Sunday funny
by Glenn McCoy, June 20:
Jun.22, 2008 6:32 am |
Born Alive, Cartoons, Obama |
Commenting Rules
Do's
- “Criticize ideas, not people.”
- Create one original moniker and stick with it.
- Please use a unique name.
- Be civil and considerate.
- Read fully and consider carefully before responding.
Do Not's
- Blasphemy will not be tolerated.
- No swearing or slandering of others.
- No deliberate inflammatory comments.
- Do not violate another’s privacy.
- Do not threaten fellow commenters or anyone else.
- No personal, racial, ethnic or gender-based insults/slurs.
- Do not post private personal information about yourself or others.(ie addresses, phone #s)
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
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.
test
testing
test
TEST!
YAY! :)
The comic speaks the truth!
I wonder if Gianna Jessen has ever met Obama. I wonder if she’d tell him SHE survived an abortion and ask him point blank “Would I have deserved to be left to die on a soiled table with no care?”
Wonderful idea, LIZ !!!
Maybe McCain’s people can arrange it??
Maybe in a televised, town-hall, open discussion meeting?
I don’t know if she’ll ever meet Obama Liz, but here is the greatest thing in the history of the world besides the resurrection. It involves Gianna Jessen.
test
Oh. My. Gosh.
Bobby Bambino, you marvelous creature, you.
Talk about crashing a party.
If Laura were pro-life, I could easily see her pulling a stunt like that.
Go Ted Harvey.
I remember SoMG saying PP only does early abortions.
Guess this was the exception.
Interesting what happens when we are able to put a face to abortion which is human enough for pro-choicers to be rattled. Maybe if we could do age-progression on sonagrams, pro-choicers wouldn’t be able to show THEIR faces.
Ooh, Bobby. That was good. Really good.
That would actually be a good idea for a pro-life ad. Sonagrams which gradually show a baby growing in the womb, then those morph into a child’s face, do that several times, then do that with Gianna, have her speak a little about what happened to her, and end with a slogan, like, “Preventing their birth is ending a life.”, or something similar. I doubt very many stations would run it though.
With abortions up since W. took office, let’s keep that going with McCain himself…great commercial.
Isn’t that just the most amazing story? It’s like something from a movie.
Stud:
I read the article. Absolutely aweseme!
I would imagine that had this happened in the Illinois State Legislature that Obama would have said something like this:
“Friends of the Senate, Speaker, Secratary, the great people of the State of Illinois, fellow pro-aborts, Mr. Kmiec, George Soros, NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, NEA, AFL-CIO, Mr. Daly, Oprah, we have truly witnessed an amazing event in these hallowed halls of justice, an event that has truly touched my heart….for, I have been changed, really changed, really, really changed, not really.
Oh the audacity of hope, the wonder of surprise, the belief in change, the hope of change, change in the hope of belief, the ficklenss of change, the audacious hope that we believe for changed hope.
Even I, the one-eyed willy wonder, have been mesmerized by this really, only a punishment from God, I mean, this gross exception of why we should always support a mother’s right to murder, mame, burn, tear apsrt, poison, suction, and mutilate a fetus who has invaded her body, and seeks to change her, even if potentially and hopefully we could possibly believe it could grow up to be a wonderful gift from God with a beautiful voice and testimony.
I mean, c’mon, what are the odds? For every one of these exceptions to my perfect policy declarations of “abortion without boudaries” that there are at least 400,000 black babies that would have become welfare recipients, and another 600,000 typical white people, and that in just one year! Now that’s a cause for real concern and a reason why we should never hope too much that change will come about.
Too bad this exception to my rule of “born alive hopes for change don’t deserve any hope”, she grew up to be a typical white person, otherwise Michele could possibly be proud of this country once again.
And to all you pro-lifers, let me say this, when it comes to my belief that children in the womb should never be considered as candidates for hope or change, but rather, the punishmesnts from God that they really are, don’t ever audaciously hope that any type of change will ever happen in my administration with regards to legalized abortion.
In fact, you can bet, that I, as President, will guarantee, the right of baby murder to every typical white person, and woman of every other color and typicality.
Now that’s something we can hope in and that will never change. In fact, I have secretly counseled with my pastor, Mr. Wright and imam, Mr. Farrakan, and they agree, that killing 600,000 typical white babies for every 400,000 black babies is a small price to pay.
I now proclaim this day in the great State of Illinois to be “Planned Parenthood No Hope for Change Day.”
Good timing Bobby to place that article in here. Especially given the posts on PP by SoMG this morning on another thread.
The CERC website is chock full of interesting articles to enrich the mind and soul.
From today’s Gospel (12th Sunday in Ordinary Time):
“Jesus summoned the twelve and sent them out with the following instructions: “Have no fear; for nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known….
“Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both body and soul in hell..”
Matthew 10:26-33
HAHAHAHA! HisMan, that was great! I really would like to see what hopeity-hope-hope-change-change-change guy would say about it though.
LOL.
Ah, I enjoyed that, HisMan.
Woo hoo! We’re up!
X: 11:24: AMThat would actually be a good idea for a pro-life ad. Sonagrams which gradually show a baby growing in the womb, then those morph into a child’s face, do that several times, then do that with Gianna, have her speak a little about what happened to her, and end with a slogan, like, “Preventing their birth is ending a life.”, or something similar. I doubt very many stations would run it though.
I love your idea for an age-progression of a sonogram photo!
I bet it wouldn’t be that hard to do!
+ + + + + + + + + + +
Patricia, 12:51: I agree, today’s Gospel reading, Matthew 10:26-33, was very appropriate!
Bobby,
Awesome article! It made me cry!
It is just me or do the results of the weekly poll on environmentalism seem rather ODD? (I can accept that I might be ODD!)
It’s good to put a human face on abortion (and on Obama’s abortion positon), so we can all see it more clearly.
The simpler we make these issues, the more people can see the horrific nature of baby killing in the womb.
Patricia:2:46:It is just me or do the results of the weekly poll on environmentalism seem rather ODD? (I can accept that I might be ODD!)
I agree. The questions were worded strangely, and could be interpreted many ways. The only way I can make sense of it is to say the results are skewed towards strong environmentalists who want less babies, therefore more clean air and space for the rest of the world’s inhabitants. (“Good for the environment”?)
Janet, Patricia: The results are being skewed by overseas votes. They’re all environmentalists, apparently.
Jill: wow, that is scary! Abortion is GOOD for the environment. WHo actually BELIEVES this crap? (Other than SoMG)
Just when I thought things were getting bad, they’re getting badder still!
I wonder if Gianna Jessen has ever met Obama. I wonder if she’d tell him SHE survived an abortion and ask him point blank “Would I have deserved to be left to die on a soiled table with no care?”
LizFromNebraska,
That is a great idea! I just added it to my list of ….
“Asking Pro-Choicers/Pro-Aborts the Nuclear Question”
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=3835378
Mike
Jill said: 4:00: Janet, Patricia: The results are being skewed by overseas votes. They’re all environmentalists, apparently.
Jill, Do you have results map for the poll this week?
Jill:
In addition to adding a daily prayer against abortion I suggest you divide the polling results between the US and everyone else.
That way we can ss how we compare to the rest of the world as well.
thats great Bobby!
I wonder if the Democrats still had the gall to celebrate PP’s 90th anniversary?
Obama’a First Order of Business as President…
http://www.inforumblog.com/?p=1663#comments
Mike
Jill: you could also add a prayer for a specific abortionist? I think we have potential prayer recipient on the site already….
I remember this post Janet! But maybe we can pray for a SPECIFIC abortionist, as those did who prayed for Nathanson.
Poor Morgentaler: I’m sure many have prayed for him and he’s nearing his end, as unrepentant as ever!
About Gianna Jessen, she would never have been conceived if it wasn’t for pre-marital sex. But is she fighting to promote pre-marital sex? Is she against telling kids to wait for marriage?
When I just turned 16 my boyfriend asked me to have sex with him. We almost did, but I changed my mind. Now what if we did have sex? What if I got pregnant and had a baby? Maybe the baby would have grown up and cured cancer. The baby would have been made by God though, and special. Am I a bad person for not having sex?
Not exactly related to abortion, but I was saw a news story of a “pregnancy pact” in a high school in Massachusetts. All of the girls are younger than 15, and probably most had sex with the first random guy they came across. Here’s the story I found online:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/20/pregnancy-pact_n_108344.html
What do you guys thing? I think these girls are WAAAAY too young to have kids, and I wonder what on earth they were thinking!
I heard Pleger is back behind the podium at St. Sabinas. His first statement was that he he would continue to preach the gospel of justice…..hello Fleger???? How about preaching the Gospel of Jesus instead of your gospel of justice? Anyway, somebody please explain to me how a Christian could choose abortion. What part of Jesus’ gospel could be used to justify it? None that I can think of.
What if Mary the mother of Jesus had chosen abortion when she was pregnant with Jesus? Hello??? She was a scared 16 year old girl but she put her faith in God. The reason a lot of Christians go astray is they live the their own gospel of justice instead of focusing their lives and actions around the Gospel of Jesus.
Truthseeker – Pflager’s idea of justice prob. has more to do with actual justice than with your idea of truth. Justice means fairness for everyone, not just people you like and about causes that you cannot stomach. Just because you cannot stomach the poor doesn’t mean that they don’t have a right to life too.
YoLaTa,
What makes you think I don’t want fairness for all or cannot somach the poor? Where did you get that idea? I seek opportunities to help the poor and look upon the opportunities as a gift from God. You seem to have entirely missed the meaning of my post…. As a Catholic priest Fleger is supposed to be spreading the gospel of love and charity but always through a Christocentric message. The point I was making is that a Catholic priest is supposed define “justice” within the context of “what would Jesus do?”, otherwise they go off-the-rail like Fleger and support things like abortion that are blatantly against Jesus’ teachings. Get it now?
YoLaTa 11:17PM
Ust because you cannot stomach the poor doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to life too.
You might want to tell that to Ron Weddington who helped argue Roe v Wade before the Supreme Court.
In a letter to then President-elect Clinton in 1993 he urged the use of abortion “to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy, and poor segment of our country”.
“About Gianna Jessen, she would never have been conceived if it wasn’t for pre-marital sex. But is she fighting to promote pre-marital sex? Is she against telling kids to wait for marriage? ”
———————————–
I thought it was pretty clear what her message was..that With Abortion, Life never has a chance…
Its funny, how some people only apply justice to the “unborn” but when it comes to the born there is little to no justice or support at all. They want to cut soup kitchens, they want to cut meals at school for kids, they want to cut educational programs for the poor. Seriously. When will they see the connection between the chances afforded to the middle-class and the declining chances that those kids will have kids themselves.
Just as kids do not exist in a vacuum, so too can parents not operate in a vacuum. Kids and parents need community support to guide them. People are so afraid of other people helping them be better parents that the whole community suffers when kids are left to their own devices, unchecked by their parents, or the wider community.
Yo La Tango: “Its funny, how some people only apply justice to the “unborn” but when it comes to the born there is little to no justice or support at all. ”
What’s “funny” about justice for kids, born or unborn? You really think you can justify killing unborn babies by smearing an entire movement?
Let’s play your game then, and say that all us prolifers are horrible monsters who eat little kids for breakfast….. now tell me how that makes it okay to kill unborn babies, okay?
“Its funny, how some people only apply justice to the ‘unborn’ but when it comes to the born there is little to no justice or support at all. They want to cut soup kitchens, they want to cut meals at school for kids, they want to cut educational programs for the poor.”
I don’t want to cut those programs, but your comparison is faulty, anyway. You’re comparing those who believe it should be legal to KILL a group of people to those who believe we shouldn’t GIVE MONEY TO a group of people. I’d feel a tad safer with those who simply don’t wish to give me funding than with those who wish to kill me, wouldn’t you, YLT?
Only if they favored rescuing the unborn and KILLING the born would you have a valid argument.
Bmmg,
I believe she’s referring to the government. In the Senate and House, the most ardent pro-life voters are the same voters who have cut funding to programs that help children live healthy lives..
Let’s play your game then, and say that all us prolifers are horrible monsters who eat little kids for breakfast….. now tell me how that makes it okay to kill unborn babies, okay?
Posted by: Doyle at June 23, 2008 11:23 AM
Prolifers are not monsters but neither are pregnant women who have abortions. It’s not for you to say what is okay for a pregnant woman, and you may not agree with what she and her doctor decide.
Every abortion is a scar on civilization. Sucking babies from their mother’s womb in bloody pieces (currently the most common method of abortion) is an intrinsically evil and monstrous thing to do.
Patricia, no, I don’t believe abortion is good for the environment.
Carder, when did I say PP only does early abortions? It’s true (today) but I don’t recall saying it. I would bet a lot of money (if I were a betting man) you cannot find a recent case of PP doing an abortion after the first trimester.
I have heard Gianna Jessen speak on cspan. One of the things she said was, “I forgive my mother for trying to abort me.”
The real question is, does her mother forgive her, for unauthorized use of her uterus and life-support functions?
Somg goes off again,
Stick to being a killing professional( you know that contract you sign) Somg. Your propaganda as a professional killer is actually crossing the line into matters which should not be considered by a killing professional.
Why a person ask you to kill, should not make any difference to your actions of killing human beings.
Again, your lack of professionalism, as a killing professional, is exposed by your own writing, and reveal a mere propagandist for your business of killing human beings.
I couldn’t do it Boss, she wanted me to murder her off spring. Whatz a matter you? You can’t a do yur job? Shud up a yur face. Send in Somg, he works cheap anyway, and always gets the contract completed. Now, that’s a killing professional.
Ah Boss, I can’t a understand you sometimes when you talk a that talk about professional killers, and killing professionals.
It’s a cuz your a brain has da same a neurons as that a Dogma Doug. He can’t think a too much outside his neurons. They be all a lined up in a row of little dogmas, barking over and over for murdering human beings.
You a get it? Dogma Doug is a preacher for a murdering, while a Somg do da murder.
Any killing professional should never become a talker, a preacher for da murdering human beings. It’s not a being a good killing professional. Capiche Somg?
Somg goes off again
Oh please, yllas. You’re just a troll who repeats the same old baloney over and over when you get desperate for a feeding.
The real question is, does her mother forgive her, for unauthorized use of her uterus and life-support functions?
How so, SoMG? If it is a question of “forgiving” or not, wouldn’t that imply some conscious intent on the part of the unborn?
Sabine: Prolifers are not monsters but neither are pregnant women who have abortions. It’s not for you to say what is okay for a pregnant woman, and you may not agree with what she and her doctor decide.
Right, and there’s not going to be any total agreement about this, not even close, all the more reason to leave it to the individual.
How so, SoMG? If it is a question of “forgiving” or not, wouldn’t that imply some conscious intent on the part of the unborn?
That’s two times this week that I’ve agreed with you, Doug. What’s going on…twilight zone? lol
Doug, out of curiosity, do you think that it would be wrong to cheat on your wife as long as she never knew about it? if she was totally happy, and she never found out about it, and the person that you cheated on her with was also happy, and never found out that you had a wife…and you were also happy in that relationship with the other woman. Would this be morally wrong, and if so, why? If no one is there to care, is it really wrong?
No, I would not say forgiveness requires conscious bad intention on the part of the one who is forgiven.
My step-father has major dementia (he forgets what he’s doing every two seconds, and gets lost on the way to the bathroom) and my mother forgives him for things he does unintentionally all the time.
SOMG, forgive means to absolve from payment- Which means that the person being forgiven already owes something to the other person, which the forgiver is letting go of.
Your step-father is doing nothing to forgive, and your mother doesn’t “forgive him” for those unintentional “faults”. I believe the term you are looking for is “overlook”.
She overlooks those things because she knows he did nothing wrong in the first place.
Dogma Doug fires away with the authority of his unaware troll mind, contained in himself.
I make a statment that SOMG is a killing professional and Dogma Doug doesn’t refute the statement. Differentiating between those that give reasons for the murder of human beings, a for killing person(professor of killing), and the person that does the killing of human beings(killing professional) antagonizes the dogmatic neurons of Dogma Doug.
A person that professes the killing of human beings is a professional killer. Professional killer being termed and defined as a person that argues for the killing of human beings without actually killing human beings.
Killing professional; a person that does the actual killing of human beings in a organized, and efficient method.
Dogma Doug is a mere propagandist, a pro killer of human beings. True or false.
Somg is a killing professional. True false.
Now Dogma Doug.
Everyone that reads this post will understand the difference between a preacher for the murder of human beings, and the actual murderer of human beings, as I have defined those words.
And you Dogma Doug?
It matters not to you, the difference between those that profess the murder of human beings and those that do the killing of human beings within the art of the healing science of medicine.
I use you and SOMG as a proof of what happens to human beings when one describes and defines their actions and belief in murdering innocent human beings.
How? By your answer Dogma Doug. Such a reduction of logic in you Dogma Doug, reduced to worn out agitational propaganda words, such as troll. No refutation of the statment that you and Somg are defined as professional killers and killing professionals.
Dogma, Addiction, Neurons. How Dogma Doug became a addict for abortion .
Neurons become sensitized or desensitized to the murder/killing of human beings.
A important aspect of abortion addicts is how their neurons adapt to abortion exposure. For example, when Dogma Doug reads Bethany’s or any person who “antagonizes” the abortion receptors of his “abortion neurons”, a increase in abortion receptors is realized. This happens as the neurons for abortion tries to make up for less stimulation of the abortion receptors contained in Dogma Dougs brain. Likewise, the receptors of abortion neurons themselves become more sensitive to “abortion thinking neurons”.
Where these abortion neurons exist in the brain is a matter of concern in treating the addiction of abortion.
An opposite effect occurs after abortion neurons or abortion agonist(a external agonist for Dogma Doug being Laura to Sad Eyed Sally) repeatedly stimulate Dogma Doug’s abortion receptors on his abortion neurons. Overstimulation decreases the number of abortion neuron receptors, and the remaining abortion receptors become less sensitive to abortion.
A viscous cycle of addiction where “antagonizing” his abortion neurons increase the number of abortion receptors on Dogma Doug’s abortion neurons, or where Dogma Doug stimulates himself by his abortion thoughts and writings( a self admitted 12 year preacher for abortion) and decreases the number of receptors on his abortion neurons, leaving the remaining receptors less sensitive to abortion.
Of course desensitization is better known as tolerance. Which is why a addict for abortion actually can’t understand many words and terms which define their addiction to abortion, as any abortion addict is actually unaware of their tolerance for the murder of innocent human beings is destroying their logic and conscience.
Dogma Doug is a addict for the death of human beings through many reasons, but the final reason is in his addiction. A addiction which created many neurons and receptors for the death of human beings and thinks it is the better part of his conscience.
Is it not, your addiction for the death of innocent life, the better part of your conscience Dogma Doug? Yes or no?
Doug, out of curiosity, do you think that it would be wrong to cheat on your wife as long as she never knew about it? if she was totally happy, and she never found out about it, and the person that you cheated on her with was also happy, and never found out that you had a wife…and you were also happy in that relationship with the other woman. Would this be morally wrong, and if so, why? If no one is there to care, is it really wrong?
Posted by: Bethany at June 24, 2008 8:38 AM
Interesting scenario, Bethany.
“I believe she’s referring to the government. In the Senate and House, the most ardent pro-life voters are the same voters who have cut funding to programs that help children live healthy lives..”
It’s still apples and oranges, Edyt, because in the latter no one is being actively, willingly killed. To rephrase my point within the environment of government: I’d rather vote for someone who opposes handing me money than vote for someone who supports having it legal for me to be killed.
Somg goes off again
Oh please, yllas. You’re just a troll who repeats the same old baloney over and over when you get desperate for a feeding.
Posted by: Doug at June 24, 2008 7:28 AM
Ja, the yllis is a scarecrow who just pops up once in a while.
Everyone that reads this post will understand the difference between a preacher for the murder of human beings, and the actual murderer of human beings, as I have defined those words.
Posted by: yllas at June 24, 2008 11:15 AM
Everybody that reads these posts can see that you make up dorky stories about people rather than debate rationally.
Any fool can do what you do, but almost nobody who’s interested in serious discussion lowers themself to your ad hominem level.
SoMG: No, I would not say forgiveness requires conscious bad intention on the part of the one who is forgiven.
My step-father has major dementia (he forgets what he’s doing every two seconds, and gets lost on the way to the bathroom) and my mother forgives him for things he does unintentionally all the time.
I wouldn’t say “bad intent,” but I do think willful action/conscious intent would have to be there. Otherwise, how can the subject be blamed in the first place, let alone “forgiven”?
That’s two times this week that I’ve agreed with you, Doug. What’s going on…twilight zone? lol
Bethany,
1.) Perhaps your trash compactor softened me up.
2.) :: cue spooky music :: Maybe these really are The End Times.
……
Doug, out of curiosity, do you think that it would be wrong to cheat on your wife as long as she never knew about it? if she was totally happy, and she never found out about it, and the person that you cheated on her with was also happy, and never found out that you had a wife…and you were also happy in that relationship with the other woman. Would this be morally wrong, and if so, why? If no one is there to care, is it really wrong?
You know that there has to be “somebody” to care one way or another in the first place, for there to be any perceived morality, right?
If there is no one to care, then there’s no morality, period.
As things are now, we’ve promised each other, and thus it’d be wrong for my wife or I to cheat. Even if one of us didn’t know, and was happy, and the other was happy with the third party, the wrong would be in the breaking of the promise. A given relationship would not have to be that way, but ours is that way.
But would it be absolutely wrong for you to break a promise to your wife, Doug? After all, the idea that keeping a promise is “right” and breaking a promise is “wrong” all perception and in the mind, right? If you changed your mind and decided that, for you, lying was acceptable, would it then be okay?
1.) Perhaps your trash compactor softened me up.
That could be it. Maybe I should do it a few more times and then everything’ll be just right. ;-)
But would it be absolutely wrong for you to break a promise to your wife, Doug?
Bethany, no, again, the idea of “wrong” is internal to the mind.
…..
After all, the idea that keeping a promise is “right” and breaking a promise is “wrong” all perception and in the mind, right? If you changed your mind and decided that, for you, lying was acceptable, would it then be okay?
That would then be my opinion.
Bobby mentioned a similar question today. In the real world, I don’t know of anybody who’d say “lying is good” on it’s own, all other things being equal, etc. However:
“Lying is virtuous” really depends on the situation, for all or almost all of us. There are times when it’s felt to be better to lie than to tell the truth, for the sake of somebody’s feelings, for a “greater good” that is to be had, etc. In a vacuum, by itself, I don’t know of anybody who’d really say it’s better to lie than to tell the truth. Yet situationally, I think there’s no question that it can be a different deal.
Oh please, yllas. You’re just a troll who repeats the same old baloney over and over when you get desperate for a feeding.
Posted by: Doug at June 24, 2008 7:28 AM
Ja, the yllis is a scarecrow who just pops up once in a while.
Posted by: Charolastra at June 24, 2008 2:57 PM
Yllis can do better if it wants.
Simone, Charolastra, etc… are you the same as PDsk8tr, by any chance?
But would it be absolutely wrong for you to break a promise to your wife, Doug?
Bethany, no, again, the idea of “wrong” is internal to the mind.
So, you could easily use that excuse if you did something that you knew was wrong towards your wife- or anyone for that matter…correct?
That would then be my opinion.
Bobby mentioned a similar question today. In the real world, I don’t know of anybody who’d say “lying is good” on it’s own, all other things being equal, etc. However:
“Lying is virtuous” really depends on the situation, for all or almost all of us. There are times when it’s felt to be better to lie than to tell the truth, for the sake of somebody’s feelings, for a “greater good” that is to be had, etc. In a vacuum, by itself, I don’t know of anybody who’d really say it’s better to lie than to tell the truth. Yet situationally, I think there’s no question that it can be a different deal.
Imagine this scenario:
You tell your wife that you are going to go into town to run a few errands. Instead, you go take a woman you’re attracted to, out to eat, and flirt with her a while. You know that this would hurt your wife if she knew. Now, you could probably rationalize this and say, “well, I don’t really think I did anything WRONG by being with the woman. I didn’t sleep with her…just took her out. I don’t consider that cheating, even though my wife might. (that’s her reality, not mine) And if I tell my wife, it might hurt her, so I will just not tell her. (You know, for the “greater good”.) That way, she will not be hurt, and no one need ever find out about what I did.”
How can you really know whether what you did was wrong or not, Doug? Would you apologize to your wife if she found out? If she found out, and became upset and angry about it, could you tell her she was overreacting, because nothing in this world is really wrong or right, and that what you did by lying to her wasn’t really wrong?
Or that what you did by taking that woman out to eat wasn’t really “cheating”, because you can rationalize and rationalize, and come up with excuses that make you justified in pretty much anything you do?
But would it be absolutely wrong for you to break a promise to your wife, Doug?
“Bethany, no, again, the idea of “wrong” is internal to the mind.”
So, you could easily use that excuse if you did something that you knew was wrong towards your wife – or anyone for that matter…correct?
No, because my wife knows me and I know her – there’s no “easily” about it, at all. Anybody can say anything, but human nature and the commonality of desire we find so often remain.
If there would be the desire to use that as an “excuse” then it’s doubtful we’d have promised each other in the first place. Not impossible, though, and once in a while you do see cases where one person claims “I never really knew him/her,” or, a la Charlie Sheen and Denise Richards, “I don’t know him, anymore.”
You and your husband knew each other and yourselves (very important to know oneself in this way) well enough to get married and to think it’d be a good thing, and you were right. You have similar desires in many areas and while this isn’t likely to change, it’s not impossible. But why worry about such a hypothetical? It’s very unlikely for you as it is for me and my wife.
……
You tell your wife that you are going to go into town to run a few errands. Instead, you go take a woman you’re attracted to, out to eat, and flirt with her a while. You know that this would hurt your wife if she knew. Now, you could probably rationalize this and say, “well, I don’t really think I did anything WRONG by being with the woman. I didn’t sleep with her…just took her out. I don’t consider that cheating, even though my wife might. (that’s her reality, not mine) And if I tell my wife, it might hurt her, so I will just not tell her. (You know, for the “greater good”.) That way, she will not be hurt, and no one need ever find out about what I did.”
How can you really know whether what you did was wrong or not, Doug? Would you apologize to your wife if she found out? If she found out, and became upset and angry about it, could you tell her she was overreacting, because nothing in this world is really wrong or right, and that what you did by lying to her wasn’t really wrong?
Or that what you did by taking that woman out to eat wasn’t really “cheating”, because you can rationalize and rationalize, and come up with excuses that make you justified in pretty much anything you do?
Good example, Bethany. I know it’d be wrong because of the way I feel – I don’t want to lie to my wife, there’s no “greater good” in flirting then lying about it versus not doing it in the first place, and I’ve no desire to do so that trumps my wishes not to do it.
In the context of our marriage, while it’s not as bad as having sex with somebody else, flirting past a point would be betraying the trust that’s between us. However, going with your hypothetical, I’d definitely apologize. I would want to do that versus not doing it.
I wouldn’t say “nothing in this world is really wrong or right,” because not only is there plenty of such perceptions, but the deal between my wife and me is known and cared about by both of us. Sure there are rights and wrongs, based on what we want. Lying, without a good enough reason, would certainly be wrong between my wife and I. Your hypothetical isn’t nearly a good enough reason. Carla and I don’t have secrets from each other, and we don’t want the type of relationship where people do.
Nobody told you that we’re “justified in pretty much anything we do.” It’s in the eye of the beholder, and my wife and I certainly don’t want it that way. Somebody that would actually feel that way would not, IMO, be a good candidate for relationships nor even to be in a society.
Simone, Charolastra, etc… are you the same as PDsk8tr, by any chance?
Posted by: Bethany at June 25, 2008 1:10 PM
*
We are the mighty European Pro-Choice Action League!
Can you please give this tiny message to Gianna Jessen if you have any way to reach her? Please?
Gianna, your inbox is full. I have been trying to email you since 12:38 Saturday evening.
Carl