2, 2009 5:57 PM


"If men can't, why can women who don't naturally reproduce?

You mean like the former Vice President's daugher Mary Cheney who is living a happy life with her partner, Heather Poe, and whose relationship hasn't ruined my marriage. She just gave birth to her second child and I haven't seen any congratulations here. I thought you folks were into "life." Or is a child done through artificial insemination or in vitro "an abomination." And BTW, there are many women who, for whatever reason, remain closeted during their heterosexual marriages and who, during that time, give birth. So the idea that lesbians "don't naturally reproduce" is just ridiculous.

Posted by: sabra at December 2, 2009 6:02 PM


Janet, I am Catholic. No self-hating going on here. I just think equality is worth standing up for. It's what we were founded as a country to represent, religious tolerance for all, human rights and freedom for all.

Really, Mary! Read my posts and think. The Catholic church uses hospitals as a mission, imposing their faith via the ethical and religious directives, receiving tax exempt status from the government and 50% of their funding. Please, now. Stop with the posturing. Or are you just trying to banter me to exhaustion? I don't mean to be impatient but you've lost your points in a blur. By the way, are you a tea-bagger? Your capitalism comments re: "let them save their money for contraception while I enjoy what services I want in my local hospital" make me think so.

Posted by: Ann Neumann at December 2, 2009 6:15 PM


"sorry charlie, you pick a crazy religion and you will indeed be denigrated in the public square by those who are not adherents. Silenced? No. Denigrated, sure, why not? It's a free country."

Posted by: Hal at December 2, 2009 5:57 PM

Thank you Hal. Celebrating Christmas this year?

Posted by: Janet at December 2, 2009 6:25 PM


Dearest Hal,
If I were in the public square, just me and my crazy religion(and my I Regret My Abortion sign) and I were being denigrated, would you stick up for me?
Or would you say, "Sure, why not? It's a free country."

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 2, 2009 6:27 PM


"Janet, your idea that the best religion wins the "war" of size or influence is horrendous and disgusting, has nothing to do with religious tolerance, and betrays lack of compassion for religious diversity and your brutal attitude toward others. "
Posted by: Ann Neumann at December 2, 2009 5:28 PM

Did I say that?

Oh my goodness, Ann, your anti-Catholic bias is showing, big time. Please read my comment to Hiya. Peace to you too.

Posted by: Janet at December 2, 2009 5:42 PM

Ann,

I was hoping for an answer to my first question. You're hyperbolizing - if that's a word. Please show me where I said such a thing.

Posted by: Janet at December 2, 2009 6:30 PM


Carla, I would stick up for you, but would not silence the denigrater.

No Christmas for me this year. Just a nice day off to relax and enjoy the family.

Posted by: Hal at December 2, 2009 6:33 PM


I agree, why are they so pro abortion?

Posted by: Abortion Poems at December 2, 2009 6:50 PM


Hal,
No gifts?

Posted by: Janet at December 2, 2009 6:51 PM


So the idea that lesbians "don't naturally reproduce" is just ridiculous.
Posted by: sabra at December 2, 2009 6:02 PM
___________________________________________________
No it's not. Lesbians DON'T 'naturally reproduce'...not with each other. I have yet to see a lesbian who can produce sperm. I believe THAT was the point.

Posted by: Pamela at December 2, 2009 6:54 PM


Ann, Ann, Ann,

The Catholic Church uses hospitals as a mission, imposing their faith.

No dear, let me set you straight. The hospitals function based on the beliefs and teaching of the Church, they do not impose their faith on anybody. You're getting that from an agnostic who has spent years working in Catholic hospitals.
Don't lose any sleep over funding from the gov't, considering the Catholic hospitals I work at have had to write off a lot, including derelicts off the street, criminals, homeless people, single mothers and their sick children, and people who feel no obligation to pay their hospital bills, to name only a few. Then there was the trauma care we provided. Aren't you glad the Catholic hospitals were there to to this, even if it was with your tax money? Gee, not to mention some of the laboring women who walked in off the street and needed OB care and got it. Oh those evil conniving Catholics!

Banter you to exhaustion? Stop my posturing? LOL, sure Ann whatever. Say, what about that doctor? You never did answer my question about him.

Nope, not a teabagger. My goodness Ann you are one for stereotypes. Oh, and that last "quote" of yours? I said no such thing.

Posted by: Mary at December 2, 2009 6:56 PM


Janet, I assumed you were asking about celebrating Christmas as related to the birth of Jesus, which we never do. Sure, we'll have a few gifts, but we don't make a big deal out of it now that the girls are older. It's pretty quiet. But nice.

Posted by: Hal at December 2, 2009 6:59 PM


Posted by: Hal at December 2, 2009 6:33 PM


Carla - as I understand it - Hal's admission literally makes him a racist supporter.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at December 2, 2009 7:02 PM


So Hal,
When I am arrested for saying,"Merry CHRISTmas!" someday will you bail me out of jail? And be my lawyer?

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 2, 2009 7:12 PM


Mary, once again your depth of experience and breadth of knowledge are shown to be an invaluable resource. Your insider perspective puts to rest many of the misrepresentations and misunderstandings about the services Catholic hospitals do and do not provide.

Ann, it seemed right at the top that you came out swinging in your accusations that Catholic hospitals are in essence fraudulent and discriminatory. Mary has simply sought to disabuse you of some of your misconceptions. You cannot claim a higher form of idealism as your motive even as you display intolerance towards Catholic health care philosophy and practice. I must add that the system you are dissing was at the forefront of providing hospitalization services in our country, and that were it not for the nuns who staffed those early hospitals at great personal sacrifice a great many of our forebears would not have been treated with respect to the God given dignity they were endowed with.

And really, that is what this site it all about, namely; giving due respect to man's inherent God given dignity. Babies torn asunder in the womb is what has brought us together to redress this terrible injustice.

Posted by: Jerry at December 2, 2009 7:55 PM


So Hal,
When I am arrested for saying,"Merry CHRISTmas!" someday will you bail me out of jail? And be my lawyer?
Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 2, 2009 7:12 PM

absolutely. It that happens, I'm your guy, We'll sue them too!

Posted by: Hal at December 2, 2009 8:27 PM


Great Hal,

You'll be denigrating me in the public square for talking religion and later in the day defending Carla's right to say Merry Christmas.

What's the difference?

Posted by: Janet at December 2, 2009 8:36 PM


Hi Jerry,

Thank you for your kind words.
The Catholic Church also established orphanages, infants and mothers homes, and asylums to name a few. I understand Catholic nuns were the first to offer the mentally ill, people who were usually abandoned to the streets, shelter and humane care.

Our city is quite diverse and the Catholic hospital I work at has offered educational sessions to better understand the cultural and religious practices of our patients who are Jewish, Protestant, Amish, Native American, black, Hispanic, and Hmong, to name just a few.

Just another example of how those conniving Catholic hospitals are just out to force their morality and religion on everyone, even as they continue to treat people with no regard to race, religion, sexual orientation, and ethnicity.

Posted by: Mary at December 2, 2009 8:37 PM


Great Hal,

You'll be denigrating me in the public square for talking religion and later in the day defending Carla's right to say Merry Christmas.

What's the difference?
Posted by: Janet at December 2, 2009 8:36 PM

here's the principle, you have the right to say what you want, I have a right to comment on it. Carla has the right to say Merry Christmas, I have the right to comment on that. However, no one has the right to stop you or stop Carla. If she gets arrested (that was her question) for saying "Merry Christmas," I'm all over it. That would be outrageous.

Posted by: Hal at December 2, 2009 8:45 PM


Hal,
So, if it weren't your job as a lawyer to defend Carla you wouldn't get involved. Got it.

Posted by: Janet at December 2, 2009 8:49 PM


Thanks, man! :)

Merry CHRISTmas!!

Another question- can being offended be the basis for a lawsuit? My Christian brother and sister whackjobs are feeling the hostility toward anything or anyone that even mentions Jesus. Being offended is a CHOICE, am I right??

Tis the season of frivolous lawsuits....

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 2, 2009 8:54 PM


Hal,
So, if it weren't your job as a lawyer to defend Carla you wouldn't get involved. Got it.
Posted by: Janet at December 2, 2009 8:49 PM

I'd do it for free. In a second. Anytime.
It would be an honor.

Carla, I think you're joking. But, in the event you're not: No, you can't sue over being offended. (sometimes maybe you could, but I'd recommended against it.)


Posted by: Hal at December 2, 2009 8:57 PM


I have also worked in Catholic hospitals, in L&D to be exact.

The stereotypes and strawmen arguments thrown around are ridiculous. Two members of our staff had ectopic pregnancies during my time there and were cared for immediately (as we cared for all women presenting with ectopics). We cared for women suffering miscarriages. D&Cs were performed after miscarriages when necessary. The health of the mother was preserved. When there were competing demands (such as with pre-eclampsia), the mother was treated to maintain her health while providing the baby the best possible chance, also treatments provided for the baby to help speed maturation. When continuation of the pregnancy began to threaten the mother's life, we would perform a c-section with a NICU team there to attempt to save the life of the newborn. Healthy mother (delivery stops the progression of eclampsic conditions) and, when possible, healthy baby. If the baby still could not survive, we provided comfort care and put mom and dad in touch with resources (such as the MISS foundation) to assist them in their grief.

How sad that those who know nothing of the work done in Catholic hospitals feel the need to denigrate in ad hominem attacks.

Posted by: Elisabeth at December 2, 2009 9:11 PM


Hal,
Sorta joking. Taking it to the extreme.

All it takes is one mom or dad to complain about their cherub singing Away In A Manger in the "Holiday" concert and bringing it up to the school board. Vote and done deal. Jingle Bells it is. Any mention of a Christ child is forbidden.

Oh and no decorating with red or green and no Christmas trees. It is a holiday tree!!! It is not Christmas break it is Winter break.

How about the manger scenes? One resident gets offended and howls and the manger is gone. Buh bye baby Jesus.

It is freedom of religion for all other religions, but not Christianity. It is a hostile world out here for believers, Hal. It is only going to get worse. Believe me.

I love Jesus Christ with all of my heart. You know that. I will not go without a fight.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 2, 2009 9:14 PM


Carla, I understand what you're saying. As you know, I'm as anti-religion as anyone, but I don't care about a few Christmas things around the Holidays. However, I think it is important that the public schools not revert back to the way it was when I was younger and Christmas time at school did involve a lot of religious stuff. Baby Jesus doesn't have to be part of a school assembly, there are so many other places a family can worship and celebrate. I don't care what color decorations are used, but to tell you the truth, I'd rather the public schools stay out of the whole thing. "Winter Break" is fine and unoffensive, and better than "Christmas Break. No one is calling it the Anti-Jesus Break. It's the break at Winter. I won't complaint that it coincidentally falls around Christmas every year. Neither will the Jews, who never got offended that it wasn't called Hanuka break.

Posted by: Hal at December 2, 2009 9:22 PM


Hal!!!

What do you mean you can't sue for being offended? People do it all the time. (See Carla's post.)

Posted by: Janet at December 2, 2009 9:31 PM


Hal at 9:22,
You made my point. What a sour puss you are.

Posted by: Janet at December 2, 2009 9:33 PM


Put on your lawyer hat for just a minute please.

All it takes is ONE person to complain and out it goes......what about the majority of us who happen to enjoy What Child Is This at the Christmas concert?? Where are my rights to see and hear the word Christmas, Hal? I want a Christmas tree not a holiday tree!! It's Christmas break!! It has always been Christmas break!! I am sick to death of hearing, "Well we don't want to offend anyone!!" Except me. Go ahead and try to take Christ out of Christmas.

It took one woman to get prayer out of schools. It took one man to try and sue over the Pledge of Allegiance. What next In God We Trust off the currency?

My freedom to worship in the public square is being taken away bit by bit and most don't even see it. Do you even see it, Hal?

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 2, 2009 9:34 PM


Go Carla!!

Posted by: Janet at December 2, 2009 9:36 PM


I am sooooooooooooo fed up!!

It is Christmas!! Merry Christmas!!

The other religions of the world scream for tolerance while being intolerant of my belief in Emmanuel. God with us. (My all time favorite Christmas song!!)

Freedom of religion. NOT freedom from religion.

The ACLU can put that in their Christmas pipe and smoke it!

I do not get offended when I see a Menorrah, or a dreidel or hear about Kwanzaa....if I am can I sue??

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 2, 2009 9:43 PM


Carla,

I have already started saying Merry Christmas to everyone in stores, friends, etc... and will say it loud and clear. If the stores have the displays up and are making Christmas money, I'm saying it. People who are offended are grinches and aren't going to spoil my Christmas!!!!!

JESUS is the REASON for the SEASON.

Posted by: Janet at December 2, 2009 9:49 PM


Mary I want to thank you for your posts they have been right on regarding Catholic hospitals and other Catholic institutions like nursing homes, orphaniges and mental hospitals. I think Ms. Neumann "doth protest too much" as she attacks the Catholic healthcare system. She seems to be on a personal "Anti-Catholic crusade" to me, maybe suffering from a Kool-aid overdose, she doesn't seem to be even listening to you. I find it really hilarious that you, an agnostic, are being accused of being pretty much "a religious nut" because you have defended them so eloquently for all the good they do to help the poor, homeless and defenseless in their communities (which by the way has been my experience). To disprove her point I have heard that a Catholic hospital in a major city has one of the best treatment programs for HIV/AIDS patients.

Posted by: Prolifer L at December 2, 2009 9:53 PM


Carla, you have no right to hear a Christmas concert in a public school. Where did you think you got such a "right?" Do I have a "right" to come to school and denigrate religion? No, I don't. Rights in public school are a bit limited. Too limited in my view, but that's the way it is. [if you recall, I'm on the side of students who want to wear pro-life t-shirts to school]

Prayer in school and Christmas references should be stopped even if no one objected. You can see and hear the word Christmas all over town, in your home, at your church, on TV, and in sky writing for all I care. Just keep it out of the schools, and public buildings. I don't think Jesus would mind.

Schools don't need any trees, but if they want to have them, I don't care if they call it a Christmas trees. They also have menorahs, etc. I wish they didn't, but it's not illegal.

Lots and lots of people don't want prayer in schools, including a majority of the Supreme Court. Of course, it's perfectly okay to pray in public schools, people do it every day. You just can't have the school lead or sponsor it. That makes sense. and is fair to everyone. The only reason to have an official prayer of some kind is to try to catch the kids who aren't praying on their own. That would be my kids, and lord help you if you expect them to sit quietly while someone takes their school time to invoke the name of God.


The Pledge of Allegiance is an absurdity and should be dispensed with immediately. Especially, but not only, because of the "God" part. True patriots don't have to publicly pledge their allegiance to anything.

"In God We Trust" has no business being on our currency, but I doubt any judges have the guts to put a stop to it. I don't really care. We get so much God shoved in our faces everyday, we get numb to it.

I doubt you have lost any freedom to worship Carla. You let me know if someone stops you from loving your God, going to church, or praying anytime you want. You can say Merry Christmas, and you can have Christmas day off as a National Holiday. Easter too. Stores can have Christmas sales, or not have Christmas sales, based on what they feel is right and/or profitable.


Posted by: Hal at December 2, 2009 9:57 PM


Bravo, Hal.
Carla, it's hard in our society to be an atheist. Those who don't believe are denigrated, look down on, and distrusted, and deserve none of it.

Posted by: Shortypie at December 2, 2009 10:04 PM


Hal,

Having a bad day? Has all this Christmas talk gotten to you already? It's going to be a loooong month.
You're a party pooper, Hal. We'll have a wonderful Christmas and you can enjoy your "day off".

"The only reason to have an official prayer of some kind is to try to catch the kids who aren't praying on their own. That would be my kids, and lord help you if you expect them to sit quietly while someone takes their school time to invoke the name of God."

You should not be invoking the "Lords" name if you don't believe in him. It's offensive to those who believe.

Posted by: Janet at December 2, 2009 10:12 PM


Hal,
Why is religion a threat to you?

Posted by: Janet at December 2, 2009 10:16 PM


Janet, sorry to offend. Sue me.


I'm going to quit for the night, before I say something I regret or gets me banned.

Posted by: Hal at December 2, 2009 10:21 PM


Carla: "All it takes is one mom or dad to complain about their cherub singing Away In A Manger in the "Holiday" concert and bringing it up to the school board. Vote and done deal. Jingle Bells it is. Any mention of a Christ child is forbidden...Oh and no decorating with red or green and no Christmas trees. It is a holiday tree!!! It is not Christmas break it is Winter break...How about the manger scenes? One resident gets offended and howls and the manger is gone. Buh bye baby Jesus."

Carla, are we talking about a private, religious school? Then they can sing "Away in a Manger" to their hearts' content. And if it's a public school, and individual students wish to dress up for the Christmas season, fine. But the school can't endorse one belief system over another; it can't endorse belief over non-belief, non-belief over belief, or one religion over another religion. Similarly, you can wish "Merry Christmas" to whomever you want, including the greeter at the department store. Just don't go bananas if he happens to say "Happy Holidays," okay?

Hal: "Of course, it's perfectly okay to pray in public schools, people do it every day. You just can't have the school lead or sponsor it. That makes sense. and is fair to everyone. The only reason to have an official prayer of some kind is to try to catch the kids who aren't praying on their own. That would be my kids, and lord help you if you expect them to sit quietly while someone takes their school time to invoke the name of God...The Pledge of Allegiance is an absurdity and should be dispensed with immediately. Especially, but not only, because of the 'God' part. True patriots don't have to publicly pledge their allegiance to anything."

I agree with Hal so seldom here that I feel it important to point out when I think he's right on the mark. So..."bingo."

That's fine. Some defend saying "Merry Christmas" to everyone they know (including non-Christians), arguing that "It's Christmastime whether you're Christian or not!" Cool. But then don't turn around and say we need to keep the "Christ" in "Christmas" when you're the one secularizing it by foisting it upon people you know don't celebrate it.

Posted by: bmmg39 at December 3, 2009 1:21 AM


Hate to break it to you bmmg39 but public schools sing Away in a Manger, Silent Night,and We Three Kings. Where I used to teach in a public school the concert had only traditional CHRISTmas songs!! I am saying it will be ONE parent who complains even though the whole school district LOVES the concert and it is standing room only.

Yeah. I usually go bananas when someone says Happy Holidays. Cause I am a nutjob like that.

Wow Hal. I hear you loud and clear!! You are part of the problem, dude.


Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 3, 2009 5:54 AM


And how shall I know the Christians from the non-Christians? Everyone will be getting a Merry Christmas from me this year, like all other years!
Foisting......HA.

Secularizing Christmas has to do with putting more emphasis on Santa than Jesus, getting more than giving and eating more than worshiping. YOU have secularized it and tried to take Christ out of Christmas.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 3, 2009 5:58 AM


On second thought Hal I will find myself a Christian lawyer.
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org

Interesting that one of the cases they are working on is a town that changed the name Christmas Parade to Holiday Parade.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 3, 2009 6:00 AM


PLL, 9:53PM

You're very welcome and thank you for your kind words. Its always nice to hear from you.

I think Ann is so blinded by her bigotry that she doesn't realize how outrageous some of her claims are. For heaven's sake our hospital hands out pamphlets describing its services! I have nothing against Ann personally, I see her as someone parroting the appalling misinformation and bigotry she's been fed. I sincerely hope our posts gave her a much needed education.

Here's another example of how horribly my Catholic hospital employer discriminates against women. It runs a special center for women dealing with health issues such as cancer, proper nutrition, etc. This center has support groups from women with cancer as well as a beauty program for women undergoing chemotherapy.
I can't go on, its just too terrible to say anything more about, but I'm sure you get the idea of just how Catholic hospitals disrespect and neglect the health of women. :)

Posted by: Mary at December 3, 2009 8:31 AM


Carla I was just going to suggest Alliance Defense Fund or Thomas More Law Center for your lawyer.

Abortion and Sterilization are NOT Health Care, Ann, and a CATHOLIC Hospital should NOT be forced to provide those services that go against their long held beliefs.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at December 3, 2009 8:56 AM


Carla, just because it's only one brave parent who brings the lawsuit, doesn't mean there aren't other parents (or more likely school children) silently thankful. The right to be free from government-established religious events is not subject to majority rule. It's right there in the Constitution. The "right" to hear religious Christmas songs on school property during school hours is not.

I honestly can't imagine why any of this would bother you in the least.

(thanks bmgg)

Posted by: Hal at December 3, 2009 9:18 AM


When I started coming to this site, I was tolerant of religion, but intolerant of the pro-life position. I now understand and can appreciate the pro-live view, but I have become more frustrated and bewildered by religion than ever before. I can only reluctantly conclude that religion, as practiced by many of you here, is a very destructive and dangerous thing. It makes you shrug off the constitutional rights of school children, deny the benefits of marriage to gay men and women, and decimate the shrimp and lobster industry. Time for a self imposed break. Hope you all have a wonderful holiday season ;)

[and a very Merry Christmas]

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Posted by: Hal at December 3, 2009 9:31 AM


Hal,

I'm not jumping into any religious debate here, I can support both sides of the argument, but I hope that those who object to the singing of religious songs, prayer in school, etc. object just as strenuously to children being taught to sing the praises of Obama. Especially when boys are dressed like stormtroopers and march, perform, and repeat in unison like the Hitler Youth.
Isn't political indoctrination of children just as illegal as religious and do you know Hal if any legal action is in the works, maybe by the ACLU?

Posted by: Mary at December 3, 2009 9:36 AM


Hey Mary -

I support people who object to both religious songs and political indoctrination.

I also think that if people object so strongly to the term "winter vacation," then perhaps it should remain "Christmas vacation" and last only for Christmas day. 'Winter vacation' more accurately describes the extended break that occurs during the winter season than 'Christmas vacation' does. Same for 'spring break' versus 'Easter break.'

Posted by: Alexandra at December 3, 2009 10:11 AM


Hi Alexandra,

Its always good to hear from you.

I've heard it argued that the "Obama youth" in schools were just expressing their pride in being black, having a black president, etc.

Fine, then you agree the Hitler Youth were just expressing their pride in being German and praising a leader who brings out their pride in being German.

The video I saw makes your skin crawl Alexandra. These boys had been well drilled and indoctrinated, and a lot of work and practice went into performing that drill. Change the skin color, uniforms, and replace "Obama" with "Hitler" and it could have been the Hitler Youth. So where is the ACLU?

AND I STILL WISH MY MOTHER HAD NAMED ME ALEXANDRA OR MARY ALEXANDRA LIKE SHE ALMOST DID!!!!!!!

Posted by: Mary at December 3, 2009 10:48 AM


I support a bunch of brave parents standing up to say that religious liberty extends to Christians! We are not excluded. We have constitutionally protected rights. As a public school teacher it was within my constitutional rights to bring my bible to school, pray, form a prayer group of faithful teachers and oversee a student led bible study group. I could even teach from the Bible in a History lesson. I could even wear a cross necklace! Gasp.
Was I indoctrinating students? Was I teaching Christianity? What was the atheist science teacher down the hall doing only teaching about evolution and not allowing discussion even though one of my students said, "That is not what I learned in Sunday School!"

Hal,
Your anger is not directed at me so I don't take it personally but I do wonder why The Pledge bothers you so and why you would quote from the Old Testament out of context if you don't even believe in the significance of God's word??

My children in public school say the Pledge everyday. With hands over their hearts they speak as a group and say One nation Under God with liberty and justice for all.(except the unborn) Why? Because men and women lost their lives so they could have the freedom to say it! I am very proud and thankful to live in the community that I do, a conservative community with time honored traditions.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 3, 2009 11:20 AM


Hi Carla,

As I pointed out in my previous posts, what anger has been expressed over and what action will be taken against the political indoctrination of children?
Its been videotaped more than once so this is not some aberration.
Come on ACLU, the Democrats, let's hear from you!

Posted by: Mary at December 3, 2009 11:30 AM


Hi Mary,
Agreed! I didn't hear anything from anyone about that!! The silence is deafening at times...

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 3, 2009 11:33 AM


"When I started coming to this site, I was tolerant of religion, but intolerant of the pro-life position. I now understand and can appreciate the pro-live view, but I have become more frustrated and bewildered by religion than ever before. I can only reluctantly conclude that religion, as practiced by many of you here, is a very destructive and dangerous thing. It makes you shrug off the constitutional rights of school children, deny the benefits of marriage to gay men and women, and decimate the shrimp and lobster industry. Time for a self imposed break. Hope you all have a wonderful holiday season ;)"

Posted by: Hal at December 3, 2009 9:31 AM

This is a very good thing. (Please hear me out.) Your frustration and bewilderment is a sign that God is working in you to change your heart. You just don't see it yet. Maybe it's time to contact that priest acquaintance of yours that you mentioned a while back. Send him a Christmas card, meet him for coffee and talk. Or don't. It's up to you at this point.

The reason these attacks on Christmas bother us so much is because as Christians, our relationship with Jesus goes to the very core of our being. It defines who we are. (Call us crazy if you will.) You take a part of us when you attempt to remove Christ from Christmas. The Nativity is a symbol of the Miracle of Christmas. The songs express our joy. Why do you and other people want to take away our joy? Ask yourself and your friends this question this Christmas.

Posted by: Janet at December 3, 2009 12:35 PM


Why? Because men and women lost their lives so they could have the freedom to say it! I am very proud and thankful to live in the community that I do, a conservative community with time honored traditions.
Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 3, 2009 11:20 AM

Freedom to say it, or NOT to say it. That's freedom. You couldn't force me to say it even with a gun to my head. And I love this country as much as any man.

Posted by: Hal at December 3, 2009 12:46 PM


Carla: "Hate to break it to you bmmg39 but public schools sing Away in a Manger, Silent Night,and We Three Kings."

...so...what's the problem, then? And why do you "hate to break it to" me? I helped perform all three of those myself last night, while students and parents loaded up trucks with toys for needy children. I think everyone there is Christian and celebrates Christmas.

"Secularizing Christmas has to do with putting more emphasis on Santa than Jesus, getting more than giving and eating more than worshiping. YOU have secularized it and tried to take Christ out of Christmas."

I agree that Christmas has become too secular. I agree with that. But if we acknowledge that it should be treated as the religious holiday it is, then you should also understand that this is EXACTLY WHY PEOPLE SAY "HAPPY HOLIDAYS" sometimes instead of Merry Christmas: because NOT EVERYONE CELEBRATES CHRISTMAS. Maybe you do; maybe I do. But many people do not, and by foisting it upon them you are saying "it's Christmas for everyone, whether you're Christian or not," and thereby, yes, you are the one secularizing the holiday.

Posted by: bmmg39 at December 3, 2009 12:55 PM


NOT EVERYONE CELEBRATES CHRISTMAS. Maybe you do; maybe I do. But many people do not, and by foisting it upon them you are saying "it's Christmas for everyone, whether you're Christian or not," and thereby, yes, you are the one secularizing the holiday.

Posted by: bmmg39 at December 3, 2009 12:55 PM

I have to disagree with your assessment. I think our retailers have had a large roll in secularizing Christmas. And now they want to bite the hand that feeds them by calling it a holiday. Not too bright. I've heard it suggested in the past that Christians should boycott and refrain from purchasing Christmas gifts for a season in order to send a message that we won't tolerate a watered-down Christmas. I've already cut way back on gift-giving and if something like that were to be organized nationwide, I'm in.

Posted by: Janet at December 3, 2009 1:09 PM


Hal,

Please, your opinion on schoolchildren being politically indoctrinated by singing to Obama and school boys dressing and marching like stormtroopers, reciting in unison the praises of Obama. Also, do you know if the ACLU and other liberal groups have any issue with this and plan to take legal action?

Posted by: Mary at December 3, 2009 1:18 PM


One of the public schools here in Lincoln used to have a Christmas program (I am sure it didn't have religious songs, it may have had 'Jingle Bells', that sort of thing) but some Jehovah Witness parents raised a HUGE fuss and they axed the program.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at December 3, 2009 1:29 PM


When I was young in Catholic school, we performed in several music programs a year. Not all were religious in theme. The one I remember the most fondly had a patriotic theme celebrating our great country. It was wonderful.

Posted by: Janet at December 3, 2009 1:37 PM


So I am foisting when I say Merry Christmas to someone? Are they foisting when they say Happy Holidays to me? Is Hallmark foisting it on everyone when Dec. 25th reads Christmas on their calendars?

Two definitions I found for secular
of or relating to worldly as opposed to sacred things
not concerned with or related to religion

Thanks for the conversation today!!! I appreciate your thoughts, even though we may disagree.

Hal,
I believe Janet is right. God is working on your heart.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 3, 2009 2:34 PM


if you think all abortion is murder or believe that life begins at conception then you have a very tenuous grasp on scientific reality. so make your own choices about how you want to take care of your body and let others make theirs.

maybe more pro-choice people would speak out if anti-choice activists would stop shooting doctors and shaming women who exercise their legal rights (most of whom are in terribly difficult situations and deserve our compassion).

Posted by: lauren at December 3, 2009 3:30 PM


also, Obama telling children they can grow up and succeed in life is much less indoctrinating than even saying the pledge of allegiance. just because you have a problem with democrats doesnt mean that it is indoctrination to allow the president to tell children to aspire to something more than becoming a pop star or athlete. i think maybe i should have taking scientific out of my previous post and simply said that you have a very tenuous grasp on reality. not to be inflammatory, but come on. presidents have always addressed children, and no one ever said it was indoctrination when it was coming from a white president (regardless of what side of the line he was on). wasnt george bush reading to, and hence ADDRESSING children in a school on september 11?

Posted by: lauren at December 3, 2009 3:37 PM


lauren 3:37PM

I'm not referring to Obama's addressing schoolchildren. Also, you should mention the PL demonstrator, a man disabled and on oxygen, who was shot dead in front of a high school by someone who didn't agree with his cause. Both sides of this issue have lunatics.

I was referring to videos that you can check out for yourself on YouTube of schoolchildren, under the direction of teachers, singing the praises of Obama, much like the indoctrinated children of N. Korea sing to their "leader". In one video students are actually in military garb, marching and speaking in unison, and obviously very well indoctrinated. If they were white, wore brown clothes and swastikas, and substituted Hitler for Obama, you would call this political indoctrination or would think you were flashing back to the Hitler Youth.
Don't these teachers have more important things to do, like teach? If parents want their children indoctrinated, they can do it on their own time.
Certainly you would agree that if religion must be kept out of the schools, so must political indoctrination.

For the record lauren, I would have just as vehemently objected to this if it were my or any other children indoctrinated to sing the praises of Reagan or Bush I, both of whom I liked.

Posted by: Mary at December 3, 2009 4:00 PM


that man was shot by someone with a personal problem with him.. it was NOT related to his anti-abortion stance.

i have not seen those videos, but i have seen young children at a religious camp crying out for "righteous judges" and singing their praises to a cardboard cutout of george bush, and yes, they did remind me of hitler youth.

i dont think any children should be indoctrinated with political or religious beliefs in or outside of school.

Posted by: lauren at December 3, 2009 4:19 PM


lauren,

What personal problem could he have with a debilitated old man on oxygen carrying a sign of a human fetus? Bingo. He didn't like the sign.
Why did that guy shoot Tiller? Because he didn't like what he did either. Like I said lauren, both sides have nut jobs. Tiller's killer did not belong to any PL group, the elderly man's killer did not belong to any PC group. The killings of both men were strongly condemned by both sides.

The big difference is that the children at the camp were there with parental permission and at their parents' expense, not the taxpayers'.
As I said, if parents want to indoctrinate their children in any religious or political dogma, that's their decision.

We certainly agree that children should not be indoctrinated in the schools, outside, again that is a parental decision.

Posted by: Mary at December 3, 2009 4:38 PM


they knew each other personally. all im saying is that when someone shoots two people with whom they are personally affiliated with, you have to imagine that there is more going in the murderers mind than a mere distaste for a sign. also, tillers murderer has been affiliated with anti choice groups and many of those groups, while not applauding tillers murder, have certainly not condemned it.

I agree that is a parents decision whether or not to indoctrinate their children. I would never try to legally infringe on a persons right to raise their children (though many conservatives are extremely eager to attempt to legislate my rights away) but that doesnt mean that I have to think that the way in which they choose to do so is in any way appropriate. Regardless of whether a child is being trained to heil obama or heil the righteous judges, manipulating a child is a shameful misuse of ones status as an adult.

Posted by: lauren at December 3, 2009 4:50 PM


Carla: "So I am foisting when I say Merry Christmas to someone? Are they foisting when they say Happy Holidays to me?"

Again: feel free to say what you wish. I hear both "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holidays" all the time and I don't bite the person's head off, either way. That might be a good approach for other people, too. Don't forget: some of the people in those stores are getting Hanukkah presents. Let's not make them feel left out.

lauren: "if you think all abortion is murder or believe that life begins at conception then you have a very tenuous grasp on scientific reality. so make your own choices about how you want to take care of your body and let others make theirs."

Lauren, feel free to make yourself friendly with science textbooks, since they, too, seem to believe that a human life begins at fertilization.

"maybe more pro-choice people would speak out if anti-choice activists would stop shooting doctors and shaming women who exercise their legal rights (most of whom are in terribly difficult situations and deserve our compassion)."

You seem to think pro-life activists are the only ones becoming violent. This is wrong -- and the pro-life activist murdered in Michigan is far from the only example.

Posted by: bmmg39 at December 3, 2009 5:46 PM


lauren,

You don't quite have your facts straight.
The old man's killer was offended by the poster and shot him in front of a high school, putting students in danger. He was a lunatic and PC groups condemned his action. Why would they feel the need to do so if this was just a personal squabble? In all fairness, he had no association with PC groups.

Tiller's killer was NOT associated with any PL groups, he was associated with militias that support and promote defiance of law. He had a history of violent, irrational behavior, including arrest. The man was a time bomb.
PL groups very vehemently condemned the killing.

I would certainly disagree with how some parents choose to raise their children and I wouldn't approve of indoctrination. However, what parents want to teach their children is their decision, so long as they do it on their own time and with their own resources.

Posted by: Mary at December 3, 2009 6:04 PM


"I don't bite the person's head off either way." Agreed. Neither do I.

"Let's not make them feel left out." I make people feel left out by saying Merry Christmas??? Don't people have to look past two words to see my shiny, happy. smiling face and my heartfelt wishes?

Good grief.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 3, 2009 7:27 PM


No, I think most of those who don't celebrate Christmas are so used to hearing "Merry Christmas" that they wouldn't even notice (though it wouldn't kill us to say "Blessed Ramadan" if our friend is Muslim or "Happy Hanukkah" if she/he is Jewish).

When we DO make people feel left out is when we noisily object to "Happy Holidays," as though we are saying that our holiday -- and ONLY holiday -- should be acknowledged.

Posted by: bmmg39 at December 3, 2009 7:33 PM


mary, i agree with you that anyone gunning another person down in the street probably has more serious mental illness issues and not a mere distaste for the person whom they murdered's ideals.

bmmg39-

being a medical student i am extremely familiar with scientific textbooks and can safely say that ~50 percent of fertilized eggs have chromosomal abnormalities that are incompatible with life. hence, life does NOT begin at conception. the vast majority of those fertilizations are self-aborted (miscarried) before the women even has a chance to know whether or not she was pregnant.

Posted by: lauren at December 3, 2009 7:44 PM


Lauren, can you explain to me how you come up with the idea that life doesn't begin at conception simply because of the idea that 50 percent of human zygotes have chromosomal abnormalities which will cause them to die?

If 50 percent of newborns were born with chromosomal abnormalities which caused them to die, would it also follow that life doesn't begin before birth?

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 3, 2009 7:54 PM


lauren,

I'm glad we agree the killers of both the old PL man and Tiller had some serious mental health issues and in no way represented either side of the abortion issue.

Posted by: Mary at December 3, 2009 7:57 PM


Lauren: "the vast majority of those fertilizations are self-aborted (miscarried) before the women even has a chance to know whether or not she was pregnant."

...meaning they die of natural causes, yes.

I'm not sure if my count is dead-on or not, but I think this is the 100th time I am refuting that argument online. Are balloons are supposed to drop from the ceiling, or do you just win the toaster?

Posted by: bmmg39 at December 3, 2009 8:11 PM


reread your embryology text book. Read a book on fetal development. Heart begins to beat by 21 days. Brain waves detectable as early as 40 days. Organs are present at 12-13 weeks. Babies can yawn, kick, do somersaults, hiccup, well before birth. Some babies can smile before birth.


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at December 3, 2009 8:16 PM


mary-

im glad that we can agree on that issue as well

liz and bmmg39-

conception occurs when the sperm meets the egg. when that sperm meets the egg there is a 50 percent chance of the fertilized egg being unviable. im not saying this is unnatural, what im saying is that life does NOT begin at conception. im not even talking about later stages of fetal development. these fertilized eggs that are self-aborted are not dead because their genetic make-up does not ever allow them to function in any way that resembles life.

bmmg39-

maybe if you are hearing this argument so many times there is some basis to it. do you dismiss everything that you hear repeatedly?

Posted by: lauren at December 3, 2009 8:24 PM


No, but when I refute them successfully, it makes it waaay easier. I've also refuted "arguments" from those who confuse embryos with unfertilized ova, and with those who speak about them analogously with sperm cells. I may be close to 200 times with those.

Posted by: bmmg39 at December 3, 2009 8:30 PM


first of all, your refuting of my point has been unsuccessful.

secondly, what do you mean analogous to sperm cells? are you saying an unfertilized egg is not analogous to a sperm?

Posted by: lauren at December 3, 2009 8:39 PM


conception occurs when the sperm meets the egg. when that sperm meets the egg there is a 50 percent chance of the fertilized egg being unviable.

There is no such thing as a "fertilized egg".

Once the egg is fertilized, a new and complete human being comes into being (zygote), which is alive by biological definition!

If it dies shortly after conception, that doesn't prove it never existed or lived.

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 3, 2009 8:43 PM


a zygote is not alive by definition. by definition a zygote is the cell formed by the union of a male sex cell (sperm) and a female sex cell (ovum). a cell is not alive by definition. some cells dont even contain the full instructions necessary for life (aka DNA), for example, 50 percent of zygotes to not have the correct amount of DNA to be alive.

Posted by: lauren at December 3, 2009 8:48 PM


Lauren, a human zygote fulfills the 4 criteria for being biologically alive. (metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction).

Just out of curiosity, where do you get the idea that cells are not alive?

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 3, 2009 9:04 PM


Lauren, if a zygote is not alive, then how exactly does it ever develop and grow into an embryo, then a fetus, then newborn, and so on?

How does something not alive grow and develop? Explain that to me.

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 3, 2009 9:16 PM


well bethany, a cell that doesnt have functional DNA does not fulfill those criteria. hence, not all zygotes can be considered "biologically alive". many cells do not grow. red blood cells, keratinocytes, etc. im not saying that cells arent alive, what im saying is that not all cells are alive.

i get that idea from the fact that something that does not contain functional DNA can not always be considered alive.

its kind of ridiculous that you cant even concede that a cell that is incapable of growth and metabolism, though fertilized, could be dead. the reason it self-aborts before the mother knows she might have been pregnant is BECAUSE it wasnt alive or compatible with being alive. this isnt even about medical abortion.

Posted by: lauren at December 3, 2009 9:18 PM


Lauren, you don't seem to even be reading what you're writing. Do you realize what you are saying?

you cant even concede that a cell that is incapable of growth and metabolism, though fertilized, could be dead

If it' DEAD then it had to be ALIVE at one point! Are toasters or stuffed animals dead? No, they never were living in the first place.

A human zygote can be dead because it was once alive!

the reason it self-aborts before the mother knows she might have been pregnant

Self aborts? Abort means to cease development! You can't cease developing unless you were already developing, Lauren!

Here's another thing for you to consider. You keep saying that (supposedly) 50 percent are non viable. Well, what about the other 50 percent who are viable. Are they not living, growing, developing human beings?

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 3, 2009 9:23 PM


im not talking about abortion. im talking about when life begins. my mistake for using the word dead. i meant not alive.

what i am saying is that those 50 percent of unviable zygotes are not alive in exactly the same way that a toaster and stuffed animal are not alive. they lack the necessary elements to be alive. i am not talking at all about the viable 50 percent.

this conversation is over, because you are not coming from a place of reason or logic. you have no interest in considering my point (which has a solid scientific basis), as i have considered the points made by other people countering my arguments.

Posted by: lauren at December 3, 2009 9:34 PM


So basically you're avoiding the question, because you cannot answer it honestly.

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 3, 2009 9:36 PM


When does life begin for the 50 percent of viable zygotes, Lauren?

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 3, 2009 9:46 PM


Lauren: "first of all, your refuting of my point has been unsuccessful."

Not really. If an embryo fails to implant or is the victim of spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), then he's not much different from the fetus who's miscarried or the girl who dies three hours after being born. All die of natural causes and it doesn't follow that this means they weren't human beings to begin with, or that it's okay to kill them intentionally.

"secondly, what do you mean analogous to sperm cells? are you saying an unfertilized egg is not analogous to a sperm?"

No, I'm saying that people make dazzlingly inane arguments such as, "Oh, yeah? Well, what about when a woman has her period? Is she a murderer then?" Or: "Oh, yeah? Well, what about when a man has a wet dream? [Sorry, Jill.] Isn't he a mass murderer then?"

Posted by: bmmg39 at December 4, 2009 1:37 AM


Lauren, here are several quotes from Embyology texts which unequivocally say that the human being begins at conception.


"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote). ... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." (Carlson, Bruce M., Patten's Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p.3.)


"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]


"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zygtos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being." [Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]


"Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. ... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." (O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29).


"the term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation and fertilization ... The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life." (J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers, pages 17 and 23.)


"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being." [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]


"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus." (Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146.


"every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition." (E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant (3rd Edition). Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.)


"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life." [Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 4, 2009 6:31 AM


And Lauren, bmmg's December 4, 2009 1:37 AM post needs to be taken very seriously. Excellent points are made.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 4, 2009 6:36 AM


im sorry but the embryo that fails to implant is not a HE or a SHE or anything. and is very different from the child who dies three hours after being born.

i never said an unfertilized egg and sperm were analagous to a fertilized egg, though conservatives in colorado want to give haploid eggs the same protections they have mistakenly won for fertilized eggs.

bobby-
"The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."

i have been EXPLICITLY referring to zygotes that contain more or less than 46 chromosomes, hence zygotes that do not exist in genetic unity. im glad that you know how to read, but its kind of sickening that all you guys can do is frantically search for evidence of your point (which often supports mine) without really understanding it or considering what its saying.

many of the books you quote use that 46 chromosome number as the gold standard for being alive, and i would imagine that the ones that dont are religious in nature and therefore unvalid as scientific texts

Bethany,

im not answering your question because it is irrelevant to the conversation we are having which is about whether or not all fertilized eggs are "alive", not what should happen to the ones that are. I am sorry you lost two very wanted and loved children. it is certainly a tragedy any time someone who is ready to welcome a child into their lives with open arms is denied that opportunity. but i think that personal feelings about your lost children are coloring this argument. although i believe that scientifically most miscarriages are the result of an unviable fertilization (a bundle of cells incapable of growth, development, and hence life, ie not alive to begin with), many people would say that a child is alive as soon as the mother loves and wants it, and in that sense, regardless of science, your children were very much alive, and their memories are protected by your faith and love. in an ideal world every child would be as wanted and loved as your children.

Posted by: lauren at December 4, 2009 10:06 AM


Lauren,

"im sorry but the embryo that fails to implant is not a HE or a SHE or anything. and is very different from the child who dies three hours after being born."

You have offered no scientific or philosophical evidence to support this claim. This is simply an unproven assertion.

"its kind of sickening that all you guys can do is frantically search for evidence of your point "

Yes, we look for evidence for our points, not our personal opinions. And I must say, I didn't have to search frantically at all.

Lauren, you've simply blown off a mound of scientific quotes that I gave you above. What is your scientific basis for claiming that the zygote is not alive?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 4, 2009 10:25 AM


bobby,

your point IS a personal opinion. please reread my comment. my scientific basis for the fact that 50 percent of zygotes are not alive is contained above and supported by many of your quotes. im not coming back anymore because many people on this website refuse to even consider anything that contradicts their beliefs, even when they are the ones presenting the contradictory (to their claims) evidence.

I really hope that you can recognize that your views are your own, and while they are certainly valid opinions, you have no business attempting to legislate them onto other people. im no longer subscribed to the comments notification, so dont bother trying to respond directly to me.

Posted by: lauren at December 4, 2009 3:23 PM


"bobby, your point IS a personal opinion. "

No, it is science. It continues to shock me when people who would be appalled at anyone who would dare questions the science behind global warming and evolution show this huge skepticism when you give them science that says that we all began life as an embryo, and then refuse to supply any science themselves. But again, you don't give an argument as to why your unstated and implied principle that "if a lot of something dies, then it's not really alive" does not apply to infants.

"please reread my comment. my scientific basis for the fact that 50 percent of zygotes are not alive is contained above and supported by many of your quotes."

This is absurdly false. You haven't shown how the quotes support your view. You continue to make assertions, assertions, assertions. You refuse to show anything. You won't give me a scientific quote about anything. But you "claim" that the quotes actually support what you think. Please show me how. Anyone can assert that "ha! Those quotes say what I think! You didn't even read them!" But really, what quote implies that a zygote is not alive?

"many people on this website refuse to even consider anything that contradicts their beliefs, even when they are the ones presenting the contradictory (to their claims) evidence."

Lauren, if I didn't know any better, I would think you were talking about yourself here.

"I really hope that you can recognize that your views are your own"

Isn't this just your view? Why should I recognize your view as binding on me?

"you have no business attempting to legislate them onto other people"

Are you trying to impose the view on me that I should not impose my views on others? The truth is, government exists to impose restrictions and views on people. Not to force them to believe a view, but to behave a certain way. This is just a typical question-begging argument which assumes that there is no objective reality to what the fetus is- it's all a matter of opinion.

"im no longer subscribed to the comments notification, so dont bother trying to respond directly to me."

Oops, too late.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 4, 2009 3:50 PM


Very good post, Bobby.

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 4, 2009 4:07 PM


Lauren: "im sorry but the embryo that fails to implant is not a HE or a SHE or anything. and is very different from the child who dies three hours after being born."

The embryo already has a gender at fertilization. There's no Gender Fairy coming along three days or eight weeks or nine months later, to add the little _______s to the developing embryo/fetus.

"i never said an unfertilized egg and sperm were analagous to a fertilized egg..."

-- and I never said that you did. I mentioned another argument I have refuted dozens of times.

Posted by: bmmg39 at December 4, 2009 5:50 PM


God love you, Bobby!!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 4, 2009 6:34 PM


the Gender Fairy! Love it!

isn't it always the way that people who simply can't support their arguments simply leave instead of rationally reconsidering their position...

but it's okay in Lauren's mind to be able to legislate her position even though science and philosophy do not support it. Rich.

Posted by: angel at December 4, 2009 8:18 PM


Knowledge is something I like to dismiss? That's news to me. Usually, I'm the one making scientific arguments, and someone from the "it's not a person" crowd then conveniently backs away from science in favor of touchy-feely romanticized definitions for "human being."

Posted by: bmmg39 at December 5, 2009 2:12 AM


Thank you Bobby, Bethany, bmmg39 and the rest of you prolifers who responded to lauren's post. It made me laugh and think of Dr. Suess after reading all of your post "A person is a person no matter how small". God bless you.

Posted by: Prolifer L at December 5, 2009 11:32 AM


Posted by: lauren at December 4, 2009 10:06 AM
---------

If what you're referring to are hydatidiform moles not being alive in the sense of a fully formed zygotic human being, then you should say so. However, to claim that natural embryonic death is mostly of this form is specious. I really would need to see confirmable evidence.

As it is, in your arguments, you consistently refer to "fertilized eggs", however the human ovum only exists as the vernacular "fertilized egg" until it reaches the amphimixis stage. Beyond that point it can no longer be called or considered an "egg", because the cellular substance of the ovum has ceased to exist as a unique entity, precisely what O'Rahilly and Müller point out. You could not uniquely identify where the "egg" ends and the sperm begins because they have become one - a unity.

A simplified explanation of what happens can be found here:

http://www.thrufire.com/blog/2009/03/fertilized-eggs-vs-zygotic-human-embryos/

Bobby provided a considerable number of quality medical references, but I'm not seeing how anything he provided backs the claims you're making.


Posted by: Chris Arsenault at December 5, 2009 12:51 PM