Important SD abortion ban call tomorrow night
For the 2nd consecutive election cycle, SD will vote on an abortion ban this November.
Last time pro-aborts successfully fought the ban because it had no exceptions. This time it has a rape/incest exception and – surprise – pro-aborts have found new reasons to fight the ban. According to SupportSouthDakota.com:
In addition to launching a massive multi-million-dollar media campaign — filled with lies and misinformation — Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry have brought in hired-gun political consultants who are using every trick in the book to try and kill this lifesaving law.
The sad thing is that Planned Parenthood’s scheme seems to be working so far.
Tomorrow night at 9p EST there will be a massive nationwide fundraising teleconference. On the call with be SD ban organizer Leslie Unruh as well as 40 Days for Life David Bereit and others. Please go to SupportSouthDakota.com to register for the call.
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.
http://www.theonion.com/content/infograph/voter_registration_efforts
Well, I’m a South Dakotan living in Chicago. So this is good/sad news. Good grief.
Hey, at least we have Thune. Finally.
So is American Right to Life for or against the ban?
If this truly does have exceptions for rape then I am totally against this effort. As any actual pro-lifer would be.
Question for Nathan Sheets:
If this ban PASSES how much of an increase in claims of rape do you think there will be in South Dakota so that these babies can be aborted?
Hey, does this ban include PROOF OF RAPE for the rape exception or does it just require a girl claim she was raped just like the bill that Alito voted to pass did when he was on the circuit court? (talking about Blackwell v Knoll http://shadowgov.com/Focus/focus.html#alito)
i think there should have to be charges filed. Just coming in, claiming rape, and getting an abortion doesn’t really help anyone. also, the girls should recieve mandatory counciling so they can hopefully change their minds and keep their babies.
what do you personally think of the rape exception, nathan?
I like it, but then again, I’m not a REAL pro-lifer, so I don’t count.
Should a little, innocent baby girl be murdered because her father is a rapist? Nathan Sheets?
Please read the complete abortion ban before passing judgement. Here’s the link:
http://www.voteyesforlife.com/docs/Petition.pdf
In order to claim rape/incest a police report must be filed, biological evidence must be collected, referal to counceling services is also a requirement, etc…
As a South Dakotan, I would prefer an all out ban on abortion. But, the voters of SD rejected that 2 years ago. With IM 11, we would be able to prevent over 98% of the abortions which are being preformed here.
At this point in time, I’d rather save the 98% I can save, than let abortion continue to be used as a form of birth control.
Amen, Stephanie.
I agree Stephanie. I just hope though that somehow a way around isn’t found. I wonder though if women’s groups will now claim that the woman’s right to privacy is somehow violated.
Reminds me of Canada’s first abortion law (we have none now) in which abortion was committed in instances of women’s mental health issues. She had to be seen by a hospital committee and these just rubber stamped the abortions. In essence the “health” part was faked.
The law will need to be airtight with actual police reports etc.
Getting this law passed will be a small step in the right direction, that’s all. If it passes, it will of course be immediately challenged in court, and there is no way of predicting that outcome for sure. But it will be interesting to see if the courts rule on the definition of the unborn as “human beings” contained in the bill.
Jill, can you keep us updated on the Colorado Personhood Amendment, too? CO was the first state to liberalize its abortion laws in 1967 and now it can be the first state to recognize the personhood of the preborn! An historic event!!!
Rasqual,
I had no idea you lived in Chicago! North, South, West, Suburb???
Proof of rape.
That’s just sick. You know that a huge majority of rapes don’t go reported? Like, a VAST majority? You’re going to force women unwilling to relive their trauma to do it anyway if they don’t want to deal with the consequences of their attack?
Wrong. Sick and wrong.
What do you suggest, Erin? Kill the baby for the sin of its father?
Women who report their rape are usually issued the morning-after pill. The women who go in for abortions are usually the ones who DON’T report rape.
Jon, no. I suggest terminating the pregnancy before it becomes a baby. If the woman so chooses.
Erin, what is a pregnancy without a baby? And when does it become a baby? Mr. Obama doesn’t know. Do you?
Birth. Till then it’s a fetus.
Fetus is the scientific word; baby is the word mothers use. No woman says, “I got the ultrasound of my fetus.”
Erin, is terminating a pregnancy very different from killing a baby?
Fetus is Latin for “little one” or “offspring” But
now the word fetus has been hijacked to mean “not a baby.”
By the time a woman finds out she is pregnant there is a heartbeat, my dear Erin. I am thinking you already know that though cause it’s Basic Fetal Development.
So preemies aren’t babies?
Jon- yes
Carla- at the point when the vast majority of abortions occur, it is well before ‘preemie’ status. I’m fine with restrictions on past the first trimester. Before that, as you wish.
Erin, how?
Whether you use the word “baby” or “fetus,” the scientific fact remains that the “baby” or “fetus” is a complete human being from the moment of fertilization. The rest is all semantics.
Semantics are important, but they should at least accurately portray reality. Of course, we disagree on reality, even on such fundamentals as the existence of God. If we cannot agree on reality, then we had better have a consistent religion so that we can defend it. Can Erin defend hers?
How what?
Erin said: ” I suggest terminating the pregnancy before it becomes a baby. If the woman so chooses.”
I suggest that, like Obama, Erin is feigning ignorance of well known facts.
“Baby” is the proper term of the vernacular to describe any very small child. But to even suggest that a moral justification for killing the unborn can be found in some semantic slight of hand is really quite disgusting on the face of it. No matter what we call OURSELVES before our birth, we are NOW who we were THEN.
MSN-Encarta Online:ba·by noun (plural ba·bies) 2. unborn child: a child that is still in the womb http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=baby
Erin, I asked, “Is terminating a pregnancy very different from killing a baby?” You said, “Yes.” I asked, “How?” How is terminating a pregnancy significantly different than killing a baby (if, indeed, there is any difference at all)?
A fetus is directly if not dangerously sapping nutrients from a host body. Exactly like a parasite. A baby is not infringing on that right.
Why don’t you call the fetus a parasite, Erin? But you almost do. Oliver had the discussion not long ago with SoMG, I remember. The body is a most sacred thing in your religion; there seems to be no room for a soul.
I’m pretty sure it is in yours too, Jon. Body is a temple and all that rot, yes?
The body is a temple for a soul. In fact, the body can be a temple for the Holy Spirit.
And a mother’s body is for her child. In my religion, I am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ… (see the Heidelberg Catechism, first question and answer).
Erin,
Here is the problem. We have a presidential candidate that not only does not know when human life begins, but is willing to destroy the baby at ANY point during or even AFTER the child is born. As well reported in this blog, Obama’s first order of business in the White House is to sign a Freedom of Choice Act striking down any and all restrictions on abortions at the federal, state and local levels–this means no parental notification, no reporting of rapes or incest as qualifications to having the abortions, no counseling to fully inform the patient of the physical, emotional, and psychological affects of the abortion, no qualifification of the doctor to have admission privileges to a nearby hospital, no sidewalk crisis pregnancy workers to help the woman carry through with the pregnancy,etc. Do you see where this is headed? To have an abortion “just because you want to” does not strike most thinking people as a good reason to have abortion.
Life is tough. The economy, health, energy, etc. are important issues but none so important than the vote we make on Nov. 4 to keep an extremist, pro-abortion advocate out of the highest office in the land. He may be inexperienced as an executive but he knows who butters his bread.
And while we’re at it–for someone who thinks America’s greatest moral failing is our NOT–“taking care of the least of my brethren” (Paraphrasing Matt 25), he personally gives only .9 % of his wealth to charity as compared to 2.7% of his “rich” peers and considerable less than the average, “brain-dead”, religious, conservative church-goer. Now whose pointing fingers.
I’m all for the FOCA. I’m just willing to make the concession of restrictions after first trimester if it will make you blighters be quiet. But honestly, I’m looking forward to the day when we have no restrictions and full reproductive freedom. Like in Canada.
Was that a dig at me, Erin? I’m one ashamed Canadian. I can tell you that much.
Oh, no. I didn’t even realize you lived in Canada, I only know that Patricia lives there. I’d live there if I had any tolerance for cold.
I’m a citizen of Canada, but I’m not presently living in Canada. My father is an American–and my sister now too.
I know you need to tell yourself all of the above Erin. I get that.
It is hardly up to you to make concessions…to keep us quiet. :) Not gonna happen.
I find the phrase “reproductive freedom” hilarious.
It is made to sound so free…it is abortion for any reason throughout any stage of pregnancy. We have the freedom to abstain. The freedom to take responsibility for our actions. The freedom to put a child up for adoption or raise it ourselves.
News Flash-Sexual Intercourse sometimes results in a growing baby!! Who woulda thunk it??
“But honestly, I’m looking forward to the day when we have no restrictions and full reproductive freedom. Like in Canada.
Posted by: Erin at September 11, 2008 1:50 PM”
——————————————
No restriction to do what, Erin?
Full reproductive freedom…you mean you, as a woman, you currently cannot fully reproduce freely?
Erin, @ 1:37,
A fetus is directly if not dangerously sapping nutrients from a host body. Exactly like a parasite. A baby is not infringing on that right.
A mother who gets proper nutrition during pregnancy is in no danger of starving because she is pregnant. I would not call the mother – fetus relationship in the womb a parasitic one. Could it be compared to an ecosystem? Just a thought.
Erin,
Blighters? That’s a little strong, don’t you think? When confronted with the truth–that killing an unborn child is murder in the most vile sense, all you can come up with is name-calling? I understand that it is women’s right to choose, but that choice should come BEFORE the sex act. Unfortunately, the way that sex ed is taught in the school system, there is no such thing as accountability or reprecussions from having sex. “Do it” when, whom, wherever, or whatever you want to, and if your “birth control” fails, just go to your nearest abortion clinic and take care of the problem. If life were only so cut and dry.
I pray, Erin, that some day you will come out of the fog and see the abortion industry what it truly is–a demonic, life-sucking, blood-letting, insatiable money-hungry giant that preys on the vernerabilites of women in the guise of “helping” them.
Vick, I don’t mean that harshly. I tend to resort to British slurs when I’m being playful or coy.
And I hope that someday you stop seeing things so black-and-white.
Jon: “Of course, we disagree on reality, even on such fundamentals as the existence of God.”
Yes, because that is a theological question. No one has proof, either way, on that one. The personhood of the human embryo or fetus, on the other hand, is a scientific fact corroborated by countless science textbooks.
Erin: “And I hope that someday you stop seeing things so black-and-white.”
Many issues have shades of gray (or “grey” if you really do live on the other side of The Pond). This one IS black and white, though. Know why? Because DEATH is black and white.
“And I hope that someday you stop seeing things so black-and-white.
Posted by: Erin at September 11, 2008 3:15 PM”
———————————-
You mean be a moral relativist with wishy-washy leanings based on moods, current trends and the like?
I like how Erin sticks up for women not reporting rape so that the rapists can go on to continue their pattern of abuse over and over and over again with other women. This is about what is best for women? I think not.
Some women do not want to report their rape. It is their right. Forcing a woman to confront something like that is cruel and shows complete absence of empathy for the situation.
How about instead of fighting for baby-killing, we work towards taking the shame and stigma out of rape so we can stop it from happening so much? It is a CRIME being perpetrated AGAINST women…when was the last time you heard of someone too ashamed to press charges against someone who stole his car?
In regard to medical practices, abortion is the bloodletting of our day: a frivolous and gruesome procedure which, in nearly if not all instances, does more harm than good.
And, my opposition to abortion has no basis in organized religion.
Yes, it’s a crime against women. As a society we are WORKING on releasing the stigma. But the vast majority of rapes are still not reported, and it is a violence against women in itself to force them to come forward.
Well “working towards” seems not to be working. Sometimes what is most secure, comfortable, and easy for a woman is not what is right, especially not for the woman. Pass this law, increase the frequency of sex crime reporting consequentially, and then see if some of that stigma doesn’t fall away. (Not to mention the decrease in actual rape, seeing as how we’ll actually be STOPPING THE FREAKING RAPISTS LIKE WE SHOULD BE.)
it’s freaking pathetic that out of both sides, nobody has really stopped to say “Rape is wrong anyway, let’s help stop it. It hurts women.”
It’s all, “Save the babies!” or “Babies aren’t real anyway, let’s kill ’em and call it privacy!”
People have been trying to stop rape for hundreds of years, just like they’ve been trying to stop murder and stealing. It isn’t going to all stop. It’s not going to happen. All we can do is work on it.
well, rushing victims off quietly to get scraped out and not telling a soul ain’t helping. I think it’s time to try something else. Do you thing laws not being enforced and crimes not being reported helped lower New York’s crime rate?
*do you think
You tell a hysterical, traumatized rape victim that she can’t just go home, shower, and cry herself to sleep if she decides to.
and tell no one, get no help and treatment as is needed, and self-medicate and escape from reality with drugs and alcohol as is wont to happen in many such instances, right? then maybe, she can sob to herself in silence all the way to the clinic and get her abortion as the grand finale, rather than the law encouraging her to seek justice for herself, get help from caring, trained professionals, and move on with her life properly? I think I can manage, somehow.
didn’t you say that many women who try to keep their rape secret have abortions? i wonder if that might have a little something to do with the increased instances of suicide in post-abortive women…
Where I live Erin there are advocates on call and when a woman has been raped she is met at the hospital by someone who can help her through. It is about collecting evidence to convict someone of a crime. It is what advocacy is for. She is the victim of a horrendous crime and hopefully the perpetrator is caught because she agrees to help with evidence. The going home, showering and crying herself to sleep comes soon enough.
I agree X about the self medicating and hiding the rape through abortion. Met at least 4 women who have done exactly that and continue to find healing for both.
Fetus is the scientific word; baby is the word mothers use. No woman says, “I got the ultrasound of my fetus.”
Posted by: Jon at September 11, 2008 12:27 PM
……………………………………..
Speak for yourself Jon. You certainly don’t speak for me. I wasn’t a mother until I gave birth to live fetus. Your experience of motherhood might have been different. ; )
Sally,
Did you have a fetus shower? Did you receive cards that said Congratulations on your fetus? :)
then why does it ask “father’s name” on paperwork at my ob’s office? if i’m not a mother while pregnant, how can there be a father?
Sally,
Did you have a fetus shower? Did you receive cards that said Congratulations on your fetus? :)
Posted by: Carla at September 11, 2008 7:13 PM
………………………………………..
I consider it bad form to throw baby showers before there is a baby. I have never heard of anyone sending out congratulations on the new baby cards before a baby has arrived into the world. Have you? That would be quite thoughtless wouldn’t it. Just make it harder for the woman if something went wrong. Congratulations on your stillbirth? Tacky Carla. Tacky.
and once again, i go ignored.
I like how Erin sticks up for women not reporting rape so that the rapists can go on to continue their pattern of abuse over and over and over again with other women. This is about what is best for women? I think not.
Posted by: xalisae at September 11, 2008 4:31 PM
………………………………………………….
This an abusive tactic called blaming the victim. The victim is not responsible for the criminal’s behavior during the rape or after the rape.
Bad form? Hhmmm. I have always received cards and showers B4 the babies have been born. Not thoughtless at all to share in another’s joy.
But….if someone is truly excited about her fetus and came to tell you Sally that she was expecting a fetus then I guess you would say nothing. Maybe stare at her. Shrug your shoulders. Walk away.
How do you do it? You just crack me up. Maybe cause I know how you love to tease me…:)
Sorry X. I am not ignoring you. That is a very good question. Sally? Thoughts?
I never said they were. I just said (numerous times, I might add) that the “pro-choice” treatment of this issue is counter-productive to actually trying to remedy it. The silence encouraged by hiding it is not only adding to the stigma of rape, but facilitating the escape of perpetraitors from justice. See, I’m not blaming the victim, I’m blaming the pro-aborts that say, “Raped? Shut up and get scraped.”
How liberated of you all.
then why does it ask “father’s name” on paperwork at my ob’s office? if i’m not a mother while pregnant, how can there be a father?
Posted by: xalisae at September 11, 2008 7:51 PM
…………………………………………
Try getting child support for that fetus. Why would your ob ask for the name of the father to be? Would that have anything to do with gestational development or your ability to become a mother?
Oh, I know you aren’t, Carla. ;)
are you in the medical field? I would imagine a father would have a lot to do with gestational development when it comes to certain medical problems, conditions, etc. Oh, and a friend of mine recently had the opportunity to have a 4D ultrasound with her first pregnancy. She said her baby had her father’s eyes.
In short, I’d say a father has a lot to do with it.
(also, when I was pregnant with my son, who I knew was my son from my first ultrasound by the way, I was on TriCare insurance. That’s the military for you. They like paperwork, and lots of it, with every question imaginable)
Bad form? Hhmmm. I have always received cards and showers B4 the babies have been born. Not thoughtless at all to share in another’s joy.
But….if someone is truly excited about her fetus and came to tell you Sally that she was expecting a fetus then I guess you would say nothing. Maybe stare at her. Shrug your shoulders. Walk away.
How do you do it? You just crack me up. Maybe cause I know how you love to tease me…:)
Sorry X. I am not ignoring you. That is a very good question. Sally? Thoughts?
Posted by: Carla at September 11, 2008 8:11 PM
………………………………………………
I do love to tease you Carla. You are such a sweetie and I’m such a bah humbug. Hee hee.
Honestly, I was raised around women that suffered many miscarriages and stillbirths. It was considered bad form to throw showers and such until a successful birth. Counting your chickens before they are hatched you know.
I honestly try to be sensitive to the feelings and situations of pregnant friends. My concern is for them. Some like fantasizing about what it will be like to be a mother and what the baby might be like. Others fight fears of loosing yet another possibility and need an ear for their fears. Pregnancy isn’t a stroll through the park for many women, They need someone to care about them. I’m sure that you feel the same way.
why does the WIC program offer aid to pregnant women and instruct a pregnant woman on how to have a healthy baby with that aid if there is no baby? I can just see you now at the DHS with a pen and bottle of white out changing all the handouts to say “What to eat for a healthy FETUS.”
“Others fight fears of loosing yet another possibility and need an ear for their fears.”
Possibilty?
Sally,
It must be painful to craft your words so carefully, does it get tiring?
are you in the medical field? I would imagine a father would have a lot to do with gestational development when it comes to certain medical problems, conditions, etc. Oh, and a friend of mine recently had the opportunity to have a 4D ultrasound with her first pregnancy. She said her baby had her father’s eyes.
In short, I’d say a father has a lot to do with it.
(also, when I was pregnant with my son, who I knew was my son from my first ultrasound by the way, I was on TriCare insurance. That’s the military for you. They like paperwork, and lots of it, with every question imaginable)
Posted by: xalisae at September 11, 2008 8:36 PM
………………….
I fail to see how a man’s name would disclose medical conditions. Clearly you are being asked due to monetary purposes concerning your medical care rather than that of a possible child.
Nope. Not in the medical field. But both of my children were military brats. It’s been 27 years since I was a military wife and I still remember the ex’s social security number. I know all about that paperwork. Ugh! And military inspections. Do they still inspect base housing? Measure the length of your grass and all that?
in light of what sally just said, I can’t help but feel sorry for her. With many tragedies in a family, I can almost see how it might be easier to just deny a baby their humanity in your mind than to grieve death after death. But that’s what it is, and reality can’t just be denied. My mother had 3 miscarriages. I was old enough to remember 2, especially the last. He was carried all the way to 7 months. My mother called me from the hospital and told me what had happened. She said he needed a name. I offered “Christian”. I think I was in 5th or 6th grade. We mourned as a family, and I still cry for my lost sibling. Just because you would rather not think of it as a baby until you know for sure it will live doesn’t make that so.
why does the WIC program offer aid to pregnant women and instruct a pregnant woman on how to have a healthy baby with that aid if there is no baby? I can just see you now at the DHS with a pen and bottle of white out changing all the handouts to say “What to eat for a healthy FETUS.”
Posted by: xalisae at September 11, 2008 8:53 PM
……………………………………………
If there is already a baby, why would anyone need to be instructed on how to ‘have’ a healthy one? Come on. This is silly. Being a mother requires the action of mothering. Until there is something capable of actively being cared for, you aren’t a mother. But you certainly have the right to describe yourself in whatever manner that makes you happy. Try announcing to the world that you are a mother when all you really are is pregnant. Hey everyone! I’m a mom! Everyone looks around for the child. Oh! You mean you are hoping/going to be a mom. There is a huge difference in expecting and delivering. I’m sure that you know that.
well, the father’s name wasn’t all they asked about him…
No, they don’t do inspections from my experience, although I heard it varies by base. It’s all private contractors now, and they aren’t exactly on the ball about some things, and they seem more interested in making money than serving the soldiers…I suppose it’s a mixed bag.
“Others fight fears of loosing yet another possibility and need an ear for their fears.”
Possibilty?
Sally,
It must be painful to craft your words so carefully, does it get tiring?
Posted by: Jasper at September 11, 2008 8:53 PM
………………………………………………….
I was reading at the college level at age 8 Jasper. I’m sorry that comprehension makes your head hurt. Math and spelling makes mine hurt.
Hi Sally,
There is something so special about you. Can’t define it but I do adore you. I do.
I do understand miscarriage. I had 2. The most helpful people let me decide how grieving was going to go. Ask me if I need a hug or to be left alone or did I want to talk about it. The worst? All of those that had to TALK over and through and around my pain. All of their flippant comments made to help or fill the silences.
I have learned a lot though. When one of my friends has a miscarriage I am right there. Helping her in whatever way that looks like to her.
Sweet dreams, my Sally.
a mother dies in a car accident. she is 8 months pregnant. her “fetus” lives, and is delivered via c-section. when that “fetus” is 8 years post-partum, it says, “My mother is dead.” is that incorrect? she did no actual mothering. should the child have said “I have no mother.”? they came from somewhere. attempting to obfuscate our origins as human beings to suit our motives and legitimize our actions doesn’t work.
in light of what sally just said, I can’t help but feel sorry for her. With many tragedies in a family, I can almost see how it might be easier to just deny a baby their humanity in your mind than to grieve death after death. But that’s what it is, and reality can’t just be denied. My mother had 3 miscarriages. I was old enough to remember 2, especially the last. He was carried all the way to 7 months. My mother called me from the hospital and told me what had happened. She said he needed a name. I offered “Christian”. I think I was in 5th or 6th grade. We mourned as a family, and I still cry for my lost sibling. Just because you would rather not think of it as a baby until you know for sure it will live doesn’t make that so.
Posted by: xalisae at September 11, 2008 9:06 PM
……………………………………………………………………………
You have it upside down x. Because you like to think of everything from a zygote to a fetus as a baby doesn’t make it so. If budda bing budda bang, egg meets sperm and instant baby, gestation would not be necessary. Miscarriage either intentional or unintentional would not cause it’s inability to become a baby.
At 7 months your mother had a stillbirth. At that stage the expectation would have been a viable baby. I remember my mother’s last two stillbirths. Nancy was born at 9 months. Hydrocephalic. Brain crushed by the weight of the fluid in her head. Didn’t survive birth. Ted was ‘born’ at 10 months in rotting pieces. Mom had quit feeling movement at 7 months. 1962. Abortion procedures were illegal. Family practice doctors delivered babies and wouldn’t know how to perform an abortion to save any woman’s life even if allowed to do so.
And this is what PL folks would like a return of? Misery for women and danger to their lives as well as reproductive abilities. Late term abortions are never necessary in the PL fantasy world.
Grandpa never forgot his mother screaming in agony as she died attempting to give birth to her 14th child. God’s will you know. Medical interference with God’s will might have caused the death of God’s will. Instead they both died. 13 motherless children. Woman dead at 44. Charming.
Before advocating a return to the past, it would be wise to take a cold hard look at the past.
Hi Sally,
There is something so special about you. Can’t define it but I do adore you. I do.
I do understand miscarriage. I had 2. The most helpful people let me decide how grieving was going to go. Ask me if I need a hug or to be left alone or did I want to talk about it. The worst? All of those that had to TALK over and through and around my pain. All of their flippant comments made to help or fill the silences.
I have learned a lot though. When one of my friends has a miscarriage I am right there. Helping her in whatever way that looks like to her.
Sweet dreams, my Sally.
Posted by: Carla at September 11, 2008 9:32 PM
………………………..
Special attracts special my friend. I’m inside out you and you are inside out me.
Pleasant dreams and don’t let the bedbugs bite. I hear they are having a come back. ; )
well, the father’s name wasn’t all they asked about him…
No, they don’t do inspections from my experience, although I heard it varies by base. It’s all private contractors now, and they aren’t exactly on the ball about some things, and they seem more interested in making money than serving the soldiers…I suppose it’s a mixed bag.
Posted by: xalisae at September 11, 2008 9:15 PM
…………………………………………
Darn it! I keep forgetting to hit the remember me thing.
You are lucky. I had to have the house spotless at all times just in case of a surprise home inspection. I can dismantle an oven for cleaning. Hand wax a floor to an amazing glow.
Whether or not having a baby shower before the birth is “bad form,” to argue that the baby “hasn’t arrived into the world” is (as I’ve patiently explained before) rather absurd. Does the rocket from Mercury actually drop all those fetuses/babies off at once, Sally, or does it waste valuable fuel by doing one at a time?
i want none of those things, sally. i don’t think fertilization is the be-all-end-all. if it’s not attached to the uterine lining, it’s never going to be a baby, no matter how much some on my side might like to say so. i think the option of abortion is important to save a mother’s life or prevent the additional pain of a rape victim. those are not a woman’s choice. and god enters into this equasion nowhere for me.
that was me
Sally, @ 9;52,
I am so sorry for your mother’s losses. Please listen to what I have to say. The required procedures you are describing are NOT abortions in the colloquial sense of the word, they would be considered HEALTH CARE for a woman whose child has died in utero. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Why didn’t the doctors perform an emergency C-section when the baby stopped moving???? Blame the doctors, (it sounds like their training was limited), but don’t blame the whole system. The difficulties your mother experienced in 1962 would be handled differently today due to medical advances – in a civilized, caring manner, not by a crude abortive procedure.
You claim to be in favor of abortion rights, but what you describe as abortion is not what the typical pro-abort is referring to. You sound pro-life to me in many ways. Maybe this is why Carla sees something special in you. :) I would suggest you talk to a few OBGYN’s that you trust who are pro-life, and a few who are PC, and ask them how your mothers’ difficulties might be handled if they happened today.
Sally,
CORRECTION on last line:
Should say mother’s NOT MOTHERS’
that’s a good suggestion Janet.
xalisae,
Thank you. :)
Sally, please ignore my post at 11:00 because I’m trying to be friendly – I don’t want to make you angrier than you already are.
too bad carla went to bed. i was finally able to take and upload palin pics of myself. XD
a mother dies in a car accident. she is 8 months pregnant. her “fetus” lives, and is delivered via c-section. when that “fetus” is 8 years post-partum, it says, “My mother is dead.” is that incorrect? she did no actual mothering. should the child have said “I have no mother.”? they came from somewhere. attempting to obfuscate our origins as human beings to suit our motives and legitimize our actions doesn’t work.
Posted by: xalisae at September 11, 2008 9:36 PM
…………………….
I had a father. He died many many years ago. I no longer have a father. If he had died before I was born it would be quite correct and specific to the meaning of the word father to say that I never had a father. I haven’t had a father since Christmas day 1974. He wasn’t my father until I was born and he hasn’t been one since his death. Why are you so confused?
Whether or not having a baby shower before the birth is “bad form,” to argue that the baby “hasn’t arrived into the world” is (as I’ve patiently explained before) rather absurd. Does the rocket from Mercury actually drop all those fetuses/babies off at once, Sally, or does it waste valuable fuel by doing one at a time?
Posted by: bmmg39 at September 11, 2008 10:21 PM
……………………..
That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever bm.
i want none of those things, sally. i don’t think fertilization is the be-all-end-all. if it’s not attached to the uterine lining, it’s never going to be a baby, no matter how much some on my side might like to say so. i think the option of abortion is important to save a mother’s life or prevent the additional pain of a rape victim. those are not a woman’s choice. and god enters into this equasion nowhere for me.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 11, 2008 10:54 PM
………………………
Yea, that remember me thing is a bother.
Why do you think that making abortion illegal would be a good thing if you don’t wish to return to the time that it was illegal and the horrible situations it caused? What would there be to gain as a society?
I had said, “Of course, we disagree on reality, even on such fundamentals as the existence of God.”
BMMG39 said, “Yes, because that is a theological question. No one has proof, either way, on that one. The personhood of the human embryo or fetus, on the other hand, is a scientific fact corroborated by countless science textbooks.”
Xalisae said, “i don’t think fertilization is the be-all-end-all. if it’s not attached to the uterine lining, it’s never going to be a baby, no matter how much some on my side might like to say so. i think the option of abortion is important to save a mother’s life or prevent the additional pain of a rape victim. those are not a woman’s choice. and god enters into this equasion nowhere for me.
BMMG39, from the above comments, Xalisae’s and also Sally’s and Erin’s, none of whom is a 100% pro-lifer, I think you can see that the issue of induced abortion is ultimately a religious one, especially for those who are pro-abortion. Those who have trouble accepting the evidence for the existence of God (a theological question according to you) are the same ones who have trouble accepting the evidence for the existence of a pre-natal baby (a scientific question according to you). Actually, I think most people consider personhood, the term you used, to be a philosophical (religious) question rather than a scientific question.
Religion has always been determined by the will of human beings, not by their knowledge. Pro-abortionists want to continue to live the lifestyle that they think will make them happy. If such a lifestyle demands the killing of others, then they will have it so. Human beings can justify anything by enough mental gymnastics. Witness Erin’s appeal to the evil of parasites (as if a baby is a parasite) but her disgust at “proof of rape.” The only victim she sees is the mother, not the child.
Evolutionism has not been brought up on this thread, but it makes my point. Many people think of evolutionism as science, but it is anything but science. It is a blind faith in the ability of nothing to produce something–whether that something be matter, sexuality, dependence, beauty, complexity, etc.–and not just once but repeatedly–and always eventually for the better, despite human experience that left to themselves things fall apart.
Personhood theory is now used in Europe to justify infanticide (second-last paragraph, http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08022201.html). Infanticide is nothing new in the history of the world; as an accepted practice it has probably been the rule rather than the exception. Only the West because of the influence of Christianity has regarded infanticide as murder. But after we have killed God, we might as well also kill those who were made like Him.
Sally, @ 9;52,
I am so sorry for your mother’s losses. Please listen to what I have to say. The required procedures you are describing are NOT abortions in the colloquial sense of the word, they would be considered HEALTH CARE for a woman whose child has died in utero. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Why didn’t the doctors perform an emergency C-section when the baby stopped moving???? Blame the doctors, (it sounds like their training was limited), but don’t blame the whole system. The difficulties your mother experienced in 1962 would be handled differently today due to medical advances – in a civilized, caring manner, not by a crude abortive procedure.
You claim to be in favor of abortion rights, but what you describe as abortion is not what the typical pro-abort is referring to. You sound pro-life to me in many ways. Maybe this is why Carla sees something special in you. :) I would suggest you talk to a few OBGYN’s that you trust who are pro-life, and a few who are PC, and ask them how your mothers’ difficulties might be handled if they happened today.
Posted by: Janet at September 11, 2008 11:00 PM
……………………………..
Janet, when it comes to law there is no slang. Either a procedure is legal or it is not. When you put legal restricitions upon health care procedures you restrict health care. How can you not understand this? There is no difference when it comes down to law. None. Nada. Zed. Zip. Laws are black and white. Medical science applications vary from case to case. The two are oil and water. They don’t mix.
You have engaged an actual ‘pro abort’ in discussion. I give you kudos for actually engaging in a discussion and considering my point of view and experience. That is new and different on this blog.
Evolutionism has not been brought up on this thread, but it makes my point. Many people think of evolutionism as science, but it is anything but science. It is a blind faith in the ability of nothing to produce something–whether that something be matter, sexuality, dependence, beauty, complexity, etc.–and not just once but repeatedly–and always eventually for the better, despite human experience that left to themselves things fall apart.
Posted by: Jon at September 12, 2008 12:59 AM
…………………..
Blind Faith created on of my fav tunes of all time. How do you feel about Stevie Winwood Jon? Did he actually create his music or was it precreated and not his creation at all?
Sally, please ignore my post at 11:00 because I’m trying to be friendly – I don’t want to make you angrier than you already are.
Posted by: Janet at September 11, 2008 11:57 PM
…………………………..
Never ever censor yourself Janet. Your thoughts and feelings are important. And be honest. You are angry with me. Not I with you.
I’m sorry, I’ve never heard of Stevie Winwood, Sally. But I’m sure he created the music himself! After all, human nature was originally made like God in some ways!
My sweet Sally,
I think you are right. You are me. I am you. You have lived a tough life. There are horrific things that have happened to you. I am so so sorry for those and if I could I would take it all away for you. I cannot. I can love you though. I do. I do love you.
I have lived through much myself. An abusive childhood, an abusive relationship. He tried to rape me, he tried to kill me. The death of a man that was like the only father I have ever known. The deaths of 3 of my children, one to abortion. I could go on but why? Pain is pain. None of us are immune. It is what brings us together on a level playing field. Some of us embrace that pain and grief and give it up to God who heals.
My mother lost a sister at a few days old. My father lost a brother as well. My husbands great grandmother delivered a 13 pound baby on their kitchen table and they both died. Sally, that was then, this is now. You don’t have to hold onto the pain. You do not have to carry generations of hardship on your shoulders. Your relatives and mine would have every available technology TODAY.
Sally, my love there is healing and hope and joy to be found. You say you are Bah Humbug. I am not buying it. I can see through you slams and your digs and your attempts to hurt others. The good ol days here bring to mind how you treated me when I first told my story and instead of hating you and how you talked to me I wanted to get to know you. Wanted to find out what this Sally person was all about. :)
You make me smile and laugh out loud. You have a spunkiness that is irresistible. I do so enjoy a good natured ribbing and you have provided much spice to this blog. However there are others who want to know you too. Aside from the abortion issue you are a wealth of information and a lovely mother. I know it. I want everyone else on this blog to know it too!!!
You are not alone, my Sally. You are never far from my thoughts and prayers. I love you.
Nice posts, Carla.
And you looked awesome in your “Sarah Palin.”
Sally, I just don’t think women should be able to kill their children inside them once they become pregnant just because they don’t want to have to take care of the children they are responsible for bringing about in the first place. Oftentimes, women experiencing unintended pregnancies are scared and confused. They could be getting a lot of static from the baby’s father or family members about keeping the baby. It becomes a lot of hype about how a baby will ruin your life so you should have an abortion and keep everything just the way it is. I’m glad I never listened to that hype, because I wouldn’t have my daughter now. My husband and I would’ve been robbed of something precious as they acted like they did us a favor. Oh yeah, and my daughter would be freaking dead. I don’t know…waking up every day to see the beautiful, shining face of what was once upon a time just another potential (you all are fond of that word, no?) abortion…this helps to strengthen my resolve. There are exceptions, Sally. There will and can be exceptions. It shouldn’t have to be all or nothing. It doesn’t have to be either mother or child.
Oh, but we don’t have to debate this any longer, Sally, because according to Jon, I’m pro-choice now!
test
I consider it bad form to throw baby showers .
Posted by: Sally at September 11, 2008 7:57
Cheap or just plain nuts?
What Sally doesn’t hear. There is that cheap stake women, that claims to be soo obssesed with dead babies, and uses it as an excuse not to give a present to a future mom.
What Sally doesn’t hear. The nerve of that women, to show up at the birth of this child and give a cheap present(if she even does) when it meets her personal obssesion with deathsex in her family.
What Sally didn’t hear.
Man, you mother is nuts, what’s wrong with her not giving a present and giving us a lecture on her personal experience with dead rotting flesh?
Above post by anti Sally.
you didn’t have to sign it. I could tell it was you because it was a creepy, nonsensical attempt at an insult.
Xalisae said, “Oh, but we don’t have to debate this any longer, Sally, because according to Jon, I’m pro-choice now!
Xalisae, you misrepresented my representation of you. I only said that you, along with Sally and Erin, were not a 100% pro-lifer. But you said as much as yourself in the quote I provided.
Now X,
If Sally did not show up at your baby shower(s), or give a present to you while you carried a fetus, would you not ask her why she didn’t show up at your baby shower(s), but at the birth party for your new born?
If not you, then a friend, a relative, your mother, might not ask Sally, why she never gave a present to you while your baby was not yet born.
You see X, it is a matter of respect and honor to your child, and you, that baby shower’s are given. A sane person, would put aside her personal opinions and deathsex worship, and simply give you a present in honor of you and your child.
It’s Sally words X, not mine, that denote a certain creepy deformity of character and sensibility towards baby showers.
you’re comparing apples and oranges, because all you can understand are apples and oranges. I’m a grapefruit, Jon. But if I’m not pro-life enough for you, I guess I’m pro-choice…even though I don’t think the “choice” in “pro-choice” should be a legally sanctioned option. But whatever. If I actually cared what people think, my daughter and I would just be another couple of abortion victims. ^_^
yllaS, under those circumstances, I’d just ask her her reasons for doing or not doing those things, she would explain her reasons, and I would disagree, much in the same manner that you’ve been reading. She certainly wouldn’t creep me out the same way as someone who combines the words “death” and “sex”.
BTW, X,
That I write about “dead rotting flesh”, in reference to babies in the womb that have died, you might take note that Sally taught me those words in describing a miscarriage.
“Dead, rotting, stinking flesh” was her descriptive words for a miscarriage.
Another words, take it up with that three generation anti-Catholic bigot, deathsex worshiper, who is so culturally creepy to write, “I consider it bad form to throw baby showers”
But, here are some words to grow on X.
Turning away from God would not be a defect except in a nature meant to be with God. Even an evil will then is proof of the goodness of nature. Just as God is the supremely good creator of good natures, so he is the most just ruler of evil wills, so that even though evil wills make an evil use of good natures, God makes a good use of evil wills.
– St. Augustine, The City of God, XI, 17
Sally is just that evil will that makes evil use of the good nature that God created out of love.
That God makes a good use of you and Sally is his answer to your defect of turning away from God’s good nature.
those were her words in describing A SINGLE INCIDENCE of a miscarriage which actually happened…dead for 3 months, I’m certain that would be an accurate description for any dead body, and all the more sad in this case because it was a person so young, he never really got a chance to live, much in the same manner that my own brother died, only the situation was handled much better because of superior medical care.
X,
But this whole board exist from the action of sex acts, becoming acts of death.
That deathsex has deformed Sally is her theme and principle motivation. That Sally has become a person that worships abortion is not in dispute.
But, maybe, you have a inablity to understand the word worship and the etymology of the word “worship”
Weorthscipe; dignity,honor,reverence,
Etym. Old English weorthscipe, honor, dignity, reverence: weorth, worth +ship.)
That Sally worships abortion is a fact.
That abortion is the death of a innocent human being is a fact. Hence; deathsex.
That a act designed to give life, becomes a act of death is what this board wrestles with daily.
That a contradiction, or conundrum of truth, is at the root of all the words written about abortion/miscarriage, is based on acts of life giving, becoming death acts.
That you find the words deathsex somehow a assualt upon your sensibilities, is a attempt at faux naivety which really denotes a puritanical streak in you X. It amuse me.
sorry, but i had a very traditional upbringing. I didn’t learn to detach the negative connotation with sex in all forms until college.
bmmg39: “Whether or not having a baby shower before the birth is ‘bad form,’ to argue that the baby “hasn’t arrived into the world” is (as I’ve patiently explained before) rather absurd. Does the rocket from Mercury actually drop all those fetuses/babies off at once, Sally, or does it waste valuable fuel by doing one at a time?”
Sally: “That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever bm.”
Well, since you’re the one who originally typed the nonsense about unborn children not having “arrived into the world,” it’s only natural that you wouldn’t understand when someone successfully deconstructs your argument. It’s already absurd enough for one to argue that unborn children aren’t human beings. You take it a step further by arguing that they’re not “here” yet.
So where ARE they, exactly?
Jon: “Personhood theory is now used in Europe to justify infanticide (second-last paragraph, http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08022201.html).”
That’s my point, Jon. When we ignore scientific fact and turn “who is and who is not a person” into a “personal choice” sort of thing, everyone is fair game. Just ask Native Americans who study their own history about one group of people getting up one day and declaring another group of people “non-persons.”
I stress the science not as a way to be hostile to religion; I’m merely tired of people like Joe Biden and John Kerry and countless others acting as though the unborn can only be considered human beings according to religion, and “you can’t force your religious views on everybody else.” Well, part of that is true: you can’t. But human embryos and human fetuses are human beings whether one believes in a higher power or not. Their aforementioned belief is like someone saying: “I happen to believe Native Americans/gays and lesbians/red-haired people/whoever are human beings, but I won’t force my views on everybody else by trying to protect them by law.”
Well X,
The tradition of Sally is rooted in anti-Catholic bigotry for three generations, and compounding it with a failure to understand the basic conundrum of deathsex.
It’s really simple, Sally continues to promote her form of truth revealed to her by the tradition of deathsex, and unable to overcome the insult of death.
To the “bad form” of not being unable to give a present to a future child of this Earth, before the child breathes the air of this Earth.
I had said, “Of course, we disagree on reality, even on such fundamentals as the existence of God.”
BMMG39 said, “Yes, because that is a theological question. No one has proof, either way, on that one. The personhood of the human embryo or fetus, on the other hand, is a scientific fact corroborated by countless science textbooks.”
Did you use the wrong word, BMMG39? Europeans use the idea of personhood, which is philosophic, not scientific, to justify infanticide.
BMMG39 said that “human embryos and human fetuses are human beings whether one believes in a higher power or not.” On the other hand, BMMG39 would represent Mr. Biden and Mr. Obama as saying something to the effect that “God is a higher power whether one believes in pre-natal babies or not.” Both the former and latter statements are true. So, what? The Europeans seem to have concluded that the human embryo or human fetus is a human being but not necessarily a person. Infants aren’t necessarily persons, either.
Perhaps we also differ in our definition of religion. My favourite definition of religion is the following: man’s response to God as He has revealed Himself to man in creation and in His redemptive Word. According to this definition, everybody is religious.
And Mr. Kerry and Mr. Biden are apparently hypocrites. But maybe they have the faith of a zygote; while there is life, there is hope. I should pray. I am glad that BMMG39 is staunchly pro-life.
and not glad that I’m only kinda pro-life, in your opinion, I guess. :/
sorry, but i had a very traditional upbringing. I didn’t learn to detach the negative connotation with sex in all forms until college.
X, yllas has a real deal about sex.
I can tell.
Doug,
Congratulations, you just figured out that abortion is from having sex. Now, if you think a little harder, you might realize that the act of abortion, is the death of a human being.
HIV Infection Rate for Young Black Men ‘Alarming:’ CDC
By Steven Reinberg, HealthDay Reporter – Thu Sep 11, 8:47 PM PDT
In August, the CDC released new estimates of the number of HIV new cases in 2006, in the United States, which now total 56,300 and are significantly higher than the previous estimate of 40,000. “We learned that the HIV epidemic was worse than previously known,” Fenton said.
The penalty for vice is the vice itself, the not seeing the good in its fullness, the good that ought to be there.That virtue can know vice but vice cannot know evil.
I didn’t learn to detach the negative connotation with sex in all forms until college.
Posted by: xalisae at September 12, 2008
So X, what is the full goodness of sex? What remains of a good that ought to be there, but is not, is people who learned “to detach the negative connotation with sex in all forms”.
And so 56,300 human beings found what remains of their good, they thought was there, was not in reality the full goodness of sex. But it was good.
Now X, can you understand a word of what I just wrote, and do you have the intelligence to answer the question; what is the full goodness of sex?
Or, am I wasting my time with another low level propagandist at this site who has no idea of classic Western thought in “matters” of virtue and vice.?
Deserts are good. People enjoy eating deserts. However, bad things sometimes happen if you eat too much of the wrong kinds of deserts. It can kill you. People don’t usually go around talking about how horrible and evil deserts are, and how they should never be eaten though. Sometimes, you can even find deserts that are good for you (reduced cal angelfood cake and fruit, YUM!)
See, sex = deserts, promiscuous sex = fatty cakes/chocolates/fried things/stuff that will kill you, sex with your significant other in an exclusive and long-term relationship = healthy and nutritious deserts combined with exercise.
there is no reason to act like sex in general is evil instant death. it’s not.
Adam and Eve ate something like a dessert once. It was a beautiful fruit. They only ate it once.
Yes, because the next time my husband and I decide to romp we’re going to instantly drop dead. it’s cute, how ridiculous you are.
I wasn’t referring to sex.
Yep,
I’m wasting my time. I tryed to see how much education, or the ability to think beyond cake and ice cream analogies but, you failed to answer a simple question.
So, as any liberal knows, and you confirm, only the less educated join the armed forces, leaving their family behind for some cake and ice cream they never got as a child.
I just don’t think women should be able to kill their children inside them once they become pregnant just because they don’t want to have to take care of the children they are responsible for bringing about in the first place. Oftentimes, women experiencing unintended pregnancies are scared and confused. They could be getting a lot of static from the baby’s father or family members about keeping the baby. It becomes a lot of hype about how a baby will ruin your life so you should have an abortion and keep everything just the way it is. I’m glad I never listened to that hype, because I wouldn’t have my daughter now
Posted by: xalisae at September 13, 2008
You have no principle, a abortion is in your future at the right time and right place, simply because you failed to answer a simple question.
yllas,
x has stated several times in the past that she would not abort in the case of an unexpected pregnancy. She is pro-life.
yllas,
Forgive me, but which one was your “simple question”?
yllas,
I can’t speak for Sally, I can only speak for myself. Your constant declaration of “Sally’s anti-Catholicism”, whether it exists or not, is irrelevant to to these conversations.
As a Catholic myself, I appreciate the unique perspective you can bring, but being Catholic is not a pre-requisite to commenting at Jill’s. Your disregard for her personal story is disheartening. Please try to understand this.
ummm…no…I’m pretty sure I do have principle, and my past actions and accomplishments have proven that. Thanks for wishing an abortion on me, insulting my husband who fights for the freedoms we all enjoy daily, and I’m pretty sure that you included an insult of my intelligence within your lunatic, rambling non sequiturs as well.
That first one isn’t very likely for a couple reasons…I’ve had my tubes tied, and even if I did beat the odds and end up pregnant, I’d absolutely love another baby with all my heart and soul. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Sally@ 1;12,
Janet, when it comes to law there is no slang. Either a procedure is legal or it is not. When you put legal restricitions upon health care procedures you restrict health care. How can you not understand this? There is no difference when it comes down to law. None. Nada. Zed. Zip. Laws are black and white. Medical science applications vary from case to case. The two are oil and water. They don’t mix.
You have engaged an actual ‘pro abort’ in discussion. I give you kudos for actually engaging in a discussion and considering my point of view and experience. That is new and different on this blog.
I am not talking about law, or slang terms. I’m only talking about medical procedures and language. You seem to think that taking a naturally deceased fetus from a womb is the same as abortion and it is not. Important to note: Whether abortion is legal or illegal has no bearing whatsoever on what I am telling you. “How can you not understand this?” (Sound familiar?)
EXAMPLES:
*bruise = contusion
*blood clot = embolism (I think?)
*swelling = edema
The first column are colloquialisms
– I wouldn’t call them “slang”.
The second column are medical terms meaning the same thing.
*In utero natural death of fetus= spontaneous abortion
*Removal of same dead fetus = NOT “abortion” of any kind.
(Ususally done by D&C or similar.)
*Forced death (killing) and removal of this fetus = Abortion (currently illegal)
Where is the “oil and water” that you refer to?
Sally, Do you like Steve Winwood? I love him! I’ll have to find that CD……. :)
thanks for your support Janet. I think yllas is having a hard time with me because i don’t fit easily into a great many molds of pre-conceived notions.
x,
You’re welcome. Molds are often boring! :)
Janet.
And you claim to be Catholic and have no idea what I’m driving at with the one simple question.
So X, what is the full goodness of sex?
You suprise me Janet, in not recognizing classic Socrates and how St. Augustine, a doctor of the Church, weaved Socrates into his thinking about virtue and vice.
virtue can know vice but vice cannot know evil. The penalty for vice is the vice itself, the not seeing the good in its fullness, the good that ought to be there.
Care to explain that statment written above Janet?
As for Sally, she is just another bigoted anti-Catholic, raised in a typical bigoted family, and educated in the English literature idea of Catholicism. And she is relevent to these “conversations” at this board, or any board a bigot is allowed to spread bigotry and ignorance.
Would write to me such a statment if I was trying to educate a Jew bigot? Now, think Janet, Jill allows a typical bigot and hater of Catholicism to post here, but would she allow a hater of Jews to post at her site?? Which tells me about what bigotry is acceptable to Jill and you evidently.
yllas,
At first I thought I’d answer all your questions, but deleted that because I stand by my initial post.
You seem annoyed that I asked you which question was the one you were asking x. and then fault me for not knowing the answer to a question I haven’t yet identified. Having a bad day? Well, I didn’t have time to study your 15 posts back and forth, if you must know. I’m not a Socrates or Augustine scholar either, and I won’t pretend to be.
Jill allows a typical bigot and hater of Catholicism to post here, but would she allow a hater of Jews to post at her site?? Which tells me about what bigotry is acceptable to Jill and you evidently.
Rhetorical question? I can’t speak for Jill, you should know that.
I ask you a simple question, and got some low brow answer which did not answer my one simple question to you X.
First, I didn’t ask you to defend my family or me.
That you think your defending me is just another throw away phrase of those people who get paided to do any public service job. The military is a means to a end. The end being a education, while avoiding and allowing others to die in your place.
Maybe your new to the military and are just another first generation militarist. But, the armed forces are filled with second/third generation incompetents, who rose above the lower rank of their mothers and fathers generation.
You might be one of those who has been promoted beyond your capabilities. And put in a place where you can do as little damage as possible while getting a education at my expense.
You avoided a simple question X, as most low brow propagandist at this site do, so what is left is educating you in the fact that your paid public service in protecting me, is not in my interest, and taking my money by taxes to kill people, which is actually my job if I decide to kill them.
But, the best part is the fact that you will never kill a single person for this nation and will just spend your time being as incompetent in your job, as those incompetent generals who Sec. Gates fired for leaving nuclear weapons laying around. Imagine that, in a era of our enemies wanting to get their hands on WMD, and using our own WMD’s on us. Yep, I can imagine it, look at X, and her failure to think beyond cake and ice cream analogies.
yllas @ 4:08,
Regarding: So X, what is the full goodness of sex?
Why would you ask a non-Catholic (x) a question where you are clearly looking for an answer which requires a knowledge of the Catholic faith?
If this is an example of the Socratic method(?), perhaps it is not the best way to “educate” on this blog.
I would recommend this book to anyone interested in learning more about arguments against abortion, as a starter:
The Unaborted Socrates: A Dramatic Debate on the Issues Surrounding Abortion
By Peter Kreeft
Published by InterVarsity Press, 1983
ISBN 0877848106, 9780877848103
That’s right Janet, your all faith and no reason.
All fides and no ratio. Just what JP2 and the present pope are trying to get you to be.
So X, what is the full goodness of sex?
There is the single question asked of the militarist X, and then you Janet.
virtue can know vice but vice cannot know evil. The penalty for vice is the vice itself, the not seeing the good in its fullness, the good that ought to be there.
Care to explain that statment written above Janet?
A simple question to you Janet, to which again no answer was attempted.
The old rhetoric trick to avoid thinking about the question huh Janet.
Here, Jill’s moderators allows anti-Catholic bigots to post at her site. Jill’s moderators will not allow a Jew bigot to post for months spreading anti-Jewish bigotry at her site. Yes or no Janet, or any of her moderators may answer a simple non-rhetorical question, with a simple yes or no. I don’t need a reason for your yes or no, just a simple yes or no answer, Janet.
Why would you ask a non-Catholic (x) a question where you are clearly looking for an answer which requires a knowledge of the Catholic faith
Because it is not a Catholic question, but a question arising from a statment from Socrates.
yllas, 5:13
Yes, After I posted, I realized my mistake.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
virtue can know vice but vice cannot know evil. The penalty for vice is the vice itself, the not seeing the good in its fullness, the good that ought to be there.
Care to explain that statment written abov
Let me see if I can wrap my juvenile mind around this one, oh condescending one.
Vice cannot recognize in itself what is the essence of its being – evil – because it knows nothing else (good) to compare vice (itself) to, or aspire to, therefore the penalty for vice is vice itself….
So X, what is the full goodness of sex?
I’ll be back…. time for dinner…
“…the full goodness of sex…”
Well, that’s kind of a weird question, or at least a weird way of phrasing it. Biologically speaking, the “full goodness of sex” is successful reproduction. Emotionally speaking, it is strengthening the bond with my significant other (my husband), pleasing him, and pleasing myself. You see, there are quite a few aspects of the sexual act that I think you’re not getting. Plus, sex is dramatically different when put in different contexts. Sex with my husband is different than sex with a stranger would be (which is part of the reason I don’t have sex with strangers).
Vice cannot recognize in itself what is the essence of its being – evil – because it knows nothing else (good) to compare vice (itself) to, or aspire to, therefore the penalty for vice is vice itself….
Getting there Janet. It’s not a comparison and you failed from not addressing the whole statement.
As is typical of this site, always answering in part,parse, and parcel to a statment.
You missed;
the not seeing the good in its fullness, the good that ought to be there.
But, since you think its soo simple a statment, if I played a simple game of person,place, or thing, with you, and the object of the game was to guess what is a fetus, should I not place a fetus in the category of “thing” and not person?
Tell me Janet, would you actually place a fetus in the noun’s three categories of “person” and not thing? Things do not have personalities the last time I thought of a thing, such as a tree, boat or mold. Convince me that a fetus is not a thing and is a person.
Well, that’s kind of a weird question, or at least a weird way of phrasing it. Biologically speaking, the “full goodness of sex” is successful reproduction.
Very good X.
When there is no reproduction, is there a lack of good in sexual acts? Are sexual acts that do not reach there full goodness therefore lacking good?
You missed;
the not seeing the good in its fullness, the good that ought to be there.
No, I don’t think I did, but since you do:
it refers to the fact that “we cannot see what is not there”.
No, because as human beings, we’ve a highly developed consciousness, and therefore the sexual act has a legitimacy beyond reproduction. You can’t disregard the bulk of what I said simply because you disagree. The answer to what you asked was in what I had said before. My husband and I have mutually decided mutually that our family was complete. Barring the unlikely event of another pregnancy, sex between he and I will now serve the emotional purposes I mentioned earlier. Is “multi-purpose” too complex for you to grasp?
And Janet, I wouldn’t let the condescending tone bother you. I don’t, because I happen to find a pseudo-intellectual lecturing me on how stupid I am while making the most fundamental grammatical errors (“your” rather than “you’re”, and “there” instead of “their”, etc.) to be quite comical.
*-the second “mutually”
yllas @ 7:20,
But, since you think its soo simple a statment, if I played a simple game of person,place, or thing, with you, and the object of the game was to guess what is a fetus, should I not place a fetus in the category of “thing” and not person?
Tell me Janet, would you actually place a fetus in the noun’s three categories of “person” and not thing? Things do not have personalities the last time I thought of a thing, such as a tree, boat or mold. Convince me that a fetus is not a thing and is a person.
I didn’t say it was a simple statement.
“Guess what is a fetus”-
“Convince me that a fetus is not a thing and is a person.”
A person is a human creature able to reason. A fetus grows through the stages of baby, toddler, child, and adult. A fetus has the same genetic make-up as the adult it becomes. Its ability to reason increases with its maturity as it goes from one stage to another.
Since an adult is a reasoning person and a fetus becomes an adult, then a fetus must also be a person.
A thing does not think or reason. A person thinks and reasons, therefore a fetus cannot be a thing.
X,
Well, that’s kind of a weird question, or at least a weird way of phrasing it. Biologically speaking, the “full goodness of sex” is
successful reproduction.
When there is no reproduction, is there a lack of good in sexual acts? Are sexual acts that do not reach there full goodness therefore lacking good?
Posted by: Anonymous at September 13, 2008 7:28 PM
No.
Posted by: xalisae at September 13
You admit to the fact that the “full goodness” of sexual acts is realized by reproductive sex, then you answer the question of sexual acts which do not reproduce as having NO lack of good as sexual acts.
Correct?
If there is no lack of good in non-reproductive sexual acts, are non-reproductive sexual acts also the full goodness of sexual acts?
Janet.
A fetus is a entity/thing, therefore it is placed in the noun category of thing. That it exist and is human, is not in dispute.
thing;An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence.
The real or concrete substance of an entity.
An entity existing in space and time
Entity; Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: Persons and corporations are equivalent entities under the law.
The fact of existence; being.
The existence of something considered apart from its properties.
One layer down.
Tell me Janet, if you played a game of person,place or thing, what noun category would you place a embryo in? A person or thing?
But, you didn’t answer even the first question of your placing a fetus in the noun category of person,place or thing.
What noun category would you place the fetus in Janet?
Be honest with yourself Janet, and some child you may play a game with, that teaches “The part of speech that is used to name a person, place, thing, quality, or action and can function as the subject or object of a verb, the object of a preposition, or an appositive”. Definition of noun.
Are you really going to teach a child that a fetus/embryo is a person and not a thing/entity?
Yes, if the act is serving the purpose it has been given. It brings good, and causes no harm. Besides, are you saying that we’re no better than our biological processes? Humans have nothing more to offer than more humans? Should we only be allowed to engage in the sexual act if we are certain to produce offspring? Do, you realize there’s like, no way to possibly do that?
yllas,
Please find someone else to play with. I’m not in the mood for your annoying questions. Persons, places, things, nouns. What’s next, planets, clouds, stars?
But, you didn’t answer even the first question of your placing a fetus in the noun category of person,place or thing.
What noun category would you place the fetus in Janet?
By the way, I did answer the first time you asked.
You missed;
the not seeing the good in its fullness, the good that ought to be there. No, I don’t think I did, but since you do:
it refers to the fact that “we cannot see what is not there”.
Posted by: Janet at September 13, 2008
Let’s see, your answer is that we can’t see the good in its fullness since “”we cannot see what is not there”.
So, Janet, you can’t see full goodness or the goodness that ought to be there?
I can see “full goodness” and goodness that ought to be there. That should be there.
And you read Peter Kreeft?
Socrates said in The Republic that virtue can know vice but vice cannot know evil. The penalty for vice is the vice itself, the not seeing the good in its fullness, the good that ought to be there.
Vice can see good, vice lacks seeing/being full goodness. There, I spoon fed it to you Janet.
X, is giving a classic reply about sexual acts who can’t see any difference in the quality of goodness, between non-abortive sexual acts and acts that create a human being. Both don’t lack for good.
Poor Janet,
Tell me Janet, would you actually place a fetus in the noun’s three categories of “person” and not “thing”?
You rambled on about anything but did not answer the question asked.
Typical.
Is a embryo a person or a thing Janet? YES or NO. No, long answer with supporting reasons.
The reason I’m doing this to you is to make you understand that every person that you try to convince that a fetus or embryo is a “person”, is a defect in definition and grammar, which actually favors the pro aborts.
It is why Sally to Doug will eventually refer to a fetus as a “it”, or thing. Feti and embryo’s are things.
That from the very beginning of learning the definition of, and “understanding” the meaning of the word “noun”, you lose Janet.
Human beings that are not born are things. They are things in the mind of Sally and every pro- abort you try and convince aren’t things and are persons.
You go off on a hugh metaphysical argument about potentiality and DNA, when a child might ask you if a fetus is a person or thing. Your child, you, and millions more have internalized the fact that a fetus is a thing. It is not a person by the definition of the word noun.
That you think it is a game of stars and planets is your admiting to being at the limit of thinking capacity.
If there is no lack of good in non-reproductive sexual acts, are non-reproductive sexual acts also the full goodness of sexual acts?
Yes.Posted by: xalisae at September 13, 2008 11:07 PM
Since you don’t recognize or “see” anything but full goodness in sexual acts, then abortion is the full goodness of sex also.
That it occurs latter in time, is not relevent to the fact that abortion is a act of sex, which is always a full goodness of sexual acts
You have no principle X. Or your principle against abortion is a principle based on the good of vice.
Let me write your reply to me X.
But abortion harms.
If abortion harms, and abortion is another act of sexual acts, which are always a full goodness of sex, then abortion is a sex act that lacks some good, or not x?
But, you already committed yourself to only seeing sexual acts as only containing the quality of “full goodness”.
You got a contradiction going X.
You may try and deny that abortion is a sex act, but it is just the final sequence of the full goodness of sex.
no, you derive what you like from what i say to attempt to make yourself feel good by belittling me.
Did I say that non-reproductive sex CAN be good? Yes. Did I say that All non-reproductive sex is good? ABSOLUTELY NOT. That is what you chose to distil what I had said into-twisting the words of others is a form of lying…claiming I said that which I did not.
I said that it CAN be good, if it causes no harm. Abortion causes the epitome of harm: death. Promiscuous, indiscriminate sex harms the parties involved in many ways, not the least of which being the detriment of self-respect and peer-respect of the woman and man (depending on their state of mind, attitudes, and past experiencesexuals), exposure to dangerous diseases, etc.,
You can be a secular moralist. You can be a non-religious pro-lifer. Just because the origins of my principles are my own does not mean they are non-existant.
your inference is quite wrong.
*…past experiences, sexuality beliefs
X,
If there is no lack of good in non-reproductive sexual acts, are non-reproductive sexual acts also the full goodness of sexual acts?
Yes.Posted by: xalisae at September 13, 2008
11:07 PM.
Then you withdraw your statement about sexual acts do not lack good, and refute your above statement.
Actually your the secular moralist at this site not knowing that abortion is a result of the full goodness of sexual acts.
But, let us include “harm”, in your defintion of sexual acts, that are not able to have a lack of good, and only contain “full goodness” by your definition of sexual acts. Sexual acts don’t have the quality/attribute of “lacking good”
Harm is a attribute of the full goodness of sexual acts. That sexual acts can contain harm, is another attribute of the full goodness of sexual acts.
Sexual acts do not have a lack of good, according to the answer given by X.
Think it’s twisting your words X?
.
You may try and deny that abortion is a sex act, but it is just the final sequence of the full goodness of sex.
.
That your principle defence against abortion is based on the classic definition of vice.
As to this “can” thing you got going, convert that into a ought or should and think about the good that ought to be there, but isn’t. But, since your a believer in sex containing some harm within its “full goodness”, maybe you should, or ought not think about the fact that a can,should, or ought, is the classic definition of vice.
Now, “isn’ts” don’t exist, and according to your definition of sex there is not any quality of “lack of good”,in your world of “full goodness” sex.
Another words; evil, which is a lack of good, but is not full goodness, doesn’t exist for Z when it comes to sex.
I take it back, your defence of abortion is not based on vice, but making vice a virture.
Abortion .
Posted by: xalisae at September 14, 2008 1:38 AM.
So, deathsex now exist for ya, X? This is getin’ good, you accuse me of being creepy? What did you just write X?
Abortion is the final action of a sex act which “causes the epitome of harm;death”
Deathsex X. You just made a fool of yourself by coming to the same conclusion that you thought was soo creepy of me. Whose the creep now X?
Abortion causes the epitome of harm: death.
Posted by: xalisae at September 14, 2008 1:38 AM.
Insert as the complete sentence in above post.
yllas,
That you think it is a game of stars and planets is your admiting to being at the limit of thinking capacity.
If you eliminated the Socratic riddles, you might be an effective “educator”. Your complete lack of humility and desire to make fun of complete strangers prevents you from doing so. What a waste of intellect. Is what you do “good”? God bless you.
yllas,
How does
Socrates
define
“FULL GOODNESS”?
How does it differ
from
“GOODNESS”?
We know that human embryos and fetuses are human beings, according to encyclopedia entries and countless science textbooks. The term “human being” can be interchanged with the term “person.” I suspect that those who consider them two different concepts are engaging in retreat.
Ok Janet,
It’s your traditional Catholic/philosophic idea of evil, that evil is a “lack of good”. . Vice is a lack of good, but it is not the perfect, or full goodness, that ought to be their(sic, and for X to enjoy). The “not seeing the full goodness” is based on natural law. Or what is the “thing” designed to do.
When you replied to me, and your “explaination” of what those words of Socrates meant, was to just see what you know. Your reply was actually suprising to me. I thought you would or ought to see the last words of the quote of Socrates in full context of the quote, and not seperate his sentence into parts and pieces. Which is why I replied, Typical. Or, you’ve been hanging out with Doug and his ilk of parts and parcel thinkers. Otherwise known as deconstructionist, using that thought/sentence pry bar and hammer, beating your writing into their version of your words. And when I do that constantly to Doug, he fails to see the mockery. Doug goes logically dogmatic and then replies, No you aren’t, you aren’t mocking me.
When X replied that my question; what is the full goodness of sex, “was weird”, another clue was confirmed, that she lacked a principle of Western thought on evil and good, or what vice is. But, she reasoned from the heart that the answer was a baby being created. X has a good heart, but lacks ratio from a “lack of the full good” of a Western Civilization education. Then again, how few Kreeft’s, Budziszewski’s,Beckwith’s, George’s are left to educate a X. And why read them anyway, since she is a atheist moralist who thinks she knows how to defend her principle against abortion on reason, but is actually from the heart. Abortion is the last sexual act of the “full goodnes of sex”.
Quite frankly, there is no evil, or the famous idiot’s argument begins with that old “God created evil dude” banter. Sally and Doug arrived at being what they are, from actually never solving the most important philosophic question of life; why bads things, wrong, death, or evil exist. Irony is always mocking Sally and Doug, since they are the one’s who are based on the principle of “evil actually existing”, and is from there(sic) version of God, created from being………….. Calvinist minds. Now, that “ought” to start some fundamentalist bible expert, such as Doug, jumping out of the woodwork and crying ” Protestant bigot”. Afterall, mommy and daddy never used reason, but fides on his youthful mind. When dogma Doug caught a little reasoning skills as a teenager, things became clear that abortion is lacking in his bible soothsaying. Soo common, and so typical of a little boy doing nothing but thinking he is the answer to his parents thinking about Calvin’s God. That “they had no good argument against his reasoning skills, they just thought they did” . Hence, the first victim, or defeated by invincible reasoning skills of Doug’s dogmatic, closed mind, was daddy and momma.
Sally, being infected with deathsex for three generations, and that old anti-Catholic histo-propaganda by England, is still Sally’s facts of realty in matters Catholic. Here is a bone for Hisman, English grammar was invented as a Protest to the Catholic grammar, which was Latin grammar. English writing was invented to spread propaganda against Catholics. And it was soo successful that they’er(sic) product of success is revealed and witnessed by the writings of the bigoted, three generation anti-Catholic, deathsex worshipper, known as Sally. Protestant propaganda made Sally what she is, and Sally took the bigotry and bias into her rational soul.
That X defends a anti-Catholic bigot, and butts in to my post about that deranged, deathsex, anti-Catholic, was her lowering of herself intellectually, in my opinion, to another ignorant defender of bigotry.
Nobody defends a Jew bigot, but their(oh oh) are sure o’ plenty of anti-Catholic defenders at this site. X being one of those who “butts in” to my posting to a bigot, and got handed a lesson in why she is actually a defender of abortion by heart alone, but not reason. Then gets the last lesson on insult posting by being made into another creep,as I am to her, by being a person that wrote the same words as I did in principle, with her posting that “abortion is the epitome of evil; death.”
She believes in deathsex too!! What a creep.
Here is some more grammar food X,; whose da creep know?
So Janet, since you read Peter Kreeft, here is my best efforts at being a maven at a keyboard.
A Meditation on Evil
JAMES V. SCHALL, S.J.
If you can read it one time, and understand all the principles being given, your a better mind then me. And seriously Janet, you probably are.
X, is obviously a student of English grammar, and takes her grammar serilously(sic). That I lack the full goodness of Protestant English grammar/spelling, or I have no lack of goodness, and all grammar English writers are just the full goodness of English grammar, doesn’t make me not tip me hat to you X, for trying to make me see my grammar lackings.
And that you serve in the armed forces of the USA, X, is a virtue that I admire. I rarely give personal info at this site, but to let you know that I admire your virtuous decision in life, and understand the so called “price of freedom”, Google William G. Harrell, if you want. I knew him as more then the virtue of courage, which he did not lack.
Then again, maybe I have a vice and am not “seeing” the good of English grammar in its fullness, the good that ought to be there.
yllas,
I will read your full comment later and respond, as I have work to get done.
Would you please tell me in twenty words or less, if possible, how you would answer the question you proposed to me (about, vice, virtue, full goodness, etc and what it means….) Please answer as yllas, not Socrates. Thank you.
The reason I ask, is because I still don’t feel that my response broke Socrates’ statement into pieces. It was only one sentence after all!
yllas,
“What we have here is a failure to communicate”.
I read your post, but didn’t get much from it. You often make statements where it isn’t clear if you are attributing it to someone else or yourself. I don’t think you care as much about having a real conversation as to finding out what we know or do not know. It must make you feel smart to do so. (?)
Could you answer my question at 11:52 so I can see if you know the answer?
Janet.
Then I guess you won’t get much intellectually to defend your pro-life arguments from James Schall either, Janet. One sentence can provoke more then one idea being thought about at one time.
From that one sentence a person wrote a article explaining exactly what that one sentence means.
“Nature has built into ethical conduct the inseparable triad of action-purpose-pleasure, where the action is lawful if the purpose is not deliberately separated from the pleasure. It becomes unlawful if the purpose is deliberately eliminated or made impossible of fulfillment, as happens in contraception.”
“As seen before, the natural law of which we are speaking is a moral and not a physical law. It has nothing to do with valence, atomic numbers, expansion of gases or specific gravity. Its unique function is to regulate man’s conduct in accordance with the established order of God’s universe. Among its provisions is that every human action should have a purpose, that this purpose can be recognized by reason (enlightened by faith), and that the pleasure connected with an action is only a means to securing the determined end.”
Two paragraphs from millions of paragraphs written by Fr.John Hardon SJ.
My whole posting to you and X was from just one sentence from Socrates thinking about vice and virtue.
And Janet, you know what full goodness is; What nature designed it to do.
I think you “see” vice as not being good, when vice is good, but it “lacks the full goodness” that nature or God meant it to be. It is pleaure seperated from the triad mentioned above.
X fails to see a difference in non-reproductive acts which don’t have full goodness, a lack of good, or the triad not being seperated/deconstructed from each other.
So, what I did was to challenge X about her so called defence against abortion, and made her defence against abortion a typical atheist secularist affirmation of vice acts.
The end is pleasure.
The means are pleasure.
I wouldn’t have this confusion/denial about action-purpose-pleasure if one was discussing the heart,lungs, liver.
That post boards are the worst place to have a actual discussion on any subject is apparent to me, and that posting at a post board is a endless insult game at best.
No minds are changed, deconstruction reigns unchanged, but chasing bigots from post boards is a minimum one can do at a post board to try and raise the intellectual level of a post board.
“X, yllas has a real deal about sex.”
xalisae: I can tell.
yllas; Doug, Congratulations, you just figured out that abortion is from having sex. Now, if you think a little harder, you might realize that the act of abortion, is the death of a human being.
No, that wasn’t what we were talking about.
Granted that it can be said that a human being dies in an abortion, but that too wasn’t at issue or the issue.
yllas: It is why Sally to Doug will eventually refer to a fetus as a “it”, or thing. Feti and embryo’s are things.
No, we often refer to things correctly, without (incorrect) pretense, that’s all.
Janet was trying to have a rational conversation with you, and you can’t get around the fact that personhood is an attributed status.
yllas: That post boards are the worst place to have a actual discussion on any subject is apparent to me, and that posting at a post board is a endless insult game at best.
That’s your problem, though, not that big an issue for many of the rest of us.
Don’t want to play “the insult game”? Then don’t do it. It’s not hard.
Posting Guidelines
Do’s
“Criticize ideas, not people.”
Be civil and considerate.
Carefully read what others wrote before responding.
Consider what is being said.
Express your thoughts carefully and clearly.
You’re responsible for what you write.
Do Not’s
Do not swear or slander others.
Do not violate another’s privacy.
Do not write inflammatory comments just to wind people up.
Do not post personal/racial or ethnic/gender-based insults or slurs.
yllas, you’ve violated these, and for some of them you do it routinely.
yllas,
From two separate posts:
I think you “see” vice as not being good, when vice is good, but it “lacks the full goodness” that nature or God meant it to be. It is pleaure seperated from the triad mentioned above.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Socrates said in The Republic that virtue can know vice but vice cannot know evil. The penalty for vice is the vice itself, the not seeing the good in its fullness, the good that ought to be there.
Vice can see good, vice lacks seeing/being full goodness. There, I spoon fed it to you Janet.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Consider this:
Virtue defined/Vice-
From Saint Thomas’s entire Question on the essence of virtue may be gathered his brief but complete definition of virtue: “habitus operativus bonus”, an operative habit essentially good, as distinguished from vice, an operative habit essentially evil.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15472a.htm
How do you reconcile your (Socrates’) comments with this quote definition from St. Thomas? How is vice “good”? How does vice “see good”? I haven’t read the Catechism recently on this, which I should… Socrates’ views are a bit curious, IMHO.