Enjoy your vacation, Jill.

In the meantime, I will point out that the more difficult you folks make abortions to get, the more this sort of thing will happen:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/nyregion/05abortion.html

Thankfully Ray, President Obama will make it so much easier to get an abortion, signing FOCA and all. Whatta Man!! No worries.

Jill,
Have a wonderful break and I will do the same!

That was a fascinating article, Ray. Thank you for sharing it.

Have a wonderful break, everyone! :)

See you on the blogs, Bethany!! :)

:)

Maybe it's just me, but I get REALLY sick of people complaining about the nasty side effects of abortion. Stop complaining about the infections and the pain and the loss of fertility...the babies are DYING and people are selfishly worrying about the side effects of the murder that just took place. Please.

Wouldn't it be something Becca22 if the nasty side effects of an abortion were actually discussed BEFORE the abortion? Hmmmmm...that would mean telling women and girls the truth though. Can't do that.

Have a great vacation, Jill!

We'll miss you!

Have a nice break, and enjoy your family time.

You're right Carla. How are the abortionists supposed to make a living if their patients are actually informed of what is really going to happen to them?? And their babies...?

Enjoy you time off Jill. I was hoping for a special session on January 20th, however.

Thanks, all. Hal, I don't think so. We'll see. Sign up to get my newsletter so you'll be current on what I'm posting on.

Ray:

So basically, if we make abortion illegal things will "go back" to the way they have been since the beginning of time? Gotcha.

So, Ray, something I don't get...

Why is it so wrong to ask people to be responsible for their actions? I mean, if you play with fire, at least acknowledge the fact that you could get burned...and when and if you do, take RESPONSIBILITY for it! I think 99.99999% of people "playing with fire" know that pregnancy can result, just as STD's can. Only pregnancy is not an illness or a disease. So, if people are willing to engage in this risky behavior, and they do get pregnant, why is it so wrong to ask them to step up to the plate and take responsibility? Adoption is always the better choice.

I don't feel a bit sorry for women who get back alley abortions, or for those who take the pill to kill their babies. They know what they are doing. I'm not worried about them. I'm worried about the innocent life they are killing.

You've earned a break, Jill. Take it and come back here with teeth bared and mind cleared!

I don't see where Ray is saying that, Lauren. Just that the more difficult abortions are to procure, the more often women will turn to other means, such as those discussed in the article.

Did I miss something in Ray's comment, or in the article?

You missed something in the article Bean.

These are women that could EASILY get abortions, but they do not trust doctors as is apparently the Dominican way, according to the article.

Id like to see numbers of women who did this in a widespread manner before I consider this argument valid. I cant cite my source, but the last article I read on the phenomenon occurring before Roe v Wade, it was almost non existent, and the few that did happen were more ther result of shady doctors or pharmacists, who apparently still operate illegally anyways.

Well, my question was addressed to Lauren, but whatever.

Where did the article say anything about things "going back" to anything? I didn't even see where it mentioned making abortions illegal.

Bean, my point was that desperate people have always, and probably will always, do things like throw themselves down stairs in order to escape from parenthood.

It says nothing of the morality of abortion, nor the legal status.

Hi Becca22,
I hear you. I do. I am very concerned about women who are not told a thing about what an abortion procedure is like, any side effects and the emotional consequences of abortion.
I honestly didn't know what I was doing. I had no idea what an abortion would do to me or my life. I was told it wasn't a baby and in my anguish, I believed it.

Doesn't getting a $100,000 grant this year mean you aren't allowed to "take a break" outside of your normal 4 hours or less each day you spend on blogging and writing a weekly article?

I mean, I spend hours every single day showing 1,000s of people the truth about abortion and do it for basicly no money....at least not yet.

:|

Hey Jill,

I will miss ya!

Funny, I noticed that at the RHReality blog with all its paid staff, there are hardly any comments. Wonder how many unique hits they get. Might be mostly talking to themselves over there.

just wondering

Carla,

I guess that came out wrong earlier. I feel deeply for those that are hurt by abortion and come to regret it later on. I think it would be very difficult to heal from such a tragedy.

I was mostly posting as a response to the article link in Ray's first post. I hate it when abortion is held up some sort of noble right, and women use it as a form of birth control or think they are entitled to it somehow...just because they don't want to ruin their reputation by having a baby. What they don't realize is that it's all just an industry. It's all about money. Not about helping women, b/c abortion doesn't help anyone but the filthy abortionists.

That article was trying to make abortion look like a medical necessity by outlining what would happen or what does happen to women when legal abortion is not a possibility for whatever reason. I say, bullocks. It's irresponsible for the media to glamorize abortion just to push their own agenda. To say that killing babies is ok b/c it's cultural is a lame, easy-out excuse.

ms Stanek,

Enjoy your sabbatical, leave of absence, R&R, vacation, family leave, personal days, etc., etc....

I pray the LORD will arrange some devine appointements for you and some supernatural manifestations of his love and that times of refreshing will come as you bask in HIS presence. May the LORD give you increasingly abundant amazing grace.

May the will of God prosper in your hands.

yor bro ken

God bless your vacation!

Becca22,
Agreed.:)
Abortion is big business.

I feel for all women who have had abortions especially the ones that don't regret them. Someday, they will.

Oh, that's right. I am supposed to be taking a break too!!:)

Have a good one, all!!

Someday, they will.
Posted by: Carla at January 5, 2009 6:50 PM

Carla, some will and some won't.
Have a good break.

To all the mods: Enjoy YOUR break, too! :-)

Have a wonderful vacation Jill and moderators!

Why thank you, Doyle.

Jill and mods, have a nice break! You all deserve it.

Zeke, sounds like you may benefit from a vacation too.

God bless.

Thanks, Doyle and Anonymous! :)

And Eileen!

Wouldn't it be something Becca22 if the nasty side effects of an abortion were actually discussed BEFORE the abortion? Hmmmmm...that would mean telling women and girls the truth though. Can't do that.
Posted by: Carla at January 5, 2009 11:59 AM

Carla, when I was fifteen I broke my nose in a tumbling accident. I always considered myself pretty before, then that happened and I looked so bad I cried everyday getting ready for school, so I asked my parents for a nose job. I know it sounds shallow, but it's not like I wanted to change my original nose. I wanted my old nose back! When I went to the plastic surgeon, he wasn't the one that told me about what could go wrong. He actually told me other stuff I could get done. (I was pretty ticked about that, actually..) So, I went home and I got on the internet to look up all the things that could go wrong with a nose job myself. I mean, in any elective procedure, I believe it's completely up to the person who is wanting to go through it. Why should the doctor try to get anyone to not use his service?

I'm so sorry this will be late but I should have the preview done by Saturday. My scriptwriter pulled out last minute--and I"m still trying to find a new one :(((

Josephine, the risks of surgical procedures need to be explained. This is especially true if a partiuclar procedure has significant, life long risks as is the case in abortion.

Sure, risking future fertility might not make a desperate woman change her mind, but it should at least be something she is informed of beforehand.

The police in Aurora, Illinois are looking for a Planned Parenthood protester who grabbed an empolyeee's arm and verbally harassed her. Isn't this the clinic that frequently is mentioned here?

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/police/1363545,2_1_AU06_CLINIC_S1.article

Margot, yes the Aurora, Illinois PP is the one that has been the subject of much controversy of late.

Jill and mods, have a nice break! You all deserve it.
Zeke, sounds like you may benefit from a vacation too.
God bless.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 5, 2009 7:49 PM

(That was me - I forgot to log in!)

God bless Jill's readers and commenters too!
Please remember always to stand up for life - ALL of God's creation is precious!

Oh, I would have know that was you, Janet, but you posted as Anonymous, not Anonymous2... :)

Ha ha, Bobby. Good memory!

Those were the days.....
:)

Have a reat vacation Jill. And anyone looking for regular prolife news updates can go to http://www.LifeNews.com for the latest.

I LOVE LifeNews.com I get the email daily. BTW, sometimes the links in the emails are 'broken'.

Okay, I gotta take this opportunity to plug mine and Val's site. For anyone going through withdrawal, feel free to drop by...It's not Jill's, but then what is?

It would be great to see some of you...it's been awhile and it would give you all a chance to stay connected!

2secondsfaster.com

Don't get eaten up by any gators, Jill.

Preview is here!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFg0eprhPzg

Has anyone heard of the increase in frequency of earthquakes in the Yellowstone area lately? If that volcano blew it would wipe out our country. Perhaps God has decided to judge us afterall for the abortion holocaust?

I got this e-mail from a friend.

Subject: This is beginning to look serious...

"I am advising all State officials around Yellowstone National Park for a potential State of Emergency. In the last week over 252 earthquakes have been observed by the USGS. We have a 3D view on the movement of magma rising underground. We have all of the pre warning signs of an eruption from a super volcano. - I want everyone to leave Yellowstone National Park and for 200 miles around the volcano caldera because of the danger in poisonous gasses that can escape from the hundreds of recent earthquakes. These poisonous gasses that can escape from underneath a lake present even more of a potential problem because of the super volcano."

http://www.worldwidewaterplan.com/yellowstone.htm

No perhaps about it HisMan. God will judge us and no crime in the history of mankind is more evil than tearing babies from their mother's womb in bloody pieces. But you already knew this.

PIP, right on - looks good.

Kudos on Gimme Shelter.

One of the all-time greats.

Hisman, I'm pretty sure earthquakes are unrelated to abortion.

PIP, I like your video. :) I'll be interested to see more than just a preview.

Thanks guys!!

Hisman, I just missed a news report on FoxNews about Yellowstone. I have been trying to pray a Chaplet of Divine Mercy every day at 3 PM for several months now. I encourage everyone to pray it -- it only takes about 7 min and I think that non-Catholics can appreciate it as far as prayer goes.

Hal, I think that the natural world and the supernatural world are supposed to be in harmony. Because of original sin -- man's fallen nature -- evil abounds (but God's grace even more). What is occurring in the supernatural world -- the spiritual battle against evil -- is reflected in the material world -- natural disasters,etc. God doesn't have to punish us directly -- we bring it upon ourselves. He allows things to happen to wake us up and to bring great good out of it. Just my thoughts.

Hal:

Wrong again......nature and creation are intimateley intertwined with the sins of men.

"Romans 8:18-23 (New International Version)

Future Glory
18I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies."

AND.......

"Romans 8:18-23 (New Living Translation)

The Future Glory
18 Yet what we suffer now is nothing compared to the glory he will reveal to us later. 19 For all creation is waiting eagerly for that future day when God will reveal who his children really are. 20 Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, 21 the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay. 22 For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 And we believers also groan, even though we have the Holy Spirit within us as a foretaste of future glory, for we long for our bodies to be released from sin and suffering. We, too, wait with eager hope for the day when God will give us our full rights as his adopted children, including the new bodies he has promised us."

Creation was subjected to God's curse becuase of Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden. I know you think it's a fairy tale, however, it makes more sense than the garbage that's put out there by the likes of Richard Dawkins, etc. There is continuity in the Bible if you would just take the time ot read it, meditate on it, and most importantly believe it for "without faith it is impossible to please God....
6and because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. (Hebrews 11:5-7, New International Version)

I agree with Hal.

We always look for reasons why things are the way they are, ways to validate our own behavior and feelings, correlate two points together to solidfy our opinions.

In other words, in my opinion, there's no correlation between earthquakes and our 'punishment' for abortion.

HisMan, I'm not sure why, but what you wrote is completely unconvincing to me.

Yellowstone is overdue for an eruption. Various Sci Fi flicks have focused on this and how the super volcano is due for an eruption.

Somehow I think cycles are to blame for this, not judgment.

I say we go out to the mud pots in Yellowstone, and put Chicken Little in one of them and see what happens.

Hey, for any of you that are interested, Michaelene Fredenburg of the Abortion Changes You campaign is scheduled as tonight's guest on EWTN's Life on the Rock at 8pm EST. If your cable station doesn't carry EWTN, you can go to EWTN.com, click the Television tab, and then scroll down to one of the Live TV links.

I hope Jill and the mods are all enjoying their break :)

I mean, in any elective procedure, I believe it's completely up to the person who is wanting to go through it. Why should the doctor try to get anyone to not use his service?

Because people deserve to make informed decisions, and the professionals who know the most about those decisions are the best source of information? The internet is unreliable as a research source, not to mention not everyone has access to it; not to mention not everyone knows what to look for when researching possible side effects. Access to, and familiarity with, the internet is still a luxury -- to say nothing of access to and familiarity with medical information.

When I was at the abortion clinic, I was definitely made aware of any possible risks or complications. I was asked if I understood all of them, or if I needed clarification on any of them, etc.

PIP, the preview looks great!!

Alexandra, I've never heard of a person without access to the internet. If they can't even make it to the library to use a computer, how exactly are they making it to the abortion clinic? I'd say those are more few and far between than libraries. Second of all, you type in "abortion". Again, if you're old enough to have sex and know you want one, you sure as heck are old enough to know how to type one word into google. The internet is most definitely not unreliable as a research tool. Pretty much all information for every paper I've written in college has come from the internet.

It's not about being misinformed, or the doctor not telling enough. It's about a woman wanting to justify herself so she won't do research by herself.

It's about a woman wanting to justify herself so she won't do research by herself.

Why on earth should a patient need to research medical information by herself? We have all kinds of informed consent laws specifically for that reason -- because it takes education and training to accurately locate and interpret information.

It's pretty insulated and narrow-sighted to assume that everyone has access to, and KNOWLEDGE OF HOW TO EFFECTIVELY USE, the internet. I'm not talking about teenagers, so the "not old enough to be having sex" argument goes out the window (which, of course, it does anyway, because whether or not someone is "old enough" to have sex, she can have sex, so we need to deal with the realities, not the should's). My aunt routinely forgets how to attach files to e-mail -- she's part of a generation for whom such technology is foreign. If she has a question, she asks a person, not a computer.

I took a required intro English course in college two years ago with a 22-year old man who did not have an e-mail address. I met with him, for free, for an hour a week all semester to show him through the basics of internet use. He had grown up in a home where he barely had shoes, much less a computer. He was on a scholarship and was falling behind academically. If he had not gotten that scholarship, it's possible he'd have gone at least a few years longer without having a clue about the basics of teh internets. Why assume that everyone has the resources you consider standard?

To say nothing of the fact that in the many, many places in the US, a desperate woman will certainly be more inclined to arrange transportation to an abortion clinic than to arrange transportation to a public library. Especially if she is not very familiar with the internet or how to effectively use it. Whether she should go to the library is not the point -- the point is the reality, that women who are scared and desperate are unlikely to take time off from work, pay for a cab, and go to a library. They are more likely to trust their doctors, as they should be encouraged to do.

I've lived in NYC my whole life. My boyfriend grew up within spitting distance of Appalachia. There are DEFINITELY people, in both of these places, who wouldn't have the financial or educational resources to jump onto the internet and figure out the risks of anything and everything they do. We put warnings on cigarette packs and freaking hairdryers; why not on surgeries?

For the record, I have no desire to see abortion criminalized. Seriously, it took like 5 minutes for the doctor to review the possible complications with me. Surgery is not something you "sell" on people -- it's not a product, and doctors are not salesmen. They are educated professionals. They are authority figures. They are people we are trained to believe want only to keep us healthy and alive. Why condition the public to lost that sense of trust?

"Why on earth should a patient need to research medical information by herself?"

Because it's an elective procedure. Obviously.

Oh, and as for the "older people" argument, uhm.. so? What's your point? So your aunt uses email, right? Seems to me like if she can do that, she can type "abortion" into google. In fact, I'd think e-mail is way more complicated.

Hmm, and you mentioned a man that grew up in a poor family. I say again-- library. Libraries have employees that can help. You don't even have to tell them what you're searching for on the internet.

"To say nothing of the fact that in the many, many places in the US, a desperate woman will certainly be more inclined to arrange transportation to an abortion clinic than to arrange transportation to a public library. Especially if she is not very familiar with the internet or how to effectively use it. Whether she should go to the library is not the point -- the point is the reality, that women who are scared and desperate are unlikely to take time off from work, pay for a cab, and go to a library. They are more likely to trust their doctors, as they should be encouraged to do."

Hm. So because SHE got pregnant, because SHE didn't want to do research on her own... the doctor is responsible? WOW.

Why do you bring up finances stopping someone from getting on the internet? Abortions aren't free! :)

Oh, and as for the smoking warning on cigarettes... does a doctor come read those to you? Nope. You're supposed to read it yourself.

In elective surgical procedures, the risks must still be presented to patients. Have you seen the little papers you have to read through and sign before you even get your EARS pierced??? Give me a break!

It sounds as if you're implying that simply because these are "abortion doctors" that they should be exempt from presenting all possible risks to patients before the procedure.
Either abortion doctors are then not "real" doctors, or this is a highly inconsistent argument. Which is it?

And btw, presenting patients with a form explaining the risks and being available to answer questions would be acceptable, in my opinion. Sounds like that's what Alexandra's experience was. (?)

They are required to tell MEDICAL RISKS. That's it. Nothing else. They don't have to tell you that you may regret it. They don't have to tell you that it's a person. They don't have to, and it's not their job.

I assumed that was what everyone was referring to in the first place. *shrug*
However, if asked "Is it a baby?" a medical professional should never reply that it's simply "a blob of cells." That is not medically accurate information. Using skewed rhetoric to "help" the woman decide in favor of the procedure when she has doubts is one sure way for her to regret it later on, should she discover the truth.
I don't think ANY abortion clinic workers would ever tell a client that her unborn child is "a person." And even if they did, it would not change every woman's mind. I don't believe the woman is without responsibility in making an informed choice. However, receiving partially dishonest information (or no information on risks at all) is not helpful, and I can understand those women's anger after the fact.

They are required to tell MEDICAL RISKS. That's it. Nothing else.

Is this not what we're talking about? RE: your nose job experience, you said:

When I went to the plastic surgeon, he wasn't the one that told me about what could go wrong. He actually told me other stuff I could get done. (I was pretty ticked about that, actually..) So, I went home and I got on the internet to look up all the things that could go wrong with a nose job myself. I mean, in any elective procedure, I believe it's completely up to the person who is wanting to go through it. Why should the doctor try to get anyone to not use his service?

Why the delineation between elective and required surgeries, anyway? Where do you draw the line between elective and required? When my mom had cancer, the operation that saved her life was not one we were required to have. It was one we decided to try. Technically we "elected" to do it. When I got my wisdom teeth taken out, was that elective or required? Why not just inform all patients of risks?

Moreover, your points that somehow everyone SHOULD know how to effectively use internet research methods does not change the fact that MANY, MANY people still do not have this knowledge. Should they? Of course. It will only hurt them in this culture if they don't -- that's why I tried my best to teach that guy in my class the basics. But we should not structure our medical system so that it's guaranteed to hurt them if they don't have access to such educational resources.

Why do you bring up finances stopping someone from getting on the internet? Abortions aren't free! :)

That's my point. If a woman is already taking a day or two off to travel and have an abortion, she is probably not inclined to take even more time off and go to the library to use a research method she hasn't even necessarily been comfortable enough with to trust.

Seems to me like if she can do that, she can type "abortion" into google. In fact, I'd think e-mail is way more complicated.

And then, I suppose, simply read and trust the first link she pulls up? Ah yes, you know what we need? MORE people using wiki-healthcare information. Wikipedia does a cursory listing of a few complications, but focuses most on mental health. Abortionfacts.com appears, from a quick glance, to have a pro-life bias, which is fine, but if someone is unfamiliar with internet research, abortionfacts.com probably sounds like a compelling source. Then you get to Planned Parenthood, and if you click through to the various abortion pages you can actually find some decent information about medical risks. But those are three conflicting results to find, and the most accurate from a medical-risk standpoint is not the one you come to first.

Abortion.com has the following to say: All surgical procedures have some potential for complications. Individual circumstances and medical conditions can cause problems if they are not identified before the abortion. It is very important to discuss your entire medical history with the doctor during your pre-op examination. Statistically, childbirth is far more dangerous than abortion."

The emedicine.com link that the first page pulls up is 11 pages long and doesn't have a tab to learn about abortion risks. Which page do you trust, if you have no experience with internet research? How much do you want to rely a woman unfamiliar with the internet to comb, process, and accurately absorb or discard (depending on the source) the first two pages of Google links?

Hm. So because SHE got pregnant, because SHE didn't want to do research on her own... the doctor is responsible? WOW.

THAT'S THE DOCTOR'S JOB. It's his responsibility. His job is not to sell abortion, it is to safely and responsibly perform abortion. And as with any other surgery -- elective or not -- informed consent is a big part of safely and responsibly performing a procedure.

Kel --

And btw, presenting patients with a form explaining the risks and being available to answer questions would be acceptable, in my opinion. Sounds like that's what Alexandra's experience was. (?)

That was my experience. When they gave me my medical-information paperwork, I was also given a sheet with a detailed list of the possible complications or risks, along with an approximate likelihood of those risks occurring. I looked it over during the 20 minute wait. When the nurse took my blood and explained to me what the procedure would entail, she asked if I had any questions about any of the risks, or if there were any risks I needed explained in further detail. I asked a question about one, and she answered it. Took like 5-10 minutes.

Hi Josephine,
I am breaking my fast to say you were 1 year old when I had my abortion. I didn't have a computer nor access to the internet. If only you had been there to tell me to drive to the library I might not have done it..........!!!

Seriously your age is showing and your lack of knowledge in the area of desperate women. Oh and some compassion wouldn't hurt either. Women(and 13 year old girls)need to know EXACTLY what happens in an abortion and should be told by those at the clinic where it takes place.

I know that you have been indoctrinated Josephine and PP has done it's job well to many of the next generation. I am sorry if I sounded snarky. Forgive me.
I urge you to go to Youtube and type in Operation Outcry. I am in the green sweater. You could also click on my name and read my abortion story in the right sidebar.
Your judgment of ALL women who have had abortions makes no sense in light of the fact that you could use your internet access and look up Silent No More, Operation Outcry, After Abortion or Fatherhood Forever. Inform yourself about the effects of abortion. Take your own advice.

When I was reassured that "it was a bunch of cells" I believed it. I found out the hard way.

Please read Carla's testimony. Its the same story of MANY MANY WOMEN in this country. The lack of emotional and financial support causes many to think ABORTION is their ONLY CHOICE.

"The lack of emotional and financial support causes many to think ABORTION is their ONLY CHOICE."
Posted by: LizFromNebraska at January 9, 2009 8:07 AM

-For many women, Liz - it is.

Danielle, no it isn't. There are so manany programs in place t help pregnant women, Medicaid, Section 8, CPC's, Pell grants, Earned income credit...

The problem is that instead of informing women of these options, PP says "Parenting is soooooooo hard, and your life will be sooooo miserable with a child."

Danielle, no it isn't. There are so manany programs in place t help pregnant women, Medicaid, Section 8, CPC's, Pell grants, Earned income credit...The problem is that instead of informing women of these options, PP says "Parenting is soooooooo hard, and your life will be sooooo miserable with a child."
Posted by: Lauren at January 9, 2009 10:24 AM

...and? Yes, those are many gvt assisted programs that are available. Does that mean they are the best option for THAT woman? No. While I'm not denying that gvt assistance is necessary, let those of us who are more fortunate not be naive to the incredible inequities and hardships that even these well minded programs can inflict on those in the system. Poverty is a vicious cycle.

So you may not decide that abortion is a preferable option to what you listed above, but someone else might. The point is, her decision isn't our business.

And, for the record, the point of PP is to stay neutral as possible in the argument of pregnancy and offer abortion if a woman wants one. If you don't, fine. I've personally seen a young woman change her mind during her appointment and leave with her boyfriend with little to no fan fair. We said goodbye and good luck. No one's forcing you on a table. The only reason there is pushback, protest, legislation, etc - is because there is consistent opposition from the other side.

And, for the record, the point of PP is to stay neutral as possible in the argument of pregnancy and offer abortion if a woman wants one. If you don't, fine. I've personally seen a young woman change her mind during her appointment and leave with her boyfriend with little to no fan fair. We said goodbye and good luck.
***************************************

PP is anything but neutral.

And what? You mean you don't offer assistance to those women who choose to carry to term? Just "goodbye and good luck?" No tangible care? No maternity assistance? Adoption placement? Housing assistance? Cribs? Newborn supplies?

PP can only help you if you want birth control or abortion services. So much for preaching to those of us who are pro-life about OUR "lack of assistance" for pregnant women.

Danielleb

Any pregnant woman, facing what we would consider a "crisis" pregnancy can get assistance. The medicaid cut off is 60,000/yr. That takes care of her medical costs, and her child's for the first year. Do you really think having medical care is going to somehow get her into a "vicious cycle"?

Also, how many college students do you know who would turn down a Pell grant if offered? "Hmm, well I know it gives me 2K a semester, but it's just not right for me!"

We are talking about women who feel like they do not have the resources to continue a pregnancy. My point is that the resources exist for ANY woman to continue a pregnancy, and one doesn't need to be living in the ghetto to get help.

Take a look at PP's Teenwire site. Having a child is portrayed in the most negative light possible. Ditto for adoption. The only option that seems OK is abortion. That's hardly neutral.

I think the woman Danielle was talking about decided not to abort because she was carrying TWINS. That probably made her wake up and realize there were two BABIES growing and that with courage and some help, she could continue her pregnancy.

Teenwire's site is DISGUSTING. This is where kids are asking questions that are extremely shocking. If that site didn't exist and PP was out of schools and communities, we'd see probably at least 10% less abortions most likely.

1. The fact that PP does not offer pre natal care or adoption referrals does not negate the fact that they provide medical and health related services to women.Its specialized service. My gynecologist can't clean my teeth either but it doesn't make her any less valuable to me.

2.Turning down a 2K Pell Grant is not the equivalent to what we're discussing.

3.Liz is correct, the example I was referring to was a patient who discovered it was twins after the sono and decided to change her mind. It was her decision and personally I wish that young family the best of luck.

We are talking about women who feel like they do not have the resources to continue a pregnancy. My point is that the resources exist for ANY woman to continue a pregnancy, and one doesn't need to be living in the ghetto to get help.

Take a look at PP's Teenwire site. Having a child is portrayed in the most negative light possible. Ditto for adoption. The only option that seems OK is abortion. That's hardly neutral.

Posted by: Lauren at January 9, 2009 1:01 PM

I think these statements are bang on.

I wonder if somehow having twins makes a difference for abortion - I mean now it is two lives that are being destroyed?
I also wonder how many times women are NOT informed that they are carrying twins if they come in seeking an abortion.

Danielle,

We're talking about resources available to pregnant women, of which the Pell grant is one. You claimed that these resources are "not right" for every woman, and I'm responding that these services would be appropriate for anyone.

Planned Parenthood claims to be "comprehensive women's care." Most people would agree that this would include prenatal care. Very few PP's provide this service. It is beyond absurd to think that reproductive healthcare wouldn't include care for women actually reproducing!

Alexandra, I've never heard of a person without access to the internet. If they can't even make it to the library to use a computer, how exactly are they making it to the abortion clinic? I'd say those are more few and far between than libraries. Second of all, you type in "abortion". Again, if you're old enough to have sex and know you want one, you sure as heck are old enough to know how to type one word into google. The internet is most definitely not unreliable as a research tool. Pretty much all information for every paper I've written in college has come from the internet.

It's not about being misinformed, or the doctor not telling enough. It's about a woman wanting to justify herself so she won't do research by herself.

Posted by: Josephine at January 8, 2009 7:39 PM

Josephine it's called the digital divide. There are many many people who cannot afford access to the internet.
I wonder how comfortable you would be going to the library and looking up information about abortion? Or sex, or herpes or veneral warts on a public screen? For many people, this is just too embarrassing.

With any procedure, professional medical associations place the onus on the doctor to provide information about the procedure so that the patient may make an "informed choice". Abortion is so politicized that this is simply not done. No information is given, or at best misinformation is presented especially regarding risks, no questions asked. Once again, it is the false "right to privacy" that is operative here.
Then of course, there is the issue as to what is authoritative? There are many concerns about finding good, unbiased information on the Internet?

Since a 13 year old cannot make a mature choice about an operation like this, her guardian should be informed of the risks and what is involved in an abortion.

I think it's a doctors responsibility to do this for his patient(s).

From the AMA's website:

Informed consent is more than simply getting a patient to sign a written consent form. It is a process of communication between a patient and physician that results in the patient's authorization or agreement to undergo a specific medical intervention.
In the communications process, you, as the physician providing or performing the treatment and/or procedure (not a delegated representative), should disclose and discuss with your patient:

The patient's diagnosis, if known;
The nature and purpose of a proposed treatment or procedure;
The
risks and benefits of a proposed treatment or procedure;
Alternatives (regardless of their cost or the extent to which the treatment options are covered by health insurance);
The risks and benefits of the alternative treatment or procedure; and
The risks and benefits of not receiving or undergoing a treatment or procedure.
In turn, your patient should have an opportunity to ask questions to elicit a better understanding of the treatment or procedure, so that he or she can make an informed decision to proceed or to refuse a particular course of medical intervention.

This communications process, or a variation thereof, is both an ethical obligation and a legal requirement spelled out in statutes and case law in all 50 states.

"THAT'S THE DOCTOR'S JOB. It's his responsibility. His job is not to sell abortion, it is to safely and responsibly perform abortion. And as with any other surgery -- elective or not -- informed consent is a big part of safely and responsibly performing a procedure."

Yup. You said it. His responsibility to safely and responsibly perform abortion, not to tell you what effect it can have on your mental health.

Carla, I did read your story.. and I told you after I read it I feel for you, but it doesn't change my mind. I can't remember a time in my life when I didn't know a baby in the womb was a baby, ever. I won't ever think it's anyone's fault for having an abortion. I can't say sorry for it, because I'm not. I believe if a woman regrets an abortion it's no one's fault but her own. That's how I feel.

Oops. Anon was me.

TSTL, yes. I already said the doctor had to discuss medical risks. What's your point?

You do realize the alternative for abortion is... not having one, right? Obviously doctors let people know "you can have the baby".

It's the doctor's responsibility to tell the patients parents? Even in cases when they're not allowed to?

Oh, and it's okay to be too embarrassed to look up abortion info, but actually HAVING an abortion isn't embarrassing?

Yup. You said it. His responsibility to safely and responsibly perform abortion, not to tell you what effect it can have on your mental health.

Assuming that was Josephine, were you then referring to "mental health" effects of a nose job, that you went home and looked up? Because from that example, and from the introduction of the whole topic with Carla and Becca talking about infections and the like, the whole discussion that prompted you to say that you don't think it's a doctor's responsibility...it sure sounded like you were talking about medical risks.

And, of course, performing any surgery -- however well -- without informed consent is IRRESPONSIBLE and UNSAFE.

Of course, most people consider common mental health side effects to be worth mentioning, anyway. I was informed of them pre-procedure as well as the physical risks. Oh, and my mom was re: her cancer surgery, since it left a massive scar that a lot of people apparently have trouble adjusting to. A woman I know elected to get a mastectomy and you can be DAMN sure the doctor reviewed the common mental and emotional reactions with her before he did it.

Great for those doctors. That was nice of them. They didn't have to do that though. It's not required.

You do realize the alternative for abortion is... not having one, right? Obviously doctors let people know "you can have the baby".

but the question is, DO THEY?

The AMA website states that it IS the doctor's responsibility to inform the patient of ALL the risks - this means that having an abortion can significantly raise a woman's chances of breast cancer, that she can suffer serious mental health problems following an abortion etc. It is considered a breach of ethics if they do not do so.

How often do you actually believe this is broached by abortionists? How often have you heard women talk about how the abortionist comes into the room to do the dirty deed and never speaks a word to the woman? Many abortionists cram 35 or 40 abortions in per day. Very conducive to discussing risks and so forth.
Since many clinic works, themselves have had abortions and have unresolved issues over their own abortions, they are generally unwilling to discuss much with their clients in this area.

Oh, and it's okay to be too embarrassed to look up abortion info, but actually HAVING an abortion isn't embarrassing?

Posted by: Josephine at January 9, 2009 5:02 PM

you'd be surprised what causes some people shame.
I mean after all, people have sex with employers, friends husbands, are prostitutes etc and yet they creep into abortion clinics with their heads covered.

Planned Parenthood is doing layoffs and cutbacks. One of their donors had its assets aborted with the madoff scandel.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/09/silver-lining-planned-parenthood-lays-of-20-percent-of-staff/

Josephine, why are you not answering my question? If you only object to mental health information being shared with patients, then why object to Becca and Carla talking about infections?

"We're talking about resources available to pregnant women, of which the Pell grant is one. You claimed that these resources are "not right" for every woman, and I'm responding that these services would be appropriate for anyone."

-That's an opinion, and you can't assume what's right for you is what's right for all. One person will accept welfare assistance in exchange for a pregnancy, others will accept an abortion in exchange for staying off welfare.

Planned Parenthood claims to be "comprehensive women's care." Most people would agree that this would include prenatal care."
Posted by: Lauren at January 9, 2009 2:48 PM

-Again, PP is specialized service geared toward women's sexual and reproductive health. The absence of pre-natal care does not negate the other services they provide, particularly when they are far and few between.

TSTL, I already said they have to tell them of medical risks. Why do you keep giving examples of when they would have to do that, like I'm arguing? I'm not arguing, yes, they have to tell the risks. They don't have to tell them they might regret it, they don't have to tell them that it's a little baby they're killing. That's NOT something they're required to do.

Alexandra, what are you freakin' talking about? I have no idea.

Alexandra, what are you freakin' talking about? I have no idea.

Well, here's how the conversation looked:

Becca: Maybe it's just me, but I get REALLY sick of people complaining about the nasty side effects of abortion. Stop complaining about the infections and the pain and the loss of fertility...the babies are DYING and people are selfishly worrying about the side effects of the murder that just took place. Please.

Carla: Wouldn't it be something Becca22 if the nasty side effects of an abortion were actually discussed BEFORE the abortion? Hmmmmm...that would mean telling women and girls the truth though. Can't do that.

Josephine: Carla, when I was fifteen I broke my nose in a tumbling accident. I always considered myself pretty before, then that happened and I looked so bad I cried everyday getting ready for school, so I asked my parents for a nose job. I know it sounds shallow, but it's not like I wanted to change my original nose. I wanted my old nose back! When I went to the plastic surgeon, he wasn't the one that told me about what could go wrong. He actually told me other stuff I could get done. (I was pretty ticked about that, actually..) So, I went home and I got on the internet to look up all the things that could go wrong with a nose job myself. I mean, in any elective procedure, I believe it's completely up to the person who is wanting to go through it. Why should the doctor try to get anyone to not use his service?

Were you not objecting to the statement that doctors should inform patients of medical risks like infections, pain, and fertility loss, pre-surgery? If not, why object?

They don't have to tell them they might regret it, they don't have to tell them that it's a little baby they're killing. That's NOT something they're required to do.

Josephine, are you saying that it is NOT important for a woman to KNOW at what stage of development her baby is? Do you believe this is irrelevant information? Do you believe that this would impact/influence her decision against having an abortion? Are you that hung up on the right to abortion that this is what you would want for yourself even?

Danielle:

Last time I checked a Pell grant isn't welfare. Nor is an Earned Income Credit. Both of these assistance programs are available to young pregnant/parenting women to help them. We aren't talking about someone going into the Human Services office and signing up for TANF, though they could if they wanted to, but rather general help that is available to pregnant women.

These programs would help anyone, and your argument that it's better to kill your child than ask for help is absurd. The problem is that women are not informed of these programs prior to their abortions and do not know that help is out there.

As for PP, they are a REPRODUCTIVE health clinic that doesn't actually help women who are REPRODUCING. That would be like me saying that I run a kidney clinic but I don't provide dialysis. Except it would be even more absurd, because it would be as though I was running a kidney clinic that told people NOT to have dialysis and wouldn't refer patients to an actual dialysis center.

The freaking name of the organization is Planned Parenthood. If it isn'tactually going to help those who are planning to be parents it really ought to change its name.

Doug, my baby looks *just* like a Cabbage Patch Kid.

Lauren: I'm sure your baby looks MUCH nicer that a cabbage patch doll!! lol

As for PP, they are a REPRODUCTIVE health clinic that doesn't actually help women who are REPRODUCING.

what irony!

I love cabbage patch kids. I still have my old doll (bald and all). And all three of my nieces have at least one CPK doll.

Liz: see now I think they are rather gross. But then I wasn't from the "cabbage patch doll" generation.
I think they've come back again maybe?

Tstl, my little girl definitely has the chubby cheeks/ bald head thing going for her. :)

Lauren, we obvi aren't going to come to the same page on this, so I'll let this be my final comment on the back and forth:

"Last time I checked a Pell grant isn't welfare. Nor is an Earned Income Credit. Both of these assistance programs are available to young pregnant/parenting women to help them. We aren't talking about someone going into the Human Services office and signing up for TANF, though they could if they wanted to, but rather general help that is available to pregnant women."

-I didn't say they were welfare - I brought up welfare as an example of choices we make. We both agree that these are gvt assistance programs. My point is that what's acceptable to one woman is not for the other. Statements such as 'these would work for anyone in need' is subjective opinion.

"your argument that it's better to kill your child than ask for help is absurd."

-Never said that, either - that's what you inferred. My point here is that it's an option. May not work for you or me, but its a choice. Maybe she asked for help, maybe she didn't. The choice she ultimately makes is not our business to judge and influence.

"As for PP, they are a REPRODUCTIVE health clinic that doesn't actually help women who are REPRODUCING."

-If I'm a woman of reproductive years, and I use PP to screen and treat a reproductive-threatening STD, then that is directly helping reproducing women, otherwise her fertility may be threatened and she wouldn't be able to have children. As are yearly pelvic exams, which they also provide. If I have access to birth control that helps PLAN when I have children, that is an indirect benefit to reproduction - since the time I get pregnant may influence whether or not I go through with a pregnancy. They provide a benefit to women's health, regardless of if you agree with abortion.

Lauren,
Excellent points @ 8:54 am. It's all about (misleading) euphemisms.

The Garbage Pail Kids were the ugly ones.....and only on trading cards, I think.

The freaking name of the organization is Planned Parenthood. If it isn'tactually going to help those who are planning to be parents it really ought to change its name.
Posted by: Lauren at January 10, 2009 8:54 AM
*****************************************

Thank you, Lauren, this was my thought exactly.

Danielle, I don't care what services they offer, they can't claim to be comprehensive women's healthcare when they don't actually provide comprehensive women's healthcare.

Also, based on the answers women give as to why they abort, they are obviously not being adequately enough informed of the services available to them. If a woman says she is aborting because she doesn't have a home, but hasn't been told about section 8, she really isn't making an informed decision.

Tstl, my little girl definitely has the chubby cheeks/ bald head thing going for her. :)

Posted by: Lauren at January 10, 2009 11:17 AM

awww, very cute Lauren!

Josephine,

It almost seems like you are arguing for the sake of arguing. You are even attacking another pro-choicer. You work in the health field, I believe you know more than anyone else how involved doctors must be in their patient's procedures. It's okay to agree with us once in a while :)

I just have to say that whether you agree with abortion or not you cant exactly argue against low cost womens health care. You dont have to agree with abortion to recognize that pp likely does great things in various communities. As for section 8, im not sure theres a person alive who hasnt hear about it. I went to highschool in a town where the
median household income is well over ninety thousand a year and i know what section eight is, lol.

Actually, speaking of which, my friend who just gave birth to a beautiful baby boy is trying to get into some income basef housing to try and make things a lil easier. Wish her luck ;) lol.

I just have to say that whether you agree with abortion or not you cant exactly argue against low cost womens health care. You dont have to agree with abortion to recognize that pp likely does great things in various communities. As for section 8, im not sure theres a person alive who hasnt hear about it. I went to highschool in a town where the
median household income is well over ninety thousand a year and i know what section eight is, lol.

Actually, speaking of which, my friend who just gave birth to a beautiful baby boy is trying to get into some income basef housing to try and make things a lil easier. Wish her luck ;) lol.

Dan, there are other places within those communities that offer all the fringe services that PP does but don't perform abortion. Money should be funneled into them and away from PP.

PIP, I'm arguing because I don't think anyone should blame a doctor for a choice they made. Annnnd...I'm not pro-choice, btw. I can see why you'd think that, butttt nope.

If you'll read all my posts, I make it clear that I'm talking about emotional problems. The doctors only have to tell you about medical risks, they don't have to tell you what can go wrong other than that. They don't have to tell you that someday you'll regret it, and you'll be sad. The point in the conversation where I joined, was when someone pretty much blamed the doctor for not saying, "hey, you might regret this.. or it might make you sad!"

So robots, properly programmed, can be trained to be doctors? Just, the facts, M'am?

That is a really dumb question. No, a robot can't be a doctor. Obviously.

So Abortuaries are not required to disclose complications. Kinda like used car salesmen used to be. These ignorant calims are getting more irrational and outrageous.

Yes we have some laws coming along because elitist abortionists think they are superior to caring for the health of women via consideration for side effects and consequences.

The only thing elective was sex. Too bad they don't teach about side effects other that std's.

The abortion culture doesn't really connect with the general medical community. They are the Hamas terroritst element of medicine.

are not required to disclose complications.

Well, doctors really aren't required to tell women that continuing pregnancies and giving birth is much more dangerous than having an abortion, especially an early abortion. You can't address all the "what ifs" - there are too many and it's not a doctor's job to hypothesize beyond a certain point in the first place.

my baby looks *just* like a Cabbage Patch Kid.

Ha! Cool, Lauren.

At least one niece and two nephews of mine, when still firmly in the "baby" stage, had cheeks that went way out to the sides - you could see them from behind.

PIP, I'm arguing because I don't think anyone should blame a doctor for a choice they made. Annnnd...I'm not pro-choice, btw. I can see why you'd think that, butttt nope.

If you'll read all my posts, I make it clear that I'm talking about emotional problems. The doctors only have to tell you about medical risks, they don't have to tell you what can go wrong other than that. They don't have to tell you that someday you'll regret it, and you'll be sad. The point in the conversation where I joined, was when someone pretty much blamed the doctor for not saying, "hey, you might regret this.. or it might make you sad!"

Posted by: Josephine at January 11, 2009 7:16 PM

Josephine, I agree that doctors cannot necessarily be blamed for a woman regretting her abortion but it does depend upon how involved the doctor is.
If a woman never sees the doctor at a clinic except when the abortion is committed, but is counselled only by clinic workers, is this ethical? I'm not sure. Perhaps it's relevant to the procedure being done.
For example, a few years back I had a wart on my finger removed. I never saw the doctor until he did the actual procedure. But an abortion is not so trivial.

And Josephine are you implying that emotional problems stemming from a procedure are not medical risks? I think the doctors doing facial transplants would differ with you on that one.

At least one niece and two nephews of mine, when still firmly in the "baby" stage, had cheeks that went way out to the sides - you could see them from behind.

My son's cheeks were just like that! His cheeks were humongous! In fact, the hospital where I delivered him actually remembered me when I came the second time to deliver...they said I was "the mother of that baby with the really large cheeks". :D

What other medical procedure has ever come with the disclaimer that you might be depressed after it?

Danielle, lots of procedures. Tubal ligation, mastectomy, sexual reassignment, amputations, ect. Actually, any surgery could potentially cause PTSD given the right circumstances.

What other medical procedure has ever come with the disclaimer that you might be depressed after it?
Posted by: Danielle at January 12, 2009 10:28 AM

Depression and/or anxiety are often experienced after surgical procedures, at various times post operatively (immediately or months later). Intensity can range from mild dysphoria to major depressive symptoms. John Lauerman in the January 2000 issue of Harvard Magazine, addresses this topic in "An Understandable Complication...Coming to terms with postsurgical depression." The article talks about emotions before surgery as being expected and often handled quite well. Problems can also crop up in the recovery period which are not expected. After major surgery, according to the article, feelings of mortality, of loss, and of vulnerability can be profound." Shortly after surgery, depression can be attributed to pain, a problem with anesthesia, a sense of loss or another underlying cause. Post-operative depression, well after the crisis of surgery, can make it difficult for patients to cope with what they have endured. There might also be uncertainty about the future, or lack of understanding on the part of individuals close to them. This article points out the importance of communicating feelings of depression to medical professionals who may not be alert to symptoms, in order to have all possible causes of depression investigated.

In the April 15, 1997 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine, Herbert Waxman, M.D. relates his experience with depression following surgery. In "The Patient as Physician", he discusses his post surgery symptoms. Occuring several months after surgery, he experienced "dysphoria, sleep problems, joylessness and feelings of unworthiness." When he returned to work, he realized the importance of honest communication and sensitivity to patient concerns and believes the experience made him a much better physician.

Okay Bethany, apparently I am not to use toostunnedtolaugh's OTHER moniker. Funny how you have different rules for different people on this site though. Is that kind of thing okay with Jill? Doesn't that affect the integrity of the blog?

And Josephine are you implying that emotional problems stemming from a procedure are not medical risks? I think the doctors doing facial transplants would differ with you on that one.

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 12, 2009 8:56 AM

TSTL, I would think that is it were determined that a medical procedure presented a significany risk to mental health that this would be a medical risk. And as such, a doctor would have to ensure that the patient was informed of this.

Josephine as a medical student, what do you think of this? Is this correct?

Asitis, everyone should pick one moniker and stick with it. I have no idea if TSTL is Patricia, if it is she should pick one name and stick to it. Posting under multiple names isn't allowed.

"So Abortuaries are not required to disclose complications. Kinda like used car salesmen used to be. These ignorant calims are getting more irrational and outrageous."

Uhm, when did I say that? I said emotional health is not a "complication" of any procedure. You don't think abortion is an elective procedure? Because "elective" means it's not required. You think abortions are required?? You're wrong. The only part that is elective is not the sex.

TSTL, a doctor isn't required to tell you anything about what you MIGHT feel like afterwards. They aren't required. I never said I don't think they should, and I think a compassionate doctor would. However, they aren't required to, so no one really should be able to blame a doctor if they regret their abortion. Mental health is different, because it's different for absolutely everyone. I know my dad refers patients to psychiatrists when they tell him they want a procedure done. (Normally plastic surgery..)

Asitis, yes and no, from my experience in school. In procedure that are required, doctors do have to discuss the mental risks. In elective procedures, well, not so much... because, well, it's elective. It's a choice.

Like I said though, that's my expierience from school and my parents. None of it is firsthand, sooo maybe the doctors at school just don't know what they're talking about. I start clinicals in a couple weeks at my dad's office and at Planned Parenthood... I'll know a lot more then.

Josephine, do you think that it is wrong, and should be illegal, to have abortions?

TSTL, a doctor isn't required to tell you anything about what you MIGHT feel like afterwards. They aren't required. I never said I don't think they should, and I think a compassionate doctor would. However, they aren't required to, so no one really should be able to blame a doctor if they regret their abortion. Mental health is different, because it's different for absolutely everyone. I know my dad refers patients to psychiatrists when they tell him they want a procedure done. (Normally plastic surgery..)

I think that if a certain percentage of patients are likely to experience some sort of emotional difficulty than they should be presented with this information.
By nature, abortion is a very serious procedure - a child is killed. Therefore, a woman should have all the information necessary. Would you think that there should be better screening for this procedure Josephine? After all doctors screen for other procedures right?

In fact, the hospital where I delivered him actually remembered me when I came the second time to deliver...they said I was "the mother of that baby with the really large cheeks". :D

Holy Moly.... Bethany, that is AWESOME.

So robots, properly programmed, can be trained to be doctors?

That's actually a good question, and the answer is yes. The rub is the "properly" part - there'd be a heck of a lot going into that. One could still point to certain lacks, sure, but eliminating human error would be an enormous positive.

Bethany, yes. I don't think abortions necessarily should be illegal, I think what should happen is convincing women they don't need them. However... I don't think there are enough people willing to do that. But, I already said I was pro-life. I'm not sure why there's any need to ask if I think abortion is wrong after that?

What do you mean doctors screen for other procedures? I have no idea what you're talking about with this screening...

A doctor telling you you might be depressed after abortion is not necessary information, however much you want it to be..

Danielle: What other medical procedure has ever come with the disclaimer that you might be depressed after it?

Are doctors warning women who are continuing pregnancies about post-partum depression?

I think that if a certain percentage of patients are likely to experience some sort of emotional difficulty than they should be presented with this information.
By nature, abortion is a very serious procedure - a child is killed. Therefore, a woman should have all the information necessary. Would you think that there should be better screening for this procedure Josephine? After all doctors screen for other procedures right?

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 12, 2009 3:02 PM

Tootunned, I think they still need to determine if a significant percentage of women actually do experience mental health problems as a direct result of abortion.

And not intending to belittle or negate your feelings toward abortion, but doctors performing abortions and women requesting abortions do not consider the it to be the "very serious preocedure" that you do.

Can I mention that, while people here choose not to believe it.... there are women who don't regret abortions. In fact, there are women who are glad....

Bethany, yes. I don't think abortions necessarily should be illegal, I think what should happen is convincing women they don't need them. However... I don't think there are enough people willing to do that. But, I already said I was pro-life. I'm not sure why there's any need to ask if I think abortion is wrong after that?

Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 3:25 PM

Josephine, how do you propose convincing women that they don't need abortion? Improve pubic and charitable support for these mothers? Help them to not get pregnant in the first place?I'm interested to hear where you stand on this as someone heading into the medical profession and who appears to be a more moderate pro-lifer.

Josephine, I'm sorry but if you don't advocate making abortion illegal, you're not pro-life.

Let me clarify a bit, because I think you truly do seem to believe you a pro-life person. If you thought that it should not necessarily be kept illegal to kill toddlers, but that mothers should simply be convinced never to kill them, would you be pro-life then? If you thought that it could be legal to kill them, but that they should simply be convinced, in effect what would that be?

Asitis, I think the judgment/religious aspect of pro-lifers is what is making them fail so miserably. First, there are no pro-lifers that think there's ever a medical reason for abortion... even when there is, most people say you should choose the child's life over yourself. There ARE medical reasons for abortion though, even if no one wants to admit it.

I think a lot of the reason for abortions are women not knowing what to do or being scared of the judgment... but a lot of the judgment comes from the religious conservatives/ pro-lifers... the ones that want to save babies. How ironic. If it were made a non-issue. A... "nobody cares if you have a baby" issue, then it would probably save a lot of babies. Instead, we want to stop people from having sex, period. That's never going to work.. especially in a nation where there are a lot of people who don't follow a religion/follow their religion very loosely..

I just think if babies were such an issue, there wouldn't be as many abortions. If pro-lifers took the time to say, volunteer at Planned Parenthood as a counselor (which you can do!) they could do a lot of good, and help a lot of babies.. instead, they think it's better to judge and condemn.. obviously, it's not working.

I don't think an anti-abortion law is going to save any babies. I think it's just going to make abortions more dangerous. We'll have more cases of the one like the fourteen year old girl who had her boyfriend hit her in the stomach with a 2x4 to kill her baby..

Can I mention that, while people here choose not to believe it.... there are women who don't regret abortions. In fact, there are women who are glad....

Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 3:38 PM

yes, we've all encounter women and men like this. That doesn't mean that the procedure is without physical and mental risks.

Josephine, I'm sorry but if you don't advocate making abortion illegal, you're not pro-life.

Posted by: Bethany at January 12, 2009 3:50 PM

you can't be partly prolife. Abortion is either wrong as an action or it is not wrong.
It is either wrong to kill and unborn child or it is not.

Bethany, you didn't clarify anything. You just explained what you think, and I disagree. If you'll notice, I did say "yes" to "should abortion be illegal". Maybe you should reread my post, because you clearly didn't understand it..?

First, there are no pro-lifers that think there's ever a medical reason for abortion... even when there is, most people say you should choose the child's life over yourself.

That is completely false, Josephine. If both are going to die if something isn't done, the vast majority of pro-lifers are in support of letting the doctor do what needs to be done to save the mother's life, and that includes sometimes inevitably the child's life being taken, regrettably.

Case in point- ectopic pregnancy.

If you'll notice, I did say "yes" to "should abortion be illegal".

No, Josephine, I read your post, and it said:

I don't think abortions necessarily should be illegal.

I don't think an anti-abortion law is going to save any babies. I think it's just going to make abortions more dangerous. We'll have more cases of the one like the fourteen year old girl who had her boyfriend hit her in the stomach with a 2x4 to kill her baby..

We have cases like this today!

I think a lot of the reason for abortions are women not knowing what to do or being scared of the judgment... but a lot of the judgment comes from the religious conservatives/ pro-lifers... the ones that want to save babies. How ironic. If it were made a non-issue. A... "nobody cares if you have a baby" issue, then it would probably save a lot of babies. Instead, we want to stop people from having sex, period. That's never going to work.. especially in a nation where there are a lot of people who don't follow a religion/follow their religion very loosely..

The abortion debate is NOT about the personhood of the baby. Abortion is about sex.
The reason we have abortion today is because people (men and women) want sex without responsiblities. Responsibility=baby

Abortion appears to be the perfect answer. It allows a woman to "apparently" have no responsibility when sexually promiscuous because she gets rid of the baby. It allows the man no choice whatsoever, even if he wants to be responsible because he has no say in whether his baby lives or dies. How liberating for men! And here I thought this was women's lib!
Except the one flaw - every action, every choice entails some responsibility.

TSTL, you also didn't read my post. I said "yes". So, what the heck are you talking about? :)

There's no law saying you can't take a poop on a babies head, is there? I don't think you should be able to do that, but I don't think there should be a law against it. There's no need to have a law against abortion if no one wants one.

It's easier for you to try and make a law against it, even though there probably will NEVER be an abortion ban... you spend so much effort on that, when what you SHOULD be spending your effort on talking to women. That's the only place a real difference will be made.

Abortion is the UN choice:
http://www.unfairchoice.info/

sorry, my above post should read like this:

I think a lot of the reason for abortions are women not knowing what to do or being scared of the judgment... but a lot of the judgment comes from the religious conservatives/ pro-lifers... the ones that want to save babies. How ironic. If it were made a non-issue. A... "nobody cares if you have a baby" issue, then it would probably save a lot of babies. Instead, we want to stop people from having sex, period. That's never going to work.. especially in a nation where there are a lot of people who don't follow a religion/follow their religion very loosely..

The abortion debate is NOT about the personhood of the baby. Abortion is about sex.
The reason we have abortion today is because people (men and women) want sex without responsiblities. Responsibility=baby

Abortion appears to be the perfect answer. It allows a woman to "apparently" have no responsibility when sexually promiscuous because she gets rid of the baby. It allows the man no choice whatsoever, even if he wants to be responsible because he has no say in whether his baby lives or dies. How liberating for men! And here I thought this was women's lib!
Except the one flaw - every action, every choice entails some responsibility.

There's no law saying you can't take a poop on a babies head, is there? I don't think you should be able to do that, but I don't think there should be a law against it. There's no need to have a law against abortion if no one wants one.

Do you really think killing a human life is comparible to pooping on someone's head?

Josephine: laws often regulate our behaviour, so laws are important.
Having a law against abortion would be an important deterrant.
Having resources in place to help women deal with difficult pregnancies would be important too.
Having resources and a cultural attitude that encourage men and women to wait until they are married would be important.
And having resources and a respect for marriage would also be of benefit.
All of these actions go hand in hand with creating a more stable world for women and children.

you spend so much effort on that, when what you SHOULD be spending your effort on talking to women. That's the only place a real difference will be made.

Where do you get the idea that we don't talk to women?

Holy Moly.... Bethany, that is AWESOME.

It was awesome...he was so kissable.

Bethany, I've seen MANY women on here who've said they'd choose to save their unborn child's life over there own, if it came down to that!

AND, my WHOLE post, first I answered YES to your question, then said I don't think they necessarily should be illegal BUT no one is willing to work hard enough on another aspect. So, I did say "yes" they should be illegal. You asked a question, and I said yes. You, for some reason, don't want me to be pro-life, so you're just pretending I said something different than I did. You're ignoring that YOU asked me a question and I said YES.

"We have cases like this today!"

Would you like MORE? That's what you're asking for.

There are many MANY people who wouldn't mind having the baby, and giving it up for adoption but they're embarrassed to be carrying it and getting judged by it.

AND, my WHOLE post, first I answered YES to your question, then said I don't think they necessarily should be illegal BUT no one is willing to work hard enough on another aspect. So, I did say "yes" they should be illegal. You asked a question, and I said yes. You, for some reason, don't want me to be pro-life, so you're just pretending I said something different than I did. You're ignoring that YOU asked me a question and I said YES.

Josephine, how can you simultaneously want it to be illegal, and not think it should be illegal? That makes no sense.

Either you do or you don't.

Would you like MORE? That's what you're asking for..

Prove it. That's a baseless assumption, Josephine. Not a fact.

There are many MANY people who wouldn't mind having the baby, and giving it up for adoption but they're embarrassed to be carrying it and getting judged by it

Yes, and guess who does that? Pro-abortionists.
Guess who judged me for wanting to be a mom at 19?
Guess who judged Sarah Palin's daughter for becoming pregnant at a young age out of wedlock?

@ Do you really think killing a human life is comparible to pooping on someone's head?
Posted by: Bethany at January 12, 2009 4:06 PM

Bethany, that wasn't the point. The point is that it's ridiculous. It's completely ridiculous and that's why I don't think it should necessarily be illegal. It should just be so unacceptable in society that it's unheard of.

Bethany, I've heard a LOT of people on here talk about protests, fighting laws, how to vote... I've NEVER, EVER heard ANYONE say "I talk to women personally" "I counsel women"... I've NEVER seen it from anyone.. I've never even seen anyone suggest it!

"Having resources and a cultural attitude that encourage men and women to wait until they are married would be important.
And having resources and a respect for marriage would also be of benefit. "

THOSE ARE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Waiting until marriage for sex is a RELIGIOUS belief. Stop pretending you have any reason other than religion for that.

Bethany, that wasn't the point. The point is that it's ridiculous. It's completely ridiculous and that's why I don't think it should necessarily be illegal. It should just be so unacceptable in society that it's unheard of.

Sure, but if someone poops on a baby's head, and there are no consequences, at least the baby is still alive. (And you know what? There probably have been people that pooped on a baby's head, and didn't even feel sorry for it!)

If someone kills a baby, and there are no consequences, then a baby has just been murdered and there is no justice for that baby.

Josephine, I'm sorry but if you don't advocate making abortion illegal, you're not pro-life.

Posted by: Bethany at January 12, 2009 3:50 PM

Now this is interesting. Does being Pro-life simply mean that you are opposed to abortion? Or does it specifically mean that one works toward granting full rights to unborns such that abortion is illegal? Could it be that Pro-life means different things to different members? Is there a specific set of criteria to being Pro-life? What say you all?

Bethany, I've heard a LOT of people on here talk about protests, fighting laws, how to vote... I've NEVER, EVER heard ANYONE say "I talk to women personally" "I counsel women"... I've NEVER seen it from anyone.. I've never even seen anyone suggest it!

You obviously live in a very sheltered place, because there are TWICE as many Crisis Pregnancy Centers out there giving resources, shelter, food, counseling, etc to women, as there are abortion clinics. Pro-life people are VERY involved in helping women. You make a patently false assumption when you think that pro-life people don't care about women.

It's not a baseless assumption, Bethany. There were abortions performed before abortions were legalized. That's a fact.

It's not liberals who judged those people, it's "Christians". The reason liberals judged any of those, when they did, was because they're hypocrites. Sarah Palin's daughter got made fun of by liberals because they have a "strong Christian family"....or, that's how they portrayed themselves, when they OBVIOUSLY don't have "strong Christian values". I couldn't care less if a 18 year old has a baby.

"Josephine, how can you simultaneously want it to be illegal, and not think it should be illegal? That makes no sense. "

Seriously, did you not read my post at ALL? I said yes to "they should be illegal" and I explained that I don't think they should really have to be illegal, because I think what REALLY needs to happen is for women to not want/think they need them. So, I know exactly what I mean. You just don't like it, so you're pretending I'm saying something other than I am.

I've NEVER, EVER heard ANYONE say "I talk to women personally" "I counsel women"... I've NEVER seen it from anyone.. I've never even seen anyone suggest it!

Okay, josephine. I counsel women. I volunteer at my local CPC and I talk to women personally. And that is not said just to make a point- I really do. Now you've heard it.

"Having resources and a cultural attitude that encourage men and women to wait until they are married would be important.
And having resources and a respect for marriage would also be of benefit. "

THOSE ARE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Waiting until marriage for sex is a RELIGIOUS belief. Stop pretending you have any reason other than religion for that.

Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 4:17 PM

no Josephine, it is not necessarily a religious belief, although if it were, so WHAT? That does not invalidate it as a course of action that may be correct.

It is possible to prove that it is better to wait until marriage to be involved sexually and it is possible to prove that marriages contracted by noncohabitating couples are stronger and last longer.

Bethany, when did I say pro-lifers don't care about women?

Could you maybe show me? Or did you just make that up? I live in a very sheltered place? I live about 15 minutes from Chicago, and I go to school in Urbana. Nothing sheltered about either place..

It's not a baseless assumption, Bethany. There were abortions performed before abortions were legalized. That's a fact.

Not on the scale that they are performed today.
You made a statement that you can never back up with numbers, unless they are skewed numbers from the abortion industry.

It's not liberals who judged those people, it's "Christians". The reason liberals judged any of those, when they did, was because they're hypocrites. Sarah Palin's daughter got made fun of by liberals because they have a "strong Christian family"....or, that's how they portrayed themselves, when they OBVIOUSLY don't have "strong Christian values". I couldn't care less if a 18 year old has a baby.

What? You are deluding yourself if you truly believe this is true. Okay then, Josephine. Why did they mock Palin for having a baby with Down's syndrome instead of having an abortion?

So, what you're saying, Patricia, is you should force other people to follow your religious beliefs? That's what I'm getting from it. Please, tell me where anything says that sex before marriage is wrong except in religious documents?

Bethany, I've heard a LOT of people on here talk about protests, fighting laws, how to vote... I've NEVER, EVER heard ANYONE say "I talk to women personally" "I counsel women"... I've NEVER seen it from anyone.. I've never even seen anyone suggest it!

While I do not personally counsel women with difficult pregnancies, I know of two women who do.
There are also many organizations that will help women to find the shelter, funds and so forth they need to get a good start.
Things are not like they were 30 years ago.

Bethany, when did I say pro-lifers don't care about women?

I wonder if you have amnesia, because you keep writing things, then claiming you didn't write them. Here is what I responded to:

"I've NEVER, EVER heard ANYONE say "I talk to women personally" "I counsel women"... I've NEVER seen it from anyone.. I've never even seen anyone suggest it! "

Did you mean something else by that statement?

Who mocked Palin for having a downs baby? I certainly didn't.. :) Don't know what you're talking about, and I sure do run around with a bunch of liberals..

What do you mean am I "deluding" myself. I made fun of her for it, and I am a liberal. So yes, I know the reasons behind it.

Also, this statement:

It's easier for you to try and make a law against it, even though there probably will NEVER be an abortion ban... you spend so much effort on that, when what you SHOULD be spending your effort on talking to women.

That implied that we are NOT talking to women.

If I meant, "pro-lifers don't care about women" I would have written that. I didn't write it, so that's not what I meant. I meant exactly what I said. Pro-lifers seem to have tried everything that hasn't worked, and they KEEP trying instead of talking directly to women.

TSTL, "knowing people" and doing it yourself are very different.

Bethany, I said STRAIGHT OUT I never said pro-lifers didn't care about women. Now you're pulling up things *I* said and telling ME what I meant by them? Are you kidding?

I know EXACTLY what I mean. I mean EXACTLY what I say.

It's easier for you to try and make a law against it, even though there probably will NEVER be an abortion ban... you spend so much effort on that, when what you SHOULD be spending your effort on talking to women. That's the only place a real difference will be made.
Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 4:04 PM

I agree with you Josephine. It's highly unlikely that there will ever be an abortion ban. And it's even less likely that contraception will be banned.

It seems to me that some Pro-lifers are realizing this and are putting their efforts into just what you have suggested. Which is great, because with that, you'd have Pro-life and Pro-Choice working TOGETHER.

But that requires a different mindset then toostunned's and others here.

TSTL, "knowing people" and doing it yourself are very different.

Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 4:29 PM

I totally agree. Would help you to know then, that I have in the past worked for an organization that helped pregnant and distressed women? It was a wonderful ministry.

Who mocked Palin for having a downs baby? I certainly didn't.. :) Don't know what you're talking about, and I sure do run around with a bunch of liberals..

Oh, you don't...so that you haven't made fun of her proves that pro-abortionists don't make fun of people who carry their babies to term?

I never make fun of women or degrade women who carry their children to term, yet earlier you felt perfectly content saying that pro-lifers are the reason that women are afraid to keep their babies, for fear of being judged and ridiculed by them.

Also, your personal experience wasn't exactly what I was talking about, was it?

What do you mean am I "deluding" myself. I made fun of her for it, and I am a liberal. So yes, I know the reasons behind it.

I wasn't talking about liberals. I was talking about pro-abortionists.

I agree, Asitis. Unfortunately, everyone here considers pro-choicers= pro-aborts... when really, there are many pro-choicers who would never personally have an abortion.. who don't believe abortion to be the right option, they just want women to have the choice. That doesn't mean a pro-choicer would counsel women into having abortions.

It's easier for you to try and make a law against it, even though there probably will NEVER be an abortion ban... you spend so much effort on that, when what you SHOULD be spending your effort on talking to women. That's the only place a real difference will be made.
Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 4:04 PM

Josephine; what sort of talk to do you mean? What will talk accomplish? Is it talking to women BEFORE they jump into bed, talking to women AFTER they get out of bed and are now pregnant, talking to women at the doors of PP? I'd be interested to know.

I know EXACTLY what I mean. I mean EXACTLY what I say.

You might mean something different than what you said, but you do not mean exactly what you say, because what you say is completely different than what you're saying you mean. :P

I agree, Asitis. Unfortunately, everyone here considers pro-choicers= pro-aborts...

Thats because they are.

when really, there are many pro-choicers who would never personally have an abortion

So? There's many people who don't really have a solid position on pedophilia who would never molest a child.

who don't believe abortion to be the right option, they just want women to have the choice.

Why should a woman have the choice to kill what you have admitted is a human being from the moment of conception, Josephine?

pro-choicers= pro-aborts...

yes, exactly. To be pro choice means to favor "choice". What is "choice"? "Choice" almost exclusively in our modern language/semantics means abortion. That is THE choice.
Therefore, prochoice means proabortion.

Oh please, Bethany, tell me more of what *I* MEAN to say.

Why did they mock Palin for having a baby with Down's syndrome instead of having an abortion?
Posted by: Bethany at January 12, 2009 4:25 PM

Did "they"? All I remember hearing people questioning whether Palin actually "chose" to have her Down's baby. She says she had an amnio, but did she really? Why would she do that and put the fetus at any risk if she were never going to choose abortion? People forego amnio's all the time for this very reason. So why would Palin have one?

A very good question............

Oh please, Bethany, tell me more of what *I* MEAN to say.

All I have to do is copy and paste your own words, my dear.

So, what you're saying, Patricia, is you should force other people to follow your religious beliefs? That's what I'm getting from it. Please, tell me where anything says that sex before marriage is wrong except in religious documents?

Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 4:25 PM

Josephine, you used the P word! That's forbidden!

Why would she do that and put the fetus at any risk if she were never going to choose abortion? People forego amnio's all the time for this very reason. So why would Palin have one?

Let's see...assuming she had one, isn't it very possible that she wanted to have time to prepare and be ready for whatever disability her child might have? Most pro-life people I know of who have had amnios have had them for this purpose.

Wow. No wonder the pro-life movement is failing so horribly. They apparently content to work with only pro-lifers, in which case.. there just aren't enough of them.

Now you're pulling up things *I* said and telling ME what I meant by them? Are you kidding?

I know EXACTLY what I mean. I mean EXACTLY what I say.

Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 4:31 PM

Bethany does this sometimes Josephine.

Bethany, you're copying my words and telling me what I MEANT to say, and I'm saying you're wrong. All you're doing is proving that you don't make any sense.

josephine, I'm content to work without someone who is willing to let babies die.

Even though by working with them, you could save babies?

By the way, you are doing exactly what I said everyone on here is doing wrong. You'd rather have laws then actually work with others to save babies. You JUST said it. :)

Wow. No wonder the pro-life movement is failing so horribly. They apparently content to work with only pro-lifers, in which case.. there just aren't enough of them.

Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 4:40 PM

it's pretty hard to work with any person or organization that also believes it's okay to kill babies.
How would you suggest we do this?

Josephine; what sort of talk to do you mean? What will talk accomplish? Is it talking to women BEFORE they jump into bed, talking to women AFTER they get out of bed and are now pregnant, talking to women at the doors of PP? I'd be interested to know.

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 12, 2009 4:34 PM

How about "talking to them BEFORE they jump into bed unprotected" toostunned! Unfortunately contraception goes against your religious beliefs so you can't help there.

Josephine, I'll let the words speak for themselves. :)

Shouldn't you be changing people's mind? So maybe they didn't think it was okay to kill babies? Nope! It's easier for you to work on your own... and it's doing so much good.. HA!

Even though by working with them, you could save babies?
By the way, you are doing exactly what I said everyone on here is doing wrong. You'd rather have laws then actually work with others to save babies. You JUST said it. :)

I don't think I will save babies doing what you are doing, Josephine.

You'd rather have laws then actually work with others to save babies. You JUST said it. :)

Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 4:44 PM

no we'd like to have laws the respect the dignity and right to life of ALL human beings including our unborn brothers and sisters.
And we'd like to work with moms and dads who need the help doing this.

Uhm, what am I doing Bethany?

no we'd like to have laws the respect the dignity and right to life of ALL human beings including our unborn brothers and sisters.

Amen to that!

I've got to run now. I have some cleaning to catch up on and gotta cook supper. Will catch up tomorrow. :)

who don't believe abortion to be the right option, they just want women to have the choice.
Why should a woman have the choice to kill what you have admitted is a human being from the moment of conception, Josephine?
Posted by: Bethany at January 12, 2009 4:36 PM

Some people recognize there belief that personhood begins at birth as a religious one. And they realize that their religious belief should not be pushed on other women. They should be free to make their own choice.

Advocating that some babies be allowed to die, Josephine. Talk to you later

Amen to THAT, asitis!

I wish Bethany would have stuck around long enough to tell me what it is I'm doing, since apparently she knows... how weird!

I'm not sure I ever said babies should be allowed to die? I said there ARE medical exceptions, even though people pretend that there aren't. There ARE medical reasons for abortion. Sometimes it is NECESSARY for the health and well being of the mother. Babies are more important than mothers.. at least that's what it seems like.

Let's see...assuming she had one, isn't it very possible that she wanted to have time to prepare and be ready for whatever disability her child might have? Most pro-life people I know of who have had amnios have had them for this purpose.
Posted by: Bethany at January 12, 2009 4:40 PM

I'm sorry.... by being "prepared" do you mean flying across the continent when you are 8 months pregnant and then waiting to deliver a speech and fly all the way back to Alaska and drive to a small hospital in Nowhere when your water breaks instead of hightailing it straight to the nearest neonatal hospital? Or better yet... staying home in the first place? I know a mom with a Down's Syndrome baby and she just shakes her head over Palin!

She didn't have to make up the amnio. But she did, just to make her story better.

Kind of like Cindy McCain and that Mother Theresa story she got caught on. Why did she have to embellish? It was a good deed on its own.

Hmm. I don't think I got answer answers on this question below. Could it be that Pro-life is hard to define? Or nobody wants to say exactly what it is, because there would be a great divide?

Josephine, I'm sorry but if you don't advocate making abortion illegal, you're not pro-life.

Posted by: Bethany at January 12, 2009 3:50 PM

Now this is interesting. Does being Pro-life simply mean that you are opposed to abortion? Or does it specifically mean that one works toward granting full rights to unborns such that abortion is illegal? Could it be that Pro-life means different things to different members? Is there a specific set of criteria to being Pro-life? What say you all?
Posted by: asitis at January 12, 2009 4:20 PM

Dang, y'all firin'it up today....

Did I miss something? Why is Patricia going by a new name, and why is Bethany trying to hide it?

Long story Rose. If you care to know, you can go to the Caroline Kennedy post. Just don't let Bethany know I gave you that tidbit!

Darn tootin' Doug!

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The Madoff fundraising scandal has had some beneficial fallout for the pro-life movement. Combined with the current economic downturn, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America is feeling the pinch and has laid off 20 percent of its staff.

The nation's largest abortion business, which does 25 percent of all abortions in the United States annually, laid off about 30 people this week.

Executives at Planned Parenthood confirmed the layoffs in an interview with the Crain's New York business publication.

“As with many other nonprofit organizations, Planned Parenthood has had to make staff reductions at our headquarters due to the challenging economic times facing our country,” Planned Parenthood chief operating officer Maryana Iskander said.

“While taking this action is never easy, we want to ensure the millions of women and men who rely on Planned Parenthood as a health care provider that the reductions will not impact our ability to deliver care to those in need," Iskander added.

What Iskander didn't discuss is the effect of the Madoff scandal on Planned Parenthood's income.

The Florida-based Picower Foundation, which gave substantial donations to the abortion business, shut down in December because Bernard Madoff had mismanaged its assets. The foundation was worth $1 billion and one of the top financial backers of pro-abortion groups.

The charity has given away more than $189 million since 1999 and a sizable chunk of the money went to abortion advocates, including $3.2 million to NARAL, $2.5 million for the Center for Reproductive Rights, $2.4 million for Planned Parenthood, and $625,000 for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, according to the American Spectator.

The JEHT Foundation, which gave away $24 million last year to groups, including pro-abortion organizations, also announced in December that it would be shutting its doors. JEHT gave $1.7 million to the ACLU and its foundation and $4.2 million to the Tides Foundation, which heavily funds pro-abortion groups.

News of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America laying off staff comes on the heels of one of its affiliates doing so.

Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota said in December that hard economic times forced it to lay off 10 employees covering nine and a half positions including its South Dakota director.

South Dakota director Kate Looby, who has overseen the lone South Dakota abortion business, run by Planned Parenthood in Sioux Falls, since 2003, confirmed she would be fired from her position.

Bethany, you exhibited patience of heroic proportions today!

Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota said in December that hard economic times forced it to lay off 10 employees covering nine and a half positions including its South Dakota director.

maybe a deepening recession will help people put things into perspective and instead of throwing money at orgs like PP, it will be put to wiser use.
Life deserves a chance!

Bethany, you exhibited patience of heroic proportions today!

Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 12, 2009 7:26 PM

Josephine too! Well done.

The best part of this whole thread is Bethany's hypocracy.

On December 15th, after pointing out a pro-choice commenter using more than one username in order to discredit them, Bethany herself says that posting under different names is "dishonest." She then goes on to say that, AND I QUOTE, "Everyone that does is outed."

I guess by "everyone" Bethany means "everyone who disagrees with me."

This was in the assisted suicide post.

Here's a link to that entry:

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/12/watch_me_die.html#comments

I like that Lauren jumps in and plays pretend-moderator in that exchange, too.

Holy crap, so, I got distracted looking for the part of that thread with Bethany and I saw this:

"Cats and Dogs do NOT have souls."

!!!!!!!! What the hell. How can you look in a puppy's eyes and think "Okay, this puppy is soul less. When it dies, it's just a corpse and that's all." I don't think I can argue with these people anymore who can claim that animals don't have souls. They're obviously messed up in the head anyway.

Miriam/rose/chris/barney/etc,

It was pretty simple to tell you were one person because of the language you used. I didn't even check the IP before asking you why you were using multiple aliases, so anyone could have done the same thing. However, the reason that I asked you why you were using multiple aliases was not just because you were using different names (many, many people on this site have changed their names and I have never said anything)...it was because of your intent in doing so. You were using your names to try to give everyone the impression that there were more people on your side when you were attacking yllas and ganging up on him. It was totally unfair. And you have not only attacked yllas, but many other people, including me- using multiple aliases to deceive others into believing that you were more than one person.

(And by the way, I never forced the issue- you [surprisingly] came forward and admitted that what I said was true, but even if you hadn't, I would have dropped it after I first mentioned it. There would be no need to press it any further than that.)

Here is an example of how having another moniker could be acceptable: If a person comes to this site and is harrassed to a point where they feel uncomfortable coming back with their usual ID but they would still like to participate, I don't think anyone has any problem with that. It's not the same thing. Or if a person decided that they didn't really like the way their other ID sounded and wanted to change it, or if a person decided that they wanted to be more anonymous because they realized how public this place is, there is no problem with that. It is the intent that matters, and I am sorry if I was not more clear about that when I first mentioned it - I just assumed it was obvious! (Forgive me for making such a bold assumption.)

Eileen #2, I love you! :)

Actually, Bethany, those were not all me. Go ahead and check IP addresses. Unless we should just accept all of your assumptions. I guess I was wrong in assuming "everyone" means "everyone" to you.

I enjoy yllas' contributions, and it was not me baiting him. Or attacking you.

Sometimes it is NECESSARY for the health and well being of the mother.
Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 4:50 PM
*****************************************

If an abortion is necessary to save the mother's life, then that abortion is not an "elective abortion" at all.
I believe that if a woman who is pregnant finds that she must accept a treatment that could have the secondary effect of killing her unborn child in order for her to survive, then she must make that choice. If the child dies as a secondary result of a necessary treatment, then that is NOT an elective procedure.

I don't believe anyone here is pretending that there are no situations in which a mother's LIFE is definitely in peril if a pregnancy is continued (ectopic pregnancy being one that comes to mind).

BTW, you can count me in with pro-lifers who have "actually talked to women" who were experiencing unplanned pregnancies.

Talking to women who have experienced unplanned pregnancies is not the same as counseling someone who is thinking about abortion. Pretty much everyone in the world knows someone who has experienced an unplanned pregnancy, Kel.

Oh, and I don't think I ever said that was an elective procedure. Those were brought up in VERY different parts of the conversation. If someone asked what I thought of doctors talking of mental/emotional risks in abortions that were necessary, I would have given a different answer. If you'll notice *I'M* the one that brought up "exception abortions"... it's not like you're finding a loophole in what I said. We were talking about women who WANTED abortions because they "felt desperate" at the beginning of the conversation.

Miriam, that may well be, but whoever it was admitted to being all of the aliases.

So if you're not that person, I'll accept that.

Talking to women who have experienced unplanned pregnancies is not the same as counseling someone who is thinking about abortion. Pretty much everyone in the world knows someone who has experienced an unplanned pregnancy, Kel.
****************************************

Josephine, I spent nearly four years as the managing director of a pregnancy resource center, where I counseled abortion-minded clients on a daily basis. One of the best days of my time there was my birthday, when I received a call from a client who changed her mind and wanted to call to let me know that she had given birth to a little boy, and to thank me for speaking to her in her time of indecision.

But thank you for attempting to belittle my work on behalf of women, which clearly you know nothing about. :) You stated that pro-lifers don't talk to women. I decided to let you know that I have. Please don't assume that you know each one of us or what we have done on behalf of women and babies.

One of the best days of my time there was my birthday, when I received a call from a client who changed her mind and wanted to call to let me know that she had given birth to a little boy, and to thank me for speaking to her in her time of indecision.

That is wonderful, Kel!

If you'll notice *I'M* the one that brought up "exception abortions"... it's not like you're finding a loophole in what I said. We were talking about women who WANTED abortions because they "felt desperate" at the beginning of the conversation.
Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 11:10 PM
***************************************

I do not spend my time trying to find loopholes in what you have said. I expressed my opinion regarding what I believe is an elective procedure, and that which you mentioned, a medically necessary procedure. My point is that there are very few medically necessary abortions that take place. There are some, yes, but the majority of the abortions are elective ones.

That is wonderful, Kel!
Posted by: Bethany at January 13, 2009 12:00 AM
******************************

It really was, Bethany. Honestly the best "birthday gift" I ever received. :)

The Kingdom is coming and it will be ever-lasting. So rejoice in God's glory and praise Him without end.

It is God our Father alone who created the world.
And it God who establishes the order which governs all ages. Woe to those who kill their progeny and do not repent; surely they are destroying their remembrance from the face of the earth.

Blessed be you Mary the Mother of God. You trampled the viper under foot when you said Yes to life at the Annunciation. May your words to the archangel Gabriel and he gift of life given to her by the Holy Spirit. Sweet Mother, I long for the peace promised to us by your Son Jesus Christ. May your prayers join with ours in the everlasting peace that comes through your Son Jesus Christ. With great confidence I place this cause in your hands.

Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy.
Hail our life, our sweetness and our hope.
To you do we cry, poor banished children of Eve.
To you do we send up our sighs, mourning, and weeping in this valley of tears.
Turn then O most gracious advocate,
thine eyes of mercy towards us..
And after this our exile,
show unto us the blessed fruit of your womb Jesus

O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.
Pray for us O Holy Mother of God.
That we may become worthy of the promises of Christ.

The Kingdom is coming and it will be ever-lasting. So rejoice in God's glory and praise Him without end.

It is God our Father alone who created the world.
And it God who establishes the order which governs all ages. Woe to those who kill their progeny and do not repent; surely they are destroying their remembrance from the face of the earth.

Blessed be you Mary the Mother of God. You trampled the viper under foot when you said Yes to life at the Annunciation. You said Yes to life with your words to the archangel Gabriel and the gift of life was poured unto you by the Holy Spirit. Sweet Mother, I long for the peace promised to us by your Son Jesus Christ. May your prayers join with ours in the everlasting peace that comes through your Son Jesus Christ. With great confidence I place this cause in your hands.

Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy.
Hail our life, our sweetness and our hope.
To you do we cry, poor banished children of Eve.
To you do we send up our sighs, mourning, and weeping in this valley of tears.
Turn then O most gracious advocate,
thine eyes of mercy towards us..
And after this our exile,
show unto us the blessed fruit of your womb Jesus

O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.
Pray for us O Holy Mother of God.
That we may become worthy of the promises of Christ.

“Who has believed our message? To whom will the Lord reveal his saving power? My servant grew up in the Lord’s presence like a tender green shoot, sprouting from a root in dry and sterile ground. There was nothing beautiful or majestic about his appearance, nothing to attract us to him. He was despised and rejected – a man of sorrows, acquainted with bitterest grief. We turned our backs on him and looked the other way when he went by. He was despised, and we did not care.

Yet it was our weaknesses he carried. It was our sorrows that weighed him down. And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God for his own sins! But he was wounded and crushed for our sins. He was beaten that we might have peace. He was whipped, and we were healed! All of us have strayed away like sheep. We have left God’s paths to follow our own. Yet the Lord laid on him the guilt and sins of us all.

He was oppressed and treated harshly, yet he never said a word. He was led as a lamb to the slaughter. And as a sheep is silent before the shearers, he did not open his mouth. From prison and trial they led him away to his death. But who among the people realized that he was dying for their sins – that he was suffering their punishment? He had done no wrong, and he never deceived anyone. But he was buried like a criminal; he was put in a rich man’s grave.

But it was the Lord’s good plan to crush him and fill him with grief. Yet when his life is made an offering for sin, he will have a multitude of children, many heirs. He will enjoy a long life, and the Lord’s plan will prosper in his hands. When he sees all that is accomplished by his anguish, he will be satisfied. And because of what he has experienced, my righteous servant will make it possible for many to be counted righteous, for he will bear all their sins. I will give him the honors of one who is mighty and great, because he exposed himself to death. He was counted among those who were sinners. He bore the sins of many and interceded for sinners.” Isaiah 53:1-12 (NLT)

Then I saw in the right hand of him who sat on the throne a scroll with writing on both sides and sealed with seven seals. And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, "Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?" But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it. I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. Then one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals." Rev 5:1-5

Kel, maybe you should read all of my comments for before you start being, well, a jerk. You obviously didn't. And, just so you know, I'm not familiar with you at all. Why would I know what you did for a living? Do you know what I do for a living? My knowledge of you was "I talk to women who are experiencing unplanned pregnancies." That's all you said.

"My point is that there are very few medically necessary abortions that take place. "

Oh, and how was that the point of your first post? Your post was talking about some abortions not being elective so doctors should explain mental/emotional risks.. Maybe you should've written what you meant, because you never said anything about "how few medically necessary abortions take place".

Thank you for that beautiful passage, Truthseeker.

Ecce crucem Domini!
Fugite partes adversae!
Vicit Leo de Tribu Juda,
Radix David! Alleluia, Alleluia!!

Thanks Bethany :{) You can delte 12:18 if you like, I retyped it at 12:24 cause it had typos.

No matter how many times people say we should use secular arguments, never stop expressing your love for God and how it moves you.

Commit everything you do to the Lord. Trust him, and he will help you. Psalm 37:5

!!!!!!!! What the hell. How can you look in a puppy's eyes and think "Okay, this puppy is soul less. When it dies, it's just a corpse and that's all." I don't think I can argue with these people anymore who can claim that animals don't have souls. They're obviously messed up in the head anyway.

Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 9:26 PM

What is a soul Josephine?

Definition please.

Do puppies in the womb have a soul? Or kitty cats?

As far as I know ther're animal,vegetative, and human souls. Only humans have rational souls.

In On the Soul, Aristotle approached the concept of the soul from an essentially scientific perspective, employing elements of biology and metaphysics that encompassed everything from the concepts of substance, form, and matter, to those of potentiality and actuality. While Christians and other religious faiths have traditionally deemed the soul to be an immortal entity that lives on after physical death, Aristotle viewed the soul as united with the living body, and therefore unable to exist without a host. From his perspective, a soul is created merely for the purpose of development, which is only possible through the soul's connection with a body or some other type of container in the physical world.

By classifying life into different levels, Aristotle was able to categorize plants as having the lowest level of soul, animals other than humans as having a higher level of soul, and humans, because of their capacity for reason, possessing the greatest soul. Therefore, according to Aristotle, the human soul is a reward based on the sum total of our biological nature and our unique capacities as humans to think and feel.

Or, the short course, you may just make the soul, "the mind", which leaves you with "the mind" being the non- flesh of "the brain". "A thought" which "the mind" produces or makes, has no flesh back then, and even now.

Dogs and cats die, and their soul dies with them.

As does the brain, the mind, the thought.

You don't like the original idea upon which modern psychology, and neuro-science is based on?

Or are you appealing to some unscientific approach to the soul which is founded on "religious ideas" of the soul. The soul exist from birth into eternity.

Which one is it? Dead and gone, when the body dies, or a religious idea of the soul continuing to live after matter, form, substance have decayed into dust?

It seems you believe the soul continues after death.

If soo, where does the soul go? Say a puppy soul?

Let me tell you a story. During the election I found I had genuine dislike for anybody who supported the Barack H. for president. I felt so strongly that abortion is evil that I found myself projecting my dislike for abortion into dislike for anybody who voted for an Obamanation. I drive a snow plow during the winter. I wouldn't even leave snow plow contracts on peoples doors if they had Obama signs in their yard or Obama stickers on their cars because I did not want to help anybody who supported Obama.

I had a catharsis the other day. The guy who lives across the street from me had an Obama sign in his front yard thoughout the election and for weeks after. I had McCain signs in my front yard. One night the city plow came down the block and tossed a bunch of snow into this neighbors driveway. The following morning I was coming back home after a night of plowing and saw that his driveway had been blocked in with snow. This had happened before and I just left it there cause he was an overt Obama supporter. But this time I dropped my blade and cleared the end of his driveway as I passed by. It felt great, like a huge weight went off my shoulders.

I still think people who fight for a woman's "right" to kill her baby in the womb are idiots but I don't feel a need to project hatred toward them any more. I look at them now more as lost and misguided. It is by treating others with love like Jesus Christ taught us that we will soften hardened hearts and minds. I still think abortion should be illegal but now I hate the abortion, not the abortee.

It seems you believe the soul continues after death. If soo, where does the soul go? Say a puppy soul?

Posted by: yllas at January 13, 2009 1:14 AM

Most likely to heaven if the master gets their and wants their puppy soul to tag along.

Well, it's sleeting and snowing again and I have to go plow all night. The peace of Jesus Christ be with you always. And also with your spirit.

Most likely to heaven if the master gets their and wants their puppy soul to tag along.

Posted by: truthseeker at January 13, 2009 1:35 AM

I knew you believed that TS. Plus, I like your story about clearing the driveway of that neighbor, who was a Obama supporter.

God is with us all this day.

Here is an example of how having another moniker could be acceptable: If a person comes to this site and is harrassed to a point where they feel uncomfortable coming back with their usual ID but they would still like to participate, I don't think anyone has any problem with that.
Posted by: Bethany at January 12, 2009 10:27 PM

Yes,that's a valid point in this particular case Bethany. Far better to do that than to... oh, I don't know... maybe say "Sorry, I really didn't know what I was talking about. I'm sorry for calling you guys idiots and accusing you of making stuff up and lying when in fact you weren't. Peace."

That would have been the right thing to do. Instead of changing her name and then coming back and do the same thing again and again.

!!!!!!!! What the hell. How can you look in a puppy's eyes and think "Okay, this puppy is soul less. When it dies, it's just a corpse and that's all." I don't think I can argue with these people anymore who can claim that animals don't have souls. They're obviously messed up in the head anyway.

Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 9:26 PM

well we don't know for sure Josephine but our understanding of the way things are at this point is that only man has an immortal soul. No other animals were created this way.
Our theological understanding is that the difference between man and animals is not just physical it is also spiritual and theological - we have souls - an inner life that an animal cannot have.
This comes directly from Genesis Josephine.

"I like that Lauren jumps in and plays pretend-moderator in that exchange, too."

Miriam, dear, I was a Moderator, but stepped down because I had to much going on to give moderation the attention it deserves. If there are no other moderators on the board, I will step in.

It's not me "playing moderator" but rather taking responsibility. I do not delete posts, but I will tell someone to cool it if they are being inappropriate or clarify a rules position.

Josephine, I can see what you are saying about looking into a puppy's eyes and seeing a "soul". Or a horse's eyes, dog's eyes, cat's eyes..... There is something there of what we see when we looked in a person's eyes, isn't there?

I found more about Aristotle's approach to the soul in the article yllas copied from. This part speaks to that:

"However within Aristotle’s premise of all living things possessing souls, he explains that different entities possess different versions. He believed that what distinguishes the human soul from the animal or plant soul was its ability to hold rational beliefs and to exercise reason".

In his view, the puppy would have a soul though a lesser one), and like ours it would be mortal.

I think the mortal soul part goes against your beliefs Josephine. But the idea that all living things can have a soul, mortal or not, is intriguing and something we get a sense of when we look in an animal's eyes or even stare upon a old majestic tree.

"This comes directly from Genesis Josephine."

It never ceases to amaze me that there are priests at the Vatican that will say that, basically, some parts of the bible are wacky... when there are other people who take everything so literally. Hrmm.

Asitis, I can completely live with animals having a soul, just a lesser one. But for someone to claim that an animal has no soul... well, I'd just have to think that person is stupid and incompassionate.. and it makes me wonder why they'd think an unborn baby has a soul!

It never ceases to amaze me that Josephine argues like the child she is, never being able to make an intelligent point.

I can't wait until Jill returns.

Josephine, yes it appears sometimes that everyone has their own idea of the bible.

For example,the creation stories are not scientific accounts of how the world was created, although, God in his ominipotence, certainly could have created the world in that manner, or instantaneously, or any other way.
Science for example, does not tell us about the meaning of our existence from a spiritual POV. This is the purpose of Scripture and to accomplish this, scripture uses symbolism quite a bit.
That is why when you read about a priest quoting scripture he is not necessarily taking the Scripture on a literal level but using it to back up a spiritual truth.
IMO, the bible is about the spiritual mysteries of ourselves and mankind. However, I also believe that there was an Adam and an Eve and the faced a test and failed.

Bethany,
Ich liebe dich, auch! :D

asitis,
why is it that it is okay for some people to be rude and in insulting but not others?

It never ceases to amaze me that Josephine argues like the child she is, never being able to make an intelligent point.
Posted by: Kristen at January 13, 2009 8:12 AM

Wow. Do you have any teenage or older children, Kristen? How's the working out for you?

Josephine, I think you add a unique pro-life, christian perspective here. Add your age makes it all the more valuable.

"Kel, maybe you should read all of my comments for before you start being, well, a jerk."
*******************************

Josephine, I was trying to address the point in conversation where you began talking about medically necessary abortions. If you believe I was being "a jerk" then that is your perception, not my intent. I was trying to have a civilized conversation and add my input and personal opinion, but I see that it's impossible for you to respond respectfully.

"You obviously didn't. And, just so you know, I'm not familiar with you at all. Why would I know what you did for a living? Do you know what I do for a living? My knowledge of you was "I talk to women who are experiencing unplanned pregnancies." That's all you said."
****************************************

I did read your posts, along with everyone else's, and it seemed to be progressing in that direction of conversation, so I posted what I believe.
I realize you're not familiar with me, and that is why I said you know nothing about PRO-LIFERS on this board, either. You have made some very sweeping statements about pro-lifers' "uninvolvement" with women experiencing unplanned pregnancies.
The reason why I simply said that I had spoken to women with unplanned pregnancies is because I don't feel that I need to go around listing my resume unless someone questions my work, as you later did when you said, "Talking to women who have experienced unplanned pregnancies is not the same as counseling someone who is thinking about abortion. Pretty much everyone in the world knows someone who has experienced an unplanned pregnancy, Kel."

"Oh, and how was that the point of your first post? Your post was talking about some abortions not being elective so doctors should explain mental/emotional risks.. Maybe you should've written what you meant, because you never said anything about "how few medically necessary abortions take place".
Posted by: Josephine at January 13, 2009 12:36 AM
**************************************

I did write what I meant to say. My post did not say anything about non-elective abortions as related to doctors explaining mental/emotional risks. Maybe someone else's post said that in the course of conversation, but mine did not. I was addressing the point where you said that pro-lifers refuse to acknowledge that sometimes there are necessary medical abortions.

I love you too! - yes, am I correct Eileen? !!
;-}

asitis,why is it that it is okay for some people to be rude and in insulting but not others?
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 13, 2009 9:32 AM

I don't know Eileen. I think you should be asking Bethany that!

tstl,
Ja!

Eileen: :-D

No, asitis,
I am asking you. My point in asking is that you and others complain of being insulted yet, you do the same to others. I was told recently, that it was okay for me to be insulted because what I said was "stupid". I was also called a "liar" simply for expressing my opinion on what I thought to be true. I try to keep things civil, sometimes I fail, but I really become so tired of hearing people on the other side (liberals or pro-choice posters) who accuse the other side of the very same behavior.
And I don't want to hear "they did it first!"

I was also called a "liar" simply for expressing my opinion on what I thought to be true.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 13, 2009 10:06 AM

Yeah, well Patricia was actually calling me a liar not in regards to an opinion, but actual facts. And continued to do so, even when clearly wrong.

I have already acknowledged that many, many people here push the limits on the guidelines with regards to how others are treated.

Patricia lied to me. I called her on it. Bethany stepped in and intentionally misled so that her friend would not be caught in a lie. And now Bethany would like to have me banned for doing what others do. How's that for applying the rules fairly, hmmm?

Bethany is the one who is using two standards here. So the question should be directed at her.

I'll let you mull that one over Eileen while I go for a hike.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=85944

Now this is interesting.

What I am saying here, asitis, is that you earlier accused people of being insulting and yet you have done it also. You also did not appreciate being called a liar so why do you do the same?

"It never ceases to amaze me that Josephine argues like the child she is, never being able to make an intelligent point.

I can't wait until Jill returns.
Posted by: Kristen at January 13, 2009 8:12 AM"

Can you give me an example of this? Hmm, you mean like when I say something and back it up by facts? Would you like to see vatican priests saying things about stories in the bible being "wacky". Watch Religulous. It will back up everything I've said. Oh, by the way, I'm twenty years old. I'm not a child, just because I'm not old.

And, I'm pretty sure I've made several intelligent points. You don't think pro-lifers aand pro-choicers working together is an intelligent point? How about the fact that there are medically necessary abortions? How about the fact that I'm in med school and I come from a family of doctors, so I know 100% without a doubt that a doctor is NOT required to tell you about "emotional risks".

Hmm, I guess since you don't agree with me, that means those are stupid points though. Wow! THAT never ceases to amaze me.

By the way, we've never had a conversation at all... so basically, you're just saying things by seeing me converse with others. That's what makes you extra hilarious, sweetie.

"I have already acknowledged that many, many people here push the limits on the guidelines with regards to how others are treated."

From the Rules of Discussion:
Try to read what the other person is actually saying and not what you think they may be saying.

"Criticize ideas, not people.”

I believe several of these rules have been broken, but I've only noticed pro-choicers getting yelled at for it from moderators. Seems as though there should be some pro-choice moderators.

Actually, Josephine, I have been posting long enough at this site that I have seen pro-lifers reprimanded too.

I believe several of these rules have been broken, but I've only noticed pro-choicers getting yelled at for it from moderators. Seems as though there should be some pro-choice moderators.
Posted by: Josephine at January 13, 2009 10:24 AM
***************************************

Well, this site is called "Pro-Life Pulse." That is why there are pro-life mods here, I'd assume.

And Eileen #2, I have also seen pro-lifers reprimanded. A LOT of them. Some of them left the site, as well, I believe.

I believe you, Eileen. I'm sure pro-lifers do get reprimanded. I've just never seen it. It just seems like a good way to go would be to have a pro-choice moderator, too.

The incident that always comes to mind is when John L. said he hoped my whole family and I burned in hell. That comment didn't even get deleted, and moderators were posting on the same thread.

It just seems like unless you stop welcoming pro-choicers here, they should have a moderator.

(And I've never been reprimanded by a moderator, so I'm not saying this because of anything that happened with me. It just seems fair.)

I remember that, Josephine, and it pained me to read it. However, by the same token, there should have been things deleted that have been said by liberals or instances when they should have been reprimanded and were not. All I am saying is that if one doesn't like being insulted, etc. then don't do it to others. And doing it in response to someone is not an excuse.

"Would you like to see vatican priests saying things about stories in the bible being "wacky". Watch Religulous."

Well, one of the priests, George V. Coyne, is a Jesuit, so that explains that.

Given the way the other priest, Reginald Foster, is dressed in his pic on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Reginald_Foster , there is no reason to take him seriously either.

"Well, one of the priests, George V. Coyne, is a Jesuit, so that explains that."

hee, hee! I am glad that you addressed that one, Bobby. Say, were you aware that Fr. Neuhaus passed away? (Not to imply that he is a Jesuit.) I just loved him!! Such an intelligent, eloquent, and funny man!

Josephine, I've personally reprimanded several pro-lifers on several occasions. John's grave dancing comes to mind.

Oliver's had parts of his posts edited and been warned against using harsh language. Yllas has been told again and again to cut out the insults.

But they were neverbanned were they? And their insults, yllas included, are extreme, threatening and vulgar at times. Wouldn't you agree?

I believe Yllas was temporarily banned, which we generally do before someone is permanently banned. As far as I know only SoMG was permanently banned and I didn't actually see that ban occur.

Yeah, well he hasn't been banned since I've been here and he's still doing it. An example that comes immediately to mind is when he said he hoped something was rammed up my butt and I died. And not a peep out of Bethany or any of the moderators for that. Nice little site, you've got here Jill.

This is sort of random, and doesn't follow the thread, but I thought it was interesting.

On Sunday I was watching the National Geographic Channel and hanging out with my baby, having a lazy day. There were two shows on, back to back, that were extremely interesting. One was "Dogs in the Womb" and the other was "Cats in the Womb." These shows went inside of pregnant cats and dogs and educated the viewer about what goes on with their fetus'. It was amazing. The puppies were running and panting. The kittens were grooming their faces. Throughout the shows the baby animals in utero were given the respect they would be owed had they been born already. But they weren't. These shows just made it all that more obvious to me that pro-life is the only rational option. Human fetus' as well as animal fetus' should be given the respect they deserve as being individual, living beings. I guarantee you if these animal babies were being torn apart in the womb, or if their homes were being poisoned with saline, PETA would be all over it. They would be calling it out as a holocaust, a complete injustice.

I love animals. My dog is my second child. But I wonder everyday how people can not see how precious human babies are. Most people agree that kittens and puppies are precious. So why not human babies? Why are they only precious when they are "wanted?" PETA would not advocate aborting a pregnant homeless cat's litter. They would expect people to step up and provide loving homes for these kittens. These are probably the same people that would advocate for a poor teenager to abort her baby.

Asitis, did you point the post out to the moderators? I never saw that post, it's entirely possible that others missed it as well.

Generally if there is an offending post that is sent to the moderators, it is discussed and the moderators determine what action should be taken. This ranges from deleting the comment to proposing that the person be completely banned.

If you see something offensive please contact the moderators.

Asitis, did you point the post out to the moderators? I never saw that post, it's entirely possible that others missed it as well.
Generally if there is an offending post that is sent to the moderators, it is discussed and the moderators determine what action should be taken. This ranges from deleting the comment to proposing that the person be completely banned.
If you see something offensive please contact the moderators.
Posted by: Lauren at January 13, 2009 11:25 AM

No, I didn't point it out, because it was pretty obvious. And as I recall, Bethany was involved in the thread and would have seen it for sure and who knows what other mods saw it. One shouldn't have to complain to have soemthing like that acted on..... if there isn't a double standard.

I'll have to go back and see if any mods wer ein fact in the thread just to be sure. But can't do now. Have a movie date with friends and have to run. I know... middle of the afternoon... decadent.

I agree with what Lauren said. Even if we are "actively involved" in a thread, we are not necessarily able to read every single thing, or sometimes we just skim posts, or sometimes we will read right over it and won't even realize that it is something that should not be there.

So it is a good idea if you see something that probably shouldn't be there to inform the mods. I know several times people have brought my attention to something that I would have otherwise missed, and I was able to take care of it.

Asitis, I don't know about the mods, but I frequently skip Yllas' posts even if they're made within a post I'm commenting on. It's best to email a mod if you see something offensive.

Yes Astits, I do have teenagers. That's why I said Josephine argues like a child.

And J, as one who is not involved in the conversation, just as an observer, I'd say I'm a bit less biased than you when it comes to reading the comments and seeing who makes the valid point-SWEETIE! That just cracks me up! Do you think you're insulting me? Give me a break. :)

Josephine -

I just saw the comment about how I should watch "Religulous." Yes, why don't I? I definitely should get my religious guidance from Bill Maher who has picked out only the most ill-informed, misguided people to interview, instead of say, my aunt who has been a nun for 30 years and works at the Venerable English College in Rome, or my uncle who's a devote Benedictine monk, or even my Orthodox parish priest.

Oh wait! THAT'S why I don't have to watch "Religulous." Gee, and you wonder why other Catholics don't see it your way. Astounding.

As far as I know only SoMG was permanently banned and I didn't actually see that ban occur.

Laura and Sally were banned as well, I'm pretty sure. I think there was a pro-lifer who was banned, too; I'm not sure if it was permanent or temporary, but I can't remember who -- not yllas.

Yes Astits, I do have teenagers. That's why I said Josephine argues like a child.
Posted by: Kristen at January 13, 2009 1:46 PM

Actually, you said she argues like the "child she is".

"I just saw the comment about how I should watch "Religulous." Yes, why don't I? I definitely should get my religious guidance from Bill Maher who has picked out only the most ill-informed, misguided people to interview, instead of say, my aunt who has been a nun for 30 years and works at the Venerable English College in Rome, or my uncle who's a devote Benedictine monk, or even my Orthodox parish priest."

What I was talking about wasn't coming from Bill Maher. It was coming from priests at the Vatican, including the Vatican astronomer. But, you're right.. those people are in your family, so obviously, they know more.

Kristen, what's your highest level of education? I'm twenty years old, out of high school and in college. You know more than me because your older than me? Is that how it goes? If that's so, there would never be any new discoveries EVER.

Bobby, I don't understand why it matters how the priest dresses? I mean, he's still a priest at the Vatican, is he not?

Jesuit:
1. 1. a member of a Roman Catholic religious order (Society of Jesus) founded by Ignatius of Loyola in 1534

Not sure why that's a big deal either. Again, he's a Priest at the Vatican. Or are they not important because they don't agree with the people on here?

Stop whining Asitis. Cameron posted that everyone here performs sexual acts on fetuses and he wasnt banned. Its pretty damn hard to get banned here. SoMG is the only person Ive seen banned and it was because he was calling Jill fat over and over again. Get over it and stop distracting the conversation away from the real issues, such as why we give preferential treatment to suckling newborns, but not to animals or to preborns. It is completely illogical.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=85944

Now this is interesting.

Posted by: Kel at January 13, 2009 10:17 AM

I wonder if Tiller will EVER be convicted of anything.
He seems to be able to get away with murder quite easily.

"I don't understand why it matters how the priest dresses? I mean, he's still a priest at the Vatican, is he not? "

Yes, he still is a priest, but as we saw, that does not mean he teaches in conformity with the Church. How he dresses is a sign of his loyalty to the church. The fact that on the wiki entry it says that he doesn't wear typical Carmalite dress so that he won't intimidate people tells me a lot about him; namely, that he doesn't respect his own office as priest.

"Not sure why that's a big deal either [concerning Jesuits]"

Jesuits are some of teh worst desentors in the entire Church. What was indeed started as an order by Ignatius of Loyola to be known as the "pope's men" and 100% faithful to the pope has turned into one of the most rebellious enemies of the papacy there is.

"Or are they not important because they don't agree with the people on here?"

Saying hell does not exist and other such nonsense does not conform with anything the Catholic Church that these men are supposed to represent teaches, not just "us." It is shameful.

Its pretty damn hard to get banned here.
Posted by: Oliver at January 13, 2009 3:20 PM

Maybe you should remin Bethany of that Oliver!

Asitis, I'm playing the world's smallest violin here...that's all I have to say about your petty nonsense.

Josephine, we will never have a pro-choice moderator here. You may not like it, but this is a pro-life blog. If you don't like it here, no one is forcing you to stay. It may sound mean to you, but it isn't. I'm tired of people on both sides accusing us of being "unfair". I have tried to be as fair as possible but at the same time, you can't please everyone and I have learned that the hard way time and time again, from both the pro-life side and the pro-abortion side. I'm tired of coddling.

Asitis, I'm playing the world's smallest violin here...that's all I have to say about your petty nonsense.
I'm tired of coddling.
Posted by: Bethany at January 13, 2009 4:39 PM

Hahahahah! I love the way you are trying to turn this into me whining about insults, when it's really about Patricia lying,you intentionally not saying what you mean (wait a minute... isn't that in the guidelines! Hey, what's with a moderator breaking the guidelines?), covering up for her lie, me calling you both out, and then you trying to ban me for that.

Too rich!

Coddling? The only person I see you coddling is Patricia. I'm not asking for any special treatment!

Okay, I'll drop this now and stop responding to comments here so Patricia and the blog can move on. She has been uncharacteristically quiet throughout most of this, so I'm thinking she feels pretty bad. And maybe she's learned something about honesty and also to be sure of the facts before she argues herself into a corner. So it's probably not really an issue anymore.

And I'm figuring you aren't going to pursue banning me anyway Bethany.

Over and out.

Okay, I'll drop this now and stop responding to comments here

Thank you.

Thank you, Bethany. I appreciate the time and effort of all the mods. xoxoxo

Bobby,
It's too bad that some priests and religious feel that way about the collar or habit. I heard a homeless man interviewed in a documentary say that he knew that he could trust the sisters (Missionaries of Charity) when he saw their habit. I have also heard other sisters, who wear a habit and are out in public, say that it attracts people to them. I boarded a plane a couple of years ago and felt less nervous about flying when I saw two sisters in habit board also. :D

I know a priest who says that he often has conversations with people that would probably never happen if he were someone else (without a collar Imean).
One day he was in the doctor's office and a man waiting there started in on the Catholic church and priests. They had both been waiting and waiting.
He said "I spent an hour in that waiting room and I'm sure God put me there for a reason!"
He spoke about the priesthood and his own personal vocation. Afterwards many people told him how happy they were. Even the receptionist was thrilled - turned out she was Catholic!

I know, Eileen. You see them and realize that even if you aren't Catholic, there is something about the fact that this person has wholly devoted himself to what he believes to be "other-worldly." I think most people who see them have a respect for them and know that if there was some great trouble in their life that they were going through at that moment, someone dressed in religious garb would most likely be willing to help them.

Let me also clarify what I said above a little. I was probably a bit too harsh in judging that Carmalite priest based solely on that wiki quote. In may have been poorly worded or taken out of context. And it is allowed for priests and religious to dress like laity (at least some of the time, not quite sure how that works) so I can not think it is wrong. But my main problem would be with the attitude that a priest does not want to be "above" the laity. Well, I'm sorry, but in virtue of his office given solely by the grace of Jesus which allows him to offer the sacrifice of the mass, they are an authority over us and we are not "the same." It doesn't mean a priest is more holy than a lay person, but they aren't just simply a leader on Sundays. They act in the person of Jesus, and are the conduits through which Jesus comes down into the Holy Eucharist and by which we are forgiven of our sins. And the priest needs to accept that by virtue of his office, he has a place of authority above us and he is not just another one of us.

End rant.

Asitis,

Where do you keep your 'mirror, mirror on the wall who's the smartest of them all'?

Is in the bathroom so you can admire yourself in all your naked glory?

Is it the bedroom so you can adore your refined taste in clothes?

Is it in your study so you can bask in the rays of your own intellect?

Or, is in the entry way so you are the first and last thing you see when you leave home in the morning and return in the evening?

yor bro ken

Oh, why all of the above kbhav. I'm just that fabulous! ;)

And I'm figuring you aren't going to pursue banning me anyway Bethany.

Over and out.
Posted by: asitis at January 13, 2009 5:22 PM

Asitis,
You have insulted me more times than I can count on both my hands. lol

btw...did I actually see you confess that abortion involes the destruction of a human life?
Why do you suppose that was Sooooo hard for you to do? Why do you suppose it took you two weeks to figure out that abortion is the destruction of a human being. This is a great first step:{)

Can we move forward now from the common ground as posted above or was it just a fleeting epiphany you had?

truthseeker, I have known what I mean/what I believe all along. Unfortunately, I am new to this little world of yours was unaware of the proper terminlogy. I probably still have much to learn. When I have realized I have used the wrong terminology I have said so.

And truthseeker, you know very well the insults have flown in both directions! And they certainly didn't start on this blog with me. In fact, they originally drove me from the site.

Can we move forward now from the common ground as posted above or was it just a fleeting epiphany you had?
Posted by: truthseeker at January 13, 2009 8:06 PM

trying too... I've dropped the aforementioned issue.

But they were neverbanned were they? And their insults, yllas included, are extreme, threatening and vulgar at times. Wouldn't you agree?

Posted by: asitis at January 13, 2009 11:12 AM

I have no obligation to you Asitis, since your a Nazi sympathizer, with only a concern about A/E for Jews.

Why, if you consider me a barbarian, that's another feather in my tin foil hat. Vulgar? Nothing is more vulgar then being a person who admits to A/E being a answer to pain and suffering of others, while denying that "answer" for yourself.

Which is exactly what the Nazi/Vichy medical personel did. Good enough to administer A/E to others, while denying A/E for themselves.

You have no sense of honor. Your a stupifed coward to pain and suffering, Asitis.

But, I forgive you Asitis. Fear of pain and suffering is natural.

Whenever I hear or see someone comment that they 'do not suffer fools well', then it tells me they have a very high view of themselves and a very low view of everyone else whom they do not see as measuring up to their metric of
intelligence. It must induce vertigo having to look down all the time from their lofty synthetic ivory tower.

But is also tells me that they are not wise enough to know that some of the most intelligent people who have ever lived are also some of the biggest fools.

One of the most intelligent fools I know of is Bill Clinton, seconded closely by his wife.

The classic example of a codependent relationship. Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows and it makes bedfellows stranger.

yor bro ken

Kristen, what's your highest level of education? I'm twenty years old, out of high school and in college. You know more than me because your older than me? Is that how it goes? If that's so, there would never be any new discoveries EVER.

J -

What? What does that last sentence even mean? Let me just say that I have more education than you but I personally don't think that matters one iota. Because you may or may not have the means and/or inclination to attend college makes no difference in your intelligence. I know plenty of incredibly intelligent people that attended very little or no college for different reasons and some who have master's degrees that can't find their way out of a box. And the fact that you make comments like the one above only proves my position that you are very young in terms of logical thought.

Not sure why that's a big deal either. Again, he's a Priest at the Vatican. Or are they not important because they don't agree with the people on here?

J -

You are not sure because you have no orthodox basis for your thoughts on the Church.

Posted by: Josephine at January 13, 2009 3:20 PM

I have no obligation to you Asitis, since your a Nazi sympathizer, with only a concern about A/E for Jews....Why, if you consider me a barbarian, that's another feather in my tin foil hat.
Posted by: yllas at January 13, 2009 10:10 PM

Hahahahahahahah! Yes, speaking of tin foil caps! Thanks for the laugh yllas!

Not sure why that's a big deal either. Again, he's a Priest at the Vatican. Or are they not important because they don't agree with the people on here?
J -
You are not sure because you have no orthodox basis for your thoughts on the Church.
Posted by: Josephine at January 13, 2009 3:20 PM

I think what Kristen is trying to say Josephine is that only orthodox Catholics count.

Well, except when you are counting the number of Catholics :).

They act in the person of Jesus, and are the conduits through which Jesus comes down into the Holy Eucharist and by which we are forgiven of our sins. And the priest needs to accept that by virtue of his office, he has a place of authority above us and he is not just another one of us.

Exactly!
Bobby have you heard the story of the priest who died had a death experience in which he was saved by the Blessed Mother from damnation?

It must induce vertigo having to look down all the time from their lofty synthetic ivory tower.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 13, 2009 10:19 PM

OMG! That would explain why sometimes I feel like my head is going to explode! Thank you!

kbhvac, if Bill and Hillary Clinton are intelligent fools, then what is George W. Bush? Sarah Palin? This should be good!

While we're on the subject of intelligent fools will someone tell me Obama's credentials to be president of the United States?

Mary, good to see you this morning! :)

While we're on the subject of intelligent fools will someone tell me Obama's credentials to be president of the United States?

Posted by: Mary at January 14, 2009 6:57 AM

he won due to his charisma and the fact that the Republicans simply did not present two reasonably attractive candidates.
By reasonably attractive, I mean ones that people could view as being the Prez of the US.
Obama presented the best of two terrible sets of candidates. However, the values he represents are scary. Ithink right now, most people are blinded by the fact that he is the first black President and America wants so badly to prove to the rest of the world that they overcome the whole racial problem. His values and plans are really quite secondary.
In time, the world will see the mistake in electing this man.

And truthseeker, you know very well the insults have flown in both directions! And they certainly didn't start on this blog with me. In fact, they originally drove me from the site.

Posted by: asitis at January 13, 2009 8:08 PM

Not with you and me. We would discuss, you would resort to insults.

While we're on the subject of intelligent fools will someone tell me Obama's credentials to be president of the United States?

Posted by: Mary at January 14, 2009 6:57 AM

Well for starters... ummmmm.... how about an overwhelming majority of the electoral college votes! 6 days and counting!

Not with you and me. We would discuss, you would resort to insults.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 14, 2009 7:17 AM

Do you want me to go back and pull things for you truthseeker? Because I will. You know I will.

Asitis 7:26am

Doesn't answer the question. What are his credentials to be president? Put this way, what is his background experience to qualify him for the job?

Mary, you know all about his background experience. I don't need to bother to lay it all out for you. Sure, it's not as much as say, John McCain's, but so what. His performance throughout the campaign and the debates alone speaks volumes about the man and his qualifications to be president. I wasnt an Obama supporter before the election, but I certainly was by the end. People had lots of good reason to vote for him. Certain things about him were important to different people. Respect that and move on. He won.

And now I have to run... literally.Bye for now

Asitis @6:23

I believe what I said was that education had nothing to do with intelligence, but I wouldn't expect you to actually grasp the meaning of my post. I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself.

Hi Mary!

My mom was fit to be tied yesterday at the Republicans' lack of hard questions for Hillary. She thinks that they have just laid down and died. We need some new blood in the GOP.

B.O. has no credentials. I have a strong feeling that the cesspool that is Chicago politics is behind his election.

Asitis @6:23
I believe what I said was that education had nothing to do with intelligence, but I wouldn't expect you to actually grasp the meaning of my post. I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself.
Posted by: Kristen at January 14, 2009 7:53 AM

You did say that Kristen and of course I understood that (duh...what's not to grasp???), but your comment had two parts and it was the first part that I commented on.

I actually agree with you that having a college degree or two doesn't, in itself, make you more intelligent. Though I will say that in this country, like others where it is possible to get a college education even if you can't afford it, you will find that the intelligence level of college graduates is higher overall than for those without a college degree and higher still than those without a high school diploma.

I think what Josephine was referring to was education and knowledge.And you could reasonably assume that she was referring to formal education in particular. I don't think she was appreciating that knowledge can be acquired outside of formal education and that you and others are sensitive on this issue. There are many here who are very knowledgable and did not go to college and/or were homeschooled. I'm not sure Josephine considered this.

There’s wisdom in humility.
Many a failure vainly chatters
about his great ability
when what he doesn’t know is what matters.

— Ender

Kristen, my point was I'm an adult in college. You really have no reason to call me a "child" and I was wondering why you were doing so. Since apparently you don't think education matters to intelligence, why do you assume you know more than me? Because you're older than me? Is that your only basis?

Stop calling me child. I don't call you "old woman".

I really wasn't talking about anything, formal education or not, it was more me wondering why the heck Kristen has this "holier-than-thou" attitude. She must have a reason!

Yes Asitis, that is what I was saying. I would say that I am particularly sensitive to this issue because I left college to care for my father when he had cancer (my parents were divorced.) Then I got married and it took me several more years to get my education. During that time I also worked for some of the (no nice way to say this) dumbest people I have ever encountered who were given jobs because they had a degree or knew someone, etc.

I agree that Josephine (in my opinion) does not value "the school of life" as much as one should. But I am confident she'll come to this realization in time. I think all of us intelligent people do.

Kristen,
You can pretend that I was talking about everyone in general, but if you read my statement I asked YOU what education YOU had, because for some reason, you seem to think you're a genius, and you somehow think that your genius allows you to call a twenty year old a "child". You must not be that smart, if you think twenty years old=child.

Josephine, your immaturity is what makes you a child, not lack of intelligence. Kristen never said you were unintelligent.

Posted by: Josephine at January 14, 2009 10:04 AM

Comparatively you are a child. I was an adult before you were even born.

I never said that "I" had more intelligence than you. YOU were the one that asked what my highest level of education was and then went on to say that you were "out of high school and in college" as if that mattered. I was simply stating why education level has nothing to do with intellect.

Again, your way of debating shows your age - which is young - and at times is illogical.

Bethany,
So, it would make sense to call Kristen a child? Since she's obviously very immature.

i.e. "I believe what I said was that education had nothing to do with intelligence, but I wouldn't expect you to actually grasp the meaning of my post. I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself."

Yes, I'M the one that should be more mature...

Kristen, I'll just quote myself.

"I really wasn't talking about anything, formal education or not, it was more me wondering why the heck Kristen has this "holier-than-thou" attitude. She must have a reason! "

So, it would make sense to call Kristen a child? Since she's obviously very immature.

It would make sense for that statement to come from you, Josephine.

As for that statement, it was correct. You have missed the meaning of every single one of her posts thus far.

"I really wasn't talking about anything, formal education or not, it was more me wondering why the heck Kristen has this "holier-than-thou" attitude. She must have a reason! "

You would have to show us where you see the holier than thou attitude, because I don't think anyone else besides you, and probably Asitis, can see it.

I haven't missed the meaning of one of her posts. She just hasn't made a valid point. She wasn't arguing a topic at all, she's just arguing that I'm immature. I can see why that's an important pro-life debate.

Kristen,
You can pretend that I was talking about everyone in general, but if you read my statement I asked YOU what education YOU had, because for some reason, you seem to think you're a genius, and you somehow think that your genius allows you to call a twenty year old a "child". You must not be that smart, if you think twenty years old=child.

Posted by: Josephine at January 14, 2009 10:08 AM

You just make me giggle! When did I "pretend" you were talking about everyone? As Bethany said I never said I was a genius and it's your immaturity that makes you a child. I have a twelve year old that is very mature.

And I just can't stop laughing!!! Tell me you don't think a 20 year old is a child when you're over 40! LOL!!!

Bethany,
I've never made a comment to Kristen ever. I've never even seen her. Her first post on this thread was,

"It never ceases to amaze me that Josephine argues like the child she is, never being able to make an intelligent point.

I can't wait until Jill returns.
Posted by: Kristen at January 13, 2009 8:12 AM"

Kristen, after I asked what education you had, you started talking about education IN GENERAL. That had NOTHING to do with what I was talking about. You just changed it completely. I never said anyone that didn't go to college wasn't smart. You pretty much just pretended I did.

"I agree that Josephine (in my opinion) does not value "the school of life" as much as one should."

That is YOU responding to me asking about your education, even though I didn't say anything about any education. I just asked what you had!

Oh Bethany, thank you for the support but she can't see what she chooses not to. Really it's pointless speaking to her, I just needed a little laugh today and she provided it and more!

Josephine, I made the point I was trying to make and Asitis agreed with me if you read a few posts up. I know you're in college, I know you're going into medicine (although I do have to say that thought scares me) and I know you think you know it all.

I on the other hand am mature enough and intelligent enough to KNOW I don't know it all and am still learning. I'm sorry I don't find what you say worthy enough to take any "lessons" from you.

Josephine, I suppose I can see why you see it the way you do, and I apologize that you have been feeling insulted by that comment. I do not think that Kristen meant to imply that you are any less intelligent by her comment. She was probably frustrated by your many illogical points. But, that said I do think I can see where you are coming from.

I on the other hand am mature enough and intelligent enough to KNOW I don't know it all and am still learning.

That's truly the problem- the arrogance of thinking you know it all. This is actually very typical of people in their teens and early 20's and it seems that the older you get, the more you realize how little you really know.
At least, that's how it's always been for me. When I was 20, I thought I knew a whole lot more than I do now.

Asitis,

You still don't answer my question. I "know" that Obama has no credentials for the presidency. The guy is a smooth talking politician. A good campaign does not a president make.
So please, tell me why I am wrong to think this of him.

Posted by: Josephine at January 14, 2009 10:22 AM

I answered you regarding my education but WHY would you ask if you didn't feel it was important? Are you saying that the 14 year old genius that goes to college is not a child simply because he/she is in college? What was the point of that statement then because I, obviously, am to dim to understand. I think Bethany and Asitis might need a little help as well since they both seem to have taken your statement at face value.

Really, show a little maturity and just admit that anyone (other than you) who read what you wrote would think the same thing I did.

Posted by: Bethany at January 14, 2009 10:24 AM

Ain't that the truth!!!! ;) There isn't a day that goes by that I don't shudder at the thought of what I did/said in my teens and early 20s. Thank God, truly, that I lived long enough to realize what an idiot I really was during that time.

Josephine, I made the point I was trying to make and Asitis agreed with me if you read a few posts up.
Posted by: Kristen at January 14, 2009 10:22 AM

I did agree with you Kristen that having a college degree doesn't mean you are necessarily more intelligent than someone who doesn't. Though I did add that OVERALL those with college degrees are more intelligent than those without.

I do think you are being hard on Josephine because she believes differently than you about abortion and religion. Which strikes me as funny since you are both pro-life and Catholic.

Asitis,
You still don't answer my question. I "know" that Obama has no credentials for the presidency. The guy is a smooth talking politician. A good campaign does not a president make.
So please, tell me why I am wrong to think this of him.
Posted by: Mary at January 14, 2009 10:26 AM

Oh come on Mary. Tell you you are wrong about Obama? Why would I waste my time? You are only going to pick apart everything I say regardless of whether it is fact or my opinion. No thank you! Look, I understand you aren't happy with the outcome of the election. But you'll get a chance again in 4 years.

Kristen,
Maybe that's how you were in your twenties. I'm not. I admit on a daily basis I've wrong. I've admitted I was wrong on here several times. I don't admit I'm wrong when I'm not.

You say you took my statement at "face value" but you didn't. "Face value" would have been just seeing it and it being "What education do you have" NOT reading into it and thinking I said people who don't go to college aren't intelligent. That is, in no way, taking my comment at face value, Kristen. That seems to be a problem a lot of people here have. Maybe I have the advantage in being young: I don't assume I know what you're talking about. I ONLY go by what you actually say.

I believe you were the one who said I'm a child because of my maturity, so by your standards, wouldn't take make a fourteen year old in college not a child? I mean, obviously they're very mature beyond their years?

Bethany,
I'm glad you see where I'm coming from, but I have to ask where my illogical comments are? I just read back through everything, and I really don't see anything illogical at all.

Mary,
I'll answer your question about Obama, it seems Asitis isn't here.

*Obama is at least 45 years old.
*Obama is a legal, natural born, US citizen.
*Obama has lived in the US at least fourteen years.

He fits the criteria just like anyone else. No where in the Constitution does it outline what education, positions, or past jobs you must have had to become the President.

Ain't that the truth!!!! ;) There isn't a day that goes by that I don't shudder at the thought of what I did/said in my teens and early 20s. Thank God, truly, that I lived long enough to realize what an idiot I really was during that time.
Posted by: Kristen at January 14, 2009 10:29 AM

As an old and ise 44 year old, I say ditto!!!! But do you also not remember that some of your thoughts and beliefs back than are the same as those you have today? And that more than anything you wanted "grownups" to recognize that you did have something valid to say? And how you interacted differently with those that did?Having a teenager I am remembering that and realizing just how important that is.

And you know what? I'm still "maturing" I look back on things I said 5 or 10 years ago and shudder. And I'll probably do likewise about now when I am 60.

Eileen #2 8:13am

Hello to you. I got a notice from the Republican Party for a donation. My response was when you really grow a pair and stand for something, contact me again.
I heard on Rush that Republicans were told to moderate by their own leaders. Obviously they haven't figured out this is why they are where they're at.
I think there is far more to this Blegojevich situation than meets the eye and I think he may have some people by the, uh, tail, including our fearless leader. Only a theory.
By the way, I saw on Drudge that the Alabama NAACP objects to "Southern Belle" costumes in the Inaugaral Parade. It reminds them of slavery.
Oh, maybe you good people should object to Roland Burris being treated like he should come in the Senate servant's entrance.

Mary, hmmmmm.....You wouldn't happen to have your own public blog ,would you?

I do think you are being hard on Josephine because she believes differently than you about abortion and religion. Which strikes me as funny since you are both pro-life and Catholic.

Posted by: asitis at January 14, 2009 10:34 AM

I agree Asitis, my comments were somewhat "biting" and for that I apologize Josephine.

That being said I don't really think that Josephine is pro-life. As I said before I can say I'm French and Je peux parler français a bit but it doesn't make me French.

And as far as Josephine being Catholic, well pretty much the same thing. Just because you say you are doesn't make it so. I have no problem with different religions, in fact I'm fascinated by many and as a history major studied several. The problem comes in when someone tries to dilute my Faith and say they are right - which she has done several times. Then when anyone corrects her she says go watch "Religulous" or some other such nonsense.

Don't you think that Josephine represents the majority of Catholics as well as a significant portion (the majority?) of Pro-lifers?

In that case, do you think that the catholic church should split, seeing as you (and others here) don't recognize "cafeteria Catholics" as legitimate Catholics? Ditto for the Pro-life movement.

J said -

"What education do you have" NOT reading into it and thinking I said people who don't go to college aren't intelligent.

AGAIN I ask why ask the question then? If you (seem) to believe as I do, what difference does it make what level of education I've achieved. FYI - That is illogical. To ask a question if the answer doesn't matter. I mean, what's the point? Or were you only trying to find out if I wasn't educated so you could make some comment?

Asitis -

I'd say my beliefs are, on the whole, the same as I had as a 20 year old. The part I shudder about are some of the things I did that went against what I believed, even then. Really for my general lack of good judgement. I knew it was wrong but did it anyway. I hardly looked for parent/adult approval because I knew I wouldn't get it, I couldn't even give it to myself.

Basically I'm saying that while I was raised with good morals I ignored them thinking it was just more fun and there would be no consequences. Thankfully I had no physical consequences but more than 20 years later my own conscience has not let it pass.

Asitis,

"In that case, do you think that the catholic church should split, seeing as you (and others here) don't recognize "cafeteria Catholics" as legitimate Catholics? Ditto for the Pro-life movement"

Pro-life:

•advocating full legal protection of embryos and fetuses (especially opposing the legalization of induced abortions)
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

pro-life Definition pro·-life (prō′līf′)

adjective

opposing the legal right to obtain an abortion

Main Entry: pro-life
Pronunciation: ()pr-lf
Function: adjective
: ANTIABORTION

Main Entry: an·ti·abor·tion
Pronunciation: ant---br-shn, an-t-
Function: adjective
: opposed to abortion and especially to the legalization of abortion

Hello to you. I got a notice from the Republican Party for a donation. My response was when you really grow a pair and stand for something, contact me again."

HaHaHa!!! My mother did the same just recently!

Don't you think that Josephine represents the majority of Catholics as well as a significant portion (the majority?) of Pro-lifers?

In that case, do you think that the catholic church should split, seeing as you (and others here) don't recognize "cafeteria Catholics" as legitimate Catholics? Ditto for the Pro-life movement.

Posted by: asitis at January 14, 2009 12:25 PM

I don't think she represents the majority of pro-lifers. I can see that a large percentage (although I wouldn't say the majority) of Catholics believe as she does.

The Catholic Church has split - long ago. And she and the others are welcome to leave and I and others prefer they do. However the Catholic Church has been constant. Her beliefs have not changed (Dogma) and will never change. I and other Orthodox Catholics cannot leave the true Church. They do not believe what the Church teachings are and therefore they should leave.

I should also add that there are Catholics who do know the true teachings of the Church and disagree with some of those teachings. BUT they DO KNOW the teachings. This is different from people who are ignorant of the teachings and listen to really harmful things, even from priests, then profess those untrue teachings as doctrine. (The area I feel Josephine fits into.) Both are wrong, but I do make the distinction because often those who know the teachings just need a deeper explanation whereas those who THINK they know the teachings are obstinate and refuse to hear the truth.

I'm talking about morals when I refer to myself now vs then. I don't think my morals have changed. Sure, I'm more responsible and mature now though.

But my 44 year old self is more apt to consider and appreciate other people's situations and viewpoints more. For example, Josephine may not appreciate right away that there are people out there who have little formal education, but have acquired considerable knowledge through other avenues. And this is understandable, because maybe she has lived thus far amongst people who, if you are bright, you go on to college and becaome a doctor or whatever (Josephine I hope you don't mind that I make some assumptions here and use you as an obvious example).

Are you basically saying that you think Josephine is ignoring her own morals by believing what she does about abortion rights and Catholicism? I'm not sure what you are getting at and I don't want to make assumptions about that.

They do not believe what the Church teachings are and therefore they should leave.
Posted by: Kristen at January 14, 2009 12:44 PM
Kristen @12:44pm

Well contraception is a key teaching, wouldn't you say. Do you really think all those Catholics that think contraception is okay should leave the Church and become a new religion? Because that wouldn't leave you with a lot of Catholics and churches woudl be fewer and far between. Not to mention Catholic schools. Is that really what you want?

I think the Catholic Church must know this and it's got them in a difficult spot.

Sorry, it's obvious when you read on, but that should have been:

I'm NOT talking about morals when I refer to myself now vs then.

Sorry Asitis, I didn't completely answer regarding pro-life. It's not that I don't think the pro-life movement has a definition, to me it does. However it is not like the Catholic Church that has clear boundaries.

I feel that even artificial contraception is wrong because of things like IUDs that prevent the implantation rather than conception. I believe the same thing of the pill but I know many disagree with me. I'm of the same opinion regarding condoms but this is based on my religious view since a condom would prevent conception. I do not believe there is ANY medical issue that would justify PBA for various reasons that I won't get into now.

I also carry this pro-life view to end of life issues like "mercy-killing." I think we have created a culture that values "Me" and "Now" rather than "Life" and "Right." I believe we have let our elderly come to believe that they are burdens in a way that we never have before. Even 50 years ago children expected to care for their parents, it was just the way it was and parents and children accepted the course of life. It was not seen as a burden.

Truly my honest feeling is that I want peace and I don't feel it CAN come to the world unless we focus on others rather than ourselves. So many politicians pay lip service to this idea when, in fact, they promote and practice the opposite.

So anyway, I'm willing to accept different degrees in the pro-life movement. Not someone who says "I wouldn't get one but I don't want to impose my views." That is not someone who is pro-life in my opinion, but I could accept someone who is okay with contraception. I don't agree but I wouldn't necessarily call them pro-abortion.

Asitis,
"In that case, do you think that the catholic church should split, seeing as you (and others here) don't recognize "cafeteria Catholics" as legitimate Catholics? Ditto for the Pro-life movement"
Pro-life:
•advocating full legal protection of embryos and fetuses (especially opposing the legalization of induced abortions)
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Posted by: Bethany at January 14, 2009 12:38 PM

pro-life Definition pro·-life (prō′līf′)
adjective
opposing the legal right to obtain an abortion
Posted by: Bethany at January 14, 2009 12:40 PM

Main Entry: pro-life
Pronunciation: ()pr-lf
Function: adjective
: ANTIABORTION
Main Entry: an·ti·abor·tion
Pronunciation: ant---br-shn, an-t-
Function: adjective
: opposed to abortion and especially to the legalization of abortion

Posted by: Bethany at January 14, 2009 12:41 PM

Okay. So does that mean Bethany, that if someone opposes abortion but doesn't think it should be illegal, does that mean they aren't Pro-life?

And does that mean they are Pro-choice then?

So anyway, I'm willing to accept different degrees in the pro-life movement. Not someone who says "I wouldn't get one but I don't want to impose my views." That is not someone who is pro-life in my opinion, but I could accept someone who is okay with contraception. I don't agree but I wouldn't necessarily call them pro-abortion.
Posted by: Kristen at January 14, 2009 1:03 PM

Kristen, thank you so much for being open and frank in your answer. I appreciate that.

There are many here that do equate contraception, even the pill, with abortion. So your position is interesting.

Truly my honest feeling is that I want peace and I don't feel it CAN come to the world unless we focus on others rather than ourselves. So many politicians pay lip service to this idea when, in fact, they promote and practice the opposite.
Posted by: Kristen at January 14, 2009 1:03 PM

That could have been written by a Pro-choicer as well Kristen. Isn't that funny?

It's been good talking to you. Thanks.

Are you basically saying that you think Josephine is ignoring her own morals by believing what she does about abortion rights and Catholicism? I'm not sure what you are getting at and I don't want to make assumptions about that.

Posted by: asitis at January 14, 2009 12:51 PM

No, I was only speaking of my own experience. Yes, I agree that I appreciate other peoples difficulties more and am more understanding but that is not was is difficult to reconcile for me.

I cannot speak to Josephine's morals. I do feel they are very different from what the Catholic Church teaches and I don't think that she thinks she is wrong which is why I've said that I don't feel Josephine is a true Catholic.

Don't get me wrong. I sin everyday. But I do know it's a sin and I do make an effort to not lead myself into that particular temptation again. (Sometime very difficult as a mom of six!) A huge part of it is in the belief. Do you believe you are wrong or right? As a Catholic, when I sin, I believe I am wrong. And the sin is based on Church teachings. I believe (and I'll apologize now if I'm wrong) that Josephine said she lived with her boyfriend. That is wrong in the eyes of the Church. I never lived with a boyfriend but I would have known it was wrong and I was sinning. Josephine, to my knowledge, feels she is doing nothing wrong. It's not my place to judge her and I don't care if she does live with him but I can tell her it is against the teachings of the Church and as a Catholic she is sinning. This is not a judgement, this is fact, based on 2000 years of teachings. She absolutely does not have to agree but then she is not Catholic.

Okay. So does that mean Bethany, that if someone opposes abortion but doesn't think it should be illegal, does that mean they aren't Pro-life?

And does that mean they are Pro-choice then?

Posted by: asitis at January 14, 2009 1:06 PM

Well contraception is a key teaching, wouldn't you say. Do you really think all those Catholics that think contraception is okay should leave the Church and become a new religion? Because that wouldn't leave you with a lot of Catholics and churches woudl be fewer and far between. Not to mention Catholic schools. Is that really what you want?

I think the Catholic Church must know this and it's got them in a difficult spot.

Posted by: asitis at January 14, 2009 12:58 PM

Yes, I would like all those people to leave the Catholic Church. There are many of us that feel this way, probably many more than you think.

The Church is not in a difficult spot. It is in the same spot it always was. Contraception has always been wrong. Abortion has always been wrong.

As far as Churches and schools being few and far between - they already are. I have lived in my current home 3 years. In that time I have belonged to FOUR churches. It took that many to find a good, orthodox Church that is true to the Magisterium. My children used to go to Catholic school and I pulled them out because they were being taught untrue teachings by "Cafeteria Catholics."

TRUE Catholic churches are already very few and far between, but I'll tell you this. The other churches I belonged to had confession once a week and NO ONE was ever there to confess. The Church I belong to now has confession several times a week and I wait up to an hour to see the priest. The Orthodox Churches are jam packed on Sunday and Holy Days, not so with the "moderate" churches. It is the Orthodox Churches that will survive.

That could have been written by a Pro-choicer as well Kristen. Isn't that funny?

It's been good talking to you. Thanks.

Posted by: asitis at January 14, 2009 1:12 PM

LOL! I disagree but that's funny. I think that women who have abortions are being selfish. They could give the baby life and to a couple who cannot have a child. To me abortion is not thinking of others. But I know people do try to justify it.

Anywho, nice talking to you too! Now I've GOT to do some work!

The Church is not in a difficult spot. It is in the same spot it always was. Contraception has always been wrong. Abortion has always been wrong.
Posted by: Kristen at January 14, 2009 1:24 PM

When I meant the Church is in a difficult spot, I didn't mean that they were trying to pass NEW teachings and they weren't being accepted. What I meant was, the vast majority of their members do not believe in their teachings. And while you might be perfectly fine with fewer Churches and having to travel farther to worship, the Catholic Church doesn't want to see their numbers plummet as would happen if only orthodox Catholics were recognized as Catholics.

Okay. So does that mean Bethany, that if someone opposes abortion but doesn't think it should be illegal, does that mean they aren't Pro-life?

I don't think they are.
If they think a woman should have the choice to kill her baby - even if they personally disagree with it for whatever reason- that is not pro-life, in my opinion.

It doesn't make logical sense to be opposed to it but not want it to be illegal. It begs the question, "why are you opposed to abortion at all? What's wrong with it?

Not a single person claiming to be pro-life that I have talked to who over the years, who has said they oppose it but wouldn't want it to be illegal, has ever been able to answer that question.

Are they pro-choice? Everyone is pro-choice. Everyone believes in having choices.

However, if we're going by the dictionary definition, yes, they would be "pro-choice" when it comes to abortion.

It doesn't make logical sense to be opposed to it but not want it to be illegal. It begs the question, "why are you opposed to abortion at all? What's wrong with it? Not a single person claiming to be pro-life that I have talked to who over the years, who has said they oppose it but wouldn't want it to be illegal, has ever been able to answer that question.
Posted by: Bethany at January 14, 2009 1:31 PM

That's odd that none have been able to answer that question Bethany. Because there must be many who oppose abortion for religious reasons. And they don't want to impose those religious beliefs on others.

If we're going by the dictionary definition, yes, they would be "pro-choice" when it comes to abortion.
Posted by: Bethany at January 14, 2009 1:31 PM

Well two things come to mind with that: Pro-choice support would further increase if those people were kicked out of Pro-life and into Pro-choice. Are there many?

And it would be even less appropriate to call Pro-choice "pro-aborts" anymore, right?

I'm thinging these are just some things to consider when you put that strict definition on Pro-life.

Morals are derived in part from Natural Law and in part by informing one's conscience. As Catholics it is incumbent upon us to learn the Church teachings to adequately form our consciences. When one picks and chooses what moral standards they "feel" are "right" for them then they are opening themselves up to serious trouble.

"I think the Catholic Church must know this and it's got them in a difficult spot."

The Church doesn't operate according to fads or opinion polls. Bishops, priests, Catholic schools, and universities, etc. need to do a better job at
instructing the faithful in Church teaching. At the same time Catholics have the Catechism at their disposal so they should be taking time to instruct/inform themselves. I have heard it said that we might become a smaller, holier Church after it is all said and done (after the recent priestly abuse scandal and after dealing with pro-abortion Catholic politicians, etc.).

And by the way Bethany, I do appreciate your frankness and the dialogue as well! I have to go momentarily. The dog......

The Church doesn't operate according to fads or opinion polls. Bishops, priests, Catholic schools, and universities, etc. need to do a better job atinstructing the faithful in Church teaching.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 14, 2009 1:44 PM

I think contraception is more than fad! So why ISN'T the Church doing a better job?

"That's odd that none have been able to answer that question Bethany. Because there must be many who oppose abortion for religious reasons. And they don't want to impose those religious beliefs on others."

We are talking about life or death. It is one thing to want to impose circumcision on males by law based on the dictates of my religion but quite another when it comes to someone living or dying. Many of our laws are based on the Judeo-Christian ethics aren't they?

I think contraception is more than fad! So why ISN'T the Church doing a better job?
Posted by: asitis at January 14, 2009 1:50 PM

LOL, there have many people who have wondered the same. Actually, many in the Church (laypeople and the clergy) who are finally providing excellent instruction.

Many of our laws are based on the Judeo-Christian ethics aren't they?
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 14, 2009 1:51 PM

Sure, I guess. But we keep them because society in general believes in them. What's your point? That we should therefore have a law making abortion illegal simply because it's a Christian ethic?

I think contraception is more than fad! So why ISN'T the Church doing a better job?
Posted by: asitis at January 14, 2009 1:50 PM
LOL, there have many people who have wondered the same. Actually, many in the Church (laypeople and the clergy) who are finally providing excellent instruction.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 14, 2009 1:54 PM

I think to be honest they are hesitant to do much because they know how unpopular the "contraception is a sin" teaching is with their members. And has been for a long time

It is one thing to want to impose circumcision on males by law based on the dictates of my religion
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 14, 2009 1:51 PM

I'm sorry but are you saying impose a law that FORCES you to circumsise your male baby? Or a law that gives you the choice to circumcise your male baby if you choose?

The former imposes a religious belief on everyone. The latter does not.

Sorry, I have to come and go all the time because of homeschooling. So if I just leave out of the blue that's usually why.

That's odd that none have been able to answer that question Bethany. Because there must be many who oppose abortion for religious reasons. And they don't want to impose those religious beliefs on others.

What would those religious reasons be? What is a merely religious reason to oppose abortion? I could understand if we were talking about condoms here, but abortion is much different, as it involves more than one human being directly.

Well two things come to mind with that: Pro-choice support would further increase if those people were kicked out of Pro-life and into Pro-choice. Are there many?

?? I'm confused and am not sure what you're trying to say here. I don't believe that any person who is pro-choice on abortion is pro-life. What do you mean when you say "kicked out of pro-life"? Pro-lifers are individuals, some religious, some atheists, some agnostcs, who all believe that no human beings should ever be killed. We are not a group like a church, and we don't "kick people out". People either are or are not opposed to abortion, just like people are or are not opposed to rape. It's not a religious thing, although many religions of course agree that it is wrong to kill other human beings. Most religions agree that it is wrong to steal- that doesn't make being against stealing merely a religious issue, does it?

And it would be even less appropriate to call Pro-choice "pro-aborts" anymore, right?

No, absolutely not. That is what they are. In effect, every single person who does not oppose abortion and want it to be made illegal is effectively supporting abortion. Thus, pro-abortion (look pro-abortion up in the dictionary too - it's there. Pro-abort is just shorter and easier to say, but I usually say pro-abortionist)
I never say pro-abortion with the intent to offend, and I think most people don't. However, if you're offended by the term, you might want to consider why it is that being associated with the term abortion offends you.

And by the way Bethany, I do appreciate your frankness and the dialogue as well! I have to go momentarily. The dog......

Thanks, Asitis.

"What would those religious reasons be? What is a merely religious reason to oppose abortion? I could understand if we were talking about condoms here, but abortion is much different, as it involves more than one human being directly."

Well, your religion may believe that God creates all life at conception. And so to abort that life that God craeted would be a sin.

'I'm confused and am not sure what you're trying
to say here. I don't believe that any person who is pro-choice on abortion is pro-life. What do you mean when you say "kicked out of pro-life"

I'm sorry Bethany. i guess I wasn't clear. When I say "kicked out" I meant figuratively. I meant not included. Josephine considers herself to be pro-life because she opposese abortion and yet she doesn't think it should be made illegal. Do some other Pro-life feel this way? Maybe I was wrong to assume they did.

"In effect, every single person who does not oppose abortion and want it to be made illegal is effectively supporting abortion".

I'm thinking specifically about people, like Josephine; who might oppose abortion but don't want to make it illegal. To say they are in "favor of abortion" seems inaccurate. Though they would be in favor of abortion rights. Which could all be said for some Pro-choicers.

"I never say pro-abortion with the intent to offend, and I think most people don't. However, if you're offended by the term, you might want to consider why it is that being associated with the term abortion offends you".

On the contrary, I do think most people who say pro-abort say it to offend. Just like those who call pro-life anti-choice mean it offensively.

I don't find it offensive myself, but I do think it conjures up this wrong notion that anyone who is pro-choice thinks that abortion is the ideal solution and is all gung-ho about it.

Asitis, 11:14am

Negative.

Kristen,
So, after attacking me for a bit you chose to ask why I asked that question? Shouldn't you have done that from the beginning, instead of attacking me and assuming you knew all the reasoning behind it? That's what would make sense to me.

My dictionary says the definition of pro-life is anti-abortion. Just because some dictionaries haven't different definitions doesn't mean I'm not pro-life. You just want me to fit one specific dictionary definition, when in all honesty every word has a lot of definitions.

As for being Catholic, Kristen, I don't think it's YOU who has the right to judge who is and who is not Catholic. You have no idea how I practice my faith. So, for you to say I'm not Catholic is more than a little absurd.

The reason I suggest you watch Religulous is because it makes the Catholic priests look like truly great men, who know that while everything in the Catholic faith is slightly "crazy" they make great points, and make Catholics look good. He interviews leaders from other faiths and makes them look dumb, he interviews Catholics from every day life, and they make Catholics look dumb. The redeeming quality for Catholics in the entire movie is the Priests! That's why I suggest everyone watch it.

"I cannot speak to Josephine's morals. I do feel they are very different from what the Catholic Church teaches and I don't think that she thinks she is wrong which is why I've said that I don't feel Josephine is a true Catholic."

I live with my boyfriend, you're right. If you assume I have sex with my boyfriend, you're assuming things that I never said, which I've asked you not to do countless times. Living with my boyfriend is not a sin. As far as I know, the bible doesn't care who I live with.. otherwise, everyone who has a roommate is sinning!

Hmmmm. Sounds a lot like you. And something you mentioned today.

Asitis

I disagree. The Church would rather have fewer faithful members than many more unfaithful ones.

Asitis,

I don't know what I said that has you suspicious but again I don't have any blog. I'm not the least bit interested in setting one up.

Asitis,

I don't know what I said that has you suspicious but again I don't have any blog. I'm not the least bit interested in setting one up.

Posted by: Mary at January 14, 2009 4:57 PM

Oh, I guess I was wrong then. Maybe you have long lost twin! I'll get the link for you... just have to find it first

Asitis
I disagree. The Church would rather have fewer faithful members than many more unfaithful ones.
Posted by: Kristen at January 14, 2009 4:45 PM

Weird that they ignore a lot of stuff then.

Asitis,

Thanks, I'd be interested in seeing it.
A long lost twin?? Heaven help her!

I haven't read everyone's posts here but this is my opinion re: the CC's teaching on contraception and abortion.
In the past, couples were told by their priest they they had to be open to children and for the most part couples were. Partly because of circumstances (children many times died from illness and accidents), partly because people were more family oriented years ago and children were considered a blessing and partly because they were told so by their priest.
These factors, as I see it have changed. It is now possible to have 13 children and have all 13 children survive to adulthood.
People have different views on children today and are very materialistic. Many couples prefer accumulating material goods rather than sacrificing for children. Children are often portrayed as burdens and obnoxious little creatures that take the enjoyment out of life.
I'm betting that 60 years ago, there were very few parish priests who could explain the WHY of the Catholic Church's teaching on contraception to young couples. And unfortunately, there were even fewer 40 years ago.

But God is not to be dallied with. He used the wonderful mind of Karol Wojtyla to help us understand ourselves.
As a young priest Karol had many single friends whom he took on hikes to the mountains. They called him "uncle" so the communists would not suspect he was a priest.

These single friends became very close to their priest and they told him their troubles and discussed life's questions. Many of them married. They brought to him, the problems of married life both in the confessional and outside it, and he openly discussed marriage and sexuality with them.
Because Karol Wojtyla was a pre-emminent philosopher and an experientialist -that is he approaches philosophy from the point of view of human experience, he began to study the question of sexuality and marriage.
Wojtyla, believed that what scripture tells us is true and that it therefore, should be reflected in our human experiences.

Wojtyla, aka Pope John Paul II changed the entire way we look at sexuality from a point of what I can/can't I do (a very legalistic approach) to one of freedom - the freedom to "love" (what would be the most loving thing TO do).
His exploration on this question is called his theology of the body. As Christopher West states, he asks two important questions
"What does it mean to be human?"
and
"How do I live my life in a way to be truly happy?"

To answer the first we have to understand what it means to be male and female. We have to understand where we came from, what we were meant to be, and what happened to us.

To answer the second, we have consider celibacy (the gift of sacrificing marriage), marriage and love and sexuality.

All these questions while seemingly very difficult to understand are really not. Many couples discover the truth of the theology of the body themselves, sometimes through bad experiences while single/married, other times through the wonderful blessing of marriage. Wojtyla was able to demonstrate how contraception destroys the essence of what it means to be human, and to give ourselves to another human being.

The Catholic Church now has the tools to answer those questions couples ask, in all honestly. It may take some time, but many high schools now are starting to teach TOTB, many online discussion groups exist, and many parish discussion groups exist. Catholic bloggers, websites and seminaries now teach TOTB. Many marriage prep courses touch on it and teach NFP. As more couples and single people come to understand the true dignity of the body and the dignity of others, change will come.
We must be patient.

People have different views on children today and are very materialistic. Many couples prefer accumulating material goods rather than sacrificing for children. Children are often portrayed as burdens and obnoxious little creatures that take the enjoyment out of life.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 14, 2009 5:09 PM

Those are some very negative reasons you cite for not wanting to have a large family toostunned. Have you chosen not to have as many children as your body can produce? If so, why not?

Have you chosen not to have as many children as your body can produce? If so, why not?

I can't answer for TSTL but I can honestly answer that I am willing to have as many children as the Lord will give me.

I used to think that having a child was a choice I made- that I had a responsibility to "space them out", or to control the number I had...that's basically what everyone around me always said anyway. But I was able to realize one day that I had absolutely no control over it. And that idea was reinforced when I had trouble conceiving for a while. Then, after waiting and waiting to conceive, I also had a miscarriage for seemingly no reason, out of the blue. That was the miscarriage of my baby Blessing, who you have seen pictures of. Then I had a second miscarriage...these were times when I was really, really wanting to hold a child, and I was not able to have one carry to term.

I realized that having a child isn't really something that I am in control of. I can't tell my body to produce a child one day and make it work. It's not myself that is truly in control of that. The BC pills, etc serve as just an illusion of control- but they really aren't. We tell ourselves that we will space out our children, or we will wait till the perfect time, when really- we don't even know that when the perfect time comes, that we will even have the capability of conceiving or carrying to term.

I choose to trust in God for my children, and I know that He will provide them in the correct spacing. By the way, did you know that most people who have decided to leave their childbearing to God have only had an average of about 5 children? Every woman is not like Michelle Duggar and most likely won't produce that many children. I can't say I'm not a little envious of Michelle though!

When it comes to being quiverfull, I fully admit that this is a result of my faith, and it is obviously something that I would never even attempt to force on anyone.

Abortion, however, is completely different. It involves two human beings, not just one. And it is life or death for one of those human beings. It is something that atheists, agnostics, and Christians can all agree on, because that human life exists at fertilization is not a religious belief, it is scientific. When you say that it is a religious belief that life begins at conception, you are referring to the soul. That is a totally different issue, again, than whether it is a human life at conception.

I'm sorry Bethany. i guess I wasn't clear. When I say "kicked out" I meant figuratively. I meant not included. Josephine considers herself to be pro-life because she opposese abortion and yet she doesn't think it should be made illegal. Do some other Pro-life feel this way? Maybe I was wrong to assume they did.

I don't think anyone who actually understands what pro-life means does feel that way, Asitis.
I think that it's easier to say you're pro-life than to actually be pro-life.
If you actually believe that a human being is in the womb from conception and should not be killed, it makes absolutely no sense to say that it should be legal to kill it for any reason.
Either you oppose it or you don't.

"Because there must be many who oppose abortion for religious reasons. And they don't want to impose those religious beliefs on others."

asitis,
it was in response to this statement that I made my assertions.

Say, if Mary had a blog, it would be very informative and very interesting, I'm sure!

I still want Mary to author a book. I would pre-order the first copy. :)

:D I would too! You know, I was thinking that kbhvac should also. He is so insightful and wise.

I'm a big fan of kbhvac!

Posted by: asitis at January 14, 2009 5:04 PM

If you are referring to the Church ignoring things that is not necessarily true. Many priests do but they are not in communion with the Magesterium. Many Bishops have come out about politicians whom are pro-choice but Catholic and receive communion - that they shouldn't that is - but the media says they are "on the fringe." This simply is not true.

That is the main concern for us faithful Catholics. But the Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit for more than 2000 years, even through some very dark times, and has survived. She will always survive .

I have friends that were Catholic (I believe they still consider themselves to be) but unfortunately do not practice due to various reasons. They have (all but in name) left the Church as most of the unfaithful eventually do. It's simply too much trouble for them to go to mass (the easiest thing to do) when they don't believe in Her teachings.

The Pope regularly speaks out about things like contraception and Church teachings but I'm guessing most people, Catholic or not, do not read his writings. This is hardly his fault, the information is there.

I should have also included that I like his tongue-in-cheek humor!

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 14, 2009 5:09 PM

I agree. I do have to say that when I was taking my NFP course the couple said that at some point you'll realize you got "too good" at practicing NFP and you'd say where's my baby?!

We all laughed but just last year I was thinking - it's been 4 years since I had a baby and it would be impossible for me to get pregnant and not know it. It made me sad that I wouldn't have an "oops" and, unless my hubby changes his mind, I won't have another baby. We did get too good just like the couple said, and the fact that that part of my life is over is very sad to me.

Eileen#2 and Bethany,

Thank you both so much for your kind words.
Truth be told, if you ever met me you would be amazed I didn't bore myself to death years ago.

Bethany: you reflect one side of the Christian view of having children - the quiverful.
There are many Christians who believe that they should have or maybe are called to have as many children as their bodies will enable them to. That is certainly being very open to God and also reflects a very generous heart.
I have many friends who live this, with the mother continuing to have babies until the eldest child marries and starts a family of their own! :-D
While I'm not against that view by any means, I also believe that God gave us an intellect and designed a woman's body so that she could if she wants to, space her children for her health and the health of her babies and maybe for certain serious reasons. And the latter is the crux of the issue - what are serious reasons? Certainly what may be serious to one couple or even one spouse may not be for another.
At any rate, it is quite apparent, many couples in North America could definitely afford and accomodate many more children in their families than they currently have. What is lacking is generousity of spirit, trust in the Lord, and a spirit of sacrifice.
I pray you will have more children Bethany!

Kristen: I agree. I do have to say that when I was taking my NFP course the couple said that at some point you'll realize you got "too good" at practicing NFP and you'd say where's my baby?!

yes, I think this is the danger of NFP - that it can be practiced contraceptively. Sometimes you can just slip into this mindset without being aware of doing so.
I once read an article in which practicioners of the Creighton method (now known as NaPro, I think)stated the this was avoided by their method.

I think it simply is best for a couple to keep a very open mind and ask themselves each day, do we want a child? Is there a serious enough reason to avoid pregnancy? Of course, we are human and it's hard to always be objective. It's hard to trust in God!

Josephine: How can you look in a puppy's eyes and think "Okay, this puppy is soulless.

Exactly. I don't know if there is such a thing as a soul but to say that humans necessarily have them and that dogs, cats, dolphins, elephants, the higher primates, etc., don't have souls always sounded really silly to me.

There’s wisdom in humility.
Many a failure vainly chatters
about his great ability
when what he doesn’t know is what matters.

— Ender

Bethany, is that Ender from Ender's Game?

Josephine at 4:40

I just saw this post. Try to stay with me. I asked the question because YOU said I misunderstood you. I have asked for clarification a couple of times yet YOU have not answered. Why is that?

As I said before I am not judging your morals, frankly I don't care what you do. I can tell you that you are not a practicing Catholic. It is based on fact not my opinion. You have said things contrary to Church doctrine on many different posts, not regarding your living situation. Really I don't understand why this is so hard for you to grasp.

Kristen, why am I not a Catholic? Also, please explain why you think you're the person that has a right to judge who is a Catholic and who is not?

Oh, and I've answered your question already. I'm sorry I didn't repeat my answer for you the fifteen times you've asked, when you can go up and read it yourself.

"It was me wondering why the heck Kristen has this "holier-than-thou" attitude. She must have a reason!"

I don't know if there is such a thing as a soul but to say that humans necessarily have them and that dogs, cats, dolphins, elephants, the higher primates, etc., don't have souls always sounded really silly to me.
Posted by: Doug at January 14, 2009 8:55 PM

That's why I always thought it was odd to see some pro-lifers say it's okay to euthanize a dog, but abortion is wrong because it's not up to humans who lives and dies... Or, it's okay to have a dog spayed, but the birth control pill is wrong.

I can tell you that you are not a practicing Catholic. It is based on fact not my opinion. You have said things contrary to Church doctrine on many different posts.Really I don't understand why this is so hard for you to grasp.
Posted by: Kristen at January 14, 2009 9:17 PM

I can understand why it is. Because most Catholics are just like Josephine. And they consider themselves Catholic. And their church considers them Catholic. It seems that only you and other orthodox Catholics are saying they are not Catholics.

At any rate, it is quite apparent, many couples in North America could definitely afford and accomodate many more children in their families than they currently have. What is lacking is generousity of spirit, trust in the Lord, and a spirit of sacrifice.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 14, 2009 7:34 PM

True enough on the first line too stunned, but I'd say the second part isn't necessarily true though. Sure, the part about not everyone believing or trusting in your Lord is true, but it's not fair to say a lack of generosity or willingless to sacrifice is what's holding them back from having more and more children. It's often that they choose to give fewer children the kind of attention and experience that you cannot give a big family. Or they want to be generous in other ways. Lots of good reasons out there. And lots of good people.

Bethany, is that Ender from Ender's Game?

Hah, I guess it may be! I actually had never heard of the book before you mentioned it- I just now looked it up on Wikipedia- interesting! I like to read poetry and quotes sometimes, either from books, or the internet, or whatever else I can find...I actually found this one on a blog and I thought it was really good. Have you ever read the book? Is it any good?

Kristen, why am I not a Catholic? Also, please explain why you think you're the person that has a right to judge who is a Catholic and who is not?

Actually Josephine is what is considered a "cafeteria" Catholic as opposed to an apostate which is someone who totally rejects the Christian faith he was baptized into. Technically she is still Catholic since she has not renounced her faith but she picks and chooses the teachings she will follow.

A heretic is someone who "after receiving baptism, remains nominally Christian but pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith".
We don't judge people but we can judge their actions.

"Because there must be many who oppose abortion for religious reasons. And they don't want to impose those religious beliefs on others."

asitis,
it was in response to this statement that I made my assertions.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 14, 2009 7:14 PM

I'm sorry Eileen, but what assertions are you referring to?

That's why I always thought it was odd to see some pro-lifers say it's okay to euthanize a dog, but abortion is wrong because it's not up to humans who lives and dies... Or, it's okay to have a dog spayed, but the birth control pill is wrong.

Posted by: Josephine at January 14, 2009 9:24 PM

this statement implies that there is no difference between dogs and humans.
The problem is that there is a difference - a significant difference.
Dogs have mortal souls, humans have immortal souls. We have an inner life that dogs do not have. We have freedom to love, make choices etc.
I don't agree with mistreating dogs by any means. After all, dogs are part of God's creation and as stewards we are called to take care of them.
So we don't have the same level of responsibility to dogs that we have to our fellow human beings.

Dogs have freedom to love. But what about the argument that it's not up to us who lives and who dies. If that's true, than euthanasia for animals is very, very wrong.

Josephine, we have no right to decide if a human being lives or dies.

Have you ever killed a mouse who snuck into your home? What about a bug, or a fly?

Do bugs have souls? If not, why not? If so, do you condemn killing them for any reason?

TSTL or Kristen,
Do either of you speak in church?
Do either of you have short hair?
Do you both have both hands?

If you answered yes to any of those, you're just as Catholic as I am.

Dogs have mortal souls, humans have immortal souls. We have an inner life that dogs do not have.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 14, 2009 9:45 PM

How do you KNOW this toostunned? How do you know that dogs aren't God's Chosen Ones? Afterall, dog is god spelled backwards. Hmmmmmm? ;)

Do you both have both hands?

maybe it's because I'm not Catholic, but I have no idea what that's supposed to mean?

How do you KNOW this toostunned? How do you know that dogs aren't God's Chosen Ones? Afterall, dog is god spelled backwards. Hmmmmmm? ;)

I am sooo glad you put a winky after that question.

Bethany,
I don't kill bugs. I catch them in my paper "Bug Cup" and let them outside. Nice try with the bug thing, though.

I think any living thing has a soul. Who are you to say a bug doesn't have a soul? I'd rather assume they have souls and be proven wrong when I die, than assume they don't have souls.

"If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched." (Mark 9:43)

Hmm, you should know it because you're Catholic. Even I know it, Bethany. You can't deny you've ever sinned, I'm sure.

Dogs have freedom to love. But what about the argument that it's not up to us who lives and who dies. If that's true, than euthanasia for animals is very, very wrong.

Posted by: Josephine at January 14, 2009 9:48 PM

dogs do not have the capacity to love the way humans do, although dogs will sacrifice themselves for example, for the safety of their master in some cases.
I don't know too much about euthanizing dogs but it is my understanding that it is done when the animal suffers a great deal. However, there IS a big difference in an animal suffering and the suffering a human does.
Dogs do not have immortal souls in need of redemption. We do. Our souls were bought at a great price - the suffering and death of Jesus Christ. Therefore, our suffering HAS a purpose in a way that the suffering a dog experiences does not. While it is terrible to watch someone suffer from cancer for example, we can understand that this kind of suffering is a mystery and does have a purpose - maybe/usually known only to God himself. We can comfort a person in their suffering and their death agony by the use of pain alleviation and spiritually, but only God can take a human life. God is OUR master, as we are the masters of God's creation including dogs.

I don't kill bugs. I catch them in my paper "Bug Cup" and let them outside. Nice try with the bug thing, though.

Josephine, have you ever killed a mouse that crept into your home?

Have you ever stepped on a spider that was walking towards you?

Do you have ant mounds around your house, and if so, how do you deal with them?

What's your plan for dealing with termites?

I think any living thing has a soul. Who are you to say a bug doesn't have a soul? I'd rather assume they have souls and be proven wrong when I die, than assume they don't have souls.

Hmm...Great job listening to what I said without making any assumptions as to what I was thinking...oh wait, that's exactly what you did.

Hint: I never said whether they had souls or not.

Do bugs have souls? If not, why not? If so, do you condemn killing them for any reason?
Posted by: Bethany at January 14, 2009 9:52 PM

I feel like all living things have some kind of soul. I feel a bit bad about killing bugs. Same for a mouse in the house - but I can't and have to leave that to my husband. And I feel a bit bad about chopping down a tree.

Hmm, you should know it because you're Catholic. Even I know it, Bethany. You can't deny you've ever sinned, I'm sure.

LOL

TSTL,
Maybe you've never had the love of a dog. I do. My dog LOVES me, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind.

Seriously, everything you just said is ridiculous to me. Every single line of it. I sincerely hope you don't have pets.

Do you both have both hands?
maybe it's because I'm not Catholic, but I have no idea what that's supposed to mean?
Posted by: Bethany at January 14, 2009 9:53 PM

Bethany, c'mon. Even I, the non-praying one got that!

killing bugs = bad
killing unborn babies = no big deal

Bethany, c'mon. Even I, the non-praying one got that!

Asitis, I had a feeling it was that, but I had to see if she would really go that far.

Jasper, THANK you for pointing that out.

I feel like all living things have some kind of soul. I feel a bit bad about killing bugs. Same for a mouse in the house - but I can't and have to leave that to my husband. And I feel a bit bad about chopping down a tree.

Why don't you feel bad for unborn babies?

Bethany, I've NEVER killed a mouse. I use to have pet mice. I think they're precious. We do have mousetraps at my house back home, but they're humane. The mouse walk into a cube, then we let them out in a field.

I cannot, in all of my memory, ever remember killing an insect on purpose. Ever. I don't have ant mounds, and I have no control over termites because I currently live in an apartment building.

Oh, I'm sorry I pulled a you. Why all the interrogation? Trying to make me slip up? I don't kill. I'm pro-life. Do you think killing living things is okay? Maybe I'm more pro-LIFE than you.

TSTL or Kristen,
Do either of you speak in church?
Do either of you have short hair?
Do you both have both hands?

If you answered yes to any of those, you're just as Catholic as I am.

Posted by: Josephine at January 14, 2009 9:53 PM

I would say that some one who picks and chooses the Catholic doctrine they accept is not fully Catholic - they are separated from the mystical body of Christ.
This is quite different from someone who at the very least ATTEMPTS to live according to the teachings of the Catholic church at a great cost.
A Catholic single person who lives with a boyfriend and contracepts is SEPARATED from the Catholic Church.(in the olden days this was called living in mortal sin)
A Catholic single person who lives alone and chastely, struggling with loneliness and possibly ridicule from his/her peers in today's culture obtains great merit in the eyes of God. They may be rewarded in the life, or maybe not, but they will be most certainly rewarded in the next life.

Hi Bethany, hope the family is doing well :)

Jasper, who here thinks killing babies isn't a big deal?

Bethany, what do you mean by "go that far"? Who are you to say what parts of the bible are more important than others? You and several others here have said how certain PRIESTS aren't "really Catholic" however... some of the ladies here seem to not follow the rules of the bible!

dogs do not have the capacity to love the way humans do, although dogs will sacrifice themselves for example, for the safety of their master in some cases.
I don't know too much about euthanizing dogs but it is my understanding that it is done when the animal suffers a great deal. However, there IS a big difference in an animal suffering and the suffering a human does.
Dogs do not have immortal souls in need of redemption. We do. Our souls were bought at a great price - the suffering and death of Jesus Christ. Therefore, our suffering HAS a purpose in a way that the suffering a dog experiences does not. While it is terrible to watch someone suffer from cancer for example, we can understand that this kind of suffering is a mystery and does have a purpose - maybe/usually known only to God himself. We can comfort a person in their suffering and their death agony by the use of pain alleviation and spiritually, but only God can take a human life. God is OUR master, as we are the masters of God's creation including dogs.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 14, 2009 9:58 PM

Again, said like it's all factual! What if you've got it all wrong toostunned? Maybe dogs can truly love. Maybe their suffereing also has a purpose. Maybe there was a Jesus dog who suffered for them? Who is to say for sure?

Josephine, it's hard for me to understand, that's all. You put so much effort towards protecting animals and bugs, but don't really seem to put any effort towards making sure that babies aren't legally killed every day. You say it isn't necessary to make it illegal to kill them, yet you have a problem with killing even the tiniest of animals and insects.

You're even planning to work at a Planned Parenthood, if I read you correctly earlier. I don't understand that at all.

"If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched." (Mark 9:43)

Hmm, you should know it because you're Catholic. Even I know it, Bethany. You can't deny you've ever sinned, I'm sure.

Posted by: Josephine at January 14, 2009 9:57 PM

Dang! I got it wrong!

"Jasper, who here thinks killing babies isn't a big deal?"

You Josephine, you have never showed same remorse for killed unborn babies as you did for insects.

You attempt to live according to the teachings of the Catholic church? Seems to me not speaking in church and growing your hair out are some of the easiest thing the bible asks of women..

I'll say it again, TSTL, living with my boyfriend is NOT a sin. Show me where the bible says it is.

Seriously, everything you just said is ridiculous to me. Every single line of it. I sincerely hope you don't have pets.

Posted by: Josephine at January 14, 2009 10:01 PM

I am not surprised! :-D
We have different starting assumptions. Your assumption is the dog=human
My assumption is that humans > dogs! We are made in the image of God and have the Holy Spirit within us - we have immortal souls.

I feel like all living things have some kind of soul. I feel a bit bad about killing bugs. Same for a mouse in the house - but I can't and have to leave that to my husband. And I feel a bit bad about chopping down a tree.
Why don't you feel bad for unborn babies?
Posted by: Bethany at January 14, 2009 10:05 PM

The kind of soul I am referring to is different from the one you are Bethany. And they are all not of the same value. Goes back to a previous discussion of Aristotle's thinking. Something struck me there.

Bethany, what do you mean by "go that far"? Who are you to say what parts of the bible are more important than others? You and several others here have said how certain PRIESTS aren't "really Catholic" however... some of the ladies here seem to not follow the rules of the bible!

You may have just skimmed my posts, but I have said repeatedly that I am not Catholic.

No, there are no sections of the Bible more important than the other. However, some parts of the Bible are meant to be read figuratively, and some literally. Unless you think that Jesus was literal rock, AND a literal lamb, or that the pharisees were literally whited sepulchres, or that when the soldiers who were putting Jesus to death kneeled before Him saying, "Hail King of the Jews", that they really meant it sincerely....

Jasper,
Show me proof, Jasper. You don't know what's in my head. So... please, show me proof?

Bethany,
I'm doing clinicals at Planned Parenthood. It's a medical facility just like any other, and I'd like to be familiar with it.

Asitis,
TSTL has a pattern. She likes to pretend things are facts, when really she just makes it up!

I'm doing clinicals at Planned Parenthood. It's a medical facility just like any other, and I'd like to be familiar with it.

It's a place that kills unborn children for money. Ted Bundy did good things in his lifetime too, and was a guy just like any other guy, except for that tiny part of his life where he tortured and murdered women...

Ah, so Bethany, I guess you're the one who is supposed to dictate to us what you should take literally and what you shouldn't? Even though some people on here don't take the SIMPLEST commands literally. That's interesting...

The kind of soul I am referring to is different from the one you are Bethany. And they are all not of the same value. Goes back to a previous discussion of Aristotle's thinking. Something struck me there.

So a bug's life has greater value than an unborn child, Asitis?

Bethany,
Have you ever been inside a Planned Parenthood?

Ah, so Bethany, I guess you're the one who is supposed to dictate to us what you should take literally and what you shouldn't? Even though some people on here don't take the SIMPLEST commands literally. That's interesting...

No, you compare scripture with scripture in order to understand how to read figurative and literal language. We are told to "rightly divide" the Word of Truth (which means that there is a wrong way to divide it).

(by the way, "rightly divide" comes from the greek word, "orthotomeo", which means

"to make straight and smooth, to handle aright, to teach the truth directly and correctly")

Bethany,
Have you ever been inside a Planned Parenthood

No. Did you or anyone you know ever met Ted Bundy in person? I hear he was charming.

Bethany,
What you just said means everyone interprets the bible differently. Which means, *GASP* no one can really judge anyone's faith except their own.

Jasper didn't even say what was in your head, Josephine. He merely pointed out that your actions and words you have presented here do not show you as being very sympathetic to the unborn children.

I'm doing clinicals at Planned Parenthood. It's a medical facility just like any other, and I'd like to be familiar with it.

When there's thousands of other medical facilities that you could volunteer/work at why would you pick PP unless you were committed to "choice" for women?

It depends upon what you mean by "living with your boyfriend". Do you sleep in the same bed with him? (not asking you to answer this, I'm just sayin!) If so, that's sinful. If you are sharing a house, it could be what is considered an "occasion of sin" that is, you are putting yourself and your friend in danger of sinning.

We are made in the image of God and have the Holy Spirit within us - we have immortal souls.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 14, 2009 10:12 PM

But what if.... God looked like dog. Say a Great Dane. Or maybe a Golden Retriever. And He made dogs in his own image. Or better yet, SHE made dogs in her own image. And they were really the ones with immortal souls. OMG, I'm going to start a church for dogs. That's it! What the heck. It would be fun anyway.

What you just said means everyone interprets the bible differently. Which means, *GASP* no one can really judge anyone's faith except their own.

No, Josephine, the Bible also tells us how to tell good Spirits and good doctrines from false Spirits and false doctrines. It also tells us that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth.

oh BTW, I should have placed sleep in quotations in my 10:23 pm post, as in "sleep" = sexually active

I'm sorry but I have to leave now.

TSTL, I do too...yawn...I still have to do the dishes before going to bed. I will catch up tomorrow. Good night, everyone. Jasper, I hope you and your family have been doing well too!

The kind of soul I am referring to is different from the one you are Bethany. And they are all not of the same value. Goes back to a previous discussion of Aristotle's thinking. Something struck me there.
So a bug's life has greater value than an unborn child, Asitis?
Posted by: Bethany at January 14, 2009 10:16 PM

Perhaps. And perhaps the thought of someone chopping down a 200 year old oak makes me sadder than someone taking the morning after pill.

TSTL,
It's none of your business if I sleep in the same bed as my boyfriend, or if I sleep in a completely different room. It's between me, him, and God. I'd like to keep it that way. I picked Planned Parenthood because I'm doing clinicals at the centre my family owns and I already work at a hospital. I'd like to mix it up. I don't get paid, and I'm not aborting babies. I'll pretty much be helping with exams for women.

Asitis,
LOL.

Bethany,
What you said didn't prove your point a little. Like I said before, what you're saying PROVES that no one can judge anyone else's Christianity.

Glad you liked that Josephine!

Have a good night.

Prov 30:2-4 2 I am tired out, O God, and ready to die. I am too stupid even to call myself a human being! 3 I cannot understand man, let alone God. 4 Who else but God goes back and forth to heaven? Who else holds the wind in his fists and wraps up the oceans in his cloak? Who but God has created the world? If there is any other, what is his name-and his Son's name-if you know it? TLB

1 Cor 1:26-31 26 Remember, dear brothers and sisters, that few of you were wise in the world's eyes, or powerful, or wealthy when God called you. 27 Instead, God deliberately chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose those who are powerless to shame those who are powerful. 28 God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important, 29 so that no one can ever boast in the presence of God.

30 God alone made it possible for you to be in Christ Jesus. For our benefit God made Christ to be wisdom itself. He is the one who made us acceptable to God. He made us pure and holy, and he gave himself to purchase our freedom. 31 As the Scriptures say,"The person who wishes to boast should boast only of what the Lord has done." NLT

Deut 7:7-9 7 He didn't choose you and pour out his love upon you because you were a larger nation than any other, for you were the smallest of all! 8 It was just because he loves you, and because he kept his promise to your ancestors. That is why he brought you out of slavery in Egypt with such amazing power and mighty miracles. 9 "Understand, therefore, that the Lord your God is the faithful God who for a thousand generations keeps his promises and constantly loves those who love him and who obey his commands. TLB

HE says I qualify!

yor bro ken

Not with you and me. We would discuss, you would resort to insults.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 14, 2009 7:17 AM

Do you want me to go back and pull things for you truthseeker? Because I will. You know I will.

Posted by: asitis at January 14, 2009 7:27 AM

What day did you start on this blog Virginia? Lets go back to there together and see how the conversations went.

Perhaps. And perhaps the thought of someone chopping down a 200 year old oak makes me sadder than someone taking the morning after pill.

Posted by: asitis at January 14, 2009 10:26 PM

For what reason?

Even a thought?

Would you prevent/fight, a person chopping down a oak tree to survive a winter?

Would you prevent a artist from making art from a oak tree?

But, most important, would you prevent a person from stepping on a acorn?

Why are you a misanthrope?

What hate do you have for humans, which allows to post such tripe and unintellectual post?

And using emotion,(sadder) is not really logic and reason Asitis. It's pathetic. You know, pathos.

Soo, Asitis, why are there emotions? What is there purpose?

Specifically, sadness?

Josephine said:
I cannot, in all of my memory, ever remember killing an insect on purpose. Ever. I don't have ant mounds, and I have no control over termites because I currently live in an apartment building.

Jose,
Have you ever been bitten by a mosquito? So many of your posts make you seem phony. Like when you said you are a medic but you could not be veterinarian because you can;t stand to see animals other that humans suffer. Huh?????

How can you do a clinical at a Planned Parenthood when you KNOW they are the leading killers of human life in the US? What gives?

And as far as actually "BEING" a Catholic. It is not for you or Kristen or anyone else to decide. It is DEFINED by following the teachings of the Catechism. There is no willy nilly I feel this way or that about it.

TS-

To an extent the "being" Catholic portion of your post is false.

Technically, the Church would still claim me as a member. Therefore in the eyes of the Church I am still a Catholic, for no other reason than I was baptized as a member. I'd have to go through various procedures, essentially have myself excommunicated, for the Church to no longer recognize me as such.

I believe it was Bobby or MK who informed me of that particular portion of it. So perhaps they can clarify or correct any errors I have made if I misunderstood.

TS,
You don't know if I "follow the teachings of the Catechism" or not. No one does except me.

It's phony of me that I don't kill bugs? Err, I'm "sorry"? Should I say I kill bugs, even though I don't, to look less phony?

I can't stand to see animals suffer because animals are so incredibly innocent. No animal has ever done anything wrong, ever. Animals don't sin. Animals, to me, are more innocent than children. It makes me physically sick to see an animal hurt. It sucks that humans suffer. It sucks, but humans sin and do things wrong all the time. They aren't innocent. (Except children, but I'm only talking about adults.) I feel badly for humans, but most humans understand their suffering. Animals don't.

For me, being a medic and becoming a doctor really aren't about compassion. I'm compassionate, yes..but not nearly as compassionate as many people. I'm becoming a doctor because I happen to be very smart, and I can look at things VERY clinically. I'm going to be a doctor because I know I can be a great one and the world can ALWAYS use good doctors.

Oh, and TS- have you ever been to Planned Parenthood? Do you know how it functions? I don't. That's why I'm learning. Maybe it would do everyone some good to actually see the inner workings of things before they condemn them. I mean, you're not going to change anyone at PP's mind by calling them names and never talking to them like they're humans.

Technically, the Church would still claim me as a member

By Dan.

Do they do a census? Every ten years?

Where are the "worldwide" central records kept?

Is every baptismal paper kept into eternity?

When a person who is baptized and eventually dies, do you really think the Catholic church is notified of that death and then removes that "Catholic" from their worldwide census?

Take for example, the communist nations which executed multi-thousands of Catholics. Which led to the remaining faithful/underground Catholic's never having a record of any type in written form.

But, here is the cultural question for ya, Dan.

The prove is in the pudding.

When you die, are you going to have a "Catholic funeral", or that secular gathering of like minded people who were baptized, and then ignored the Catechism where it interfered with your self made conscience?

For me, being a medic and becoming a doctor really aren't about compassion. I'm compassionate, yes..but not nearly as compassionate as many people. I'm becoming a doctor because I happen to be very smart, and I can look at things VERY clinically. I'm going to be a doctor because I know I can be a great one and the world can ALWAYS use good doctors.

Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 12:20 AM

A lawsuit is in your future.

And the best part, Obama is going to encourage suing private doctors until they seek only socialist positions at county/university hospitals. And I agree with Obama, and his fellow lawyers, who will destroy any opposition to suing doctors as Bush and his cronies have. That includes pharmacuticals too!

Soo, what should the pay of a doctor be "socialized at"? I say 100k max.

Any inventions and improvements to the medical art's should be socialised, and take away the profit motive, which allows faulty studies and false claims in pharmacuticals and beyond.

Or, my dentist recommends Crest, from a clinical study paided for by Crest.

yllas,
I honestly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

What does toothpaste have to do anything? What in the world?

Josephine-

Don't mind yllas, she excells at posting in crypting language and attempting to incite an angry reaction out of people.

That should read cryptic language, my apologies

TS-

To an extent the "being" Catholic portion of your post is false.

Technically, the Church would still claim me as a member. Therefore in the eyes of the Church I am still a Catholic, for no other reason than I was baptized as a member. I'd have to go through various procedures, essentially have myself excommunicated, for the Church to no longer recognize me as such.

I believe it was Bobby or MK who informed me of that particular portion of it. So perhaps they can clarify or correct any errors I have made if I misunderstood.

Posted by: Dan at January 14, 2009 11:59 PM

Dan,
Should you create a grave sin like "participate" in an abortion(includes aiding in the procurement of an abortion for another) then you excommunite yourself in abstentiae. And anything in the Catechism that you reject makes you "less" Catholic.

Oh, and TS- have you ever been to Planned Parenthood? Do you know how it functions? I don't. That's why I'm learning. Maybe it would do everyone some good to actually see the inner workings of things before they condemn them. I mean, you're not going to change anyone at PP's mind by calling them names and never talking to them like they're humans.

Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 12:23 AM

Josephine,
I know all about Planned Parenthood. They are the face of a killer. As an organization they have killed more human life then anybody in history. To call them human is true, but they are either evil and don't care about taking the lives of unborn humans or they are lost and misguided. What would you have me tell them?

If you think they may be lost or misguided, why do you show them so much hate instead of trying to help the workers there? For a Catholic, a Christian, or a human being... that doesn't make much sense to me.

TS-

I apparently have misunderstood the idea of excommunication. There is no "true" way to make yourself no longer a Catholic as it is inedible, and can't be removed by any sort of earthly procedure. Excommunication is easily remedied through reconciliation, thought the severity of the offense, if there s a formal edict, may force the individual to go to a pope rather than their priest, etc. Even when excommunicated one is still considered a Christian and a Catholic by the RCC, learn something new every day, eh? lol

I don't think one can be any "more" or "less" Catholic than anyone else. What it does come down to is essentially a practice of faith. Everyone worships and has their beliefs, but only by following the beliefs of the Church can the individual be saved. So essentially one can still be a Catholic, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are going to be saved, as it is at that point, according to faith, that it is dependent on how closely one follows the Catechism.

The closest analogy that seems to fit in my head is to Judaism. Essentially they have a similar idea, in that it isn't just a faith, it's something that you can't get rid of. A heritage of sorts, and you are essentially "marked" for life simply from coming from Jewish blood. In the case of the RCC however it is related to baptism (I'm not sure if parental blood/faith comes into play at all or not)

As an addition to my previous post, parental blood/faith don't come into play (at least that I can find). It's all based in the baptism

What hate are you referring to Josephine? When have I ever shown hate to a worker at PP?

You show the entire organization hate every time they're mentioned on here. You may not come straight out and say "I hate them" but you do SHOW hate. (Just like you can SHOW love without expressly saying "I love..")

I apparently have misunderstood the idea of excommunication. There is no "true" way to make yourself no longer a Catholic as it is inedible, and can't be removed by any sort of earthly procedure. Excommunication is easily remedied through reconciliation, thought the severity of the offense, if there s a formal edict, may force the individual to go to a pope rather than their priest, etc. Even when excommunicated one is still considered a Christian and a Catholic by the RCC, learn something new every day, eh? lol

Dan, it is the reconcilliation that "brings" you back into the Body of Christ". Without it, you are excommunicated and not considered Catholic by the church.

Also, understand that the sin itself is not what can keep you from salvation. Rather, it is the harm that the sin does to your spirit. An insidious aspect of sin is that it can blind a person from the being able to see the truth and thus keeps them from repentence or even seeking any kind of spiritual battle for their soul and therefore no reconclliation. This is especially true for those who have denied God. Believers who sin are less likely to continue sinning and are more likely to recognize sin but the devil can and does trick believers into sinning. That is why belief in God is so important to salvation because acknowledge the truth of His word and acceptance of His Son Jesus Christ as your saviour is so important cause they are the tools God has given us to find our path to salvation. The Cathechism is just a "guidebook" that the Doctors and teachers of the Catholic faitgh have put together. It is loaded with scriptural references and offers advice on how to form your conscience in a Christocentric fashion. It "defines" the Catholic Church's teaching on a plethera of social issues. To disregard the Cathechism is to disregard your Catholic faith.

No Josephine I don't. I show hate for killing unborn human life. I despise it. Children should be loved by their mother's, not killed by them. I can think of nothing more evil than a mother killing her own child. Don't confuse that with meaning I hate every woman who has had an abortion.

As an addition to my previous post, parental blood/faith don't come into play (at least that I can find). It's all based in the baptism

Posted by: Dan at January 15, 2009 1:22 AM

Interesting point about baptism Dan. Yes it is a great tool given unto us by the example of John the Baptist and then by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. But you aren't trying to say that baptism guarantees salvation are you?

What does toothpaste have to do anything? What in the world?

Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 12:51 AM

Nothing cryptic.

You seem to have no idea where and how medical research is payed for.

By corporations.

The ADA endorses Crest toothpaste.

Take the "coated stent", invented at a university by university researchers, funded by a corporation that patented the stent.

Why are "stents being coated", Josephine?

You say your intelligent? Answer why stents were coated. The coated stent; research payed for by a corporation, university personel used for that research and development, and the profit shared by the med school and corp.

The FDA is filled with ex-university researchers, who approve products of their
former university, and plain old friends.

Do you really think your tuition actually pays for even operations at a university?

The public is forced to pay for your education by hospital taxes, which is where "university doctors" work to train future doctors.

Or do you think that 300 hundred students(pick a max amount of med students allowed) paying 40-60k per semester, is actually even capable of funding even the dean's, dean staff, of a med school?

Med universities are displacing "student classroom space", daily. Research is taking over those classrooms which were once used by students.

One med school I know of, is moving sutdents into the cafeteria, since research room is needed.

Soo, if what I posted flys above your head Josephine, just answer the question why stents are coated? Bonus point. What are they coated with?

Dan,
I was just reading about excommunication and once a person is baptised they are marked as Christian forever, even if they are excommunicated. Here is what it said:
"The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority."

et al....no longer Catholic

asitis,
I guess you would accept this now then:
**********
For just as Pontious Pilate washed his hands of the blood of Jesu Christ and handed him over to be crucified; so also does every man wash his hands of the blood of the human beings he conceives through intercourse when he hands them over to the abortionist under the guise that it is the woman's choice.
Posted by: truthseeker at Dec 13, 2008 4:25 PM
***********

Does this work for you "as it is" or would you feel a need to argue about it?

Or how about this one, is it ok "as it is"?

For just as Pontious Pilate washed his hands of the blood of Jesu Christ and handed him over to be crucified; so also does every man wash his hands of the blood of the human beings he conceives when he hands them over to the abortionist under the guise that it is the woman's choice.

Posted by: truthseeker at Dec 13, 2008 4:29 PM

BTW, I do admit when I am mistaken.
Posted by: asitis at December 14, 2008 3:58 PM
************

btw...did I actually see you confess that abortion involes the destruction of a human life?
Why do you suppose that was Sooooo hard for you to do? Why do you suppose it took you two weeks to figure out that abortion is the destruction of a human being. This is a great first step:{)
Posted by: truthseeker at Jan 13, 2009 8:02 PM
***********

asitis,
Can we move forward now from the common ground as posted above or was it just a fleeting epiphany you had?
Posted by: truthseeker at Jan 13, 2009 8:06 PM
***********

truthseeker, I have known what I mean/what I believe all along. Unfortunately, I am new to this little world of yours was unaware of the proper terminlogy. I probably still have much to learn. When I have realized I have used the wrong terminology I have said so.
**************

asitis,
Are you referring to this little world of mine where when a woman gets pregnant a new life is created inside her womb? I ask you again, why do you suppose it took a month on this blog for you to come out of your little world and admit that abortion is the killing of a human life?

And why do you suppose Planned Parenthood feels like you used to asitis/Virginia?
********

It seems you are actually asking me do I think Planned Parenthood is against life or for life? Well, since they perform abortions it's safe to assume that they do not believe that it is human at conception. So they would not see abortion as murder. Therefore I see no evidence that they are anything but pro-life, as most humans are (I say most because murderers probably wouldn't be considered to be pro-life)
Posted by:Virginia K at November 16, 2008 8:17 PM
********

After all, it is as it is and it is a human being

Or is it as it is asitis?

You can't use "human beings" because that depends on your belief.
Posted by: asitis at December 13, 2008 4:36 PM

"For just as Pontious Pilate washed his hands of the blood of Jesu Christi and handed him over to be crucified; so also does every man wash his hands of the blood of the unborn life he has created when he hands them over to the abortionist under the guise that it is the woman's choice."

"TSTL,It's none of your business if I sleep in the same bed as my boyfriend, or if I sleep in a completely different room. It's between me, him, and God. I'd like to keep it that way."

I believe I stated that I was NOT asking you to answer. It was a rhetorical question! Get it?

Dan: a person remains a Catholic unless they take measures to specifically renounce their faith. This is a good thing, because it affords sinners the opportunity to return, even at the last seconds of breath!

TooStunned: People have different views on children today and are very materialistic. Many couples prefer accumulating material goods rather than sacrificing for children. Children are often portrayed as burdens and obnoxious little creatures that take the enjoyment out of life.

Just about everybody draws the line somewhere. Some people don't want any kids. Some want one, or two. For some it's three or four. But it's exceedingly rare (the Duggars being one example) when people don't say, "Okay, enough is enough."

Have you ever read the book? Is it any good?

Bethany, oh yeah - it's great.

"Ender's Game (1985) is a well known novel by American author Orson Scott Card. It is set in Earth's future where mankind has barely survived two conflicts with the Formics (an insectoid alien race also known as the "Buggers") and the International Fleet is preparing for war. In order to find and train the eventual commander for the anticipated third invasion, the world's most talented children, including the extraordinary Ender Wiggin, are taken into a training center known as the Battle School at a very young age and trained in the arts of war through increasingly difficult games. Ender's Game won the 1985 Nebula Award for best novel and the 1986 Hugo Award for best novel."

What hate do you have for humans, which allows to post such tripe and unintellectual post?
Posted by: yllas at January 14, 2009 11:47 PM

What hate do I (!) have for humans? That's a good one coming from you yllas? Tripe and unintellectual? Well, not surprsing that you don't see the humor because we are very different, you and I.

Truthseeker, when I came into this "little world" of yours I was woefully unaware of the ambiguous terminolgy and how you will use semantics (intentionally?) in your arguments. I am more aware now. But knowing what certain words can mean hasn't changed my beliefs one bit.
I was also flabbergasted at some of the things I saw written about good people who just happened to have different beliefs. Oh, that I were still so naive! But there are some people here, that I have learned some things from. Like Bethany for example: I can appreciate now what it means to some women to miscarry, even very early. To them it is more than what might have been. To them it is what was. And I understand what abortion means to her and why she opposes it so strongly. And I can appreciate the deep regret that some women feel over abortion after hearing Carla's story.

Now, I have to go. I have a busy day and much to do that I've neglected!

Have a good one everyone.

Dan: a person remains a Catholic unless they take measures to specifically renounce their faith. This is a good thing, because it affords sinners the opportunity to return, even at the last seconds of breath!
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 15, 2009 6:30 AM

I think it's also a good thing to certain Catholics because they can say that those people are sinning because technically they are still Catholics. And that pleases ceratin catholics in a way. Something else I have learned here!

Is there an official way to renounce your faith? Papers to sign? A ceremony? A chant?

Okay, now I really am gone. Caio!

Just about everybody draws the line somewhere. Some people don't want any kids. Some want one, or two. For some it's three or four. But it's exceedingly rare (the Duggars being one example) when people don't say, "Okay, enough is enough."

Posted by: Doug at January 15, 2009 6:52 AM

Doug the Catholic Church does not expect everyone to have 15 children, but there are many couples that certainly can have more. They don't and their reasons ARE selfish ones. The are purely materialistic concerns. I've known people to choose between another baby and regular vacations. I don't think that's being open to children in marriage, in all honesty.

Doug, I'm going to order the book on Amazon.com. I can get it for .01 cents so that makes it easy. :)

Doug the Catholic Church does not expect everyone to have 15 children, but there are many couples that certainly can have more. They don't and their reasons ARE selfish ones. The are purely materialistic concerns. I've known people to choose between another baby and regular vacations. I don't think that's being open to children in marriage, in all honesty.

Well TSTL, I wasn't talking about Catholics, per se, but there too - past a point "more" isn't necessarily a good thing, even if we would say the line is at 15 for some people.

"Can have more" - well, the question is if they want more. All our motivation, whether it's for zero kids or 25, comes from the self, and we can say that drawing the line at any point is "selfish," either because the observer thinks more kids should be had, or that less kids should be had. It's all in the "should" at hand.

I think you have four kids (?). Are you "selfish" because you didn't have more? Or are you "selfish" because you had that many and thus you're contributing to the depletion of the earth's resources, etc.? It's in the eye of the beholder.

I hear you on people wanting to have less kids versus more in order to have more disposable income and more "things." I don't flatly state that this is "good" nor that they'll definitely be happier that way, but I also don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.

Bethany, don't know if you like science fiction but that indeed is a great book. Does Caleb like it?

Truthseeker, when I came into this "little world" of yours I was woefully unaware of the ambiguous terminolgy and how you will use semantics (intentionally?) in your arguments.

Asitis, that is simply not true. We were using correct terminology, and the semantics arguments were coming from you. We had explained time and time again for days and days how the meanings of the words you used were different than the way you were using them. We were not trying in the least to be ambigious, and we made it precisely clear what the differences were in the words which you were using and what you meant. I'm glad that you finally realized the error, but I wish you wouldn't try to place the blame for your mistake on us, when it wasn't our fault you didn't know the difference between a human being and a skin scraping.

I was also flabbergasted at some of the things I saw written about good people who just happened to have different beliefs.

Well in all fairness, this is a debate about whether it should be legal to kill human beings. Yes, there are going to be intense emotions in a debate like that.

Oh, that I were still so naive! But there are some people here, that I have learned some things from. Like Bethany for example: I can appreciate now what it means to some women to miscarry, even very early. To them it is more than what might have been. To them it is what was. And I understand what abortion means to her and why she opposes it so strongly.

I appreciate that you're making an effort to understand my feelings on my loss.

Bethany, don't know if you like science fiction but that indeed is a great book. Does Caleb like it?

Caleb loves anything having to do with Science! He would probably like the book, from what it sounds like.

We were using correct terminology, and the semantics arguments were coming from you.
Posted by: Bethany at January 15, 2009 8:07 AM

I beg to differ.

"I was also flabbergasted at some of the things I saw written about good people who just happened to have different beliefs."
Well in all fairness, this is a debate about whether it should be legal to kill human beings. Yes, there are going to be intense emotions in a debate like that.
Posted by: Bethany at January 15, 2009 8:07 AM

Bethany I wasn't just talking about the abortion debate.

Back to work!

No Josephine I don't. I show hate for killing unborn human life. I despise it. Children should be loved by their mother's, not killed by them. I can think of nothing more evil than a mother killing her own child. Don't confuse that with meaning I hate every woman who has had an abortion.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 15, 2009 1:48 AM

I never said you hate every women who has had an abortion. I didn't even talk about women that have had an abortion. I said you show Planned Parenthood hate, which I see you do often.

TSTL,
Is it materialistic to have more kids than you can afford to send for college? Say a college education costs at the minimum $50,000. (From the schools I've looked at, that's VERY, VERY low!) Is it better to just have a lot of kids, and then not be able to guarantee them any kind of successful future?

TSTL,
Is it materialistic to have more kids than you can afford to send for college? Say a college education costs at the minimum $50,000. (From the schools I've looked at, that's VERY, VERY low!) Is it better to just have a lot of kids, and then not be able to guarantee them any kind of successful future?
Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 10:28 AM
********************************************

No one has the guarantee of a successful future.
I am really amazed at the prevalent mentality in society today (propagated mostly by those who are in their teen and college years now) that parents are wholly responsible to pay for their child's optional college education. Contributing to it, of course, would be beneficial, but I don't feel that it's necessary for Mommy and Daddy to foot the bill for everything.
If a college education is valued by the student, then that student will also contribute by working a job, applying for financial aid, and by living as frugally as possible. Perhaps even considering community college for the first two years would be a great and affordable option, thereby transferring to a four year university after that. (Yeah, I know, the usual reaction to THAT is, "Ewwww!") :D But one can get a quality education at a community college.

Is any of this easy? No. Can it be done? Absolutely! :) And in the process, one can learn how to juggle real-life responsibilities. That way when the loan payments start, the adult college graduate will know what to expect.
That's how it worked with my husband and me and several of our friends, at any rate.

Josephine ....

How about this? We go to the Vatican and tell the Pope what you do and don't believe about the Catholic faith. Let's let him decide if you are a faithful Catholic. I think we all know what he'll say.

I mean really. You and Asitis are asking me (and others) to accept you as Catholic when you don't hold to the Magesterium. Why can't you see how ridiculous you sound when asking this of us?

It's like me saying I'm a doctor because I can give my kids medicine. I know that's only PART of what a doctor does but who are YOU to tell me I'm not a doctor? See? That's just STUPID!

Well, there is something you have to have to be a doctor: a doctorate.

There are many things that attribute to being Catholic, and you have no IDEA if I do or do not follow the Catholic faith.

So, that example was pretty absurd, to say the least, Kristen.

Kel, not everyone is eligible for financial aid. I don't have a college where I lived. I HAD to move to go to college, and I wasn't eligible for ANY help at ALL from the state. If I had to work to LIVE and work to go to school, I'd probably fail out of school. I didn't expect my parents to pay for my college... I joined the National Guard. There are MANY, MANY people who aren't able to join the guard. So, say someone is in the situation that I was in? They just shouldn't be able to go to college?

I didn't even qualify for student loans. I would've had to get a regular bank loan with regular interest. Right now I'd have about $150,000 of debt had I gone that route.

There seems to be some confusion about what I've said.

When I say some "is/is not Catholic" I'm specifically referring to faithful PRACTICING Catholics. I sometimes said "faithful" or "Orthodox" but sometimes left it out. To further this I mean that someone who doesn't know you would be able to tell you are Catholic (after some observation of course.) You go to Mass, Confession, etc. - basically the follow the tenets of the Faith.

Oh, and Kristen...
Do you think the Pope would be more pleased with someone who is a Catholic, who thinks for themselves and know there are parts of the Catholic faith that aren't perfect, or an "Orthodox Catholic" who tries to drive Catholics away from the faith? Hmmm I wonder.

Keep in mind, this is the same pope that wasn't against voting for Obama! Or is he not Catholic enough for you?

This is probably the most ironic thing I've ever seen:

cath⋅o⋅lic
   /ˈkæθəlɪk, ˈkæθlɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kath-uh-lik, kath-lik] Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.

You and Asitis are asking me (and others) to accept you as Catholic when you don't hold to the Magesterium.
Posted by: Kristen at January 15, 2009 10:59 AM

I'M not asking that per se Kristen. I'm just saying it's funny how you tell Josephine she's not really a Catholic because she doesn't follow all the Church's teachings. I mean, I get why you say it , but do you realize you' are telling most Catholics they aren't really Catholic then? I'm not so sure the Pope would go along with that. He might want to, but I don't think he would!

"I mean that someone who doesn't know you would be able to tell you are Catholic (after some observation of course.) You go to Mass, Confession, etc. - basically the follow the tenets of the Faith."

So, Kristen, do you know me? No? Hmm, then maybe you should stop talking about my faith.

Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 11:10 AM

As I said before, on several posts you have said things VERY contrary to the Faith. If you PRACTICED the Faith you would not do this. End of story.

But whatever, you're 20 and know EVERYTHING there is to know about the Faith. And I, a nothing Catholic who has immersed myself in my Faith and still hasn't scratched the surface, knows nothing. As you say...

BTW - By your 11:10 post are you saying that YOUR parents didn't guarantee you any kind of success because they aren't paying for your education?

I mean can others weigh in here? Because apparently I ALWAYS misinterpret what Josephine says, but when I compare that post to her 10:28 post to TSTL that's what I come up with. To quote O'Reilly - What say you?

I found an interesting article while researching about sex-selective abortion for a presentation.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/04/06/choosing_to_eliminate_unwanted_daughters/

No Josephine, you don't know me either but I think you would be able to say that I'm Catholic. I'm just saying that I cannot say the same about you.

Snow day for the kids and I've wasted enough time today. Have a good one all! And try to stay warm!

BTW - By your 11:10 post are you saying that YOUR parents didn't guarantee you any kind of success because they aren't paying for your education?

They would have had I had no other means. They have money for my college: they wanted me to be independent. Had I not been able to join the NG, they would've paid for my education. It's especially important in times now, because with an economy like this, there sure are a lot less people willing to take out loans for hundreds of thousands of dollars!

And, what have I said that makes me unCatholic? Can someone be unCatholic because of a statement? Please enlighten me, because.. apparently, since you're older than me, you know everything, ever! Including personal things about me!

I'd like to think of Catholics as nice people. I have NO REASON to think you're Catholic.

"You don't know if I "follow the teachings of the Catechism" or not. No one does except me."

Josephine,
You have volunteered information to the contrary. No one is judging your soul. What they are trying to do is inform you of what the Church teaches. I went to Catholic schools which unfortunately taught a very diluted catechism. Fortunately, I learned much from my mom, from reading on my own, and from programming on EWTN. The Church is starting to wake up so to speak because of the rotten fruits from a lack of proper instruction in general and from damage done by dissenting theologians, clergy, laypeople, etc. Pope John Paul II has done so much to inspire the youth in the Church that it gives me great hope.

Kel, not everyone is eligible for financial aid. I don't have a college where I lived. I HAD to move to go to college, and I wasn't eligible for ANY help at ALL from the state. If I had to work to LIVE and work to go to school, I'd probably fail out of school. I didn't expect my parents to pay for my college... I joined the National Guard. There are MANY, MANY people who aren't able to join the guard. So, say someone is in the situation that I was in? They just shouldn't be able to go to college?

I didn't even qualify for student loans. I would've had to get a regular bank loan with regular interest. Right now I'd have about $150,000 of debt had I gone that route.
Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 11:10 AM
****************************************

People who do not qualify for financial aid typically have parents whose household incomes are above average.
And it is not a definite that anyone in your situation would be "unable" to go to college, because you explained how you personally found a way to get there (because, I assume, you valued a college education and wanted to get there). That is to be applauded. Unfortunately, that isn't the mentality of many today. Many teens feel that though they are now adults entering college, that their parents should continue to pay for their every need (and want).

Some students attend community college for a couple years, obtain jobs in the workforce, and then go back to school at a later date. Some live at home, working and paying rent, until they are in their early twenties (23?) and can be considered "independent," and then their parents' income is not calculated in when applying for financial aid. At least this is how it was when I went to college.

I worked to live and worked to go to school, was not in the military, and I did not fail out of school. Sometimes we must do whatever is necessary to achieve our desired goals, just as you did. You make the assumption that you probably would have failed out of school, but you don't really know this; no one can. You might have achieved your goals anyway. You seem like a resourceful person, so you might have found another way. People work full time and go to school full time quite commonly nowadays.

There were times when I had little or no money and went to church food pantries or got help with groceries from my mother (but that was a rarity). I never said it was easy, but you know something? When I look back, I wouldn't change a thing because it's encouraging for me to know that if I can persevere through those sorts of challenges, then I can also persevere through the ones that will come my way in the future. :)

Eileen,
What information have I volunteered to the contrary? I don't hate gay people, I guess that's the one thing I've said. However, (And yes, Kristen, I'm going to bring up the movie again!) I've seen Franciscan monks saying there's nothing wrong with homosexuality.

So, what information is it that I've given you that makes me not Catholic?

Josephine.

To reduce the financial burden on med students cost, the cost of education should be socialized.

Would you serve your nation for 5 years after med school, working at a public hospital, for pay which is less then private practice?

In return, your education is reduced to being free, no debt upon finishing med school, and residency.

During the 1970's, many Pakistani, and Indian citizens were given a "free" medical education by their nation, in return for serving in their home nation for x amount of years.

American universities were payed by those foreign goverments to train their doctors, since the India/Pakistan education system was lacking the ability to give their citizens a quality med education.

Care to serve those poor American families, for reduced pay in a public health system, for little or no debt for that education?

I never accused you of not being Catholic.

You have been supportive of the use of artificial birth control. This is contrary to Church teaching.

The Church does not condemn people with same sex attraction. They condemn the acts or the lifestyle.
There are people with same sex attraction who live chaste lives in conformity with Church teaching. I don't hate homosexuals either.

Kel,
What about people that are unable? Especially today? I take info. and go over insurance and stuff with women in the ER up here. I work with many, MANY women who don't have jobs. Not because of laziness, but because the economy SUCKS and it's very, very hard to FIND jobs. Adding in a school schedule into that can be impossible! I go to school with girls that only are able to work about 15 hours a WEEK because the places they work are so overstaffed!

Like I said, I joined the NG to stay away from that places-- but while I was at MEPS, I saw SO MANY PEOPLE turned away for weight, medical issues, eye sight, test scores... it's not exactly "easy" to join.

Every parent should be prepared to send their kid to college, and hope they don't have to. Except for a VERY SMALL group of people, most normal Americans don't have enough money to send 15 kids to school-- even if you're talking about community colleges. I mean, up here it's about $2,000 a semester for a community college. Now, that's $4,000 a year. Let's shoot low and say they have ten kids. $40,000 on education. Now, that's not including books. How about the fact that these kids have to have transportation to school? Some places don't have a city bus. Some towns don't have community colleges. That's going to require traveling or moving.

It's not realistic to have that many kids, not in the least.

"You have been supportive of the use of artificial birth control. This is contrary to Church teaching."

My church is fully supportive of artificial birth control. My Catholic church that I attend regularly.

Kel,
I'm sorry if that long post sounded jerky, and I didn't intend it. I get very, very worked up about kids not being able to go to college. I've seen kids that just aren't able to go to college. I've seen kids that instead of going to college, they helped support their parents. It makes me sick to my stomach, because it IS a fact that people that go to college are more successful, and everyone deserves that equal opportunity.

Josephine,
then your priest has dissented from Church teaching either knowingly or out of ignorance. That is why it is so important for Catholics to know the Catechism, read papal encyclicals, etc. Just because it is accepted by your particular pastor or the church that you attend, doesn't mean that it is right.

Kel,
What about people that are unable? Especially today? I take info. and go over insurance and stuff with women in the ER up here. I work with many, MANY women who don't have jobs. Not because of laziness, but because the economy SUCKS and it's very, very hard to FIND jobs. Adding in a school schedule into that can be impossible! I go to school with girls that only are able to work about 15 hours a WEEK because the places they work are so overstaffed!
************************************

If they have no jobs, then going to school full time and receiving financial aid (if they're out on their own) might be even more of a possibility for them.

even if you're talking about community colleges. I mean, up here it's about $2,000 a semester for a community college. Now, that's $4,000 a year. Let's shoot low and say they have ten kids. $40,000 on education. Now, that's not including books. How about the fact that these kids have to have transportation to school? Some places don't have a city bus. Some towns don't have community colleges. That's going to require traveling or moving.

It's not realistic to have that many kids, not in the least.
Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 11:39 AM
***********************************

I actually know a family with 10 children. Those kids have joined the military, gotten full-time jobs, gone to college, etc. Not all people choose to go to medical school. And how many families do YOU know that would have all 10 or 15 children in college at the SAME TIME?? That would be highly, highly unlikely.

And again, you're making the assumption that the parents would be responsible to pay for their transportation and college education. That's not necessarily true.

My grandfather was also from a family of 10 children, back in the Depression era. To say that it's not "realistic" to have that many kids is offensive to me, because I wouldn't even BE here if my great-grandparents had stopped at six children. And my grandfather educated himself, taught himself high level math, became a successful carpenter, and supported a wife and four children without a college education. He was my hero.

It is not up to you, Planned Parenthood, or the next door neighbor to decide how many children any family should have. Period.

Kel,
I'm sorry if that long post sounded jerky, and I didn't intend it. I get very, very worked up about kids not being able to go to college. I've seen kids that just aren't able to go to college. I've seen kids that instead of going to college, they helped support their parents. It makes me sick to my stomach, because it IS a fact that people that go to college are more successful, and everyone deserves that equal opportunity.
Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 11:42 AM
*************************************

No, I understand, and it didn't seem "jerky" to me. I have a good friend who right now is working to help support her family (the family I mentioned in my previous post) because her dad's company closed. The whole company just shut down. She helps to pay for groceries, etc, while living at home. BUT...she is also taking correspondence classes through the college of her choice and is LOVING it. She is working her tail off and it is going to pay off for her. I'm very proud of her and her selflessness, her love for her family, her support for others, and of her tenacity in not taking "no" for an answer when it came to her education. :)

George V. Coyne, is a Jesuit,"

I know I'm coming in to this conversation late, but, historically its those radical Jesuits who have spread Christianity throughout the East and the New World and worked for the political freedom of a variety of opressed people.
These terrible "freethinkers" who value education and social justice for an informed faith have had a massive impact on the church's preservation and its important that you all don't devalue that.

PIP,
There are many wonderful Jesuit priests out there but unfortunately there are enough who have been very vocal in their opposition to Church teaching that they are getting a bad name, so to speak. Their motto states that they are loyal to the Pope to the point of laying down their lives for him. (Someone correct me if I am wrong about that.) Now some of them proudly stand in defiance of Church teaching, thumbing their noses at the Pope. No one wants to stifle "free thinking" in the Church but some truths are not to be "re-thought". Some wonderful Jesuits that I am somewhat familiar -- (the late) Avery Cardinal Dulles, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, Fr. Joseph Fessio.

Eileen,

There is some room for dissent if the teachings are not established dogma. Non-dogmatic teachings HAVE changed over the years. For example, priests used to be able to marry. Dissent on this level is to my knowledge allowable dissent (at least theologically) except when it is in direct contradiction to church dogma and its corresponding papal decrees.
Am I right?

Kel, I wasn't talking about medical. I was talking about a bachelors or even associates. I think it's great that your friend is doing. Really, really great that she can do that. Lots of people can make it work, but there are many, many people that can't. When things like medical problems, problems in the family, etc. start coming into play.. it just gets harder and harder and harder. In my opinion, a parent should be able to help their children if it's needed. Maybe they're not all in college at the same time... but lots of places dont' offer dental and eye insurance. What happens if every kid either needs braces, glasses, or both!

Now, there's a percentage of people who make just enough that they can live, but not enough to qualify for any help! There are just way TOO many people who fall through the cracks... and by having more kids, there's a greater likelihood that more kids will continue to fall through.

I know college isn't for EVERYONE... but, unskilled workers jobs are just going to be harder and harder to come by, and the workforce is pretty competitive!

I think most of that was pretty much just rambling. I'm not even going to proof read because it would take so long to fix!

And yes I agree with you there are wonderful Jesuits out there! Many of them were martyrs (for being Catholic- loyal to the Pope) and in Latin America many were martyred through religious and political outreach (Many of their killers were trained in the SOA- one of the reasons our school gives scholarships to attend the protest each year).

PIP @ 12:20,
I believe you are correct -- the celibacy rule is a discipline not dogma. If that is all that some Jesuits disagree with then it is not a big deal. I was referring to Jesuits that dissent from doctrine, papal teachings ( such as artificial contraception).

There are also the North American Jesuit martyrs and the Lily of the Mohawks (Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha) whose faith was born of their spilled blood!

PIP,

Unfortunately the problem is that their care and concern for the poor is put almost in the light of opposition to the dogma of the Church by the Society, which it does not, nay, should not be. It is not the care and concern for the poor and oppressed that we have a problem with, but their open rebellion against the Church's teachings, which is far worse for everyone in the long run because it has eternal repercussions. This could not have happened without the effort of the Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner, who openly defied many of the Church's key, core teachings. He helped to shape many of the Jesuits that are around today, and as a result, many of them share the same rebellious nature as he did.

This has caused no less than the current Black Pope to embrace Liberation Theology which, while having the right motivation, looks to essentially establish a utopia here on earth, and has the attitude that this world is the be-all, end-all of things. This is extremely destructive to souls because it ignores any spiritual aspect of our being.

But I can say that the Society of Jesus was probably the greatest order ever before the 1960s, even better than the Dominicans. The number of martyrs and sheer loyalty to the Pope was unmatched. It always saddens me when I think of how Father Henri de Lubac S.J., who is one of my favorite theologians, lived through the entire downfall of the Jesuits, as he lived from 1896-1991. He was there to witness the war unfold. He was also one of the few Jesuits to speak out and condemn what his fellow Jesuits were doing. It's all a very disheartening story...

Bobby,
What do you mean by the "Black Pope"?

Oh wait -- black pope = Jesuits (blackrobes) Duh!

Kel, I wasn't talking about medical. I was talking about a bachelors or even associates. I think it's great that your friend is doing. Really, really great that she can do that. Lots of people can make it work, but there are many, many people that can't. When things like medical problems, problems in the family, etc. start coming into play.. it just gets harder and harder and harder. In my opinion, a parent should be able to help their children if it's needed. Maybe they're not all in college at the same time... but lots of places dont' offer dental and eye insurance. What happens if every kid either needs braces, glasses, or both!
***************************************

Glasses are one thing. Braces are another. I know plenty of parents who had no dental insurance (because they didn't WANT to pay for it) and chose not to get braces for their kids. We may think that's cruel, but it's not medically necessary, so it's their choice as parents. An eye exam and a pair of glasses is not an exorbitant amount. We've never had vision insurance before and we were able to make payments, etc, for our vision needs.

Did you know that many workplaces today offer tuition reimbursement plans? Many places will pay for some or ALL of their employees' higher education. I think that's great! There ARE ways to help people, but sometimes they have to help themselves first.
BTW, when you mentioned having more children and falling through cracks and such, my mind immediately went to those who live on welfare. We make so many accommodations for people today that really, all they have to do is pursue those offers of assistance. Yes, there will be some who fall through the cracks, but higher education is a privilege, not a right. Children have a right to a free and appropriate public education in this country, but up to this point, that has not been inclusive of non-minors pursuing college degrees.

There are unforeseen circumstances in everyone's lives, but I believe that if we do not succumb to the victim mentality and continue to pursue all avenues for assistance (along with working our butts off), then we can achieve MANY things! This is America, and that's one great thing about living here. We have so many more opportunities than we can ever appreciate. :)

Yeah, Black Pope is a popular nickname for the Superior General of the Society of Jesus. He (or more properly, his office) got the nickname because as you pointed out, they wear black, and the fact that he is not only like the "pope of the society" but also is [was] of one mind and will with the Pope.

"open rebellion against the Church's teachings"

In what way?

As for liberation theology, I never heard about it being bad within a certain context, its main tenants are only that since sin is responsible for all the crappy things like poverty and oppression, then it is our responsibility to do our best to overcome it (especially the oppression--hence the term liberation). I have also read that it takes many forms (some against Church teachings and some not) and that it is not as widespread now as it used to be.

Its influence on the Jesuit order was to actually do something to help the poor; nothing I've read about the Jesuit order and its creed was Marxist or socialist. In my social justice class we read a lot of different essays about social justice theories and one essay we read was from Jon Sobrino. Nothing I read in that essay was Marxist; he only said that the gap between 1st and 3rd world countries is enormous and we should be held accountable for it. In my opinion he is totally right. The U.S. as a whole accepts the notion third world poverty and does little except throw some money occasionally at the problem, it's pretty sick.

It just seems so very sad to me that in the U.S. we are begging our religious leaders to speak out and help the anti-abortion revolutionary movement but suppress priests' involvement in political affairs in brutal oppressive regimes.
Reminds me of those in Nazi Germany who urged Catholics to serve in the German army- open complicitness, somehow justifying it with "only the military leaders will be held accountable" (yet, when they lost, these ordinary people who served were often held accountable for atrocious acts). How often do we look back now and wish they had done more- maybe something more... radical??

The U.S. as a whole accepts the notion third world poverty and does little except throw some money occasionally at the problem, it's pretty sick.
Posted by: prettyinpink at January 15, 2009 2:58 PM
********************************************

The U.S. gives more money to help than any other country.

When the U.S. intervenes in certain conflicts, people are angered. When they don't intervene in others, people are angered. It's pretty much a no-win situation. Let's not forget that countries do have representation with the U.N. as well.
When will the oppressive governmental regimes of many of these countries finally be held responsible for something instead of forever hurling blame at the United States?

Although I don't think Oscar Romero was ever a liberation theologian, he was undoubtably influenced by its political outreach and is considered El Salvador's "saint."

Ever seen the film Romero? It's excellent.

"When will the oppressive governmental regimes of many of these countries finally be held responsible for something instead of forever hurling blame at the United States?"

Problem comes Kel, when the United States funds the activity of these oppressive governmental regimes- like what happened in El Salvador. Obviously, their governments are to blame, because they are the ones doing it, and that goes undisputed. What is being placed at the US is exploiting the problems for our own benefits (like, those oppressive regimes helping our economy).

Throwing money at the problem is not helping, if we are going to help these countries overthrow their oppressive regimes we shouldn't send their government weapons or militia from our training school!

PIP,
It would be best to read what the popes have written about social justice.
Recently, Pres. Bush wanted to sign a trade agreement, I think, with Colombia, I believe, -- (the president of that country is working hard and is successfully ridding the country of internal terrorist operations/illegal drug operations.) but the Dems were against it. We could be helping their country get on its feet economically. I really don't understand the Dems on stuff like this.

I'm talking about situations where there are people who are literally starving, the U.S. gives a lot of money for food and aid for them, the U.N. sends it over, and guess what? The people don't get any of it. The government hoards it for themselves. And none of it makes the evening news. (Big surprise there.)

And who gets the blame? The U.S.

I will say, though, that in some cases like in China and Saudi Arabia, the U.S. most definitely could stand to step up and try to help some who really need our assistance in those countries (such as political and/or religious prisoners). They won't do it, though, because we are not yet energy independent and cannot afford to do so. And again, we can thank those who, in this country, choose not to allow us to become energy independent for their own political gain. And round and round it goes.

But we cannot blame the United States for the world's problems. We are not the sole cause, nor the sole solution. I wish people would stop acting as if we were. It's just gotten ridiculous.

Bethany 7:02am 1/14

My goodness I'm behind on posting! Hello to you as well and always good to see you.

Well, I hope I've made clear that it isn't the fact that they are the heroes of the poor and oppressed that I have a problem with or that they should spend any less time with the poor. On the contrary, we can learn much from them in that regard. But my problem is with the dissent from Church teaching and the reinterpretation of the message of Jesus. Maybe the things I have been reading lately have gotten me all worked up, but it just seems like the Society of Jesus has been getting all sorts of warnings after warnings after warnings from Rome about their teachings. This is just unheard of when it comes to Jesuits before the last 5 years or so.

To answer your question, PiP, I'm currently at a loss to be able to find anything that is convincing online that would demonstrate a general rebellion of the Society of Jesus as a whole. But looking at some of their main players like Teilhard de Chardin, Rahner, and Arrupe as well as many of the other recent Superior Generals of the Society reveals some teachings (not all teachings) and decisions or lack of decisions that are very difficult to reconcile with Catholic teaching.

TSTL 7:12am 1/14

Brilliantly summed up.

Asitis 10:38am

No I don't "know" anything about Obama's qualifications so kindly enlighten me.
Correct me if I'm wrong but are you trying very hard to evade this question?

Josephine 10:38am 1/14

What you are discussing here are Constitutional requirements, not credentials or qualifications.
If this is all that is required then what was all the "concern" about Sarah Palin's qualifications?

High school graduation is required to get into college. Poor grades in high school may well disqualify me from entering a certain college. I may have met a basic requirement by graduating, but still may not be viewed as having the qualifications to enter that particular college.

Mary,
Why do you keep asking Asitis for Obama's qualifications when it's plastered all over in history books, on walls in schools, the internet..

*Obama is at least 35 years old.
*Obama is a legal, natural born, US citizen.
*Obama has lived in the US at least fourteen years.

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Mary, say what you will. No one ever said you had to be a great politician to become President. I gave you the QUALIFICATIONS. Apparently, you wanted asitis to tell you why people voted for him. That's very different than qualifications.

Josephine,

Given this I could be president. I'm the first to admit I have absolutely no qualifications for the job.
You might as Asitis why she won't tell me what Obama's qualifications are. She keeps telling me I "know" them though I insist I do not and can't think of any.

Again I stress these are requirements. I pointed out that meeting requirements does not necessarily qualify us to do a job. There's also background and experience.

Josephine,

For the umpteenth time you gave me the Constitutional requirements, not his qualifications!
Why were Sarah Palin's qualifications called into question? She met the Constituional requirements.

I'm not talking about a great politician. In fact I think Obama is a master politician.
I don't want Asitis to tell me why people voted for him, I have my own theory on that.
I just want her to tell me his qualifications to be president.

All our motivation, whether it's for zero kids or 25, comes from the self, and we can say that drawing the line at any point is "selfish," either because the observer thinks more kids should be had, or that less kids should be had. It's all in the "should" at hand.

no, not ALL our motivation comes from the self. Many many people are inspired by the Holy Spirit to be generous and have children. In fact, I know of situations where couples have felt that they did not want any more children, but also KNEW that they had no serious reason to limit the size of their family. They had more children and although it was a sacrifice personally, they realized that God did in fact, know what he was doing in giving them more children.

Josephine, not every child has to go to university and as Kel so aptly pointed out, not all children will be in university together. Often children from large families are drawn into service jobs such as police work, EMS, and firefighting. Others prefer to go the apprentice route. I think once again your attitude which is quite common today demonstrates a lack of trust in God. If God gives a couple the gift of a large family he will look after their needs.

Mary,
What don't you understand? The only qualifications ANYONE NEEDS are what I listed. ANYONE who meets those can run for President. YOU want to know why people voted for him, if you want more information than that.

You could run for President Mary, but no one knows you and you have no experience. You are, however, qualified.

TSTL,
We're not talking about every child not going to a university. We're talking about them not even having the chance. If you don't think everyone should have the chance, fine... whatever, that's up to you. I personally do.

Josephine,

He meets the basic requirements. I meet the basic requirements. One must meet these requirements to run for president.
One should also have qualifications for the job.
I don't have any at all for the job of president and I admit it. However, I do meet the Constitutional requirements to be president.
I want to know his qualifications. What's his background and experience?

Obama got a law degree from Harvard in 1991.
He taught Constitutional law and practiced as a civil rights lawyers. He then served in the Illinois State Senate for eight years, before become a US senator for the state of Illinois. He happened to be the third African American member of the Senate since Reconstruction.

What else would you like to know, Mary? It seems as though that's not good enough experience for you?

"One should also have qualifications for the job."

THOSE are the qualifications! What are you talking about?! Those are what qualifies him! You are clearly using the wrong words, because you're not making any sense.

Ahh, there you said it. You want to know his background and experience-- which is COMPLETELY different than what qualifies him to be President.

I in no way think that the U.S. is the sole cause of other people's problems but it is important to realize when we are doing something wrong and correct it. Saying "we are giving money to corrupt governments isn't working" is in no way saying "it's all the US's fault." Saying "wow we funded (and still do) horrible oppressive regimes because it was good for our economy and it is totally sick" is not saying "the U.S. is the only cause of all the world's problems." It's saying, "I think the U.S. should take responsibility for its actions." I don't think it's a bad idea, either. I don't think anyone is in favor of not holding those governments accountable. What do you think those revolutionary forces are doing? (Although some of their approaches are misguided but that's another discussion for another day). What do you think social justice organizations like Amnesty International are doing? Do you think the Amnesty International China exists to blame the US for everything? (hint: the answer is no..)

I think the main reservations about the trade agreements wasn't about the idea of it per se, but the fact that it didn't protect worker's rights (abolition of child labor, anti-discrimination etc). But, I"m not an expert on the bill or anything, so I'm sorry, I can't really elaborate on that :/

Josephine, Mary sometimes derails comments asking for Obama's qualifications and never being satisfied with the answer. Mary, I'm sure you mean no harm, but I've read though several of these conversations and they end the same..seems a bit futile to me. Hate to butt in, but I had to say it :/

TSTL,
We're not talking about every child not going to a university. We're talking about them not even having the chance. If you don't think everyone should have the chance, fine... whatever, that's up to you. I personally do.

Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 4:31 PM

I don't think that it is necessary that every child go to university. I think when you have 6 or 8 kids in a family this becomes very apparent. Each person is given unique gifts. I think large families are VERY industrious by nature!

Josephine,

How much more simple can I make this?
These are listed in the Constitution as requirements to run for the presidency.
Qualifications are your experience and background that enable you to perform a certain job.
I don't question that Obama meets the Constitutional requirements. Its his background and experience, i.e. his qualifications, that I am questioning.

For example, is a new medical school graduate qualified to immediately start the practice of brain surgery?
Hardly. Yes he/she has met the requirement of successfully completing medical school, but more training and experience is required before this person has the qualifications to open a practice in neuorsurgery.

I might not respond for a while, I have mono and I'm gonna go take a nap now- but wll make an effort to respond to the comments later tonight!

Mary, I already answered about his experience (again, NOT his qualifications!) and you chose to ignore it. Am I just supposed to say it over and over again?

" Obama got a law degree from Harvard in 1991.
He taught Constitutional law and practiced as a civil rights lawyers. He then served in the Illinois State Senate for eight years, before become a US senator for the state of Illinois. He happened to be the third African American member of the Senate since Reconstruction. "

qual·i·fi·ca·tion [ kwòlləfi káysh'n ] (plural qual·i·fi·ca·tions)

noun

Definition:

1. essential attribute: a skill, quality, or attribute that makes somebody suitable for a job, activity, or task

PIP,

Not butting in at all. This is a very public forum.
I've been trying time and again to get an answer and no one gives me one. Please some examples as to how I derail comments. It seems Obama supporters jump through hoops to avoid answering this question.
Please take this up with Asitis who has completely evaded my question.
Please take this up with Josephine who discusses requirements, not qualifications.

I might not respond for a while, I have mono and I'm gonna go take a nap now- but wll make an effort to respond to the comments later tonight!

Posted by: prettyinpink at January 15, 2009 4:54 PM

PIP: I hope you feel better.

Mary, I already answered about his experience (again, NOT his qualifications!) and you chose to ignore it. Am I just supposed to say it over and over again?

" Obama got a law degree from Harvard in 1991.
He taught Constitutional law and practiced as a civil rights lawyers. He then served in the Illinois State Senate for eight years, before become a US senator for the state of Illinois. He happened to be the third African American member of the Senate since Reconstruction. "
Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 4:59 PM

PIP,

I second TSTL. Please get plenty of rest and take care of yourself.

I've seen Franciscan monks saying there's nothing wrong with homosexuality.

So, what information is it that I've given you that makes me not Catholic?

Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 11:30 AM

That might explain things REALLY! Are you aware that there is something called an Oblate? You do not even have to be Catholic to be a part of this group although you can be. But some of these people fancy themselves as part of a religious convent or monastery and dress in robes. My aunt, who is a nun, used to belong to one group but got so disgusted with what some of the people said she had to leave. Could someone like this have been the one interviewed?

See if you don't know these people exist then you cannot discern good teachings from bad. I'm not being snippy, these people have no concept of the Catholic faith and lead people down the wrong path.

PIP @ 4:53pm

Thanks for the warning PIP . This I pretty much expected. No matter what we give her on why we feel Obama is qualified, she will refute it. It will make my head explode! She knows all the reasons people why people picked him. She just doesn't accept them or doesn't like them.

This is the mary I thought you might be BTW: www.freedomeden.blogspot.com

She's not even refuting it, asitis, she's apparently just pretending I didn't say anything at all! Hah... wow!

Josephine,

Thank you for finally answering my question.
By the way, Obama spent 3 years in the US senate, most of the third year campaigning.
He ran for the US senate against Alan Keyes, who didn't have a snowball's chance of winning.
According to a NY Times 2007 article, he voted "present" in the Illinois senate 130 times to avoid taking a stand that would offend some constituents and please others. According to this article, 36 of these times Obama was the only state senator to do so.
His experience in the federal gov't and in any leadership position is, shall we say, extremely limited.

"Finally"? I answered your question about four times. You kept ignoring me. There's no "finally".

Oh, I didn't realize there was a minimum amount of time you had to spend in the US senate. Wait, what's that? You NEVER have to be in the Senate? Hmm, guess that doesn't matter then! He's a Harvard educated lawyer who taught law, practiced law, and then has been a senator for over ten years.

I'd say that's pretty darn good.

Asitis,

LOL. Spare me. You told me I "know" Obama's qualifications. I told you I do not. You still insist I "know" why Obama was elected. Please show me the post where you answered my question and listed Obama's qualifications to be president.

Josephine,

You gave me the requirements, not his qualifications. Got that? Entirely two different entities.
You finally answered my question by giving me his background experience.
Law degrees are impressive but do not qualify one to be president. Any number of lawyers I know convinces me of that.

I'm just adding a few more facts to Obama's background. His time in the federal gov't is limited and his leadership experience is what?
I am no fan of Bill Clinton, but I will acknowledge he did have background experience in leadership as governor of a state.

PIP: seems a bit futile to me.

Like resistance if it's less than one ohm.

I'd like to think of Catholics as nice people. I have NO REASON to think you're Catholic.

Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 11:25 AM

LOL! Well if that's your only criteria it's no wonder you consider yourself a faithful Catholic. :)

Asitis,

Please, I'm still waiting to see that post. You know, the one where you tell me Obama's qualifications to be president.

Keep in mind, this is the same pope that wasn't against voting for Obama! Or is he not Catholic enough for you?

Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 11:13 AM

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about! Where in the world did you get the idea the Pope was okay with Catholics voting for Obama. Here is a direct quote from Benedict XVI:

"As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today: the protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death; ..."

And another:

"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. There may be legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not... with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
- Pope Benedict XVI"

Hardly sounds like someone okay with voting for Obama. Can you please show me the quote of him saying it's okay?

I can go on but I've got to get dinner on the table.

Kristen,
When did I ever say that's the only qualification to be a Catholic? I don't think I did, ever. That, however, is one. The only one I can witness on here, so... yup, in my opinion you aren't a Catholic.

Well, then we are of mutual feeling. :)

Asitis,

LOL. Spare me. You told me I "know" Obama's qualifications. I told you I do not. You still insist I "know" why Obama was elected. Please show me the post where you answered my question and listed Obama's qualifications to be president.
Posted by: Mary at January 15, 2009 5:53 PM

Oh, I bet you've heard them all Mary. It sounds like this is of interest to you!

Show you my post where I answeredyou? I didn't. And I already told you that I don't intend to bother.

Asitis,

What is it you bet I've heard and that I find so interesting?

Concerning the fact you have no intention of answering my question: I rest my case.

Did the Pope actually say anything specifically about voting for or against Obama?

Asitis,
What is it you bet I've heard and that I find so interesting?
Concerning the fact you have no intention of answering my question: I rest my case.
Posted by: Mary at January 15, 2009 7:20 PM

Okay... once again.... I bet you've heard all the reason why people voted for Obama (as well as all the reasons why they didn't vote for McCain, including the big one. Hint: It starts with a P). What is of interest to you? The election.

Sure, rest your case. Doesn't matter to me what you think. And I know that by telling you what I think isn't going to change your mind in the least about Obama or those that supported him. So why bother? I'm not interested. Only you are.

Only 4 more days!

He never said either way, but he was asked a direct question, and he basically said you had to follow your conscience. As much as people like to deny it, Catholics are supposed to consult their conscience as well as written church teachings..

I'm trying to find the article now. I've posted it on here before, but it's hard to find because so many articles about Obama and the pope have come out since the election.. this was about five months before the election.

This is the mary I thought you might be BTW: www.freedomeden.blogspot.com
Posted by: asitis at January 15, 2009 5:34 PM

Hey Mary, did you check this out? Or is it one you already know?

Your conscience must be informed and by Church teaching if you are a Catholic. Kristen cited two instances where the Pope has made it clear that you can not vote for a pro-abortion candidate when a pro-life candidate is running for the same office.

Kristen cited two instances where the Pope has made it clear that you can not vote for a pro-abortion candidate when a pro-life candidate is running for the same office.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 15, 2009 8:00 PM

I wouldn't say they make it "clear" Eileen. You could interpret it that way, sure. But you don't have to.

In one quote he talks about how the Church is publicly involved in things that it considers to be "non-negotiable", like abortion.

And in the other he talks about how abortion and euthanasia or key moral issues for Catholics.

I wouldn't say he clearly says you can't pass up a pro-life candidate for one that isn't. Sure, abortion and euthanasia are important issues to catholics, but that's not the only issue. What if the Pro-Choice candidate is more closely aligned with Catholic teachings and the Catholic's conscience when it comes to other issues?

Asitis 7:32PM

No, in fact I didn't hear all the reasons people voted for Obama. Also the reason McCain lost starts with "M". Moderation. The man stood for nothing and tried to be liked by everyone.
The election is of interest to me? Your mind reading abilities leave much to be desired.
BTW, did you hear our great leader nominated a secretary of the treasury who didn't even pay his own taxes? This financial wizard Timothy Geithner overlooked his Self Employment Tax liability for 4 years.
This just keeps getting better and better.

Who was the pro-life candidate running? Certaintly not McCain.. he is "pro-life" only in the fact that he calls himself pro-life. I'd assume that's why the Pope said what he did. I left a voice mail from my dad, so hopefully I'll have that by tomorrow.

Asitis 7:43PM

Yes I did check it out and was totally unimpressed. Were I to do a blog I would make it considerably more interesting. However I do give this other Mary credit for doing a blog, which is more than I am inclined to do.

http://www.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

Josephine,
go to above link. It will answer your questions.
Abortion and euthanasia are non-negotiable issues. You can not cast a vote for someone who supports these issues if a pro-life candidate is running for the same office.

Eileen,
Who was the pro-life candidate?

"John McCain has repeatedly voted to fund pro-abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood with federal tax dollars. In fact, McCain has voted to use federal tax dollars to support abortion providers at home and overseas. Yes, this "pro-life" senator (along with "pro-life" President, George W. Bush) has significantly increased federal spending for abortion providers to levels eclipsing even the appropriations authorized by President Bill Clinton and his fellow Democrats."

Yes I did check it out and was totally unimpressed. Were I to do a blog I would make it considerably more interesting. However I do give this other Mary credit for doing a blog, which is more than I am inclined to do.
Posted by: Mary at January 15, 2009 8:21 PM

Yeh, I was unimpressed too. I stumbled upon it awhile ago. It doesn't look like anyone actually reads it, judging by the comments.

Does anyone have any stats on the Catholic vote from the election?

First of all, Josephine, where did you get that info? It simply is not true. Pres. Bush reduced federal funding all around.
For the sake of your argument, in the event of two pro-abortion candidates, then one must vote for the candidate that will do the least amount of harm in terms of their pro-abortion platform.

asitis, what would be your point given stats. I am sure that there were Catholics that voted for him out of ignorance or in defiance. It wouldn't change the Church's position on how Catholics should vote.

Eileen,

This is straight from McCain's mouth: "Certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”"

Still think he's pro-life?

Yes, more so that B. Obama.

I believe I was told yesterday that by not necessarily thinking abortion should be illegal, I was pro-choice. Why are we holding McCain to lower standards than random people on the internet?

In fact, I believe I used the EXACT same reasoning as McCain.. I said it would just make women do dangerous things.

Oh, and McCain is all for abortions in the case of rape or incest. If he truly believes life begins at conception, does that mean rape babies lives don't begin at conception?

How about if a rape baby is born. If it grows, and someone murders it, is it less of a crime than if someone were to married a baby that was wanted?

asitis, what would be your point given stats. I am sure that there were Catholics that voted for him out of ignorance or in defiance. It wouldn't change the Church's position on how Catholics should vote.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 15, 2009 9:14 PM

Oh, I wouldn't expect the voting trend to affect the Church's position. I just think it would be interesting. There seems to be a big disconnect between what the Church says and what Catholics do.

I believe I was told yesterday that by not necessarily thinking abortion should be illegal, I was pro-choice. Why are we holding McCain to lower standards than random people on the internet?
In fact, I believe I used the EXACT same reasoning as McCain.. I said it would just make women do dangerous things.
Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 9:21 PM

This inconsistency immediately struck me when I read Eileen's comments Josephine! I do recall her, or someone else here saying that to you!

Because there wasn't anyone else to vote for who had a reasonable chance.

B.O.'s record on life issues is decidedly worse that John McCain. You vote for the lesser of two evils, in a manner of speaking.

So, we were only supposed to vote for candidates that had a reasonable chance, even though they weren't pro-life? We weren't supposed to vote for the BEST choice possible, only the one we thought had a chance?

I've absolutely never heard anything like that at all.

I think Obama was the lesser of two evils. Neither of them are pro-life, so I looked at other LIFE issues, such as the war and health care.

This is straight from McCain's mouth: "Certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”"
Still think he's pro-life?
Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 9:16 PM

I think Bethany would also say McCain is Pro-Choice in that case then Josephine, rather than Pro-life. Correct, Bethany?

"Okay. So does that mean Bethany, that if someone opposes abortion but doesn't think it should be illegal, does that mean they aren't Pro-life?"

I don't think they are.
If they think a woman should have the choice to kill her baby - even if they personally disagree with it for whatever reason- that is not pro-life, in my opinion.

....they would be "pro-choice" when it comes to abortion.

Posted by: Bethany at January 14, 2009 1:31 PM

There seems to be a big disconnect between what the Church says and what Catholics do.
Posted by: asitis at January 15, 2009 9:23 PM

Yes, there is to some extent. But there are also Catholics who are faithful members. Orthodoxy is actually growing among the younger members. Those members who are in defiance of Church teaching are mainly among the older and graying crowd. (Except for Josephine! :)

Not all issues are of the same moral gravity, Josephine. Like you had mentioned earlier -- abortion and euthanasia are non-negotiables. All other rights are built upon the right to life.

I'm not going to lie, of my group of friends I am known to be the old lady. I hate going out in the cold, so me and the bf just watch movies on Saturday nights and stay in! Hahah, you pretty much hit that nail on the head, Eileen.

B.O.'s record on life issues is decidedly worse that John McCain. You vote for the lesser of two evils, in a manner of speaking.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 15, 2009 9:33 PM

Is that what the Church was intructing Catholics to do then .... Vote for the more Pro-life of the Pro-Choice candidates who stand a chance of getting elected, regardless of the other issues?

There seems to be a big disconnect between what the Church says and what Catholics do.
Posted by: asitis at January 15, 2009 9:23 PM

Yes, there is to some extent. But there are also Catholics who are faithful members. Orthodoxy is actually growing among the younger members. Those members who are in defiance of Church teaching are mainly among the older and graying crowd. (Except for Josephine! :)

Posted by: Eileen #2d at January 15, 2009 9:37 PM

Really? Is this a fact? And when you say "younger members", how young?

yes, asitis, because, like I just mentioned, all other rights are built upon the right to life.

Yes, there is to some extent. But there are also Catholics who are faithful members. Orthodoxy is actually growing among the younger members. Those members who are in defiance of Church teaching are mainly among the older and graying crowd. (Except for Josephine! :)

Posted by: Eileen #2d at January 15, 2009 9:37 PM

amen to that! Lot's of wonderful young priests and seminarians and lots of men and women who haven't bought into the big lie of the pill and cohabitation!

As young as college-age. You can thank John Paul II. He reached out to the youth and they answered the call.

Hi tstl!
I am calling it a night! You handle these ladies!! God bless!

I like that... "the big lie"! Well, time to put this puppy to bed.

Good night all.

TSTL,
Why are you so sure the young women aren't on the pill? I know lots of young Catholic girls on the pill. i.e. lots of my friends!

Again, "cohabitation"? Have you ever been to a University? Pretty much all state universities have co-ed dorms... it's not a sin to live with the opposite sex, as much as you'd like it to be.

no thanks, Eileen #2. You've all done a great job "handling" them just fine!
I"m off to read and relax....

Josephine, I believe when toostunned says "cohabitation" she specifically means "doing the nasty" not simply living together.

Hi tstl!
I am calling it a night! You handle these ladies!! God bless!
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 15, 2009 9:49 PM

She can't Eileen. She's taken a vow of silence!

And now I'm really off to bed. Sorry Josephine. You may be the only left awake on this chilly night. 'nite!

TSTL,
Why are you so sure the young women aren't on the pill? I know lots of young Catholic girls on the pill. i.e. lots of my friends!

Because Josephine, the women I know - we talk about it, AND they go to a Catholic doctor I know who does NOT prescribe the pill. Truly they are very good chaste young women. They wouldn't dream of allowing a man or many men to use their bodies in this manner. The simply believe that their bodies are a gift to be given to their future husband - and only to that one man.
And because there are soo many women who have seen the suffering the sexual revolution has brought to parents, siblings and friends. Girls who watch a peer pregnant in high school, KNOW they are going to wait for that special guy to come along. The trend now is to seek out like-minded women (and men), to participate fully in the Catholic Church.

Have a blessed evening.

No Josephine I don't. I show hate for killing unborn human life. I despise it. Children should be loved by their mother's, not killed by them. I can think of nothing more evil than a mother killing her own child. Don't confuse that with meaning I hate every woman who has had an abortion.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 15, 2009 1:48 AM

I never said you hate every women who has had an abortion. I didn't even talk about women that have had an abortion. I said you show Planned Parenthood hate, which I see you do often.
Posted by: Josephine at Jan 15, 2009 10:28 AM

I know you didn't say that Josephine but the same feeling apply to the the women who have abortions and the people like Planned Parenthood who enable the kiling. So I don;t hate the people who work for PP. Again I say they are perpetrating a great evil and they are misguided and lost and I HATE what they are doing, but I have never directed it at any individual. But of course I HATE an organization that opens abortuaries in decitful ways throughout suburbia in order killing humans. You say you are against even killing insects. Don't you ate the fact that they kill human life in those House of Horrors?

So, we were only supposed to vote for candidates that had a reasonable chance, even though they weren't pro-life? We weren't supposed to vote for the BEST choice possible, only the one we thought had a chance?

I've absolutely never heard anything like that at all.

Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 9:34 PM

Odd that youv'e never heard anything like that at all. It's talked about all the time and was a point of discussion for Catholics in the election. The only justifiable way to vote for a non-prolife candidate is if the other candidate he is running against is even more pro-abort.

Truthseeker, when I came into this "little world" of yours I was woefully unaware of the ambiguous terminolgy and how you will use semantics (intentionally?) in your arguments. I am more aware now. But knowing what certain words can mean hasn't changed my beliefs one bit.
Posted by: asitis at January 15, 2009 7:00 AM

My little world where it is as it is and women get pregnat with human life asitis? lol
*********

BTW, I do admit when I am mistaken.
Posted by: asitis at December 14, 2008 3:58 PM
ROTFLWTIME

My little world where it is as it is and women get pregnat with human life asitis?
Posted by: truthseeker at January 16, 2009 12:03 AM

Exactly. Thank you truthseeker. Good example.

Is that what the Church was intructing Catholics to do then .... Vote for the more Pro-life of the Pro-Choice candidates who stand a chance of getting elected, regardless of the other issues?
Posted by: asitis at January 15, 2009 9:42 PM

yes, asitis, because, like I just mentioned, all other rights are built upon the right to life.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 15, 2009 9:44 PM

So if you had a candidate that wanted to abolish government-funded health insurance for poor people including their children, abolish unemployment insurance and welfare, abolish food stamps and similar programs, and drastically reduce funding for public education.... basically tell people that regardless of your situation and needs you are on your own, sink or swim, baby!...than you would vote for that candidate if he wanted to make abortions illegal and the other candidates did not? This is what you say the Catholic Church would be instruct you to do as a Catholic?

asitis,
No candidate is going to take away aid to people who are legitimately in need. Most conservatives are generous people. They are just tired of gov't waste. For example, not long ago the Dems were screaming that the Repubs wanted to take food away from people on welfare. When in reality the Repubs wanted to reduce funding for food stamps because there were thousands of food stamps going unclaimed.
The Church has written extensively on social justice. Those who have ignored the poor are going to have to answer for it. But all rights are based on the the fundamental right to life.

"Odd that youv'e never heard anything like that at all. It's talked about all the time and was a point of discussion for Catholics in the election. The only justifiable way to vote for a non-prolife candidate is if the other candidate he is running against is even more pro-abort.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 15, 2009 11:54 PM"

Seems like if neither Republican or Democrat was pro-life (like what happened in 2008) if ALL the Catholics voted for a third party pro-life candidate, he'd have a shot. Seems like that's what the church would say to do.

Josephine, if there was a reasonable chance within the scope of reality, then I would think so also.

but in the case I presented at 8:02am, what would the catholic church instruct Catholics to do?

Eileen #2: the other thing that is important to remember, is that the position of the Catholic church in anything including politics is never one that asks people to be ridiculous. It never has absurd positions or asks people to do things that are unreasonable. In fact, in the Catholic religion, the position is that faith AND REASON go together.
So a politician that presents an unreasonable position is not likely to get many votes from anyone. Any scenario outlining an ureasonable/absurd position and asking what catholics would do is merely mocking Catholicism as a religion and is implying by the question, that Catholics are unreasonable, guillible persons who hold and follow ridiculous positions.

Yes, there is to some extent. But there are also Catholics who are faithful members. Orthodoxy is actually growing among the younger members. Those members who are in defiance of Church teaching are mainly among the older and graying crowd. (Except for Josephine! :)

Posted by: Eileen #2d at January 15, 2009 9:37 PM

Exactly! This is apparent in the book "Good-bye Good Men" regarding priests that were in seminary in the 60's and 70's and how SO much harm was done. Now it's being rectified but will take time. If you want a good read - that's it!

It's not meant to be a mocking situation toostunned. Though I agree with you it is unrealistic - I doubt any politician would be selected by a major party to run on such a platform simply because the delegates would know, even if they agreed with him, that the candidate would never when.

No it's simply meant as a test of just how black and white the Church might be on this and may demonstrate how some Catholics, even those that want to make abortion illegal, might have voted for Obama.

Do you want to answer the question Eileen? You don't have to of course. And by the way, I promise - no trickery from me!

Sorry, that should be "... that the candidate would never WIN". I need some lunch....

Seems like if neither Republican or Democrat was pro-life (like what happened in 2008) if ALL the Catholics voted for a third party pro-life candidate, he'd have a shot. Seems like that's what the church would say to do.
Posted by: Josephine at January 16, 2009 9:58 AM

Well, even if you could get ALL the Catholics you'd be at ~25% so you'd need others........

Josephine and Asitis. Watch this Catholic teacher and see for yourself what the Catholic Church was teaching people about the vote.
http://www.fathercorapi.com/election.aspx

And Father Corapi is qualified by the Magesterium to teach the doctrine of the Catholic faith and the Catechism. That is precisely his duty and role in the Church.

I'm relatively new to this blog...I've been reading it much longer than I've been contributing...and I've become very familiar to many of you.

As a new mom, I have a unique perspective. I understand where Josephine comes from when she talks about animals...before my baby was born four months ago, I felt the same way. I was completely biased towards animals...I still love them very much, but things have changed for me. My baby is now the most precious thing in my life. It took motherhood to change me. Don't get me wrong...I still love animals. I love my dog very much and she's very much a part of the family...but my priorities have shifted, as they must. I can't go out and play with my dog any old time I feel like it now. Sasha is still loved, but I have a whole new perspective. Babies aren't burdens. Talking about killing an unborn child is not the same thing as hunting or fishing. I don't hunt. I could never kill a deer, or gut a fish, yet I do eat some meat (poultry only) and cannot equate that with abortion. I don't kill many insects or spiders, either. If I can help it they go outside. I do kill things that could harm me though. Mosquitoes, ticks, brown recluses, horseflies, I delight in killing those. As for mice, my husband and I had those in our house last year. Maybe due to Sasha's doggy door...We tried and tried to be humane. We bought the catch and release traps. We caught a few of them and every time we let them go it seems they'd come back. We finally resorted to poison and our problem went away very quickly. I felt bad, but my kitchen was literally starting to reek of mouse urine. That won't happen again, I will assure you. Especially now with Ella. There is NO WAY I would EVER put a mouse above her safety.

I could go on...but you probably get the message... :)

Sit through 30 minutes of listening to a priest- no thanks truthseeker. I put enough time doing that growing up! But can I assume his bottom line is what Eileen, Kristen and toostunned have been claiming (ie that abortion issue is paramount and on is more important than all the other issues combined)?

Becca! I'm just the opposite story than yours: I never had a dog until recently - I used to only have children. I used to be totally biased toward children. I took me becoming a dog-owner for that to change. Don't get me wrong... I still love my children. It's just that my priorities have changed.

Haha! You probably know by now their is a bit of clown and a dash of brat tossed into my persona.Welcome!

Asitis;

lol. Yeah, I know a lot about everyone's personalities. I read this blog for a few months every single day before I contributed much of anything.

I don't want to make it sound like I don't love animals still, because I definitely do. Before I had Ella, I would NEVER have sided with kids...I used to teach school and oh my...I really could hardly stand most kids by the time I quit. And to be perfectly honest, some kids still annoy me super bad, as do MANY adults. Especially when they cut me off on the highway...but since I've had Ella I realize I how precious people are when they enter the world, and how innocent they are...just like animals. Even if they do end up becoming jerks later on. :)

I totally hear you. And while I never had the experience, I can totally appreciate how without/before kids what a person's pet, can mean to them. And also how that can change if/when they do have children. But the pet is still loved!

Enjoy your Ella! This is a precious time and I envy you. Time passes so quickly.

Thank you so much!! I can't believe how much she's grown in four months, and how quickly time has passed...

And yes, Sasha is still very loved, and well taken care of!! :)

tstl @ 11:11 am -- thank you!

Sit through 30 minutes of listening to a priest- no thanks truthseeker. I put enough time doing that growing up! But can I assume his bottom line is what Eileen, Kristen and toostunned have been claiming (ie that abortion issue is paramount and on is more important than all the other issues combined)?

Posted by: asitis at January 16, 2009 12:19 PM

Asitis, full of cmments about the Catholic faith but unwilling to spend twenty minutes listening to a certified teacher of the Catholic doctrine on the subject at hand. Typical deflection of the truth. This is a great example of why it took you over a month on this blog to fugure out that women get pregnant with human life :o{) lol

I think Josephine is a little different then you in that respect (she will likely take the time to watch the Church's official response to her questions about the election and how Catholics should base their vote. You on the other hand live life under your credo "ignorance is bliss".

I do kill things that could harm me though. Mosquitoes, ticks, brown recluses, horseflies, I delight in killing those.

Ha! Welcome, Becca. Seems you have a sense of humor. Nice post.

swell post ts @ 1:29pm!!!

Asitis, full of cmments about the Catholic faith but unwilling to spend twenty minutes listening to a certified teacher of the Catholic doctrine on the subject at hand. Typical deflection of the truth. This is a great example of why it took you over a month on this blog to fugure out that women get pregnant with human life :o{) lol
I think Josephine is a little different then you in that respect (she will likely take the time to watch the Church's official response to her questions about the election and how Catholics should base their vote. You on the other hand live life under your credo "ignorance is bliss".
Posted by: truthseeker at January 16, 2009 1:29 PM

Sure, Josephine might - she's actually Catholic. but I'm not and I'm not questioning what the message was to Catholics nor from where it originates. And I personally don't enjoy listening to priests talk about what God says or what the Vatican says. I'd rather get the bottom line, if anything. And din't I get that right, truthseeker?

Oh, and it is closer to 30 minutes. 29:22 to be exact, I believe.
(If you want some fun have all three segments play simultaneously).

swell post ts @ 1:29pm!!!
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 16, 2009 1:58 PM

Oh, I get it! patricia is speaking to me through others now. Gosh, now why did it take me soooo long to realize this? ;)

Don't worry, I'm not going to give away your full name or where you live.

Mmmm, Catholics don't get much cooler than Father Corapi!

Or colder than Maine Bobby! I just read -50F. Brrrrrr!

Thanks Doug! I'm happy to finally be contributing. :)

Mmmm, Catholics don't get much cooler than Father Corapi!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at January 16, 2009 2:23 PM

he is an excellent preacher, having heard him in person and he has a good handle on all the arguments that anyone questioning their faith could ask
after all, he ended up in the gutter and as far down as you can go before God lifted him up again.
Let's hope he has many more years of preachin to do!

WE ARE HEADED FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS - A CALL TO ACTION IS NEEDED!!!!!!!!!!!

Recently, Obama met with SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) behind closed doors while SCOTUS has several lawsuits seriously questioning his eligibility to be POTUS.

Has Obama corrupted or brought off SCOTUS????????

We are headed for a constitutional crisis.

On Tuesday January 20, 2009, a USURPER will be sworn in office.

This USURPER is Barack Obama!

Obama is NOT qualified to be POTUS!

This is known to be true 1000%!

A Call to Action is Needed!

Please Contact your Senators and Congressman Today.

Send them emails and faxes. Phone them everyday.

Tell them that must conduct a Congressional hearing on this matter.

Continue to write to SCOTUS telling them uphold and protect out Constitution.

Time is running out!

The time to act is now!

Also keep in mind that Congress is moving the remove the 2 Term Limit for POTUS.

IT”S YOUR FUNERAL!!!!

(WWW.OBAMACRIME.COM)

I know! It's a C-O-N-spiracy James!

WWW.OBAMACRIMES.COM
http://drorly.blogspot.com

GO TO THESE SITES TODAY!!!!!

You can now see on the docket Suggestion for Recusal of the Justices of the Supreme Court to swear Barack Obama as president(conflict of interest)
No. 08A524

Title:
Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants

v.

Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State

Docketed:

Lower Ct:
Supreme Court of California

Case Nos.:
(S168690)

~~~Date~~~
~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dec 12 2008
Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.

Dec 17 2008
Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.

Dec 29 2008
Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.

Jan 7 2009
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.

Jan 7 2009
Application (08A524) referred to the Court.

Jan 13 2009
Suggestion for recusal received from applicant.

——————————————————————————–

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~Phone~~~

Attorneys for Petitioners:

Orly Taitz
26302 La Paz
(949) 683-5411

Counsel of Record
Mission Viejo , CA 92691

Mary,

I meant no insult. I just noticed that sometimes you kind of randomly ask the question to the rest of us but are never satisfied with the answers- just pointing out that noone will win the argument and just get frustrated :)

UGH I felt a lot better last night but these last few days have been terrible in that I might get hungry and then after eating a little, have no desire to eat- as if I will literally throw up if I eat more. Later I would get nauseous and think that it is because I need to eat (I"m a little hypoglycemic). But then I begin eating and want to spit it all out. Anyone ever had this?? I mean, it would be nice for losing weight but since it is accompanied by stomach-ache its not as fun!

Wow. Thanks to James I don't even have to log into that old hotmail account of mine to read a bunch of spam.

nd Father Corapi is qualified by the Magesterium to teach the doctrine of the Catholic faith and the Catechism. That is precisely his duty and role in the Church.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 16, 2009 12:03 PM

Fr. Corapi is great! I also heard him speak in person. I met him afterward. He is very humble and unassuming when speaking to people one on one.

asitis, why bother asking questions if you don't want to take time to find out the answers from a very reliable source?

sorry -- anon is me. :)

Oh PIP! Sorry that you are sick. Yes, I had mono when I started my first job out of college. I lost a few pounds because of the loss of appetite that accompanied it.

asitis, why bother asking questions if you don't want to take time to find out the answers from a very reliable source?
Posted by: Anonymous at January 16, 2009 3:14 PM

You mean that priest addresses the specific scenario I presented to Eileen? Really?

PIP 3:10PM

Thank you. No offense was taken. I was just looking for an answer and it seemed people were jumping through hoops to avoid giving me one.

I'm very sorry to hear of your illness and wish you a speedy recovery. I've never had it but I do know rest is essential. If you're hungry and hypoglycemic, you may want to eat a small amount of protein. Don't overdo what you eat and try to maintain your fluids.
Please keep us posted as we are all very concerned.

Eileen-

Hope it made up for the inability to exercise! :)

I'll try, Mary :) I didn't feel well later last night and thought it was because I hadn't eaten since 4:30, and tried to eat some pork (basically-I heated up a lean cuisine and picked out the pork) but I couldn't finish it. It's crazy! Eating 500 calories a day seems so weird to me. Thanks for the concern, all. I'm feeling better. Other than appetite problems and tiredness, most of the bad symptoms are gone :)

I'll try, Mary :) I didn't feel well later last night and thought it was because I hadn't eaten since 4:30, and tried to eat some pork (basically-I heated up a lean cuisine and picked out the pork) but I couldn't finish it. It's crazy! Eating 500 calories a day seems so weird to me. Thanks for the concern, all. I'm feeling better. Other than appetite problems and tiredness, most of the bad symptoms are gone :)

Posted by: prettyinpink at January 16, 2009 3:42 PM

maybe try something a little lighter to eat PIP.
I always think pork is rather hard to digest.
do you have special diet?
I really hope you are on the mend.

"I heated up a lean cuisine ..."

Yum!

"...and picked out the pork..."

Booooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Bobby: do you really like lean cuisine? Honestly? Just wonderin....

Bobby: I'm making home made french fries. Have you ever had them??

Ehh, lean cuisine is fine. It was a good option for back when I watched what I ate- before children!

I have never had homemade french fries. That sounds tricky to make. The only thing I know how to cook is Hamburger Helper and Indian food. Do you have to do one of those pseudo-deep fry tricks where you fill a large pan like half full of oil?

I love lean cuisine. I've been eating soup and lean cuisines all week :P

TSTL,

I don't have a special diet, I just have to make sure not to eat a lot of simple carbs (processed sugars) and have adequate protein (or I get irritable or stressed). I also can't skip meals or I would feel nauseous and terrible. As for mono, I just eat what I can when I feel hungry. which is not much. consists mostly of soup and lean cuisine. lol.

my dad use to make french fries all the time when we were growing up.
Back then we had a deep fryer which I don't have.
Therefore I am uber careful and make them in a frying pan with olive oil (healthier).
Once you have homemade fries, you will never eat another fast fry!
Don't feel too badly, you've got a lot of time to learn how to cook! Indian food sounds like a very good start!
I remember all my dad could cook was fried eggs, bacon and hotdogs. and french fries!
It was pretty darn awful.

PIP: ok, I was wondering.
Do you like spaghetti? Or would that be too heavy?

TSTL

My favorite dish of all time is angel hair with meat and marinara sauce. Mmm!!
This week i've been eating pasta or LC pizzas for dinner. I tried to have a couple pancakes this morning instead of eggs. bad idea, I haven't been feeling good all day. I'm gonna have to wait a few hours before I eat anything else.

oh sounds good!
i remember when I felt terrible with morning sickness (which was all-day sickness) I ate spaghettini in a tomato sauce. Sometimes it is very good with a mild tasting fish too such as sole or haddock broken up on top.

yeah maybe the pancakes were just too heavy for your stomach :-(
take care of yourself!!

Oh, does LC stand for Little Ceaser's? Man I miss that pizza. We don't have any in "Live Free or Die" New Hampshire...

http://www.littlecaesars.com/

They have a good deal, a Hot and Fast pizza, cheese or pepperoni, for $5/$6+tax (depending on market)

Its really good for the price. I've done this a few times.

I know! Don't remind me Liz... it's too painful to know that I can't have it...

LC= lean cuisine, sorry :P Their little pizzas are actually quite good.

I tried a Lean Cuisine meal that was Spa Classic/ Cuisine.....with brown rice, which is healthier than the white rice in a LOT of frozen meals.

Have you ever tried Kashi, PIP? I LOVE their Sweet and Sour Chicken frozen meal. Unfortunately, my local closest grocer STOPPED carrying the frozen meals all together claiming "they weren't selling" but yet I can get the meal at the HyVee!

Never tried it Liz, is it low cal?

Hey Bobby, ya know you can make you own pizza too! It's not hard.
I made homemade pizza on Tuesday evening. I like hot pepper rings on my pizza and olives and onions.
Pretty gross eh?

Oh man, Bobby... I love Little Ceasars. I don't have any at home, but I have like, FOUR on campus here. It's amazing. $5 large cheese pizzas, all day everyday!

Mary,
No one was avoiding your question. I answered it four times. You could have looked up the answer yourself though, because his history is plastered all over the internet..

TS,
Your video won't play on my computer. I did try to watch it though. Could you give me a description and I'll try to find it on youtube?

Josephine,

Sorry, but you finally answered my question after I asked you several times to do so. Requirements are one thing, qualifications quite another.
Plastered all over the internet or not I asked you as an Obama supporter to tell me what his qualifications were. It should have been no problem at all for you to tell me.

I told you four times. You never responded until the fourth.

You know where I got what I put to you? The official Obama website. You don't have to be an Obama supporter to look up his background.

It should have been no problem at all for you to tell me.
Posted by: Mary at January 16, 2009 9:42 PM

No it isn't a problem for Josephine (or me or anyone else who voted for him) to tell you Mary. But why bother?

You go on thinking we were all so uninformed and misguided in voting for Obama. If that what gets you through next week, go for it!

Josephine,

Please, I didn't respond until the fourth time because that's when you finally told me what you considered to be his qualifications.
Heck, I meet the Constitutional requirements to be president. I most certainly don't consider myself qualified for the job.

Asitis, 9:53PM

LOL, whatever.

When you think of any qualifications, I'm all eyes.

Good, you keep that chin up Mary! Good luck next week. Stay strong. Stay defiant. Atta girl!

Josephine,
Just google "Father Corapi election youtube"

Asitis,

Again, whatever.

That's the spirit, Mary!

UGH I felt a lot better last night but these last few days have been terrible in that I might get hungry and then after eating a little, have no desire to eat- as if I will literally throw up if I eat more. Later I would get nauseous and think that it is because I need to eat (I"m a little hypoglycemic). But then I begin eating and want to spit it all out. Anyone ever had this?? I mean, it would be nice for losing weight but since it is accompanied by stomach-ache its not as fun!

Posted by: prettyinpink at Jan 16, 2009 3:10 PM

Sounds like morning sickness :o}

Truthseeker, I'm getting ready to sit down and watch right now. I'm going out for the night after that, but I will let you know tomorrow after I watch it!

Mary, I copy&pasted my response four times before you responded. The exact same thing. Four times I told you about his schooling and his time as senator. Four times, and you pretended you twisted my arm to get that info. You just chose to ignore me until you couldn't any longer, because I KEPT copying and posting.

Why are you STILL asking for qualifications? He's completely, 100% qualified. If people disagree with his positions on things: fine! Of course people will disagree. I accept that, and I have no problem with those people. It's the people who pretend that Obama hasn't been a political figure for the last ten years that drive me crazy! NONE of these questions EVER came up when he was a senator. He was COMPLETELY competent as a senator. Now that he's the president he's the most stupid, uneducated person ever. That's ridiculous!

Asitis,

Ain't that the truth!

above post was ts

Wow, three posts at 10:23. above post about morning sickness was ts

Josephine,

Calm down. When you finally told me what you considered to be his qualifications I thanked you, remember?
I don't find what experience and background he has impressive or even consider him qualified but if you can tell me, which you finally did, what you consider qualifications, fine. That answered my question.

Asitis,
Ain't that the truth!
Posted by: Mary at January 16, 2009 10:23 PM

Awesome. That should get you through. Just keep thinking that Mary and you'll be fine.

Ahhhh, my work here is done. Time for bed.

ts-

I'm not having sex, so I think I'm good :P

ts 10:22PM

Morning sickness? How well I remember. I always knew when I was pregnant when I lost my taste for coffee. It was so gradual I barely noticed. I couldn't even stand the smell of it.
Normally I crave it.
With my second baby I thought our bedroom just stunk, literally. My husband thought I was nuts.

Asitis,

Whatever. Good nite.

PIP,

You're supposed to be resting!!!! :)

haha sorry Mary! I've only commented between naps or DVD changes :P

ts-

I'm not having sex, so I think I'm good :P

Posted by: prettyinpink at Jan 16, 2009 10:32 PM

pip, if it doesn't get better then have your doctor order a blood test.

asitis: Oh, I get it! patricia is speaking to me through others now. Gosh, now why did it take me soooo long to realize this? ;)

Is this the Patricia that's from the Bible Belt of Ontario?

Heck, I meet the Constitutional requirements to be president. I most certainly don't consider myself qualified for the job.

Mary, you'd be better at it than some of our past Presidents.

I've only commented between naps or DVD changes :P

:: laughing ::

You go, PIP!

Hi Doug. Not "from" per se, but if you mean "from the discussion of", then yes. It was all a bit embarrassing for her though in the end, so in the spirit of niceness we should probably let it drop.

Doug 7:38am

Come to think of it I probably would be! Are you getting slammed again with snow??

Doug and Asitis,

Actually TS has been a commenter here for quite some time. You've seen TS before, right Doug?

Bobby, by TS do you mean truthseeker or toostunned?

Well, I think TS is neither, believe it or not. I think TS is not truthseeker because I think Truthseeker has mentioned that, and TS has been around long before toostunnedtolaugh. It's confusing, and I may be confused as well, but I think all three of them, ts toostunnedtolaugh and truthseeker, are different people.

Hey Doug,

I'm on my way to the Caribbean tomorrow for a conference. I'm going to enjoy some real global warming, like 80+ degrees and lots of sun and sand. Picked a great time to go if I do say so myself.
Try not to freeze. I'll be thinking about you my friend.

PIP, my go-to when I'm feeling yucky is miso soup. It takes about 5-10 minutes to whip up, and I have varying 'levels' -- when I'm really ill just the broth, or maybe the broth with some wakame seaweed in it. If I'm eating it as part of a large meal (or as its own small meal) on non-sick days I put some tofu and sliced green onions in as well. If I'm making it for breakfast I steam whatever leftover veggies I have in the fridge, toss them in, and pour the whole thing over some brown rice. Sometimes I even slice a hard-boiled egg and throw that in, too. :)

I find it a good way to get some healthy foods all in one go, depending on how much I put into the soup. A lot of times when I'm sick I can't stomach liquids because I'm not crazy about sweet foods even at the best of times, and most liquid nutrition is sweet (smoothies, etc). So the saltiness of the miso soup helps me sneak some veggies in when I would otherwise rather not eat anything.

I hope you feel better soon!

Bobby @9:15am

Doug was referring to toostunnedtolaugh/Patricia.
Nothing to do with TS or truthseeker.

Have a good day. Stay warm if it's cold (which is just about everywhere right now!)

Oh OK. I'm so confused! As Rae says

*fads back into the night like Batman at the end of Dark Knight

" I've posted my Winter/Spring 2009 speaking schedule"

Where's all your Northeast bookings, Jill??? :(

truthseeker never uses capital "TS" when he posts but there is a "TS" who occasionally posts on this blog.

PIP

Info on Kashi Sweet and Sour Chicken meal

http://www.kashi.com/products/kashi_entrees_sweet_sour_chicken

I don't know why Bobby even mentioned TSto begin with, truthseeker. Though Bobby did say he was confused. Must be the cold weather!

"Doug and Asitis,
Actually TS has been a commenter here for quite some time. You've seen TS before, right Doug?
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at January 17, 2009 8:57 AM"

Yeah, I don't know what's going on in my mind. It's not even that cold here. It's like positive 10 degrees. All the math must be rotting my brain.

Math is FUN Bobby!

I used to think 10 degrees F was nuthin'!But I'm getting soft since I moved out of the Great White North and even +10 makes me go brrrr now!

Oh yes. No doubt math is fun. It can just sometimes be quite difficult.

True that, Bobby!

WORD.

Hugs, PIP. When I got mono two years ago I thought I was pregnant and I left France early. :) Silly me.

Feel better!

Math is not fun. Math is the devil. Math makes me want to chew my esophagus to pieces so I'll have to go to emergency and quit doing math.

[lɨŋgwɨstɨks]!

Math is simply great! I especially liked calculus and functions.

You're KILLIN me Leah! :)

TooStunned,

You like functions, ehh? Me too. When they're continuous between topological spaces, we call them "maps" and they're my boys! A function is a brilliant concept. Simple, but brilliant.

I think all well rounded individuals should be familiar with the calculus.

Bobby, I loved functions and relations as it was called in high school years ago!
Other subjects I enjoyed in university were organic chemistry and physics.

You like functions, ehh? Me too. When they're continuous between topological spaces, we call them "maps" and they're my boys! A function is a brilliant concept. Simple, but brilliant.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at January 17, 2009 5:53 PM

very interesting....;-D

Howdy to the Bambino.

Welcome back.

Just returned from Glen Rose, Texas. The dinosaur footprint place.

The weather was great. Sunny, cool. Shirt sleeve weather. Drove with the sunroof open and the windows down.

Tomorrow may be completely different. Have not seen the weather forcast yet.

yor bro ken

"Functions and Relations", toostunned.... too funny! I haven't heard that in years. One of my favorite classes in high school.... though I was a year ahead in math and I remember feeling so shy (and underdeveloped!) in that class.I wonder if Functions and Realtions is Canadian terminology. Did they used to call it that in the states anyone? Going back a quarter century or so (yikes!) ago ...........

Man, I loved math. I'm pretty stupid at it, though. I didn't get too far beyond testing for converging or diverging series -- comparison test, integral test, ratio test, uhhh, root test, alternating series test, etc. The validity (or even existence) of everything after that, I have to take on faith.

My favorite thing was differentiating trigonometric functions. It was like magic! It was actually kind of like reading The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle by Haruki Murakami, or even If on a winter's night a traveler by my main man Italo Calvino -- it made total sense unless I REALLY thought hard about it, and then the meaning of it kind of ran away from me because it was basically impossible for me to articulate, or sometimes even capture, everything that the things on the page in front of me MEANT. Like trying to see constellations back when I was a Girl Scout -- I could only ever see them out of the corner of my eye; if I looked straight at them it was just stars, for some reason. The vastness of some things appears to be too great for my wee little brain to process. But the good news is that even wee-brained people like me can see amazing things in our peripheral vision. ;)

My favorite thing was differentiating trigonometric functions.

Alexandra: i love trig too!

Haha, yeah TSTL, trig was awesome. I remember it was all smooth sailing until I did the mathematical equivalent of looking down and let myself think: "What is a cosx, anyway?" And then it all just spiraled into the black hole of "Things Alexandra Can Understand But Not Actually Picture In Her Mind." So long as I just kept looking anywhere but down, I had no problem differentiating or integrating or whatever-ing. But I've never been able to resist looking down. Which I suppose is a good thing, at least in pragmatic senses, because it keeps me careful when I'm working on a steel beam two stories above the floor with no safety harness.

Alexandra's Brain: Bad For Math. Good For Staying Alive.

I don't think "function and relations" are Canadian terminology, asitis. A function is a relation which is what is called well-defined. In algebra texts I've taught out of, they define relation and then function. So a function is a special case of a relation, and I think it's pretty standard terminology.

"The validity (or even existence) of everything after that, I have to take on faith."

LOL Alexandra. My goodness did I love series! I'm glad to hear you enjoyed it too. Infinite series which converge is so mind-blowing to some people. Add infinitely many numbers and get a finite number. In fact, an infinite series is one was to prove that 1=.999... Mmmm, I can't wait to teach a Calc II course...

I never successfully got futher than geometry. Alegebra made as much sense to me as 'consulting tea leaves or chicken entrails.

Props and creds to all you with mathematically enabled and enhanced intellects.

I can repair your a/c, but do not rely on me to solve for 'X'.

yor bro ken

Thanks Bobby, I realize relations and functions are standard math terms. But what I meant was, do they/did they teach a course called Functions and Relations in the US? That's what we had in Canada. I never hear it in the US.

Oh I see. It's a whole course, ehh? I think you're right then. Usually it's just part of an algebra course. We also (in the US) have a course called "Functions, Statistics, and Trigonometry" which is probably like your Functions and Relations course.

Well Ken, you're missing out! Big time!

Bobby,

Some people are tone deaf. Some people are color blind. Some have no sense of rhythm. I just appreciate people who can do the things I cannot.

A friend of mine told me once that if I just worked hard enough and applied myself I could master a musical instrument, like him.

I said, Ron, what you are telling me is that if I practice long and hard enough I can compete with Michael Jordan on the basketball court.

Ron, said, 'I stand corrected.'

"You cannot put in what God has left out."

But I can repair Michael Jordan's A/C.

yor bro ken

Ron, said, 'I stand corrected.'

"You cannot put in what God has left out."
Posted by: kbhvac at January 17, 2009 10:26 PM

All thanks be to God for what He put in.

Bobby that is what I took, Functions, stats and trig combined. Stats - not too keen on, the other two, very much soo!!

Alexandra, very nice post at 8:13pm!

I didn't always understand what I was doing but working the numbers was somehow very satisfying!! ;-D

For any of my fellow Catholics who may be interested, Fr. Anthony read most of Pres. Bush's (Daena's) proclamation on the sanctity of life during his homily today on EWTN's daily Mass. It was a very nice homily, and I don't think there was much if anything that protestants would find objectionable in his message if you want to catch it on EWTN or EWTN.com

Fed Up, thanks for that info!

"You cannot put in what God has left out."

But I can repair Michael Jordan's A/C.

yor bro ken

HaHaHa....excellent!

I think all well rounded individuals should be familiar with the calculus.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at January 17, 2009 5:54 PM
------------------------------------------------------------

Well I am more well rounded than I used to be. But I am referring to geometry. My own physical geometry.

I ran into a friend I had not seen in quite a while. He asked me if I had gained weight.

I said, "No, God is just stretching me."

I found this little gem while I was at the Bed & Breakfast this weekend:

'Spread happiness where you go, not when.'

Gotta 'go' now. Don't worry, be happy.

yor bro ken

Come to think of it I probably would be! Are you getting slammed again with snow??

Mary, great Presidents are made, not born, so one never knows.

I'm in Georgia this weekend so no snow at all, thank goodness.

Bobby: Well, I think TS is neither, believe it or not. I think TS is not truthseeker because I think Truthseeker has mentioned that, and TS has been around long before toostunnedtolaugh. It's confusing, and I may be confused as well, but I think all three of them, ts toostunnedtolaugh and truthseeker, are different people.

Bobby, could well be - I was just asking. Agreed that TooStunned isn't Truthseeker, at any rate.

I think all well rounded individuals should be familiar with the calculus.

Bobby, indeed, and Leibniz and Newton are smiling this day.

I said, Ron, what you are telling me is that if I practice long and hard enough I can compete with Michael Jordan on the basketball court.

Ken, I thought that if you ate enough Wheaties, you could be an Olympic athlete. You don't even have to train!

; )

I think all well rounded individuals should be familiar with the calculus.

Bobby, indeed, and Leibniz and Newton are smiling this day.

Posted by: Doug at January 18, 2009 9:48 AM

agreed.
Skill in math usually means the ability to reason logically has been developed, at least to some degree.

Skill in math usually means the ability to reason logically has been developed, at least to some degree.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 18, 2009 9:56 AM

I agree with you there toostunned!

Question for Asitis:
Up till what stage of developement are you willing to allow a mother to kill? Does a nervous system and heartbeat mean anything? Or perhaps a babies ability to survive outside the mother? Or maybe up until birth?

And as a mathematics enthusiast. Tell me, how can Obama choose support the right to kill other human beings up until birth, all the while saying it is a morally wrenching decision for him. Doesn't that seem illogical to you?

truthseeker, as I have told Behany multiple times, I will not enter into that discussion. Period.

As for Obama, I can't speak for him. But it could be that he has strong feelings about abortion, but he recognizes these as his own personal and religious beliefs. And, like others, doesn't want them on others. If that's the case, no, it doesn't seem illogical to me.

truthseeker, as I have told Behany multiple times, I will not enter into that discussion. Period.
Posted by: asitis at January 18, 2009 9:37 PM

It is not illogical to avoid discussion about such a morally wrenching issue? How do you expect to make informed judgements if you are unwilling to share your beliefs with others? I want to know what drives a person to support others in behaviour they personally find morally reprehensible.

"It is not illogical to avoid discussion about such a morally wrenching issue?"

How is that "illogical" truthseeker?

"How do you expect to make informed judgements if you are unwilling to share your beliefs with others?"

I know what I believe truthseeker. Just as I know what almost everyone here believes, and how vehemently. I do not need to share my beliefs with you in order to make informed judgements.

"I want to know what drives a person to support others in behaviour they personally find morally reprehensible."

I already told you.

Just because my religious views as a Christian are that the right to life is a God-given right, does not mean defending the right to life for others is forcing my "religious" views on anybody else. The right to life is "the" fundamental right without which no other rights can even exist. Much too important to avoid discussing.

You'd have a hard time finding anyone who wouldn't agree that the right (God-given or not) to life is a fundamental right, truthseeker!

"I want to know what drives a person to support others in behaviour they personally find morally reprehensible."

I already told you.
Posted by: asitis at January 18, 2009 10:26 PM

You said cause it equates with forcing your religious views on somebody and that is just not true. I am not telling them to accept Jesus Christ as their saviour, I am telling them they can't kill. It is one of the Ten Commandments, but telling people they can't kill is not forcing religious beliefs on anyone, it is forcing others to respect life.

Again truthseeker, those are your personal views, religious or otherwise. I'm not saying anything new here you haven't heard before. Don't you ever tire of this round and round?

I do not need to share my beliefs with you in order to make informed judgements.
Posted by: asitis at January 18, 2009 10:26 PM

:o{)lol
but that is precisely what this blog is for. Open up a little.

Ha ha ha! Right. The only reason you want me to open up is so you can open a can of rage against me for my beliefs. No thanks!

Again truthseeker, those are your personal views, religious or otherwise.
Posted by: asitis at January 18, 2009 10:42 PM

Wrong!! You know the right to life is not just my personal views. It is the view of most people(except killers) in a civilized society.

Why do you think I would open a can of rage on your beliefs? Are you a killer?

Duh. Of course I know the right to life is acknowledged by everyone. I already said that:

You'd have a hard time finding anyone who wouldn't agree that the right (God-given or not) to life is a fundamental right, truthseeker!
Posted by: asitis at January 18, 2009 10:34 PM

Why do you think I would open a can of rage on your beliefs? Are you a killer?
Posted by: truthseeker at January 18, 2009 10:48 PM

No, I am not a killer truthseeker. But I am pro-choice. And we all know how you feel about that.

Logically speaking, if the right to life is "the" fundamental right then nobody should intentionally kill another human life.

That is unless, perhaps, it is to prevent them from killing somebody else.

Truthseeker, extending the right to life to unborns is a personal or religious belief. I know you want it to be eveyone's personal beleif, but it isn't.

You have come full circle back to 9:27pm. I have to go to bed. Don't you have driveways to plow?

You say you are not a killer yourself, but you say you support a mother's right to choice to kill her baby. Are you really concerned about other woman's choice or do you want to keep that choice available for yourself?

Are you really concerned about other woman's choice or do you want to keep that choice available for yourself?
Posted by: truthseeker at January 18, 2009 11:02 PM

Both. I most definitely feel that other woman should be free to choose. And while I myself have never had an abortion, nor think I will ever be faced with that decision in the future, I am on the pill. I know that you consider this to be a form of abortion, so in that regards, you could say that I do indeed want to to keep the choice for myself as well!

Asitis, For somebody who likes "logic" you sure don't use it in determining the human life that you are willing to allow to be killed legally. Other than location, why do you think it is o.k. to kill a baby in the womb.

Not really a question of logic truthseeker. I think you know that. And you're back to the same old again. I've already told you, I'm not getting dragged in. What is this... no snow?

I know that you consider this to be a form of abortion, so in that regards, you could say that I do indeed want to to keep the choice for myself as well!

Posted by: asitis at January 18, 2009 11:10 PM

No asitis,
Birth control is not the same as abortion. Abortion kills human life. So would it be fair to say that the choice you really want to keep for yourself is the choice to terminate your pregnancy (should you get pregnant).

Good night.

No asitis,
Birth control is not the same as abortion. Abortion kills human life. So would it be fair to say that the choice you really want to keep for yourself is the choice to terminate your pregnancy (should you get pregnant).
Posted by: truthseeker at January 18, 2009 11:18 PM

Sorry, I thought you were one of those catholics that equated the pill with abortion.

In over 20 years I haven't had an unplanned pregnancy, so I'd be surprised if I had one yet. But if I did, I'd probably have it (what the heck!). So honestly, I think at this point I am Pro-Choice mainly for others.

So you come to a pro-life blog but you are not willing to discuss pro-life issues. While discussing Catholics and voting, you are not willing to watch a video of a qualified priest on the subject. People who use logic in forming their opinions seek out the "reasoning" behind the opinions of the people they disagree with.

When i said "i'd probably have it" I meant have a baby, not an abortion............ Just in case that wasn't clear and you were already sewing an Asitis voodoo doll. Though you might have one already........

Sorry, I thought you were one of those catholics that equated the pill with abortion.
Posted by: asitis at January 18, 2009 11:25 PM

No asitis, I think you have a misunderstanding in the catholic faith there. The Catholic church discourages birth control but nowhere in the catechism does it teach that birth control is abortion. It would be illogical because one term is used to define preventing pregnancy and the other is used to define terminating a pregnancy. You can't terminate a pregnancy that never happened. lol

So you come to a pro-life blog but you are not willing to discuss pro-life issues. While discussing Catholics and voting, you are not willing to watch a video of a qualified priest on the subject. People who use logic in forming their opinions seek out the "reasoning" behind the opinions of the people they disagree with.

Posted by: truthseeker at January 18, 2009 11:26 PM

Not willing to discuss pro-life issues? Oh, I think you know that's not the case. I just draw some lines truthseeker.

And watching the priest videos(shoot me please!) wasn't going to tell me anything about how catholics voted - it would just reiterate what some priests and higher were instructing them to do.

Seeking out the "reasoning" behind the opinions of the people they disagree with to form an opinion? To form what opinion truthseeker? Your own opinion on the subject or your opinion of the other person

Seeking out the "reasoning" behind the opinions of the people they disagree with to form an opinion? To form what opinion truthseeker? Your own opinion on the subject or your opinion of the other person

Posted by: asitis at January 18, 2009 11:38 PM

The reasoning for the other person's opinion on the subject helps me better understand the other person. My opinion of the other person is more a "by-product" of the discussion.

No asitis, I think you have a misunderstanding in the catholic faith there. The Catholic church discourages birth control but nowhere in the catechism does it teach that birth control is abortion. It would be illogical because one term is used to define preventing pregnancy and the other is used to define terminating a pregnancy. You can't terminate a pregnancy that never happened. lol
Posted by: truthseeker at January 18, 2009 11:33 PM

You sure about that truthseeker? I may have to ask one of the other Catholics to step up here, because I'm pretty sure the matter has been brought up here and didn't the Vatican just release something (weak) about the pill causing "abortions"?

I'm pretty sure that's what I heard here while paying attention to "the opinions of the people I disagree with" truthseeker! If you want, I can go back and make sure I read that right. But I have to get some sleep now. Later...

My opinion of the other person is more a "by-product" of the discussion.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 18, 2009 11:48 PM

Yes! You finally got that one! I'm so proud ;)
Good night truthseeker. Sweet dreams.

This blog is here precisely for discussions of the subject matter like, "up till what stage of developement are you willing to allow a mother to kill"? Your unwillingness to substantiate your opinions with details invalidates your position on abortion; at least to people who use logic and reasoning to form their decisions.

"This blog is here precisely for discussions of the subject matter like, "up till what stage of developement are you willing to allow a mother to kill"?"

I'm not being argumentative, I swear. However, I don't think that IS the point of the blog. I said I thought there should be a pro-choice moderator, because all the pro-choicers think they aren't getting treated the same. I was told this is a pro-life blog and that's it. Not a "discussion about whether abortion is wrong or right" blog, but a pro-life blog for pro-lifers to talk about... being pro-life? I don't know. I'm not arguing, that's just what I was told. I think it was on this thread.

Hello Josephine,
You don't need to be pro-life or a moderator to state your position and all opinions are welcomed here. Accusations of bias and generalities about unfair treatment are not going to effective in bringing about change. Just state with specifics if/when you are treated unfairly.

btw - what did you think of Fr. Corapi?

Besides, Jill doesn't want her blog look like it's got irrational moderators :

Maybe Alan Colmes is available to be the token liberal spewing irrational anti-life blather.

Posted by: asitis at January 18, 2009 11:53 PM

Truthseeker is correct. I don't know that the Vatican released anything about the Pill recently. I do know that some doctors, including one I used to see (I do not know which religious affiliation he had, if any) do say that the Pill CAN allow conception at times and then prevent implantation. It is not fail-safe in preventing conception 100% of the time. But again, that's from the doctor not the Pope.

No asitis, I think you have a misunderstanding in the catholic faith there. The Catholic church discourages birth control but nowhere in the catechism does it teach that birth control is abortion. It would be illogical because one term is used to define preventing pregnancy and the other is used to define terminating a pregnancy. You can't terminate a pregnancy that never happened. lol
Posted by: truthseeker at January 18, 2009 11:33 PM

You sure about that truthseeker? I may have to ask one of the other Catholics to step up here, because I'm pretty sure the matter has been brought up here and didn't the Vatican just release something (weak) about the pill causing "abortions"?
Posted by: asitis at January 18, 2009 11:53 PM

Hmmmm. Toostunned, you are curiously quiet on this. You spoke to this very issue recently and Bethany joined in. And you also mentioned the Vatican news article in another post.

Truthseeker, here's something on the Vatican news release:

Vatican Newspaper Publishes Article Detailing Birth Control Pill as Cause of Abortion and Cancer

By Hilary White

ROME, January 5, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Vatican’s official newspaper has caused a media storm in the European press with an article asserting the abortifacient and carcinogenic effects of hormonal contraceptives.

The Italian edition of L’Osservatore Romano carries an article this week on a report by the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations (FIAMC) that was created to commemorate the fortieth anniversary of the encyclical Humanae Vitae, the document by Pope John Paul VI that reiterated the Catholic Church’s teaching on artificial birth control

Let's see here. As it says in the article you quoted, asitis, this was research done by the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations (FIAMC). Now I"m not familiar with that group but it say on their website that "[we are] an official Catholic Lay Association, with its Head Office in Vatican City" http://cathdocs.org/ Being a lay group as opposed to an "official Vatican group" (for lack of a better term), this would not be anything at all binding on Catholics. Now it may be true and the Vatican may investigate this and see what it is they have to say, but until then, it seems that the report is purely scientific (or at least an attempt to be scientific) by a lay group and as such, we most certainly go with the Catechism and other Vatican sources on this matter.

Bobby, I would agree with you that the report is an attempt to be scientific.

I had assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that it had the Vatican's support since it was published in "the Vatican newspaper" according to toostunned (and the article above also referred to the newspaper as "the official Vatican newspaper"):

Apparently there has been an excellent document published in the Vatican newspaper in German detailing exactly the negative effects of the birth control pill. My understanding is that everything is well referenced with authoritative sources. Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 6, 2009 9:58 AM

Whether it is actually endorsed by the Pope or not, or a part of the Church's current teachings I don't know. Perhaps some of the devout Catholics here do. What I have heard on this blog, is that some people here do equate the Pill with abortion. That is what I had said to truthseeker.

"Whether it is actually endorsed by the Pope or not, or a part of the Church's current teachings I don't know."

No, I don't see any reason why it would be. And yes, it is published in the Vatican newspaper, but that's more like the Vatican CITY newspaper. For anything to be binding on Catholics, it would have to be some sort of document, not like a newspaper article or anything like that.

Thanks Bobby. It almost sounds like maybe the website was trying to mislead by saying "the official Vatican newspaper".

You're catholic, right. Maybe you can clarify this then:

When truthseeker says I'm wrong that some Catholics view contraception as a form of abortion, is he correct? Or is it more accuarte to say that while some pro-lifers here view contraception as a form abortion, this is not a view held by the Catholic Church?

"I'm wrong that some Catholics view contraception as a form of abortion, is he correct?"

As an official organization, the Roman Catholic Church does not have an official teaching about any type of contraception being abortifacient. You will find many in the Catholic Church, whether it be doctors, apologists, priests, bishops, or any of the laity, who do believe that some forms of contraception can act as an abortifiacient, but they base that belief on science (whether it is good or bad science), not on Catholic teaching or philosophy.

In fact, I think the Catholic Church will never have any teaching on whether or not some forms of birth control act as an abortifacient because it's a moot point. The Catholic Church already condemns the very form of birth control, so whether or not it can act as an abortifactient is a moot point.

"Or is it more accuarte to say that while some pro-lifers here view contraception as a form abortion, this is not a view held by the Catholic Church?"

Yes, I'd say partially that's right. I don't know if people have explained exactly what the problem we have in that regard is, but we only claim that most (all?) forms of HORMONAL contraception can SOMETIMES (though my understanding is rarely) cause an early miscarriage by thinning the lining of the endometrium, making it more difficult for an embryo to implant. So as you can see with just that claim, we first of all would need a breakthrough ovulation to occur for a woman who is on the pill or ring or on the shot (etc). A breakthrough ovulation is fairly rare already, but then we would also need conception to take place, which is difficult to happen because the pill causes the sperm to have a difficult time traveling down the fallopian tube. But if all this stuff happens, then it is conceivable that the pill would have caused the endometrial lining to thin and thereby reject the implantation of an embryo that would otherwise have implanted. That's a brief sketch of what is meant when you hear that "birth control causes abortions."

So that isn't to argue anything, but just to explain why it isn't quite accurate to say that some pro-lifers believe contraception to be a form of abortion. The following analogy is a bit extreme, but it would almost be like saying that doctors believe that drinking liquids can harm or kill your unborn baby. Well, really it's alcoholic liquids and liquids with caffeine, and it won't always do that, but it is possible, etc.

So those are just some clarifying remarks.

Again, thanks Bobby. Nicely explained and just how I understood a pregnancy might occur while on the pill and then be subsequently terminated by the pill. While such an event is not illogical (as truthseeker claimed) it is extremely rare.

What I have heard on this blog, is that some people here do equate the Pill with abortion.

Asitis, I agree with what Bobby just wrote. Here's an article from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. If you scroll to the bottom of page 2, you'll see a statement about hormonal contraceptives.

http://www.usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/Schu05finaleng.pdf

This isn't from the catechism. I guess the answer to your question depends upon whether you consider church teaching to be the official catechism or the guidance of the bishops, who base their teaching on the catechism.

When it comes to equating the pill with abortion in a moral sense, certainly the Magisterium doesn't equate the same degree of sinfulness to the pill as it does to abortion. I say that because abortion leads to excommunication whereas use of the pill does not. As I understand it (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) a couple who is contracepting is considered in a state of sin and should not present themselves for Holy Communion. But they are not excommunicated from the church although the Church does strongly condemn the use of contraceptives as Bobby said.

You can't terminate a pregnancy that never happened.

Truthseeker, you can terminate a pregnancy about which you are unaware. Some forms of contraception do that, don't they?

Nice find, Fed Up. I think that what Reverend Walter Schu is saying is consistant with my understanding of the situation.

"But it is thought that other contraceptives, such as intrauterine devices and hormonal
forms of contraception, may also act as abortifacients some of the time, not only as
contraceptives. A woman using birth control pills does not even know if such an early abortion
is occurring within her own body."

So no one can argue with the first statement that some think that some forms of hormonal contraception may act as abortifacients. I think the purpose of Reverend Schu's short paper here is to give some of the underlying reasons why the Church teaches as she does. Certainly we find official Church teaching intended for all the faithful in the documents put out by the Vatican, while much of the writings of local priests and bishops serves to clarify said teachings.

Certainly we find official Church teaching intended for all the faithful in the documents put out by the Vatican, while much of the writings of local priests and bishops serves to clarify said teachings.

Yes, thanks for saying it better than I could!

From an editorial in the Washington Post Jan 18/09. I thought this was interesting!

Many women say they have been pressured into abortions they did not want, according to research conducted by the Elliot Institute, a nonprofit specializing in the effects of abortion on women and families.

For years, the pro-choice movement has circulated horrid tales of back-alley abortions performed before Roe v. Wade legalized abortion on demand in 1973. Yet the opposite phenomenon, which has occurred across the nation, is even more disturbing. In a society in which abortion is legal, many women and teens are pressured to abort their child. So how much choice do American women really have over their reproductive capacities?

Women are coerced to abort a fetus by either husbands or boyfriends who do not want the additional responsibility or expense of a child; by parents who are ashamed of a teen pregnancy or who seek to conceal incest or rape; or by counselors, pastors and health professionals who insist this is in a woman's best interest even when she doesn't think so. Consider the pressures women face to abort a child: 45 percent of men interviewed at abortion clinics said they urged abortion, including 37 percent of married men, according to the report "Forced Abortion in America" that compiled much of the research on this topic. Women are often threatened by male companions who take them to their abortion appointment, according to eyewitness accounts at abortion clinics. And women are also encouraged to abort their fetus by the staff at these clinics who have a vested interest in selling the procedure.

Pressure to abort can consist of badgering a pregnant woman until she concedes, intimidation, blackmail and even violence. An astounding 64 percent of women say they were intensely pressured to abort their fetus, according to a 2004 study published in the Medical Science Monitor. Hundreds of women have come forward to tell their tale - and some of these stories have led to convictions of coercers.

In Florida, Glenda Dowis brought her pregnant daughter at gunpoint to an abortion clinic, where the staff called police. To cover up her son's rape of a 12-year-old, Pennsylvania mother Joyce Farley took the pregnant girl out of state for an abortion - her parents were not notified. Nine women held in a juvenile detention center in Chalkville, Alabama accused the male guards of repeatedly raping them and then forcing the girls to have abortions when they became pregnant. Augencia Jasso of New Mexico was charged after hitting his pregnant, young, sexually abused victim in the stomach, deliberately inducing a miscarriage.

In other instances, coercion was less intense, but nonetheless played a vital role. A homeless woman, Shontrese Otry, was coerced to get an abortion by Emergency Shelters Inc., whose staff would not give her shelter unless she aborted the baby; she later won a $25,000 settlement. Actress Hunter Tylo was told by producers of "Melrose Place" to "just go out and get an abortion" when she became pregnant; she was fired - and later won a pregnancy discrimination suit. Assistant women's basketball coach Sharrona Alexander was told by a head coach at the University of California- Berkeley to quit or have an abortion; she gave birth and then won a $115,000 settlement.

Elliott Institute founder David Reardon says that Americans need to think about the many ways women feel pressured to abort, and then suffer severe emotional and psychological consequences. In one instance, a pregnant teen he interviewed said she was asked by her mother: "Where will you live?"According to Mr. Reardon, "The withdrawal of social and economic support by parents is among one of the most common forms of coercion."

Yet, despite the growing body of evidence on the issue of forced abortions, little headway has been made in protecting women. "I have been disappointed in the pro-life camp for not raising the level of urgency on this,"said Dr. Reardon. A simple solution is for states to pass a bill such as "The Prevention of Coerced and Unsafe Abortions Act" featured in the report.

This would require health professionals to screen for coercion and to counsel against an abortion in instances where there is a high risk that the woman is not freely consenting or that she will suffer severe depression - and possibly even attempt suicide - as a result of the procedure. Introducing a legal liability for psychological damage is one possible way to combat these practices. There is an ugly - and underreported - underside to the abortion industry: "Choice" is sometimes turned into coercion. The back alleys are gone, but the dangers for both mother and child are ever-present.

Thanks for posting that editorial, toostunned. It proves what pro lifers have been saying for years: not every woman is CHOOOSING the abortion; many have it chosen FOR THEM against their will.

Liz: so much for choice, eh?

Too stunned, that editorial is from the Washington Times, not the Wasington Post (yes, there's a difference).

And something else: The Elliot Institute appears to be little more than its directot, David C. Reardon, an electrical engineer who received a PhD in bioethics from an unaccredited correspondence school. Reardon is a pro-life activist whose strategy is to raise enough doubts in people's minds about abortion and the alleged dangers it presents to women so that they are not compelled to resist pro-life efforts to make abortion illegal.

"not every woman is CHOOOSING the abortion; many have it chosen FOR THEM against their will."

I still think it's crap. Not ONE person is FORCING another to have an abortion. They can say they got tricked, they can say their boyfriend/spouse would leave them, or their parents would disown them... it doesn't matter. It's STILL that woman CHOOSING to have an abortion. Maybe it's because she feels like she "has to", but she sure as heck doesn't REALLY have to. ALL the women that have abortions made that CHOICE. Maybe they think they were "tricked" into it... same way they'd probably be tricked into buying a 1976 Ford Pinto for $5000. They'd rather believe what they heard rather than do anything for themselves, or rather than be alone.

Josephine, on the other side of that thought, if abortion is illegal, it will not FORCE a woman to have an illegal abortion. That would be her choice and the responsibility will be on her. Right?

PIP,
Right. It won't force a woman to have an illegal abortion, but the women that were going to have abortions no matter what will have more dangerous abortions.

Josephine, on the other side of that thought, if abortion is illegal, it will not FORCE a woman to have an illegal abortion. That would be her choice and the responsibility will be on her. Right?
Posted by: prettyinpink at January 19, 2009 8:56 PM

Pip,"it" ( and by that I assumed you mean the law) will not force her to have an illegal abortion. But she could still claim someone forced or tricked her into having an illegal one, just as in the case of the legal one above, according to Josephine. Right?

Too Stunned, thanks for posting that. In my crisis counseling with women, I have learned that Josephine is partially correct in what she says about women (not minors) choosing abortion. Yes, most often they choose to abort rather than being led to the clinic at gunpoint, although that does happen too.

Most often, at least in my experience, it's that they feel they have no workable solution except abortion. So yes, in the strict sense, they chose to have an abortion. But the options from which many women must choose are not as simple as Josephine suggests when she says They'd rather believe what they heard rather than do anything for themselves, or rather than be alone

Many women I have worked with tell me that the choice is abortion vs physical/financial harm to herself or others. It can be violence toward her loved ones such as family members or friends. It can be destruction of her vehicle or other property, like threats/attempts to burn down her residence. More than one woman has told me of her partner slaughtering her pets--and forcing her to watch--as a sign of the potential violence he can commit toward her if she proceeds with the pregnancy. There can be sabotage of work or finances that she'd need to support the child. There can be threats or attempts to sabotage custody arrangements of other children in the home. There are many ways a woman can be coerced into "choosing" abortion when she would rather not.

I have mixed feelings about legal liability legislation for coerced abortions. It's pointless unless there are programs to help these women carry their children to term.

You can't terminate a pregnancy that never happened.

Truthseeker, you can terminate a pregnancy about which you are unaware. Some forms of contraception do that, don't they?

Posted by: Fed Up With Obama Jan 19, 2009 1:06 PM

All bloated on Obama,
Being unaware of something doesn't mean it didn't happen. And it is my understanding that some do.

Fight for an end to abortion in America.
Fight with the Way, the Truth and the Life.
In a March for Life with so many others.
Fighting for the sanctity of life.

If I were president.....
Abortion = mandatory counseling for the woman and jail time for the abortionist.

If I were president.....
Abortion = mandatory counseling for the mother and jail time for the abortionist.

And if the father was aware and facilitated the abortion....mandatory counseling for him too.

And if they were to kill my granchild, I'd tack on a few extra days worth of special training.
/
:o{)lo \
Ughhh.. Lord have mercy

May the peace of Jesus Christ be with the assembly of pro-life protesters who march in DC this week. You'll all be in my thoughts and prayers.

Dear Fed Up: very good post. Two sentences I liked:

Most often, at least in my experience, it's that they feel they have no workable solution except abortion.

Absolutely. Also the coercion can be very subtle. Look at the situation Jill profiled recently, of the young woman whose partner was in the military and she discovered she was pregnant. His ambivalence towards the baby (well whatever YOU do is fine with me) led her to seek abortion and she died from a botched abortion. Instead of support she got, well, nothing from him. So here she is, single, of course in a no-strings-attached relationship, and pregnant. I think in such a situation, many women choose an abortion in order to "keep" the man. And it doesn't work.

I have mixed feelings about legal liability legislation for coerced abortions. It's pointless unless there are programs to help these women carry their children to term.

I think we need to point out to women that cohabitating relationships are NOT in their best interest. We need to promote marriage as the ideal healthy lifestyle for women and children (and also men too!). And we need to help those women who do get pregnant. But we also need to do more to impress upon men, that as fathers, they have a responsibility to the children they beget and they have a responsibility to the woman who is the mother of their child. As it is now, a man can pretty much walk away, with nary a concern.

I think we need to point out to women that cohabitating relationships are NOT in their best interest. We need to promote marriage as the ideal healthy lifestyle for women and children (and also men too!). And we need to help those women who do get pregnant. But we also need to do more to impress upon men, that as fathers, they have a responsibility to the children they beget and they have a responsibility to the woman who is the mother of their child.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 20, 2009 7:24 AM

I disagree with you somewhat on the first sentence toostunned. That is a generalization. I know couples that are in longterm, permanent relationships that have chosen not to marry and these relationships are just as stable and happy, if not more, than marriages I know. But admittedly, these are very, very different lives and individuals than the couples consisting of a father who abandons his children or the mother who chooses an abortion in order to keep her man. But you know what? That happens in marriages too.

I do agree with you that fathers need to see their responsibility. And women need to see theirs. In certain environments this is NOT the case. I see evidence of this in our nearby city's newspaper everyday. Absent fathers. 40 year old grandmothers raising grandchildren.

Okay, I know this probably isn't the best of days for you guys. So I found a way for you to turn this day around and have some fun:

What good are momentous events in our nation’s history if we can’t use them as an excuse to get hammered and make some bad decisions?

With that in mind the members of Team Cool & Tough have put our formidable brain power together and come up with a drinking game for the 2009 Inauguration. No need to thank us, we’re just doing our civic duty.

The Inauguration Day 2009 Drinking Game

Drink Every Time Someone Says:

“Historic”
“Monumental”
“Kennedy”
“Lincoln”
“Change” (as a noun)
“Most anticipated inauguration in history”
The name of a celebrity who thinks their opinion matters.
Drink Every Time:

Joe Biden’s hairplugs are awkwardly noticeable.
You see Oprah crying.
W glances at his watch.
You see a mediocre looking chick with political aspirations in the crowd.
Chris Matthews appears to get a boner.
You see Obama’s face on a t-shirt.
A white guy pretends to know the words to a Black Eyed Peas song.
Keith Olbermann comes off as a smug, pretentious asshole.
Someone in the crowd passes out.
You see a bearded hippie.
Jesse Jackson takes credit for Obama’s campaign.
A Fox News correspondent speaks in hushed tones with an air of faux patriotism.
Have fun on Tuesday. And don’t blame us when you’ve got a lampshade on your head twenty minutes into the telecast.

"I think we need to point out to women that cohabitating relationships are NOT in their best interest."

I think what you mean to say is it's not in your best interest. It happens to be in my best interest. To go to the school I wanted to go to, I would have either had to leave my bf in Chicago, or we BOTH would have had to get apartments separately. We'd been in a relationship for FIVE years. Both of those are ridiculous. I, however, didn't want to get married at nineteen.

Using the presidential inauguration as an excuse to make bad decisions? It's hard to think of a way to observe this travesty that is more consonant with the myriad mindless, bad decisions BO has already made, and will continue to make once he's sworn in.

Yeh flynn. You need a drink! ;)

flynn: it WILL be interesting to see how the world and America will view Obama in a years time. Some of the stuff I've seen on TV and the internet is quite scary, especially the pledges made my Hollywood actors.... almost border on creepy.

And Josephine: I'm sorry to say that I disagree with you. IMO, you are doing the same thing you claim women seeking abortions do - rationalizing your decision. Just a thought.

Happy Obama-worship day!

A new study published in the International Journal of Mental Health & Addiction has found that the relationship between women and their partners and the level of support provided by the father are important factors in whether or not the woman aborts.

The study, headed by Prof. Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green State University, was based on a survey of low-income women undertaken at various hospitals around the country. The women involved had all become pregnant within 18 months of delivering a child and either aborted the second pregnancy or carried to term. Participants were asked about drug and alcohol abuse, their relationship with the child's father and difficulties raising their first child.

The study found that women who felt they could not rely on their partner to help in caring for the child were more likely to have an abortion. They also found that women who had undergone an abortion were over three times more likely to report heavy alcohol use and twice as likely to report cigarette smoking.

Other studies have found that women who have had abortions have higher rates of subsequent substance abuse, suicide, anxiety disorders, depression, and other problems compared to women who carried to term. A recent study published by Coleman found that abortion was linked to higher rates of mental health disorders that included panic disorder, panic attacks, agoraphobia, post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder and major depression.

In the current study, women whose first child had medical problems or who had difficulty raising a child did not have a higher abortion rate, the researchers found.

"The results clearly suggest that women who feel the first child's father has not assumed enough parental responsibility and/or lacks the ability to contribute to their efforts to raise the child, are reluctant to bear another child," they wrote.

They also noted that women who had an abortion were more likely to report subsequently being slapped or kicked by the child's father, suggesting that stress after abortion was leading to an increase in domestic violence.

Other surveys of post-aborted women have also found that the level of support and the attitudes of those around them, both in personal and professional relationships, play a role in determining whether or not an abortion takes place.

A survey of women who had abortions, published in the Medical Science Monitor, found that 64 percent of American respondents reported feeling pressured to abort by others and more than 80 percent said they weren't given enough information to make a decision about abortion. And a survey of women in post-abortion support groups found that more than 83 percent said they would have continued the pregnancy if they had been given more support from others.

Women themselves have also shared stories of feeling that they had no choice but to abort. They describe a range of circumstances that can lead to unwanted abortions, including lack of support or resources to have the baby; pressure or threats from those around them; inadequate and deceptive counseling about alternatives, fetal development and abortion risks; and even violence.

One woman shared her story of being kicked out of the house by her parents when she became pregnant as a teen:

“They told me to leave the house and forget that I was their daughter. I left the house with no job, no money, no home and nowhere to turn, feeling utterly abandoned and alone. Still, I was certain I would not get an abortion. I wanted my child. ...

“My father sent several messages urging me to have an abortion. I refused. But as I began to feel more desperate, I shut down my feelings ... functioning more like a surreal observer than someone in control. ... No one explained to me the baby’s development or what the abortion would be like. ... I lay there just wishing that I could die.”

When a woman's partner or family would wish her to continue the pregnancy, however, they may also be mislead by information that suggests it would be too difficult to have a child or that there are no other options but abortion. Pro-life advocates say that awareness of the harm abortion can cause their loved one and the availability of resources and options is needed so that women and teens are able to get the support they need for themselves and their unborn children.

The authors of the current study stressed that more attention should be paid to women's relationships with those around them, suggesting that because abortion is framed as a "private women's issue," researchers and social scientists have been hesitant to look at how relationships with others affect pregnancy outcome.

They also called for more resources and alternatives for women facing crisis pregnancies, and offered specific suggestions for professionals working with women in vulnerable situations.

"If the father is psychologically and/or physically unavailable, counselors can assist women in identifying other sources of support within and outside the family ..." they wrote. "Inquiries about a history of prior or current substance abuse and education efforts regarding documented substance abuse risks associated with [abortion] ought to be conveyed."
********************************************

and from the NY Times: a story of a woman who was told to abort or leave home?

Josephine: do you still believe women are coerced? How many women are willing to go through what Jabrilla did to keep their baby?

Street performers in India are putting on a show, "I am your daughter, I am a human being...will you kill humanity?" about sex- selection and abortion. Here the narration is by Masum (a Muslim) and Sahal (a Hindu).

Masum: In this eye of ours, no difference is found between a son and daughter. Maybe in villages, maybe among uneducated people. Otherwise modern girls have been ahead, overtaking the boys and putting them quite behind.

Sahal: Now can you say that there is no difference or a little difference between a boy and a girl

Masum: Don't you know? BAchendri Pal has conquered Mt. Everest and Rulpana. Chandra has crossed the cosmos. Girls have indeed progressed quite will, isn't it?

Sahal: Yes. This is true. Listen to me. Girls have progressed enough. Yet the difference between the ways boys and girls are treated is found everywhere. Not only among illiterates and backwards but also among the well-to-do and learned.

...

Masum: Where are we going?

Sahal: Shri Jivdaya Maternity Ward

Masum: Shri Jivadya Maternity Ward?

Sahal: (to the audience) let's go inside. Let's ask these three sisters why they have come here. (to the sisters) Why have you come here?

Sister #1: I have come to check whether I have conceived a baby boy or a baby girl.

Sahal: Oh, why?

Sister #1: I have 2 daughters. I have already undergone the exhaustive procedure of abortion. This time my husband has threated to divorce me if I don't conceive a male baby.

Sahal: A boy may be born or a girl. Either way it is not your fault.

Sister #2: ...Since I have been blessed with a girl, my little girl and I are avoided. We have been neglected and hated by our family members. No one has shown love or affection toward her. No one has played with her.

Sister #3: Look, being a woman we have been wading through an ocean of blood and tears. Our lives are nothing but a heap of insults. Our self-respect is violated. We accept this and our daughters too have to surrender to this evil system. I did check about my pregnancy and finally, abortion was the only way left. Later on I came to knwo that it was a boy and not a girl. My heart and soul pinched me. I felt guilty. My family compelled me to have the abortion and then they called me bad names. Are they not guilty, too?

Masum: Indeed, they are guilty...The society which considers its daughters as a burden will never progress; we can develop only if we help our daughters to blossom.

[Through the title, the female fetus asks the audience to refuse the notion that an aborted fetus is an "it." Rather, it is argued that the fetus is interpellated during sex-determination tests and it is then that "a certain social existence of the body first becomes possible."...The voice in the title argues that despite others' refusal to address her, she is recognizable within familial relations. "I am your daughter," she asserts and in this moment engages in the radical act of naming herself. Moreover, she claims that she is part of humanity and in doing so not only calls attention to her "being" but also the foreclosure of her "becoming." This lack of potential provides a way to interpret both the spectacle of sex-selection abortion as well as the imagined pain of being conceptualized as both non-human and disposable.]

Take a guess..did a pro-life or a pro-choice group put this play on?

(Josephine)you are doing the same thing you claim women seeking abortions do - rationalizing your decision. Just a thought.
Happy Obama-worship day!

Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 20, 2009 3:25 PM

Hahahahahahahaha! to that thought! Don't worry Josephine, I for one don't have a problem with your choice to live with your boyfriend. It sounds like you know what you're doing!

Happy-hating-on-Obama Day toostunned. It's gotta be tough for you.

J

Elliott Institute founder David Reardon

When you bring up Reardon, you kill any credibility.

that's your opinion Doug. I do NOT share it.

Ladies and gentleman,

May I have your attention please? Put down the birth control. You heard me. Put it down and walk away.

I don’t like to be harsh, but the hour is late. The citizens of many countries belong on the endangered species because they are dying out. Never before in the history of the world have so many countries lost so many people without disease or war to blame. This loss is by choice and it’s downright suicidal.

Why?

I am not telling you to have more children if you do not want them. I am telling you to want them. Couples have come to think that there is some cosmic balance that limits families to two children. Of course there are families that want to have children but can’t and those that can’t have more. This article is not addressed to them. Nor do I (or I hope anyone) give dirty looks to small families assuming they are not doing their parts. It is between them and God. Even when people express shock at learning I have ten and proceed to either categorize me as a “special person” or announce the reasons why they don’t want more, I don’t judge them. Alas, I was once in the group that thought family planning was all about the planet, money and freedom. These are the main reasons people choose not to be open to new life.

Money. Portfolio or another soul? I get that this is between you and God. Do you? It’s not between you and the banker. Children cost money. How much depends on your perspective and spending habits. For the record, my kids get jobs to buy their own cars and get themselves through college. We might wear brand names if we stumble onto them at rummage sales or on sale, but really, we don’t care about labels. So, my kids cost less than some.

For thousands of years children were considered treasures and investments for the future — including eternity. Poor families tended to have large families because their children represented help and security. But in the last few decades it’s all about money. Nowadays, children are treated like siphons on the ledger sheet. Spending money on children leaves less for parents. For many couples, there’s a level of comfort and financial security they refuse to dip below. Pity.

Population control. Now, this reason has become a real hoot. We were lied to and bullied senseless. People were made to feel guilty for even having children at all. During the sixties and seventies, people were told we would run out of food and natural resources. The opposite occurred. We still pay farmers not to farm. Our technological advances have provided for abundant food production. As for the natural resources, they are there, but in many countries, there are just not enough people to get to them.

The lies have been revamped as global warming — oh wait — make that “climate change” now that we have many months where average temperatures are below normal. Climate has always fluctuated but now anti-people groups blame humans for the change and change is not good according to them. The solution: stop making new people.

Climate change actually even reared its head in the seventies with the bestseller in 1976, The Cooling: Has the New Ice Age Already Begun? Can We Survive? I’m all for taking care of our planet. It’s a gift from God and I absolutely hate pollution. But radical environmentalists like to throw birth control at every problem. In reality, we need humans to fix the problems.

Are we running out of space? Yeah, right. Get out of the city and take a trip across the country. Entire books have been written debating both sides of the overpopulation debate so I’m not going to cover this in depth. Ironically, the latest and most troubling news is actually the exact opposite of what we were warned about — there are not enough people. It’s as if we went to sleep to one scenario and woke up to another.

Freedom. People often count 18 years from the birthday of their youngest to figure out when they will be “free” again. Or, they just don’t have children and openly admit they are too selfish to do so. In such a case, may God have mercy on them.

The Numbers Tell the Story

In Europe, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Japan and Russia, the only thing we are running out of is people. There are not enough babies. We are witnessing the self-extermination of entire nations.

According to the United Nations Population Division discussing the 2007 population changes in Eastern and Central Europe: “The expected global upheaval is without parallel in human history.” Germany’s population is down 10.3 %, Poland’s is down 20.5%, the Russian Federation’s is down 24.3%, and Bulgaria dropped 35.2%. The only population increase in Western Europe will be due to the large migration from Africa and Asia. There are pockets of growth here and there, but this is due to Muslim populations. For instance, among the districts in Russia there are exceptions to the dying trends — the high abortion, high HIV infection, low birthrate, high alcoholism and other social ills. Twelve of the eighty-nine Russian federal regions showing substantial population growth are Islamic regions. Islam is growing rapidly in a country where the native population is in the death throes. This is a country awash in natural resources except the most important one — people. It possesses a resource — rich eastern hinterland that it cannot get to without people. It is also the land of nuclear weapons and know-how. The future possibilities are frightening.

The number you need for merely maintaining a population is 2.1 babies per woman. Seventeen European nations are now at the “lowest-low”, 1.3 births per woman. This is the rate from which, according to demographers, no human society has ever recovered. In theory, countries at the “lowest-low” are falling fast, halving every thirty-five years or so. In reality this will likely happen much faster. Imagine the social upheaval as an aging population grows increasingly dependant on youth to support all the government services they need (certainly not enough children to take in parents). It’s likely that many young people will head for the hills, or at least another continent where their entire livelihood will not be sucked up into government social security. It also seems inevitable that euthanasia will become ever more popular and aggressive. With more old people to support and less young people to do it, the pressure will be to reduce the burden.

Why are so many countries, more educated, more peaceful, wealthier and healthier than at any other time in history, failing to create the next generation? On June 24, 2008 in Moscow, His Holiness Alexy II, Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia spoke to the Bishop’s Council of the Russian Orthodox Church on the population decline. He attributed Russia’s demographic crisis to the pitiable status of family and marriage and the low level standards of morality and spirituality. His Holiness claimed that any attempts to overcome the crisis by economic means only, without a spiritual component, are “doomed to failure since the sources of the crisis are not in purses, but in the souls of people.” He said it is not accidental that believers have more children than non-believers in identical economic conditions.

“Demographic problems do not arise in poor countries that have kept their religious traditions,” he observed. “Thus Russia should be looking for a way out of the demographic crisis in a spiritual and moral transformation of the person and society” (1).

In a sermon at a Neocatechumenate meeting in Jerusalem on March 27, 2008, Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, the Archbishop of Vienna, issued an attack against birth control, blaming it for Europe’s declining birth rate. He blamed his predecessors for lacking the courage to speak out after the publication of the encyclical Humanae Vitae, that reiterated the constant teaching of the Church on birth control.

“But those bishops,” said Cardinal Schonborn, were “frightened of the press and of being misunderstood by the faithful”. Blame lay not only with the bishops responsible at the time — none of whom is still alive — but with all bishops for the fact that Europe is “about to die out” (2).

In the Unites States, Christianity is a bigger part of everyday life than post-Christian Europe. Prayer, church membership and participation are higher. Also encouraging is that America still is willing to share its future with children. Although our birthrate was declining for many years and generally falls in around the 2.1 replacement, the United States reported a rise by 3.1% between 2005 and 2006 reaching almost 4.3 million births. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, that is the largest single-year increase in the number of births since 1989.

An Associated Press examination of global data also shows that the United States has a higher fertility rate than every country in continental Europe, as well as Australia, Canada and Japan. Fertility levels in those countries have been lower than the U.S. rate for several years, although some are on the rise, most notably in France. “Americans like children. We are the only people who respond to prosperity by saying, ‘Let’s have another kid,’” said Nan Marie Astone, associate professor of population, family and reproductive health at Johns Hopkins University (3).

Yes, this is somewhat encouraging. Statistics show we pray more and have more children than Europeans. But really, our tendency to teeter at replacement is not a position of strength. Let’s go back to Europe — the motherland for many of us — to see what is accompanying the decline in native births.

Changing Faces

Europe’s increasing social welfare programs depend on a growing population. Unable to generate such an increase on their own, they depend increasingly on immigration. And the majority of immigration is from Islamic cultures that are becoming increasingly more radical. Immigrant Muslim populations are not acclimating to the European culture. Europe gets older and its faith grows ever more feeble while Muslim populations within Europe increase due to the need for immigration to support the aging population. Muslim religious fervor is strong and they have large families, thus their population is increasing on both ends. Christianity fades while Islam increases. Already, much of Europe is catering to Sharia law. In Brussels, ten of the eighteen members of the ruling Socialist Party Caucus are Muslim. ”That’s to say, the capital city of the European Union already has a Muslim-majority governing party.” The introduction of Sharia bonds make London the world capital of Islamic banking. In country after country, civil laws, schools and cultural norms accomodate Sharia sensibilities (4).

According to his book, America Alone, Mark Steyn contends that the growing, youthful populations of Europe will ultimately take over. “What’s the Muslim population of Rotterdam? Forty percent. What is the most popular baby boys name in Belgium? Mohammed. In Amsterdam? Mohammed. In Malmo, Sweden? Mohammed. What country today has half its population under the age of fifteen? Spain and Germany have 14 percent the United Kingdom 18 percent, the United States 21 percent — and Saudi Arabia has 39 percent, Pakistan 40 percent, and Yemen 47 percent. Little Yemen, like little Britain two hundred years ago, will send its surplus youth around the world-one way or another” (5).

If you look at it in terms of birthrate, consider these birthrate numbers from Islamic countries: Niger is 7.46; Mali, 7.42; Somalia, 6.76; Afghanistan, 6.69; Yemen, 6.58. Yes, we can change the world, and we are; by disappearing. The future belongs to those willing to create the next generation. Islam is the fastest growing religion in North America and Europe. And throughout the world, Muslims are becoming more radical and aggressive in their faith.

By now, some readers have branded me racist for comparing the dwindling populations with the growing populations given who’s who in the scenario. Well, don’t even go there. I have two boys from Kenya, as dark as they come, who call me Mom. Besides, Muslims are not of a single skin color or culture. Am I phobic of non-Catholic religions? Don’t go there either. The books in the Amazing Grace series that I co-authored included stories from people of other faiths. God’s grace is for everyone. This is not a war of who has or has not the most people; it is spiritual warfare. We are losing because we aren’t living our faith.

In 2008, the Vatican announced that Islam has surpassed Roman Catholicism as the world’s largest religion. “For the first time in history, we are no longer at the top: Muslims have overtaken us,” Monsignor Vittorio Formenti said in an interview with the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano. He said that Catholics accounted for 17.4% of the world population — a stable percentage — while Muslims were at 19.2% (6).

The growth is attributed to both aggressive conversion tactics and large families. While millions of Westerners have bought into the secular one-or two-child mentality, Islamic societies are rapidly increasing in numbers. If current trends continue, Europe will make up just 7.5 percent of the world’s people by 2050, compared to 22 percent in 1950. At the same time, the countries with the most youthful populations will all be Muslim: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Iraq. Worldwide trends indicate that by 2050, Muslims will comprise 30 percent of the world’s population, with Christians making up 25 percent (7).

If anyone walks away from this article thinking that I’m sounding an alarm based on them versus us, they would be misinformed. This is really about us. What has happened to us? Why are we dying out or just teetering on existence?

I contend it’s all based on a people that have become worldlier and less religious. God matters less and the world more. Religion has taken a back seat to Wall Street. Selfishness precludes parenthood, and people are hugging trees instead of babies.

If the statistics alone convince you to have more children, then, again, you are not hearing me clearly. If our homes and hearts are not open to more children, then we need to go back and open them. We do this by putting God at the center. Whatever stands in the way of openness to life, needs to be pushed aside. Souls, life, God, eternity… these are of the greatest value. The rest will fade away, just as it should. For it is the world that should be fading away and not us.

(1) “Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II: Demographic Crisis Can Only Be Overcome by Morality not Money”, translated by Andrey Bystrov, July 8, 2008, LifeSiteNews.com

(2) ”Cardinal Schonborn Lambasts the Failure of Bishops to Condemn Contraception”, CatholicActionUK.com, November 6, 2008

(3) “More U.S. Babies Born, Fertility Rate up, Defying Low-birth Trend in Europe”, Mike Stobbe — Associated Press, January 15, 2008

(4) Steyn, Mark, America Alone, Regnery Publishing, Inc., xii

(5) Ibid, pp. 6-7

(6) “Vatican: Muslims Now Outnumber Catholics”, USA TODAY, 4/2/2008

(7) Ali, Daniel and Spencer, Robert, “Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics”, Ascension Press, 2003

Hi everyone! Greetings and salutations.

That is all.

Hal

Boy does it feel GOOD to be an American today.

First time in over a decade I've had any glimmer of hope about our future.

When George Bush was inaugurated 8 years ago, I felt good about those in charge of my country again -- I felt "clean". Now I feel grungy again.

Hi Hal.

Ladies and gentleman,
May I have your attention please? Put down the birth control. You heard me. Put it down and walk away.I don’t like to be harsh, but the hour is late....
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 20, 2009 6:46 PM

..... we must act now because the Muslims are winning the War of Numbers! We must start having more Christian babies! Beware!!!!!

That's good. Thanks!

Elliott Institute founder David Reardon
When you bring up Reardon, you kill any credibility.
Posted by: Doug at January 20, 2009 6:33 PM

Doug, you gotta love a guy that buys a PhD, calls himself an Institute, assumes a dual role as activist and "researcher" and then self- publishes his findings.

Salutations Hal!

I know what you mean, Eileen #2.

Most likely tomorrow, Tax dollars will once again be funding FORCED China abortions (don't we have any say? Are we a democracy or not?

whitehouse.gov site has already been edited to remove any reference to Sanctity of Human Life day. :(

Shep: "Boy does it feel GOOD to be an American today. First time in over a decade I've had any glimmer of hope about our future."

This is a sentiment I don't understand among liberals, because as a conservative I've never felt this romantic delusion in my own bosom with conservative presidents.

If your opinion of one mere man makes the difference in how you view a country of over 300,000,000 people, I'd say "get help."

I'm also noting the celebrities coming forward, after eight years, and publicly talking about the good things they intend to do. What I don't understand, is what prevented their demonstrations of virtue hitherto?

Rasqual at January 20, 2009 9:32 PM :

Really? You never felt a sense of hope when a President you voted for took office? That strikes me as odd.

I think what people see in Obama is not just what this "one mere man" might do, but what he might inspire 300 million to do.Hey, if he inspired those self-centered celebs to do good, why not you and others rasqual?

It's too bad politics comes down to a single issue for you guys, because there is so much other good stuff here to be celebrating today.

"And Josephine: I'm sorry to say that I disagree with you. IMO, you are doing the same thing you claim women seeking abortions do - rationalizing your decision. Just a thought."

I'm doing the same thing women seeking abortions do? You're right. I WANT to live with my boyfriend. So I guess I'm doing the exact same thing. :)

I sent happy new president texts to most of the people on my phone. This has been a realllly great day. Anyone notice that Obama got sworn in on a bible, not the Qur'an? Dun dun dunnnnnnn...........

asitis: "you guys?" 'scuse me, asitis, but what do you know about me?

Again, if 300,000,000 can't be inspired to virtue apart from Obama, frankly, we're a sorry-ass lot.

Obama as the "stone soup" guy. ;-)

asitis: Oh, and we're not talking about a "sense" of hope, with Obama. Either that or you've badly misspelt "orgasm."

Asitis, I know exactly what you're talking about with a sense of hope. Maybe there hasn't been a successful Republican and so long, they've all forgotten about feeling hope?

asitis: Oh, and we're not talking about a "sense" of hope, with Obama.
Posted by: rasqual at January 20, 2009 9:55 PM

Really? Because it sure sounded like you were commenting on an earlier comment about HOPE:

Shep: "Boy does it feel GOOD to be an American today. First time in over a decade I've had any glimmer of hope about our future."

This is a sentiment I don't understand among liberals, because as a conservative I've never felt this romantic delusion in my own bosom with conservative presidents.
Posted by: rasqual at January 20, 2009 9:32 PM

Asitis, I know exactly what you're talking about with a sense of hope. Maybe there hasn't been a successful Republican and so long, they've all forgotten about feeling hope?
Posted by: Josephine at January 20, 2009 10:01 PM

I don't think that's it Josephine. From what I have been hearing, I think all that matters to them is one single issue. If the president isn't opposed to abortion and wanting to make it illegal, he can do no good. Similarly, if he is opposed to abortion and wants to make it illegal, he can do no wrong.

But for the rest of us, it's been quite a day. My kids came home from school all excited about the inaguration - their teachers took time in classes to watch or they had it playing in background. It's something they will remember.

Has there ever been a Republican president who has ever made significant progress in the pro-life movement? I can't think of one, but I'm very young and that's not exactly something we learn in school..

I was under the impression most pro-life politicians wanted exception for rape or incest.

toostunnedtolaugh @ 3:53pm

Something to note:

Coleman has published twelve articles in peer-reviewed journals that claim there is a causal relationship between abortion and negative mental health.[4][5] Her co-authors are pro-life advocates J.R. Cougle, Vincent Rue and David Reardon. Reardon is controversial for misrepresenting his academic credentials and for his research methods.[4][5]

The statistical methods Coleman and her co-authors use have been criticized by the American Psychological Association (APA)[5] A panel convened by the APA has written that the studies by Coleman, and her co-authors have "inadequate or inappropriate" controls and don't adequately control "for women's mental health prior to the pregnancy and abortion." [5]

Coleman, Cougle, Reardon and Rue have also been criticized by other researchers in the field. Jillian Henderson and Katharine Miller wrote to the Journal of Anxiety Disorders claiming, "We believe that Cougle, et al., operate with strong political views regarding abortion, and unfortunately their biases appear to have resulted in serious methodological flaws in the analysis published in your journal. [Reardon, Coleman and Cougle] are involved in building a literature to be used in efforts to restrict access to abortion

whitehouse.gov site has already been edited to remove any reference to Sanctity of Human Life day. :(

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at January 20, 2009 8:57 PM

yeah, I think most people will be stunned when they finally see the REAL Obama and the henchmen/women he's placed in positions of authority.
Look for the abortion rate to skyrocket, the birth rate to drop, for euthanazia laws to be enacted and freedom of religion and the right to live according to your Christian conscience to all but disappear. Christians will increasingly be removed from the public sphere.
The love of Obama borders on neuroses with people hailing him as the Messiah.
It's gonna be a very interesting 4 years, that's all I can say.

Liz: here's a more detailed write-up:

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- In less than five minutes after Barack Obama took over as the next president, the White House web site changed from pro-life to pro-abortion. The previous site, which touted the pro-life proclamation President Bush signed late last week, now includes Obama's agenda for women, which calls for promoting abortion.

Gone is any mention of the Sanctity of Human Life Day or the speeches or actions of President Bush's that promoted human life. Now, in the same color scheme and format as the Bush site, there is a celebration of Obama's agenda.

According to a web site search of WhiteHouse.gov, the only page on the official governmental site to mention abortion is a page detailing what Obama will do to promote the interests of women.

Though abortions cause women a myriad of medical and mental health problems, Obama states his clear intent, in a section entitled "reproductive choice," to make abortions even more available.

"President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Adminstration [sic]," the Obama White House site says.

"He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case," it adds.

The White House page also touts Obama's backing for the Prevention First Act.

Billed as a measure to provide more funding for family planning and contraception, pro-life advocates oppose it because it sends millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion business that does 25 percent of the abortions across the country.

The Obama White House site also promotes the new president's view that Americans should be forced to pay for embryonic stem cell research, which involves the destruction of human life and has never helped a single patient.

The web site comes across as a false claim that government has not supported stem cell research in general, even though President Bush spent hundreds of millions of dollars promoting the use of adult stem cells -- the only kind to help any patients.

"President Obama and Vice President Biden believe that we owe it to the American public to explore the potential of stem cells to treat the millions of people suffering from debilitating and life-threatening diseases," the White House site says.

"Obama is a co-sponsor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which will allow research of human embryonic stem cells derived from embryos donated (with consent) from in vitro fertilization clinics. These embryos must be deemed in excess and created based solely for the purpose of fertility treatment," it adds.

However, not all leftover embryos are deemed to be in excess as hundreds of babies have been born through the embryo adoption programs that exist nationwide.

*********************************
for a nation with, what, $10,644,641,809,254.79 (last time I checked!!) in debt, one would think that prudent spending might be the order of the day in the White House.
You know, like, maybe instead of spending billions on embryonic stem cell research and promoting abortions at home and worldwide - the money might go into better schools and decent housing and health care for all Americans. Isn't that what his inaugural speech hinted at? Or was that just smoke, to cover up the real agenda and the real Obama?

Look for the abortion rate to skyrocket, the birth rate to drop, for euthanazia laws to be enacted and freedom of religion and the right to live according to your Christian conscience to all but disappear. Christians will increasingly be removed from the public sphere.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 21, 2009 6:35 AM

Propsed improvements to sex education will more likely lead to fewer teen and unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions, not a "skyrocketing" trend. Birth rate probably will drop, not because of Obama toostunned, but because of the economy. Experts have already predicted this. I even read an article about that in the newspaper the other day - couples, especially young ones, are delaying their decision due to job uncertainties.

And if by saying "Christians will increasingly be removed from the public sphere" you actually mean that religion will be taken out of government policy making and law making, well that's probably a good thing.

You know, like, maybe instead of spending billions on embryonic stem cell research and promoting abortions at home and worldwide - the money might go into better schools and decent housing and health care for all Americans. Isn't that what his inaugural speech hinted at? Or was that just smoke, to cover up the real agenda and the real Obama?
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 21, 2009 7:10 AM

Stem cell research (like that fruit fly research Sarah Palin so foolishly mocked) will go toward improved health care. And the "real Obama" isn't "promoting" abortion. He is continuing to allow it. And at the same time, he is working toward reducing the number of women facing an unmanted pregnancy and abortion. I think you're the one blowing smoke toostunned!

Elliott Institute founder David Reardon

"When you bring up Reardon, you kill any credibility."

Too StunnedTo Laugh: that's your opinion Doug. I do NOT share it.

I don't doubt that, but in no way is it "just" my opinion. We've been through Reardon several times, literally buying his "doctorate" from a place that simply took money in exchange for the "diploma" etc.

He figured it'd be a good deal since now calling himself a "doctor" has meant more book sales.

Josephine: Asitis, I know exactly what you're talking about with a sense of hope. Maybe there hasn't been a successful Republican and so long, they've all forgotten about feeling hope?

It didn't bother me that Bush Jr. beat Gore - at the time it was no big deal at all to me. Over time my opinion of Bush Jr's performance went down but as far as outright "harm" done to the country, other than financial, I don't see that he was really all that bad.

Obama is starting out with high popularity, but the coming years will be a tough time to be President. Nobody has a "magic wand" for the economy, etc., and if Obama is a two-term President it will surprise me, from where I stand now.

Are we running out of space? Yeah, right. Get out of the city and take a trip across the country. Entire books have been written debating both sides of the overpopulation debate so I’m not going to cover this in depth. Ironically, the latest and most troubling news is actually the exact opposite of what we were warned about — there are not enough people.

Not literally "running out of space" but we're already having profound and massive impact on the world's ecology. It's not just a matter of "putting people somewhere" - they have to be fed, clothed, sheltered, have materials grown and mined for them, etc.

There are plenty of people, and we've gone from about 3 billion people when I was born to over 6 billion at present. The US Census Bureau forecasts 9 billion by 2040.

""President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Adminstration [sic]," the Obama White House site says.

"He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case," it adds."

So does McCain, had he been elected. I bet you wouldn't complain about that, though.

McCain wasn't going to put through legislation that would take away all restrictions on abortion.

Doug,
I had heard just recently that Los Angeles has the 4th highest population of French people. Apparently the young people of France are overwhelmed with the attempt to support a rapidly growing aging population so they are leaving the country in record numbers. Europe is dying out.
The U.S. can feed the entire world but because of corrupt 3rd world gov'ts and mismanagement of resources there are many starving people.
Who should be deciding who is allowed to reproduce and who should not? Many women in 3rd world countries are being forced to abort or to be sterilized because of gov't oppression or the insidious invasion of Planned Parenthood and their ilk. Some women are denied food unless they submit to sterilization.

Josephine,
This is not meant to be a contentious question but I am not really understanding this: You don't want to get married but how is living with your boyfriend any different? How would marriage change your situation. It sounds like you have already sacrificed going to the school that was your first choice (if I understood that correctly) for the sake of staying together. If you are living together, you must be sharing expenses. How would marriage change things?

I don't doubt that, but in no way is it "just" my opinion. We've been through Reardon several times, literally buying his "doctorate" from a place that simply took money in exchange for the "diploma" etc.
Posted by: Doug at January 21, 2009 9:25 AM

New to this, I didn't realize Reardon's credentials (or lack there of) have actually come up here before, let alone several times. It amazes me that someone would actually quote his work, knowing that. Same for Priscilla Coleman. Even without knowing of their dual roles as advocate/research, their conclsuions should raise some red flags about their research. Do people ignore them?. Or do they just not know any better?

Here's an example of something that should raise a red flag:
"They also noted that women who had an abortion were more likely to report subsequently being slapped or kicked by the child's father, suggesting that stress after abortion was leading to an increase in domestic violence."
from toostunnedtolaugh at January 20, 2009 3:53 PM)

This says nothing about whether these women were slapped or kicked by the child's father prior to having an abortion. So how can Coleman claim that abortion is causing domestic violence? The violence could be there beforehand and contribute to the abortion decision. How does one know without knowing the incidence of pre-abortion violence in these relationships.

This seems pretty abvious to me.

Doug,
Apparently the young people of France are overwhelmed with the attempt to support a rapidly growing aging population so they are leaving the country in record numbers
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 21, 2009 11:30 AM

Where did you get that Eileen?

It didn't bother me that Bush Jr. beat Gore - at the time it was no big deal at all to me. Over time my opinion of Bush Jr's performance went down but as far as outright "harm" done to the country, other than financial, I don't see that he was really all that bad."

Doug, with all due respect, GWB was terrible in many ways. Rule of law, foreign policy, war in Iraq (not just that he went to war, but that he did it with no plan. Read Woodward's book), cronyism, and on and on. Like you, I wasn't that upset when he got elected, I thought he'd be okay. Not my first choice, but I figured we'd be okay. I don't actually blame him for the financial mess, but what he did in the name of "keeping us safe" is a disgrace. I wish that helicopter took him straight to Gitmo and see how he would enjoy being locked up without charges, lawyer, evidence or trial. (I'd let him out after a few days)

The U.S. can feed the entire world but because of corrupt 3rd world gov'ts and mismanagement of resources there are many starving people.

Eileen, at the very least that is really stretching the point. "The entire world"? Not really.
.....

Who should be deciding who is allowed to reproduce and who should not?

The theme we sometimes see is that people "should" have more kids because such-and-such population is showing slowing growth.

Well, for example, if somebody is worried about the Muslim population growing versus the Christian one, and they have nothing else that carries more weight for them in the consideration, then by all means I'm for letting them choose to have as many kids as they want and that they can support.

But to say that somebody else should be impacted by laws based on such concern is just plain silly.

TSTL: for a nation with, what, $10,644,641,809,254.79 (last time I checked!!) in debt, one would think that prudent spending might be the order of the day in the White House.

Heh, yeah right. Since when has any President really been prudent in spending? Eisenhower?

Obama doesn't have a magic wand, and neither does McCain and neither does anybody.

Hi everyone! Greetings and salutations.

That is all.

Hal

Hey Dude, how ya doin'?

Any progress on opening those pod bay doors?

Hal, agreed that GWB wasn't great on foreign policy, etc. I guess I'm pretty cynical about politicians in the first place, so I don't expect much.

Eileen: I had heard just recently that Los Angeles has the 4th highest population of French people. Apparently the young people of France are overwhelmed with the attempt to support a rapidly growing aging population so they are leaving the country in record numbers. Europe is dying out.

Is that the 4th highest number of French people in one city in the world?

Eileen: I had heard just recently that Los Angeles has the 4th highest population of French people. Apparently the young people of France are overwhelmed with the attempt to support a rapidly growing aging population so they are leaving the country in record numbers. Europe is dying out.

Is that the 4th highest number of French people in one city in the world?
Posted by: Doug at January 21, 2009 12:54 PM

Or in one city outside of France?
Is it French by nationality? Or is it French-speaking?

Inquiring minds want to know Eileen!

Doug: North American farms produce enough food to supply every person in North America with 7000 calories per day. When was the last time you consumed 7000 calories in one day?

*****************************************
There are plenty of people, and we've gone from about 3 billion people when I was born to over 6 billion at present. The US Census Bureau forecasts 9 billion by 2040.

Posted by: Doug at January 21, 2009 9:44 AM

big hairy deal. Most of North America is uninhabitated. So what? You don't have to have any more children. But those of us who want big families will definitely continue to do so.

And most large families are very environmentally conscious.
Since the mother often doesn't work, meals are homecooked (thus using less packaged and preprocessed foods), many foods are often grown at home and are canned and preserved, the mother doesn't use BC pills so no estrogen is peed into the water, children often use hand-me-downs or second hand everythings, thus conserving many resources, baby diapers are often cloth, menstrual pads arent' used very frequently because mom rarely has periods between pregnancies and breastfeeding.

These families also often have one car, thus saving fuel and therefore also having lower emissions. They often don't take family vacations by plane, thus conserving jet fuel.There's a hell of a lot more conserving going on than you can ever imagine.

Also your statement is inherently racist Doug. Since most of the population growth in the last 30 years has occurred in the third world, what are you saying - that we should encourage the Third world moms to abort their babies - maybe all their babies? They've made it quite clear, they are NOT interested in our anti-life ideology. They love babies. They want to have babies and they want large families. Or maybe you are in favor of sterilization in exchange for aid?