My body
Two weeks ago vandals spray-painted, “MY BODY MY CHOICE” on the wall of Holy Rosary Catholic Church in Osborne, Canada, behind a statue dedicated to aborted babies. Then they spray-painted a fetus on the statue.
Holy Rosary’s pastor has no immediate plans to remove the graffiti, according to the Winnepeg Free Press. He wants to give people something to think about. Good for him.
“My body.” Where have I heard that before?
Oh, yes….
Quite ironic. On one end of the spectrum we have certain mothers willing to kill their own preborn children so they don’t have to sacrifice their self-interest, and on the other end we have Jesus Christ, who allowed himself to be killed as the ultimate sacrifice for our self-interest.
[HT: Andrew]
Dec.21, 2007 9:54 am |
Apologetics |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I agree, that is worth thinking about.
“Preborn” – sounds like “pre-owned” for cars rather than just “used cars.”
I applaud the pastor for not having the grafitti removed – it does indeed give people something to think about.
Here’s a crazy one:
“Woman Forces Toddler to Smoke, Posts on MySpace, Gets Arrested”
Nice mugshot, too….
http://tinyurl.com/3clf37
“Preborn” – sounds like “pre-owned” for cars rather than just “used cars.”
You’re right, Doug. Unborn babies who are killed are “used”.
Quite ironic. On one end of the spectrum we have certain mothers willing to kill their own preborn children so they don’t have to sacrifice their self-interest, and on the other end we have Jesus Christ, who allowed himself to be killed as the ultimate sacrifice for our self-interest.
Very profound difference.
It is great that the pastor is keeping the graffiti up. A testament of the times…
A woman’s body is her body and her choice…and so it is for her destiny in the afterlife.
That kind of reminds me of how the Catholic Church seems to venerate women who die during childbirth by beatifying them or canonizing them. The question is, is that the ultimate sacrifice or would it be better to save yourself and be there the family and children you already have. Comments?
That is so cool that the pastor is leaving the graffiti up! That should really work on the hearts and minds of those that did it, and hopefully have an enlightening affect on so many poor “choices”!
Keep up the good work, pro-aborts!
Hi Jess.
“That kind of reminds me of how the Catholic Church seems to venerate women who die during childbirth by beatifying them or canonizing them. The question is, is that the ultimate sacrifice or would it be better to save yourself and be there the family and children you already have. Comments?”
My 5 week old daughter is named after just such a women- Gianna. But she was not canonized because she died in childbirth. She was beatified and then canonized for two miracles that were attributed to her. In St. Gianna’s case, what she did was heroic and outside of what the moral norms would have been in her situation. She could have undergone a hysterectomy, which would have fallen under the principle of double effect. So while it is of course ideal to grow up with both a mother and a father, St. Gianna’s decision was a prudential call on her part. The child that was born to her is now a physician herself, and very grateful to her mother whom she never knew. So to answer your question, Jess, I think to go above and beyond what one ought to do is a matter to be decided by the individual. For St Gianna, it was not all about her, and her life, her family, her happiness, yet sharing that life, family and happiness with another.
I should also mention that there is this 5-6 minute video that is sometimes on EWTN called “This is My Body” which contrasts exactly what Jill is talking about. It was once on youtube, but I don’t seem to be able to find it. Very powerful stuff. But for Catholics, Jesus’s words “This is my Body” are the institution of the Eucharist, which is the source and summit of our Catholic faith. It goes to show how the Devil mocks Christ.
Wow, triple post… not very impressive…
Bobby, I took care of the extra posts. No problem. The board seems to be having a glitch of some kind today.
Thank you, my friend.
“Preborn” – sounds like “pre-owned” for cars rather than just “used cars.”
Aren’t used car salesmen know for “glossing over the truth” in order to sell their wares…
hmmmmm…now where have I heard that before?
Well, first of all, I can’t recall any saints offhand who were beatified or canonized just because they died in childbirth. Generally, women who die in childbirth don’t choose to do so, or don’t have to make a choice between having the baby die or dying themselves.
Secondly, if you’re thinking of St. Gianna, she didn’t die in childbirth, but she did die because she refused to abort her baby in order to save her own life. It’s a drastically different situation than “dying in childbirth.”
Thirdly, as Jesus said (and showed by His sacrifice on the cross), “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:13) I suppose that the Church recognizes a mother who lays down her life for her child as another example of this love to which there is no equal.
So to answer your question, Jess, I think to go above and beyond what one ought to do is a matter to be decided by the individual.
Bobby, some masterful comments by you. You are a wise man.
And I can see you bringing many gifts to your daughter, from near and from afar, and I’m happy for your wife and you and the bambina.
Jess, your question, to save oneself for the family and children already there, or to die giving birth that the baby would live, is a profound one. I’d never face that question but can see both sides of it. I too think it’s up to the individual.
Merry Christmas.
Doug
Guyyyyyyyys.
I am so phenomenally sick. I’ve been throwing up since two in the morning, I can’t keep the anti-nausea medicine down, and I feel so thirsty and dehydrated but can’t drink anything because I just throw it back up. I cannot remember the last time I was so miserable.
*cries*
Erin, wait about 3o minutes to try downing anything again. After 30 minutes, take 1 tbsp of water. That’s ALL. no more than 1 tbsp. Then wait 10 minutes, and sip 1 tbsp again. Keep doing this until you are able to finish a cup of water. And then continue again. The water should stay down if you do this. I hope that you will feel better soon.
Proaborts committing vandalism. Doesn’t surprise me. I have had my prolife sign stolen from my front yard, eggs thrown at me while praying on a public sidewalk along with vulgarities yelled at me and children on the same public sidewalk. I guess thats their choice….sheesh…
Erin,
I hope you feel better, that’s not pleasant at all.
aw erin, I’m sorry. I hope it passes soon.
Graffiti like that saddens me. It’s sort of creepy, reminds me of the scene in 28 days later where the town is just empty.
Jill, this reminds me of a pro-life demonstration during the Vote Yes on 6 campaign in South Dakota last fall. Seeing as the Vote Yes signs were being vandalized as quickly as we could get them up (and they were everywhere!), a lot of people brought them to a counter-demo of the Vote No (against the abortion ban) people. Not only did pro-lifers outnumber them 4 to 1 (we had hundreds), but the vandalized signs served as a stark reminder of the one-sided rash of sign vandalisms.
Erin, you’re a sweetheart and I’m sorry for the way you feel. I think Bethany gives good advice and hope it works for you. Wow – it sounds horrible.
Doug
Bobby, to me you represent the best of religion and Catholicism. I’ve always liked Catholics – grew up on a street in Youngstown, OH, where there were lots of Catholic families.
There must have been 200 kids on our block. We bought our house from a family with 13 kids, and right across the sreet were houses with 9 and 11 kids in them. Up a few houses, 8 kids, 7 kids, 6, 8, 5 etc. Had some great games of football in the street, baseball on vacant lots, etc.
Have you ever been to a Quaker meeting? My mom’s a Quaker – the silent meeting type (no preacher). Everybody goes in, sits down, and there is a time of quiet while people think and meditate, then if somebody is moved to speak, they do. It can be a wonderful thing.
Doug
Wow Doug, thank you very much for the kind words, although if you think I represent the best of religion/ Catholicism, then I am quite the con artist. Truth be told, I’m a bum. But I have a tremendous amount of respect for those who aren’t religious, yet appreciate and respect those who are religious.
I have never been to a Quaker meeting, but it does sound interesting. I do enjoy going to other folks’ services, although there isn’t much of anything out in podunk New Hampshire. God love you, Doug.
Ha! Then the world needs more bums.
Erin,
My daughter and I just got over that about 2 weeks ago. The stomach flu is a nasty little bugger I tell you. We had it TERRIBLE! My brothers threw up once and it was over with. NO FAIR I tell you!
Bobby – NH Quaker Meetings are in Concord, Dover, Exeter, Gonic, North Sandwich, South Pittsfield, West Epping, West Henniker.
Don’t know if those are close to podunk or not.
Elizabeth,
Lemon
Crackers
Soda
Sniff the lemon eat the crackers and sip the soda. That should help you stop throwing up.
Oh and peppermint anything calms the stomach.
Concord is about an hour away from where I live. Never heard of North Sandwich…
My body my choice. Those are the words on the church.
That is the action of Jesus at the Last Supper and on Calvary.
Jesus was all about being for choice. I think it is sad how pro-aborts have taken the word ‘choice’ captivity to their murderous agenda.
Jesus chose to give of his life. We are invited to participate in the banquet of life.
May all choose life and choose to use their bodies and minds to bring true peace to earth, the peace that comes when humanity works together instead of destroying its children and families.
I have to throw in my vote with those who cringe at “preborn”. It’s one of those things I find embarrassing about being prolife — that I’m associated with people who call fetuses “preborn” and perpetrate bad poetry from the point of view of a fetus, as if it’s self-aware.
Abortion is wrong because it’s killing an innocent human being, period, paragraph. Not because it’s killing a beatnick.
No black turtlenecks and bongos for the “preborn”!
Erin, I don’t know you so forgive me if you’ve said this elsewhere, but are you under a doctor’s care for this or the underlying problem? Or are you just very sick today?
bad poetry from the point of view of a fetus, as if it’s self-aware
Christina, I haven’t noticed it here, but on some message boards I’ve frequented for a long time we’ve seen tons of it – some quite hilarious.
Doug
Very nice posts Bobby. I”m abit late here since I’m baking cookies, mincemeat tarts, brownies etc for Christmas for my elderly father.
I think this is good to leave the graffitti up for a time. Seems anything the pro-choicers/abortion side does involves defacing and destroying. By their fruits, you shall know them.
Alright. I understand and respect your point of view, PLers. You are entitled to that. But you cannot force your religious agenda onto others. If you really want to get rid of abortion in this country, you’ll have to come up with some non-religious reasons.
Erin, I’m sorry you’re sick. Everyone seems to be sick this week–except me. I was sick last week. I do hope you feel better.
My ovaries hurt.
Jess,
I shall have to try that sometime…luckily it’s been gone and over with for a couple of weeks. I just have a terrible stomach when it comes to that stomach flu..I have since I was a little girl. :(
“Alright. I understand and respect your point of view, PLers. You are entitled to that. But you cannot force your religious agenda onto others.”
Thats funny, you have no problem forcing your liberal religon on us.
“If you really want to get rid of abortion in this country, you’ll have to come up with some non-religious reasons.”
Ok Boss.
haha Jasper! :D
Erin,
I’m so sorry you’re sick :(
It will pass, soon!
Leah,
I’m sorry your ovaries hurt :(
“If you really want to get rid of abortion in this country, you’ll have to come up with some non-religious reasons.”
That’s funny, considering that I have never once on this site given a single religious reason why abortion should be banned. I don’t know any religious reasons to ban abortion; the Bible doesn’t mention it. I only know that according to science, life begins at conception, and the US Constitution says that it’s illegal to execute someone without due process.
Also,
Just because a law or a bill could be based on something in religon doesn’t mean it is unconstitional.
That kind of reminds me of how the Catholic Church seems to venerate women who die during childbirth by beatifying them or canonizing them. The question is, is that the ultimate sacrifice or would it be better to save yourself and be there the family and children you already have. Comments?
Posted by: Jess at December 21, 2007 11:50 AM
……………………………………..
I once visited a Catholic church in Scotland where the women who died in child birth were burried outside of the church yard. Sinful state of being that it was to be pregnant you know. Funny how things have changed along with the RCCs beliefs.
Preborn” – sounds like “pre-owned” for cars rather than just “used cars.”
You’re right, Doug. Unborn babies who are killed are “used”.
Posted by: Bethany at December 21, 2007 11:05 AM
………………………………………….
Well no. Not yet owned would be not used.
“Woman Forces Toddler to Smoke, Posts on MySpace, Gets Arrested”
—————————
Head, meet desk. *SLAM*
Jess, that’s gonna leave a mark.
Yes, Sally, used and abused.
jasper, foirst off liberalism isnt a religion. Saying rhar makes you sound a bit like Ann Coulter, who genuinely scares me. Im about halfway through her book “Godless”. Frickin’ ridiculous.
As for forcing it down your throats, get a majority vote for your representative. Not our fault that we currently have more representatives and more people with similar ideals at this point. It swings back and forth, and it is incredibly likely that the pendulum will keep swinging.
As for the bit about a law being based in religion may not be unconstitutional. That is true IF it can be seen as having a non-religious basis and purpose as well, otherwise you are infringing on others first amendment rights.
jasper, foirst off liberalism isnt a religion. Saying rhar makes you sound a bit like Ann Coulter, who genuinely scares me. Im about halfway through her book “Godless”. Frickin’ ridiculous.
She was absolutely right, Dan. Liberalism is indeed a religion.
Religion doesn’t always include a supernatural being. The fourth definition of Religion is:
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Liberalism fits the description.
“That is true IF it can be seen as having a non-religious basis and purpose as well”
No, it doesn’t have to have a non-religous basis!!
It just can’t be a government ruled by the church. No where does it say that just because a law has a religous basis, that it is un-constitional!
Bethany-
So would conservatism then.
Also, there are VERY FEW atheist senators/representatives currently serving.
@PiP: Well, when you’re the least trusted minority in the US, it’s to be expected that there are few atheist senators/representatives.
Very unfortunate, if you ask me.
And I find it HILARIOUS that Ann Coulter is dating a liberal Democrat from New York.
Jasper, the precedent of separation of church and state and the first amendment. By having a religious basis, and solely a religious basis, you may infringe on others rights to freely practice their religion. Laws cannot have a sole basis in religion, once again, do to the first amendment, as it is an endorsement by the state of a specific religion’s principle(s).
PIP, I agree with you, for the most part, as many of my conservative beliefs stem from a faith in God. Of course, the technical definition would also apply to those who are conservative and do not believe in God, I would guess. :)
Rae, I find it really odd too that she is dating a liberal. I don’t understand that.
Jasper, the precedent of separation of church and state and the first amendment. By having a religious basis, and solely a religious basis, you may infringe on others rights to freely practice their religion. Laws cannot have a sole basis in religion, once again, do to the first amendment, as it is an endorsement by the state of a specific religion’s principle(s).
John L, I think that’s your cue…
I don’t usually approve of writing grafitti
and vandalism,but I admire the courage of those
brave pro-choice women who put that up.
It shows the self-righeousness and hypocrisy
of the ant-choise movement.
Would you consider it courage if a pro-lifer vandalized an abortion clinic by spraying graffiti that said, “choose life”?
Would that be a brave, courageous move, Robert?
It shows the self-righeousness and hypocrisy
of the ant-choise movement.
Really? Their vandalism exposed OUR self-righteousness? Funny how that works out in your mind…
lol
“Rae, I find it really odd too that she is dating a liberal. I don’t understand that.”
@Bethany: I think it’s hilarious and it basically reaffirms my opinion that she’s a fraud, and not really as psychotically conservative as she portrays herself to be.
I really do think it’s bloody hilarious though. When I found about that yesterday I couldn’t stop giggling.
And as for the original topic: I read about this almost 2 weeks ago. I was wondering when it would show up here.
” Well, when you’re the least trusted minority in the US, it’s to be expected that there are few atheist senators/representatives.”
Oh absolutely. It’s just odd how many people are accusing these politicians of being “godless.” Really? Cuz, there are very few who are really godless, they just have different ideas of what God wants.
“And I find it HILARIOUS that Ann Coulter is dating a liberal Democrat from New York.”
I too find it funny, but not at all surprising. The surprising fact is that he is still alive. I thought she killed after mating.
it is incredibly likely that the pendulum will keep swinging.
Right on, Dan – human behavior is a study in going from one extreme to another, on multiple timeframes, in politics, financial markets, popular culture and the social mood, etc.
“I too find it funny, but not at all surprising. The surprising fact is that he is still alive. I thought she killed after mating.”
As if, PiP, she doesn’t have premarital sex. She’s saving herself for marriage. Duh.
I think it’s hilarious and it basically reaffirms my opinion that she’s a fraud, and not really as psychotically conservative as she portrays herself to be.
Rae, no doubt – Coulter is deliberately outrageous, trying for airtime and book sales, etc. – in it for the money.
Eeee hee heee…..Oh Ann Coulter…I really will say she’s brilliant the way she’s playing on conservative principles to turn a dollar. It’s really excellent. *giggles maniacally*
I admire the courage of those brave pro-choice women who put that up. It shows the self-righeousness and hypocrisy of the ant-choise movement.
“Courage”? How much courage does it take to vandalize in the middle of the night? There might be pro-choice individuals whom have shown courage in advocating for their cause, but these individuals aren’t them.
Rae, LOL. To assume she doesn’t have premarital sex is just silly ;)
“Also, there are VERY FEW atheist senators/representatives currently serving.”
Maybe, just maybe, Pip and Rae, they are not THAT silly! A few years of experience often placed a person in a position where they understand that reality is a bit larger than they can control. So instead of going ‘mad’, they allow God His obviously ‘rightful’ place. ((And being a politician is a wee different than the ‘atheists’ on this site … as part of their job, they of necessity find themselves responsible for others … this is not in any part of academic studies nor in most textbooks on civics … kinda like sex-ed doesn’t teach you how to be a parent. Trying to teach responsibility with papers and exams on a ‘due’ date is tough enough!))
John,
That wasn’t my point at all. People attack Democrats for being “godless” when few really are. That was my point.
John, I don’t mean to be rude, but I have no idea what you are talking about.
Atheists aren’t voted into congress because people don’t trust them. If you aren’t a religious person (for example, if you’re like me, a Deist), you aren’t going to get elected because people equate atheism with paganism (re: Satan)/”heathens”, even though that is very far from the truth. If you don’t follow one of the three main traditional religions in the US (Christianity both Catholic and Protestant, Judaism and to a significantly lesser extent, Islam), you aren’t going to get elected. THAT’S why where are few atheists in the US government.
That and the whole atheist=commie crap from the 50’s.
“So instead of going ‘mad’, they allow God His obviously ‘rightful’ place. ((And being a politician is a wee different than the ‘atheists’ on this site … as part of their job, they of necessity find themselves responsible for others … ”
Why would one go mad when faced with the responsibility of making sure the right laws get passed? What does God have to do with going or not going mad when faced with a large amount of responsibility?
I don’t appreciate that you put the word atheist in quotations. Very condescending.
I dare say politicians don’t take too much responsibility, as they’re always blaming somebody else when things go wrong.
I also note that there is quite another ‘take’ to this. Jesus did say: “whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me” … and just a few lines later He says: ‘whatever you have failed to do for the least of these, you have failed to do to me.”
There is no courage with doing things under darkness … like aborted babies – lifeless. Evan PC-Dan would note this ‘failure to educate’ …. because it emphasizes PC cowardice.
“By having a religious basis, and solely a religious basis, you may infringe on others rights to freely practice their religion.”
No, thats not necessarily true. For instance, there may be religon that says having sex with animals is forbidden…are you going to tell me we can’t make a law prohibiting this behavior?
….
“Laws cannot have a sole basis in religion, once again, do to the first amendment, as it is an endorsement by the state of a specific religion’s principle(s).”
Thats not what the 1st amendment says Dan. It refers to respecting an establishment of religon…….
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
“That and the whole atheist=commie crap from the 50’s.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg
Alger Hiss… and many others.
Ann Coulter was correct, Joe McCarthy was a hero and vilified by the American liberal press.
“”And I find it HILARIOUS that Ann Coulter is dating a liberal Democrat from New York.”
Are there other people besides liberal Democrats in manhatten?
@Jasper: McCarthy was highly unstable. That whole “red-scare” was the basis of “1984”. He was not a hero, and Ann Coulter is not correct (as if she ever is?).
And I have no idea if there are anything else but liberal Democrats in Manhatten, as I’ve never been to New York City. I prefer my towns midwestern and not ridiculously large…ignore the fact I plan to go to Mumbai, India next summer, one of the largest metropolises in the world. :)
The VENONA Project files, declassified in 1995, provided indisputable evidence that nearly all of those McCarthy accused were traitors to America. Not surprisingly, the media ignored these documents completely, instead choosing to run yet another round of anti-McCarthy propaganda. As if that wasn’t enough, in 2005 Hollywood released the greatest propaganda film since “Triumph of the Will”, an anti-McCarthy slander picture known as “Good Night and Good Luck”. Dead for fifty years, McCarthy’s body has now been tarred, feathered, crucified, cremated, and his ashes shot into space by a leftist media who cannot handle the truth of their own miserable existence. The anti-McCarthy media claims the Senator wrongly implicated many. Despite their accusations, no critic has ever brought forth a single documented case of someone being wrongly accused by McCarthy.
http://www.senatormccarthy.com/
*yawn*
Nice source there Jasper.
John M: Maybe, just maybe, Pip and Rae, they are not THAT silly! A few years of experience often placed a person in a position where they understand that reality is a bit larger than they can control. So instead of going ‘mad’, they allow God His obviously ‘rightful’ place.
Such beliefs have nothing necessarily to do with “rightful place.”
……
((And being a politician is a wee different than the ‘atheists’ on this site … as part of their job, they of necessity find themselves responsible for others … this is not in any part of academic studies nor in most textbooks on civics … kinda like sex-ed doesn’t teach you how to be a parent. Trying to teach responsibility with papers and exams on a ‘due’ date is tough enough!))
I’d say that politicians don’t need the baggage that religion brings, in general.
Doug
Ann Coulter was correct, Joe McCarthy was a hero and vilified by the American liberal press.
Jasper, let me laugh my butt off a this for awhile. I still wish you a Merry Christmas and an exsceedingly happy New Year.
Rae, you are outstandingly honest.
You are outstandingly honest. Let me type that one again.
You are outstandingly honest.
You are a treasure that some lucky guy will eventually find.
I was 41 when I got married. I love you, girl.
Merry Christmas.
Doug
“”And I find it HILARIOUS that Ann Coulter is dating a liberal Democrat from New York.”
I doubt they’ll ever be bored with each other!
Ha! Elizabeth, right on!
@Rae.
“I don’t appreciate that you put the word atheist in quotations. Very condescending.”
True, true …. tough, tough! It has been said: ‘there are no atheists in foxholes’ …. hence the quotation marks.
I am in a foxhole and being an atheist is something I find just a waste … of time, of effort … for no reason. It doesn’t take much … just honesty … that I NEED the little fella whose birthday we celebrate in a few days!
My choice – to want peace and one day I hope, it will be with peace(not death) that I will exercise choice.
@John: And that’s fine, that is your decision based on what comforts you the most. Just because something is a cliche, doesn’t mean it’s necessarily true at all times. I’m not sure I understand how being an atheist is a waste of time and effort? I’ve always heard Christians say it’s easier to be a non-believer than a believer. Humans are like electrons, they want to be at the lowest energy state possible and I would imagine not having to deal with the trials of being a believer would use a lot less energy than being a believer.
For example, if one day I were to get cancer (which is likely…) I would not turn to God to get me through this. I would not say God did this to me as a test of my faith, because I know how cancer forms and where it comes from and most likely how I got it (yay for working with ethidium bromide!).
I’m not an atheist, for the record, but a Deist and as part of my belief system, I don’t think that God interferes with people’s lives to “test them”. Hence the reason I would not blame God for giving me cancer or begging God to help me through my time of need. 90% of cancers are caused by environmental factors and 10% of cancers are genetic, there is no percentage that is caused by God.
And I am being honest John. I don’t need Jesus and I don’t need an interfering God in order to get through the day. Just a Zoloft and a few laughs is really enough for me. :)
Merry Christmas, there fella.
@Doug: Arigato gozaimasu for the kind words. :)
Rae,
A Chistian who wants you to find Christ Jesus, wants the best for you.
Soon and very soon, we are going to see the King
Soon and very soon, we are going to see the King
Soon and very soon, we are going to see the King
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! We’re going to see the King.
No more crying there, we are going to see the King
No more crying there, we are going to see the King
No more crying there, we are going to see the King
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! We’re going to see the King.
No more dying there, we are going to see the King
No more dying there, we are going to see the King
No more dying there, we are going to see the King
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! We’re going to see the King.
@Rae,
Your presupposition about what Christian faith means is problematic … your reference to an electron is interesting but can be applied in a few different ways: a ‘free’ electron is an excited electron. Its point-of-rest is ‘at-home’ in the atom from which it came. Even here, the outer electrons (in an orbital) are only ‘happy’ when electrons are shared with another.
In a sense then a Deist can speak of God like a nucleus and ‘faith’ is a return to an proper orbital. http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
‘Faith’ to a Christian is always in context. This ‘Life’ is not ‘mine’ but ‘ours’ like the whole atom which are electrons circling a nucleus or spokes of a wheel … no hub, no wheel! Claiming to be a spoke without a wheel IS the ‘effort’ I find too much.
@Jasper: That reminds me of going to church. Though I was always super bored when I went (I was an alter girl, so I had to act like I was invested in mass…) but I always enjoyed the music. I was always fond of the song that went “Will you let me be your servant…” because of the melody. I always liked “On Eagle’s Wings” too.
@John: I dunno, when I was in chemistry (both inorganic and organic chemistry) we were taught that an electron wants to be at the lowest energy orbital possible (hence the reason an electron easily gives up energy but it takes more effort to excite an electron). Perhaps you misunderstood my analogy (or sad attempt at an analogy)?
I went to that webpage…physics blows my mind. I totally don’t look forward to taking calc-based physics next semester in school!
Do atheists claim to be “spokes without a wheel”? I guess I don’t really understand what you’re saying there…I’m really bad at philosophical-thinking, I’m a very linear kinda gal so forgive me if I appear dense. I mean, if atheists don’t believe that the “hub” so-to-speak exists, why would they say they are a part of the wheel?
John M: I am in a foxhole and being an atheist is something I find just a waste … of time, of effort … for no reason. It doesn’t take much … just honesty … that I NEED the little fella whose birthday we celebrate in a few days!
My choice – to want peace and one day I hope, it will be with peace(not death) that I will exercise choice.
John, here’s to you getting what you need.
Merry Christmas.
Doug
@Rae,
re. the ‘hub’ … exactly! The US-constitution about rights was the kind of document that said there are a number of ‘spokes’ besides you and there are spaces (rights) between the spokes. A reference to ‘God’ can be philosophical (hub) and not be ‘religious’ at all.
re. the electron analogy … I was thinking of the flow-of-electrons that are electricity. Too often people assume that they are an excited-electron with all sorts of power. But instead of looking at the wire (their home), they only look at each other and claim ‘equality’.
Rae, On Eagle’s Wings always was, and always will be one of my favorite hymns. When I went to Mass the first friday of each month at my Catholic school, I awaited the moment we would sing it. Im sure my neighbors weren’t to happy with my voice, but hey. Lol.
And tomorrow night I go to mass again for the first time since the exact same date last year. I hope it’s sung, though I don’t think I’ve ever heard it during a Christmas Eve mass before.
I guess you’ve met your annual mass quota, Dan.
Why even bother going?
Hi folks,
a wee blessing at this time of year: ‘MAY OUR LORD BE WITH YOU and GRANT YOU PEACE!’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LCvK1auHvk
MERRY CHRISTMAS !!!!!!
“re. the ‘hub’ … exactly! The US-constitution about rights was the kind of document that said there are a number of ‘spokes’ besides you and there are spaces (rights) between the spokes. A reference to ‘God’ can be philosophical (hub) and not be ‘religious’ at all.”
@John: I’m sorry, but I am not understanding what you’re trying to say here. I am not a very abstract thinker, I think in a very concrete, linear manner so I apologize for being “slow on the uptake”.
@carder: That’s awfully rude.
@Dan: They don’t sing “On Eagle’s Wings” for Christmas mass, sorry bub. They usually sing a lot of the more church-y Christmas songs like “O Little Town of Bethlehem” and “Silent Night” and “O Come O Come Emmanuel”.
I used to alter serve during midnight mass on Christmas Eve, and man was it difficult to stay awake.
Rae-
50% of cancers involve mutations in the p53! A lot of them also involve the Ras gene.
Wooo I learned something in genetics!
@PiP: Yup! We learned that too!
Yay for the two-hit hypothesis for retinoblastoma! :D
And it’s not what order you get the mutations, it’s how many mutations you get and which mutations you get.
Absolutely!
That retinoblastoma can be tricky!
Aw Rae, the cancer chapter. Possibly the only one I retained.
@PiP: My favorite chapter was the one on recombinant DNA technology as it’s basically what I do in my microbiology lab! :D Nothing like restriction sites, vectors, inserts, transformations, blue/white screening, and homologous or non-homologous recombination.
Northern blotting, southern blotting, and western blotting…oh my!
@Rae,
Sorry … even though you started the analogy, I’ve put in some unusual sidelines.
There is a notion that the center of reality is the individual. This is so overpowering a thought, that we pay little attention to ‘what we are a part of’. So we arrive at ‘spokes’ …. that are not attached to anything … they are independent. Any person who knows anything about mechanics, knows they must be ‘attached’ to something else, somewhere, somehow … to act as a wheel. They cannot claim to be spokes of a ‘hub-less’ wheel … which is what happens when all the rights of being human are appropriated and then leave off any reference to the ‘hub’.
The importance of the hub is underscored when philosophers claim that we only need the value we get from other humans …. ie. all we need is strong attachments to each other spoke … Diana and Doug. (A big mess!)
The US-constitution describes such a functioning wheel. The human element (the spokes) operate only as a balanced group (not a bunch of disordered individualists) around a hub. Each part has its own function … the hub, the spokes. and the rim. Much of the ‘balance’ of the wheel is achieved by the equal spacing between each spoke.
So, to me, a reference to God is an absolute ‘must’ …. such a reference is that of ‘Creator’ (a philosophical concept) and not a religious one. Separation of church and state is about the separation of religion and government NOT philosophy and government … Dan does not see a distinction.
@John: I guess what I was trying to get at (before this whole convoluted hub analogy began…I shouldn’t have used that electron analogy, really regretting that now) was how was it more effort and energy to be an atheist than a Christian when Christians have a much more difficult time in society than atheists? That was the core of my question and I think we got a little bit side-tracked.
I see what you mean about the hub/wheel stuff, at least I think I do? I gather that the point you’re trying to make is that all people in the world are spokes of a wheel but you cannot have a wheel with out a hub (some force that holds us altogether, in your interpretation, God is the hub as that is what connects all human beings together?). Are you trying to say that humans are not fully autonomous individuals and that our actions only detriment or benefit ourselves? Or am I completely misunderstanding you?
@John: And I do understand the first amendment, it means the freedom of religion (ie to practice any religion you choose) not freedom FROM religion. People tend to get that mixed up. The US has no right to declare a “state religion” as that would be against the establishment clause, but I don’t think it says anything against legislating religiously-based laws. However, I think there was a clause in there about that? I could be wrong, I haven’t looked at the First Amendment in awhile.
Rae-
Oh how I hated that chapter! This is why I’m not going into lab science :)
I liked hearing about all the genetic diseases and what caused them. *medical nerd*
@PiP: I only liked that chapter because it was easy-peasy as it was essentially review for me. :) Our genetics TA did the bit on genetic diseases and prion diseases…he was so funny when he was talking about spongiform encephalothopies (he had a picture of Spongebob Squarepants on the slide!), and I totally butchered the spelling of those words I think…
Sally,
Quite simply, names, dates, places, please. So research into the truth of the matter (the full story) can be done. Anyone can throw out anti-catholic tripe (the church buries women outside of the boundaries for the crime of being pregnant) and you’ll be quickly believed. Then again, there is the actual truth of the matter that never seems to measure up to the delighted prejudices.
As for Jess’s question, there is no church teaching that says a mother must sacrifice her life for her child. In the rare situation that a pregnancy must be ended to save the mother’s life, it is allowed because there is NO INTENT to kill a child, but to save a life. This is an important distinction. The church is wise enough to make it; few people are open-minded enough to even realize or respect the fact the church does.
As for me, if one of my children were about to be, say, run over by a truck, I’d knock them out of the way in a heartbeat, and give up my life to do so. I may be unsure about my unselfishness in other matters, but this I know. If a woman tries to give her unborn child the best opportunity she can by giving up her own life, I am glad that someone like the church would recognize the beauty of that kind of loving sacrifice instead of questioning it. I think my other children would miss me terribly, but they would do well knowing that their mother loved their sibling, and thus themselves, enough to give her very life.
lol Rae, whichever. We learned more about BSE in cell structure & function than in genetics, but it is a pretty interesting disease.
Learning about procedures wasn’t hard for me, just extremely dry. I didn’t take the lab component so I wasn’t thrilled with doing 2 chapters about it.
Oh I did like the whole DNA polymorphism chapter. Lol, our book tried to make it interesting, the problems included paternity testing, finding out whether a child was kidnapped, and who to question in a murder case.
not freedom FROM religion.
Rae, gotta disagree with you there. The concept of separation of church and state really isn’t in doubt.
Doug
John M: Any person who knows anything about mechanics, knows they must be ‘attached’ to something else, somewhere, somehow … to act as a wheel. They cannot claim to be spokes of a ‘hub-less’ wheel … which is what happens when all the rights of being human are appropriated and then leave off any reference to the ‘hub’.
The importance of the hub is underscored when philosophers claim that we only need the value we get from other humans …. ie. all we need is strong attachments to each other spoke … Diana and Doug. (A big mess!)
John, again – I get a sense from you that you want “more.” More than what many people believe in. Well, okay, but despite your desires, your saying that things *are* such-and-such way doesn’t make it so.
It’s not a “big mess” – it’s just reality that not everybody accepts what you do as true.
Best, and Merry Christmas.
Doug
@Doug: No, it says freedom of religion, not FROM religion. However, I do agree with the separation of church and state, that isn’t a question, but what the freedom of religion means is that the state (ie Congress) cannot declare an official state religion and that you are free to practice religion as you choose (no government coercion). Separation of Church and State is a completely separate ideal from the first amendment, it’s not even in the constitution, it was in a letter written by Mr. Thomas Jefferson.
Though I gotta, say even as an atheist, I think some of the church/state separation stuff is stupid. If people want to pray in school let ’em pray, it’s not hurting me at all and I myself don’t prescribe to that set of beliefs.
Buying the ‘big lie’
of church-state separation:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42268
Jasper, World Net Daily is crap.
It is interesting though, to look at how other states like France, the Netherlands, England, Germany and Australia deal with the Church/State separation issue. We learned about it in my politics and religion class last year.
And according to my class and the studies/papers we read, the US, France, and Turkey have some of the most strict church/state separation policies where as the Netherlands and Germany are more lenient, followed by Australia and then England, which has a state-sponsored church.
“Jasper, World Net Daily is crap.”
No, it’s not Rae. Jill writes for WND and her stuff is not crap. David Kupelian is a good writer, he wrote the fabulous “The Marketing of Evil” book.
“It is interesting though, to look at how other states like France, the Netherlands, England, Germany and Australia deal with the Church/State separation issue. We learned about it in my politics and religion class last year.”
yea, look where it’s got them. The Church is on life support in Europe.
@Jasper: WND is horribly biased and generally…crap. My opinion does not change because Jill write for them.
And actually, if you look at Germany, the Netherlands, England, and Australia, they have far more lenient church/state separation. France is the exception that is more like the US in terms of church/state separation.
@Doug,
What you characterize as ‘more’ is not and yet is true. The analogy of a wheel is apt because a wheel has direction’ or ‘goes someplace’ Being ‘part of the wheel’ necessitates a going-somewhere … an aim. Spoke(s) not part of the wheel are aimless. And Rae, it usually takes way more energy to be aimless than to be all excited (electron) and waste time looking(download surplus energy).
To me the word ‘American’ is synonymous with achieving. What you propose is achievement that is accomplished in an aimless world. ‘Sorry, does not compute!’
My ‘more’ is a life with purpose, understanding. meaning and significance vs aimlessness (moral relativism), void, emptiness and nothingness … or life vs death.
Carder
Well, actually, we are no longer going to mass this year, as to why I have no idea.
Second, if I were to tell my extended family (i.e. grandparents, aunt and uncle) I did not believe in the sole spiritual authority of the Church, I would essentially be shunned.
My dad hasnt been invited to the familial christmas eve celebrations for 3 years running because of his (failed) second marriage. A divide occurred over liking his second wife and how he had changed negatively. A divide occured between my uncle and my dad, which has yet to be healed (though my father has attempted to fix it, but to no avail.)
I do not mind going to a mass, just because I do not believe in the sole authority resting with the Church does not mean I don’t believe it can have a good message.
Either way, i’d much rather go to mass thatn to essentially lose my extended family.
and jasper, banning sex with animals is not solely religious based, there are various other basis’ behind it.
a) it constitutes as animal abuse
b) animals cannot consent to sex
and jasper, banning sex with animals is not solely religious based, there are various other basis’ behind it.
a) it constitutes as animal abuse
b) animals cannot consent to sex
Banning abortion is also not soley religiously based. There are various other factors behind it:
a.) It kills the life of what is scientifically proven to be a human being
b.) It hurts women physically and emotionally.
Check out the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League homepage for various reasons -non-religious- that they oppose abortion.
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
Here’s one of the many, many letters by Atheists on the website mentioned above…
“Abortion isn’t life, liberty or happiness
As I contemplate the Declaration of Independence on the anniversary of its signing, I am chastened by the tragic fact that too many Americans are denied their “unalienable rights” of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Ironically, these same rights are used as an argument for alienating these oppressed and persecuted Americans from their rights as human beings. These Americans are the more than one million preborn children violently killed annually by abortion.
We cherish the freedom to order our lives in the most personally satisfying way. Abortion denies preborn Americans this right to the pursuit of happiness.
We cherish the freedom which empowers us to take advantage of our myriad opportunities. Abortion denies preborn Americans this right to liberty.
We cherish the life for which freedom is so vitally important. Abortion denies preborn Americans this right to life.
The day will come when we as a people will live out the true and full meaning of our dearest creed: All human beings are equal under the law. We will no longer deny the humanity and the human rights of preborn children. Freedom will cease being corrupted into the right of a mother to slaughter her innocent and helpless child within the sanctum of her body. The inhuman and barbarous genocide that is abortion as birth control will end. On that day, all Americans will be free at last.
James M. Wallace
Greensboro”
Bethany, I dont know if I was referring to banning abortion solely being religious based. I may have been incredibly tired reading jaspers post, I was online until like 2am last night, gettin ready to pull all nighters next year ;)
However you can also argue that allowing abortion can be based on the bodily rights of others. It essentially comes down to who gets the most followers etc, and who gets voted into the government.
On a lighter note, I got into all the schools I applied to! (granted, i only applied to 5, with 3 safeties and 2 probables, lol)
Congratulations, Dan! :)
Thanks Bethany :)
Rae: Though I gotta, say even as an atheist, I think some of the church/state separation stuff is stupid. If people want to pray in school let ’em pray, it’s not hurting me at all and I myself don’t prescribe to that set of beliefs.
Rae, agreed that people go to ridiculous extremes. I have no problem with people praying in school, unless it’s loud enough to bug others.
Or, if it’s an organized deal then kids could feel pressured to join in, and there the “freedom from religion” principle does come in.
Doug
John M: What you characterize as ‘more’ is not and yet is true. The analogy of a wheel is apt because a wheel has direction’ or ‘goes someplace’ Being ‘part of the wheel’ necessitates a going-somewhere … an aim. Spoke(s) not part of the wheel are aimless.
John, then in your philosophy there just has to be “more.” I don’t have a problem with it until it means taking away people’s freedom.
Merry Christmas, John.
Doug
I’d personally not have the graffiti removed and spray pain below “My Choice, My Grief”, which reflects the pain many women suffer after their abortion and the abandonment they receive from pro-choicers when they experience post-abortion grief.
I’d personally not have the graffiti removed and spray paint below “My Choice, My Grief”, which reflects the pain many women suffer after their abortion and the abandonment they receive from pro-choicers when they experience post-abortion grief.
Also, this is a clear example of the intolerance of the so-called tolerant and advocates of free speech. That is, they only support expressions of free speech so as long as it coincides with their political views.
They may have inadvertently given a meaning and a subtle message that they did not intend.
@Doug.
Just pretend ::: I will give two scenarios and I would like to give me your understanding about each and where the freedom is ….
the first is a river with a difference. Each drop of water has the ability to seek any path it desires.
the second: a skydiver is told that jumping unhampered by a parachute IS the most exhilarating experience in the sport. So to help, a team of people will assist you in cutting all lines to your chute so you can fall ‘free’.
I’d personally not have the graffiti removed and spray pain below “My Choice, My Grief”, which reflects the pain many women suffer after their abortion and the abandonment they receive from pro-choicers when they experience post-abortion grief.
Rachel, it is understandable that you’d say that, but of course the same thing would apply to women who didn’t have abortions and who later regretted it.
I’m not for “abandoning” women who have regrets, regardless of which they chose.
Doug
John M: Just pretend.
Deal, Bud.
……
I will give two scenarios and I would like to give me your understanding about each and where the freedom is ….
Rock and Roll…..
……
the first is a river with a difference. Each drop of water has the ability to seek any path it desires.
If the difference is two paths, then the drops can go which ever way they want, eh?
……
the second: a skydiver is told that jumping unhampered by a parachute IS the most exhilarating experience in the sport. So to help, a team of people will assist you in cutting all lines to your chute so you can fall ‘free’.
If you really mean jumping without a chute, rather than just not opening the chute for a time, then the question is if the person wants to go for that “exhilaration” you mention at the cost of almost certain death (IMO). I think you know the answer to that one.
Doug
the second: a skydiver is told that jumping unhampered by a parachute IS the most exhilarating experience in the sport. So to help, a team of people will assist you in cutting all lines to your chute so you can fall ‘free’.
That was such a brilliant analogy, John!
I think that I heard it woooosh right over Doug’s head though. ;-)
When things go over the head of Doug, one must understand that Doug wears a eye patch of a pirate. On the eye patch, is the Jolly Roger.
Doug sails on the ship named, The Sanger, hangs out with pirates, eats with pirates, defends his pirate matey’s, but, denies he is a pirate.
When Doug flips his eye patch up, to invite a lassie aboard the pirate ship of abortion, the eye patch reads “choice be a matter of undecided thinkin “.
Doug, the Alfred E. Newman of piratry.
the second: a skydiver is told that jumping unhampered by a parachute IS the most exhilarating experience in the sport. So to help, a team of people will assist you in cutting all lines to your chute so you can fall ‘free’.
Bethany: That was such a brilliant analogy, John!
No it wasn’t. Who wants to jump without a chute? As I said, it’d be at the cost of almost certain death. So, almost nobody is the answer. Obviously, it’s not like “almost nobody” wants to end unwanted pregnancies.
I think that I heard it woooosh right over Doug’s head though. ;-)
Nonsense. Do you really believe that you “should” jump without a chute because somebody else tells you to do it, and/or tells you it’s the most exhilarating? Of course not. Likewise, many people aren’t going to continue unwanted pregnancies just because somebody else tells them they should.
Doug
Nonsense. Do you really believe that you “should” jump without a chute because somebody else tells you to do it, and/or tells you it’s the most exhilarating? Of course not. Likewise, many people aren’t going to continue unwanted pregnancies just because somebody else tells them they should.
See, you’re completely missing the point. Maybe John can help you understand what he’s saying.
Bethany, then why do you think it’s a “brilliant analogy”? Seriously, how many people do you think would jump without the parachute?
That’s not the point, Doug. The point of his post is to explain that sometimes being released from certain restraint is not truly “freedom”.
@Doug,
reading this superficially you would properly conclude that abortionists are the people cutting her ‘free’. A person free-falling does not glance around with heightened sensory apparatus, but focuses exclusively on her demise. So, in fact she is less free.
She is already skydiving … from conception to death the ‘fall’ is normal for all humans. It becomes a difficulty when the pregnant woman is so isolated that she doesn’t see that she is falling too. Motion is relative and though she may not observe her movement as any different than others …. she will not notice any ground, if the cutting-the-ropes/abortion is done at night(ignorance).
The point of his post is to explain that sometimes being released from certain restraint is not truly “freedom”.
Bethany, I disagree. How do you see it as “restraint” that few if any people are not going to want to fall without a parachute? That’s just reality.
There’s no “releasing,” it’s just an example of people obviously not wanting to jump like that. Okay, they are told that the most exhilarating deal is to jump with no parachute.
What of it? Who is going to do that, at the cost of their life? How is this a good analogy or in any way really applicable to the abortion debate?
I could tell you that it’s exhilarating to drive as fast as your vehicle will go. There, at least there is often some truth in it, and there at least people do it once in a while. Yet even there, what is the application to abortion?
Doug
reading this superficially you would properly conclude that abortionists are the people cutting her ‘free’. A person free-falling does not glance around with heightened sensory apparatus, but focuses exclusively on her demise. So, in fact she is less free.
Nope – women who choose to end pregnancies or continue them are doing what they want – the opposite of falling without the chute. It is not “to their demise,” it is them making a conscious choice, and in the vast majority of cases they are doing the right thing for themselves. No people or almost no people will jump without the parachute. Do they want to be told to do that? Probably not. Will they take that advice? Probably not.
Do women with wanted pregnancies want to be told to end them? No. Do women with unwanted pregnancies want to be told to continue them? No.
……
She is already skydiving … from conception to death the ‘fall’ is normal for all humans. It becomes a difficulty when the pregnant woman is so isolated that she doesn’t see that she is falling too. Motion is relative and though she may not observe her movement as any different than others …. she will not notice any ground, if the cutting-the-ropes/abortion is done at night(ignorance).
There you are equating letting women do what they want in the matter of abortion or not with doing what they do NOT want – jumping without the parachute. That is one heck of a contradiction.
Doug
@Doug,
go back and carefully read what I wrote.
I did not say she was jumping without a chute, but when she was already in-flight + chute, others (her choice) asked to cut her bindings … she’ll even pay them to do this. Hey, killing kids is your choice, right. NOT SUCH A SILLY ANALOGY IS IT? Life and death are not equals … just intellectual-opposites … are they?
The decision to abort is a decision to kill another human being. Does it matter … potential, sentient, viable, personhood??????
I did not say she was jumping without a chute, but when she was already in-flight + chute, others (her choice) asked to cut her bindings … she’ll even pay them to do this. Hey, killing kids is your choice, right. NOT SUCH A SILLY ANALOGY IS IT? Life and death are not equals … just intellectual-opposites … are they?
John, maybe one sees it as “kids” or not, but the fact remains that almost nobody is going to want to have the parachute cut away, while women DO want to be able to decide whether or not to continue their pregnancies. Sometimes life for the unborn is wanted and sometimes not.
Let’s just agree that women want the parachute, okay? It’s still true that many women want to continue pregnancies, and in no way do they want to be told “no,” to that. Likewise, many women want to end pregnancies, and the same thing is true.
……
The decision to abort is a decision to kill another human being. Does it matter … potential, sentient, viable, personhood??????
Okay, I agree with you on “human being,” there. Then do those matter? Yes, to many people.
Doug
@Doug,
I am not talking to many (or some) people, Doug. I am talking TO YOU! Please refrain from talking for others. It makes it seem like you would prefer using the royal ‘we’. ‘We’ are not amused!
Do these make a difference to you … all are still human. Why are some living humans killable?
I am not talking to many (or some) people, Doug. I am talking TO YOU! Please refrain from talking for others. It makes it seem like you would prefer using the royal ‘we’. ‘We’ are not amused!
No, John, not the “royal we.” But when you asked, “does it matter,” you didn’t just ask for my own personal opinion, that I saw. And of course I’m willing to give you my own opinion.
……
Do these make a difference to you … all are still human. Why are some living humans killable?
Yes, it makes a difference to me. There is certainly potential there, but I do not see that as overruling what the woman wants.
At the time of viability and afterwards, I also see a difference, because then there is the option of delivery and at least a reasonable probability of continued life for the unborn. If the desire of the woman is to not be pregnant, it can then be accommodated that way, i.e. it is no longer as purely a matter of choosing between the unborn and the woman’s desire.
I see sentience as part and parcel of personhood, and if nothing else that’s why I see later abortions as worse and less-preferable than early ones.
Doug
@Doug.
Am I correct in saying that you approve of abortion on demand? The use of the term ‘wanted’ or ‘unwanted’ is confusing because wanted can = ‘targeted’ as in ‘wanted’ posters ,,,, what is it?
John, yes – I’m for the woman being able to have an abortion to viability, just because she wants one, right now say to 24 weeks. Until then I rate the woman’s desire as the most important, and thus the wanted/unwanted is on her part, first and foremost.
As a “practical” matter, if we could agree on a time, say 22 weeks or even 20, that if we settled upon it then pro-lifers would cease trying to ban abortion entirely, say, then that too would be okay with me. I realize there’s almost surely not going to be such agreement, but as a compromise I feel that’d work well.
Doug, the slogan spray-painted refers to abortion as this seems to be one of the favorite mantras of the pro-choice movement in favor of abortion rights. Also it should be pointed out that ambvience, panic, or rejection are normal intial reactions to pregnancy and many women go on to adjust heathily to their pregnancy and childbearing. The fact that the woman rejects the pregnancy during the first trimester or continues to have ambvience does not mean that she will continue to reject the pregnancy, or that she will reject the baby once it is born. It simply means that she is normal. The conscientious doctor will instead provide support to help the patient understand and deal with her symptoms. Also, for you to change or divert the subject is another form of denying the pain and grief many women experience after their abortion
Rachel, yes – the fact of the unborn being inside the body of a person is a big deal. I realize that it means different things to different people, but it’s massively significant nonetheless.
No argument that some women’s feelings change during pregnancy. That does not mean that having an abortion isn’t the best thing for a given woman, but it’s also not to say that some women won’t be glad if they continue pregnancies, even despite doubts, etc.
What “changing the subject” do you see? Heck, I’m willing to talk about anything, and a lot goes on in these threads. I’m not denying the suffering of some women who have abortions. Can there be regrets? Of course, just as there can be for women who continue pregnancies. That’s just reality, and it’s not a good reason to take away the freedom women have in the matter.