Kmiec's premise: Because the Catholic Church "admon[ishes] that no Catholic can choose a candidate for the purpose of advancing a moral evil such as abortion or racism... [a] Catholic without that INTENT is free to support either Senator Obama or McCain or anyone."

Sure, intent does matter to the Church and to Jesus. But no rational person could deny intent to harm the unborn if they support a radical pro-abort like Obamanation. BHO clearly states his first law he would like to sign as president would be the Freeddom of Choice Act" that would strip ALL restrictions incuding the PBA where INTENT could not be rationally denied. Not to mention the difference it could make to have another pro-life Supreme Court Justice on our side.
*************

Since neither candidate presents a position fully compatible with Catholic teaching recognizing abortion for the intrinsic evil that it is, Catholic teaching asks us to work for the reduction of the incidence of abortion through the most prudent way possible....

Who could rationally argue that forcing society to remove any and all restrictions on abortion is the most prudent way to follow Catholic teaching on abortion. I think this guy was "trying" to make a case for Catholic's voting for Obama, but he failed miserably because there is no wiggle room for anybody who genuinely follows the teachings of the Catechism.

It will be agreat day when Catholics everywhere understand Obama's REAL position. If all I did was listen to his sound bytes I could easily think Obama was not a radical pro-abort. It is because he is a hypocrite and he talks the pro-life message to win over Christians who are not aware of his voting record and what his true intentions would be as president. Let's hope word gets out and 99% of the Christians out there vote McCain.

Also, The Catholic Church and it's teachings are based upon "saving souls". How is repealing all abortion restrictions going to save souls?

I think Kmiec is in denial that Obama is the choice to prevent abortion.

I see voting for a candidate that supports abortion rights as being a vote that goes against the Catholic faith.

I appreciate how Jimmy Akin discusses voting and abortion. http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/09/what_ratzinger_.html

Anonymous, great post, except anonymous posts aren't allowed, fyi.

It is important to note that Kmiec does not speak for Catholics, and has been admonished by his bishop. He is weidely regarded in Catholic circles to be a "Catholic" in name only and it is a matter of public debate as to how long (not whether) until he is defrocked.

And no, I don't agree!
Reducing partisanship is not going to reduce the number of babies killed by abortion, and if Obama's support of FOCA is any indicator, abortions will actually increase (at least he hopes they will, by removing the States' rights to govern in this matter!)

Of course Obama is the more pro-life candidate. Besides agreeing to sign the Freedom of Choice Act in to law, he's also agreed to sign the Prevention First and Access to Birth Control Acts in to law.

By promoting real sex education, greater birth control access and more help for poor families, the Obama administration will reduce abortion rates.

McCain, on the other hand, seeks only to continue the failed, anti-choice, pro-abortion policies of the Bush administration.

Reasonable minds in the Catholic family can disagree on these points it appears. The debate is good. I see that Obama is polling very high among Catholics, so that's good too.

I appreciate Jill posting this. This debate is not about religious (pro life) vs. non religious (pro abort). It's more complicated and interesting than that.

Have a great weekend everyone.

@reality 10:54am

Huh?

Blink. 00

here's a non-catholic pro life perspective on the recent meeting in Chicago:

Sen. Obama personally took time to meet each person and shake their hand. He’s not as large a man as I envisioned from seeing him on television. But, he’s warm and personable --- obviously one of the reasons why people like him. He seemed to remember names well. He hugged a couple of the participants—mostly the black preachers who attended. He also seemed to be on top of the issues; and he’s obviously very intelligent.

The questions were mostly “softball” questions in my opinion. I was concerned after three or four general questions that we wouldn’t ask the most important questions. So I raised my hand and he called on me. I said, “Senator, I want to ask a question I'm sure you are expecting regarding your position on abortion. I represent a segment of the church where nearly everyone considers the issue of supporting life to be the most important issue and where nearly everyone would be opposed to abortion. I want to ask what your stand on abortion is and if you believe what I think you believe, how you justify that with your Christian faith and why you think we should vote for you.”

Since his response was “off-the-record,” I can say that the time he took to answer was probably 15 minutes. He came across as thoughtful and much more of a “centrist” than what I would have expected. He did not appear to be the crazy leftist that is being supported by George Soros and his radical leftist friends. Sen. Obama looked me in the eye as he answered my question, almost as if it were a one-on-one interview. I had already read the chapter on “faith” in his book the “Audacity of Hope.” If you want to know how he answered the question, read that chapter. In other words, other than his demeanor and obvious attempt to win over the Christian leaders in the room, he didn’t say anything new.

http://www.strangreport.com/2008/06/obamas-off-record-meeting-with.html

I had a nightmare last night that all the women who had had abortions or wanted to have an abortion were locked up. In the dream I had a friend I was trying to get out, and I kept telling her, "I'll find a way, I'll find a way." but then she got pulled away on a conveyor belt and there were doctors with crosses around their necks who used a chainsaw to cut off my friend's head.

Anyway, I'll be voting for Obama, because he cares about life more than McCain does, and it's obvious in his policies. Health care is a life issue. War is a life issue. Being pro-choice is a life issue. I won't support someone who would rather shove women into having underground abortions and die, even if pro-lifers aren't sawing off their heads for having abortions.

The devil always appears as an angel of light. When people don't understnad the Book, read the Book, study the Book, there is a way that alwasy seems right to a man but therein leads to death.

God is pro-life. Pro-life of the mother and the baby. Edyt, your justifications for abortion are demonic and twisted and your dream is satanically inspired. God would never advocate killing a baby in the womb, ever.

Kmiec's should be fired by Pepperdine.

Why? Because Pepperdine was essentially started by the church of Christ, one of the most fundamentally conservative of all Christian denominations. Now, I'm not talking about the United Church of Christ which is one of, if not the, most liberal denominations in Christendom.

Peppedine has lost it's way as Harvard did and as most Universities did who started as Christian institutions and are now more secular than most state universtities.

Christian parents, Pepperdine would be the last universtiy on earth I would send my kids to. If you don't believe me, check out their campus, talk to the the administration and staff. They have all but lost their way. A better choice on the west cost would be Hope International University, a school sold out to Christ.

Pepperdine adminstration, faculty and staff: As a devout Chrisitian I call on you all to repent of your utter apostasy from the Christian faith and from Christ Himself. You have lost the abilty to see that the proectection of the most innocent of the least of these is an abandonment of Christ Himself. I call on the Father of Lights to show you of the utterly wicked path you hahve chosen and to deal with you accordingly unless you repent in tears and ashes and He says to you: "I never knew ye".

Revelations 3:

"To the Church in Laodicea
14"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:
These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. 15I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. 18I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. 19Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. 20Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. 21To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."

Catholics, I beg you not to buy into the lies of liberal pro-abort, so-called Christian protestants.

The Bible warns us that even the elect would be decieved in the last days.

Matthew 24
15"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,'spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. 18Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. 19How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. 22If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. 25See, I have told you ahead of time."

Please read and re-read verse 19: "19How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!"

Yes there will come a time when it will be a crime to be pregnant and have children. Legalized abortion is a step in that direction. Do not be deceived.

Jill, as a Protestant, what's your take on Kmiec's position?

Brian,

Fabulous Jimmy Arkin article. Fr. Pavone's explanation is more succint, but Akin takes it to the next level as far as details are concerned.

SoMG, I found it interesting Akin used a pen as an example to make his point. Similar to your pen-in-the-eye story.

Correction to 1:07 pm post:

Pepperdine adminstration, faculty and staff: As a devout Chrisitian I call on you all to repent of your utter apostasy from the Christian faith and from Christ Himself. You have lost the abilty to see that the proectection of the most innocent of the least of these is an abandonment of Christ Himself. I call on the Father of Lights to show you of the utterly wicked path you hahve chosen and to deal with you accordingly unless you repent in tears and ashes and He says to you: "I never knew ye".

should have read.....

Pepperdine adminstration, faculty and staff: As a devout Chrisitian I call on you all to repent of your utter apostasy from the Christian faith and from Christ Himself. You have lost the abilty to see that the failure to protect the most innocent of the least of these is an abandonment of Christ Himself. I call on the Father of Lights to show you of the utterly wicked path you hahve chosen and to deal with you accordingly unless you repent in tears and ashes and He says to you: "I never knew ye".

Fr. Pavone makes the point that we don't elect someone into office in order to canonize them; we vote him/her in so that they do not get in the way of what we are trying to accomplish.

Obama is clear about how he will trump any and all prolife efforts, McCain is still not 100%, but you get my point.

Edyt, your justifications for abortion are demonic and twisted and your dream is satanically inspired. God would never advocate killing a baby in the womb, ever.

I can see how you'd think saving women's lives is demonic and twisted, but I disagree.

I don't believe dreams are inspired by anything in particular, but I was a bit creeped out so I felt like sharing.

I trust God can speak for himself. I'm wary of people who claim to know what God wants.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08061302.html

I see McCain as being better for prolife than Obama and Obama's FOCA crud.

God would never advocate killing a baby in the womb, ever.

Posted by: HisMan at June 14, 2008 1:07 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Abortion:

"Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?

Numbers 5:11-21 The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child.

Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.

Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”. Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.

2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah (aka Tiphsah) to be “ripped open”. And the Christians have the audacity to say god is pro-life. How and the hell is it that Christians can read passages where God allows pregnant women to be murdered, yet still claim abortion is wrong?"

Laura:

Your last post was truly disgusting and indicative of the level that pro-aborts are willing to sink to discredit God's Word. The quoting of Scripture out of context is truly ignorant.

"By your words you will be condemned."

I have a Master degree in Theology. Don't tempt me to bury and embarrass you with facts.

If you had any clue about the Bible you would not dare post the verses you posted as somehow being evidence that God supports abortion.

Satan also used God's word to tempt Christ. Christ's response to satan. "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God".

Be warned Laura, tempting Christ by misusing His Word is a grievous sin.

The book of Hosea was about God's love for Israel and the pathos and contradiction He felt as a result of their rebellion. In fact, God's command to Hosea to marry the adulterous whore was an expression of how God felt about His relationship with His chosen people. The passage you site expresses what God threatened to do to Israel for their sin but was restrained by His love for them.

Here's a outline on one of my Hosea thesis papers Laura:

HOSEA, BOOK OF. The book of Hosea is the first of twelve prophetic books
called the “minor prophets” not because of their insignificance when
compared with the “major prophets,” but because of their relative
brevity. Chronologically, it is second only to Amos among the twelve.
The prophet Hosea was the only one of the writing prophets who was a
native of the northern kingdom who also prophesied there. His ministry
extended from around the mid-eighth century to the fall of Samaria in
721 b.c.e.
———
A. Text
B. Literary History
C. The Prophet
D. Historical Context
E. Canaanite Religion
F. Structure
G. Theology
———
A. Text
With the possible exception of Job, the book of Hosea has the dubious
distinction of having the most obscure passages of the entire Hebrew
Bible. Apart from the frequent and sudden shifts in mood and subject,
and the difficulty of establishing the historical contexts, the book is
replete with linguistic peculiarities. The text is traditionally
regarded as the most corrupt and poorly preserved of the Hebrew Bible. A
little fragment containing parts of Hos 1:7–2:5 is found among
manuscripts from Qumran (4Q XII). It is very similar to the MT and,
hence, of little value for reconstruction of the text. The LXX is
frequently literalistic and incomprehensible in part. The other versions
are, likewise, garbled at critical junctures. It appears that the
translators of the versions were themselves struggling to understand the
texts before them. Sometimes the literalistic readings actually help us
to reconstruct the consonants that the translators may have seen but not
understood. The linguistic peculiarities in much of Hosea may be
explained as dialectal idiosyncrasies, rather than errors or textual
corruptions. Many of the difficulties one encounters in the book may be
attributed not to the scribal process, but rather to our lack of
familiarity with the N dialect of Hebrew. Hosea is, after all, the only
one of the writing prophets who had his home in the N. And so, in this
century, scholars have called on new understandings of Hebrew grammar in
the light of epigraphic evidence, especially from Ugarit, to explain
many linguistic problems in the book.

B. Literary History
As the different moods, styles, and historical allusions in the book
suggest, the final form of the book has come to us through different
hands and in several stages. Some commentators would attribute a major
portion of the book to a Judean redactor in the Josianic period (late
7th century b.c.e.) or in the Babylonian exile (6th century). There is
no reason to doubt, however, that Hosea was responsible for most of the
oracles in the book, which appear to have been delivered in the second
half of the 8th century. It is impossible to outline here the literary
history of the entire book, but even a cursory examination of the first
three chapters will show the complexity of the process. The
autobiographical account of Hosea’s call in 3:1–3 may have indeed come
from the prophet himself. The woman is not named here and the children
are not mentioned. She is said to be “the beloved of another” and an
adulteress. But there is also an extended and somewhat different account
written in the third person about Hosea’s call and his misfortunes with
his family (1:2–6, 8–9). The woman is named Gomer bat-Diblaim. She is
called the wife of the prophet, is said to be a harlotrous woman, zeánuÆnéÆm. The three children are given symbolic names. This
biographical account may have been written by a disciple or some other
close associate of the prophet. An editor (perhaps the author of the
biographical account) collected the two accounts of Hosea’s call and
wove them together with an oracle of judgment against Israel for her
unfaithfulness to Yahweh (2:4–15—Eng 2:2–13) and an oracle of hope
(2:16–23—Eng 2:14–20). These Hoseanic oracles are framed by two short
redactional units that link the unfaithfulness of Israel with Hosea’s
family (2:1–3, 23–25[—Eng 1:10–2:1, 21–23]). This redaction may be dated
to the period after the fall of Samaria in 721 b.c.e., if one includes
the call for reunification of Israel and Judah (2:2—Eng 1:11). The
superscription for the entire book (1:1) is the work of editors in the
exilic or postexilic period who were also responsible for the
superscriptions on other prophetic books (cf. Joel 1:1; Mic 1:1; Zeph
1:1; Zech 1:1).
A similar process may be discernible in the rest of the book. While
scholars are virtually unanimous that the book has a long history of
transmission and that there is at least one Judean redaction, there is
no agreement on the number and extent of the redaction. Major studies
have appeared in recent years precisely on this question (Emmerson 1984;
Yee 1987). The last verse of the book (14:10) is usually taken to be a
late, perhaps postexilic, gloss by a scribe associated with wisdom
circles. This conclusion, however, exaggerates the difference between
prophetic and wisdom circles and fails to do justice to the vocabulary
and thematic connections between this verse and the rest of Hosea (Seow
1982).

C. The Prophet
Nothing is known of the prophet Hosea ben-Beeri or his family outside
this book. The name Hosea (properly Hoshea) is fairly common in the 8th
and 7th centuries. Several seals and seal impressions bearing that name
have been found from that period. The last monarch of the N kingdom, a
younger contemporary of the prophet, was also called Hoshea (2 Kgs
17:1). The name is probably a shortened form of hwsû>yh(w), “YHWH has
delivered,” or “Deliver, O YHWH!” This name appears as an alternate of
Joshua (Num 13:8; Deut 32:44).
In the opening chapter of the book, Hosea is called by YHWH to marry a
certain Gomer bat-Diblaim. She is called a promiscuous woman ( zeánuÆnéÆm). Some say she was a cultic prostitute, but others suggest
that she was or became a harlotrous woman, but was not a professional
whore. She bore Hosea two sons, Jezreel (“God will sow”) and loµamméÆ
(“Not my people”) and a daughter, loµ no surprise, given the shocking divine command to marry a harlot and the
symbolic significance of the children’s names, that many commentators
through the ages have treated the first three chapters of Hosea as pure
allegory, parable, vision, or dream. The medieval commentators Ibn Ezra,
David Kimh\i, and Maimonides, for instance, regarded the whole
experience as a prophetic vision. Finding the command morally offensive,
many modern scholars have insisted that there was no real marriage with
such a woman; Gomer bat-Diblaim is unfaithful Israel personified and
nothing more (see the survey in Rowley 1963). Others have conceded that
Hosea did marry the harlotrous woman as a symbolic act. Still others
argue that God did not in fact command Hosea to marry such a woman.
Rather, the prophet interpreted his marriage as divinely arranged when
he learned of his wife’s adultery and saw in his own experiences the
meaning of God’s love and commitment. In this line of thinking, Hosea’s
firstborn Jezreel (“God will sow”) was so named as a sign of impending
doom for “Israel,” specifically the Jehu dynasty (1:4–5) on account of
its bloodshed at the valley of Jezreel (cf. 2 Kgs 9:17–26; 10:1–11). By
the time the second child was born, Hosea had learned of his wife’s
unfaithfulness. Hence that child was named “Not pitied” and the third
child “Not my people.” In the third chapter of the book the prophet is
asked to love a woman who is beloved of another and an adulteress. It is
not certain if this woman is Gomer; many argue that this is a different
woman here (Stuart Hosea-Jonah WBC, 11–12, 65–66). The adverb “again”
(>oÆd) in 3:1 may be taken with the call (thus, “YHWH called to me
again”) or with the imperative (“love again!”). Some maintain that Hosea
was asked to take another promiscuous woman after his marriage with
Gomer had failed or, as others would have, after Gomer died. If Gomer is
the woman of chap. 3, then she must have abandoned her family or been
cast out. Eventually, she was put out for sale in the slave market where
Hosea found her and bought her back (3:1–3).
According to the prophet himself, he was labeled “a fool” and “a crazy
fellow” (9:7). The former is a technical term in the wisdom tradition,
characterizing a person who is quarrelsome, hot-tempered, lacking
self-control, promiscuous, or associating with promiscuous people.
Perhaps in the eyes of Hosea’s opponents his frequent tirades and his
association with the promiscuous Gomer marked him as a fool, a simpleton
who was easily seduced by the wicked temptress. It would be farfetched,
however, to suggest that Hosea belonged to the class of the wise, or
that he was educated in a wisdom school. Wisdom themes and vocabulary
were known to the prophets of the 8th century, as studies of Isaiah,
Amos, and Micah have borne out. Even though there are certain features
in the book that would normally be associated with the wisdom tradition,
Hosea’s insistence on the certainty of divine intervention in history
and his covenant theology place him firmly within the prophetic
tradition. Yet, like his contemporaries in the 8th century, Hosea
appears to have been familiar with the language and imagery of the
sages, and so he uses them in his oracles and disputations. His central
claim concerns Israel’s lack of knowledge (Heb da>at). The choice of
“knowledge” is apt, for it is at home in both the wisdom and covenant
traditions. Israel is portrayed consistently as a recalcitrant fool who
has no understanding and makes foolish choices (Seow 1982). So the
people will “come to ruin” like the typical fool (4:14; cf. Prov 10:8).
They are drunk (4:1, 18; cf. Prov 20:1) and gluttonous (4:8). They brag
about not fearing YHWH (10:3). They are likened to stupid animals and
birds that wander about aimlessly. The mention of foreigners who sap the
strength of Israel (7:9) is reminiscent of the warning given to the
simpleton regarding unsavory alliances with “foreigners” (Prov 5:10).
Indeed, the foolish people have borne “foreign children” (5:7). Israel’s
reliance on foreign powers is deemed futile, and compared with the
pursuit of wind (12:2 [1]). In the book, one also finds references to
the use of false balances (12:7; cf. Prov 11:1; 16:11) and to the
shifting of boundary markers (5:10), unjust practices against which the
sages repeatedly warned (e.g., Prov 22:28; 23:10). The prophet
considered Israel an unwise fetus that does not know its proper time—as
the wise always did (13:13).
Hosea was thoroughly familiar with the prophetic and historical
traditions. Although he condemned a certain prophet (“the prophet” in
4:5), Hosea held the prophetic office in highest regard. The prophets
received their authority from YHWH. Through the prophets God dealt with
humans (12:10; 6:5) and through them God delivered Israel (12:13). The
prophet was a watcher of and a snare to the people (9:8). In this
connection, Moses is regarded as the prophet to whom the prophetic
office may be traced.
Hosea was apparently well schooled in the historical traditions. Wolff
(1956) has proposed that Hosea was so well versed in the traditions
because of his close associations with certain priestly families and
Levites. He was able to use his knowledge of Israel’s history to call
his people back to a correct relationship with YHWH. So he refers to the
tradition of Jacob, who grabbed the heels of his brother and strove with
God (12:2–6).
The date of Hosea cannot be set with certainty, but the material in the
book suggests at least the period from the end of Jeroboam’s reign to
the fall of Samaria, approximately 752–721 b.c.e. This makes Hosea a
contemporary of Amos, who prophesied in the N kingdom, and of Isaiah,
who prophesied in the S. When Amos prophesied at Bethel, he was
confronted by Amaziah, the royal priest at the national sanctuary (Amos
7:10–17). Since Hosea was a contemporary of Amos, Andersen and Freedman
(Hosea AB, 38, 351–53) have proposed that Amaziah was the wicked priest
against whom Hosea prophesied (4:4; cf. Amos 7:10–12).
There is no mention of Hosea’s hometown anywhere in the book, nor is
anything said about Beeri’s origin. Nevertheless, it is accepted by all
scholars that Hosea prophesied in the N kingdom, probably in the
vicinities of Samaria, the capital, and near the sanctuaries at Bethel
and Gilgal.

D. Historical Context
Scholars are by no means agreed on the extent to which one can
reconstruct the historical events that lie in the background of the
book. Hosea rarely mentions his contemporaries by name. He may have
intended to be vague in his oracles, or the details may have been
eliminated by someone in a later period who sought to generalize the
oracles for later generations. Several of the oracles may be placed in
any number of historical situations. The specific details are usually
not spelled out in the oracles. Hence, some scholars hold that at best
only one or two passages may be pinned down historically, but others are
more optimistic about historical reconstructions. Among the latter, it
is commonly assumed that the present sequence of passages in the book
corresponds roughly to the chronological sequence in Israel’s
history—with the earliest events in the earliest part of the book and
the latest at the end.
The superscription (1:1) places the prophecies of Hosea in the reigns of
the Judean kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, but only Jeroboam
II is mentioned of the kings of Israel. This is peculiar, since Hosea
was a N prophet preaching to the N kingdom. The priority given to the
Judean kings and the inadequate reference to the N monarchy indicate
that the superscription belongs to a Judean editor, following the fall
of Samaria.
Some of the oracles of Hosea probably originated during the last years
of the reign of Jeroboam II (786–746 b.c.e.), as the superscription
suggests. Several passages in the book reflect the relative political
stability and wealth in the Jeroboam era. The people were gluttonous,
drunk, and far too complacent, if not arrogant (4:1–5:7). The atmosphere
of Israel described here is very similar to that which Amos confronted
in the days of Jeroboam. The sanctuaries of Gilgal and Beth-aven
(Bethel) had been abused and foreign elements were introduced into the
cult of YHWH (4:15–5:7; 9:15). The people had misplaced their trust on
cultic acts (8:13; 6:6). They were more concerned about accumulating
wealth than they were with justice (12:8–9—Eng vv 7–8). They had become
overly confident in the military might of the nation (10:13–14; 8:14).
The wealthier they became, the more readily sanctuaries multipled. This
Hosea condemned, as the Deuteronomist(s) did. God would destroy their
altars, their pillars, and their high places.
Even during the stable reign of Jeroboam, political intrigues threatened
the Jehu dynasty. In such a climate, Amaziah accused Amos of plotting to
assassinate Jeroboam (Amos 7:11). The oracles of Amos were too
subversive and the country could not tolerate them. The possibility of
sedition was certainly in the air. Indeed, from the death of Jeroboam in
746 till the fall of Samaria in 721 six kings ascended the throne in
Israel; all except one died by violence. Assassination was the order of
the day. Several of Hosea’s oracles reflect this state of instability
and confusion (5:1; 7:5–7; 8:4; 9:15; 13:10–11).
In 743, Tiglath-pileser III (745–727) of Assyria launched his infamous W
campaign. The Syro-Palestinian states had to decide to acquiesce in the
face of Assyrian threats or to join other states in a united front to
stem the Assyrian tide. In this period Israel vacillated between
submission and resistance, turning alternately between the rival powers
of Assyria and Egypt (7:11). Israel’s king Menahem (745–738) decided to
submit in the face of Tiglath-pileser’s superior military power. Israel
paid a heavy tribute which was raised by a head tax levied on every
landholder (2 Kgs 15:19–20; ANET, 283). Hosea alludes to the
capitulation of Ephraim (
depicting Ephraim as a stupid dove (7:11) and a wild ass (pr
alone (8:9).
Menahem was succeeded by his son Pekahiah, who was himself quickly
assassinated by nationalistic elements headed by Pekah ben-Remaliah with
a gang of fifty Gileadites (2 Kgs 15:23–26). Gilead is known in Hosea is
a “a city of evil doers” (6:8; cf. 12:12 [11]). The mention of Gilead
and bloodshed there may be a veiled reference to the murder of Pekahiah.
Under Pekah, Israel joined the Arameans and the Philistines in an
anti-Assyrian alliance. The coalition tried to persuade and then coerce
Judah to join their ranks, thus initiating the Syro-Ephraimitic war
(735–733). Albrecht Alt’s thesis that this war lies in the background of
5:8–6:6 is accepted by most scholars. Against the pleading of the
prophet Isaiah, King Ahaz of Judah turned to Tiglath-pileser, who gladly
complied by seizing Galilee and some territories in the Transjordan. The
prophecy concerning the “breaking of Israel’s bow” at Jezreel (1:4–5)
probably alludes to the decisive battle which Tiglath-pileser won in
733. Only Samaria and the hill country of Ephraim remained in Israelite
control. Tiglath-pileser ravaged the land and deported a large segment
of the population (5:13–14; 2 Kgs 15:29). Pekah was assassinated by a
pro-Assyrian faction led by Hoshea ben-Elah, who quickly sued for peace
and sent a tribute to the Assyrian king (2 Kgs 15:30). This triumph of
Assyria is recorded in Akkadian in one of the annals of Tiglath-pileser:

(Israel’s) inhabitants (and) its possessions I led to Assyria. They
overthrew their king Pekah (Pa-qa-hÉa) and I placed Hoshea (A-u-siÕ) as
king over them. I received from them 10 talents of gold, 1,000 (?)
talents of silver as their [tri]bute and brought them to Assyria (ANET,
28).

As long as Hoshea was content to be a vassal of Assyria, there was some
measure of peace in Israel. But Hoshea sought to cast off the Assyrian
yoke by turning to Egypt (cf. 7:11). Thus, when Tiglath-pileser died in
727, Hoshea withheld tribute from the Assyrians (2 Kgs 17:4). These
events may form the background of the references to Israel’s “return to
Egypt” in 9:3; 11:5; 12:1.
Succeeding Tiglath-pileser, Shalmaneser V launched his punitive
expedition against Israel in 725. The oracles about the demise of
Israel’s king (10:7; 13:10–11) are commonly taken to be allusions to the
punishment of Hoshea by the Assyrians. The mention of Shalman who
destroyed Beth-arbel (10:14) is sometimes taken to be a reference to
Shalmaneser V, who was supposed to have destroyed Beth-arbel (modern
Irbid?) en route to Samaria. This would put the oracle sometime just
before the fall of Samaria in 721 b.c.e. Others identify Shalman with
the Moabite king Salamau who is mentioned in one of Tiglath-pileser’s
inscriptions (ANET, 282). No evidence is available, however, for the
devastation of Beth-arbel, which was apparently widely known to Hosea’s
audience.
There are several probable allusions in the book to the last days of
Samaria (9:1–9; 10:3–10; 11:5–7). But there is no mention of the actual
destruction of Samaria anywhere. Indeed, in the conclusion of the book,
Samaria is apparently still standing, but her end is nigh (14:1—Eng
13:16).

E. Canaanite Religion
The book of Hosea provides us with rare textual insights into N
Israelite religion in the 8th century b.c.e. The Elijah stories (1 Kings
17–19) tell of the struggle in the N kingdom between the prophets of
YHWH and the adherents of Baalism only a century before Hosea. In
general, the picture is in accord with scholarly reconstruction from
archaeological discoveries. Yahwism apparently did not dominate in the N
kingdom as it did in Judah. By all accounts, Israel flirted with all
manners of Canaanite religion. Many personal names on Hebrew seals
discovered in Israel bear Canaanite theophoric elements, contrasting
dramatically with the personal names of seals from Judah. The Samaria
ostraca from this general period also contain numerous Baal names. At
Kuntillet
opposed to Judean) colony has been discovered with evidence of a
syncretistic Yahwistic cult. On one pithos one finds the drawing of a
couple with bovine features, and above it is the inscription: brkt .

and by his Asherah” (Meshel 1979).
It is sometimes posited that Gomer bat-Diblaim was a cultic prostitute
who participated in the ritual sexual acts of Canaanite religions
(2:7–15—Eng 2:5–13). It has also been suggested that the name Diblaim,
which may be taken to mean “Two Fig” or the like, is a veiled reference
to Gomer’s partaking of the “raisin cakes” (3:1). The latter is possibly
an aphrodisiac associated with Canaanite fertility cults.
According to Hosea, the people consecrated themselves at Baal-peor, soon
after they had made the covenant with YHWH (9:10; Num 25:1–18). They
were brought by YHWH to the land which he had blessed, but they turned
to the Canaanite gods instead, and attributed blessings and success to
Baal (2:7, 10–11—Eng 2:5, 8–9). The polemic against Canaanite religion
is clear here. Baal was thought to be the god of nature and fertility,
but it was really YHWH who gave and took away.
Among the practices of Canaanite religion, none irked Hosea more than
their attempt to induce fertility by sympathetic magic. Since fertility
was thought to have been generated by sexual intercourse between the
deities (specifically between Baal and Anat), certain men and women were
set apart for cultic coitus. But Hosea insisted that the Canaanite gods
could not deliver on their promise. The woman pursued them but she could
not catch up; “she will seek them, but they will not be found” (2:5—Eng
2:7). The imagery of a woman pursuing her lover is known in other erotic
contexts (Cant 3:1–4). Here it may have to do with a sexual ritual to
bring about fertility. The people participated in such sexual rites to
ensure rich harvests and fecundity, but they would “eat but not be
satisfied, prostitute themselves but not multiply” (4:10).
Eventually Israel had to learn that only YHWH could grant the blessings
of the land. Then, YHWH alone would have the allegiance of his bride,
not Baal. The name of Baal would be removed forever; Israel would call
YHWH “my husband” (aáléÆ) as before.
No other Canaanite god is explicitly mentioned besides Baal, although it
is sometimes supposed that the Hebrew of 14:9—Eng 14:8 contains an
allusion to the goddesses Anat and Asherah. In 4:12 one finds mention of
people seeking oracles from “wood.” This is probably an allusion to the
statue of the goddess Asherah and/or the sacred tree in the sanctuary.
Hosea inveighed against the use of idols, but special mention is made of
the “calf of Samaria” (8:5), the “calf of Beth-aven” (10:5), and certain
calves that people kissed (13:2). These are probably the calves that
Jeroboam I made to prevent his subjects from going down to the Jerusalem
temple (1 Kgs 12:28; cf. Exod 32:1–10). They were probably nothing more
than pedestals on which YHWH was supposed to have stood, but the
polemics of Yahwistic prophets made these out to be idols made for
worship.

F. Structure
It is clear that chap. 1–3 and 4–14 constitute two major divisions of
the book. The first section (chap. 1–3) functions as the preface for the
entire book. The preface represents the unfaithfulness of Israel in the
person of Gomer, and the pain and love of God in the person of Hosea.
The prophet is asked to marry the promiscuous Gomer because “the land”
had gone awhoring, going after her Canaanite “lovers” (the gods),
depending on these illegitimate lovers for sustenance, and performing
rites that joined her to them. Judgment is proclaimed, but it is
followed by a message of hope for a new beginning. Eventually, the
recalcitrant wife would realize that life was much better with her first
spouse. Thus, out of the troublesome valley of suffering (see ACHOR)
there would, nevertheless, be a door of hope (2:17—Eng 2:15). YHWH would
no longer be confused with Baal. Indeed, the names of the Baalism would
be removed from Israel’s lips, and a new relationship would be
established by YHWH. Israel would be betrothed to YHWH once again. The
same juxtaposition of judgment with hope and the theme of redemption is
also found in chap. 3.
Reflecting the structure of the first three chapters, the major portion
of the book also juxtaposes oracles of hope (11:1–11; 14:1–8) with
oracles of judgment. As in the first three chapters, so in the oracles
of 4–14 YHWH’s relation with Israel is expressed in familial terms, as
husband and wife and parent and child (11:1–4). YHWH is portrayed as the
faithful lover and husband, Israel as the adulterous and recalcitrant
wife. The theme of the wife’s unfaithfulness is carried through the
book. YHWH is also the patient parent bent on teaching Israel, the
rebellious child (11:1–7). Although he resorted to discipline, his
compassion and mercy for the child prevented the child from being
destroyed.
The book may be outlined as follows:
I. Preface: The Family of Hosea (chap. 1–3)
A. Hosea’s Call and His Family (1:2–2:3—Eng 1:1–11)
B. God and the Wife (2:4–25—Eng 2:1–23)
C. Restoration (3:1–5)
II. Faithful God and Unfaithful Israel (chap. 4–13)
A. Unfaithfulness of Israel (4:1–8:14)
B. Proclamation of Judgment (9:1–13:16)
III. Restoration (chap. 14)
A. Call to Return (14:2–4—Eng 14:1–3)
B. Promise of Restoration (14:5–9—Eng 4–8)
C. Summary Call to Faithfulness (14:10—Eng 9)

G. Theology
Hosea stands firmly in the ancient Mosaic tradition of the conditional
covenant, a tradition having its greatest influence in the N kingdom.
Fundamental to this theological tradition is the understanding that the
validity of the covenant was conditional upon the faithfulness of the
covenant partners. This covenant has been compared with the suzerainty
treaties of the ANE. Following this model, YHWH is seen as the
benevolent suzerain and Israel as the vassal who owed allegiance to
YHWH.
There are allusions in the book to the Sinai revelation. The very name
loµamméÆ, “not my people,” suggests the Mosaic tradition in which
YHWH called Israel >amméÆ, “my people” (cf. Exod 6:7; 3:7, 10). That
relationship assumed that the nation would obey the command of YHWH and
“keep the covenant” (Exod 19:5); failure to do so would result in
covenant curses and invalidation of the relationship. According to
Hosea, God used to call Israel >amméÆ, “my people,” but because of their
unfaithfulness the Israelites will be called loµamméÆ, “not my
people.” At Sinai, the deity was revealed as the great
(Exod 3:14), but now, because of Israel’s unfaithfulness, the message
from God is loµ interested primarily in Israel as a chosen people. Unlike his
contemporary, Amos, he was not interested in the punishment or salvation
of other nations. Because of his emphasis on the covenant relationship,
he refers to the deity usually by the name YHWH (38 times); where

God of the Exodus and Sinai of whom Hosea is speaking. As a divine name,

specification. Thus, Hosea was concerned with YHWH, the God of Israel,
who led the Israelites out of Egypt and preserved them in the wilderness
(12:13, 14). Israel knew “no other God” but YHWH, there was no other
savior (13:4; Exod 20:3).
Throughout the book there are specific references and allusions to the
Exodus event (2:17—Eng 2:15; 11:1; 12:10, 14[—Eng 12:9, 13]; 13:4) and
the wilderness experience (2:16[—Eng 2:14]; 9:10; 13:4). Hosea
romanticized the early days of Israel’s history as a time of Israel’s
faithfulness (2:15 [13]).
Against this background one must understand the sins of Israel. The
vassal had betrayed the suzerain; the people of Israel had rebelled
(5:7; 6:7; 7:1; 7:13, 14; 8:1–2; 9:15; 14:1—Eng 13:16). Israel (the
figuration as a woman surfaces repeatedly) had transgressed the covenant
and violated its stipulations (4:1–3; 6:7; 7:1; 8:1). This she did by
showing allegiance to other gods, turning to foreign military power, and
relying on her own military prowess. Sharing the same world view as the
predecessors of the Deuteronomic school, Hosea condemned any deviation
from the Yahwistic cult. The people had made molten images of silver and
gold, just as they did in the days of Moses and Aaron (8:4–5; 13:2).
Israel had violated her trust by turning to the Canaanite gods and
participating in their sexual rituals (2:7b–15—Eng 2:5b–14; 9:10). The
prophet described this unfaithfulness in sexual terms, as harlotry and
adultery (1:2; 2:4–15—Eng 2:2–13; 4:10–19; 5:3–4; 6:10; 7:4; 9:1). Here
again is an allusion to the covenant at Sinai where the proliferation of
altars and the worship of other gods are regarded as acts of harlotry
(Exod 34:12–16; cf. Judg 8:33). They have indeed rejected the love of
Yahweh and turned to the Canaanite gods. They made idols and worshipped
them (4:17; 8:4; 10:5; 11:2; 13:1–3; 14:9—Eng 14:8). Like the later
Deuteronomists, Hosea condemned the proliferation of altars and local
sanctuaries (10:1–2, 8; 12:11). He regarded the temple in Jerusalem as
the sole legitimate sanctuary in which to worship YHWH, and he condemned
those who worshipped at the N shrines at Gilgal and Bethel (4:15; 9:15).
He attributed the apostasy of Israel to what the Deuteronomist called
“the sin of Jeroboam,” namely, the erection of the golden calf at Bethel
(10:5).
In spite of YHWH’s faithfulness as evident in history, Israel did not
trust in YHWH’s power to protect and deliver them. Instead, they turned
to Assyria and Egypt (5:13; 7:8, 11; 8:9–10; 12:2—Eng 12:1), precisely
the oppressive nations from which they had to be rescued. Thus Israel
acted treacherously against YHWH her suzerain. Hence her sacrifices and
offerings were of no use to YHWH (6:6; 8:13).
Because of Israel’s violations of the covenant, YHWH brought a lawsuit
against her (2:4 [—Eng 2:2]; 4:1; 5:1). YHWH charged that Israel lacked
faithfulness (at

concepts in Hosea. They occur together again in 6:6, where it is
emphasized that YHWH preferred loyalty and knowledge of God to
sacrifice.
Knowledge of God marked Israel’s special relationship with YHWH. People
and priest alike are rejected by YHWH because of their lack of knowledge
(4:1, 6; 5:4). The verb yd> indicates intimate knowledge as of partners
in a covenant or marriage. Israel’s relationship with YHWH was once
correct: they knew no other God but YHWH, and YHWH knew them in their
wilderness wandering (13:4). But as soon as they were satiated with the
nourishment that YHWH had provided them, they forgot the benevolence of
YHWH (13:6). They claimed to know YHWH (8:2), but they had flagrantly
broken the covenant with YHWH and violated the law (8:1). In fact, they
did not know. They did not even know that it was YHWH who provided her
with grain, wine, and oil (2:8). Instead, they attributed these products
of the land to other gods (2:7 [—Eng 2:5]). They reckoned that vines and
fig trees were their payment for their devotion to their “lovers” (2:14
[—Eng 2:12]). For the sake of grain and wine they participated in the
fertility rites associated with Baal (7:14; cf. 1 Kgs 18:28). They
gashed themselves even though it was explicitly forbidden for them to do
so (Deut 14:28). It was YHWH who cared for them and healed, but they did
not know it (11:3). They did not know YHWH because they were possessed
by the “spirit of harlotry” (5:4). But YHWH knew them (5:3). They had
rejected knowledge, the absence of which was evident in their violation
of the commandments of God (4:1–3, 6). The lack of knowledge is taken to
be synonymous with treachery (5:7; 6:6–7), and for this treachery she
was to go into exile (4:1, 6). But beyond the judgment Hosea saw hope
for a new relationship established by YHWH and based on faithfulness,
loyalty, justice, and mercy. Then would Israel truly know YHWH (2:22—Eng
2:20). To that end, Hosea urged his audience to “know YHWH and pursue
the knowledge of YHWH” (6:2).
For Hosea, “loyalty” (h\esed) marked the covenant of mutuality. Both
covenant partners were expected to demonstrate this quality. There was
inequality. YHWH’s reliability was likened to the predictability of dawn
and the spring rain (6:1–3). Israel’s loyalty, on the other hand, was as
fleeting as the morning cloud and the dew that evaporates all too
quickly (6:4). She must repent and sow righteousness in order to reap
the fruits of h\esed (10:12). The people must keep loyalty and justice
(12:7). Israel will, indeed, be punished for the abandonment of her
covenant responsibilities. But beyond judgment there is hope.
Eventually, God will take Israel back as bride in righteousness,
justice, mercy, faithfulness, and loyalty, and Israel will truly know
YHWH (2:22–23—Eng 2:19–20).
It is for good reason that Hosea is often called the prophet of love.
The love of YHWH for Israel is substantiated and exemplified in Hosea’s
own relationship with his wife. Divine love is shown in the microcosm of
Hosea’s marriage. Love, indeed, is the central theme that unifies the
book. The relationship between Hosea and his beloved (chap. 1–3) which
mirrors the relationship between YHWH and Israel (chap. 4–14) is one of
love on the part of the gracious husband. As with loyalty and knowledge,
so love may be understood in terms of the covenant. In the ANE, the ties
between the vassal and suzerain were said to be marked by “love.” The
vassal was supposed to “love” the suzerain by observing the treaty
stipulations, honoring its responsibilities, and being loyal to the
suzerain. Hosea was commanded to love a harlotrous woman as a symbol of
YHWH’s love for the people in spite of their unfaithfulness (3:1). God
is also said to have loved Israel like a child, even though Israel kept
gravitating toward other gods (11:1–4). That same love would be freely
given with the eventual reconcilation (14:5 [—Eng 14:4]). By the same
token, the invalidation of the covenant is expressed as the withdrawal
of love (9:15).
For their transgressions, the people would be punished. Covenant curses
would be upon them. They would be cursed with hunger (4:10; 9:2). Their
threshing floors and wine vats would cease to be operational (9:2).
Though they were engaged in all sorts of rites to bring fertility, they
would experience barrenness and dryness of breasts instead (4:10; 9:11).
They and their princes would die by the sword (7:16; 9:13; 11:6). Their
children would be dashed in pieces and their pregnant women would be cut
open (11:6; 14:1—Eng 13:16]). War would overtake them (10:9; 14). Their
cities would be destroyed by fire (8:14). Parents would be bereft of
their children (9:11–14, 16). Worst of all, there would be a reversal of
the Exodus; they would be brought back to Egypt whence they had been
delivered (8:13; 9:3; 11:5; 14:1–2) or be in exile (9:3, 17; 11:5, 11).
Thus the unfaithful nation would receive the same punishment as the
unfaithful Gomer: they would be cast out of their home (land) and left
to fend for themselves in foreign territories. Through this experience
of punishment Israel would learn, even as the unfaithful wife did, that
life was better with her first husband, namely YHWH (2:9 [—Eng 2:7]).
Thus, Hosea’s message is not entirely of doom. Punishment was
inevitable. The situation was not hopeless because God’s compassion for
Ephraim the child was great (11:8–9), and God could not bear to see
God’s beloved destroyed. In the end, the children would “be pitied”
(14:4 [—Eng 14:3]; cf. 1:6; 2:25 [—Eng 2:23]). Hence, the people were
asked to return (sûb) to YHWH (6:1; 12:7 [—Eng 12:6]; 14:2–3—Eng 14:1–2)
in order that they might be restored to their wealth and health. In
accordance with Deuteronomistic covenant theology, the repentance of the
offender would bring forgiveness and life. YHWH’s affliction was only
temporary; it was intended to cause Israel to see the foolishness of her
ways. Eventually YHWH would heal the sickness and bind the wounds so
that his people would live again (6:1–2). Their fortunes would be
restored and they would be healed (6:11). The exiles would return home
(11:10–11; 6:11; cf. 3:5). They would be healed (6:1, 11). YHWH would
correct their apostasy and love them freely again (14:5—Eng 14:3). They
would return and dwell under his shade (14:8 [—Eng 14:7]).

Bibliography
Anderson, B. W. 1954. The Book of Hosea. Int 8: 290–303.
Brueggemann, W. 1968. Tradition for Crisis: A Study in Hosea. Richmond,
VA.
Buck, F. 1973. Die Liebe Gottes beim Propheten Oseé. Rome.
Buss, M. J. 1969. The Prophetic Word: A Morphological Study. BZAW 111.
Berlin.
Craghan, J. F. 1971. The Book of Hosea: A Survey of Recent Literature on
the First of the Minor Prophets. BTB 1: 81–100; 145–70.
———. 1975. An Interpretation of Hosea. BTB 5: 201–7.
Crotty, R. 1971. Hosea and the Knowledge of God. AusBR 19: 1–16.
Eichrodt, W. 1961. “The Holy One in Your Midst.” The Theology of Hosea.
Int 15: 259–73.
Emmerson, G. I. 1984. Hosea: An Israelite Prophet in Judean Perspective.
JSOTSup. 28. Sheffield.
Ginsberg, H. L. 1961. Hosea’s Ephraim, More Fool Than Knave: A New
Interpretation of Hosea 12:1–14. JBL 80: 339–47.
Gordis, R. 1971. Hosea’s Marriage and Message: A New Approach. Pp.
230–54 in Poets, Prophets, and Sages: Essays in Biblical Interpretation.
Bloomington.
Kinet, D. 1977. Ba>al und Jahweh: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des
Hoseabuches. Frankfurt am Main.
King, P. J. 1982. Hosea’s Message of Hope. BTB 12: 91–95.
Kuhnigk, W. 1974. Nordwestsemitischen Studien zum Hoseabuch. BibOr 27.
Rome.
May, H. G. 1931. The Fertility Cult in Hosea. AJSL 48: 73–98.
McDonald, J. R. B. 1964. The Marriage of Hosea. Theology 67: 149–56.
McKenzie, J. L. 1955. Divine Passion in Osee. CBQ 17: 167–79.
———. 1955. Knowledge of God in Hosea. JBL 74: 22–27.
McKenzie, S. 1979. Exodus Typology in Hosea. ResQ 22: 100–8.
Meshel, Z. 1979. Did Yahweh Have a Consort? The New Religious
Inscriptions from the Sinai. BARev 5/2: 24–35.
North, F. S. 1957. A Solution to Hosea’s Marital Problems by Critical
Analysis. JNES 16: 128–30.
———. 1958. Hosea’s Introduction to His Book. VT 8: 429–32.
Nyberg, H. S. 1935. Studien zum Hoseabuch. Uppsala.
O’Connor, M. P. 1982. The Deceptions of Hosea. TBT 20: 152–58.
Östborn, G. 1956. Yahweh and Baal. Lund.
Rowley, H. H. 1963. The Marriage of Hosea. Pp. 66–97 in Men of God.
London.
Ruppert, L. 1982. Erwägungen zur Kompositions- und Redaktionsgeschichte
von Hos 1–3. BZ 26: 208–23.
Seow, C. L. 1982. Hosea 14:10 and the Foolish People Motif. CBQ 44:
212–24.
Ward, J. M. 1969. The Message of Hosea. Int 23: 387–407.
Wolff, H. W. 1956. Hoseas geistige Heimat. TLZ 81: 83–94.
———. 1961. Guilt and Salvation: A Study of the Prophecy of Hosea. Int
15: 274–85.
Yee, G. A. 1987. Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea. SBLDS
102. Atlanta.

Author: Vinten, Gerald.
Title: Prophetic Whistleblowing.
Journal: Faith and Freedom
Year: 1992,
Volume: 45(3):
Page: 91-101.
Description: Whistleblowing is a new name for an ancient practice.
Hebrew
prophets, such as Hosea and Amos, did not hesitate to criticize
rulers and social injustice, and risked their lives in so doing.
Defines whistleblowing: unauthorized disclosure of information
evidencing contravention of law or regulation involving
mismanagement or danger to public or worker health and safety. A
small number of whistleblowers achieve fame and acclaim; but risks
are involved. Notes objections to whistleblowing as informing.
Considers legal protection and a code of ethics for
whistleblowing.

Author: Smith, Duane Andre.
Title: Kinship and Covenant in Hosea 11:1-4.
Journal: Horizons in Biblical Theology
Year: 1994,
Volume: 16(1):
Page: 41-53.
Description: Examines Hosea's use of the kinship category of adoption
as a
metaphor for the divine-human relationship in Hos 11:1-4. Use of
kinship imagery indicates Hosea had a well-developed notion of a
covenant between YHWH and Israel. Defines covenant as a
relationship of reciprocity between two parties in which mutual
rights and obligations are present. Wherever the relationship
between YHWH and Israel is portrayed in terms of mutual
obligations, whether or not the word berith is used, there a
covenant is present. This provides a response to those who point
to the lack of references to berith in the early prophets as
evidence for a late date for the idea of covenant.

Author: Stuart, Douglas K.
Title: Hosea 13-14: Promises of Destruction and Restoration.
Journal: Southwestern Journal of Theology
Year: 1993,
Volume: 36(1):
Page: 32-37.
Description: The contents of the Book of Hosea seem arranged in a more
or less
chronological fashion. In all likelihood, Hos 13-14 come from a
time near the end of Hosea's ministry, from the months prior to
the fall of Samaria in 722 BC. The book draws near to a conclusion
with a lengthy depiction of what was by Hosea's day inevitable.
But then the message brightens toward hope: God will, solely by
grace, cause a remnant of the conquered, destroyed and exiled
people to return from captivity. The final oracle is a challenge
to the reader (Hos 14:9) to understand the ways of the Lord and to
follow them.

an answer to Laura's question:
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/moral_authority.html

"I trust God can speak for himself. I'm wary of people who claim to know what God wants." by Edyt.

Edyt, you really haven't got a clue have you? God's revelation of Himself is available everywhere. It's call "The Bible".

Read it, study it, seek to understand it, defend it, live it. For in doing that you will save your life from Hell.

A degree in Theology? Can we all say together: "Waste of time, money, and resources"?

*burns in Hell*

Carder, 1:26p, asked: "Jill, as a Protestant, what's your take on Kmiec's position?"

Kmiec first stated Catholics are free to vote for the most pro-abort candidate in the world as long as their intention is not to vote to further abortion, which runs contrary to any Catholic teaching I've ever read on voting. This would also absolve people from voting intelligently, or prioritizing a candidate's position on life.

Kmiec's portrayal of both candidates as equally pro-abortion was ludicrous. According to NARAL, McCain has voted pro-life 125 of 130 times as rep/senator.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/files/mccain_fact_sheet.pdf

According to NARAL, Obama has voted pro-abortion 13 of 13 times in his pathetically short time as u.s. senator.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/files/obama-fact-sheet.pdf

Obama has also promisd his first action as president would be to sign FOCA into law, which would overturn every federal, state, and local law against abortion.

Kmiec completely absolved Obama's radical pro-abortion positions and votes by misrepresenting Obama's support of comprehensive sex ed and taxpayer funding of contraception all to say Obama supports prevention.

And Obama just talks bipartisan but in actuality acts the farthest from it. His votes are always the most liberal, hence his position as the #1 most liberal senator.

Finally, on a point I didn't have space to address in my post, Kmiec dismissed Supreme Court picks as meaningless, which was again ludicrous. The Supreme Court's Friday 5-4 decision to allow alleged foreign terrorists caught overseas during war to have the same rights as US citizens in our courts was the most recent evidence that court picks are of utmost importance.

Rae,

Are you saying that it was a waste of Hisman's time, money, etc. to get a master's degree in theology? Or are you saying in general it's a waste of time, money, etc. for anybody to get such a degree?

Doug Kmiec works for the devil.

Jasper:

Professor Kmiec currently works for Pepperdine University and the Catholic News Agency. He formerly was employed by the University of Notre Dame and the Catholic University of America. He was also in a public sector position under Ronald Reagan and George (H W) Bush. To which were you referring?

milehimama wrote:
"It is important to note that Kmiec does not speak for Catholics, and has been admonished by his bishop. He is weidely regarded in Catholic circles to be a "Catholic" in name only and it is a matter of public debate as to how long (not whether) until he is defrocked."

I think the wife and five kids would have gotten him "defrocked" quite some time ago.

Carder:

Rae doesn't know what she believes.

Theo-logy, the study of God, is the most noble of all pursuits. I think now I'll go get my doctorate and really get her goat.

And for your information Rae: I didn't spend five years of my life to earn a degree to make money from. I already make plenty of money from the two businesses God gave me. It was simply to quench my thirst for the knowledge of God.

A while back you asked me to die, and now you call my passion a waste of time.

You are truly a nice person and a true pro-lifer.

A degree in Theology? Can we all say together: "Waste of time, money, and resources"?

If I ever went back to college, I'd major in theology with a minor in psych.

HisMan,

I'm so glad you're "on" now...quickly:

Your passion is NOT a waste of time. Don't listen to what these godless fools post. They will have their day, unfortunately, when they will be held accountable for their words.

God gave you a calling, and I'm sure you've touched many hearts and minds....like mine.

I've had a wonderful time the last few days talking to people I run into. ie, the cashier at a store, the rental car guy that had to "pick me up", the mechanic at the place I just had a car towed. I found that the most wonderful way to open up a conversation about God is to talk about all of the devastation going on in the country and world now. It's been amazing! People (not virtual ones) are much more open to listen to what you have to say without being rude in the real world, opposed to this "virtual one". They really listened. It was truly a blessing to be able to speak about God without being shamed for it.

Just thought I'd share that with you.

btw...this is a wonderful blog site that I thought you would be interested in. I don't know if you've seen it yet, but here it is:
http://www.onejerusalem.org/blog/index.asp

Also, have a WONDERFUL FATHER'S DAY! Your children have been truly blessed to have you as a father, who teaches them to love the Lord with all of their hearts, and all of their minds. You are a blessing to them as they are to you.

God bless you always, and keep fighting the Good Fight!

I have a Master degree in Theology. Don't tempt me to bury and embarrass you with facts.

Posted by: HisMan at June 14, 2008 2:53 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here, have some facts...

We all got a good look at who you are last week.

If my delightful lust and gluttony have bought me a trip to the Lake O'Fire, your hatred, anger, and pride have secured your reservation in an adjoining deck chair!

Say hi to Bub!

The Catholic Church is not really pro-life. The Church backed legislation in El Salvador and Nicaragua that forbids abortion EVEN IF THE WOMAN IS GOING TO DIE. Nicaragua already had strict abortion laws before the total ban; three doctors had to agree that the abortion was medically necessary. Needless to say, Nicaragua now has one of the highest abortion rates in the world, all of them illegal.

Their rationalization, "Oh, modern medicine can always save both!" Baloney. Modern medicine has made necessary-for-survival abortions rarer, but they're not gone.

If you're going to rail against abortion, you have to rail against the death penalty and the war as well. It is inconsistant to decry the loss of potential life though abortion, but not to decry the loss of actual life through the death penality and the war.

I think Obama will lessen the numbers of abortions (they went up during the bush admin) through the provision of mentors for our young kids, proper funding for job skills, career building. When you increase someone's ecomonic potential and their vision of what is possible for them in the future, typically they have fewer kids. Thus people who have little income, with job training will be better motivated to make overall better choices about their life and the future.

The fewer people in the world, the more selfish we become.

As a Catholic I find the pretzel-twisting by people like Doug Kmiec astounding. You simply cannot be a true faithful orthodox Catholic and be voting for Obama. These people who do are Democrats first, Catholics second and babies be damned. The Catholic Church cannot be more clear about its pro-life position and the responsibility to vote pro-life. Unfortunately some bishops along the way have provided cover for pro-abort politicians, but they are rediscovering their courage to confront people like Sibelius and Guiliani.

Janet:

The fewer people in the world, the more selfish we become.
Posted by: Janet at June 14, 2008 8:54 PM

I suggest you read some Maslow.

Our Pope, Benedict XVI, successor of St Peter, our Bishops and the Catechism of the Catholic Church all clearly state that abortion is an intrinsic evil that can never be supported.

One cannot be both Catholic and for abortion.

Senator Obama is the most pro-abortion, pro-death presidential candidate ever nominated.

Catholics must vote NO BAMA in `08

The Bishops even wrote in para 38 of their Forming Consciences Guide that "political choices citizens make may affect the individual's salvation."

I am communicating to all that read this blog, for the sake of the millions more dead babies and their immortal souls,

Catholics must VOTE NO BAMA in `08

I must pray for Professor Kmiec who is not only writing opinions diametrically opposed to his "claimed" Church's doctrine but by publishing this heresy may subvert the souls of other Catholics. St Paul warned his disciples, ACTS 20; "And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them."

To all who read this: stop reading Kmiec, and

VOTE NO BAMA in `08

Sure Joseph, no one will listen to this man:
http://law.pepperdine.edu/academics/faculty/kmiec.html
and will listen instead to the paranoid rants of a single name poster on an obscure blog.

You are either utterly clueless about what constitutes heresy, or you are intentionally lying - and isn't there some sort of injunction against that in you little "life guide" book.

I have a sincere question, as someone who has reviewed many of the back and forth arguments on this site.

What exactly is the point of all this?

I feel like a lot of people enjoy hearing (or 'reading') themselves. Pretty much everyone on this site has already made their mind up on how they feel about abortion. It's yes or no. Period. It doesn't change. Doesn't waver. Any point brought up by either side is shot down as lies, misquotes, propaganda, evil, etc.

So again, what's the point of the arguing?

I'm proudly, fervently pro-choice, but you know what? I'll never duck down into someone's pleas for a nasty verbal exchange. I also don't play the never ending debate game with someone who's beliefs are as ingrained on their side as I am on mine. No one wins, you just blow hot air and lots of rhetoric - on BOTH sides. I prefer to keep my dignity and respectfully bow out of the solicitation for debate.

You're pro-life - I get it. I got it. I'll let you go on your way. You know I'm pro-choice. Now you've got it too.

So, instead of arguing ad nauseam in a circular motion, how about we agree to disagree and let the work happen where it really counts - in the voting booth and in your wallet? I have no delusions that one day I'll change the hearts and minds of the pro-life side anymore than you could change my mind. That kind of value shift often happens with a significant personal experience that could sway an individual's position in one direction or another.

Look, we disagree on base, fundamental, philosophical and religious pillars. It is what it is, and I don't need to scream all my bullet points to you on why I feel the way I do - you've heard a lot of them already. I'll just keep fighting tooth and nail on my end, as you will on yours and we'll see who comes out the other end.

@HisMan: I don't think I've ever said I'm a nice person. I'm not. I'm quite willing to believe I'm probably one of the worst people in the world and that I most definitely deserve to go to Hell (should it exist).

I figure it this way- I already suck at life- may as well continue to suck so that I end up going to my most assuredly suck-tacular afterlife (should an afterlife exist).

But mostly- I just plain don't like you. Period. Hence the hostility. It's not justified. I'm just a pissy witch. The end.

@Carder: Both.

Danielle,
Have you ever submitted to somebody sucking an unborn baby out of your womb in bloody pieces?

I figure it this way- I already suck at life- may as well continue to suck so that I end up going to my most assuredly suck-tacular afterlife (should an afterlife exist).
Posted by: Rae at June 15, 2008 12:18 AM

Rae, you suck at being a pissy witch too.

@Truthseeker: Nah- I've been told I'm very good at it. But I suppose sucking at that is to be expected...

Well Edyth.
A dream as told to me by a abortion advocate who "protected" those entering the abortuary.
One day, Neva, the pro abortion "protecter", was telling me about a dream she had about babies.
Now, me, being one who never let her know one thought about my judgement about the morality of abortion, she told me her dream.
Neva told me she had a dream where she was in bed sleeping, and she "awoke in the dream", to babies crawling all over her in her bed. These babies kept saying, "Neva,Neva,Neva", with their little hands touching her all over her body. THe "touching" was disgusting to her, she said. Neva, jumped out of the bed and those babies, kept after her, and touching her, as she moved away from the bed. The babies chased her until Neva awoke from the dream.
When she awoke "for real", she was sweating and breathing fast.
Now, honest to God, Neva, asked me what I thought it meant!!!
Now, Edyth, what was the dream telling her?
Of course, dreams are replaying of events in a person's sentient daily life, and are jumbled pieces and parts of emotional events in a person's life. Such as the trauma of a car wreck or other emotional events which come out in dreams after the physical event in "real life". And those traumatic events may be jumbled into being included with other emotional events in a person's life, ending in a hodge podge of reality, mixed with fantasy.
You did have a nightmare, didn't you Edyth?
P.S, Neva went about her life of pushing abortion, but less fanatically, and finally killed herself, after her one and only son, killed himself before her.

Well, there you have it,
Danille votes her pocketbook. Would you Danille, vote for a pro-life candidate that gave you more money in your pocketbook then a pro abortion candidate? Or, are we going to find out that Danille is about much more then money?
BTW, Danille, there never has been a vote on abortion. It was decided by the non-legislative branch of the government.

Phylosopher,

Just another secular lawyer/professor
pontificating on Catholic theology with no more authority to speak for the Catholic Church then you. In fact,Phylosopher, you might have just committed a logical fallacy by making a hasty generalization of Catholics, by sending a link to ONE Catholic person's thinking about voting for those that kill human beings for wealth,health, and the fact they can kill human beings.
BTW, Phylosopher, the author of the article makes it perfectly clear in one sentence he wrote. " Again, it is my own conclusion that Senator Obama....".
Interesting enough, He doesn't mention McCain's public decisions about appointing members of SCOTUS in the same judicial philosophy as Scalia, Roberts, and Alito. Another words, Kmiec is a political propagandist for a abortion advocate named, Obmama.

The Catholic Church is not really pro-life. The Church backed legislation in El Salvador and Nicaragua that forbids abortion EVEN IF THE WOMAN IS GOING TO DIE. Nicaragua already had strict abortion laws before the total ban; three doctors had to agree that the abortion was medically necessary. Needless to say, Nicaragua now has one of the highest abortion rates in the world, all of them illegal.
*
Their rationalization, "Oh, modern medicine can always save both!" Baloney. Modern medicine has made necessary-for-survival abortions rarer, but they're not gone.
Posted by: DRF at June 14, 2008 7:31 PM

HUH????

In one breath you say that it is rare for a woman to die because she is carrying a child, but that it happens, and that the Catholic church is wrong to forbid abortions under these ciccumstances and in the next you say that Nicaragua has one of the highest abortion rates in the world.

So the truth is, you're just using the "women die in childbirth" argument to guilt us. The fact is that the majority of those multitudes of illegal abortions are NOT being done to save the life of the mother.

ALso, NO ONE says that the life of the women can not be jeopardized by pregnancy. What we have said is that past viability there is virtually no reason that the child cannot be delivered alive. That there is never a reason to kill a VIABLE child to save the life of the mother.

And lastly, I highly doubt that nicaragua has the HIGHEST rate of abortion in the WORLD...proof please.

Danielle,

The reason for this open dialog is that minds HAVE been changed.

There are some folks right here at Jill's that started out pro choice but are now pro life. And a few others that have softened on WHEN abortion is okay.

And we have no way of knowing whether people that don't comment but read everything, are not swayed one way or the other. Many people are not as informed as you and I about this issue. They come here, they read and they learn.

I personally, have gained invaluable knowledge. I have learned so much about the political process, about the laws, about candidates, about the minds of pro choicers...

I no longer think of THEM as the enemy, but rather think of abortion itself as the enemy. I find that I can now disagree vehemently with the prochoice side, yet still retain my respect for the individual. This site has helped me grow as a person.

I also, disagree with you, that it is pointless to converse about this issue.

So much better to talk and share our ideas, then to bomb clinics, or scream obscenities at each other. I think people DO change their minds. And we are at crosshairs in this country on this issue.

Just like slavery, or global warming, or Darfur, or pedophilia...talking is the only way to make people aware, on either side, of these issues.

If no one talked about Rwanda, how would people know what took place there. It didn't change anything for the Rwandan people, but it might change something for another country going through the same thing.

Or global warming. How are people supposed to get information and discuss this issue, then come to a conclusion about what to do about it, if conversation is cut off.

I agree that there are all types here. And many of them might be a bad match for you. I suggest you don't debate with them. But I bet there are others here, who even if on the other side, more meet your way of debating, and much could be gained through dialog.

And finally, I think Doug would say, we debate here because we desire to debate here. Many of us have become friends. Some have even been to my home. We've had some good times here at Jill's because of and in spite of our differences. Ain't America great? You can think this is a total waste of time and never post here again, and I can think it's the nuts, and post here everyday, and we can both happily go on with our lives...

Well mk, I will respond to your comments not only because I appreciate the point of view but especially because you honed in on viewing abortion as the enemy. In a way, I agree with you - I wouldn't define it as an 'enemy' per se, but it is something that neither of us WANTS.

I'm not sure if this is still a lingering stereotype that the pro-life side has of mine, but no one - NO ONE -skips hand in hand into a clinic, giddy with anticipation. Regardless of your opinion on their moral constitution, women and girls faced with this decision are impacted significantly. It is a grave, serious and often a sad decision to make. Chatter at fundraisers isn't how excited attendee's are to get see more girls in stirrups.

So, I wish more people didn't HAVE to make the choice, but they do and will continue to and I will support them. I understand the argument on the other side - always have - I just simply don't agree. To prevent, I would push for women (and men) have better access to education and birth control methods to prevent the pregnancy in the first place, while many opponents agree with abstinence only training. I also realize that the other primary difference in the pro-life side of the argument is that there is no choice to make - the woman must bring the baby to term regardless of the circumstances.

I probably just incited more 'what if' scenarios for myself (such as truthseeker's lovely interpretation above - and for the record, my medical history is private) but IF this board works in the way that mk suggests, perhaps someone will discover that both sides are actually working for a similar result - less abortions.

Welcome Danielle.

Try not to be put off by some of us "extremists". MK can vouch that we even party online together!

Keep the comments coming, mind your manners, and I'm sure all of us will learn something new in the process.

Tseeker: Let's try to be kinder, shall we?

Rae: Are you okay?

Tseeker: Let's try to be kinder, shall we?

Rae: Are you okay?
Posted by: carder at June 15, 2008 12:58

I thought that was kind carder. To say someone was good at being a pissy witch would be insulting.

Rae,

I know a lot of pissy witch's and I have to say that you are not one of them. You need to step your game up. :)

The Catholic Church states you can choose for the "lessor of two evils" when it comes to candidates. However I feel this just prolongs the evil being done.

I cannot vote for neither Obama or McCain. Obama is rabid Pro-Abortion and McCain stated he would never overturn Roe v Wade, he's for abortion in the case of rape and he's for killing human embryo's. Neither deserves my vote.

My vote is for Bob Barr.

Judie Brown states it best, "You can't be Pro-Abortion and Catholic". Many of our Catholic High Schools and University's are Catholic in name only. I would not pay too much attention to anyone who teaches Theology at the average Catholic University unless they are from real Catholic University's like Franciscan University in Stubenville, OH and about 10 others across the U.S.

Mike

@Carder: No, not really. PMS is acting up *major*.

Hi Danielle,

Welcome!! I hope you continue to comment.

Couple questions for you. Why do you think abortion is grave, serious and sad? Why do you think women and girls are impacted significantly by abortion?

I know what I think. I mean I know what I know, but I would really like to hear your thoughts.

You are absolutely right, Tseeker. My bad. I completely misread your statement.

Forgive me.

Rae,

That would explain it. PMS has a way of testing us.
I won't push the Theology degree issue further.

Feel better.

@Carder: It's not an excuse though. I'm not blaming my poor behavior on my "girlie problems".

Anywho...I will drop the topic anyway. I shouldn't have said anything at all.

Laura:

The only difference between me and you is that I know I need a Savior.

Rae:

If life sucks for you, you need to be listening to a different drummer.

I suggest Jesus Christ.

He came to give you life more abundantly.

@HisMan: I didn't say my life sucks, because it doesn't. I am very fortunate. However- I still totally suck at life meaning I fail to truly appreciate how lucky I am on a daily basis and tend to only focus on the bad things that happen.

Rae, fyi - your posts often show you look at life with great deal of humility.

carder, live long and prosper \\//,

Danielle,

but IF this board works in the way that mk suggests, perhaps someone will discover that both sides are actually working for a similar result - less abortions.
Posted by: Danielle at June 15, 2008 11:21 AM

Well now, see there, we just had a conversation and neither one of us needs medical attention...lol.

Welcome, and I hope you stick around. Your post was great!

So the truth is, you're just using the "women die in childbirth" argument to guilt us. The fact is that the majority of those multitudes of illegal abortions are NOT being done to save the life of the mother.

The above was posted by mk earlier on this thread. If any proaborts doubt the veracity of this statement, check out the "stories" on I'm not sorry.net and you will see that most women on that site had an abortion for convenience.
Abortion is form of back-up contraceptive today.

I'm with Mike, if I were American I would have a hard time voting for McCain. But I'd do it over Obama, but not before I fully investigated McCain and VP candidate.

Sigh...why am I still here doing the very thing I said I wouldn't? Guess I found some civility...

To carder I believe - you asked if I thought women were impacted by their decision to have an abortion, the answer is yes. Of course. It is surely for most, one of the most profound decisions you could make. And yes, I would agree that some people are sad or depressed for a time afterward. That said - although the decision can be a hard and rough one to make, that still doesn't mean that it wasn't ultimately the right decision for that woman/girl/couple.

I think there is a rush right now to document how broken and damaged people are after abortion and any sign of moroseness or second guessing proves that is was the wrong move. I believe that there are some choices we have to make in life that are hard and require much council and debate. I won't try to give examples here, because they'll only seem insignificant in comparison but hopefuly we're still on the same page.

A woman's emotional stability after an abortion is very much tied to her feelings about it prior to. If there was coersion, fear or ambivalence before the abortion, it will only be compounded later. However, if she's confident and clear eyed about her choice and has support around her, the experience is much different and less likely to be as 'psychologically damaging' as one may believe.

The (few) women I know who have had abortions are leading healthy, stable and productive lives. They didn't forget they had abortions - it's not like birth control. They just know that at the time, they weren't prepared to be mothers, made a choice and don't look back with regret.

Hi Danielle,
It's me Carla. Why is abortion such a profound decision to make as you see it? If women are sad or depressed afterward I ask why? If it is such a good thing, a positive thing, the right choice then why the sadness? If they are not skipping in to get one then shouldn't they be skipping out?

I agree the decision to abort should not be taken lightly especially for a woman in crisis who believes she is alone and doesn't know where to turn. Adoption is an option. Isn't it?

You will become as addicted to this site, as we all have...heh heh heh. It is a diabolical plan hatched by Jill to suck your PC mind right outta your head. Step away from the keyboard.....

Laura:

The only difference between me and you is that I know I need a Savior.

Posted by: HisMan at June 15, 2008 10:47 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Don't be silly! I'd be the first to say that you need a savior!

(You might want to try Buddha or Mohammed. Jack Daniels, Jim Beam, Johnnie Walker and Jesus don't seem to be workin' for you...)

MK--

ALso, NO ONE says that the life of the women can not be jeopardized by pregnancy

Church fathers in El Salvador and Nicaragua did. Sounds like a pregnant womans life stops being sacred real fast.

In one breath you say that it is rare for a woman to die because she is carrying a child, but that it happens, and that the Catholic church is wrong to forbid abortions under these ciccumstances and in the next you say that Nicaragua has one of the highest abortion rates in the world.

Nicaragua has a very high abortion rate. All of these abortions are illegal. It is now not possible, where before it had only been very difficult, for a woman to get a safe, legal abortion performed by a real doctor in a sterile facility.

Here is one of my sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/magazine/09abortion.html?scp=2&sq=abortion+el+salvador&st=nyt

Sigh...why am I still here doing the very thing I said I wouldn't? Guess I found some civility...

Danielle, Jill's site has a lot of good people, and the abortion discussion takes us down to the unprovable assumptions we all make. Things get interesting, if by nothing else than seeing just how differently people can think about things.
......

They just know that at the time, they weren't prepared to be mothers, made a choice and don't look back with regret.

Well said, and that's true for many women - the vast majority of women who have abortions are glad they did, on balance, and would do the same thing again in similar circumstances.

I hope you stay here.

Doug

They just know that at the time, they weren't prepared to be mothers, made a choice and don't look back with regret.

Well said, and that's true for many women - the vast majority of women who have abortions are glad they did, on balance, and would do the same thing again in similar circumstances.

I hope you stay here.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at June 16, 2008 10:21 AM

Ok, fine. But then don't have sex because sex makes babies. That's what it's suppose to do. Even with contraception, this happens.
The person who pays the price is the innocent unborn baby. They should not. The woman should act as a mature responsible adult and take responsiblity for her actions as should her partner. This responsibility does mean killing their child.

Hi Doug,
"The vast majority" of women do not regret their abortions? Says you, Doug? What of the ones who do? What of them? Do they matter? Do you care?

Do I really want to get into a circular argument with Doug today?? :)

First of RDF your information is dated and incomplete:
1.all abortions in Nicarauga are illegal except,
2.lifesaving abortions are NOT
3.99% of the people OPPOSE abortion - the result of surveys taken
4.maternal mortality has actually fallen since the ban was enacted in 2006

Ortega's Exchange with Nordic Parliamentarians in Spanish:
http://www.presidencia.gob.ni/170108_DemocraciaRealiza.html

Danielle,

Glad to see you're still with us.

The impact question came from Carla, BTW.

I give Prochoicers credit for sugarcoating the procedure with the word "choice". Brilliant on their part.

I sincerely want to understand where you stand with the results of choice, the pictures that turn others off, descriptions of how these little ones end up.

If you've followed on the blog long enough, you're probably aware of the fetal-dumping cases in Michigan. What's your take on that?

Patricia,
I tried the link but it doesn't go anywhere. I would like to read it and compare notes with RDF.

Carla,

I wouldn't recommend it, but you are a grown woman. ;0)

You're correct Carder. I will try to find out the proper link. thanks.

Carder: if you read spanish you will need to search this site.I'm sorry that's the best I can do at this point.

http://www.presidencia.gob.ni/

Patricia,

I attempted a search on that site but it came out zip.

Sorry.

Carder: I am working on it. Thanks for trying.

Patricia: Ok, fine. But then don't have sex because sex makes babies. That's what it's suppose to do. Even with contraception, this happens.

Patricia, no unwanted babies would be fine with me. Reality is that unwanted pregnancies, occur, though, and while prevention isn't an option then, abortion is, and sometimes that's the best choice for the woman.
....

The person who pays the price is the innocent unborn baby. They should not. The woman should act as a mature responsible adult and take responsiblity for her actions as should her partner.

She is taking responsibility. The pregnancy is her responsibility, which ever way she chooses. You are projecting "paying the price" onto embryos and fetuses which don't care about anything, which have no awareness, while the pregnant woman most certainly does.

"The vast majority" of women do not regret their abortions (on balance)."

Carla: Says you, Doug?

Yes, and studies on it, by and large, as well.
.....

What of the ones who do? What of them? Do they matter? Do you care?

Yes, I don't want people to suffer, and yes they do matter. The ones that really do regret it on balance made the wrong choice.
....

Do I really want to get into a circular argument with Doug today?? :)

What do you see as "circular"?

That you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe and know to be true as a woman that had an abortion......and we go round and round and round.
Very respectfully of course.

What studies? Do they follow post abortive women all of their lives? I just read an article about 2 women on their deathbeds that could not be consoled over the abortions they had had decades before.

How do you know you will regret it BEFORE you choose it???? 20/20 is hindsight type of thing?

OK, here's the deal. Whenever you see yet another "Catholic" intellectual or professor type arguing that it is alright to support a candidate that strongly promotes abortion over an opponent who has voted consistently pro-life what it comes down to a usually one of three things. One, the person is either ignorant of church teachings; two, he/she has a political agenda; or three, a combination of both.

sorry, I can't figure out how to re-post the question I'm responding to here the right way - but back to Carla/carder...

You asked a few questions:

-Why is abortion such a profound decision to make as you see it? If women are sad or depressed afterward I ask why? If it is such a good thing, a positive thing, the right choice then why the sadness? If they are not skipping in to get one then shouldn't they be skipping out?

Abortion is a profound decision for a woman to make because of so, so many complicated, personal and conflicting reasons. Maybe she wants to be a mother but doesn't feel she can, maybe she's had all the children she can withstand and doesn't want to face another pregnancy, maybe its the result of a trauma, maybe she doesn't want to be judged, maybe she's religiously conflicted...I could go on and on. At the end of the day - everyone knows that you're ending a life. Some form of life. Maybe its already a baby to you, maybe its not, but most womend recognize that what they're doing/considering is ending a life. And that, is profound indeed. And yet, as Doug mentioned - for many, many women who have had abortions - it was STILL the right decision and they are ok about it. I think this is the linchpin of our debate...I think for a lot of pro-life supporters, they can't see past someone understanding you're ending a life and still supporting the right to an abortion, or having one.

-Adoption is an option. Isn't it?

Yes, it is. A great one if you are so inclined and able to. I would consider adoption someday myself, whether or not I ever have biological kids. Adoption or abortion are both options.

-If you've followed on the blog long enough, you're probably aware of the fetal-dumping cases in Michigan. What's your take on that?

Um, I'm not 100% sure that I know the specific case you're referring to, but I can gather that it deals with 'dumping'/throwing away fetal parts in a dumpster, right? Well, I'm not necessarily moved by that, mainly because that would be the type of (no sensitive enough word here - trying to be respectful of the PL viewpoint here) medical waste I would expect to find at a medical clinic. If it were a plastic surgeon, and you found bags of lipo waste or something, it wouldn't be shocking. Same applies here - if it's an abortion clinic, wouldn't the result of the procedures be in the trash? Now, I can understand if you are of the mindset that the 'waste' is a baby, or a human being that should be treated as such, how you would be offended by such a discovery. But, this is not my experience. Now, if dumping ANY medical waste behind said dumpster is illegal, that's one thing - but if you are asking if I'm outraged by the dumping of 'babies' or 'fetuses' or 'baby parts' at an abortion clinic...my honest answer is no.

That you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe and know to be true as a woman that had an abortion......and we go round and round and round. Very respectfully of course.

Heh - okay, Carla, that's pretty good Don't see it as really going around and around, though. First, there's a big difference between one person's experience and claiming that it applies to all or most. I certainly believe that you feel as you say, but obviously some other women (like Erin, for instance) don't share the same experience.
.....

What studies? Do they follow post abortive women all of their lives? I just read an article about 2 women on their deathbeds that could not be consoled over the abortions they had had decades before.

Anecdotal stuff, like the 2 women, don't necessarily have any bearing on women as a whole. By far, most studies show there to be no "epidemic" of severe regret among all the millions of US women that have had abortions. We've been through many of them already right on Jill's blog, including the one from Finland that is very unusual - it does show marked problems in women that had abortion.

In the US, the norm is if there are problems afterward, then there were problems beforehand. I'd also note that LOTS of women bear out the "are satisfied on balance and would do the same thing again in similar circumstances" factor, since they do indeed do it again, having second abortions, third, etc.
....

How do you know you will regret it BEFORE you choose it???? 20/20 is hindsight type of thing?

You don't always know. If one really thinks that "reget" will be the major deal, then one wouldn't willingly make that choice, but there may be times when one will have regrets no matter what. Among their available choices, people go with what they want the most, or that for which they have the least distaste.

Yeah, hindsight, but that's no reason to take away the freedom that women now have. If a woman is really opposed to abortion, I wouldn't say "Well, go ahead and have one, because Erin experienced it like this..." Nor would I say to a woman, "Don't have an abortion because Carla experienced it like so-and-so..."

"... if you are asking if I'm outraged by the dumping of 'babies' or 'fetuses' or 'baby parts' at an abortion clinic...my honest answer is no. "

Why is that?

To repost the question: highlight the words, sentences you want to repost, right click the mouse, click on 'copy', move your cursor to where you want to repost it, right click, click 'paste', and there it is.

Did that make sense?

Doug,

If Carla were the only one here complaining about your logical merry-go-rounds, then I'd say she has a problem.

But Bethany, Heather, MK, Patricia, Janet, truthseeker, yours truly, John McD, et al have all commented at one point or another about how we chase our tail with you.

Don't you get it???

No Doug doesn't get it.

sigh

Doug:6;17: In the US, the norm is if there are problems afterward, then there were problems beforehand.

Really? Is there proven data on this?

But Bethany, Heather, MK, Patricia, Janet, truthseeker, yours truly, John McD, et al have all commented at one point or another about how we chase our tail with you. Don't you get it???

Carder, that's because I don't make the same unprovable assumptions as you do. If we all agreed, then we could go from one premise to a logical conclusion. However, the abortion argument exists because we don't all agree in the first place.

You're not "chasing your own tail," you're up against the fact that your unprovable beliefs do not necessarily apply to other people.

We are talking about affecting thinking, feeling people in this debate, banning or further restricting abortion, and if we're to do any such thing then I think it should be with universal or near-universal agreement, me included.

Carla: No Doug doesn't get it.

Yes I do. What, specifically, in what I said don't you agree with?

"In the US, the norm is if there are problems afterward, then there were problems beforehand."

Janet: Really? Is there proven data on this?

We've been through it before, but here are some things:

In general, women who have had one abortion do not suffer adverse psychological effects. In fact, as a group, they have higher self-esteem, greater feelings of worth and capableness, and fewer feelings of failure than do women who have had no abortions or who have had repeat abortions --

Russo, Nancy Felipe & Kristin L. Zierk. (1992). "Abortion, Childbearing, and Women's Well-Being." Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23(4), 269-80.

Zabin, Laurie Schwab, et al. (1989). "When Urban Adolescents Chose Abortion: Effects on Education, Psychological Status, and Subsequent Pregnancy." Family Planning Perspectives, 21(6), 248-55.

.......

For most women who have had abortions, the procedure represents a maturing experience, a successful coping with a personal crisis situation --

DeVeber, L. L., et al. (1991). "Post-Abortion Grief: Psychological Sequelae of Induced Abortion." Humane Medicine, 7(3), 203-8.

Kero, A., et al. (2004). "Wellbeing and Mental Growth — Long-Term Effects of Legal Abortion." Social Science & Medicine, 58, 2559-69.
.....

From religioustolerance.org:

"Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, a famous opponent of abortion, was asked by President Reagan to study the health effects of induced abortions. He responded in a 1989-JAN-8 letter that he could not form a conclusion from the available data. A year later, Dr. Koop told representatives of some pro-life groups that the risk of significant emotional problems after an abortion was "miniscule"."

This was a guy who was already pro-life, and asked by the President to look at it. You can imagine that Reagan would have preferred another answer from Koop, but evidently Koop wasn't in the mood to be too false.
.....

From the New York Times:

Abortion does not trigger lasting emotional trauma in young women who are psychologically healthy before they become pregnant, an eight-year study of nearly 5,300 women has shown, researchers report. Women who are in poor shape emotionally after an abortion are likely to have been feeling bad about their lives before terminating their pregnancies, the study found.

The findings, the researchers say, challenge the validity of laws that have been proposed in many states, and passed in several, mandating that women seeking abortions be informed of mental health risks.

The researchers, Dr. Nancy Felipe Russo, a psychologist at Arizona State University in Tempe, and Dr. Amy Dabul Marin, a psychologist at Phoenix College, examined the effects of race and religion on the well-being of 773 women who reported on sealed questionnaires that they had undergone abortions, and they compared the results with the emotional status of women who did not report abortions. The women, initially 14 to 24 years old, completed questionnaires and were interviewed each year for eight years, starting in 1979. In 1980 and in 1987, the interview also included a standardized test that measures overall well-being, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.

''Given the persistent assertion that abortion is associated with negative outcomes, the lack of any results in the context of such a large sample is noteworthy,'' the researchers wrote. The study took into account many factors that can influence a woman's emotional well-being, including education, employment, income, the presence of a spouse and the number of children.

Higher self-esteem was associated with being employed, having a higher income, having more years of education and bearing fewer children, but having had an abortion ''did not make a difference,'' the researchers reported. And the women's religious affiliations and degree of involvement with religion did not have an independent effect on their long-term reaction to abortion. Rather, the women's psychological well-being before having abortions accounted for their mental state in the years after the abortion.

In considering the influence of race, the researchers again found that the women's level of self-esteem before having abortions was the strongest predictor of their well-being after an abortion.

''Although highly religious Catholic women were slightly more likely to exhibit postabortion psychological distress than other women, this fact is explained by lower pre-existing self-esteem,'' the researchers wrote in the current issue of Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, a journal of the American Psychological Association.

Over all, Catholic women who attended church one or more times a week, even those who had not had abortions, had generally lower self-esteem than other women, although within the normal range, so it was hardly surprising that they also had lower self-esteem after abortions, the researchers said in interviews.

Dr. Marin said the Rosenberg scale used to measure the emotional health of the women in the study was a tool commonly used to assess overall psychological well-being. ''If someone is experiencing distress of any sort, it will show up on this scale,'' she said.

When the researchers looked just at the aftermath of abortion, they said their results appeared to ''confirm the assertions of pro-life groups and the findings in the literature that religious Catholic women are more likely to have lower levels of well-being after having an abortion than are other women.''

But when the researchers considered the emotional well-being of the various groups of women before they had abortions, the women's emotional state before pregnancy accounted for their feelings after their abortions, not the abortions or their religious affiliations or involvement in religion.

Doug,
Do you have any idea how offensive you can be to others like myself who regret their abortions?

DO NOT try to minimize my pain, my experience of abortion. Do NOT try to minimize the pain and experience of the thousands of others like me.

Do even bother bringing up Erin. Her abortion happened not even a year ago. She is still relieved I am sure.

It proves to me that you are completely out of touch with reality. Go to Rachel's Vineyard, After Abortion, Silent No More and read some more stories. I have a feeling that I will get the I'm Not Sorry website thrown at me again.

The studies you came up with mean nothing to me. There just might be a woman reading this right now who is struggling and I will not allow you and your posts to discourage her, to deny her to feel what she feels, that what she is feeling is NOT legitimate. No should feel so alienated.

Abortion hurts women. Abortion hurts men.

Out of touch with the reality that SOME women come to regret their abortions. That the pain they feel is real, valid and that abortion can cause serious harm to women and men.
Out of touch with that, Doug. I may be the only post abortive woman commenting on this site BUT I am definitely not the only one reading.

Gee Carla, in the name of protecting women, maybe we should outlaw this:

Postpartum Mood Disorders
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after Childbirth

When we think of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, we think of a war veteran who witnessed unspeakable acts or catastrophic events such as September 11th. What we don't think of are women who have given birth.

For approximately 7% of women, the birth experience itself is so traumatic, that they now suffer Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) After Childbirth. This is only one of the less common but certainly more serious of the postpartum mood disorders. Others include Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) After Childbirth and Panic Disorder (or Anxiety Disorder) After Childbirth.

Unlike women who have experienced these types of disorders, the onset or beginning of symptoms in this case, doesn't start until after giving birth.

There are 2 common features of childbirth that make it potentially traumatizing: extreme pain and a sense of loss of control. For example, if the medical staff does not honor the mother's right to privacy by appropriately covering her or by allowing other unknown people into the delivery room such as students. These types of events could result in emotional trauma. There are also more obvious forms of trauma. These could include anesthesia not being delivered effectively during a cesarean section or the death of the baby.

What is also important to understand is that it is the mother's perception of what is defined to her as traumatic.

Signs/Symptoms PTSD After Childbirth:
The person has experienced an event, which they perceive as traumatic;

Flashbacks of the event occur (sudden and vivid memories);

Nightmares of the event;

Inability to recall an important aspect of the event - psychgenic amnesia;

Exaggerated startle response, constantly on edge;

Hyper-arousal, always on guard;

Hyper-vigilant, constantly looking around for trouble or stressors;

Avoidance of all reminders of the traumatic event;

Intense psychological stress at exposure to events that resemble the traumatic event;

Physiological reactivity on exposure to events resembling the traumatic event - panic attacks, sweating, palpitations;

Fantasies of retaliation;

Cynicism and distrust of authority figures and public institutions;

Hypersensitivity to injustice

Masking Symptoms:
Many times, symptoms of PTSD After Childbirth are masked by other symptoms such as Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Eating Disorders, Compulsive Gambling or Compulsive Spending, Psychosomatic Problems, Homicidal, Suicidal or Self-Mutilating Behaviors, Phobias, Panic Disorders, Depression of depressive symptoms, Dissociation Symptoms, Fainting Spells, or Psychotic Episodes.

Research Study:
Dr. Cheryl Beck, Researcher and Professor at the University of Connecticut's School of Nursing is conducting a case study on PTSD after Childbirth. She has invited other mothers who may have experienced these types of symptoms to contact her by e-mail at cheryl.beck@uconn.edu for participation in her study.

Getting Help:
If you or someone you love is experiencing the above symptoms, get help immediately. This type of condition doesn't get better on its own. Go to your local Emergency Room or call your physician.

More support can be found online at Postpartum.org.

This page is brought to you by:
ECHN's Family Development Center

Related Topics:
Pregnancy Resources - Safe Houses
Adoption Agency Locator
Teen Pregnancy Links
Postpartum Depressive Disorders
Postpartum Support Groups (state by state)
Health and Safety Links

Gee Laura,
That has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Gee Laura,
That has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Posted by: Carla at June 17, 2008 9:43 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gee Carla-
Since you believe that abortion should be outlawed because some fraction of 1% of women who have one MIGHT be emotionally damaged, it only makes sense to outlaw childbirth - a process that apparently causes Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in 7%of all women who go through it, and the hundreds of thousands more who experience post-partum deression.

Heck! I can come up with MILLIONS of Americans emotionally wounded by bad marriages. Let's outlaw marriage, too...

Laura, shut up.

Doug, we are chasing our tails when we argue with you, because you say things over and over again that we already know, and you present them as though they are somehow an argument. It can get rather annoying. For instance:

Carla says: SOME women regret abortion, and you shouldn't minimalize their pain by dismissing their grief.

Doug says: True, but some women don't feel pain.

***
Well, gee Doug, I guess Carla must not have known that. That's why she said "some" instead of "all". Cause she obviously meant that every single woman on earth regrets their abortions. @ @ Cause "some" and "all" are the same thing, right?

Do you have any idea how annoying that can be?

Doug, we have already ESTABLISHED the fact that some women do not regret abortion. That's a big duh, okay.

We need to build from that point, not keep restating and restating ad nauseum the point that "some women don't feel pain". That is what we refer to as "going in circles".

Why not actually address the points Carla makes instead of side stepping them with your reiterations?

Thanks Bethany.

I can't let it go when Doug or anyone else grabs some studies(come study Carla and her post abortive friends!!) and talks as if there is no grief or shame or remorse for SOME women. Not even an acknowledgment that it's possible. I would hate for someone reading on this site to think that their pain can't possibly be real.

WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN!! :)

(hugs) Carla. I know there are many post abortive women reading your posts today and being comforted.

Doug said::6;17: In the US, the norm is if there are problems afterward, then there were problems beforehand.

Janet said: 10:16: Really? Is there proven data on this?
----

Carla, I didn't mean to open up a can of worms with that question. I forgot who I was asking. Sorry!

ha ha Janet. :)

No worries.

DO NOT try to minimize my pain, my experience of abortion. Do NOT try to minimize the pain and experience of the thousands of others like me.

Carla, in no way did I do that. I've never questioned the way you feel nor said that other given women cannot or will not not feel the same way. If you feel like you're chasing your own tail, it's due at least in part to you putting words in my mouth.
.....

The studies you came up with mean nothing to me. There just might be a woman reading this right now who is struggling and I will not allow you and your posts to discourage her, to deny her to feel what she feels, that what she is feeling is NOT legitimate. No should feel so alienated.

Nobody's trying to do that. I said nothing about denying how you or she feels. You asked about studies and I've been through them numerous times.
......

Out of touch with the reality that SOME women come to regret their abortions. That the pain they feel is real, valid and that abortion can cause serious harm to women and men.

I've never said you "shouldn't" feel the way you do nor that other given women can't or won't. I'm not the one that's "out of touch." The point is that while I do believe you feel the way you say, it's not necessarily going to apply to another given woman or women in general.

Sometimes you act like it is, and that's wrong.

Doug, we are chasing our tails when we argue with you, because you say things over and over again that we already know, and you present them as though they are somehow an argument. It can get rather annoying. For instance:

Carla says: SOME women regret abortion, and you shouldn't minimalize their pain by dismissing their grief.

I can't let it go when Doug or anyone else grabs some studies (come study Carla and her post abortive friends!!) and talks as if there is no grief or shame or remorse for SOME women.

On come on, Carla. You asked about studies. I've never said anything to the effect that some women don't feel as you do and as you say they do.
....

Not even an acknowledgment that it's possible.

That's just not true.

You can't acknowledge it without saying "but" Doug, and you know it.

Huh.
I am wondering Doug if you can even fathom what I am saying.
Can you, Doug, say to me, Carla-"I am so sorry that your abortion hurt you. I am so sorry that you have struggled for a long time ALONE. I hear you. I am trying to understand what you are saying. I am glad that you are no longer alone and you are using your story to help others."

I didn't ask for studies where some dude says, "Nope, nothing here. blah blah blah. What does a study like that mean to me??? Say to me??? Again, it invalidates the last 17 years of my journey.

I am talking REAL people with REAL feelings and REAL experiences that have brought them more grief than they thought possible from a procedure that they were told was GOOD for them.

You dismiss me and what I say so easily and it is infuriating to me.

Try thinking about someone else's feelings besides your own. Carla has expressed to you several times that your responses have hurt her and you continue to say "no I'm not- everything I say is right, and everything you say is wrong, etc", instead of doing what you need to do and say, "I'm sorry if I came across to you that way. My intent was never to hurt you."

I think Carla knows how your words make her feel, and she doesnt' need you to tell her how your words should make her feel. I think you should think about how someone else might feel about the things you say, besides you and yourself. Honestly.

How would you like it (by the way, this is going to be a hypothetical, so please don't respond to it with counter stats as though it is a literal situation)- suppose you had been raped, and you reached out online and told people that you were hurt, but everyone kept insisting to you, "Well statistics say that the majority of people who are raped go on to have great lives, and do not dwell on or feel bad about their experience."

Suppose they were correct about that claim, in this hypothetical world.

Then, what if you replied, "But don't I matter? I hurt, and the rape hurt me, and it hurts others!"

But then, all you got in response was, "Doesn't matter. You have no right to use your experience to try to make people feel bad about being raped. Other people don't have a problem with it, and if you do, that's fine, but don't try to make others feel bad just because you had a bad experience with it."

Would that make you feel good or bad, Doug? I think that you know as well as I that it would make you feel horrible.

That's exactly how it feels to Carla when you dismiss her feelings as though she doesn't matter.

Carla, I didn't even see your post before I posted mine. I guess we were thinking the same thing lol

Russo, Nancy Felipe & Kristin L. Zierk. (1992). "Abortion, Childbearing, and Women's Well-Being." Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23(4), 269-80.

"Abortion-Depression Study Flawed and Misleading"

To read:
http://www.afterabortion.org/news/russo2.htm

Zabin, Laurie Schwab, et al. (1989). "When Urban Adolescents Chose Abortion: Effects on Education, Psychological Status, and Subsequent Pregnancy." Family Planning Perspectives, 21(6), 248-55.

Certainly not an unbiased source. Guttmacher is the research arm of planned parenthood, largest provider of abortions in the USA.

You can't acknowledge it without saying "but" Doug, and you know it.

Not true, Bethany. Either you are making stuff up or I've actually said something in this thread that bears out your points. Which is it?

I am wondering Doug if you can even fathom what I am saying. Can you, Doug, say to me, Carla-"I am so sorry that your abortion hurt you. I am so sorry that you have struggled for a long time ALONE. I hear you. I am trying to understand what you are saying.

Carla, yes. I think you are a very nice person, and I've said that in the past. I am indeed sorry that you had an abortion; it'd have been better for you if you hadn't. I do get that you felt alone before and afterwards.
......

I didn't ask for studies where some dude says, "Nope, nothing here. blah blah blah. What does a study like that mean to me??? Say to me??? Again, it invalidates the last 17 years of my journey.

The studies don't say that, and you did ask. It doesn't invalidate your experience, they note that most women don't share it, that's all.
......

I am talking REAL people with REAL feelings and REAL experiences that have brought them more grief than they thought possible from a procedure that they were told was GOOD for them.

Okay, and I do hear you.
.....

You dismiss me and what I say so easily and it is infuriating to me.

No I don't. Again, what have I actually said that made you feel like I was dismissing you?

Dramamine, anyone?

Try thinking about someone else's feelings besides your own. Carla has expressed to you several times that your responses have hurt her and you continue to say "no I'm not- everything I say is right, and everything you say is wrong, etc", instead of doing what you need to do and say, "I'm sorry if I came across to you that way. My intent was never to hurt you."

Bethany, my intent was not to hurt anybody. Do you really think it was?

Carla said: What of the ones who do (regret abortion; suffer)? What of them? Do they matter? Do you care?

I responded: "Yes, I don't want people to suffer, and yes they do matter. The ones that really do regret it on balance made the wrong choice."

What do you see as hurtful or unreasonable on my part there or anywhere else in this thread?
......

Saying what is true for most women or other women, even when speaking of one's opinion, is not denying the experiences of a given woman, not telling her she's wrong or bad, etc. for feeling as she does, not saying her pain is more than it should be, etc.

Carla asked, What studies? I mentioned some. Neither I nor the conclusions of any of the studies were saying that she's "wrong" to feel as she does, nor that her experience isn't valid, nor that there can't be shame, grief, remorse, etc.

I am not projecting the studies onto any one individual, yet Carla apparently feels I am. I'm really not.

Carder: Dramamine, anyone?

Specifics, anyone? Quotes? Actual examples?

So to my regret Doug you say,
The ones that really do regret it on balance made the wrong choice. ????!!!

To the fact that abortion hurt me and I suffered for years you quote a study that says this,
In general, women who have had one abortion do not suffer adverse psychological effects.

To the pain and the struggle I have described to you before you quote another study that says this,
For most women who have had abortions the procedure represents a maturing experience, a successful coping with a personal crisis situation.

Yes, pass the dramamine before I punch the monitor.

Doug please do not be afraid to let a little emotion spill over once in awhile. Do not be afraid to entertain the thought that maybe, just maybe abortion could actually be hurting more women than you can wrap your brain around. Study or no study. Do not be afraid to trust the fact that I do not need you to validate ME as a person.
Do not be afraid to tell someone that lets you in on some pain, I AM SO SORRY.

I have read some horrifying stories on this site. Some from commenters. I can hardly describe what it is like to put myself in someone else's shoes and LISTEN. Sometimes that is enough.

Bethany, my intent was not to hurt anybody. Do you really think it was?

I think that you need to communicate your messages more effectively, and allow yourself to use emotion every once in a while, instead of acting so robotic.

I also think that sometimes you are so set on proving you are right, you forget that you're not debating words on a screen, you are discussing an issue with actual, living breathing, feeling people who at some times just aren't interested in discussing the statistics over and over, but sometimes just want to talk about how they FEEL and sometimes just want you to acknowledge that, actually show you care, and stop worrying so much about "being right".

Doug, think about it. What was the point of Carla's posts to you? Was it to dispute the idea that there are some women who do not regret their abortions? I didn't see her disputing that anywhere. You said you had a problem with the statement "abortion hurts women". Well, it does. And Carla is a testament to that fact. And by the way, she never once said "all women". But yet you felt inclined to bring up the statistics again, for whatever reason. That is one thing that is highly frustrating, Doug.

Even in this statement here:

"Carla, yes. I think you are a very nice person, and I've said that in the past. I am indeed sorry that you had an abortion; it'd have been better for you if you hadn't. I do get that you felt alone before and afterwards."

You know...that was actually better. much better. And I almost thought, wow, he's really trying.

But then you had to go and make a mess of it. Remember how I said you can't acknowledge her pain without saying "but"?

Well, here is your "but":

"It doesn't invalidate your experience, they note that most women don't share it, that's all."

You must think our memory is awfully short term, Doug.
You bring this up every chance you get.

No I don't. Again, what have I actually said that made you feel like I was dismissing you?

Posted by: Doug at June 17, 2008 3:27 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You never said anything that "dismissed" her.

What you failed to do was to shriek, wail, gnash teeth and rend clothing.
Sure, you recognized that she had a bad apres-abortion experience, but you never had the decency to describe her experience as the worst thing that ever happened to anybody in the history of mankind.

Doug, I had some pretty brutal dental work done yesterday. Sure, I wanted it, asked to have it done, and was told it was good for me, but now it hurts, and I refuse to get on with my life until you throw yourself to the floor and writhe as if you've been immersed in boiling oil in response to my pain.

I WILL NOT BE IGNORED!

Good grief, Laura, you must have some serious teeth issues, as many times as you bring up dental visits. Maybe you need a new dentist.

Good grief, Laura, you must have some serious teeth issues, as many times as you bring up dental visits. Maybe you need a new dentist.

Posted by: Bethany at June 17, 2008 4:22 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nah. I have crappy dental insurance that only allows minimal amounts of work at a time.

That and the fact that I never wore my retainer again after my parents spent bucketloads on my orthodontia.

I would respond to you Laura but I am ignoring you.

Ah, Bethany,
Thank you for sticking it out with me today.
You are a very special lady! (((HUGS)))

Carla, anytime... and I do mean anytime. (hugs)

Today I am in the middle of my Once a Month Cooking, and everything I set something to cooking, I come back here to see what I can reply to. hehe :)

I would respond to you Laura but I am ignoring you.

Posted by: Carla at June 17, 2008 4:29 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You've dismissed my pain.

How dare you!

So to my regret Doug you say,

"The ones that really do regret it on balance made the wrong choice." ????!!!

You lost me there, Carla. Why in the heck is it to your regret that I said that? We've already mentioned hindsight, but I know you feel the same way - that it was the wrong choice.
.....

To the fact that abortion hurt me and I suffered for years you quote a study that says this, In general, women who have had one abortion do not suffer adverse psychological effects.

Carla, I will drop the whole argument here if you tell me to. I didn't quote that in response to your feelings.
......

To the pain and the struggle I have described to you before you quote another study that says this, For most women who have had abortions the procedure represents a maturing experience, a successful coping with a personal crisis situation.

Same deal - that was not "to your pain and struggle." You and Janet asked, that's all.
......

Doug please do not be afraid to let a little emotion spill over once in awhile. Do not be afraid to entertain the thought that maybe, just maybe abortion could actually be hurting more women than you can wrap your brain around. Study or no study. Do not be afraid to trust the fact that I do not need you to validate ME as a person.

I'm not afraid to show emotion. Hell, I'm a Pisces. Seems to me there is a common thread here of you, Bethany, Carder and Janet saying, "Doug, you're doing so-and-so," and I feel like, "Oh for $&%'s sake, I did not."

I'm not projecting the studies onto you, Carla, not at all.
.....

Do not be afraid to tell someone that lets you in on some pain, I AM SO SORRY.

No argument there, Carla.

Bethany: But then you had to go and make a mess of it. Remember how I said you can't acknowledge her pain without saying "but"?

Well, here is your "but":

"It doesn't invalidate your experience, they note that most women don't share it, that's all."

You must think our memory is awfully short term, Doug. You bring this up every chance you get.

Your memory is awfully short. This was never in response to Carla's experience, but rather to the idea that I'd been trying to invalidate it, etc.

She and Janet asked, I answered. I never attempted to demean her or deny her experience in any way. I've never meant anything personally toward Carla about this.
.....

Doug, think about it. What was the point of Carla's posts to you? Was it to dispute the idea that there are some women who do not regret their abortions? I didn't see her disputing that anywhere. You said you had a problem with the statement "abortion hurts women". Well, it does. And Carla is a testament to that fact. And by the way, she never once said "all women". But yet you felt inclined to bring up the statistics again, for whatever reason. That is one thing that is highly frustrating, Doug.

You're right, B, she didn't claim anything for "all women," and I appreciate that.

If there is something frustrating for me here, it's you and others not seeing that saying, "abortion hurts women" is only as true, or just as false, as saying, "abortion does not hurt women."

I've seen "more emotion" lots of times, and often it's like a ping-pong ball going back and forth between two people. The situation rapidly excalates and gets personal very fast. We've seen some of that very thing here recently.

We can drop it, Doug.

I responded to this comment made by you, waaaaaaay up there.

The vast majority of women who have abortions are glad they did, on balance, and would do the same thing again, in similar circumstances.

I won't be letting those statements go. Sorry. I can't. I am here for all of the friends I know that have struggled as I have and are now reaching out and for all of those women who are hurting right now and read your words.

Carla, as I said before, you're a peach, and you and Bethany are two of the sweetest and best people I know.

I've seen "more emotion" lots of times, and often it's like a ping-pong ball going back and forth between two people. The situation rapidly excalates and gets personal very fast. We've seen some of that very thing here recently.

I think you mean well, Doug. I think you may just honestly not understand what we're trying to get you to understand...you seem to be taking it in a whole different, more technical way than what we are trying to express- and if you see it that way, I guess that's just how you see it.

I think Carla is right that we should drop this topic cause we'll probably never come to an agreement.

I hope you have a good day, and will talk to you more later- gotta fold up some more pirogies for freezing!

Doug,
You are a gem. I thank you for taking the time today. I mean that.

Whew! Glad I missed this one. I'm dizzy just from reading it! I did warn ya Carla.

Doug, I love ya, but you really are on a permanent carousel...

Consider Carla warned.

I do love ya too Doug, but stop the ride....I wanna get off......

And they all lived happily ever after...

I hope you have a good day, and will talk to you more later- gotta fold up some more pirogies for freezing!

Bethany, I stand in awe of your energy and accomplishments.
......

"I've seen "more emotion" lots of times, and often it's like a ping-pong ball going back and forth between two people. The situation rapidly excalates and gets personal very fast. We've seen some of that very thing here recently."

I think you mean well, Doug. I think you may just honestly not understand what we're trying to get you to understand...you seem to be taking it in a whole different, more technical way than what we are trying to express- and if you see it that way, I guess that's just how you see it.

There is more than one thing there. Expression of one's feelings is one thing. Commenting on more general natures and occurrences is another. However, I do understand that Carla's feelings got stepped on.
......

I think Carla is right that we should drop this topic cause we'll probably never come to an agreement.

I don't think the topic is the problem. The problem is that one person took it personally when the other didn't mean anything that way. This happens all the time online, and above I meant like Heather and her "opponents" or whoever was involved.

Doug, I love ya, but you really are on a permanent carousel...

MK, that's the way it is for everybody, provided they want to do more than preach to the choir. We often come up against differing beliefs, approaches, and assumptions.
......

Consider Carla warned. I do love ya too Doug, but stop the ride....I wanna get off......

Carla, You're one of the least combative people here, and I know you got really upset today, and I'm sorry for that.
......

Carder: And they all lived happily ever after...

Cheers, Carder.

OK, here's the deal. Whenever you see yet another "Catholic" intellectual or professor type arguing that it is alright to support a candidate that strongly promotes abortion over an opponent who has voted consistently pro-life what it comes down to a usually one of three things. One, the person is either ignorant of church teachings; two, he/she has a political agenda; or three, a combination of both.
Posted by: Jerry at June 16, 2008 3:52 PM

What a hoot! assuming you're referring to Doug Kmiec here. This guy knows Catholic doctrine better than the old Zinger Rat himself, so 1 and 3 are out; the idea of a political agenda? as pointed out previously, he worked for repubs for a good part of his career.

Kmiec has outlined his defense/reasons for supporting Obama. It shows a lack of intellectual ability on your part that you don't even try to rebutt any of his specific arguments, but instead use a broad brush to smear anyone who doesn't agree with your agenda, who doesn't play your one - note serenade, someone who is capable of seeing the bigger picture.

And, as he's said, McCain isn't really anti-choice, he's a federalist.

Hey Doug, I asked you a question way up there not realizing I was opening up another can of worms. I apologized to Carla, I want to apologize to you also. i know you were just trying to answer my question. Sorry!

phylo: 11:06: What a hoot! assuming you're referring to Doug Kmiec here.This guy knows Catholic doctrine better than the old Zinger Rat himself, .

I don't know anything about Kmiec, but I know enough about Pope Benedict XVI, to say he's about as smart a Catholic intellectual as they come. Please don't disrespect him by butchering his name. Thank you.

Well Doug, logic confuses and frustrates them. - What can we say? Personally, I've always found your posts extremely rational, and kind, sympathetic and patient beyond human requirement.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 17, 2008 11:14 PM

Thanks, whoever you are.

From NY TImes articel:
"Over all, Catholic women who attended church one or more times a week, even those who had not had abortions, had generally lower self-esteem than other women, although within the normal range, so it was hardly surprising that they also had lower self-esteem after abortions, the researchers said in interviews."

Gee if we're really worried about women's feelings and well-being, maybe we should ban Catholicism, or at least ration mass attendance.

"I don't know anything about Kmiec, but I know enough about Pope Benedict XVI, to say he's about as smart a Catholic intellectual as they come. Please don't disrespect him by butchering his name. Thank you."
Posted by: Janet at June 17, 2008 11:18 PM

Well Janet, there is little reason to feel or show any type of respect to one of the largest dishonest, pederast protecting, misogynistic businesses in the world, nor to its CEO.
If you do, fine.

And there you have it.
A person named Phylosopher making more logical fallacies in one sentence then any honest philosopher will ever make again. Take the two words of this anti-Catholic bigot, named phylosopher; "largest dishonest" How large is honesty phylosopher? What are the dimensions of honesty? What are the dimensions of this "largest" you write of? Is this "largest" larger then a mountain,say Mt St. Helens? Or smaller then a mole hill of ad hominems you created in your post? Aren't homosexuals the "largest business" of pedarist protectors? See anything illogical in that sentence philospher? Well if you do, tell me, and I'll point that fallacy right back at ya, you proud anti-Catholic bigot named Phylosopher. Hmm maybe philosophers are the largest dishonest pedarist protecting "business", since pedaristry is the largely honest philosphy for the business of pedastry. Who knows, maybe NAMBLA is the largest honest pedarist business with only members being pedarist. Or the largest dishonest pedarist business with the only pedarist CEO known to exist, as a CEO of a business of pedophiles.
Let's ask a anti Catholic bigot named Phylosopher to answer that set of questions.

It's from the Dogma of Doug, that dogmatic Doug "never intends to hurt".
It's from the dogma of Doug, that Carla is "dismissed" intellectually first, as in the statment of Dogma Doug, which states that " no one has a good argument against abortion,they just think they do". Carla is one of those "no one's" before Carla writes a word in a argument against abortion.
Dogma Doug states that he does NOT make " the same unprovable assumptions" that those "that have no good argument against abortion". 6/17/08 6;08am. Translation; Dogma Doug writes assumptions and by reason of dogmatic assumptions of Doug, are provable assumptions, your assumptions are "unprovable asumptions". Even "assume" is dismissed through the dogma of Doug.
Everything you write to Dogma Doug is "chasing your tail" from his assumption that " no one has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do".
Not to leave his dogma at the door of assumptions as unprovable assumptions(which yours are Carla et. al), Dogma Doug assumes that anybody elses assumptive writings(NY Times) that agree with his dogma, are assumptions of proving his assumptions, which include assumptive studies of "emotions".
Now, Dogma Doug, when you read the above statement by me, your mind has already decided that my writing is trying to state some assumption about your assumptions. What is it?

So, Dogma Doug, "go chase your tail", as that might be exactly what your dogma does to you in each and every word you write here concerning matters of your dogmatic faith and preaching for the homicide of human beings.
Get it Dogma Doug? Hint Hint!!!

Well Doug, logic confuses and frustrates them. - What can we say? Personally, I've always found your posts extremely rational, and kind, sympathetic and patient beyond human requirement.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 17, 2008 11:14 PM

Phylo, was this you??

"I don't know anything about Kmiec, but I know enough about Pope Benedict XVI, to say he's about as smart a Catholic intellectual as they come. Please don't disrespect him by butchering his name. Thank you."
Posted by: Janet at June 17, 2008 11:18 PM

phylo:11:44: Well Janet, there is little reason to feel or show any type of respect to one of the largest dishonest, pederast protecting, misogynistic businesses in the world, nor to its CEO.
If you do, fine.

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

From NY TImes articel:
"Over all, Catholic women who attended church one or more times a week, even those who had not had abortions, had generally lower self-esteem than other women, although within the normal range, so it was hardly surprising that they also had lower self-esteem after abortions, the researchers said in interviews."

phylo: 11:35: Gee if we're really worried about women's feelings and well-being, maybe we should ban Catholicism, or at least ration mass attendance.

Way to take a quote completely out of context! Here's the source of that quote and the title of the article:

Study Disputes Abortion Trauma

By JANE E. BRODY
Published: February 12, 1997
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01E4DA1E3CF931A25751C0A961958260

Excerpt: ....

"The president of the National Right to Life Committee, Dr. Wanda Franz, who earned her doctorate in developmental psychology, challenged the researchers' conclusions. She said that their assessment of self-esteem ''does not measure if a woman is mentally healthy,'' adding, ''This requires a specialist who performs certain tests, not a self-assessment of how the woman feels about herself.''

"Dr. Franz said the researchers had ignored ''a large amount of data about postabortion trauma, including severe reactions like depression and post-traumatic stress syndrome.''
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Well Janet, there is little reason to feel or show any type of respect to one of the largest dishonest, pederast protecting, misogynistic businesses in the world, nor to its CEO.
If you do, fine.

I'll pass that on to the 1.2 billion Catholics in the world for you - 17% of the world's population. I'm sure they've been waiting to hear from you.

Phylosopher,

Well Janet, there is little reason to feel or show any type of respect to one of the largest dishonest, pederast protecting, misogynistic businesses in the world, nor to its CEO.
If you do, fine.

Wow, you're kidding right? Please show me some proof that Pope Benedict protected ANY pedophiles, ANYWHERE at ANYTIME. Also please show me how the church is misogynistic, and please show me where the church is dishonest.

Them's pretty strong accusations without any proof. I find that people that strike out like you just did are often afraid of something. Hmmmmm...I wonder. Does the church threaten you in some way?

Because I'm not Jewish, but I'm not antisemetic. I'm not Muslim, but I've never felt the need to blast the faith. I'm not Hindu, but the Hindu faith doesn't stir up the kind of emotions you just displayed...gotta wonder where that's coming from...

Do you feel this strongly about EVERYTHING you don't believe in, or do you reserve such anger and hatred just for us?

Janet: Hey Doug, I asked you a question way up there not realizing I was opening up another can of worms. I apologized to Carla, I want to apologize to you also. i know you were just trying to answer my question. Sorry!

Janet, not a problem at all... it happens.

yllas: A person named Phylosopher making more logical fallacies in one sentence

Heh - even if Phylosopher made a fallacy, your statement would be the darkest ebony sable pot calling the occasionally slightly gray kettle "black." ; )

It's from the Dogma of Doug, that dogmatic Doug "never intends to hurt".

Yllas, I didn't intend to hurt, while you almost always do. Good grief, grow up.

Well Doug, logic confuses and frustrates them. - What can we say? Personally, I've always found your posts extremely rational, and kind, sympathetic and patient beyond human requirement.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 17, 2008 11:14 PM

Thanks, Anon. You gotta play the cards you're dealt.

Who are ya, anyway? Moderators, IP address look familiar?

Doug, I can't imagine who Anon might be. Surely no one who knows you!!!!!

(just kidding!)

yllas: A person named Phylosopher making more logical fallacies in one sentence

Heh - even if Phylosopher made a fallacy, your statement would be the darkest ebony sable pot calling the occasionally slightly gray kettle "black." ; )

Posted by: Doug at June 18, 2008 8:39 PM

LOL Touche.

yllas: A person named Phylosopher making more logical fallacies in one sentence

Heh - even if Phylosopher made a fallacy, your statement would be the darkest ebony sable pot calling the occasionally slightly gray kettle "black." ;

Posted by: Doug at June 18, 2008 8:39 PM

LOL Touche.