Jivin J's Life Links 6-1-10

web grab.jpgby JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat

  • At This is What a Feminist Blog Looks Like, Arielle Cohen shares that at a fundraiser honoring murdered abortionist George Tiller, abortionist LeRoy Carhart told attendees that before he was murdered, Tiller was planning on retiring to travel with his wife.

  • At Salon, Lynn Harris writes about trying to replace "pro-choice" with "pro-freedom." ...

  • A veterinary doctor in Australia believes older couples looking to have children will turn to IVF first as opposed to the old fashioned way.

  • Canadian researchers have released a study which found that taking anti-depressants during pregnancy was associated with a higher risk of miscarriage:
  • "The major finding is that antidepressant use during pregnancy increases the risk of spontaneous abortion by 68%," said epidemiologist Anick Berard, principal investigator of the study published this week by the Canadian Medical Association Journal.


    Comments:

    I don't get that phrase "trust women". I know someone else pointed this out before, but what, because you have a vagina and uterus and ovaries you are automatically trustworthy? Was Susan Smith or Andrea Yates trustworthy? Was Bonnie (of Bonnie & Clyde) trustworthy? So because you have breasts and a uterus you can be trusted. HUH. Good to know.

    And to use the phrase "pro-freedom" is ludicrous. I love freedom just as much as any red-blooded patriot but freedom to do WHAT? I don't support the freedom to rape another person, physically assault another person or worst of all, KILL another person which is what abortion does. They can doctor up their cause with slogans and catch phrases but that doesn't change what abortion IS. The CHOICE to kill your child, the FREEDOM to annihilate your child.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at June 1, 2010 1:27 PM


    So Lynn Harris is trying to replace one very bad euphemism with another very bad euphemism. The entire anti-life movement is built on such verbal engineering.

    At the Center for Morality in Public Life, we have a new columnist, Catherine Palmer, who is working on a project to catalog all known euphemisms in the anti-life movement and could use the help of seasoned pro-lifers in sending along a list of whatever they can brainstorm.

    May I ask a favor that anyone interested in helping click the link below and leave whatever euphemisms come to mind?

    Thanks so much.

    http://gerardnadal.com/2010/05/31/how-many-pro-choice-euphemisms-can-you-list/

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at June 1, 2010 1:33 PM


    Freedom in this context means license.

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at June 1, 2010 1:56 PM


    Exactly, Dr. Nadal. By the by, I've been a big fan of yours for a while. HIGH FIVE!

    It cannot possibly be true liberty if it destroys the life of another.

    Posted by: MaryLee at June 1, 2010 2:00 PM


    I suppose when you don't have a real argument, rhetorical spin becomes terribly important.

    Posted by: Keli Hu at June 1, 2010 2:03 PM


    Jumped over to Salon to read it and the comments. It is a war, alright, a war against children whose only crime is arriving at an inconvenient time for which they deserve the death penalty. Forced pregnancy? Are they serious? After all the time schools devote to 'sex education' these people cannot grasp the most basic facts of life?? Wow, you'd think after all these years I couldn't be suprised by the pro-death crowd, but y'know, they never cease to come up with new ways to justify murder.

    Trust women, indeed. Over 52 million children sure couldn't trust women.

    Posted by: ninek at June 1, 2010 3:32 PM


    The most correct moniker for the aborters is, "Anti-Human Rights Extremists".

    Posted by: Ted at June 1, 2010 6:34 PM


    Hi Ninek, love your post. "Trust women,indeed. Over 52 million children sure couldn't trust women." Well said.

    Posted by: Prolifer L at June 1, 2010 8:25 PM


    Trust has to be earned. Proaborts don't have mine.

    Posted by: Praxedes at June 1, 2010 9:12 PM



    Trust has to be earned. Proaborts don't have mine.
    Posted by: Praxedes at June 1, 2010 9:12 PM


    I'm sure proaborts everywhere are crying themselves to sleep tonight knowing they don't have your trust.

    Posted by: Hal at June 1, 2010 10:29 PM


    The real and true tragedy Hal is that there are multiplied millions of souls, including many pro-aborts, crying and wailing, wishing they could sleep and get a respite from their torment.

    God never intended for them to suffer so. He created Hell for satan and his demons.

    The shed blood of millions of innocent children cries out for justice.

    God has made a way for all of us to escape the wrath to come.

    His name is Jesus.

    Posted by: Ed at June 2, 2010 12:18 AM


    Forget arguments about fetal humanity, when life begins, etc. None of you feel that it's a breach of privacy, of physical autonomy for the state to mandate that women carry pregnancies to term? Do you think pregancy is easy--to be sick for months, to make visits to the doctor, to take care of one's body to ensure the health of a growing baby? If a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, do you assume that during the course of her pregnancy she'll grow to love the child? What would you do with women who just refused to rise to the challenge of pregnancy?

    I'm really just curious; none of these questions are meant to be snarky. I'm just trying to envision a world without abortion.

    Posted by: Common sense at June 2, 2010 1:28 AM


    I went through some of the comments on the "Salon" article. The verbal gymnastics they will go through to avoid the truth of what a pre-born baby is...exactly that, a baby.

    If they don't like "pro-choice" anymore they can always go with what we've been calling them "Pro-abortion" because essentially that's what they are. Oh, they may say "I'm not for abortion, but I'm for a woman's right to choose an abortion if she wants to" but that doesn't change that in essence that makes you pro-abortion because you're fine with someone having one if they so want to.

    We call ourselves pro-life because that's what we are. We are for life and people's right to life, including the pre-born baby.

    Posted by: Mother In Texas at June 2, 2010 1:36 AM


    Common Sense,

    I'M a mother. I have gone through pregnancy. I went through the fear, the pain, the loss of blood (I thought I'd have to get a blood transfusion, fortunately I did NOT). I went through all the pregnancy, I did what I could do to relieve Nausea (thank you Marilyn Shannon and your book, "Managing Morning Sickness"! I ended up just having one 1/2 day of Nausea thanks to that book...it does depend on the person, but I can say it works).

    I have NO regrets (well, except for wishing I had reported this one nurse who was rude to me and having the OB I did, I'll have a different OB if I get pregnant again). I love my child, and despite any fears, any risks anything I went through in my pegnancy I have NO regrets and if I get pregnant again, I will go through the pregnancy despite any fears because that is what a responsible person does. (Plus that's what self-LESS love is..."laying down one's life for another"). It's not easy, and it's sometimes scary, but it doesn't mean that the pre-born child should go through a horrible death through abortion just because someone's scared or someone doesn't want to be pregnant.

    There is the option of placing one's child up for adoption. I know people who are adopted and those who have put their child up for adoption. The people I know who are adopted are grateful they were NOT aborted.

    I've known unwed mothers who appreciated the places like adoption agencies and people who work with them who were there for them, and helped them.

    There are many resources for pregnant women that do NOT include killing her pre-born child.

    I can also provide some information on that. One being Foundation For Life (very good place, I know people who have done work for them).

    There's Catholic Charities who help unwed mothers and help with adoptions. (I know people who have used them and said they were very good).

    So, there are places willing to help women (without killing their pre-born child) if women are just willing to be helped.

    Posted by: Mother In Texas at June 2, 2010 1:51 AM


    Common Sense,

    "If a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, do you assume that during the course of her pregnancy she'll grow to love the child?"

    I begged, cried and pleaded with God for months to have my period start. I made all kinds of silly promises to Him if only I were not pregnant.

    Acceptance came later. Once this beautiful human was born, I stared with love at him for years. I still do and he's all grown up now.

    I sincerely do not believe I am the exception.

    Posted by: Praxedes at June 2, 2010 7:07 AM


    Common Sense, nothing that you mentioned overweighs the value of another human's life. That's really the bottom line.

    Posted by: Lauren at June 2, 2010 8:18 AM


    Common Sense,
    What many women do not understand is that even if you are actively planning a pregnancy/trying to become pregnant, it is totally normal to have mixed feelings about the baby once you actually become pregnant. I planned all three of my children and it was still a scary moment when I saw the pregnancy test turn positive. If a woman who is trying for a baby has these feelings and it is normal, how much more normal would it be for a woman who is dealing with the news of a "surprise" pregnancy? I sometimes wonder how many women abort because they have these feelings and assume that this means they don't love or don't want their baby.

    We were in the middle of an Army move when I found out I was pregnant with our third. I had mixed feelings for most of my pregnancy. I had planned the child but it was taking so long to become pregnant (about a year of actively trying to conceive) that I didn't figure it was going to happen anytime soon. I wondered if we had done the right thing, and the timing was a little bit less than ideal. But I still loved our baby then and of course I do now. It turned out that my latest pregnancy was a bit more uncomfortable than the previous ones. But here's the thing - even if a pregnancy is very uncomfortable, if you stick it out to the end instead of aborting, you get the reward of knowing that all the pain, discomfort, whatever you went through was all worth it.

    That moment is when you first see and hold your little baby. The moment you see that child, you just know in your heart that it was all worth it. Everything. There is an amazing love that just sweeps over you for this wonderful little baby that just instantly feels right, as though you've been amply compensated for your trouble and pain.

    Women who give up and abort miss out on this, and I am sad because this is one of the greatest experiences a woman can have. Abortion robs the baby of their very life, and it is so wrong, but the woman is robbing herself as well.

    Posted by: army_wife at June 2, 2010 8:31 AM


    Back when I was unfortunately pro choice, the phrase 'physical autonomy' never entered my head. My child is gone because the doctor and 'clinic' took advantage of a frightened young woman for the money they would make. 'physical autonomy'?? I know some pro-aborts are atheists, but can you imagine getting to the afterlife and explaining to your kid that you snuffed her for 'physical autonomy'? "Well, gosh, mom when you put it that way, I understand perfectly!" It would be a laugh if you weren't actually using it to justify murder.

    What is a laugh is the notion of 'physical autonomy' as you age! Why don't you tell my wrinkles and sags about it? Who am I gonna kill because gravity and age are ruining my physical autonomy? Pregnancy is only temporary. Aging is permanent, haha!

    Posted by: ninek at June 2, 2010 8:38 AM


    This is the ridiculous rhetoric of the pro-abortion community. Forcing women to go through pregnancies? Nobody is forcing anyone to BECOME pregnant. I don't understand how not killing your child is a bad thing, Common Sense.

    I've said this before, and I'll say it again. This isn't The Handmaid's Tale. Nobody is tying women down and making them pregnant and forcing them to give birth. Women have a choice to have sex. I support that choice. They also choose to use birth control or not. But once a child is conceived, they do NOT have the right to kill that child. Physical autonomy stops when it interferes with the life of another. I have the right to control my body, but I do NOT have the right to kill my unborn child. My unborn child has her own rights, and her own body, and I cannot impose my will upon her right to exist.

    This isn't liberty--this is license to kill. If we dehumanize our unborn, then no one is safe. If we cannot view our unborn as valuable persons with a right to live, then we cannot say that about anyone. All these distinctions the pro-abortion community make are arbitrary, and ever-changing. Not killing my unborn child does not impinge on my rights. I cannot demand equality by spilling my child's blood. THAT doesn't make sense.

    Posted by: MaryLee at June 2, 2010 10:09 AM


    I don't mind "pro-freedom" as long as they add "to kill" after it.

    Posted by: phillymiss at June 2, 2010 10:37 AM


    army_wife --You made an excellent point. Even planned pregnancies (like mine was) doesn't mean you aren't scared and nervous. I know I was. My mother even said, even if you're planning on getting pregnant sometimes that positive pregancy test still catches you by surprise. (I know it did me, and I pretty much had an inkling I was pregnant--NFP charts--you still could've knocked me over with a feather! But I have a great child to show for it and don't regret that I had my child either!)

    ninek--I loved your response! That is so completely awesome!

    Posted by: Mother In Texas at June 2, 2010 10:59 AM


    It's so funny talking about how even planned pregnancies can still give you the butterflies. -This pregnancy was planned in that we always intended to have more children, but we weren't actively trying either.

    When I came out with the positive pregnancy test my husband and I were both pretty shocked because it had taken so long for us to get pregnant with our second and I guess we had just assumed it would take that long in the future.

    Of course, we're thrilled, but there is a bit of a disconnect there like "I'm pregnant, how the heck did that happen?"

    Posted by: Lauren at June 2, 2010 11:07 AM


    If you left your front door open one afternoon, whether by accident or to let in some fresh air, and a homeless man walked in and decided to set up shop in your spare bedroom, would you house him? Would you be obligated to find him some other place to live?

    I equate this situation with pregnancy. It isn't too difficult to become pregnant, whether through human error or contraceptive failure. For policymaking purposes, it would be difficult to distinguish between the two types of incidence. Whether one believes in the "humanity" of the fetus or not, it would be wrong for the state to mandate that women continue unwanted pregnancies. I also think it would be very paternalistic to tell them they'd "grow to love the child," that nine months isn't all that long for physical discomfort.

    I also don't think the lines between personhood and potential personhood are all that arbitrary. The earliest a preemie can survive is 22 weeks. Okay, before that point, abortion should be legal on grounds that the fetus could not survive outside another person's body. Beyond the viability point, the state may regulate the procedure as it sees fit. Also, abortion does not allow for the killing of post-born people. That's a straw man argument right there. Nobody argues for the killing of post-born individuals because abortion is legal.

    Posted by: Common sense at June 2, 2010 12:19 PM


    Common Sense, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Nobody is forcing women to get pregnant. There are many ways to PREVENT pregnancy. Abortion is used as a form of birth control. I don't really know anyone who believes it should be exercised as a form of birth control.

    Since 99% of abortions are performed on healthy women and healthy babies, maybe we should examine WHY women seek out abortions. Many women feel they don't have a choice. They have to choose between having a baby and keeping their boyfriend, or getting their degree. If we offered women actual support, then we would eliminate the perceived "need" for abortion.

    Pro-aborts often say "Nobody LIKES abortion" or "Nobody WANTS to have an abortion." But your arguments make it sound as if women DO want abortions. If abortion isn't anything to be ashamed about, then why do pro-aborts refuse to even mention abortion in their slogans? Why the obfuscation and double-speak? If it IS something that isn't pretty, and women don't "WANT" it, then why aren't pro-aborts trying to see what they can do to eliminate the perceived need for abortion?

    Your arguments about the unborn are functionalist and, again, arbitrary. To say that a person isn't worth anything until it ....(fill in the blank here....viability, etc.) is dangerous and faulty thinking. At 30, I am not more of a person than I was when I was 3. When I was 3, I was not more of a person than when I was in my mother's womb at 8 weeks. I am me, I always was me, and always will be me.

    Because the unborn don't "function" or meet some silly criteria pro-aborts feel they should meet to be considered human beings, this kind of thinking can easily be applied to "born" persons who don't meet that criteria either.

    I'm sorry, no matter which way you slice it, the right to live is the only inherent right we have. We do not have the right to kill. It is not responsible to kill your child. It is careless, and it leads to other dangerous practices. Accountability is a good thing. Not everything we decide to do is okay. Having the "right" to do something isn't the same as being right in doing it. Abortion will never be accepted by everyone because it is unacceptable, period.

    Posted by: MaryLee at June 2, 2010 12:43 PM


    "I equate this situation with pregnancy"
    =======================================

    How does a baby happen to walk into a mother's womb and "decide" to set up shop there?

    Your nick doesn't fit...choose another one...
    it just shows that "common sense" is the most uncommon of all senses...

    Posted by: RSD at June 2, 2010 1:45 PM


    me thinks that 'common sense' missed the biology lesson in high school on how a baby is made.

    Homeless man setting up shop? For crying out loud.......

    pregnancy is a NATURAL result of sexual intimacy between a man and a woman. A woman can only become pregnant a few days a month.

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at June 2, 2010 1:55 PM


    "a homeless man walked in and decided to set up shop in your spare bedroom, would you house him? Would you be obligated to find him some other place to live? "

    A homeless man does not have the right to not be neglected, a child does. If, instead of a homeless man, a stranger dropped an infant off on your doorstep, you would indeed be required to find him some other place to live at the very minimum. You couldn't just let him die on your doorstep.

    Posted by: Lauren at June 2, 2010 1:58 PM


    "If you left your front door open one afternoon, whether by accident or to let in some fresh air, and a homeless man walked in and decided to set up shop in your spare bedroom, would you house him? Would you be obligated to find him some other place to live?"

    I'm presuming your homeless man can survive on his own if you throw him out, so this is not analogous to pregnancy at all, because in pregnancy your womb contains someone who cannot survive on his/her own.

    The homeless man is an intruder yes, and you have a right to protect against intruders, but things would be quite different if the homeless man were deathly ill with pneumonia and it were 20 below outside. He's not going to be able to survive outside, and others would look quite differently on you if he managed to make his way inside and you threw him out. In that case, the proper thing to do would be to shelter him until he is well enough to go to the hospital. In that case, your human duty to him would certainly demand that.

    If you insist on making that analogy, there is your answer. But the analogy is false from the start. The unborn child is not an intruder in someone else's home. When you become pregnant, the child is coming to his or her natural home, the one your body sets up for him every month. God (or nature if you will) prepares the home for the child. In abortion you are throwing someone out of HIS own legitimate home.

    The big problem with pro-abort thinking is encapsulated in your words, "it isn't too difficult to become pregnant, whether through human error or contraceptive failure." In this mindset, pregnancy is always some sort of error, not the natural consequences of an action that has pregnancy as its natural goal.

    The present-day mentality is that we have a right to all the consequence-free sex we like, and pregnancy is an "error" or "malfunction" that should be gotten rid off. This is the iron-clad mentality. And because this mentality is so strong, all attempts to point out the naturalness of pregnancy, the human nature of the child, and his or her right to life are dismissed out of hand. And all attempts by anyone to make clear the laws of nature are regarded as arbitrarily "pushing your morality on someone."

    This points to a much bigger matter -- the nature of human morality. It lies at the very heart of why pro-aborts and pro-lifers cannot agree. You would do very well, Common Sense, to read a book by C. S. Lewis called "The Abolition of Man." In it, he looks at the difference between modern education and that of the past. In the past, educators believed that there were objective realities inherent in nature that they had a duty to inform their students about. These included such things as the universal duty to care for our parents and children. These laws -- which exist, naturally and not invented -- in every single nation and people on earth, Lewis calls the Tao. It also encompasses what Christians understand by the term "natural law" but Lewis chose the Chinese word Tao to stress the universal aspect.

    Modern education, on the other hand, regards all value as subjective and based on whatever the individual person feels and wants. In the last part of the book, the most chilling part, Lewis imagines what a society based on this concept would be like. Since what is "moral" is subjective, the morals of society will be based on whatever the strongest and most powerful group in society wants. Of course, it is a powerful aid to tyrants of every kind, who will be sure to educate everyone in what their arbitrary judgment assumes to be moral. They will eventually give up all talk of morality and enforce only their naked will, including whatever evil they desire to enforce. This is the difference Lewis sees between the old-fashioned "educators" and the modern "Conditioners." Lewis wrote this in 1943, and it is one of the most powerful and prescient books of the 20th century.

    Pro-aborts look at Christians and others arguing for the unborn's right to life, and simply assume they are acting like arbitrary Conditioners, largely because most of them, having grown up in an age of Conditioners, and ignorant of the whole concept of the Tao, simply imagine Christians are applying the arbitrary views on morality that their own "group" wants. What the supporters of the Tao are really proposing is looking at the way things actually function in the world.

    The very facts of pregnancy dictate what we should understand by them. The natural right of the unborn child exists, it is not made up, it was once recognized. People up to our own day have generally realized that the unborn child is in its proper place, and that tearing it from there is wrong. They realized that the mother had an instinct to protect that child for a purpose, and that she should protect it precisely BECAUSE it was helpless and dependent on her for everything.

    You can't imagine "a world without abortion." Well perhaps there will never be a world entirely without abortion, because some people are always going to disregard the Tao (most of us actually disregard it much of the time), but there was once a world -- and in my lifetime -- when people actually understood that life in the womb was to be protected, that mothers have a natural duty to protect their unborn children. In spite of any misgivings women might have about pregnancy, it was understood that maternal instinct is powerful, and would see her through. This is why we find arguing with pro-choicers so frustrating. We are not even agreeing on the most basic principles, and our hearers also completely lack understanding of what we are talking about.

    All you have to offer is the arbitrary decrees that your own Conditioners have been feeding you. Do try to educate yourself a little, and come out of your shell. Because the learning they have been giving you is destructive.

    (I also find it hilarious that you are calling defense of a woman's instinct in regard to her pregnancy "paternalistic" when it is being given to you 100% by women!)

    While I was writing this, and looking for the pub date of the book online, I actually found a link to and e-text of "The Abolition of Man." Hurray! Do read it, if you haven't already, it's fairly short.

    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition1.htm

    Posted by: Lori Pieper at June 2, 2010 2:04 PM


    BRAVO, Lori! BRAVO!!!!!!

    Also, THIS:

    "The big problem with pro-abort thinking is encapsulated in your words, "it isn't too difficult to become pregnant, whether through human error or contraceptive failure." In this mindset, pregnancy is always some sort of error, not the natural consequences of an action that has pregnancy as its natural goal."

    ....I feel like reading C.S. Lewis again. He seems to be the only person who nudges me out of agnosticism.

    Don't applaud all at once, guys.

    Posted by: MaryLee at June 2, 2010 2:30 PM


    MaryLee,

    Somehow I just KNEW you were a Lewis reader! (Something about your straightforward intellectual honesty and common sense, I guess).

    Do keep up the good work on the agnostic part of the pro-life spectrum, because we can really use that perspective.

    Though I'm actually praying you'll become something else :)

    Posted by: Lori Pieper at June 2, 2010 2:52 PM


    "If you left your front door open one afternoon, whether by accident or to let in some fresh air, and a homeless man walked in and decided to set up shop in your spare bedroom, would you house him? Would you be obligated to find him some other place to live."

    If my only two 'choices' in this situation were

    a) let the completely innocent silent homeless man hang out for in one spare room for 9 months until a suitable home could be found

    or

    b) kill him by slicing off his body parts

    AND I had been told over and over and warned my whole life that there was a very good possibility that a homeless person might just enter this spare room for a limited amount of time if I made the CHOICE to open the window for any reason.

    Sorry to disappoint you CS but MY Common Sense tells me to not slice and dice the poor fella. I can't imagine anyone doing so. Where's your heart?

    Posted by: Praxedes at June 2, 2010 3:54 PM


    Posted by: MaryLee at June 2, 2010 10:09 AM

    and

    Posted by: Praxedes at June 2, 2010 3:54 PM

    and

    Posted by: Lauren at June 2, 2010 1:58 PM

    ...I couldn't agree more.

    Posted by: army_wife at June 2, 2010 4:44 PM


    I've read CS Lewis. I don't like his misguided nostalgia. There never was a glorious time when human beings were taught to love and care for all other people unconditionally. Also, mothers weren't better or more maternal fifty years ago, or even 1,000 years ago. Women have always sought to end unwanted pregnancies, and will continue to do so forever. And the concept of a biological maternal instinct naturalizes the (presumed) function of woman as baby maker (as many women and men can attest, parental inclinations are often learned through the course of childrearing). Yes, female bodies are designed to carry children, but I think we're modern enough to agree that the function of sex transcends procreation. It's unfortunate that, in the pro-life discourse, sex for pleasure is equated with promiscuity and general licentiousness. It isn't a crime to want to express intimacy, affection or love for another person sexually without desiring to become pregnant. It's poor public health thinking to allow the government to police our sexual mis-times, or mistakes.

    You're right--there is no analogy that matches directly with pregnancy. It is a unique situation because a fetus is solely dependent on another human being's body. That's the distinction between the homeless man and the fetus. No, your DNA wasn't different before viability, but your well-being fell beneath someone else's jurisdiction.

    Posted by: Common sense at June 2, 2010 6:26 PM


    "There never was a glorious time when human beings were taught to love and care for all other people unconditionally."

    It's always been taught. It's never been listened to.

    Posted by: Praxedes at June 2, 2010 6:28 PM


    "Yes, female bodies are designed to carry children, but I think we're modern enough to agree that the function of sex transcends procreation. It's unfortunate that, in the pro-life discourse, sex for pleasure is equated with promiscuity and general licentiousness."

    Common sense,

    You're painting pro-lifers with a broad brush!! Stick around for a while.
    The function of sex transcends procreation? Without procreation, our species dies - whether we're a modern society or not that's a FACT.

    Posted by: Janet at June 2, 2010 7:30 PM


    Common Sense, you've thrown everything at me but an answer to my points. And no, labeling Lewis' line of reasoning as "misguided nostalgia" doesn't count as an argument. Lewis' argument was not about whether the practice of any society or religion is good or bad, but their specific belief and teaching about values, and in regard to this, believe me as a historian, he is right and you are wrong.

    What about my point that in an abortion you are throwing a child out of HIS natural home? I suspect all your verbiage was an attempt to cover the fact that you have no answer to this question.

    I also don't think you need to lecture to anyone about how "the function of sex transcends procreation." You really know nothing about the beliefs of anyone here, but they are certainly not what you say.

    In Christian teaching (sorry to get all religious on you, but you brought the subject up), sex does indeed far transcend procreation. It far transcends even the pleasure and intimacy of the couple (which we certainly believe in). It is transcendent as the sign of the love between God and his people, Christ and His Church. Between married people in fact, it is a glorious sacrament.

    I certainly understand why you don't know this, obviously not knowing anything about Christianity. Just as Screwtape said (I hope you recognize the reference) his main job is not so much putting what he regards as the "right" ideas in people's head, but keeping the wrong ones out.

    If you could ever get an idea into your head that the Conditioners didn't put there, that is. . .

    Posted by: Lori Pieper at June 2, 2010 11:13 PM


    Hi there, Megan, why are you posting under the name "Common sense" now?

    Welcome back to the blog.

    Posted by: Kelli Author Profile Page at June 3, 2010 12:21 AM


    Oh, and btw, Megan (or Jake, or Elli, or Common sense), please choose one moniker and stick with it. Pretending to be different pro-aborts posting on a blog is not only strange (and seems a bit desperate, maybe), it's against the rules here. Thank you.

    Posted by: Kelli Author Profile Page at June 3, 2010 12:25 AM


    "Nobody argues for the killing of post-born individuals because abortion is legal. "

    This statement it patently false. I would suggest looking into the work of professional philosophers like Peter Singer and Michael Tooley who openly advocate the killing of born children precisely because it is consistent with the ``right" to ``terminate" a pregnancy. These are the intellectual leaders of the pro-choice movement.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at June 3, 2010 8:32 AM


    Jumping in late here.

    Praxades, you are absolutely not the only one who falls in-love with their unexpected child. I did with my son (though I was thrilled to discover I was pregnant even though it was a shock). My employee, I have posted about, went through the same thing. She had had an abortion in her early 20's. Years later she got pregnant again (not using contraception even though it was available to her). Scheduled a second abortion. She felt very ambivalent towards the baby and her family and co-workers were all saying "Just get rid of it! You can't be a mom! You don't have yourself together!" She was a party girl. A huge drunk. She was constantly broke. the father was a loser. Her mother had just shelled out money to put her in beauty school. The pregnancy came at the worst time.

    In the end we talked it over. I showed her pictures of what her baby looked like and she knew she couldn't abort. She had her little girl. That little girl today is a beautiful blue-eyed pixie of a toddler. Once my friend decided to have her daughter her emotions towards the child warmed little by little. At this child's birth she told me "I can't believe I almost threw her away!" To this day she can't believe her daughter was scheduled to be aborted.

    When you say to forget when human life begins and opine about privacy the image of Scott Peterson popped into my head. Should we let him go because he murdered his wife and son in the privacy of his home? Does privacy mean police can pry to solve crimes? When it comes to injuring or killing another privacy is not a defense.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at June 3, 2010 9:45 AM


    Common Sense,

    Christopher West (A Roman Catholic Speaker--www.christopherwest.com ) has done some in-depth research on Pope John Paul II's "The Theology Of The Body" and West says that "the marriage bed is a glimpse of Heaven" (which, I have heard West is quoting JPII in that respect).

    Marital Sexual Union is a small "foretaste" of Heaven (as West and JPII say) It's like "peering into something through a stained glass window." You see the beauty and colors, but you don't see the full picture.

    Sexual activity serves 2 main purposes:

    1. Procreation (being open to the possiblity of children)

    2. Unitive (that is reaffirmation of the marriage vows).

    It's a complete self-giving to each other.

    So yes, [many] Christians do understand that sexual activity isn't just procreation. But it is one of the main purposes.

    As someone else pointed out, without procreation our species would not survive. Procreating and having children is how we don't all die out.

    Pre-born babies are still human beings, regardless of whether or not they look like those of us who are already born or not. They can't be anything else because unless otherwise corrected, human sperm plus human egg equals human baby. (As far as I know that equation hasn't equaled kitten or puppy or any other species except human).

    Posted by: Mother In Texas at June 3, 2010 1:54 PM


    "Yes, female bodies are designed to carry children, but I think we're modern enough to agree that the function of sex transcends procreation. It's unfortunate that, in the pro-life discourse, sex for pleasure is equated with promiscuity and general licentiousness."

    Common sense,

    You're painting pro-lifers with a broad brush!! Stick around for a while.
    The function of sex transcends procreation? Without procreation, our species dies - whether we're a modern society or not that's a FACT.
    Posted by: Janet at June 2, 2010 7:30 PM
    ------------------------------------------

    I think sex for pleasure is a GREAT thing. Have it with my husband every chance we get. And the even more awesome part is that we have seven gorgeous end-results ... because you see, we have sex for pleasure and rooted in massive love (and hey, a great deal of healthy lust) for each other... and sometimes when we do that, we are lucky enough to conceive one of our beautiful children.

    And then, as our baby grows, we have tangible proof of just how much we love each other and how much we enjoy having sex with each other! And, btw, pregnant sex rocks and it is absolutely sex for pleasure, as obviously I'm not going to get pregnant when I already am!

    Oh, and I agree with the post above pointing out that your analogy is flawed... it's more like you go out on the street, bring the homeless person in, then realize he's there and chop him to bits. Very not right.

    Posted by: Elisabeth at June 4, 2010 2:52 AM


    "It's poor public health thinking to allow the government to police our sexual mis-times, or mistakes"
    --------------

    Funny this was stated by a pro-abort...so, Why is President Abortion..umm, err...Obama pushed federal funding for Abortion.

    Posted by: RSD at June 4, 2010 11:02 AM


    Marital sex resulting in kids is a beautiful thing--I won't contest that. I don't think Christians are anti-sex-- if it's sex done right i.e. in the context of marriage. In pro-life thinking, the stereotype of a post-abortive woman is young, misguided and promiscuous. The pity/disdain for girls like this is almost palpable. But also, broad characterizations tend to obscure facts. Not all women who seek abortions are hopeless and scared, and many are married.

    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.html

    Take this for what you will but the Guttmacher study above found that fewer than 1% of women surveyed felt pressured into having an abortion by their parents or significant others.

    Nobody likes abortion, despite what you might think. As a pro-choice woman I don't like the idea of any invasive surgical procedure, especially one that can be so life-changing for a woman. IMO we should try to reduce the number of abortions being sought, but this can't be done unless we--prochoicers and prolifers--really work to prevent unintended pregnancy and understand other factors involved in a woman's decision-making process. If she feels she can't pursue an education and have a kid at the same time, then that's problematic! Obviously the pro-choice side has a lot of work to do to support women who become mothers, and likewise, the pro-life camp needs to respect that a woman must make the ultimate decision regarding her body.

    Posted by: Common sense at June 4, 2010 11:38 AM