Stanek: 1 month vacation announcement
UPDATE, 1/17, 8:30a: I’ve posted my Winter/Spring 2009 speaking schedule, fyi. Am I speaking near you? Support your local pro-life organization and let’s meet!
_______________
UPDATE, 1/15, 5:15p:…
Please be sure to read President Bush’s National Sanctity of Human Life Day 2009 proclamation, the last we’ll see in a long time. Daughter Daena wrote it, I’m proud to say, the last proclamation she penned as a writer for the White House. (FYI, Daena was chosen to work for President Bush’s transition team, which will for the next 6 months tie up loose ends in DC.)
_______________
UPDATE, 1/15, 5:05p: BornAliveTruth.org is hosting a FREE world premiere screening of the movie 22Weeks on January 21 in DC. See post below.
_______________
UPDATE, 1/10, 6:50a: Congratulations to Sarah Palin for polling as the 2008 Pro-lifer of the Year, and congrats as well to 2nd place winner, David Bereit! I have a new poll question up and a new poll post.
I’m leaving the latest posts live for comments, since conversations are ongoing.
_______________
January 5: Since we’re watching our 2-year-old grandson Jack the 1st week of January, I’m speaking a lot the 3rd week of January, and our family is vacationing in FL the 4th week of January, I thought January would be a good month to take time off from blogging. I’ve been at this 3-1/2 years straight and feel the need for a short sabbatical. I’ll be back February 2.
I’ll leave comments open on this post but am not sure how long. Am giving my indispensable moderators a month off, too. Will play that one by ear.
Sign up to receive my newsletter for breaking news and updates.
Indeed, I will be posting important updates, particularly having to do with March for Life events.
Thanks for your support, without which I wouldn’t need a break from the busyness!
While I’m on hiatus, visit ProLifeBlogs.com to get your pro-life blogging fix. Don’t forget PLB’s owner Tim and I are working on a new pro-life project to be announced after the Life Prizes awards ceremony January 23.
Enjoy your vacation, Jill.
In the meantime, I will point out that the more difficult you folks make abortions to get, the more this sort of thing will happen:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/nyregion/05abortion.html
Thankfully Ray, President Obama will make it so much easier to get an abortion, signing FOCA and all. Whatta Man!! No worries.
Jill,
Have a wonderful break and I will do the same!
That was a fascinating article, Ray. Thank you for sharing it.
Have a wonderful break, everyone! :)
See you on the blogs, Bethany!! :)
:)
Maybe it’s just me, but I get REALLY sick of people complaining about the nasty side effects of abortion. Stop complaining about the infections and the pain and the loss of fertility…the babies are DYING and people are selfishly worrying about the side effects of the murder that just took place. Please.
Wouldn’t it be something Becca22 if the nasty side effects of an abortion were actually discussed BEFORE the abortion? Hmmmmm…that would mean telling women and girls the truth though. Can’t do that.
Have a great vacation, Jill!
We’ll miss you!
Have a nice break, and enjoy your family time.
You’re right Carla. How are the abortionists supposed to make a living if their patients are actually informed of what is really going to happen to them?? And their babies…?
Enjoy you time off Jill. I was hoping for a special session on January 20th, however.
Thanks, all. Hal, I don’t think so. We’ll see. Sign up to get my newsletter so you’ll be current on what I’m posting on.
Ray:
So basically, if we make abortion illegal things will “go back” to the way they have been since the beginning of time? Gotcha.
So, Ray, something I don’t get…
Why is it so wrong to ask people to be responsible for their actions? I mean, if you play with fire, at least acknowledge the fact that you could get burned…and when and if you do, take RESPONSIBILITY for it! I think 99.99999% of people “playing with fire” know that pregnancy can result, just as STD’s can. Only pregnancy is not an illness or a disease. So, if people are willing to engage in this risky behavior, and they do get pregnant, why is it so wrong to ask them to step up to the plate and take responsibility? Adoption is always the better choice.
I don’t feel a bit sorry for women who get back alley abortions, or for those who take the pill to kill their babies. They know what they are doing. I’m not worried about them. I’m worried about the innocent life they are killing.
You’ve earned a break, Jill. Take it and come back here with teeth bared and mind cleared!
I don’t see where Ray is saying that, Lauren. Just that the more difficult abortions are to procure, the more often women will turn to other means, such as those discussed in the article.
Did I miss something in Ray’s comment, or in the article?
You missed something in the article Bean.
These are women that could EASILY get abortions, but they do not trust doctors as is apparently the Dominican way, according to the article.
Id like to see numbers of women who did this in a widespread manner before I consider this argument valid. I cant cite my source, but the last article I read on the phenomenon occurring before Roe v Wade, it was almost non existent, and the few that did happen were more ther result of shady doctors or pharmacists, who apparently still operate illegally anyways.
Well, my question was addressed to Lauren, but whatever.
Where did the article say anything about things “going back” to anything? I didn’t even see where it mentioned making abortions illegal.
Bean, my point was that desperate people have always, and probably will always, do things like throw themselves down stairs in order to escape from parenthood.
It says nothing of the morality of abortion, nor the legal status.
Hi Becca22,
I hear you. I do. I am very concerned about women who are not told a thing about what an abortion procedure is like, any side effects and the emotional consequences of abortion.
I honestly didn’t know what I was doing. I had no idea what an abortion would do to me or my life. I was told it wasn’t a baby and in my anguish, I believed it.
Doesn’t getting a $100,000 grant this year mean you aren’t allowed to “take a break” outside of your normal 4 hours or less each day you spend on blogging and writing a weekly article?
I mean, I spend hours every single day showing 1,000s of people the truth about abortion and do it for basicly no money….at least not yet.
:|
Hey Jill,
I will miss ya!
Funny, I noticed that at the RHReality blog with all its paid staff, there are hardly any comments. Wonder how many unique hits they get. Might be mostly talking to themselves over there.
just wondering
Carla,
I guess that came out wrong earlier. I feel deeply for those that are hurt by abortion and come to regret it later on. I think it would be very difficult to heal from such a tragedy.
I was mostly posting as a response to the article link in Ray’s first post. I hate it when abortion is held up some sort of noble right, and women use it as a form of birth control or think they are entitled to it somehow…just because they don’t want to ruin their reputation by having a baby. What they don’t realize is that it’s all just an industry. It’s all about money. Not about helping women, b/c abortion doesn’t help anyone but the filthy abortionists.
That article was trying to make abortion look like a medical necessity by outlining what would happen or what does happen to women when legal abortion is not a possibility for whatever reason. I say, bullocks. It’s irresponsible for the media to glamorize abortion just to push their own agenda. To say that killing babies is ok b/c it’s cultural is a lame, easy-out excuse.
ms Stanek,
Enjoy your sabbatical, leave of absence, R&R, vacation, family leave, personal days, etc., etc….
I pray the LORD will arrange some devine appointements for you and some supernatural manifestations of his love and that times of refreshing will come as you bask in HIS presence. May the LORD give you increasingly abundant amazing grace.
May the will of God prosper in your hands.
yor bro ken
God bless your vacation!
Becca22,
Agreed.:)
Abortion is big business.
I feel for all women who have had abortions especially the ones that don’t regret them. Someday, they will.
Oh, that’s right. I am supposed to be taking a break too!!:)
Have a good one, all!!
Someday, they will.
Posted by: Carla at January 5, 2009 6:50 PM
Carla, some will and some won’t.
Have a good break.
To all the mods: Enjoy YOUR break, too! :-)
Have a wonderful vacation Jill and moderators!
Why thank you, Doyle.
Jill and mods, have a nice break! You all deserve it.
Zeke, sounds like you may benefit from a vacation too.
God bless.
Thanks, Doyle and Anonymous! :)
And Eileen!
Wouldn’t it be something Becca22 if the nasty side effects of an abortion were actually discussed BEFORE the abortion? Hmmmmm…that would mean telling women and girls the truth though. Can’t do that.
Posted by: Carla at January 5, 2009 11:59 AM
Carla, when I was fifteen I broke my nose in a tumbling accident. I always considered myself pretty before, then that happened and I looked so bad I cried everyday getting ready for school, so I asked my parents for a nose job. I know it sounds shallow, but it’s not like I wanted to change my original nose. I wanted my old nose back! When I went to the plastic surgeon, he wasn’t the one that told me about what could go wrong. He actually told me other stuff I could get done. (I was pretty ticked about that, actually..) So, I went home and I got on the internet to look up all the things that could go wrong with a nose job myself. I mean, in any elective procedure, I believe it’s completely up to the person who is wanting to go through it. Why should the doctor try to get anyone to not use his service?
I’m so sorry this will be late but I should have the preview done by Saturday. My scriptwriter pulled out last minute–and I”m still trying to find a new one :(((
Josephine, the risks of surgical procedures need to be explained. This is especially true if a partiuclar procedure has significant, life long risks as is the case in abortion.
Sure, risking future fertility might not make a desperate woman change her mind, but it should at least be something she is informed of beforehand.
The police in Aurora, Illinois are looking for a Planned Parenthood protester who grabbed an empolyeee’s arm and verbally harassed her. Isn’t this the clinic that frequently is mentioned here?
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/police/1363545,2_1_AU06_CLINIC_S1.article
Margot, yes the Aurora, Illinois PP is the one that has been the subject of much controversy of late.
Jill and mods, have a nice break! You all deserve it.
Zeke, sounds like you may benefit from a vacation too.
God bless.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 5, 2009 7:49 PM
(That was me – I forgot to log in!)
God bless Jill’s readers and commenters too!
Please remember always to stand up for life – ALL of God’s creation is precious!
Oh, I would have know that was you, Janet, but you posted as Anonymous, not Anonymous2… :)
Ha ha, Bobby. Good memory!
Those were the days…..
:)
Have a reat vacation Jill. And anyone looking for regular prolife news updates can go to http://www.LifeNews.com for the latest.
I LOVE LifeNews.com I get the email daily. BTW, sometimes the links in the emails are ‘broken’.
Okay, I gotta take this opportunity to plug mine and Val’s site. For anyone going through withdrawal, feel free to drop by…It’s not Jill’s, but then what is?
It would be great to see some of you…it’s been awhile and it would give you all a chance to stay connected!
2secondsfaster.com
Don’t get eaten up by any gators, Jill.
Preview is here!!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFg0eprhPzg
Has anyone heard of the increase in frequency of earthquakes in the Yellowstone area lately? If that volcano blew it would wipe out our country. Perhaps God has decided to judge us afterall for the abortion holocaust?
I got this e-mail from a friend.
Subject: This is beginning to look serious…
“I am advising all State officials around Yellowstone National Park for a potential State of Emergency. In the last week over 252 earthquakes have been observed by the USGS. We have a 3D view on the movement of magma rising underground. We have all of the pre warning signs of an eruption from a super volcano. – I want everyone to leave Yellowstone National Park and for 200 miles around the volcano caldera because of the danger in poisonous gasses that can escape from the hundreds of recent earthquakes. These poisonous gasses that can escape from underneath a lake present even more of a potential problem because of the super volcano.”
http://www.worldwidewaterplan.com/yellowstone.htm
No perhaps about it HisMan. God will judge us and no crime in the history of mankind is more evil than tearing babies from their mother’s womb in bloody pieces. But you already knew this.
PIP, right on – looks good.
Kudos on Gimme Shelter.
One of the all-time greats.
Hisman, I’m pretty sure earthquakes are unrelated to abortion.
PIP, I like your video. :) I’ll be interested to see more than just a preview.
Thanks guys!!
Hisman, I just missed a news report on FoxNews about Yellowstone. I have been trying to pray a Chaplet of Divine Mercy every day at 3 PM for several months now. I encourage everyone to pray it — it only takes about 7 min and I think that non-Catholics can appreciate it as far as prayer goes.
Hal, I think that the natural world and the supernatural world are supposed to be in harmony. Because of original sin — man’s fallen nature — evil abounds (but God’s grace even more). What is occurring in the supernatural world — the spiritual battle against evil — is reflected in the material world — natural disasters,etc. God doesn’t have to punish us directly — we bring it upon ourselves. He allows things to happen to wake us up and to bring great good out of it. Just my thoughts.
Hal:
Wrong again……nature and creation are intimateley intertwined with the sins of men.
“Romans 8:18-23 (New International Version)
Future Glory
18I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.”
AND…….
“Romans 8:18-23 (New Living Translation)
The Future Glory
18 Yet what we suffer now is nothing compared to the glory he will reveal to us later. 19 For all creation is waiting eagerly for that future day when God will reveal who his children really are. 20 Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, 21 the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay. 22 For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 And we believers also groan, even though we have the Holy Spirit within us as a foretaste of future glory, for we long for our bodies to be released from sin and suffering. We, too, wait with eager hope for the day when God will give us our full rights as his adopted children, including the new bodies he has promised us.”
Creation was subjected to God’s curse becuase of Adam and Eve’s sin in the Garden of Eden. I know you think it’s a fairy tale, however, it makes more sense than the garbage that’s put out there by the likes of Richard Dawkins, etc. There is continuity in the Bible if you would just take the time ot read it, meditate on it, and most importantly believe it for “without faith it is impossible to please God….
6and because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. (Hebrews 11:5-7, New International Version)
I agree with Hal.
We always look for reasons why things are the way they are, ways to validate our own behavior and feelings, correlate two points together to solidfy our opinions.
In other words, in my opinion, there’s no correlation between earthquakes and our ‘punishment’ for abortion.
HisMan, I’m not sure why, but what you wrote is completely unconvincing to me.
Yellowstone is overdue for an eruption. Various Sci Fi flicks have focused on this and how the super volcano is due for an eruption.
Somehow I think cycles are to blame for this, not judgment.
I say we go out to the mud pots in Yellowstone, and put Chicken Little in one of them and see what happens.
Hey, for any of you that are interested, Michaelene Fredenburg of the Abortion Changes You campaign is scheduled as tonight’s guest on EWTN’s Life on the Rock at 8pm EST. If your cable station doesn’t carry EWTN, you can go to EWTN.com, click the Television tab, and then scroll down to one of the Live TV links.
I hope Jill and the mods are all enjoying their break :)
I mean, in any elective procedure, I believe it’s completely up to the person who is wanting to go through it. Why should the doctor try to get anyone to not use his service?
Because people deserve to make informed decisions, and the professionals who know the most about those decisions are the best source of information? The internet is unreliable as a research source, not to mention not everyone has access to it; not to mention not everyone knows what to look for when researching possible side effects. Access to, and familiarity with, the internet is still a luxury — to say nothing of access to and familiarity with medical information.
When I was at the abortion clinic, I was definitely made aware of any possible risks or complications. I was asked if I understood all of them, or if I needed clarification on any of them, etc.
PIP, the preview looks great!!
Alexandra, I’ve never heard of a person without access to the internet. If they can’t even make it to the library to use a computer, how exactly are they making it to the abortion clinic? I’d say those are more few and far between than libraries. Second of all, you type in “abortion”. Again, if you’re old enough to have sex and know you want one, you sure as heck are old enough to know how to type one word into google. The internet is most definitely not unreliable as a research tool. Pretty much all information for every paper I’ve written in college has come from the internet.
It’s not about being misinformed, or the doctor not telling enough. It’s about a woman wanting to justify herself so she won’t do research by herself.
It’s about a woman wanting to justify herself so she won’t do research by herself.
Why on earth should a patient need to research medical information by herself? We have all kinds of informed consent laws specifically for that reason — because it takes education and training to accurately locate and interpret information.
It’s pretty insulated and narrow-sighted to assume that everyone has access to, and KNOWLEDGE OF HOW TO EFFECTIVELY USE, the internet. I’m not talking about teenagers, so the “not old enough to be having sex” argument goes out the window (which, of course, it does anyway, because whether or not someone is “old enough” to have sex, she can have sex, so we need to deal with the realities, not the should’s). My aunt routinely forgets how to attach files to e-mail — she’s part of a generation for whom such technology is foreign. If she has a question, she asks a person, not a computer.
I took a required intro English course in college two years ago with a 22-year old man who did not have an e-mail address. I met with him, for free, for an hour a week all semester to show him through the basics of internet use. He had grown up in a home where he barely had shoes, much less a computer. He was on a scholarship and was falling behind academically. If he had not gotten that scholarship, it’s possible he’d have gone at least a few years longer without having a clue about the basics of teh internets. Why assume that everyone has the resources you consider standard?
To say nothing of the fact that in the many, many places in the US, a desperate woman will certainly be more inclined to arrange transportation to an abortion clinic than to arrange transportation to a public library. Especially if she is not very familiar with the internet or how to effectively use it. Whether she should go to the library is not the point — the point is the reality, that women who are scared and desperate are unlikely to take time off from work, pay for a cab, and go to a library. They are more likely to trust their doctors, as they should be encouraged to do.
I’ve lived in NYC my whole life. My boyfriend grew up within spitting distance of Appalachia. There are DEFINITELY people, in both of these places, who wouldn’t have the financial or educational resources to jump onto the internet and figure out the risks of anything and everything they do. We put warnings on cigarette packs and freaking hairdryers; why not on surgeries?
For the record, I have no desire to see abortion criminalized. Seriously, it took like 5 minutes for the doctor to review the possible complications with me. Surgery is not something you “sell” on people — it’s not a product, and doctors are not salesmen. They are educated professionals. They are authority figures. They are people we are trained to believe want only to keep us healthy and alive. Why condition the public to lost that sense of trust?
“Why on earth should a patient need to research medical information by herself?”
Because it’s an elective procedure. Obviously.
Oh, and as for the “older people” argument, uhm.. so? What’s your point? So your aunt uses email, right? Seems to me like if she can do that, she can type “abortion” into google. In fact, I’d think e-mail is way more complicated.
Hmm, and you mentioned a man that grew up in a poor family. I say again– library. Libraries have employees that can help. You don’t even have to tell them what you’re searching for on the internet.
“To say nothing of the fact that in the many, many places in the US, a desperate woman will certainly be more inclined to arrange transportation to an abortion clinic than to arrange transportation to a public library. Especially if she is not very familiar with the internet or how to effectively use it. Whether she should go to the library is not the point — the point is the reality, that women who are scared and desperate are unlikely to take time off from work, pay for a cab, and go to a library. They are more likely to trust their doctors, as they should be encouraged to do.”
Hm. So because SHE got pregnant, because SHE didn’t want to do research on her own… the doctor is responsible? WOW.
Why do you bring up finances stopping someone from getting on the internet? Abortions aren’t free! :)
Oh, and as for the smoking warning on cigarettes… does a doctor come read those to you? Nope. You’re supposed to read it yourself.
In elective surgical procedures, the risks must still be presented to patients. Have you seen the little papers you have to read through and sign before you even get your EARS pierced??? Give me a break!
It sounds as if you’re implying that simply because these are “abortion doctors” that they should be exempt from presenting all possible risks to patients before the procedure.
Either abortion doctors are then not “real” doctors, or this is a highly inconsistent argument. Which is it?
And btw, presenting patients with a form explaining the risks and being available to answer questions would be acceptable, in my opinion. Sounds like that’s what Alexandra’s experience was. (?)
They are required to tell MEDICAL RISKS. That’s it. Nothing else. They don’t have to tell you that you may regret it. They don’t have to tell you that it’s a person. They don’t have to, and it’s not their job.
I assumed that was what everyone was referring to in the first place. *shrug*
However, if asked “Is it a baby?” a medical professional should never reply that it’s simply “a blob of cells.” That is not medically accurate information. Using skewed rhetoric to “help” the woman decide in favor of the procedure when she has doubts is one sure way for her to regret it later on, should she discover the truth.
I don’t think ANY abortion clinic workers would ever tell a client that her unborn child is “a person.” And even if they did, it would not change every woman’s mind. I don’t believe the woman is without responsibility in making an informed choice. However, receiving partially dishonest information (or no information on risks at all) is not helpful, and I can understand those women’s anger after the fact.
They are required to tell MEDICAL RISKS. That’s it. Nothing else.
Is this not what we’re talking about? RE: your nose job experience, you said:
When I went to the plastic surgeon, he wasn’t the one that told me about what could go wrong. He actually told me other stuff I could get done. (I was pretty ticked about that, actually..) So, I went home and I got on the internet to look up all the things that could go wrong with a nose job myself. I mean, in any elective procedure, I believe it’s completely up to the person who is wanting to go through it. Why should the doctor try to get anyone to not use his service?
Why the delineation between elective and required surgeries, anyway? Where do you draw the line between elective and required? When my mom had cancer, the operation that saved her life was not one we were required to have. It was one we decided to try. Technically we “elected” to do it. When I got my wisdom teeth taken out, was that elective or required? Why not just inform all patients of risks?
Moreover, your points that somehow everyone SHOULD know how to effectively use internet research methods does not change the fact that MANY, MANY people still do not have this knowledge. Should they? Of course. It will only hurt them in this culture if they don’t — that’s why I tried my best to teach that guy in my class the basics. But we should not structure our medical system so that it’s guaranteed to hurt them if they don’t have access to such educational resources.
Why do you bring up finances stopping someone from getting on the internet? Abortions aren’t free! :)
That’s my point. If a woman is already taking a day or two off to travel and have an abortion, she is probably not inclined to take even more time off and go to the library to use a research method she hasn’t even necessarily been comfortable enough with to trust.
Seems to me like if she can do that, she can type “abortion” into google. In fact, I’d think e-mail is way more complicated.
And then, I suppose, simply read and trust the first link she pulls up? Ah yes, you know what we need? MORE people using wiki-healthcare information. Wikipedia does a cursory listing of a few complications, but focuses most on mental health. Abortionfacts.com appears, from a quick glance, to have a pro-life bias, which is fine, but if someone is unfamiliar with internet research, abortionfacts.com probably sounds like a compelling source. Then you get to Planned Parenthood, and if you click through to the various abortion pages you can actually find some decent information about medical risks. But those are three conflicting results to find, and the most accurate from a medical-risk standpoint is not the one you come to first.
Abortion.com has the following to say: All surgical procedures have some potential for complications. Individual circumstances and medical conditions can cause problems if they are not identified before the abortion. It is very important to discuss your entire medical history with the doctor during your pre-op examination. Statistically, childbirth is far more dangerous than abortion.”
The emedicine.com link that the first page pulls up is 11 pages long and doesn’t have a tab to learn about abortion risks. Which page do you trust, if you have no experience with internet research? How much do you want to rely a woman unfamiliar with the internet to comb, process, and accurately absorb or discard (depending on the source) the first two pages of Google links?
Hm. So because SHE got pregnant, because SHE didn’t want to do research on her own… the doctor is responsible? WOW.
THAT’S THE DOCTOR’S JOB. It’s his responsibility. His job is not to sell abortion, it is to safely and responsibly perform abortion. And as with any other surgery — elective or not — informed consent is a big part of safely and responsibly performing a procedure.
Kel —
And btw, presenting patients with a form explaining the risks and being available to answer questions would be acceptable, in my opinion. Sounds like that’s what Alexandra’s experience was. (?)
That was my experience. When they gave me my medical-information paperwork, I was also given a sheet with a detailed list of the possible complications or risks, along with an approximate likelihood of those risks occurring. I looked it over during the 20 minute wait. When the nurse took my blood and explained to me what the procedure would entail, she asked if I had any questions about any of the risks, or if there were any risks I needed explained in further detail. I asked a question about one, and she answered it. Took like 5-10 minutes.
Hi Josephine,
I am breaking my fast to say you were 1 year old when I had my abortion. I didn’t have a computer nor access to the internet. If only you had been there to tell me to drive to the library I might not have done it……….!!!
Seriously your age is showing and your lack of knowledge in the area of desperate women. Oh and some compassion wouldn’t hurt either. Women(and 13 year old girls)need to know EXACTLY what happens in an abortion and should be told by those at the clinic where it takes place.
I know that you have been indoctrinated Josephine and PP has done it’s job well to many of the next generation. I am sorry if I sounded snarky. Forgive me.
I urge you to go to Youtube and type in Operation Outcry. I am in the green sweater. You could also click on my name and read my abortion story in the right sidebar.
Your judgment of ALL women who have had abortions makes no sense in light of the fact that you could use your internet access and look up Silent No More, Operation Outcry, After Abortion or Fatherhood Forever. Inform yourself about the effects of abortion. Take your own advice.
When I was reassured that “it was a bunch of cells” I believed it. I found out the hard way.
Please read Carla’s testimony. Its the same story of MANY MANY WOMEN in this country. The lack of emotional and financial support causes many to think ABORTION is their ONLY CHOICE.
“The lack of emotional and financial support causes many to think ABORTION is their ONLY CHOICE.”
Posted by: LizFromNebraska at January 9, 2009 8:07 AM
-For many women, Liz – it is.
Danielle, no it isn’t. There are so manany programs in place t help pregnant women, Medicaid, Section 8, CPC’s, Pell grants, Earned income credit…
The problem is that instead of informing women of these options, PP says “Parenting is soooooooo hard, and your life will be sooooo miserable with a child.”
Danielle, no it isn’t. There are so manany programs in place t help pregnant women, Medicaid, Section 8, CPC’s, Pell grants, Earned income credit…The problem is that instead of informing women of these options, PP says “Parenting is soooooooo hard, and your life will be sooooo miserable with a child.”
Posted by: Lauren at January 9, 2009 10:24 AM
…and? Yes, those are many gvt assisted programs that are available. Does that mean they are the best option for THAT woman? No. While I’m not denying that gvt assistance is necessary, let those of us who are more fortunate not be naive to the incredible inequities and hardships that even these well minded programs can inflict on those in the system. Poverty is a vicious cycle.
So you may not decide that abortion is a preferable option to what you listed above, but someone else might. The point is, her decision isn’t our business.
And, for the record, the point of PP is to stay neutral as possible in the argument of pregnancy and offer abortion if a woman wants one. If you don’t, fine. I’ve personally seen a young woman change her mind during her appointment and leave with her boyfriend with little to no fan fair. We said goodbye and good luck. No one’s forcing you on a table. The only reason there is pushback, protest, legislation, etc – is because there is consistent opposition from the other side.
And, for the record, the point of PP is to stay neutral as possible in the argument of pregnancy and offer abortion if a woman wants one. If you don’t, fine. I’ve personally seen a young woman change her mind during her appointment and leave with her boyfriend with little to no fan fair. We said goodbye and good luck.
***************************************
PP is anything but neutral.
And what? You mean you don’t offer assistance to those women who choose to carry to term? Just “goodbye and good luck?” No tangible care? No maternity assistance? Adoption placement? Housing assistance? Cribs? Newborn supplies?
PP can only help you if you want birth control or abortion services. So much for preaching to those of us who are pro-life about OUR “lack of assistance” for pregnant women.
Danielleb
Any pregnant woman, facing what we would consider a “crisis” pregnancy can get assistance. The medicaid cut off is 60,000/yr. That takes care of her medical costs, and her child’s for the first year. Do you really think having medical care is going to somehow get her into a “vicious cycle”?
Also, how many college students do you know who would turn down a Pell grant if offered? “Hmm, well I know it gives me 2K a semester, but it’s just not right for me!”
We are talking about women who feel like they do not have the resources to continue a pregnancy. My point is that the resources exist for ANY woman to continue a pregnancy, and one doesn’t need to be living in the ghetto to get help.
Take a look at PP’s Teenwire site. Having a child is portrayed in the most negative light possible. Ditto for adoption. The only option that seems OK is abortion. That’s hardly neutral.
I think the woman Danielle was talking about decided not to abort because she was carrying TWINS. That probably made her wake up and realize there were two BABIES growing and that with courage and some help, she could continue her pregnancy.
Teenwire’s site is DISGUSTING. This is where kids are asking questions that are extremely shocking. If that site didn’t exist and PP was out of schools and communities, we’d see probably at least 10% less abortions most likely.
1. The fact that PP does not offer pre natal care or adoption referrals does not negate the fact that they provide medical and health related services to women.Its specialized service. My gynecologist can’t clean my teeth either but it doesn’t make her any less valuable to me.
2.Turning down a 2K Pell Grant is not the equivalent to what we’re discussing.
3.Liz is correct, the example I was referring to was a patient who discovered it was twins after the sono and decided to change her mind. It was her decision and personally I wish that young family the best of luck.
We are talking about women who feel like they do not have the resources to continue a pregnancy. My point is that the resources exist for ANY woman to continue a pregnancy, and one doesn’t need to be living in the ghetto to get help.
Take a look at PP’s Teenwire site. Having a child is portrayed in the most negative light possible. Ditto for adoption. The only option that seems OK is abortion. That’s hardly neutral.
Posted by: Lauren at January 9, 2009 1:01 PM
I think these statements are bang on.
I wonder if somehow having twins makes a difference for abortion – I mean now it is two lives that are being destroyed?
I also wonder how many times women are NOT informed that they are carrying twins if they come in seeking an abortion.
Danielle,
We’re talking about resources available to pregnant women, of which the Pell grant is one. You claimed that these resources are “not right” for every woman, and I’m responding that these services would be appropriate for anyone.
Planned Parenthood claims to be “comprehensive women’s care.” Most people would agree that this would include prenatal care. Very few PP’s provide this service. It is beyond absurd to think that reproductive healthcare wouldn’t include care for women actually reproducing!
Alexandra, I’ve never heard of a person without access to the internet. If they can’t even make it to the library to use a computer, how exactly are they making it to the abortion clinic? I’d say those are more few and far between than libraries. Second of all, you type in “abortion”. Again, if you’re old enough to have sex and know you want one, you sure as heck are old enough to know how to type one word into google. The internet is most definitely not unreliable as a research tool. Pretty much all information for every paper I’ve written in college has come from the internet.
It’s not about being misinformed, or the doctor not telling enough. It’s about a woman wanting to justify herself so she won’t do research by herself.
Posted by: Josephine at January 8, 2009 7:39 PM
Josephine it’s called the digital divide. There are many many people who cannot afford access to the internet.
I wonder how comfortable you would be going to the library and looking up information about abortion? Or sex, or herpes or veneral warts on a public screen? For many people, this is just too embarrassing.
With any procedure, professional medical associations place the onus on the doctor to provide information about the procedure so that the patient may make an “informed choice”. Abortion is so politicized that this is simply not done. No information is given, or at best misinformation is presented especially regarding risks, no questions asked. Once again, it is the false “right to privacy” that is operative here.
Then of course, there is the issue as to what is authoritative? There are many concerns about finding good, unbiased information on the Internet?
Since a 13 year old cannot make a mature choice about an operation like this, her guardian should be informed of the risks and what is involved in an abortion.
I think it’s a doctors responsibility to do this for his patient(s).
From the AMA’s website:
Informed consent is more than simply getting a patient to sign a written consent form. It is a process of communication between a patient and physician that results in the patient’s authorization or agreement to undergo a specific medical intervention.
In the communications process, you, as the physician providing or performing the treatment and/or procedure (not a delegated representative), should disclose and discuss with your patient:
The patient’s diagnosis, if known;
The nature and purpose of a proposed treatment or procedure;
The
risks and benefits of a proposed treatment or procedure;
Alternatives (regardless of their cost or the extent to which the treatment options are covered by health insurance);
The risks and benefits of the alternative treatment or procedure; and
The risks and benefits of not receiving or undergoing a treatment or procedure.
In turn, your patient should have an opportunity to ask questions to elicit a better understanding of the treatment or procedure, so that he or she can make an informed decision to proceed or to refuse a particular course of medical intervention.
This communications process, or a variation thereof, is both an ethical obligation and a legal requirement spelled out in statutes and case law in all 50 states.
“THAT’S THE DOCTOR’S JOB. It’s his responsibility. His job is not to sell abortion, it is to safely and responsibly perform abortion. And as with any other surgery — elective or not — informed consent is a big part of safely and responsibly performing a procedure.”
Yup. You said it. His responsibility to safely and responsibly perform abortion, not to tell you what effect it can have on your mental health.
Carla, I did read your story.. and I told you after I read it I feel for you, but it doesn’t change my mind. I can’t remember a time in my life when I didn’t know a baby in the womb was a baby, ever. I won’t ever think it’s anyone’s fault for having an abortion. I can’t say sorry for it, because I’m not. I believe if a woman regrets an abortion it’s no one’s fault but her own. That’s how I feel.
Oops. Anon was me.
TSTL, yes. I already said the doctor had to discuss medical risks. What’s your point?
You do realize the alternative for abortion is… not having one, right? Obviously doctors let people know “you can have the baby”.
It’s the doctor’s responsibility to tell the patients parents? Even in cases when they’re not allowed to?
Oh, and it’s okay to be too embarrassed to look up abortion info, but actually HAVING an abortion isn’t embarrassing?
Yup. You said it. His responsibility to safely and responsibly perform abortion, not to tell you what effect it can have on your mental health.
Assuming that was Josephine, were you then referring to “mental health” effects of a nose job, that you went home and looked up? Because from that example, and from the introduction of the whole topic with Carla and Becca talking about infections and the like, the whole discussion that prompted you to say that you don’t think it’s a doctor’s responsibility…it sure sounded like you were talking about medical risks.
And, of course, performing any surgery — however well — without informed consent is IRRESPONSIBLE and UNSAFE.
Of course, most people consider common mental health side effects to be worth mentioning, anyway. I was informed of them pre-procedure as well as the physical risks. Oh, and my mom was re: her cancer surgery, since it left a massive scar that a lot of people apparently have trouble adjusting to. A woman I know elected to get a mastectomy and you can be DAMN sure the doctor reviewed the common mental and emotional reactions with her before he did it.
Great for those doctors. That was nice of them. They didn’t have to do that though. It’s not required.
You do realize the alternative for abortion is… not having one, right? Obviously doctors let people know “you can have the baby”.
but the question is, DO THEY?
The AMA website states that it IS the doctor’s responsibility to inform the patient of ALL the risks – this means that having an abortion can significantly raise a woman’s chances of breast cancer, that she can suffer serious mental health problems following an abortion etc. It is considered a breach of ethics if they do not do so.
How often do you actually believe this is broached by abortionists? How often have you heard women talk about how the abortionist comes into the room to do the dirty deed and never speaks a word to the woman? Many abortionists cram 35 or 40 abortions in per day. Very conducive to discussing risks and so forth.
Since many clinic works, themselves have had abortions and have unresolved issues over their own abortions, they are generally unwilling to discuss much with their clients in this area.
Oh, and it’s okay to be too embarrassed to look up abortion info, but actually HAVING an abortion isn’t embarrassing?
Posted by: Josephine at January 9, 2009 5:02 PM
you’d be surprised what causes some people shame.
I mean after all, people have sex with employers, friends husbands, are prostitutes etc and yet they creep into abortion clinics with their heads covered.
Planned Parenthood is doing layoffs and cutbacks. One of their donors had its assets aborted with the madoff scandel.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/09/silver-lining-planned-parenthood-lays-of-20-percent-of-staff/
Josephine, why are you not answering my question? If you only object to mental health information being shared with patients, then why object to Becca and Carla talking about infections?
“We’re talking about resources available to pregnant women, of which the Pell grant is one. You claimed that these resources are “not right” for every woman, and I’m responding that these services would be appropriate for anyone.”
-That’s an opinion, and you can’t assume what’s right for you is what’s right for all. One person will accept welfare assistance in exchange for a pregnancy, others will accept an abortion in exchange for staying off welfare.
Planned Parenthood claims to be “comprehensive women’s care.” Most people would agree that this would include prenatal care.”
Posted by: Lauren at January 9, 2009 2:48 PM
-Again, PP is specialized service geared toward women’s sexual and reproductive health. The absence of pre-natal care does not negate the other services they provide, particularly when they are far and few between.
TSTL, I already said they have to tell them of medical risks. Why do you keep giving examples of when they would have to do that, like I’m arguing? I’m not arguing, yes, they have to tell the risks. They don’t have to tell them they might regret it, they don’t have to tell them that it’s a little baby they’re killing. That’s NOT something they’re required to do.
Alexandra, what are you freakin’ talking about? I have no idea.
Alexandra, what are you freakin’ talking about? I have no idea.
Well, here’s how the conversation looked:
Becca: Maybe it’s just me, but I get REALLY sick of people complaining about the nasty side effects of abortion. Stop complaining about the infections and the pain and the loss of fertility…the babies are DYING and people are selfishly worrying about the side effects of the murder that just took place. Please.
Carla: Wouldn’t it be something Becca22 if the nasty side effects of an abortion were actually discussed BEFORE the abortion? Hmmmmm…that would mean telling women and girls the truth though. Can’t do that.
Josephine: Carla, when I was fifteen I broke my nose in a tumbling accident. I always considered myself pretty before, then that happened and I looked so bad I cried everyday getting ready for school, so I asked my parents for a nose job. I know it sounds shallow, but it’s not like I wanted to change my original nose. I wanted my old nose back! When I went to the plastic surgeon, he wasn’t the one that told me about what could go wrong. He actually told me other stuff I could get done. (I was pretty ticked about that, actually..) So, I went home and I got on the internet to look up all the things that could go wrong with a nose job myself. I mean, in any elective procedure, I believe it’s completely up to the person who is wanting to go through it. Why should the doctor try to get anyone to not use his service?
Were you not objecting to the statement that doctors should inform patients of medical risks like infections, pain, and fertility loss, pre-surgery? If not, why object?
They don’t have to tell them they might regret it, they don’t have to tell them that it’s a little baby they’re killing. That’s NOT something they’re required to do.
Josephine, are you saying that it is NOT important for a woman to KNOW at what stage of development her baby is? Do you believe this is irrelevant information? Do you believe that this would impact/influence her decision against having an abortion? Are you that hung up on the right to abortion that this is what you would want for yourself even?
Danielle:
Last time I checked a Pell grant isn’t welfare. Nor is an Earned Income Credit. Both of these assistance programs are available to young pregnant/parenting women to help them. We aren’t talking about someone going into the Human Services office and signing up for TANF, though they could if they wanted to, but rather general help that is available to pregnant women.
These programs would help anyone, and your argument that it’s better to kill your child than ask for help is absurd. The problem is that women are not informed of these programs prior to their abortions and do not know that help is out there.
As for PP, they are a REPRODUCTIVE health clinic that doesn’t actually help women who are REPRODUCING. That would be like me saying that I run a kidney clinic but I don’t provide dialysis. Except it would be even more absurd, because it would be as though I was running a kidney clinic that told people NOT to have dialysis and wouldn’t refer patients to an actual dialysis center.
The freaking name of the organization is Planned Parenthood. If it isn’tactually going to help those who are planning to be parents it really ought to change its name.
Doug, my baby looks *just* like a Cabbage Patch Kid.
Lauren: I’m sure your baby looks MUCH nicer that a cabbage patch doll!! lol
As for PP, they are a REPRODUCTIVE health clinic that doesn’t actually help women who are REPRODUCING.
what irony!
I love cabbage patch kids. I still have my old doll (bald and all). And all three of my nieces have at least one CPK doll.
Liz: see now I think they are rather gross. But then I wasn’t from the “cabbage patch doll” generation.
I think they’ve come back again maybe?
Tstl, my little girl definitely has the chubby cheeks/ bald head thing going for her. :)
Lauren, we obvi aren’t going to come to the same page on this, so I’ll let this be my final comment on the back and forth:
“Last time I checked a Pell grant isn’t welfare. Nor is an Earned Income Credit. Both of these assistance programs are available to young pregnant/parenting women to help them. We aren’t talking about someone going into the Human Services office and signing up for TANF, though they could if they wanted to, but rather general help that is available to pregnant women.”
-I didn’t say they were welfare – I brought up welfare as an example of choices we make. We both agree that these are gvt assistance programs. My point is that what’s acceptable to one woman is not for the other. Statements such as ‘these would work for anyone in need’ is subjective opinion.
“your argument that it’s better to kill your child than ask for help is absurd.”
-Never said that, either – that’s what you inferred. My point here is that it’s an option. May not work for you or me, but its a choice. Maybe she asked for help, maybe she didn’t. The choice she ultimately makes is not our business to judge and influence.
“As for PP, they are a REPRODUCTIVE health clinic that doesn’t actually help women who are REPRODUCING.”
-If I’m a woman of reproductive years, and I use PP to screen and treat a reproductive-threatening STD, then that is directly helping reproducing women, otherwise her fertility may be threatened and she wouldn’t be able to have children. As are yearly pelvic exams, which they also provide. If I have access to birth control that helps PLAN when I have children, that is an indirect benefit to reproduction – since the time I get pregnant may influence whether or not I go through with a pregnancy. They provide a benefit to women’s health, regardless of if you agree with abortion.
Lauren,
Excellent points @ 8:54 am. It’s all about (misleading) euphemisms.
The Garbage Pail Kids were the ugly ones…..and only on trading cards, I think.
The freaking name of the organization is Planned Parenthood. If it isn’tactually going to help those who are planning to be parents it really ought to change its name.
Posted by: Lauren at January 10, 2009 8:54 AM
*****************************************
Thank you, Lauren, this was my thought exactly.
Danielle, I don’t care what services they offer, they can’t claim to be comprehensive women’s healthcare when they don’t actually provide comprehensive women’s healthcare.
Also, based on the answers women give as to why they abort, they are obviously not being adequately enough informed of the services available to them. If a woman says she is aborting because she doesn’t have a home, but hasn’t been told about section 8, she really isn’t making an informed decision.
Tstl, my little girl definitely has the chubby cheeks/ bald head thing going for her. :)
Posted by: Lauren at January 10, 2009 11:17 AM
awww, very cute Lauren!
Josephine,
It almost seems like you are arguing for the sake of arguing. You are even attacking another pro-choicer. You work in the health field, I believe you know more than anyone else how involved doctors must be in their patient’s procedures. It’s okay to agree with us once in a while :)
I just have to say that whether you agree with abortion or not you cant exactly argue against low cost womens health care. You dont have to agree with abortion to recognize that pp likely does great things in various communities. As for section 8, im not sure theres a person alive who hasnt hear about it. I went to highschool in a town where the
median household income is well over ninety thousand a year and i know what section eight is, lol.
Actually, speaking of which, my friend who just gave birth to a beautiful baby boy is trying to get into some income basef housing to try and make things a lil easier. Wish her luck ;) lol.
I just have to say that whether you agree with abortion or not you cant exactly argue against low cost womens health care. You dont have to agree with abortion to recognize that pp likely does great things in various communities. As for section 8, im not sure theres a person alive who hasnt hear about it. I went to highschool in a town where the
median household income is well over ninety thousand a year and i know what section eight is, lol.
Actually, speaking of which, my friend who just gave birth to a beautiful baby boy is trying to get into some income basef housing to try and make things a lil easier. Wish her luck ;) lol.
Dan, there are other places within those communities that offer all the fringe services that PP does but don’t perform abortion. Money should be funneled into them and away from PP.
PIP, I’m arguing because I don’t think anyone should blame a doctor for a choice they made. Annnnd…I’m not pro-choice, btw. I can see why you’d think that, butttt nope.
If you’ll read all my posts, I make it clear that I’m talking about emotional problems. The doctors only have to tell you about medical risks, they don’t have to tell you what can go wrong other than that. They don’t have to tell you that someday you’ll regret it, and you’ll be sad. The point in the conversation where I joined, was when someone pretty much blamed the doctor for not saying, “hey, you might regret this.. or it might make you sad!”
So robots, properly programmed, can be trained to be doctors? Just, the facts, M’am?
That is a really dumb question. No, a robot can’t be a doctor. Obviously.
So Abortuaries are not required to disclose complications. Kinda like used car salesmen used to be. These ignorant calims are getting more irrational and outrageous.
Yes we have some laws coming along because elitist abortionists think they are superior to caring for the health of women via consideration for side effects and consequences.
The only thing elective was sex. Too bad they don’t teach about side effects other that std’s.
The abortion culture doesn’t really connect with the general medical community. They are the Hamas terroritst element of medicine.
are not required to disclose complications.
Well, doctors really aren’t required to tell women that continuing pregnancies and giving birth is much more dangerous than having an abortion, especially an early abortion. You can’t address all the “what ifs” – there are too many and it’s not a doctor’s job to hypothesize beyond a certain point in the first place.
my baby looks *just* like a Cabbage Patch Kid.
Ha! Cool, Lauren.
At least one niece and two nephews of mine, when still firmly in the “baby” stage, had cheeks that went way out to the sides – you could see them from behind.
PIP, I’m arguing because I don’t think anyone should blame a doctor for a choice they made. Annnnd…I’m not pro-choice, btw. I can see why you’d think that, butttt nope.
If you’ll read all my posts, I make it clear that I’m talking about emotional problems. The doctors only have to tell you about medical risks, they don’t have to tell you what can go wrong other than that. They don’t have to tell you that someday you’ll regret it, and you’ll be sad. The point in the conversation where I joined, was when someone pretty much blamed the doctor for not saying, “hey, you might regret this.. or it might make you sad!”
Posted by: Josephine at January 11, 2009 7:16 PM
Josephine, I agree that doctors cannot necessarily be blamed for a woman regretting her abortion but it does depend upon how involved the doctor is.
If a woman never sees the doctor at a clinic except when the abortion is committed, but is counselled only by clinic workers, is this ethical? I’m not sure. Perhaps it’s relevant to the procedure being done.
For example, a few years back I had a wart on my finger removed. I never saw the doctor until he did the actual procedure. But an abortion is not so trivial.
And Josephine are you implying that emotional problems stemming from a procedure are not medical risks? I think the doctors doing facial transplants would differ with you on that one.
At least one niece and two nephews of mine, when still firmly in the “baby” stage, had cheeks that went way out to the sides – you could see them from behind.
My son’s cheeks were just like that! His cheeks were humongous! In fact, the hospital where I delivered him actually remembered me when I came the second time to deliver…they said I was “the mother of that baby with the really large cheeks”. :D
What other medical procedure has ever come with the disclaimer that you might be depressed after it?
Danielle, lots of procedures. Tubal ligation, mastectomy, sexual reassignment, amputations, ect. Actually, any surgery could potentially cause PTSD given the right circumstances.
What other medical procedure has ever come with the disclaimer that you might be depressed after it?
Posted by: Danielle at January 12, 2009 10:28 AM
Depression and/or anxiety are often experienced after surgical procedures, at various times post operatively (immediately or months later). Intensity can range from mild dysphoria to major depressive symptoms. John Lauerman in the January 2000 issue of Harvard Magazine, addresses this topic in “An Understandable Complication…Coming to terms with postsurgical depression.” The article talks about emotions before surgery as being expected and often handled quite well. Problems can also crop up in the recovery period which are not expected. After major surgery, according to the article, feelings of mortality, of loss, and of vulnerability can be profound.” Shortly after surgery, depression can be attributed to pain, a problem with anesthesia, a sense of loss or another underlying cause. Post-operative depression, well after the crisis of surgery, can make it difficult for patients to cope with what they have endured. There might also be uncertainty about the future, or lack of understanding on the part of individuals close to them. This article points out the importance of communicating feelings of depression to medical professionals who may not be alert to symptoms, in order to have all possible causes of depression investigated.
In the April 15, 1997 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine, Herbert Waxman, M.D. relates his experience with depression following surgery. In “The Patient as Physician”, he discusses his post surgery symptoms. Occuring several months after surgery, he experienced “dysphoria, sleep problems, joylessness and feelings of unworthiness.” When he returned to work, he realized the importance of honest communication and sensitivity to patient concerns and believes the experience made him a much better physician.
Okay Bethany, apparently I am not to use toostunnedtolaugh’s OTHER moniker. Funny how you have different rules for different people on this site though. Is that kind of thing okay with Jill? Doesn’t that affect the integrity of the blog?
And Josephine are you implying that emotional problems stemming from a procedure are not medical risks? I think the doctors doing facial transplants would differ with you on that one.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 12, 2009 8:56 AM
TSTL, I would think that is it were determined that a medical procedure presented a significany risk to mental health that this would be a medical risk. And as such, a doctor would have to ensure that the patient was informed of this.
Josephine as a medical student, what do you think of this? Is this correct?
Asitis, everyone should pick one moniker and stick with it. I have no idea if TSTL is Patricia, if it is she should pick one name and stick to it. Posting under multiple names isn’t allowed.
“So Abortuaries are not required to disclose complications. Kinda like used car salesmen used to be. These ignorant calims are getting more irrational and outrageous.”
Uhm, when did I say that? I said emotional health is not a “complication” of any procedure. You don’t think abortion is an elective procedure? Because “elective” means it’s not required. You think abortions are required?? You’re wrong. The only part that is elective is not the sex.
TSTL, a doctor isn’t required to tell you anything about what you MIGHT feel like afterwards. They aren’t required. I never said I don’t think they should, and I think a compassionate doctor would. However, they aren’t required to, so no one really should be able to blame a doctor if they regret their abortion. Mental health is different, because it’s different for absolutely everyone. I know my dad refers patients to psychiatrists when they tell him they want a procedure done. (Normally plastic surgery..)
Asitis, yes and no, from my experience in school. In procedure that are required, doctors do have to discuss the mental risks. In elective procedures, well, not so much… because, well, it’s elective. It’s a choice.
Like I said though, that’s my expierience from school and my parents. None of it is firsthand, sooo maybe the doctors at school just don’t know what they’re talking about. I start clinicals in a couple weeks at my dad’s office and at Planned Parenthood… I’ll know a lot more then.
Josephine, do you think that it is wrong, and should be illegal, to have abortions?
TSTL, a doctor isn’t required to tell you anything about what you MIGHT feel like afterwards. They aren’t required. I never said I don’t think they should, and I think a compassionate doctor would. However, they aren’t required to, so no one really should be able to blame a doctor if they regret their abortion. Mental health is different, because it’s different for absolutely everyone. I know my dad refers patients to psychiatrists when they tell him they want a procedure done. (Normally plastic surgery..)
I think that if a certain percentage of patients are likely to experience some sort of emotional difficulty than they should be presented with this information.
By nature, abortion is a very serious procedure – a child is killed. Therefore, a woman should have all the information necessary. Would you think that there should be better screening for this procedure Josephine? After all doctors screen for other procedures right?
In fact, the hospital where I delivered him actually remembered me when I came the second time to deliver…they said I was “the mother of that baby with the really large cheeks”. :D
Holy Moly…. Bethany, that is AWESOME.
So robots, properly programmed, can be trained to be doctors?
That’s actually a good question, and the answer is yes. The rub is the “properly” part – there’d be a heck of a lot going into that. One could still point to certain lacks, sure, but eliminating human error would be an enormous positive.
Bethany, yes. I don’t think abortions necessarily should be illegal, I think what should happen is convincing women they don’t need them. However… I don’t think there are enough people willing to do that. But, I already said I was pro-life. I’m not sure why there’s any need to ask if I think abortion is wrong after that?
What do you mean doctors screen for other procedures? I have no idea what you’re talking about with this screening…
A doctor telling you you might be depressed after abortion is not necessary information, however much you want it to be..
Danielle: What other medical procedure has ever come with the disclaimer that you might be depressed after it?
Are doctors warning women who are continuing pregnancies about post-partum depression?
I think that if a certain percentage of patients are likely to experience some sort of emotional difficulty than they should be presented with this information.
By nature, abortion is a very serious procedure – a child is killed. Therefore, a woman should have all the information necessary. Would you think that there should be better screening for this procedure Josephine? After all doctors screen for other procedures right?
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 12, 2009 3:02 PM
Tootunned, I think they still need to determine if a significant percentage of women actually do experience mental health problems as a direct result of abortion.
And not intending to belittle or negate your feelings toward abortion, but doctors performing abortions and women requesting abortions do not consider the it to be the “very serious preocedure” that you do.
Can I mention that, while people here choose not to believe it…. there are women who don’t regret abortions. In fact, there are women who are glad….
Bethany, yes. I don’t think abortions necessarily should be illegal, I think what should happen is convincing women they don’t need them. However… I don’t think there are enough people willing to do that. But, I already said I was pro-life. I’m not sure why there’s any need to ask if I think abortion is wrong after that?
Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 3:25 PM
Josephine, how do you propose convincing women that they don’t need abortion? Improve pubic and charitable support for these mothers? Help them to not get pregnant in the first place?I’m interested to hear where you stand on this as someone heading into the medical profession and who appears to be a more moderate pro-lifer.
Josephine, I’m sorry but if you don’t advocate making abortion illegal, you’re not pro-life.
Let me clarify a bit, because I think you truly do seem to believe you a pro-life person. If you thought that it should not necessarily be kept illegal to kill toddlers, but that mothers should simply be convinced never to kill them, would you be pro-life then? If you thought that it could be legal to kill them, but that they should simply be convinced, in effect what would that be?
Asitis, I think the judgment/religious aspect of pro-lifers is what is making them fail so miserably. First, there are no pro-lifers that think there’s ever a medical reason for abortion… even when there is, most people say you should choose the child’s life over yourself. There ARE medical reasons for abortion though, even if no one wants to admit it.
I think a lot of the reason for abortions are women not knowing what to do or being scared of the judgment… but a lot of the judgment comes from the religious conservatives/ pro-lifers… the ones that want to save babies. How ironic. If it were made a non-issue. A… “nobody cares if you have a baby” issue, then it would probably save a lot of babies. Instead, we want to stop people from having sex, period. That’s never going to work.. especially in a nation where there are a lot of people who don’t follow a religion/follow their religion very loosely..
I just think if babies were such an issue, there wouldn’t be as many abortions. If pro-lifers took the time to say, volunteer at Planned Parenthood as a counselor (which you can do!) they could do a lot of good, and help a lot of babies.. instead, they think it’s better to judge and condemn.. obviously, it’s not working.
I don’t think an anti-abortion law is going to save any babies. I think it’s just going to make abortions more dangerous. We’ll have more cases of the one like the fourteen year old girl who had her boyfriend hit her in the stomach with a 2×4 to kill her baby..
Can I mention that, while people here choose not to believe it…. there are women who don’t regret abortions. In fact, there are women who are glad….
Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 3:38 PM
yes, we’ve all encounter women and men like this. That doesn’t mean that the procedure is without physical and mental risks.
Josephine, I’m sorry but if you don’t advocate making abortion illegal, you’re not pro-life.
Posted by: Bethany at January 12, 2009 3:50 PM
you can’t be partly prolife. Abortion is either wrong as an action or it is not wrong.
It is either wrong to kill and unborn child or it is not.
Bethany, you didn’t clarify anything. You just explained what you think, and I disagree. If you’ll notice, I did say “yes” to “should abortion be illegal”. Maybe you should reread my post, because you clearly didn’t understand it..?
First, there are no pro-lifers that think there’s ever a medical reason for abortion… even when there is, most people say you should choose the child’s life over yourself.
That is completely false, Josephine. If both are going to die if something isn’t done, the vast majority of pro-lifers are in support of letting the doctor do what needs to be done to save the mother’s life, and that includes sometimes inevitably the child’s life being taken, regrettably.
Case in point- ectopic pregnancy.
If you’ll notice, I did say “yes” to “should abortion be illegal”.
No, Josephine, I read your post, and it said:
I don’t think abortions necessarily should be illegal.
I don’t think an anti-abortion law is going to save any babies. I think it’s just going to make abortions more dangerous. We’ll have more cases of the one like the fourteen year old girl who had her boyfriend hit her in the stomach with a 2×4 to kill her baby..
We have cases like this today!
I think a lot of the reason for abortions are women not knowing what to do or being scared of the judgment… but a lot of the judgment comes from the religious conservatives/ pro-lifers… the ones that want to save babies. How ironic. If it were made a non-issue. A… “nobody cares if you have a baby” issue, then it would probably save a lot of babies. Instead, we want to stop people from having sex, period. That’s never going to work.. especially in a nation where there are a lot of people who don’t follow a religion/follow their religion very loosely..
The abortion debate is NOT about the personhood of the baby. Abortion is about sex.
The reason we have abortion today is because people (men and women) want sex without responsiblities. Responsibility=baby
Abortion appears to be the perfect answer. It allows a woman to “apparently” have no responsibility when sexually promiscuous because she gets rid of the baby. It allows the man no choice whatsoever, even if he wants to be responsible because he has no say in whether his baby lives or dies. How liberating for men! And here I thought this was women’s lib!
Except the one flaw – every action, every choice entails some responsibility.
TSTL, you also didn’t read my post. I said “yes”. So, what the heck are you talking about? :)
There’s no law saying you can’t take a poop on a babies head, is there? I don’t think you should be able to do that, but I don’t think there should be a law against it. There’s no need to have a law against abortion if no one wants one.
It’s easier for you to try and make a law against it, even though there probably will NEVER be an abortion ban… you spend so much effort on that, when what you SHOULD be spending your effort on talking to women. That’s the only place a real difference will be made.
Abortion is the UN choice:
http://www.unfairchoice.info/
sorry, my above post should read like this:
I think a lot of the reason for abortions are women not knowing what to do or being scared of the judgment… but a lot of the judgment comes from the religious conservatives/ pro-lifers… the ones that want to save babies. How ironic. If it were made a non-issue. A… “nobody cares if you have a baby” issue, then it would probably save a lot of babies. Instead, we want to stop people from having sex, period. That’s never going to work.. especially in a nation where there are a lot of people who don’t follow a religion/follow their religion very loosely..
The abortion debate is NOT about the personhood of the baby. Abortion is about sex.
The reason we have abortion today is because people (men and women) want sex without responsiblities. Responsibility=baby
Abortion appears to be the perfect answer. It allows a woman to “apparently” have no responsibility when sexually promiscuous because she gets rid of the baby. It allows the man no choice whatsoever, even if he wants to be responsible because he has no say in whether his baby lives or dies. How liberating for men! And here I thought this was women’s lib!
Except the one flaw – every action, every choice entails some responsibility.
There’s no law saying you can’t take a poop on a babies head, is there? I don’t think you should be able to do that, but I don’t think there should be a law against it. There’s no need to have a law against abortion if no one wants one.
Do you really think killing a human life is comparible to pooping on someone’s head?
Josephine: laws often regulate our behaviour, so laws are important.
Having a law against abortion would be an important deterrant.
Having resources in place to help women deal with difficult pregnancies would be important too.
Having resources and a cultural attitude that encourage men and women to wait until they are married would be important.
And having resources and a respect for marriage would also be of benefit.
All of these actions go hand in hand with creating a more stable world for women and children.
you spend so much effort on that, when what you SHOULD be spending your effort on talking to women. That’s the only place a real difference will be made.
Where do you get the idea that we don’t talk to women?
Holy Moly…. Bethany, that is AWESOME.
It was awesome…he was so kissable.
Bethany, I’ve seen MANY women on here who’ve said they’d choose to save their unborn child’s life over there own, if it came down to that!
AND, my WHOLE post, first I answered YES to your question, then said I don’t think they necessarily should be illegal BUT no one is willing to work hard enough on another aspect. So, I did say “yes” they should be illegal. You asked a question, and I said yes. You, for some reason, don’t want me to be pro-life, so you’re just pretending I said something different than I did. You’re ignoring that YOU asked me a question and I said YES.
“We have cases like this today!”
Would you like MORE? That’s what you’re asking for.
There are many MANY people who wouldn’t mind having the baby, and giving it up for adoption but they’re embarrassed to be carrying it and getting judged by it.
AND, my WHOLE post, first I answered YES to your question, then said I don’t think they necessarily should be illegal BUT no one is willing to work hard enough on another aspect. So, I did say “yes” they should be illegal. You asked a question, and I said yes. You, for some reason, don’t want me to be pro-life, so you’re just pretending I said something different than I did. You’re ignoring that YOU asked me a question and I said YES.
Josephine, how can you simultaneously want it to be illegal, and not think it should be illegal? That makes no sense.
Either you do or you don’t.
Would you like MORE? That’s what you’re asking for..
Prove it. That’s a baseless assumption, Josephine. Not a fact.
There are many MANY people who wouldn’t mind having the baby, and giving it up for adoption but they’re embarrassed to be carrying it and getting judged by it
Yes, and guess who does that? Pro-abortionists.
Guess who judged me for wanting to be a mom at 19?
Guess who judged Sarah Palin’s daughter for becoming pregnant at a young age out of wedlock?
@ Do you really think killing a human life is comparible to pooping on someone’s head?
Posted by: Bethany at January 12, 2009 4:06 PM
Bethany, that wasn’t the point. The point is that it’s ridiculous. It’s completely ridiculous and that’s why I don’t think it should necessarily be illegal. It should just be so unacceptable in society that it’s unheard of.
Bethany, I’ve heard a LOT of people on here talk about protests, fighting laws, how to vote… I’ve NEVER, EVER heard ANYONE say “I talk to women personally” “I counsel women”… I’ve NEVER seen it from anyone.. I’ve never even seen anyone suggest it!
“Having resources and a cultural attitude that encourage men and women to wait until they are married would be important.
And having resources and a respect for marriage would also be of benefit. ”
THOSE ARE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Waiting until marriage for sex is a RELIGIOUS belief. Stop pretending you have any reason other than religion for that.
Bethany, that wasn’t the point. The point is that it’s ridiculous. It’s completely ridiculous and that’s why I don’t think it should necessarily be illegal. It should just be so unacceptable in society that it’s unheard of.
Sure, but if someone poops on a baby’s head, and there are no consequences, at least the baby is still alive. (And you know what? There probably have been people that pooped on a baby’s head, and didn’t even feel sorry for it!)
If someone kills a baby, and there are no consequences, then a baby has just been murdered and there is no justice for that baby.
Josephine, I’m sorry but if you don’t advocate making abortion illegal, you’re not pro-life.
Posted by: Bethany at January 12, 2009 3:50 PM
Now this is interesting. Does being Pro-life simply mean that you are opposed to abortion? Or does it specifically mean that one works toward granting full rights to unborns such that abortion is illegal? Could it be that Pro-life means different things to different members? Is there a specific set of criteria to being Pro-life? What say you all?
Bethany, I’ve heard a LOT of people on here talk about protests, fighting laws, how to vote… I’ve NEVER, EVER heard ANYONE say “I talk to women personally” “I counsel women”… I’ve NEVER seen it from anyone.. I’ve never even seen anyone suggest it!
You obviously live in a very sheltered place, because there are TWICE as many Crisis Pregnancy Centers out there giving resources, shelter, food, counseling, etc to women, as there are abortion clinics. Pro-life people are VERY involved in helping women. You make a patently false assumption when you think that pro-life people don’t care about women.
It’s not a baseless assumption, Bethany. There were abortions performed before abortions were legalized. That’s a fact.
It’s not liberals who judged those people, it’s “Christians”. The reason liberals judged any of those, when they did, was because they’re hypocrites. Sarah Palin’s daughter got made fun of by liberals because they have a “strong Christian family”….or, that’s how they portrayed themselves, when they OBVIOUSLY don’t have “strong Christian values”. I couldn’t care less if a 18 year old has a baby.
“Josephine, how can you simultaneously want it to be illegal, and not think it should be illegal? That makes no sense. ”
Seriously, did you not read my post at ALL? I said yes to “they should be illegal” and I explained that I don’t think they should really have to be illegal, because I think what REALLY needs to happen is for women to not want/think they need them. So, I know exactly what I mean. You just don’t like it, so you’re pretending I’m saying something other than I am.
I’ve NEVER, EVER heard ANYONE say “I talk to women personally” “I counsel women”… I’ve NEVER seen it from anyone.. I’ve never even seen anyone suggest it!
Okay, josephine. I counsel women. I volunteer at my local CPC and I talk to women personally. And that is not said just to make a point- I really do. Now you’ve heard it.
“Having resources and a cultural attitude that encourage men and women to wait until they are married would be important.
And having resources and a respect for marriage would also be of benefit. ”
THOSE ARE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Waiting until marriage for sex is a RELIGIOUS belief. Stop pretending you have any reason other than religion for that.
Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 4:17 PM
no Josephine, it is not necessarily a religious belief, although if it were, so WHAT? That does not invalidate it as a course of action that may be correct.
It is possible to prove that it is better to wait until marriage to be involved sexually and it is possible to prove that marriages contracted by noncohabitating couples are stronger and last longer.
Bethany, when did I say pro-lifers don’t care about women?
Could you maybe show me? Or did you just make that up? I live in a very sheltered place? I live about 15 minutes from Chicago, and I go to school in Urbana. Nothing sheltered about either place..
It’s not a baseless assumption, Bethany. There were abortions performed before abortions were legalized. That’s a fact.
Not on the scale that they are performed today.
You made a statement that you can never back up with numbers, unless they are skewed numbers from the abortion industry.
It’s not liberals who judged those people, it’s “Christians”. The reason liberals judged any of those, when they did, was because they’re hypocrites. Sarah Palin’s daughter got made fun of by liberals because they have a “strong Christian family”….or, that’s how they portrayed themselves, when they OBVIOUSLY don’t have “strong Christian values”. I couldn’t care less if a 18 year old has a baby.
What? You are deluding yourself if you truly believe this is true. Okay then, Josephine. Why did they mock Palin for having a baby with Down’s syndrome instead of having an abortion?
So, what you’re saying, Patricia, is you should force other people to follow your religious beliefs? That’s what I’m getting from it. Please, tell me where anything says that sex before marriage is wrong except in religious documents?
Bethany, I’ve heard a LOT of people on here talk about protests, fighting laws, how to vote… I’ve NEVER, EVER heard ANYONE say “I talk to women personally” “I counsel women”… I’ve NEVER seen it from anyone.. I’ve never even seen anyone suggest it!
While I do not personally counsel women with difficult pregnancies, I know of two women who do.
There are also many organizations that will help women to find the shelter, funds and so forth they need to get a good start.
Things are not like they were 30 years ago.
Bethany, when did I say pro-lifers don’t care about women?
I wonder if you have amnesia, because you keep writing things, then claiming you didn’t write them. Here is what I responded to:
“I’ve NEVER, EVER heard ANYONE say “I talk to women personally” “I counsel women”… I’ve NEVER seen it from anyone.. I’ve never even seen anyone suggest it! ”
Did you mean something else by that statement?
Who mocked Palin for having a downs baby? I certainly didn’t.. :) Don’t know what you’re talking about, and I sure do run around with a bunch of liberals..
What do you mean am I “deluding” myself. I made fun of her for it, and I am a liberal. So yes, I know the reasons behind it.
Also, this statement:
It’s easier for you to try and make a law against it, even though there probably will NEVER be an abortion ban… you spend so much effort on that, when what you SHOULD be spending your effort on talking to women.
That implied that we are NOT talking to women.
If I meant, “pro-lifers don’t care about women” I would have written that. I didn’t write it, so that’s not what I meant. I meant exactly what I said. Pro-lifers seem to have tried everything that hasn’t worked, and they KEEP trying instead of talking directly to women.
TSTL, “knowing people” and doing it yourself are very different.
Bethany, I said STRAIGHT OUT I never said pro-lifers didn’t care about women. Now you’re pulling up things *I* said and telling ME what I meant by them? Are you kidding?
I know EXACTLY what I mean. I mean EXACTLY what I say.
It’s easier for you to try and make a law against it, even though there probably will NEVER be an abortion ban… you spend so much effort on that, when what you SHOULD be spending your effort on talking to women. That’s the only place a real difference will be made.
Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 4:04 PM
I agree with you Josephine. It’s highly unlikely that there will ever be an abortion ban. And it’s even less likely that contraception will be banned.
It seems to me that some Pro-lifers are realizing this and are putting their efforts into just what you have suggested. Which is great, because with that, you’d have Pro-life and Pro-Choice working TOGETHER.
But that requires a different mindset then toostunned’s and others here.
TSTL, “knowing people” and doing it yourself are very different.
Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 4:29 PM
I totally agree. Would help you to know then, that I have in the past worked for an organization that helped pregnant and distressed women? It was a wonderful ministry.
Who mocked Palin for having a downs baby? I certainly didn’t.. :) Don’t know what you’re talking about, and I sure do run around with a bunch of liberals..
Oh, you don’t…so that you haven’t made fun of her proves that pro-abortionists don’t make fun of people who carry their babies to term?
I never make fun of women or degrade women who carry their children to term, yet earlier you felt perfectly content saying that pro-lifers are the reason that women are afraid to keep their babies, for fear of being judged and ridiculed by them.
Also, your personal experience wasn’t exactly what I was talking about, was it?
What do you mean am I “deluding” myself. I made fun of her for it, and I am a liberal. So yes, I know the reasons behind it.
I wasn’t talking about liberals. I was talking about pro-abortionists.
I agree, Asitis. Unfortunately, everyone here considers pro-choicers= pro-aborts… when really, there are many pro-choicers who would never personally have an abortion.. who don’t believe abortion to be the right option, they just want women to have the choice. That doesn’t mean a pro-choicer would counsel women into having abortions.
It’s easier for you to try and make a law against it, even though there probably will NEVER be an abortion ban… you spend so much effort on that, when what you SHOULD be spending your effort on talking to women. That’s the only place a real difference will be made.
Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 4:04 PM
Josephine; what sort of talk to do you mean? What will talk accomplish? Is it talking to women BEFORE they jump into bed, talking to women AFTER they get out of bed and are now pregnant, talking to women at the doors of PP? I’d be interested to know.
I know EXACTLY what I mean. I mean EXACTLY what I say.
You might mean something different than what you said, but you do not mean exactly what you say, because what you say is completely different than what you’re saying you mean. :P
I agree, Asitis. Unfortunately, everyone here considers pro-choicers= pro-aborts…
Thats because they are.
when really, there are many pro-choicers who would never personally have an abortion
So? There’s many people who don’t really have a solid position on pedophilia who would never molest a child.
who don’t believe abortion to be the right option, they just want women to have the choice.
Why should a woman have the choice to kill what you have admitted is a human being from the moment of conception, Josephine?
pro-choicers= pro-aborts…
yes, exactly. To be pro choice means to favor “choice”. What is “choice”? “Choice” almost exclusively in our modern language/semantics means abortion. That is THE choice.
Therefore, prochoice means proabortion.
Oh please, Bethany, tell me more of what *I* MEAN to say.
Why did they mock Palin for having a baby with Down’s syndrome instead of having an abortion?
Posted by: Bethany at January 12, 2009 4:25 PM
Did “they”? All I remember hearing people questioning whether Palin actually “chose” to have her Down’s baby. She says she had an amnio, but did she really? Why would she do that and put the fetus at any risk if she were never going to choose abortion? People forego amnio’s all the time for this very reason. So why would Palin have one?
A very good question…………
Oh please, Bethany, tell me more of what *I* MEAN to say.
All I have to do is copy and paste your own words, my dear.
So, what you’re saying, Patricia, is you should force other people to follow your religious beliefs? That’s what I’m getting from it. Please, tell me where anything says that sex before marriage is wrong except in religious documents?
Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 4:25 PM
Josephine, you used the P word! That’s forbidden!
Why would she do that and put the fetus at any risk if she were never going to choose abortion? People forego amnio’s all the time for this very reason. So why would Palin have one?
Let’s see…assuming she had one, isn’t it very possible that she wanted to have time to prepare and be ready for whatever disability her child might have? Most pro-life people I know of who have had amnios have had them for this purpose.
Wow. No wonder the pro-life movement is failing so horribly. They apparently content to work with only pro-lifers, in which case.. there just aren’t enough of them.
Now you’re pulling up things *I* said and telling ME what I meant by them? Are you kidding?
I know EXACTLY what I mean. I mean EXACTLY what I say.
Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 4:31 PM
Bethany does this sometimes Josephine.
Bethany, you’re copying my words and telling me what I MEANT to say, and I’m saying you’re wrong. All you’re doing is proving that you don’t make any sense.
josephine, I’m content to work without someone who is willing to let babies die.
Even though by working with them, you could save babies?
By the way, you are doing exactly what I said everyone on here is doing wrong. You’d rather have laws then actually work with others to save babies. You JUST said it. :)
Wow. No wonder the pro-life movement is failing so horribly. They apparently content to work with only pro-lifers, in which case.. there just aren’t enough of them.
Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 4:40 PM
it’s pretty hard to work with any person or organization that also believes it’s okay to kill babies.
How would you suggest we do this?
Josephine; what sort of talk to do you mean? What will talk accomplish? Is it talking to women BEFORE they jump into bed, talking to women AFTER they get out of bed and are now pregnant, talking to women at the doors of PP? I’d be interested to know.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 12, 2009 4:34 PM
How about “talking to them BEFORE they jump into bed unprotected” toostunned! Unfortunately contraception goes against your religious beliefs so you can’t help there.
Josephine, I’ll let the words speak for themselves. :)
Shouldn’t you be changing people’s mind? So maybe they didn’t think it was okay to kill babies? Nope! It’s easier for you to work on your own… and it’s doing so much good.. HA!
Even though by working with them, you could save babies?
By the way, you are doing exactly what I said everyone on here is doing wrong. You’d rather have laws then actually work with others to save babies. You JUST said it. :)
I don’t think I will save babies doing what you are doing, Josephine.
You’d rather have laws then actually work with others to save babies. You JUST said it. :)
Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 4:44 PM
no we’d like to have laws the respect the dignity and right to life of ALL human beings including our unborn brothers and sisters.
And we’d like to work with moms and dads who need the help doing this.
Uhm, what am I doing Bethany?
no we’d like to have laws the respect the dignity and right to life of ALL human beings including our unborn brothers and sisters.
Amen to that!
I’ve got to run now. I have some cleaning to catch up on and gotta cook supper. Will catch up tomorrow. :)
who don’t believe abortion to be the right option, they just want women to have the choice.
Why should a woman have the choice to kill what you have admitted is a human being from the moment of conception, Josephine?
Posted by: Bethany at January 12, 2009 4:36 PM
Some people recognize there belief that personhood begins at birth as a religious one. And they realize that their religious belief should not be pushed on other women. They should be free to make their own choice.
Advocating that some babies be allowed to die, Josephine. Talk to you later
Amen to THAT, asitis!
I wish Bethany would have stuck around long enough to tell me what it is I’m doing, since apparently she knows… how weird!
I’m not sure I ever said babies should be allowed to die? I said there ARE medical exceptions, even though people pretend that there aren’t. There ARE medical reasons for abortion. Sometimes it is NECESSARY for the health and well being of the mother. Babies are more important than mothers.. at least that’s what it seems like.
Let’s see…assuming she had one, isn’t it very possible that she wanted to have time to prepare and be ready for whatever disability her child might have? Most pro-life people I know of who have had amnios have had them for this purpose.
Posted by: Bethany at January 12, 2009 4:40 PM
I’m sorry…. by being “prepared” do you mean flying across the continent when you are 8 months pregnant and then waiting to deliver a speech and fly all the way back to Alaska and drive to a small hospital in Nowhere when your water breaks instead of hightailing it straight to the nearest neonatal hospital? Or better yet… staying home in the first place? I know a mom with a Down’s Syndrome baby and she just shakes her head over Palin!
She didn’t have to make up the amnio. But she did, just to make her story better.
Kind of like Cindy McCain and that Mother Theresa story she got caught on. Why did she have to embellish? It was a good deed on its own.
Hmm. I don’t think I got answer answers on this question below. Could it be that Pro-life is hard to define? Or nobody wants to say exactly what it is, because there would be a great divide?
Josephine, I’m sorry but if you don’t advocate making abortion illegal, you’re not pro-life.
Posted by: Bethany at January 12, 2009 3:50 PM
Now this is interesting. Does being Pro-life simply mean that you are opposed to abortion? Or does it specifically mean that one works toward granting full rights to unborns such that abortion is illegal? Could it be that Pro-life means different things to different members? Is there a specific set of criteria to being Pro-life? What say you all?
Posted by: asitis at January 12, 2009 4:20 PM
Dang, y’all firin’it up today….
Did I miss something? Why is Patricia going by a new name, and why is Bethany trying to hide it?
Long story Rose. If you care to know, you can go to the Caroline Kennedy post. Just don’t let Bethany know I gave you that tidbit!
Darn tootin’ Doug!
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — The Madoff fundraising scandal has had some beneficial fallout for the pro-life movement. Combined with the current economic downturn, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America is feeling the pinch and has laid off 20 percent of its staff.
The nation’s largest abortion business, which does 25 percent of all abortions in the United States annually, laid off about 30 people this week.
Executives at Planned Parenthood confirmed the layoffs in an interview with the Crain’s New York business publication.
“As with many other nonprofit organizations, Planned Parenthood has had to make staff reductions at our headquarters due to the challenging economic times facing our country,” Planned Parenthood chief operating officer Maryana Iskander said.
“While taking this action is never easy, we want to ensure the millions of women and men who rely on Planned Parenthood as a health care provider that the reductions will not impact our ability to deliver care to those in need,” Iskander added.
What Iskander didn’t discuss is the effect of the Madoff scandal on Planned Parenthood’s income.
The Florida-based Picower Foundation, which gave substantial donations to the abortion business, shut down in December because Bernard Madoff had mismanaged its assets. The foundation was worth $1 billion and one of the top financial backers of pro-abortion groups.
The charity has given away more than $189 million since 1999 and a sizable chunk of the money went to abortion advocates, including $3.2 million to NARAL, $2.5 million for the Center for Reproductive Rights, $2.4 million for Planned Parenthood, and $625,000 for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, according to the American Spectator.
The JEHT Foundation, which gave away $24 million last year to groups, including pro-abortion organizations, also announced in December that it would be shutting its doors. JEHT gave $1.7 million to the ACLU and its foundation and $4.2 million to the Tides Foundation, which heavily funds pro-abortion groups.
News of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America laying off staff comes on the heels of one of its affiliates doing so.
Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota said in December that hard economic times forced it to lay off 10 employees covering nine and a half positions including its South Dakota director.
South Dakota director Kate Looby, who has overseen the lone South Dakota abortion business, run by Planned Parenthood in Sioux Falls, since 2003, confirmed she would be fired from her position.
Bethany, you exhibited patience of heroic proportions today!
Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota said in December that hard economic times forced it to lay off 10 employees covering nine and a half positions including its South Dakota director.
maybe a deepening recession will help people put things into perspective and instead of throwing money at orgs like PP, it will be put to wiser use.
Life deserves a chance!
Bethany, you exhibited patience of heroic proportions today!
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 12, 2009 7:26 PM
Josephine too! Well done.
The best part of this whole thread is Bethany’s hypocracy.
On December 15th, after pointing out a pro-choice commenter using more than one username in order to discredit them, Bethany herself says that posting under different names is “dishonest.” She then goes on to say that, AND I QUOTE, “Everyone that does is outed.”
I guess by “everyone” Bethany means “everyone who disagrees with me.”
This was in the assisted suicide post.
Here’s a link to that entry:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/12/watch_me_die.html#comments
I like that Lauren jumps in and plays pretend-moderator in that exchange, too.
Holy crap, so, I got distracted looking for the part of that thread with Bethany and I saw this:
“Cats and Dogs do NOT have souls.”
!!!!!!!! What the hell. How can you look in a puppy’s eyes and think “Okay, this puppy is soul less. When it dies, it’s just a corpse and that’s all.” I don’t think I can argue with these people anymore who can claim that animals don’t have souls. They’re obviously messed up in the head anyway.
Miriam/rose/chris/barney/etc,
It was pretty simple to tell you were one person because of the language you used. I didn’t even check the IP before asking you why you were using multiple aliases, so anyone could have done the same thing. However, the reason that I asked you why you were using multiple aliases was not just because you were using different names (many, many people on this site have changed their names and I have never said anything)…it was because of your intent in doing so. You were using your names to try to give everyone the impression that there were more people on your side when you were attacking yllas and ganging up on him. It was totally unfair. And you have not only attacked yllas, but many other people, including me- using multiple aliases to deceive others into believing that you were more than one person.
(And by the way, I never forced the issue- you [surprisingly] came forward and admitted that what I said was true, but even if you hadn’t, I would have dropped it after I first mentioned it. There would be no need to press it any further than that.)
Here is an example of how having another moniker could be acceptable: If a person comes to this site and is harrassed to a point where they feel uncomfortable coming back with their usual ID but they would still like to participate, I don’t think anyone has any problem with that. It’s not the same thing. Or if a person decided that they didn’t really like the way their other ID sounded and wanted to change it, or if a person decided that they wanted to be more anonymous because they realized how public this place is, there is no problem with that. It is the intent that matters, and I am sorry if I was not more clear about that when I first mentioned it – I just assumed it was obvious! (Forgive me for making such a bold assumption.)
Eileen #2, I love you! :)
Actually, Bethany, those were not all me. Go ahead and check IP addresses. Unless we should just accept all of your assumptions. I guess I was wrong in assuming “everyone” means “everyone” to you.
I enjoy yllas’ contributions, and it was not me baiting him. Or attacking you.
Sometimes it is NECESSARY for the health and well being of the mother.
Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 4:50 PM
*****************************************
If an abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life, then that abortion is not an “elective abortion” at all.
I believe that if a woman who is pregnant finds that she must accept a treatment that could have the secondary effect of killing her unborn child in order for her to survive, then she must make that choice. If the child dies as a secondary result of a necessary treatment, then that is NOT an elective procedure.
I don’t believe anyone here is pretending that there are no situations in which a mother’s LIFE is definitely in peril if a pregnancy is continued (ectopic pregnancy being one that comes to mind).
BTW, you can count me in with pro-lifers who have “actually talked to women” who were experiencing unplanned pregnancies.
Talking to women who have experienced unplanned pregnancies is not the same as counseling someone who is thinking about abortion. Pretty much everyone in the world knows someone who has experienced an unplanned pregnancy, Kel.
Oh, and I don’t think I ever said that was an elective procedure. Those were brought up in VERY different parts of the conversation. If someone asked what I thought of doctors talking of mental/emotional risks in abortions that were necessary, I would have given a different answer. If you’ll notice *I’M* the one that brought up “exception abortions”… it’s not like you’re finding a loophole in what I said. We were talking about women who WANTED abortions because they “felt desperate” at the beginning of the conversation.
Miriam, that may well be, but whoever it was admitted to being all of the aliases.
So if you’re not that person, I’ll accept that.
Talking to women who have experienced unplanned pregnancies is not the same as counseling someone who is thinking about abortion. Pretty much everyone in the world knows someone who has experienced an unplanned pregnancy, Kel.
****************************************
Josephine, I spent nearly four years as the managing director of a pregnancy resource center, where I counseled abortion-minded clients on a daily basis. One of the best days of my time there was my birthday, when I received a call from a client who changed her mind and wanted to call to let me know that she had given birth to a little boy, and to thank me for speaking to her in her time of indecision.
But thank you for attempting to belittle my work on behalf of women, which clearly you know nothing about. :) You stated that pro-lifers don’t talk to women. I decided to let you know that I have. Please don’t assume that you know each one of us or what we have done on behalf of women and babies.
One of the best days of my time there was my birthday, when I received a call from a client who changed her mind and wanted to call to let me know that she had given birth to a little boy, and to thank me for speaking to her in her time of indecision.
That is wonderful, Kel!
If you’ll notice *I’M* the one that brought up “exception abortions”… it’s not like you’re finding a loophole in what I said. We were talking about women who WANTED abortions because they “felt desperate” at the beginning of the conversation.
Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 11:10 PM
***************************************
I do not spend my time trying to find loopholes in what you have said. I expressed my opinion regarding what I believe is an elective procedure, and that which you mentioned, a medically necessary procedure. My point is that there are very few medically necessary abortions that take place. There are some, yes, but the majority of the abortions are elective ones.
That is wonderful, Kel!
Posted by: Bethany at January 13, 2009 12:00 AM
******************************
It really was, Bethany. Honestly the best “birthday gift” I ever received. :)
The Kingdom is coming and it will be ever-lasting. So rejoice in God’s glory and praise Him without end.
It is God our Father alone who created the world.
And it God who establishes the order which governs all ages. Woe to those who kill their progeny and do not repent; surely they are destroying their remembrance from the face of the earth.
Blessed be you Mary the Mother of God. You trampled the viper under foot when you said Yes to life at the Annunciation. May your words to the archangel Gabriel and he gift of life given to her by the Holy Spirit. Sweet Mother, I long for the peace promised to us by your Son Jesus Christ. May your prayers join with ours in the everlasting peace that comes through your Son Jesus Christ. With great confidence I place this cause in your hands.
Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy.
Hail our life, our sweetness and our hope.
To you do we cry, poor banished children of Eve.
To you do we send up our sighs, mourning, and weeping in this valley of tears.
Turn then O most gracious advocate,
thine eyes of mercy towards us..
And after this our exile,
show unto us the blessed fruit of your womb Jesus
O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.
Pray for us O Holy Mother of God.
That we may become worthy of the promises of Christ.
The Kingdom is coming and it will be ever-lasting. So rejoice in God’s glory and praise Him without end.
It is God our Father alone who created the world.
And it God who establishes the order which governs all ages. Woe to those who kill their progeny and do not repent; surely they are destroying their remembrance from the face of the earth.
Blessed be you Mary the Mother of God. You trampled the viper under foot when you said Yes to life at the Annunciation. You said Yes to life with your words to the archangel Gabriel and the gift of life was poured unto you by the Holy Spirit. Sweet Mother, I long for the peace promised to us by your Son Jesus Christ. May your prayers join with ours in the everlasting peace that comes through your Son Jesus Christ. With great confidence I place this cause in your hands.
Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy.
Hail our life, our sweetness and our hope.
To you do we cry, poor banished children of Eve.
To you do we send up our sighs, mourning, and weeping in this valley of tears.
Turn then O most gracious advocate,
thine eyes of mercy towards us..
And after this our exile,
show unto us the blessed fruit of your womb Jesus
O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.
Pray for us O Holy Mother of God.
That we may become worthy of the promises of Christ.
“Who has believed our message? To whom will the Lord reveal his saving power? My servant grew up in the Lord’s presence like a tender green shoot, sprouting from a root in dry and sterile ground. There was nothing beautiful or majestic about his appearance, nothing to attract us to him. He was despised and rejected – a man of sorrows, acquainted with bitterest grief. We turned our backs on him and looked the other way when he went by. He was despised, and we did not care.
Yet it was our weaknesses he carried. It was our sorrows that weighed him down. And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God for his own sins! But he was wounded and crushed for our sins. He was beaten that we might have peace. He was whipped, and we were healed! All of us have strayed away like sheep. We have left God’s paths to follow our own. Yet the Lord laid on him the guilt and sins of us all.
He was oppressed and treated harshly, yet he never said a word. He was led as a lamb to the slaughter. And as a sheep is silent before the shearers, he did not open his mouth. From prison and trial they led him away to his death. But who among the people realized that he was dying for their sins – that he was suffering their punishment? He had done no wrong, and he never deceived anyone. But he was buried like a criminal; he was put in a rich man’s grave.
But it was the Lord’s good plan to crush him and fill him with grief. Yet when his life is made an offering for sin, he will have a multitude of children, many heirs. He will enjoy a long life, and the Lord’s plan will prosper in his hands. When he sees all that is accomplished by his anguish, he will be satisfied. And because of what he has experienced, my righteous servant will make it possible for many to be counted righteous, for he will bear all their sins. I will give him the honors of one who is mighty and great, because he exposed himself to death. He was counted among those who were sinners. He bore the sins of many and interceded for sinners.” Isaiah 53:1-12 (NLT)
Then I saw in the right hand of him who sat on the throne a scroll with writing on both sides and sealed with seven seals. And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, “Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?” But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it. I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.” Rev 5:1-5
Kel, maybe you should read all of my comments for before you start being, well, a jerk. You obviously didn’t. And, just so you know, I’m not familiar with you at all. Why would I know what you did for a living? Do you know what I do for a living? My knowledge of you was “I talk to women who are experiencing unplanned pregnancies.” That’s all you said.
“My point is that there are very few medically necessary abortions that take place. ”
Oh, and how was that the point of your first post? Your post was talking about some abortions not being elective so doctors should explain mental/emotional risks.. Maybe you should’ve written what you meant, because you never said anything about “how few medically necessary abortions take place”.
Thank you for that beautiful passage, Truthseeker.
Ecce crucem Domini!
Fugite partes adversae!
Vicit Leo de Tribu Juda,
Radix David! Alleluia, Alleluia!!
Thanks Bethany :{) You can delte 12:18 if you like, I retyped it at 12:24 cause it had typos.
No matter how many times people say we should use secular arguments, never stop expressing your love for God and how it moves you.
Commit everything you do to the Lord. Trust him, and he will help you. Psalm 37:5
!!!!!!!! What the hell. How can you look in a puppy’s eyes and think “Okay, this puppy is soul less. When it dies, it’s just a corpse and that’s all.” I don’t think I can argue with these people anymore who can claim that animals don’t have souls. They’re obviously messed up in the head anyway.
Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 9:26 PM
What is a soul Josephine?
Definition please.
Do puppies in the womb have a soul? Or kitty cats?
As far as I know ther’re animal,vegetative, and human souls. Only humans have rational souls.
In On the Soul, Aristotle approached the concept of the soul from an essentially scientific perspective, employing elements of biology and metaphysics that encompassed everything from the concepts of substance, form, and matter, to those of potentiality and actuality. While Christians and other religious faiths have traditionally deemed the soul to be an immortal entity that lives on after physical death, Aristotle viewed the soul as united with the living body, and therefore unable to exist without a host. From his perspective, a soul is created merely for the purpose of development, which is only possible through the soul’s connection with a body or some other type of container in the physical world.
By classifying life into different levels, Aristotle was able to categorize plants as having the lowest level of soul, animals other than humans as having a higher level of soul, and humans, because of their capacity for reason, possessing the greatest soul. Therefore, according to Aristotle, the human soul is a reward based on the sum total of our biological nature and our unique capacities as humans to think and feel.
Or, the short course, you may just make the soul, “the mind”, which leaves you with “the mind” being the non- flesh of “the brain”. “A thought” which “the mind” produces or makes, has no flesh back then, and even now.
Dogs and cats die, and their soul dies with them.
As does the brain, the mind, the thought.
You don’t like the original idea upon which modern psychology, and neuro-science is based on?
Or are you appealing to some unscientific approach to the soul which is founded on “religious ideas” of the soul. The soul exist from birth into eternity.
Which one is it? Dead and gone, when the body dies, or a religious idea of the soul continuing to live after matter, form, substance have decayed into dust?
It seems you believe the soul continues after death.
If soo, where does the soul go? Say a puppy soul?
Let me tell you a story. During the election I found I had genuine dislike for anybody who supported the Barack H. for president. I felt so strongly that abortion is evil that I found myself projecting my dislike for abortion into dislike for anybody who voted for an Obamanation. I drive a snow plow during the winter. I wouldn’t even leave snow plow contracts on peoples doors if they had Obama signs in their yard or Obama stickers on their cars because I did not want to help anybody who supported Obama.
I had a catharsis the other day. The guy who lives across the street from me had an Obama sign in his front yard thoughout the election and for weeks after. I had McCain signs in my front yard. One night the city plow came down the block and tossed a bunch of snow into this neighbors driveway. The following morning I was coming back home after a night of plowing and saw that his driveway had been blocked in with snow. This had happened before and I just left it there cause he was an overt Obama supporter. But this time I dropped my blade and cleared the end of his driveway as I passed by. It felt great, like a huge weight went off my shoulders.
I still think people who fight for a woman’s “right” to kill her baby in the womb are idiots but I don’t feel a need to project hatred toward them any more. I look at them now more as lost and misguided. It is by treating others with love like Jesus Christ taught us that we will soften hardened hearts and minds. I still think abortion should be illegal but now I hate the abortion, not the abortee.
It seems you believe the soul continues after death. If soo, where does the soul go? Say a puppy soul?
Posted by: yllas at January 13, 2009 1:14 AM
Most likely to heaven if the master gets their and wants their puppy soul to tag along.
Well, it’s sleeting and snowing again and I have to go plow all night. The peace of Jesus Christ be with you always. And also with your spirit.
Most likely to heaven if the master gets their and wants their puppy soul to tag along.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 13, 2009 1:35 AM
I knew you believed that TS. Plus, I like your story about clearing the driveway of that neighbor, who was a Obama supporter.
God is with us all this day.
Here is an example of how having another moniker could be acceptable: If a person comes to this site and is harrassed to a point where they feel uncomfortable coming back with their usual ID but they would still like to participate, I don’t think anyone has any problem with that.
Posted by: Bethany at January 12, 2009 10:27 PM
Yes,that’s a valid point in this particular case Bethany. Far better to do that than to… oh, I don’t know… maybe say “Sorry, I really didn’t know what I was talking about. I’m sorry for calling you guys idiots and accusing you of making stuff up and lying when in fact you weren’t. Peace.”
That would have been the right thing to do. Instead of changing her name and then coming back and do the same thing again and again.
!!!!!!!! What the hell. How can you look in a puppy’s eyes and think “Okay, this puppy is soul less. When it dies, it’s just a corpse and that’s all.” I don’t think I can argue with these people anymore who can claim that animals don’t have souls. They’re obviously messed up in the head anyway.
Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 9:26 PM
well we don’t know for sure Josephine but our understanding of the way things are at this point is that only man has an immortal soul. No other animals were created this way.
Our theological understanding is that the difference between man and animals is not just physical it is also spiritual and theological – we have souls – an inner life that an animal cannot have.
This comes directly from Genesis Josephine.
“I like that Lauren jumps in and plays pretend-moderator in that exchange, too.”
Miriam, dear, I was a Moderator, but stepped down because I had to much going on to give moderation the attention it deserves. If there are no other moderators on the board, I will step in.
It’s not me “playing moderator” but rather taking responsibility. I do not delete posts, but I will tell someone to cool it if they are being inappropriate or clarify a rules position.
Josephine, I can see what you are saying about looking into a puppy’s eyes and seeing a “soul”. Or a horse’s eyes, dog’s eyes, cat’s eyes….. There is something there of what we see when we looked in a person’s eyes, isn’t there?
I found more about Aristotle’s approach to the soul in the article yllas copied from. This part speaks to that:
“However within Aristotle’s premise of all living things possessing souls, he explains that different entities possess different versions. He believed that what distinguishes the human soul from the animal or plant soul was its ability to hold rational beliefs and to exercise reason”.
In his view, the puppy would have a soul though a lesser one), and like ours it would be mortal.
I think the mortal soul part goes against your beliefs Josephine. But the idea that all living things can have a soul, mortal or not, is intriguing and something we get a sense of when we look in an animal’s eyes or even stare upon a old majestic tree.
“This comes directly from Genesis Josephine.”
It never ceases to amaze me that there are priests at the Vatican that will say that, basically, some parts of the bible are wacky… when there are other people who take everything so literally. Hrmm.
Asitis, I can completely live with animals having a soul, just a lesser one. But for someone to claim that an animal has no soul… well, I’d just have to think that person is stupid and incompassionate.. and it makes me wonder why they’d think an unborn baby has a soul!
It never ceases to amaze me that Josephine argues like the child she is, never being able to make an intelligent point.
I can’t wait until Jill returns.
Josephine, yes it appears sometimes that everyone has their own idea of the bible.
For example,the creation stories are not scientific accounts of how the world was created, although, God in his ominipotence, certainly could have created the world in that manner, or instantaneously, or any other way.
Science for example, does not tell us about the meaning of our existence from a spiritual POV. This is the purpose of Scripture and to accomplish this, scripture uses symbolism quite a bit.
That is why when you read about a priest quoting scripture he is not necessarily taking the Scripture on a literal level but using it to back up a spiritual truth.
IMO, the bible is about the spiritual mysteries of ourselves and mankind. However, I also believe that there was an Adam and an Eve and the faced a test and failed.
Bethany,
Ich liebe dich, auch! :D
asitis,
why is it that it is okay for some people to be rude and in insulting but not others?
It never ceases to amaze me that Josephine argues like the child she is, never being able to make an intelligent point.
Posted by: Kristen at January 13, 2009 8:12 AM
Wow. Do you have any teenage or older children, Kristen? How’s the working out for you?
Josephine, I think you add a unique pro-life, christian perspective here. Add your age makes it all the more valuable.
“Kel, maybe you should read all of my comments for before you start being, well, a jerk.”
*******************************
Josephine, I was trying to address the point in conversation where you began talking about medically necessary abortions. If you believe I was being “a jerk” then that is your perception, not my intent. I was trying to have a civilized conversation and add my input and personal opinion, but I see that it’s impossible for you to respond respectfully.
“You obviously didn’t. And, just so you know, I’m not familiar with you at all. Why would I know what you did for a living? Do you know what I do for a living? My knowledge of you was “I talk to women who are experiencing unplanned pregnancies.” That’s all you said.”
****************************************
I did read your posts, along with everyone else’s, and it seemed to be progressing in that direction of conversation, so I posted what I believe.
I realize you’re not familiar with me, and that is why I said you know nothing about PRO-LIFERS on this board, either. You have made some very sweeping statements about pro-lifers’ “uninvolvement” with women experiencing unplanned pregnancies.
The reason why I simply said that I had spoken to women with unplanned pregnancies is because I don’t feel that I need to go around listing my resume unless someone questions my work, as you later did when you said, “Talking to women who have experienced unplanned pregnancies is not the same as counseling someone who is thinking about abortion. Pretty much everyone in the world knows someone who has experienced an unplanned pregnancy, Kel.”
“Oh, and how was that the point of your first post? Your post was talking about some abortions not being elective so doctors should explain mental/emotional risks.. Maybe you should’ve written what you meant, because you never said anything about “how few medically necessary abortions take place”.
Posted by: Josephine at January 13, 2009 12:36 AM
**************************************
I did write what I meant to say. My post did not say anything about non-elective abortions as related to doctors explaining mental/emotional risks. Maybe someone else’s post said that in the course of conversation, but mine did not. I was addressing the point where you said that pro-lifers refuse to acknowledge that sometimes there are necessary medical abortions.
I love you too! – yes, am I correct Eileen? !!
;-}
asitis,why is it that it is okay for some people to be rude and in insulting but not others?
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 13, 2009 9:32 AM
I don’t know Eileen. I think you should be asking Bethany that!
tstl,
Ja!
Eileen: :-D
No, asitis,
I am asking you. My point in asking is that you and others complain of being insulted yet, you do the same to others. I was told recently, that it was okay for me to be insulted because what I said was “stupid”. I was also called a “liar” simply for expressing my opinion on what I thought to be true. I try to keep things civil, sometimes I fail, but I really become so tired of hearing people on the other side (liberals or pro-choice posters) who accuse the other side of the very same behavior.
And I don’t want to hear “they did it first!”
I was also called a “liar” simply for expressing my opinion on what I thought to be true.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 13, 2009 10:06 AM
Yeah, well Patricia was actually calling me a liar not in regards to an opinion, but actual facts. And continued to do so, even when clearly wrong.
I have already acknowledged that many, many people here push the limits on the guidelines with regards to how others are treated.
Patricia lied to me. I called her on it. Bethany stepped in and intentionally misled so that her friend would not be caught in a lie. And now Bethany would like to have me banned for doing what others do. How’s that for applying the rules fairly, hmmm?
Bethany is the one who is using two standards here. So the question should be directed at her.
I’ll let you mull that one over Eileen while I go for a hike.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=85944
Now this is interesting.
What I am saying here, asitis, is that you earlier accused people of being insulting and yet you have done it also. You also did not appreciate being called a liar so why do you do the same?
“It never ceases to amaze me that Josephine argues like the child she is, never being able to make an intelligent point.
I can’t wait until Jill returns.
Posted by: Kristen at January 13, 2009 8:12 AM”
Can you give me an example of this? Hmm, you mean like when I say something and back it up by facts? Would you like to see vatican priests saying things about stories in the bible being “wacky”. Watch Religulous. It will back up everything I’ve said. Oh, by the way, I’m twenty years old. I’m not a child, just because I’m not old.
And, I’m pretty sure I’ve made several intelligent points. You don’t think pro-lifers aand pro-choicers working together is an intelligent point? How about the fact that there are medically necessary abortions? How about the fact that I’m in med school and I come from a family of doctors, so I know 100% without a doubt that a doctor is NOT required to tell you about “emotional risks”.
Hmm, I guess since you don’t agree with me, that means those are stupid points though. Wow! THAT never ceases to amaze me.
By the way, we’ve never had a conversation at all… so basically, you’re just saying things by seeing me converse with others. That’s what makes you extra hilarious, sweetie.
“I have already acknowledged that many, many people here push the limits on the guidelines with regards to how others are treated.”
From the Rules of Discussion:
Try to read what the other person is actually saying and not what you think they may be saying.
“Criticize ideas, not people.”
I believe several of these rules have been broken, but I’ve only noticed pro-choicers getting yelled at for it from moderators. Seems as though there should be some pro-choice moderators.
Actually, Josephine, I have been posting long enough at this site that I have seen pro-lifers reprimanded too.
I believe several of these rules have been broken, but I’ve only noticed pro-choicers getting yelled at for it from moderators. Seems as though there should be some pro-choice moderators.
Posted by: Josephine at January 13, 2009 10:24 AM
***************************************
Well, this site is called “Pro-Life Pulse.” That is why there are pro-life mods here, I’d assume.
And Eileen #2, I have also seen pro-lifers reprimanded. A LOT of them. Some of them left the site, as well, I believe.
I believe you, Eileen. I’m sure pro-lifers do get reprimanded. I’ve just never seen it. It just seems like a good way to go would be to have a pro-choice moderator, too.
The incident that always comes to mind is when John L. said he hoped my whole family and I burned in hell. That comment didn’t even get deleted, and moderators were posting on the same thread.
It just seems like unless you stop welcoming pro-choicers here, they should have a moderator.
(And I’ve never been reprimanded by a moderator, so I’m not saying this because of anything that happened with me. It just seems fair.)
I remember that, Josephine, and it pained me to read it. However, by the same token, there should have been things deleted that have been said by liberals or instances when they should have been reprimanded and were not. All I am saying is that if one doesn’t like being insulted, etc. then don’t do it to others. And doing it in response to someone is not an excuse.
“Would you like to see vatican priests saying things about stories in the bible being “wacky”. Watch Religulous.”
Well, one of the priests, George V. Coyne, is a Jesuit, so that explains that.
Given the way the other priest, Reginald Foster, is dressed in his pic on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Reginald_Foster , there is no reason to take him seriously either.
“Well, one of the priests, George V. Coyne, is a Jesuit, so that explains that.”
hee, hee! I am glad that you addressed that one, Bobby. Say, were you aware that Fr. Neuhaus passed away? (Not to imply that he is a Jesuit.) I just loved him!! Such an intelligent, eloquent, and funny man!
Josephine, I’ve personally reprimanded several pro-lifers on several occasions. John’s grave dancing comes to mind.
Oliver’s had parts of his posts edited and been warned against using harsh language. Yllas has been told again and again to cut out the insults.
But they were neverbanned were they? And their insults, yllas included, are extreme, threatening and vulgar at times. Wouldn’t you agree?
I believe Yllas was temporarily banned, which we generally do before someone is permanently banned. As far as I know only SoMG was permanently banned and I didn’t actually see that ban occur.
Yeah, well he hasn’t been banned since I’ve been here and he’s still doing it. An example that comes immediately to mind is when he said he hoped something was rammed up my butt and I died. And not a peep out of Bethany or any of the moderators for that. Nice little site, you’ve got here Jill.
This is sort of random, and doesn’t follow the thread, but I thought it was interesting.
On Sunday I was watching the National Geographic Channel and hanging out with my baby, having a lazy day. There were two shows on, back to back, that were extremely interesting. One was “Dogs in the Womb” and the other was “Cats in the Womb.” These shows went inside of pregnant cats and dogs and educated the viewer about what goes on with their fetus’. It was amazing. The puppies were running and panting. The kittens were grooming their faces. Throughout the shows the baby animals in utero were given the respect they would be owed had they been born already. But they weren’t. These shows just made it all that more obvious to me that pro-life is the only rational option. Human fetus’ as well as animal fetus’ should be given the respect they deserve as being individual, living beings. I guarantee you if these animal babies were being torn apart in the womb, or if their homes were being poisoned with saline, PETA would be all over it. They would be calling it out as a holocaust, a complete injustice.
I love animals. My dog is my second child. But I wonder everyday how people can not see how precious human babies are. Most people agree that kittens and puppies are precious. So why not human babies? Why are they only precious when they are “wanted?” PETA would not advocate aborting a pregnant homeless cat’s litter. They would expect people to step up and provide loving homes for these kittens. These are probably the same people that would advocate for a poor teenager to abort her baby.
Asitis, did you point the post out to the moderators? I never saw that post, it’s entirely possible that others missed it as well.
Generally if there is an offending post that is sent to the moderators, it is discussed and the moderators determine what action should be taken. This ranges from deleting the comment to proposing that the person be completely banned.
If you see something offensive please contact the moderators.
Asitis, did you point the post out to the moderators? I never saw that post, it’s entirely possible that others missed it as well.
Generally if there is an offending post that is sent to the moderators, it is discussed and the moderators determine what action should be taken. This ranges from deleting the comment to proposing that the person be completely banned.
If you see something offensive please contact the moderators.
Posted by: Lauren at January 13, 2009 11:25 AM
No, I didn’t point it out, because it was pretty obvious. And as I recall, Bethany was involved in the thread and would have seen it for sure and who knows what other mods saw it. One shouldn’t have to complain to have soemthing like that acted on….. if there isn’t a double standard.
I’ll have to go back and see if any mods wer ein fact in the thread just to be sure. But can’t do now. Have a movie date with friends and have to run. I know… middle of the afternoon… decadent.
I agree with what Lauren said. Even if we are “actively involved” in a thread, we are not necessarily able to read every single thing, or sometimes we just skim posts, or sometimes we will read right over it and won’t even realize that it is something that should not be there.
So it is a good idea if you see something that probably shouldn’t be there to inform the mods. I know several times people have brought my attention to something that I would have otherwise missed, and I was able to take care of it.
Asitis, I don’t know about the mods, but I frequently skip Yllas’ posts even if they’re made within a post I’m commenting on. It’s best to email a mod if you see something offensive.
Yes Astits, I do have teenagers. That’s why I said Josephine argues like a child.
And J, as one who is not involved in the conversation, just as an observer, I’d say I’m a bit less biased than you when it comes to reading the comments and seeing who makes the valid point-SWEETIE! That just cracks me up! Do you think you’re insulting me? Give me a break. :)
Josephine –
I just saw the comment about how I should watch “Religulous.” Yes, why don’t I? I definitely should get my religious guidance from Bill Maher who has picked out only the most ill-informed, misguided people to interview, instead of say, my aunt who has been a nun for 30 years and works at the Venerable English College in Rome, or my uncle who’s a devote Benedictine monk, or even my Orthodox parish priest.
Oh wait! THAT’S why I don’t have to watch “Religulous.” Gee, and you wonder why other Catholics don’t see it your way. Astounding.
As far as I know only SoMG was permanently banned and I didn’t actually see that ban occur.
Laura and Sally were banned as well, I’m pretty sure. I think there was a pro-lifer who was banned, too; I’m not sure if it was permanent or temporary, but I can’t remember who — not yllas.
Yes Astits, I do have teenagers. That’s why I said Josephine argues like a child.
Posted by: Kristen at January 13, 2009 1:46 PM
Actually, you said she argues like the “child she is”.
“I just saw the comment about how I should watch “Religulous.” Yes, why don’t I? I definitely should get my religious guidance from Bill Maher who has picked out only the most ill-informed, misguided people to interview, instead of say, my aunt who has been a nun for 30 years and works at the Venerable English College in Rome, or my uncle who’s a devote Benedictine monk, or even my Orthodox parish priest.”
What I was talking about wasn’t coming from Bill Maher. It was coming from priests at the Vatican, including the Vatican astronomer. But, you’re right.. those people are in your family, so obviously, they know more.
Kristen, what’s your highest level of education? I’m twenty years old, out of high school and in college. You know more than me because your older than me? Is that how it goes? If that’s so, there would never be any new discoveries EVER.
Bobby, I don’t understand why it matters how the priest dresses? I mean, he’s still a priest at the Vatican, is he not?
Jesuit:
1. 1. a member of a Roman Catholic religious order (Society of Jesus) founded by Ignatius of Loyola in 1534
Not sure why that’s a big deal either. Again, he’s a Priest at the Vatican. Or are they not important because they don’t agree with the people on here?
Stop whining Asitis. Cameron posted that everyone here performs sexual acts on fetuses and he wasnt banned. Its pretty damn hard to get banned here. SoMG is the only person Ive seen banned and it was because he was calling Jill fat over and over again. Get over it and stop distracting the conversation away from the real issues, such as why we give preferential treatment to suckling newborns, but not to animals or to preborns. It is completely illogical.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=85944
Now this is interesting.
Posted by: Kel at January 13, 2009 10:17 AM
I wonder if Tiller will EVER be convicted of anything.
He seems to be able to get away with murder quite easily.
“I don’t understand why it matters how the priest dresses? I mean, he’s still a priest at the Vatican, is he not? ”
Yes, he still is a priest, but as we saw, that does not mean he teaches in conformity with the Church. How he dresses is a sign of his loyalty to the church. The fact that on the wiki entry it says that he doesn’t wear typical Carmalite dress so that he won’t intimidate people tells me a lot about him; namely, that he doesn’t respect his own office as priest.
“Not sure why that’s a big deal either [concerning Jesuits]”
Jesuits are some of teh worst desentors in the entire Church. What was indeed started as an order by Ignatius of Loyola to be known as the “pope’s men” and 100% faithful to the pope has turned into one of the most rebellious enemies of the papacy there is.
“Or are they not important because they don’t agree with the people on here?”
Saying hell does not exist and other such nonsense does not conform with anything the Catholic Church that these men are supposed to represent teaches, not just “us.” It is shameful.
Its pretty damn hard to get banned here.
Posted by: Oliver at January 13, 2009 3:20 PM
Maybe you should remin Bethany of that Oliver!
Asitis, I’m playing the world’s smallest violin here…that’s all I have to say about your petty nonsense.
Josephine, we will never have a pro-choice moderator here. You may not like it, but this is a pro-life blog. If you don’t like it here, no one is forcing you to stay. It may sound mean to you, but it isn’t. I’m tired of people on both sides accusing us of being “unfair”. I have tried to be as fair as possible but at the same time, you can’t please everyone and I have learned that the hard way time and time again, from both the pro-life side and the pro-abortion side. I’m tired of coddling.
Asitis, I’m playing the world’s smallest violin here…that’s all I have to say about your petty nonsense.
I’m tired of coddling.
Posted by: Bethany at January 13, 2009 4:39 PM
Hahahahah! I love the way you are trying to turn this into me whining about insults, when it’s really about Patricia lying,you intentionally not saying what you mean (wait a minute… isn’t that in the guidelines! Hey, what’s with a moderator breaking the guidelines?), covering up for her lie, me calling you both out, and then you trying to ban me for that.
Too rich!
Coddling? The only person I see you coddling is Patricia. I’m not asking for any special treatment!
Okay, I’ll drop this now and stop responding to comments here so Patricia and the blog can move on. She has been uncharacteristically quiet throughout most of this, so I’m thinking she feels pretty bad. And maybe she’s learned something about honesty and also to be sure of the facts before she argues herself into a corner. So it’s probably not really an issue anymore.
And I’m figuring you aren’t going to pursue banning me anyway Bethany.
Over and out.
Okay, I’ll drop this now and stop responding to comments here
Thank you.
Thank you, Bethany. I appreciate the time and effort of all the mods. xoxoxo
Bobby,
It’s too bad that some priests and religious feel that way about the collar or habit. I heard a homeless man interviewed in a documentary say that he knew that he could trust the sisters (Missionaries of Charity) when he saw their habit. I have also heard other sisters, who wear a habit and are out in public, say that it attracts people to them. I boarded a plane a couple of years ago and felt less nervous about flying when I saw two sisters in habit board also. :D
I know a priest who says that he often has conversations with people that would probably never happen if he were someone else (without a collar Imean).
One day he was in the doctor’s office and a man waiting there started in on the Catholic church and priests. They had both been waiting and waiting.
He said “I spent an hour in that waiting room and I’m sure God put me there for a reason!”
He spoke about the priesthood and his own personal vocation. Afterwards many people told him how happy they were. Even the receptionist was thrilled – turned out she was Catholic!
I know, Eileen. You see them and realize that even if you aren’t Catholic, there is something about the fact that this person has wholly devoted himself to what he believes to be “other-worldly.” I think most people who see them have a respect for them and know that if there was some great trouble in their life that they were going through at that moment, someone dressed in religious garb would most likely be willing to help them.
Let me also clarify what I said above a little. I was probably a bit too harsh in judging that Carmalite priest based solely on that wiki quote. In may have been poorly worded or taken out of context. And it is allowed for priests and religious to dress like laity (at least some of the time, not quite sure how that works) so I can not think it is wrong. But my main problem would be with the attitude that a priest does not want to be “above” the laity. Well, I’m sorry, but in virtue of his office given solely by the grace of Jesus which allows him to offer the sacrifice of the mass, they are an authority over us and we are not “the same.” It doesn’t mean a priest is more holy than a lay person, but they aren’t just simply a leader on Sundays. They act in the person of Jesus, and are the conduits through which Jesus comes down into the Holy Eucharist and by which we are forgiven of our sins. And the priest needs to accept that by virtue of his office, he has a place of authority above us and he is not just another one of us.
End rant.
Asitis,
Where do you keep your ‘mirror, mirror on the wall who’s the smartest of them all’?
Is in the bathroom so you can admire yourself in all your naked glory?
Is it the bedroom so you can adore your refined taste in clothes?
Is it in your study so you can bask in the rays of your own intellect?
Or, is in the entry way so you are the first and last thing you see when you leave home in the morning and return in the evening?
yor bro ken
Oh, why all of the above kbhav. I’m just that fabulous! ;)
And I’m figuring you aren’t going to pursue banning me anyway Bethany.
Over and out.
Posted by: asitis at January 13, 2009 5:22 PM
Asitis,
You have insulted me more times than I can count on both my hands. lol
btw…did I actually see you confess that abortion involes the destruction of a human life?
Why do you suppose that was Sooooo hard for you to do? Why do you suppose it took you two weeks to figure out that abortion is the destruction of a human being. This is a great first step:{)
Can we move forward now from the common ground as posted above or was it just a fleeting epiphany you had?
truthseeker, I have known what I mean/what I believe all along. Unfortunately, I am new to this little world of yours was unaware of the proper terminlogy. I probably still have much to learn. When I have realized I have used the wrong terminology I have said so.
And truthseeker, you know very well the insults have flown in both directions! And they certainly didn’t start on this blog with me. In fact, they originally drove me from the site.
Can we move forward now from the common ground as posted above or was it just a fleeting epiphany you had?
Posted by: truthseeker at January 13, 2009 8:06 PM
trying too… I’ve dropped the aforementioned issue.
But they were neverbanned were they? And their insults, yllas included, are extreme, threatening and vulgar at times. Wouldn’t you agree?
Posted by: asitis at January 13, 2009 11:12 AM
I have no obligation to you Asitis, since your a Nazi sympathizer, with only a concern about A/E for Jews.
Why, if you consider me a barbarian, that’s another feather in my tin foil hat. Vulgar? Nothing is more vulgar then being a person who admits to A/E being a answer to pain and suffering of others, while denying that “answer” for yourself.
Which is exactly what the Nazi/Vichy medical personel did. Good enough to administer A/E to others, while denying A/E for themselves.
You have no sense of honor. Your a stupifed coward to pain and suffering, Asitis.
But, I forgive you Asitis. Fear of pain and suffering is natural.
Whenever I hear or see someone comment that they ‘do not suffer fools well’, then it tells me they have a very high view of themselves and a very low view of everyone else whom they do not see as measuring up to their metric of
intelligence. It must induce vertigo having to look down all the time from their lofty synthetic ivory tower.
But is also tells me that they are not wise enough to know that some of the most intelligent people who have ever lived are also some of the biggest fools.
One of the most intelligent fools I know of is Bill Clinton, seconded closely by his wife.
The classic example of a codependent relationship. Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows and it makes bedfellows stranger.
yor bro ken
Kristen, what’s your highest level of education? I’m twenty years old, out of high school and in college. You know more than me because your older than me? Is that how it goes? If that’s so, there would never be any new discoveries EVER.
J –
What? What does that last sentence even mean? Let me just say that I have more education than you but I personally don’t think that matters one iota. Because you may or may not have the means and/or inclination to attend college makes no difference in your intelligence. I know plenty of incredibly intelligent people that attended very little or no college for different reasons and some who have master’s degrees that can’t find their way out of a box. And the fact that you make comments like the one above only proves my position that you are very young in terms of logical thought.
Not sure why that’s a big deal either. Again, he’s a Priest at the Vatican. Or are they not important because they don’t agree with the people on here?
J –
You are not sure because you have no orthodox basis for your thoughts on the Church.
Posted by: Josephine at January 13, 2009 3:20 PM
I have no obligation to you Asitis, since your a Nazi sympathizer, with only a concern about A/E for Jews….Why, if you consider me a barbarian, that’s another feather in my tin foil hat.
Posted by: yllas at January 13, 2009 10:10 PM
Hahahahahahahah! Yes, speaking of tin foil caps! Thanks for the laugh yllas!
Not sure why that’s a big deal either. Again, he’s a Priest at the Vatican. Or are they not important because they don’t agree with the people on here?
J –
You are not sure because you have no orthodox basis for your thoughts on the Church.
Posted by: Josephine at January 13, 2009 3:20 PM
I think what Kristen is trying to say Josephine is that only orthodox Catholics count.
Well, except when you are counting the number of Catholics :).
They act in the person of Jesus, and are the conduits through which Jesus comes down into the Holy Eucharist and by which we are forgiven of our sins. And the priest needs to accept that by virtue of his office, he has a place of authority above us and he is not just another one of us.
Exactly!
Bobby have you heard the story of the priest who died had a death experience in which he was saved by the Blessed Mother from damnation?
It must induce vertigo having to look down all the time from their lofty synthetic ivory tower.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 13, 2009 10:19 PM
OMG! That would explain why sometimes I feel like my head is going to explode! Thank you!
kbhvac, if Bill and Hillary Clinton are intelligent fools, then what is George W. Bush? Sarah Palin? This should be good!
While we’re on the subject of intelligent fools will someone tell me Obama’s credentials to be president of the United States?
Mary, good to see you this morning! :)
While we’re on the subject of intelligent fools will someone tell me Obama’s credentials to be president of the United States?
Posted by: Mary at January 14, 2009 6:57 AM
he won due to his charisma and the fact that the Republicans simply did not present two reasonably attractive candidates.
By reasonably attractive, I mean ones that people could view as being the Prez of the US.
Obama presented the best of two terrible sets of candidates. However, the values he represents are scary. Ithink right now, most people are blinded by the fact that he is the first black President and America wants so badly to prove to the rest of the world that they overcome the whole racial problem. His values and plans are really quite secondary.
In time, the world will see the mistake in electing this man.
And truthseeker, you know very well the insults have flown in both directions! And they certainly didn’t start on this blog with me. In fact, they originally drove me from the site.
Posted by: asitis at January 13, 2009 8:08 PM
Not with you and me. We would discuss, you would resort to insults.
While we’re on the subject of intelligent fools will someone tell me Obama’s credentials to be president of the United States?
Posted by: Mary at January 14, 2009 6:57 AM
Well for starters… ummmmm…. how about an overwhelming majority of the electoral college votes! 6 days and counting!
Not with you and me. We would discuss, you would resort to insults.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 14, 2009 7:17 AM
Do you want me to go back and pull things for you truthseeker? Because I will. You know I will.
Asitis 7:26am
Doesn’t answer the question. What are his credentials to be president? Put this way, what is his background experience to qualify him for the job?
Mary, you know all about his background experience. I don’t need to bother to lay it all out for you. Sure, it’s not as much as say, John McCain’s, but so what. His performance throughout the campaign and the debates alone speaks volumes about the man and his qualifications to be president. I wasnt an Obama supporter before the election, but I certainly was by the end. People had lots of good reason to vote for him. Certain things about him were important to different people. Respect that and move on. He won.
And now I have to run… literally.Bye for now
Asitis @6:23
I believe what I said was that education had nothing to do with intelligence, but I wouldn’t expect you to actually grasp the meaning of my post. I wouldn’t want you to hurt yourself.
Hi Mary!
My mom was fit to be tied yesterday at the Republicans’ lack of hard questions for Hillary. She thinks that they have just laid down and died. We need some new blood in the GOP.
B.O. has no credentials. I have a strong feeling that the cesspool that is Chicago politics is behind his election.
Asitis @6:23
I believe what I said was that education had nothing to do with intelligence, but I wouldn’t expect you to actually grasp the meaning of my post. I wouldn’t want you to hurt yourself.
Posted by: Kristen at January 14, 2009 7:53 AM
You did say that Kristen and of course I understood that (duh…what’s not to grasp???), but your comment had two parts and it was the first part that I commented on.
I actually agree with you that having a college degree or two doesn’t, in itself, make you more intelligent. Though I will say that in this country, like others where it is possible to get a college education even if you can’t afford it, you will find that the intelligence level of college graduates is higher overall than for those without a college degree and higher still than those without a high school diploma.
I think what Josephine was referring to was education and knowledge.And you could reasonably assume that she was referring to formal education in particular. I don’t think she was appreciating that knowledge can be acquired outside of formal education and that you and others are sensitive on this issue. There are many here who are very knowledgable and did not go to college and/or were homeschooled. I’m not sure Josephine considered this.
There’s wisdom in humility.
Many a failure vainly chatters
about his great ability
when what he doesn’t know is what matters.
— Ender
Kristen, my point was I’m an adult in college. You really have no reason to call me a “child” and I was wondering why you were doing so. Since apparently you don’t think education matters to intelligence, why do you assume you know more than me? Because you’re older than me? Is that your only basis?
Stop calling me child. I don’t call you “old woman”.
I really wasn’t talking about anything, formal education or not, it was more me wondering why the heck Kristen has this “holier-than-thou” attitude. She must have a reason!
Yes Asitis, that is what I was saying. I would say that I am particularly sensitive to this issue because I left college to care for my father when he had cancer (my parents were divorced.) Then I got married and it took me several more years to get my education. During that time I also worked for some of the (no nice way to say this) dumbest people I have ever encountered who were given jobs because they had a degree or knew someone, etc.
I agree that Josephine (in my opinion) does not value “the school of life” as much as one should. But I am confident she’ll come to this realization in time. I think all of us intelligent people do.
Kristen,
You can pretend that I was talking about everyone in general, but if you read my statement I asked YOU what education YOU had, because for some reason, you seem to think you’re a genius, and you somehow think that your genius allows you to call a twenty year old a “child”. You must not be that smart, if you think twenty years old=child.
Josephine, your immaturity is what makes you a child, not lack of intelligence. Kristen never said you were unintelligent.
Posted by: Josephine at January 14, 2009 10:04 AM
Comparatively you are a child. I was an adult before you were even born.
I never said that “I” had more intelligence than you. YOU were the one that asked what my highest level of education was and then went on to say that you were “out of high school and in college” as if that mattered. I was simply stating why education level has nothing to do with intellect.
Again, your way of debating shows your age – which is young – and at times is illogical.
Bethany,
So, it would make sense to call Kristen a child? Since she’s obviously very immature.
i.e. “I believe what I said was that education had nothing to do with intelligence, but I wouldn’t expect you to actually grasp the meaning of my post. I wouldn’t want you to hurt yourself.”
Yes, I’M the one that should be more mature…
Kristen, I’ll just quote myself.
“I really wasn’t talking about anything, formal education or not, it was more me wondering why the heck Kristen has this “holier-than-thou” attitude. She must have a reason! ”
So, it would make sense to call Kristen a child? Since she’s obviously very immature.
It would make sense for that statement to come from you, Josephine.
As for that statement, it was correct. You have missed the meaning of every single one of her posts thus far.
“I really wasn’t talking about anything, formal education or not, it was more me wondering why the heck Kristen has this “holier-than-thou” attitude. She must have a reason! “
You would have to show us where you see the holier than thou attitude, because I don’t think anyone else besides you, and probably Asitis, can see it.
I haven’t missed the meaning of one of her posts. She just hasn’t made a valid point. She wasn’t arguing a topic at all, she’s just arguing that I’m immature. I can see why that’s an important pro-life debate.
Kristen,
You can pretend that I was talking about everyone in general, but if you read my statement I asked YOU what education YOU had, because for some reason, you seem to think you’re a genius, and you somehow think that your genius allows you to call a twenty year old a “child”. You must not be that smart, if you think twenty years old=child.
Posted by: Josephine at January 14, 2009 10:08 AM
You just make me giggle! When did I “pretend” you were talking about everyone? As Bethany said I never said I was a genius and it’s your immaturity that makes you a child. I have a twelve year old that is very mature.
And I just can’t stop laughing!!! Tell me you don’t think a 20 year old is a child when you’re over 40! LOL!!!
Bethany,
I’ve never made a comment to Kristen ever. I’ve never even seen her. Her first post on this thread was,
“It never ceases to amaze me that Josephine argues like the child she is, never being able to make an intelligent point.
I can’t wait until Jill returns.
Posted by: Kristen at January 13, 2009 8:12 AM”
Kristen, after I asked what education you had, you started talking about education IN GENERAL. That had NOTHING to do with what I was talking about. You just changed it completely. I never said anyone that didn’t go to college wasn’t smart. You pretty much just pretended I did.
“I agree that Josephine (in my opinion) does not value “the school of life” as much as one should.”
That is YOU responding to me asking about your education, even though I didn’t say anything about any education. I just asked what you had!
Oh Bethany, thank you for the support but she can’t see what she chooses not to. Really it’s pointless speaking to her, I just needed a little laugh today and she provided it and more!
Josephine, I made the point I was trying to make and Asitis agreed with me if you read a few posts up. I know you’re in college, I know you’re going into medicine (although I do have to say that thought scares me) and I know you think you know it all.
I on the other hand am mature enough and intelligent enough to KNOW I don’t know it all and am still learning. I’m sorry I don’t find what you say worthy enough to take any “lessons” from you.
Josephine, I suppose I can see why you see it the way you do, and I apologize that you have been feeling insulted by that comment. I do not think that Kristen meant to imply that you are any less intelligent by her comment. She was probably frustrated by your many illogical points. But, that said I do think I can see where you are coming from.
I on the other hand am mature enough and intelligent enough to KNOW I don’t know it all and am still learning.
That’s truly the problem- the arrogance of thinking you know it all. This is actually very typical of people in their teens and early 20’s and it seems that the older you get, the more you realize how little you really know.
At least, that’s how it’s always been for me. When I was 20, I thought I knew a whole lot more than I do now.
Asitis,
You still don’t answer my question. I “know” that Obama has no credentials for the presidency. The guy is a smooth talking politician. A good campaign does not a president make.
So please, tell me why I am wrong to think this of him.
Posted by: Josephine at January 14, 2009 10:22 AM
I answered you regarding my education but WHY would you ask if you didn’t feel it was important? Are you saying that the 14 year old genius that goes to college is not a child simply because he/she is in college? What was the point of that statement then because I, obviously, am to dim to understand. I think Bethany and Asitis might need a little help as well since they both seem to have taken your statement at face value.
Really, show a little maturity and just admit that anyone (other than you) who read what you wrote would think the same thing I did.
Posted by: Bethany at January 14, 2009 10:24 AM
Ain’t that the truth!!!! ;) There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t shudder at the thought of what I did/said in my teens and early 20s. Thank God, truly, that I lived long enough to realize what an idiot I really was during that time.
Josephine, I made the point I was trying to make and Asitis agreed with me if you read a few posts up.
Posted by: Kristen at January 14, 2009 10:22 AM
I did agree with you Kristen that having a college degree doesn’t mean you are necessarily more intelligent than someone who doesn’t. Though I did add that OVERALL those with college degrees are more intelligent than those without.
I do think you are being hard on Josephine because she believes differently than you about abortion and religion. Which strikes me as funny since you are both pro-life and Catholic.
Asitis,
You still don’t answer my question. I “know” that Obama has no credentials for the presidency. The guy is a smooth talking politician. A good campaign does not a president make.
So please, tell me why I am wrong to think this of him.
Posted by: Mary at January 14, 2009 10:26 AM
Oh come on Mary. Tell you you are wrong about Obama? Why would I waste my time? You are only going to pick apart everything I say regardless of whether it is fact or my opinion. No thank you! Look, I understand you aren’t happy with the outcome of the election. But you’ll get a chance again in 4 years.
Kristen,
Maybe that’s how you were in your twenties. I’m not. I admit on a daily basis I’ve wrong. I’ve admitted I was wrong on here several times. I don’t admit I’m wrong when I’m not.
You say you took my statement at “face value” but you didn’t. “Face value” would have been just seeing it and it being “What education do you have” NOT reading into it and thinking I said people who don’t go to college aren’t intelligent. That is, in no way, taking my comment at face value, Kristen. That seems to be a problem a lot of people here have. Maybe I have the advantage in being young: I don’t assume I know what you’re talking about. I ONLY go by what you actually say.
I believe you were the one who said I’m a child because of my maturity, so by your standards, wouldn’t take make a fourteen year old in college not a child? I mean, obviously they’re very mature beyond their years?
Bethany,
I’m glad you see where I’m coming from, but I have to ask where my illogical comments are? I just read back through everything, and I really don’t see anything illogical at all.
Mary,
I’ll answer your question about Obama, it seems Asitis isn’t here.
*Obama is at least 45 years old.
*Obama is a legal, natural born, US citizen.
*Obama has lived in the US at least fourteen years.
He fits the criteria just like anyone else. No where in the Constitution does it outline what education, positions, or past jobs you must have had to become the President.
Ain’t that the truth!!!! ;) There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t shudder at the thought of what I did/said in my teens and early 20s. Thank God, truly, that I lived long enough to realize what an idiot I really was during that time.
Posted by: Kristen at January 14, 2009 10:29 AM
As an old and ise 44 year old, I say ditto!!!! But do you also not remember that some of your thoughts and beliefs back than are the same as those you have today? And that more than anything you wanted “grownups” to recognize that you did have something valid to say? And how you interacted differently with those that did?Having a teenager I am remembering that and realizing just how important that is.
And you know what? I’m still “maturing” I look back on things I said 5 or 10 years ago and shudder. And I’ll probably do likewise about now when I am 60.
Eileen #2 8:13am
Hello to you. I got a notice from the Republican Party for a donation. My response was when you really grow a pair and stand for something, contact me again.
I heard on Rush that Republicans were told to moderate by their own leaders. Obviously they haven’t figured out this is why they are where they’re at.
I think there is far more to this Blegojevich situation than meets the eye and I think he may have some people by the, uh, tail, including our fearless leader. Only a theory.
By the way, I saw on Drudge that the Alabama NAACP objects to “Southern Belle” costumes in the Inaugaral Parade. It reminds them of slavery.
Oh, maybe you good people should object to Roland Burris being treated like he should come in the Senate servant’s entrance.
Mary, hmmmmm…..You wouldn’t happen to have your own public blog ,would you?
I do think you are being hard on Josephine because she believes differently than you about abortion and religion. Which strikes me as funny since you are both pro-life and Catholic.
Posted by: asitis at January 14, 2009 10:34 AM
I agree Asitis, my comments were somewhat “biting” and for that I apologize Josephine.
That being said I don’t really think that Josephine is pro-life. As I said before I can say I’m French and Je peux parler français a bit but it doesn’t make me French.
And as far as Josephine being Catholic, well pretty much the same thing. Just because you say you are doesn’t make it so. I have no problem with different religions, in fact I’m fascinated by many and as a history major studied several. The problem comes in when someone tries to dilute my Faith and say they are right – which she has done several times. Then when anyone corrects her she says go watch “Religulous” or some other such nonsense.
Don’t you think that Josephine represents the majority of Catholics as well as a significant portion (the majority?) of Pro-lifers?
In that case, do you think that the catholic church should split, seeing as you (and others here) don’t recognize “cafeteria Catholics” as legitimate Catholics? Ditto for the Pro-life movement.
J said –
“What education do you have” NOT reading into it and thinking I said people who don’t go to college aren’t intelligent.
AGAIN I ask why ask the question then? If you (seem) to believe as I do, what difference does it make what level of education I’ve achieved. FYI – That is illogical. To ask a question if the answer doesn’t matter. I mean, what’s the point? Or were you only trying to find out if I wasn’t educated so you could make some comment?
Asitis –
I’d say my beliefs are, on the whole, the same as I had as a 20 year old. The part I shudder about are some of the things I did that went against what I believed, even then. Really for my general lack of good judgement. I knew it was wrong but did it anyway. I hardly looked for parent/adult approval because I knew I wouldn’t get it, I couldn’t even give it to myself.
Basically I’m saying that while I was raised with good morals I ignored them thinking it was just more fun and there would be no consequences. Thankfully I had no physical consequences but more than 20 years later my own conscience has not let it pass.
Asitis,
“In that case, do you think that the catholic church should split, seeing as you (and others here) don’t recognize “cafeteria Catholics” as legitimate Catholics? Ditto for the Pro-life movement”
Pro-life:
•advocating full legal protection of embryos and fetuses (especially opposing the legalization of induced abortions)
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
pro-life Definition pro·-life (pr??l?f?)
adjective
opposing the legal right to obtain an abortion
Main Entry: pro-life
Pronunciation: ()pr-lf
Function: adjective
: ANTIABORTION
Main Entry: an·ti·abor·tion
Pronunciation: ant—br-shn, an-t-
Function: adjective
: opposed to abortion and especially to the legalization of abortion
Hello to you. I got a notice from the Republican Party for a donation. My response was when you really grow a pair and stand for something, contact me again.”
HaHaHa!!! My mother did the same just recently!
Don’t you think that Josephine represents the majority of Catholics as well as a significant portion (the majority?) of Pro-lifers?
In that case, do you think that the catholic church should split, seeing as you (and others here) don’t recognize “cafeteria Catholics” as legitimate Catholics? Ditto for the Pro-life movement.
Posted by: asitis at January 14, 2009 12:25 PM
I don’t think she represents the majority of pro-lifers. I can see that a large percentage (although I wouldn’t say the majority) of Catholics believe as she does.
The Catholic Church has split – long ago. And she and the others are welcome to leave and I and others prefer they do. However the Catholic Church has been constant. Her beliefs have not changed (Dogma) and will never change. I and other Orthodox Catholics cannot leave the true Church. They do not believe what the Church teachings are and therefore they should leave.
I should also add that there are Catholics who do know the true teachings of the Church and disagree with some of those teachings. BUT they DO KNOW the teachings. This is different from people who are ignorant of the teachings and listen to really harmful things, even from priests, then profess those untrue teachings as doctrine. (The area I feel Josephine fits into.) Both are wrong, but I do make the distinction because often those who know the teachings just need a deeper explanation whereas those who THINK they know the teachings are obstinate and refuse to hear the truth.
I’m talking about morals when I refer to myself now vs then. I don’t think my morals have changed. Sure, I’m more responsible and mature now though.
But my 44 year old self is more apt to consider and appreciate other people’s situations and viewpoints more. For example, Josephine may not appreciate right away that there are people out there who have little formal education, but have acquired considerable knowledge through other avenues. And this is understandable, because maybe she has lived thus far amongst people who, if you are bright, you go on to college and becaome a doctor or whatever (Josephine I hope you don’t mind that I make some assumptions here and use you as an obvious example).
Are you basically saying that you think Josephine is ignoring her own morals by believing what she does about abortion rights and Catholicism? I’m not sure what you are getting at and I don’t want to make assumptions about that.
They do not believe what the Church teachings are and therefore they should leave.
Posted by: Kristen at January 14, 2009 12:44 PM
Kristen @12:44pm
Well contraception is a key teaching, wouldn’t you say. Do you really think all those Catholics that think contraception is okay should leave the Church and become a new religion? Because that wouldn’t leave you with a lot of Catholics and churches woudl be fewer and far between. Not to mention Catholic schools. Is that really what you want?
I think the Catholic Church must know this and it’s got them in a difficult spot.
Sorry, it’s obvious when you read on, but that should have been:
I’m NOT talking about morals when I refer to myself now vs then.
Sorry Asitis, I didn’t completely answer regarding pro-life. It’s not that I don’t think the pro-life movement has a definition, to me it does. However it is not like the Catholic Church that has clear boundaries.
I feel that even artificial contraception is wrong because of things like IUDs that prevent the implantation rather than conception. I believe the same thing of the pill but I know many disagree with me. I’m of the same opinion regarding condoms but this is based on my religious view since a condom would prevent conception. I do not believe there is ANY medical issue that would justify PBA for various reasons that I won’t get into now.
I also carry this pro-life view to end of life issues like “mercy-killing.” I think we have created a culture that values “Me” and “Now” rather than “Life” and “Right.” I believe we have let our elderly come to believe that they are burdens in a way that we never have before. Even 50 years ago children expected to care for their parents, it was just the way it was and parents and children accepted the course of life. It was not seen as a burden.
Truly my honest feeling is that I want peace and I don’t feel it CAN come to the world unless we focus on others rather than ourselves. So many politicians pay lip service to this idea when, in fact, they promote and practice the opposite.
So anyway, I’m willing to accept different degrees in the pro-life movement. Not someone who says “I wouldn’t get one but I don’t want to impose my views.” That is not someone who is pro-life in my opinion, but I could accept someone who is okay with contraception. I don’t agree but I wouldn’t necessarily call them pro-abortion.
Asitis,
“In that case, do you think that the catholic church should split, seeing as you (and others here) don’t recognize “cafeteria Catholics” as legitimate Catholics? Ditto for the Pro-life movement”
Pro-life:
•advocating full legal protection of embryos and fetuses (especially opposing the legalization of induced abortions)
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Posted by: Bethany at January 14, 2009 12:38 PM
pro-life Definition pro·-life (pr??l?f?)
adjective
opposing the legal right to obtain an abortion
Posted by: Bethany at January 14, 2009 12:40 PM
Main Entry: pro-life
Pronunciation: ()pr-lf
Function: adjective
: ANTIABORTION
Main Entry: an·ti·abor·tion
Pronunciation: ant—br-shn, an-t-
Function: adjective
: opposed to abortion and especially to the legalization of abortion
Posted by: Bethany at January 14, 2009 12:41 PM
Okay. So does that mean Bethany, that if someone opposes abortion but doesn’t think it should be illegal, does that mean they aren’t Pro-life?
And does that mean they are Pro-choice then?
So anyway, I’m willing to accept different degrees in the pro-life movement. Not someone who says “I wouldn’t get one but I don’t want to impose my views.” That is not someone who is pro-life in my opinion, but I could accept someone who is okay with contraception. I don’t agree but I wouldn’t necessarily call them pro-abortion.
Posted by: Kristen at January 14, 2009 1:03 PM
Kristen, thank you so much for being open and frank in your answer. I appreciate that.
There are many here that do equate contraception, even the pill, with abortion. So your position is interesting.
Truly my honest feeling is that I want peace and I don’t feel it CAN come to the world unless we focus on others rather than ourselves. So many politicians pay lip service to this idea when, in fact, they promote and practice the opposite.
Posted by: Kristen at January 14, 2009 1:03 PM
That could have been written by a Pro-choicer as well Kristen. Isn’t that funny?
It’s been good talking to you. Thanks.
Are you basically saying that you think Josephine is ignoring her own morals by believing what she does about abortion rights and Catholicism? I’m not sure what you are getting at and I don’t want to make assumptions about that.
Posted by: asitis at January 14, 2009 12:51 PM
No, I was only speaking of my own experience. Yes, I agree that I appreciate other peoples difficulties more and am more understanding but that is not was is difficult to reconcile for me.
I cannot speak to Josephine’s morals. I do feel they are very different from what the Catholic Church teaches and I don’t think that she thinks she is wrong which is why I’ve said that I don’t feel Josephine is a true Catholic.
Don’t get me wrong. I sin everyday. But I do know it’s a sin and I do make an effort to not lead myself into that particular temptation again. (Sometime very difficult as a mom of six!) A huge part of it is in the belief. Do you believe you are wrong or right? As a Catholic, when I sin, I believe I am wrong. And the sin is based on Church teachings. I believe (and I’ll apologize now if I’m wrong) that Josephine said she lived with her boyfriend. That is wrong in the eyes of the Church. I never lived with a boyfriend but I would have known it was wrong and I was sinning. Josephine, to my knowledge, feels she is doing nothing wrong. It’s not my place to judge her and I don’t care if she does live with him but I can tell her it is against the teachings of the Church and as a Catholic she is sinning. This is not a judgement, this is fact, based on 2000 years of teachings. She absolutely does not have to agree but then she is not Catholic.
Okay. So does that mean Bethany, that if someone opposes abortion but doesn’t think it should be illegal, does that mean they aren’t Pro-life?
And does that mean they are Pro-choice then?
Posted by: asitis at January 14, 2009 1:06 PM
Well contraception is a key teaching, wouldn’t you say. Do you really think all those Catholics that think contraception is okay should leave the Church and become a new religion? Because that wouldn’t leave you with a lot of Catholics and churches woudl be fewer and far between. Not to mention Catholic schools. Is that really what you want?
I think the Catholic Church must know this and it’s got them in a difficult spot.
Posted by: asitis at January 14, 2009 12:58 PM
Yes, I would like all those people to leave the Catholic Church. There are many of us that feel this way, probably many more than you think.
The Church is not in a difficult spot. It is in the same spot it always was. Contraception has always been wrong. Abortion has always been wrong.
As far as Churches and schools being few and far between – they already are. I have lived in my current home 3 years. In that time I have belonged to FOUR churches. It took that many to find a good, orthodox Church that is true to the Magisterium. My children used to go to Catholic school and I pulled them out because they were being taught untrue teachings by “Cafeteria Catholics.”
TRUE Catholic churches are already very few and far between, but I’ll tell you this. The other churches I belonged to had confession once a week and NO ONE was ever there to confess. The Church I belong to now has confession several times a week and I wait up to an hour to see the priest. The Orthodox Churches are jam packed on Sunday and Holy Days, not so with the “moderate” churches. It is the Orthodox Churches that will survive.
That could have been written by a Pro-choicer as well Kristen. Isn’t that funny?
It’s been good talking to you. Thanks.
Posted by: asitis at January 14, 2009 1:12 PM
LOL! I disagree but that’s funny. I think that women who have abortions are being selfish. They could give the baby life and to a couple who cannot have a child. To me abortion is not thinking of others. But I know people do try to justify it.
Anywho, nice talking to you too! Now I’ve GOT to do some work!
The Church is not in a difficult spot. It is in the same spot it always was. Contraception has always been wrong. Abortion has always been wrong.
Posted by: Kristen at January 14, 2009 1:24 PM
When I meant the Church is in a difficult spot, I didn’t mean that they were trying to pass NEW teachings and they weren’t being accepted. What I meant was, the vast majority of their members do not believe in their teachings. And while you might be perfectly fine with fewer Churches and having to travel farther to worship, the Catholic Church doesn’t want to see their numbers plummet as would happen if only orthodox Catholics were recognized as Catholics.
Okay. So does that mean Bethany, that if someone opposes abortion but doesn’t think it should be illegal, does that mean they aren’t Pro-life?
I don’t think they are.
If they think a woman should have the choice to kill her baby – even if they personally disagree with it for whatever reason- that is not pro-life, in my opinion.
It doesn’t make logical sense to be opposed to it but not want it to be illegal. It begs the question, “why are you opposed to abortion at all? What’s wrong with it?
Not a single person claiming to be pro-life that I have talked to who over the years, who has said they oppose it but wouldn’t want it to be illegal, has ever been able to answer that question.
Are they pro-choice? Everyone is pro-choice. Everyone believes in having choices.
However, if we’re going by the dictionary definition, yes, they would be “pro-choice” when it comes to abortion.
It doesn’t make logical sense to be opposed to it but not want it to be illegal. It begs the question, “why are you opposed to abortion at all? What’s wrong with it? Not a single person claiming to be pro-life that I have talked to who over the years, who has said they oppose it but wouldn’t want it to be illegal, has ever been able to answer that question.
Posted by: Bethany at January 14, 2009 1:31 PM
That’s odd that none have been able to answer that question Bethany. Because there must be many who oppose abortion for religious reasons. And they don’t want to impose those religious beliefs on others.
If we’re going by the dictionary definition, yes, they would be “pro-choice” when it comes to abortion.
Posted by: Bethany at January 14, 2009 1:31 PM
Well two things come to mind with that: Pro-choice support would further increase if those people were kicked out of Pro-life and into Pro-choice. Are there many?
And it would be even less appropriate to call Pro-choice “pro-aborts” anymore, right?
I’m thinging these are just some things to consider when you put that strict definition on Pro-life.
Morals are derived in part from Natural Law and in part by informing one’s conscience. As Catholics it is incumbent upon us to learn the Church teachings to adequately form our consciences. When one picks and chooses what moral standards they “feel” are “right” for them then they are opening themselves up to serious trouble.
“I think the Catholic Church must know this and it’s got them in a difficult spot.”
The Church doesn’t operate according to fads or opinion polls. Bishops, priests, Catholic schools, and universities, etc. need to do a better job at
instructing the faithful in Church teaching. At the same time Catholics have the Catechism at their disposal so they should be taking time to instruct/inform themselves. I have heard it said that we might become a smaller, holier Church after it is all said and done (after the recent priestly abuse scandal and after dealing with pro-abortion Catholic politicians, etc.).
And by the way Bethany, I do appreciate your frankness and the dialogue as well! I have to go momentarily. The dog……
The Church doesn’t operate according to fads or opinion polls. Bishops, priests, Catholic schools, and universities, etc. need to do a better job atinstructing the faithful in Church teaching.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 14, 2009 1:44 PM
I think contraception is more than fad! So why ISN’T the Church doing a better job?
“That’s odd that none have been able to answer that question Bethany. Because there must be many who oppose abortion for religious reasons. And they don’t want to impose those religious beliefs on others.”
We are talking about life or death. It is one thing to want to impose circumcision on males by law based on the dictates of my religion but quite another when it comes to someone living or dying. Many of our laws are based on the Judeo-Christian ethics aren’t they?
I think contraception is more than fad! So why ISN’T the Church doing a better job?
Posted by: asitis at January 14, 2009 1:50 PM
LOL, there have many people who have wondered the same. Actually, many in the Church (laypeople and the clergy) who are finally providing excellent instruction.
Many of our laws are based on the Judeo-Christian ethics aren’t they?
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 14, 2009 1:51 PM
Sure, I guess. But we keep them because society in general believes in them. What’s your point? That we should therefore have a law making abortion illegal simply because it’s a Christian ethic?
I think contraception is more than fad! So why ISN’T the Church doing a better job?
Posted by: asitis at January 14, 2009 1:50 PM
LOL, there have many people who have wondered the same. Actually, many in the Church (laypeople and the clergy) who are finally providing excellent instruction.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 14, 2009 1:54 PM
I think to be honest they are hesitant to do much because they know how unpopular the “contraception is a sin” teaching is with their members. And has been for a long time
It is one thing to want to impose circumcision on males by law based on the dictates of my religion
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 14, 2009 1:51 PM
I’m sorry but are you saying impose a law that FORCES you to circumsise your male baby? Or a law that gives you the choice to circumcise your male baby if you choose?
The former imposes a religious belief on everyone. The latter does not.
Sorry, I have to come and go all the time because of homeschooling. So if I just leave out of the blue that’s usually why.
That’s odd that none have been able to answer that question Bethany. Because there must be many who oppose abortion for religious reasons. And they don’t want to impose those religious beliefs on others.
What would those religious reasons be? What is a merely religious reason to oppose abortion? I could understand if we were talking about condoms here, but abortion is much different, as it involves more than one human being directly.
Well two things come to mind with that: Pro-choice support would further increase if those people were kicked out of Pro-life and into Pro-choice. Are there many?
?? I’m confused and am not sure what you’re trying to say here. I don’t believe that any person who is pro-choice on abortion is pro-life. What do you mean when you say “kicked out of pro-life”? Pro-lifers are individuals, some religious, some atheists, some agnostcs, who all believe that no human beings should ever be killed. We are not a group like a church, and we don’t “kick people out”. People either are or are not opposed to abortion, just like people are or are not opposed to rape. It’s not a religious thing, although many religions of course agree that it is wrong to kill other human beings. Most religions agree that it is wrong to steal- that doesn’t make being against stealing merely a religious issue, does it?
And it would be even less appropriate to call Pro-choice “pro-aborts” anymore, right?
No, absolutely not. That is what they are. In effect, every single person who does not oppose abortion and want it to be made illegal is effectively supporting abortion. Thus, pro-abortion (look pro-abortion up in the dictionary too – it’s there. Pro-abort is just shorter and easier to say, but I usually say pro-abortionist)
I never say pro-abortion with the intent to offend, and I think most people don’t. However, if you’re offended by the term, you might want to consider why it is that being associated with the term abortion offends you.
And by the way Bethany, I do appreciate your frankness and the dialogue as well! I have to go momentarily. The dog……
Thanks, Asitis.
“What would those religious reasons be? What is a merely religious reason to oppose abortion? I could understand if we were talking about condoms here, but abortion is much different, as it involves more than one human being directly.”
Well, your religion may believe that God creates all life at conception. And so to abort that life that God craeted would be a sin.
‘I’m confused and am not sure what you’re trying
to say here. I don’t believe that any person who is pro-choice on abortion is pro-life. What do you mean when you say “kicked out of pro-life”
I’m sorry Bethany. i guess I wasn’t clear. When I say “kicked out” I meant figuratively. I meant not included. Josephine considers herself to be pro-life because she opposese abortion and yet she doesn’t think it should be made illegal. Do some other Pro-life feel this way? Maybe I was wrong to assume they did.
“In effect, every single person who does not oppose abortion and want it to be made illegal is effectively supporting abortion”.
I’m thinking specifically about people, like Josephine; who might oppose abortion but don’t want to make it illegal. To say they are in “favor of abortion” seems inaccurate. Though they would be in favor of abortion rights. Which could all be said for some Pro-choicers.
“I never say pro-abortion with the intent to offend, and I think most people don’t. However, if you’re offended by the term, you might want to consider why it is that being associated with the term abortion offends you”.
On the contrary, I do think most people who say pro-abort say it to offend. Just like those who call pro-life anti-choice mean it offensively.
I don’t find it offensive myself, but I do think it conjures up this wrong notion that anyone who is pro-choice thinks that abortion is the ideal solution and is all gung-ho about it.
Asitis, 11:14am
Negative.
Kristen,
So, after attacking me for a bit you chose to ask why I asked that question? Shouldn’t you have done that from the beginning, instead of attacking me and assuming you knew all the reasoning behind it? That’s what would make sense to me.
My dictionary says the definition of pro-life is anti-abortion. Just because some dictionaries haven’t different definitions doesn’t mean I’m not pro-life. You just want me to fit one specific dictionary definition, when in all honesty every word has a lot of definitions.
As for being Catholic, Kristen, I don’t think it’s YOU who has the right to judge who is and who is not Catholic. You have no idea how I practice my faith. So, for you to say I’m not Catholic is more than a little absurd.
The reason I suggest you watch Religulous is because it makes the Catholic priests look like truly great men, who know that while everything in the Catholic faith is slightly “crazy” they make great points, and make Catholics look good. He interviews leaders from other faiths and makes them look dumb, he interviews Catholics from every day life, and they make Catholics look dumb. The redeeming quality for Catholics in the entire movie is the Priests! That’s why I suggest everyone watch it.
“I cannot speak to Josephine’s morals. I do feel they are very different from what the Catholic Church teaches and I don’t think that she thinks she is wrong which is why I’ve said that I don’t feel Josephine is a true Catholic.”
I live with my boyfriend, you’re right. If you assume I have sex with my boyfriend, you’re assuming things that I never said, which I’ve asked you not to do countless times. Living with my boyfriend is not a sin. As far as I know, the bible doesn’t care who I live with.. otherwise, everyone who has a roommate is sinning!
Hmmmm. Sounds a lot like you. And something you mentioned today.
Asitis
I disagree. The Church would rather have fewer faithful members than many more unfaithful ones.
Asitis,
I don’t know what I said that has you suspicious but again I don’t have any blog. I’m not the least bit interested in setting one up.
Asitis,
I don’t know what I said that has you suspicious but again I don’t have any blog. I’m not the least bit interested in setting one up.
Posted by: Mary at January 14, 2009 4:57 PM
Oh, I guess I was wrong then. Maybe you have long lost twin! I’ll get the link for you… just have to find it first
Asitis
I disagree. The Church would rather have fewer faithful members than many more unfaithful ones.
Posted by: Kristen at January 14, 2009 4:45 PM
Weird that they ignore a lot of stuff then.
Asitis,
Thanks, I’d be interested in seeing it.
A long lost twin?? Heaven help her!
I haven’t read everyone’s posts here but this is my opinion re: the CC’s teaching on contraception and abortion.
In the past, couples were told by their priest they they had to be open to children and for the most part couples were. Partly because of circumstances (children many times died from illness and accidents), partly because people were more family oriented years ago and children were considered a blessing and partly because they were told so by their priest.
These factors, as I see it have changed. It is now possible to have 13 children and have all 13 children survive to adulthood.
People have different views on children today and are very materialistic. Many couples prefer accumulating material goods rather than sacrificing for children. Children are often portrayed as burdens and obnoxious little creatures that take the enjoyment out of life.
I’m betting that 60 years ago, there were very few parish priests who could explain the WHY of the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception to young couples. And unfortunately, there were even fewer 40 years ago.
But God is not to be dallied with. He used the wonderful mind of Karol Wojtyla to help us understand ourselves.
As a young priest Karol had many single friends whom he took on hikes to the mountains. They called him “uncle” so the communists would not suspect he was a priest.
These single friends became very close to their priest and they told him their troubles and discussed life’s questions. Many of them married. They brought to him, the problems of married life both in the confessional and outside it, and he openly discussed marriage and sexuality with them.
Because Karol Wojtyla was a pre-emminent philosopher and an experientialist -that is he approaches philosophy from the point of view of human experience, he began to study the question of sexuality and marriage.
Wojtyla, believed that what scripture tells us is true and that it therefore, should be reflected in our human experiences.
Wojtyla, aka Pope John Paul II changed the entire way we look at sexuality from a point of what I can/can’t I do (a very legalistic approach) to one of freedom – the freedom to “love” (what would be the most loving thing TO do).
His exploration on this question is called his theology of the body. As Christopher West states, he asks two important questions
“What does it mean to be human?”
and
“How do I live my life in a way to be truly happy?”
To answer the first we have to understand what it means to be male and female. We have to understand where we came from, what we were meant to be, and what happened to us.
To answer the second, we have consider celibacy (the gift of sacrificing marriage), marriage and love and sexuality.
All these questions while seemingly very difficult to understand are really not. Many couples discover the truth of the theology of the body themselves, sometimes through bad experiences while single/married, other times through the wonderful blessing of marriage. Wojtyla was able to demonstrate how contraception destroys the essence of what it means to be human, and to give ourselves to another human being.
The Catholic Church now has the tools to answer those questions couples ask, in all honestly. It may take some time, but many high schools now are starting to teach TOTB, many online discussion groups exist, and many parish discussion groups exist. Catholic bloggers, websites and seminaries now teach TOTB. Many marriage prep courses touch on it and teach NFP. As more couples and single people come to understand the true dignity of the body and the dignity of others, change will come.
We must be patient.
People have different views on children today and are very materialistic. Many couples prefer accumulating material goods rather than sacrificing for children. Children are often portrayed as burdens and obnoxious little creatures that take the enjoyment out of life.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 14, 2009 5:09 PM
Those are some very negative reasons you cite for not wanting to have a large family toostunned. Have you chosen not to have as many children as your body can produce? If so, why not?
Have you chosen not to have as many children as your body can produce? If so, why not?
I can’t answer for TSTL but I can honestly answer that I am willing to have as many children as the Lord will give me.
I used to think that having a child was a choice I made- that I had a responsibility to “space them out”, or to control the number I had…that’s basically what everyone around me always said anyway. But I was able to realize one day that I had absolutely no control over it. And that idea was reinforced when I had trouble conceiving for a while. Then, after waiting and waiting to conceive, I also had a miscarriage for seemingly no reason, out of the blue. That was the miscarriage of my baby Blessing, who you have seen pictures of. Then I had a second miscarriage…these were times when I was really, really wanting to hold a child, and I was not able to have one carry to term.
I realized that having a child isn’t really something that I am in control of. I can’t tell my body to produce a child one day and make it work. It’s not myself that is truly in control of that. The BC pills, etc serve as just an illusion of control- but they really aren’t. We tell ourselves that we will space out our children, or we will wait till the perfect time, when really- we don’t even know that when the perfect time comes, that we will even have the capability of conceiving or carrying to term.
I choose to trust in God for my children, and I know that He will provide them in the correct spacing. By the way, did you know that most people who have decided to leave their childbearing to God have only had an average of about 5 children? Every woman is not like Michelle Duggar and most likely won’t produce that many children. I can’t say I’m not a little envious of Michelle though!
When it comes to being quiverfull, I fully admit that this is a result of my faith, and it is obviously something that I would never even attempt to force on anyone.
Abortion, however, is completely different. It involves two human beings, not just one. And it is life or death for one of those human beings. It is something that atheists, agnostics, and Christians can all agree on, because that human life exists at fertilization is not a religious belief, it is scientific. When you say that it is a religious belief that life begins at conception, you are referring to the soul. That is a totally different issue, again, than whether it is a human life at conception.
I’m sorry Bethany. i guess I wasn’t clear. When I say “kicked out” I meant figuratively. I meant not included. Josephine considers herself to be pro-life because she opposese abortion and yet she doesn’t think it should be made illegal. Do some other Pro-life feel this way? Maybe I was wrong to assume they did.
I don’t think anyone who actually understands what pro-life means does feel that way, Asitis.
I think that it’s easier to say you’re pro-life than to actually be pro-life.
If you actually believe that a human being is in the womb from conception and should not be killed, it makes absolutely no sense to say that it should be legal to kill it for any reason.
Either you oppose it or you don’t.
“Because there must be many who oppose abortion for religious reasons. And they don’t want to impose those religious beliefs on others.”
asitis,
it was in response to this statement that I made my assertions.
Say, if Mary had a blog, it would be very informative and very interesting, I’m sure!
I still want Mary to author a book. I would pre-order the first copy. :)
:D I would too! You know, I was thinking that kbhvac should also. He is so insightful and wise.
I’m a big fan of kbhvac!
Posted by: asitis at January 14, 2009 5:04 PM
If you are referring to the Church ignoring things that is not necessarily true. Many priests do but they are not in communion with the Magesterium. Many Bishops have come out about politicians whom are pro-choice but Catholic and receive communion – that they shouldn’t that is – but the media says they are “on the fringe.” This simply is not true.
That is the main concern for us faithful Catholics. But the Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit for more than 2000 years, even through some very dark times, and has survived. She will always survive .
I have friends that were Catholic (I believe they still consider themselves to be) but unfortunately do not practice due to various reasons. They have (all but in name) left the Church as most of the unfaithful eventually do. It’s simply too much trouble for them to go to mass (the easiest thing to do) when they don’t believe in Her teachings.
The Pope regularly speaks out about things like contraception and Church teachings but I’m guessing most people, Catholic or not, do not read his writings. This is hardly his fault, the information is there.
I should have also included that I like his tongue-in-cheek humor!
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 14, 2009 5:09 PM
I agree. I do have to say that when I was taking my NFP course the couple said that at some point you’ll realize you got “too good” at practicing NFP and you’d say where’s my baby?!
We all laughed but just last year I was thinking – it’s been 4 years since I had a baby and it would be impossible for me to get pregnant and not know it. It made me sad that I wouldn’t have an “oops” and, unless my hubby changes his mind, I won’t have another baby. We did get too good just like the couple said, and the fact that that part of my life is over is very sad to me.
Eileen#2 and Bethany,
Thank you both so much for your kind words.
Truth be told, if you ever met me you would be amazed I didn’t bore myself to death years ago.
Bethany: you reflect one side of the Christian view of having children – the quiverful.
There are many Christians who believe that they should have or maybe are called to have as many children as their bodies will enable them to. That is certainly being very open to God and also reflects a very generous heart.
I have many friends who live this, with the mother continuing to have babies until the eldest child marries and starts a family of their own! :-D
While I’m not against that view by any means, I also believe that God gave us an intellect and designed a woman’s body so that she could if she wants to, space her children for her health and the health of her babies and maybe for certain serious reasons. And the latter is the crux of the issue – what are serious reasons? Certainly what may be serious to one couple or even one spouse may not be for another.
At any rate, it is quite apparent, many couples in North America could definitely afford and accomodate many more children in their families than they currently have. What is lacking is generousity of spirit, trust in the Lord, and a spirit of sacrifice.
I pray you will have more children Bethany!
Kristen: I agree. I do have to say that when I was taking my NFP course the couple said that at some point you’ll realize you got “too good” at practicing NFP and you’d say where’s my baby?!
yes, I think this is the danger of NFP – that it can be practiced contraceptively. Sometimes you can just slip into this mindset without being aware of doing so.
I once read an article in which practicioners of the Creighton method (now known as NaPro, I think)stated the this was avoided by their method.
I think it simply is best for a couple to keep a very open mind and ask themselves each day, do we want a child? Is there a serious enough reason to avoid pregnancy? Of course, we are human and it’s hard to always be objective. It’s hard to trust in God!
Josephine: How can you look in a puppy’s eyes and think “Okay, this puppy is soulless.
Exactly. I don’t know if there is such a thing as a soul but to say that humans necessarily have them and that dogs, cats, dolphins, elephants, the higher primates, etc., don’t have souls always sounded really silly to me.
There’s wisdom in humility.
Many a failure vainly chatters
about his great ability
when what he doesn’t know is what matters.
— Ender
Bethany, is that Ender from Ender’s Game?
Josephine at 4:40
I just saw this post. Try to stay with me. I asked the question because YOU said I misunderstood you. I have asked for clarification a couple of times yet YOU have not answered. Why is that?
As I said before I am not judging your morals, frankly I don’t care what you do. I can tell you that you are not a practicing Catholic. It is based on fact not my opinion. You have said things contrary to Church doctrine on many different posts, not regarding your living situation. Really I don’t understand why this is so hard for you to grasp.
Kristen, why am I not a Catholic? Also, please explain why you think you’re the person that has a right to judge who is a Catholic and who is not?
Oh, and I’ve answered your question already. I’m sorry I didn’t repeat my answer for you the fifteen times you’ve asked, when you can go up and read it yourself.
“It was me wondering why the heck Kristen has this “holier-than-thou” attitude. She must have a reason!”
I don’t know if there is such a thing as a soul but to say that humans necessarily have them and that dogs, cats, dolphins, elephants, the higher primates, etc., don’t have souls always sounded really silly to me.
Posted by: Doug at January 14, 2009 8:55 PM
That’s why I always thought it was odd to see some pro-lifers say it’s okay to euthanize a dog, but abortion is wrong because it’s not up to humans who lives and dies… Or, it’s okay to have a dog spayed, but the birth control pill is wrong.
I can tell you that you are not a practicing Catholic. It is based on fact not my opinion. You have said things contrary to Church doctrine on many different posts.Really I don’t understand why this is so hard for you to grasp.
Posted by: Kristen at January 14, 2009 9:17 PM
I can understand why it is. Because most Catholics are just like Josephine. And they consider themselves Catholic. And their church considers them Catholic. It seems that only you and other orthodox Catholics are saying they are not Catholics.
At any rate, it is quite apparent, many couples in North America could definitely afford and accomodate many more children in their families than they currently have. What is lacking is generousity of spirit, trust in the Lord, and a spirit of sacrifice.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 14, 2009 7:34 PM
True enough on the first line too stunned, but I’d say the second part isn’t necessarily true though. Sure, the part about not everyone believing or trusting in your Lord is true, but it’s not fair to say a lack of generosity or willingless to sacrifice is what’s holding them back from having more and more children. It’s often that they choose to give fewer children the kind of attention and experience that you cannot give a big family. Or they want to be generous in other ways. Lots of good reasons out there. And lots of good people.
Bethany, is that Ender from Ender’s Game?
Hah, I guess it may be! I actually had never heard of the book before you mentioned it- I just now looked it up on Wikipedia- interesting! I like to read poetry and quotes sometimes, either from books, or the internet, or whatever else I can find…I actually found this one on a blog and I thought it was really good. Have you ever read the book? Is it any good?
Kristen, why am I not a Catholic? Also, please explain why you think you’re the person that has a right to judge who is a Catholic and who is not?
Actually Josephine is what is considered a “cafeteria” Catholic as opposed to an apostate which is someone who totally rejects the Christian faith he was baptized into. Technically she is still Catholic since she has not renounced her faith but she picks and chooses the teachings she will follow.
A heretic is someone who “after receiving baptism, remains nominally Christian but pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith”.
We don’t judge people but we can judge their actions.
“Because there must be many who oppose abortion for religious reasons. And they don’t want to impose those religious beliefs on others.”
asitis,
it was in response to this statement that I made my assertions.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 14, 2009 7:14 PM
I’m sorry Eileen, but what assertions are you referring to?
That’s why I always thought it was odd to see some pro-lifers say it’s okay to euthanize a dog, but abortion is wrong because it’s not up to humans who lives and dies… Or, it’s okay to have a dog spayed, but the birth control pill is wrong.
Posted by: Josephine at January 14, 2009 9:24 PM
this statement implies that there is no difference between dogs and humans.
The problem is that there is a difference – a significant difference.
Dogs have mortal souls, humans have immortal souls. We have an inner life that dogs do not have. We have freedom to love, make choices etc.
I don’t agree with mistreating dogs by any means. After all, dogs are part of God’s creation and as stewards we are called to take care of them.
So we don’t have the same level of responsibility to dogs that we have to our fellow human beings.
Dogs have freedom to love. But what about the argument that it’s not up to us who lives and who dies. If that’s true, than euthanasia for animals is very, very wrong.
Josephine, we have no right to decide if a human being lives or dies.
Have you ever killed a mouse who snuck into your home? What about a bug, or a fly?
Do bugs have souls? If not, why not? If so, do you condemn killing them for any reason?
TSTL or Kristen,
Do either of you speak in church?
Do either of you have short hair?
Do you both have both hands?
If you answered yes to any of those, you’re just as Catholic as I am.
Dogs have mortal souls, humans have immortal souls. We have an inner life that dogs do not have.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 14, 2009 9:45 PM
How do you KNOW this toostunned? How do you know that dogs aren’t God’s Chosen Ones? Afterall, dog is god spelled backwards. Hmmmmmm? ;)
Do you both have both hands?
maybe it’s because I’m not Catholic, but I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean?
How do you KNOW this toostunned? How do you know that dogs aren’t God’s Chosen Ones? Afterall, dog is god spelled backwards. Hmmmmmm? ;)
I am sooo glad you put a winky after that question.
Bethany,
I don’t kill bugs. I catch them in my paper “Bug Cup” and let them outside. Nice try with the bug thing, though.
I think any living thing has a soul. Who are you to say a bug doesn’t have a soul? I’d rather assume they have souls and be proven wrong when I die, than assume they don’t have souls.
“If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched.” (Mark 9:43)
Hmm, you should know it because you’re Catholic. Even I know it, Bethany. You can’t deny you’ve ever sinned, I’m sure.
Dogs have freedom to love. But what about the argument that it’s not up to us who lives and who dies. If that’s true, than euthanasia for animals is very, very wrong.
Posted by: Josephine at January 14, 2009 9:48 PM
dogs do not have the capacity to love the way humans do, although dogs will sacrifice themselves for example, for the safety of their master in some cases.
I don’t know too much about euthanizing dogs but it is my understanding that it is done when the animal suffers a great deal. However, there IS a big difference in an animal suffering and the suffering a human does.
Dogs do not have immortal souls in need of redemption. We do. Our souls were bought at a great price – the suffering and death of Jesus Christ. Therefore, our suffering HAS a purpose in a way that the suffering a dog experiences does not. While it is terrible to watch someone suffer from cancer for example, we can understand that this kind of suffering is a mystery and does have a purpose – maybe/usually known only to God himself. We can comfort a person in their suffering and their death agony by the use of pain alleviation and spiritually, but only God can take a human life. God is OUR master, as we are the masters of God’s creation including dogs.
I don’t kill bugs. I catch them in my paper “Bug Cup” and let them outside. Nice try with the bug thing, though.
Josephine, have you ever killed a mouse that crept into your home?
Have you ever stepped on a spider that was walking towards you?
Do you have ant mounds around your house, and if so, how do you deal with them?
What’s your plan for dealing with termites?
I think any living thing has a soul. Who are you to say a bug doesn’t have a soul? I’d rather assume they have souls and be proven wrong when I die, than assume they don’t have souls.
Hmm…Great job listening to what I said without making any assumptions as to what I was thinking…oh wait, that’s exactly what you did.
Hint: I never said whether they had souls or not.
Do bugs have souls? If not, why not? If so, do you condemn killing them for any reason?
Posted by: Bethany at January 14, 2009 9:52 PM
I feel like all living things have some kind of soul. I feel a bit bad about killing bugs. Same for a mouse in the house – but I can’t and have to leave that to my husband. And I feel a bit bad about chopping down a tree.
Hmm, you should know it because you’re Catholic. Even I know it, Bethany. You can’t deny you’ve ever sinned, I’m sure.
LOL
TSTL,
Maybe you’ve never had the love of a dog. I do. My dog LOVES me, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind.
Seriously, everything you just said is ridiculous to me. Every single line of it. I sincerely hope you don’t have pets.
Do you both have both hands?
maybe it’s because I’m not Catholic, but I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean?
Posted by: Bethany at January 14, 2009 9:53 PM
Bethany, c’mon. Even I, the non-praying one got that!
killing bugs = bad
killing unborn babies = no big deal
Bethany, c’mon. Even I, the non-praying one got that!
Asitis, I had a feeling it was that, but I had to see if she would really go that far.
Jasper, THANK you for pointing that out.
I feel like all living things have some kind of soul. I feel a bit bad about killing bugs. Same for a mouse in the house – but I can’t and have to leave that to my husband. And I feel a bit bad about chopping down a tree.
Why don’t you feel bad for unborn babies?
Bethany, I’ve NEVER killed a mouse. I use to have pet mice. I think they’re precious. We do have mousetraps at my house back home, but they’re humane. The mouse walk into a cube, then we let them out in a field.
I cannot, in all of my memory, ever remember killing an insect on purpose. Ever. I don’t have ant mounds, and I have no control over termites because I currently live in an apartment building.
Oh, I’m sorry I pulled a you. Why all the interrogation? Trying to make me slip up? I don’t kill. I’m pro-life. Do you think killing living things is okay? Maybe I’m more pro-LIFE than you.
TSTL or Kristen,
Do either of you speak in church?
Do either of you have short hair?
Do you both have both hands?
If you answered yes to any of those, you’re just as Catholic as I am.
Posted by: Josephine at January 14, 2009 9:53 PM
I would say that some one who picks and chooses the Catholic doctrine they accept is not fully Catholic – they are separated from the mystical body of Christ.
This is quite different from someone who at the very least ATTEMPTS to live according to the teachings of the Catholic church at a great cost.
A Catholic single person who lives with a boyfriend and contracepts is SEPARATED from the Catholic Church.(in the olden days this was called living in mortal sin)
A Catholic single person who lives alone and chastely, struggling with loneliness and possibly ridicule from his/her peers in today’s culture obtains great merit in the eyes of God. They may be rewarded in the life, or maybe not, but they will be most certainly rewarded in the next life.
Hi Bethany, hope the family is doing well :)
Jasper, who here thinks killing babies isn’t a big deal?
Bethany, what do you mean by “go that far”? Who are you to say what parts of the bible are more important than others? You and several others here have said how certain PRIESTS aren’t “really Catholic” however… some of the ladies here seem to not follow the rules of the bible!
dogs do not have the capacity to love the way humans do, although dogs will sacrifice themselves for example, for the safety of their master in some cases.
I don’t know too much about euthanizing dogs but it is my understanding that it is done when the animal suffers a great deal. However, there IS a big difference in an animal suffering and the suffering a human does.
Dogs do not have immortal souls in need of redemption. We do. Our souls were bought at a great price – the suffering and death of Jesus Christ. Therefore, our suffering HAS a purpose in a way that the suffering a dog experiences does not. While it is terrible to watch someone suffer from cancer for example, we can understand that this kind of suffering is a mystery and does have a purpose – maybe/usually known only to God himself. We can comfort a person in their suffering and their death agony by the use of pain alleviation and spiritually, but only God can take a human life. God is OUR master, as we are the masters of God’s creation including dogs.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 14, 2009 9:58 PM
Again, said like it’s all factual! What if you’ve got it all wrong toostunned? Maybe dogs can truly love. Maybe their suffereing also has a purpose. Maybe there was a Jesus dog who suffered for them? Who is to say for sure?
Josephine, it’s hard for me to understand, that’s all. You put so much effort towards protecting animals and bugs, but don’t really seem to put any effort towards making sure that babies aren’t legally killed every day. You say it isn’t necessary to make it illegal to kill them, yet you have a problem with killing even the tiniest of animals and insects.
You’re even planning to work at a Planned Parenthood, if I read you correctly earlier. I don’t understand that at all.
“If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched.” (Mark 9:43)
Hmm, you should know it because you’re Catholic. Even I know it, Bethany. You can’t deny you’ve ever sinned, I’m sure.
Posted by: Josephine at January 14, 2009 9:57 PM
Dang! I got it wrong!
“Jasper, who here thinks killing babies isn’t a big deal?”
You Josephine, you have never showed same remorse for killed unborn babies as you did for insects.
You attempt to live according to the teachings of the Catholic church? Seems to me not speaking in church and growing your hair out are some of the easiest thing the bible asks of women..
I’ll say it again, TSTL, living with my boyfriend is NOT a sin. Show me where the bible says it is.
Seriously, everything you just said is ridiculous to me. Every single line of it. I sincerely hope you don’t have pets.
Posted by: Josephine at January 14, 2009 10:01 PM
I am not surprised! :-D
We have different starting assumptions. Your assumption is the dog=human
My assumption is that humans > dogs! We are made in the image of God and have the Holy Spirit within us – we have immortal souls.
I feel like all living things have some kind of soul. I feel a bit bad about killing bugs. Same for a mouse in the house – but I can’t and have to leave that to my husband. And I feel a bit bad about chopping down a tree.
Why don’t you feel bad for unborn babies?
Posted by: Bethany at January 14, 2009 10:05 PM
The kind of soul I am referring to is different from the one you are Bethany. And they are all not of the same value. Goes back to a previous discussion of Aristotle’s thinking. Something struck me there.
Bethany, what do you mean by “go that far”? Who are you to say what parts of the bible are more important than others? You and several others here have said how certain PRIESTS aren’t “really Catholic” however… some of the ladies here seem to not follow the rules of the bible!
You may have just skimmed my posts, but I have said repeatedly that I am not Catholic.
No, there are no sections of the Bible more important than the other. However, some parts of the Bible are meant to be read figuratively, and some literally. Unless you think that Jesus was literal rock, AND a literal lamb, or that the pharisees were literally whited sepulchres, or that when the soldiers who were putting Jesus to death kneeled before Him saying, “Hail King of the Jews”, that they really meant it sincerely….
Jasper,
Show me proof, Jasper. You don’t know what’s in my head. So… please, show me proof?
Bethany,
I’m doing clinicals at Planned Parenthood. It’s a medical facility just like any other, and I’d like to be familiar with it.
Asitis,
TSTL has a pattern. She likes to pretend things are facts, when really she just makes it up!
I’m doing clinicals at Planned Parenthood. It’s a medical facility just like any other, and I’d like to be familiar with it.
It’s a place that kills unborn children for money. Ted Bundy did good things in his lifetime too, and was a guy just like any other guy, except for that tiny part of his life where he tortured and murdered women…
Ah, so Bethany, I guess you’re the one who is supposed to dictate to us what you should take literally and what you shouldn’t? Even though some people on here don’t take the SIMPLEST commands literally. That’s interesting…
The kind of soul I am referring to is different from the one you are Bethany. And they are all not of the same value. Goes back to a previous discussion of Aristotle’s thinking. Something struck me there.
So a bug’s life has greater value than an unborn child, Asitis?
Bethany,
Have you ever been inside a Planned Parenthood?
Ah, so Bethany, I guess you’re the one who is supposed to dictate to us what you should take literally and what you shouldn’t? Even though some people on here don’t take the SIMPLEST commands literally. That’s interesting…
No, you compare scripture with scripture in order to understand how to read figurative and literal language. We are told to “rightly divide” the Word of Truth (which means that there is a wrong way to divide it).
(by the way, “rightly divide” comes from the greek word, “orthotomeo”, which means
“to make straight and smooth, to handle aright, to teach the truth directly and correctly”)
Bethany,
Have you ever been inside a Planned Parenthood
No. Did you or anyone you know ever met Ted Bundy in person? I hear he was charming.
Bethany,
What you just said means everyone interprets the bible differently. Which means, *GASP* no one can really judge anyone’s faith except their own.
Jasper didn’t even say what was in your head, Josephine. He merely pointed out that your actions and words you have presented here do not show you as being very sympathetic to the unborn children.
I’m doing clinicals at Planned Parenthood. It’s a medical facility just like any other, and I’d like to be familiar with it.
When there’s thousands of other medical facilities that you could volunteer/work at why would you pick PP unless you were committed to “choice” for women?
It depends upon what you mean by “living with your boyfriend”. Do you sleep in the same bed with him? (not asking you to answer this, I’m just sayin!) If so, that’s sinful. If you are sharing a house, it could be what is considered an “occasion of sin” that is, you are putting yourself and your friend in danger of sinning.
We are made in the image of God and have the Holy Spirit within us – we have immortal souls.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 14, 2009 10:12 PM
But what if…. God looked like dog. Say a Great Dane. Or maybe a Golden Retriever. And He made dogs in his own image. Or better yet, SHE made dogs in her own image. And they were really the ones with immortal souls. OMG, I’m going to start a church for dogs. That’s it! What the heck. It would be fun anyway.
What you just said means everyone interprets the bible differently. Which means, *GASP* no one can really judge anyone’s faith except their own.
No, Josephine, the Bible also tells us how to tell good Spirits and good doctrines from false Spirits and false doctrines. It also tells us that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth.
oh BTW, I should have placed sleep in quotations in my 10:23 pm post, as in “sleep” = sexually active
I’m sorry but I have to leave now.
TSTL, I do too…yawn…I still have to do the dishes before going to bed. I will catch up tomorrow. Good night, everyone. Jasper, I hope you and your family have been doing well too!
The kind of soul I am referring to is different from the one you are Bethany. And they are all not of the same value. Goes back to a previous discussion of Aristotle’s thinking. Something struck me there.
So a bug’s life has greater value than an unborn child, Asitis?
Posted by: Bethany at January 14, 2009 10:16 PM
Perhaps. And perhaps the thought of someone chopping down a 200 year old oak makes me sadder than someone taking the morning after pill.
TSTL,
It’s none of your business if I sleep in the same bed as my boyfriend, or if I sleep in a completely different room. It’s between me, him, and God. I’d like to keep it that way. I picked Planned Parenthood because I’m doing clinicals at the centre my family owns and I already work at a hospital. I’d like to mix it up. I don’t get paid, and I’m not aborting babies. I’ll pretty much be helping with exams for women.
Asitis,
LOL.
Bethany,
What you said didn’t prove your point a little. Like I said before, what you’re saying PROVES that no one can judge anyone else’s Christianity.
Glad you liked that Josephine!
Have a good night.
Prov 30:2-4 2 I am tired out, O God, and ready to die. I am too stupid even to call myself a human being! 3 I cannot understand man, let alone God. 4 Who else but God goes back and forth to heaven? Who else holds the wind in his fists and wraps up the oceans in his cloak? Who but God has created the world? If there is any other, what is his name-and his Son’s name-if you know it? TLB
1 Cor 1:26-31 26 Remember, dear brothers and sisters, that few of you were wise in the world’s eyes, or powerful, or wealthy when God called you. 27 Instead, God deliberately chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose those who are powerless to shame those who are powerful. 28 God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important, 29 so that no one can ever boast in the presence of God.
30 God alone made it possible for you to be in Christ Jesus. For our benefit God made Christ to be wisdom itself. He is the one who made us acceptable to God. He made us pure and holy, and he gave himself to purchase our freedom. 31 As the Scriptures say,”The person who wishes to boast should boast only of what the Lord has done.” NLT
Deut 7:7-9 7 He didn’t choose you and pour out his love upon you because you were a larger nation than any other, for you were the smallest of all! 8 It was just because he loves you, and because he kept his promise to your ancestors. That is why he brought you out of slavery in Egypt with such amazing power and mighty miracles. 9 “Understand, therefore, that the Lord your God is the faithful God who for a thousand generations keeps his promises and constantly loves those who love him and who obey his commands. TLB
HE says I qualify!
yor bro ken
Not with you and me. We would discuss, you would resort to insults.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 14, 2009 7:17 AM
Do you want me to go back and pull things for you truthseeker? Because I will. You know I will.
Posted by: asitis at January 14, 2009 7:27 AM
What day did you start on this blog Virginia? Lets go back to there together and see how the conversations went.
Perhaps. And perhaps the thought of someone chopping down a 200 year old oak makes me sadder than someone taking the morning after pill.
Posted by: asitis at January 14, 2009 10:26 PM
For what reason?
Even a thought?
Would you prevent/fight, a person chopping down a oak tree to survive a winter?
Would you prevent a artist from making art from a oak tree?
But, most important, would you prevent a person from stepping on a acorn?
Why are you a misanthrope?
What hate do you have for humans, which allows to post such tripe and unintellectual post?
And using emotion,(sadder) is not really logic and reason Asitis. It’s pathetic. You know, pathos.
Soo, Asitis, why are there emotions? What is there purpose?
Specifically, sadness?
Josephine said:
I cannot, in all of my memory, ever remember killing an insect on purpose. Ever. I don’t have ant mounds, and I have no control over termites because I currently live in an apartment building.
Jose,
Have you ever been bitten by a mosquito? So many of your posts make you seem phony. Like when you said you are a medic but you could not be veterinarian because you can;t stand to see animals other that humans suffer. Huh?????
How can you do a clinical at a Planned Parenthood when you KNOW they are the leading killers of human life in the US? What gives?
And as far as actually “BEING” a Catholic. It is not for you or Kristen or anyone else to decide. It is DEFINED by following the teachings of the Catechism. There is no willy nilly I feel this way or that about it.
TS-
To an extent the “being” Catholic portion of your post is false.
Technically, the Church would still claim me as a member. Therefore in the eyes of the Church I am still a Catholic, for no other reason than I was baptized as a member. I’d have to go through various procedures, essentially have myself excommunicated, for the Church to no longer recognize me as such.
I believe it was Bobby or MK who informed me of that particular portion of it. So perhaps they can clarify or correct any errors I have made if I misunderstood.
TS,
You don’t know if I “follow the teachings of the Catechism” or not. No one does except me.
It’s phony of me that I don’t kill bugs? Err, I’m “sorry”? Should I say I kill bugs, even though I don’t, to look less phony?
I can’t stand to see animals suffer because animals are so incredibly innocent. No animal has ever done anything wrong, ever. Animals don’t sin. Animals, to me, are more innocent than children. It makes me physically sick to see an animal hurt. It sucks that humans suffer. It sucks, but humans sin and do things wrong all the time. They aren’t innocent. (Except children, but I’m only talking about adults.) I feel badly for humans, but most humans understand their suffering. Animals don’t.
For me, being a medic and becoming a doctor really aren’t about compassion. I’m compassionate, yes..but not nearly as compassionate as many people. I’m becoming a doctor because I happen to be very smart, and I can look at things VERY clinically. I’m going to be a doctor because I know I can be a great one and the world can ALWAYS use good doctors.
Oh, and TS- have you ever been to Planned Parenthood? Do you know how it functions? I don’t. That’s why I’m learning. Maybe it would do everyone some good to actually see the inner workings of things before they condemn them. I mean, you’re not going to change anyone at PP’s mind by calling them names and never talking to them like they’re humans.
Technically, the Church would still claim me as a member
By Dan.
Do they do a census? Every ten years?
Where are the “worldwide” central records kept?
Is every baptismal paper kept into eternity?
When a person who is baptized and eventually dies, do you really think the Catholic church is notified of that death and then removes that “Catholic” from their worldwide census?
Take for example, the communist nations which executed multi-thousands of Catholics. Which led to the remaining faithful/underground Catholic’s never having a record of any type in written form.
But, here is the cultural question for ya, Dan.
The prove is in the pudding.
When you die, are you going to have a “Catholic funeral”, or that secular gathering of like minded people who were baptized, and then ignored the Catechism where it interfered with your self made conscience?
For me, being a medic and becoming a doctor really aren’t about compassion. I’m compassionate, yes..but not nearly as compassionate as many people. I’m becoming a doctor because I happen to be very smart, and I can look at things VERY clinically. I’m going to be a doctor because I know I can be a great one and the world can ALWAYS use good doctors.
Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 12:20 AM
A lawsuit is in your future.
And the best part, Obama is going to encourage suing private doctors until they seek only socialist positions at county/university hospitals. And I agree with Obama, and his fellow lawyers, who will destroy any opposition to suing doctors as Bush and his cronies have. That includes pharmacuticals too!
Soo, what should the pay of a doctor be “socialized at”? I say 100k max.
Any inventions and improvements to the medical art’s should be socialised, and take away the profit motive, which allows faulty studies and false claims in pharmacuticals and beyond.
Or, my dentist recommends Crest, from a clinical study paided for by Crest.
yllas,
I honestly have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
What does toothpaste have to do anything? What in the world?
Josephine-
Don’t mind yllas, she excells at posting in crypting language and attempting to incite an angry reaction out of people.
That should read cryptic language, my apologies
TS-
To an extent the “being” Catholic portion of your post is false.
Technically, the Church would still claim me as a member. Therefore in the eyes of the Church I am still a Catholic, for no other reason than I was baptized as a member. I’d have to go through various procedures, essentially have myself excommunicated, for the Church to no longer recognize me as such.
I believe it was Bobby or MK who informed me of that particular portion of it. So perhaps they can clarify or correct any errors I have made if I misunderstood.
Posted by: Dan at January 14, 2009 11:59 PM
Dan,
Should you create a grave sin like “participate” in an abortion(includes aiding in the procurement of an abortion for another) then you excommunite yourself in abstentiae. And anything in the Catechism that you reject makes you “less” Catholic.
Oh, and TS- have you ever been to Planned Parenthood? Do you know how it functions? I don’t. That’s why I’m learning. Maybe it would do everyone some good to actually see the inner workings of things before they condemn them. I mean, you’re not going to change anyone at PP’s mind by calling them names and never talking to them like they’re humans.
Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 12:23 AM
Josephine,
I know all about Planned Parenthood. They are the face of a killer. As an organization they have killed more human life then anybody in history. To call them human is true, but they are either evil and don’t care about taking the lives of unborn humans or they are lost and misguided. What would you have me tell them?
If you think they may be lost or misguided, why do you show them so much hate instead of trying to help the workers there? For a Catholic, a Christian, or a human being… that doesn’t make much sense to me.
TS-
I apparently have misunderstood the idea of excommunication. There is no “true” way to make yourself no longer a Catholic as it is inedible, and can’t be removed by any sort of earthly procedure. Excommunication is easily remedied through reconciliation, thought the severity of the offense, if there s a formal edict, may force the individual to go to a pope rather than their priest, etc. Even when excommunicated one is still considered a Christian and a Catholic by the RCC, learn something new every day, eh? lol
I don’t think one can be any “more” or “less” Catholic than anyone else. What it does come down to is essentially a practice of faith. Everyone worships and has their beliefs, but only by following the beliefs of the Church can the individual be saved. So essentially one can still be a Catholic, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they are going to be saved, as it is at that point, according to faith, that it is dependent on how closely one follows the Catechism.
The closest analogy that seems to fit in my head is to Judaism. Essentially they have a similar idea, in that it isn’t just a faith, it’s something that you can’t get rid of. A heritage of sorts, and you are essentially “marked” for life simply from coming from Jewish blood. In the case of the RCC however it is related to baptism (I’m not sure if parental blood/faith comes into play at all or not)
As an addition to my previous post, parental blood/faith don’t come into play (at least that I can find). It’s all based in the baptism
What hate are you referring to Josephine? When have I ever shown hate to a worker at PP?
You show the entire organization hate every time they’re mentioned on here. You may not come straight out and say “I hate them” but you do SHOW hate. (Just like you can SHOW love without expressly saying “I love..”)
I apparently have misunderstood the idea of excommunication. There is no “true” way to make yourself no longer a Catholic as it is inedible, and can’t be removed by any sort of earthly procedure. Excommunication is easily remedied through reconciliation, thought the severity of the offense, if there s a formal edict, may force the individual to go to a pope rather than their priest, etc. Even when excommunicated one is still considered a Christian and a Catholic by the RCC, learn something new every day, eh? lol
Dan, it is the reconcilliation that “brings” you back into the Body of Christ”. Without it, you are excommunicated and not considered Catholic by the church.
Also, understand that the sin itself is not what can keep you from salvation. Rather, it is the harm that the sin does to your spirit. An insidious aspect of sin is that it can blind a person from the being able to see the truth and thus keeps them from repentence or even seeking any kind of spiritual battle for their soul and therefore no reconclliation. This is especially true for those who have denied God. Believers who sin are less likely to continue sinning and are more likely to recognize sin but the devil can and does trick believers into sinning. That is why belief in God is so important to salvation because acknowledge the truth of His word and acceptance of His Son Jesus Christ as your saviour is so important cause they are the tools God has given us to find our path to salvation. The Cathechism is just a “guidebook” that the Doctors and teachers of the Catholic faitgh have put together. It is loaded with scriptural references and offers advice on how to form your conscience in a Christocentric fashion. It “defines” the Catholic Church’s teaching on a plethera of social issues. To disregard the Cathechism is to disregard your Catholic faith.
No Josephine I don’t. I show hate for killing unborn human life. I despise it. Children should be loved by their mother’s, not killed by them. I can think of nothing more evil than a mother killing her own child. Don’t confuse that with meaning I hate every woman who has had an abortion.
As an addition to my previous post, parental blood/faith don’t come into play (at least that I can find). It’s all based in the baptism
Posted by: Dan at January 15, 2009 1:22 AM
Interesting point about baptism Dan. Yes it is a great tool given unto us by the example of John the Baptist and then by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. But you aren’t trying to say that baptism guarantees salvation are you?
What does toothpaste have to do anything? What in the world?
Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 12:51 AM
Nothing cryptic.
You seem to have no idea where and how medical research is payed for.
By corporations.
The ADA endorses Crest toothpaste.
Take the “coated stent”, invented at a university by university researchers, funded by a corporation that patented the stent.
Why are “stents being coated”, Josephine?
You say your intelligent? Answer why stents were coated. The coated stent; research payed for by a corporation, university personel used for that research and development, and the profit shared by the med school and corp.
The FDA is filled with ex-university researchers, who approve products of their
former university, and plain old friends.
Do you really think your tuition actually pays for even operations at a university?
The public is forced to pay for your education by hospital taxes, which is where “university doctors” work to train future doctors.
Or do you think that 300 hundred students(pick a max amount of med students allowed) paying 40-60k per semester, is actually even capable of funding even the dean’s, dean staff, of a med school?
Med universities are displacing “student classroom space”, daily. Research is taking over those classrooms which were once used by students.
One med school I know of, is moving sutdents into the cafeteria, since research room is needed.
Soo, if what I posted flys above your head Josephine, just answer the question why stents are coated? Bonus point. What are they coated with?
Dan,
I was just reading about excommunication and once a person is baptised they are marked as Christian forever, even if they are excommunicated. Here is what it said:
“The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority.”
et al….no longer Catholic
asitis,
I guess you would accept this now then:
**********
For just as Pontious Pilate washed his hands of the blood of Jesu Christ and handed him over to be crucified; so also does every man wash his hands of the blood of the human beings he conceives through intercourse when he hands them over to the abortionist under the guise that it is the woman’s choice.
Posted by: truthseeker at Dec 13, 2008 4:25 PM
***********
Does this work for you “as it is” or would you feel a need to argue about it?
Or how about this one, is it ok “as it is”?
For just as Pontious Pilate washed his hands of the blood of Jesu Christ and handed him over to be crucified; so also does every man wash his hands of the blood of the human beings he conceives when he hands them over to the abortionist under the guise that it is the woman’s choice.
Posted by: truthseeker at Dec 13, 2008 4:29 PM
BTW, I do admit when I am mistaken.
Posted by: asitis at December 14, 2008 3:58 PM
************
btw…did I actually see you confess that abortion involes the destruction of a human life?
Why do you suppose that was Sooooo hard for you to do? Why do you suppose it took you two weeks to figure out that abortion is the destruction of a human being. This is a great first step:{)
Posted by: truthseeker at Jan 13, 2009 8:02 PM
***********
asitis,
Can we move forward now from the common ground as posted above or was it just a fleeting epiphany you had?
Posted by: truthseeker at Jan 13, 2009 8:06 PM
***********
truthseeker, I have known what I mean/what I believe all along. Unfortunately, I am new to this little world of yours was unaware of the proper terminlogy. I probably still have much to learn. When I have realized I have used the wrong terminology I have said so.
**************
asitis,
Are you referring to this little world of mine where when a woman gets pregnant a new life is created inside her womb? I ask you again, why do you suppose it took a month on this blog for you to come out of your little world and admit that abortion is the killing of a human life?
And why do you suppose Planned Parenthood feels like you used to asitis/Virginia?
********
It seems you are actually asking me do I think Planned Parenthood is against life or for life? Well, since they perform abortions it’s safe to assume that they do not believe that it is human at conception. So they would not see abortion as murder. Therefore I see no evidence that they are anything but pro-life, as most humans are (I say most because murderers probably wouldn’t be considered to be pro-life)
Posted by:Virginia K at November 16, 2008 8:17 PM
********
After all, it is as it is and it is a human being
Or is it as it is asitis?
You can’t use “human beings” because that depends on your belief.
Posted by: asitis at December 13, 2008 4:36 PM
“For just as Pontious Pilate washed his hands of the blood of Jesu Christi and handed him over to be crucified; so also does every man wash his hands of the blood of the unborn life he has created when he hands them over to the abortionist under the guise that it is the woman’s choice.”
“TSTL,It’s none of your business if I sleep in the same bed as my boyfriend, or if I sleep in a completely different room. It’s between me, him, and God. I’d like to keep it that way.”
I believe I stated that I was NOT asking you to answer. It was a rhetorical question! Get it?
Dan: a person remains a Catholic unless they take measures to specifically renounce their faith. This is a good thing, because it affords sinners the opportunity to return, even at the last seconds of breath!
TooStunned: People have different views on children today and are very materialistic. Many couples prefer accumulating material goods rather than sacrificing for children. Children are often portrayed as burdens and obnoxious little creatures that take the enjoyment out of life.
Just about everybody draws the line somewhere. Some people don’t want any kids. Some want one, or two. For some it’s three or four. But it’s exceedingly rare (the Duggars being one example) when people don’t say, “Okay, enough is enough.”
Have you ever read the book? Is it any good?
Bethany, oh yeah – it’s great.
“Ender’s Game (1985) is a well known novel by American author Orson Scott Card. It is set in Earth’s future where mankind has barely survived two conflicts with the Formics (an insectoid alien race also known as the “Buggers”) and the International Fleet is preparing for war. In order to find and train the eventual commander for the anticipated third invasion, the world’s most talented children, including the extraordinary Ender Wiggin, are taken into a training center known as the Battle School at a very young age and trained in the arts of war through increasingly difficult games. Ender’s Game won the 1985 Nebula Award for best novel and the 1986 Hugo Award for best novel.”
What hate do you have for humans, which allows to post such tripe and unintellectual post?
Posted by: yllas at January 14, 2009 11:47 PM
What hate do I (!) have for humans? That’s a good one coming from you yllas? Tripe and unintellectual? Well, not surprsing that you don’t see the humor because we are very different, you and I.
Truthseeker, when I came into this “little world” of yours I was woefully unaware of the ambiguous terminolgy and how you will use semantics (intentionally?) in your arguments. I am more aware now. But knowing what certain words can mean hasn’t changed my beliefs one bit.
I was also flabbergasted at some of the things I saw written about good people who just happened to have different beliefs. Oh, that I were still so naive! But there are some people here, that I have learned some things from. Like Bethany for example: I can appreciate now what it means to some women to miscarry, even very early. To them it is more than what might have been. To them it is what was. And I understand what abortion means to her and why she opposes it so strongly. And I can appreciate the deep regret that some women feel over abortion after hearing Carla’s story.
Now, I have to go. I have a busy day and much to do that I’ve neglected!
Have a good one everyone.
Dan: a person remains a Catholic unless they take measures to specifically renounce their faith. This is a good thing, because it affords sinners the opportunity to return, even at the last seconds of breath!
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 15, 2009 6:30 AM
I think it’s also a good thing to certain Catholics because they can say that those people are sinning because technically they are still Catholics. And that pleases ceratin catholics in a way. Something else I have learned here!
Is there an official way to renounce your faith? Papers to sign? A ceremony? A chant?
Okay, now I really am gone. Caio!
Just about everybody draws the line somewhere. Some people don’t want any kids. Some want one, or two. For some it’s three or four. But it’s exceedingly rare (the Duggars being one example) when people don’t say, “Okay, enough is enough.”
Posted by: Doug at January 15, 2009 6:52 AM
Doug the Catholic Church does not expect everyone to have 15 children, but there are many couples that certainly can have more. They don’t and their reasons ARE selfish ones. The are purely materialistic concerns. I’ve known people to choose between another baby and regular vacations. I don’t think that’s being open to children in marriage, in all honesty.
Doug, I’m going to order the book on Amazon.com. I can get it for .01 cents so that makes it easy. :)
Doug the Catholic Church does not expect everyone to have 15 children, but there are many couples that certainly can have more. They don’t and their reasons ARE selfish ones. The are purely materialistic concerns. I’ve known people to choose between another baby and regular vacations. I don’t think that’s being open to children in marriage, in all honesty.
Well TSTL, I wasn’t talking about Catholics, per se, but there too – past a point “more” isn’t necessarily a good thing, even if we would say the line is at 15 for some people.
“Can have more” – well, the question is if they want more. All our motivation, whether it’s for zero kids or 25, comes from the self, and we can say that drawing the line at any point is “selfish,” either because the observer thinks more kids should be had, or that less kids should be had. It’s all in the “should” at hand.
I think you have four kids (?). Are you “selfish” because you didn’t have more? Or are you “selfish” because you had that many and thus you’re contributing to the depletion of the earth’s resources, etc.? It’s in the eye of the beholder.
I hear you on people wanting to have less kids versus more in order to have more disposable income and more “things.” I don’t flatly state that this is “good” nor that they’ll definitely be happier that way, but I also don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing.
Bethany, don’t know if you like science fiction but that indeed is a great book. Does Caleb like it?
Truthseeker, when I came into this “little world” of yours I was woefully unaware of the ambiguous terminolgy and how you will use semantics (intentionally?) in your arguments.
Asitis, that is simply not true. We were using correct terminology, and the semantics arguments were coming from you. We had explained time and time again for days and days how the meanings of the words you used were different than the way you were using them. We were not trying in the least to be ambigious, and we made it precisely clear what the differences were in the words which you were using and what you meant. I’m glad that you finally realized the error, but I wish you wouldn’t try to place the blame for your mistake on us, when it wasn’t our fault you didn’t know the difference between a human being and a skin scraping.
I was also flabbergasted at some of the things I saw written about good people who just happened to have different beliefs.
Well in all fairness, this is a debate about whether it should be legal to kill human beings. Yes, there are going to be intense emotions in a debate like that.
Oh, that I were still so naive! But there are some people here, that I have learned some things from. Like Bethany for example: I can appreciate now what it means to some women to miscarry, even very early. To them it is more than what might have been. To them it is what was. And I understand what abortion means to her and why she opposes it so strongly.
I appreciate that you’re making an effort to understand my feelings on my loss.
Bethany, don’t know if you like science fiction but that indeed is a great book. Does Caleb like it?
Caleb loves anything having to do with Science! He would probably like the book, from what it sounds like.
We were using correct terminology, and the semantics arguments were coming from you.
Posted by: Bethany at January 15, 2009 8:07 AM
I beg to differ.
“I was also flabbergasted at some of the things I saw written about good people who just happened to have different beliefs.”
Well in all fairness, this is a debate about whether it should be legal to kill human beings. Yes, there are going to be intense emotions in a debate like that.
Posted by: Bethany at January 15, 2009 8:07 AM
Bethany I wasn’t just talking about the abortion debate.
Back to work!
No Josephine I don’t. I show hate for killing unborn human life. I despise it. Children should be loved by their mother’s, not killed by them. I can think of nothing more evil than a mother killing her own child. Don’t confuse that with meaning I hate every woman who has had an abortion.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 15, 2009 1:48 AM
I never said you hate every women who has had an abortion. I didn’t even talk about women that have had an abortion. I said you show Planned Parenthood hate, which I see you do often.
TSTL,
Is it materialistic to have more kids than you can afford to send for college? Say a college education costs at the minimum $50,000. (From the schools I’ve looked at, that’s VERY, VERY low!) Is it better to just have a lot of kids, and then not be able to guarantee them any kind of successful future?
TSTL,
Is it materialistic to have more kids than you can afford to send for college? Say a college education costs at the minimum $50,000. (From the schools I’ve looked at, that’s VERY, VERY low!) Is it better to just have a lot of kids, and then not be able to guarantee them any kind of successful future?
Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 10:28 AM
********************************************
No one has the guarantee of a successful future.
I am really amazed at the prevalent mentality in society today (propagated mostly by those who are in their teen and college years now) that parents are wholly responsible to pay for their child’s optional college education. Contributing to it, of course, would be beneficial, but I don’t feel that it’s necessary for Mommy and Daddy to foot the bill for everything.
If a college education is valued by the student, then that student will also contribute by working a job, applying for financial aid, and by living as frugally as possible. Perhaps even considering community college for the first two years would be a great and affordable option, thereby transferring to a four year university after that. (Yeah, I know, the usual reaction to THAT is, “Ewwww!”) :D But one can get a quality education at a community college.
Is any of this easy? No. Can it be done? Absolutely! :) And in the process, one can learn how to juggle real-life responsibilities. That way when the loan payments start, the adult college graduate will know what to expect.
That’s how it worked with my husband and me and several of our friends, at any rate.
Josephine ….
How about this? We go to the Vatican and tell the Pope what you do and don’t believe about the Catholic faith. Let’s let him decide if you are a faithful Catholic. I think we all know what he’ll say.
I mean really. You and Asitis are asking me (and others) to accept you as Catholic when you don’t hold to the Magesterium. Why can’t you see how ridiculous you sound when asking this of us?
It’s like me saying I’m a doctor because I can give my kids medicine. I know that’s only PART of what a doctor does but who are YOU to tell me I’m not a doctor? See? That’s just STUPID!
Well, there is something you have to have to be a doctor: a doctorate.
There are many things that attribute to being Catholic, and you have no IDEA if I do or do not follow the Catholic faith.
So, that example was pretty absurd, to say the least, Kristen.
Kel, not everyone is eligible for financial aid. I don’t have a college where I lived. I HAD to move to go to college, and I wasn’t eligible for ANY help at ALL from the state. If I had to work to LIVE and work to go to school, I’d probably fail out of school. I didn’t expect my parents to pay for my college… I joined the National Guard. There are MANY, MANY people who aren’t able to join the guard. So, say someone is in the situation that I was in? They just shouldn’t be able to go to college?
I didn’t even qualify for student loans. I would’ve had to get a regular bank loan with regular interest. Right now I’d have about $150,000 of debt had I gone that route.
There seems to be some confusion about what I’ve said.
When I say some “is/is not Catholic” I’m specifically referring to faithful PRACTICING Catholics. I sometimes said “faithful” or “Orthodox” but sometimes left it out. To further this I mean that someone who doesn’t know you would be able to tell you are Catholic (after some observation of course.) You go to Mass, Confession, etc. – basically the follow the tenets of the Faith.
Oh, and Kristen…
Do you think the Pope would be more pleased with someone who is a Catholic, who thinks for themselves and know there are parts of the Catholic faith that aren’t perfect, or an “Orthodox Catholic” who tries to drive Catholics away from the faith? Hmmm I wonder.
Keep in mind, this is the same pope that wasn’t against voting for Obama! Or is he not Catholic enough for you?
This is probably the most ironic thing I’ve ever seen:
cath?o?lic
? ?/?kæ??l?k, ?kæ?l?k/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kath-uh-lik, kath-lik] Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.
You and Asitis are asking me (and others) to accept you as Catholic when you don’t hold to the Magesterium.
Posted by: Kristen at January 15, 2009 10:59 AM
I’M not asking that per se Kristen. I’m just saying it’s funny how you tell Josephine she’s not really a Catholic because she doesn’t follow all the Church’s teachings. I mean, I get why you say it , but do you realize you’ are telling most Catholics they aren’t really Catholic then? I’m not so sure the Pope would go along with that. He might want to, but I don’t think he would!
“I mean that someone who doesn’t know you would be able to tell you are Catholic (after some observation of course.) You go to Mass, Confession, etc. – basically the follow the tenets of the Faith.”
So, Kristen, do you know me? No? Hmm, then maybe you should stop talking about my faith.
Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 11:10 AM
As I said before, on several posts you have said things VERY contrary to the Faith. If you PRACTICED the Faith you would not do this. End of story.
But whatever, you’re 20 and know EVERYTHING there is to know about the Faith. And I, a nothing Catholic who has immersed myself in my Faith and still hasn’t scratched the surface, knows nothing. As you say…
BTW – By your 11:10 post are you saying that YOUR parents didn’t guarantee you any kind of success because they aren’t paying for your education?
I mean can others weigh in here? Because apparently I ALWAYS misinterpret what Josephine says, but when I compare that post to her 10:28 post to TSTL that’s what I come up with. To quote O’Reilly – What say you?
I found an interesting article while researching about sex-selective abortion for a presentation.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/04/06/choosing_to_eliminate_unwanted_daughters/
No Josephine, you don’t know me either but I think you would be able to say that I’m Catholic. I’m just saying that I cannot say the same about you.
Snow day for the kids and I’ve wasted enough time today. Have a good one all! And try to stay warm!
BTW – By your 11:10 post are you saying that YOUR parents didn’t guarantee you any kind of success because they aren’t paying for your education?
They would have had I had no other means. They have money for my college: they wanted me to be independent. Had I not been able to join the NG, they would’ve paid for my education. It’s especially important in times now, because with an economy like this, there sure are a lot less people willing to take out loans for hundreds of thousands of dollars!
And, what have I said that makes me unCatholic? Can someone be unCatholic because of a statement? Please enlighten me, because.. apparently, since you’re older than me, you know everything, ever! Including personal things about me!
I’d like to think of Catholics as nice people. I have NO REASON to think you’re Catholic.
“You don’t know if I “follow the teachings of the Catechism” or not. No one does except me.”
Josephine,
You have volunteered information to the contrary. No one is judging your soul. What they are trying to do is inform you of what the Church teaches. I went to Catholic schools which unfortunately taught a very diluted catechism. Fortunately, I learned much from my mom, from reading on my own, and from programming on EWTN. The Church is starting to wake up so to speak because of the rotten fruits from a lack of proper instruction in general and from damage done by dissenting theologians, clergy, laypeople, etc. Pope John Paul II has done so much to inspire the youth in the Church that it gives me great hope.
Kel, not everyone is eligible for financial aid. I don’t have a college where I lived. I HAD to move to go to college, and I wasn’t eligible for ANY help at ALL from the state. If I had to work to LIVE and work to go to school, I’d probably fail out of school. I didn’t expect my parents to pay for my college… I joined the National Guard. There are MANY, MANY people who aren’t able to join the guard. So, say someone is in the situation that I was in? They just shouldn’t be able to go to college?
I didn’t even qualify for student loans. I would’ve had to get a regular bank loan with regular interest. Right now I’d have about $150,000 of debt had I gone that route.
Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 11:10 AM
****************************************
People who do not qualify for financial aid typically have parents whose household incomes are above average.
And it is not a definite that anyone in your situation would be “unable” to go to college, because you explained how you personally found a way to get there (because, I assume, you valued a college education and wanted to get there). That is to be applauded. Unfortunately, that isn’t the mentality of many today. Many teens feel that though they are now adults entering college, that their parents should continue to pay for their every need (and want).
Some students attend community college for a couple years, obtain jobs in the workforce, and then go back to school at a later date. Some live at home, working and paying rent, until they are in their early twenties (23?) and can be considered “independent,” and then their parents’ income is not calculated in when applying for financial aid. At least this is how it was when I went to college.
I worked to live and worked to go to school, was not in the military, and I did not fail out of school. Sometimes we must do whatever is necessary to achieve our desired goals, just as you did. You make the assumption that you probably would have failed out of school, but you don’t really know this; no one can. You might have achieved your goals anyway. You seem like a resourceful person, so you might have found another way. People work full time and go to school full time quite commonly nowadays.
There were times when I had little or no money and went to church food pantries or got help with groceries from my mother (but that was a rarity). I never said it was easy, but you know something? When I look back, I wouldn’t change a thing because it’s encouraging for me to know that if I can persevere through those sorts of challenges, then I can also persevere through the ones that will come my way in the future. :)
Eileen,
What information have I volunteered to the contrary? I don’t hate gay people, I guess that’s the one thing I’ve said. However, (And yes, Kristen, I’m going to bring up the movie again!) I’ve seen Franciscan monks saying there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality.
So, what information is it that I’ve given you that makes me not Catholic?
Josephine.
To reduce the financial burden on med students cost, the cost of education should be socialized.
Would you serve your nation for 5 years after med school, working at a public hospital, for pay which is less then private practice?
In return, your education is reduced to being free, no debt upon finishing med school, and residency.
During the 1970’s, many Pakistani, and Indian citizens were given a “free” medical education by their nation, in return for serving in their home nation for x amount of years.
American universities were payed by those foreign goverments to train their doctors, since the India/Pakistan education system was lacking the ability to give their citizens a quality med education.
Care to serve those poor American families, for reduced pay in a public health system, for little or no debt for that education?
I never accused you of not being Catholic.
You have been supportive of the use of artificial birth control. This is contrary to Church teaching.
The Church does not condemn people with same sex attraction. They condemn the acts or the lifestyle.
There are people with same sex attraction who live chaste lives in conformity with Church teaching. I don’t hate homosexuals either.
Kel,
What about people that are unable? Especially today? I take info. and go over insurance and stuff with women in the ER up here. I work with many, MANY women who don’t have jobs. Not because of laziness, but because the economy SUCKS and it’s very, very hard to FIND jobs. Adding in a school schedule into that can be impossible! I go to school with girls that only are able to work about 15 hours a WEEK because the places they work are so overstaffed!
Like I said, I joined the NG to stay away from that places– but while I was at MEPS, I saw SO MANY PEOPLE turned away for weight, medical issues, eye sight, test scores… it’s not exactly “easy” to join.
Every parent should be prepared to send their kid to college, and hope they don’t have to. Except for a VERY SMALL group of people, most normal Americans don’t have enough money to send 15 kids to school– even if you’re talking about community colleges. I mean, up here it’s about $2,000 a semester for a community college. Now, that’s $4,000 a year. Let’s shoot low and say they have ten kids. $40,000 on education. Now, that’s not including books. How about the fact that these kids have to have transportation to school? Some places don’t have a city bus. Some towns don’t have community colleges. That’s going to require traveling or moving.
It’s not realistic to have that many kids, not in the least.
“You have been supportive of the use of artificial birth control. This is contrary to Church teaching.”
My church is fully supportive of artificial birth control. My Catholic church that I attend regularly.
Kel,
I’m sorry if that long post sounded jerky, and I didn’t intend it. I get very, very worked up about kids not being able to go to college. I’ve seen kids that just aren’t able to go to college. I’ve seen kids that instead of going to college, they helped support their parents. It makes me sick to my stomach, because it IS a fact that people that go to college are more successful, and everyone deserves that equal opportunity.
Josephine,
then your priest has dissented from Church teaching either knowingly or out of ignorance. That is why it is so important for Catholics to know the Catechism, read papal encyclicals, etc. Just because it is accepted by your particular pastor or the church that you attend, doesn’t mean that it is right.
Kel,
What about people that are unable? Especially today? I take info. and go over insurance and stuff with women in the ER up here. I work with many, MANY women who don’t have jobs. Not because of laziness, but because the economy SUCKS and it’s very, very hard to FIND jobs. Adding in a school schedule into that can be impossible! I go to school with girls that only are able to work about 15 hours a WEEK because the places they work are so overstaffed!
************************************
If they have no jobs, then going to school full time and receiving financial aid (if they’re out on their own) might be even more of a possibility for them.
even if you’re talking about community colleges. I mean, up here it’s about $2,000 a semester for a community college. Now, that’s $4,000 a year. Let’s shoot low and say they have ten kids. $40,000 on education. Now, that’s not including books. How about the fact that these kids have to have transportation to school? Some places don’t have a city bus. Some towns don’t have community colleges. That’s going to require traveling or moving.
It’s not realistic to have that many kids, not in the least.
Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 11:39 AM
***********************************
I actually know a family with 10 children. Those kids have joined the military, gotten full-time jobs, gone to college, etc. Not all people choose to go to medical school. And how many families do YOU know that would have all 10 or 15 children in college at the SAME TIME?? That would be highly, highly unlikely.
And again, you’re making the assumption that the parents would be responsible to pay for their transportation and college education. That’s not necessarily true.
My grandfather was also from a family of 10 children, back in the Depression era. To say that it’s not “realistic” to have that many kids is offensive to me, because I wouldn’t even BE here if my great-grandparents had stopped at six children. And my grandfather educated himself, taught himself high level math, became a successful carpenter, and supported a wife and four children without a college education. He was my hero.
It is not up to you, Planned Parenthood, or the next door neighbor to decide how many children any family should have. Period.
Kel,
I’m sorry if that long post sounded jerky, and I didn’t intend it. I get very, very worked up about kids not being able to go to college. I’ve seen kids that just aren’t able to go to college. I’ve seen kids that instead of going to college, they helped support their parents. It makes me sick to my stomach, because it IS a fact that people that go to college are more successful, and everyone deserves that equal opportunity.
Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 11:42 AM
*************************************
No, I understand, and it didn’t seem “jerky” to me. I have a good friend who right now is working to help support her family (the family I mentioned in my previous post) because her dad’s company closed. The whole company just shut down. She helps to pay for groceries, etc, while living at home. BUT…she is also taking correspondence classes through the college of her choice and is LOVING it. She is working her tail off and it is going to pay off for her. I’m very proud of her and her selflessness, her love for her family, her support for others, and of her tenacity in not taking “no” for an answer when it came to her education. :)
George V. Coyne, is a Jesuit,”
I know I’m coming in to this conversation late, but, historically its those radical Jesuits who have spread Christianity throughout the East and the New World and worked for the political freedom of a variety of opressed people.
These terrible “freethinkers” who value education and social justice for an informed faith have had a massive impact on the church’s preservation and its important that you all don’t devalue that.
PIP,
There are many wonderful Jesuit priests out there but unfortunately there are enough who have been very vocal in their opposition to Church teaching that they are getting a bad name, so to speak. Their motto states that they are loyal to the Pope to the point of laying down their lives for him. (Someone correct me if I am wrong about that.) Now some of them proudly stand in defiance of Church teaching, thumbing their noses at the Pope. No one wants to stifle “free thinking” in the Church but some truths are not to be “re-thought”. Some wonderful Jesuits that I am somewhat familiar — (the late) Avery Cardinal Dulles, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, Fr. Joseph Fessio.
Eileen,
There is some room for dissent if the teachings are not established dogma. Non-dogmatic teachings HAVE changed over the years. For example, priests used to be able to marry. Dissent on this level is to my knowledge allowable dissent (at least theologically) except when it is in direct contradiction to church dogma and its corresponding papal decrees.
Am I right?
Kel, I wasn’t talking about medical. I was talking about a bachelors or even associates. I think it’s great that your friend is doing. Really, really great that she can do that. Lots of people can make it work, but there are many, many people that can’t. When things like medical problems, problems in the family, etc. start coming into play.. it just gets harder and harder and harder. In my opinion, a parent should be able to help their children if it’s needed. Maybe they’re not all in college at the same time… but lots of places dont’ offer dental and eye insurance. What happens if every kid either needs braces, glasses, or both!
Now, there’s a percentage of people who make just enough that they can live, but not enough to qualify for any help! There are just way TOO many people who fall through the cracks… and by having more kids, there’s a greater likelihood that more kids will continue to fall through.
I know college isn’t for EVERYONE… but, unskilled workers jobs are just going to be harder and harder to come by, and the workforce is pretty competitive!
I think most of that was pretty much just rambling. I’m not even going to proof read because it would take so long to fix!
And yes I agree with you there are wonderful Jesuits out there! Many of them were martyrs (for being Catholic- loyal to the Pope) and in Latin America many were martyred through religious and political outreach (Many of their killers were trained in the SOA- one of the reasons our school gives scholarships to attend the protest each year).
PIP @ 12:20,
I believe you are correct — the celibacy rule is a discipline not dogma. If that is all that some Jesuits disagree with then it is not a big deal. I was referring to Jesuits that dissent from doctrine, papal teachings ( such as artificial contraception).
There are also the North American Jesuit martyrs and the Lily of the Mohawks (Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha) whose faith was born of their spilled blood!
PIP,
Unfortunately the problem is that their care and concern for the poor is put almost in the light of opposition to the dogma of the Church by the Society, which it does not, nay, should not be. It is not the care and concern for the poor and oppressed that we have a problem with, but their open rebellion against the Church’s teachings, which is far worse for everyone in the long run because it has eternal repercussions. This could not have happened without the effort of the Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner, who openly defied many of the Church’s key, core teachings. He helped to shape many of the Jesuits that are around today, and as a result, many of them share the same rebellious nature as he did.
This has caused no less than the current Black Pope to embrace Liberation Theology which, while having the right motivation, looks to essentially establish a utopia here on earth, and has the attitude that this world is the be-all, end-all of things. This is extremely destructive to souls because it ignores any spiritual aspect of our being.
But I can say that the Society of Jesus was probably the greatest order ever before the 1960s, even better than the Dominicans. The number of martyrs and sheer loyalty to the Pope was unmatched. It always saddens me when I think of how Father Henri de Lubac S.J., who is one of my favorite theologians, lived through the entire downfall of the Jesuits, as he lived from 1896-1991. He was there to witness the war unfold. He was also one of the few Jesuits to speak out and condemn what his fellow Jesuits were doing. It’s all a very disheartening story…
Bobby,
What do you mean by the “Black Pope”?
Oh wait — black pope = Jesuits (blackrobes) Duh!
Kel, I wasn’t talking about medical. I was talking about a bachelors or even associates. I think it’s great that your friend is doing. Really, really great that she can do that. Lots of people can make it work, but there are many, many people that can’t. When things like medical problems, problems in the family, etc. start coming into play.. it just gets harder and harder and harder. In my opinion, a parent should be able to help their children if it’s needed. Maybe they’re not all in college at the same time… but lots of places dont’ offer dental and eye insurance. What happens if every kid either needs braces, glasses, or both!
***************************************
Glasses are one thing. Braces are another. I know plenty of parents who had no dental insurance (because they didn’t WANT to pay for it) and chose not to get braces for their kids. We may think that’s cruel, but it’s not medically necessary, so it’s their choice as parents. An eye exam and a pair of glasses is not an exorbitant amount. We’ve never had vision insurance before and we were able to make payments, etc, for our vision needs.
Did you know that many workplaces today offer tuition reimbursement plans? Many places will pay for some or ALL of their employees’ higher education. I think that’s great! There ARE ways to help people, but sometimes they have to help themselves first.
BTW, when you mentioned having more children and falling through cracks and such, my mind immediately went to those who live on welfare. We make so many accommodations for people today that really, all they have to do is pursue those offers of assistance. Yes, there will be some who fall through the cracks, but higher education is a privilege, not a right. Children have a right to a free and appropriate public education in this country, but up to this point, that has not been inclusive of non-minors pursuing college degrees.
There are unforeseen circumstances in everyone’s lives, but I believe that if we do not succumb to the victim mentality and continue to pursue all avenues for assistance (along with working our butts off), then we can achieve MANY things! This is America, and that’s one great thing about living here. We have so many more opportunities than we can ever appreciate. :)
Yeah, Black Pope is a popular nickname for the Superior General of the Society of Jesus. He (or more properly, his office) got the nickname because as you pointed out, they wear black, and the fact that he is not only like the “pope of the society” but also is [was] of one mind and will with the Pope.
“open rebellion against the Church’s teachings”
In what way?
As for liberation theology, I never heard about it being bad within a certain context, its main tenants are only that since sin is responsible for all the crappy things like poverty and oppression, then it is our responsibility to do our best to overcome it (especially the oppression–hence the term liberation). I have also read that it takes many forms (some against Church teachings and some not) and that it is not as widespread now as it used to be.
Its influence on the Jesuit order was to actually do something to help the poor; nothing I’ve read about the Jesuit order and its creed was Marxist or socialist. In my social justice class we read a lot of different essays about social justice theories and one essay we read was from Jon Sobrino. Nothing I read in that essay was Marxist; he only said that the gap between 1st and 3rd world countries is enormous and we should be held accountable for it. In my opinion he is totally right. The U.S. as a whole accepts the notion third world poverty and does little except throw some money occasionally at the problem, it’s pretty sick.
It just seems so very sad to me that in the U.S. we are begging our religious leaders to speak out and help the anti-abortion revolutionary movement but suppress priests’ involvement in political affairs in brutal oppressive regimes.
Reminds me of those in Nazi Germany who urged Catholics to serve in the German army- open complicitness, somehow justifying it with “only the military leaders will be held accountable” (yet, when they lost, these ordinary people who served were often held accountable for atrocious acts). How often do we look back now and wish they had done more- maybe something more… radical??
The U.S. as a whole accepts the notion third world poverty and does little except throw some money occasionally at the problem, it’s pretty sick.
Posted by: prettyinpink at January 15, 2009 2:58 PM
********************************************
The U.S. gives more money to help than any other country.
When the U.S. intervenes in certain conflicts, people are angered. When they don’t intervene in others, people are angered. It’s pretty much a no-win situation. Let’s not forget that countries do have representation with the U.N. as well.
When will the oppressive governmental regimes of many of these countries finally be held responsible for something instead of forever hurling blame at the United States?
Although I don’t think Oscar Romero was ever a liberation theologian, he was undoubtably influenced by its political outreach and is considered El Salvador’s “saint.”
Ever seen the film Romero? It’s excellent.
“When will the oppressive governmental regimes of many of these countries finally be held responsible for something instead of forever hurling blame at the United States?”
Problem comes Kel, when the United States funds the activity of these oppressive governmental regimes- like what happened in El Salvador. Obviously, their governments are to blame, because they are the ones doing it, and that goes undisputed. What is being placed at the US is exploiting the problems for our own benefits (like, those oppressive regimes helping our economy).
Throwing money at the problem is not helping, if we are going to help these countries overthrow their oppressive regimes we shouldn’t send their government weapons or militia from our training school!
PIP,
It would be best to read what the popes have written about social justice.
Recently, Pres. Bush wanted to sign a trade agreement, I think, with Colombia, I believe, — (the president of that country is working hard and is successfully ridding the country of internal terrorist operations/illegal drug operations.) but the Dems were against it. We could be helping their country get on its feet economically. I really don’t understand the Dems on stuff like this.
I’m talking about situations where there are people who are literally starving, the U.S. gives a lot of money for food and aid for them, the U.N. sends it over, and guess what? The people don’t get any of it. The government hoards it for themselves. And none of it makes the evening news. (Big surprise there.)
And who gets the blame? The U.S.
I will say, though, that in some cases like in China and Saudi Arabia, the U.S. most definitely could stand to step up and try to help some who really need our assistance in those countries (such as political and/or religious prisoners). They won’t do it, though, because we are not yet energy independent and cannot afford to do so. And again, we can thank those who, in this country, choose not to allow us to become energy independent for their own political gain. And round and round it goes.
But we cannot blame the United States for the world’s problems. We are not the sole cause, nor the sole solution. I wish people would stop acting as if we were. It’s just gotten ridiculous.
Bethany 7:02am 1/14
My goodness I’m behind on posting! Hello to you as well and always good to see you.
Well, I hope I’ve made clear that it isn’t the fact that they are the heroes of the poor and oppressed that I have a problem with or that they should spend any less time with the poor. On the contrary, we can learn much from them in that regard. But my problem is with the dissent from Church teaching and the reinterpretation of the message of Jesus. Maybe the things I have been reading lately have gotten me all worked up, but it just seems like the Society of Jesus has been getting all sorts of warnings after warnings after warnings from Rome about their teachings. This is just unheard of when it comes to Jesuits before the last 5 years or so.
To answer your question, PiP, I’m currently at a loss to be able to find anything that is convincing online that would demonstrate a general rebellion of the Society of Jesus as a whole. But looking at some of their main players like Teilhard de Chardin, Rahner, and Arrupe as well as many of the other recent Superior Generals of the Society reveals some teachings (not all teachings) and decisions or lack of decisions that are very difficult to reconcile with Catholic teaching.
TSTL 7:12am 1/14
Brilliantly summed up.
Asitis 10:38am
No I don’t “know” anything about Obama’s qualifications so kindly enlighten me.
Correct me if I’m wrong but are you trying very hard to evade this question?
Josephine 10:38am 1/14
What you are discussing here are Constitutional requirements, not credentials or qualifications.
If this is all that is required then what was all the “concern” about Sarah Palin’s qualifications?
High school graduation is required to get into college. Poor grades in high school may well disqualify me from entering a certain college. I may have met a basic requirement by graduating, but still may not be viewed as having the qualifications to enter that particular college.
Mary,
Why do you keep asking Asitis for Obama’s qualifications when it’s plastered all over in history books, on walls in schools, the internet..
*Obama is at least 35 years old.
*Obama is a legal, natural born, US citizen.
*Obama has lived in the US at least fourteen years.
Age and Citizenship requirements – US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Mary, say what you will. No one ever said you had to be a great politician to become President. I gave you the QUALIFICATIONS. Apparently, you wanted asitis to tell you why people voted for him. That’s very different than qualifications.
Josephine,
Given this I could be president. I’m the first to admit I have absolutely no qualifications for the job.
You might as Asitis why she won’t tell me what Obama’s qualifications are. She keeps telling me I “know” them though I insist I do not and can’t think of any.
Again I stress these are requirements. I pointed out that meeting requirements does not necessarily qualify us to do a job. There’s also background and experience.
Josephine,
For the umpteenth time you gave me the Constitutional requirements, not his qualifications!
Why were Sarah Palin’s qualifications called into question? She met the Constituional requirements.
I’m not talking about a great politician. In fact I think Obama is a master politician.
I don’t want Asitis to tell me why people voted for him, I have my own theory on that.
I just want her to tell me his qualifications to be president.
All our motivation, whether it’s for zero kids or 25, comes from the self, and we can say that drawing the line at any point is “selfish,” either because the observer thinks more kids should be had, or that less kids should be had. It’s all in the “should” at hand.
no, not ALL our motivation comes from the self. Many many people are inspired by the Holy Spirit to be generous and have children. In fact, I know of situations where couples have felt that they did not want any more children, but also KNEW that they had no serious reason to limit the size of their family. They had more children and although it was a sacrifice personally, they realized that God did in fact, know what he was doing in giving them more children.
Josephine, not every child has to go to university and as Kel so aptly pointed out, not all children will be in university together. Often children from large families are drawn into service jobs such as police work, EMS, and firefighting. Others prefer to go the apprentice route. I think once again your attitude which is quite common today demonstrates a lack of trust in God. If God gives a couple the gift of a large family he will look after their needs.
Mary,
What don’t you understand? The only qualifications ANYONE NEEDS are what I listed. ANYONE who meets those can run for President. YOU want to know why people voted for him, if you want more information than that.
You could run for President Mary, but no one knows you and you have no experience. You are, however, qualified.
TSTL,
We’re not talking about every child not going to a university. We’re talking about them not even having the chance. If you don’t think everyone should have the chance, fine… whatever, that’s up to you. I personally do.
Josephine,
He meets the basic requirements. I meet the basic requirements. One must meet these requirements to run for president.
One should also have qualifications for the job.
I don’t have any at all for the job of president and I admit it. However, I do meet the Constitutional requirements to be president.
I want to know his qualifications. What’s his background and experience?
Obama got a law degree from Harvard in 1991.
He taught Constitutional law and practiced as a civil rights lawyers. He then served in the Illinois State Senate for eight years, before become a US senator for the state of Illinois. He happened to be the third African American member of the Senate since Reconstruction.
What else would you like to know, Mary? It seems as though that’s not good enough experience for you?
“One should also have qualifications for the job.”
THOSE are the qualifications! What are you talking about?! Those are what qualifies him! You are clearly using the wrong words, because you’re not making any sense.
Ahh, there you said it. You want to know his background and experience– which is COMPLETELY different than what qualifies him to be President.
I in no way think that the U.S. is the sole cause of other people’s problems but it is important to realize when we are doing something wrong and correct it. Saying “we are giving money to corrupt governments isn’t working” is in no way saying “it’s all the US’s fault.” Saying “wow we funded (and still do) horrible oppressive regimes because it was good for our economy and it is totally sick” is not saying “the U.S. is the only cause of all the world’s problems.” It’s saying, “I think the U.S. should take responsibility for its actions.” I don’t think it’s a bad idea, either. I don’t think anyone is in favor of not holding those governments accountable. What do you think those revolutionary forces are doing? (Although some of their approaches are misguided but that’s another discussion for another day). What do you think social justice organizations like Amnesty International are doing? Do you think the Amnesty International China exists to blame the US for everything? (hint: the answer is no..)
I think the main reservations about the trade agreements wasn’t about the idea of it per se, but the fact that it didn’t protect worker’s rights (abolition of child labor, anti-discrimination etc). But, I”m not an expert on the bill or anything, so I’m sorry, I can’t really elaborate on that :/
Josephine, Mary sometimes derails comments asking for Obama’s qualifications and never being satisfied with the answer. Mary, I’m sure you mean no harm, but I’ve read though several of these conversations and they end the same..seems a bit futile to me. Hate to butt in, but I had to say it :/
TSTL,
We’re not talking about every child not going to a university. We’re talking about them not even having the chance. If you don’t think everyone should have the chance, fine… whatever, that’s up to you. I personally do.
Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 4:31 PM
I don’t think that it is necessary that every child go to university. I think when you have 6 or 8 kids in a family this becomes very apparent. Each person is given unique gifts. I think large families are VERY industrious by nature!
Josephine,
How much more simple can I make this?
These are listed in the Constitution as requirements to run for the presidency.
Qualifications are your experience and background that enable you to perform a certain job.
I don’t question that Obama meets the Constitutional requirements. Its his background and experience, i.e. his qualifications, that I am questioning.
For example, is a new medical school graduate qualified to immediately start the practice of brain surgery?
Hardly. Yes he/she has met the requirement of successfully completing medical school, but more training and experience is required before this person has the qualifications to open a practice in neuorsurgery.
I might not respond for a while, I have mono and I’m gonna go take a nap now- but wll make an effort to respond to the comments later tonight!
Mary, I already answered about his experience (again, NOT his qualifications!) and you chose to ignore it. Am I just supposed to say it over and over again?
” Obama got a law degree from Harvard in 1991.
He taught Constitutional law and practiced as a civil rights lawyers. He then served in the Illinois State Senate for eight years, before become a US senator for the state of Illinois. He happened to be the third African American member of the Senate since Reconstruction. ”
qual·i·fi·ca·tion [ kwòll?fi káysh’n ] (plural qual·i·fi·ca·tions)
noun
Definition:
1. essential attribute: a skill, quality, or attribute that makes somebody suitable for a job, activity, or task
PIP,
Not butting in at all. This is a very public forum.
I’ve been trying time and again to get an answer and no one gives me one. Please some examples as to how I derail comments. It seems Obama supporters jump through hoops to avoid answering this question.
Please take this up with Asitis who has completely evaded my question.
Please take this up with Josephine who discusses requirements, not qualifications.
I might not respond for a while, I have mono and I’m gonna go take a nap now- but wll make an effort to respond to the comments later tonight!
Posted by: prettyinpink at January 15, 2009 4:54 PM
PIP: I hope you feel better.
Mary, I already answered about his experience (again, NOT his qualifications!) and you chose to ignore it. Am I just supposed to say it over and over again?
” Obama got a law degree from Harvard in 1991.
He taught Constitutional law and practiced as a civil rights lawyers. He then served in the Illinois State Senate for eight years, before become a US senator for the state of Illinois. He happened to be the third African American member of the Senate since Reconstruction. ”
Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 4:59 PM
PIP,
I second TSTL. Please get plenty of rest and take care of yourself.
I’ve seen Franciscan monks saying there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality.
So, what information is it that I’ve given you that makes me not Catholic?
Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 11:30 AM
That might explain things REALLY! Are you aware that there is something called an Oblate? You do not even have to be Catholic to be a part of this group although you can be. But some of these people fancy themselves as part of a religious convent or monastery and dress in robes. My aunt, who is a nun, used to belong to one group but got so disgusted with what some of the people said she had to leave. Could someone like this have been the one interviewed?
See if you don’t know these people exist then you cannot discern good teachings from bad. I’m not being snippy, these people have no concept of the Catholic faith and lead people down the wrong path.
PIP @ 4:53pm
Thanks for the warning PIP . This I pretty much expected. No matter what we give her on why we feel Obama is qualified, she will refute it. It will make my head explode! She knows all the reasons people why people picked him. She just doesn’t accept them or doesn’t like them.
This is the mary I thought you might be BTW: http://www.freedomeden.blogspot.com
She’s not even refuting it, asitis, she’s apparently just pretending I didn’t say anything at all! Hah… wow!
Josephine,
Thank you for finally answering my question.
By the way, Obama spent 3 years in the US senate, most of the third year campaigning.
He ran for the US senate against Alan Keyes, who didn’t have a snowball’s chance of winning.
According to a NY Times 2007 article, he voted “present” in the Illinois senate 130 times to avoid taking a stand that would offend some constituents and please others. According to this article, 36 of these times Obama was the only state senator to do so.
His experience in the federal gov’t and in any leadership position is, shall we say, extremely limited.
“Finally”? I answered your question about four times. You kept ignoring me. There’s no “finally”.
Oh, I didn’t realize there was a minimum amount of time you had to spend in the US senate. Wait, what’s that? You NEVER have to be in the Senate? Hmm, guess that doesn’t matter then! He’s a Harvard educated lawyer who taught law, practiced law, and then has been a senator for over ten years.
I’d say that’s pretty darn good.
Asitis,
LOL. Spare me. You told me I “know” Obama’s qualifications. I told you I do not. You still insist I “know” why Obama was elected. Please show me the post where you answered my question and listed Obama’s qualifications to be president.
Josephine,
You gave me the requirements, not his qualifications. Got that? Entirely two different entities.
You finally answered my question by giving me his background experience.
Law degrees are impressive but do not qualify one to be president. Any number of lawyers I know convinces me of that.
I’m just adding a few more facts to Obama’s background. His time in the federal gov’t is limited and his leadership experience is what?
I am no fan of Bill Clinton, but I will acknowledge he did have background experience in leadership as governor of a state.
PIP: seems a bit futile to me.
Like resistance if it’s less than one ohm.
I’d like to think of Catholics as nice people. I have NO REASON to think you’re Catholic.
Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 11:25 AM
LOL! Well if that’s your only criteria it’s no wonder you consider yourself a faithful Catholic. :)
Asitis,
Please, I’m still waiting to see that post. You know, the one where you tell me Obama’s qualifications to be president.
Keep in mind, this is the same pope that wasn’t against voting for Obama! Or is he not Catholic enough for you?
Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 11:13 AM
This is EXACTLY what I’m talking about! Where in the world did you get the idea the Pope was okay with Catholics voting for Obama. Here is a direct quote from Benedict XVI:
“As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today: the protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death; …”
And another:
“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. There may be legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not… with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
– Pope Benedict XVI”
Hardly sounds like someone okay with voting for Obama. Can you please show me the quote of him saying it’s okay?
I can go on but I’ve got to get dinner on the table.
Kristen,
When did I ever say that’s the only qualification to be a Catholic? I don’t think I did, ever. That, however, is one. The only one I can witness on here, so… yup, in my opinion you aren’t a Catholic.
Well, then we are of mutual feeling. :)
Asitis,
LOL. Spare me. You told me I “know” Obama’s qualifications. I told you I do not. You still insist I “know” why Obama was elected. Please show me the post where you answered my question and listed Obama’s qualifications to be president.
Posted by: Mary at January 15, 2009 5:53 PM
Oh, I bet you’ve heard them all Mary. It sounds like this is of interest to you!
Show you my post where I answeredyou? I didn’t. And I already told you that I don’t intend to bother.
Asitis,
What is it you bet I’ve heard and that I find so interesting?
Concerning the fact you have no intention of answering my question: I rest my case.
Did the Pope actually say anything specifically about voting for or against Obama?
Asitis,
What is it you bet I’ve heard and that I find so interesting?
Concerning the fact you have no intention of answering my question: I rest my case.
Posted by: Mary at January 15, 2009 7:20 PM
Okay… once again…. I bet you’ve heard all the reason why people voted for Obama (as well as all the reasons why they didn’t vote for McCain, including the big one. Hint: It starts with a P). What is of interest to you? The election.
Sure, rest your case. Doesn’t matter to me what you think. And I know that by telling you what I think isn’t going to change your mind in the least about Obama or those that supported him. So why bother? I’m not interested. Only you are.
Only 4 more days!
He never said either way, but he was asked a direct question, and he basically said you had to follow your conscience. As much as people like to deny it, Catholics are supposed to consult their conscience as well as written church teachings..
I’m trying to find the article now. I’ve posted it on here before, but it’s hard to find because so many articles about Obama and the pope have come out since the election.. this was about five months before the election.
This is the mary I thought you might be BTW: http://www.freedomeden.blogspot.com
Posted by: asitis at January 15, 2009 5:34 PM
Hey Mary, did you check this out? Or is it one you already know?
Your conscience must be informed and by Church teaching if you are a Catholic. Kristen cited two instances where the Pope has made it clear that you can not vote for a pro-abortion candidate when a pro-life candidate is running for the same office.
Kristen cited two instances where the Pope has made it clear that you can not vote for a pro-abortion candidate when a pro-life candidate is running for the same office.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 15, 2009 8:00 PM
I wouldn’t say they make it “clear” Eileen. You could interpret it that way, sure. But you don’t have to.
In one quote he talks about how the Church is publicly involved in things that it considers to be “non-negotiable”, like abortion.
And in the other he talks about how abortion and euthanasia or key moral issues for Catholics.
I wouldn’t say he clearly says you can’t pass up a pro-life candidate for one that isn’t. Sure, abortion and euthanasia are important issues to catholics, but that’s not the only issue. What if the Pro-Choice candidate is more closely aligned with Catholic teachings and the Catholic’s conscience when it comes to other issues?
Asitis 7:32PM
No, in fact I didn’t hear all the reasons people voted for Obama. Also the reason McCain lost starts with “M”. Moderation. The man stood for nothing and tried to be liked by everyone.
The election is of interest to me? Your mind reading abilities leave much to be desired.
BTW, did you hear our great leader nominated a secretary of the treasury who didn’t even pay his own taxes? This financial wizard Timothy Geithner overlooked his Self Employment Tax liability for 4 years.
This just keeps getting better and better.
Who was the pro-life candidate running? Certaintly not McCain.. he is “pro-life” only in the fact that he calls himself pro-life. I’d assume that’s why the Pope said what he did. I left a voice mail from my dad, so hopefully I’ll have that by tomorrow.
Asitis 7:43PM
Yes I did check it out and was totally unimpressed. Were I to do a blog I would make it considerably more interesting. However I do give this other Mary credit for doing a blog, which is more than I am inclined to do.
http://www.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm
Josephine,
go to above link. It will answer your questions.
Abortion and euthanasia are non-negotiable issues. You can not cast a vote for someone who supports these issues if a pro-life candidate is running for the same office.
Eileen,
Who was the pro-life candidate?
“John McCain has repeatedly voted to fund pro-abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood with federal tax dollars. In fact, McCain has voted to use federal tax dollars to support abortion providers at home and overseas. Yes, this “pro-life” senator (along with “pro-life” President, George W. Bush) has significantly increased federal spending for abortion providers to levels eclipsing even the appropriations authorized by President Bill Clinton and his fellow Democrats.”
Yes I did check it out and was totally unimpressed. Were I to do a blog I would make it considerably more interesting. However I do give this other Mary credit for doing a blog, which is more than I am inclined to do.
Posted by: Mary at January 15, 2009 8:21 PM
Yeh, I was unimpressed too. I stumbled upon it awhile ago. It doesn’t look like anyone actually reads it, judging by the comments.
Does anyone have any stats on the Catholic vote from the election?
First of all, Josephine, where did you get that info? It simply is not true. Pres. Bush reduced federal funding all around.
For the sake of your argument, in the event of two pro-abortion candidates, then one must vote for the candidate that will do the least amount of harm in terms of their pro-abortion platform.
asitis, what would be your point given stats. I am sure that there were Catholics that voted for him out of ignorance or in defiance. It wouldn’t change the Church’s position on how Catholics should vote.
Eileen,
This is straight from McCain’s mouth: “Certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.””
Still think he’s pro-life?
Yes, more so that B. Obama.
I believe I was told yesterday that by not necessarily thinking abortion should be illegal, I was pro-choice. Why are we holding McCain to lower standards than random people on the internet?
In fact, I believe I used the EXACT same reasoning as McCain.. I said it would just make women do dangerous things.
Oh, and McCain is all for abortions in the case of rape or incest. If he truly believes life begins at conception, does that mean rape babies lives don’t begin at conception?
How about if a rape baby is born. If it grows, and someone murders it, is it less of a crime than if someone were to married a baby that was wanted?
asitis, what would be your point given stats. I am sure that there were Catholics that voted for him out of ignorance or in defiance. It wouldn’t change the Church’s position on how Catholics should vote.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 15, 2009 9:14 PM
Oh, I wouldn’t expect the voting trend to affect the Church’s position. I just think it would be interesting. There seems to be a big disconnect between what the Church says and what Catholics do.
I believe I was told yesterday that by not necessarily thinking abortion should be illegal, I was pro-choice. Why are we holding McCain to lower standards than random people on the internet?
In fact, I believe I used the EXACT same reasoning as McCain.. I said it would just make women do dangerous things.
Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 9:21 PM
This inconsistency immediately struck me when I read Eileen’s comments Josephine! I do recall her, or someone else here saying that to you!
Because there wasn’t anyone else to vote for who had a reasonable chance.
B.O.’s record on life issues is decidedly worse that John McCain. You vote for the lesser of two evils, in a manner of speaking.
So, we were only supposed to vote for candidates that had a reasonable chance, even though they weren’t pro-life? We weren’t supposed to vote for the BEST choice possible, only the one we thought had a chance?
I’ve absolutely never heard anything like that at all.
I think Obama was the lesser of two evils. Neither of them are pro-life, so I looked at other LIFE issues, such as the war and health care.
This is straight from McCain’s mouth: “Certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.””
Still think he’s pro-life?
Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 9:16 PM
I think Bethany would also say McCain is Pro-Choice in that case then Josephine, rather than Pro-life. Correct, Bethany?
“Okay. So does that mean Bethany, that if someone opposes abortion but doesn’t think it should be illegal, does that mean they aren’t Pro-life?”
I don’t think they are.
If they think a woman should have the choice to kill her baby – even if they personally disagree with it for whatever reason- that is not pro-life, in my opinion.
….they would be “pro-choice” when it comes to abortion.
Posted by: Bethany at January 14, 2009 1:31 PM
There seems to be a big disconnect between what the Church says and what Catholics do.
Posted by: asitis at January 15, 2009 9:23 PM
Yes, there is to some extent. But there are also Catholics who are faithful members. Orthodoxy is actually growing among the younger members. Those members who are in defiance of Church teaching are mainly among the older and graying crowd. (Except for Josephine! :)
Not all issues are of the same moral gravity, Josephine. Like you had mentioned earlier — abortion and euthanasia are non-negotiables. All other rights are built upon the right to life.
I’m not going to lie, of my group of friends I am known to be the old lady. I hate going out in the cold, so me and the bf just watch movies on Saturday nights and stay in! Hahah, you pretty much hit that nail on the head, Eileen.
B.O.’s record on life issues is decidedly worse that John McCain. You vote for the lesser of two evils, in a manner of speaking.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 15, 2009 9:33 PM
Is that what the Church was intructing Catholics to do then …. Vote for the more Pro-life of the Pro-Choice candidates who stand a chance of getting elected, regardless of the other issues?
There seems to be a big disconnect between what the Church says and what Catholics do.
Posted by: asitis at January 15, 2009 9:23 PM
Yes, there is to some extent. But there are also Catholics who are faithful members. Orthodoxy is actually growing among the younger members. Those members who are in defiance of Church teaching are mainly among the older and graying crowd. (Except for Josephine! :)
Posted by: Eileen #2d at January 15, 2009 9:37 PM
Really? Is this a fact? And when you say “younger members”, how young?
yes, asitis, because, like I just mentioned, all other rights are built upon the right to life.
Yes, there is to some extent. But there are also Catholics who are faithful members. Orthodoxy is actually growing among the younger members. Those members who are in defiance of Church teaching are mainly among the older and graying crowd. (Except for Josephine! :)
Posted by: Eileen #2d at January 15, 2009 9:37 PM
amen to that! Lot’s of wonderful young priests and seminarians and lots of men and women who haven’t bought into the big lie of the pill and cohabitation!
As young as college-age. You can thank John Paul II. He reached out to the youth and they answered the call.
Hi tstl!
I am calling it a night! You handle these ladies!! God bless!
I like that… “the big lie”! Well, time to put this puppy to bed.
Good night all.
TSTL,
Why are you so sure the young women aren’t on the pill? I know lots of young Catholic girls on the pill. i.e. lots of my friends!
Again, “cohabitation”? Have you ever been to a University? Pretty much all state universities have co-ed dorms… it’s not a sin to live with the opposite sex, as much as you’d like it to be.
no thanks, Eileen #2. You’ve all done a great job “handling” them just fine!
I”m off to read and relax….
Josephine, I believe when toostunned says “cohabitation” she specifically means “doing the nasty” not simply living together.
Hi tstl!
I am calling it a night! You handle these ladies!! God bless!
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 15, 2009 9:49 PM
She can’t Eileen. She’s taken a vow of silence!
And now I’m really off to bed. Sorry Josephine. You may be the only left awake on this chilly night. ‘nite!
TSTL,
Why are you so sure the young women aren’t on the pill? I know lots of young Catholic girls on the pill. i.e. lots of my friends!
Because Josephine, the women I know – we talk about it, AND they go to a Catholic doctor I know who does NOT prescribe the pill. Truly they are very good chaste young women. They wouldn’t dream of allowing a man or many men to use their bodies in this manner. The simply believe that their bodies are a gift to be given to their future husband – and only to that one man.
And because there are soo many women who have seen the suffering the sexual revolution has brought to parents, siblings and friends. Girls who watch a peer pregnant in high school, KNOW they are going to wait for that special guy to come along. The trend now is to seek out like-minded women (and men), to participate fully in the Catholic Church.
Have a blessed evening.
No Josephine I don’t. I show hate for killing unborn human life. I despise it. Children should be loved by their mother’s, not killed by them. I can think of nothing more evil than a mother killing her own child. Don’t confuse that with meaning I hate every woman who has had an abortion.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 15, 2009 1:48 AM
I never said you hate every women who has had an abortion. I didn’t even talk about women that have had an abortion. I said you show Planned Parenthood hate, which I see you do often.
Posted by: Josephine at Jan 15, 2009 10:28 AM
I know you didn’t say that Josephine but the same feeling apply to the the women who have abortions and the people like Planned Parenthood who enable the kiling. So I don;t hate the people who work for PP. Again I say they are perpetrating a great evil and they are misguided and lost and I HATE what they are doing, but I have never directed it at any individual. But of course I HATE an organization that opens abortuaries in decitful ways throughout suburbia in order killing humans. You say you are against even killing insects. Don’t you ate the fact that they kill human life in those House of Horrors?
So, we were only supposed to vote for candidates that had a reasonable chance, even though they weren’t pro-life? We weren’t supposed to vote for the BEST choice possible, only the one we thought had a chance?
I’ve absolutely never heard anything like that at all.
Posted by: Josephine at January 15, 2009 9:34 PM
Odd that youv’e never heard anything like that at all. It’s talked about all the time and was a point of discussion for Catholics in the election. The only justifiable way to vote for a non-prolife candidate is if the other candidate he is running against is even more pro-abort.
Truthseeker, when I came into this “little world” of yours I was woefully unaware of the ambiguous terminolgy and how you will use semantics (intentionally?) in your arguments. I am more aware now. But knowing what certain words can mean hasn’t changed my beliefs one bit.
Posted by: asitis at January 15, 2009 7:00 AM
My little world where it is as it is and women get pregnat with human life asitis? lol
*********
BTW, I do admit when I am mistaken.
Posted by: asitis at December 14, 2008 3:58 PM
ROTFLWTIME
My little world where it is as it is and women get pregnat with human life asitis?
Posted by: truthseeker at January 16, 2009 12:03 AM
Exactly. Thank you truthseeker. Good example.
Is that what the Church was intructing Catholics to do then …. Vote for the more Pro-life of the Pro-Choice candidates who stand a chance of getting elected, regardless of the other issues?
Posted by: asitis at January 15, 2009 9:42 PM
yes, asitis, because, like I just mentioned, all other rights are built upon the right to life.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 15, 2009 9:44 PM
So if you had a candidate that wanted to abolish government-funded health insurance for poor people including their children, abolish unemployment insurance and welfare, abolish food stamps and similar programs, and drastically reduce funding for public education…. basically tell people that regardless of your situation and needs you are on your own, sink or swim, baby!…than you would vote for that candidate if he wanted to make abortions illegal and the other candidates did not? This is what you say the Catholic Church would be instruct you to do as a Catholic?
asitis,
No candidate is going to take away aid to people who are legitimately in need. Most conservatives are generous people. They are just tired of gov’t waste. For example, not long ago the Dems were screaming that the Repubs wanted to take food away from people on welfare. When in reality the Repubs wanted to reduce funding for food stamps because there were thousands of food stamps going unclaimed.
The Church has written extensively on social justice. Those who have ignored the poor are going to have to answer for it. But all rights are based on the the fundamental right to life.
“Odd that youv’e never heard anything like that at all. It’s talked about all the time and was a point of discussion for Catholics in the election. The only justifiable way to vote for a non-prolife candidate is if the other candidate he is running against is even more pro-abort.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 15, 2009 11:54 PM”
Seems like if neither Republican or Democrat was pro-life (like what happened in 2008) if ALL the Catholics voted for a third party pro-life candidate, he’d have a shot. Seems like that’s what the church would say to do.
Josephine, if there was a reasonable chance within the scope of reality, then I would think so also.
but in the case I presented at 8:02am, what would the catholic church instruct Catholics to do?
Eileen #2: the other thing that is important to remember, is that the position of the Catholic church in anything including politics is never one that asks people to be ridiculous. It never has absurd positions or asks people to do things that are unreasonable. In fact, in the Catholic religion, the position is that faith AND REASON go together.
So a politician that presents an unreasonable position is not likely to get many votes from anyone. Any scenario outlining an ureasonable/absurd position and asking what catholics would do is merely mocking Catholicism as a religion and is implying by the question, that Catholics are unreasonable, guillible persons who hold and follow ridiculous positions.
Yes, there is to some extent. But there are also Catholics who are faithful members. Orthodoxy is actually growing among the younger members. Those members who are in defiance of Church teaching are mainly among the older and graying crowd. (Except for Josephine! :)
Posted by: Eileen #2d at January 15, 2009 9:37 PM
Exactly! This is apparent in the book “Good-bye Good Men” regarding priests that were in seminary in the 60’s and 70’s and how SO much harm was done. Now it’s being rectified but will take time. If you want a good read – that’s it!
It’s not meant to be a mocking situation toostunned. Though I agree with you it is unrealistic – I doubt any politician would be selected by a major party to run on such a platform simply because the delegates would know, even if they agreed with him, that the candidate would never when.
No it’s simply meant as a test of just how black and white the Church might be on this and may demonstrate how some Catholics, even those that want to make abortion illegal, might have voted for Obama.
Do you want to answer the question Eileen? You don’t have to of course. And by the way, I promise – no trickery from me!
Sorry, that should be “… that the candidate would never WIN”. I need some lunch….
Seems like if neither Republican or Democrat was pro-life (like what happened in 2008) if ALL the Catholics voted for a third party pro-life candidate, he’d have a shot. Seems like that’s what the church would say to do.
Posted by: Josephine at January 16, 2009 9:58 AM
Well, even if you could get ALL the Catholics you’d be at ~25% so you’d need others……..
Josephine and Asitis. Watch this Catholic teacher and see for yourself what the Catholic Church was teaching people about the vote.
http://www.fathercorapi.com/election.aspx
And Father Corapi is qualified by the Magesterium to teach the doctrine of the Catholic faith and the Catechism. That is precisely his duty and role in the Church.
I’m relatively new to this blog…I’ve been reading it much longer than I’ve been contributing…and I’ve become very familiar to many of you.
As a new mom, I have a unique perspective. I understand where Josephine comes from when she talks about animals…before my baby was born four months ago, I felt the same way. I was completely biased towards animals…I still love them very much, but things have changed for me. My baby is now the most precious thing in my life. It took motherhood to change me. Don’t get me wrong…I still love animals. I love my dog very much and she’s very much a part of the family…but my priorities have shifted, as they must. I can’t go out and play with my dog any old time I feel like it now. Sasha is still loved, but I have a whole new perspective. Babies aren’t burdens. Talking about killing an unborn child is not the same thing as hunting or fishing. I don’t hunt. I could never kill a deer, or gut a fish, yet I do eat some meat (poultry only) and cannot equate that with abortion. I don’t kill many insects or spiders, either. If I can help it they go outside. I do kill things that could harm me though. Mosquitoes, ticks, brown recluses, horseflies, I delight in killing those. As for mice, my husband and I had those in our house last year. Maybe due to Sasha’s doggy door…We tried and tried to be humane. We bought the catch and release traps. We caught a few of them and every time we let them go it seems they’d come back. We finally resorted to poison and our problem went away very quickly. I felt bad, but my kitchen was literally starting to reek of mouse urine. That won’t happen again, I will assure you. Especially now with Ella. There is NO WAY I would EVER put a mouse above her safety.
I could go on…but you probably get the message… :)
Sit through 30 minutes of listening to a priest- no thanks truthseeker. I put enough time doing that growing up! But can I assume his bottom line is what Eileen, Kristen and toostunned have been claiming (ie that abortion issue is paramount and on is more important than all the other issues combined)?
Becca! I’m just the opposite story than yours: I never had a dog until recently – I used to only have children. I used to be totally biased toward children. I took me becoming a dog-owner for that to change. Don’t get me wrong… I still love my children. It’s just that my priorities have changed.
Haha! You probably know by now their is a bit of clown and a dash of brat tossed into my persona.Welcome!
Asitis;
lol. Yeah, I know a lot about everyone’s personalities. I read this blog for a few months every single day before I contributed much of anything.
I don’t want to make it sound like I don’t love animals still, because I definitely do. Before I had Ella, I would NEVER have sided with kids…I used to teach school and oh my…I really could hardly stand most kids by the time I quit. And to be perfectly honest, some kids still annoy me super bad, as do MANY adults. Especially when they cut me off on the highway…but since I’ve had Ella I realize I how precious people are when they enter the world, and how innocent they are…just like animals. Even if they do end up becoming jerks later on. :)
I totally hear you. And while I never had the experience, I can totally appreciate how without/before kids what a person’s pet, can mean to them. And also how that can change if/when they do have children. But the pet is still loved!
Enjoy your Ella! This is a precious time and I envy you. Time passes so quickly.
Thank you so much!! I can’t believe how much she’s grown in four months, and how quickly time has passed…
And yes, Sasha is still very loved, and well taken care of!! :)
tstl @ 11:11 am — thank you!
Sit through 30 minutes of listening to a priest- no thanks truthseeker. I put enough time doing that growing up! But can I assume his bottom line is what Eileen, Kristen and toostunned have been claiming (ie that abortion issue is paramount and on is more important than all the other issues combined)?
Posted by: asitis at January 16, 2009 12:19 PM
Asitis, full of cmments about the Catholic faith but unwilling to spend twenty minutes listening to a certified teacher of the Catholic doctrine on the subject at hand. Typical deflection of the truth. This is a great example of why it took you over a month on this blog to fugure out that women get pregnant with human life :o{) lol
I think Josephine is a little different then you in that respect (she will likely take the time to watch the Church’s official response to her questions about the election and how Catholics should base their vote. You on the other hand live life under your credo “ignorance is bliss”.
I do kill things that could harm me though. Mosquitoes, ticks, brown recluses, horseflies, I delight in killing those.
Ha! Welcome, Becca. Seems you have a sense of humor. Nice post.
swell post ts @ 1:29pm!!!
Asitis, full of cmments about the Catholic faith but unwilling to spend twenty minutes listening to a certified teacher of the Catholic doctrine on the subject at hand. Typical deflection of the truth. This is a great example of why it took you over a month on this blog to fugure out that women get pregnant with human life :o{) lol
I think Josephine is a little different then you in that respect (she will likely take the time to watch the Church’s official response to her questions about the election and how Catholics should base their vote. You on the other hand live life under your credo “ignorance is bliss”.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 16, 2009 1:29 PM
Sure, Josephine might – she’s actually Catholic. but I’m not and I’m not questioning what the message was to Catholics nor from where it originates. And I personally don’t enjoy listening to priests talk about what God says or what the Vatican says. I’d rather get the bottom line, if anything. And din’t I get that right, truthseeker?
Oh, and it is closer to 30 minutes. 29:22 to be exact, I believe.
(If you want some fun have all three segments play simultaneously).
swell post ts @ 1:29pm!!!
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 16, 2009 1:58 PM
Oh, I get it! patricia is speaking to me through others now. Gosh, now why did it take me soooo long to realize this? ;)
Don’t worry, I’m not going to give away your full name or where you live.
Mmmm, Catholics don’t get much cooler than Father Corapi!
Or colder than Maine Bobby! I just read -50F. Brrrrrr!
Thanks Doug! I’m happy to finally be contributing. :)
Mmmm, Catholics don’t get much cooler than Father Corapi!
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at January 16, 2009 2:23 PM
he is an excellent preacher, having heard him in person and he has a good handle on all the arguments that anyone questioning their faith could ask
after all, he ended up in the gutter and as far down as you can go before God lifted him up again.
Let’s hope he has many more years of preachin to do!
WE ARE HEADED FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS – A CALL TO ACTION IS NEEDED!!!!!!!!!!!
Recently, Obama met with SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) behind closed doors while SCOTUS has several lawsuits seriously questioning his eligibility to be POTUS.
Has Obama corrupted or brought off SCOTUS????????
We are headed for a constitutional crisis.
On Tuesday January 20, 2009, a USURPER will be sworn in office.
This USURPER is Barack Obama!
Obama is NOT qualified to be POTUS!
This is known to be true 1000%!
A Call to Action is Needed!
Please Contact your Senators and Congressman Today.
Send them emails and faxes. Phone them everyday.
Tell them that must conduct a Congressional hearing on this matter.
Continue to write to SCOTUS telling them uphold and protect out Constitution.
Time is running out!
The time to act is now!
Also keep in mind that Congress is moving the remove the 2 Term Limit for POTUS.
IT”S YOUR FUNERAL!!!!
(WWW.OBAMACRIME.COM)
I know! It’s a C-O-N-spiracy James!
http://WWW.OBAMACRIMES.COM
http://drorly.blogspot.com
GO TO THESE SITES TODAY!!!!!
You can now see on the docket Suggestion for Recusal of the Justices of the Supreme Court to swear Barack Obama as president(conflict of interest)
No. 08A524
Title:
Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants
v.
Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct:
Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.:
(S168690)
~~~Date~~~
~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 12 2008
Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008
Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 29 2008
Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 7 2009
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.
Jan 7 2009
Application (08A524) referred to the Court.
Jan 13 2009
Suggestion for recusal received from applicant.
——————————————————————————–
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:
Orly Taitz
26302 La Paz
(949) 683-5411
Counsel of Record
Mission Viejo , CA 92691
Mary,
I meant no insult. I just noticed that sometimes you kind of randomly ask the question to the rest of us but are never satisfied with the answers- just pointing out that noone will win the argument and just get frustrated :)
UGH I felt a lot better last night but these last few days have been terrible in that I might get hungry and then after eating a little, have no desire to eat- as if I will literally throw up if I eat more. Later I would get nauseous and think that it is because I need to eat (I”m a little hypoglycemic). But then I begin eating and want to spit it all out. Anyone ever had this?? I mean, it would be nice for losing weight but since it is accompanied by stomach-ache its not as fun!
Wow. Thanks to James I don’t even have to log into that old hotmail account of mine to read a bunch of spam.
nd Father Corapi is qualified by the Magesterium to teach the doctrine of the Catholic faith and the Catechism. That is precisely his duty and role in the Church.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 16, 2009 12:03 PM
Fr. Corapi is great! I also heard him speak in person. I met him afterward. He is very humble and unassuming when speaking to people one on one.
asitis, why bother asking questions if you don’t want to take time to find out the answers from a very reliable source?
sorry — anon is me. :)
Oh PIP! Sorry that you are sick. Yes, I had mono when I started my first job out of college. I lost a few pounds because of the loss of appetite that accompanied it.
asitis, why bother asking questions if you don’t want to take time to find out the answers from a very reliable source?
Posted by: Anonymous at January 16, 2009 3:14 PM
You mean that priest addresses the specific scenario I presented to Eileen? Really?
PIP 3:10PM
Thank you. No offense was taken. I was just looking for an answer and it seemed people were jumping through hoops to avoid giving me one.
I’m very sorry to hear of your illness and wish you a speedy recovery. I’ve never had it but I do know rest is essential. If you’re hungry and hypoglycemic, you may want to eat a small amount of protein. Don’t overdo what you eat and try to maintain your fluids.
Please keep us posted as we are all very concerned.
Eileen-
Hope it made up for the inability to exercise! :)
I’ll try, Mary :) I didn’t feel well later last night and thought it was because I hadn’t eaten since 4:30, and tried to eat some pork (basically-I heated up a lean cuisine and picked out the pork) but I couldn’t finish it. It’s crazy! Eating 500 calories a day seems so weird to me. Thanks for the concern, all. I’m feeling better. Other than appetite problems and tiredness, most of the bad symptoms are gone :)
I’ll try, Mary :) I didn’t feel well later last night and thought it was because I hadn’t eaten since 4:30, and tried to eat some pork (basically-I heated up a lean cuisine and picked out the pork) but I couldn’t finish it. It’s crazy! Eating 500 calories a day seems so weird to me. Thanks for the concern, all. I’m feeling better. Other than appetite problems and tiredness, most of the bad symptoms are gone :)
Posted by: prettyinpink at January 16, 2009 3:42 PM
maybe try something a little lighter to eat PIP.
I always think pork is rather hard to digest.
do you have special diet?
I really hope you are on the mend.
“I heated up a lean cuisine …”
Yum!
“…and picked out the pork…”
Booooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Bobby: do you really like lean cuisine? Honestly? Just wonderin….
Bobby: I’m making home made french fries. Have you ever had them??
Ehh, lean cuisine is fine. It was a good option for back when I watched what I ate- before children!
I have never had homemade french fries. That sounds tricky to make. The only thing I know how to cook is Hamburger Helper and Indian food. Do you have to do one of those pseudo-deep fry tricks where you fill a large pan like half full of oil?
I love lean cuisine. I’ve been eating soup and lean cuisines all week :P
TSTL,
I don’t have a special diet, I just have to make sure not to eat a lot of simple carbs (processed sugars) and have adequate protein (or I get irritable or stressed). I also can’t skip meals or I would feel nauseous and terrible. As for mono, I just eat what I can when I feel hungry. which is not much. consists mostly of soup and lean cuisine. lol.
my dad use to make french fries all the time when we were growing up.
Back then we had a deep fryer which I don’t have.
Therefore I am uber careful and make them in a frying pan with olive oil (healthier).
Once you have homemade fries, you will never eat another fast fry!
Don’t feel too badly, you’ve got a lot of time to learn how to cook! Indian food sounds like a very good start!
I remember all my dad could cook was fried eggs, bacon and hotdogs. and french fries!
It was pretty darn awful.
PIP: ok, I was wondering.
Do you like spaghetti? Or would that be too heavy?
TSTL
My favorite dish of all time is angel hair with meat and marinara sauce. Mmm!!
This week i’ve been eating pasta or LC pizzas for dinner. I tried to have a couple pancakes this morning instead of eggs. bad idea, I haven’t been feeling good all day. I’m gonna have to wait a few hours before I eat anything else.
oh sounds good!
i remember when I felt terrible with morning sickness (which was all-day sickness) I ate spaghettini in a tomato sauce. Sometimes it is very good with a mild tasting fish too such as sole or haddock broken up on top.
yeah maybe the pancakes were just too heavy for your stomach :-(
take care of yourself!!
Oh, does LC stand for Little Ceaser’s? Man I miss that pizza. We don’t have any in “Live Free or Die” New Hampshire…
http://www.littlecaesars.com/
They have a good deal, a Hot and Fast pizza, cheese or pepperoni, for $5/$6+tax (depending on market)
Its really good for the price. I’ve done this a few times.
I know! Don’t remind me Liz… it’s too painful to know that I can’t have it…
LC= lean cuisine, sorry :P Their little pizzas are actually quite good.
I tried a Lean Cuisine meal that was Spa Classic/ Cuisine…..with brown rice, which is healthier than the white rice in a LOT of frozen meals.
Have you ever tried Kashi, PIP? I LOVE their Sweet and Sour Chicken frozen meal. Unfortunately, my local closest grocer STOPPED carrying the frozen meals all together claiming “they weren’t selling” but yet I can get the meal at the HyVee!
Never tried it Liz, is it low cal?
Hey Bobby, ya know you can make you own pizza too! It’s not hard.
I made homemade pizza on Tuesday evening. I like hot pepper rings on my pizza and olives and onions.
Pretty gross eh?
Oh man, Bobby… I love Little Ceasars. I don’t have any at home, but I have like, FOUR on campus here. It’s amazing. $5 large cheese pizzas, all day everyday!
Mary,
No one was avoiding your question. I answered it four times. You could have looked up the answer yourself though, because his history is plastered all over the internet..
TS,
Your video won’t play on my computer. I did try to watch it though. Could you give me a description and I’ll try to find it on youtube?
Josephine,
Sorry, but you finally answered my question after I asked you several times to do so. Requirements are one thing, qualifications quite another.
Plastered all over the internet or not I asked you as an Obama supporter to tell me what his qualifications were. It should have been no problem at all for you to tell me.
I told you four times. You never responded until the fourth.
You know where I got what I put to you? The official Obama website. You don’t have to be an Obama supporter to look up his background.
It should have been no problem at all for you to tell me.
Posted by: Mary at January 16, 2009 9:42 PM
No it isn’t a problem for Josephine (or me or anyone else who voted for him) to tell you Mary. But why bother?
You go on thinking we were all so uninformed and misguided in voting for Obama. If that what gets you through next week, go for it!
Josephine,
Please, I didn’t respond until the fourth time because that’s when you finally told me what you considered to be his qualifications.
Heck, I meet the Constitutional requirements to be president. I most certainly don’t consider myself qualified for the job.
Asitis, 9:53PM
LOL, whatever.
When you think of any qualifications, I’m all eyes.
Good, you keep that chin up Mary! Good luck next week. Stay strong. Stay defiant. Atta girl!
Josephine,
Just google “Father Corapi election youtube”
Asitis,
Again, whatever.
That’s the spirit, Mary!
UGH I felt a lot better last night but these last few days have been terrible in that I might get hungry and then after eating a little, have no desire to eat- as if I will literally throw up if I eat more. Later I would get nauseous and think that it is because I need to eat (I”m a little hypoglycemic). But then I begin eating and want to spit it all out. Anyone ever had this?? I mean, it would be nice for losing weight but since it is accompanied by stomach-ache its not as fun!
Posted by: prettyinpink at Jan 16, 2009 3:10 PM
Sounds like morning sickness :o}
Truthseeker, I’m getting ready to sit down and watch right now. I’m going out for the night after that, but I will let you know tomorrow after I watch it!
Mary, I copy&pasted my response four times before you responded. The exact same thing. Four times I told you about his schooling and his time as senator. Four times, and you pretended you twisted my arm to get that info. You just chose to ignore me until you couldn’t any longer, because I KEPT copying and posting.
Why are you STILL asking for qualifications? He’s completely, 100% qualified. If people disagree with his positions on things: fine! Of course people will disagree. I accept that, and I have no problem with those people. It’s the people who pretend that Obama hasn’t been a political figure for the last ten years that drive me crazy! NONE of these questions EVER came up when he was a senator. He was COMPLETELY competent as a senator. Now that he’s the president he’s the most stupid, uneducated person ever. That’s ridiculous!
Asitis,
Ain’t that the truth!
above post was ts
Wow, three posts at 10:23. above post about morning sickness was ts
Josephine,
Calm down. When you finally told me what you considered to be his qualifications I thanked you, remember?
I don’t find what experience and background he has impressive or even consider him qualified but if you can tell me, which you finally did, what you consider qualifications, fine. That answered my question.
Asitis,
Ain’t that the truth!
Posted by: Mary at January 16, 2009 10:23 PM
Awesome. That should get you through. Just keep thinking that Mary and you’ll be fine.
Ahhhh, my work here is done. Time for bed.
ts-
I’m not having sex, so I think I’m good :P
ts 10:22PM
Morning sickness? How well I remember. I always knew when I was pregnant when I lost my taste for coffee. It was so gradual I barely noticed. I couldn’t even stand the smell of it.
Normally I crave it.
With my second baby I thought our bedroom just stunk, literally. My husband thought I was nuts.
Asitis,
Whatever. Good nite.
PIP,
You’re supposed to be resting!!!! :)
haha sorry Mary! I’ve only commented between naps or DVD changes :P
ts-
I’m not having sex, so I think I’m good :P
Posted by: prettyinpink at Jan 16, 2009 10:32 PM
pip, if it doesn’t get better then have your doctor order a blood test.
asitis: Oh, I get it! patricia is speaking to me through others now. Gosh, now why did it take me soooo long to realize this? ;)
Is this the Patricia that’s from the Bible Belt of Ontario?
Heck, I meet the Constitutional requirements to be president. I most certainly don’t consider myself qualified for the job.
Mary, you’d be better at it than some of our past Presidents.
I’ve only commented between naps or DVD changes :P
:: laughing ::
You go, PIP!
Hi Doug. Not “from” per se, but if you mean “from the discussion of”, then yes. It was all a bit embarrassing for her though in the end, so in the spirit of niceness we should probably let it drop.
Doug 7:38am
Come to think of it I probably would be! Are you getting slammed again with snow??
Doug and Asitis,
Actually TS has been a commenter here for quite some time. You’ve seen TS before, right Doug?
Bobby, by TS do you mean truthseeker or toostunned?
Well, I think TS is neither, believe it or not. I think TS is not truthseeker because I think Truthseeker has mentioned that, and TS has been around long before toostunnedtolaugh. It’s confusing, and I may be confused as well, but I think all three of them, ts toostunnedtolaugh and truthseeker, are different people.
Hey Doug,
I’m on my way to the Caribbean tomorrow for a conference. I’m going to enjoy some real global warming, like 80+ degrees and lots of sun and sand. Picked a great time to go if I do say so myself.
Try not to freeze. I’ll be thinking about you my friend.
PIP, my go-to when I’m feeling yucky is miso soup. It takes about 5-10 minutes to whip up, and I have varying ‘levels’ — when I’m really ill just the broth, or maybe the broth with some wakame seaweed in it. If I’m eating it as part of a large meal (or as its own small meal) on non-sick days I put some tofu and sliced green onions in as well. If I’m making it for breakfast I steam whatever leftover veggies I have in the fridge, toss them in, and pour the whole thing over some brown rice. Sometimes I even slice a hard-boiled egg and throw that in, too. :)
I find it a good way to get some healthy foods all in one go, depending on how much I put into the soup. A lot of times when I’m sick I can’t stomach liquids because I’m not crazy about sweet foods even at the best of times, and most liquid nutrition is sweet (smoothies, etc). So the saltiness of the miso soup helps me sneak some veggies in when I would otherwise rather not eat anything.
I hope you feel better soon!
Bobby @9:15am
Doug was referring to toostunnedtolaugh/Patricia.
Nothing to do with TS or truthseeker.
Have a good day. Stay warm if it’s cold (which is just about everywhere right now!)
Oh OK. I’m so confused! As Rae says
*fads back into the night like Batman at the end of Dark Knight
” I’ve posted my Winter/Spring 2009 speaking schedule”
Where’s all your Northeast bookings, Jill??? :(
truthseeker never uses capital “TS” when he posts but there is a “TS” who occasionally posts on this blog.
PIP
Info on Kashi Sweet and Sour Chicken meal
http://www.kashi.com/products/kashi_entrees_sweet_sour_chicken
I don’t know why Bobby even mentioned TSto begin with, truthseeker. Though Bobby did say he was confused. Must be the cold weather!
“Doug and Asitis,
Actually TS has been a commenter here for quite some time. You’ve seen TS before, right Doug?
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at January 17, 2009 8:57 AM”
Yeah, I don’t know what’s going on in my mind. It’s not even that cold here. It’s like positive 10 degrees. All the math must be rotting my brain.
Math is FUN Bobby!
I used to think 10 degrees F was nuthin’!But I’m getting soft since I moved out of the Great White North and even +10 makes me go brrrr now!
Oh yes. No doubt math is fun. It can just sometimes be quite difficult.
True that, Bobby!
WORD.
Hugs, PIP. When I got mono two years ago I thought I was pregnant and I left France early. :) Silly me.
Feel better!
Math is not fun. Math is the devil. Math makes me want to chew my esophagus to pieces so I’ll have to go to emergency and quit doing math.
[l??gw?st?ks]!
Math is simply great! I especially liked calculus and functions.
You’re KILLIN me Leah! :)
TooStunned,
You like functions, ehh? Me too. When they’re continuous between topological spaces, we call them “maps” and they’re my boys! A function is a brilliant concept. Simple, but brilliant.
I think all well rounded individuals should be familiar with the calculus.
Bobby, I loved functions and relations as it was called in high school years ago!
Other subjects I enjoyed in university were organic chemistry and physics.
You like functions, ehh? Me too. When they’re continuous between topological spaces, we call them “maps” and they’re my boys! A function is a brilliant concept. Simple, but brilliant.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at January 17, 2009 5:53 PM
very interesting….;-D
Howdy to the Bambino.
Welcome back.
Just returned from Glen Rose, Texas. The dinosaur footprint place.
The weather was great. Sunny, cool. Shirt sleeve weather. Drove with the sunroof open and the windows down.
Tomorrow may be completely different. Have not seen the weather forcast yet.
yor bro ken
“Functions and Relations”, toostunned…. too funny! I haven’t heard that in years. One of my favorite classes in high school…. though I was a year ahead in math and I remember feeling so shy (and underdeveloped!) in that class.I wonder if Functions and Realtions is Canadian terminology. Did they used to call it that in the states anyone? Going back a quarter century or so (yikes!) ago ………..
Man, I loved math. I’m pretty stupid at it, though. I didn’t get too far beyond testing for converging or diverging series — comparison test, integral test, ratio test, uhhh, root test, alternating series test, etc. The validity (or even existence) of everything after that, I have to take on faith.
My favorite thing was differentiating trigonometric functions. It was like magic! It was actually kind of like reading The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle by Haruki Murakami, or even If on a winter’s night a traveler by my main man Italo Calvino — it made total sense unless I REALLY thought hard about it, and then the meaning of it kind of ran away from me because it was basically impossible for me to articulate, or sometimes even capture, everything that the things on the page in front of me MEANT. Like trying to see constellations back when I was a Girl Scout — I could only ever see them out of the corner of my eye; if I looked straight at them it was just stars, for some reason. The vastness of some things appears to be too great for my wee little brain to process. But the good news is that even wee-brained people like me can see amazing things in our peripheral vision. ;)
My favorite thing was differentiating trigonometric functions.
Alexandra: i love trig too!
Haha, yeah TSTL, trig was awesome. I remember it was all smooth sailing until I did the mathematical equivalent of looking down and let myself think: “What is a cosx, anyway?” And then it all just spiraled into the black hole of “Things Alexandra Can Understand But Not Actually Picture In Her Mind.” So long as I just kept looking anywhere but down, I had no problem differentiating or integrating or whatever-ing. But I’ve never been able to resist looking down. Which I suppose is a good thing, at least in pragmatic senses, because it keeps me careful when I’m working on a steel beam two stories above the floor with no safety harness.
Alexandra’s Brain: Bad For Math. Good For Staying Alive.
I don’t think “function and relations” are Canadian terminology, asitis. A function is a relation which is what is called well-defined. In algebra texts I’ve taught out of, they define relation and then function. So a function is a special case of a relation, and I think it’s pretty standard terminology.
“The validity (or even existence) of everything after that, I have to take on faith.”
LOL Alexandra. My goodness did I love series! I’m glad to hear you enjoyed it too. Infinite series which converge is so mind-blowing to some people. Add infinitely many numbers and get a finite number. In fact, an infinite series is one was to prove that 1=.999… Mmmm, I can’t wait to teach a Calc II course…
I never successfully got futher than geometry. Alegebra made as much sense to me as ‘consulting tea leaves or chicken entrails.
Props and creds to all you with mathematically enabled and enhanced intellects.
I can repair your a/c, but do not rely on me to solve for ‘X’.
yor bro ken
Thanks Bobby, I realize relations and functions are standard math terms. But what I meant was, do they/did they teach a course called Functions and Relations in the US? That’s what we had in Canada. I never hear it in the US.
Oh I see. It’s a whole course, ehh? I think you’re right then. Usually it’s just part of an algebra course. We also (in the US) have a course called “Functions, Statistics, and Trigonometry” which is probably like your Functions and Relations course.
Well Ken, you’re missing out! Big time!
Bobby,
Some people are tone deaf. Some people are color blind. Some have no sense of rhythm. I just appreciate people who can do the things I cannot.
A friend of mine told me once that if I just worked hard enough and applied myself I could master a musical instrument, like him.
I said, Ron, what you are telling me is that if I practice long and hard enough I can compete with Michael Jordan on the basketball court.
Ron, said, ‘I stand corrected.’
“You cannot put in what God has left out.”
But I can repair Michael Jordan’s A/C.
yor bro ken
Ron, said, ‘I stand corrected.’
“You cannot put in what God has left out.”
Posted by: kbhvac at January 17, 2009 10:26 PM
All thanks be to God for what He put in.
Bobby that is what I took, Functions, stats and trig combined. Stats – not too keen on, the other two, very much soo!!
Alexandra, very nice post at 8:13pm!
I didn’t always understand what I was doing but working the numbers was somehow very satisfying!! ;-D
For any of my fellow Catholics who may be interested, Fr. Anthony read most of Pres. Bush’s (Daena’s) proclamation on the sanctity of life during his homily today on EWTN’s daily Mass. It was a very nice homily, and I don’t think there was much if anything that protestants would find objectionable in his message if you want to catch it on EWTN or EWTN.com
Fed Up, thanks for that info!
“You cannot put in what God has left out.”
But I can repair Michael Jordan’s A/C.
yor bro ken
HaHaHa….excellent!
I think all well rounded individuals should be familiar with the calculus.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at January 17, 2009 5:54 PM
————————————————————
Well I am more well rounded than I used to be. But I am referring to geometry. My own physical geometry.
I ran into a friend I had not seen in quite a while. He asked me if I had gained weight.
I said, “No, God is just stretching me.”
I found this little gem while I was at the Bed & Breakfast this weekend:
‘Spread happiness where you go, not when.’
Gotta ‘go’ now. Don’t worry, be happy.
yor bro ken
Come to think of it I probably would be! Are you getting slammed again with snow??
Mary, great Presidents are made, not born, so one never knows.
I’m in Georgia this weekend so no snow at all, thank goodness.
Bobby: Well, I think TS is neither, believe it or not. I think TS is not truthseeker because I think Truthseeker has mentioned that, and TS has been around long before toostunnedtolaugh. It’s confusing, and I may be confused as well, but I think all three of them, ts toostunnedtolaugh and truthseeker, are different people.
Bobby, could well be – I was just asking. Agreed that TooStunned isn’t Truthseeker, at any rate.
I think all well rounded individuals should be familiar with the calculus.
Bobby, indeed, and Leibniz and Newton are smiling this day.
I said, Ron, what you are telling me is that if I practice long and hard enough I can compete with Michael Jordan on the basketball court.
Ken, I thought that if you ate enough Wheaties, you could be an Olympic athlete. You don’t even have to train!
; )
I think all well rounded individuals should be familiar with the calculus.
Bobby, indeed, and Leibniz and Newton are smiling this day.
Posted by: Doug at January 18, 2009 9:48 AM
agreed.
Skill in math usually means the ability to reason logically has been developed, at least to some degree.
Skill in math usually means the ability to reason logically has been developed, at least to some degree.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 18, 2009 9:56 AM
I agree with you there toostunned!
Question for Asitis:
Up till what stage of developement are you willing to allow a mother to kill? Does a nervous system and heartbeat mean anything? Or perhaps a babies ability to survive outside the mother? Or maybe up until birth?
And as a mathematics enthusiast. Tell me, how can Obama choose support the right to kill other human beings up until birth, all the while saying it is a morally wrenching decision for him. Doesn’t that seem illogical to you?
truthseeker, as I have told Behany multiple times, I will not enter into that discussion. Period.
As for Obama, I can’t speak for him. But it could be that he has strong feelings about abortion, but he recognizes these as his own personal and religious beliefs. And, like others, doesn’t want them on others. If that’s the case, no, it doesn’t seem illogical to me.
truthseeker, as I have told Behany multiple times, I will not enter into that discussion. Period.
Posted by: asitis at January 18, 2009 9:37 PM
It is not illogical to avoid discussion about such a morally wrenching issue? How do you expect to make informed judgements if you are unwilling to share your beliefs with others? I want to know what drives a person to support others in behaviour they personally find morally reprehensible.
“It is not illogical to avoid discussion about such a morally wrenching issue?”
How is that “illogical” truthseeker?
“How do you expect to make informed judgements if you are unwilling to share your beliefs with others?”
I know what I believe truthseeker. Just as I know what almost everyone here believes, and how vehemently. I do not need to share my beliefs with you in order to make informed judgements.
“I want to know what drives a person to support others in behaviour they personally find morally reprehensible.”
I already told you.
Just because my religious views as a Christian are that the right to life is a God-given right, does not mean defending the right to life for others is forcing my “religious” views on anybody else. The right to life is “the” fundamental right without which no other rights can even exist. Much too important to avoid discussing.
You’d have a hard time finding anyone who wouldn’t agree that the right (God-given or not) to life is a fundamental right, truthseeker!
“I want to know what drives a person to support others in behaviour they personally find morally reprehensible.”
I already told you.
Posted by: asitis at January 18, 2009 10:26 PM
You said cause it equates with forcing your religious views on somebody and that is just not true. I am not telling them to accept Jesus Christ as their saviour, I am telling them they can’t kill. It is one of the Ten Commandments, but telling people they can’t kill is not forcing religious beliefs on anyone, it is forcing others to respect life.
Again truthseeker, those are your personal views, religious or otherwise. I’m not saying anything new here you haven’t heard before. Don’t you ever tire of this round and round?
I do not need to share my beliefs with you in order to make informed judgements.
Posted by: asitis at January 18, 2009 10:26 PM
:o{)lol
Ha ha ha! Right. The only reason you want me to open up is so you can open a can of rage against me for my beliefs. No thanks!
Again truthseeker, those are your personal views, religious or otherwise.
Posted by: asitis at January 18, 2009 10:42 PM
Wrong!! You know the right to life is not just my personal views. It is the view of most people(except killers) in a civilized society.
Why do you think I would open a can of rage on your beliefs? Are you a killer?
Duh. Of course I know the right to life is acknowledged by everyone. I already said that:
You’d have a hard time finding anyone who wouldn’t agree that the right (God-given or not) to life is a fundamental right, truthseeker!
Posted by: asitis at January 18, 2009 10:34 PM
Why do you think I would open a can of rage on your beliefs? Are you a killer?
Posted by: truthseeker at January 18, 2009 10:48 PM
No, I am not a killer truthseeker. But I am pro-choice. And we all know how you feel about that.
Logically speaking, if the right to life is “the” fundamental right then nobody should intentionally kill another human life.
That is unless, perhaps, it is to prevent them from killing somebody else.
Truthseeker, extending the right to life to unborns is a personal or religious belief. I know you want it to be eveyone’s personal beleif, but it isn’t.
You have come full circle back to 9:27pm. I have to go to bed. Don’t you have driveways to plow?
You say you are not a killer yourself, but you say you support a mother’s right to choice to kill her baby. Are you really concerned about other woman’s choice or do you want to keep that choice available for yourself?
Are you really concerned about other woman’s choice or do you want to keep that choice available for yourself?
Posted by: truthseeker at January 18, 2009 11:02 PM
Both. I most definitely feel that other woman should be free to choose. And while I myself have never had an abortion, nor think I will ever be faced with that decision in the future, I am on the pill. I know that you consider this to be a form of abortion, so in that regards, you could say that I do indeed want to to keep the choice for myself as well!
Asitis, For somebody who likes “logic” you sure don’t use it in determining the human life that you are willing to allow to be killed legally. Other than location, why do you think it is o.k. to kill a baby in the womb.
Not really a question of logic truthseeker. I think you know that. And you’re back to the same old again. I’ve already told you, I’m not getting dragged in. What is this… no snow?
I know that you consider this to be a form of abortion, so in that regards, you could say that I do indeed want to to keep the choice for myself as well!
Posted by: asitis at January 18, 2009 11:10 PM
No asitis,
Birth control is not the same as abortion. Abortion kills human life. So would it be fair to say that the choice you really want to keep for yourself is the choice to terminate your pregnancy (should you get pregnant).
Good night.
No asitis,
Birth control is not the same as abortion. Abortion kills human life. So would it be fair to say that the choice you really want to keep for yourself is the choice to terminate your pregnancy (should you get pregnant).
Posted by: truthseeker at January 18, 2009 11:18 PM
Sorry, I thought you were one of those catholics that equated the pill with abortion.
In over 20 years I haven’t had an unplanned pregnancy, so I’d be surprised if I had one yet. But if I did, I’d probably have it (what the heck!). So honestly, I think at this point I am Pro-Choice mainly for others.
So you come to a pro-life blog but you are not willing to discuss pro-life issues. While discussing Catholics and voting, you are not willing to watch a video of a qualified priest on the subject. People who use logic in forming their opinions seek out the “reasoning” behind the opinions of the people they disagree with.
When i said “i’d probably have it” I meant have a baby, not an abortion………… Just in case that wasn’t clear and you were already sewing an Asitis voodoo doll. Though you might have one already……..
Sorry, I thought you were one of those catholics that equated the pill with abortion.
Posted by: asitis at January 18, 2009 11:25 PM
No asitis, I think you have a misunderstanding in the catholic faith there. The Catholic church discourages birth control but nowhere in the catechism does it teach that birth control is abortion. It would be illogical because one term is used to define preventing pregnancy and the other is used to define terminating a pregnancy. You can’t terminate a pregnancy that never happened. lol
So you come to a pro-life blog but you are not willing to discuss pro-life issues. While discussing Catholics and voting, you are not willing to watch a video of a qualified priest on the subject. People who use logic in forming their opinions seek out the “reasoning” behind the opinions of the people they disagree with.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 18, 2009 11:26 PM
Not willing to discuss pro-life issues? Oh, I think you know that’s not the case. I just draw some lines truthseeker.
And watching the priest videos(shoot me please!) wasn’t going to tell me anything about how catholics voted – it would just reiterate what some priests and higher were instructing them to do.
Seeking out the “reasoning” behind the opinions of the people they disagree with to form an opinion? To form what opinion truthseeker? Your own opinion on the subject or your opinion of the other person
Seeking out the “reasoning” behind the opinions of the people they disagree with to form an opinion? To form what opinion truthseeker? Your own opinion on the subject or your opinion of the other person
Posted by: asitis at January 18, 2009 11:38 PM
The reasoning for the other person’s opinion on the subject helps me better understand the other person. My opinion of the other person is more a “by-product” of the discussion.
No asitis, I think you have a misunderstanding in the catholic faith there. The Catholic church discourages birth control but nowhere in the catechism does it teach that birth control is abortion. It would be illogical because one term is used to define preventing pregnancy and the other is used to define terminating a pregnancy. You can’t terminate a pregnancy that never happened. lol
Posted by: truthseeker at January 18, 2009 11:33 PM
You sure about that truthseeker? I may have to ask one of the other Catholics to step up here, because I’m pretty sure the matter has been brought up here and didn’t the Vatican just release something (weak) about the pill causing “abortions”?
I’m pretty sure that’s what I heard here while paying attention to “the opinions of the people I disagree with” truthseeker! If you want, I can go back and make sure I read that right. But I have to get some sleep now. Later…
My opinion of the other person is more a “by-product” of the discussion.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 18, 2009 11:48 PM
Yes! You finally got that one! I’m so proud ;)
Good night truthseeker. Sweet dreams.
This blog is here precisely for discussions of the subject matter like, “up till what stage of developement are you willing to allow a mother to kill”? Your unwillingness to substantiate your opinions with details invalidates your position on abortion; at least to people who use logic and reasoning to form their decisions.
“This blog is here precisely for discussions of the subject matter like, “up till what stage of developement are you willing to allow a mother to kill”?”
I’m not being argumentative, I swear. However, I don’t think that IS the point of the blog. I said I thought there should be a pro-choice moderator, because all the pro-choicers think they aren’t getting treated the same. I was told this is a pro-life blog and that’s it. Not a “discussion about whether abortion is wrong or right” blog, but a pro-life blog for pro-lifers to talk about… being pro-life? I don’t know. I’m not arguing, that’s just what I was told. I think it was on this thread.
Hello Josephine,
You don’t need to be pro-life or a moderator to state your position and all opinions are welcomed here. Accusations of bias and generalities about unfair treatment are not going to effective in bringing about change. Just state with specifics if/when you are treated unfairly.
btw – what did you think of Fr. Corapi?
Besides, Jill doesn’t want her blog look like it’s got irrational moderators :
Maybe Alan Colmes is available to be the token liberal spewing irrational anti-life blather.
Posted by: asitis at January 18, 2009 11:53 PM
Truthseeker is correct. I don’t know that the Vatican released anything about the Pill recently. I do know that some doctors, including one I used to see (I do not know which religious affiliation he had, if any) do say that the Pill CAN allow conception at times and then prevent implantation. It is not fail-safe in preventing conception 100% of the time. But again, that’s from the doctor not the Pope.
No asitis, I think you have a misunderstanding in the catholic faith there. The Catholic church discourages birth control but nowhere in the catechism does it teach that birth control is abortion. It would be illogical because one term is used to define preventing pregnancy and the other is used to define terminating a pregnancy. You can’t terminate a pregnancy that never happened. lol
Posted by: truthseeker at January 18, 2009 11:33 PM
You sure about that truthseeker? I may have to ask one of the other Catholics to step up here, because I’m pretty sure the matter has been brought up here and didn’t the Vatican just release something (weak) about the pill causing “abortions”?
Posted by: asitis at January 18, 2009 11:53 PM
Hmmmm. Toostunned, you are curiously quiet on this. You spoke to this very issue recently and Bethany joined in. And you also mentioned the Vatican news article in another post.
Truthseeker, here’s something on the Vatican news release:
Vatican Newspaper Publishes Article Detailing Birth Control Pill as Cause of Abortion and Cancer
By Hilary White
ROME, January 5, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Vatican’s official newspaper has caused a media storm in the European press with an article asserting the abortifacient and carcinogenic effects of hormonal contraceptives.
The Italian edition of L’Osservatore Romano carries an article this week on a report by the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations (FIAMC) that was created to commemorate the fortieth anniversary of the encyclical Humanae Vitae, the document by Pope John Paul VI that reiterated the Catholic Church’s teaching on artificial birth control
Let’s see here. As it says in the article you quoted, asitis, this was research done by the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations (FIAMC). Now I”m not familiar with that group but it say on their website that “[we are] an official Catholic Lay Association, with its Head Office in Vatican City” http://cathdocs.org/ Being a lay group as opposed to an “official Vatican group” (for lack of a better term), this would not be anything at all binding on Catholics. Now it may be true and the Vatican may investigate this and see what it is they have to say, but until then, it seems that the report is purely scientific (or at least an attempt to be scientific) by a lay group and as such, we most certainly go with the Catechism and other Vatican sources on this matter.
Bobby, I would agree with you that the report is an attempt to be scientific.
I had assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that it had the Vatican’s support since it was published in “the Vatican newspaper” according to toostunned (and the article above also referred to the newspaper as “the official Vatican newspaper”):
Apparently there has been an excellent document published in the Vatican newspaper in German detailing exactly the negative effects of the birth control pill. My understanding is that everything is well referenced with authoritative sources. Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 6, 2009 9:58 AM
Whether it is actually endorsed by the Pope or not, or a part of the Church’s current teachings I don’t know. Perhaps some of the devout Catholics here do. What I have heard on this blog, is that some people here do equate the Pill with abortion. That is what I had said to truthseeker.
“Whether it is actually endorsed by the Pope or not, or a part of the Church’s current teachings I don’t know.”
No, I don’t see any reason why it would be. And yes, it is published in the Vatican newspaper, but that’s more like the Vatican CITY newspaper. For anything to be binding on Catholics, it would have to be some sort of document, not like a newspaper article or anything like that.
Thanks Bobby. It almost sounds like maybe the website was trying to mislead by saying “the official Vatican newspaper”.
You’re catholic, right. Maybe you can clarify this then:
When truthseeker says I’m wrong that some Catholics view contraception as a form of abortion, is he correct? Or is it more accuarte to say that while some pro-lifers here view contraception as a form abortion, this is not a view held by the Catholic Church?
“I’m wrong that some Catholics view contraception as a form of abortion, is he correct?”
As an official organization, the Roman Catholic Church does not have an official teaching about any type of contraception being abortifacient. You will find many in the Catholic Church, whether it be doctors, apologists, priests, bishops, or any of the laity, who do believe that some forms of contraception can act as an abortifiacient, but they base that belief on science (whether it is good or bad science), not on Catholic teaching or philosophy.
In fact, I think the Catholic Church will never have any teaching on whether or not some forms of birth control act as an abortifacient because it’s a moot point. The Catholic Church already condemns the very form of birth control, so whether or not it can act as an abortifactient is a moot point.
“Or is it more accuarte to say that while some pro-lifers here view contraception as a form abortion, this is not a view held by the Catholic Church?”
Yes, I’d say partially that’s right. I don’t know if people have explained exactly what the problem we have in that regard is, but we only claim that most (all?) forms of HORMONAL contraception can SOMETIMES (though my understanding is rarely) cause an early miscarriage by thinning the lining of the endometrium, making it more difficult for an embryo to implant. So as you can see with just that claim, we first of all would need a breakthrough ovulation to occur for a woman who is on the pill or ring or on the shot (etc). A breakthrough ovulation is fairly rare already, but then we would also need conception to take place, which is difficult to happen because the pill causes the sperm to have a difficult time traveling down the fallopian tube. But if all this stuff happens, then it is conceivable that the pill would have caused the endometrial lining to thin and thereby reject the implantation of an embryo that would otherwise have implanted. That’s a brief sketch of what is meant when you hear that “birth control causes abortions.”
So that isn’t to argue anything, but just to explain why it isn’t quite accurate to say that some pro-lifers believe contraception to be a form of abortion. The following analogy is a bit extreme, but it would almost be like saying that doctors believe that drinking liquids can harm or kill your unborn baby. Well, really it’s alcoholic liquids and liquids with caffeine, and it won’t always do that, but it is possible, etc.
So those are just some clarifying remarks.
Again, thanks Bobby. Nicely explained and just how I understood a pregnancy might occur while on the pill and then be subsequently terminated by the pill. While such an event is not illogical (as truthseeker claimed) it is extremely rare.
What I have heard on this blog, is that some people here do equate the Pill with abortion.
Asitis, I agree with what Bobby just wrote. Here’s an article from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. If you scroll to the bottom of page 2, you’ll see a statement about hormonal contraceptives.
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/Schu05finaleng.pdf
This isn’t from the catechism. I guess the answer to your question depends upon whether you consider church teaching to be the official catechism or the guidance of the bishops, who base their teaching on the catechism.
When it comes to equating the pill with abortion in a moral sense, certainly the Magisterium doesn’t equate the same degree of sinfulness to the pill as it does to abortion. I say that because abortion leads to excommunication whereas use of the pill does not. As I understand it (and someone correct me if I’m wrong) a couple who is contracepting is considered in a state of sin and should not present themselves for Holy Communion. But they are not excommunicated from the church although the Church does strongly condemn the use of contraceptives as Bobby said.
You can’t terminate a pregnancy that never happened.
Truthseeker, you can terminate a pregnancy about which you are unaware. Some forms of contraception do that, don’t they?
Nice find, Fed Up. I think that what Reverend Walter Schu is saying is consistant with my understanding of the situation.
“But it is thought that other contraceptives, such as intrauterine devices and hormonal
forms of contraception, may also act as abortifacients some of the time, not only as
contraceptives. A woman using birth control pills does not even know if such an early abortion
is occurring within her own body.”
So no one can argue with the first statement that some think that some forms of hormonal contraception may act as abortifacients. I think the purpose of Reverend Schu’s short paper here is to give some of the underlying reasons why the Church teaches as she does. Certainly we find official Church teaching intended for all the faithful in the documents put out by the Vatican, while much of the writings of local priests and bishops serves to clarify said teachings.
Certainly we find official Church teaching intended for all the faithful in the documents put out by the Vatican, while much of the writings of local priests and bishops serves to clarify said teachings.
Yes, thanks for saying it better than I could!
From an editorial in the Washington Post Jan 18/09. I thought this was interesting!
Many women say they have been pressured into abortions they did not want, according to research conducted by the Elliot Institute, a nonprofit specializing in the effects of abortion on women and families.
For years, the pro-choice movement has circulated horrid tales of back-alley abortions performed before Roe v. Wade legalized abortion on demand in 1973. Yet the opposite phenomenon, which has occurred across the nation, is even more disturbing. In a society in which abortion is legal, many women and teens are pressured to abort their child. So how much choice do American women really have over their reproductive capacities?
Women are coerced to abort a fetus by either husbands or boyfriends who do not want the additional responsibility or expense of a child; by parents who are ashamed of a teen pregnancy or who seek to conceal incest or rape; or by counselors, pastors and health professionals who insist this is in a woman’s best interest even when she doesn’t think so. Consider the pressures women face to abort a child: 45 percent of men interviewed at abortion clinics said they urged abortion, including 37 percent of married men, according to the report “Forced Abortion in America” that compiled much of the research on this topic. Women are often threatened by male companions who take them to their abortion appointment, according to eyewitness accounts at abortion clinics. And women are also encouraged to abort their fetus by the staff at these clinics who have a vested interest in selling the procedure.
Pressure to abort can consist of badgering a pregnant woman until she concedes, intimidation, blackmail and even violence. An astounding 64 percent of women say they were intensely pressured to abort their fetus, according to a 2004 study published in the Medical Science Monitor. Hundreds of women have come forward to tell their tale – and some of these stories have led to convictions of coercers.
In Florida, Glenda Dowis brought her pregnant daughter at gunpoint to an abortion clinic, where the staff called police. To cover up her son’s rape of a 12-year-old, Pennsylvania mother Joyce Farley took the pregnant girl out of state for an abortion – her parents were not notified. Nine women held in a juvenile detention center in Chalkville, Alabama accused the male guards of repeatedly raping them and then forcing the girls to have abortions when they became pregnant. Augencia Jasso of New Mexico was charged after hitting his pregnant, young, sexually abused victim in the stomach, deliberately inducing a miscarriage.
In other instances, coercion was less intense, but nonetheless played a vital role. A homeless woman, Shontrese Otry, was coerced to get an abortion by Emergency Shelters Inc., whose staff would not give her shelter unless she aborted the baby; she later won a $25,000 settlement. Actress Hunter Tylo was told by producers of “Melrose Place” to “just go out and get an abortion” when she became pregnant; she was fired – and later won a pregnancy discrimination suit. Assistant women’s basketball coach Sharrona Alexander was told by a head coach at the University of California- Berkeley to quit or have an abortion; she gave birth and then won a $115,000 settlement.
Elliott Institute founder David Reardon says that Americans need to think about the many ways women feel pressured to abort, and then suffer severe emotional and psychological consequences. In one instance, a pregnant teen he interviewed said she was asked by her mother: “Where will you live?”According to Mr. Reardon, “The withdrawal of social and economic support by parents is among one of the most common forms of coercion.”
Yet, despite the growing body of evidence on the issue of forced abortions, little headway has been made in protecting women. “I have been disappointed in the pro-life camp for not raising the level of urgency on this,”said Dr. Reardon. A simple solution is for states to pass a bill such as “The Prevention of Coerced and Unsafe Abortions Act” featured in the report.
This would require health professionals to screen for coercion and to counsel against an abortion in instances where there is a high risk that the woman is not freely consenting or that she will suffer severe depression – and possibly even attempt suicide – as a result of the procedure. Introducing a legal liability for psychological damage is one possible way to combat these practices. There is an ugly – and underreported – underside to the abortion industry: “Choice” is sometimes turned into coercion. The back alleys are gone, but the dangers for both mother and child are ever-present.
Thanks for posting that editorial, toostunned. It proves what pro lifers have been saying for years: not every woman is CHOOOSING the abortion; many have it chosen FOR THEM against their will.
Liz: so much for choice, eh?
Too stunned, that editorial is from the Washington Times, not the Wasington Post (yes, there’s a difference).
And something else: The Elliot Institute appears to be little more than its directot, David C. Reardon, an electrical engineer who received a PhD in bioethics from an unaccredited correspondence school. Reardon is a pro-life activist whose strategy is to raise enough doubts in people’s minds about abortion and the alleged dangers it presents to women so that they are not compelled to resist pro-life efforts to make abortion illegal.
“not every woman is CHOOOSING the abortion; many have it chosen FOR THEM against their will.”
I still think it’s crap. Not ONE person is FORCING another to have an abortion. They can say they got tricked, they can say their boyfriend/spouse would leave them, or their parents would disown them… it doesn’t matter. It’s STILL that woman CHOOSING to have an abortion. Maybe it’s because she feels like she “has to”, but she sure as heck doesn’t REALLY have to. ALL the women that have abortions made that CHOICE. Maybe they think they were “tricked” into it… same way they’d probably be tricked into buying a 1976 Ford Pinto for $5000. They’d rather believe what they heard rather than do anything for themselves, or rather than be alone.
Josephine, on the other side of that thought, if abortion is illegal, it will not FORCE a woman to have an illegal abortion. That would be her choice and the responsibility will be on her. Right?
PIP,
Right. It won’t force a woman to have an illegal abortion, but the women that were going to have abortions no matter what will have more dangerous abortions.
Josephine, on the other side of that thought, if abortion is illegal, it will not FORCE a woman to have an illegal abortion. That would be her choice and the responsibility will be on her. Right?
Posted by: prettyinpink at January 19, 2009 8:56 PM
Pip,”it” ( and by that I assumed you mean the law) will not force her to have an illegal abortion. But she could still claim someone forced or tricked her into having an illegal one, just as in the case of the legal one above, according to Josephine. Right?
Too Stunned, thanks for posting that. In my crisis counseling with women, I have learned that Josephine is partially correct in what she says about women (not minors) choosing abortion. Yes, most often they choose to abort rather than being led to the clinic at gunpoint, although that does happen too.
Most often, at least in my experience, it’s that they feel they have no workable solution except abortion. So yes, in the strict sense, they chose to have an abortion. But the options from which many women must choose are not as simple as Josephine suggests when she says They’d rather believe what they heard rather than do anything for themselves, or rather than be alone
Many women I have worked with tell me that the choice is abortion vs physical/financial harm to herself or others. It can be violence toward her loved ones such as family members or friends. It can be destruction of her vehicle or other property, like threats/attempts to burn down her residence. More than one woman has told me of her partner slaughtering her pets–and forcing her to watch–as a sign of the potential violence he can commit toward her if she proceeds with the pregnancy. There can be sabotage of work or finances that she’d need to support the child. There can be threats or attempts to sabotage custody arrangements of other children in the home. There are many ways a woman can be coerced into “choosing” abortion when she would rather not.
I have mixed feelings about legal liability legislation for coerced abortions. It’s pointless unless there are programs to help these women carry their children to term.
You can’t terminate a pregnancy that never happened.
Truthseeker, you can terminate a pregnancy about which you are unaware. Some forms of contraception do that, don’t they?
Posted by: Fed Up With Obama Jan 19, 2009 1:06 PM
All bloated on Obama,
Being unaware of something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. And it is my understanding that some do.
Fight for an end to abortion in America.
Fight with the Way, the Truth and the Life.
In a March for Life with so many others.
Fighting for the sanctity of life.
If I were president…..
Abortion = mandatory counseling for the woman and jail time for the abortionist.
If I were president…..
Abortion = mandatory counseling for the mother and jail time for the abortionist.
And if the father was aware and facilitated the abortion….mandatory counseling for him too.
And if they were to kill my granchild, I’d tack on a few extra days worth of special training.
/
:o{)lo
May the peace of Jesus Christ be with the assembly of pro-life protesters who march in DC this week. You’ll all be in my thoughts and prayers.
Dear Fed Up: very good post. Two sentences I liked:
Most often, at least in my experience, it’s that they feel they have no workable solution except abortion.
Absolutely. Also the coercion can be very subtle. Look at the situation Jill profiled recently, of the young woman whose partner was in the military and she discovered she was pregnant. His ambivalence towards the baby (well whatever YOU do is fine with me) led her to seek abortion and she died from a botched abortion. Instead of support she got, well, nothing from him. So here she is, single, of course in a no-strings-attached relationship, and pregnant. I think in such a situation, many women choose an abortion in order to “keep” the man. And it doesn’t work.
I have mixed feelings about legal liability legislation for coerced abortions. It’s pointless unless there are programs to help these women carry their children to term.
I think we need to point out to women that cohabitating relationships are NOT in their best interest. We need to promote marriage as the ideal healthy lifestyle for women and children (and also men too!). And we need to help those women who do get pregnant. But we also need to do more to impress upon men, that as fathers, they have a responsibility to the children they beget and they have a responsibility to the woman who is the mother of their child. As it is now, a man can pretty much walk away, with nary a concern.
I think we need to point out to women that cohabitating relationships are NOT in their best interest. We need to promote marriage as the ideal healthy lifestyle for women and children (and also men too!). And we need to help those women who do get pregnant. But we also need to do more to impress upon men, that as fathers, they have a responsibility to the children they beget and they have a responsibility to the woman who is the mother of their child.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 20, 2009 7:24 AM
I disagree with you somewhat on the first sentence toostunned. That is a generalization. I know couples that are in longterm, permanent relationships that have chosen not to marry and these relationships are just as stable and happy, if not more, than marriages I know. But admittedly, these are very, very different lives and individuals than the couples consisting of a father who abandons his children or the mother who chooses an abortion in order to keep her man. But you know what? That happens in marriages too.
I do agree with you that fathers need to see their responsibility. And women need to see theirs. In certain environments this is NOT the case. I see evidence of this in our nearby city’s newspaper everyday. Absent fathers. 40 year old grandmothers raising grandchildren.
Okay, I know this probably isn’t the best of days for you guys. So I found a way for you to turn this day around and have some fun:
What good are momentous events in our nation’s history if we can’t use them as an excuse to get hammered and make some bad decisions?
With that in mind the members of Team Cool & Tough have put our formidable brain power together and come up with a drinking game for the 2009 Inauguration. No need to thank us, we’re just doing our civic duty.
The Inauguration Day 2009 Drinking Game
Drink Every Time Someone Says:
“Historic”
“Monumental”
“Kennedy”
“Lincoln”
“Change” (as a noun)
“Most anticipated inauguration in history”
The name of a celebrity who thinks their opinion matters.
Drink Every Time:
Joe Biden’s hairplugs are awkwardly noticeable.
You see Oprah crying.
W glances at his watch.
You see a mediocre looking chick with political aspirations in the crowd.
Chris Matthews appears to get a boner.
You see Obama’s face on a t-shirt.
A white guy pretends to know the words to a Black Eyed Peas song.
Keith Olbermann comes off as a smug, pretentious asshole.
Someone in the crowd passes out.
You see a bearded hippie.
Jesse Jackson takes credit for Obama’s campaign.
A Fox News correspondent speaks in hushed tones with an air of faux patriotism.
Have fun on Tuesday. And don’t blame us when you’ve got a lampshade on your head twenty minutes into the telecast.
“I think we need to point out to women that cohabitating relationships are NOT in their best interest.”
I think what you mean to say is it’s not in your best interest. It happens to be in my best interest. To go to the school I wanted to go to, I would have either had to leave my bf in Chicago, or we BOTH would have had to get apartments separately. We’d been in a relationship for FIVE years. Both of those are ridiculous. I, however, didn’t want to get married at nineteen.
Using the presidential inauguration as an excuse to make bad decisions? It’s hard to think of a way to observe this travesty that is more consonant with the myriad mindless, bad decisions BO has already made, and will continue to make once he’s sworn in.
Yeh flynn. You need a drink! ;)
flynn: it WILL be interesting to see how the world and America will view Obama in a years time. Some of the stuff I’ve seen on TV and the internet is quite scary, especially the pledges made my Hollywood actors…. almost border on creepy.
And Josephine: I’m sorry to say that I disagree with you. IMO, you are doing the same thing you claim women seeking abortions do – rationalizing your decision. Just a thought.
Happy Obama-worship day!
A new study published in the International Journal of Mental Health & Addiction has found that the relationship between women and their partners and the level of support provided by the father are important factors in whether or not the woman aborts.
The study, headed by Prof. Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green State University, was based on a survey of low-income women undertaken at various hospitals around the country. The women involved had all become pregnant within 18 months of delivering a child and either aborted the second pregnancy or carried to term. Participants were asked about drug and alcohol abuse, their relationship with the child’s father and difficulties raising their first child.
The study found that women who felt they could not rely on their partner to help in caring for the child were more likely to have an abortion. They also found that women who had undergone an abortion were over three times more likely to report heavy alcohol use and twice as likely to report cigarette smoking.
Other studies have found that women who have had abortions have higher rates of subsequent substance abuse, suicide, anxiety disorders, depression, and other problems compared to women who carried to term. A recent study published by Coleman found that abortion was linked to higher rates of mental health disorders that included panic disorder, panic attacks, agoraphobia, post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder and major depression.
In the current study, women whose first child had medical problems or who had difficulty raising a child did not have a higher abortion rate, the researchers found.
“The results clearly suggest that women who feel the first child’s father has not assumed enough parental responsibility and/or lacks the ability to contribute to their efforts to raise the child, are reluctant to bear another child,” they wrote.
They also noted that women who had an abortion were more likely to report subsequently being slapped or kicked by the child’s father, suggesting that stress after abortion was leading to an increase in domestic violence.
Other surveys of post-aborted women have also found that the level of support and the attitudes of those around them, both in personal and professional relationships, play a role in determining whether or not an abortion takes place.
A survey of women who had abortions, published in the Medical Science Monitor, found that 64 percent of American respondents reported feeling pressured to abort by others and more than 80 percent said they weren’t given enough information to make a decision about abortion. And a survey of women in post-abortion support groups found that more than 83 percent said they would have continued the pregnancy if they had been given more support from others.
Women themselves have also shared stories of feeling that they had no choice but to abort. They describe a range of circumstances that can lead to unwanted abortions, including lack of support or resources to have the baby; pressure or threats from those around them; inadequate and deceptive counseling about alternatives, fetal development and abortion risks; and even violence.
One woman shared her story of being kicked out of the house by her parents when she became pregnant as a teen:
“They told me to leave the house and forget that I was their daughter. I left the house with no job, no money, no home and nowhere to turn, feeling utterly abandoned and alone. Still, I was certain I would not get an abortion. I wanted my child. …
“My father sent several messages urging me to have an abortion. I refused. But as I began to feel more desperate, I shut down my feelings … functioning more like a surreal observer than someone in control. … No one explained to me the baby’s development or what the abortion would be like. … I lay there just wishing that I could die.”
When a woman’s partner or family would wish her to continue the pregnancy, however, they may also be mislead by information that suggests it would be too difficult to have a child or that there are no other options but abortion. Pro-life advocates say that awareness of the harm abortion can cause their loved one and the availability of resources and options is needed so that women and teens are able to get the support they need for themselves and their unborn children.
The authors of the current study stressed that more attention should be paid to women’s relationships with those around them, suggesting that because abortion is framed as a “private women’s issue,” researchers and social scientists have been hesitant to look at how relationships with others affect pregnancy outcome.
They also called for more resources and alternatives for women facing crisis pregnancies, and offered specific suggestions for professionals working with women in vulnerable situations.
“If the father is psychologically and/or physically unavailable, counselors can assist women in identifying other sources of support within and outside the family …” they wrote. “Inquiries about a history of prior or current substance abuse and education efforts regarding documented substance abuse risks associated with [abortion] ought to be conveyed.”
********************************************
and from the NY Times: a story of a woman who was told to abort or leave home?
Josephine: do you still believe women are coerced? How many women are willing to go through what Jabrilla did to keep their baby?
Street performers in India are putting on a show, “I am your daughter, I am a human being…will you kill humanity?” about sex- selection and abortion. Here the narration is by Masum (a Muslim) and Sahal (a Hindu).
Masum: In this eye of ours, no difference is found between a son and daughter. Maybe in villages, maybe among uneducated people. Otherwise modern girls have been ahead, overtaking the boys and putting them quite behind.
Sahal: Now can you say that there is no difference or a little difference between a boy and a girl
Masum: Don’t you know? BAchendri Pal has conquered Mt. Everest and Rulpana. Chandra has crossed the cosmos. Girls have indeed progressed quite will, isn’t it?
Sahal: Yes. This is true. Listen to me. Girls have progressed enough. Yet the difference between the ways boys and girls are treated is found everywhere. Not only among illiterates and backwards but also among the well-to-do and learned.
…
Masum: Where are we going?
Sahal: Shri Jivdaya Maternity Ward
Masum: Shri Jivadya Maternity Ward?
Sahal: (to the audience) let’s go inside. Let’s ask these three sisters why they have come here. (to the sisters) Why have you come here?
Sister #1: I have come to check whether I have conceived a baby boy or a baby girl.
Sahal: Oh, why?
Sister #1: I have 2 daughters. I have already undergone the exhaustive procedure of abortion. This time my husband has threated to divorce me if I don’t conceive a male baby.
Sahal: A boy may be born or a girl. Either way it is not your fault.
Sister #2: …Since I have been blessed with a girl, my little girl and I are avoided. We have been neglected and hated by our family members. No one has shown love or affection toward her. No one has played with her.
Sister #3: Look, being a woman we have been wading through an ocean of blood and tears. Our lives are nothing but a heap of insults. Our self-respect is violated. We accept this and our daughters too have to surrender to this evil system. I did check about my pregnancy and finally, abortion was the only way left. Later on I came to knwo that it was a boy and not a girl. My heart and soul pinched me. I felt guilty. My family compelled me to have the abortion and then they called me bad names. Are they not guilty, too?
Masum: Indeed, they are guilty…The society which considers its daughters as a burden will never progress; we can develop only if we help our daughters to blossom.
[Through the title, the female fetus asks the audience to refuse the notion that an aborted fetus is an “it.” Rather, it is argued that the fetus is interpellated during sex-determination tests and it is then that “a certain social existence of the body first becomes possible.”…The voice in the title argues that despite others’ refusal to address her, she is recognizable within familial relations. “I am your daughter,” she asserts and in this moment engages in the radical act of naming herself. Moreover, she claims that she is part of humanity and in doing so not only calls attention to her “being” but also the foreclosure of her “becoming.” This lack of potential provides a way to interpret both the spectacle of sex-selection abortion as well as the imagined pain of being conceptualized as both non-human and disposable.]
Take a guess..did a pro-life or a pro-choice group put this play on?
(Josephine)you are doing the same thing you claim women seeking abortions do – rationalizing your decision. Just a thought.
Happy Obama-worship day!
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 20, 2009 3:25 PM
Hahahahahahahaha! to that thought! Don’t worry Josephine, I for one don’t have a problem with your choice to live with your boyfriend. It sounds like you know what you’re doing!
Happy-hating-on-Obama Day toostunned. It’s gotta be tough for you.
J
Elliott Institute founder David Reardon
When you bring up Reardon, you kill any credibility.
that’s your opinion Doug. I do NOT share it.
Ladies and gentleman,
May I have your attention please? Put down the birth control. You heard me. Put it down and walk away.
I don’t like to be harsh, but the hour is late. The citizens of many countries belong on the endangered species because they are dying out. Never before in the history of the world have so many countries lost so many people without disease or war to blame. This loss is by choice and it’s downright suicidal.
Why?
I am not telling you to have more children if you do not want them. I am telling you to want them. Couples have come to think that there is some cosmic balance that limits families to two children. Of course there are families that want to have children but can’t and those that can’t have more. This article is not addressed to them. Nor do I (or I hope anyone) give dirty looks to small families assuming they are not doing their parts. It is between them and God. Even when people express shock at learning I have ten and proceed to either categorize me as a “special person” or announce the reasons why they don’t want more, I don’t judge them. Alas, I was once in the group that thought family planning was all about the planet, money and freedom. These are the main reasons people choose not to be open to new life.
Money. Portfolio or another soul? I get that this is between you and God. Do you? It’s not between you and the banker. Children cost money. How much depends on your perspective and spending habits. For the record, my kids get jobs to buy their own cars and get themselves through college. We might wear brand names if we stumble onto them at rummage sales or on sale, but really, we don’t care about labels. So, my kids cost less than some.
For thousands of years children were considered treasures and investments for the future — including eternity. Poor families tended to have large families because their children represented help and security. But in the last few decades it’s all about money. Nowadays, children are treated like siphons on the ledger sheet. Spending money on children leaves less for parents. For many couples, there’s a level of comfort and financial security they refuse to dip below. Pity.
Population control. Now, this reason has become a real hoot. We were lied to and bullied senseless. People were made to feel guilty for even having children at all. During the sixties and seventies, people were told we would run out of food and natural resources. The opposite occurred. We still pay farmers not to farm. Our technological advances have provided for abundant food production. As for the natural resources, they are there, but in many countries, there are just not enough people to get to them.
The lies have been revamped as global warming — oh wait — make that “climate change” now that we have many months where average temperatures are below normal. Climate has always fluctuated but now anti-people groups blame humans for the change and change is not good according to them. The solution: stop making new people.
Climate change actually even reared its head in the seventies with the bestseller in 1976, The Cooling: Has the New Ice Age Already Begun? Can We Survive? I’m all for taking care of our planet. It’s a gift from God and I absolutely hate pollution. But radical environmentalists like to throw birth control at every problem. In reality, we need humans to fix the problems.
Are we running out of space? Yeah, right. Get out of the city and take a trip across the country. Entire books have been written debating both sides of the overpopulation debate so I’m not going to cover this in depth. Ironically, the latest and most troubling news is actually the exact opposite of what we were warned about — there are not enough people. It’s as if we went to sleep to one scenario and woke up to another.
Freedom. People often count 18 years from the birthday of their youngest to figure out when they will be “free” again. Or, they just don’t have children and openly admit they are too selfish to do so. In such a case, may God have mercy on them.
The Numbers Tell the Story
In Europe, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Japan and Russia, the only thing we are running out of is people. There are not enough babies. We are witnessing the self-extermination of entire nations.
According to the United Nations Population Division discussing the 2007 population changes in Eastern and Central Europe: “The expected global upheaval is without parallel in human history.” Germany’s population is down 10.3 %, Poland’s is down 20.5%, the Russian Federation’s is down 24.3%, and Bulgaria dropped 35.2%. The only population increase in Western Europe will be due to the large migration from Africa and Asia. There are pockets of growth here and there, but this is due to Muslim populations. For instance, among the districts in Russia there are exceptions to the dying trends — the high abortion, high HIV infection, low birthrate, high alcoholism and other social ills. Twelve of the eighty-nine Russian federal regions showing substantial population growth are Islamic regions. Islam is growing rapidly in a country where the native population is in the death throes. This is a country awash in natural resources except the most important one — people. It possesses a resource — rich eastern hinterland that it cannot get to without people. It is also the land of nuclear weapons and know-how. The future possibilities are frightening.
The number you need for merely maintaining a population is 2.1 babies per woman. Seventeen European nations are now at the “lowest-low”, 1.3 births per woman. This is the rate from which, according to demographers, no human society has ever recovered. In theory, countries at the “lowest-low” are falling fast, halving every thirty-five years or so. In reality this will likely happen much faster. Imagine the social upheaval as an aging population grows increasingly dependant on youth to support all the government services they need (certainly not enough children to take in parents). It’s likely that many young people will head for the hills, or at least another continent where their entire livelihood will not be sucked up into government social security. It also seems inevitable that euthanasia will become ever more popular and aggressive. With more old people to support and less young people to do it, the pressure will be to reduce the burden.
Why are so many countries, more educated, more peaceful, wealthier and healthier than at any other time in history, failing to create the next generation? On June 24, 2008 in Moscow, His Holiness Alexy II, Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia spoke to the Bishop’s Council of the Russian Orthodox Church on the population decline. He attributed Russia’s demographic crisis to the pitiable status of family and marriage and the low level standards of morality and spirituality. His Holiness claimed that any attempts to overcome the crisis by economic means only, without a spiritual component, are “doomed to failure since the sources of the crisis are not in purses, but in the souls of people.” He said it is not accidental that believers have more children than non-believers in identical economic conditions.
“Demographic problems do not arise in poor countries that have kept their religious traditions,” he observed. “Thus Russia should be looking for a way out of the demographic crisis in a spiritual and moral transformation of the person and society” (1).
In a sermon at a Neocatechumenate meeting in Jerusalem on March 27, 2008, Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, the Archbishop of Vienna, issued an attack against birth control, blaming it for Europe’s declining birth rate. He blamed his predecessors for lacking the courage to speak out after the publication of the encyclical Humanae Vitae, that reiterated the constant teaching of the Church on birth control.
“But those bishops,” said Cardinal Schonborn, were “frightened of the press and of being misunderstood by the faithful”. Blame lay not only with the bishops responsible at the time — none of whom is still alive — but with all bishops for the fact that Europe is “about to die out” (2).
In the Unites States, Christianity is a bigger part of everyday life than post-Christian Europe. Prayer, church membership and participation are higher. Also encouraging is that America still is willing to share its future with children. Although our birthrate was declining for many years and generally falls in around the 2.1 replacement, the United States reported a rise by 3.1% between 2005 and 2006 reaching almost 4.3 million births. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, that is the largest single-year increase in the number of births since 1989.
An Associated Press examination of global data also shows that the United States has a higher fertility rate than every country in continental Europe, as well as Australia, Canada and Japan. Fertility levels in those countries have been lower than the U.S. rate for several years, although some are on the rise, most notably in France. “Americans like children. We are the only people who respond to prosperity by saying, ‘Let’s have another kid,’” said Nan Marie Astone, associate professor of population, family and reproductive health at Johns Hopkins University (3).
Yes, this is somewhat encouraging. Statistics show we pray more and have more children than Europeans. But really, our tendency to teeter at replacement is not a position of strength. Let’s go back to Europe — the motherland for many of us — to see what is accompanying the decline in native births.
Changing Faces
Europe’s increasing social welfare programs depend on a growing population. Unable to generate such an increase on their own, they depend increasingly on immigration. And the majority of immigration is from Islamic cultures that are becoming increasingly more radical. Immigrant Muslim populations are not acclimating to the European culture. Europe gets older and its faith grows ever more feeble while Muslim populations within Europe increase due to the need for immigration to support the aging population. Muslim religious fervor is strong and they have large families, thus their population is increasing on both ends. Christianity fades while Islam increases. Already, much of Europe is catering to Sharia law. In Brussels, ten of the eighteen members of the ruling Socialist Party Caucus are Muslim. ”That’s to say, the capital city of the European Union already has a Muslim-majority governing party.” The introduction of Sharia bonds make London the world capital of Islamic banking. In country after country, civil laws, schools and cultural norms accomodate Sharia sensibilities (4).
According to his book, America Alone, Mark Steyn contends that the growing, youthful populations of Europe will ultimately take over. “What’s the Muslim population of Rotterdam? Forty percent. What is the most popular baby boys name in Belgium? Mohammed. In Amsterdam? Mohammed. In Malmo, Sweden? Mohammed. What country today has half its population under the age of fifteen? Spain and Germany have 14 percent the United Kingdom 18 percent, the United States 21 percent — and Saudi Arabia has 39 percent, Pakistan 40 percent, and Yemen 47 percent. Little Yemen, like little Britain two hundred years ago, will send its surplus youth around the world-one way or another” (5).
If you look at it in terms of birthrate, consider these birthrate numbers from Islamic countries: Niger is 7.46; Mali, 7.42; Somalia, 6.76; Afghanistan, 6.69; Yemen, 6.58. Yes, we can change the world, and we are; by disappearing. The future belongs to those willing to create the next generation. Islam is the fastest growing religion in North America and Europe. And throughout the world, Muslims are becoming more radical and aggressive in their faith.
By now, some readers have branded me racist for comparing the dwindling populations with the growing populations given who’s who in the scenario. Well, don’t even go there. I have two boys from Kenya, as dark as they come, who call me Mom. Besides, Muslims are not of a single skin color or culture. Am I phobic of non-Catholic religions? Don’t go there either. The books in the Amazing Grace series that I co-authored included stories from people of other faiths. God’s grace is for everyone. This is not a war of who has or has not the most people; it is spiritual warfare. We are losing because we aren’t living our faith.
In 2008, the Vatican announced that Islam has surpassed Roman Catholicism as the world’s largest religion. “For the first time in history, we are no longer at the top: Muslims have overtaken us,” Monsignor Vittorio Formenti said in an interview with the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano. He said that Catholics accounted for 17.4% of the world population — a stable percentage — while Muslims were at 19.2% (6).
The growth is attributed to both aggressive conversion tactics and large families. While millions of Westerners have bought into the secular one-or two-child mentality, Islamic societies are rapidly increasing in numbers. If current trends continue, Europe will make up just 7.5 percent of the world’s people by 2050, compared to 22 percent in 1950. At the same time, the countries with the most youthful populations will all be Muslim: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Iraq. Worldwide trends indicate that by 2050, Muslims will comprise 30 percent of the world’s population, with Christians making up 25 percent (7).
If anyone walks away from this article thinking that I’m sounding an alarm based on them versus us, they would be misinformed. This is really about us. What has happened to us? Why are we dying out or just teetering on existence?
I contend it’s all based on a people that have become worldlier and less religious. God matters less and the world more. Religion has taken a back seat to Wall Street. Selfishness precludes parenthood, and people are hugging trees instead of babies.
If the statistics alone convince you to have more children, then, again, you are not hearing me clearly. If our homes and hearts are not open to more children, then we need to go back and open them. We do this by putting God at the center. Whatever stands in the way of openness to life, needs to be pushed aside. Souls, life, God, eternity… these are of the greatest value. The rest will fade away, just as it should. For it is the world that should be fading away and not us.
(1) “Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II: Demographic Crisis Can Only Be Overcome by Morality not Money”, translated by Andrey Bystrov, July 8, 2008, LifeSiteNews.com
(2) ”Cardinal Schonborn Lambasts the Failure of Bishops to Condemn Contraception”, CatholicActionUK.com, November 6, 2008
(3) “More U.S. Babies Born, Fertility Rate up, Defying Low-birth Trend in Europe”, Mike Stobbe — Associated Press, January 15, 2008
(4) Steyn, Mark, America Alone, Regnery Publishing, Inc., xii
(5) Ibid, pp. 6-7
(6) “Vatican: Muslims Now Outnumber Catholics”, USA TODAY, 4/2/2008
(7) Ali, Daniel and Spencer, Robert, “Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics”, Ascension Press, 2003
Hi everyone! Greetings and salutations.
That is all.
Hal
Boy does it feel GOOD to be an American today.
First time in over a decade I’ve had any glimmer of hope about our future.
When George Bush was inaugurated 8 years ago, I felt good about those in charge of my country again — I felt “clean”. Now I feel grungy again.
Hi Hal.
Ladies and gentleman,
May I have your attention please? Put down the birth control. You heard me. Put it down and walk away.I don’t like to be harsh, but the hour is late….
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 20, 2009 6:46 PM
….. we must act now because the Muslims are winning the War of Numbers! We must start having more Christian babies! Beware!!!!!
That’s good. Thanks!
Elliott Institute founder David Reardon
When you bring up Reardon, you kill any credibility.
Posted by: Doug at January 20, 2009 6:33 PM
Doug, you gotta love a guy that buys a PhD, calls himself an Institute, assumes a dual role as activist and “researcher” and then self- publishes his findings.
Salutations Hal!
I know what you mean, Eileen #2.
Most likely tomorrow, Tax dollars will once again be funding FORCED China abortions (don’t we have any say? Are we a democracy or not?
whitehouse.gov site has already been edited to remove any reference to Sanctity of Human Life day. :(
Shep: “Boy does it feel GOOD to be an American today. First time in over a decade I’ve had any glimmer of hope about our future.”
This is a sentiment I don’t understand among liberals, because as a conservative I’ve never felt this romantic delusion in my own bosom with conservative presidents.
If your opinion of one mere man makes the difference in how you view a country of over 300,000,000 people, I’d say “get help.”
I’m also noting the celebrities coming forward, after eight years, and publicly talking about the good things they intend to do. What I don’t understand, is what prevented their demonstrations of virtue hitherto?
Rasqual at January 20, 2009 9:32 PM :
Really? You never felt a sense of hope when a President you voted for took office? That strikes me as odd.
I think what people see in Obama is not just what this “one mere man” might do, but what he might inspire 300 million to do.Hey, if he inspired those self-centered celebs to do good, why not you and others rasqual?
It’s too bad politics comes down to a single issue for you guys, because there is so much other good stuff here to be celebrating today.
“And Josephine: I’m sorry to say that I disagree with you. IMO, you are doing the same thing you claim women seeking abortions do – rationalizing your decision. Just a thought.”
I’m doing the same thing women seeking abortions do? You’re right. I WANT to live with my boyfriend. So I guess I’m doing the exact same thing. :)
I sent happy new president texts to most of the people on my phone. This has been a realllly great day. Anyone notice that Obama got sworn in on a bible, not the Qur’an? Dun dun dunnnnnnn………..
asitis: “you guys?” ‘scuse me, asitis, but what do you know about me?
Again, if 300,000,000 can’t be inspired to virtue apart from Obama, frankly, we’re a sorry-ass lot.
Obama as the “stone soup” guy. ;-)
asitis: Oh, and we’re not talking about a “sense” of hope, with Obama. Either that or you’ve badly misspelt “orgasm.”
Asitis, I know exactly what you’re talking about with a sense of hope. Maybe there hasn’t been a successful Republican and so long, they’ve all forgotten about feeling hope?
asitis: Oh, and we’re not talking about a “sense” of hope, with Obama.
Posted by: rasqual at January 20, 2009 9:55 PM
Really? Because it sure sounded like you were commenting on an earlier comment about HOPE:
Shep: “Boy does it feel GOOD to be an American today. First time in over a decade I’ve had any glimmer of hope about our future.”
This is a sentiment I don’t understand among liberals, because as a conservative I’ve never felt this romantic delusion in my own bosom with conservative presidents.
Posted by: rasqual at January 20, 2009 9:32 PM
Asitis, I know exactly what you’re talking about with a sense of hope. Maybe there hasn’t been a successful Republican and so long, they’ve all forgotten about feeling hope?
Posted by: Josephine at January 20, 2009 10:01 PM
I don’t think that’s it Josephine. From what I have been hearing, I think all that matters to them is one single issue. If the president isn’t opposed to abortion and wanting to make it illegal, he can do no good. Similarly, if he is opposed to abortion and wants to make it illegal, he can do no wrong.
But for the rest of us, it’s been quite a day. My kids came home from school all excited about the inaguration – their teachers took time in classes to watch or they had it playing in background. It’s something they will remember.
Has there ever been a Republican president who has ever made significant progress in the pro-life movement? I can’t think of one, but I’m very young and that’s not exactly something we learn in school..
I was under the impression most pro-life politicians wanted exception for rape or incest.
toostunnedtolaugh @ 3:53pm
Something to note:
Coleman has published twelve articles in peer-reviewed journals that claim there is a causal relationship between abortion and negative mental health.[4][5] Her co-authors are pro-life advocates J.R. Cougle, Vincent Rue and David Reardon. Reardon is controversial for misrepresenting his academic credentials and for his research methods.[4][5]
The statistical methods Coleman and her co-authors use have been criticized by the American Psychological Association (APA)[5] A panel convened by the APA has written that the studies by Coleman, and her co-authors have “inadequate or inappropriate” controls and don’t adequately control “for women’s mental health prior to the pregnancy and abortion.” [5]
Coleman, Cougle, Reardon and Rue have also been criticized by other researchers in the field. Jillian Henderson and Katharine Miller wrote to the Journal of Anxiety Disorders claiming, “We believe that Cougle, et al., operate with strong political views regarding abortion, and unfortunately their biases appear to have resulted in serious methodological flaws in the analysis published in your journal. [Reardon, Coleman and Cougle] are involved in building a literature to be used in efforts to restrict access to abortion
whitehouse.gov site has already been edited to remove any reference to Sanctity of Human Life day. :(
Posted by: LizFromNebraska at January 20, 2009 8:57 PM
yeah, I think most people will be stunned when they finally see the REAL Obama and the henchmen/women he’s placed in positions of authority.
Look for the abortion rate to skyrocket, the birth rate to drop, for euthanazia laws to be enacted and freedom of religion and the right to live according to your Christian conscience to all but disappear. Christians will increasingly be removed from the public sphere.
The love of Obama borders on neuroses with people hailing him as the Messiah.
It’s gonna be a very interesting 4 years, that’s all I can say.
Liz: here’s a more detailed write-up:
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — In less than five minutes after Barack Obama took over as the next president, the White House web site changed from pro-life to pro-abortion. The previous site, which touted the pro-life proclamation President Bush signed late last week, now includes Obama’s agenda for women, which calls for promoting abortion.
Gone is any mention of the Sanctity of Human Life Day or the speeches or actions of President Bush’s that promoted human life. Now, in the same color scheme and format as the Bush site, there is a celebration of Obama’s agenda.
According to a web site search of WhiteHouse.gov, the only page on the official governmental site to mention abortion is a page detailing what Obama will do to promote the interests of women.
Though abortions cause women a myriad of medical and mental health problems, Obama states his clear intent, in a section entitled “reproductive choice,” to make abortions even more available.
“President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Adminstration [sic],” the Obama White House site says.
“He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case,” it adds.
The White House page also touts Obama’s backing for the Prevention First Act.
Billed as a measure to provide more funding for family planning and contraception, pro-life advocates oppose it because it sends millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion business that does 25 percent of the abortions across the country.
The Obama White House site also promotes the new president’s view that Americans should be forced to pay for embryonic stem cell research, which involves the destruction of human life and has never helped a single patient.
The web site comes across as a false claim that government has not supported stem cell research in general, even though President Bush spent hundreds of millions of dollars promoting the use of adult stem cells — the only kind to help any patients.
“President Obama and Vice President Biden believe that we owe it to the American public to explore the potential of stem cells to treat the millions of people suffering from debilitating and life-threatening diseases,” the White House site says.
“Obama is a co-sponsor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which will allow research of human embryonic stem cells derived from embryos donated (with consent) from in vitro fertilization clinics. These embryos must be deemed in excess and created based solely for the purpose of fertility treatment,” it adds.
However, not all leftover embryos are deemed to be in excess as hundreds of babies have been born through the embryo adoption programs that exist nationwide.
*********************************
for a nation with, what, $10,644,641,809,254.79 (last time I checked!!) in debt, one would think that prudent spending might be the order of the day in the White House.
You know, like, maybe instead of spending billions on embryonic stem cell research and promoting abortions at home and worldwide – the money might go into better schools and decent housing and health care for all Americans. Isn’t that what his inaugural speech hinted at? Or was that just smoke, to cover up the real agenda and the real Obama?
Look for the abortion rate to skyrocket, the birth rate to drop, for euthanazia laws to be enacted and freedom of religion and the right to live according to your Christian conscience to all but disappear. Christians will increasingly be removed from the public sphere.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 21, 2009 6:35 AM
Propsed improvements to sex education will more likely lead to fewer teen and unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions, not a “skyrocketing” trend. Birth rate probably will drop, not because of Obama toostunned, but because of the economy. Experts have already predicted this. I even read an article about that in the newspaper the other day – couples, especially young ones, are delaying their decision due to job uncertainties.
And if by saying “Christians will increasingly be removed from the public sphere” you actually mean that religion will be taken out of government policy making and law making, well that’s probably a good thing.
You know, like, maybe instead of spending billions on embryonic stem cell research and promoting abortions at home and worldwide – the money might go into better schools and decent housing and health care for all Americans. Isn’t that what his inaugural speech hinted at? Or was that just smoke, to cover up the real agenda and the real Obama?
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 21, 2009 7:10 AM
Stem cell research (like that fruit fly research Sarah Palin so foolishly mocked) will go toward improved health care. And the “real Obama” isn’t “promoting” abortion. He is continuing to allow it. And at the same time, he is working toward reducing the number of women facing an unmanted pregnancy and abortion. I think you’re the one blowing smoke toostunned!
Elliott Institute founder David Reardon
“When you bring up Reardon, you kill any credibility.”
Too StunnedTo Laugh: that’s your opinion Doug. I do NOT share it.
I don’t doubt that, but in no way is it “just” my opinion. We’ve been through Reardon several times, literally buying his “doctorate” from a place that simply took money in exchange for the “diploma” etc.
He figured it’d be a good deal since now calling himself a “doctor” has meant more book sales.
Josephine: Asitis, I know exactly what you’re talking about with a sense of hope. Maybe there hasn’t been a successful Republican and so long, they’ve all forgotten about feeling hope?
It didn’t bother me that Bush Jr. beat Gore – at the time it was no big deal at all to me. Over time my opinion of Bush Jr’s performance went down but as far as outright “harm” done to the country, other than financial, I don’t see that he was really all that bad.
Obama is starting out with high popularity, but the coming years will be a tough time to be President. Nobody has a “magic wand” for the economy, etc., and if Obama is a two-term President it will surprise me, from where I stand now.
Are we running out of space? Yeah, right. Get out of the city and take a trip across the country. Entire books have been written debating both sides of the overpopulation debate so I’m not going to cover this in depth. Ironically, the latest and most troubling news is actually the exact opposite of what we were warned about — there are not enough people.
Not literally “running out of space” but we’re already having profound and massive impact on the world’s ecology. It’s not just a matter of “putting people somewhere” – they have to be fed, clothed, sheltered, have materials grown and mined for them, etc.
There are plenty of people, and we’ve gone from about 3 billion people when I was born to over 6 billion at present. The US Census Bureau forecasts 9 billion by 2040.
“”President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Adminstration [sic],” the Obama White House site says.
“He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case,” it adds.”
So does McCain, had he been elected. I bet you wouldn’t complain about that, though.
McCain wasn’t going to put through legislation that would take away all restrictions on abortion.
Doug,
I had heard just recently that Los Angeles has the 4th highest population of French people. Apparently the young people of France are overwhelmed with the attempt to support a rapidly growing aging population so they are leaving the country in record numbers. Europe is dying out.
The U.S. can feed the entire world but because of corrupt 3rd world gov’ts and mismanagement of resources there are many starving people.
Who should be deciding who is allowed to reproduce and who should not? Many women in 3rd world countries are being forced to abort or to be sterilized because of gov’t oppression or the insidious invasion of Planned Parenthood and their ilk. Some women are denied food unless they submit to sterilization.
Josephine,
This is not meant to be a contentious question but I am not really understanding this: You don’t want to get married but how is living with your boyfriend any different? How would marriage change your situation. It sounds like you have already sacrificed going to the school that was your first choice (if I understood that correctly) for the sake of staying together. If you are living together, you must be sharing expenses. How would marriage change things?
I don’t doubt that, but in no way is it “just” my opinion. We’ve been through Reardon several times, literally buying his “doctorate” from a place that simply took money in exchange for the “diploma” etc.
Posted by: Doug at January 21, 2009 9:25 AM
New to this, I didn’t realize Reardon’s credentials (or lack there of) have actually come up here before, let alone several times. It amazes me that someone would actually quote his work, knowing that. Same for Priscilla Coleman. Even without knowing of their dual roles as advocate/research, their conclsuions should raise some red flags about their research. Do people ignore them?. Or do they just not know any better?
Here’s an example of something that should raise a red flag:
“They also noted that women who had an abortion were more likely to report subsequently being slapped or kicked by the child’s father, suggesting that stress after abortion was leading to an increase in domestic violence.”
from toostunnedtolaugh at January 20, 2009 3:53 PM)
This says nothing about whether these women were slapped or kicked by the child’s father prior to having an abortion. So how can Coleman claim that abortion is causing domestic violence? The violence could be there beforehand and contribute to the abortion decision. How does one know without knowing the incidence of pre-abortion violence in these relationships.
This seems pretty abvious to me.
Doug,
Apparently the young people of France are overwhelmed with the attempt to support a rapidly growing aging population so they are leaving the country in record numbers
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 21, 2009 11:30 AM
Where did you get that Eileen?
It didn’t bother me that Bush Jr. beat Gore – at the time it was no big deal at all to me. Over time my opinion of Bush Jr’s performance went down but as far as outright “harm” done to the country, other than financial, I don’t see that he was really all that bad.”
Doug, with all due respect, GWB was terrible in many ways. Rule of law, foreign policy, war in Iraq (not just that he went to war, but that he did it with no plan. Read Woodward’s book), cronyism, and on and on. Like you, I wasn’t that upset when he got elected, I thought he’d be okay. Not my first choice, but I figured we’d be okay. I don’t actually blame him for the financial mess, but what he did in the name of “keeping us safe” is a disgrace. I wish that helicopter took him straight to Gitmo and see how he would enjoy being locked up without charges, lawyer, evidence or trial. (I’d let him out after a few days)
The U.S. can feed the entire world but because of corrupt 3rd world gov’ts and mismanagement of resources there are many starving people.
Eileen, at the very least that is really stretching the point. “The entire world”? Not really.
…..
Who should be deciding who is allowed to reproduce and who should not?
The theme we sometimes see is that people “should” have more kids because such-and-such population is showing slowing growth.
Well, for example, if somebody is worried about the Muslim population growing versus the Christian one, and they have nothing else that carries more weight for them in the consideration, then by all means I’m for letting them choose to have as many kids as they want and that they can support.
But to say that somebody else should be impacted by laws based on such concern is just plain silly.
TSTL: for a nation with, what, $10,644,641,809,254.79 (last time I checked!!) in debt, one would think that prudent spending might be the order of the day in the White House.
Heh, yeah right. Since when has any President really been prudent in spending? Eisenhower?
Obama doesn’t have a magic wand, and neither does McCain and neither does anybody.
Hi everyone! Greetings and salutations.
That is all.
Hal
Hey Dude, how ya doin’?
Any progress on opening those pod bay doors?
Hal, agreed that GWB wasn’t great on foreign policy, etc. I guess I’m pretty cynical about politicians in the first place, so I don’t expect much.
Eileen: I had heard just recently that Los Angeles has the 4th highest population of French people. Apparently the young people of France are overwhelmed with the attempt to support a rapidly growing aging population so they are leaving the country in record numbers. Europe is dying out.
Is that the 4th highest number of French people in one city in the world?
Eileen: I had heard just recently that Los Angeles has the 4th highest population of French people. Apparently the young people of France are overwhelmed with the attempt to support a rapidly growing aging population so they are leaving the country in record numbers. Europe is dying out.
Is that the 4th highest number of French people in one city in the world?
Posted by: Doug at January 21, 2009 12:54 PM
Or in one city outside of France?
Is it French by nationality? Or is it French-speaking?
Inquiring minds want to know Eileen!
Doug: North American farms produce enough food to supply every person in North America with 7000 calories per day. When was the last time you consumed 7000 calories in one day?
*****************************************
There are plenty of people, and we’ve gone from about 3 billion people when I was born to over 6 billion at present. The US Census Bureau forecasts 9 billion by 2040.
Posted by: Doug at January 21, 2009 9:44 AM
big hairy deal. Most of North America is uninhabitated. So what? You don’t have to have any more children. But those of us who want big families will definitely continue to do so.
And most large families are very environmentally conscious.
Since the mother often doesn’t work, meals are homecooked (thus using less packaged and preprocessed foods), many foods are often grown at home and are canned and preserved, the mother doesn’t use BC pills so no estrogen is peed into the water, children often use hand-me-downs or second hand everythings, thus conserving many resources, baby diapers are often cloth, menstrual pads arent’ used very frequently because mom rarely has periods between pregnancies and breastfeeding.
These families also often have one car, thus saving fuel and therefore also having lower emissions. They often don’t take family vacations by plane, thus conserving jet fuel.There’s a hell of a lot more conserving going on than you can ever imagine.
Also your statement is inherently racist Doug. Since most of the population growth in the last 30 years has occurred in the third world, what are you saying – that we should encourage the Third world moms to abort their babies – maybe all their babies? They’ve made it quite clear, they are NOT interested in our anti-life ideology. They love babies. They want to have babies and they want large families. Or maybe you are in favor of sterilization in exchange for aid?
They’ve made it quite clear, they are NOT interested in our anti-life ideology. They love babies. They want to have babies and they want large families. Or maybe you are in favor of sterilization in exchange for aid?
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 21, 2009 1:18 PM
Gosh, that’s a bit extreme wouldn’t you say toostunned. Surely you can think of a better option to forced sterilization in order to receive aid. I know! How about we offer them contraception and education along with other forms of aid?
When you say that these women in developing countries want large families, do you know this for a fact?
You might be surprised to hear these women say that while they do love babies, they would like to have fewer of them and start later in life.
Eileen, marriage changes a lot of things. That’s why I don’t want to get married yet. (Maybe ever?) That’s why there are couples that are together for years, get married, and get divorced within a year. If I’m happy with things the way they are, then there’s no reason to change it. I’m not concerned about getting married. In fact, I almost don’t want to. Like I said, why change something that’s working? I’m happy, and I certaintly don’t plan on forcing him to marry me ever! Plus, we share expenses fifty fifty. We don’t have a joint bank account. Come rent time, he gives me his half and I put it on my debit card. The only time we ever share money is when it comes to food. I like having my own money. I don’t want to ever “ask” to spend money.
Oh, and you misunderstood me earlier. I read what I wrote, and it wasn’t the most clear. I AM going to the school I wanted to go to. So, I had to leave Chicago, where my bf lived too. We both moved to Champaign, because he also wanted me to go to the school of my choice, but I didn’t want to leave him.
Josephine: just curious: so do you have a “no-strings” attached relationship. Since neither of you have taken vows, each is free to simply walk out the door?
Hello, all:
I am happy to say that the WASHINGTON TIMES printed this op-ed of mine yesterday:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/20/sincere-gratitude-to-george-w-bush/
Hahah, TSTL… we have a relationship like any other. Just because we aren’t married doesn’t means we haven’t made promises to each other. It doesn’t mean we love each other less. I wouldn’t ever walk out on him. I trust him to not do that to me.
However, that happens in marriages, not just boyfriend/girlfriend relationships.
nice op ed Bri!
Heres another about Mr. Obama:
Life in the Time of Obama
For too many more, it may be far too short.
By Anne Conlon
At Mass on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, while listening to readings that celebrate Mary’s great “Yes” to a proposition that would certainly upset life as she knew it, I found myself wondering about the millions of women who, since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, have said “No.” Maybe one or two (or three or four) were there at Mass with me, meditating on the unexpected angelic encounter that put human history on a course to salvation. Did any of them regret the answer she had given? Or were they, like so many Catholics who voted for Barack Obama, still unmoved by the Church’s teaching—untouched by the news that the fruit of their womb, too, was blessed?
The advent of the Obama administration brings a familiar darkness back to Washington. As it was with Bill Clinton, it seems that abortion will be the only ground over which our new leader will not negotiate. He promised as much at a Planned Parenthood function last year, and there’s no reason not to take him at his word. Abortion is, in fact, the only issue Obama has a record on. And while the press hasn’t trumpeted it, attention was paid after his careless “above my pay grade” dismissal of Rick Warren’s question about when “a baby gets human rights”—enough so that no responsible voter could claim ignorance of Obama’s history of abortion extremism.
Why is there such need to extinguish all significance from the abortion act? A need so compelling that Obama would acquiesce in outright infanticide rather than support legislation—proposed in 2003 in the Illinois State Senate, of which he was then a member—to protect the lives of babies who survived bungled abortions? Obama, who gathered a winning coalition under the banner of “change we can believe in,” said “No” to this proposition a year after the U.S. Senate unanimously passed virtually identical legislation. Rescinding the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (along with all other state and federal abortion regulations) is the kind of change Obama believes in.
He signaled as much by naming Ellen Moran, executive director of Emily’s List—a political action committee that raises money only for pro-abortion female candidates—as his communications director. This is more than a sop to women’s organizations whose support Democrats take for granted. This is a statement about who Obama is: an abortion stalwart. And what his administration will be: abortocratic.
We shouldn’t be surprised. At current rates, one in three American women will have had an abortion by age 45. We can assume that while many may regret the decision—not just among the women themselves, but among fathers, grandparents, and others who were party to it—many more do not. Eight years of George W. Bush’s unabashed pro-life advocacy—once upon a time, he was even called the nation’s second Catholic president—has been an ordeal for those who believe abortion is a right to be celebrated, not a wrong to be scorned. They expect a massive correction in abortion policy, and rhetoric, now that Democrats are in control.
For all we know, however, Barack Obama’s unabashed pro-abortion advocacy may be motivated by more than political expedience. Perhaps he has been personally touched by the experience. He has, after all, said he wouldn’t want his daughters to be “punished” with an unwanted baby. Is that how he, or his wife, or his best friend, or someone else close to him now or in the past felt about some pregnancy or other—punished? Can abortion really make that feeling go away? Or does it, in the end, exacerbate it?
Some of the most powerful testimony about the personal anguish abortion can cause has come from people who support abortion rights. One especially memorable account appears in the late Magda Denes’s In Necessity and Sorrow: Life and Death in an Abortion Hospital. Denes, a clinical psychoanalyst (and one of the originators of Gestalt therapy), arranged to spend time observing procedures at the same hospital where she had had an abortion several years before. Her book came out in 1976.
In one chapter, after recording the discomfort she had felt while watching an abortion, Denes describes visiting the room where the remains of aborted fetuses are stored. At first, she recalls the unexpected pleasure of putting on surgical gloves and discovering that her “hands feel completely protected without any noticeable loss of agility.” But pleasure quickly fades as she proceeds to inspect a “garbage-can-filled graveyard,” using forceps to lift dead little human beings out of “paper buckets—the type in which one buys fried chicken from take-out stores.”
Here she is at journey’s end: “Finally, I lift a very large fetus whose position is such that, rather than its stiff face, I first see its swollen testicles and abnormally large stiff penis. I look at the label. Mother’s name: Catherine Atkins; doctor’s name: Saul Marcus; sex of item: male; time of gestation: twenty-four weeks. I remember Catherine. She is seventeen, a very pretty blond girl. Not very bright. This is Master Atkins—to be burned tomorrow—who died like a hero to save his mother’s life. Might he have become someday the only one to truly love her? The only one to mourn her death? ‘Nurse, nurse,’ I shout, taking off my fancy gloves. ‘Cover them up.’ ”
Magda Denes had the intellectual decency to call abortion “murder—of a very special and necessary sort.” We don’t hear talk of murder these days; even most pro-lifers eschew that hard word. Now the word “killing” also is being excised from the abortion lexicon, as proponents, including Barack Obama, propagandize the public with arguments that we cannot know for sure when life begins. Covering up the babies isn’t enough. Language has to be covered up, too. And common sense. But the price of this covering up is delusion. And as we have begun to see, a nation that can delude itself about killing, about murder, can delude itself about anything—the threat of terrorism, the stability of financial markets, the suitability of its new president.
Posted by: bri at January 21, 2009 2:38 PM
Great!!! Thank you!
However, that happens in marriages, not just boyfriend/girlfriend relationships.
Posted by: Josephine at January 21, 2009 2:50 PM
true enough Josephine. However, there IS a difference between a sacramental Catholic marriage and just cohabitating. As Catholics we believe that the sacrament of marriage which each spouse bestows on the other provides wonderful graces to help both live up to and live faithfully to the vows they’ve made in front of family friends and God. That is an important difference.
Over time my opinion of Bush Jr’s performance went down but as far as outright “harm” done to the country, other than financial, I don’t see that he was really all that bad.
Posted by: Doug at January 21, 2009 9:31 AM
Really? Where do you get this? Bush was the one that, over and over again, said that banks shouldn’t be lending to people who were in no position to pay the money back. You blame HIM for the financial crisis? Come on. He tried a stimulus package now Obama will too but somehow it’s okay that Obama does it? Obama “said” he wouldn’t raise taxes on business now – but Bush was wrong when he didn’t raise taxes. Ah, the double standard just keeps going. Please.
Way to go Obama. Got people out of work, banks failing, mortgages that can’t be paid, $10trillion in debt and you’ve still got money for funding abortion overseas. (I guess it’s payback time for all those abortion groups that funded your campaign!)
What WAS that about all men being “born free” but unborn babies getting to be born dead at the request of their mothers?
Way to go America! You’ve really got YOUR priorities straight! lol
So if a Catholic doesn’t get married in front of family and friends their vows aren’t as important? I’m in a loving, committed relationship and I have no plans to change that. My boyfriend isn’t a Catholic, so that part doesn’t matter. I can’t dream of anyone who would think a twenty-year old couple who are both currently in college should be getting married anyway.
“Bush was the one that, over and over again, said that banks shouldn’t be lending to people who were in no position to pay the money back. ”
Bush is not “the one” that said that. I’m pretty sure everyone in the world agrees you shouldn’t lend money to people who can’t pay it back. That’s not a brilliant Bush idea.
true enough Josephine. However, there IS a difference between a sacramental Catholic marriage and just cohabitating. As Catholics we believe that the sacrament of marriage which each spouse bestows on the other provides wonderful graces to help both live up to and live faithfully to the vows they’ve made in front of family friends and God. That is an important difference.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 21, 2009 3:43 PM
Sure, but does that have any real effect on the divorce rate for Catholics? From figures I’ve seen religion, Catholicism included, has very little influence on divorce rate in the U.S. Correct me if I’m wrong.
So if a Catholic doesn’t get married in front of family and friends their vows aren’t as important? I’m in a loving, committed relationship and I have no plans to change that. My boyfriend isn’t a Catholic, so that part doesn’t matter. I can’t dream of anyone who would think a twenty-year old couple who are both currently in college should be getting married anyway.
You have either completely missed my point or are being disingenuous Josephine. I said that a Catholic marriage is a SACRAMENT. Do you know what this means? It means that the couple through their vows, bestows the sacrament upon each other. It means that they receive special graces from God to help them make the marriage work. Couples cohabitating do not have the benefit of these sacramental graces. Of course, maybe you don’t believe there’s a difference. In which case, you are right. Why bother getting married in the Catholic church and why bother getting married at all?
You said: “live faithfully to the vows they’ve made in front of family friends and God.”
Just so you know. I don’t know why you said that unless it’s important that your family and friends see you.
Also, I know what a sacrament is. I also know no where does it say Catholics have to get married. Did you not think your relationship with your husband was special before you got married? It was only special afterward? I mean, I was told getting married doesn’t change anything just a few posts ago.
:)
Josephine for your information:
Last April the USCCB Subcommittee on Marriage and the Family Life commissioned a poll on marriage and family issues, to be conducted by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate. The final product, a poll of 1,008 self-identified Catholics, shows, as put by Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, the Chairman of the subcommittee, a “mixed picture.” Amongst many other findings, the poll indicated that Catholics who attend Mass frequently are the least likely to get divorced and are more likely to have more children.
“Not surprisingly, the study paints a mixed picture. It gives us reasons to be grateful and hopeful. It also raises concerns and presents us with challenges,” said Archbishop Kurtz about the poll’s findings.
What is most distressing, said Kurtz, is that the study shows that self-identified Catholics are just as likely as the overall population to obtain a divorce.
“In terms of marital status and certain attitudes about marriage, we see that Catholics are very similar to the general population. Sadly, this trend also holds true for divorce. Here both the good news and the bad news are the same: in general, Catholics are neither more nor less likely to get divorced than anyone else.”
Nevertheless, said the Archbishop, an important fact revealed by the poll is that those Catholics who go to Mass more frequently, and demonstrate an overall higher level of commitment to the faith, generally have much lower rates of divorce and are much more familiar with the Church’s teachings on marriage. On the other hand, those who rarely or never go to Mass are significantly more likely to obtain a divorce.
“These findings seem to be consistent with a general conclusion of social research, namely, that religious affiliation and practice are related positively to marital stability and vice versa,” observed the Archbishop.
from another piece:
In a research brief this month, Bradford Wilcox, a sociology professor at the University of Virginia, analyzed three national studies in order to discover if “there is any evidence that religion is playing a role in encouraging a strong family orientation among contemporary American men?” His research led him to conclude that men who regularly attend Christian services are engaged in happier and stronger marriages and are more involved in the lives of their children than men who do not.
“70 percent of husbands who attend church regularly report they are ‘very happy’ in their marriages, compared to 59 percent of husbands who rarely or never attend church,” explained Wilcox, who also said that the studies indicated that wives experienced more marital happiness when their husbands attended regular religious services.
The studies also found that children born inside of wedlock had much more “involved, affectionate, and consistent relationships” with their fathers. This is an important statistic given Wilcox’s findings that church attending men are more likely to have children inside of wedlock then non-church going men.
Wilcox concluded his research brief by strongly advocating the positive effects that religion has on husbands and fathers: “This brief provides an array of evidence indicating that religion is an answer to the male problematic – that is, the tendency of fathers to become detached, emotionally or physically, from their children and the mothers of their children. I find that fathers who are religious, and who have partners who are religious, are – on average – more likely to be happily married, to be engaged and affectionate parents, and to get and stay married to the mothers of their children.”
Just food for thought, that’s all!
“Amongst many other findings, the poll indicated that Catholics who attend Mass frequently are the least likely to get divorced and are more likely to have more children.”
Is that including the number of annulments given so that the church looks better? You know, the “Catholic” way of divorce?
There are couples I went to church with for YEARS who ended up getting annulments.
My relationship with my boyfriend has lasted longer than many Catholic marriages. I think I’ll keep doing what works. I’m not telling anyone they should stop getting married.
Bush is not “the one” that said that. I’m pretty sure everyone in the world agrees you shouldn’t lend money to people who can’t pay it back. That’s not a brilliant Bush idea.
Posted by: Josephine at January 21, 2009 3:52 PM
Right. Except Barney Frank. Oh, and all the other democrats that pushed it too.
Wasn’t Alan Greenspan a Republican?
“Some, including Nobel Prize-winning economists Joseph E. Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, attribute a large degree of culpability for the devastating Economic crisis of 2008 to Greenspan. Stiglitz stated that Greenspan “‘didn’t really believe in regulation; when the excesses of the financial system were noted, (he and others) called for self-regulation—an oxymoron.'”
You said: “live faithfully to the vows they’ve made in front of family friends and God.”
Just so you know. I don’t know why you said that unless it’s important that your family and friends see you.
Marriage is not only a private act between two individuals but it is also a public act. That is why we have witnesses to the ceremony and that is why we also ask friends and family to attend. So yes, they are important, because marriage is important to society – that is, other people,too.
I also know no where does it say Catholics have to get married.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by this statement. No one forces Catholics to get married. Perhaps some words from the Catholic catechism might help:
In the Latin Rite the celebration of marriage between two Catholic faithful normally takes place during Holy Mass, because of the connection of all the sacraments with the Paschal mystery of Christ.120 In the Eucharist the memorial of the New Covenant is realized, the New Covenant in which Christ has united himself for ever to the Church, his beloved bride for whom he gave himself up.121 It is therefore fitting that the spouses should seal their consent to give themselves to each other through the offering of their own lives by uniting it to the offering of Christ for his Church made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice, and by receiving the Eucharist so that, communicating in the same Body and the same Blood of Christ, they may form but “one body” in Christ.122
1630 The priest (or deacon) who assists at the celebration of a marriage receives the consent of the spouses in the name of the Church and gives the blessing of the Church. The presence of the Church’s minister (and also of the witnesses) visibly expresses the fact that marriage is an ecclesial reality.
1631 This is the reason why the Church normally requires that the faithful contract marriage according to the ecclesiastical form. Several reasons converge to explain this requirement:132
– Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;
– Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children;
– Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses);
– The public character of the consent protects the “I do” once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it.
2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.
Sins against marriage include:
2390 In a so-called free union, a man and a woman refuse to give juridical and public form to a liaison involving sexual intimacy.
The expression “free union” is fallacious: what can “union” mean when the partners make no commitment to one another, each exhibiting a lack of trust in the other, in himself, or in the future?
The expression covers a number of different situations: concubinage, rejection of marriage as such, or inability to make long-term commitments.182 All these situations offend against the dignity of marriage; they destroy the very idea of the family; they weaken the sense of fidelity. They are contrary to the moral law. The sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes a grave sin and excludes one from sacramental communion.
2391 Some today claim a “right to a trial marriage” where there is an intention of getting married later. However firm the purpose of those who engage in premature sexual relations may be, “the fact is that such liaisons can scarcely ensure mutual sincerity and fidelity in a relationship between a man and a woman, nor, especially, can they protect it from inconstancy of desires or whim.”183 Carnal union is morally legitimate only when a definitive community of life between a man and woman has been established. Human love does not tolerate “trial marriages.” It demands a total and definitive gift of persons to one another.184
Do you think I don’t know what marriage is? I’m confused of why you’re telling me about it……
I just don’t feel the need to get married. I’m in a committed, loving relationship. If one day, he decides he wants to get married… I will make sure he’s positive, and I will. If he doesn’t, I don’t care.. since we’re both very happy. Saying “I do” and wearing a white dress isn’t going to make our relationship better.
“Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.”
I already said, my boyfriend isn’t Catholic. Soo..
And, in all honesty, I’m not going to talk about my relationship anymore. It’s no one’s business except my own. I’d like to keep that private.
“Amongst many other findings, the poll indicated that Catholics who attend Mass frequently are the least likely to get divorced and are more likely to have more children.”
This statement means that Catholics who attend Mass on a regular basis do not tend to divorce. This has been my experience. Persons with strong religious practice do not tend to divorce. They tend to work through their problems, trusting in the Lord to help them and seeking his guidance.
There are couples I went to church with for YEARS who ended up getting annulments.
So what? Does this mean you have the moral high ground or what? It proves nothing really.
Research demonstrates that Catholics who attend Mass and receive the sacraments on a regular basis are less likely to divorce. Receiving the sacraments includes going to reconciliation on a regular basis. This means that they will receive graces to help them struggle against the weaknesses we all have and helps them in their vocation of marriage.
Of course, if a couple is married in a state of sin (as they would be if they were sleeping together prior to marriage) they will not receive the graces from the sacrament of Matrimony until they confess these sins.
And, in all honesty, I’m not going to talk about my relationship anymore. It’s no one’s business except my own. I’d like to keep that private.
Posted by: Josephine at January 21, 2009 5:14 PM
agreed. I was only speaking in general terms about marriage Josephine and trying to present you with the Catholic teaching on the sacrament. It helps me to understand too!
your boyfriend doesn’t have to be Catholic to be married Josephine.
And yes, this statement:Saying “I do” and wearing a white dress isn’t going to make our relationship better.
tells me you don’t know what the sacrament of Marriage means.
“Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.”
Uhm. Yes, him not being baptized means it’s not a Sacrament for me. Maybe you don’t understand it.
:”Amongst many other findings, the poll indicated that Catholics who attend Mass frequently are the least likely to get divorced and are more likely to have more children.”
This statement means that Catholics who attend Mass on a regular basis do not tend to divorce. This has been my experience. Persons with strong religious practice do not tend to divorce. They tend to work through their problems, trusting in the Lord to help them and seeking his guidance”
This is just talking about Catholics who have gotten divorces. It’s not including the number of annulments. These number don’t matter unless they start counting annulments, too.
“In terms of marital status and certain attitudes about marriage, we see that Catholics are very similar to the general population. Sadly, this trend also holds true for divorce. Here both the good news and the bad news are the same: in general, Catholics are neither more nor less likely to get divorced than anyone else.”
Nevertheless, said the Archbishop, an important fact revealed by the poll is that those
Catholics who go to Mass more frequently, and demonstrate an overall higher level of commitment to the faith, generally have much lower rates of divorce
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 21, 2009 4:16 PM
Sounds to me like you need to “divorce” yourself from those other Catholics and start your own, more diligent version. The vast majority is skewing yoru numbers!
it has nothing to do with annulments Josephine. I think you are trying to deflect the point made – religious practice dictates outcome.
Of course, if a couple is married in a state of sin (as they would be if they were sleeping together prior to marriage) they will not receive the graces from the sacrament of Matrimony until they confess these sins.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 21, 2009 5:19 PM
Well, maybe in theory, but not in practice! I didn’t have to confess to anything after living “in sin” with my boyfriend-turned-fiance for three years before the Catholic Church married us.
Happily married for 19 years and counting!
“it has nothing to do with annulments Josephine. I think you are trying to deflect the point made – religious practice dictates outcome.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 21, 2009 5:47 PM”
It actually has everything to do with annulments. The numbers your talking about don’t count the Catholics that got annulments, which is what MOST church going Catholics seek… since we all know how the church feels about divorce. Like I said, I go to church with people who were married for YEARS and got “annulments” instead of divorces.
SACRAMENT. A sensible sign, instituted by Jesus Christ, by which invisible grace and inward sanctification are communicated to the soul. The essential elements of a sacrament of the New Law are institution by Christ the God-man during his visible stay on earth, and a sensibly perceptible rite that actually confers the supernatural grace it symbolizes. In a broad sense every external sign of internal divine blessing is a sacrament. And in this sense there were already sacraments in the Old Law, such as the practice of circumcision. But, as the Council of Trent defined, these ancient rites differed essentially from the sacraments of the New Law, they did not really contain the grace they signified, nor was the fullness of grace yet available through visible channels merited and established by the Savior. (Etym. Latin sacramentum, oath, solemn obligation; from sacrare, to set apart as sacred, consecrate.)
If you break a oath to yourself, you only confirm your faith is to yourself.
When you break a oath to God, you only break a oath to a invisible being which you never believed in anyway.
Poor Josephine, when asked questions concerning socialized medicine, and her failure to answer simple questions put to her, one concludes we have another faker and poser posting here.
But, don’t you worry, Obama is going to let the lawyers lose, and rightfully soo, to eliminate profit hungry, immoral, and greedy medical personnel, which Josephine represents.
As for Asitis, when a member of your parish dies, do you bring a covered dish to the fellow parishioner, or a discount coupon issued from Kevorkian?
Let’s see. Another church that is as hollow as a government run hospital.
My failure to answer simple questions? Such as? I think I’ve answered every question ever asked of me.
Happily married for 19 years and counting!
Posted by: asitis at January 21, 2009 5:49 PM
More fakery. Now it’s Mrs. Forrest Gump.
Why are “stents being coated”, Josephine?
Do you think your tuition actually covers ops and maintenance of a university?
Tuition should be increased to remove the burden of having to pay twice for medical care; at a university hospital as a patient(unless illegal) and also from local property taxes. Yes, or no?
Liens, put on homesteads, by local university hospitals, for hospital care, should be stopped immediately. Yes or no?
As Obama just announced, many of his staff had their pay capped at $100k. So should M.D.’s also have their pay capped at $100k, in exchange for debt relief per education cost. Yes or no?
Those wishing to enter the field of medicine with no financial ability to pay, should be allowed that education in exchange for 4 years of public service capped at $100k/yr? Yes or no?
Josephine,
What did you think of the Fr. Corapi videos on Catholic voting?
Marriage is an oath that a man and woman take before God. Have you done that yet with your bf Josephine?
yllas, Obama didn’t cap the pay at $100,000. He said there would be no increases for those making over $100,000. Hardly the same thing at all
Well,
First, I thought it was funny that he recognized that everyone election, people say “this is the most important election you will vote in.”
Now, I don’t understand this “you must form your conscience to church teachings.” I’ve gone to church my whole life. I went to Catechism classes, I got confirmed… never in my life have I thought being gay was wrong, never in my life have I thought animals were lesser than humans…
I still don’t understand why McCain is considered pro-life by Catholics when in the video, Fr. Corapi clearly says life begins at conception, and if McCain doesn’t want Roe vs. Wade overturned, and if he thinks abortions for rape and incest babies are okay.. doesn’t that make him pro-choice? And if BOTH candidates were pro-choice, doesn’t it make the most sense to vote for the President that wants to end the war, and that wants health care for everyone? It seems like, in that case, the most pro-life of the Presidential choices would be Obama.
TS,
I don’t want to talk about my relationship with my bf. He’s sitting on the couch with me right now, and I don’t want to make him uncomfortable. Hah.
yllas, what in the world do those questions have to do with me, may I ask?
Really, you’re asking me about stents? Yllas, I’m a PRE-med major. I am not in medical school… and, if I were, I plan on being a general practicioner like my pop.
My tuition doesn’t cover maintenance of my university. I go to a STATE school. Taxes pay for maintenance of my school.
“Tuition should be increased to remove the burden of having to pay twice for medical care; at a university hospital as a patient(unless illegal) and also from local property taxes. Yes, or no?”
You’re not paying for medical care twice. You think everyone that goes to the UofI are going to be doctors? Nope. Teachers, lawyers, scientists, designers, engineers….. they all attend state schools too.
“As Obama just announced, many of his staff had their pay capped at $100k. So should M.D.’s also have their pay capped at $100k, in exchange for debt relief per education cost. Yes or no? ”
My medical school will not be paid for by the army. I will have to cover it myself. The school I plan on going to is $50,000 a semester. That’s $400,000. Not to mention the fact that I will be worked pretty much constantly for all four years. No. I in NO way think doctors should have their pay capped. Are you kidding?
”
Those wishing to enter the field of medicine with no financial ability to pay, should be allowed that education in exchange for 4 years of public service capped at $100k/yr? Yes or no? ”
Actually, everyone entering every field without a financial ability to pay can try and join the National Guard after getting out (assuming they’re eligible). If you get a doctorate and go back, the US Army will pay back your loans in exchange for service.
Now, I don’t understand this “you must form your conscience to church teachings.” I’ve gone to church my whole life. I went to Catechism classes, I got confirmed… never in my life have I thought being gay was wrong, never in my life have I thought animals were lesser than humans…
Posted by: Josephine at January 21, 2009 10:49 PM
Then you never covered the sections of the catechism that deal with those two topics.
No, no. I did.
I didn’t purposely form my conscience though. It’s impossible to do. Your conscience is formed for you.
The people I’ve met, and experiences I’ve had have shaped my conscience.
I still don’t understand why McCain is considered pro-life by Catholics when in the video, Fr. Corapi clearly says life begins at conception, and if McCain doesn’t want Roe vs. Wade overturned, and if he thinks abortions for rape and incest babies are okay.. doesn’t that make him pro-choice? And if BOTH candidates were pro-choice, doesn’t it make the most sense to vote for the President that wants to end the war, and that wants health care for everyone? It seems like, in that case, the most pro-life of the Presidential choices would be Obama.
Posted by: Josephine at January 21, 2009 10:49 PM
McCain believes life begins at conception,Obama says the answer to that question is above his pay-grade…..Holy Shit, and he still got elected
McCain would outlaw most abortions and his reasons for his position on rape and incest have to do you with the non-consenual aspects of rape and incest. Obama would legalize all abortion up until birth and beyond.
TS,
I don’t want to talk about my relationship with my bf. He’s sitting on the couch with me right now, and I don’t want to make him uncomfortable. Hah.
Posted by: Josephine at January 21, 2009 10:49
Man and woman and Oath before God = marriage
McCain said himself he didn’t want Roe v. Wade overturned. Straight from his mouth.
So life begins at conception ONLY when intercourse is consensual? I don’t understand. If it’s a life, it’s a life. That’s pretty much like saying if a woman is raped and has the baby… then, ten years later, she kills that baby.. it shouldn’t be considered murder, because she didn’t consent to the sex that produced the kid…
Man and woman and Oath before God = marriage
Posted by: truthseeker at January 21, 2009 11:16 PM
If that’s all it takes, then I’m married. That’s not all it takes, though. So, I’m just in a relationship.
yllas, Obama didn’t cap the pay at $100,000. He said there would be no increases for those making over $100,000. Hardly the same thing at all
Posted by: Hal at January 21, 2009 10:40 PM
Then you better tell ABC news, your version of those populist mumblings from Obama.
They should work for a dollar a year during these Depressionary times. Just as FDR’s propagandist did.
No does not depend on the consenuality, you are misunderstanding and reading into my statement. Look at it again below:
“McCain would outlaw most abortions and his reasons for his position on rape and incest have to do you with the non-consenual aspects of rape and incest. Obama would legalize all abortion up until birth and beyond.”
No, it does not change that the baby is still a life at conception. By conceding to intercourse she chooses to accept the consequences of her actions. In rape and incest the perpetrator takes away the woman’s rights and strips her of self determination.
Man and woman and Oath before God = marriage
Posted by: truthseeker at January 21, 2009 11:16 PM
If that’s all it takes, then I’m married. That’s not all it takes, though. So, I’m just in a relationship.
Posted by: Josephine at January 21, 2009 11:19 PM
Not true Josephine. Do you feel you can take an oath in God’s name and break it?
That likes saying murder is okay in some circumstances.
If anyone is okay with abortion in cases of rape and incest, they can’t believe life begins at conception. If they believe at conception a human life is formed, they must believe murder is okay in some circumstances. There isn’t really a way around it.
Truthseeker, in the eyes of the church and the state, I am not married. If I were to sleep with my boyfriend, it is considered pre-marital sex to the church..
That likes saying murder is okay in some circumstances.
If anyone is okay with abortion in cases of rape and incest, they can’t believe life begins at conception. If they believe at conception a human life is formed, they must believe murder is okay in some circumstances. There isn’t really a way around it.
Posted by: Josephine at January 21, 2009 11:37 PM
I am not arguing that it is not murder to kill a baby conceived through rape. I am telling you that the justification used in accepting the murder is because that we all have a right to self-determination. And in ther case of rape and incest the woman is stripped of those rights.
Truthseeker, in the eyes of the church and the state, I am not married. If I were to sleep with my boyfriend, it is considered pre-marital sex to the church..
Posted by: Josephine at January 21, 2009 11:41
You didn’t answer my question. I’ll ask again.
Do you feel you can take an oath in God’s name and break it?
SimplMy tuition doesn’t cover maintenance of my university. I go to a STATE school. Taxes pay for maintenance of my school.
That’s right Josephine. Taxpayers have payed for your whole life, and your family also. What have I got in return for it? What enemy have you defeated lately that has threatened to invade the USA? You lost in Vietnam. You left American blood to settle as dust in Korea, and then the demoncrats sold out the Northeast first, and turned it into a rust belt, where they cling to poverty and hope of those that left them pawns to poverty pimps.
And Obama is going to lose another war where the “military elite”, suffer not one ounce of blood. Such as you Asitis.
“Tuition should be increased to remove the burden of having to pay twice for medical care; at a university hospital as a patient(unless illegal) and also from local property taxes. Yes, or no?”
A simple yes or no Josephine.
You’re not paying for medical care twice. You think everyone that goes to the UofI are going to be doctors? Nope. Teachers, lawyers, scientists, designers, engineers….. they all attend state schools too.
Of course I am. I am only concerned with the medical arts, keep your mind on the subject.
“As Obama just announced, many of his staff had their pay capped at $100k. So should M.D.’s also have their pay capped at $100k, in exchange for debt relief per education cost. Yes or no? ”
My medical school will not be paid for by the army. I will have to cover it myself. The school I plan on going to is $50,000 a semester. That’s $400,000. Not to mention the fact that I will be worked pretty much constantly for all four years. No. I in NO way think doctors should have their pay capped. Are you kidding?
Then your going to be suprised when Obama goes after your greed and immorality, and allows the tuition to rise until you find yourself unable to ever get out of debt. And rightfully soo, when you were offered a chance to serve humanity in exchange for reduced debt, via public service.
But, before they happens, you will find SAlly Mae broke, and you’ll be caught like a rat holding a hugh debt, with no ability to finish that medical education.
”
Those wishing to enter the field of medicine with no financial ability to pay, should be allowed that education in exchange for 4 years of public service capped at $100k/yr? Yes or no? ”
Actually, everyone entering every field without a financial ability to pay can try and join the National Guard after getting out (assuming they’re eligible). If you get a doctorate and go back, the US Army will pay back your loans in exchange for service.
And for those who want no part of the professional killing machine apparatus? A simple yes or no would be much easier and less propagandistic Josephine.
GP’s, the reason public, and private ER’s are crowded. Nine to Five. No lazier a doctor was ever produced from med school.
Posted by: Josephine at January 21, 2009 10:58 PMe yes or no
Wow. I don’t think one thing you just said was comprehensible.
By the way, general practitioners work in ERs. I don’t think you even know what that word means, apparently. Are you thinking of private practice doctors?
Wow,
A GP must take a course offered by the College of Surgeons, which is the ATLS.
Cost and time for this course Josephine?
General Practice MD’s are totally incompetent in a ER room, without a minimal three day course, offered by the College of Surgeons.
Your “residency” in a university hospital ER, increases your incompetency factor since your not going to be held accountable in a public/university hospital.
How many hours is dedicated to ER or ATLS in a MD degree? Especially if one is going to be practicing general medicine.
Which is why the ATLS course was instituted, for private hospitals. You know that don’t you Josephine, or are you just plain old dumb?
The ER was “contracted out and seperated” in private hospitals from the incompetency offered by GP’s trying to catch up on the medical arts from OJT.
Now, the ER room is a place where insurance influences who gets admitted, or not, in a ER situation. Happens everyday, and when the crap hits the fan, that incompetently trained GP, who is making extra money on his “non-office hour work” is suddenly left holding the bag, if the GP has not taken a ATLS course.
Worst of the worst, the doc in the box. A young doctor who is unable to have enough patients to begin practicing(GP/family.
I have witnessed many GP’s taking the ATLS course and have seen them “kill their patients in the course setting.”
And from what I have seen, from your writing here Josephine, your going to kill someone and deny the actions you took which contributed to that death.
How well you will lie to the next of kin, and avoid the truth of your actions, is as relative as your morality towards Catholicism.
Ask your father how many mistakes he made in practicing the medical arts, which contributed to death or extra suffering in his patients.
But, I would assume you got a answer from him which already buried that morality years ago.
As for Asitis, when a member of your parish dies, do you bring a covered dish to the fellow parishioner, or a discount coupon issued from Kevorkian?
Let’s see. Another church that is as hollow as a government run hospital.
Posted by: yllas at January 21, 2009 9:13 PM
Have you forgotten yllas? I don’t go to church. But I do perform acts of kindness such as cooking food to comfort others.
Happily married for 19 years and counting!
Posted by: asitis at January 21, 2009 5:49 PM
More fakery. Now it’s Mrs. Forrest Gump.
Posted by: yllas at January 21, 2009 9:20 PM
Sure, if that delusion makes you happy, go for it yllas. But it’s the beautiful truth. Actually just over 19.5 years!
“And Obama is going to lose another war where the “military elite”, suffer not one ounce of blood. Such as you Asitis.”
So now I’m the military elite yllas? Sure that makes lots of sense (???) Awesome! Do I get to pick my rank too? Let’s see…….
“Over time my opinion of Bush Jr’s performance went down but as far as outright “harm” done to the country, other than financial, I don’t see that he was really all that bad.”
Kristen: Really? Where do you get this?
Because economically, Bush Jr’s presidency has been a disaster.
…..
Bush was the one that, over and over again, said that banks shouldn’t be lending to people who were in no position to pay the money back. You blame HIM for the financial crisis? Come on.
Good grief – I said nothing of the sort. If we are to point the finger at one single person, then Phil Gramm is the one. He is largely responsible for allowing the unregulated growth of the credit default swaps, etc., that are the main problem in our credit markets.
“Bad bank loans” are a drop in the bucket, compared to the real problems. I don’t blame Bush at all, really, for our banking troubles, and the fact remains that his presidency was terrible for the US, economically.
…..
He tried a stimulus package now Obama will too but somehow it’s okay that Obama does it? Obama “said” he wouldn’t raise taxes on business now – but Bush was wrong when he didn’t raise taxes. Ah, the double standard just keeps going. Please.
You’re just conjuring up an argument. No, it’s really not okay that either guy does it – but it’s probably politically unacceptable not to.
I don’t say Bush was wrong not to raise taxes – that too is a figment within your own mind.
TS,
I don’t want to talk about my relationship with my bf. He’s sitting on the couch with me right now, and I don’t want to make him uncomfortable. Hah.
Posted by: Josephine at January 21, 2009 10:49 PM
actually the discussion never started about your bf. It was about marriage – you made it about your bf. What’s to feel uncomfortable about unless he’s uncomfortable about marriage?
If both of your parents are doctors Josephine, are they not helping you with the cost of your education? Just wondering….
Way to go America! You’ve really got YOUR priorities straight! lol
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 21, 2009 3:48 PM
Hey! ; )
I thought you were too stunned to laugh….
OwOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOo.
Wasn’t Alan Greenspan a Republican?
Posted by: Josephine at January 21, 2009 5:04 PM
He was originally appointed by Reagan so I’d say so. And a few years ago HE’S the one that said Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae should be more regulated.
LOL, Doug. Very clever :)
actually the discussion never started about your bf. It was about marriage – you made it about your bf.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 22, 2009 7:12 AM
ACTUALLY toostunned… Josephine did NOT make it about her boyfriend. She merely used their relationship as an example of how very wrong your generalization about cohabitation is.
You and Eileen were the ones that then made it about her boyfriend.
toostunnedtolaugh: “I think we need to point out to women that cohabitating relationships are NOT in their best interest.”
I think what you mean to say is it’s not in your best interest. It happens to be in my best interest. To go to the school I wanted to go to, I would have either had to leave my bf in Chicago, or we BOTH would have had to get apartments separately. We’d been in a relationship for FIVE years. Both of those are ridiculous. I, however, didn’t want to get married at nineteen.
Posted by: Josephine at January 20, 2009 10:26 AM
Thanks, asitis, I didn’t want to go back through and find those quotes.
Oh, and, as for “What’s to feel uncomfortable about unless he’s uncomfortable about marriage?”
Uhm. It’s my private relationship with my boyfriend, that I’d like to not talk about. I don’t think everyone needs to be knowing my business.
“If both of your parents are doctors Josephine, are they not helping you with the cost of your education? Just wondering….”
I’ve said this many times already, but I didn’t want my parents to pay for my school. That’s something I can do by myself, so later on no one can ever tell me I had things handed to me.
Josephine, you are to be admired for you work ethic, confidence and maturity. Oh, the places you will go!
Truthseeker, in the eyes of the church and the state, I am not married. If I were to sleep with my boyfriend, it is considered pre-marital sex to the church..
Posted by: Josephine at January 21, 2009 11:41
You didn’t answer my question. I’ll ask again.
Do you feel you can take an oath in God’s name and break it?
Posted by: truthseeker at Jan 21, 2009 11:55 PM
Josephine, why are ou avoiding answering this question? I’ll ask a third time.
Do you feel you can take an oath in God’s name and break it?
Maybe if I ask a third time????
Why are you hounding her on that truthseeker? Many Catholics do take an oath (marriage vows) ubder God and then break them. And doesn’t the Church even permit this nowadays? What’s your point?
asitis,
Josephine has volunteered info about her boyfriend. No one forced her mention him or there current situation.
Of course no one forced her to mention their situation. But eileen, pointing out that she has a loving, committed, successful ralationship with her boyfriend in response to toostunned’s claim that such relationships are not good for women is NOT making it about her boyfriend. You started the ball rolling from there asking for details and making judgements.
asitis,
the Church doesn’t “permit” people to break their vows. In some cases, the Church grants annulments.
But only after each case is carefully considered. It must be proven that the marriage never existed in the first place — for example, if one of the people entering the marriage never consciously intended on fulfilling their marriage vows such as not remaining faithful. The Church doesn’t grant annulments because one or the other spouses simply does not want to remain married anymore. That being said, I believe it was Pope John Paul II cautioned the U.S. bishops about granting too many annulments. I suspect that this was happening without very careful investigation by some Marriage Tribunals.
I did not make any judgments. She brought up her situation herself.
Ts,
No. When did I take an oath in God’s name? I’m not sure what this question has to do with me at all.
“Man and woman and Oath before God = marriage”
That is what you said. An oath BEFORE God. Not an oath in God’s name.
”
asitis,
Josephine has volunteered info about her boyfriend. No one forced her mention him or there current situation. ”
Eileen, I’ve said several times I’d like to NOT talk about my relationship in this thread alone. It probably should’ve been dropped, instead of anyone asking why. I said it was personal already.
asitis,
I asked for details because she was attempting to justify it in the context of her Catholic faith. While it is not charity to judge the state of someone’s soul it is incumbent upon those that are aware of what the Church teaches and why to instruct those (Catholics) who do not know.
Then why did you bring it up (when you were first posting on this thread0?
Eileen, I brought up my situation after someone said something untrue about couples who live together. I did NOT volunteer specifics, and specifics were being asked. I simply said I didn’t want to talk about that part of my relationship. The only reason I brought it up was because TSTL claimed what I was doing was bad for women. I, being in the situation myself, can say it’s in NO way bad for me.
Listen, Josephine, I asked you questions because you told us your situation and defended it within the context of the Church. I am trying to get you to think about it more carefully.
As I’ve said several times Eileen, it’s no one’s business if I sleep with my boyfriend. I’ve never said one way or the other. I live with my boyfriend. Which is in no way a sin.
I wasn’t attempting to justify anything in the context of my Catholic faith at all, since the church doesn’t care who I live with. If they did, I guess anyone who has a roommate is sinning?
You are in the minority then, because it is not good for men or women.
“defended it within the context of the Church”
No, I didn’t. I just said it doesn’t matter who I live with, which is the ONLY information I volunteered.
Where is the statistic that it’s not in a woman’s best interest to live with a man before they’re married? I mean, you’re the one that already said marriage wouldn’t change that much, since we’re already living together.
Anytime anyone states something at this web site they are opening themselves up to criticism. If you don’t want to discuss your personal life then don’t offer that info. at all.
There is something called,giving scandal, which is sinful. Though you are not in reality having sexual relations with your bf you are giving the appearance of being in an illicit relationship.
There is something called the occasion of sin — you are deliberately placing yourself in a situation that exposes you to temptation.
asitis,
the Church doesn’t “permit” people to break their vows. In some cases, the Church grants annulments. But only after each case is carefully considered. It must be proven that the marriage never existed in the first place — for example, if one of the people entering the marriage never consciously intended on fulfilling their marriage vows such as not remaining faithful. The Church doesn’t grant annulments because one or the other spouses simply does not want to remain married anymore. That being said, I believe it was Pope John Paul II cautioned the U.S. bishops about granting too many annulments. I suspect that this was happening without very careful investigation by some Marriage Tribunals.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 22, 2009 11:04 AM
Divorce… annulment…. it’s still pretty much the same thing in reality in this country isn’t it? Dissolution of a marriage
asitis,
it is incumbent upon those that are aware of what the Church teaches and why to instruct those (Catholics) who do not know.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 22, 2009 11:10
I don’t really think it’s a case of not knowin’ Eileen. I think it’s a case of not buyin’!
There is something called the occasion of sin — you are deliberately placing yourself in a situation that exposes you to temptation.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 22, 2009 11:27 AM
Maybe it’s a test she’s giving herself: Must… resisit… temptation!
“I mean, you’re the one that already said marriage wouldn’t change that much, since we’re already living together.”
I was trying to make a point that you while you do not want to get married you are living like you are married so what do you oppose it?
“Divorce… annulment…. it’s still pretty much the same thing in reality in this country isn’t it? Dissolution of a marriage”
No, an annulment is a declaration that the marriage never existed to be with.
“I don’t really think it’s a case of not knowin’ Eileen. I think it’s a case of not buyin’!”
I don’t think so — Josephine has tried to argue based on what she thinks the Church teaches, etc.
Now, authentic Catholic teaching can be presented but it is God’s grace that will open one’s heart to the teaching.
that should be “begin with”. Now, I have to go — I have a 4 yr old that needs lunch!
Divorce… annulment…. it’s still pretty much the same thing in reality in this country isn’t it? Dissolution of a marriage”
No, an annulment is a declaration that the marriage never existed to be with.
Sure, it’s a declaration Eileen. But honestly, is it REALLY that different from divorce these days? Can you tell me, being totally honest, on what grounds an annulment would be granted these days . Approximately what percentage of Catholic marriages ends in annulment?
” If you don’t want to discuss your personal life then don’t offer that info. at all.”
Hence why I said I didn’t want to discuss my relationship repeatedly. The only information I offered was that I live with my boyfriend, so I can speak first hand about how “unhappy” (hah!) I am.
Also,
There are couples who I went to church with who were dating for years, got married, were married for a couple years, then got an annulment. Maybe annulments use to be hard to get, however, at this point it’s just a way for Catholics to not get divorced, IMO.
An annulment looks only at the situation on the day of the wedding. The grounds for an annulment have nothing to do with how long a couple was married, how many children they had, or anything like that. What the marriage tribunal looks at when considering an annulment case is what the mindset and circumstances, situation etc. was of the couple on the day of their wedding. For example, did they really know what they were getting into? Were they very young and hence is there a good case to be made that they didn’t know? Is there reason to believe that one of them was coerced into getting married? If you’ve never engaged in the conjugal act or if one of you NEVER intended to ever have children during your marriage. Some BIG ones that make a marriage null are if one of them was baptized and raised Catholic but they did not marry in a Catholic church. Boom. Automatic cut and dry invalid marriage. Anytime one or more of the people getting married is baptized Catholic and they do not follow the Catholic Canonical form of marriage, the marriage is automatically invalid. This happens a LOT.
Certainly it also seems to be the case that there are a lot of abuses that go on and annulments being granted willy-nilly. Perhaps. But at least in theory, this is what the Church looks at; were you properly disposed ON THE DAY OF YOUR WEDDING to be married? If you did not know what you were getting into, if you were being coerced, if you were drunk or high and couldn’t use your faculties properly, if you never *really* intended to be married, etc. These are the pertinent questions to answer in attempting to discern whether or not a marriage has ever taken place.
Hey! ; )
I thought you were too stunned to laugh….
OwOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOo.
Posted by: Doug at January 22, 2009 7:16 AM
hey, every now and then I come out of IT!! hehe!
good one Doug!
I’ve said this many times already, but I didn’t want my parents to pay for my school. That’s something I can do by myself, so later on no one can ever tell me I had things handed to me.
Posted by: Josephine at January 22, 2009 9:46 AM
that’s a very good attitude to have Josephine and very commendable.
But not commendable if it means that you choose to live an immoral lifestyle to achieve such independence, dont you think?
I wasn’t attempting to justify anything in the context of my Catholic faith at all, since the church doesn’t care who I live with. If they did, I guess anyone who has a roommate is sinning?
Posted by: Josephine at January 22, 2009 11:17 AM
Once again you are being disingenuous Josephine. That is not what the posts were about – cohabitating couples are NOT roommates in the sense you mean – they are a man and woman who have a sexual relationship and who live together as a couple pretending to be married. You KNOW this is what was meant. Please at least be honest about this!
Did I ever say I had a sexual relationship with my boyfriend, TSTL? Ever? I’m pretending to be married, even though I already stated I’m not married and don’t care if we get married or not?
Seriously, TSTL, are you really pretending you understand everyone’s relationship? That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.
I never claimed you had a sexual relationship Josephine. I am talking about the meaning of words and terms here, not your sexual proclivities.
Cohabitating simply does not refer to roommates.
In fact groups of students sharing a house at university simply do not go around saying they are cohabitating! They say they have a roommate or are a renter or tenant.
Since we have only words here to convey meaning, the right word IS important.
Oh, and I DO run around saying I “cohabitate”… I don’t just say I live with my bf. Hahh..
co?hab?it
? ?/ko??hæb?t/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [koh-hab-it] Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used without object)
-to dwell with another or share the same place
Sooo that does apply to roommates, just so you know.
Josephine people who are living together in a sexual relationship do not tell others that they have a roommate.
Then say “I am living with my boyfriend” as you did with this statement, “I WANT to live with my boyfriend.”. This usually means they are also involved sexually. Most people do not live with their boyfriend without some sort of sexual involvement. Based on the terms you used in your posts we have understood your relationship with your boyfriend to involve sex. If you are not having sex, choose different words. Or don’t live with your boyfriend or whatever….
Really……
So if ANY person lives with their significant other and they’re not having sex, they should say they’re not living with their significant other?
How would I word that that’s appropriate for you, TSTL? Since apparently I can’t just say “I live with my boyfriend” without getting about a million questions and assumptions about my relationship.
Since we have only words here to convey meaning, the right word IS important.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 22, 2009 1:23 PM
co?hab?it
?–verb (used without object)
-to dwell with another or share the same place
Sooo that does apply to roommates, just so you know.
Posted by: Josephine at January 22, 2009 1:29 PM
that’s a very good attitude to have Josephine and very commendable.
But not commendable if it means that you choose to live an immoral lifestyle to achieve such independence, dont you think?
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 22, 2009 12:52 PM
Toostunned, do you know This Hour Has 22 Minutes?I have a vision of you as a catholic version of Marg, Rprincess Warrior! OMG:)
If a person lives with a “significant other” which is yet another term for lover/boyfriend etc we also assume they are having sexual relations. These are uncommitted relationships outside marriage which are understood to have “benefits”, to use modern lingo. How many people living with “significant other” ‘s do you know Josephine that are not having sex? probably none because no one would use that term in such a context or no one would divulge such a situation as such.
I feel you arguing for the sake of argument so….
have a nice day Josephine. Really use whatever words you like, but don’t get your knickers in a knot if people misunderstand you. (Like using miscarriage when one really means abortion..)That is what I am trying to say to you.
I just recieved my weekly “Spirit & Life” email from HLI. It was written by Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, who is about as hardcore pro-life as they come. He listed several Do’s and Don’t for pro-lifers in 2009. The following was quite surprising to me:
“3. Do not waste any more energy on overturning Roe: two Supreme Court seats are assured during an Obama administration, and they will undoubtedly be filled with extreme pro-abortion activist judges. A third appointment will leave us with no hope of overturning Roe in anyone’s lifetime reading this. For that matter, the chance that a good pro-life President will succeed Obama in four years and nullify the leftward lurch of the high court is, shall we say, unlikely. Let’s get hopes of undoing Roe out of our system and focus on more productive things.”
Like I said, I’m quite surprised by this and taken aback as to how grave the situation has become when someone like Fr. Euteneuer says we should not work to overturn Roe. I guess I’m curious as to what the other pro-lifers think about this.
Posted by: asitis at January 22, 2009 11:51 AM
My mother got an annulment. At the time (early 90s) it was somewhat difficult. It took several years and many interviews. I don’t know if it IS easier to get one today but I have heard it’s easier. It’s still a long process that many Catholics seem to not want to go through.
Bobby, I’d say he’s just flat-out wrong, since the next Justices to retire are in Favor of Roe, eh?
P.S. I’d say that Pro-Lifers should spend more time leveling up.
Bobby I just read an interview with Bork you may find interesting:
Jurist Predicts “Terrible Conflict” Will Endanger U.S. Catholics’ Religious Freedom
Washington DC, Jan 21, 2009 (CNA).- Former Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Bork has predicted that upcoming legal battles will have significant ramifications for religious freedom. He names as issues of major concern the continued freedom of Catholic hospitals to refuse to perform abortions and the likely “terrible conflict” resulting from the advancement of homosexual rights.
Speaking in an interview published Tuesday by Cybercast News Service, Judge Bork discussed the contentious nature of modern politics.
“Everything is up for debate these days. I can’t think of anything that isn’t,” he said.
“You are going to get Catholic hospitals that are going to be required as a matter of law to perform abortions,” he claimed.
“We are going to see in the near future a terrible conflict between claimed rights of homosexuals and religious freedom… You are going to get Catholic or other groups’ relief services that are going to be required to allow adoption of a child by homosexual couples. We are going to have a real conflict that goes right to the heart of the society.”
Asked whether there was a freedom of conscience clause anywhere in the Constitution that might prohibit the U.S. government from compelling a religious hospital to perform abortions, he replied:
“Well, the free exercise of religion clause might fulfill that role.”
He agreed with the CNS interviewer, Editor in Chief Terry Jeffrey, that such coercion forces someone to act against their religion and could be construed as a violation of the right to free exercise of religion.
However, Judge Bork was unsure about whether the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold such a right. He predicted the decision would rest with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who in some cases sides with liberals and at other times with “originalists,” those who profess to hold a more tradition-minded interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
“It depends upon Anthony Kennedy,” Judge Bork told CNS. “Now, it’s a funny situation in which the moral life of a nation is in effect decided by one judge, because you have four solid liberal votes, four solid originalist votes, and one vote you can’t predict too accurately in advance.”
Though Justice Kennedy is a Catholic, he sided with the majority who upheld the pro-abortion rights Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Judge Bork said that a decision involving the freedom of Catholic hospitals to refuse to perform abortions would split by a 5-4 vote.
“But I don’t know which way,” he added.
The Cybercast News interview with the jurist also touched upon the place of religion in public life.
“I don’t think the disputants talk much about God anymore,” Judge Bork commented. “That’s one of the things that I think is regrettable–and I know liberals have said the same thing, it is not a conservative position particularly–but it is regrettable that religion has dropped out of our public discourse. I think it impoverishes it and makes it more violent.”
He explained that he believed this violence was not armed conflict, but rather “violent language and propaganda.”
Judge Bork said he also thought that America is “now going down a path towards kind of a happy-go-lucky nihilism.”
“A lot of people are nihilists,” he continued. “They don’t think about religion. They don’t think about ultimate questions. They go along. They worry about consumer goods, comfort, and so forth.
“As a matter of fact, the abortion question is largely a question about convenience. If you look at the polls about why people have abortions, 90 percent of it has nothing to do with medical conditions. It’s convenience. And that’s I think an example of the secularization of an issue that ought to have a religious dimension.”
When asked whether a nihilistic society can remain “happy-go-lucky” for long, Judge Bork replied:
“I don’t know. I guess we are going to find out.”
************************************************
interesting thoughts about the role of religion in society.
Ugh, that’s so depressing, TSTL. I’m not sure if nihilism is the right word to use, but what he described about people’s apathy was dead on. Terribly depressing. But then again, I must remember Fr. Euteneuer’s first “Don’t”
“1. Above all, do not grow despondent: there is much to fear for the situation of life around the world, but we are not permitted by our Christian faith to give up our efforts or zeal for life. In fact, we need to redouble it!”
And of course, Doug, I do hope you are correct.
How many people living with “significant other” ‘s do you know Josephine that are not having sex?
My best friend lived with her husband before they were married. They had known each other for four years (college) before living together; they’d been dating seriously for 2-3 years by the time they graduated. After graduation they went to Peru together for a few months (volunteer work, not vacation), which necessitated them living if not together then in close quarters, and when they got back to the US, they both settled in Washington DC. Because of the outrageously high rent, they lived together — actually I think, technically, that my friend’s then-boyfriend moved into what was already her apartment, since she had a steady job lined up and he had no employment for some time.
They got married after they’d lived together for a year, and used the money they’d saved by living together towards a down payment on a small house in Illinois, which they moved into approximately a year after getting married.
Not that it’s anyone’s business, but they did not sleep together until they were married. I think the apartment was a one-bedroom so I’m not sure what the pre-wedding sleeping arrangements were; it’s not something I ever cared to ask about.
“have a nice day Josephine. Really use whatever words you like, but don’t get your knickers in a knot if people misunderstand you. (Like using miscarriage when one really means abortion..)That is what I am trying to say to you.”
Weren’t you the one that got made because I said cohabit didn’t just mean boyfriend/girlfriend living together, but also roommates? Shouldn’t this advice be to yourself?
actually I’m not mad at all Josephine. I’m just puzzled at how you use words to manipulate their meaning and twist things around to mean something they don’t or to mean something different from that generally recognized by people.
**cohabitate= living in a sexual relationship
**roommate= sharing the rent and usually a friend but not dating or in a sexual relationship, usually members of the same sex
**significant other/current partner = lover/current boy or girlfriend but could mean a married spouse too
**better half = old term referring to ones spouse usually the woman!
those are the meanings I understand when people use these words.
Alexandra: they did not sleep together until they were married. I think the apartment was a one-bedroom so I’m not sure what the pre-wedding sleeping arrangements were
Damn…..
I was channel surfing and caught a bit of Dr. Phil. His victims du jour were a husband and wife. The wife was an out of control OCD freak. The husband was ‘passive’. There was a video of clip of their home life. She was micromanaging everything he attempted to do. From setting the table, to washing the dishes, to making the bed. It was a beating just to witness. (This is not a sexist thing. It could just have easily been the man who was hyper administrating his wife.)
Dr. Phil asked the fellow how long he and his wife had beeb married. The fellow answered dispassionately, ‘Three years.’
Dr. Phil retorted, ‘Does it seem like ‘dog years?’ (One dog year equal 7 human years.)
Prov 21:9 It is better to live alone in the corner of an attic than with a contentious spouse in a lovely home. NLT
Prov 21:19 It is better to live alone in the desert than with a crabby, complaining spouse. NLT
Prov 27:15-16 A nagging spouse is as annoying as the constant dripping on a rainy day. Trying to stop their complaints is like trying to stop the wind or hold something with greased hands. NLT
‘Spread happiness where you go, not when…..’
yor bro ken
ps
Priests and preachers do not ‘marry people’. They just officiate over a ceremony.
The people mary themselves when they become one flesh, usually as evidenced by a child who carries DNA from each of them. The child is the one flesh.
There are other evidences. If he is buying her appliances. If she is buying him socks and underwear. If they both have a key to the house/car. If they have a joint checking account.
If he ‘controls’ the remote.
The ceremony is just a formality before the fact, or in some cases, after.
Who came up with the idea of marriage, husband and wife? It seems to be pretty universal concept that transcends culture, nationality, ethnicity, religion. Why are men and women attracted to each other? Is it just biological?
Bobby, I think that any opportunity to overturn Roe should be taken, but I also think it’s an opportunity we’re not likely to have in the next decade. There are many things we as pro-lifers can do to help women keep their babies that have nothing to do with overturning Roe. I don’t have a problem with Fr Tom exhorting us to make a difference where we can and revising expectations where we can’t.
TSTL, that Bork article reminds me of Barry’s statement about the need of “religious people” to translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values during public debate.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/additional/
Is the value of human life a universal value or a religion-specific value? The president favors abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. Does this mean that the value of a human life will no longer be open to public debate by “religious people?”
Who gets to decide what is a universal value vs a religion-specific? The president? The people of this country? The United Nations?
If he ‘controls’ the remote.
I have often wondered about this myself! Two things I have learned, never mess with the remote and NEVER mess with a man’s fire!
Thanks for the response Fed Up. I guess what’s hard for me is accepting the fact that I will not see Roe overturned. There was a time when I thought it might be overturned in my parents lifetime, that they too would get to see it. It made it very real when someone as great as Fr. Tom thinks it won’t happen.
But I suppose we’ll all see it “overturned” at the end of time…
Bobby, whenever I get upset about things that I might never see or learn in my lifetime I think about that line from What a Wonderful World: “I hear babies cry and I watch them grow, they’ll learn much more than we’ll know.” Sometimes my heart breaks when I realize that I probably won’t see all the things I want to see before I die, and the only thing that keeps me from being totally depressed about it is the idea that maybe one day I can give someone else the opportunity to do or see awesome things in my stead. Sometimes the only thing that keeps me hovering ever-so-slightly above despair is the idea that while I may not be able to have what I want, I can work so that others may one day have what I want, and in doing so I can be a small part of a better world for someone else. I’m so lucky that other people’s lives came before mine, to make mine as good as it is now — it’s an honor to do the same for others, if I take the time to look at it that way. It helps. Sometimes.
This version may be a cliche, but it always cheers me up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A2Jt4WOxN8 (the song, not the video, which I didn’t watch and can’t vouch for)
And I try to find at least one good thing in every bad thing. Like, maybe even though it’s way depressing for you that some pro-life leaders are focusing less on overturning Roe, perhaps it might allow resources and energy to be directed into other, harder-to-oppose pro-life efforts — and thus be more effective in reducing abortion in the short run, and in the long run help build a culture that is more open to the idea of overturning Roe. I don’t know. Something like that.
TSTL,
Are those just definitions you made up yourself?
The meaning of the word “co” and “habitation” define it. Seriously. YOU assume there’s a sexual relationship. In no way does there have to be.
Okay… I just looked those words up. Those are in fact all definitions you made up yourself, apparently.
Let’s take roommate for example. You said, “sually a friend but not dating or in a sexual relationship, usually members of the same sex” but at my school here you room with strangers, often of the opposite sex. That’s how a lot of colleges are, at least the ones my friends and I ended up at…….
In cases like that, the word “cohabitation” makes more sense, because it’s two (co) people living together in a room (habitat) …….
So, maybe you shouldn’t say I’m the one who’s arguing about words, when you basically made up your own definitions and expect me to know what they are.
Are those just definitions you made up yourself?
Okay… I just looked those words up. Those are in fact all definitions you made up yourself, apparently.
Let’s take roommate for example. You said, “sually a friend but not dating or in a sexual relationship, usually members of the same sex” but at my school here you room with strangers, often of the opposite sex. That’s how a lot of colleges are, at least the ones my friends and I ended up at…….
So, maybe you shouldn’t say I’m the one who’s arguing about words, when you basically made up your own definitions and expect me to know what they are.
Posted by: Josephine at January 22, 2009 9:51 PM
Josephine I did laugh at toostunned “setting you straight” with her own pocket guide to relationship ID’s. Like your world as a young twenty something is same as hers as an old fart!
Even I, at 20+ years your senior, agree with you that when I hear roommate I don’t assume someone of the same sex! When I probbaly had as many male as female roommates in college. And no, I wasn’t sleeping with any of them. Well, okay, except for that time…. ;)
HAHA, no offense Josephine, TSTL and others, but this whole argument is totally ridiculous. Can we think of anything else to break someone’s balls about?
I guess what’s hard for me is accepting the fact that I will not see Roe overturned.
Sometimes I feel the same way, Bobby. I have to keep reminding myself that God knows better than I do and his timetable is better than mine, even if I don’t understand his timing.
Who knows what will happen. The majority of people in this country do not favor unrestricted, taxpayer-subsidized access to abortion. That’s something to build on.
And so is Obama’s funding of overseas abortions with our tax dollars. I was reading comments from obama supporters on another site tonight. It seems the koolaid buzz is wearing off for some who don’t like the idea of sending our tax dollars overseas for abortion when our economy is in crisis.
God never closes a door without opening a window. Each door that Obama closes will give us an opening somewhere if we pray for the wisdom to see it :)
As it is, it’s so hard for me to think of you as 20+ years older than me, because you seem to really understand where I’m coming from. I really, really appreciate it!
I’m older than that, and I understand you too Josephine.
Good grief – I said nothing of the sort. If we are to point the finger at one single person, then Phil Gramm is the one. He is largely responsible for allowing the unregulated growth of the credit default swaps, etc., that are the main problem in our credit markets.
By Doug.
And the reason Gramm did that?
Real simple. The destruction of the S&L’s by baby boomers being repeated by their children.
Without CDS’s and any other form of “securitized” loans, you would have not had “housing boom.”
You know that.
Which created the RTC. A collection and sell off of bad assets once again. The past is the future, and every single Senator and financial illiterate knows that another RTC is in the works.
Without Gramm you would not have had the modernization of banking which includes internet banking. No interstate banking offering loans and competitive interest rates across the nation. No branch banking. Amd more. In essence, you would still be writing paper checks, and not using your keyboard.
You know that, Doug.
Why do you offer such propaganda to this board in trying to make Gramm the only person responsible for a decades old problem of simple dead beatism, or moral relativity reaching into personal financial behavior?
One senator does not make the world go around.
You know that.
Without Gramm bringing in Far East money to buy up the T notes, bonds, bills, you would have had interest rates as high as that idiot Carter had.
As for Carter, his relationship with the Yukuza financial wizard got him Makita in Atlanta. He was suckered, and is still po’ed by being played as a “financial idiot”.
They(bankers) hung that peanut farmer out to dry with high interest rates. Care to take a guess why???????????? As soon as that fool was gone! Low interest loans appeared again.
Interesting enough, peanuts are in deep dudu, poisoning people.
And yes, he is married to a Korean.
Ts,
No. When did I take an oath in God’s name? I’m not sure what this question has to do with me at all.
“Man and woman and Oath before God = marriage”
That is what you said. An oath BEFORE God. Not an oath in God’s name.
Josephine,
The oath you take before God/in God’s name is to love and cherish and care for one another and give glory to God through your partnership. Thus the ones who break such an oath with God and leave their partner dishonor God.
and now
it’s post #1000
Thus the ones who break such an oath with God and leave their partner dishonor God.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 23, 2009 1:47 AM
not only that but it is my understanding that such an oath becomes a curse on them?
The majority of people in this country do not favor unrestricted, taxpayer-subsidized access to abortion. That’s something to build on.
Posted by: Fed Up With Obama at January 22, 2009 10:49 PM
Break that statement down Fed Up so you can better see what you have to build on:
Unrestricted access to abortion: Agreed, that the majority probably are not in favor of this. They would probably want the current restrictions kept in place for later term abortions.
Taxpayer-subsidized access to abortion: Just as with other health care and family planning services, the majority probably are in favor of subsidizing abortion services for those in financial need.
As it is, it’s so hard for me to think of you as 20+ years older than me, because you seem to really understand where I’m coming from. I really, really appreciate it!
Posted by: Josephine at January 22, 2009 10:50 PM
Thanks Josephine! Hopefully it will continue to serve me well as my young teenage sons grow through their teens and into adulthood!
Just as with other health care and family planning services, the majority probably are in favor of subsidizing abortion services for those in financial need
Probably? Not from what I am reading. Especially in this economy. Abortions are elective procedures and many of us do not consider them “health care” as you do. Also the concept of “financial need” is pretty open to interpretation too. Could say a lot more on that one but I have to run.
Just as with other health care and family planning services, the majority probably are in favor of subsidizing abortion services for those in financial need
Probably? Not from what I am reading. Especially in this economy.
Posted by: Fed Up With Obama at January 23, 2009 10:13 AM
I think you are wrong there. I’d like to hear more Fed Up.
Fed Up, I think the majority feels that all people, regardless of economic situation, should have the same choices when it comes to unwanted pregnancies or pregancies where the woman’s health or life is at risk, and as such are in favor of subsidized abortions. For the same reasons I think the majority are also in favor of subsidized birth control.
I’m sure most of you know this…but Obama just overturned his first abortion ban as president…Sure didn’t take him long! He’s fulfilling his promises.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28812519/
Good news is that the next conservative president can just as easily overturn his ban…
The above post didn’t come our right…I meant that the ban could be reinstated eventually…
Fed Up, I think the majority feels that all people, regardless of economic situation, should have the same choices when it comes to unwanted pregnancies or pregancies where the woman’s health or life is at risk, and as such are in favor of subsidized abortions. Fed Up, I think the majority feels that all people, regardless of economic situation, should have the same choices when it comes to unwanted pregnancies or pregancies where the woman’s health or life is at risk, and as such are in favor of subsidized abortions. For the same reasons I think the majority are also in favor of subsidized birth control.
Posted by: asitis at January 23, 2009 11:02 AM
1) The majority definitely do NOT want to fund abortion for “unwanted” pregnancies. For serious health or life at risk then probably yes, but NOOOOO way does a majority want to fund killing unborn children in less serious circumstances. And most of society would rather encourage girls who are not ready to have children to abstain from intercourse until they are ready.
2) Birth control will not prevent unwanted pregnancies and often girls think they have “safe” sex on BC and it is not true. I would rather not fund it and teach girls not to engage in intercourse until they are ready to have kids. That is safer, costs less, and healthier for girls then funding and encouraging high-dose hormone regimens from puberty through menopause and having it fail or cause other health complications.
“The majority definitely do NOT want to fund abortion for “unwanted” pregnancies.”
Definitely do not want? Really? How do you know this with such certainty truthseeker??????
“And most of society would rather encourage girls who are not ready to have children to abstain from intercourse until they are ready”.
Perhaps. But at the same time most of society recognizes that in reality they do NOT abastain, so they better be protected!
Whenever I hear arguments regarding abstinence, I’m always amazed at how little faith we have that kids will make the right decision. I first started dating my husband when we were juniors in highschool. I was 17, he was 16. We stayed together and got married in 2006 when we were both 25. By that time we had both graduated college and weathered a long distance relationship for two years. Our wedding night was the first night we…um…yeah.
I think we are really short-changing our youth by telling them “we know you have absolutely no self control, so here are some condoms. You now have permission to go at it like rabbits. Oh, and if you do get pregnant, we’ll help you get an abortion.”
In reality, we need to be letting them know that they are worth far more than casual sex, and they will accomplish SO much more in life if they believe in themselves enough to wait. And the ones who do slip up and get pregnant…they need to be told about loving alternatives. Not murder. When these girls grow up and realize what they did, it could lead to serious emotional trauma. My friend is going through that right now. She’s on drugs for PTSD. It’s so sad to see her like that…anxious and guilty all the time.
Abortion is not healthy for women. Murdering innocent lives will never be healthy. Deep down the truth is there. And that truth will catch up with most of the women who are hoodwinked into thinking they made a sound decision by getting an abortion.
I realize that not everyone grows up in a loving home with parents who encourage and believe in them, and that is many time where this cycle begins. That’s where communities, schools, churches, safe houses, and other such support systems come in. We should be investing our time and money in these places that can truly help women and girls in need. Not throw money at failed sex ed, condoms, and endless abortions.
Just my two cents.
Wow…Sarah Palin wins pro-lifer of the year? Can someone explain that to me? Besides saying that the states should decide whether to kill unborn children, did she do anything for the unborn? It’s true, she didn’t kill her child. But we’re in a sad state of affairs when not killing your child makes you a hero. I’m shocked that pro-lifers are this ignorant.
“It’s true, she didn’t kill her child. But we’re in a sad state of affairs when not killing your child makes you a hero.”
Wow…Will D., you make an excellent point here!!
greeaaaatttt post @ 1:41pm Becca!
I think we are really short-changing our youth by telling them “we know you have absolutely no self control, so here are some condoms. You now have permission to go at it like rabbits. Oh, and if you do get pregnant, we’ll help you get an abortion.”
not only is it short-changing them, it’s extremely disrespectful of their intelligence and dignity to imply that they won’t have the self-control to wait until marriage.
Of course if one believes that we are mere animals unable to control our passions then this view of humanity fits.
If we are persons made in the image of God with an immortal soul and open to the graces of the Holy Spirit then the approach is quite different.
If we are persons made in the image of God with an immortal soul and open to the graces of the Holy Spirit then the approach is quite different.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 23, 2009 2:09 PM
Oh, that’s not going to fly any better in our brave new world toostunned:
“Senator Obama also laid down principles for how to discuss faith in a pluralistic society, including the need for religious people to translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values during public debate”.
Virginity Pledges Do Not Work, Yet Another Study Confirms
December 30, 2008
Teens who take “virginity pledges” are just as likely to have sex as those who do not, and they are less likely to use condoms or other forms of contraception when they become sexually active, according to an analysis in the January 2009 issue of the peer-reviewed journal Pediatrics. Because virginity pledge programs do not reduce the number of young people becoming sexually active, the number of pledgers they enlist should not be used to measure the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education programs, the study concludes.
The findings could have an impact on the current debate over federal support for abstinence-only-until-marriage education and the Obama administration’s support for comprehensive sex education. A wealth of evidence—including findings published in 2007 from a congressionally mandated study, conducted over nine years at a cost of almost $8 million—has demonstrated that abstinence-only programs have no beneficial effect on young people’s sexual behavior. Nevertheless, the U.S. government allotted $176 million for FY 2008 to support programs that exclusively promote abstinence-only outside of marriage, including virginity-pledge programs.
For this new analysis, Janet E. Rosenbaum of Johns Hopkins University used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a nationally representative sample of middle and high school students who were interviewed in 1995, 1996 and 2001. Unlike previous evaluations of virginity pledges, this study matched a group of teens who had pledged to remain abstinent until marriage with adolescents who had not taken such a pledge but who had comparable characteristics, such as similar views about premarital sex and contraceptive use.
The study found that after five years, more than half of both pledgers and nonpledgers had engaged in sexual activity, and the two groups had similar rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Pledgers, however, were less likely to use contraceptives or to use them consistently. For example, 34% of nonpledgers who had had sex said they had always used condoms during the past year, compared with 24% of pledgers. In addition, 82% of pledgers denied having taken a pledge.
These findings underscore the need for young people, particularly virginity pledgers, to receive information about condoms and other forms of contraception, Dr. Rosenbaum concludes. She also comments that adolescents who have taken virginity pledges may be less likely than others to use contraceptives because abstinence-only programs foster negative attitudes about birth control. The importance of contraceptive use was highlighted in an analysis by the Guttmacher Institute that found that 86% of the decline in teen pregnancy between 1995 and 2002 was due to teens’ increasing, and increasingly effective, use of contraceptives; only 14% was the result of teens’ delaying sex.
Dr. Rosenbaum’s findings build on past research showing that while virginity pledges may help some teens to delay sexual activity, most young people who take them break their pledge, and pledge breakers are less likely to use condoms, are less likely to get tested for STIs and may have STIs for longer periods of time than nonpledgers
TSTL:
Yes, I agree completely. I’m a teacher (although not currently teaching). One of the big things we were taught in college regarding the mentality of kids is this: They are extremely receptive to their teachers’ and parents’ view of them. If they believe their teachers/parents think they are unable to complete a certain task, or learn certain material, they are far less likely to master it.
If we believe in our kids, and let them know it, they could really rise to the occasion and surprise us. Even overcoming those pesky and often blamed hormones of teenage years. Personally, I didn’t think hormones were all hard to overcome…but maybe that’s just me. :)
Personally, I didn’t think hormones were all hard to overcome…but maybe that’s just me. :)
Posted by: Becca at January 23, 2009 2:30 PM
Could just be you Becca, seeing as you lasteed until 25 years old! That’s extremely rare, as we well know. But if it’s what you wanted I commend you for seeing it through!
I agree with you Becca. In fact, I believe most teens like parents to have high expectations for them. I see this all the time in my work and in my personal life.
Push them to excel, to be good, to develop their character and their morals and they respond positively!
I have lots of friends whose teen and adult children are not yet sexually active and are true to themselves and God. It gives me great hope for the future. :-D
Thanks, Asitis!
I agree, TSTL, that teens do well when there are clear expectations for them and it’s matched with support from their parents and/or teachers. Of course, ideally, the parents should be the biggest cheerleaders in their child’s lives…unfortunately this isn’t always so…
“On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters,” said Obama. “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose.”
He continued, “While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make. To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services.”
A liar for president of the United States, me thinks. He speaks out of both side of his mouth.
I am wondering how he can explain how funding groups which promote abortion and commit abortions will help “reduce abortion”?
Maybe he thinks abortion “prevents” pregnancy?
I agree, TSTL, that teens do well when there are clear expectations for them and it’s matched with support from their parents and/or teachers. Of course, ideally, the parents should be the biggest cheerleaders in their child’s lives…unfortunately this isn’t always so…
Posted by: Becca at January 23, 2009 2:44 PM
absolutely. But sometimes even another adult who CARES, such as a teacher, coach, pastor, youth worker can make a big difference in a teen’s life. Even another teen!
I am wondering how he can explain how funding groups which promote abortion and commit abortions will help “reduce abortion”?
Maybe he thinks abortion “prevents” pregnancy?
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 23, 2009 2:49 PM
Okay, you really are true to your name! He is now only for making abortion accessible to those who schoose it, but also to expanding “access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services.” That’s how abortions will be reduced. Obvi.
Sorry that was supposed to read: “He is NOT only for making abortion accessible….”
Wow…Sarah Palin wins pro-lifer of the year? Can someone explain that to me? Besides saying that the states should decide whether to kill unborn children, did she do anything for the unborn? It’s true, she didn’t kill her child. But we’re in a sad state of affairs when not killing your child makes you a hero. I’m shocked that pro-lifers are this ignorant.
Posted by: Will D at January 23, 2009 1:47 PM
Will, we are in a sad state. And not killing your unborn child with a disability when doctors encourage you to does make you a hero. Personal actions tell you more about a person than all the statements or postulated positions they could utter.
TS, how is she any more a “hero” then ANY mother of a baby with a disability? In fact, wasn’t she warned BEFORE she got pregnant the problems a baby can have when born to an “older woman”?
Obama is signing an executive order making America a beacon of hope to countries throughout the world by telling them we are willing to fund killing your unborn children. Ugh! This is not a proud day for Americans or America as a moral leader on sanctity of life issues.
Any mother who made comparable decisions would also be counted as heroes in my book.
Obama is signing an executive order making America a beacon of hope to countries throughout the world by telling them we are willing to fund killing your unborn children. Ugh! This is not a proud day for Americans or America as a moral leader on sanctity of life issues.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 23, 2009 3:37 PM
it will be interesting to see how future generations will view these years…
Could just be you Becca, seeing as you lasteed until 25 years old! That’s extremely rare, as we well know. But if it’s what you wanted I commend you for seeing it through!
I waited, my mother,father, sister, and several good friends waited. It is not impossible.
And any one of those mother’s are pro-lifer’s of the year because of the example they show to those who witness the selfless love and dignity they give to their unborn children.
truthseeker said, And not killing your unborn child with a disability when doctors encourage you to does make you a hero. Personal actions tell you more about a person than all the statements or postulated positions they could utter.
I completely disagree. When someone encourages you to kill your own child, and you don’t, that makes you normal. Sarah Palin did a huge disservice to the unborn, by telling them that states have the right to kill them.
Sarah Palin was voted pro-lifer of the year? How about these six concerns from American Right To Life?
1. Sarah Palin has joined the anti-personhood juggernaut from the ‘conservative, pro-life, Christian’ camp by claiming on ABC News with Charlie Gibson that states have the right to decide whether to kill unborn children (as though it were a zoning matter), by rejecting that the 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. constitution that require the federal government to ensure the state’s would not violate the right to life of each innocent person.
2. Sarah Palin has added her name to the list of Christians who advocate grisly dissection and killing of the tiniest boys and girls in the name of embryonic research, by Pain supporting in TV ads John McCain’s record on funding brutality against the smallest living children.
3. Sarah Palin’s first national influence was to whitewash and convince millions of Christians to support John McCain, an unrepentant, surgical abortion-funding, anti-human life amendment, anti protection of marriage, helping to deceive millions of Christians into thinking such an evil man is a good, pro-life, even Christian hope for America.
4. Sarah Palin on CBS Defends Chemical Abortion: The CBS transcript of Sarah Palin shows:
Palin: “absolutely” will fight global warming
Palin: evolution “should be taught as an accepted principle”
Palin: God’s hand in creation should not be part of state policy or the curriculum
Palin: “as for homosexuality” “I don’t know what prayers are worthy of being prayed… I am not going to judge… adult personal relationships”
Palin: personally against the Morning After Pill but it should not be illegal
Palin: on abortion for rape, she would ‘counsel’ for life, but never support jail
Palin: a pro-life vice president doesn’t make laws, so her beliefs [on abortion] are not relevant
5. Sarah Palin and Esther
Q: If Roe v. Wade were overturned and states could once again prohibit abortion, in your view, to what extent should abortion be prohibited in Alaska?
A: Under this hypothetical scenario, it would not be up to the governor to unilaterally ban anything. It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values.
Source: Anchorage Daily News: 2006 gubernatorial candidate profile Oct 22, 2006
Is Sarah Palin a Modern Esther?
Esther 1:1 Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus (this was the Ahasuerus who reigned over one hundred and twenty-seven provinces, from India to Ethiopia)
Palin 1:1: Now it came to pass in the days of Milhous (this was the Richard Nixon who reigned over fifty states, from Alaska to Florida)
Esther 3:8-9 Haman said to King Ahasuerus, “… If it pleases the king, let a decree be written that [the Jews can] be destroyed…”
Palin 3:8-9: The Republican Roe v. Wade Supreme Court said to no one in particular, “Since it pleases us, let a decree be written that the unborn can be destroyed.”
Esther 8:5 “If it pleases the king… let it be written to revoke the letters devised… to annihilate the Jews who are in all the king’s provinces.”
Palin 8:5 “If it pleases John McCain… let it be written that each state can decide whether to annihilate the unborn.”
Contrast Sarah Palin to Esther. Mordecai said, “Who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” Tragically, if the innocent were hoping that Sarah Palin would stand up for them like Esther did for the Jews, they have been betrayed. Esther risked her very life (4:11) by pleading for the innocent that they be protected in every province. In contrast, Palin dropped her position that child killing should be outlawed without exception, and instead now claims as on ABC News with Charlie Gibson on Sept. 12, “I think that states should be able to decide that issue,” that is, whether to kill unborn children (as though it were a zoning issue). She thereby violates the greatest precedent and God’s enduring g command, Do not murder, and rejects both the 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution that require the federal government to ensure the states provide equal protection under the law and defend the right to life of every innocent person. We know Esther. Esther is a friend of the innocent. And tragically, Sarah Palin is no Esther.
6. Thank God that Sarah Palin did not kill her handicapped son! Yes. Of course. But since when does not killing your own child make someone a pro-life hero? If that were true, for drowning her two children in the backseat of her car, Susan Smith would be a pro-lifer; just not a pro-life hero. The fact that pro-lifers are so enamored that Sarah Palin did not kill her own child speaks volumes about Republican politicians.
Thanks for considering these crucial matters.
-Bob Enyart
AmericanRTL.org
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics,” Mark Twain said, quoting Benjamin Disraeli.
But Twain would have probably added a fourth type of lie to Disraeli’s list after reading the recent Washington Post article “Premarital Abstinence Pledges Ineffective, Study Finds,” phony science used to push ideology.
What the author of the piece, Rob Stein, tries to lead his readers to believe, is clear from the subtitle: “Teenagers Who Make Such Promises Are Just as Likely to Have Sex, and Less Likely to Use Protection, the Data Indicate.”
But reading through the article, the much promised “data” actually evaporates.
First, it begins with the careful use of the conditional tense, in stark contrast with the blunt headline.
“Taking a pledge doesn’t seem to make any difference at all in any sexual behavior,” said Janet E. Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, whose report appears in the January issue of the journal Pediatrics. “But it does seem to make a difference in condom use and other forms of birth control that is quite striking.”
The data then becomes even more threadbare when the methodology used by the specialist-du-jour is explained:
Rosenbaum analyzed data collected by the federal government’s National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which gathered detailed information from a representative sample of about 11,000 students in grades seven through 12 in 1995, 1996 and 2001.
Although researchers have analyzed data from that survey before to examine abstinence education programs, the new study is the first to use a more stringent method to account for other factors that could influence the teens’ behavior, such as their attitudes about sex before they took the pledge.
Rosenbaum focused on about 3,400 students who had not had sex or taken a virginity pledge in 1995. She compared 289 students who were 17 years old on average in 1996, when they took a virginity pledge, with 645 who did not take a pledge but were otherwise similar. She based that judgment on about 100 variables, including their attitudes and their parents’ attitudes about sex and their perception of their friends’ attitudes about sex and birth control.
Behind the carefully chosen scientific lingo, a fact emerges for anyone reading a little more carefully: Rosenbaum goes to the well of the same boring and blind data used in previous, inconclusive investigations. There is nothing really new, no interview with specific persons, no identification of individual cases, no follow-up on personal patterns.
There is, therefore, no real investigation or study. It is only about Rosenbaum’s interpretation of information already collected seven years ago, but this time based on 100 “variables.”
The question is: How did Rosenbaum come up with those 100 variables? The answer is simple. She chose them at will. What criteria did she use to choose them? The author of the article does not say, but it is easy to imagine that Rosenbaum chose the ones that would not take her new “conclusions” too far from an essay she wrote in 2006, when she was still a student at Harvard, eloquently entitled: “Reborn a Virgin: Adolescents’ Retracting of Virginity Pledges and Sexual Histories.”
Rosenbaum has clearly an issue with abstinence programs in general and virginity pledges in particular.
And her issues come in handy for the timing and the true purpose of the article:
“The findings are reigniting the debate about the effectiveness of abstinence-focused sexual education just as Congress and the new Obama administration are about to reconsider the more than $176 million in annual funding for such programs.”
The “findings” are “reigniting the debate?” What debate? Who is debating? Stein wants you to think that there is actually a “debate…” to which he is already offering you a conclusion. The non-existing “data” and Rosenbaum are just the excuse to ask Obama to cut funding for abstinence-only programs and re-direct them to contraception-only ones. But of course, Stein doesn’t want to seem opinionated, so here comes the useful “pundit” to drop the real warhead for which the article is the missile:
“This study again raises the issue of why the federal government is continuing to invest in abstinence-only programs,” said Sarah Brown of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. “What have we gained if we only encourage young people to delay sex until they are older, but then when they do become sexually active — and most do well before marriage — they don’t protect themselves or their partners?”
Never mind that the board of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy is a “who is who” of pro-abortion and pro-artificial birth control activists. Also, never mind that the organization has been systematically advocating against abstinence programs, ignoring several studies showing that young people who took the pledges in fact had lower rates of STDs, and engaged in fewer risky behaviors. They never follow the real data. Instead, they have been in the business of creating Rosenbaum’s type of data to follow their ideology.
Being the piece of propaganda that it is, the article cleverly uses a quote from Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association to serve as a token bow towards an “objective” perspective.
“It is remarkable that an author who employs rigorous research methodology would then compromise those standards by making wild, ideologically tainted and inaccurate analysis regarding the content of abstinence education programs.”
Actually, it is not remarkable at all. It is just the boring 101 of how to deliver ideology under the disguise of science and journalism. Boring, but lethal, nonetheless.
Alejandro Bermudez
Back to index
Imprimir Incrementar tamaño de fuente Disminuir tamaño de fuente
Subscriber comments:
Published by: Chris
Shelton, CT 11/01/2009 12:18 AM EST
I waited, my mother,father, sister, and several good friends waited. It is not impossible.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 23, 2009 3:44 PM
absolutely! It is MOST DEFINITELY NOT impossible.
absolutely! It is MOST DEFINITELY NOT impossible.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 23, 2009 4:12 PM
Of course it’s not impossible! Just don’t kid yourself into thinking it actually happens much.
it will be interesting to see how future generations will view these years…
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 23, 2009 3:44 PM
My guess is they’ll wonder what the fuss was all about ;)
Any mother who made comparable decisions would also be counted as heroes in my book.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 23, 2009 3:39 PM
Sorry, I’m still not buying that Palin actually made a decision.
Eileen #2: of course it would be nice for people who can’t or won’t remain chaste to stop projecting their inadequacies on others, especially impressionable young teens and adults. :-D
tstl, that is what it’s about, isn’t it?!
I think you are wrong there. I’d like to hear more Fed Up.
Asitis, I was wrong to say that the economic nose-dive affects the way people feel about tax funded abortion. I don’t know if anyone has surveyed on that issue. What I should have said is that economic difficulties may give people pause to rethink their views on funding abortion with their tax dollars.
I read quite a few negative comments about funding foreign abortions in time of economic crisis on forums and blogs after O’s reversal of W’s ban yesterday. And they were coming from people who said they voted for O. But that’s hardly scientific.
What I do feel confident about is that the polls and surveys I’ve been looking at do not show strong support for taxpayer funding of abortion on the domestic front, even among respondents who believe abortion should remain legal. The most recent survey I looked at was taken after the economy tanked, but I am still digging to find out more about the methodology of that study, so I don’t know if the economy was an issue in the survey or how questions were phrased.
Eileen #2: of course it would be nice for people who can’t or won’t remain chaste to stop projecting their inadequacies on others, especially impressionable young teens and adults. :-D
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 23, 2009 4:31 PM
Haha!!!! Pssst Eileen. This is Patricia. Tell Asitis that…..
No, toostunned they are not “inadequacies”. Only in your opinion.
Eileen #2: yes I really think that it is sometimes a case of people seeing their own situation and not wanting others to succeed where they failed.
or
just believing that because they couldn’t be chaste no one else possibly could. very sad indeed to lead someone astray in this manner.
Think of all the parents who have handed their daughters the BC pill. I’ve seen situations where girls don’t want to be on the pill because they know that then they have absolutely NO excuse for refusing sex. They don’t want to be sexually active.
Fed Up With Obama at January 23, 2009 4:42 PM
I’d like to see that survey when you find it.
On a strictly financial basis, funding/subsidizing abortion makes sense.
TSTL: January 21, 2009 1:18 PM: Doug, North American farms produce enough food to supply every person in North America with 7000 calories per day. When was the last time you consumed 7000 calories in one day?
That’s a far cry from feeding everybody in the world. 7000 in one day – far too many times for me. I got a large pizza one day last week and ate the whole thing in one evening. Probably was close if not over that day.
*****************************************
“There are plenty of people, and we’ve gone from about 3 billion people when I was born to over 6 billion at present. The US Census Bureau forecasts 9 billion by 2040.”
big hairy deal.
Well, the point is that this talk of “shortages” of people is just plain silly.
…..
Most of North America is uninhabitated. So what? You don’t have to have any more children. But those of us who want big families will definitely continue to do so.
And Pro-Choicers are right with you, there.
…..
Also your statement is inherently racist Doug.
[Insert massive eyeroll here] I said nothing of the sort.
…..
Since most of the population growth in the last 30 years has occurred in the third world, what are you saying – that we should encourage the Third world moms to abort their babies – maybe all their babies?
No, said nothing of the sort. I’ve pointed out that the worldwide birthrate is plenty high already, that’s all.
…..
They’ve made it quite clear, they are NOT interested in our anti-life ideology. They love babies. They want to have babies and they want large families. Or maybe you are in favor of sterilization in exchange for aid?
Again, I’ve said nothing like that. Many people in the third world are VERY interested in contraception, family planning, etc., and I’m all for that, too. If somebody truly wants a lot of kids and can support them, then all fine and good, there the same as here.
“Good grief – I said nothing of the sort. If we are to point the finger at one single person, then Phil Gramm is the one. He is largely responsible for allowing the unregulated growth of the credit default swaps, etc., that are the main problem in our credit markets.”
yllas: And the reason Gramm did that?
Real simple. The destruction of the S&L’s by baby boomers being repeated by their children.
Heh – no, had nothing to do with it.
…..
Without Gramm you would not have had the modernization of banking which includes internet banking. No interstate banking offering loans and competitive interest rates across the nation. No branch banking. Amd more. In essence, you would still be writing paper checks, and not using your keyboard.
Rarely have I seen something so incorrect.
This was in the year 2000, and it didn’t give us anything of the “good” effects which you ascribe to it. Those were totally separate deals, some starting well prior to 2000, and others coming later – in both cases Gramm’s legislation didn’t affect them.
What Gramm did was simply to ensure that there would be no regulation by the gov’t or any other “watchdog” agency with respect to the newly-created (and even yet-to-be-created) debt instruments and “bets.”
I’ve seen the problem from Grammm’s legislation put at a cost of from $62 trillion to $78 trillion, dwarfing the bailout, Fannie and Freddie, AIG, etc.
The main deal was Gramm tucking a 262 page addition into an omnibus spending bill late in 2000. It was called “The Commodity Futures Modernization Act” but it went well beyond the futures arena. Gramm declared that the act would keep the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from being in the business of regulating new financial products called “swaps” (we now know them as credit default swaps – a huge part of the problem we’re now having). He said it would “protect financial institutions from overregulation.” Well there ya go, Phil, you got what you wanted….. Gramm had gotten millions from friends in the financial services industry during his years in Congress, so perhaps no surprise.
Gramm’s insertion contained things that had been wanted by Enron, for example, things that exempted energy trading from gov’t regulation. Enron was rather “in the family” for Gramm since his wife was formerly CFTC chairwoman, and she’d gotten Enron’s energy futures contracts exempted from gov’t regulation. Later, she was on Enron’s board.
Now that “swaps” would be unregulated, and now that a bank could also be an insurer, hedge fund, etc., (or vice-versa), a $62 trillion market in swaps blossomed, almost four times the size of the whole US stock market. And, due to Gramm’s swap-related provisions in the bill, this enormous market would be unregulated – there was no surety that the insurers had the required assets to cover the risks they were guaranteeing.
Freddie and Fannie go down – fine, let ’em fail. Banks make loans and don’t get repaid, let ’em go under.
What Gramm did was make it so that the commercial banks – which maintain the credit markets – could act as insurers, investment banks, etc., and take on trillions even tens of trillions in risk, potentially crippling them and hence bringing the credit market – which (sadly) so much of American business is dependent upon – to a virtual halt.
FedUpWithObama: Asitis, I was wrong to say that the economic nose-dive affects the way people feel about tax funded abortion. I don’t know if anyone has surveyed on that issue. What I should have said is that economic difficulties may give people pause to rethink their views on funding abortion with their tax dollars.
I wouldn’t doubt it affects how people feel about “tax-funded abortion” (if it really exists) and about abortion in general.
In the Depression, people’s feelings changed, too, and there was a marked drop-off in the birth rate, though it was confined primarily to one year, I believe.
Who knows? In tough economic times I’ve no doubt that some people will choose to not have as many kids, at least not as many at a given time. That it would influence their feeling about the need for abortion being legal wouldn’t surprise me.
“It is remarkable that an author who employs rigorous research methodology would then compromise those standards by making wild, ideologically tainted and inaccurate analysis regarding the content of abstinence education programs.”
Actually, it is not remarkable at all. It is just the boring 101 of how to deliver ideology under the disguise of science and journalism. Boring, but lethal, nonetheless.”
OMG. That’s awesome!
No, what’s truly remarkable Eileen is that you and others actually agree with this nonsense…. And that you will so blindly discount research published in respected peer-reviewed journal and done by a Harvard-educated researcher from Johns Hopkinson University. And that instead, you believe people like pro-life activist David Reardon who bought his PhD and self-publishes his own “research” findings are perfectly sound and oh what a travesty that they are not recognized by others simply because they are unpopular and controversial. Please!
I love this: It is just the boring 101 of how to deliver ideology under the disguise of science and journalism. Boring, but lethal, nonetheless.” Oh the irony!!!!!
I’ve seen situations where girls don’t want to be on the pill because they know that then they have absolutely NO excuse for refusing sex. Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 23, 2009 4:46 PM
What? They actually feel that if they are on the pill then they have no reason to tell a boy they won’t have sex with them? Then they have a problem and it has nothing to do with the pill!
Doug, I don’t doubt the effect either. But what I wrote could give the impression that I’ve seen research confirming it. And I haven’t.
On a strictly financial basis, funding/subsidizing abortion makes sense.
Asitis, you know I’m going to disagree with you on that one. I take comfort knowing that the majority of Americans don’t seem to share your view.
On a strictly financial basis, funding/subsidizing abortion makes sense.
Asitis, you know I’m going to disagree with you on that one. I take comfort knowing that the majority of Americans don’t seem to share your view.
Posted by: Fed Up With Obama at January 23, 2009
5:44 PM
“The majority don’t share my view?” Fed Up, you keep saying stuff like that. Where does this knowledge come from?
An abortion costs roughly $500 and an uncomplicated vaginal birth roughly $10,000. So why do you claim that “in this economy” people would be especially opposed to funding/subsidizing abortion for those in financial need?
Fed Up, just so you don’t get me wrong… In no way am I saying that I think poor people should be forced into having an abortion because it costs the taxpayer less money then a birth. Far from it – I believe they should have every choice just like other women.
What I am saying is simply that it makes no sense for you to claim that IN THESE ECONOMIC TIMES the majority is opposed to funding abortion for those in financial need.
“No, what’s truly remarkable Eileen is that you and others actually agree with this nonsense…”
The fact that you are so obviously emotional in your response means that the response to J. Rosenbaum’s (biased) research has touched a nerve.
This is off the subject, but please do not complain about being insulted, etc again by anyone at this site because your harassment of tstl is really becoming tiresome.
The fact that you are so obviously emotional in your response means that the response to J. Rosenbaum’s (biased) research has touched a nerve.
This is off the subject, but please do not complain about being insulted, etc again by anyone at this site because your harassment of tstl is really becoming tiresome.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 23, 2009 7:22 PM
Completely wrong Eileen. What is making my head explode is the fact that you really have no clue about real science and sound research. So long as it suits your cause, you will hold it in high regard no matter how flawed and how unqualified and biased the “researcher”. But when it runs counter to what you want to hear, well, it really doesn’t matter how well-regraded and qualified the researcher nor valid the findings.
As for toostunned, she’s dishing it up to along with some fallacies that need pointing out. Of course you disagree, but that’s okay. I’m cool with that.
Can we say fallacy on this website? ;)
Hey Eileen, you never clarified that information on the French in L.A. nor where you got that reason for a supposed mass exodus of young people. Do you know?
The former govenor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura, was once asked what he would doto help single moms.
Jesse responded, ‘Excuse me mam, but just where, when and how did the State of Minnesota get involved in your decision to have sex?’
You could hear and feel the lowering of the barometric pressure in that room as the gathered masses gasped in collective dismay at the brutish insensitivty manifested in that means spirited comment.
A moment of politically incorrect candor not often heard in the good ole USA.
“Spread happiness where you go, not when……”
yor bro ken
“Completely wrong Eileen. What is making my head explode is the fact that you really have no clue about real science and sound research. So long as it suits your cause, you will hold it in high regard no matter how flawed and how unqualified and biased the “researcher”.
Actually, that should be directed to Dr. Rosenbaum.
asitis, I got the info from my mother who is looking for her source. I’ll have to get back to you later on that.
As far as the reason; I believe that I did mention that it is because the young people who are leaving France could not make a decent living because of the increasing aged population that must be supported (and the drop in the replacement rate).
Actually, that should be directed to Dr. Rosenbaum.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 23, 2009 9:14 PM
You really have no idea do you?
Eileen, if you don’t mind my asking, what is your background?
As far as the reason; I believe that I did mention that it is because the young people who are leaving France could not make a decent living because of the increasing aged population that must be supported (and the drop in the replacement rate).
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 23, 2009 9:22 PM
I was asking where you got this information.
asitis, you PROVE that Dr. Rosenbaum’s research is based on sound research and that she is unbiased in her approach. It sure doesn’t sound like it to me.
Eileen: thank you!
Here is an awesome story that I just read on the internet:
Poster for prayer service saves a life
By Dave Hrbacek
Thursday, 22 January 2009
Ultrasound image on display at Jan. 22 cathedral service; Archbishop Nienstedt encourages pro-lifers to be a generation of radical love
Bobbie Hallman was attempting to carry out a simple task — make a poster from an ultrasound image.
Bobbie Hallman, left, and her daughter, Annie, hold a poster of an unborn child in the womb that was displayed at the Prayer Service for Life at the Cathedral of St. Paul Jan. 22. The image caused an employee of the print shop that made the poster to choose not to abort her unborn child. – Photo by Dave Hrbacek / The Catholic Spirit She ended up saving the life of an unborn child.
The drama unfolded at a local print shop. She had agreed to make several posters for use in the Prayer Service for Life at the Cathedral of St. Paul on Jan. 22, which was held on the 36th anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand in America.
About three weeks before the event, she brought in a handful of small ultrasound pictures that she received from the clinic where her husband, Dr. Kevin Hallman, works in River Falls, Wis.
She showed them to a woman working behind the counter and asked for help making the poster. As she would soon discover, the woman was struggling with an unplanned pregnancy.
“I could see her eyes well up with tears and she walked away,” said Bobbie, formerly of St. Joseph in West St. Paul who now lives in River Falls with her husband and children. “The other lady [behind the counter] said, ‘Oh, you’ll have to forgive her. She’s 12 weeks along right now and she’s not sure if she’s going to keep the baby.’ ”
Just like that, Hallman was thrust to the front lines of the abortion debate. She chose not to try to talk the woman into keeping her baby. Instead, she kept her focus on the poster.
The woman eventually came back to the counter and the two continued looking at the ultrasound pictures Bobbie had brought to pick some for the posters. One stood out — a picture of a fetus at 12 weeks.
“She said, ‘I think you have to use the 12-week one,’ ” Bobbie said. “And, I said, ‘I think I do, too.’ And so, we worked it out and we blew it up [into a poster].”
Choosing life
In the meantime, people standing in line nearby began to look at the ultrasound pictures, too. Eventually, the pictures found their way back into the hands of the pregnant employee.
“She looked at them individually again and she said, ‘I can’t abort this baby.’ ” Bobbie said. “She said, ‘I was thinking about aborting this baby. I thought it was just a tissue. And, look at this.’ She was pointing to the fingers and the eyes.”
Then, the woman began to cry and the print shop fell silent. In this unpredicted, uncontrolled, unbelievable encounter, a frightened pregnant woman saw the truth about abortion and the truth about life. And, without any type of a sermon being uttered.
“It was touching for me, it was a miracle for her,” Bobbie said. “I remember once Mother Teresa said that she was nothing but a pencil in the hand of God. And, sometimes, we forget that, I think — that we are his instruments and we have to listen and serve each other and help each other.”
Before she left the shop, Bobbie gave the woman her husband’s telephone number and said he would be happy to give her a free ultrasound. Bobbie said she found out later that the woman did, in fact, come in for the free visit.
Challenged to love radically
Such news, no doubt, would have delighted the standing-room-only crowd at the cathedral that attended the prayer service. Those who came saw the poster that persuaded the print-shop employee to not abort her baby, plus a second poster that was placed in the sanctuary along with the first.
They heard brief remarks by Bobbie’s 12-year-old adopted daughter, Annie, plus two other children. They also heard an impassioned speech by Ann Marie Cosgrove, who once had an abortion and subsequently founded Silent No More Minnesota, a nonprofit organization that educates people about the physical, emotional and spiritual effects of abortion.
Finally, they heard words of encouragement and exhortation by Archbishop John Nienstedt, who had special words of thanks to young people in attendance.
“You are the bright promise of a new day in this country,” he said. “God is shining on you. He wants you to stand up, he wants you to stand up and be counted. In a world full of abuses and injustices, it is my belief that none stand so in need of our attention and prayerful opposition as the grave evil of abortion.”
Bobbie Hallman is an example of what Archbishop Nienstedt said pro-life people need to be.
“We must be willing to be pro-life people 24/7, not just when we are about the important business of marching or protesting or lobbying,” he said. “I solemnly challenge you to be a generation of radical love, the seed from which a new people can be born.”
Bobbie is hoping to see the woman at the print shop next year at the prayer service, along with her newborn child.
Whether or not that happens, the image of that encounter is written on her heart as clearly and unmistakably as the poster that now stands as proof that there are ways to win the battle against abortion — one life at a time.
“I just think it’s an absolute miracle that this happened,” Bobbie said. “This picture saved a soul.”
****************************************
Two things from this story: it demonstrates why women not only should but absolutely must be shown an ultrasound of their unborn baby before undergoing abortion.
Secondly, I love the challenge that the bishop makes to the younger generation to “radical love”. Not the “free love” of the baby boomers with it’s drug-your-body-so-it-behaves-like-a-man mantra, but a better, more intelligent, meaningful love, respecting the dignity of the body both those born and unborn!
Awesome!
Eileen I haven’t seen the original journal article, but I will look for it and let you know if anything looks suspicious. I doubt it, given the level of scrutiny it would have already received to be accepted for publication. Furtermore, given her Harvard education and position at Johns Hopkins AND the fact that the research was accepted by a respected, peer-reviewed journal, I would bet anything that it is infintely more unbiased and sound than anything produced or co-produced by “Dr.” David Readon and the ever so-impressive sounding Elliot Institute.
Eileen #2
I was visting with my mom and Holy Spirit said, ‘Your mom has a spirit of contention.’
So I said, ‘Mom, did you know the earth is a sphere?’
Mom shot right back, ‘Some people say the earth is flat!’
Test the spirits. If you find yourself in an endless discussion with someone who wants to contend for every point no matter how irrelevant or insignificant, then you might be jousting with a ‘spirit of contention’.
They will wear you out.
One fool can raise more questions than a hundred wise men can answer.
You might want to consider moving on to a more beneficial conversation.
I used to work with a guy who wanted to challenge me on my way of doing things. Not because my way was wrong, but because it was not ‘HIS’ way. He was a bright guy. He taught more than a few things. But he wore me down.
One day I suggested doing something a certain way and he objected. I slapped my forehead and said, ‘Arnie, what was I thinking? Of course we should do it your way.’
The next time we had a difference of opinion about how to do something, I deferred to him again saying, ‘What was I thinking?’
It took a while but Arnie finally caught on to what I was doing. He was a little annoyed at first, but he got over it and our working relationship actually improved. He began to give my perspectives serious consideration.
The kingdom of God is manifested in the peace and joy of the Holy Spirit in right relationships. For what would you trade the kingdom?
yor bro ken
What I am saying is simply that it makes no sense for you to claim that IN THESE ECONOMIC TIMES the majority is opposed to funding abortion for those in financial need
Asitis, first off, it never occurred to me that you were suggesting forced abortion for the impoverished.
I thought I clarified my comments about the economy above at 4:42pm. I guess I just muddied the waters. Here’s my last stab at it. I haven’t seen any research that addressed WHY people oppose tax funding, only IF they oppose it.
I understand that your cost of birth vs abortion figures make good sense from a financial standpoint to YOUR way of thinking. Other people apparently have different or additional variables in their equation when they arrive at a decision about the correctness of tax funded abortions because surveys show the majority of Americans against tax funded abortion. I cannot claim to know WHY anyone–except me–agrees or disagrees with you. Would be an interesting survey question to ask what factors weigh into the decision to support/oppose tax funded abortion. I just don’t see where anyone has asked it and published the data, but I’m still looking.
What I was trying to say earlier about the economy was that SOME people MAY be forming new opinions or reexamining their views about funding foreign abortions IF blog comments and forum posts are to be believed. As I said above, blog comments and forum posts aren’t very scientific data collection methods, are they? Does it translate into similar views about funding domestic abortion when someone who previously supported foreign funding is now against it because of our economy? I have no clue. Most of the data I am finding was collected BEFORE the economy deteriorated. I’m still researching what’s out there DURING this economic crisis.
When I say that the majority of Americans don’t share your view, I am referring to multiple polls and surveys which find that the majority (defined as more than 51%) of respondents do NOT favor use of tax dollars for abortion (domestic). Or they are in favor of laws banning use of tax dollars for abortion. Depends on how the instrument phrases the question. Most of the 2008 data I am looking at was collected in the first half of the year, so I am considering that before the economic meltdown. The only data I can find that I consider after the economic plunge was collected in late 2008 after the election. That data still shows a majority against subsidized abortion (domestic).
I am WONDERING whether the economy is reshaping SOME people’s views on tax funded abortion. The data I have seen indicates that in better economic times the majority of Americans were against tax funded abortion. Several months into the economic mess the majority were still against it. Now that our tax dollars will be funding foreign abortion, I am HEARING (unscientific) that some aren’t wild about the idea. I am CURIOUS if discontent over funding foreign abortions will result in an even larger percentage of Americans against funding domestic abortion. The only way to satisfy my curiosity is if sound survey methods are used to ask the question.
There, if you read that far, I hope I un-muddied the waters. If not, pay me no attention and everyone here have a great weekend.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 23, 2009 9:35 PM
—————————————————
Great post!
I know that some children are alive today who would not be if I had not intervened.
I know one child is dead because not only did I not intervene, I encouraged and assisted in his destruction.
Unmerited favor and forgiveness is a marvelous thing.
yor bro ken
aw Kbhvac! God loves you.
and yes, “Unmerited favor and forgiveness is a marvelous thing.” I agree whole-heartedly!
Test the spirits. If you find yourself in an endless discussion with someone who wants to contend for every point no matter how irrelevant or insignificant, then you might be jousting with a ‘spirit of contention’.
methinks you might be a great deal wiser than you let on to be sometimes!! :-{D
likewise spirits of condescension, contrariness, disobedience, division, exaggeration, arrogance, impurity, rebellion, stubbornness, confusion…..
likewise spirits of condescension, contrariness, disobedience, division, exaggeration, arrogance, impurity, rebellion, stubbornness, confusion…..
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 23, 2009 10:02 PM
I would say yes, you do have all of those spirits within you toostunned, except I don’t really see rebellion.
FedUpWithObama: Doug, I don’t doubt the effect either. But what I wrote could give the impression that I’ve seen research confirming it. And I haven’t.
I’d say you don’t have to, if you really think about it. Economics can make a huge amount of difference in that decision, pretty much the world over.
Asitis: What I am saying is simply that it makes no sense for you to claim that IN THESE ECONOMIC TIMES the majority is opposed to funding abortion for those in financial need.
As more people come to realize that our (Americans’) biggest problem is the government debt, I’d say that more and more people will weigh the costs, there, for sure.
Fed Up, thans for taking the time to write that. You cleared up some things for me. I am surprised that the percentage of Americans that support tax-funding for abortions is significant lower than the percentage that are for abortion rights. I suspect this has something to do with the “everyman/woman for him/her self” mentality than anything. Though I wonder if they knew that it doesn’t make financial sense they would feel differently. Maybe there’s more to it. Would be a worthwhile survey.
IAs for funding foreigh abortion, you wrote: “Now that our tax dollars will be funding foreign abortion, I am HEARING (unscientific) that some aren’t wild about the idea. I am CURIOUS if discontent over funding foreign abortions will result in an even larger percentage of Americans against funding domestic abortion.” I suspect if this is the case, the discontent has more to do with people being opposed to spending the money outside of the US as opposed to it being specifically on abortion.
Thanks again. Good night and good weekend!
Eileen #2: there are numerous studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of virginity pledges.
Both studies and lit reviews demonstrate that in many cases the pledges cut the rate of sexual activity by 50%.
One cannot teach sexuality without imparting some sort of values. The current sex ed programs do teach values – those of promiscuity – the desirability of having multiple partners as soon as possible, the disparagement of matrimony and fidelity, and view that unborn babies are mere tissue to be disposed of.
These values are reinforced over and over again by the teaching and materials used. They do not respect the innate physiological development of the child nor do they respect the individuality of each child.
Jesse responded, ‘Excuse me ma’am, but just where, when and how did the State of Minnesota get involved in your decision to have sex?’
You could hear and feel the lowering of the barometric pressure in that room as the gathered masses gasped in collective dismay at the brutish insensitivty manifested in that mean-spirited comment.
A moment of politically incorrect candor not often heard in the good ole USA.
…..
Bro’ Ken, I agree with that, although why in the world would it necessarily be “mean-spirited”? Do you not think that people should be able to support their own kids?
Furtermore, given her Harvard education and position at Johns Hopkins AND the fact that the research was accepted by a respected, peer-reviewed journal, I would bet anything that it is infintely more unbiased and sound than anything produced or co-produced by “Dr.” David Readon and the ever so-impressive sounding Elliot Institute.
Posted by: asitis at January 23, 2009 9:40 PM
Not wanting to take ANYTHING away from what I wrote there, I have to say what I wrote here does sound like I watch too much Rachael Maddow (love her!) and need to go to bed!
-Bob Enyart
AmericanRTL.org
Posted by: BobEnyart at January 23, 2009 3:53 PM
Bob,
you are not being fair to Sarah here. She says that abortion laws should be decided at the state level. She does not say they should decide to allow abortions. And any mother who knows her child has Downs Syndrome and cherishes that baby IS a pro-life hero. More-so than you or I who spend our days trying to convince others to do what Sarah did.
there are numerous studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of virginity pledges.
Both studies and lit reviews demonstrate that in many cases the pledges cut the rate of sexual activity by 50%.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 23, 2009 10:14 PM
What does that mean? That in some of the studies they found that 50% of the individuals kept their virginity pledges until marriage? Or does it mean that for those individuals that broke their pledge they had 50% fewer incidences of sexual activity before marriage? It’s unclear the way it’s written.
Whatever you mean, the concern remains that those who take the pledge and then break it are more likely to have unprotected sex. And we know what happens then!
Eileen #2 Here is another piece I read yesterday on this story:
The chain reaction was something out of central casting. A medical journal starts it off by announcing a study comparing teens who take a pledge of virginity until marriage with those who don’t. Lo and behold, when they crunch the numbers, they find not much difference between pledgers and nonpledgers: most do not make it to the marriage bed as virgins.
“Virginity Pledges Don’t Stop Teen Sex,” screams CBS News. “Virginity pledges don’t mean much,” adds CNN. “Study questions virginity pledges,” says the Chicago Tribune. “Premarital Abstinence Pledges Ineffective, Study Finds,” heralds the Washington Post. “Virginity Pledges Fail to Trump Teen Lust in Look at Older Data,” reports Bloomberg. And on it goes.
In other words, teens will be teens, and moms or dads who believe that concepts such as restraint or morality have any application today are living in a dream world. Typical was the lead for the CBS News story: “Teenagers who take virginity pledges are no less sexually active than other teens, according to a new study.”
Here’s the rub: It just isn’t true.
In fact, the only way the study’s author, Janet Elise Rosenbaum of Johns Hopkins University, could reach such results was by comparing teens who take a virginity pledge with a very small subset of other teens: those who are just as religious and conservative as the pledge-takers. The study is called “Patient Teenagers? A Comparison of the Sexual Behavior of Virginity Pledgers and Matched Nonpledgers,” and it was published in the Jan. 1 edition of Pediatrics.
The first to notice something lost in the translation was Dr. Bernadine Healy, the former head of both the Red Cross and the National Institutes of Health. Today she serves as health editor for U.S. News & World Report. And in her dispatch on this study, Dr. Healy pointed out that “virginity pledging teens were considerably more conservative in their overall sexual behaviors than teens in general — a fact that many media reports have missed cold.”
What Dr. Healy was getting at is that the pledge itself is not what distinguishes these kids from most other teenagers. The real difference is their more conservative and religious home and social environment. As she notes, when you compare both groups in this study with teens at large, the behavioral differences are striking. Here are just a few:
– These teens generally have less risky sex, i.e., fewer sexual partners.
– These teens are less likely to have a teenage pregnancy, or to have friends who use drugs.
– These teens have less premarital vaginal sex.
– When these teens lose their virginity they tend to do so at age 21 — compared to 17 for the typical American teen.
– And very much overlooked, one out of four of these teens do in fact keep the pledge to remain chaste — amid much cheap ridicule and just about zero support outside their homes or churches.
Let’s put this another way. The real headline from this study is this: “Religious Teens Differ Little in Sexual Behavior Whether or Not They Take a Pledge.”
Now, whatever the shock that might occasion at CBS or the Washington Post, it comes as no surprise to parents. Most parents appreciate that a pledge of virginity — a one-time event that might be made at an emotional moment in a teen’s life — is not some talisman that will magically shield their sons and daughters from the strong and normal desires that grow as they discover their sexuality. What these parents hope to do is direct these desires in a way that recognizes sex as a great gift, which in the right circumstances fosters genuine intimacy between a man and a woman and at its freest offers the possibility of new life.
This is not the prevailing view, of course. And these parents know it. Far from conformists living in a comfortable world where their beliefs are never challenged, these families live in an environment where most everything that is popular — television, the movies, the Internet — encourages children to grow up as quickly as possible while adults remain locked in perpetual adolescence.
Nor do these families believe their children are better than other kids. Unlike the majority of health experts and their supporters in the press, however, they don’t believe that the proper use of the condom is the be all and end all. For these parents, the good news here is that the striking behavioral differences between the average American teen and the two teen groups in this study show that homes and families still exert a powerful influence.
That, alas, is not something you’re likely to read in the headlines. For when it comes to challenging the conventional wisdom on issues of sexuality, the American media suddenly become as coy as a cloistered virgin
For these parents, the good news here is that the striking behavioral differences between the average American teen and the two teen groups in this study show that homes and families still exert a powerful influence.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 23, 2009 10:41 PM
Careful with that though, because sometime within 5 years of taking the pledge (or not), more than half of these conservative religious teens started having sex, despite what they were being told at home. And much of it was unprotected.
“Whatever you mean, the concern remains that those who take the pledge and then break it are more likely to have unprotected sex. And we know what happens then!”
I start my clinicals at Planned Parenthood on Tuesday. My theory is that a lot of girls that go to Planned Parenthood are Christian girls who can’t tell their parents what they actually want or what they’re actually doing. I’ll finally be able to get my answer…..
I need to finish school for this baby.
I need to get a good job. I need to get a house and savings. Grow up quick now that I’m a dad. This baby really was unplanned, but I always new I would never kill my unborn baby. I must have missed a dose of the hormones. Of all the rotten luck. They said these pills made sex much safer; but knowing your love is there for me makes me feel even safer. God grace and bless our lives. Save this child from Planned Parenthood. Where family planning includes killing your unborn children. Grace and bless our lives. Give us faith that we will get by. In the name of Jesus Christ. I know it’ll be alright.
Barack Obama will have blood on his hands, for every foreign child killed in the womb with Anerican taxpayer dollars. The executive order was his alone to give, and he chose to stand with the devil. Oh Jesus please won’t you change his heart? For this Anerica, we pray.
Our Father, who art in heaven;
hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come, thy will be done;
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses.
As we forgive those who trespass against us
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil. Amen
For Barack Obama be graced by Jesus Christ and fight for the sanctity of life. For this, Christians all over the world, we pray.
Our Father, who art in heaven;
hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come, thy will be done;
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses.
As we forgive those who trespass against us
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil. Amen
St. Michael the archangel. Defend us in the battle. Be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of evil. May God rebuke him we humbly pray. And do thou oh Prince of the heavenly host; by the power of God thrust into hell Satan and his the other evil spirits who would roam through this world seeking the destruction of souls. Amen
Welcome to reality:
A Saudi man who was released from Guantanamo after spending six years inside the U.S. prison camp has joined Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen and is now the terror group’s No. 2 in the country, according to a purported Internet statement from Al Qaeda.
The announcement, made this week on a Web site commonly used by militants, came as President Barack Obama ordered the detention facility closed within a year.
Tell me you Obamamaniacs. When the prisoners released from Gitmo kill people all over the world will you still get that same tingly feeling when Baracks name is mentioned?
He signed two executive orders today. One said you cannot treat terrorists harshly during interrogation. And the other told the people throughout the world that America is spreading hope to children worldwide by funding the killing of your unborn children.
Hmmm. No harsh treatent of terrorists but it is o.k. to tear unborn children from their mother;s womb in bloody pieces. OMG
I’ve seen the problem from Grammm’s legislation put at a cost of from $62 trillion to $78 trillion, dwarfing the bailout, Fannie and Freddie, AIG, etc.
Posted by doug
Such power this Gramm had.
Believe what you want Doug. Gramm was not responsible for two generations of deadbeats not honoring their obligations.
And the CRA just helped increase the deadbeatism. The loans were guaranteeded by the government. Nothing new.
Gramm was a response to a lack of loan capability/capital growing from the S&L failure.
That’s all. Plus modernization of banking, which you enjoy today.
Democratics voted for change they could believe in, represented by Gramm. Did they not? Which makes them suckers and fools of this evil genius, named Gramm. Gramm Leach Bliley act. Yea ;90, Nay;8
I like Gramm. He made Korea what it is today.
And without Korea, you would be in some steel plant, polluting the USA. Thank God the air is clean, and Doug wanders the roadways, preaching for abortion.
Kiss Gramm’s butt, Doug!!!! Gramm saved the Northeast from itself and its evil ways. !!!!!
Make all the laws you want. Regulate, enforce, threaten death, imprison for life, and any other action you can think of. But, loaning money is really a simple act dude. And when you tell me who I must loan money to, and for the “sake of the community”?
Since you think it is 72 trillion, I’ll state it is in the quadrillions, and you can make a counter offer of my statement of the total debt money, which never existed anyway.
You are witnessing the greatest corporate welfare giveaway, of all times.
See any irony there dude?
ken, thank you — I needed to hear that.
tstl — many thanks to you!
I start my clinicals at Planned Parenthood on Tuesday. My theory is that a lot of girls that go to Planned Parenthood are Christian girls who can’t tell their parents what they actually want or what they’re actually doing. I’ll finally be able to get my answer…..
Posted by: Josephine at January 23, 2009 11:34 PM
Really, Josephine? With all due respect, I find this attitude of yours very, very offensive.
How are you going to do this Josephine? Are you going to ask them, “Are you a Christian who doesn’t want to tell your parents you are sexually active?”
Does Planned Parenthood ask questions about religious affiliation? Or beliefs? Do women have to supply other personal information. I thought they were interested in simply supplying the goods?
As a future doctor wouldn’t you think it would be more appropriate for you develop the practice of encouraging your clients to develop a healthy relationship with their parents, rather than aiding them in being so secretive and perhaps disobeying parental authority?
Posted by: Doug at January 23, 2009 10:16 PM
Bro’ Ken, I agree with that, although why in the world would it necessarily be “mean-spirited”? Do you not think that people should be able to support their own kids?
——————————————————-
My apologies Doug. I am attempting to moderate my sarcasm. The result is my message gets muddled.
I was suggesting that some folks believe it is mean and nasty to speak the truth bluntly about unwed mothers, particularly unwed mothers who believe they have an entitlement to be ‘bailed out’ of a situation they by an act of their own sovereign will created.
Jesse stopped short of the best solution which would be to track down the sperm donor and present him the bill for his half of the child support.
Gov. Jesse spoke the truth, politically incorrect and unappreciated as it was, it was not mean spirited. ‘Choices’ have consequences.
yor bro ken
Why should I be required to fund any person’s ‘elective’ surgery, ‘elective’ as contrasted with ‘theapeutic’.
Medically indicated surgery is ‘therapeutic’.
Cosmetic surgery is ‘elective’.
‘Elective’ implies ‘choice’.
Why should American taxpayers be forced to pay for irresponsible females arbitrary ‘choice’?
Pregnancy is a normal biological, physiological condition for fertile females. Pregnancy is not an injury? Pregnancy is not a ‘sexually transmitted disease’.
President Obama, why should I be required to pay for elective surgery to prevent you or your wife or your daughters from being ‘punished with a baby’?
If you really want to reduce the number of abortions, then cut off the government funding.
The deterrent effect will be immediate.
yor bro ken
ps: If we are anticipating trillion dollar deficits well into the future, then maybe you should consider terminating frivilous expenditures of public funds on ‘elective’ surgical procedures.
I agree yr bro ken. If a woman wants to murder her own baby the money should come out of her pocket. She should take responsibility for her actions – all of them, including hiring the abortionist. I feel the same about birth control too, since sexuality is also not a disease.
Apologies in advance.
This comment is not on point, but when a thread reaches almost 1100 posts, who remembers what the point was/is?
When the presidential primaries where still in full swing, then candidate Obama was actually asked a tough on point question by a reporter.
One political commentator said Obama had the surprised look of a man who had just been bitten by his own dog.
Yesterday, it is reported that President Barack Hussein Obama (PBHO), dropped in on the press pool to shoot the bull with the assembled reporters. Some obviouosly misguided reporters began to ask PBHO some appropriate questions about ‘ethics’ in his administration.
PBHO had the offended and disdaining look of a man who had just been bitten by his own ‘lap’ dog!
yor bro ken
PBHO had the offended and disdainingg look of a man who had just suffered the intolerable injustice of having been bit by his own ‘lap dog’ media!
I just wonder what the ‘look’ will be the honeymoon is over and the Democrats in Congress tell PBHO to take out the trash.
—————————————————-
A Lexicon for Observers of Obamamania, aka Obama Delusion Syndrome (ODS).
fawn
1 : to show affection —used especially of a dog 2 : to court favor by a cringing or flattering manner
fawn•er noun
fawn•ing•ly \?fo?-ni?-l?, ?fä-\ adverb
synonyms FAWN , TOADY , TRUCKLE , CRINGE , COWER mean to behave abjectly before a superior. FAWN implies seeking favor by servile flattery or exaggerated attention . TOADY suggests the attempt to ingratiate oneself by an abjectly menial or subservient attitude . TRUCKLE implies the subordination of oneself and one’s desires or judgment to those of a superior . CRINGE suggests a bowing or shrinking in fear or servility . COWER suggests a display of abject fear in the company of threatening or domineering people .
ad•u•la•tion : excessive or slavish admiration or flattery
ad•u•late \?a-j?-?l?t, -dy?-, -d?-\ transitive verb
ad•u•la•tor \-?l?-t?r\ noun
ad•u•la•to•ry \-l?-?to?r-?\ adjective
ob•se•qui•ous : marked by or exhibiting a fawning attentiveness
synonyms see SUBSERVIENT
ob•se•qui•ous•ly adverb
ob•se•qui•ous•ness noun
ser•vile 1 : of or befitting a slave or a menial position
2 : meanly or cravenly submissive : ABJECT
synonyms see SUBSERVIENT
— ser•vile•ly \-v?(l)-l?, -?v?(-?)l-l?\ adverb
— ser•vile•ness \-v?l-n?s, -?v?(-?)l-\ noun
— ser•vil•i•ty \(?)s?r-?vi-l?-t?\ noun
sy•co•phant : a servile self-seeking flatterer
synonyms see PARASITE
sycophant adjective
[psychophant]
slav•ish 1 a: of or characteristic of a slave ; especially : basely or abjectly servile barchaic : DESPICABLE , LOW
2archaic : OPPRESSIVE , TYRANNICAL
3: copying obsequiously or without originality : IMITATIVE
synonyms see SUBSERVIENT
slav•ish•ly adverb
slav•ish•ness noun
Depend: a registered trademark for disposable diapers large enough to accommodate journalists and celebrities of all ages, genders and ethnicities who experience acute inocontinence while in close proximity to President Barack Hussein Obama (PBHO}. Prevent the indignity those embarrassing odors and tell tale stains . Enjoy the presence of PBHO free from the distraction of maintaining control. Experience the liberty of letting go.
I will repost this Lexicon as circumstances warrant the occasion.
yor bro ken
TS, From the prisoners released from Gitmo, an estimated 1% will have “relapses” and do what they were doing before.
From the prisoners released from state and federal jails, 66% reoffend and wind back up in prison.
Basically, what you’re saying is we should assume guilt with these people, where in the United States, we should assume innocence for child rapists and murderers until we can prove without a DOUBT they’re guilty.
Wow.
Oh, and, it’s been proven that violence in interrogation can make people admit to things that aren’t even true. I’m sure that’s okay though… I mean, they’re foreign, so they probably should be in prison for something anyway?
I’m glad only the lives of unborn children are important.
Ken,
If you shouldn’t have to pay for abortions because you feel it’s wrong, why do I have to pay for a war I think is unjust and unwarranted?
Oh, and for your 10:42 post…. Obama did say the man could ask that exact same question at his next press conference. For that particular time, he was only in the room about ten minutes to introduce himself to everyone. You seem to have left that part out of your post. (Conveniently?)
TSTL,
You’re offended that I’m going to do clinicals at Planned Parenthood? You’d rather just talk about how much you hate the place, but actually have NO idea what it’s all about? Which, you did make it clear you have NO idea what it’s about in your post.
“How are you going to do this Josephine? Are you going to ask them, “Are you a Christian who doesn’t want to tell your parents you are sexually active?”
Actually, it’s on the paperwork they fill out before they get a check up. It asks medical history, religious affiliation, and if it’s okay to contact parents. You think you can just walk in and say “I want birth control” and they hand you some? That’s ridiculous. You have to fill out as much paperwork as at a doctor’s office, you have to get an exam, then wait about a month before you can actually get any kind of birth control.
“As a future doctor wouldn’t you think it would be more appropriate for you develop the practice of encouraging your clients to develop a healthy relationship with their parents, rather than aiding them in being so secretive and perhaps disobeying parental authority?”
As a future doctor, that’s not my business. First of all, I’m not going to be an OB/GYN… right now I’m actually thinking dermatology. The only thing girls would ask me to not tell their parents is that they tan… which, I lie to my parents about, so I can’t blame other girls from wanting to hide that.
Josephine:
You think you can just walk in and say “I want birth control” and they hand you some? That’s ridiculous….You have to fill out as much paperwork as at a doctor’s office, you have to get an exam, then wait about a month before you can actually get any kind of birth control.
yes of course we saw how people had to fill out forms to get condoms didn’t we? Do they ever refuse a patient BC even if her medical history indicates she should not be using oral BC? Do they refuse to do an abortion because a woman might have a condition that will make abortion even riskier? I wonder….
And what exactly is a clinical at PP Josephine? Will you be booking abortions? Will you be counselling women? Will you be helping them with the forms?
And why would it matter to PP about religious affiliations? Why would they even care? My doctor doesn’t ask about my religious affiliation. The health clinic I go to doesn’t ask about my religious affiliation. My dentist doesn’t know my religious affiliation. My eye-doctor doesn’t know my religious affiliation. Maybe you can tell me why this is so important? When one applies for social assistance do you need to state your religious affiliation? Just askin, that’s all…
“yes of course we saw how people had to fill out forms to get condoms didn’t we? Do they ever refuse a patient BC even if her medical history indicates she should not be using oral BC? Do they refuse to do an abortion because a woman might have a condition that will make abortion even riskier? I wonder….”
You can get condoms at Wal-Mart. You can’t hold that to PP. PP is like ANY gynecologist or doctor’s office. I’m not sure why you think it’s different. They find out what the patient wants, tells the patient if it’s plausible, and gives other options if it’s not. Just like any doctor would.
Actually, the PP I’m doing my clinicals at doesn’t provide abortions. Nice try, though. I already said I don’t start until Tuesday. I’m not sure what exactly I’ll be doing.
They don’t CARE about religious affiliation, however, on the sheet you fill out you DO check a box for your affiliation. It’s pretty common at doctor’s offices. My dad’s practice does it too. There are some things that some religions absolutely WON’T say is okay, and it’s the doctor’s responsibility to let the patient know if something they’re going to do is going to effect religion. I.E. Jehovah’s witnesses can’t receive blood from others. They may need a procedure that could possibly require that. The doctor has got to let them know that could happen. If you’re say you’re a Christian, a doctor would still go through a procedure, but not necessarily STRESS that you may need blood from another. (They’d still tell you, they wouldn’t STRESS it though.. they wouldn’t try to find ways around it.) I don’t think I’ve ever been to a doctor that didn’t ask my religious affiliation…. actually.
That’s why it’s important, TSTL.
Posted by: Josephine at January 24, 2009 11:12 AM
Josephine, I tried to find SOMETHING in your response that wasn’t laden with sarcasm but I couldn’t…
TS,
Only two sentences in that were sarcastic.
TSTL,
Do you live in a diverse area? I just realized maybe the reason you’ve never been asked about your religious affiliation is because you are in an area that is largely Christian? My dad’s clinic is in Chicago, and the hospital I work at is just a few miles outside of. That may have something to do with why they ask, because there are so many different religions around the area.
Actually, the PP I’m doing my clinicals at doesn’t provide abortions.
do they refer for abortions?
thank you for your reply Josephine.
I have to say though that a part of me feels profoundly sad that a young Catholic girl like yourself is working at PP when there are soo many other reputable and really much better orgs to help out at. :-(
TSTL, I can’t rely on what I read on the internet to make assumptions about PP. As far as I know right now, their goal is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and STIs by informing girls and helping them protect themselves.
I could be wrong. I’d like to find out for myself. I’ll just be watching and doing small tasks. I won’t be doing anything “importannt” and I won’t be making any money from them. It will be 100% for experience, and to get a first hand look myself. I don’t like relying on just what I read.
PP is NOT like any gynecologist’s office. They won’t have fetal models (they seem to be afraid of those) and they don’t like any information on fetal development like pictures (that are similar to models, but are more like photographs).
Liz, you’re wrong. They actually do have informational pamphlets on fetal development that include pictures.
I’ve never seen fetal models at my gynecologist’s office.
I’ve never seen fetal models at my gynecologist’s office.
Posted by: Wichita Linewoman at January 24, 2009 4:16 PM
my family doctor has the models. I don’t go to a gyn/ob.
I would imagine my doc has them, but she’s never felt the need to show them to me. Neither has my family doc. I’d have to ask- I just wanted to note for people not to assume anything by the presence or absence of models. My mom’s an RN and the doc’s office where she worked had to lock up the models because patients’ kids kept breaking them. They had to do the same with organ system models.
Oh, and my gyn is “gynecology only”- no obstetrics. As a childfree woman I don’t need OB services.
Posted by: Wichita Linewoman at January 24, 2009 4:27 PM
‘As a childfree woman I don’t need OB services.’
—————————————————-
There has been for some time now a great debate as to when exactly life begins.
Life begins when the kids leave home and the dog dies.
Wichita Linewoman, has your dog died yet?
yor bro ken
truthseeker replied to me: “Sarah… says that abortion laws should be decided at the state level.”
Wow, TS, you’ve admitted it! You should realize that is a horrendous thing to say about someone, especially about a Christian, and a pro-lifer no less. Imagine if you are wrong, what a slanderous thing to say! But sadly, of course, truthseeker, you are correct. Sarah Palin had never said such a wicked thing before joining the John McCain’s ticket. Previously, she had said that abortion should be prohibited without exception. Now, we can see her on YouTube saying that the states should decide whether or not they will allow the intentional killing of innocent people. What an absolute tragedy that Christians are not experts in right and wrong. What a tragedy that the desire for fame and power so easily entices people to say the most wicked things. I bet there was a time when she knew that human rights trump states rights. I bet there was a time when Sarah Palin knew that an innocent child in the womb has a God-given right to life regardless of what any state could ever decide.
truthseeker, please, realize what a horrendous thing you’ve said about Sarah Palin. And almost as surprisingly, others have said the same about Ron Paul. Consider this full-page newspaper ad that ran in his hometown just before his primary: http://artlaction.com/files/RPaulFullPg-VicAd.pdf
-Bob Enyart
American RTL
-Bob Enyart
American RTL
Posted by: BobEnyart at January 24, 2009 5:24 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh look! It’s Bob Enyart from American Right to Life – you know – the guy who was convicted and did jail time for beating his own child.
If American women keep having abortions, soon Bob will have no one to beat up…
“I’d like to find out for myself. I’ll just be watching and doing small tasks. I won’t be doing anything “importannt” and I won’t be making any money from them. It will be 100% for experience, and to get a first hand look myself. I don’t like relying on just what I read.”
Posted by: Josephine at January 24, 2009 12:37 PM
J, just to let you know I support your decision…this was the same reason I too decided to volunteer at PP. I had been PC as far back as I remember, yet without the direct exposure to the center of the issue, ie, the experience of being in a clinic like PP. I decided that if I’m going to continue getting on a soapbox about choice I a) better know what I’m talking about b) be able to put a more objective and critical eye to the process c) understand what’s wrong and what’s right about the process d) make sure that my values held strong in the ‘face’ of abortion and make decisions for myself, not just propaganda.
Hopefully you’ll get an opportunity to work with both doctors AND patients, which will give you the most well rounded vantage point.
so Danielle if you are looking to be objective, have you tried working at a CPC?
“so Danielle if you are looking to be objective, have you tried working at a CPC?”
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 24, 2009 7:11 PM
I wouldn’t be opposed to it, but I don’t agree with NOT giving women the option of abortion. If you’re telling me that that is a option given as a crisis pregnancy at CPCs, the same way adoption or keeping the baby would be, than that wouldn’t run contrary to what I believe and I’d be open to it.
when a woman is in distress, the last thing she needs is an abortion. She needs LOVE and support – financial, medical and in some cases, spiritual. She doesn’t need a dangerous medical procedure that may cause her mental distress later on.
Crisis Pregnancy centers are there to HELP. They truly are. They aren’t like PP which acts like an assembly line, herding women in for abortions, one by one.
So Josephine is working at a Planned Parenthood huh? Shame on you Josephine.
Actually, Jasper, I’m doing clinicals. That is, in no way, “working” for them.
Danielle, that’s exactly what I want to do. I’m going to guess more than half the people on here have formed their opinions of PP directly from things they’re read on here and nothing else. I mean, there are a lot of people that still claim PP doesn’t help women get their “womanly” exams unless they want BC.
TS,
Only two sentences in that were sarcastic.
Posted by: Josephine at January 24, 2009 12:17 PM
The less sarcasm the better Josephine. And where do you get your 1% figure for the percentage of people released from Gitmo who have reoffend?
I believe it said, “an estimated 1%” and it was on CNN last night. I’ve been sick since Tuesday.. So I spent my Friday night watching CNN.. looks like it’s the same for Saturday night, because I’m still sick. I’m not sure what the guy’s name that said it was, but it will probably be on again tonight..
What about that guy from Saudi Arabia who went to Yemen and joined AlQueda? I would count him as having reoffended. He doesn’t ned to blow something up and kill a lot people for me to understand that active AlQueda members belong behind bars.
I’m just quoting the guy from CNN. I have never investigated it myself, and I don’t know about specific scenarios.
I’ve been sick since Tuesday.. So I spent my Friday night watching CNN.. looks like it’s the same for Saturday night, because I’m still sick.
I hope you feel better Josephine.
Thank you very much, TSTL. I appreciate it. =)
If you can tell me how many people have been released from Gitmo and which of those ones hang with AlQueda again then you can tell me what percentage have reoffended. I would assume the ones that are still there are the worst of the bunch. Nobody knows yet what BHO even has in mind to do with them and he signed an executive order to close Gitmo. I wish he showed better planning and I hope he doesn’t do something unsafe like releases them back to their countries of origin.
Actually, some will be released to European countries and some will come to the US for trial. I believe that is a plan.. (This is all coming from the show last night. I in no way researched this.)
I thought most of them were captured fighting alongside the Taliban during the invasion of Afghanistan. What is civilian court gonna try them for? Those should be tried in a military court.
TS, I can only argue what I heard on CNN. I haven’t looked up anything myself, at all.
He has shown poor judgement so far as president. America can once again recapture the morbid title of “leading international exporter of killing the unborn”. What does he do to top funding the killing of the unborn of the poor?
From what I’ve read, we haven’t increased the amount of money we give, it only gave more options to use that money for.
“The so-called Mexico City policy requires any non-governmental organization to agree before receiving U.S. funds that they will “neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.”
It is also known as the “global gag rule,” because it prohibits taxpayer funding for groups that even talk about abortion if there is an unplanned pregnancy.”
So, the money isn’t necessarily even going to abort babies, it’s supporting organizations that will even talk about abortions.
Danielle and Josephine, you might find this article interesting.
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
Yeah, Jesus is so depressed that Gitmo is closing. All the torturing of Muslims, right in line with Christian values. Yup, Jesus is very disappointed in all of you!
Posted by: Josephine at January 25, 2009 12:03 AM
fungible
‘So, the money isn’t necessarily even going to abort babies, it’s supporting organizations that will even talk about abortions.’
————————————————–
Josie,
Here is a relevant term for you:
fungible
1 : being of such a nature that one part or quantity may be replaced by another equal part or quantity in the satisfaction of an obligation
2 : interchangeable
3 : flexible 3
If a homeless person asks me for some money for breakfast and I give her ten dollars in cash money on the condition that she can not spend it on drugs or alcohol or some other unhealthy purpose, assumiing she is honest, will that still enable her to purchase unhealthy stuff.
Yes, because money is ‘fungible’. She may keep the ten dollars in her right pocket and only spend money from her left pocket on unhealthy stuuf. She may not spend the ten dollars I gave her on unhealthy items, but it frees up the money ih her left pocket to be used to acquire unhealthy suff.
Setting aside the question of ‘honesty’ in regard to Planned Parenthood (PP), let us examine the PP financial structure.
Abortion is a billion dollar a year industry in the U.S.
PP is the #1 abortion provider in the U.S.
The U.S. taxpayer is not the only source of funding for PP.
So every dollar that is given to PP from the U.S. taxpayer frees up other PP dollars to be spent, not only on abortion related services, but partisan political purposes as well.
You may recall the term ‘establish’ from an earlier discussion, as in congress shall make no law ‘establihing a religiion’.
There is principle here.
Taxpayers should not be required to fund those things which offend their conscience or to which they are morally or politically opposed.
Now I know there are a myriad of examples where government violates this principle everyday, but multiplying the sin does not make it any less wrong.
PP should be dis-‘established’.
If is a worthwhile organization that provides a needed and beneficial service the people will gladly and voluntarily support it.
If not, it will wither and die like the ‘established’ churches did.
yor bro ken
Wow, PIP. Thanks for posting that. There were a couple jaw-dropping sentences in there.
Posted by: prettyinpink at January 25, 2009 4:04 AM
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
——————————————————
I was listening to a talk show on the radio several years ago and a caller said he had made the comment many times that he was not a racist and he would be completely at ease if his ‘white’ daughter chose to marry a ‘black’ man.
But now, he said, I have a problem.
What’s that?, the host asked.
My ‘white’ daughter is going to marry a ‘black’ man.
Men can be just as illogical, contradictory, and hypocritical as women.
If I concede, hypothetically for the sake of the arguement, that every one of the examples given in this article is ‘true’, that does not change the fact that a pregnant woman ‘chose’ to kill her own embryonic/fetal child and the people who cited these examples of hypocritical duplicity were accomplices in the barbaric act.
If it re-enforces your own bigotry to point out the inconsistencies in your opponents bigotry, then go for it.
I am sure there were some abolitionists who came to possess a ‘slave’ through inheritance who justified not emancipating them and took full adavantage of the slaves labor and in some cases his/her body for their own sexual gratification.
Black people were no less human. Slavery was no less wrong.
yor bro ken
thanks, ken — you stated so much better than I had planned to do.
Yeah, Jesus is so depressed that Gitmo is closing. All the torturing of Muslims, right in line with Christian values. Yup, Jesus is very disappointed in all of you!
Posted by: prettyinpink at Jan 25, 2009 4:08 AM
pip, you can do better than sarcasm.
Posted by: Josephine at January 24, 2009 11:12 AM
[1]
Ken,
If you shouldn’t have to pay for abortions because you feel it’s wrong, why do I have to pay for a war I think is unjust and unwarranted?
[2]
Oh, and for your 10:42 post…. Obama did say the man could ask that exact same question at his next press conference. For that particular time, he was only in the room about ten minutes to introduce himself to everyone. You seem to have left that part out of your post. (Conveniently?)
——————————————————
[1]
Funding for the national defense is a legitimate and constituional responsiblity of the Federal government.
How and when the military is used is a political question determined by our elected representatives. Elections have consequences.
If your conscience informs you that a particular ‘war’ is wrong then with hold paying whatever portion of your federal taxes will satify your conscience.
Funding for the targeted and deliberate destruction of prenatal human beings is not a legitimate purpose of this constitutional republic.
[2] See Lexicon for ODS at:
Posted by: kbhvac at January 24, 2009 11:02 AM
yor bro ken
No dog, Ken- hubby is allergic.
I am personally convinced closing Gitmo is nothing but political posturing on the part of our fearless leader and he is jeopardizing the safety of this country in the process.
I’ll believe in the closing of Gitmo when it happens.
The truth is Obama has no clue what to do with the prisoners in Gitmo. He had to ask his attorney during the signing of the executive order closing Gitmo as to whether another executive order would cover the detainees. Nice to know our president informs himself so well before signing executive orders he doesn’t seem to read thoroughly before signing.
What will happen is terrorists will laugh themselves stupid at us and see this as a sign of our naivete and weakness. Us just begging for another attack. These are people who respect only one thing, and that is that you are as dirty as they are.
So pray tell where do these model citizens go? Already released prisoners have rejoined their terrorist comrades, I understand one became an Al-Qaeda chieftain.
Get over any naive notion any of you may have that fanatics respond favorably to efforts to be nice to them.
Is anyone actually naive and stupid enough to believe that if black people had just sat down and reasoned with the KKK, there would have been no KKK terrorism? Maybe German Jews should have reasoned with the Nazis.
Certainly years of lynchings and the Holocaust would have been averted, right?
Just think what a perfect world we would have had if only we all made an effort to really be nice to those determined to destroy us.
Josephine, hope you’re recovering from whatever ails you. I’ve got a question for you: Will you become a mandated reporter of suspected sexual abuse of a minor when you do your clinicals at PP? Or does your status as a student exempt you?
I’d be interested to hear, if you’re willing to share it down the road, whether your feelings about parental notification change or become more solidified as a result of spending time at PP. And whether you think reporting laws that apply to PP are good ones.
Ken,
Be careful about assigning me positions I never take. I just saw the article and found it interesting. As Josephine is going to work at a clinic and was talking about that subject, I linked it for her.
Josephine,
you’re welcome :) Glad you liked it.
Posted by: Josephine at January 24, 2009 11:12 AM
Ken,
Oh, and for your 10:42 post…. Obama did say the man could ask that exact same question at his next press conference. For that particular time, he was only in the room about ten minutes to introduce himself to everyone. You seem to have left that part out of your post. (Conveniently?)
———————————————————
During a surprise tour of the press room the President is clearly surprised, some say irritated, by a persistent Politico reporter who quizzed the President on a recent appointment which appeared to contravene his stated policy on ethics and lobbyists.
“I can’t come visit if you guys are going to grill me every time i come down here.”
PBHO, is no longer president elect. BHO is now the POTUS. You would think PBHO would realize the
fact since he spent so much time and enerty reminding us he was the ‘president-elect.
Mr. PBHO, time to wake up and smell the coffee, the rules have changed.
PBHO is actually responsible for some things and the ‘lap dog’ media is going to ask some pointed questions if for no other reason than appearances sake.
In the interest of full disclosure, here is a link to a five minute video of the presidential excursion into the bowels of the White House press area. I would not want anyone to miss the truth, convienient or inconvient as it may be.
The “I can’t come….” is about the 3:20 mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2oFtHxwdB0&feature=related
At about the 3:54 mark of this youtube clip one of the assembled reportes says, “I would like to say it one more time, ‘Mr. President’.” [oooooooohhhhhhm, gosh, golly, geee (eyelashes fluttering in ecstatic adulation]
I hope the reporter seized the oppotunity to get PBHO to autograph his Commander in Chief ‘Depend’ diaper emblazoned with the Presidential Seal.
Josie,
It has already been reported that some of the veteran journalists are clearly irritated that the intitial press conferences are ‘choreographed’. Certain reporters are pre-selected to ask certain questions.
You must certainly remember a certain reporter being chastised by then president elect Obama for ‘wasting’ his question on what Obama deemed to be a frivolous topic. I believe it pertained to the Blagojevich matter.
yor bro ken
Mary,
It makes me wonder if our new president is simply a puppet on a string and who is pulling the strings? Scary.
Does anyone recall his assertions of the need for gov’t transparency? Well it is very interesting that he does not have a link to his press conferences at his website as did the previous two presidents. I guess he rethinking a “CHANGE” on that one.
Get over any naive notion any of you may have that fanatics respond favorably to efforts to be nice to them.
Is anyone actually naive and stupid enough to believe that if black people had just sat down and reasoned with the KKK, there would have been no KKK terrorism? Maybe German Jews should have reasoned with the Nazis.
Certainly years of lynchings and the Holocaust would have been averted, right?
Just think what a perfect world we would have had if only we all made an effort to really be nice to those determined to destroy us.
Posted by: Mary at January 25, 2009 11:30 AM
Mary, no one is saying “be nice to them.” We’re saying live up to our ideals, our constitution, the treaties we’ve signed, and basic human decency. If someone is a terrorist (not a “suspected terrorist”) then throw the book at them.
Here’s what one very conservative judge wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/opinion/01coughenour.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
In 2001, I presided over the trial of Ahmed Ressam, the confessed Algerian terrorist, for his role in a plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport. That experience only strengthened my conviction that American courts, guided by the principles of our Constitution, are fully capable of trying suspected terrorists.
It is regrettable that so often when our courts are evaluated for their ability to handle terrorism cases, the Constitution is conceived as mere solicitude for criminals. Implicit in this misguided notion is that society’s somehow charitable view toward “ordinary” crimes of murder or rape ought not to extend to terrorists. In fact, the criminal procedure required under our Constitution reflects the reality that law enforcement is not perfect, and that questions of guilt necessarily precede questions of mercy.
Consider the fact that of the 598 people initially detained at Guantánamo Bay in 2002, 267 have been released. It is likely that for a number of the former detainees, there was simply no basis for detention. The American ideal of a just legal system is inconsistent with holding “suspects” for years without trial.
Posted by: prettyinpink at January 25, 2009 11:56 AM
Ken,
Be careful about assigning me positions I never take. I just saw the article and found it interesting. As Josephine is going to work at a clinic and was talking about that subject, I linked it for her.
——————————————————
PiP
Disclaimers are more effective and credible if they are given before a post, not after.
I aplogize if I misunderstood your intention in the posting the link.
But if you quote Karl Marx criticizing democracy and capitalism without some sort of context, then you should not be surprised if some might conclude your political leanings are more to the left than the right.
yor bro ken
Hal, 12:47PM
Human decency? These are people who would slice your head off with a rusty dull blade while you scream in agony.
These are people impressed with our Constitution and ideals? Hal, these people laugh at us and our ideals and any effort to live by them. None of your ideals mean squat to them.
Again, should black people and German Jews have lived up to ideals when confronting those who wanted to destroy them? I think they did try to live by ideals and spent years being terrorized and slaughtered instead.
In the ideal world Hal yes. In the real world no. The predator that breaks into your house and attempts to victimize your family doesn’t deserve the benefit of your ideals. He deserves everything you do, no matter how brutal, to defend yourself and your family.
Yes prisoners were released. So what does that tell you? That people are being detained and tortured indefinitely? That the innocent won’t be released? I understand several of those “innocents” resumed their terrorist activities.
Gee, ya think maybe the people being detained are because they need to be?
Any idea as to what our great leader should to do with them when he closes Gitmo? Better tell him because from what I heard he’s totally clueless.
Hal,
Please answer my question concerning black Americans and German Jews. Should they have made every effort to live by their ideals when it came to the KKK and the Nazis?
Eileen #2 12:45PM
Our media will still maintain its adoration of him I’m afraid.
You should have heard Tom Brokaw fighting back tears describing the Inaugaration. Why, even the seagulls must in awe of the numbers of people.
The seagulls? Tom old boy I think you’re losing it. I hate to burst your bubble but about the only thing the the seagulls would concern themselves with is all the great garbage they can feast on and pooping on the spectators.
I hate to burst your bubble but about the only thing the the seagulls would concern themselves with is all the great garbage they can feast on and pooping on the spectators.
Posted by: Mary at January 25, 2009 2:25 PM
yeah liberal sentimentality. :-P
but they don’t cry over aborted babies do they?
TSTL,
Good point. Seagulls can think and reason, even be “in awe”, but unborn babies cannot feel pain.
Mary and tstl,
I did hear him say it — I thought that it was the silliest thing that I had heard that day.
Mary,
Seriously? “These are people who would slice your head off with a rusty dull blade while you scream in agony.” Really? All of them? Because you realize it’s a terrible, terrible travesty if ONE innocent person spends their life in jail because YOU were scared to give them a trial.
Yes, let’s assume all of them are terrorists and will murder us. Let’s keep them locked up their whole lives without trial. That’s the American thing to do.
Ken,
You’re either naive or you’re playing naive if you think Obama is doing something different than every president before him. Oh, and I can’t simply “stop paying part of my taxes that go to the war”. If that were true, you could stop paying the part of your taxes that funded overseas abortions. So, why don’t you try that?
Fed Up,
I can’t report any abuse at PP. I pretty much just have to pretend I’m not there at all. I can’t talk directly to the patients either. I can be in the room when the doctor does, but that’s it.
Eileen #2, 2:39PM
Wasn’t it though? I fantasized about a seagull aiming a big one smack in the middle of his face.
Josephine:
You think you can just walk in and say “I want birth control” and they hand you some? That’s ridiculous….You have to fill out as much paperwork as at a doctor’s office, you have to get an exam, then wait about a month before you can actually get any kind of birth control.
—————————————————–
Josie,
I challenge you to prove me wrong about my insight into PP operations.
Look for evidence of false accusation on my part. Do your own independent investigation.
PP is not just practicing due diligence when they require clients to fill out forms and come back for followup appointments.
When you are doing your ‘clinical’ at PP please pay close attention to how many clients are qualified for government assistance and how many actually pay cash/check or use private insurance to obtain PP’s services.
Ask questions that do not betray some inside knowledge on your part of how the system operates. See if they steer you in certain direction or if they answer your questions fully and accurately.
Observe how staff is trained to assist clients in determining eligibility for government assistance.
Observe which payment method is preferred by the management at PP.
PP has a vested interest in qualifying clients for government assistance. They bill the government much more for the same services provided to clients who PP qualifies for government assistance than PP charges clients who pay cash/check/private insurance.
When other health care providers are caught doing this they are charged with fraud. Does the term ‘Medicare fraud’ ring any bells with you?
Pay close attention to how the records dealing wiht ‘cash’ transactions are handled.
These inquiries do not have anything to do with reproductive choice. They are about honesty and integrity.
If you observe any illegalities you might consider finding somewhere else to serve. There will be a day of reckoning and you would not want your reputation sullied by a continued association with an organization you had good reason to believe was corrupt.
yor bro ken
Josephine,
I’m referring to terrorists, not “all of them” whoever they are.
Remember the video of them slicing off the head of a contractor? They used a dull knife, the victim screamed in agony and terror.
These the kind of people you want to take the chance of turning loose Josephine? Want them in your community? Hey, they have to go somewhere, our fearless leader just hasn’t figured out where.
Personally I’d love to see them sent to Beverly Hills and Hollywood. Those wealthy liberal celebs just worship Obama. They should have to put their money where their mouths are.
Do you think maybe, just maybe, these people are in Gitmo because they belong there? Several freed “innocents” have returned to terrorism.
Ken,
I’m not even going to say I’ll pay attention to that stuff– because I won’t. I’m a student who wants a good referral from PP. Not only will I be no where around the money aspect, I have absolutely no right to ask questions about the money aspects. That’s something someone should do who doesn’t need a good referral. These people are reporting back to my professors. I will not risk getting in trouble at school because PP may or many not be doing something illegal with money.
Ken,
[1]
You’re either naive or you’re playing naive if you think Obama is doing something different than every president before him.
[2]
Oh, and I can’t simply “stop paying part of my taxes that go to the war”.
[3]
If that were true, you could stop paying the part of your taxes that funded overseas abortions. So, why don’t you try that?
Posted by: Josephine at January 25, 2009 2:43 PM
—————————————————–
Josie,
[1] I submit it is you who are ‘naive’. I have written consistently that PBHO is not different than his liberal predecessors.
Remember: What is the difference between Barack Obama and Bill Clinton?
Bill Clinton only has one daughter!
What about ‘change’? What happened to ‘change’? What happened to, ‘Yes we can, yes we can, yes we can can.’ Change implies a difference from the status quo.
[2] Actually, you can.
[3] My conscientious and constitutional objections are not limited to the overseas funding of PP. I think I am just going to stop working and then there will be no Federal Income Tax to pay. I will elbow my way on to the first available government teat I can find. From PBHO’s declarations there is an unlimited amount of the mother’s milk of politics flowing from her bountiful breasts. I am sure I can be ‘creative’ and find some way to qualify.
I surrender to the war on poverty.
yor bro ken
Ken,
I’m not even going to say I’ll pay attention to that stuff– because I won’t. I’m a student who wants a good referral from PP. Not only will I be no where around the money aspect, I have absolutely no right to ask questions about the money aspects. That’s something someone should do who doesn’t need a good referral. These people are reporting back to my professors. I will not risk getting in trouble at school because PP may or many not be doing something illegal with money.
Posted by: Josephine at January 25, 2009 3:00 PM
——————————————————
Excuse me I can’t stop laughing long enought to give you an intelligible response.
yor bro ken
Mary and tstl,
I did hear him say it — I thought that it was the silliest thing that I had heard that day.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 25, 2009 2:39 PM
oh I’m not doubting you Eileen!! :-D I really believe he did say something that ridiculous. That’s exactly my point. They can cry over the the extinction of toads in Brazil, but there is absolutely no pity or even a hint of concern for an innocent unborn baby.
Josephine,
Do you really want to compromise your integrity just to get a ‘good reference’ from PP?
tstl,
I comprehended your point — I was just saying that I had also heard the very same inane remark (and wanted to gag)!
Eileen: ;D
Josie,
If you are intelligent enough to be accepted inot med-school then you are too intelligent to continue the uncritical acceptance of information that is being passed off to you as fact and truth.
You have more intellectual integrity than that. ‘Challenge everything and see if if be so.’ I am confident enough that if you inquire diligently the TRUTH will find you.
How can you ever trust if you have not TRUTH?
yor bro ken
tstl,
I heard Fr. Pavone telling of the signs along FL beaches which warn against damaging turtle eggs — it is a crime because they are an endangered species. It really does make you sick, doesn’t it!
Ken said:
PP has a vested interest in qualifying clients for government assistance. They bill the government much more for the same services provided to clients who PP qualifies for government assistance than PP charges clients who pay cash/check/private insurance.
Ken, would you mind please backing that up with some documentation? Thank you.
tstl,
I heard Fr. Pavone telling of the signs along FL beaches which warn against damaging turtle eggs — it is a crime because they are an endangered species. It really does make you sick, doesn’t it!
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 25, 2009 3:51 PM
I have no problem taking care of the wildlife and being good stewards of the Earth. But when animals are placed above man and when people get their knickers in knots over disappearing amphibian populations but think nothing of walking into a clinic and having their unborn baby dismembered so they can walk on that same turtle beach with their lover and continue on as though nothing has happened…. well that just isn’t right.
Ken, would you mind please backing that up with some documentation? Thank you.
Posted by: LaurelI at January 25, 2009 4:03 PM
——————————————————
Those who advocate, encourage and enable the destruction of children by their own mother will not hesitate to lie, to disceive, to cheat and to steal.
See Aborting Planned Parenthood by Robert Ruff and Grand Illusions by George Grant.
yor bro ken
Mary tstl and eileen 2
Please forgive me. May I intrude into your converstion?
yor bro ken
why not?
My Cristian church is passing out postcards to sign against FOCA next weekend. And they announced it from the pulpit. It is heartening to see our community so openly supporting the the defense of the unborn.
My Cristian church is passing out postcards to sign against FOCA next weekend. And they announced it from the pulpit. It is heartening to see our community so openly supporting the the defense of the unborn.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 25, 2009 4:41 PM
IMO: you know I hate to rain on your parade truthseeker, but this is so passe now
I really think we need more than just postcards and petitions.
We need people to come to Washington by the millions and not leave until things are changed. Maybe the Christian/prolife community needs to begin to sacrifice in a big way until it hurts. And maybe they have to do something that makes the government stop and say “These people mean business”.
Something more effective than mailing postcards.
I’m sure all Obama thinks is “So WHAT!”
How long have you three been hanging around this site?
Ken, would you mind please backing that up with some documentation? Thank you.
Posted by: LaurelI at January 25, 2009 4:03 PM
————————————————–
Aborting Planned Parenthood by Robert Ruff
pgs 23-27
yor bro ken
Ken,
This is a public forum. “Intrude” all you want:)
I do.
More than anything else I was pointing out the comfort of Christian communion I feel in our church when they openly support defense of life initiatives. Sure, millions in Washington would be great, but I thought it was awesome that they are doing what they are doing. Did your church openly fight against abortion from the pulpit this Sunday tstl?
truthseeker: I can say that my church did not openly fight against abortion this Sunday. :-(
However, my point is not specifically with your church per se, it is just that petitions and postcards were done in the 1970’s and 80’s and had absolutely no effect. Politicians might look and them but in the end, they do what they want to do.
Politicians are influenced by money, by personal interest (if they have had a family member or themselves have participated in an abortion).
Abortion is very much a hidden action in society. Although there are many parallels with slavery, we could see slaves. We could see their suffering and their humanity. When pictures of lynchings were shown in the 1950’s people were disgusted. This helped in the civil rights struggle. All this is hidden from us in abortion. And we now have a society that is openly and unabashedly hostile to Christians and their values. There is becoming a wider acceptance of the belief that not all humans are persons and not all human beings have the same value.
Eventually there has to be another way. What that is, I simply don’t know.
“I’ve seen the problem from Grammm’s legislation put at a cost of from $62 trillion to $78 trillion, dwarfing the bailout, Fannie and Freddie, AIG, etc.”
yllas: Such power this Gramm had.
Enough to get the legislation passed, and that’s all it took.
…..
Believe what you want Doug. Gramm was not responsible for two generations of deadbeats not honoring their obligations.
Indeed, but that’s not the real problem. Bad debts by individual citizens isn’t really even germane to the issue with our current problems.
I can’t report any abuse at PP. I pretty much just have to pretend I’m not there at all. I can’t talk directly to the patients either. I can be in the room when the doctor does, but that’s it.
Josephine, thanks for answering my question. I’m sure you know you can report anonymously. I hope that if you observe anything that leads you to suspect sexual exploitation of a minor, you’ll pick up the phone when you get home, block your caller ID, and make an anonymous referral to your local child abuse hotline.
LaurelI, just google “planned parenthood california overbilling fraud” to find out what my bro Ken is referring to.
Too Stunned, better a million postcards than a million sofa spuds wishing they’d done something. I am going to personalize mine with a note. Then follow up with a certified letter specific to each of my representatives’ campaign promises.
I doubt many people in Washington are listening though. That’s why I dropped the “with Obama” from my handle. I’m fed up with lots of people in Washington on both sides of the aisle right now. I’d have to sign myself Fed Up With Politicians In General … but I don’t want some wise acre calling me Fed Up PIG :-)
Ken: I was suggesting that some folks believe it is mean and nasty to speak the truth bluntly about unwed mothers, particularly unwed mothers who believe they have an entitlement to be ‘bailed out’ of a situation they by an act of their own sovereign will created.
Well, I think that people should be able to pay for the choices they make, for sure.
…..
Jesse stopped short of the best solution which would be to track down the sperm donor and present him the bill for his half of the child support.
That assumes there’s going to be a child, which of course is not the case.
…..
Gov. Jesse spoke the truth, politically incorrect and unappreciated as it was, it was not mean spirited. ‘Choices’ have consequences.
Well, you’re the one that said “mean-spirited.” If you were being sarcastic, all fine and good – I don’t see it that way either.
I’d have to sign myself Fed Up With Politicians In General … but I don’t want some wise acre calling me Fed Up PIG :-)
Posted by: Fed Up at January 25, 2009 5:32 PM
I hope you don’t having anything against pigs ! ;-D
Why should I be required to fund any person’s ‘elective’ surgery,
Why should American taxpayers be forced to pay for irresponsible females arbitrary ‘choice’?
If you really want to reduce the number of abortions, then cut off the government funding.
The deterrent effect will be immediate.
ps: If we are anticipating trillion dollar deficits well into the future, then maybe you should consider terminating frivilous expenditures of public funds on ‘elective’ surgical procedures.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 24, 2009 9:59 AM
kbhvac, you will understandably never see the reasoning behind providing public funding for abortions for those in financial need. But that doesn’t mean good reasons don’t exist, and ESPECIALLY in times when government funds are scarce.
“Funding restrictions not only force some women to carry their pregnancy to term and others to wait longer before having an abortion. They also cost taxpayers millions of dollars annually in medical and other costs. Both prochoice and antiabortion supporters have traditionally shied away from discussing Medicaid coverage for abortion from a monetary perspective; nevertheless, the macroeconomic implications of government pressure on poor women not to have an abortion are real. At the most basic level, the cost to the taxpayer of subsidizing a first-trimester nonhospital abortion will always be far less than the cost of subsidizing prenatal and delivery services—not to mention the secondary costs of an unwanted birth, including the additional time a woman spends on Medicaid while struggling to provide for her family and obtain self-sufficiency”
Aside from making fiscal sense, it allows all women the right to choose.
Politicians are influenced by money, by personal interest (if they have had a family member or themselves have participated in an abortion).
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 25, 2009 5:25 PM
That’s not very reasonable toostunned. It’s better to say politicians views on abortion are influenced by personal beliefs, not “personal interest”. Certainly, some may have some positive or negative direct or indirect experience with abortion that influences their opinion. But it is really about their belief. If you were going to apply your logic to Obama’s case, I would suggest that it would be in his “personal interest” to be pro-life, given the circumstances around his own birth. But he’s not. He, like so many, is pro-choice because he believes in a women’s right to choose.
Eventually there has to be another way. What that is, I simply don’t know.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 25, 2009 5:25 PM
That’s because you are looking at it with yoru eyes wide shut. Others can see the way.
Asitis,
What if Obama knew his mother had aborted his sister so that mother could focus on Barack Jr’s success. Now he “made it”. He is president. Is that worth the life of his sister that was killed in the womb so that he could “succeed”in life?
Did his mother ever have an abortion? You know this?
I don’t know. Most people who have abortions are not comfortable talking openly about their reasoning but lack of resources for additional children is one that I hear tossed around.
truth seeker So what you really meant to ask was: What if Obama’s mother had aborted his sister so that mother could focus on Barack Jr’s success and he knew this. Now he “made it”. He is president. Is that worth the life of his sister that was killed in the womb so that he could “succeed”in life?
Well, as I said, “certainly, some may have some positive or negative direct or indirect experience with abortion that influences their opinion”. So this hypothetical experience in Obama’s life might make him against abortion rights because he would have had a sister and maybe he really didn’t like being an only child. Or maybe his mother might have been one of those rare cases where abortion had a severe effect on her health, maybe even killed her. Well, then that experience might make him even more against abortion rights. Or maybe, he might be even more for abortion rights from the experience because he sees that with another child, his mother might not have been able to provide for him, let alone for him to be such a success.
The point is, whatever expereince you assign to him, it is really about how it might affect his personal opinion. It is not really a matter of being in his “personal interest”
I hope you don’t having anything against pigs !
TSTL, I was just hamming it up
Asitis, your argument makes sense only if you can put a dollar value on a human life. How many dollars is your life worth? What price tag should be placed on the joy you’ve brought to the lives of your family and friends? What price tag should be put on the comfort you’ve given people in bad times, or the times you may have helped someone without even knowing?
How much money does society lose if we aborted the person who would have discovered the cure for autism? For alzheimers? Or aborted the person who could have brokered peace in the mideast?
And there’s still another problem. As long as you say abortion is acceptable, you are saying that you have no inherent dignity or worth as a human being. You are saying that you have value as a person only because your mother chose to bear you. If your dignity results only from the choice of someone else, how long does that dignity last? Is it lifelong? Or can you lose it at some point when someone decides you shouldn’t have it any more? If someone decides you no longer have the worth you used to have, then can/should you be euthanized? If you start to cost society more than you contribute, should you be put down?
I am prolife because we ALL have dignity and worth because of our humanity and not because someone CHOOSES to give us dignity and worth. That’s why this is a civil rights issue. And it’s why a dollars and cents argument misses the point.
Although you and I disagree on a great many things, I do sincerely believe that your life is priceless and not worth exchanging for any amount of money. You have worth and dignity that stems from your being made in the image of the creator. No woman’s CHOICE can change that fundamental worth, value, and dignity you received at conception. The only CHOICE she can make is to kill the body that clothes that dignity.
I well remember the era Obama was born in and biracial relationships, especially those resulting in children, were very much frowned upon.
It would have been considered understandable and desirable for his mother to discreetly abort, even by those who might otherwise have viewed abortion with disdain, for the child’s “own good”. Look at the stigma the child would face, not to mention the fact that black people were, well, you know, not quite as good as “us”.
That was the mentality of the day, not my personal opinion.
Obama’s mother would have faced a great deal of social pressure, humiliation, ridicule and stigma. Having an abortion would certainly have made her life easier.
I have something to add to that truthseeker: A funny thing I have noticed here is this idea some of you have that to be supportive of something it must be in your own self-interest. How many times has it been assumed I am a lesbian just because I think homosexuals should have equal right? How many times have I been asked if I had an abortion, because I believe all women should have the right to choose.
Hmmmmmmmmmm
Asitis, your argument makes sense only if you can put a dollar value on a human life. How many dollars is your life worth?
Posted by: Fed Up at January 25, 2009 6:37 PM
Fed Up, I understand all of the additional aspects. But what we were talking about here, was strictly the financial aspect. Nothing else.
And what you have written here, is PRECISELY why I started my comment by saying, it is understnaable why kbhvac (and others) will never have reasons for funding abortions for the poor.
TSTL, I was just hamming it up
I know! Just teasing!
**********************************
I am prolife because we ALL have dignity and worth because of our humanity and not because someone CHOOSES to give us dignity and worth. That’s why this is a civil rights issue. And it’s why a dollars and cents argument misses the point.
……. You have worth and dignity that stems from your being made in the image of the creator. No woman’s CHOICE can change that fundamental worth, value, and dignity you received at conception. The only CHOICE she can make is to kill the body that clothes that dignity.
Posted by: Fed Up at January 25, 2009 6:37 PM
very nicely put Fed Up! Very nicely done, indeed!
Posted by: Fed Up at January 25, 2009 5:32 PM
LaurelI, just google “planned parenthood california overbilling fraud” to find out what my bro Ken is referring to.
—————————————————-
Fed Up,
Thanks for letting me know what I was referring to. My information is dated [not that PP has gotten religious and reformed her ways] and comes from Southeast Texas. I was unaware of publicized PP mis and mal feasance in California.
yor bro ken
Who is LaurelI? I am not familiar with that handle.
yor bro ken
You have worth and dignity that stems from your being made in the image of the creator. No woman’s CHOICE can change that fundamental worth, value, and dignity you received at conception.
Posted by: Fed Up at January 25, 2009 6:37 PM
Yeh, nicely put Fed Up, if you believe in The Creator. If not, it doesn’t mean anything. And you’re not going to getting anywhere with that. If you care….
Aside from making fiscal sense, it allows all women the right to choose.
kbhvac, you will understandably never see the reasoning behind providing public funding for abortions for those in financial need. But that doesn’t mean good reasons don’t exist, and ESPECIALLY in times when government funds are scarce.
Posted by: asitis at January 25, 2009 5:46 PM
——————————————————
‘I think of a woman and I take away reason and accountability.’
The morality of choosing to kill her ‘human’ embryonic/fetal child aside, the pregnant females ability to pay for her ‘choice’ for elective surgery is not my responsibility, nor the federal or state governments.
I choose to have a vacation in Costa Rica this winter, but I am unable to pay for it.
Asitis, you should practice what you preach and send me a generous donation so that it allows me the right to choose to vacation in a warmer climate. Both my mental and my physical well being demand it.
That is weak analogy because I do not possess the punitive power of the state to coerce your compliance.
Your liberal feminist chattering is nothing but empty words.
I completely understand your economic arguement, but it embodies the old male chauvinst attitude that women are inferior creatures that cannot fend for themselves, particularly, minority women so we have to empower them to be more than they can possibly be otherwise.
I have a much higher view of people in particular and women in general than you do.
I have a sister who conceived while she was in college. She married the father of her child. When her first child was old enough to start school she completed her degree in biology. Then she had a second child. When the second child was old enough to start school she completed med school, while her husband was dying of cancer.
She is a conservative pro-life feminist.
Tell her she could not have done what she did without the state enabling her to do it.
yor bro ken
yor bro ken
“Asitis, you should practice what you preach and send me a generous donation so that it allows me the right to choose to vacation in a warmer climate. Both my mental and my physical well being demand it”.
I don’t preach this right. I don’t believe you have a right to a paid beach vacation and it serves the common good no purpose for us to send you on one.
“I completely understand your economic arguement, but it embodies the old male chauvinst attitude that women are inferior creatures that cannot fend for themselves, particularly, minority women so we have to empower them to be more than they can possibly be otherwise.”
On the contrary, I do beleive women can fend for themselves and are capable of great achievements toher than just birhing and raising babies. But to force them into this because of yoru own views on abortion and contraception is hardly “enpowering” them kbhvac.
“I have a much higher view of people in particular and women in general than you do.”
Actually, you do not. I have considerably more faith in humans than you do. That should be apparent by now.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 25, 2009 7:28 PM
Posted by: asitis at January 25, 2009 7:41 PM
On the contrary, I do beleive women can fend for themselves and are capable of great achievements toher than just birhing and raising babies. But to force them into this because of yoru own views on abortion and contraception is hardly “enpowering” them kbhvac.
—————————————————–
You assume what you do not know. I have never expressed a view on this site or any other on contraception, unless ‘you’ equate contaception with child birth as in birth control or no live births.
Objecting to paying for elective surgery for men or women who are not sick, unless you consider pregnacny a sexually transmitted disease, is not forcing women into birthing and raising children. Except in the case of rape women choose to have sex and rape would be the only way to ‘force’ women into pregnancy. Women who are not pregnant do not give birth.
Your liberal feminist illogic does not serve your scientific mind well. Suggest you submit to a level one diagnostic and resolve the root problem.
yor bro ken
Asitis,
The image in your ,mirror, mirror on the wall, is you. The voice you are hearing is your own. You are like the physician who chooses to treat herself.
You are not ‘too sexy for your shirt’!
yor bro ken
yor bro ken
Objecting to paying for elective surgery for men or women who are not sick, unless you consider pregnacny a sexually transmitted disease, is not forcing women into birthing and raising children. Except in the case of rape women choose to have sex and rape would be the only way to ‘force’ women into pregnancy. Women who are not pregnant do not give birth.
Exactly. The “choice” is made before getting into bed with a man. The choice to have sex is knowing that even with birth control, there is still the chance that a woman may conceive. It is nothing more than “apparent” choice and “apparent” freedom and “apparent” women’s rights all propped up on the fallacious idea that a baby is simply not a person and therefore dispensable.
Therefore, abortion is nothing more than back-up contraception. And the person who pays the price is not the woman or the man, it is the unseen unborn baby, too helpless to fight back. Very twisted.
“Your liberal feminist illogic does not serve your scientific mind well. Suggest you submit to a level one diagnostic and resolve the root problem”
Um. Seriously?I just have to shake my head over this. My “illogic”????? Please…. I just don’t share your beliefs. Just say it for what it is.
oh and kbhvac, I’ve never walked a catwalk that’s true, but I probably am “too sexy” for your shirt… and toostunned. Oh the outfits I picture! Mike Harper sweater vests for you and mom jeans for her.
Sorry, but you asked for that one!
“abortion is nothing more than back-up contraception”.
Okay, now you are starting to open your eyes toostunned. This is in fact part of the issue…. so what’s to be done about this?
Eventually there has to be another way. What that is, I simply don’t know.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 25, 2009 5:25 PM
Posted by: asitis at January 25, 2009 8:51 PM
Um. Seriously?I just have to shake my head over this. My “illogic”????? Please…. I just don’t share your beliefs. Just say it for what it is.
——————————————————
Beliefs are not logic. Beliefs are based on feelings. Keep shaking babe. Maybe something will shake loose that has been stuck for a while.
You think because I disagree with you I am too stupid to understand your arguement.
Start there and realize that people who are more intelligent than you and even those that are less intelligent than you can reach a different conclusion than you based on the same facts and evidence and lo and behold sometimes they can even be right/correct and you can be wrong/incorrect.
Some old Greek fellow said, “The wisest thing a man can say is, ‘I don’t know’.”
I believe his name was Socrates.
yor bro ken
Sorry, that was me at 9:02pm.
My favorite color is grey and my sunday go to meeting attire is a pair of jeans and a dress tee shirt, the one with no holes and no stains.
I buzz cut my own hair.
You are going to have to dig deep to find a cheap shot that is lower than I really am and not so high that I can still get it.
yor bro ken
:”Beliefs are not logic”. kbhvac, that was exacly my point. That was why I was shaking my head over your lame-o crack at my sense of logic and my scientific mind.
As for you being too stupid to understand my argument or not, I can not say. What I have said before here is that I can understand how, even given certain facts, a pro-lifer may not agree or see someting the same way. Recent example: It makes fiscal sense to fund abortion for the poor. But I can understand why you would never agree to funding such abortions.
Bobby Bambino almost banned me for referring to myself as a lame brained nuckle draggin neanderthal.
That was the moniker some other liberal feminist laid on me when she could not or would not answer the question:
When your mom was pregnant with you what species of embryo/fetus was resident in her uterus?
Can you answer the question. A 15 year old high school girl gave it to me. The PP spokesweasle she posed it to would not answer it either.
yor bro ken
Well, obviously the species is human. Perhaps the hesitancy is that you or your like will make the jump to ah ha! a human being with all the rights that are applied to born humans. I know that’s what you believe. It’s not what I believe. But I’m not going to say you are stupid for believing that kbvac. And am not going to say you are wrong. It’s a personal belief. It’s yours. I’m fine with that.
And I didn’t actually figure you for a sweater vest-wearing guy! That was just a poke at Harper.
Are you are a Quaker?
Have a good night.
Yeh, nicely put Fed Up, if you believe in The Creator. If not, it doesn’t mean anything. And you’re not going to getting anywhere with that. If you care….
Asitis, if I care about what? I don’t catch your drift. As for not getting anywhere, I didn’t have a particular destination in mind.
I’m having difficulty with your comment about the Creator too. Are you saying that atheism justifies abortion? That abortion is just the killing of a body and it’s ok because the body has no relevant value apart from how its mother feels about it? I’m not trying to spark an argument, just trying to understand what is less meaningful in the absence of a creator … the body, life itself, or both.
Y’all have fun debating amongst yourselves. I’m going to take my little tookus to bed before anyone suggests I go to …… a much more unpleasant destination :-)
PS-Ken, sorry if I put words in your mouth. I thought you were referring to California.
Posted by: asitis at January 25, 2009 9:19 PM
[1]
It makes fiscal sense to fund abortion for the poor.
[2]
But I can understand why you would never agree to funding such abortions.
—————————————————-
I disagree with your premise that it makes fiscal sense to fund abortions for the poor.
It may make fiscal sense to you, but you may be wrong.
It does not make fiscal sense for government fund ‘elective’ surgical procedures for people who are not ill, no matter what their economic condition.
It assumes that poor pregnant women are ‘disabled’ and cannot support themselves and that they do not have a family or community structure that can support them and that I, through the federal government, have a constitutional obligation to support them.
I reject that notion.
That has nothing to do with belief, as in religion. It has to do with personal responsibility and accountability.
I expect more of people than you do. If my sister could do it, they can do it.
Experience has demonstrated that people will perform to the level that is expected of them.
You set the bar too low.
I will take a stab in the dark and posit that you conclude that it makes fiscal sense for the federal government to fund the ‘elective’ surgical procedure know as abortion because ‘poor’ pregant women and their children should they be allowed to continue to live and grow and be birthed will doom them both to a life of poverty and as such the federal government will then have two additional bodies to add to the government teat.
Well that is the solution that has been implemented for more than 30 years, if you just go back to Roe v Wade, and I would say it is a demonstrably failed policy. The problem of poverty has grown at a rate greater than the population at the same time the economy has grown at record rates.
The solution that purportedly was implemented to address the problem of poverty is not only a failure. It has exacerbated multiple problems.
‘Oh Ken, just imagine how bad the problems would be if we had not attempted this approach.’
I cannot imagine it being worse. I can realistically say the problems of poverty will always be with us because some people will not change the behaviors which produce the problems.
But I do can not imagine it would be worse if we had attempted a different approach.
yor bro ken
Yeh, nicely put Fed Up, if you believe in The Creator. If not, it doesn’t mean anything. And you’re not going to getting anywhere with that. If you care….
Asitis, if I care about what? I don’t catch your drift. As for not getting anywhere, I didn’t have a particular destination in mind.
Posted by: Fed Up at January 25, 2009 9:53 PM
Sorry Fed up. I didn’t mean to be unclear. I meant if you ARE trying to convince anyone who doesn’t believe in God or doesn’t believe God has anything to say about abortion that they should think abortion is wrong you won’t get anywhere with that argument.
That’s all I meant.
Posted by: Fed Up at January 25, 2009 9:53 PM
PS-Ken, sorry if I put words in your mouth. I thought you were referring to California.
——————————————————-
No need to apologize. You had more recent data. Thanks for sharing it.
I googled it as you suggested.
I am shocked, SHOCKED!, that the ‘dead babies r us’ folks would stoop to fraud and deception.
What is the underworld coming to.
I thought only televangelists and chicago politicians were capable of such low conduct.
yor bro ken
Gotcha, Asitis, no apology necessary. I am the worst evangelist in the world. I know from experience that’s a skill I don’t have. If anyone in my life grows closer to God, it is in spite of me, not because of me!
http://www.catholicvote.com/
Ken 9:58PM
If abortion truly alleviates poverty it would be virtually non-existent by now. That argument has been around forever.
The PC crowd will argue that the problem would be worse if not for abortion. Right. Why is there poverty at all if abortion eliminates it?
That would be like the chief of police saying, “sure the crime rate is high and citizens are afraid to walk the streets, but it would be so much worse if not for my leadership of the PD.” Would anyone accept this argument?
Also, I remember the era before Roe v Wade. Take my word for it none of the problems abortion would solve have been. I’ve only seen more young women trapped in lives of poverty and welfare dependency, men less inclined to be responsible for their children, children who are still abandoned and abused, family and social decline. If anything, I think things were better before Roe v Wade.
Ken,
I can stop paying my taxes? Because, as you know, I work for the US government. You’re probably not familiar with them: they won’t let me not pay my taxes.
“Excuse me I can’t stop laughing long enought to give you an intelligible response.”
Or you just don’t have one? That’s not my job, AS A STUDENT. Do your own research. OH WAIT– why would you need research? PP is evil. That’s all you need to know, and you don’t care if you’re informed or not.
I have no idea what your post about truth was. At all.
“See Aborting Planned Parenthood by Robert Ruff and Grand Illusions by George Grant.”
Wow. I try to look at unbiased information.
Eileen,
There is no “compromising my integrity”. I am not going to break the rules my school has. I’m not going to mess up one of my clinicals, because someone I never met asked me to ask stupid questions that are absolutely NOT a student’s business.
In a 1993 letter to president elect Bill Clinton, Ron Weddington, co-counsel for Roe v Wade, urged the use of abortion “to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our society”.
‘Well, obviously the species is human. Perhaps the hesitancy is that you or your like will make the jump to ah ha!’
Asitis,
[At least you did not refer to me and mine as ‘ilk’.]
[Why hesitate at the logical conclusion? Humans do not reproduce anything but humans.]
[That is not ‘belief’. That is repeatable, demonstrable, biological fact.]
‘a human being with all the rights that are applied to born humans.’
[I can conclude from your statement that we agree, more recently birthed human beings are fully vested with the same constititutional rights as other less recently birthed humans beings.]
[That is a logical conclusion, not a belief.]
[Newborn babies possess all the biological evidence of their humaness that fully grown adult humans possess.]
‘I know that’s what you believe.’
[You assume again, wrongly, that you know what I
‘believe’.]
[You are a self proffessed ‘scientist’. If that is a true statement, and I have no reason to doubt you, then you have to be familiar with the scientific method. A theory is an idea based on observable, quantifiable evidence. When the theory is tested repeatedly and it produces the same predicted result, it is considered an accepted scientific fact. Sometimes improved methods of measurement come along that may disprove the former ‘fact’. But until that happens we go with our present understanding. That is not an exact definition but it is close.]
[If a born infant is fully human, then what measureable changes, if any, occur in the short journey from the uterus to the post natal existence that would alter his/her status from less than to fully human?]
[Human gestation is an approximate length of time. Some humans are birthed when they are physiologically premature. Using the same scientific standard of measurement are they any less human than their colleagues who are fully matured infants at birth?]
[Have I strayed into from the scientific into the realm of belief?]
[If the infant who is birthed prematurely is no less a human being than his/her fullty mature new born colleague, then we have to conclude that human fetuses are human beings in the womb at some point in time before birth.]
[This is not ‘belief’. This is measurable scientific fact.]
‘It’s not what I believe.’
[I do not know yet, what you ‘believe’, Asitis.]
‘I’m not going to say you are stupid for believing that kbvac.’
[You do not yet ‘know’ what I ‘believe’.] You only ‘believe’ you that you ‘know’.]
[I do not conclude you are stupid. Based on what and how you have written I conclude that you are not stupid.]
‘And I am not going to say you are wrong.’
[If the scientific evidence demonstates that either of his wrong, I will say I/you are wrong.]
‘It’s a personal belief.’
[There is that non-scientific term again.]
‘It’s yours. I’m fine with that.’
[I am not fine with either of us being wrong. Either factually or morally.]
[Let us agree to follow the truth wherever it leads even if it gores the sacred golden calf of our ignorance and in the process destroys the bliss we have so blindly enjoyed.]
yor bro ken
Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2009 9:29 PM
Josie,
If you won’t accept anything but ‘unbiased’ information then you better rely only on your own research, but even then it will be contaminated by your own ‘bias’. We all have a ‘bias’.
I do NOT recommend that you stop paying your taxes. I only challenged you on the statement that you had no ‘choice’. We all have a ‘choice’.
It escaped my notice that you work for the U.S. government. In reality all working U.S. citizens labor for the U.S. government and we pay them for the privelege of doing so.
—————————————————–
I have stopped laughing now.
Please forgive me I was laughing because you seem so determined to be oblivious to anything that was not in your limited sphere of responsibility. That is not the attitude of the typical idealistic college student.
If you are intelligent enough to be accepted into med-school then you are too intelligent to continue the uncritical acceptance of information that is being passed off to you as fact and truth.
You have more intellectual integrity than that.
‘Challenge everything and see if if be so.’
Thomas Jefferson
I am confident enough that if you inquire diligently the TRUTH will find you.
How can you ever trust if you have not TRUTH?
I just repeated to you some of the things you have previously posted. I did not suggest that you rat anybody out, only that you be aware of what was going on around you for your own sake. If you have ambitions to be a doctor then you can not assume anything. You have a fiduciary responsibility to both trust and to verify, to your patient and to yourself. It is impossible to trust if you do not know the TRUTH. You have to have some objective standard to measure things by. You have the primary responsibility for your personal well being. Do not rely on another person or persons to fulfill this obligation. The TRUTH is your best friend.
yor bro ken
Ken,
I take into consideration everything you write. I honestly do. I just want to let you know, (or anyone else, because I think it confuses some..) I have absolutely NO intention of working with PP in the future.
Assuming I finish all my school (I will need lots of prayers) I will work in a hospital. I want to find out about PP myself because it’s hard to find information that isn’t against it, or completely supportive of it. I’d like to find a middle ground.
PELOSI SAYS BIRTH CONTROL WILL HELP ECONOMY
I did not know the economy could get pregnant.
Abortion is both the sacred golden calf and the silver bullet to the liberal humanists.
yor bro ken
kbhvac at January 25, 2009 11:16 PM
kbhvac, I don’t know if you if you are trying to be clever, or if you simply don’t understand, but you kept trying to apply logic to illogical things.
And you take things I say out of context and completely twist them, which is just wrong:
‘a human being with all the rights that are applied to born humans.’
[I can conclude from your statement that we agree, more recently birthed human beings are fully vested with the same constititutional rights as other less recently birthed humans beings.]
No, you can’t conclude that. This is what all of I wrote: ” Well, obviously the species is human. Perhaps the hesitancy is that you or your like will make the jump to ah ha! a human being with all the rights that are applied to born humans. I know that’s what you believe. It’s not what I believe”an’t conclude that. This is what all of I wrote: ”
Ken 6:01am
Just the sort of brilliance and insight one has come to expect from Princess Pelosi.
“[I can conclude from your statement that we agree, more recently birthed human beings are fully vested with the same constititutional rights as other less recently birthed humans beings.]”
kbhvac, we are talking about born vs. unborn humans. Not younger vs. older born human
“‘It’s a personal belief.’
[There is that non-scientific term again.]”
Yes, there it is again. Some things are beliefs and cannot be proven. Can you really not understand that?
Ken 6:01am
Just the sort of brilliance and insight one has come to expect from our new government.
I want to find out about PP myself because it’s hard to find information that isn’t against it, or completely supportive of it. I’d like to find a middle ground.
Posted by: Josephine at January 25, 2009 11:55 PM
Josephine, as a young moderate pro-lifer with a scientific background I think you may be in a good position to provide a good, unbiased insight into Planned Parenthood. I look forward to hearing what you have to say . Good luck with the placement.
“I’m not even going to say I’ll pay attention to that stuff– ”
Josephine, I assumed, by your statement, that you were planning to ignore anything that was obviously wrong. I did not meant that you needed to investigate, under cover, etc.
Asitis 6:30am
I know. Scary isn’t it?
Let’s just hope that from now on our fearless leader will know what’s in the executive orders he’s issuing before he signs them.
Asitis 6:30am
I know. Scary isn’t it?
Let’s just hope that from now on our fearless leader will know what’s in the executive orders he’s issuing before he signs them.
Posted by: Mary at January 26, 2009 7:29 AM
Mary, you misunderstood me ;). There was no sarcasm in my comment. It’s not scary at all. And I have no doubt that our fearless leader knows full well what’s in his executive order. He’s a bright man, this president!
Asitis 7:49am
No I didn’t misunderstand at all. That people actually consider this brilliance and insight is what is indeed scary.
I hate to burst your bubble but your “bright man” had to consult with his attorney during the signing of the executive order closing Guantanamo has to what exactly the order would entail.
You can read the actual exchange itself by going to http://www.rushlimbaugh.com, clicking on the Thursday tab, then clicking on “Greg Craig, our 44th president”.
You can do this without listening to or reading a word that Rush says.
Asitis 7:49am
No I didn’t misunderstand at all. That people actually consider this brilliance and insight is what is indeed scary.
No, what you just said is scary. But fortunately enough people in enough states, know better!
Gotta run……..
Mary,
what is also scary is that people, even given facts and figures,etc., continue to blindly “worship” this guy.
ken
you don’t understand the way secular humanists function.
1. scientific facts are changed into “beliefs”
2. immoral acts are moral
3. there is no absolute truth
4. God is dead
:-D
it is only using this kind of illogicaql reasoning that persons claiming to be prolife can work at PP, vote for Obama, etc.
Mary, I went to Rush’s site and read that transcript. I don’t see any reason for alarm. It seemed perfectly appropriate, normal, and rational. You guys are really reaching to find something to criticize.
ken,
interesting how asitis did not address your point about premature infants. They use the “personhood” argument to try to obscure reality. First they used the “clump of cells” argument then that was disproved so now they use “personhood.”
ken,
interesting how asitis did not address your point about premature infants.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 26, 2009 10:37 AM
Eileen, since you care to know what i have to say about that, here it is. First what ken said:
[If the infant who is birthed prematurely is no less a human being than his/her fullty mature new born colleague, then we have to conclude that human fetuses are human beings in the womb at some point in time before birth.]
I assume by “no less ahuman being” he means to say that a premature born baby has the same full human rights that a full term baby. That is correct. But there are these two differences between a late term fetus and a premature born baby of the same age: The premature born baby now exists outside the womb. And the late term fetus does not have the same human rights that the born baby has.
But he already knew all this.
Mary,
what is also scary is that people, even given facts and figures,etc., continue to blindly “worship” this guy.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 26, 2009 8:27 AM
“Blindly worship” Eileen? Obama is not a god.
But he does have great support because of, rather than in spite of, the “facts and figures” If you weren’t such a single-issue person, you’d recognize this Eileen.
ken
you don’t understand the way secular humanists function.
1. scientific facts are changed into “beliefs”
2. immoral acts are moral
3. there is no absolute truth
4. God is dead
it is only using this kind of illogicaql reasoning that persons claiming to be prolife can work at PP, vote for Obama, etc.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 26, 2009
Too stunned, you misuse the term “illogical” as well. What’s with that?
Also….
Scientific facts can help mold someones beliefs. But scientific facts becoming beliefs themselves? A fact is a fact. A belief is a belief. You make no sense.
Immoral acts are moral. Well, that could be, seeing as one person’s moral code can differ from another. Example: You think it is immoral to use birth control. I do not think it’s immoral. Even among religious people you could say the same: Something you do think is okay to do could be considered immoral by someone belonging to a different religion. What’s your point?
There is no absolute truth? Now, I have to be careful here, because I think I recall that you have backed yourself into a corner before and then claimed by truth you mean Truth. So… if you mean without God there is no absolute Truth, then I agree. But is you mean there re no absolute truths as in things that are proven or things that are universally help to be true, then I would say you are wrong. Wow, deja vue….
God is dead? Well, it might be more accurate to say God deosn’t exist. Whatever.
Hal 9:30am
I said nothing about “alarm”, I said only that a president should know exactly what his executive orders consist of and should not have to consult and parrot his lawyer or anyone else when signing it.
So toostunned back to your misuse of illogical:
it is only using this kind of illogicaql reasoning that persons claiming to be prolife can work at PP, vote for Obama, etc.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 26, 2009
As per my previous comment, we have established that the only “reasoning” I have done is that as as an agnostic, I would say:
My moral code is somewhat different than yours (and this situation is not unique to the two of us).
God doesn’t exist. But this is just my belief. I do not claim it is a scientific fact. I cannot prove it. Just as you cannot prove He does exist.
I should point this out because you have confused belief with scientific fact.
And as such there is no absolute Truth, as defined by God.
I see no “illogical reasoning in any of this. can you? If so you’ll have to point it out.
I do get a kick though out of how you use the words science and logic, when nothing could be further from your argument.
Hal 9:30am
I said nothing about “alarm”, I said only that a president should know exactly what his executive orders consist of and should not have to consult and parrot his lawyer or anyone else when signing it.
Posted by: Mary at January 26, 2009 11:56 AM
Mary, I can’t access the radio program. What’s he saying basically? That Obama consulted with layers and others on this executive order, its implications, it writing…. ???? If that’s the case, I see no problem either. In fact, isn’t that the way things should be done?
” The premature born baby now exists outside the womb. And the late term fetus does not have the same human rights that the born baby has.”
asitis, this is what is so incomprehensible to me — that proximity is the condition for what determines a human being’s rights.
My earlier statement regarding Obama encompasses many issues. But that being said, if there is no basic right to life then there is no foundation for any other right. How can you
” The premature born baby now exists outside the womb. And the late term fetus does not have the same human rights that the born baby has.”
asitis, this is what is so incomprehensible to me — that proximity is the condition for what determines a human being’s rights.
My earlier statement regarding Obama encompasses many issues. But that being said, if there is no basic right to life then there is no foundation for any other right. Besides, how can you trust someone (Obama) who doesn’t believe that the most helpless among us has no right to live?
doesn’t think
Whoops — I must have accidentally hit post prematurely. I am using an old lap-top — it is taking forever to reload and post.
But that being said, if there is no basic right to life then there is no foundation for any other right. Besides, how can you trust someone (Obama) who doesn’t believe that the most helpless among us has no right to live?
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 26, 2009 1:37 PM
“If there is no basic right to life”? Eileen, there IS a basic right to life. It applies to all born people.
But there are these two differences between a late term fetus and a premature born baby of the same age: The premature born baby now exists outside the womb. And the late term fetus does not have the same human rights that the born baby has.
My understanding is that human rights are rights that apply to all human beings. Is a 7 month old fetus less human at 10am in the womb than it is at 11am when it is born prematurely? If so, please tell me what change that baby underwent in one hour that transformed it from non-human or less human to fully human?
I can’t see any change apart from location and source of nutrients. If we say that human rights derive from location and source of nutrition then that’s discriminatory, isn’t it? Someone in the hospital on a respirator and feeding tube would risk loss of their human rights if we applied your standard, wouldn’t they?
I don’t believe you can prove that the 7 month old fetus isn’t human. So I understand you to mean that it lacks the civil rights of the 7 month old preemie.
Asitis,
All you have to do is go to the website and read the transcript. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com, click the Thursday tab, then click on the article “Greg Craig, our 44th President”. Anyone can access it, I just did.
I’ll give you one quote,
Obama:…”We will be…uhhh…umm…is there a seperate executive order, Greg, with respect to how we’re going to dispose of the detainees? Is that it, eh, uh, what we’re doing?”
Craig: “We’ll be setting up a process”
Obama: “We will be, uh, setting up a process whereby this is going to be taking place”.
You mean our great leader shuts down Guantanamo and doesn’t have a plan or executive order concerning the detainees, or doesn’t have a clue if we even have one?
Also, he just parrots his attorney, who is apparently better informed than Obama.
Keep reading, it only gets better.
Mary, all that quote shows is that Obama is asking if their plan for detainees is included in this executive order or have they moved it to a separate one. I see no problem with this. hal is right. You’re reaching.
“If we say that human rights derive from location and source of nutrition then that’s discriminatory, isn’t it? Someone in the hospital on a respirator and feeding tube would risk loss of their human rights if we applied your standard, wouldn’t they?”
Of course not Fed Up. They are a born human. Once you are born, your human rights apply. Simple.
“I don’t believe you can prove that the 7 month old fetus isn’t human. So I understand you to mean that it lacks the civil rights of the 7 month old preemie”.
Yes, a 7 month old fetus lacks the full uman rights of the 7 month old preemie.
Posted by: Fed Up at January 26, 2009 1:59 PM
Keep reading, it only gets better.
Posted by: Mary at January 26, 2009 2:00 PM
Mary, I did better. I actually watched the signing on Youtube.
You have got to be kidding. S-T-R-E-T-C-H-I-N-G!
Asitis, just asking for your opinion here. I understand that you condone the killing of humans in utero. Are there any circumstances in which you condone the killing of humans outside the womb?
No. Though I have to admit I have mixed feelings about the death penalty and someone killing another in self defense.
And by the way, I’m taking no offense to your terminology. I know where you are coming from.
Asitis, 2:07PM
Get real. Obama is supposed to know exactly what is in an executive order before he signs it, not be consulting his attorney as he goes along.
Also, shouldn’t he have already determined what he will do with the detainees and shouldn’t that be decided before he signs an order closing Guantanamo?
Let me spell it out for you Asitis. Obama and Co. are winging it on this Guantanamo business. Brilliance, absolute brilliance.
Asitis,
Watching the signing on Youtube or reading the actual transcript. The difference is …what?
shouldn’t he have already determined what he will do with the detainees and shouldn’t that be decided before he signs an order closing Guantanamo?
Posted by: Mary at January 26, 2009 3:11 PM
No, I don’t think they have to have the details of that planned prior to signing the order to close it at a specified date Mary. They can follow. I think it is far better to make good plans than rushed plans. Good enough for now that a closing deadline has been set for the embarrassment at Gitmo.
Asitis,
Watching the signing on Youtube or reading the actual transcript. The difference is …what?
Posted by: Mary at January 26, 2009 3:13 PM
Well, the big difference is you take the commentary out of it :) and see it for what it REALLY is.
Are there any circumstances in which you condone the killing of humans outside the womb?
Posted by: Fed Up at January 26, 2009 2:58 PM
No. Though I have to admit I have mixed feelings about the death penalty and someone killing another in self defense.
Posted by: asitis at January 26, 2009 3:04 PM
I should add to this that I am for the right to voluntray euthanasia for people who are terminally ill and want to die on their own terms, with dignity. Mercy killing is technically “killing” so I should have mentioned this too… though I think most of you know this about me by now anyway.
Asitis, 3:19PM
You’re not serious, right? This is almost laughable. Before one plans the shutdown of a prison one should not first have a plan as to where the prisoners will be transferred and a prison willing to take them? Kind of a no brainer don’t you think?
What if no prison in this country or any other wants them???? That Asitis is why, unlike our president, one should carefully plan and thoroughly inform oneself on something like this.
I asked the difference between watching on Youtube and reading the transcript. I said nothing about any commentary.
Hundreds of millions of the nearly $1 trillion price tag on President Obama’s economic stimulus bill is expected to go to contraception and the abortion industry.
George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” asked Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a self-avowed Catholic: “Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?”
Pelosi responded: “Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those – one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.”
Catholic League President Bill Donohue criticized Pelosi’s statement, saying: “Now we have Pelosi arguing that the way to balance the budget is not by cutting expenditures, but by cutting kids. We have reached a new low when high-ranking public office holders in the federal government cast children as the enemy. But at least it explains their enthusiasm for abortion-on-demand.”
James Pethokoukis of U.S. News and World Report called Pelosi’s reasoning “wrong on so many levels, one of which is looking at children born to the ‘wrong people’ as economic burdens rather gifts [sic], the music makers, the dreamers of dreams.”
TSTL
They should call Pelosi’s reasoning exactly what it is: stupid.
One should remind the Queen Bee that abortion has been legal 36 years and contraception is certainly nothing new.
Shouldn’t poverty be virtually non-existent by now?
One should remind the Queen Bee that abortion has been legal 36 years and contraception is certainly nothing new.
Shouldn’t poverty be virtually non-existent by now?
Posted by: Mary at January 26, 2009 4:56 PM
one would think so. Oh and also there should be no criminals either. I guess we just aren;t aborting our kids fast enough.
One should remind the Queen Bee that abortion has been legal 36 years and contraception is certainly nothing new.
Shouldn’t poverty be virtually non-existent by now?
Posted by: Mary at January 26, 2009 4:56 PM
one would think so. Oh and also there should be no criminals either. I guess we just aren;t aborting our kids fast enough.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 26, 2009 5:02 PM
Um duh…. two obvious things:
While children born into single-parent (or no parent) poverty are more likely to stay poor and/or engage in criminal activirties, not all poor people and criminals come from that background.
And while poor women are having proportionally more abortions, they aren’t aborting all their pregnancies.
Asitis, 3:19PM
You’re not serious, right?
Posted by: Mary at January 26, 2009 3:41 PM
Yep. Dead serious! I applaud his action. It’s a no-brainer. They have a year to work out the details. Gitmo has been an embarrassment. Time to fast-track out if that mess. Just like Iraq.
Asitis,
Point is that abortion and contraception have so far failed miserably to solve social problems. Nancy Pelosi is clueless.
Asitis
What if no prison or country will take the Gitmo prisoners?
Also, shouldn’t Obama have known details concerning detainees hadn’t been worked out?
Mary, part of the problem is that our comprehensive sex education has been insufficiently taught (or not taught at all, or too late).
The big city that I leave near has major social problems, particularly a high murder rate. And guess what? Those murder victims were invariably born to women in their teens, with little education, and raised in poverty without a father or by their young grandmothers. Contraception used properly and always would have made a big difference.
Asitis,
I’ve heard this argument before. Its been recycled time and again. Its almost as old as me and that’s old.
Take my word for it, over the years I have seen only a worsening in crime, family breakdown, teen pregnancy, etc. Social problems are entirely too complex and no simplistic solutions, be they sex ed, birth control, or abortion, exist.
I honestly wish simplistic solutions did exist!
“What if no prison or country will take the Gitmo prisoners?”
I doubt that will be the case. And they have no doubt factored the time necessary to decide the fate of the prisoners into the closing date.
“Also, shouldn’t Obama have known details concerning detainees hadn’t been worked out?”
As I already said… I don’t doubt that he knows the details haven’t been worked out. It’s probably simply a case of asking for confirmation of how much of this was included in this executive order.
You are grasping Mary. Wait and see what happens.
I honestly wish simplistic solutions did exist!
Posted by: Mary at January 26, 2009 5:34 PM
I think we all do! Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think contraception, used effectively, is going to end all poverty and crime! But it can certainly go a long way – this country has a dismal record for teen pregnancy. And too many poor women are having unwanted pregnancies.
Mary how old ARE you BTW?
Asitis,
LOL. YOU doubt that will be a problem. Well, that certainly resolves that question. Asitis, proper planning is in order here and its sadly lacking. Your guy is winging it.
If he was so certain about the details he wouldn’t have had to ask his lawyer. Also he’s supposed to know exactly what’s in an executive order when he signs it!!
I’ll tell you what I really think. He’s playing you and the rest of his supporters for chumps. He no more intends to close Gitmo than he plans to travel to the North Pole. In a year or so he’ll whine that he has no choice but to keep it open or else the whole issue will fizzle because the public will be otherwise occupied.
Believe the closing when it happens. Until then I don’t.
Mary: you can see the eugenics in the contraceptive argument. Contracept the poor out of existence. Back it up with abortion.
What does this mean for the Third World poor? So we should flood Pakistan and India and Bangledesh with contraceptives to rid us of these poor people? Less population from the Third World – less competition for resources.
How about we give the RICH the contraceptives. If they stop having children and bequeath their wealth to those people in need, this should be a beginning towards solving the problem of inequitable wealth distribution. Less rich people, and their money spread over the globe. Just think of how many people would benefit from Bill Gates fortune.
Nancy Pelosi is clueless.
Posted by: Mary at January 26, 2009 5:16 PM
Mary, what in the world makes you think you know more than the Speaker of the House? I’d really like to know.
TSTL 5:51PM
Please refer to my post of 1/25 10:59PM
Asitis, glad you took no offense because none was intended. When you mention “mercy killing,” are you referring to assisted suicide or killing suffering persons who may not wish to die?
BTW, I appreciate your candor. It’s helpful.
Josephine,
What in the world makes you think this woman is so brilliant?
In a year or so he’ll whine that he has no choice but to keep it open or else the whole issue will fizzle because the public will be otherwise occupied.
Believe the closing when it happens. Until then I don’t.
Posted by: Mary at January 26, 2009 5:50 PM
Oaky Mary. Let’s see about this in a year. I think you’ll be in hiding! That’s my bet!
In a 1993 letter to president elect Bill Clinton, Ron Weddington, co-counsel for Roe v Wade, urged the use of abortion “to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our society”.
Posted by: Mary at January 25, 2009 10:59 PM
yes, I believe this is what they really want.
Of course everyone KNOWS that people who have more than 2 children are just stupid idiots who just reproduce and make more stupid resource-depleting idiots. And of course nowadays, those idiots are likely to be Catholics and other stupid Christians….
Yeah I’ve heard it all before. The barefoot and pregnant argument that keeps getting dredged up again and again. Except now it’s in the guise of “liberating” these stupid poor people from poverty. Because of course, we all know, it’s their kids that make them poor!
I never called her brilliant. She is a well respected politician who has been in the house since 1987. That’s over twenty years of political service. I don’t understand how you could think you know more about what she’s doing than she does.
I never called her brilliant. She is a well respected politician who has been in the house since 1987. That’s over twenty years of political service. I don’t understand how you could think you know more about what she’s doing than she does.
Posted by: Josephine at January 26, 2009 6:09 PM
Josephine, Nancy Pelosi being a “well-respected politician” which is disputable at any rate, does not mean she necessarily has the answers. For one thing, Nancy Pelosi is an ideologue who does not have the moral high ground in this issue. Personally, I believe she holds the views she does because of the people who have supported her political career. Therefore, she has a vested interest in pushing a certain belief system and a certain course of action. She ought to know as a Catholic that one cannot use an evil means to achieve what she believes is a good end.
Mary: you can see the eugenics in the contraceptive argument. Contracept the poor out of existence. Back it up with abortion.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 26, 2009 5:51 PM
Toostunned, sometimes you are blind. “Contracept the poor out of existence” is actually a good goal. Let’s look at that more closely so maybe you will see. First, you’ll need an open mind. Got it? Well, I doubt that, but let’s move on because I have dinner to make…
We aren’t necessarily talking about doing away with individuals. We are talking about doing away with their poverty. Consider if you will an inner city girl, 16 years old, living in a poor dangerous neighbourhood, raised by her mother. She’s smart and has determination and dreams. Her mother is only 32 and has four children of her own by different fathers. Now, this 16 year old daughter gets pregnant, has a baby and then two years later has another. Whether or not the father(s) is involved and whether or not she finishes high school, she is still very likely to continue to live in and raise her children in that same poor, bad neighborhood. So much for those dreams.
Now, lets say instead that this 16 year old girl knows enough and access to BC that when she decide to have sex, she makes certain she was using contraception properly. She finishes high school, gets a scholarship and goes to college. She graduates and starts a career. She manages to move out of that neighbourhood and lives in a better place she can afford. She meets a nice young man and eventually they marry and have two children and live happily ever after.
Now have we “contracepted the poor out of existence” in this case? Yes, we have. The girl is no longer poor and neither are her children being raised in poverty. Wow! What an awesome thing, huh?
I never said she was right or wrong, actually.I just pointed out that she was called “clueless” though, which is more than ridiculous.
She ought to know as a Catholic that one cannot use an evil means to achieve what she believes is a good end.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 26, 2009 6:18 PM
Oh…………………..
Asitis 6:04PM
Fine with me. No I won’t be in hiding. Jill always knows where to find me.
Asitis, glad you took no offense because none was intended. When you mention “mercy killing,” are you referring to assisted suicide or killing suffering persons who may not wish to die?
BTW, I appreciate your candor. It’s helpful.
Posted by: Fed Up at January 26, 2009 5:58 PM
Thanks Fed Up. I appreciate you too!
When I said “mercy killing” I specificly meant assisted suicide. I believe that killing a suffering person who does NOT wish to die is a totally different thing.
Posted by: asitis at January 26, 2009 6:31 AM
Yes, there it is again. Some things are beliefs and cannot be proven.
Can you really not understand that?
—————————————————-
Yes I can understand the difference between knowledge and belief. I agree there are some things that cannot be proven yet.
The question to you is: Are you willing to go where the truth leads, even if it offends you?
We can reason together and we can determine what is knowledge and what is faith.
By the way I am not a Quaker.
If I told you a I was a Budhist, would I be any less correct, if I said: If a = b and b = c, then a = c or in a right triangle the square of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the square of the other two sides?
Just because people choose to believe things that cannot be proved using logic or the scientific method does mean that can not apply logic and the scientific method to find the truth about a thing.
Will you pursue the truth with me?
yor bro ken
I never said she was right or wrong, actually.I just pointed out that she was called “clueless” though, which is more than ridiculous.
Posted by: Josephine at January 26, 2009 6:21 PM
I don’t think she’s clueless Josephine. I think she knows EXACTLY what she is doing.
BTW, how was your first day at PP:?
Just because people choose to believe things that cannot be proved using logic or the scientific method does mean that can not apply logic and the scientific method to find the truth about a thing.
amen!
Just because people choose to believe things that cannot be proved using logic or the scientific method does mean that ‘they’ can not apply logic and the scientific method to find the truth about a thing.
(I left out the word they.)
perdoname
yor bro ken
I thought this was an interesting piece from the internet re Pelosi’s interview:
Now, did she neglect to factor in the problem down the road, say, 5-6 years when these non-existing children will start school? We’ll need fewer teachers, bus drivers and pediatricians. We’ll need fewer garment workers for the clothes, toy factories for the sundries, and food from the farmers. Then, lo, in about 16-17 years, unemployment rates will drop because fewer people will exist to seek jobs. Yay! And then the economy will contract even more overall, and the elderly (who depend on these youngsters to work responsibly and pay into the retirement funds and even work at the nursing homes) will be, um, lonely. Neglected, even. Or [gasp] moved along to their Eternal Reward early for lack of resources–human and financial.
Well, you can’t argue with the needs of the economy. It must take priority over families, or actual people. People are expensive, doncha know, and we have bills to pay. All of this wisdom with “no apologies” from the “Catholic” grandmother in charge of guiding policy.
**taken from a site that shall remain anonymous.
Please excuse my absence. I had the priveledge of spending the day working with my son. We had
liquid sunshine all day. It reminded me of Western Washington.
I sure do miss my air tight wood burning stove. You can not back up to a forced air furnace and warm your posterior.
yor bro ken
I sure do miss my air tight wood burning stove. You can not back up to a forced air furnace and warm your posterior.
yor bro ken
Posted by: kbhvac at January 26, 2009 6:46 PM
you might try reading the poem, The Cremation of Sam McGee for some helpful hints ken! :-D
Josephine 6:09PM
I’m not referring to her knowing what she’s doing. Its what she’s saying. As for why I think she’s clueless, she need only open her mouth to convince me of that.
Ms. Pelosi is not stupid. She does not for one minute believe what she is saying. She knows exactly what she is doing. She knows that her justication for including hundreds of millions of dollars ear marked for birth control in an economic stimulus bill will not stimulate anything but her soul mates in the ‘death lobby’ and the ‘dead babies r us’ crowd. All Ms Pelosi’s bloviation aside, she is just dancin with the ones who brung her. She is not stupid and she is not crazy.
Ms Pelosi does what she does for the same reason an old hound dog licks his tender most parts. Because she can.
Elections have consequences. Get used to it.
yor bro ken
Asitis 6:20PM
This has been recycled time and again in my lifetime, which is longer than I will elaborate on. Sure, seems so logical and simple, right?
Thirty six years ago legal abortion would eliminate poverty, child abuse(a big one!), welfare dependency, inequality, drug and alcohol addicted newborns, physical and mental disablity, you name it. Why abortion would even save marriages!
Give the poor birth control, that will cure everything and cut down on social expenses.
We’re a society that wants quick fixes. There have to be simple solutions.
If contraception would stop these girls from having babies I would spoonfeed it to them myself.
These girls want to have babies. Yes, you read that right. I’ve encountered them time and again. Little girls living in fantasy worlds about the cute babies who will make their lives perfect. Do you have any idea how many I’ve tried to talk out of becoming pregnant?
There will always be irresponsible people who can’t manage their lives or money.
There will always be people who flat out don’t give a damn about bettering themselves.
There will always be people hit by adversity and tragedy beyond their control.
There’s no simple solution to highly complex social problems and human nature. For that reason social problems will always exist and no amount of birth control or abortion will eliminate them.
Just because people choose to believe things that cannot be proved using logic or the scientific method does mean that can not apply logic and the scientific method to find the truth about a thing.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 26, 2009 6:33 PM
Did I ever suggest that was the case ken?
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 26, 2009 6:51 PM
you might try reading the poem, The Cremation of Sam McGee for some helpful hints ken! :-D
——————————————————
tstl,
Back at you.
Reincarnation
“What does Reincarnation mean?”
A cowpoke asked his friend.
His pal replied, “It happens when
Yer life has reached its end.
They comb yer hair, and warsh yer neck,
And clean yer fingernails,
And lay you in a padded box
Away from life’s travails.”
“The box and you goes in a hole,
That’s been dug into the ground.
Reincarnation starts in when
Yore planted ‘neath a mound.
Them clods melt down, just like yer box,
And you who is inside.
And then yore just beginnin’ on
Yer transformation ride.”
“In a while, the grass’ll grow
Upon yer rendered mound.
Till some day on yer moldered grave
A lonely flower is found.
And say a hoss should wander by
And graze upon this flower
That once wuz you, but now’s become
Yer vegetative bower.”
“The posy that the hoss done ate
Up, with his other feed,
Makes bone, and fat, and muscle
Essential to the steed,
But some is left that he can’t use
And so it passes through,
And finally lays upon the ground
This thing, that once wuz you.”
“Then say, by chance, I wanders by
And sees this upon the ground,
And I ponders, and I wonders at,
This object that I found.
I thinks of reincarnation,
Of life and death, and such,
And come away concludin’: ‘Slim,
You ain’t changed, all that much.'”
© Wallace McRae, reprinted from Cowboy Curmudgeon (1992) with permission from Gibbs Smith, Publisher
This poem may not be reprinted or reposted without the author’s written permission.
OMG toostunned @6:44pm. You are so right! We so need those teenage girls to have those babies!!!!!! ;)
Did I ever suggest that was the case ken?
Posted by: asitis at January 26, 2009 7:30 PM
——————————————————
Yes, I ‘believe’ you did.
But the question is still pending:
Are you willing to pursue the truth with me?
By the way I believe I may have mistated the ‘scientific method’. The scientific method is about ‘disproving’ a thing as opposed to ‘proving’.
yor bro ken
TSTL,
I don’t have anything to say, just wanted to let you know I don’t start until tomorrow. :)
TSTL: Therefore, abortion is nothing more than back-up contraception.
While there are endless situations and degrees, and shades of meaning, yes – once in a while that is true. You can’t generalize as you do and be correct, but you could say that once in a while it’s that way.
…..
And the person who pays the price is not the woman or the man, it is the unseen unborn baby, too helpless to fight back. Very twisted.
No, because now you’ve gone and taken the very small percentage deal and pretended that it’s necessarily so, and that’s just not the case.
Deeming it a “person” in the first place denies a good bit of reality about the argument.
“Paying a price” – presumes knowledge and desire, two things certainly not in evidence.
“I don’t have anything to say, just wanted to let you know I don’t start until tomorrow. :)”
Yuk!
PELOSI SAYS BIRTH CONTROL WILL HELP ECONOMY
KenI did not know the economy could get pregnant.
So what?
One of the main problems is the lack of saving and the level of debt among the average American.
And you better believe that having less kids helps lots of people spend less and save more.
Mary: One should remind the Queen Bee that abortion has been legal 36 years and contraception is certainly nothing new. Shouldn’t poverty be virtually non-existent by now?
No, because it’s human nature that there will be “poverty,” legal abortion or not.
Having legal abortion has helped vast numbers of people escape poverty, but it’s not going to mean that there will be zero people in poverty.
Jasper,
Yuk that someone could be so closed minded they will only believe the bad they read/hear about something.
Having legal abortion has helped vast numbers of people escape poverty….
Doug,
Show me the math to substantiate your assertion. Prove it to yourself.
The federal government has been waging a war on poverty since, the 60’s. It has never been a effective strategy despite the hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars invested.
Federal funding of elective surgery for poor pregnant women has not alieviated the problem.
None of the ‘great society’ solutions has been efficacious. Ms Pelosi is being disengenuous to suggest otherwise. Federal funding of abortion is a dead end.
yor bro ken
Doug 8:12PM
I agree. Abortion will not eliminate poverty. It will in fact solve no social problems.
Some studies please as to the numbers of people who have escaped poverty because of abortion.
The best way to facilitate prosperity is to let successful people keep their hard earned money to use as they see fit as opposed to the government confiscating it and redistributing it to people who have demonstrated they do not yet possess the skills to create wealth.
Let the successful people provide opportunitys for the less fortunate to have a job, learn some skills and become successful themselves.
How many poor people have you known that employed others?
yor bro ken
One of the main problems is the lack of saving and the level of debt among the average American.
And you better believe that having less kids helps lots of people spend less and save more.
Posted by: Doug at January 26, 2009 8:04 PM
no absolutely NOT. In fact, if this were the case, people with less kids would have huge savings. Instead the money that would be spent on kids is instead spent on hummers, huge homes, vacations, and other adult toys.
Instead, it breeds selfishness, narcissism and greed. It makes people look after themselves and not be willing to sacrifice.
In a word, it breeds materialism.
TSTL: Therefore, abortion is nothing more than back-up contraception.
While there are endless situations and degrees, and shades of meaning, yes – once in a while that is true. You can’t generalize as you do and be correct, but you could say that once in a while it’s that way.
…..
Doug again it is not a generalization to state that abortion is used as a back-up to contraception or as the primary form of contraception.
This is pretty much the reason for abortion. I would think very few women have sex with the intention of having a baby and then abort. Ususally they abort do to pressure from medical professionals in the case of abnormalities. These abortions do not comprise a significant percentage of abortions.
toostunnedtolaugh (Patricia?)
Great point, as usual!
Doug 8:04PM
Money management has everything to do with the individual. People can have every advantage and squander it. People can have very little and manage well. Fewer children does not necessarily mean well managed money, many children does not mean less money.
thought some might find this interesting:
….But why the demographic suicide? In The Cube and the Cathedral, George Weigel offers an explanation. “There are,” he writes, “economic, sociological, psychological, and even ideological reasons why Europe’s birthrates have fallen below replacement level for decades. But the failure to create a human future in the most elemental sense—by creating a successor generation—is surely an expression of a broader failure: a failure of self-confidence.” And by Weigel’s reckoning, this failure is “tied to a collapse of faith in the God of the Bible.”
A fascinating working paper from the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research offers data that suggest that Weigel is right and that faith is correlated with fertility. First, self-reported religious conviction is higher in the United States than in Europe. Drawing from a Pew poll released in 2002, Tomas Frejka and Charles F. Westhoff report that the the percentage of adults “for whom religion is important” range “from 11 percent in France to 21 percent in Germany, 27 percent in Italy, 33 percent in Great Britain.” The highest percent in Europe was Poland’s 36 percent. It is 59 percent in the U.S.
QED. The faith-saturated Americans make babies, and the God-abandoning Europeans don’t. Well, yes, but why?
Maybe not because Americans are more religious. Correlation does not causality make. And even if there is a causal relation, the arrow might point the other way. Maybe babies make for faith rather than the other way around. After all, it’s common knowledge that young people tend to drift away from church and then return when they marry and have children.
Nobody said demography was a simple science. But when we dig into the data and get beneath the broad comparison between America and Europe, some more precise and interesting correlations emerge.
The National Survey of Family Growth (2002) asked women questions about religious observance. Among self-identified Catholics, women between the ages of 18 and 44 (the child-bearing years) who report attending church more than once a week have a mean number of 1.78 children. (Careful: 1.78 is not the fertility rate—doubtless many young women in this cohort will have children as they grow older.) Self-identified Catholics who report never going to church (sounds like an oxymoron, but we’ll let it pass) have a mean number of 1.26 children. Those who identify with no denomination and never go to church have 1.00 children.
Now let’s go to some numbers drawn from the European Value Study (2000). Sticking with the Catholics, the more-than-once-a-week-at-Mass crowd has a mean number of 1.81 children, while those who never go to church have 1.09. Protestants and Orthodox show a similar though less dramatic decline when church attendance is correlated to number of children—with an interesting exception. Protestants who go to church more than once a week have fewer children than those who just go on Sundays (1.53 as compared to 2.03). Are the pious Protestants being demoralized by all that sober church-going?
Fascinating, and I am certain George Weigel would say “Not surprising.” But when Frejka and Westhoff look at individual European countries and regions, the picture gets muddy. Norwegians, it seems, have children in spite of religious disinterest. Italians don’t have children even if they go to church. The French, they speculate, might be more fruitful and multiplying if they went to Mass on Sunday. So the study concludes on a tentative note. If Europeans as a whole were as religious as Americans as a whole, “one might expect a small increase [in fertility] for Europe”—with one qualification—“but considerably more for Western Europe.”
It seems awfully opaque, doesn’t it? Welcome to demographic predictions. Maybe European unbelief is a factor in their demographic suicide, or at least maybe in some of the countries of Europe. Perhaps the “maybes” are inevitable. Faith influences everything in culture, but I can not imagine that social scientists will ever be able to isolate “the religious coefficient” for any significant social practice, least of all for something so fundamental as forming families and having children.
One other statistic astounded me: 12 percent of American women aged 18 to 44 attend church more than once a week. That’s a lot of people! Among Europeans, the percentage is 3, a noble cohort, but a much smaller one.
With faith comes a culture of life. But a culture of life needs to penetrate and shape society. Laws matter, schools matter, politics matter, but deep underneath all institutional affairs heart speaks to heart. The women who attend Mass or Bible study during the week (12 percent!)—they (and the men as well) are the irradiated core. Their hearts do far more than polls or surveys to explain why our society still vibrates with religious intensity. May their numbers increase, both here and everywhere.
R.R. Reno is an associate professor of theology at Creighton University and features editor at First Things.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 26, 2009 6:33 PM
If I told you a I was a Budhist, would I be any less correct, if I said: If a = b and b = c, then a = c or, in a right triangle, the square of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the square of the other two sides?
Just because people choose to believe things
that cannot be proved using logic or the
scientific method does not mean that they are
incapable of applying logic and the scientific
method to find the truth about a thing.
The question still remains:
Asitis, will you seek the truth with me?
yor bro ken
—————————————————-
Though I quake, I am not a Quaker.
Though I bud, I am not a Budhist either.
yor bro ken
Mary,
I just did this:
http://www.babycenter.com/cost-of-raising-child-calculator
I did it for a single parent with an income of under $36,000. You know how much it would cost?
$136,224
Assume that’s a single mother making $11,000 a year. Do you not understand that that’s more than “cutting corners”? Children are EXPENSIVE. You have to do more to afford children than being crafty.
So, unless you think taxpayers should be forced to pay for even MORE kids than they’re already paying for… which, I don’t… I think contraception funding being part of this stimulus package is a GREAT idea.
I heard today that in Wisconsin if you’re on welfare and get pregnant again, you automatically lose your welfare.
Asitis, thanks for the clarification.
Too Stunned, as I read your posts, I feel your frustration. I wish the bishops would interdict Pelosi, Biden, and other CINOs (Catholics in Name Only) in office.
May their numbers increase, both here and everywhere.
Not likely to happen here, Too Stunned. Obama needs a culture of death to achieve his objective for America. Respect for life isn’t part of neo-marxist ideology. Neither is religious freedom.
PELOSI SAYS BIRTH CONTROL WILL HELP ECONOMY
KenI did not know the economy could get pregnant.
So what?
One of the main problems is the lack of saving and the level of debt among the average American.
And you better believe that having less kids helps lots of people spend less and save more.
Posted by: Doug at January 26, 2009 8:04 PM
The Democratic party is showing it’s colors here. They are more about helping parents keep from having kids then they are about helping parents with their kids. I can’t believe so many Anericans fall for this crap. They would tax the air we breathe if they could.
Why is it the government’s job to help people pay for kids they KNEW they couldn’t afford in the first place, TS?
Everyone should be able to have as many kids as they want, regardless of their financial situation? That’s ridiculous. So the Republicans want everyone to have bunches of kids, and they want the US government to pay for all these babies to be born… and then after their born, the ideal government of the Republicans steps out and doesn’t want to help?
Then, those same Republicans think it’s stupid for Democrats to simply want to LOWER the number of children born to families who can’t afford children.!?!??
Are you freaking kidding me?!
Josephine, do you think government should be in the business of funding abortion?
Josephine,
What is it that you think a parent should have to provide for their kid in order for you to be o.k. with it? Is food and shelter enoughor do you have higher requirements for other parents?
No. Not at all. My post was more about birth control, not abortion. I also don’t think they should be in the business of paying for people’s kids when the people KNOW they can’t afford kids in the first place.
Josephine,
What is the minimum that a parent needs to be able to provide in order for you to consider them o.k. having sex without birth control? Where do set the line for yourself?
Food, shelter, education (not just college), child care (if needed… single parents obviously have to have someone watch their kids..)
Truth be told, there are just too many people who are on welfare, who actually have kids to REMAIN on welfare and it’s ridiculous. I am in NO WAY saying it’s not okay to be on welfare. Things happen. Certain situations happen. To GET PREGNANT when you have NO finanical means… that’s stupid, irresponsible, and should not happen.
Josephine, do you think government should be in the business of funding abortion?
Posted by: truthseeker at Jan 26, 2009 11:45 PM
No. Not at all. My post was more about birth control, not abortion.
Posted by: Josephine at January 26, 2009 11:48 PM
The organization called Planned Parenthood thinks government should fund abortion and lobbies for it all the time. Their idea of spreading economic prosperity is funding contraception and abortions for people who they believe should not have children.
If more people used birth control & everyone used it effectively, there wouldn’t be as many abortions. Pretty logical then, that the government’s help in getting people birth control would reduce the number of abortions.
Posted by: Josephine at January 27, 2009 12:01 AM
And you think those people who are having kids to milk the system (I don;t really think there are that many) are going to start using birth control cause the government hands it out for free?
If they’re put in a situation where they’d lose their welfare if they continued to have kids? Yes. I think they’d take free birth control. Hence why I said Wisconsin has the right idea.
And I live just minutes outside of Chicago, and when I’m not at school I work at a Chicago hospital. Trust me, there are a LOT more people like that then you would think. I know because they all come through the E.R. when they have the sniffles.
If more people used birth control & everyone used it effectively, there wouldn’t be as many abortions.
Posted by: Josephine at January 27, 2009 12:11
Josephine, that logic has lead a lot women into unwanted pregnancies. People who choose abortion are often trying to avoid pregnancy and taking birth control when they get pregnant. The idea that if you use birth control and you won’t get pregnant is a dangerous lie. If you want to lower the number of abortions, don’t have sex when you aren’t ready to take responsibility for a child.
Actually, most women that get pregnant while on birth control are using their birth control incorrectly. Not getting their shots on time, skipping pills, taking pills at the wrong time..
Oh, and preaching abstinence only is part of the reason so many people have unwanted babies in the first place– they are uneducated.
Birth control, when used COMPLETELY correctly, is over 99% effective. You say that’s not reliable?
Actually, most women that get pregnant while on birth control are using their birth control incorrectly. Not getting their shots on time, skipping pills, taking pills at the wrong time..
Actually most women probably aren’t using their birth control “correctly” period.
**
Oh, and preaching abstinence only is part of the reason so many people have unwanted babies in the first place– they are uneducated…..
So you have decided that people who are taught not to have sex until they are ready for children are uneducated.. lol
**
Birth control, when used COMPLETELY correctly, is over 99% effective. You say that’s not reliable?
And where do they get that 99% figure? Tell me how do they take into account the number of times a person has intercourse etc.? Tell me does it matter how long you are taking it for? Tell me who was in the control group for the study? Otherwise quit passing out bad info.
And where do they get that 99% figure? Tell me how do they take into account the number of times a person has intercourse etc.? Tell me does it matter how long you are taking it for? Tell me who was in the control group for the study?
And if you can’t answer these questions then why have you never asked them?
“Actually most women probably aren’t using their birth control “correctly” period.”
Did you look that up? I’ve never seen figures on women in general using bc incorrectly. I’ve only seen figures on women who got pregnant were using their bc incorrectly. I don’t even know how they’d determine the women who weren’t using it correctly, if they’d never had an..err… “accident”.
“So you have decided that people who are taught not to have sex until they are ready for children are uneducated.. lol”
Uhm. I didn’t say that, so don’t put words in my mouth. I said people who aren’t taught about birthcontrol are uneducated. Everyone should know about and understand birth control, because GUESS WHAT! There are always going to be LOTS of people who don’t practice abstinence only. So, if you want to reduce abortions, you should probably educate people on how to NOT have kids. Obviously.
With the depo shot, sterilization, and the contraceptive patch less than one out of one-hundred women got pregnant while on those (respectively). That’s not ‘bad info’ that’s a statistic. I love how you guys love statistics unless they contradict what you believe. :)
http://pregnancy.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Birth_Control_Effectiveness
This is one site. You can look it up yourself, because pretty much every site had the same statistics.
“If used perfectly, the birth control shot is very effective. Only three in 1,000 women will become pregnant per year with perfect use.”
Pay close attention to that line. I believe, if you do the math, you will see that’s over 99% effective. (You divide 997 by 1000, in case you were wondering… it comes to 99.7%..)
“If used perfectly, the birth control shot is very effective. Only three in 1,000 women will become pregnant per year with perfect use.”
Pay close attention to that line. I believe, if you do the math, you will see that’s over 99% effective. (You divide 997 by 1000, in case you were wondering… it comes to 99.7%..)
Posted by: Josephine at January 27, 2009 1:17 AM
So your response is to repeat more “ideal” statistics. Guess what honey, you still need to address my questions or those statistics are meaningless. How many times did the average woman in the control group have sex? Who was in the control group. BTW, at the typical 3 in 100 chance of getting pregnant in a year on Depo that means about one in six will get pregnat in five years. So a typical thirteen year old girl who starts on Depo will be pregnant before she turns 19 years old.
Should have read:
So one in five typical girls who start on Depo at age 13 will get pregnant before she turns 19 years old.
Didn’t I already say that the problem is people aren’t using their bc correctly? Remember when I said that.. you know, when *I* brought it up?
So, your whole post was pretty pointless.
I use my depo shot perfectly. I am scheduled to get it every 12 weeks, exactly 4p.m., and I get it in a different area each time. I switch between arm, stomach, and butt. I use it absolutely perfectly.
It’s not hard to do.
Oh, and I don’t know what you mean by “repeating ideal statistics” since I hadn’t previously brought up any.
Oh, and I don’t know what you mean by “repeating ideal statistics” since I hadn’t previously brought up any.
Posted by: Josephine at January 27, 2009 1:54 AM
Josephine, your “perfect” use of Depo is the “ideal statistics” I was referring to. You cannot take the “perfect” use and extrapolate that into any kind of effectiveness that birth control would have on the general population. And even your perfect use 99.7% statistics is nothing but bull unless you can can answer simple questions like who was in the control group and how many times they had sex in the year measured etc. etc…
Maybe you could ask those simple questions to somebody at Planned Parenthood since they dispense the crap.
Truthseeker, if you really want to know, try ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalStudyResults.org, or the drug company’s site.
Josephine 10:48PM
As I’ve said this argument has been recycled time and again and I will say time and again that social problems are very complex and birth control and abortion will not solve them.
Also, concerning the cost of children. I also said there are people who manage their money well despite financial difficulty and people who squander their wealth. Its in how one manages their lives and money, not so much whether or not one has children.
If more people used birth control & everyone used it effectively, there wouldn’t be as many abortions.
Posted by: Josephine at January 27, 2009 12:11
Josephine, that logic has lead a lot women into unwanted pregnancies.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 27, 2009 12:41 AM
Truthseeker, not using contraception has lead proportionally a whole lot more women into abortion!
Josephine is right. There is a gap between ideal use and typical use effectiveness that can be reduced.
As I’ve said this argument has been recycled time and again and I will say time and again that social problems are very complex and birth control and abortion will not solve them.
Also, concerning the cost of children. I also said there are people who manage their money well despite financial difficulty and people who squander their wealth. Its in how one manages their lives and money, not so much whether or not one has children.
Posted by: Mary at January 27, 2009 5:43 AM
And you are right Mary that BC and abortion will not solve ALL our social problems. And as for it being about how one manages their lives and money as opposed to whether they have children or not – for people in certain circumstances, having children or not before they are ready makes all the difference.
Josephine: According to FDA information, the typical pregnancy rate for women using the pill is 5 percent.
This means that of every 100 women using the pill, 5 will be pregnant within 12 months.
About 10.4 million American women use the pill; thus there are more than 500,000 pregnancies per year among these pill users.
Two surveys by AGI (Planned Parenthood research arm) have shown that 56%- 58% of women procuring abortions were using some method of birth control the month they became pregnant.
More birth control will not reduce pregnancy rates. It will simply lead to more abortion because abortion is generally used as a back up for contraception
what has this world come to. where young women are shooting themselves up with steroids to avoid getting pregnant.
More birth control will not reduce pregnancy rates. It will simply lead to more abortion because abortion is generally used as a back up for contraception
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 27, 2009 6:46 AM
So you think less birth control WILL reduce abortion rates toostunned?
Hardly! Women in the US who don’t use birth control account for alomost half the abortions but make up only 7% of the population that is at risk of an unwanted pregnancy.
what has this world come to. where young women are shooting themselves up with steroids to avoid getting pregnant.
Posted by: Jasper at January 27, 2009 7:00 AM
OMG!!!! And popping pills too Jasper! It’s despicable!
there are people who manage their money well despite financial difficulty and people who squander their wealth. Its in how one manages their lives and money, not so much whether or not one has children.
Now, there’s something that would be useful for kids to learn in high school. I don’t recall any classes like that being offered when I was going to school in the ’80s.
It would be great to see basic life skills(budgeting, basic nutrition) rolled up with the good parts of abstinence education (building self-esteem to encourage putting off having sex until later), along with scientifically accurate information about sexuality (including birth control) and maybe carrying one of those fake babies around for a few weeks.
These are things kids should be learning at home, but realistically, how many do?
And obviously, leave out the sexist steroetypes found in some abstinence-only curriculum, since that has no business being taught in a publicly funded school.
Terezia @ 7:15am, I think that’s a good idea. It goes hand in hand with teaching our youth the full responsibilities of adulthood and setting clear expectations for them taking on those responsibilities.
Now, there’s something that would be useful for kids to learn in high school. I don’t recall any classes like that being offered when I was going to school in the ’80s.
Why should we be teaching more and more life skills in school when this should be the job of parents. Maybe the state should just take over raising our kids entirely?
We now teach them how to cook, how to choose a career, how to have sex. There are marriage courses, courses on babysitting and courses on parenting. All this use to be done by mom and dad. It was lived and learned in the family.
I think the schools should throw this back to the parents who should be the ones to take the classes and then spend the time imparting these life skills (with the parents values) to their kids.
If a child is raised in a family that uses its resources responsibly they will learn this life skill.
My own opinion: we just coddle people too much.
Thing is toostunned is that not all parents are teaching their kids these responsibilities. Alot of them don’t embrace these responsibilities themselves.
Thanks, asitis.
I live in Toronto now, but I spend a lot of time in Buffalo. At least one dollar store chain accepts food stamps. One of the saddest things I’ve seen was people with full carts, obviously doing their grocery shopping there, when the freshest thing they sell is canned strawberries in syrup.
Nutrition education isn’t the only problem there, obviously, but it couldn’t hurt.
You’re right: Educations isn’t the only problem, but it could help with nutrition. There are ways to eat well, for less. And sometimes people just don’t know it, or don’t know how much better it will make them feel and perform and …. well, live!
BTW Terezia, I spent most of my life close to Toronto! I know you are having another whopper of a winter. I don’t miss that!
I think the schools should throw this back to the parents who should be the ones to take the classes and then spend the time imparting these life skills (with the parents values) to their kids.
If a child is raised in a family that uses its resources responsibly they will learn this life skill.
Sure, in a perfect world. Try telling that to, say, an abused woman working a couple of jobs while her husband sits at home all day drinking. Not everyone has the benefit of a stable home, and it’s the kids who get hurt by it. At least if some of this is taught in schools, the kids may stand a chance.
If parents are doing their job right, they can still teach their own values to their kids and explain why they might be different than what they learned at school. If your case for your values is good, you’ll still win them over.
Yeah, they taunted us with the promise of a mild winter and then hit us with, well, this.
I grew up in upstate NY, though, and I don’t miss the 6-foot-tall snowbanks!
It would be great to see basic life skills(budgeting, basic nutrition) rolled up with the good parts of abstinence education (building self-esteem to encourage putting off having sex until later), along with scientifically accurate information about sexuality (including birth control) and maybe carrying one of those fake babies around for a few weeks.
It would be better to teach the parents basic nutrition skills which are then passed on to the children.
It use to be that you learned about babies and their care by carrying around and helping with the care of a younger sibling. I can’t imagine learning much from a “fake” baby. And it wouldn’t be much fun either. In fact, I can see a fake baby making a girl less likely to want children of her own some day which is maybe the whole point of the exercise anyway. I just think this is very sad indeed!
Sure, in a perfect world. Try telling that to, say, an abused woman working a couple of jobs while her husband sits at home all day drinking. Not everyone has the benefit of a stable home, and it’s the kids who get hurt by it. At least if some of this is taught in schools, the kids may stand a chance.
Yes the same comments are made about abortion and birth control. I guess it depends what you believe schools are for. I don’t believe this is the purpose of schools. There needs to be another way to make families strong (maybe stricter divorce laws, support and intervention for troubled families and marriages in crisis, promotion of abstinence until marriage).
Kids come out of schools not only having picked up an STI but also not being able to write a coherent sentence.
I can’t imagine learning much from a “fake” baby. And it wouldn’t be much fun either.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 27, 2009 7:53 AM
You can’t imagine learning anything from it toostunned? Well, you’ve just mentioned what you’d learn: It’s not fun having a baby as a teenager. It’s a big responsibility. Something for later.
In fact, I can see a fake baby making a girl less likely to want children of her own some day which is maybe the whole point of the exercise anyway. I just think this is very sad indeed!
Changing her mind about trying to have a baby as a teen would be a very good result of the exercise for a girl with bad self-esteem who thinks that if she has a baby, at least she’ll have someone to love her. Sadly, some teenage girls think that way.
Human nature being what it is, for a woman wants children eventually, something like this wouldn’t discourage it. If you’re an adult and your friends start having babies and you spend time around them and see the joys too, you’d have to be pretty dumb to not have kids because of a high school class. In fact, if you’ve got that little common sense, you probably shouldn’t be trying to raise a child anyway.
Discouraging teens from having babies is not sad for anyone.
Human nature being what it is, for a woman wants children eventually, something like this wouldn’t discourage it. If you’re an adult and your friends start having babies and you spend time around them and see the joys too, you’d have to be pretty dumb to not have kids because of a high school class. In fact, if you’ve got that little common sense, you probably shouldn’t be trying to raise a child anyway.
Perhaps, but people tend to remember things a little differently. And how many adult women do you know who are actually enthused about having children? Who actually portray babies, being pregnant and looking after children in a positive manner. The comments I often hear from adults are quite disparaging. In fact women who do have many children are usually put down by other women in a very judgemental manner.
The fake baby is simply another way of helping to create a mindset in young women not to have babies -maybe ever or to have as few as possible.
The fake baby is a one sided thing. The fake baby gives nothing back in return for being cared for. A real baby is quite different.
The way I see it, it is simply another way of trying to turn women off of childbearing. Sorry, that’s just my take on it based on the experiences I been involved with. I think there are other more positive, feminine ways of encouraging girls to stay chaste and have their babies until marriage. ;-D
Yes the same comments are made about abortion and birth control.
Which comments do you mean?
I guess it depends what you believe schools are for. I don’t believe this is the purpose of schools. There needs to be another way to make families strong (maybe stricter divorce laws, support and intervention for troubled families and marriages in crisis, promotion of abstinence until marriage).
I’m not suggesting this be the entire curriculum. But if schools have time to teach abstinence-only curriculum, they could add something practical to it as well.
Yes the same comments are made about abortion and birth control.
Which comments do you mean?
*******************
the idea that in a perfect world teens wouldn’t have sex therefore we should throw as much BC and sex ed at them as we can.
It’s disrespectful IMO.
I’m not suggesting this be the entire curriculum. But if schools have time to teach abstinence-only curriculum, they could add something practical to it as well.
Posted by: Terezia at January 27, 2009 8:35 AM
I’m not a big fan of sex-ed in any form in schools. I think this is the job of parents. Parents should come to the classes and then talk to their teens.
It is impossible to teach sex ed without some kind of values being imparted. therefore, the parents should do this.
I’m sorry Terezia I have to leave the BB now. Have a nice day. It’s been good to discuss this with you!
I think there are other more positive, feminine ways of encouraging girls to stay chaste and have their babies until marriage.
I agree, and I think it’s cool that there are people like Dawn Eden who are trying to do this at a grass-roots level. What I’ve read about some abstinence-only education curriculums is pretty disheartening, though, with scare tactics based on scientific inaccuracies and promotion of gender stereotypes. That’s far more a waste of time than teaching basic life skills like budgeting.
And if kids are not learning good life skills at home, at least learning something about them at school would be a plus.
I agree, and I think it’s cool that there are people like Dawn Eden who are trying to do this at a grass-roots level.
yup Dawn’s pretty cool!!!
ttyl
I’m not a big fan of sex-ed in any form in schools. I think this is the job of parents. Parents should come to the classes and then talk to their teens.
It is impossible to teach sex ed without some kind of values being imparted. therefore, the parents should do this.
I definitely see your point, and I agree with it in theory. And I don’t think either abstinence-only or comprehensive sex ed, as they stand now, are doing a very good job.
Unfortunately, there are going to be kids who don’t get any good values taught to them at home. And if they are going to be having sex while teens, they’re definitely better knowing how to use contraception right. At least some will succeed.
Have a nice day too!
asitis 6:13am
Yes whether or not one has children and under what circumstances can make a difference. I’m saying these issues are so complex, such as teenage girls who WANT to be pregnant, that stressing BC and abortion alone will accomplish nothing.
These arguments are nothing new and so far they have failed to be proven correct.
BC means nothing to a teenage girl under peer pressure to have a baby and/or who sees illegitimacy glamorized by Hollywood.
We saturate our society and media with sex, then cry about the consequences.
Truthseeker, if you really want to know, try ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalStudyResults.org, or the drug company’s site.
Posted by: Fed Up at January 27, 2009 4:35 AM
I checked both those sites and did a search on “Depo” and found studies on bone density loss but NONE on effectiveness. Certainly no criteria on the number of times those in the study had sex etc… t amazes me how many women buy into these 99.7 effectiveness crap and don’t even investigate the so called clinical trials the results supposedly came from :
amazes me how many women buy into these 99.7 effectiveness crap and don’t even investigate the so called clinical trials the results supposedly came from :
Posted by: truthseeker at January 27, 2009 9:35 AM
Haha truthseeker. I “bought into” that effectiveness crap over 20 years ago and it’s proven to be 100% effective in my case. But then again, I use it properly and always.
And how many adult women do you know who are actually enthused about having children? Who actually portray babies, being pregnant and looking after children in a positive manner. The comments I often hear from adults are quite disparaging.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 27, 2009 8:35 AM
Really? Wow, I’m surprised to hear that from you especially. You live in a way different world than I do toostunned! What I see is quite the opposite.
“Two surveys by AGI (Planned Parenthood research arm) have shown that 56%- 58% of women procuring abortions were using some method of birth control the month they became pregnant.
More birth control will not reduce pregnancy rates. It will simply lead to more abortion because abortion is generally used as a back up for contraception”
Uhm. I think this has been said MANY times, but the whole thing about women using birth control the month they got pregnant simply means they could have taken ONE pill on the fifth and had sex on the fifteenth. Or used a condom once, and had unprotected sex ten times. Not counting the people that used bc regularly but incorrectly.
If you think that the fewer people are on birth control the fewer that will have abortions.. well, that just doesn’t make any sense.
TS,
Look up “depo provera effectiveness”. I did and I got LOTS of answers. It’s not hard to properly search the internet…
TSTL,
“We now teach them how to cook, how to choose a career, how to have sex. ”
My mom graduated high school in 1977.. she learned all that stuff in school. I’m not sure why we’re pretending this is something “new”…
If we are telling our young people that they can’t control their urges, then how can we expect them to be disciplined enough to take a pill every day? Why must it be the woman who must take the responsibility of contraception upon herself? How is that liberating for women? The onus is on her to see to it that she does not get pregnant — the man doesn’t have to worry about a thing. He can go from female to female — how liberating for him!
You’re right Eileen. It’s so onerous to take a pill every day. Or get a shot every once in awhile. How “unliberating” for women to have that option and be free to have sex without getting pregnant if they so choose!
You’re right Eileen. It’s so onerous to take a pill every day. Or get a shot every once in awhile. How “unliberating” for women to have that option and be free to have sex without getting pregnant if they so choose!
Eileen: If we are telling our young people that they can’t control their urges, then how can we expect them to be disciplined enough to take a pill every day?
They can control them to some degree, with it varying from person to person. For those who can’t control their urges, doesn’t sound like they’d make all that good of parents….
…..
Why must it be the woman who must take the responsibility of contraception upon herself? How is that liberating for women? The onus is on her to see to it that she does not get pregnant — the man doesn’t have to worry about a thing. He can go from female to female — how liberating for him!
Many women are in relationships where the man does use contraception. It’s up to the people involved. If he doesn’t and she doesn’t want to get pregnant and still wants the relationship then yeah – she’s the one who can get pregnant so in that case the bottom-line responsibility falls to her.
“One of the main problems is the lack of saving and the level of debt among the average American.”
“And you better believe that having less kids helps lots of people spend less and save more.”
TSTL: no absolutely NOT. In fact, if this were the case, people with less kids would have huge savings.
You cannot generalize that way and be correct. It’s not saying that everybody with no kids or less kids will save like crazy or even save, but it’s a fact that raising kids does have costs, and those costs not being present helps people to save (or, pay for a house, for example).
…..
Instead the money that would be spent on kids is instead spent on hummers, huge homes, vacations, and other adult toys.
Instead, it breeds selfishness, narcissism and greed. It makes people look after themselves and not be willing to sacrifice.
In a word, it breeds materialism.
No doubt some segment of the population is that way, yes, and likely they’d be that way if they had kids, or had more kids. You’re just talking about human nature, not economic reality.
My mom graduated high school in 1977.. she learned all that stuff in school. I’m not sure why we’re pretending this is something “new”…
Well High-Five to your mom, Josephine! Me too.
TS: The Democratic party is showing it’s colors here. They are more about helping parents keep from having kids then they are about helping parents with their kids. I can’t believe so many Anericans fall for this crap. They would tax the air we breathe if they could.
:: laughing :: Oh Ba-ruh-tha.
http://www.babycenter.com/cost-of-raising-child-calculator
Right on, Josephine. American family, average income, two parents, I used the Midwest for another “average” (i.e. the northeast would probably be highest cost, etc.) and it’s over $300,000 per kid, excluding college, for being born in 2009.
Well now that’s a YIKES…..
Money management has everything to do with the individual. People can have every advantage and squander it. People can have very little and manage well. Fewer children does not necessarily mean well managed money, many children does not mean less money.
Mary, of course people are different and there are extremes at both ends, no matter what.
Tell you what, though – per that babycenter calculator, a family in the US with average income, raising a kid starting now will cost over $300,000.
Now whether one is going to be the greatest money-manager in the world, or blow it all on bon-bons, that chunk of money is going to go a long way.
TSTL: Therefore, abortion is nothing more than back-up contraception.
“While there are endless situations and degrees, and shades of meaning, yes – once in a while that is true. You can’t generalize as you do and be correct, but you could say that once in a while it’s that way.”
…..
Doug again it is not a generalization to state that abortion is used as a back-up to contraception or as the primary form of contraception.
How about putting “frequently used” in there? That’d help a lot. It’s certainly more than “nothing more than back-up contraception.”
…..
This is pretty much the reason for abortion.
Well there ya go – now you got “pretty much the reason” and that sounds good to me.
…..
I would think very few women have sex with the intention of having a baby and then abort. Ususally they abort do to pressure from medical professionals in the case of abnormalities. These abortions do not comprise a significant percentage of abortions.
Lots can happen during a pregnancy. I don’t know how many people really are “pressured” by doctors like that. Even if somebody is, and that’s the reason for them having an abortion, then it doesn’t sound to me like they were very committed to having a child in the first place.
“It’s so onerous to take a pill every day”
I know, it’s such a burden to take medication. I suppose I’m not liberated even though the medicine I take everyday keeps me functioning.
That’s what bugs me about the Nuvaring commercial. No doubt that it or the shot (which I take) is easier than the pill, but they make it sound like it’s a huge chore. It’s really not. Set a watch alarm for 6:30 and swallow a pill- it’s not difficult.
Kinda funny how the republicans here bitch about how people can’t control their spending or take care of their debt, but get offended when we propose a life skills class. Regardless of where you think responsibility “should” be, there are sh*tty parents out there.
You are wanting to punish kids for their parents mistakes.
Lastly, I’m wondering why the conservatives here never answered the question:
Do you honestly believe that, without availability of birth control, abortion rates will decrease?
Truthseeker, those sites may not tell you what you want with one click. Sometimes you have to use what you find there to do a little more digging. Jo is right that the info is out there if you search under the correct terms. If all else fails, call the drug’s manufacturer.
I don’t know how many people really are “pressured” by doctors like that.
Doug, I think in the case of Down Syndrome, it’s often assumed that parents will abort. Hopefully the Kennedy-Brownback legislation will help.
http://www.ndss.org/images/stories/NDSSresources/pdfs/kb_press_release.pdf
PIP,
I don’t want to pay for someone else’s birth control.
“Kinda funny how the republicans here bitch about how people can’t control their spending or take care of their debt, but get offended when we propose a life skills class.”
What are you talking about?
I don’t think anyone here is opposed to life skills classes — cooking, managing a budget, balancing a checkbook, looking for employment, etc.
“Regardless of where you think responsibility “should” be, there are sh*tty parents out there.
You are wanting to punish kids for their parents mistakes.”
How are we punishing kids?
Nothing that Nancy Pelosi and the Dems want to do will help families. All they want to do is prevent people from entering the world and keep control of the world’s resources.
Fed Up: Doug, I think in the case of Down Syndrome, it’s often assumed that parents will abort.
Yeah, no doubt – lots of people do choose abortions then. But that is different from being pressured by the doctor.
Heck, lots and lots of people go ahead and have Down’s babies, and doctors know that too.
Set a watch alarm for 6:30 and swallow a pill- it’s not difficult.
Posted by: prettyinpink at January 27, 2009 11:47 AM
Exactly PIP! I take mine when I brush my teeth at night. (If I wake up with extra-bad breath I know I better check to make sure I took that pill the night before!)
PIP,
I don’t want to pay for someone else’s birth control.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 27, 2009 1:01 PM
Would you want to pay for someone’s birth control if you knew that by doing so you would make one (or more) less abortion Eileen?
Asitis- I always had to take it with food (or I’d feel nauseous and sometimes get sick), and 6:30 was my dinnertime so I took it then :)
Eileen-
I was addressing this post:
“Why should we be teaching more and more life skills in school when this should be the job of parents. Maybe the state should just take over raising our kids entirely?
We now teach them how to cook, how to choose a career, how to have sex. There are marriage courses, courses on babysitting and courses on parenting. All this use to be done by mom and dad. It was lived and learned in the family.
I think the schools should throw this back to the parents who should be the ones to take the classes and then spend the time imparting these life skills (with the parents values) to their kids.
If a child is raised in a family that uses its resources responsibly they will learn this life skill.
My own opinion: we just coddle people too much.”
Hey Eileen,
Do you really think that making contraception unavailable will decrease the number of abortions?
that is different from being pressured by the doctor.
Doug, I didn’t express myself very well. A few months ago there was a report on the news about a new prenatal test for Downs. Some Downs advocates were concerned that it would lead to more abortions. Part of the story was interviews with parents who chose to carry the baby to term. Those parents were saying that the staff approached them from the perspective that they would automatically choose abortion and not choose to continue the pregnancy. They were saying they had to put a lot of effort into finding good information about having a child with Downs and felt it was an uphill battle. I wasn’t trying to suggest that nurses or docs were strong-arming them into abortion, just assuming that’s what they’d want to do.
Lastly, I’m wondering why the conservatives here never answered the question: Do you honestly believe that, without availability of birth control, abortion rates will decrease?
PiP, I didn’t chime in on your question because I didn’t feel like taking the bait. Abortion and contraception are both “fruits of the same tree,” as someone much wiser than I once said. You’re trying to get someone who supports a culture of life to condone one of the biggest contributors (BC) to the culture of death mentality under the guise of reducing one aspect of the culture of death (abortion). Nice try though.
Doug, 11:29AM
What’s the long term cost of owning cars and paying for their maintenance and repairs?
What’s the long term costs of home ownership including mortgage, taxes, insurance, and maintenance?
How much will your clothes cost you over a lifetime?
There’s much in life that costs plenty over the long run, not just children.
Fed Up, so even though availibility of contraception reduces the number of abortions you are still opposed to it?
Following the revelation that hundreds of millions of dollars of the pending U.S. economic stimulus bill were set aside to fund contraception and the abortion industry, the Obama Administration has quickly called for the removal of the controversial provisions.
According to Fox News, Democratic House leaders have already nixed the “family planning” line items in the $825 billion stimulus plan, although final confirmation is still expected today.
Reportedly President Obama himself personally called Democratic leaders to urge them to remove the controversial provisions, in order to ensure the support of Republicans, many of whom had objected to spending hundreds of millions on “family planning” during a global economic crisis.
The items had been met with harsh criticism from House Republicans. “How you can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives – how does that stimulate the economy?” House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said.
“Regardless of where anyone stands on taxpayer-funding for contraceptives and the abortion industry, there is no doubt that this once little-known provision in the congressional Democrats’ spending plan has nothing to do with stimulating the economy and creating more American jobs,” he said.
***********************************************
let’s pray that people in government come to their senses and see that they are killing our future by promoting contraception and abortion.
Fed Up,
So, you want the government make birth control and abortion simultaneously unavailable? Do you think that will solve the problem of unwanted pregnancy?
toostunned at 3:27pm
Thanks for that. They’ll just make provisions for it elsewhere rather than this package.
let’s pray that people in government come to their senses and see that they are killing our future by promoting contraception and abortion.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 27, 2009 3:27 PM
Actually, a government has come in that sees that contraception reduces abortion and improves the future for many people…. and their children.
So, you want the government make birth control and abortion simultaneously unavailable? Do you think that will solve the problem of unwanted pregnancy?
Posted by: prettyinpink at January 27, 2009 3:30 PM
The silence is deafening!
Oh come on guys, you can do it! It’s just a simple question.
They were saying they had to put a lot of effort into finding good information about having a child with Downs and felt it was an uphill battle. I wasn’t trying to suggest that nurses or docs were strong-arming them into abortion, just assuming that’s what they’d want to do.
Fed Up, yeah, sounds very plausible – most people don’t want to continue the pregnancies in that case, so I don’t doubt there is that assumption at times. And, too bad they feel like it’s an uphill battle – that doesn’t help anybody.
What’s the long term cost of owning cars and paying for their maintenance and repairs?
Mary, hope you had a good time in the sun.
Automobiles cost a lot.
…..
What’s the long term costs of home ownership including mortgage, taxes, insurance, and maintenance?
A lot there too, though it’s a given that we’re going to have someplace (other than extreme examples) whether we own or rent.
My wife and I haven’t really “bought our house” yet, (and thank goodness the way things have worked out the last couple years). I bought my first place in 1995 and my wife has an apartment where she teaches. So, one of these days we’re going to get “our house” probably also with an eye toward retirement. And man oh man there are getting to be some comparitive bargains.
In no hurry as of now – don’t think the price-declines are at an end.
…..
How much will your clothes cost you over a lifetime?
Not much for me. I pretty much just wear workclothes. Other than that, I have stuff 10 and 20 years old I wear. My wife is a different story but we still do decently on it, overall.
….
There’s much in life that costs plenty over the long run, not just children.
Indeed, but clothing, shelter, (food too) as well as transportation – for most of us – are givens, substantially costly givens. Having kids or more kids, or not, is a different thing (again for most of us), and it’s not like by having kids we get out from under housing costs etc.
For my wife and I not having kids has made a huge difference. Not saying that people “shouldn’t have kids,” though, not at all, but I’ve got 21 nieces and nephews and for all but one (the wealthiest) family there, having kids has made a huge difference in the other direction.
Would you want to pay for someone’s birth control if you knew that by doing so you would make one (or more) less abortion Eileen?
Posted by: asitis at January 27, 2009 2:23 PM
You don’t trade one evil for another.
Hey Eileen,
Do you really think that making contraception unavailable will decrease the number of abortions?
Posted by: prettyinpink at January 27, 2009 3:13 PM
PIP, again, I do not want to PAY for someone else’s contraception. I can’t stop someone from using contraception but I am not going to pay for someone else’s contraception.
sorry, anon is me.
“I do not want to PAY for someone else’s contraception.”
Haha I already knew that. But the question is: do you think making contraception unavailable will decrease the number of abortions?
Doug,
It was a fantastic time, thank you.
My point is there’s plenty of expense over a lifetime. Again its how people manage their money and how they spend it Doug. Look at the Duggar family.
I would imagine bringing up Paris Hilton cost more than what my children have cost me.
How many billions do people spend a year on pets?
If you and your wife do well not having children, great. But my husband and I are doing very well, in fact our income and standard of living improved over the years after the birth of our 3 children.
When we stop looking at children as a burden and start supporting family life, teach kids love and responsibility (not just how to have “safe sex”), etc. then you will see abortion start to decrease.
Eileen, does that include making contraceptives less available?
PIP, again, I do not want to PAY for someone else’s contraception. I can’t stop someone from using contraception but I am not going to pay for someone else’s contraception.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 27, 2009 5:00 PM
I agree!
And studies demonstrate that the most finacially stable grouping is the family with two parents and children.
TSTL,
The question is the same, even if you don’t want to pay for it. Do you think it would solve our unwanted pregnancy problems if we made contraception less available?
PIP: it’s a matter of changing our society from the contraceptive mentality to one that sees pregnancy as a natural part of a woman’s life and a gift.
To my mind, this means removing contraceptives completely. I do not support contraception in any form whatsoever.
Many of our social evils today stem from contraceptives: including marriage breakdown and divorce, rampant STI’s, pornography, sexual abuse, unwed pregnancies, loss of respect for members of the opposite sex and the objectification of women in particular, and of course abortion.
it’s simply a matter of changing society’s mind about contraception toostunned? C’mon! Even your own Church can’t convince its own members that contraception is “evil”. Good luck with getting others to buy that line. Your opposition to contraception runs counter to your own and society’s desire to reduce abortion. Good thing you are the few.
TSTL,
While I think that is some serious wishful thinking, thanks for answering honestly.
I don’t get it. When women are shooting themselves up in the ass with steroids to avoid getting pregnant, you know we have a problem.
What is the problem, jasper?
If ‘effective’ gun control is hitting what you’re shooting at, then what is ‘effective’ birth control?
yor bro ken
When talking of contraception and abortion let’s look at history and forget what seems to us to be “logical”. Human nature does not follow logic.
First of all contraception is nothing new. My mother practiced it 60+ years ago. Let’s stop treating this “concept” of contraception preventing abortion like its a recent brainstorm.
Its already been proven false over the last several decades.
Roe v Wade legalized abortion and boom, we have since had what, 48 million abortions? Contraception was non-existent during this period? Hardly. “The pill” had already been around a couple of years prior to Roe v Wade.
How about the possibility that easily available and legal abortion may make people less responsible about preventing unwanted pregnancy?
What about those who use abortion for birth control? My cousin never used contraception, she simply went to her doctor for a “menstraul extraction”.
What about men who think their responsibility to the pregnant woman begins and ends with an offer to pay for an abortion? Perhaps abortion has made it easier for men to have their fun and walk away from responsibility.
Also, let’s not be so quick to assume certain pregnancies are unwanted. I remember working as a nursing assistant in a large city hospital. Being naive I was shocked that women were producing their second+ illegitimate children. BTW, these were not naive schoolgirls, but grown women who certainly knew where babies came from and could have easily obtained contraception. I know these pregnancies were planned in many instances because the women told me so!
I have more recently worked with teenage girls who were trying to become pregnant. Yes, you read that right.
In my job I see so much of young women producing one child after another. 18 year olds having their 3rd+ baby. You won’t convince me there isn’t some psychological issue here since they can certainly obtain contraception.
I’m sorry I don’t have the source but around 30 years ago public funding for abortion was cut off, I believe it was somewhere in the south. Naturally there was the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth about women dying like flies from illegal abortion. Instead, officials were shocked to discover a decrease in the pregnancy rate, and no women dying from illegal abortion. It was determined that women who truly did not want to become pregnant were taking precautions against unwanted pregnancy since they could no longer obtain taxpayer funded abortions.
Also our society glamorizes illegitimacy. Ellen Goodman, who is ardently PC, wrote an excellent article years ago about movie stars flaunting their illegitimacy and what message this sends these young girls, who don’t realize these women are a good 20 years more mature, have a 7+ figure bank account, and a father for their child in the picture. Ms.Goodman lamented the fact these girls were more enthralled with Jerry Hall’s account of her first child’s conception with Mick Jagger than they were Sally Ride’s(first woman in space) space flight. Women who truly should be role models are not and some flake like Hall is.
I’m no fan of Ms.Goodman’s but I give credit where its due. An excellent and thought provoking article.
Social problems and human nature are entirely too complex for simplistic solutions. Hand out this pill and we’ll solve that problem.
it’s simply a matter of changing society’s mind about contraception toostunned? C’mon! Even your own Church can’t convince its own members that contraception is “evil”. Good luck with getting others to buy that line. Your opposition to contraception runs counter to your own and society’s desire to reduce abortion. Good thing you are the few.
Posted by: asitis at January 27, 2009 6:56 PM
Actually, too few in the Church neglected to inform Church members about the teaching on bc but that is changing especially among the JP II generation. People have mistakenly bought into the fallacious argument that bc is going to reduce abortions.
PIP,
I’m basically trying to say what toostunnedtolaugh is saying but she can articulate better than I can…
J
anon was me again :l
‘Birth control’ and contraception are not the same thing.
‘Birth control’ is an ill advised and misguided response to failed contraception.
It is an after the fact attempt to mitigate the first failure of preventing conception.
Contraception can be mechanical or chemical or behavioral. NFP is a behavioral contraception.
Abortion is ‘birth control’, as in limiting or preventing live births.
Words mean things. Definitions matter. Sloppy and promiscuous use of language muddies up the waters of communication. Use precise words that accurately describe the objective reality.
yor bro ken
Mary — once again — right on target!
ken, very good points.
“Words mean things. Definitions matter. Sloppy and promiscuous use of language muddies up the waters of communication. Use precise words that accurately describe the objective reality.”
Oh my goodness, Ken, I have needed to see this ALL WEEK. Thank you!
TSTL,
While I think that is some serious wishful thinking, thanks for answering honestly.
Posted by: prettyinpink at January 27, 2009 7:04 PM
thanks PIP! I don’t think it’s wishful thinking but it is serious!
Asitis,
I was relly looking foreward to the benefit of your education and training and your scientific experience in a quest for truth.
A mind is terrible thing to waste and a waiste is a terrible thing to mind.
yor bro ken
El Bambino
How are you and your family? Are you staying warm? How was your holiday time with your family?
yor bro ken
We are doing quite well. My 14 month old just had her first haircut yesterday (bye-bye baby mullet) and #2 is about 26 weeks and due in early May. So we’re all looking forward to that. That’s the big news from this side of the New England.
People have mistakenly bought into the fallacious argument that bc is going to reduce abortions.
Posted by: Anonymous (Eileen) at January 27, 2009 7:33 PM
Eileen, about half the abortion on performed on the 7% of woman who don’t use birth control. And you think NOT using birth control is going to reduce abortion?????
Actually, too few in the Church neglected to inform Church members about the teaching on bc but that is changing especially among the JP II generation.
Posted by: Anonymous (Eillen)at January 27, 2009 7:33 PM
They did neglect this? Because I grew up in the Catholic Church and Catholic school and that certainly wasn’t our experience.
Informing desn’t translate into people actually practicing what the priest preaches.
Congratulations, Bobby! How exciting!
Asitis, 8:07PM
If BC reduces abortion why have there been so many millions of abortions since Roe v Wade? The pill arrived on the scene a few years before Roe v Wade.
Also, maybe those women you mention didn’t use birth control because they depend on abortion instead.
“The pill” was first approved for contraceptive use in the United States in 1960, 13 years before Roe v Wade.
I am really suffering from depression. I could use some prosac.
I am having trouble sleeping, I use some traquilizer.
At my avanced age and with side effects from some of the other drugs I am taking I could use some viagra.
If I give you my pay pal account would some of you compassionate people who are generous with other peoples money send me some of your own so I can get back on wheels.
yor bro ken
If BC reduces abortion why have there been so many millions of abortions since Roe v Wade? The pill arrived on the scene a few years before Roe v Wade.
Also, maybe those women you mention didn’t use birth control because they depend on abortion instead.
Posted by: Mary at January 27, 2009 8:22 PM
Unfoortunately not everyone uses birth control as well as they should Mary. They don’t all use it properly and consistently so “accidents” happen. Better education, as well being more responsible will improve its effectiveness.
As for those women who got pregnant while not on birth control, perhaps some were planning on using abortion instead of birth control. But typically they weren’t usiing because they didn’t think they needed to, didn’t like birth control or weren’t planning on having sex. Whatever the case, these women are much more likely to have abortions than those on birth control.
NFP is a behavioral contraception.
Hi Ken,
I’d be interested in why you think this is so?
Sorry Ken, as much as I feel bad for you for having trouble sleeping, “getting it on” and being sad, I’m not going to give you money for drugs. Now if you couldn’t afford to buy these drugs and your having them would be in society’s best interest, then that’s worth discussing!
But I will suggest you take up some sport or physical activity. It could do the trick all round!
Ken,
I hear you. I would love some cosmetic surgery. I’m developing bags, sags, and drags and that’s making me depressed.
Rich women can afford all the cosmetic surgery they want. I can’t. That isn’t fair. There should be federally funded cosmetic surgery so women of all economic levels can have cosmetic surgery.
Fair is fair.
Certainly this won’t be abused. People will wisely and conservatively use cosmetic surgery only as a last resort. After all no one likes cosmetic surgery, only those who truly need it will get it.
Government funded cosmetic surgery will build self esteem, save marriages, and cure depression.
Think of all the money we’ll save on counselling, psychiatric drugs, and divorces.
Sounds like a great investment to me.
Haha Mary. Nice try.
I meant to say that too many in the Church neglected to present Church teaching on bc — not too few.
asitis, the fact that some people disobey Church teaching doesn’t make the teaching any less true.
NFP is a behavioral contraception.
Hi Ken,
I’d be interested in why you think this is so?
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 27, 2009 8:43 PM
Zut alors! Toostunned practices and preaches contraception. I think Ken has a point, because isn’t contraception the deliberate use of artificial or natural means to prevent pregnancy? And isn’t NFP a behaviour intending, at times, to prevent pregnancy? OMG toostunned!!!!
Asitis, 8:42PM
Doesn’t wash. How hard is it to take a birth control pill? This isn’t rocket science.
The BC pill was around 13 years prior to Roe v Wade yet there’s an explosion of abortion after 1973. Suddenly women were too stupid to know how to use birth control?
Maybe these women chose to forego the use of contraception, as did my cousin, because they knew they could abort quickly and legally.
Like I said Asitis, human nature does not follow logic. History speaks for itself.
asitis, how is Mary’s analogy any less applicable?
Asitis 8:55PM
Glad you liked it. I thought it got the point across quite well also.
asitis, the fact that some people disobey Church teaching doesn’t make the teaching any less true.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 27, 2009 8:56 PM
I’m not saying it does Eileen. But the fact that the vast majority of your Church doesn’t buy into its teaching that contraception is wrong should give you clear indication of just how unsuccessful you would be at getting everyone else to agree!
Glad you liked it. I thought it got the point across quite well also.
Posted by: Mary at January 27, 2009 9:01 PM
Actually, it didn’t because it’s seriously flawed. But it was funny. Thanks
asitis,
one uses the naturally built-in infertile period that a woman experiences monthly as God designed it if they have a serious reason for avoiding a pregnancy.
Two surveys by AGI (Planned Parenthood research arm) have shown that 56%- 58% of women procuring abortions were using some method of birth control the month they became pregnant.
So at least half (and likely much more than half because the researcher is proabortion biased) of the women who seek abortion were USING BC.
The contraceptive mentality leads directly to abortion. It must.
A couple contracepting does so because of one reason only – they do not WANT a baby, now or at any time in the near future.
If they are not open to the possibility of a baby then it only stands to reason that when they conceive while using BC they will try to rid themselves of the baby.
Asitis 9:04PM
I’m using your logic. I see cosmetic surgery as solving certain problems and saving our society a lot of money. I’m sure any number of people would agree with me. Certainly people wouldn’t abuse cosmetic surgery, only use it as a last resort.
Consider this, excerpt from a Planned Parenthood Houston and Southeas Texas (PPHSET) memo to clinic directors, explaining how to qualify clients for Title XX assistance: (The money is 1990 U.S. dollars so adjust for inflation.)
Example 2: An 18 year old patient states that she is a full time college student. She is part time employed with an average income of $50.00 per week. Her parents send her $150.00 per month for food. They also pay her tuition directly to the University. The student uses her summer employement savings of $2,000.00 to contribute to her monthly expenses. The studen calculates that she uses about $150.00 a month to meet her other expenses. The patient is wearing three gold necklaces, two rings with multiple stones, one has rubies and diamonds, and the other has a black onyx stone with diamonds. She also has a Guicci purse and an obviously new pair of leather shoes. She states that her father is a banker and earns $35,ooo.oo a year and her mother is part time employed with an income of $10,000.00 a year, the patient has two siblings.
Question: How is eligibility calculated and determined?
Answer: First and foremost, the patient is 18 years old, therefore she is a legal adult. Her parents and her siblings are disregarded in determining eligibility….This person would be Title XX eligible and assessed a co-pay of 20%.
—————————————————
Guess who picks up the tab for the other 80% of the inflated cost that is submitted to Medicaid for payment.
The U.S. taxpayer.
PP insists that 80% of the women who visit it’s clinics are economically disadvantaged or indigent and therefore in need of government assiatance. But while it is true that taxpayers foot the bill for 80% of all client visits to PP clinics, it is not true 80% of these clients are truly needy. Probabaly 90-95% of all non-Medcaid clients who receieve government funding for a visit to a PP clinic are not needy and are both willing and able to pay for the visit.
One reason for this apparent incongruity is that clients who pay cash for a particular service or benefit are billed significantly less than the amount that is submitted to Medicaid if the client is determined to be ‘eligible’.
For example a total of 30% of the women who went to PPHSET for a pregnancy test who paid cash were billed an average of $16.00 as opposed to 70% of the women who were deemed eligible for assistanc. Their average cost for a pregnancy test visit billed to the federal government was approximately $57.00 U.S. One reason the average cost is so much more is that the ‘assisted’ clients receive more goods and services than the clients who pay cash. The $57.00 figure does not include the clients cash co-pay.
If you are skeptical here is a link to a LA Times story.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/21/nation/na-abort21
TSTL, 9:06PM
So that means 42% to 44% weren’t using contraception.
asitis, how is Mary’s analogy any less applicable?
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 27, 2009 9:00 PM
Come on Eileen! (I’ve been dying to sing that!). The most obvious difference is that funding birth control for those in financial need is in society’s best interest.
Mary: I think women because stupid when the bought into the whole pill idea.
The pill has been an absolute god-send for men: no responsibility for their promiscuity, no need to marry because of the “why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free” attitude, no need to treat women with respect.
For women, it has meant “apparent” freedom from biology only to see women experience high rates of STI’s (with their more vulnerable open reproductive system), abortion, single motherhood, loss of respect by men, delayed motherhood and therefore reduced fertility, high rates of breast cancer and other cancers due to pill and multiple sexual partners and higher rates of depression and suicide.
Yup, we’ve come a long way, baby!
asitis, the large number of Catholics that have bought into artificial bc have done so because Church teaching was not widely disseminated and taught like it should have been but as I stated earlier the younger generations are seeing the beauty and freedom that is the Church and Her teachings (due in large part to JP II).
A couple contracepting does so because of one reason only – they do not WANT a baby, now or at any time in the near future.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 27, 2009 9:06 PM
That’s utter nonsense toostunned. Couples go off contraception at times to have a baby. Then they go back on. I did. Apparently you did. Happens all the time!
So that means 42% to 44% weren’t using contraception.
Posted by: Mary at January 27, 2009 9:11 PM
yes
so abortion was back-up birth control for one set and primary birth control for the other group.
so where is the problem? Not with contraceptives. Not with the baby. It’s with the sex. The sex is the problem and the attitude toward sex. Sex can never be just a recreational activity. Because it involves the possibility of bringing a new life into the world. And that is a very sacred thing.
***No sex until marriage. No unwanted baby.
***No sex until you are ready to be a parent and can take responsibility for that new life that might possibly come about. No unwanted baby.
It’s so simple but we just keep telling people that they are too weak, too stupid, too horny, too young, too old, too lazy.
Mary: I think women because stupid when the bought into the whole pill idea.
The pill has been an absolute god-send for men: no responsibility for their promiscuity, no need to marry because of the “why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free” attitude, no need to treat women with respect.
For women, it has meant “apparent” freedom from biology only to see women experience high rates of STI’s (with their more vulnerable open reproductive system), abortion, single motherhood, loss of respect by men, delayed motherhood and therefore reduced fertility, high rates of breast cancer and other cancers due to pill and multiple sexual partners and higher rates of depression and suicide.
Yup, we’ve come a long way, baby!
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 27, 2009 9:11 PM
Wow, so much to refute in there! Where to begin……
Asitis 9:11PM
Come on Asitis! Funding cosmetic surgery is in society’s best interest. Look at all the money saved on psychiatric drugs and counselling and divorces. Think of all that enhanced self esteem! Certainly this is obvious and very logical.
exactly, tstl …oh, the bigotry of low expectations…
Asitis, how about starting with “higher rates of depression and suicide.” It’s the easiest link to discount.
the large number of Catholics that have bought into artificial bc have done so because Church teaching was not widely disseminated and taught like it should have been but as I stated earlier the younger generations are seeing the beauty and freedom that is the Church and Her teachings (due in large part to JP II).
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 27, 2009 9:12 PM
yes it is also because we needed a different way of looking at sexuality and JP II provided that with his experiential way of looking at things.
Using scripture he looked at the way things were when God created man and the purpose of sexuality
quite different from philosophers before him.
TSTL 9:17PM
Some good points. Mainly contraception was available, my mother began use of it 65 years ago, and for some reason after January 1973 women became totally oblivious as to how to use it.
PIP,
I don’t want to pay for someone else’s birth control.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 27, 2009 1:01 PM
But you’re okay paying for their child to be born and raised? I’d rather pay for the birth control. I worked at Planned Parenthood today. Women who get the shot there pay $20 every three months. The average cost of birthing a baby is $10,000..
Mary, I like how you compare plastic surgery to birth control. You know why more women on bc effects everyone? If these women can’t afford birth control, they probably can’t afford their own children. Again, I’d rather pay for birth control than pay to raise someone’s child. Honestly, your plastic surgery example was just straight up dumb. Really, it didn’t make any sense at all.
Asitis, how about starting with “higher rates of depression and suicide.” It’s the easiest link to discount.
Posted by: prettyinpink at January 27, 2009 9:22 PM
Yeh, that’s one of them. But she’s heard it all before and I need to get to bed and she’s not going to get it anyway. The point is with toostunned is she thinks sex is for making babies as per God’s master plan, and any other kind of sex is bad. Anything, no matter how valid or not, that might boost her view that sex is bad is something she’ll run with. I’m not going to stop her. And it doesn’t matter, really.
PIP””Do you honestly believe that, without availability of birth control, abortion rates will decrease?”
when birth control was illegal there were less abortions. But the overall heath of society was ok back then. But now we live in an immoral, sick society, I’m not sure.
Yes, Mary, they are able to get the prescription but no one tells them how to use it!
Come on Asitis! Funding cosmetic surgery is in society’s best interest. Look at all the money saved on psychiatric drugs and counselling and divorces. Think of all that enhanced self esteem! Certainly this is obvious and very logical.
Posted by: Mary at January 27, 2009 9:20 PM
No, not very logical Mary. The money saved on drugs, counselling and divorce would be yours, not public funds. You’re going to have to do better than that.
Josephine 9:29PM
The argument that birth control and abortion will solve any problems is what’s flat up dumb.
Sure it sounds logical, but history has not proven this.
I’m only using my analogy to show the flawed logic, and I use that term loosely, of those who argue that social problems will be remedied by birth control and abortion.
I can just as “rationally” argue that government funded cosmetic surgery will solve social problems.
NFP is a behavioral contraception.
Hi Ken,
I’d be interested in why you think this is so?
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 27, 2009 8:43 PM
———————————————————
I am not making a moral or spiritual judgement on NFP. Just making the observation that implementing a planned strategy to avoid sex during a womens window of fertility is altering behavior to avoid conception. I could be wrong but that seems like a method of ‘contra’ ception to me.
At least I know Asitis is still reading my posts. And she agrees with some of my conclusions that encounter in my pursuit of the truth.
yor bro ken
PIP: let me help you here:
In “Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Endangers Every Student,” “Dr. Anonymous” wrote that the endemic problems mystifying educators and health professionals, are caused by the politically correct approval of rampant sexual promiscuity that characterizes college life. The book was released this week by Sentinel, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.
Young women in college in the US and Canada suffer from an epidemic of depression, eating disorders and even self-mutilation and suicidal thoughts and behavior. Campus health professionals, steeped in the politically correct doctrines of sexual “freedom” and feminist theory, fail even to acknowledge the existence of the real cause.
Dr. Anonymous, who chose to keep her identity secret out of fear of professional reprisal, identifies the damage done to women by the feminist ideology that proposes women are psychologically identical to men and encourages sexual promiscuity – as long as it is made “safe” with a condom.
Counsellors at college health centres focus on sexual orientation, molestation, cigarettes and caffeine. Campus doctors pester students about smoking, diet, and wearing sunscreen, but do nothing to stop sexual promiscuity and say little about the dangers of sexually transmitted infections. Abortion is treated only as a women’s rights issue and is rarely regarded as a psychological health risk.
Dr. Anonymous writes that the psychological field is still dominated by an irrational prejudice against religious faith that she calls “Theophobia,” that thwarts efforts to relieve women’s suffering.
***********************************************
Dr. Anonymous” — recently revealed to be Miriam Grossman, M.D., a psychiatrist working at UCLA — is author of a new book called Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Endangers Every Student . She recently took questions from NRO Editor Kathryn Lopez about the book at the dire state of campus life.
Kathryn Jean Lopez: How are America’s college students “unprotected”?
Dr. Grossman: I believe the false security engendered by the notion of “safer sex,” in an environment that promotes multiple casual encounters, endangers students.
Students are immersed in a campus culture in which sexual behavior is commonly detached from emotional commitment. Parents need to familiarize themselves with the terms “friends with benefits” and “hooking-up.” If your daughter has a friend with benefits, she is in a relationship that occasionally includes sex, but is without any expectation of commitment or exclusivity. If your son “hooks up,” he has sexual encounters in which there is no expectation of seeing one another again.
These behaviors are the norm on our campuses. Depending on the study, 40-80 percent of students “hook-up,” and by graduation, the average number of these nearly anonymous encounters is ten. Yet we wonder why so many young people suffer from depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and self-abuse.
A young woman is not warned that she is hard-wired to attach through sexual behavior, and that no condom will protect her from the heartache and confusion that may result. Also missing from her education is that the younger she is, the more vulnerable her system is to infection with a sexually transmitted virus or bacteria. Some of these organisms are transmitted even with condom use, and may have painful consequences even with timely diagnosis and treatment. This is information every incoming freshman must know; it will optimize her chances of staying emotionally and physically healthy as she navigates her way through the anything-goes campus environment.
Lopez: You write “Our job is not to proclaim whether abortion is good or bad; our job is to ask, and listen.” But aren’t you weighing in fairly heavily on the “bad” side when you write about it as you do?
Dr. Grossman: I want to highlight the existence of an invisible group: women (and men) with emotional scars from an abortion. They are out there in numbers; many must seek support from networks outside our mental-health system. This is because although individual practitioners may be sensitive to the trauma of abortion, the mental-health establishment denies it exists.
My concern here is not whether abortion is right or wrong. If anything is being judged, it’s the refusal of my profession to formally acknowledge and reach out to those who suffer with severe emotional disorders following an abortion. And mind you, these are professionals who are normally eager to identify and assist victims of all sorts of other traumas — be it child abuse, sexual harassment, or natural disasters.
We are told by Planned Parenthood and other women’s health groups that most women do fine following an abortion. I’m not denying that’s so. But if only one percent of the one million-plus girls and women getting abortions each year suffer severe emotional consequences, that’s still tens of thousands of people. I myself was unaware, prior to researching my book, of how horrifying an abortion might be under some circumstances, and how there may be long-lasting consequences. Again, not for all, but for some.
Lopez: What ought feminists take to heart about the health care of women on campus?
Dr. Grossman: I’d like to bring to the attention of those devoted to the welfare of all women, a group on our college campuses in need of recognition and advocacy: Young women who aspire to motherhood.
The plans of these young women, many of whom have dreamed of having babies since early childhood, are put at risk due to lack of accurate information about the optimal time to conceive and bear children. Many women devote years to their education, career, and other endeavors, believing they can postpone childbearing indefinitely. This misperception is fueled by well-publicized cases of celebrities bearing children later in life. What young women may not realize is that sometimes these infants are not related genetically to their moms, and that the cost of creating these children is prohibitive. Furthermore, egg-freezing companies prey on vulnerable women to invest thousands in a procedure questioned by experts. Campus-health and counseling centers are in an ideal position to counter these misperceptions and provide accurate biological information and guidance. Women’s groups should be at the forefront of this effort.
*********************************************
of course in the end it doesn’t really matter what I post: the liberals on this board are so close minded nothing will convince them that their way of life may be have negative consequences for vast numbers of women AND men
at least you can’t ever say, no one never told ya so!
asitis,
one uses the naturally built-in infertile period that a woman experiences monthly as God designed it if they have a serious reason for avoiding a pregnancy.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 27, 2009 9:06 PM
Really Eileen? A “serious reason for avoiding pregnancy”? How many times have you avoided having sex during days when you were fertile? What were these SERIOUS reasons? I don’t need you to tell me. Just something you should think about. Toostunned too. I believe she has 4 children. That’s a lot of SERIOUS reasons in between.
Asitis,
Come on! The money saved would be medicaid and medicare funded anti depressant drugs and counselling. Also divorce can result in financial ruin for people and more people likely on public assistance of some kind.
Hey, give me a facelift, tummy tuck, and a few other unmentionable procedures and I’ll save the state a bundle in medicare anti depressant costs and possible public assistance resulting from divorce.
Think of the money saved on an even large scale.
Its so logical and obvious.
of course in the end it doesn’t really matter what I post: the liberals on this board are so close minded nothing will convince them that their way of life may be have negative consequences for vast numbers of women AND men
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 27, 2009 9:37 PM
Yeh, we’re still waiting for some sound research to show that it’s a real issue.
As for it not mattering what you say, I was referring in the grand scheme of things. Yours is a small voice. Your view of sexuality is atypical and really has no effect on the rest of us who feel differently. That’s all I meant.
My conscience is clear asitis, I don’t have to think about it. If you want to really think about then why don’t you read any one of the commentaries or explanations of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.
My conscience is clear asitis, I don’t have to think about it. If you want to really think about then why don’t you read any one of the commentaries or explanations of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 27, 2009 9:45 PM
No, those aren’t for me Eileen. But thanks anyway
Ken: I am not making a moral or spiritual judgement on NFP. Just making the observation that implementing a planned strategy to avoid sex during a womens window of fertility is altering behavior to avoid conception. I could be wrong but that seems like a method of ‘contra’ ception to me.
well you are making a judgement here to some extent. As Eileen said it means every day, looking at the wife’s fertility symptoms and deciding to cooperate with God and to be open to the possibility of life.
If there is a serious reason to avoid conceiving then the couple abstains from sexual intercourse. A couple open to the will of God and having the grace of God to live their marriage vows in a sacrificial way would be able to determine in a conscientious manner what constitutes a serious reason.
And yes, you are right NFP can be used contra-ceptively. In fact, I have taught couples who have later expressed that their prime reason in learning the method was to have a “natural” method of contraception! I was not pleased to say the least.
At any rate it is quite clear to me that the majority of Catholic couples simply do not have the children God intended them to have. And it is quite clear that not all these couples can have serious reasons nor do they have fertility problems.
This aspect of marriage certainly needs to be addressed within the Catholic church and within society as a whole. I think priests have to get over their reluctance to tell couples that they need to be more open to children and more sacrificial in they way they live out their vows.
TSTL, why use NFP if you aren’t going to, well, use it? If its not for prevention of pregnancy then what are you doing all of it for?
Posted by: asitis at January 27, 2009 9:37 PM
Really Eileen? A “serious reason for avoiding pregnancy”? How many times have you avoided having sex during days when you were fertile? What were these SERIOUS reasons? I don’t need you to tell me. Just something you should think about. Toostunned too. I believe she has 4 children. That’s a lot of SERIOUS reasons in beween.
——————————————————
Asitis,
The same insight into a woman’s reproductive cycle can be used to ‘enhance’ the probabilities of conception. You can even use that information to enhance the probablity of conceivng a child of a particular gender.
You are assuming that women only use NFP to avoid conception. Some women actually desire pregnacy and motherhood. They view it as something extra special.
The information is available and free. What women choose to do with it is up to them and the light that guides their path.
I am not a new ager either.
yor bro ken
My conscience is clear asitis, I don’t have to think about it. If you want to really think about then why don’t you read any one of the commentaries or explanations of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 27, 2009 9:45 PM
Eileen there will always be a terrible reluctance on the part of many women to consider this teaching.
It is a “hard teaching” and it takes an open mind and a great deal of courage to look into this.
I know personally of couples who, when confronted with immorality of their situation (these were sterilized couples or couples on the BC pill) were initially very angry and hostile. However, in watching families who are living out the theology of the body and seeing the difference in the marriages and the quality of family life, they gradually came to understand how they had been misled and how the pill was harmful to the wife’s entire make-up and to their marriage. Many of these couples had what they considered “good” marriages. It takes guts to confront yourself like this and I have nothing but admiration for them!
Mary,
Many, MANY people don’t have a problem with birth control funding being part of a stimulus package. I’m fairly certain the same couldn’t be said when talking about government funded plastic surgery.
However, just so you know… some day, I’ll probably have some type of cosmetic surgery that your taxes will pay for. The US Army provides me with a free plastic surgery.
TSTL, why use NFP if you aren’t going to, well, use it? If its not for prevention of pregnancy then what are you doing all of it for?
Posted by: prettyinpink at January 27, 2009 9:55 PM
This I gotta hear…..
I know personally of couples who, when confronted with immorality of their situation (these were sterilized couples or couples on the BC pill) were initially very angry and hostile.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 27, 2009 9:57 PM
Well, I guess that would be something to deal with if you happened to believe contraception to be immoral!
If you are skeptical here is a link to a LA Times story.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/21/nation/na-abort21
Posted by: kbhvac at January 27, 2009 9:08 PM
——————————————————-
My apologies. That is not the correct link. The LA Times ran a story about PP Californication and Medicare/Medicaid fraud on March 7, 2008.
P. Victor Gonzales, a former PP employee had filed a wrongull dismissal lawsuit against when he was terminated after raising concerns about billing practices. I can’t find my way into the LA Times archives.
yor bro ken
“At any rate it is quite clear to me that the majority of Catholic couples simply do not have the children God intended them to have. And it is quite clear that not all these couples can have serious reasons nor do they have fertility problems.”
Shouldn’t they let God deal with that? Who are you to tell people they should be having more babies??
TSTL, why use NFP if you aren’t going to, well, use it? If its not for prevention of pregnancy then what are you doing all of it for?
Posted by: prettyinpink at January 27, 2009 9:55 PM
good question! well for one thing you can track you cycles and it does help you space pregnancies for health reasons.
The Catholic church doesn’t tell women that they must have 25 children or that they have to have a baby every year! The church is quite reasonable about this. It recognizes that the mother and baby need some time together and the needs of the current baby need to be met.
Therefore, a woman could chart after her periods resume while breastfeeding. There is nothing wrong with waiting until the current baby is a bit older and mom has recovered from the demands of childbirth, babycare and nursing. And for each woman that will be different.
Many women get to know their bodies very very well after some years of charting. This is useful for any problems the come up, say, after childbirth, during nursing, in perimenopause and around menopause. So in this way NFP is very helpful. Doctors are quite amazed when you go in with the charts. In fact, they often are quite stunned at the information and the understanding these women have about their bodies.
And many women who are very open to having children after a while simply stop using NFP. They have a more laisse-faire attitude that comes with having a larger family.
I have a friend who used NFP to help her get through a few extra months of nursing before conceiving again and but who for the most part, stopped charting until her 40’s. She resumed charting in her 40’s because she was getting pregnant and miscarrying frequently. Obviously this is NOT a good thing to keep doing. So they decided that this was a situation where NFP would be used to avoid conceiving. Basically her body was telling her it could conceive but could not maintain the pregnancies at considerable health risk to herself.
not sure if I answered your question.
Josephine 9:59PM
I can’t understand why when its so obvious and logical that cosmetic surgery would solve so many problems and save so much money.
Anyway Josie, after the service you have given our country, I would be more than delighted to fund any cosmetic surgery you see fit to have.
I’m hope you and our other servicepeople ever won’t be in a government run rathole VA hospital like my father was.
Posted by: Josephine at January 27, 2009 9:58 PM
However, just so you know… some day, I’ll probably have some type of cosmetic surgery that your taxes will pay for. The US Army provides me with a free plastic surgery.
—————————————————-
Josie,
When you enlisted into the U.S. Army you entered into a contract with the U.S. government. The cosmetic surgery as you described is one of the conditions of the contract. They will also fund your education during and after your enlistment. It is not a gift it is an earned benefit.
The United States government has not entered into a contract with civilian women to guarantee them access to ‘elective surgery. It is not a right, nor is it an entitlement.
yor bro ken
Good grief am I tripping over my tongue!(10:12PM)
TSTL,
That’s really interesting information, thanks!
Shouldn’t they let God deal with that? Who are you to tell people they should be having more babies??
Posted by: prettyinpink at January 27, 2009 10:09 PM
the Christian community doesn’t operate like that PIP.
and interestingly neither do couples who have been sterilized. In a very strange way that I don’t understand these couples often “out” themselves deliberately. That is they tell you that they are “fixed”. I am not sure quite why this is done. It is often done in a bragging and rather vulgar manner and quite publicly too.
Perhaps there is something inside them that knows this is really against their nature.
A few have volunteered the information with the intent of seeking guidance – some times they have been told by a priest or counsellor or physician that this is ok.
I personally know of at least 6 couples who are sterilized. In not one case is the wife content with this situation. I truly feel for these couples.
But I also know of others who have had reversals and have had “second families” and experienced a wonderful rejuvenation of their marriages!
TSTL,
That’s really interesting information, thanks!
Posted by: prettyinpink at January 27, 2009 10:17 PM
hey that’s great! I have to go now. ttyl
tstl
Did any of your students ever use NFP to enhance the probility of conception?
yor bro ken
tstl
Did any of your students ever use NFP to enhance the probility of conception?
yor bro ken
Posted by: kbhvac at January 27, 2009 10:20 PM
yes! absolutely
the most awesome thing I can say about NFP is when you do your first chart and you see how your body works – it is absolutely amazing!
You realize what a gift your body truly is and I think men tend to view a woman’s body in a different way too!
tstl,
Thank you for answering my question. Just tonight I realized I had a subtle bias about NFP. Not the rightness or the wrongness, but the notion that it is only used to ‘prevent’ conception.
I had not considered until I wrote that little bit, that people actually use it to conceive.
You have also enlightened me to some of the other benefits that have nothing to do with conception.
I appreciate your insight and your wisdom.
May you be like Shiphra and Puah. May the LORD establish households through you, by you and for you.
yor bro ken
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 27, 2009 9:50 PM
At any rate it is quite clear to me that the majority of Catholic couples simply do not have the children God intended them to have. And it is quite clear that not all these couples can have serious reasons nor do they have fertility problems.
——————————————————
The anti-motherhood/anti-child bias is subtle and pervasive in the world, in our nation, and in the body of Christ.
Please forgive me, but I have determined as best I can not to acknowledge denominational labels. My desire is to only see the body and the bride of Christ.
I see you as an irreplaceable and invaluable member.
yor bro ken
Well I guess I will give the late night benediction at the yall come back saloon:
Now the Lord said to Moses, “Tell Aaron and his sons that they are to give this special blessing to the people of Israel:
‘May the Lord bless and protect you; may the Lord’s face radiate with joy because of you;
may he be gracious to you, show you his favor, and give you his peace.’
This is how Aaron and his sons shall call down my blessings upon the people of Israel; and I myself will personally bless them.”
As it is written so shall it be.
yor bro ken
“At any rate it is quite clear to me that the majority of Catholic couples simply do not have the children God intended them to have. And it is quite clear that not all these couples can have serious reasons nor do they have fertility problems.”
You know what– I’m a woman. I’m twenty years old, I’m in a stable relationship. I never, ever, ever want kids. I hate them. I still teach gymnastics classes when I have some free time. I can’t stand any of the kids. When I do competitions… same thing. Can’t stand any of the kids… working at the hospital, I do sometime because they’re sick and I feel bad for sick people. Even then though, most of the time I’m annoyed with them and think they’re being babies.
Seriously, do you really think people like me should be having kids? I certaintly don’t. I’d be a TERRIBLE mother. I just DON’T like kids.
There are LOTS of other people like me. There’s no reason for everyone to have kids if they just don’t want them. It’s nothing about money or selfishness… it’s about just not liking the darn things.
Josephine and FedUp,
Quit telling nme the statistics are out there just search for them. I did. And I did not find them. If they are then please provide a link to where I can find the number of time the people in the study had sex in the year where the Depo was 99.7% effective. If you can’t provide a link, then admit you can’t find it either. For all we know the people in this study may not have been sexually active and they using the shot for other medical reasons. And wouldn;t that make for a “perfect” study for the drug company to advertise effectiveness.
bro ken,
May the almighty and merciful Lord bless you and keep you.
Haha truthseeker. I “bought into” that effectiveness crap over 20 years ago and it’s proven to be 100% effective in my case. But then again, I use it properly and always.
Posted by: asitis at January 27, 2009 9:52 AM
Asitis, then you can volunteer to be a part of our study group. How many time have you had intercourse with a fertile man in the past twenty years?
Just your best guess would be fine. Also, have you always used the same birth control for twenty years?
thank-you ken
I think most people aren’t aware of the benefits of NFP mainly because it’s been slammed so frequently in the media as the “rhythm method” which it most definitely is not.
PP has a vested interest in couples being ignorant of their bodies and resorting to bio-chemical warfare on themselves and their children.
Liberal ideologues have a vested interest in couples being ignorant of NFP because it furthers their social agenda. NFP requires the commitment of marriage and we all know how enslaving marriage can be to women!!
“PP has a vested interest in couples … resorting to bio-chemical warfare on themselves”
LOL, nice line.
The same insight into a woman’s reproductive cycle can be used to ‘enhance’ the probabilities of conception. You can even use that information to enhance the probablity of conceivng a child of a particular gender.
You are assuming that women only use NFP to avoid conception. Some women actually desire pregnacy and motherhood. They view it as something extra special.
yor bro ken
Posted by: kbhvac at January 27, 2009 9:57 PM
Thankfully, the latter point is now starting to be recognized by some social scientists and doctors such as Dr. Grossman.
Imagine women actually desiring to have babies! What a novel idea this must be to feminists!
thanks Bobby ….:-D
tstl and ken — awesome, awesome posts! Thanks!
Imagine women actually desiring to have babies! What a novel idea this must be to feminists!
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 28, 2009 7:03 AM
Actually, almost all the women I know do want babies!
Tstl, thanks for the explanation of NFP. It is unique in that it is used as both as contraception (no matter what the reasons, “serious” or not) and to promote conception.
And it’s very similar to what most women do once they stop their contraception and try to get pregnant. I didn’t have to resort to any record keeping since I was fortunate enough to get pregnant both times the sceond month after stopping the pill, but I do know women that have to wait longer and pay closer attention.
Oops! Anon was me
Asitis, then you can volunteer to be a part of our study group. How many time have you had intercourse with a fertile man in the past twenty years?
Posted by: truthseeker at January 28, 2009 1:46 AM
Just your best guess would be fine. Also, have you always used the same birth control for twenty years?
Posted by: truthseeker at January 28, 2009 1:48 AM
Best guess? I don’t know. 2000 times? 3000 times?
And yes, same birth control for 20 years.
dang! me again
What is WITH me this morning? Must be the Snow Day!
Those were me!
Jasper: When women are shooting themselves up in the ass with steroids to avoid getting pregnant, you know we have a problem.
:: laughing ::
My man!
and #2 is about 26 weeks and due in early May,/i>
HOLY COW Bobby I didn’t know.
You guys ain’t messin’ around… Congratulations.
I know a lot of cool people born in May.
I know a lot of cool people born in May.
Posted by: Doug at January 28, 2009 8:43 AM
I’m a May baby, Doug!
Bobby, congratulations. May babies ARE cool! ;)
“dang! me again
Posted by: Anonymous at January 28, 2009 7:46 AM”
Oh Anonymous was the one who posted as Anonymous. Thanks for clarifying. :) (hehe, just teasing)
“You guys ain’t messin’ around… Congratulations.”
Thanks Doug. I can’t wait to walk around campus as a student carrying two children and “advertise” what I think is most important in life.
The argument that birth control and abortion will solve any problems is what’s flat up dumb.
Mary, Holy Crow….
If the problem is an unwanted pregnancy, abortion most certainly does solve that one.
If the problem is that women are getting pregnant without wanting to, then obviously birth control prevents a LOT of those.
asitis: I’m a May baby, Doug!
Ha! (Told you I knew a lot of cool people born in May.)
Other than you, my wife, my dad, a sister-in-law, Al Pacino, etc….
Jasper: when birth control was illegal there were less abortions.
Yeah, but Dude – it’s not 1940 anymore. The genie isn’t going back in the bottle.
To borrow your word, if birth control is made illegal, there will be an absolute assload of unwanted pregnancies above and beyond what there are now.
I can’t wait to walk around campus as a student carrying two children and “advertise” what I think is most important in life.
Right on, Bobby. No way I can gainsay you.
My mother-in-law had four kids in a time span of 2 years, 11 months.
May 1961
May 1962
April 1963
April 1964
asitis: I’m a May baby, Doug!
Ha! (Told you I knew a lot of cool people born in May.)
Other than you, my wife, my dad, a sister-in-law, Al Pacino, etc….
Posted by: Doug at January 28, 2009 8:55 AM
… my sister, my mother-in-law, George Clooney….
To borrow your word, if birth control is made illegal, there will be an absolute assload of unwanted pregnancies above and beyond what there are now.
Posted by: Doug at January 28, 2009 8:57 AM
Not to mention hell would be frozen over and HEY!watch out for that flying pig!
Thanks Doug. I can’t wait to walk around campus as a student carrying two children and “advertise” what I think is most important in life.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at January 28, 2009 8:50 AM
That’s awesome Bobby.
I remember a student at my school who had a young daughter who rode around campus on the back of his bike. Everyone noticed them. She was adorable and he was a doting, young, single dad (not to mention drop-dead gorgeous).
asitis,
the difference between artificial bc and NFP is that with artificial bc you are completely closed off to new life — you are rendering every act of marital love sterile. With NFP you are using your naturally occurring infertile times. The Church recognizes that there are serious reasons for postponing or avoiding a pregnancy (health or economic reasons, for example). They also recognize that the bonding that occurs between a husband and wife is a good thing. But all of this must take into account that God is apart of this covenant between husband and wife. They are co-creators with God. The marital embrace — the unencumbered giving of self to the other is an icon of what God desires with the soul — union. G
asitis,
the difference between artificial bc and NFP is that with artificial bc you are completely closed off to new life — you are rendering every act of marital love sterile.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 28, 2009 9:38 AM
Eileen, taking artifial birth control doesn’t necessarily mean you are completely closed off to new life. It means you want to have sex without getting pregnant. When you do do want to get pregnant, you simply go off the birth control.
The difference with NFP is that you stop having sex when you are fertile to avoid getting pregnant. When the risk is not there, you resume having sex. When you do want to get pregnant, you have sex when you are fertile rather than abstaining.
Doug 8:52am
I was referring to the mentality, long proven incorrect, that abortion is going to solve social problems.
Sure it may solve a personal problem. So can hiring a professional killer or embezzling money.
By the way, aren’t you glad your mother in law didn’t abort your wife?
I think those who want children should only adopt 18 year olds and then ‘break their plate’ and tell them it is time to get out and make it on their own.
Problem is I have 5 children, 4 of whom are now over 18 and still at home. But the four oldest are working and going to college. My wife wants to keep the youngest her baby forever. She gets annoyed with me when I suggest the ‘baby’ should get a job close enough to the house that she can walk to work.
We once had 3 dogs in our back yard, none of which were mine. Two have gone the way of all things. The remaining canine belongs to my oldest daughter.
Life begins when the kids leave hone and the(last) dog dies or goes with them. I love my kids, but yes, I am a little bit ‘selfish’.
yor bro ken
I was referring to the mentality, long proven incorrect, that abortion is going to solve social problems.
Mary, beyond the straw man arguments, we don’t know how much worse things would be without legal abortion.
…..
By the way, aren’t you glad your mother in law didn’t abort your wife?
I’d never have met her. That’s one of those unanswerable questions. If history could be changed, would we be happier or sadder? We often don’t know.
That said, of course I’m glad she’s here, in the here and now. You’d have to be pretty darn dissatisfied with the way things are to feel otherwise.
Who knows – there may have been some really nasty buggers that would have resulted had certain women not had abortions…..
Ken, it’s a social phenomenon these days – kids staying at home longer and longer.
I’d certainly think the economy argues for this trend continuing a while.
‘I can’t wait to walk around campus as a student carrying two children and “advertise” what I think is most important in life.’
—————————————————–
Bobby, When my used to go grocery shopping she would always have at least two shopping carts. One for the groceries and one to put the kids in.
I did not like grocery shopping, but it was fun to see the wrinkled noses and knitted brows and shaking heads of the people who were so displeased that one woman would have so many children.
So people were actually so disgusted by the spectacle they would say mean things. This was in the liberal bastion of Washington State. One one woman asked my wife if those were all her kids? My wife said, Not yet.
I thought the lady was going to go apoplectic. Her eyes bulged and she gasped for air, stunned speechless, she walked away.
Liberal tree hugging environmentalist humanist are so sensitive and tolerant and kind.
“They can talk and talk and talk about us
and smile when we walk by.
I can tell that they’ve been talkin bout us,
by the look that’s in their eye.
So we bid them a fine good mornin,
and smile when we pass by.
And we cuddle up a little bit closer,
as we walk into the sun.
Blow on chilly wind,
I have a real high collar.
(cant remember the next line)
It worth a many a dollar.
Jonathan Edwards (I believe) circa the late 70’s
yor bro ken
Doug, 10:48am
That argument is absurd. Things maybe would be worse without legal abortion. Doug, social problems were supposed to be markedly improved.
That’s like the corrupt and inept police chief who argues a serious crime problem would be so much worse if not for him.
I’m sure your wife is glad her mother didn’t abort her!
About the nasty buggers. Maybe any number of scientists, artists, musicians, doctors, nurses, teachers etc. have also been eliminated by abortion.
it was fun to see the wrinkled noses and knitted brows and shaking heads of the people who were so displeased that one woman would have so many children.
So people were actually so disgusted by the spectacle they would say mean things. This was in the liberal bastion of Washington State.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 10:50 AM
Surprising. I grew up as one of eight, and we never encountered that. At times we did/do stand out given our numbers and resemblance, but never in a bad way.
Unless it’s apparent that the children are not receiving the care and love they need and are not being provided for, I don’t see why anyone would show disgust for a family of five.
Ken, it’s a social phenomenon these days – kids staying at home longer and longer.
I’d certainly think the economy argues for this trend continuing a while.
Posted by: Doug at January 28, 2009 10:50 AM
I would agree Doug that the economy may increase this trend as parents might not be able to help kids live away from home while at college and garduates may be unable to get jobs.
Beyond that, this trend is something new since I was in my 20’s. We couldn’t wait to live on our own even if it meant sharing rent with others, not having cable TV, going to the laundromat, riding the bus or walking everywhere… I often hear from parents that it’s too expensive for kids to live on their own now when they first graduate. I wonder if it’s because the kids can’t imagine doing these things?
To our own loss, we set the bar of expectation way too low in many different areas, not just for our own children, but for our fellow man/woman and even for ourselves.
yor bro ken
ken,
it is truly a sad thing that people feel that way.
Who knows – there may have been some really nasty buggers that would have resulted had certain women not had abortions…..
Posted by: Doug at January 28, 2009 10:48 AM
That is just it — we don’t know and it doesn’t make it any more right to condone abortion.
I am and was a socialally arrested adolescent. I failed to launch multiple times. Even after I was able to reach escape velocity, I now seem to be in a decaying orbit.
I had to do a spell check on ‘adolscent’. I was not sure if that ‘c’ belonged in there. I have joked that when my kids were young they ‘stunk’ as in an upleasant ‘odor’. Then they learned to care for their own personal hygiene. But when they reached their teen years they started to stink again, particularly my son.
Maybe that is why that ‘c’ is in adolscent.
yor bro ken
But when they reached their teen years they started to stink again, particularly my son.
Maybe that is why that ‘c’ is in adolscent.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 11:23 AM
Thanks for the smile Ken! I can so relate to that with two of my own!
And hockey doesn’t help!
I remember reading in a piece of republican propaganda that Senator Ted Kennedy is americas oldest juvenile delinquent. Not that is an example of ‘arresetd adolescence’.
I pray that he lives a long time, long enough to grow up to be whatever it is he was intended to be, and in the fullness of time he dies in full health.
yor bro ken
I have the day off due to icy conditions on the roadways. There is not a cloud in the sky, the sun is shining brightly, but at 9am it was 21 degrees F.
I have the opportunity to use the 4wheel drive on my 1987 Chevy Suburban with 4 speed manual transmission (first is really granny gear) and manual locking hubs. 350 cubic inches electronically injected V8 low throated throbbing mechanical manhood. When I rev the engine the ‘rice rocket’ imports roll over on their backs in involuntary submission and wet themselves. Only 120,000 original miles.
Drive defensively. Own a tank.
Actually, I hardly ever drive the ‘beast’. I have a company vehicle. My wife is the primary pilot. But now that the three oldest kids all have their own cars the ‘beast’ stays in it’s stall many days at a time.
yor bro ken
That argument is absurd. Things maybe would be worse without legal abortion. Doug, social problems were supposed to be markedly improved.
Mary, what’s absurd is to maintain that since a given problem has not been totally “cured” by abortion being legal, that there is something necessarily “bad” about legal abortion therefore.
…..
That’s like the corrupt and inept police chief who argues a serious crime problem would be so much worse if not for him.
Or the best police chief in the world arguing it.
Ken, I think Teddy has come quite a ways.
Gone are the days of him being “big, drunk, pink and hairy” and chasing girls around on the beach.
I have observed that my daughters are a little more concerned with their appearance than my son. They were also a little easier on the ‘beast’ when they were learning to drive so I was spared some mechanical expense, but that savings was consumed in the purchases of paper products.
Then there is the prospect of upcoming marriages.
Seriously, would some of you generous folks consider contributing some money to my daughters marriage funds. In kind contributions greatfully accepted. Cash donations accepted. Will take pesos and Canadian currency.
Will work for…….Will sing for supper.
yor bro ken
“Who knows – there may have been some really nasty buggers that would have resulted had certain women not had abortions…..”
Eileen: That is just it — we don’t know and it doesn’t make it any more right to condone abortion.
Nor wrong. We actually do know that some “bad” people as well as some “good” ones aren’t on earth because some women had abortions. We don’t know how a given baby would turn out, but we do know that not all pregnancies are wanted.
Posted by: Doug at January 28, 2009 11:58 AM
Gone are the days of him being “big, drunk, pink and hairy” and chasing girls around on the beach.
—————————————————–
and, hopefully, not abandoning them in sunken cars to drown.
Larry Craig v Ted Kennedy
eeny meeny miney moe.
yor bro ken
We couldn’t wait to live on our own even if it meant sharing rent with others, not having cable TV, going to the laundromat, riding the bus or walking everywhere… I often hear from parents that it’s too expensive for kids to live on their own now when they first graduate. I wonder if it’s because the kids can’t imagine doing these things?
Asitis, I’m sure that is operative for many people. Many teenagers have had comparitive “luxury” versus how most teens had it even a few decades ago, and that, like the lifestyle of many families, has become increasingly exspensive.
FWIW I think there’s going to be a real darkening of the social mood and popular culture as economic reality hits home.
Ken, Larry Craig is hilarious.
Bobby Bambino,
Neat old song from the 70’s I am sure you have not heard. Worth downloading the mp3.
yor bro ken
—————————————————-
G
They can talk and talk and talk about us
C G
And smile when we go by
G
And I know that they’ve been talking ’bout us
D G
By the look that is in their eyes
C G
So we bid them a fine good morning
C G
Let them get back to their fun
G
And we cuddle up a little bit closer
D G
And we walk into the sun
Em
Blow on chilly wind
G
I’ve got a real high collar
C
That’s worth many a dollar
D G
So I don’t feel a thing
G
Tell me can’t you feel the blessing on us
C G
We have a love that’s true
G
It’s a sword and shield this blessing on us
D G
It’s a lamp to lead us through
C G
Now the flame may weave and flicker
C G
But the lamp burns on and on
Cause we have a God who’s our Father
D G
Yes, when others god’s are gone
Em
Blow on chilly wind
G
I’ve got a real high collar
C
That’s worth many a dollar
D G
So I don’t feel a thing
G
Blow on chilly wind
solo
G Em
Blow on chilly wind
G
I’ve got a real high collar
C
That’s worth many a dollar
D G
So I don’t feel a thing
From Jonathan Edwards “Sailboat”
Warner Brothers 1977
I pray that he lives a long time, long enough to grow up to be whatever it is he was intended to be, and in the fullness of time he dies in full health.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 11:28 AM
Very sadly Ken, that isn’t going to happen with his cancer.
Seriously, would some of you generous folks consider contributing some money to my daughters marriage funds. In kind contributions greatfully accepted. Cash donations accepted. Will take pesos and Canadian currency.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 11:59 AM
Haha! Hope you can sing.
But seriously ken, when the time comes, why don’t you suggest the groom’s side pay half? And keep it all within means.
Larry Craig v Ted Kennedy
eeny meeny miney moe.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 12:06 PM
Oh that’s too easy ken. It’s Larry – he’s the ‘mo! Despite his claims to the contrary!
FWIW I think there’s going to be a real darkening of the social mood and popular culture as economic reality hits home.
Posted by: Doug at January 28, 2009 12:07 PM
If by that you mean people will start consuming less and appreciating what they have and not expecting so much then I think that’s one good thing to come of all this.
Doug 11:55am
I didn’t say “cured”, I said “markedly improved”.
The best police chief in the world would markedly improve the crime rate, he wouldn’t make the ridiculous argument to citizens that if not for his leadership a serious crime problem would be so much worse.
eeny meeny miney moe.
I’m still laughing Ken. I don’t know if that was intentional… but it was good!
Quit telling nme the statistics are out there just search for them. I did. And I did not find them. If they are then please provide a link to where I can find the number of time the people in the study had sex in the year where the Depo was 99.7% effective. If you can’t provide a link, then admit you can’t find it either.
Truthseeker, I believe your questions, at least initially, were about the source of the data and “who was in the control group.” I referred you to sites where you can find out more about past and present research.
You can read the reports yourself to determine if frequency of intercourse or the day of the cycle during which intercourse occurred was data they collected. You can determine for yourself if controls were used and whether they included women on a different form of BC or no BC. I have neither the time nor the interest to go delving into depo data for you.
If by “statistics,” you mean effectiveness rates, then those are pretty easy to find online. As someone else pointed out, these are sometimes presented as the effectiveness that can be expected with typical use and the maximum effectiveness rate that can be expected if the regimen is followed perfectly.
One of the questions you posted was “Tell me how do they take into account the number of times a person has intercourse etc.?”
That’s a question for the researchers, TS, not for me. I have NO DATA to back up my hunch, but I suspect if depo or any other hormonal contraceptive was only effective for people having sex a certain number of times, you’d hear more about it. My hunch is that you aren’t finding the answers you want because the frequency of sex wasn’t statistically significant in overall effectiveness rates. Ask Asistis to look at her package insert. I’m willing to bet it doesn’t say something like “not recommended for women who have sex more than three times weekly.”
Believe it or not I am on your side in the fight to end abortion :-) Research data on contraceptives is out there. Only you can decide for yourself if the study was rigorous enough and asked the right questions to make you comfortable accepting the results.
Ask Asistis to look at her package insert. I’m willing to bet it doesn’t say something like “not recommended for women who have sex more than three times weekly.”
Posted by: Fed Up at January 28, 2009 12:57 PM
Truthseeker I just did as Fed Up suggested and I can tell you there’s a whole lot of info they give in the insert about effectiveness, considerations, risks, side effects, how to use….
It states that when taken properly, there is a less than 1.0% chance of getting pregnant. Chance of becoming pregnant increases with each missed pill in a cycle.Typical failure rates
are less than 3.0% per year. This is compared to 1-9% perfect use and 25% typical use effectiveness for periodic abstinence.
For birth control pills I don’t think frequency of sex would be a factor in effectiveness. Probably would be for natural birth control though.
Does that help you?
I can’t wait to walk around campus as a student carrying two children and “advertise” what I think is most important in life.
Bobby you will be a great advertisement for theology of the body!
Very sadly Ken, that isn’t going to happen with his cancer.
Posted by: asitis at January 28, 2009 12:18 PM
—————————————————-
That is what you ‘believe’ and what you believe may prove to be correct.
I will relate just one personal experiences to you that I ‘know’ to be true. One of my sister doc’s physician former colleagues was behavingly oddly and they medical group administrators they worked for discovered he had prescribed himself some ‘non barbituate/narcotic’ pain relievers for the head aches he had been experiencing. Under the terms of his employment contract they required him enroll in a substance abuse program in Arizona. While he was there he suffered a massive stroke. (He was less than 50 years old.) Fortunately, there were other phyicians enrolled with him and they diagnosed his condition very quickly. He received life saving treatment very quickly. After he was stabilized, he was carefighted back to Fort Worth, Texas.)
It was then that my sister told me of Dr. Jims condition. I had met Jim before, but I did not know him well.
I went to visit Jim in the hospital. When I arrived at his room Jim’s wife was standing by his bed. Jim was very agitated and restless. He could not talk or stand. I asked Jim’s wife if I could speak with him. She said yes. Then she said, Jim, Ken is here, do you remember Ken. Jim shook is head in the affirmative.
So I said, Jim, do you know what the shortest verse in the bible is. It is just two words, ‘Jesus, wept.’
‘Jim if it was OK for Jesus to cry, then you can too.’
Immediately, Jim began to weep and he calmed down. I do not recall doing or saying anything else.
I went back later that same evening and Jim was sitting up in bed watching TV and his wife was standing at his side. His wife said she had to go home but I was welcome to stay and visit.
I stayed for a while, but Jim was still adled. He would begin to utter a thought, speak few clearly understandable words, then change the subject completely, utter a few words, then change again. It was almost comical.
I stayed for a while then I left and went home.
My wife and I went back the next day. Jim’s condition was the same. His wife said that the doctors prognosis was not good. They said Jim would never improve because the damage to his brain was too severe. They recomended that Jim be institutionalized.
My wife and I shared with Jim’s wife, (I will call her Jill) of two other people that we had known personally that had sufferred severe head injuries. One was a teenage girl who was struck by a full sized van and the other was a young man in his early 20’s who had been hit in the head with a 2″ diameter steel cable on a logging site. The same neurologist treated both people, and gave the same diagnosis and prognosis to both sets of parents. Irreparable damage, no hope of survival, they will die, pull the plug now, do not prolong the inevitable. The neurologists was probably correct according to his training and experience.
Long story short. Both sets of parents said no.
Give them every chance to live.
My wife and I and many others fasted and prayed for both those people. They both survived. They both still have some disability, but they both are living productive lives.
Jill said to me and my wife, ‘You are the only ones who have offerred any hope to me for my husbands recovery.
We prayed for Jim. We were not the only ones. After rehabilitation Jim went home, not home to be with God. Home to his house in Fort Worth.
I was in the neighborhood one day so I phoned Jill and asked if I could come by and visit with Jim. She said sure, come on by.
When I knocked on the door Jim answered. He invited me in and led me into the den where we sat and talked. Jim remembered me from my time working on his A/C.
I told him I had visited him when he was in the hospital and he said I don’t remember that. I said I did not expect that you would, but I do believe you will remember these two words, “Jesus wept.” He said I do.
Jim is no longer able to practice medicine. He has some memory and vision deficits. But Jim is fully capable of being a husband, father, and grand father and friend and he is enjoying the experience.
I know one other guy Dick Andrews. Met him in Washington State. After Federal Judge Barbara Rothsteen made peaceful non-violent protest against abortion impossible, she made the inevitable probable in Washington. Dick torched a few abortion clinics, was tried and sentenced to seven years in prison. I had already moved away to Texas and did not find out about Dick’s imprisonment till years later. While Dick was still incarcerated he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. At some point they put him on a morphine drip for the pain and pushed him over to the corner to die. Dick experienced a ‘spontaneous remission’, recovered completely, served the remainder of his sentence and at last report was enjoying life with his family.
I hope and I pray Ted Kennedy experiences a ‘spontaneous remission’ from his cancer.
yor bro ken
I looked at the paper that came with my shot the last time I got one. It doesn’t say the effectiveness is compromised each time you have sex..
eeny meeny miney moe.
I’m still laughing Ken. I don’t know if that was intentional… but it was good!
Posted by: asitis at January 28, 2009 12:48 PM
———————————————————
Spread happiness where you go, not when…..
Are you laughing because I mis-spelled moe?
I did not know it was a real word in english.
Never thought of spell checking it.
yor bro ken
Posted by: Josephine at January 28, 2009 2:07 PM
I looked at the paper that came with my shot the last time I got one. It doesn’t say the effectiveness is compromised each time you have sex..
—————————————————-
Maybe it is like Russian Roulette. The more times you spin the barrel and pull the trigger, the higher the probability that it will be your next to last time to be ‘lucky’.
yor bro ken
asitis
Please tell me what was ‘good’ about it. I can always use a good laugh.
yor bro ken
Maybe I misunderstood what asitis said, but I’m fairly certain the “‘mo” was as in “homo”. (Sorry to be offensive if that’s wrong. :) )
Spread happiness where you go, not when…..
Ken, thanks, I needed to hear that today.
Spread happiness where you go, not when…..
Are you laughing because I mis-spelled moe?
I did not know it was a real word in english.
Never thought of spell checking it.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 2:13 PM
No, no not at all Ken!
Mo is slang for homosexual male! I wasn’t sure if you knew that or not, but in any case you made a funny:
Larry Craig v Ted Kennedy
eeny meeny miney moe.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 12:06 PM
Oh that’s too easy ken. It’s Larry – he’s the ‘mo! Despite his claims to the contrary!
Posted by: asitis at January 28, 2009 12:26 PM
Maybe I misunderstood what asitis said, but I’m fairly certain the “‘mo” was as in “homo”. (Sorry to be offensive if that’s wrong. :) )
Posted by: Josephine at January 28, 2009 2:45 PM
Thanks Josephine! Yep, you got it! I’m glad it wasn’t lost on everyone!
Maybe it is like Russian Roulette. The more times you spin the barrel and pull the trigger, the higher the probability that it will be your next to last time to be ‘lucky’.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 2:21 PM
Actually…. It would be more like playing Russian Roulette without a loaded gun and it really doesn’t matter how money times you pull the trigger.
money times? (not these days, eh?!). Sorry, I meant “many times”
breaking:
$335,000,000 FOR STD PREVENTION IN ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILL!!
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashsb.htm
Democrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in the “job stimulus” — but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!
The House Democrats’ bill includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
In the past, the CDC has used STD education funding for programs that many Members of Congress find objectionable and arguably unrelated to a mission of economic stimulus [such as funding events called ‘Booty Call’ and ‘Great Sex’ put on by an organization that received $698,000 in government funds.]
“Whether this funding has merit is not the question; the point is it has no business in an economic plan supposedly focused on job creation,” says a stimulated Hill source.
Jasper, it’s actually $335 million for prevention programs for domestic HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, STD’s and tuberculosis.
I agree with that source that said “Whether this funding has merit is not the question; the point is it has no business in an economic plan supposedly focused on job creation.”
Posted by: asitis at January 28, 2009 3:07 PM
Actually…. It would be more like playing
Russian Roulette without a loaded gun and it really doesn’t matter how money times you pull the trigger.
——————————————————
That is humerically (for the sense of humor) correct, but the more times you repeat the act the greater the probability that the least likely thing will occur.
Since no mechanicaly or chemical method of contraception is 100% effective your arguement is false.
Behavioral contraception, as in abstinence, is the only 100% effective method and to borrow a line it has worked everytime it has been implemented.
Lower sperm counts lower the probility of one completing the mission, but sometimes the ‘punk’ gets lucky. Now you have to ask yourself, was he just firing blanks, or is there one live one left in the barrel? Do you feel lucky, punk? Then go ahead, make my day.
Humor aside, even though the chemicals may result in a more hostile environment, one sperm or one ovum may get lucky and complete that which they were dispatched to do.
Life…..will find a way.
yor bro ken
mo as in homo. That is really ‘gay’.
I pity the person who is trying to learn English as as second language and attempts to keep up with ever the evolving slang.
yor bro ken
Since no mechanicaly or chemical method of contraception is 100% effective your arguement is false.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 3:39 PM
You’re right Ken, it would be more like playing Russian Roulette with a gun that has had the bullets removed prior to spinning the barrel, but the gun has a malfunction such that a bullet is completely undetected by the person who carefully ensures that the bullets have been removed. This malfunction occurs 0.3% of the time (according to a 99.7% effectiveness rate).
Total abstinence, as in never, ever having sex would be like not playing Russian Roulette at all.
But that’s no fun. I’ll risk the
Life…..will find a way.
yor bro ken
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 3:39 PM
I remember this line from Jurassic Park. (a movie that really satisfied the dinosaur craving I’ve always had!!)
I pity the person who is trying to learn English as as second language and attempts to keep up with ever the evolving slang.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 3:45 PM
I think it’s been around for a while – I’ve been using it for ten or fifteen years.
Ooops I lost the end of my comment at 4:00pm
Should be:
But that’s no fun. I’ll take the tiny risk. And in my case it was a good gamble. It’s been as effective as total abstinence…. but I’ve been able to play!
The one in a thousand may occur the first time your spin the barrel and pull the trigger. That is the inherent risk in determining behavior by relying on probabilities.
Abstinence is a completely arbitrary and voluntary act. You can choose to abandon the discipline any time you are willing to risk the consequences.
yor bro ken
Abstinence is a completely arbitrary and voluntary act. You can choose to abandon the discipline any time you are willing to risk the consequences.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 4:15 PM
Sure you can. But here’s the thing Ken is, people abandon it before they are willing and able to take the risk. And if they don’t know enough to remove the bullets from the gun before they spin the barrell, then they are playing with a loaded gun.
I just woke up, who won? Obama or McCain?
“FWIW I think there’s going to be a real darkening of the social mood and popular culture as economic reality hits home.”
asitis: If by that you mean people will start consuming less and appreciating what they have and not expecting so much then I think that’s one good thing to come of all this.
Heh, might be nice. But I mean they’re gonna be bumming something fierce.
PeachPit: I just woke up, who won? Obama or McCain?
Truman, in a really close one.
All responsible gun owners know that, “Every gun is a loaded gun.”
yor bro ken
All responsible gun owners know that, “Every gun is a loaded gun.”
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 4:27 PM
True that. But if they know that people, especially their children, are playing Russian Roulette I’m sure they’d tell them to take out the bullets first.
By the way, I hate guns.
I didn’t say “cured”, I said “markedly improved”.
Mary, you don’t know that it’s not markedly improved from what it would have been without legal abortion. All you know is that it’s not cured.
…..
The best police chief in the world would markedly improve the crime rate, he wouldn’t make the ridiculous argument to citizens that if not for his leadership a serious crime problem would be so much worse.
It wouldn’t be a ridiculous argument for him, either. Somebody starts getting on his case, he could say, “Do you seriously think that without me things wouldn’t be worse?”
It’s a poor comparison anyway. The ol’ chief can arrest every criminal (if he’s really a kick-butt dude), but he cannot prevent criminal acts.
With child abuse, for example, it’s going to happen as long as their are kids. Legal abortion didn’t ensure there would be zero kids, so of course there’s still going to be some child abuse.
“By the way, I hate guns.”
Hahah… and, I wish I could say I hate guns..I used to.. but while at basic I learned to love them. I don’t think they belong in homes at ALL, but… they are fun when you’re shooting in completely controlled environments. If there were a shooting range in Chambana, I’d definitely buy myself a pistol!
There is big difference between ‘willing’ and ‘able’. Being ‘able’ in the context of this discussion is taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
Again, I maintain, that you set the bar of expectations way too low. People will perform to the level that is expected of them. You enable them to be less by expecting less.
If your sons do not meet your standards in your home, do you relax the standards?
In your career, assuming you had responsibility for subordinates, did you relax the standards if they did not meet your expectations?
Did your superiors relax their standards for you if you failed to meet their expectations?
Following the path of least resistance makes men and rivers crooked.
We as a society have set the bar too low and our expectations have been met.
yor bro ken
“By the way, I hate guns.”
Hahah… and, I wish I could say I hate guns..I used to.. but while at basic I learned to love them. I don’t think they belong in homes at ALL, but… they are fun when you’re shooting in completely controlled environments. If there were a shooting range in Chambana, I’d definitely buy myself a pistol!
Posted by: Josephine at January 28, 2009 4:41 PM
I know Josephine! As much as I hate guns I have to confess that I loved skeet shooting that one time. There! I just confessed my dirty little secret.
Posted by: asitis at January 28, 2009 4:34 PM
True that. But if they know that people, especially their children, are playing Russian Roulette I’m sure they’d tell them to take out the bullets first.
By the way, I hate guns.
——————————————————
Responsible parents do not allow their children to play with guns. Guns are not toys, though there are toy guns. Responsible parents do not let their children handle firearms until they are mature enough to know the difference between a toy and the real thing.
You will not hate the gun that saves your life or the life of someone you love. Guns are tools. Like any tool they can be used and they can be abused. They are neither inherently evil or good. Cars kill people everyday. Do you hate them? The most common cause of death for toddlers is drowning the commode. Do you hate commodes?
I am not pushing guns. Just asking you to examine why you hate one device that kills people and own several that kill many more people.
yor bro ken
Again, I maintain, that you set the bar of expectations way too low. People will perform to the level that is expected of them. You enable them to be less by expecting less.
If your sons do not meet your standards in your home, do you relax the standards?
In your career, assuming you had responsibility for subordinates, did you relax the standards if they did not meet your expectations?
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 4:42 PM
Ken, I am about the last person that those who know me would consider an enabler… just so you know. There are certain boundaries and standards we set for our boys, of course. If they cross them there are consequences, but at the same time we maintain that we are here to help them and give them our love, regardless of what they have done. It’s important that they are open and honest with us. It’s a fine balance. I have seen what happens when the balance tips too much in either direction.
We do not tell our boys that they are to abstain from sex until marriage. This is an unrealistic expectation and, it’s not what we believe in anyway.
“Responsible parents do not allow their children to play with guns. Guns are not toys, though there are toy guns. Responsible parents do not let their children handle firearms until they are mature enough to know the difference between a toy and the real thing”.
If we still using the gun as a metaphor for sex I’ll just say that even though you tell your kids not to touch guns, they still probably will.
“Cars kill people everyday. Do you hate them? The most common cause of death for toddlers is drowning the commode. Do you hate commodes?
I am not pushing guns. Just asking you to examine why you hate one device that kills people and own several that kill many more people”.
Cars and commodes are not designed to kill. They have other uses.
yor bro ken
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 4:55 PM
Posted by: asitis at January 28, 2009 4:44 PM
As much as I hate guns I have to confess that I loved skeet shooting that one time. There! I just confessed my dirty little secret.
——————————————————–
I will confess a dirty little secret. Guns were made to kill people. Governments owned them first and they equipped their armies with them to kill people.
Over time the common man could afford to own a gun and he used it to provide food for his family, but it’s primary purpose was to protect his family by killing any who might harm them.
Hunting kept his skills at an effective level.
If you say you hate killing people, even bad people who are trying to harm you or yours, then that is sentiment with which I can relate.
yor bro ken
“Responsible parents do not allow their children to play with guns. Guns are not toys, though there are toy guns. Responsible parents do not let their children handle firearms until they are mature enough to know the difference between a toy and the real thing”.
If we still using the gun as a metaphor for sex I’ll just say that even though you tell your kids not to touch guns, they still probably will.
“Cars kill people everyday. Do you hate them? The most common cause of death for toddlers is drowning the commode. Do you hate commodes?
I am not pushing guns. Just asking you to examine why you hate one device that kills people and own several that kill many more people”.
Cars and commodes are not designed to kill. They have other uses.
Posted by: asitis at January 28, 2009 5:02 PM
Just saw this on the internet:
“The Pill”
The birth control pill is used by over 10 million women in the US today and about 4 million of those are under age 25. The Pill consists of a combination of two types of artificial hormones called estrogens and progestins. It works by inhibiting ovulation and sperm transport and by changing the lining of the inside of a woman’s uterus (called the endometrium) so that if the woman does conceive she will often have an early abortion.
Ethical side effects: It is estimated that women experience at least one very early abortion for every year that they are on the Pill. Both pro-abortion and pro-life groups acknowledge that the Pill causes early abortions.
Medical side effects: The birth control pill increases the risk of breast cancer by over 40% if it is taken before a woman delivers her first baby. This risk increases by 70% if the Pill is used for four or more years before the woman’s first child is born. Other side effects that women have experienced include the development of high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke, heart attack, depression, weight gain, migraine, dark spots on the skin and difficulty with breast-feeding. Diabetics who take oral contraceptives may note increased sugar levels. Some women who stop taking the Pill do not have a return of their fertility (menstrual cycles) for a year or longer. Although the Pill decreases ovarian and some uterine cancers, it increases breast, liver, and cervical cancer. At least three studies have noted that the AIDS virus is transmitted more easily to women who are taking the Pill and whose partner(s) has the HIV virus. The cost of using the Pill for five years is over $1,000.
“The Shot” and Norplant
Commonly known as “the shot,” Depo-Provera, a long acting progestin hormone, is injected into a woman’s muscle every three months. It works by decreasing ovulation, by inhibiting sperm transport and by changing the lining of a woman’s uterus. Norplant is another progestin that is placed into silastic (rubber-like) tubes and placed under the skin of a woman and left there for up to five years.
Ethical side effects: By changing the lining of the uterus, Norplant and Depo-Provera both can cause an early abortion when conception does occur. Women who use Norplant will probably experience more than one abortion each year since the average woman ovulates in more than 40% of her cycles while using Norplant. Depo-Provera may theoretically cause just as many abortions as Norplant since it is also a type of progestin.
Medical side effects: The results of two major world studies have shown that women who take Depo-Provera for two years or more before age 25 have at least a 190% increased risk of developing breast cancer. In addition, Depo-Provera may reduce a woman’s bone density, and worsen a woman’s cholesterol level. One study found that women who had received injectable progestins (i.e., usually Depo-Provera or norethisterone enanthate) for at least five years and who had used them at least five years prior, suffered a 430% increased risk of developing cervical cancer. Several studies have shown that women who receive injectable progestins have a much higher rate of contracting the AIDS virus if their partner is infected, with one study showing a 240% increased risk. Norplant, which was developed later than Depo-Provera, has received less scrutiny, but may carry just as high a risk as Depo-Provera. In addition, over 50,000 women have participated in law suits against the manufacturer of Norplant, citing complaints of irregular bleeding, scarring, painful muscles, and headaches.
\
Other Hormonal Contraceptives
The same artificial hormones used in the Pill, Depo-Provera, and Norplant are packaged in a variety of other delivery systems: the Patch, the “Morning after Pill,” the monthly injection Lunelle, hormone impregnated IUDs and vaginal inserts, and others. More are in development. Most are so new that their side effects have not been well researched. They use the same chemicals as the Pill and can be expected to have generally the same effects. All the hormonal contraceptives can also cause extended periods of infertility after they are discontinued.
If you say you hate killing people, even bad people who are trying to harm you or yours, then that is sentiment with which I can relate.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 5:03 PM
That’s what I am saying Ken. That and I hate reading in the paper every single day about yet another boy or young man gunned down by another. Or a sweet toddler killed in the crossfire. I hate that. I really hate that.
Cars and commodes are not designed to kill. They have other uses.
yor bro ken
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 4:55 PM
—————————————————
Even though guns are made to kill they have other uses. You just confessed that you enjoyed shooting clay discs. I am not only glad you enjoyed the experience, I am glad you have at least a rudimentary knowledge of guns and gun safety and most importantly, you know how to use a gun will enough to hit that at which you are aiming. That experience and that knowledge could prove quite valuable some day.
I believe we are back to the pursuit of truth.
If you enjoyed using an instruement that was made to kill for a purpose other than which it was intended, obliterating clay discs, then why do you hate it?
If you own devices that kill many more people, many young children, then why do you not ‘hate’ those devices?
Marl Twain once quipped, “If a cat jumps up on a hot stove, he will never jump on another one. He’ll never jump on a cold stove as well.”
This is not about the truth about guns or cars or commodes, this is the truth about you.
yor bro ken
I like that “Just saw this on the Internet”. How about, Just saw this on the Catholic News Agency website”! Hmmm, funny how you didn’t mention that.
Kind of like how you highlighted how using the pill results in a decreased risk of some cancers but neglected to highlight that is reduces the risk of others: “Although the Pill decreases ovarian and some uterine cancers, it increases breast, liver, and cervical cancer”.
And funny how the article does’t mentioned that the increased risk of breast cancer and cervical cancer is not directly due to the pill. But rather, in the case of breast cancer it is related to not having or delaying the age of first pregnancy. And with cervical cancer the increased risk is related to the greater number of sexual partners and exposure to HPV, not the pill per se.
Good thing someone is paying attention………..
ken, you are awesome!
The problem is not with the ‘guns’, but with the boys.
yor bro ken
I believe we are back to the pursuit of truth.
good luck on that one! hah!
The problem is not with the ‘guns’, but with the boys.
yor bro ken
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 5:21 PM
absolutely!
“I am glad you have at least a rudimentary knowledge of guns and gun safety and most importantly, you know how to use a gun will enough to hit that at which you are aiming.”
To be quite honest, I was pretty awesome at hitting those discs! A natural they said. Probably why I enjoyed it. ;)
“I believe we are back to the pursuit of truth”.
No, we are not Ken. Don’t waste your time. I do not believe using birth control is the same as shooting a person with a gun. Nor do I believe abortion is the same thing. We have fundamentally different beliefs here. Go find someone else.
I believe we are back to the pursuit of truth.
good luck on that one! hah!
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 28, 2009 5:23 PM
Yeh! You’d think he’d know by now toostunned, eh?
tstl and asitis,
I have to acknowledge that oversimplifiend when I said the problem is with the boys.
Would you like me to continue to allocute?
yor bro ken
The problem is not with the ‘guns’, but with the boys.
yor bro ken
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 5:21 PM
absolutely!
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 28, 2009 5:24 PM
If they had fists, or even knives or baseball bats those boys would do less damage.
Truth is not limited to abortion or guns.
Will you follow where the truth leads?
yor bro ken
They might do less damage to others, but not to themselves.
yor bro ken
“The problem is not with the ‘guns’, but with the boys.”
Uhm, assuming we’re actually talking about guns.. which it seems we only half are, even adults accidentally fire guns in the dark and don’t end up shooting an intruder, but someone they know.
Guns, even when kept away from children and used solely for defense, are still very dangerous and deadly. :)
They might do less damage to others, but not to themselves.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 5:33 PM
They may do less damage to themselves as well.
If they had baseball bats or knives I would rather defend myself and mine with a gun.
I am not as good as I once was. I am not even good once as I was.
I may not be much but I am all I got left.
yor bro ken
please continue to allocute!
I do not own a gun.
If they had baseball bats or knives I would rather defend myself and mine with a gun.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 5:37 PM
Sure, because bam! one shot from a distance and he’s dead. That’s kind of my point
When I say damage to themselves, I am not referring primarily to the physical damage they do others, I am referring the internal spiritual and emotional harm they do themselves.
That is why you hate killing, because it harms you inside in the very core of your being.
yor bro ken
I apologize. I find I am answering questions before they have been asked and it is confusing me.
I have to take a short break, say 15 minutes, then I really do want to allocute in regard to oversimplifying about the boys being the problem.
Asitis, do not be afraid of the truth. The truth can be painful, but it is quite liberating.
yor bro ken
When I say damage to themselves, I am not referring primarily to the physical damage they do others, I am referring the internal spiritual and emotional harm they do themselves.
That is why you hate killing, because it harms you inside in the very core of your being.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 5:41 PM
Okay wait aminute. I think we were using pronouns differently there.
You are suggesting that I hate killing because of the spiritual and emotion damage it does to the killer?
Asitis, do not be afraid of the truth. The truth can be painful, but it is quite liberating.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 5:47 PM
That’s nonsense ken. Just because I belive differently then you, doesn’t mean it’s because I’m afraid. Really. Seriously. Really
Ok, I am back. I have a cup of hot tea with lemon.
yor bro ken
I do not mean to belabor the point. But we can ‘believe’ differently and still find the truth together.
yor bro ken
Josephine 5:36PM
So are butcher knives
So are cars
So are ice covered sidewalks
Uhm. Mary, that didn’t make sense. That was just plain wrong.
When you fire a gun at a person you mean to harm them. You can harm the wrong person easily and without meaning to. You fire a gun at someone you think is an intruder and you can be wrong.
The boys injuring other people are really just a symptom of a larger problem.
The single largest common denominator for men and I suspect women who are in prison is a single parent home. Usually but not always it is the father who is physically absent. In many cases the father is there but he is absent emotionally. He is not accessible to his children or his partner. There may be many causes for this absence. Children who do not bond with their father are emotionally stunted or short changed. Children need to know that both their parents care about what and how they do. They need to know what is expected of them, even if they fail to meet the level of expectation.
It is the rare parent who sets the bar too high.
yor bro ken
I do not mean to belabor the point. But we can ‘believe’ differently and still find the truth together.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 6:05 PM
Do you mean the Truth ken? Because I don’t believe in the Truth.
In seems to me, that whatever this “truth” is that you speak of, it’s some you already believe in and hold pretty near and dear. So you’re not really asking me to find this truth WITH you, are you? No, you want me to let you lead me toward some truth that in the end I’m more than likely not going to believe in anyway.
I got a better idea ken: How about you tell me this “truth” and then I’ll tell you whether I believe it or not. I promise I will tell you and give you my reasons.
Doug 4:34PM
Again I never said anything about cured. I said markedly improved. I don’t that its not markedly improved? Doug, you don’t know that it is. Unless of course you can show some studies. i just know from observation that crime, family breakdown, and illegitimacy have gotten worse in my lifetime. Obviously abortion did nothing to improve this situation. The city I grew up in is a sinkhole. Abortion did nothing to prevent that and isn’t changing it. The conditions in the city were markedly better in the 50’s-70’s when I grew up in it.
So yes we can tell by observation if situations have improved or deteriorated. I can tell you abortion did nothing to improve the situation of the city or its citizens.
Doug about the police chief. If he’s doing his job properly the crime rate is decreasing and the the city is becoming safer. Citizens can observe that for themselves.
If crime persists and worsens citizens can see that as well. Would it be a valid and acceptable argument for him to say “hey, without me this already terrible crime problem would be a lot worse, so don’t say I’m not doing my job”.
I say if marked improvement cannot be observed, then obviously something, be it abortion or a police chief, is not soing what it was supposed to do.
Yes sadly there will always be child abuse since abortion does nothing to address the real issues where child abuse is concerned. PL people have long made that argument Doug, and have been proven correct.
Okay wait aminute. I think we were using pronouns differently there.
You are suggesting that I hate killing because of the spiritual and emotion damage it does to the killer?
Posted by: asitis at January 28, 2009 5:52 PM
—————————————————-
No, I am suggesting you hate killing because of the spiritual and emotional damage it does to you as much if not more than to the ‘victim’.
It causes you real pain. Nothing wrong with that.
kbhvac at January 28, 2009 6:20 PM
ken this is sooo true.
I have a friend who is a lawyer and he tells me that virtually EVERY young man who comes before the court does not have a good relationship with his father or has an absent father. The situation is almost without exception.
The boys injuring other people are really just a symptom of a larger problem.
The single largest common denominator for men and I suspect women who are in prison is a single parent home. Usually but not always it is the father who is physically absent. In many cases the father is there but he is absent emotionally. He is not accessible to his children or his partner. There may be many causes for this absence. Children who do not bond with their father are emotionally stunted or short changed. Children need to know that both their parents care about what and how they do. They need to know what is expected of them, even if they fail to meet the level of expectation.
It is the rare parent who sets the bar too high.
yor bro ken
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 6:20 PM
I agree with you on all points there ken. Except I would not put the blame simply on the fact that one parent is absent. Because I know single parent families that work very well and better than other two parent families.
But back to the single parent families of which we are talking here: These parents were not ready to have children and the environment they were born into was a bad one with little hope of escape. This problem needs to be fixed.
Posted by: asitis at January 28, 2009 6:24 PM
I got a better idea ken: How about you tell me this “truth” and then I’ll tell you whether I believe it or not. I promise I will tell you and give you my reasons.
—————————————————
The ‘truth’ to which I am referring is not a person or a place or a god. I am referring to demonstrably proveably truth. Not ‘belief’.
You lead the way I will follow. State something you believe to be the truth and we will examine it to see if it so.
That is the scientific method. Is it not. To posit a theory then test it, then publish it and have others test it in an attempt to prove it false.
This is the journey are you willing to take the first step going with out knowing?
yor bro ken
No, I am suggesting you hate killing because of the spiritual and emotional damage it does to you as much if not more than to the ‘victim’.
It causes you real pain. Nothing wrong with that.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 6:25 PM
No, that’s not why I hate killing. I don’t care about the spiritual and emotional damage it does to the killer. I’m only thinking of the victim.
This is the journey are you willing to take the first step going with out knowing?
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 6:37 PM
With you? No thanks.
Gotta go make dinner.
Posted by: asitis at January 28, 2009 6:31 PM
I agree with you on all points there ken. Except I would not put the blame simply on the fact that one parent is absent. Because I know single parent families that work very well and better than other two parent families.
But back to the single parent families of which we are talking here: These parents were not ready to have children and the environment they were born into was a bad one with little hope of escape. This problem needs to be fixed.
——————————————————-
Is the first step you choose to take in the search for truth?
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 6:25 PM
No, I am suggesting you hate killing because of
the spiritual and emotional damage it does to
you as much if not more than to the ‘victim’.
It causes you real pain. Nothing wrong with that.
—————————————————-
You misread or I miscommunicated or both.
The primary victim is the one who was injured or killed.
It is improbable that you could experience their pain. That would require some ‘other’ explanation which I do not desire to pursue at this time.
The pain you feel is from the injury that the violence does to your emotion, your mind, your senses.
The secondary ‘victim’ is the friends and family of the ‘victim’.
The other ‘victim’ is the assailant himself because of the damage he does to himself.
yor bro ken
It is improbable that you could experience their pain. That would require some ‘other’ explanation which I do not desire to pursue at this time.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 7:00 PM
I can imagine his pain. But more than that, I can imagine how he must feel that moment before death when he knows he will no longer hug his mother, look up to his brother, kiss his girl, live his life….
And how his loved one must feel losing him.
That is the scientific method. Is it not. To posit a theory then test it, then publish it and have others test it in an attempt to prove it false.
however, this is NOT how many scientists operate today.
They have a theory and set out to prove it at any expense including reworking the data or simply ignoring their findings and publishing conclusions that state their theory!
This is seen all the time in abortion research. One often finds results that are completely at odds with the conclusions. Very strange indeedy!
No, I am suggesting you hate killing because of
the spiritual and emotional damage it does to
you as much if not more than to the ‘victim’.
It causes you real pain. Nothing wrong with that.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 6:25 PM
You are suggesting I wouldn’t kill someone because it would hurt me as much or possibly more than the person I would kill? Is that what keeps you from murdering, ken? Really?
Well, you are suggesting wrongly for me. I would not kill, not because of what it might do to me, but because of what it does to the person killed.
however, this is NOT how many scientists operate today.
They have a theory and set out to prove it at any expense including reworking the data or simply ignoring their findings and publishing conclusions that state their theory!
This is seen all the time in abortion research. One often finds results that are completely at odds with the conclusions. Very strange indeedy!
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 28, 2009 7:24 PM
Toostunned, how many times do we have to tell you : David Reardon is NOT a real scientist. I repeat, David Readon is NOT a real scientist.
Scientist with real credentials, respected scientist do not do this.
Josephine: I am wondering how you are doing with your clinical at PP?
Posted by: asitis at January 28, 2009 6:24 PM
Do you mean the Truth ken? Because I don’t believe in the Truth.
In seems to me, that whatever this “truth” is that you speak of, it’s some you already believe in and hold pretty near and dear. So you’re not really asking me to find this truth WITH you, are you? No, you want me to let you lead me toward some truth that in the end I’m more than likely not going to believe in anyway.
I got a better idea ken: How about you tell me this “truth” and then I’ll tell you whether I believe it or not. I promise I will tell you and give you my reasons.
——————————————————
Fair enough. The truth is 2+2=4. Is that observable proveable truth?
The truth is if a=b and b=c, then a=c. Is that observable proveable truth?
Heat always moves from a higher temperature to a cooler temperature.
A gas will expand to fill the space it occupies.
I use these truths everyday in my work. I do hold to them dearly. They continues to prove to be reliably true..
I am not interested in converting, proselytizing, witnessing, evangelizing you.
I am interested in testing your intellectual honesty and integrity and mine as well.
I am NOT interested in what you ‘believe’, I am interested in what you ‘know’.
We can use logic and reason to pursue the truth, observable, objective truth.
The alternative is a never ending war of words, and chit chatting and chasin down the wind.
yor bro ken
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 8:10 PM
snore… no thanks. But I’ll discuss things that interest me as they come up. And I’ll chitchat when I feel like it. And I’ll always point out misconceptions, misinformation, and outright lies! And I’ll enjoy a good laugh when someone says something that amuses me, whether it’s intentional or not. I think you and I can learn from each other ken and certainly share some laughs. I like certain things about you, that’s for sure!
Thanks!
TSTL,
So far I watched a bunch of woman get checked for breast cancer. It’s not very eventful. I just sit in the corner and watch, and sometimes write things down if a doctor asks me to.
Josephine, I think that in itself, is good to know. Is Planned Parenthood providing this screening free or on a subsidized basis?
The one up here (I can’t speak for them all, I don’t know how they’re run) has free breast exams every other Tuesday. They said it’s normally a pretty busy day.
That’s great! Is it free to anyone or just those who do not have health insurance?
By the way ken, when someone says something like this:
Asitis, do not be afraid of the truth. The truth can be painful, but it is quite liberating.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 28, 2009 5:47 PM
it’s a good guess they are talking about something other than thermodynamics and mathematics.
Good to know….
It’s free to anyone! In fact, if you choose, there’s no paperwork or anything. You can just come in and get it done completely anonymously. All they do is check for lumps, teach you how to check yourself, ect..
It was really nice to see there were actually a lot of younger girls getting checked. I mean, a lot of younger girls don’t worry about that.. but there were lots of them yesterday. It was pretty, (for lack of a better word!) awesome.
From the Wall Street Journal:
Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”
So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic “stimulus,” but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm’s point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.
We’ve looked it over, and even we can’t quite believe it. There’s $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There’s even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.
In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make “dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy.” Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There’s another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.
Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren’t likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President’s new budget director, told Congress a year ago, “even those [public works] that are ‘on the shelf’ generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy.”
Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party?
Here’s another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator?
Another “stimulus” secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments — that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There’s $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don’t pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren’t job creators.
Oh, and don’t forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That’s more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that “No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools.” Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers.
The larger fiscal issue here is whether this spending bonanza will become part of the annual “budget baseline” that Congress uses as the new floor when calculating how much to increase spending the following year, and into the future. Democrats insist that it will not. But it’s hard — no, impossible — to believe that Congress will cut spending next year on any of these programs from their new, higher levels. The likelihood is that this allegedly emergency spending will become a permanent addition to federal outlays — increasing pressure for tax increases in the bargain. Any Blue Dog Democrat who votes for this ought to turn in his “deficit hawk” credentials.
This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living — or dead — Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, “We won the election. We wrote the bill.” So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit.
*************************************************
apparently no mention of the $335M for condom handouts and STD programs?
How will this help stimulate the economy? To my mind it isn’t the economy they are seeking to stimulate…..
Hey Josephine, Asitis,
You keep mentioning that PP services are free. They are not free! The taxpayers are paying for that.
“It’s free to anyone! In fact, if you choose, there’s no paperwork or anything. ”
Yes, this bullshit doesn’t surprize me, I wonder how many young girls are coming in for BC and their parents don’t know.
“It’s free to anyone! In fact, if you choose, there’s no paperwork or anything. ”
yeah, so much for the paperwork! I wonder just how young these girls are?
Hey Josephine, Asitis,
You keep mentioning that PP services are free. They are not free! The taxpayers are paying for that.
Posted by: Jasper at January 29, 2009 6:45 AM
I’m fine with that.
“It’s free to anyone! In fact, if you choose, there’s no paperwork or anything. ”
Yes, this bullshit doesn’t surprize me, I wonder how many young girls are coming in for BC and their parents don’t know.
Posted by: Jasper at January 29, 2009 6:50 AM
Probably quite a lot, and it’s because they can’t talk to their parents. Better they have the birth control without their parents knowing than to have unprotected sex.
apparently no mention of the $335M for condom handouts and STD programs?
How will this help stimulate the economy? To my mind it isn’t the economy they are seeking to stimulate…..
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 29, 2009 6:42 AM
It’s actually $335 million for prevention programs for domestic HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, STD’s and tuberculosis toostunned. Which, by the way, is less than one day of the Iraq War is costing us.
Yes, this bullshit doesn’t surprize me, I wonder how many young girls are coming in for BC and their parents don’t know.
Posted by: Jasper at January 29, 2009 6:50 AM
yes of course Jasper! Against parental wishes likely. What is the lesson to be learned by these young people? If you can cheat authority to satisfy your own needs and urges it’s ok. In fact, we will help you. And then they wonder why people our society is floundering. So much for instilling good sound morals and virtue in our young people!!
It’s all about putting instilling an ideology – (free sex and NO responsibility) into these young minds. How sad.
Yes, this bullshit doesn’t surprize me, I wonder how many young girls are coming in for BC and their parents don’t know.
Posted by: Jasper at January 29, 2009 6:50 AM
ok maybe this will work! that’s what you get for carrying on too many conversations at once!!
yes of course Jasper! Against parental wishes likely. What is the lesson to be learned by these young people? If you can cheat authority to satisfy your own needs and urges it’s ok. In fact, we will help you. And then they wonder why our society is floundering. So much for instilling good sound morals and virtue in our young people!!
It’s all about instilling an ideology – (free sex and NO responsibility) into these young minds. How sad.
Yeh, you’re right toostunned. We should just let them go and get pregnant. And guess what that would do to the poverty rate? And more importantly to you, guess what that would do to
the abortion rate?????
Careful what you complain about.
Well, well, well, big surprise here. The Taliban, the bunch in Afghanistan that burns down schools and throws acid in the faces of schoolgirls, has issued a statement praising Obama’s closing of Gitmo.
I’m sure they have a comrade or two they hope will be released, so they can also burn down schools and throw acid into the faces of schoolgirls as well.
No need for concern thought. I’m sure crimes like these are only minor flaws in what are otherwise sterling characters.
Asitis 7:25am
Please enlighten me. How does this stimulate the economy?
Asitis 7:25am
Please enlighten me. How does this stimulat the economy?
Posted by: Mary at January 29, 2009 8:01 AM
I’m not sure it does, Mary. And I’ve already voiced that concern here. I was simply correcting something toostunned, and jasper before her, had said about the $335 million. And also pointing out what what just one less day in Iraq buys us.
Asitis 8:06am
Exactly.
I thought this was an economic stimulus bill. That is what our fearless leader told us is it not? A huge pork bill with massive government spending enabling Obama to pay off his left wing supporters would more accurate.
Did you hear ACORN got a billion or two? That’s the bunch that was hiring convicted felons in a city not far from me and had them handling voter registration forms, etc. Some real model citizens. Apparently there’s a shortage of law abiding citizens who need jobs.
Idid hear that some money was going to community groups like ACORN. I don’t have concerns about that, personally. They may be in a better position to spend the money where it’s needed than are state and local governmnets.
As for this being an economic stimulus package… I agree that there are things in there that are less about job creation and more about social assistance and health and wellness. It might have been presented separately or perhaps together under a different name. Certainly social assistance is needed these days, with record continuing unemployment, investment losses, home foreclosures, etc. Everyday we hear of new, massive job cuts in all sectors. Who is going to be next? How are you going to find a job these days? What’s going to happen to you without your employer health insurance? I feel for people. Especially those who don’t have much to fall back on.
Mary: Again I never said anything about cured. I said markedly improved. I don’t know that its not markedly improved? Doug, you don’t know that it is.
Given that there would have been tens of millions more people, and with a higher expectation of problems – as with Ken noting that kids of single parents tend to end up in prison a lot more than kids with two – then it’s obvious that there are many fewer crimes committed, many less cases of abuse, etc., because of legal abortion.
…..
Unless of course you can show some studies. i just know from observation that crime, family breakdown, and illegitimacy have gotten worse in my lifetime. Obviously abortion did nothing to improve this situation. The city I grew up in is a sinkhole. Abortion did nothing to prevent that and isn’t changing it. The conditions in the city were markedly better in the 50’s-70’s when I grew up in it.
So yes we can tell by observation if situations have improved or deteriorated. I can tell you abortion did nothing to improve the situation of the city or its citizens.
Again – you don’t know that “abortion did nothing to improve it. You are not factoring in the many other things that affect it. Your observations can be true and still have it be true that without legal abortion it would be worse or much worse. There is no “preventing” it – it’s going to happen to some extent as long as there are people.
It’s always a matter of degree, and going back to what you first said – I was referring to the mentality, long proven incorrect, that abortion is going to solve social problems – my point is that there isn’t any “solving” it in the first place. To point the finger at legal abortion and say, “didn’t solve it,” when abortion may well have improved things quite a bit, isn’t logical.
…..
Doug about the police chief. If he’s doing his job properly the crime rate is decreasing and the the city is becoming safer. Citizens can observe that for themselves.
If crime persists and worsens citizens can see that as well. Would it be a valid and acceptable argument for him to say “hey, without me this already terrible crime problem would be a lot worse, so don’t say I’m not doing my job”.
You’re approaching it as if he’s the only factor. Let’s take a rather extreme example, for clarity’s sake – let’s say the population of his town doubled, and the newcomers were all people from overseas, let out of prisons and insane asylums because the US was gonna let ’em in (this is paraphrasing an actual historical event). Well, lo and behold, the crime rate goes up. The chief could still be doing a hell of a job.
I say if marked improvement cannot be observed, then obviously something, be it abortion or a police chief, is not doing what it was supposed to do.
Yes, something but as above it doesn’t have to be one or the other, or even any one of those. Those could be doing just fine.
Mary, I totally hear you on the difference between now and the 1950’s and 1960’s. I was born in the 50’s but don’t remember them, but the 60’s were really a different world, in many ways.
Yes, in some areas things are much worse now. Yet in others they’re a lot better. Nothing to do with abortion but I feel bad for people just now getting out of school – it’s a case of being in a certain place at a given time, and I see some tough times for a while.
I think the “bad” economy is going to ripple through the populace; we’ll see more outrageous acts and terrible stories. We’ll see more dark themes in movies and the popular culture, the anti-hero will rise again in movies, etc.
…..
Yes sadly there will always be child abuse since abortion does nothing to address the real issues where child abuse is concerned. PL people have long made that argument Doug, and have been proven correct.
Yeah but again – nobody is saying that “abortion will solve all our social problems.” There isn’t any “solving” like that.
Ken: The truth is 2+2=4. Is that observable proveable truth?
Yes, if we’re agreed on definitions and language up front.
…..
The truth is if a=b and b=c, then a=c. Is that observable proveable truth?
Yes.
…..
Heat always moves from a higher temperature to a cooler temperature.
As long as there’s a method of conduction, a path for radiation, etc.
…..
A gas will expand to fill the space it occupies.
I’m tempted to say as long as it’s not at absolute zero – whaddayathink?
I thought this was an economic stimulus bill. That is what our fearless leader told us is it not? A huge pork bill with massive government spending
Mary, gov’t spending is how the gov’t stimulates the economy, in the main.
TSTL, Jasper:
The no paper work is strictly for breast exams. Why in the world would it matter if their parents knew they were getting breast exams? It’s a pretty responsible thing to be doing.
Jasper, you have kids, don’t you? I don’t. I don’t think it’s fair I have to pay for schools. I don’t think it’s fair some of my money goes to parochial schools, either. I don’t like that money of mine goes to Iraq. Too bad.
Also, TSTL, if you paid attention to the news you’d know that Obama asked to have to contraception part taken out of the stimulus package. He’s seeking as much approval from the Republicans as possible, which is why they’re still working on it. He doesn’t need Republicans. He’s doing it though.
asitis: Everyday we hear of new, massive job cuts in all sectors. Who is going to be next? How are you going to find a job these days? What’s going to happen to you without your employer health insurance? I feel for people. Especially those who don’t have much to fall back on.
There’s going to be a lot of pain, and there is no way around that.
Decades of debt have to be purged from the system, either by letting deflation take its course or by outright default on the Dollar.
For about a half a century, we’ve substituted the increase of debt for increasing the actual production of wealth, and the unwinding of this isn’t a pleasant thing for most people.
The gov’t isn’t addressing the greater reality about the economy, only trying once more to “juice” things by increasing debt all the further. Will it work again?
Josephine: Jasper, you have kids, don’t you? I don’t. I don’t think it’s fair I have to pay for schools. I don’t think it’s fair some of my money goes to parochial schools, either. I don’t like that money of mine goes to Iraq. Too bad.
Ha! Right on, Josephine. I don’t think people with kids should get tax exemptions either. Hey, they chose to have kids – I didn’t force it on them – so why should they get a tax break and not me?
Josephine: Jasper, you have kids, don’t you? I don’t. I don’t think it’s fair I have to pay for schools. I don’t think it’s fair some of my money goes to parochial schools, either. I don’t like that money of mine goes to Iraq. Too bad.
Ha! Right on, Josephine. I don’t think people with kids should get tax exemptions either. Hey, they chose to have kids – I didn’t force it on them – so why should they get a tax break and not me?
Posted by: Doug at January 29, 2009 9:30 AM
I disagree with you on the school funding Josephine and Doug. Even though you don’t have kids you benefit from an educated public.
Asitis, I go to a publicly funded university.. I loooove that it gets funds from taxes. I know it’s something that won’t change and I can’t complain because I benefit. However, I’d think it’s more beneficial for everyone if women that can’t afford to have kids.. don’t have them. I mean, you’ll never hear me complain about paying my taxes. Truth be told, I get pretty much all of my tax money back anyway. I don’t make enough.
Asitis 8:36am
Its called gov’t spending, not “social assistance”. Social assistance results from the government taxing and spending which slows down the economy and results in people needing assistance.
ACORN? You’re not serious right? They’re notorious for voter fraud. Why do you think they’re hiring convicted felons to handle voting applications? Maybe because law abiding citizens don’t involve themselves in thuggery.
Take a step back and look at where your tax money is going now….This $900,000,000,000 stimulus package is more than we have spent on entirety of the Iraq war. And the Democrats want to put us that much further in debt with one strke of Obama’s pen….this being less than one month after Obama requested and got the second half of the previous $700 billion dollar stimulus that was passed last year. And they already have plans for an even bigger one next year if (when) this one doesn’t “fix” our economy????? What a bunch of idiots. Trying to borrow and spend their way out of a financial crisis that is founded in having too much debt already. For the love of God, how can ANYBODY support this. If anything they should be using it to make Social Sewcurity solvent. They say they can’t even keep delivering mail six days a week. And wouldn;t it be better/safer for our future if they took that trillion dollars and used it towards making Social Security solvent again. wtf.
Asitis,
What is the name of the birth control you use?
Doug 9:20am
Government spending doesn’t stimulate squat. It promotes waste, inefficiency, and higher taxes which slows down the economy.
What they should do is s—can this “stimulus bill” and give us a massive tax reduction. Let the people keep their money and spend it, that promotes a healthy economy and keeps businesses running and creates jobs. As it is I’m cutting back on my hours voluntarily since I see no need to work and give it to the gov’t, I’m going to get slammed with taxes as it is. Also, I’ll be limiting my spending which will hurt local businesses.
“The One” will be letting the Bush tax cuts lapse as well which will be even better.
Wake up and smell the coffee folks.
Oh yeah. Our government is talking abot creating something called a “bad bank”. What a moronic idea that; and it sent the DOW up 200 points yesterday. They are talking about creating a bank for the purpose of buying up bad debt from other banks. This could be a gartuan rip off of “tens of trillions” of taxpayer money being used to bail out banks. Why? So that they will lend us money again. What a friggin joke. And Doug is miffed that parents get a tax break to support raising their children. Doug, would you rather these indigant parents were forced to abort; or maybe instead of sucking up resources from your tax dollars you would prefer that they should just kill their children like that desperate couple in California did last week. I knew you had some twisted logic in you, but I didn’t know you were heartless.
Doug 9:04am
You only exlemplify the point that when people can’t point to the success of their policies they resort to the argument that “things would be so much worse if…”
I know I couldn’t keep my job using that one, no matter how many patients I care for.
Just doesnt’ wash Doug.
I just heard this “stimulus bill” will give “stimulus” checks to illegal immigrants as well.
This just keeps getting better.
“Josephine: Jasper, you have kids, don’t you? I don’t. I don’t think it’s fair I have to pay for schools. I don’t think it’s fair some of my money goes to parochial schools, either. I don’t like that money of mine goes to Iraq. Too bad.”
You’re the one that is saying this Klanned Parenthood stuff is free, I’m not saying the schools are free.
Plus, my son can even an aspirin without parental approval, but girls can get BC?
Wait a minute, Josephine, you love that your university is funded by taxes but you don’t want your taxes to go to public education?!
Mary,
Do you remember how O said that he was not going to allow “pork” into bills, that he was not going to allow lobbyists into his admin. and that it was time for gov’t transparency? Well, he in only about a week into his presidency and already he has reneged on his promises.
Eileen #2
Remember when I posted my observation that Obama is a sociopath? I rest my case.
Yes, Mary, I do and I am reminded every time that he exhibits his hubris.
asitis: I disagree with you on the school funding Josephine and Doug. Even though you don’t have kids you benefit from an educated public.
I wasn’t talking about schools, as, really just about the child tax credit and there it was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, in line with Josephine’s point – which I think is that there’s always going to be some areas we don’t want our money to go to but have no control over.
In that vein, mortgage interest is another one. Why in the heck should somebody get to deduct it from their taxable income?? Did somebody hold a gun to their head and make them buy a dang house? ; )
And the Democrats want to put us that much further in debt with one strke of Obama’s pen….
Good grief, Truthseeker, after Bush Jr’s years in office, are you seriously concerned about what Democrats are doing there?
Jo: “I don’t think it’s fair I have to pay for schools.”
Jo: “I go to a publicly funded university.. I loooove that it gets funds from taxes.”
round and round we go….
Mary: Government spending doesn’t stimulate squat. It promotes waste, inefficiency, and higher taxes which slows down the economy.
Mary, whether the gov’t spends it or I spend it, it’s really not different. The gov’t buys stuff from companies with employees just like I do.
…..
What they should do is s—can this “stimulus bill” and give us a massive tax reduction. Let the people keep their money and spend it, that promotes a healthy economy and keeps businesses running and creates jobs.
Again, the gov’t can buy stuff just like the people. And a big problem is that in deflationary times, like right now for the US, is that people don’t just go out and spend it like they used to do. They see stuff getting cheaper, they hold on to that money. They’re worried about losing jobs, houses, etc., they pay off debts or hold on to that money – again not just going out and spending it (like the gov’t is).
I’m all for tax reduction but it’s not really the medicine the economy needs, in the short run.
Not saying it’s that great an approach the gov’t has been taking or is taking, either. There is no good course, really, certainly nothing that’s even remotely politically acceptable.
One thing about tax reduction is that it does not benefit huge numbers of people – those who pay little or no tax to begin with.
……
Check out this little dude laughing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5VoW3YFxjs
You only exlemplify the point that when people can’t point to the success of their policies they resort to the argument that “things would be so much worse if…”
I know I couldn’t keep my job using that one, no matter how many patients I care for.
Just doesnt’ wash Doug.
I haven’t claimed that abortion has solved other social problems, Mary, nor do I need to.
Having it be legal for women to make their own choice is plenty.
Asitis,
What is the name of the birth control you use?
Posted by: truthseeker at January 29, 2009 10:58 AM
Enpresse
Truth be told, I get pretty much all of my tax money back anyway. I don’t make enough.
Posted by: Josephine at January 29, 2009 10:40 AM
Well I certainly don’t! Our family subsidizes others with our taxes and I’m okay with that. In fact, we probably pay more in taxes than most (all?) of you here and we’re not the ones complaining! Funny……….
Its called gov’t spending, not “social assistance”. Social assistance results from the government taxing and spending which slows down the economy and results in people needing assistance.
Posted by: Mary at January 29, 2009 10:57 AM
Mary, government taxing and spending is not the reason more and more people are out of work these days and looking for assistance.
Asitis, 12:52PM
A huge gov’t spending bill will only worsen the situation and create more out of work people looking for jobs. Let the people keep their money and spend it as they see fit and you will see real stimulation of the economy.
Asitis 12:47PM
If you enjoy paying taxes then be my guest. Apparently you think the gov’t can more wisely spend your money than you can. I consider myself far more competent on how my money is spent. I pick and choose charities that truly better people’s lives, I give my business to local people. Let me keep more of my money and I’ll do a lot more of the same.
Doug,
Then we agree that abortion is not the remedy for any social problems.
Asitis, 12:52PM
A huge gov’t spending bill will only worsen the situation and create more out of work people looking for jobs. Let the people keep their money and spend it as they see fit and you will see real stimulation of the economy.
Posted by: Mary at January 29, 2009 1:55 PM
Mary, without any intervention the economy is sure to tank. It already is tanking. I’m not suggesting this stimulus will avert that – I don’t even think the experts can say that for certain. But it’s worth a shot. Hopefully it will soften the blow. And if it costs as much as the War in Iraq has cost, I say it’s money better spent on this.
Doug 12:32PM
The gov’t throws our money down a rathole. Its spent on bureaucracies. Its given to people who waste it. Do you trust the likes of ACORN with a few billion dollars?
Sure people hold on to their money. I do because I know the gov’t is going to nail me royal on April 15th. So I cut down on working and tighten my belt. Why work then give it to the gov’t? If I knew I’d be keeping my money I’d spend it.
Tax reduction benefits everyone Doug, its gives people more money to spend. That stimulates business, it creates jobs.
Oh and the difference between the people and gov’t spending our money? The people have a hell of a lot more sense. If there’s no difference, then let us keep it!!
Asitis, 2:04PM
The best thing the gov’t could do is stay out of it. Keep their paws out of our wallets. How the devil does all this spending stimulate the economy? Even you admitted you didn’t know how money for STDs and birth control would stimulate the economy.
In all my years Asitis I have never seen the gov’t solve ANYTHING. Make it worse yes.
Sure people hold on to their money. I do because I know the gov’t is going to nail me royal on April 15th. So I cut down on working and tighten my belt. Why work then give it to the gov’t?
Posted by: Mary at January 29, 2009 2:09 PM
Um Mary, you do realize that the government wasn’t going to take ALL of your wages for those hours you aren’t working now, right?
Asitis, 2:14Pm
The more I make the more the gov’t takes. I don’t make the money they don’t get their paws on it. They don’t put me in a higher tax bracket.
As it is Asitis I’m getting slammed.
In all my years Asitis I have never seen the gov’t solve ANYTHING. Make it worse yes.
Posted by: Mary at January 29, 2009 2:12 PM
FIGHT THE POWER MARY!!!!! RIGHT ON SISTER!!!!!!
This $900,000,000,000 stimulus package is more than we have spent on entirety of the Iraq war
TS, I saw a graph on one of the news programs last night. They were projecting the future interest of this package and comparing it to the cost of war. It was staggering. We’ve never spent this kind of money in the entire history of our country. Not only is it mind boggling, it just seems irresponsible. Especially when the drafters of this package admit that only 1/5 of the spending in it has a chance to maintain or create jobs. For this we put almost $7K additional debt on each US household?
And Obama, what’s the deal with the cocktail party to talk over the stimulus with members of congress? I read several sources that reported the cost of each steak was over $100. Let our congress folk eat franks and beans until they can get their act together. Our president and our congress look pretty silly criticizing big corporations who’ve spent their bailout money on pricey jets and expensive retreats when they can’t be budget-conscious themselves. I have no problem with the goverment asking me to tighten my belt. But it’d sure be nice if they’d set an example. Grrrr.
Asitis, 2:14Pm
The more I make the more the gov’t takes. I don’t make the money they don’t get their paws on it. They don’t put me in a higher tax bracket.
As it is Asitis I’m getting slammed.
Posted by: Mary at January 29, 2009 2:21 PM
Putting you in a higher tax bracket just means you pay more tax on that portion in the tax bracket. Duh.
Mary, to put it in perspective for you: last year we probably paid 3 to 6 times in taxes what you make in income as a nurse.
And you are the one complaining?
Then we agree that abortion is not the remedy for any social problems.
Mary, not a “complete cure” for anything else than women not having the right to make their own choice in the matter.
Tax reduction benefits everyone Doug, its gives people more money to spend. That stimulates business, it creates jobs.
Mary, no, not everybody – again, there are many people who pay little or no taxes in the first place. That alone makes it somewhat politically unpopular to propose only tax cuts as stimulus measures.
Also, people aren’t just taking any extra money and going out and spending it, not like they used to. More and more it’s going for debt reduction or savings. That, from the gov’t’s short-sighter perspective, is not what we need. And they have no choice but to look at the short-term. People won’t accept anything else right now. More’s the pity.
Though we’re not even touching the real, long-term problems, we’re still in a situation like what Japan was in 1990 and afterwards. The old saying that you can’t “push on a string” applies now.
TruthSeeker: And Doug is miffed that parents get a tax break to support raising their children. Doug, would you rather these indigant parents were forced to abort
TS, not really “miffed” at all. It’s not fair, IMO, and same for mortgage deductions, but as with what I assume was Josephine’s point in the beginning, gov’t distribution and expenditures will always have us less-than-perfectly-satisfied about something.
And what do you mean about “indignant parents”? You mean like Patricia?
; )
No, I’m not for forcing parents to abort or to continue unwanted pregnancies against their will.
If you meant “indigent” then I suggest that they ain’t payin’ much in taxes anyway, thus the increased exemptions for having kids doesn’t do squat for them.
This $900,000,000,000 stimulus package is more than we have spent on entirety of the Iraq war
Depends on how you look at it. That’s understating the true costs of the war, even were we to leave Iraq today.
Here’s an analysis showing over $2 trillion in the cost.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15499.htm
But, aside from that, okay, let’s just say the war is “only” $600 billion.
That’s roughly $21,500 per Iraqi.
The $900 billion stimulus package is less than $3000 per American.
didn’t know how money for STDs and birth control would stimulate the economy.
Same way as money for other things stimulates the economy. People who study STDs consume things like the rest of us. So do people who make birth control products.
From one of my favorite authors and I think Bobby Bambino rather likes him too:
Thirty-six years ago tomorrow, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its infamous decision in Roe v. Wade and its companion case Doe v. Bolton. In the name of a generalized “right to privacy” allegedly implicit in the Due Process Clause of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, seven justices created a license to kill the unborn.
These men probably had no idea that they were unleashing a struggle for the soul of the nation. Five had been appointed by Republican presidents—two by Eisenhower, three by Nixon. Four of these five were regarded as “conservative,” “law and order” judges: Warren E. Burger, Potter Stewart, Lewis F. Powell, and Harry Blackmun. All no doubt believed that legal abortion was a humane and enlightened policy, one that would ease the burdens of many women and girls and relieve the enormous cost to society of a high birth rate among indigent (often unmarried) women. They seemed blithely to assume that abortion would be easily integrated into the fabric of American social and political life.
They were wrong on all counts.
They were wrong about the Constitution. As William H. Rehnquist and Byron White, the two dissenting justices in the case, pointed out, it is absurd to claim that a right to feticide follows from the constitutional injunction that “no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” If the Constitution can be read to imply anything about abortion, it is that unborn human beings are, like everyone else, entitled to “the equal protection of the laws.” At a minimum, Roe and Doe were an outrageous usurpation of the constitutional authority of the people of the United States to shape law and policy through the institutions of representative government.
The Roe justices were also wrong to imagine that legal abortion would prove to be enlightened or in the slightest respect humane. On the contrary, the policy imposed by the Court has proven to be an unmitigated disaster. In the thirty-six years since Roe and Doe, abortion has taken the lives of more than fifty million unborn victims—each a distinct, unique, precious human being. It has done immeasurable moral, psychological, and sometimes physical harm to women who are so very often, and in so many respects, truly abortion’s “secondary victims.” It has corrupted physicians and nurses by turning healers into killers. It has undermined the moral authority of the law by its injustice. It has abetted irresponsible—even predatory—male sexual behavior. Far from reducing the rate of out-of-wedlock births, particularly to poor women, illegitimacy has skyrocketed in the age of abortion. Now the abortion license has metastasized into widespread elite support for deadly embryo experimentation and even, in my home state of New Jersey, to the express legalization of the horrific and grisly practice of fetal farming—the creation of human beings by cloning or other processes for the purpose of harvesting their tissues and organs at any point up to birth for experimentation and transplantation.
The justices were wrong, moreover, to suppose that America, as a nation, would learn to live with the abortion license. A notable effect of the Court’s rulings was to energize the grassroots pro-life movement that had come into being a few years earlier to resist legislative efforts to liberalize state abortion laws. In the beginning, the movement and its leadership were largely Catholic. The mainline Protestant churches, if they concerned themselves with the issue at all, positioned themselves on the pro-abortion side. At a decisive moment, however, the Evangelical community became fully activated in the cause. Today, a common commitment to defending the unborn is at the heart of an unprecedented Catholic-Evangelical alliance that extends beyond abortion to issues of sexuality and marriage, education, welfare, crime and prison policy, international human rights, and the place of religion in American public life. Great Evangelical leaders such as James Dobson and Charles Colson stand arm in arm with their Catholic brothers and sisters in defending the right to life of every human being, irrespective not only of race, sex, and ethnicity, but also of age, size, stage of development, and condition of dependency. It is this alliance that stands in the gap today in the fight against cloning and embryo-destructive biomedical research.
………
In recent years, pro-abortion Republicans have not even ventured token efforts to remove the strong and unequivocal pro-life plank in the Party’s platform.
The Republican Party’s support for the unborn has brought into its ranks many disaffected rank-and-file Democrats, including a large number of Catholics and Evangelicals. I am one. Indeed, it overstates the matter only a bit to say that, as a result of the conflict of worldviews that began with abortion, the Republicans have become the party of the religiously engaged, while the Democrats have become the party of liberal secularists. Barack Obama is trying to win over religiously serious Catholics and Evangelicals, without altering in the slightest his support for abortion, including late-term and partial-birth abortions, the funding of abortion and embryo-destructive research with taxpayer dollars, the elimination of informed consent and parental notification laws, and the revocation of conscience and religious liberty protections for pro-life doctors and other healthcare workers and pharmacists. He will ultimately fail. We must see to it that he fails.
In this project, Obama is being served and abetted by a small number of Catholic and Evangelical intellectuals and activists who have been peddling the claim that Obama, despite his pro-abortion extremism, is effectively pro-life because of his allegedly enlightened economic and social policies will reduce the number of abortions. This is delusional. The truth is that Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to serve in the United States Senate or seek the Office of President of the United States. The revocation of the Hyde Amendment, the Mexico City Policy, funding limitations on embryo-destructive research, informed consent laws, parental notification statutes—all of which Obama has promised to his pro-abortion base—will dramatically increase the number of abortions, and will do so for reasons that have been articulated by the abortion lobby itself. It is the pro-abortion side that tells us that the Hyde Amendment alone has resulted in 300,000 fewer abortions each year than would otherwise be performed—and that is why they so desperately want it to be repealed. Yet the putatively pro-life Obama apologists claim that the man who pledges to repeal it is going to reduce the number of abortions. Let me say it again: this is delusional.
……..
On this score, we have a marvelous model in the great anti-slavery crusader William Wilberforce. When he began his work against the monstrous evil of chattel slavery, the odds appeared to be long against abolition. He was attacked by partisans of the slave power as a zealot, a religious fanatic, and, most perversely, an enemy of freedom. He was, they said, imposing his religious values on others. If he didn’t like slavery, well, no one was forcing him to own slaves. He should mind his own business and stay out of other people’s affairs. Less vitriolic critics said that he was unrealistic. He was a dreamer. He was making impossible demands. Does any of this sound familiar?
Wilberforce refused to be intimidated. He would allow nothing to deter him from his mission of Christian charity to free the slaves and end the practice of slavery. He was undaunted by the ridicule often heaped upon him.
A more recent hero, Mother Teresa of Calcutta reminded us during her final visit to the United States that prayer is the most powerful weapon in the pro-life arsenal. Wilberforce would certainly agree. We must ask God’s forgiveness for our great national sin of abandoning the unborn to the crime of abortion and implore His guidance and assistance in recalling the nation to its founding ideals of liberty and justice for all. While not all pro-life citizens are in a position to be activists or exercise leadership in the social and political spheres, all are able to participate in the prayer effort, and no one’s prayers are superfluous.
In addition to prayer and our political efforts, there is the obligation to reach out to pregnant women who are in need or who are subject for other reasons to pro-abortion pressures. The partisans of abortion, with the help of an overwhelmingly sympathetic and deeply biased news media, have portrayed people who oppose the killing of the unborn, whether by abortion or in embryo-destructive research, as heartless moralizers bent on oppressing women and impeding the progress of science. Nothing could be further from the truth. For decades, pro-life people—mostly women—have devoted themselves, often at great personal cost and in the face of many obstacles, to assisting their pregnant sisters in need. They have recognized that a truly just and humane understanding is one that recognizes the common dignity and mutual interests of mother and child. Ordinary pro-life individuals and families have worked and sacrificed to provide for the material, emotional, and spiritual needs of pregnant women in need—many of whom, it must be noted, are driven to contemplate abortion under pressure from boyfriends, husbands, family, and friends. Even women who have succumbed to the temptation to destroy their unborn children are not condemned or abandoned by the pro-life movement. Rather, they are offered forgiveness, reconciliation, and healing—no strings attached. At the same time, it is pro-life Americans who are leading the charge for ethical and therapeutically useful forms of stem cell research—research that does not compromise biomedical science by killing in the cause of healing.
And those of us who are Christians must, in obedience to the command of Christ himself, love our enemies. We must pray for those who have brought the abortion license upon our nation and for those who today protect and sustain it. We must also pray for those who perform and profit from the taking of human life. Our love for them must be godly and ungrudging. We must never give up on its power to transform.
Will we achieve our goal of establishing justice for the unborn? Will abortion finally go the way of slavery? Dare we hope that the killing of the unborn can be made not only unlawful but for most people unthinkable?
Of course, it is not given to us to know just how much we will, in the end, be able to achieve. Despite the triumph of the pro-abortion party in the recent elections, there is no good reason to believe that our efforts in the domain of law and policy are futile or are doomed to fail. Yet we have no guarantee of their success. As the great Fr. Richard John Neuhaus so often said: for us, there is only the trying. The rest is God’s business, not ours. Yet we are given to know that in trying, we fulfill God’s commands, and build up His kingdom.
…………………….
Even at this dark hour for our movement, let us here highly resolve to hasten the day when this nation, under God, will be truly and fully and finally dedicated to the proposition that all are created equal.
Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. He is a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics and previously served on the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He sits on the editorial board of Public Discourse.
I apologize for the above lengthy post but it was just too good to omit ALL the text and have a link!
George I believe is a co-author of the book Embryo. (???)
Mary @1:59pm
Well, I don’t like it that the gov’t has used my money to pay for the War in Iraq. But I do like that they are using your money for Planned Parenthood! ;)
Yes indeed, Robert George is the man.
Bobby: quite the writer and makes some very good points. I cut out some of the article but it can be found here:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2009.01.22.001.pdart
And here’s a POV from someone in the trenches:
Nancy Pelosi made “stupid” history this week by her claim that “family planning” funds will stimulate the economy. Her argument, if you can dignify it with that term, is that reducing unwanted pregnancies will reduce the burden on taxpayers. But she doesn’t ask herself whether more contraception is really the answer to “unwanted” pregnancies
I recently had the opportunity to visit with some teen mothers in Reno, Nevada. Casa de Vida is a private, nonprofit corporation providing a home and support services for pregnant young women. The youngest was 14; the oldest was just 20. These are, presumably, the mothers whose pregnancies are expensive to the taxpayers. These young unmarried mothers need a variety of social services in order to take care of their babies. The Casa has a special classroom set up in their basement, so the girls can finish high school. Some will be unable to go back to their families for a variety of reasons and will need subsidized housing. Many take advantage of jobs training programs. And, of course, virtually none of them have their own health insurance, so the taxpayers pay for medical care for the mothers and babies. The social worker refers them to the public services for which they qualify.
I came at the invitation of some of the board members to talk with the girls about sex. Their social worker wanted me to help them think about having a plan for dealing with the desires they are sure to have for another relationship with a man. Neither I nor the social worker had any illusion that one chat in an afternoon will change the whole course of their lives. But we do hope that we gave them a few thoughts that will lodge in their brains when they need them later.
So we talked about their hopes and dreams for their babies. These young women want to be good mothers, and they want to be loved. Right now, they are focused on the immediate fact that their babies will be born soon. I tried to help them think about their futures beyond the birth of their babies. One day, they will be interested in boys again. Their social worker had told me that a) most of them won’t even consider adoption and b) most of them will be pregnant again within two years.
Talking with them helped me to see why the whole contraception approach to avoiding teen pregnancy is so hopeless. These girls get pregnant because they want to: they want to be loved by their boyfriends, and by their babies. Contraception is notoriously unreliable among teens. Even among women seeking abortions, who you might think would be especially motivated to avoid pregnancy, 53 per cent were using some form of contraception at the time they conceived. Passing out pills or promising abortions doesn’t deal with the underlying desires that are driving their behaviour.
Social worker Paula Crandall and Casa de Vida board member Kathleen Rossi told me that, sometimes, the Casa turns out to be the best thing that ever happened to the girls. Some of them are able to develop a sense of their own worth as persons. They get adult assistance in the ordinary problems of living, such as finishing high school, applying for jobs, looking for an apartment and so on. For some of them, the staff members at the Casa are the first adults who have taken a real interest in them, and who have the means to really help them with these basic skills. No amount of “comprehensive sex education” or “access to reproductive health” can meet these very deep-seated human needs.
If Nancy Pelosi wants to reduce the costs to taxpayers, she should be promoting marriage. Out-of-wedlock childbearing is one of the surest roads to poverty and, thereby, to taxpayer expenditure. A recent study by the Institute for American Values conservatively estimated the taxpayer costs of non-marital childbearing to be $112 billion per year, or roughly the GDP of New Zealand. Responsible, sustainable childbearing takes place within marriage. And, incidentally, if Speaker Pelosi really wants to reduce abortions (which she hinted at, but did not say) she should also be promoting marriage. Some 80 per cent of abortions, year in and year out, are performed on unmarried women.
Having babies and raising them to responsible adulthood is a significant social investment. If the family around the child breaks down or never forms in the first place, the odds of the child being raised to responsible adulthood are greatly reduced. These young girls are having babies not because their contraception has failed, not because they don’t know how to use contraception; they are having babies because they want to be loved. If Nancy Pelosi wants to save the taxpayer some money in the long run, she needs to stop investing in irresponsible sex, and start investing in responsible adult supervision and guidance of the young.
I’m not holding my breath.
Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. is the Founder and President of the Ruth Institute.
Diyg 3:23PM
Fine. Then let people keep their own money and pay for STD services, etc. as they need them. Since I don’t need them let me keep my money and spend it on what I want.
Josephine 6:20PM
You also use a gun for self defense. By the way knives and cars can be used specifically to kill people.
Look at it this way. The killer of Nicole Simpson didn’t have a gun. Unfortunately neither did Nicole.
Mary 5:23PM
I meant Doug! That’s what I get for not proofreading! Sorry Doug.
oh I dunno Mary, I like diyg!
Doug 3PM
If people pay little or no taxes why would they care? Maybe if these folks can get better paying or an extra job they can pay more taxes, as well as have more money to spend.
Of course people are not taking extra money and spending it. They’re scared. I’m not spending extra money because I know the gov’t is coming after me April 15th. I cut my hours so I won’t be in a higher bracket when they do. Let people know their money is THEIRS to spend as they see fit.
Asitis 4:06PM
If you object to how the gov’t uses your funds on military ventures, contact your congressperson or senator.
If we keep our own money then we can decide if we want it to donate it to PP or not.
Doug 2:54PM
I didn’t say a “complete cure” I said a “remedy” and apparently we agree abortion is not a remedy for any social problems.
Asitis 2:29PM
You don’t say!! The only thing higher tax brackets have meant for me is I shell out more.
To put it in perspective for you, think of what you could have done with that money if you had been allowed to keep it. Assuming of course you know better what to do with your money than the gov’t does.
Asitis 2:22PM
Your post doesn’t make much sense.
“I just heard this “stimulus bill” will give “stimulus” checks to illegal immigrants as well. ”
Mary, where did you hear this? The street? Work? Credible news source?
“Plus, my son can even an aspirin without parental approval, but girls can get BC?”
Well, Jasper, your son can go to Wal-Mart and he doesn’t need your permission to get it.. there are lots of other thing girls can do without parental permission. Buy make-up (which parents may not approve of), condoms, thongs… I mean, where do you stop limiting things? Should girls be allowed to buy daily vitamins without parental permission. If so, why not birth control?
Wait a minute, Josephine, you love that your university is funded by taxes but you don’t want your taxes to go to public education?!
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 29, 2009 11:52 AM
It’s called an example. I already said I get all my tax money back since I don’t make much.
“Remember when I posted my observation that Obama is a sociopath? I rest my case.
Posted by: Mary at January 29, 2009 11:59 AM
Mary… remember when I pointed out that you can’t possibly know that knowing nothing about him or his background?
“Even you admitted you didn’t know how money for STDs and birth control would stimulate the economy.”
Obama asked to have the contraception part removed, actually.
“TS, not really “miffed” at all. It’s not fair, IMO, and same for mortgage deductions, but as with what I assume was Josephine’s point in the beginning, gov’t distribution and expenditures will always have us less-than-perfectly-satisfied about something.”
Exactly, Doug. I wasn’t complaining about paying for publicly funded schools. Just saying that that’s not great for me, since I don’t have any kids in school…
Mary, about the guns… how can you not tell there is a difference there? Are you kidding? With a butcher’s knife, you can’t ACCIDENTALLY kill the wrong person. You mean to harm, and you know exactly who you’re doing it to. With a gun, you can walk into your family room and see a stranger and shoot. From across the room. In the dark. Please don’t pretend it hasn’t happened.
Josephine,
Google “stimulus bill and illegal aliens”.
Concerning Obama being a sociopath. If I do say so myself, I have a great track record for calling sociopaths, as well as other personality disorders. Actually its not that hard. Read Martha Stout’s book “The Sociopath Next Door” and see for yourself how easy it can be.
Obama asked to have contraception removed from the bill? I thought it would stimulate the economy!?
Concerning the buthcher knife. You have a point. You’re probably more likely to kill someone you know, like the mystery killer who slaughtered Nicole Simpson.
How many people die because of cars every year? How many of those accidents do you suppose anyone planned?
Asitis 4:06PM
If we keep our own money then we can decide if we want it to donate it to PP or not.
Posted by: Mary at January 29, 2009 5:39 PM
I think the people have already decided that for you Mary!
Asitis,
No, the gov’t conficates our money and decides what it wants to do with it. Apparently neither you or I are considered smart enough to spend our money as we see fit.
Asitis 2:29PM
You don’t say!! The only thing higher tax brackets have meant for me is I shell out more.
To put it in perspective for you, think of what you could have done with that money if you had been allowed to keep it. Assuming of course you know better what to do with your money than the gov’t does.
Posted by: Mary at January 29, 2009 5:47 PM
Yes, you shell out more in taxes, but you are bringing in more. You’re still ahead of the game. You made it sound like you had to cut back your hours in order to pay your taxes.
Oh, there’s lots I could have done with that money, but I know taxes are necessary. Sigh….Too bad it was the Bush government all that money went too though.
Asitis,
No, the gov’t conficates our money and decides what it wants to do with it. Apparently neither you or I are considered smart enough to spend our money as we see fit.
Posted by: Mary at January 29, 2009 6:44 PM
Oh mary, mary…..
Asitis 6:48PM
I know, sad isn’t it? To think of what we could do with my own hard earned money…..
….. quite contrary
Asitis 6:46PM
I’m bringing in more but my take home doesn’t show it since the gov’t takes more. Cut back hours to pay taxes? No. I cut back hours so the gov’t will take less. Why work if I don’t have something to show for it because the gov’t is taking it?
Since you have an issue with the Bush spending, as do I, then I would expect you would have an even bigger issue with Obama only making it worse.
Asitis 7:01PM
This means….what?
“Concerning Obama being a sociopath. If I do say so myself, I have a great track record for calling sociopaths, as well as other personality disorders. Actually its not that hard. Read Martha Stout’s book “The Sociopath Next Door” and see for yourself how easy it can be.”
Uhm. We’ve already went over my mother’s career, Mary. You can’t analyze someone that you see on t.v. and read about from information you learned in one book. That’s ridiculous.
“Obama asked to have contraception removed from the bill? I thought it would stimulate the economy!?”
So, even though you don’t think we should do it and neither does Obama, this is somehow still a bad thing.. on Obama?
“Concerning the buthcher knife. You have a point. You’re probably more likely to kill someone you know, like the mystery killer who slaughtered Nicole Simpson.
How many people die because of cars every year? How many of those accidents do you suppose anyone planned?”
Mary, when you get in a car you don’t PLAN to harm ANYONE. When you stab someone with a knife, you know exactly who you’re stabbing.
When you shoot a gun you DON’T know exactly who and HOW it’s going to harm someone. Have you ever shot a gun? I do regularly, Mary. I’d never bring one into my home. I’d think anyone that had children and a gun in their home are seriously, seriously stupid.
“No, the gov’t conficates our money and decides what it wants to do with it. ”
Yeah, because under a Republican government we didn’t pay taxes…
Josephine,7:08PM
With all respect to your mother, sociopaths can be spotted and Dr.Stout tells you how. Read her book. I wish I had at your age. Warning, Dr.Stout estimates 1 in 4 Americans are sociopaths. You’d be wise to educate yourself where these people are concerned.
Why was it in the bill if Obama didn’t want it?
Would it have been removed if the public had not been made aware of it? I wonder if Obama is better informed on the bills he wants to push through congress than he is on the executive orders that he signs.
Killing with a gun can be just as accidental as killing with a car. So let’s ban cars. Yes I’ve shot a gun. I keep one in my house in case an intruder breaks in. I was advised by a police officer to shoot an intruder in front, never in the back, and shoot to kill.
If you don’t want a gun in your house Josie that’s certainly your option. It makes me feel much more secure.
Josephine, 7:08
I’m not certain I understand your last point.
“Killing with a gun can be just as accidental as killing with a car. So let’s ban cars. Yes I’ve shot a gun. I keep one in my house in case an intruder breaks in. I was advised by a police officer to shoot an intruder in front, never in the back, and shoot to kill.”
When you shoot a gun, you said yourself you “shoot to kill” when you get in a car, do you “drive to kill”? That doesn’t make sense. Accidents happen in cars. When you’re SHOOTING A GUN, it’s deliberate. You DELIBERATELY shoot a gun. What do you not understand about that?
You have a gun in your house, great for you. Wonder how you’d feel about that if someone “broke in”, and you shot them only to find out it’s someone you knew. :)
You CANNOT diagnose someone without ever meeting them, Mary. Your “Dr. Stout” is obviously an idiot.
Do you think Obama wrote the bill himself, Mary? Nope. He did read it. He did talk it over with Republicans and Democrats. They decided that didn’t have a place. God forbid he do his job correctly.
“I’m bringing in more but my take home doesn’t show it since the gov’t takes more”.
Mary, that’s impossible that your paycheck is less with the extra hours, even though those hours are taxed at a higher rate. You need to see your payroll dept. They are making an error in your withholding.
“Since you have an issue with the Bush spending, as do I, then I would expect you would have an even bigger issue with Obama only making it worse”.
Nope! I like better what Obama does with the money.
I’m not so sure I like it that you have a gun in your house Mary.
“I’m not so sure I like it that you have a gun in your house Mary.”
LOL.
Asitis 7:30PM
Wanna bet? If I work my full 40 hours I get x-amount after the gov’t gets its mitts on it.
If I work 32, the gov’t takes less and I keep a little more. It comes out about the same. Overtime will make my check look a little better. Too much overtime and a pay raise or two and then I get into a higher bracket, which really makes the gov’t slobber. So come tax time I have more income and the gov’t licking its chops.
Put simply, the more you make the more the gov’t is gonna take.
Again Asitis, if you think Obama can spend your hard earned money more wisely than you can, fine with me.
I like it that you get my jokes Josephine!
Asitis 7:33PM
Just don’t break and enter my house illegally and you won’t have a problem:)
Mary @ 7:39
Mary, if you work 40 hours, you still take home the same amount for the first 32 hours as you would if you only worked 32 hours. And you also take home the extra pay you made for the 8 hours minus the tax you pay on those 8 hours.
I’ll see if I can find something to explain this to you. It’s pretty basic, but I think some people do have this misconception.
Here you go Mary. This should explain it for you:
What many people don’t realize is that our federal income tax brackets reflect marginal rates, not a rate that is applied to your entire income. Here’s a quick example based on current income tax rates…
For a married couple filing jointly in 2008, the 10% tax bracket covers income from $0 to $16,050. From $16,050 to $65,100 the tax rate is 15%. And from $65,100 to $131,450 the tax rate is 25%. A couple with a taxable income of $100k will be in the 25% tax bracket, but they won’t have to pay 25% in federal income taxes on the full amount. Rather, they’ll pay just 10% on the first $16,050, 15% on the next $49,050, and 25% on the last $34,900. This works out to $17,687.50, or an effective rate of just under 18%.
….as you can see from the numbers above, you have nothing to fear from earning a bit more money and finding yourself in a higher tax bracket.
Moving to a higher tax bracket will never cause you to take home less money than if your income were lower.
Asitis 7:33PM
Just don’t break and enter my house illegally and you won’t have a problem:)
Posted by: Mary at January 29, 2009 7:41 PM
I’m more worried for your payroll person!
Put simply, the more you make the more the gov’t is gonna take.
Posted by: Mary at January 29, 2009 7:39 PM
Don’t I know it! But nevertheless, you’ll take home more than before.
Josephine,
Do you understand that killings can be accidental with either a car or a gun? That’s my point. Accidental killings are just that, no one deliberately set out to kill someone. A car can be as deadly as a gun. Cleaning solutions can be as deadly to a child as a gun. These all involve accidental tragedies that no one anticipated or planned. They happen.
I’d feel terrible. What if someone broke into my home armed with a gun or knife determined to kill me or a loved one?
No, Dr.Stout is a Ph.D and expert in her field. Please Josie read her book, for your own sake. You encounter these people all the time and would be well advised how to recognize one.
Josie, Obama tried to get Republicans to go along with it to cover his own butt should the bill be a disaster, which likely it will be. If he foresees this bill as such a huge success, why share that with the Republicans? Wouldn’t he want the Democrats to get all the credit?
Democrats wrote it. Nancy Pelosi saw to that.
By the way, opposition to the bill was bipartisan, 11 Democrats and all Republicans. Only Democrats supported it. The support was strictly partisan.
Asitis 7:51PM
Just wait until April 15th when the gov’t tallies it all up and vacuums your wallet of any extra you made and they didn’t previously catch.
Exactly what I expect to happen to me this year.
Asitis 7:51PM
Just wait until April 15th when the gov’t tallies it all up and vacuums your wallet of any extra you made and they didn’t previously catch.
Exactly what I expect to happen to me this year.
Posted by: Mary at January 29, 2009 7:59 PM
Well if it’s on regular earnings, then that just means you aren’t having the proper amount withheld. Maybe you should check your W-4.
Do you understand how marginalized tax works now Mary?
Mary, You said yourself that you were told to shoot to kill. I’m not saying the KILLING is accidental. I’m saying you could accidentally kill someone you didn’t mean to. You’d be MEANING to kill with a gun. I’m done talking about that, you obviously can’t understand.
He’s STILL working on the bill with Republicans. Not so he can blame it on them if it fails, but so they have a SAY. Wow, way to find evil in everything, even when it’s not there…
If he didn’t forsee this bill as a huge success, why do you think he’d want people to remember this as the first thing he did in office.
Asitis 7:45 and 7:48PM
You have to keep in mind deductions, which vary considerably from family to family. I no longer have a mortgage, I can’t deduct my son’s college expenses because I’m “too rich” and have no other dependents.
I’m going to get nailed. I have been the last few years and will get hit harder this year since my house is paid off.
Asitis 7:49PM
Actually our payroll person is a very nice lady. The IRS, now that’s a nice thought……
Asitis 8:05PM
Whether its withheld or you get nailed later, the gov’t gets their paws on your money, period. If not sooner then later.
Understand how the gov’t rips you off Asitis?
Understand how the gov’t rips you off Asitis?
Posted by: Mary at January 29, 2009 8:13 PM
Well, you and I obviously feels differently about taxes Mary.
But do you understand now how marginalized taxes work? And that it’s impossible for you to not take home more pay for more hours worked… unless your payroll dept is miscalculating your withholding tax.
Josie,
I said shoot to kill an intruder. If there’s someone in your bedroom holding a knife or gun, or even if you don’t see a weapon, shoot to kill.
Yes you make every effort to first identify an intruder. Tragic mistakes may happen. Also if you don’t have a gun you may end up a statistic.
Josie the bill passed the House. He doesn’t need Republicans to pass the bill, only all Democrats on board. He wants Republican support to cover his butt. He doesn’t want Republicans to say they unanimously opposed a bill that became a failure. Its politics. If he foresees the bill as a big success, of course he and the Democrats will want all the credit. If it isn’t, he doesn’t want the Republicans looking like the good guys and gals.
“With all respect to your mother, sociopaths can be spotted and Dr.Stout tells you how. Read her book. I wish I had at your age. Warning, Dr.Stout estimates 1 in 4 Americans are sociopaths. You’d be wise to educate yourself where these people are concerned.”
Mary, don’t scare Josephine! I think Stout actually estimated 4 per cent are sociopaths(1 in 25, not 1 in 4). Yes?
I hope THEY don’t have guns!
“Tragic mistakes may happen.”
They happen all the time, unfortunately. :(
You’re right. He doesn’t need Republicans. He wants their approval. I’m not sure still why that’s evil. Like I said, he obviously believes in this very much: it’s his first major act.
Josie,
I said shoot to kill an intruder. If there’s someone in your bedroom holding a knife or gun, or even if you don’t see a weapon, shoot to kill.
Yes you make every effort to first identify an intruder. Tragic mistakes may happen. Also if you don’t have a gun you may end up a statistic.
Posted by: Mary at January 29, 2009 8:22 PM
Here’s a story a heard about a friend recentl, y: They had a home intruder. Found him sleeping on their coach. It was a neighborhood boy, home from college and went “home” drunk to the wrong house. They woke him up and sent him on his way, very embarassed. Imagine if he had wandered into your house Mary.
“Found him sleeping on their coach”…. Shockers!!!!! Sorryno, I meant to say “couch”
Asitis, 8:19PM
I have to mention I am an advanced practice nurse so my income is higher than what you may have realized.
The gov’t is withholding as much as possible, so there will be little significant difference in my paycheck, unless I really drop a lot of hours in a pay period. The more I make, the more that is withheld. Overtime may make some difference, until tax time that is. At tax time because I have so few deductions anymore, I will get hit harder than in previous years.
I have to mention I am an advanced practice nurse so my income is higher than what you may have realized.
The gov’t is withholding as much as possible, so there will be little significant difference in my paycheck, unless I really drop a lot of hours in a pay period. The more I make, the more that is withheld. Overtime may make some difference, until tax time that is. At tax time because I have so few deductions anymore, I will get hit harder than in previous years.
Posted by: Mary at January 29, 2009 8:31 PM
Doesn’t matter how high your income is Mary. You will still make more money after taxes as your income increases. It doesn’t matter if it puts you in a higher tax bracket.
Asitis 8:28PM
Imagine of Nicole Simpson had had a gun. She might have not wound up with her head half off.
Asitis 8:28PM
Imagine of Nicole Simpson had had a gun. She might have not wound up with her head half off.
Posted by: Mary at January 29, 2009 8:33 PM
Even better in these two scenarios none of you, OJ and Nicole had guns!
“Imagine of Nicole Simpson had had a gun. She might have not wound up with her head half off.”
Uhm. Imagine if she had a gun, and while thinking she was getting attacked by OJ, a big black neighbor that resembled him ran into the house to help. What do you think would have happened in that situation?
Asitis,
I will not have the income I would otherwise have, that’s my point. I’m not starving, I’m saying more money in my pocket is more money I will spend on local business, donate to charity, possibly buy a new vehicle, and invest. I will stimulate the economy. I can better and more efficiently spend my money than the gov’t.
As it is Asitis I’m holding on to my money cuz I know tax day is coming. Oh yes, the city wanted its share, and just wait for the state tax bill.
Asitis,
OJ didn’t have a gun, he had one of those more harmless knives.
Too bad Nicole didn’t.
Why are we picking on poor OJ? He’s still be looking for NIcole’s killer if he wasn’t in jail!
When did I say knives were harmless, Mary? What are you talking about? Uhm, you apparently didn’t even read what I said. When you kill with a knife, there is NO DOUBT about who you’re killing.
Never did I say knives were harmless. Now you’re just makin’ stuff up.
Josie,
We can concoct all kinds of scenarios. Had Nicole had a gun she might be alive today, as well as Ron Goldman. Perhaps her mystery killer would have been a little more fearful of stalking her or being on her property if he knew she had a gun and was very capable of using it.
Oh, about shooting to kill. The former police officer said if you don’t you’re only giving your assailant another opportunity to kill you.
And if it’s not an “assailant” than OOPS! you just killed someone.
I don’t know about you. I’d rather be murdered than murder an innocent person. Guess that’s just me.
I’m done talking to you about gun control. I already said that, and you’ve brought it up twice. You obviously don’t understand the concept, so it’s pointless. You’d rather feel safe than worry about killing an innocent person. I understand.
Josie,
That’s not directed at you personally. I’ve used this argument with many people to stress that anything can be deadly, a knife, gun, baseball bat, etc. Its just me being facetious to get a point across, nothing more.
Josie,
I can imagine that anyone who has accidentally killed another human being, be it by gun, car, or whatever would prefer to have been the one killed. I can’t even imagine living with someone like that.
We’ve had a couple of children accidentally run over by parents. To me that is just as horrifying as accidentally shooting someone.
Accidental killings of any kind can happen in any way and yes they are tragic, whether they occur by gun or a vehicle or whatever. They’re devastating to all involved.
Police officers have accidentally shot the wrong people. Again tragic. However, people have also been senselessly murdered by intruders, rapists, and random shootings.
Well Mary, I’m glad to hear you’re not starving! ;)
And I hope I was able to help you better understand tax margins. Don’t feel bad – yours is a somewhat common misconception.
Good night!
I am always proud of you, Mary :D
Mary, I have said CONTINUOUSLY, we are not talking about “accidentally” killing a person. When you shoot someone with a gun, you could kill the WRONG person. KJDljlkj.sd I’ve said it fifteen times.
Asitis,
Thank you but I do understand tax margins and did so before your “help”. I also understand I’m getting slammed with taxes and will be hit harder this year because of fewer deductions.
Also, unless I really cut back hours I see little difference in my check when I work fewer hours since the gov’t just “withholds” a little less, otherwise they “withhold” a lot more.
Depending on what I tell them to “withhold” its pay now or later. The IRS will get its due. Overall, the lower I keep my income, the less I pay. So much for incentive.
I also know I could spend my money far better than the gov’t and would thank them to keep their paws off of it.
Again, if you feel the gov’t can more wisely spend YOUR money, that’s fine with me.
Josie,
When you shoot someone you didn’t intend to, i.e. you kill the wrong person, that’s accidental even if you deliberately aimed and fired the gun. At least I would call that an accidental killing. Yes it does happen.
Asitis,
Thank you but I do understand tax margins and did so before your “help”.
Posted by: Mary at January 29, 2009 9:26 PM
Well, I hope you understand it now better than you did when you wrote this:
I’m bringing in more but my take home doesn’t show it since the gov’t takes more.
Posted by: Mary at January 29, 2009 7:05 PM
You’re welcome!
Overall, the lower I keep my income, the less I pay. So much for incentive.
Posted by: Mary at January 29, 2009 9:26 PM
Sure, the lower your income, the less tax you pay. And the less money you take home.
The higher your income, the more tax you pay. And the more money you take home.
If your incentive is paying less tax, than you’ll want to work less.
If your incentive is taking home more money, than you’ll want to mork more.
It depends what motivates you more… taking home more money or paying less taxes.
“I just heard this “stimulus bill” will give “stimulus” checks to illegal immigrants as well.”
I’m getting lost in all the comments. Mary, was it you who posted that? My understanding is that this stimulus will allow those who have no social security number to get money from the government. So yes, it applies to illegals and people who are here legally but not citizens.
By the way, I read somewhere (don’t ask for a link because I don’t remember now where I saw it) that the last stimulus also had benefits for green card holders. This time around there is no need to prove legal residency. No wonder Obama’s illegal alien auntie doesn’t want to leave!
My understanding is that this stimulus will allow those who have no social security number to get money from the government. So yes, it applies to illegals and people who are here legally but not citizens.
Posted by: Fed Up at January 29, 2009 9:43 PM
I’ve read some conflicting reports on that Fed UP. Some Republicans announced that those with TIN’s would also get the checks. But I’ve also read that that was incorrect: that checks were only being sent to those with SSN’s which would be those on work visas, permanent residents (green card holders) and citizens.
will be hit harder this year because of fewer deductions
Mary, can you increase your charitable contributions? I understand that you probably don’t want to take yourself down to poverty level and pay no taxes. But if you increase your charitable giving, you might be able to reduce the amount you pay to Uncle Sam and redirect some of that money to causes you feel are more deserving. Just a thought :-)
By the way, I read somewhere (don’t ask for a link because I don’t remember now where I saw it) that the last stimulus also had benefits for green card holders.
Posted by: Fed Up at January 29, 2009 9:43 PM
That shouldn’t be surprising that green card holders would get the same benefits Fed Up. They pay the same taxes as citizens and have pretty much the same rights, opportunities and restrictions. Of course they can’t run for office or vote or …………..
Asitis,
As I said I well understood tax margins before your “help”.
Have you heard of something called deductions?
I have few if any anymore, and even those help me very little.
That means I have payroll withold more of my pay, especially if I get a raise. If I decide I want more of my money on payday the IRS will nail me at tax time. Its pay now or later, the IRS awaits.
Without deductions, which resulted in my at one time getting decent returns, I’m a sitting duck.
The more I make, the more the gov’t will take since I can’t claim any write offs.
No Asitis, I do not come out ahead in the end by working more. I may take home more pay, but the gov’t will be waiting to pounce. Or I can have a little less pay and the gov’t has a little less to grab. It comes out the same for me either way.
“Also if you don’t have a gun you may end up a statistic.”
Something I don’t think has been addressed. In a situation where someone has a gun and you have a gun, it seems like you are still disadvantaged.
If you are a proper gunowner with a safe and all that, you are going to have to open the safe and get the ammunition, point, and shoot. Unless you have a loaded gun in your bedstand. In either case, a quick intruder would be most likely to shoot first.
If you have a concealed weapon permit, and are carrying one around, and someone tries to rob you with a gun, I’d assume you would reach for your own. But the minute he sees you reaching for your gun, he’s more likely to pop off on you- that’s you, dead- instead of just grabbing your wallet and leaving. I’d rather lose my wallet than be dead.
I mean, those are the 2 scenarios I run into with the “if only they had a gun..” In a lot of situations you would have to be really skilled or have a loaded gun sitting in your house somewhere for most real-world situations to play out the way we want them to…if “only they had a gun…”
Mary, of course I understand deductions. (Unfortunately with the AMT, we end up not getting to use all of ours though).
But with or without deductions, the amount of money you keep after taxes increases as your income increases.
I’ve read some conflicting reports
Asitis, there’s so much spin on both sides that I don’t know what the FACTS are. These days journalism seems more like activism instead of reporting.
Mary, have you thought of hiring an accountant? Unless you have absolutely no potential tax breaks and have no interest in creating any (which is not that hard to do), they can do wonders, legally, with the click of a mouse.
I think it’s also a case of reports being made before the facts are checked? We expect instananeous news nowadays…………
Fed UP,
Google “stimulus bill and illegal aliens”. They had some good articles, especially one from Fox News.
There are a number of charities I donate to. I’m very happy to do so. I also volunteer for some. I deduct what I can like medical expenses, but it doesn’t keep down my tax bill. What really grates me is I can’t deduct my son’s college tuition, which I pay. Unless of course I drastically cut work hours so I won’t be considered “too rich” to qualify for the deduction.
My whole point is that we can more wisely spend our money than the gov’t can, be it on charity, investments, personal spending and the economy would be better served if the American people could do so.
We have a Republican in our midst ladies and gentleman! Oh wait…. of course we do. Wrong blog…. sorry!
My whole point is that we can more wisely spend our money than the gov’t can, be it on charity, investments, personal spending and the economy would be better served if the American people could do so.
Sure, in theory. Do you honestly think the average person is going to do this, though?
Seriously?
Terezia,
Thank you for your input. I do have an accountant and we also have a financial advisor who we will be seeing next week. I have to talk to both of them about hiding money now that our house is paid off.
Terezia 10:36PM
Absolutely.
Asitis 10:21PM
Sorry, but the deductions will make or break you. The fewer the deductions, the harder you get slammed. Best you find a place to put your money where the gov’t can’t get to it.
Terezia 10:36PM
Absolutely.
Posted by: Mary at January 29, 2009 10:38 PM
…..not!
Glad about the accountant, Mary. And financial advisor, which is more than I have yet.
And I’ve got to say, your faith in the average North American is far, far greater than mine. I’m envisioning a lot of people buying malt liquor and plasma TVs, especially if society has sunk as low as many people here claim it has.
Sorry, but the deductions will make or break you. The fewer the deductions, the harder you get slammed. Posted by: Mary at January 29, 2009 10:41 PM
Sure, deductions lower your taxes. And if you don’t have any, you’ll pay the max for your income. But it still remains that, as I keep saying, the amount of money you keep after taxes increases as your income increases.
PIP 10:17PM
Depends on who’s a better shot. You can’t be certain he wouldn’t shoot you anyway so with a gun you at least have a fighting chance.
As for the intruder, he may not have a gun, but rather a knife or a club. Maybe no weapon at all. He might also run like a scared rabbit when you pull out your gun.
Just don’t shoot him in the back and make sure he’s still in your house when you do. Otherwise you might have a lot of legal hassle. If you have to shoot, shoot to kill. Otherwise you’re just giving him another opportunity to kill you.
If people are allowed to carry concealed weapons, like criminals do, then a mugger might think twice. Grandma might be packing a piece and be a real good shot. I heard one sheriff say the incidence of rape decreased in his town when concealed weapons were permitted.
And I’ve got to say, your faith in the average North American is far, far greater than mine. I’m envisioning a lot of people buying malt liquor and plasma TVs, especially if society has sunk as low as many people here claim it has.
Posted by: Terezia at January 29, 2009 10:44 PM
Or it would be good if they paid down their household debt or put away some savings, but that won’t help the economy. And I can’t really see people investing their tax breaks into infrastucture projects, new technologies, extending unemployment and health care benefits to those who have lost their jobs and can’t find new ones, helping stop home foreclosures, etc. No, I think malt liquor and plasma TV’s is more like it too!
Asitis 10:48PM
I know. But without deductions you won’t come out that much farther ahead then if you worked less.
If one wants to work to feed the gov’t go for it.
Not me.
“especially one from Fox News.”
I’m going to go ahead and call that unreliable then.
We’re watching the Simpsons right now and I saw some things that reminded me of you guys.
“I’m a good man, I work hard, I love my kids. Why should I spend half my Sundays hearing about how I’m going to Hell?”
&
“What i fwe pick the wrong religion. Each week we’re just making God madder and madder.”
Terezia and Ascitis,
Please. So Americans wouldn’t buy more consumer goods, invest in new technologies, donate to charities?
We’ll just drink malt liquor and watch TV?
What would you do with extra money ladies? Or do you need Washington to decide this for you?
Concerning our infrastructure, just who are those highway workers we see every summer and who pays them? Are bridges collapsing? Obviously somebody is maintaining them. We have several in our city and they’re all maintained very well by city employees and have been for years.
Maybe there would be less need for unemployment benefits as more consumer spending generated more jobs. Also less forclosure and more people able to pay for their own health insurance and medical costs.
Perhaps people in need would be better served by private charities who have to answer to their donors, not some faceless gov’t bureaucracy.
Josephine 11:08PM
Suit yourself.
asitis,
What are the names and doses of the hormones you take in your daily dose of Enpresse?i Has your dosage ever changed during your twenty yearsof use? sexThose are some bad precautions on Enpresse.
1)Depending on strength, Enpresse may cause a patchy, darkening of the skin on the face (melasma).
2)
above was an accidental click on “Post” while typing
Truthseeker, if they have changed the formulation of Enpresses (or the similar Triphasil which I have taken instead), over the past 20 years then my “dosage” changed. If not, it hasn’t.
As for precautions, yes, there are certain people who shouldn’t and can’t take it.
“especially one from Fox News.”
I’m going to go ahead and call that unreliable then.
Posted by: Josephine at January 29, 2009 11:08 PM
Ditto Josephine!
Mary, I think your view that Americans are heavily taxed may be influenced by your never having lived in another country???? Because coming from Canada, I don’t think our taxes here are high. And I know people in Europe who would say even more so.
A word of aadvice for you: Don’t move out of the USA. You’ll be even more Mary, Mary quite contrary!
Octuplets’ mother, who already has six children, turned down selective abortion
David Byers
The mother of the octuplets born this week already has six other young children and refused the option of a selective abortion when told she was expecting multiple babies, it has emerged.
Instead the woman, who has not been publicly named, chose to go ahead and give birth, giving her a total haul of 14 children.
Today, as all the babies continued to make good progress in a Los Angeles hospital, it emerged that the mother’s existing six children were under the age of eight, including one set of twins.
The family live with both her and her parents in the well-kept suburb of Whittier, near Los Angeles.
Angela Suleman, her mother, disclosed to the LA Times today that her daughter had embryos implanted last year and “they all happened to take”. Despite doctors giving her an opportunity to selectively reduce the number, she refused.
The subsequent birth, while being only the second time in history that octuplets have been born and all survived, caused worldwide attention – but also some discomfort among critics who have questioned the medical ethics of implanting multiple embryos, which makes multiple births more likely.
“What do you suggest she should have done?” Ms Suleman told the newspaper. “She refused to have them killed. That is a very painful thing.”
The mother, who described the newborn babies as “so tiny and beautiful”, admitted that being able to bring up 14 children – the others are aged seven, six, five, three and two – would be difficult. She added that her daughter’s father was going back to Iraq, where he is believed to work as a contractor, to help support the extended family.
Although the octuplets’ mother has not been identified in order to protect the identities of her young children, journalists have tracked the family down to what was said to be a cul-de-sac in Whittier.
The woman, who is believed to be 33 years of age, gave birth to the octuplets last Monday at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Centre in Bellflower, where the youngsters remain. They were delivered by a team of 46 doctors, nurses and assistants, with the entire procedure lasting just five minutes. Doctors said the eighth child was a complete surprise, as they had only expected seven.
Hours after media vans and reporters gathered outside the Whittier home, the hospital issued a fresh statement on behalf of the mother requesting privacy.
“Please know, in our own time, we will share additional details about this miraculous experience,” the statement read.
“The babies continue to grow strong every day and make good progress. My family and I are ecstatic about all of their arrivals. Needless to say the eighth was a surprise to us all, but a blessing as well.”
Dr Mandhir Gupta, one of the delivery team, said that seven of the babies were breathing without assistance. One was still receiving oxygen through a tube in his nose. Seven of the infants were being tube-fed donated breast milk. One of the boys was expected to begin feeding today. All babies continued to receive an intravenous nutritional combination. They were expected to remain in the hospital for several more weeks.
The medical community, meanwhile, remain divided about the ethics of implanting so many embryos when the chances of an unusually large number of multiple births were so high. According to the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, doctors would usually refuse to implant any more than two embryos at any given time for a woman under the age of 35.
Dr Harold Henry, who was part of the delivery team, told the LA Times that he had given Ms Suleman the option of aborting some of the foetuses.
“What I do is just explain the facts. I always talk about the risks,” he said. “The mother weighs those options, and she chooses the option based on spiritual or personal makeup.”
However, most practitioners – while confirming that guidance tells them not to implant multiple embryos – acknowledge the choice is not ultimately theirs to make and rests solely with the mother. “Who am I to say that six is the limit?” Dr Jeffrey Steinberg, medical director of Fertility Institutes, which has clinics in Los Angeles, Las Vegas and New York City, told the Associated Press news agency. “There are people who like to have big families.”
Dr James Grifo, professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at the New York University School of Medicine, added: “I don’t think it’s our job to tell them how many babies they’re allowed to have. I am not a policeman for reproduction in the United States. My role is to educate patients.”
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/01/30/octuplets-family.html
What say you all to this story?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,485584,00.html
another link from my news reader to the story above.
Geez, what to say about this situation.
If she is against abortion, it was irresponsible for her have at least eight embryos implanted.
Then let people keep their own money and pay for STD services, etc. as they need them. Since I don’t need them let me keep my money and spend it on what I want.
Mary, the problem is that people don’t keep spending like they used to, in environments like this. Bush Jr. got us stimulus checks, and what was the advice? “Go out and spend it” – even while too much spending is what got us in the mess in the first place.
The current gov’t is just doing the same thing, hoping to limp along….
If people pay little or no taxes why would they care? Maybe if these folks can get better paying or an extra job they can pay more taxes, as well as have more money to spend.
Mary, they care because they see others getting something “extra,” while they are not.
Of course it’s only a return of money that the others already paid or would pay in taxes, but that fact doesn’t mean all that much to some people. (Heh – I know you’ll agree there.)
…..
Of course people are not taking extra money and spending it. They’re scared. I’m not spending extra money because I know the gov’t is coming after me April 15th. I cut my hours so I won’t be in a higher bracket when they do.
Well, even at the top bracket it’s only a portion, as others have been explaining.
Example : you’re making $50,000 or $60,000 or $70,000. If you’re worried about “bracket creep” you needn’t be – you still get 75 cents out of every further Dollar you earn as far as federal income tax.
Then we agree that abortion is not the remedy for any social problems.
“Mary, not a “complete cure” for anything else than women not having the right to make their own choice in the matter.”
I didn’t say a “complete cure” I said a “remedy” and apparently we agree abortion is not a remedy for any social problems.
No. It’s certainly a partial remedy for quite a few things, though I don’t think it’s totally “solving” them (of course), per what you first said:
I was referring to the mentality, long proven incorrect, that abortion is going to solve social problems
Doug, she just doesn’t get it. Or she just be contrary.
she just be contrary.
Arrrr, Lassie, that’s the pirate in ye comin’ out.
Sorry, but the deductions will make or break you. The fewer the deductions, the harder you get slammed. Best you find a place to put your money where the gov’t can’t get to it.
Mary, the problem is that deductions from your taxable income only apply at your marginal top rate.
Example: One is making $100,000 per year. One has some expenses that are tax-deductible.
One is still only getting 28 cents back on the Dollar. One has paid $1.00 and is only getting back 28 cents. IMO by and large better to pay the tax and keep the 72 cents.
Must be the eye patch!
asitis: Unfortunately with the AMT, we end up not getting to use all of ours though
AMT = The Devil
Josephine: What i fwe pick the wrong religion.
Are you Welsh Gaelic? ; )
The mother, who described the newborn babies as “so tiny and beautiful”, admitted that being able to bring up 14 children – the others are aged seven, six, five, three and two – would be difficult. She added that her daughter’s father was going back to Iraq, where he is believed to work as a contractor, to help support the extended family.
I think guy said, “Oh my God I’m outta here!”
I hope eye patches are deductible….
Josephine,
As a Catholic, do you go to church on Sundays? Do you receive communion? Do you always like mocking your own church?
J
I hope eye patches are deductible….
Posted by: Doug at January 30, 2009 9:19 AM
Arrrr captain, pirates don’t pay their taxes!
I think guy said, “Oh my God I’m outta here!”
Posted by: Doug at January 30, 2009 9:18 AM
Can you imagine Doug????? I wonder if before she had the eight embryos implanted she asked her father if he wouldn’t mind going to Iraq to help pay her bills if all the embryos took?
Josephine,
As a Catholic, do you go to church on Sundays? Do you receive communion? Do you always like mocking your own church?
J
Posted by: Jasper at January 30, 2009 9:20 AM
Yes, yes, and yes Jasper.
It’s the Simpsons. Get a sense of humor. You don’t always have to have a stick up your butt.
LOL!
Josephine,
How do feel when you’re in church? praying, recieving communion…is your conscience clear? given the fact you are now working for a company that destroys human life, helpless babies in the womb. How does one who follows the Catholic faith possibly ‘hate’ children? How do you reconcile this.
It’s the Simpsons. Get a sense of humor. You don’t always have to have a stick up your butt.
Posted by: Josephine at January 30, 2009 10:23 AM
Atta girl, Josephine! Wanna join my pirate gang? You get a free eye patch.
Jasper,
Why would I need to reconcile not liking kids? I don’t like them. That’s it. I don’t plan on having them. Am I supposed to pretend to like them since I’m Catholic and a woman?
You also know nothing about PP. At all. Now that I spend time there everyday, I can say that and be 100% sure.
Asitis, I would LOVE to! Hahh.
“You also know nothing about PP. ”
I know that they are the biggest killer of human life, there is nothing more I need to know.
Now Josephine,
why do you hate children? why? what is it about them that stirs this hatred in your heart?
I stick with my original comment. You know nothing about PP.
What do you mean “why”? I don’t like them. That’s it. :)
Thanks Doug. I want to go to Pirate School!
Planned Piratehood!
Funny how it’s so quiet here about the octuplets.
The situation just keeps getting curiouer and curiouser…. not only does she have six other young child already, but she’s a single mom who lives with her parents. And grandpa’s supposedly going off to Iraq to make some money to pay for them all?
Josephine and Asitis,
There were other articles as well, check them out. If you can prove the fox news article inaccurate, please do so.
The fact you have a bias against Fox news does not make them inaccurate on this point.
Asitis 7:41am
Their taxes are higher because of gov’t control and social programs and handouts. Because their taxes are higher than makes ours not so bad?
I like Rush’s idea. Those Americans who support Obama and want to pay taxes, go for it.
Those Americans who don’t support Obama and consider themselves far more capable than the gov’t of determining out their money should be spent, get a tax holiday.
True bipartisanship
Doug 8:34am
People don’t spend when they don’t have the money. The gov’t getting deeper into debt and taxing us more won’t solve this.
Let people know their money is theirs to keep. They can buy the vehicles, applicances, homes, and make the investments they may otherwise have been foregoing.
Why is it so incomphrehensible to you Doug that people will spend if they have the money?
The solution is the gov’t taking your money and spending it on bridges to nowhere and conducting studies on why convicts want to escape from prison?
Josephine and Asitis,
There were other articles as well, check them out. If you can prove the fox news article inaccurate, please do so.
The fact you have a bias against Fox news does not make them inaccurate on this point.
Posted by: Mary at January 30, 2009 2:28 PM
Mary, I don’t know if anyone has come out and clarified the discrepancy yet. We’ll have to wait and see what the real story is.
“Their taxes are higher because of gov’t control and social programs and handouts. Because their taxes are higher than makes ours not so bad?” Really? Ummmm….. duh!
“I like Rush’s idea. Those Americans who support Obama and want to pay taxes, go for it.
Those Americans who don’t support Obama and consider themselves far more capable than the gov’t of determining out their money should be spent, get a tax holiday.”
Great, then by the same token I guess those of us that didn’t like all the money spent on the War in Iraq and other stupid stuff from the Bush years are off the hook for that! Careful though Mary dear….Once you divide everything up between who support what, you’ll probably find you owe more!
Doug 8:42am
You’re kidding right? They don’t pay taxes or very minimal taxes and will be upset that someone is “getting” something they can’t. So I shouldn’t get a tax break because they might get upset. Doug they’ve been on perpetual tax breaks. They’ve been getting something most of us haven’t! Do they give a rip if I’m upset?
Doug I’m telling you, it comes out the same for me. The more I work, being I have minimal deductions, the more the gov’t is taking. The less I make the less they take. I don’t come out ahead on April 15th. In fact I dread awaiting the verdict.
This same thing happened when I was a student, working parttime and renting. I had to pay in like $800.00! This was 1979 and it was a bite. We were barely making ends meet as it was. I had no deductions and the gov’t nailed us because of it. I couldn’t deduct books, transportation, anything. Try as he might, our accountant couldn’t help us.
“But the grandfather warned that media may have a tougher time finding the family after the babies are released from the hospital.
“We have a huge house, not here,” said the man, who would only identify himself as Ed. “You are never going to know where it is.” ”
Does anyone else get the feeling something is possibly very creepy here?
Doug 8:48am
Please, some social problems that have had some kind of remedy because of abortion.
And the mother of octuplets filled for brancruptcy last year. Did I mention irresponsible…. oh, in so MANY ways! I certainly hope the child welfare people are keeping a close watch on this case.
Doug 9:12am
Yes at $100,000 one may have several deductible expenses, or they may have very few. What I pay in taxes may be considerably more as I may well have far fewer deductions than someone else.
Also I may not qualify for certain deductions, such as college expenses that those in a lower bracket qualify for.
Asitis 2:42PM
So you’re not absolutely certain the Fox story is inaccurate.
Yes at $100,000 one may have several deductible expenses, or they may have very few. What I pay in taxes may be considerably more as I may well have far fewer deductions than someone else.
Posted by: Mary at January 30, 2009 3:05 PM
But the MOST you would be paying for federal income tax on any money earned after you hit $82,250 and before you hit $171,550 would be 28% Mary. You know this, right?
Asitis 2:42PM
So you’re not absolutely certain the Fox story is inaccurate.
Posted by: Mary at January 30, 2009 3:09 PM
Don’t you listen? I said that as far as I know, we haven’t received confirmation yet what the real story is.
Asitis 2:47PM
Then you should be delighted with Rush’s plan. You could take a tax holiday and pay nothing to the gov’t or in anyway subsidize the Iraq War.
Asitis, the division would be between those who think Obama can spend their money best (like you) and those who consider themselves better capable of spending their own money.
Nothing would be retroactive since there has been plenty of senseless gov’t spending over the last couple of years.
A simple bipartisan division. Obama asked for bipartisan suggestions concerning the “stimulus” (spending) bill and Rush graciously gave him one.
So you can pay Obama, I’ll keep my money.
Asitis 3:11PM
Don’t you listen? Until that confirmation arrives, we cannot be certain Fox was innacurate.
If I’m going to prove someone’s statement wrong, I need a source of some kind to point to proving that indeed what they said was wrong.
Asitis,
I know that. What I am saying is I will pay more than someone who has considerably more deductions than I do. i.e. someone with many children. Deductions at one time worked for me and helped keep my tax bill down but unfortunately do not now. Even my accountant has pointed this out.
I am also not permitted to take deductions that some people can because of my income.
The result is I get hit hard.
I’ll keep my money.
Posted by: Mary at January 30, 2009 3:18 PM
Hahahahha! Like you have a choice!
Asitis 3:11PM
Don’t you listen? Until that confirmation arrives, we cannot be certain Fox was innacurate.
If I’m going to prove someone’s statement wrong, I need a source of some kind to point to proving that indeed what they said was wrong.
Posted by: Mary at January 30, 2009 3:21 PM
Oh Mary, mary…. we weren’t saying the Fox report was absolutely, without a doubt, inaccurate. We were saying, that we’ll go ahead, as good Democrats, and call it inaccurate given that it’s Fox! Nothing more.
Asitis 3:41PM
We don’t, that’s the problem. It was just a suggestion Rush made in response to Obama’s plea for bipartisan advice. While its a nice thought it will never be more than tha.
I am also not permitted to take deductions that some people can because of my income.
Posted by: Mary at January 30, 2009 3:27 PM
Tell me about it! You’re not the only one! But that just means we are more fortunate.
Asitis, Asitis, Asitis 3:45PM
You’ll call it inaccurate though you have no proof at this time that it is. Oh, you mean you won’t call it absolutely without a doubt inaccurate.
Whatever.
Posted by: Doug at January 30, 2009 11:56 AM
“Here tis the the current class at me local pirate school. A particular fearsome lot they be.”
——————————————————–
What are the four letters in the pirate alphabet?
a, e, i, r
Posted by: Doug at January 30, 2009 11:56 AM
“Here tis the the current class at me local pirate school. A particular fearsome lot they be.”
——————————————————–
What does a pirate pay for piercings?
A bucanneer.
yor bro ken
Posted by: asitis at January 30, 2009 2:24 PM
Funny how it’s so quiet here about the octuplets.
The situation just keeps getting curiouer and curiouser…. not only does she have six other young child already, but she’s a single mom who lives with her parents. And grandpa’s supposedly going off to Iraq to make some money to pay for them all?
—————————————————–
Assuming you have describe the situation accurately, it seems the family is behaving responsibly and accountably.
yor bro ken
Asitis, Asitis, Asitis 3:45PM
You’ll call it inaccurate though you have no proof at this time that it is. Oh, you mean you won’t call it absolutely without a doubt inaccurate.
Whatever.
Posted by: Mary at January 30, 2009 3:52 PM
Mary, it was nothing more than a wisecrack about Faux News
It could be the beginning stages of far sighted an al quaeda plot to take over the USA by out birthing non muslim americans.
Darn, I thought I was the only one who had the vision. The militarization and the politization of the uterus has begun.
yor bro ken
Okay Ken, you can join me pirate gang too, matey!
Posted by: asitis at January 30, 2009 2:24 PM
Funny how it’s so quiet here about the octuplets.
The situation just keeps getting curiouer and curiouser…. not only does she have six other young child already, but she’s a single mom who lives with her parents. And grandpa’s supposedly going off to Iraq to make some money to pay for them all?
——————————————————-
Maybe PBHO donated the sperm for the invitros.
yor bro ken
Assuming you have describe the situation accurately, it seems the family is behaving responsibly and accountably.
yor bro ken
Posted by: kbhvac at January 30, 2009 4:15 PM
What the… ??? Okay, you’re swabbin the decks for that one!
What’s so responsible about a mom who has 6 young kids already taking the risk of having octuplets? Let alone one that’s single and bankrupt!
Posted by: asitis at January 30, 2009 3:05 PM
And the mother of octuplets filled for brancruptcy last year. Did I mention irresponsible…. oh, in so MANY ways! I certainly hope the child welfare people are keeping a close watch on this case.
—————————————————–
Your concern for the welfare of the ‘children’ is curious. Just a few days ago they could have been disposed of with the medical waste and you would not have objected in the least.
From all your contentious comments one could conclude that would have been your preferred solution.
yor bro ken
Your concern for the welfare of the ‘children’ is curious.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 30, 2009 4:28 PM
It shouldn’t be Ken. I love children.
Posted by: asitis at January 30, 2009 8:33 AM
If she is against abortion, it was irresponsible for her have at least eight embryos implanted.
————————————————-
Please explain the logic in that statement considering that none of the surviving human embryo/fetus were killed by elective and selective surgery.
She exercised her right to choose and she chose to not to abort.
So far it seems that she and her family are stepping up to the plate and taking responsibility for their actions.
You might want to tap the break on your selective judgement until all the facts are known.
How is this woman filing for bankruptcy any less irresponsible than the banks, the auto makers or several states.
By the way filing for bankruptcy does not automatically mean that you take a walk on all your debts. It means that you are afforded some relief in how much and how much you of the debt you satisfy. American Airlines and United Air Lines went into bankruptcy to save their respective companies.
I have never declared bankruptcy but I ‘know’ a little about the process.
You do not know why the woman declared bankruptcy. You assume that she was soley responsible for her economic distress. Maybe her wealthy husband walked out on her or he died and she was left holding the bag for all their debt. Maybe, the terms of the will stated that each child would be given a set amount of money and this was the only way she could get her fair share.
Just speculating, like you are.
yor bro ken
yor bro ken
”
Funny how it’s so quiet here about the octuplets.
The situation just keeps getting curiouer and curiouser…. not only does she have six other young child already, but she’s a single mom who lives with her parents. And grandpa’s supposedly going off to Iraq to make some money to pay for them all?
Posted by: asitis at January 30, 2009 2:24 PM”
I heard the mother was on welfare on a CNN report this morning? Not sure how much truth there is to that.
Mary, You like Rush Limbaugh’s idea? If during the Bush presidency I didn’t want to pay for his ridiculously stupid ideas, you would’ve thought that was a good idea?
Also, “People don’t spend when they don’t have the money.” If you believe this, your crazy. Why do you think so many people are in so much debt??
“Asitis, the division would be between those who think Obama can spend their money best (like you) and those who consider themselves better capable of spending their own money.”
So no one should ever have to pay taxes, DUH asitis, because why pay taxes? I mean, let’s ignore the fact that taxes go towards roads and schools and stuff too! DUH… geeze…
Ken…
“Assuming you have describe the situation accurately, it seems the family is behaving responsibly and accountably.”
No. To be behaving responsibly, the situation never would have happened. It was incredibly dangerous for each baby. It shouldn’t have happened. Ever. Any doctor that allowed it to happen was an idiot, too.
Planned Piratehood!
LMAO
Planned Piratehood!
LMAO
Posted by: Doug at January 30, 2009 4:45 PM
Thank you Doug!!!! I L’ed MAO at my own joke, I must admit.
Okay, you can be in the Planned Piratehood gang too! Wear the patch with pride! Arrrrrrrrrr!
Asitis,
Your feminist pro abort bias is showing just a tad bit. You are rushing to judgement without knowing all the facts.
What should be done with this woman caught in the act, in the very act of reproductive and financial irresponsibility?
Stone her! Stone her! Stone her!
Go ahead Asitis keep tossing the rocks.
And the fools had enough sense to know they had been had and they dropped their rocks and walked away from the youngest to the oldest with their collective tails between their legs.
And the loving compassionate one, the only one in the group who was qualified to throw the first and last stone said, “Woman who is he that condemns you. Go your way and sin no more.”
Which one represents you Asistis? The men with the stones in their hands. The women caught in the very act or the loving compassionate one?
yor bro ken
People don’t spend when they don’t have the money. The gov’t getting deeper into debt and taxing us more won’t solve this.
Very true, Mary, overall, in the long run. But the gov’t ain’t worryin’ about that. It’s the short-term that the gov’t is focused on – and that’s all that is really politically possible at this point.
…..
Let people know their money is theirs to keep. They can buy the vehicles, applicances, homes, and make the investments they may otherwise have been foregoing. Why is it so incomphrehensible to you Doug that people will spend if they have the money?
It’s not incomprehensible, it’s that you’re assuming things are much simpler than what is actually the case. People don’t necessarily “spend money if they have money.” To generalize, when people see falling prices versus rising prices, they become much more resistant to spending. When fear more than carelessness and greed enters their psyche, they slow down on spending, too, regardless of the exact amount of dough they have.
Heck, give me some money and I ain’t gonna spend it. I’m gonna buy income-producing securities with it, at this time.
Right now, dollars going from the gov’t into people’s hands would not return to the economy as much nor as fast as dollars directly spent by the gov’t. The velocity of money as well as the supply of money are our problems (among others) at this point, and the gov’t knows it.
To generalize again: Gross Domestic Product = money supply x velocity of money. The gov’t is doing what it can on the supply front – the Federal Reserve Board’s federal funds rate has been effectively cut to zero – lately it’s been around 0.2% per year.
But the velocity isn’t what it should be, from the gov’t’s point of view, and the most effective way to correct that is for the gov’t to directly spend money, versus giving it to people and hoping they spend it.
…..
The solution is the gov’t taking your money and spending it on bridges to nowhere and conducting studies on why convicts want to escape from prison?
No (there really isn’t any “solution” that the gov’t (or all but a few people) will accept), and in the long term the gov’t does not produce much real wealth at all, so agreed that many times there is a lot of waste, there.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/01/30/octuplets-family.html
Dr. James Grifo, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the NYU School of Medicine, added: “I don’t think it’s our job to tell them how many babies they’re allowed to have. I am not a policeman for reproduction in the United States. My role is to educate patients.”
Asitis,
Raise your left hand take the oath to be the sheriff of pregnacy police.
You will have unlimited authority to break down the doors of the obstetics departments, fertilization clinics, and birthing ward everywhere, anytime, for little or even no cause if you meerly suspect there may be one human/embryo fetus birthed who will not be parented according to your arbitrary and capricious definition of responsible.
You will have carte blanch to select the super hero costume of your choice.
yor bro ken
You’re kidding right? They don’t pay taxes or very minimal taxes and will be upset that someone is “getting” something they can’t. So I shouldn’t get a tax break because they might get upset. Doug they’ve been on perpetual tax breaks. They’ve been getting something most of us haven’t! Do they give a rip if I’m upset?
Mary, I’m not saying you should or shouldn’t anything, here – I’m just noting how it is. There is considerable sentiment that tax breaks “don’t help those most in need” because those with the lowest income don’t directly benefit from it.
…..
Doug I’m telling you, it comes out the same for me. The more I work, being I have minimal deductions, the more the gov’t is taking. The less I make the less they take. I don’t come out ahead on April 15th. In fact I dread awaiting the verdict.
I hear you on the “dread” – I had to send in a big check this month because I know my wife and I would have owed a ****load of money.
However, no, it does not “come out the same.” :: beating Mary over the head with a styrofoam baseball bat ::
Yes, the more you make the more the gov’t takes, but you are also taking home much more. Sure – the less you make the less they take, but you are taking home much less.
Let’s say you have no deductions at all, and are in the very top tax bracket, $372,950 and above. For every added dollar that you make, you still take home 65 cents of it.
If you make between $33,950 and $82,250 then for every added dollar you take home 75 cents.
……
This same thing happened when I was a student, working parttime and renting. I had to pay in like $800.00! This was 1979 and it was a bite. We were barely making ends meet as it was. I had no deductions and the gov’t nailed us because of it. I couldn’t deduct books, transportation, anything. Try as he might, our accountant couldn’t help us.
Okay, so you had no deductions and hadn’t had enough tax withheld. It happens. Without a mortgage payment (never had one) I’ve never itemized, ever. Just take the standard deduction….
Bethany
Bobby Bambino
Carder
Carla
Chris
Jasper
Moderators, you may remove, censor, suspend or ban me permanently for violating who knows how many of the guidelines/rules. I will plead no lo contendre and submitt to your collective judgement.
With no remorse or regret and exhibiting absolutely no contrition and refusing the blindfold or the last meal or even the smoke.
“Don’t fret Newt. Theyre’s some men that just need killin’.
yor bro ken
Yes at $100,000 one may have several deductible expenses, or they may have very few. What I pay in taxes may be considerably more as I may well have far fewer deductions than someone else. Also I may not qualify for certain deductions, such as college expenses that those in a lower bracket qualify for.
Mary, doesn’t mean diddly re the point about it “coming out the same.” That is kidding yourself.
You have so much income and so many deductions, regardless of how many. No matter what, you’re still taking home the majority of every additional dollar you make.
Again, the worst it can be – top rate, no deductions, is that you get 65 cents of each dollar.
Dr. James Grifo, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the NYU School of Medicine, added: “I don’t think it’s our job to tell them how many babies they’re allowed to have. I am not a policeman for reproduction in the United States. My role is to educate patients.”
Ken, after seeing this current case, I think it should be someone’s job when it comes to administering fertility drugs or performing emmbryo implants to have some control over how many babies are born in a litter! It’s dangerous to the babies to be born in such large litters. That’s irresponsible. And if the parents cannot afford to raise multiple birth babies, they shouldn’t have them. That’s irresponsible. How often do we see this happen and then an appeal put out for people to make donations?
No, we don’t know all the facts yet… but my spidey senses are tingling.
Oh, and to cllarify…. what I mean by “And if the parents cannot afford to raise multiple birth babies, they shouldn’t have them:, I don’t necessarily mean they should abort some. I mean they shouldn’t put themselves at such great risk of having multiple babies.
violating who knows how many of the guidelines/rules
Ken, what in the world have you done that you think is “bad”?
You’re a unique presence here, and I daresay you seem to have “come into your own” lately.
Josie 4:43PM
Obama had requested any ideas regarding a stimulus plan. Rush made up his plan and presented it. Nobody expects Obama to follow it.
Since this did not occur during the Bush administration its really a moot point what you would or would not have paid during that period.
Doug,
I KNOW I take home most of what I make, OK? My point is the lack of deductions hits me hard. It may not other people who make as much or more as I do.
The more you make the more the gov’t is gonna take.
Lots of overtime is great and yes its reflected in my check, but the IRS is waiting at tax time.
I know I’ll get hit this April. Despite what I’ve already paid in the IRS is going to take more.
My point all along has been I could better spend my money than the gov’t and want to keep it.
Doug 5:05PM
People may not spend money if they have it, so the gov’t should keep it and spend it as it sees fit? Its not the gov’t’s money Doug its yours and mine. The point is we can more wisely determine what to do with our money. We do not need the great father in Washington to do it for us.
I consider it patronizing to suggest the American people need their gov’t to spend for us since we obviously don’t have sense enough to do it on our own. What would happen if we all ran our finances as stupidly as the gov’t runs ours?
Bingo Doug, the government produces NO wealth. It produces a lot of waste.
We the people create the wealth. WE create the jobs, WE keep the economy going, WE make the country work.
The best thing the gov’t can do is get the hell out of the way.
Doug 5:18PM
My pay was low enough, sometimes we barely paid the rent. Yes money was withheld. We had no deductions at the time so we got nailed.
“My pay was low enough, sometimes we barely paid the rent. Yes money was withheld. We had no deductions at the time so we got nailed.”
Money is withheld from me, and I get basically all of it back. If you’re making so little that you were barely paying rent, how in the world were you not getting almost all your money back? I don’t understand. I don’t have any deductions either, ever…
Doug, 5:05PM
Sit on your styrofoam bat. With overtime and no deductions, I was getting hit hard. I came out about the same working less and paying less to the government.
So we shouldn’t get tax cuts because those who never paid taxes will be resentful? Spare me. I
Josephine 8:22PM
Beats me. Believe me I was shocked to get the tax bill. This was the era of Jimmy Carter and I honestly don’t know what tax policies were then. I just know our taxman was desperately seeking deductions.
Despite what I’ve already paid in the IRS is going to take more.
Posted by: Mary at January 30, 2009 7:57 PM
Mary, if I told you the check I wrote to the IRS last year on top of what we already had paid in withholding, you’d realize thou doest protest too much! ;)
Posted by: asitis at January 30, 2009 8:33 AM
If she is against abortion, it was irresponsible for her have at least eight embryos implanted.
————————————————-
Please explain the logic in that statement considering that none of the surviving human embryo/fetus were killed by elective and selective surgery.
She exercised her right to choose and she chose to not to abort.
So far it seems that she and her family are stepping up to the plate and taking responsibility for their actions.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 30, 2009 4:42 PM
Explain the logic of why it was irresponsible of her to have that many empryos implanted(according to news reports her mother has confirmed that this is the case)?????
Seriously? You don’t see it?
So far it seems that she and her family are stepping up to the plate and taking responsibility for their actions.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 30, 2009 4:42 PM
Yeh, along with… so far…. a team of 46 doctor, nurses and others to deliver the babies and now at least several weeks of neonatal care. And that’s just the beginning…………
Truthseeker, if they have changed the formulation of Enpresses (or the similar Triphasil which I have taken instead), over the past 20 years then my “dosage” changed. If not, it hasn’t.
As for precautions, yes, there are certain people who shouldn’t and can’t take it.
Posted by: asitis at January 30, 2009 4:19 AM
The reason I asked what dosage you take is because it can be prescribed in varying dosages.
You don’t sound like you are very concerned with the size of your daily oral dose. Do you ever feel like you are drinking away your
“womanhood” when you swallow hormones to disrupt your natural biorythm and fertility? I know I would feel like less of a man if I were to take hormones to reduce my sperm count.
One of the hormone used in Enpresse is estrogen. The estrogenic hormones are uniquely responsible for the growth and development of female sexual characteristics and reproduction in both humans and animals. In women, estrogen circulates in the bloodstream and binds to estrogen receptors on cells in targeted tissues, affecting not only the breast and uterus, but also the brain, bone, liver, heart and other tissues.
They also result in the production of a very thin uterine lining, called the endometrium, which is unreceptive to a fertilized egg. Perhaps you actually got pregnant tens or hundreds of times while taking Enpresse but never knew it because the fertilized egg could not implant in your uterine lining.
TS, did you look all of that up right now?
Do you ever feel like you are drinking away your “womanhood” when you swallow hormones to disrupt your natural biorythm and fertility?
Some women want to disrupt their fertility, for a variety of reasons. And being a woman is not necessarily tied in very closely to fertility for all of us.
I know I would feel like less of a man if I were to take hormones to reduce my sperm count.
I wonder if this idea is really common among men and if it’s a reason there are currently no forms of contraception for men other than condoms or vasectomies.
Yes
http://www.healthywomen.org/healthtopics/estrogen
Do you ever feel like you are drinking away your
“womanhood” when you swallow hormones to disrupt your natural biorythm and fertility?
Posted by: truthseeker at January 30, 2009 10:31 PM
Haha! No, not at all truthseeker. But thanks for your concern!
I wonder if this idea is really common among men and if it’s a reason there are currently no forms of contraception for men other than condoms or vasectomies.
Posted by: Terezia at January 30, 2009 10:55 PM
I would say definitely YES Terezia
My beau and I have talked about his getting a vasectomy later on, so I don’t have to stay on birth control forever, and doctors are very hesitant to tie tubes.
They also result in the production of a very thin uterine lining, called the endometrium, which is unreceptive to a fertilized egg. Perhaps you actually got pregnant tens or hundreds of times while taking Enpresse but never knew it because the fertilized egg could not implant in your uterine lining.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 30, 2009 10:51 PM
Sure, That’s not an issue for me.
Do you ever feel like you are drinking away your
“womanhood” when you swallow hormones to disrupt your natural biorythm and fertility?
Posted by: truthseeker at January 30, 2009 10:31 PM
Are you kidding me? Don’t you know female pirates are bootylicious truth seeker?
Terezia @10:55pm
Here’s something I found in a quick search:
Breakthrough in male birth control remains elusive
But it’s only a matter of time, researchers say
By CHERIE BLACK
P-I REPORTER
For the past two decades, researchers have tried to provide men with more choices in contraception.
Women have the pill, intrauterine devices, injections, birth control patches, female condoms and the sponge.
Men have basically two choices: condom or vasectomy. Although both methods work pretty well, they each have drawbacks. Many researchers say men should have more options and more of a shared responsibility.
Beginning Thursday, more than 140 participants from around the world are gathering in Seattle to talk about the latest developments in research and trials of contraceptives for men.
The international two-day conference at The Edgewater hotel is co-sponsored by the University of Washington, the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization.
“I think it’s a social good, and couples should have wider range of choices,” said Dr. Bill Bremner, chairman of the Department of Medicine and director of the male contraception research center at the UW. An $8 million, five-year grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development funds the center, which is one of four nationwide.
Bremner and his colleague, Dr. John Amory, conduct clinical trials in men testing whether hormone injections or creams adequately reduce sperm enough to prevent pregnancies. They use testosterone, much like estrogen is used in birth control in women.
One study showed a 98 percent success rate in couples using a hormone male contraceptive, Bremner said. Side effects include weight gain and acne, he said. Other tests include heat, ultrasound and reversible vasectomies. One option being developed is called an Intra Vas Device, a set of tiny implants that block the flow of sperm.
Bremner said it is more difficult to turn off sperm production than egg production. Whereas women produce one egg per month, men produce 1,000 sperm per heartbeat. And male contraception is a difficult sell to pharmaceutical companies.
“It’s taking normal young men without a disease and testing a drug in them for years — that’s an issue,” he said. And men aren’t the ones at risk of getting pregnant, which carries its own hazards, which justified testing contraceptives in females. The litigious nature against those in reproductive health and religious opposition are hurdles as well.
“This country has a pretty repressive history as far as reproductive use,” Bremner said.
But the big question is will men take a pill or use a newly developed contraceptive? And will women trust them to do it?
Bremner thinks yes. He said 30 percent of contraception is male-driven — half condom, half vasectomy, and up to 80 percent of men surveyed worldwide claimed they would use a new male contraceptive. About 98 percent of women in monogamous relationships said they would trust their partners.
“I’ve been saying a male contraceptive will be available in five to seven years for 20 years now,” Bremner said. “I continue to believe it’s going to happen. It’s just a matter of time.”
Perhaps you actually got pregnant tens or hundreds of times while taking Enpresse but never knew it because the fertilized egg could not implant in your uterine lining.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 30, 2009 10:51 PM
By the way truthseeker, I believe there is a chance of breakthrough ovulation once every four months on triphasic birth control like Enpresse. In that case, in 20 years that would be at most 60 eggs that would POSSIBLY be fertilized. So we aren’t talking hundreds of times over 20 years. And we may not even be talking of tens of times.
This doesn’t make any difference to me, but knowing the chance is very small might matter to to some people.
o.k. Lets use that small number of 60 times over twenty years. Doesn’t that make it -300% effectiveness at preventing pregnancy?
In case you missed it, that would be minus/negative 300% effectiveness at preventing pregnancy in your case.
You got pregnant an average of three times a year for twenty years on a birth control that is marketed as 90 something percent effective at “preventing” pregnancy.
In your case we can assume that each and every one of your breakthrough eggs got fertilized cause you averaged sex about once every two or three days during those twenty years. That is another reason why I don’t understand how they can call these studies legitimate without even taking into account the number of times you have intercourse with a viril man during the study.
I wonder if this idea is really common among men and if it’s a reason there are currently no forms of contraception for men other than condoms or vasectomies.
Posted by: Terezia at January 30, 2009 10:55 PM
Terezia, they have a word that describes that kind of man. Virile- it connotes both masculinity and fertility.
vir?ile? ?/?v?r?l or, especially Brit., -a?l/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [vir-uhl or, especially Brit., -ahyl] Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or befitting a man; masculine; manly: virile strength.
2. having or exhibiting masculine energy, forcefulness, or strength in a marked degree.
3. characterized by a vigorous, masculine spirit: a virile literary style.
4. of, pertaining to, or capable of procreation.
What aboutt the femininity of childbearing women Terezia? I guess thats how they got the name “‘womb’an.
Thats also why big butts conote femininity :
If it ain’t youuuu, Lord.
Then nothing 4 me, nothing 4 me, nothing 4 me.
The stewards of the earth will not be shaken or stirred.
Unite in the light of Jesus Christ.
Run!!!… Run!!!!…,
Run!!!…. Run!!!….,
Ruuunnn!!….., Ruuuunnnn!!…..
Run into the shelter of the Lord.
Run into the shelter of the Lord.
God’s will be done. And the Holy Spirit be with each of us this day.
You got pregnant an average of three times a year for twenty years on a birth control that is marketed as 90 something percent effective at “preventing” pregnancy.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 31, 2009 12:07 AM
In your case we can assume that each and every one of your breakthrough eggs got fertilized cause you averaged sex about once every two or three days during those twenty years. That is another reason why I don’t understand how they can call these studies legitimate without even taking into account the number of times you have intercourse with a viril man during the study.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 31, 2009 12:12 AM
While I doubt it ever specifically states it, those effectiveness claims pertain to established pregnancy. But I suspect you already realize this.
Even without contraception fetilized eggs will commonly fail to implant and the pregnancy will not establish itself. Do women cry and mourn these “misscarriages”?
C’mon
Sorry, I should have added an Arrrrrrrrrr to that.
Mary: People may not spend money if they have it, so the gov’t should keep it and spend it as it sees fit?
When the goal is to “juice” the economy, yes, that is the way the gov’t sees it.
…..
Its not the gov’t’s money Doug its yours and mine. The point is we can more wisely determine what to do with our money. We do not need the great father in Washington to do it for us.
By and large I agree with you, but that is not what the gov’t is looking at. It’s looking at a lack of money velocity. We had and are having a “credit crunch” due to problems at the big commercial banks – and the gov’t has been rapidly expanding the money supply in an attempt to counter-act that. The gov’t also not only wants more borrowing and lending, but spending as well, and that is where direct gov’t spending has more effect than putting the money in privage citizens’ hands.
…..
I consider it patronizing to suggest the American people need their gov’t to spend for us since we obviously don’t have sense enough to do it on our own. What would happen if we all ran our finances as stupidly as the gov’t runs ours?
IMO our gov’t has long passed the point of truly being a good servant of the people. I’d say it’s primary, unstated purpose is now to maintain its own power, situation and status, to feather its own nest first, and worry about all else later. Sure – no individual, family, capitalist corporation, etc., could operate as the gov’t does, financially.
…..
Bingo Doug, the government produces NO wealth. It produces a lot of waste. We the people create the wealth. WE create the jobs, WE keep the economy going, WE make the country work.
The best thing the gov’t can do is get the hell out of the way.
Pretty much, all wealth starts by being grown or mined, unless we add in “intellectual property” like the rights to books, movies, information, etc. But the gov’t can create jobs easily, just as it did in the Depression.
Way back when, yes – the gov’t should have stayed out of the way and not attempted to “manage” the economy. IMO the Federal Reserve Board has done more harm than good. But the time and possibility for gov’t to act fiscally responsible and non-interventionally has long passed, and now we’re stuck with trying to “muddle” through at least one more time, all the while piling up even more massive amounts of debt.
Sit on your styrofoam bat. With overtime and no deductions, I was getting hit hard. I came out about the same working less and paying less to the government.
No you didn’t, Mary. Ain’t no way. You were taking home the big majority of every dollar you earned.
You’re thinking it was like you lost a dollar for every additional dollar made, and again – no way.
You’re thinking it was like you lost a dollar for every additional dollar made, and again – no way.
Posted by: Doug at January 31, 2009 7:19 AM
I think she has come to realize this isn’t the case Doug. But she is motivated by paying the taxman less, so if that means working less, that’s what she’ll do…. even if it means less money for Mary.
I know I would feel like less of a man if I were to take hormones to reduce my sperm count.
Terezia: I wonder if this idea is really common among men and if it’s a reason there are currently no forms of contraception for men other than condoms or vasectomies.
IMO it’s just crazy to feel like “less of a man” there, especially if one does not want to get somebody pregnant at the time. If you’re not intending to be a father, why in the world would one be feeling “less”?
Different strokes….
Different strokes…. arrrrr, good one Doug!
Real men are pirates. :)
In case you missed it, that would be minus/negative 300% effectiveness at preventing pregnancy in your case.
Truthseeker, aaaaack!
There is no such thing. The most there could be is -100% effectiveness. At that point it would mean a 100% certainly of pregnancy.
:: giving styrofoam bat to Bobby to whack TS upside the head ::
asitis: Sorry, I should have added an Arrrrrrrrrr to that.
To err is human,
To arrr is pirate.
Thats also why big butts connote femininity
LMAO again.
However, TS, I know what you mean, and I don’t think you’re a bad guy.
Asitis 9:02PM
I certainly would complain. I would complain the gov’t is confiscating YOUR money that you made and is rightfully yours.
I would argue that you are far more competent at handling your own money, spending it as you see fit, investing it the way you want, and donating it to whatever cause you see fit.
I consider the mentality, one that I see here, that we need our Great Father in Washington to make these decisions for us as patronizing.
I would trust your wisdom and good judgment first and foremost Asitis where your own money is concerned.
Even without contraception fetilized eggs will commonly fail to implant and the pregnancy will not establish itself. Do women cry and mourn these “misscarriages”?
C’mon
I did.
Even without contraception fetilized eggs will commonly fail to implant and the pregnancy will not establish itself. Do women cry and mourn these “misscarriages”?
C’mon
I did.
Posted by: Bethany at January 31, 2009 7:40 AM
How did you even know?
Doug,
By and large the gov’t is looking at money and power. They have the money, they need to win the next election, the have the power.
Have you seen some of the stupidity the gov’t throws money away on? How does that do anything but throw money down a rathole?
Trillions were spent on the “war on poverty”. It only created more dependency and poverty.
Our local charities, privately run, do far more to benefit the people in our community.
You don’t think the American people could do better?
You don’t think you can do better with your own money?
Or do you need the Great Father in Washington to do this for you?
Concerning the Depression Doug, some people benefitted from “make work” programs, but the Depression did not end. Economists argue that Roosevelt only prolonged it with his government spending and programs. World War 2 is what ended it.
My mother lived in that era and has been adamant her entire life that Roosevelt’s programs were useless. I’ve also heard historians say Roosevelt was good at making people think he was doing something, when in fact he wasn’t.
Sounds like Obama is taking a page out of FDR’s book.
Run!!!… Run!!!!…,
Run!!!…. Run!!!….,
Ruuunnn!!….., Ruuuunnnn!!…..
Run into the shelter of the Lord.
Run into the shelter of the Lord.
TruthSeeker, were we feeling good last night? ; )
Hackers changed the wording on a traffic sign in Austin, Texas:
Sweeet!
Doug 7:19am
No that is not what I’m thinking. Its obvious I take home more than I pay in taxes. If I freelance the gov’t wants its share of that. If I do well in overtime, the gov’t will get its share as well. These combined can push me into another tax bracket. Yes I will see a difference in my income, but being I have minimal deductions the IRS will have its hand out. I will need more withheld so less is taken at tax time.
Keep in mind “withheld” tax is money out of your pocket that you won’t see again. Then comes April 15th.
By and large the gov’t is looking at money and power. They have the money, they need to win the next election, the have the power. Have you seen some of the stupidity the gov’t throws money away on? How does that do anything but throw money down a rathole?
No argument there, Mary. But it’s not politically possible to do what is really fiscally responsible for our gov’t – the people wouldn’t stand for it.
….
Trillions were spent on the “war on poverty”. It only created more dependency and poverty. Our local charities, privately run, do far more to benefit the people in our community.
100% agreed. Johnson’s “war on poverty.” We bought into poverty wholesale, and more poverty is what we got.
…..
You don’t think the American people could do better? You don’t think you can do better with your own money?
Sure, but that’s not on the table now.
…..
Or do you need the Great Father in Washington to do this for you?
Heh – I don’t need much from Uncle Sam, not now anyway. But I’m cognizant of some uncomfortable realities at work that no amount of bumper-sticker slogans nor simplistic thinking will affect.
…..
Concerning the Depression Doug, some people benefitted from “make work” programs, but the Depression did not end. Economists argue that Roosevelt only prolonged it with his government spending and programs. World War 2 is what ended it.
Well, the effect from WW II was lots of gov’t spending. The gov’t isn’t all-powerful and cannot totally aim the economy where it wants it to go. Nevertheless, the actions of the federal gov’t are the single biggest influence on US markets.
…..
My mother lived in that era and has been adamant her entire life that Roosevelt’s programs were useless. I’ve also heard historians say Roosevelt was good at making people think he was doing something, when in fact he wasn’t.
Sounds like Obama is taking a page out of FDR’s book.
Yeah, he is, and so was Bush Jr. But nobody has a magic wand, nobody can “fix it.” It is the markets themselves which will correct things, and it’s gonna be painful for a lot of people.
Asitis, 7:23AM
You’ve got that right, the less I can pay the better. It doesn’t come out to less money for me, unless I significantly reduce my hours, since I stay out of the next tax bracket to which I can be precariously close if I get enough overtime and free lance work.
Working less will keep me in the bracket I’m in now and paying what I am to the IRS now, which is more than enough.
Thats also why big butts conote femininity :
Posted by: truthseeker at January 31, 2009 1:18 AM
So, I’ve been on the shot for quite a while, I have pretty much no butt or chest (that’s what 18 years of gymnastics get ya’!) So, I’m practically not a woman at all? Weeeird.
“I’ve also heard historians say Roosevelt was good at making people think he was doing something, when in fact he wasn’t.”
FDR is, in every thing I’ve ever seen, always considered one of the top three Presidents of all time… this is a mixture of from class and and.. well, the history channel. :)
If I do well in overtime, the gov’t will get its share as well. These combined can push me into another tax bracket.
Mary, I believe you are engaging in some fallacious (though common) thinking here.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you’re seeing it as though going into the next higher bracket means that all your income would then be taxed at the higher rate.
That ain’t the way it is.
Just “going into the next higher bracket” really doesn’t make much of a difference.
Example: let’s say that our ol’ buddy Joe Blow will make $80,000 with no overtime.
Okay, up to $8350 his rate is 10%.
From there to $33,950 it’s 15%.
From there to $82,250 it’s 25%.
Thus, assuming no deductions at all, his tax on $80,000 would be $16,187.50
Works out to an overall tax rate of 20.23%
Now let’s say that Joe fires up the overtime, 10 extra hours per week. Assuming that he makes $40 per hour (hence the $80,000 initial figure) that’d be an extra $30,000 per year, at time-and-a-half.
Now, part of his income is taxes at the 28% rate – the part of it above $82,250.
His total tax bill would now be $24,520 on $110,000 in income.
Works out to an overall tax rate of 22.29%
So, even going from $80,000 to $110,000 only meant that ol’ Joe was paying 2 cents more in the dollar in taxes, overall.
since I stay out of the next tax bracket to which I can be precariously close if I get enough overtime and free lance work.
:: getting out the styrofoam bat again..::
Doug,
Why wouldn’t the people stand for our gov’t being fiscally responsible? Its irresponsibility is what’s gotten us into this mess.
Why wouldn’t it be on the table now for the American people to do better? I can’t think of a better time for some drastic action.
So we do need the Great Father in Washington to make our decisions.
Doug, up until WW2 government spending had not ended the Depression. When people went to work in the war plants they became taxpayers, not gov’t recipients. Their tax dollars subsidized the war effort. Many of these plants were privately run, foreign countries were buying our war products.
Bush set up that bailout fund, which bitterly disappointed me in him. I don’t believe he provided true conservative leadership. He was too busy trying to make the Democrats like him.
The free market does fix itself and the gov’t does us all a favor by staying out. I understand that some houses are going dirt cheap. A great opportunity for some people to buy homes who may not have otherwise any time soon.
Doug,
Put away your bat. I’ve watched it happen over the years as I’ve gone through different tax brackets.
So, I’ve been on the shot for quite a while, I have pretty much no butt or chest (that’s what 18 years of gymnastics get ya’!) So, I’m practically not a woman at all? Weeeird.
Josephine, have to laugh….
I don’t know what my sperm count is or if I even have one.
I’ve never gotten anybody pregnant, and my wife has had a hysterectomy (which she loves, by the way).
Uh :: cough cough :: gonna turn 50 this year, also.
So, what in the world difference is it going to make to me how “virile” I am as far as sperm? (shaking head…)
I’ve watched it happen over the years as I’ve gone through different tax brackets.
Mary, respectfully, no you haven’t.
Many times I’ve heard people bemoan “going into the next higher tax bracket,” and it really doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, most times.
Mary: Why wouldn’t the people stand for our gov’t being fiscally responsible?
Because it would mean a severe depression right now. And there is no way that the gov’t will allow itself to be seen as not doing something in the other direction, regardless of cost and regardless of how much it actually makes things worse in the long run.
Doug,
… or $7,333.50 more in taxes. How many regular paychecks is that equal to for Joe?
It equals about 3 or mine.
Doug,
Respectfully I have seen it. My taxes going up with my pay. Yes its to be expected. Just look at poor Joe. Wonder what he could have done with that extra $7,000.
Doug,
Roosevelt being “seen” as doing something prolonged the Great Depression. You have to manage your household, why not the government.
They’re spending YOUR money that you could more wisely spend stimulating local businesses, investing, and donating to charities of your choice.
You admit what a dismal failure the “war on poverty” was. An example of the gov’t being “seen” as doing something.
Josephine 8;19am
Good point about Roosevelt. What isn’t mentioned is his efforts to pack the Supreme Court to better get his “New Deal” programs through. This would have given him a virtual dictatorship.
Also his wife Eleanor pleaded with him to give his moral backing to anti-lynching legislation which he didn’t. By the way Republicans supported this legislation, Democrats did not.
He refused admission to a boatload of Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany, forcing their return to Europe where most died in Nazi death camps.
He issued and executive order sending Japanese- American citizens into concentration camps, aka “war relocation centers” also over the strenuous objections of his wife Eleanor.
I bled for a month. It was called a “chemical pregnancy”.
(that was in response to Asitis’ 7:50 post)
And it was twins…
or $7,333.50 more in taxes. How many regular paychecks is that equal to for Joe? It equals about 3 of mine.
Well, if Joe was getting paid every two weeks in our example, it’d be about 3 for him too.
I figured it at 2.99 paychecks, actually. Sweet!
……
Doug, respectfully I have seen it. My taxes going up with my pay. Yes its to be expected. Just look at poor Joe. Wonder what he could have done with that extra $7,000.
Well, [eyeroll] considering he put an extra $22,666.50 in his pocket, what’s your point?
…….
Roosevelt being “seen” as doing something prolonged the Great Depression.
I’d say there is some truth to that, but it’s far from the whole story. Remember – FDR didn’t even get into office until March 1933.
It really started with Hoover – his Reconstruction Finance Corp (same kind of stuff the gov’t is doing now) and his insistance that industry keep wages high actually ended up hurting the level of business.
Hoover had leverage with the bosses because he made it plain he was all that was standing between them and unionization. They complied, and the real average wage actually went up from 1929 to 1931. Yet production dropped roughly in half. Hoover ended up putting the owners in a position where they could really only lay people off.
This time around we have the unions in place, and I imagine they will have the same effect. They’re not going to be willing to accept the kind of wage cuts needed to keep their members working.
FDR by and large just continued Hoover’s policies, expanding them in some cases. In the previous downturn, 1920 and 1921, wages had been allowed to fall (the market ran its course), and while of course it’s not the only factor, the “bad times” only lasted two years.
I know the gov’t is going to try and “hold things up” but that’s not what our markets need, now.
What? I thought you were referring to Blessing, Bethany…
No, unfortunately there was another miscarriage I had three months later, after blessing. I think I mentioned it here the day it happened and not much since. I mention it more on my blog.
What? I thought you were referring to Blessing, Bethany…
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at January 31, 2009 9:40 AM
Bobby, Blessing was several weeks old…. way past pre-implantation stage. We are talking about “abortions” or “miscarriages” of fertilized eggs that have not implanted whether on birth control or not respectively. A woman would not now for certain that this has happened. That’s my point.
Yes, Asitis, it was 2 weeks BEFORE my menstrual cycle was supposed to start when I saw two BOLD lines on the pregnancy test. The doctors said that since it was so early, I must have had twins. I was already miscarrying by the time I found out though.
Oh, I left out that they said it was because the HCG levels were extremely high for such an early stage of pregnancy that it was probably twins.
They said the baby/babies had failed to implant.
Doug,
So we acknowledge Joe is paying more in taxes with overtime and that Joe is turning the equivalent of three paychecks over to the government when he works overtime. Yes he keeps $22,000, which I’m certain local and state gov’t will want their share of as well. Not to mention the federal and state taxes paid on purchases. After all this, how much does Joe really end up pocketting?(If his property taxes are like mine, not much)
I wonder if Joe would agree that extra $7,000 is a pittance that he could find absolutely no use for. After all he did work for it.
Assuming Joe has major deductions, maybe he has 6 kids and a mortgage, he may do quite well. The gov’t may actually “give” Joe back some of the money they initially withheld from him in the form of a tax return. The state may do so as well.
We’ve been told at work the first 4-6 months of regular time is just to pay the IRS, i.e. we’re just working for the government. Then the money becomes ours to keep.
You’re certainly right about Hoover, the Great Depression was long in the works and did not happen in one fell swoop when the stock market crashed on Black Thursday. We can see with Hoover what happens when the government interferes, however good the intentions. I also understand he raised taxes just before the crash and these hikes went into effect after FDR came into power. FDR, rather than leaving more money in people’s hands, taxed those he could for his New Deal programs. This also slowed down recovery, but sure made people think he was doing something. Perception is everything.
I think this makes a great argument for leaving money in the hands of the people, and the less the government interferes the better.
MSM strikes again:
NBC trashes pro-life ad featuring Obama
Network refuses to run Catholic commercial during Super Bowl.
They refused to run this simple pro-life ad.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87440
I think it’s time to declare war.
Bethany, I’m sorry for your loss. God bless you.
Thank you, Jasper.
Jasper 10:43am
It should also be pointed out the tremendous social stigma of a white woman bearing a child by a black father in that era. Life was not going to be easy for a biracial child and his white mother.
Because of this, any number of people would have encouraged her to abort. Abortion could certainly be understood under “these” circumstances. A biracial child was not viewed as any way as desirable as a white one. The child was somehow “tainted”.
I remember the era very well, a situation many people today may not comprehend or appreciate.
Aww, man! Truthseeker was posting drunk last night and I missed it. Too bad. And he was talking about big butts and trying to do math…hilarious
Keep Klassy, TS!
Bethany,
My sincerest sympathy to you and your family as well.
Jasper,
I understand the actress and performer Eartha Kitt recently passed away.
I was surprised to hear Ms.Kitt was the result of the rape of her black/Cherokee mother by a white plantation owner in the deep Jim Crow south.
One can only imagine this child’s prospects!
Ms.Kitt rose to become a renowned performer and actress, dying at age 81. I wonder if Ms.Kitt would have preferred her mother aborting her. I’m sure Ms.Kitt’s daughter was glad her grandmother didn’t.
Aww, man! Truthseeker was posting drunk last night and I missed it. Too bad. And he was talking about big butts and trying to do math…hilarious
Keep Klassy, TS!
Posted by: barney at January 31, 2009 11:29 AM
What’s unclassy about big butts? Sounds like you are prejudiced :
Thats also why big butts conote femininity :
Posted by: truthseeker at January 31, 2009 1:18 AM
So, I’ve been on the shot for quite a while, I have pretty much no butt or chest (that’s what 18 years of gymnastics get ya’!) So, I’m practically not a woman at all? Weeeird.
Posted by: Josephine at January 31, 2009 8:19 AM
Those hormones also have effects you can’t see physically like to receptors in your brain.
Thats a good point Mary. What puzzles me is the lenghts the MSM will go to prevent anything that promotes life. A simple picture of an ultrasound was too much for them.
So we acknowledge Joe is paying more in taxes with overtime and that Joe is turning the equivalent of three paychecks over to the government when he works overtime.
Yeah, all of two cents more on the dollar. Still well worthwhile to have the added income.
…..
Yes he keeps $22,000, which I’m certain local and state gov’t will want their share of as well. Not to mention the federal and state taxes paid on purchases. After all this, how much does Joe really end up pocketting?
Between $70,000 and $80,000, depending on the state, and assuming he’s single with no dependents.
If he only made the $80,000 he’d get between $50,000 and $60,000.
So, is it worth it to Joe to work 10 extra hours a week for an extra $20,000 in his pocket?
Jasper,
They’re also not showing the PETA ad.. I mean, there are lots of things that got turned away. They have every right.
Those hormones also have effects you can’t see physically like to receptors in your brain.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 31, 2009 12:04 PM
Please explain. I sure have read a LOT of warnings. They basically tell you to watch your bone density. Where did you read this? I’ve absolutely never seen it.
I wonder if Joe would agree that extra $7,000 is a pittance that he could find absolutely no use for. After all he did work for it.
Mary, you can say the same thing about any of the money he earns.
…..
We’ve been told at work the first 4-6 months of regular time is just to pay the IRS, i.e. we’re just working for the government. Then the money becomes ours to keep.
On $80,000 it’d be $59,435 minus any state income tax and sales tax. With deductions, being married or head of household, having dependents, other deductions it goes up.
…..
I think this makes a great argument for leaving money in the hands of the people, and the less the government interferes the better.
We’re way beyond that, though.
Barney: Aww, man! Truthseeker was posting drunk last night and I missed it.
I wondered…. Ain’t nuttin’ wrong with that once in a while…
Barney: Aww, man! Truthseeker was posting drunk last night and I missed it.
I wondered…. Ain’t nuttin’ wrong with that once in a while…
Posted by: Doug at January 31, 2009 1:31 PM
Yo Ho Ho!
I went to bed too early!
Asitis:Even without contraception fetilized eggs will commonly fail to implant and the pregnancy will not establish itself. Do women cry and mourn these “misscarriages”?
C’mon
I did.
Posted by: Bethany at January 31, 2009 7:40 AM
How did you even know?
Posted by: asitis at January 31, 2009 7:50 AM
Yes, Asitis, it was 2 weeks BEFORE my menstrual cycle was supposed to start when I saw two BOLD lines on the pregnancy test. The doctors said that since it was so early, I must have had twins. I was already miscarrying by the time I found out though.
Posted by: Bethany at January 31, 2009 10:15 AM
Bethany, correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the fertilized egg have to be implanted before test kits can detect pregnancy? So if you had a positive test and then misscarried, you are talking about something different then what I was. Yes?
Jasper,
A little historical perspective:
John Quincy Adams (JQA) had served a term as POTUS, then retired to private life but was recalled to service in the U. S. House of Representatives from the commonwealth of Massachussetts. (He once quipped there is nothing as useless as an ex-president.) JQA was anti-slavery. Every other Monday in the House time was provided for Congressmen to read petitions (‘right to petition shall not be abridged) from constituents into the House record. JQA sometimes took that time to ‘attempt’ to read anti-slavery petitions into the record.
The ‘honorable’ pro-slavery Congressmen, primarily from the south and primarily Democrat, took that as an assault and an insult to their honor and their dignity no matter how meekly the request was worded. These petitions, submitted by ‘ignorant fanatics’ were summarily rejected.
The pro-slavers, (good Democrats and christians) thoughtful, deliberated response was to offer a resolution prohibiting any more ‘petitions’ dealing with the subject of slavery.
A compromise was proposed that required all petitions dealing with slavery would be referred to a select committee which would report that Congress had no authority to interfere with slavery in the state or in the District of Columbia. This resoloution carried and it went to committee for refining.
When the select committee issued it’s report there were three resolutions: 1) Congress has no authority to abolish slavery in the states, 2) it ought not to interfere with it in D.C. and 3)
“Whereas it is extremely important and desirable that the agitation of this subject should be finally arrested for the purpose of restoring tranquility to the public mind… all petitions, memorials, resolutions, propostions, or papers relating in any way, or to any extent whatsoever, to the subject of slavery, shall, without being either printed or referred, be laidn on the table, and no further action whatever shall be had thereon.”
In other the words, the petitions of “the people” would be treated by the fair minded and genteel slavery folk like the innocent victims of 50 million ‘elective abortions’ of our generation, like they never ever existed.
Bigots never change their behavior, til they acknowledge the truth of their bigotry.
But it does annoy their convoluted and perverted sense of propriety to be confronted with the evidence of their folly.
Janet Jackson can bare her breast, but hell forbid that the viewing public should be exposed to anything as vulgar and obscene as the unaltered image of a prenatal human embryo/fetus.
NBC is a private enterprise owned by Microsoft Corp. They can and should make legitimate business decisions free from government interence, but the market place votes with dollars, not ballots.
Boycot Vista and any new Microsoft product. Boycot Internet Explorer and Microsoft Network. Boycot NBC. Boycott NBC news. It is just about dead anyway.
yor bro ken
Mary, thank you. :)
Bethany, correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the fertilized egg have to be implanted before test kits can detect pregnancy? So if you had a positive test and then misscarried, you are talking about something different then what I was. Yes?
I already explained to you that the doctors told me that implantation had been unsuccessful, Asitis. No, I am not talking about something different than you.
Here are some things that might help you to understand:
hCG is produced by the trophoblast cells of the placenta. hCG production starts at an early stage of development, just a few days after conception, before implantation in the uterus.
hCG can also be produced by early pregnancy loss (EPL) or pregnancies that fail to start or properly implant.
hCG from these pregnancies can also be detected at this time (click here to see data on sources of hCG and early pregnancy loss).
http://www.hcglab.com/hCG%20levels.htm
2) Early pregnancy loss (EPL) or biochemical pregnancy
hCG may also be produced by an EPL or “biochemical pregnancy”. This is an embryo which fails to implant properly in the uterus, or is rejected by the uterus. It is followed by a normal or slightly heavier than normal menstrual period. This may be a molar pregnancy (see hydatidiform mole, below) or grossly abnormal embryo. hCG levels may rise in the week following implantation (second week of conception) like a normal term pregnancy (click here to see data on hCG levels during normal pregnancy). hCG concentration reaches a peak after 2 weeks conception (28 days after start of last menstrual period) at 10 to 100 mIU/ml, then rapidly declines. Normal or slightly heavier than normal menses follow. Most women are unaware that they have had an EPL. EPLs are quite common (reports vary, indicating similar to lesser incidence than normal pregnancies). EPLs are a cause of false-hopes of pregnancy. Individuals may get a positive result using a home pregnancy or laboratory pregnancy test in the last week of their menstrual cycle (26-29 days after start of last menstrual period). When the test is repeated a few days later a negative result or much lower concentration of hCG is detected. It is because of EPLs that we recommend that pregnancy tests be performed no earlier that day 31 since the start of last menstrual cycle, or if done earlier, are repeated on or after day 31 since the start of last menstrual cycle. This assures detection of a potentially viable or clinical pregnancy.
But, because I took my pregnancy test so early and the HCG levels were already so high, this is why the doctors concluded I had been carrying twins.
BTW, the reason I took my test so early? Because I thought I was becoming hypoglycemic- I kept having awful dizzy spells, and after going to the doctor and realizing that was not the problem, I was at the CPC and decided that I might as well try a pregnancy test – thinking there was most likely there was NO way I would have seen a positive since it was in the middle of my cycle…but to my amazement, I saw 2 bold lines, not a faint line but a bold one…so I went to the doctor that day and it was confirmed.
Doug 1:21PM
You call it two cents more on the dollar and I call it three paychecks given to the gov’t.
Also, any money invested or put in your accounts has to be reported as well unless you can get it in a tax free annuity. I’m only permitted to put so much in mine, gov’t doesn’t want to lose out on anything.
Having no dependents or mortgage payment, Joe can’t count on any “refunds” of what the gov’t took from him in course of the year.
Again Doug, depends. The state will also consider his income when taxing him, if he buys a nicer home with the extra money his property taxes will go up. We pay federal and state taxes aka “hidden taxes”.
Face it Doug, the more you make, the more the gov’t and state will want.
Doug 1:28PM
But you would agree Joe could probably find some good use for the 7,000 and wouldn’t consider it a pittance. Maybe he could help the economy by investing in a new vehicle.
Doug why are we beyond the point of letting the people keep their money? Let’s try Rush’s plan and see if it works. Those who think the Great Father can handle our money best can send it to him. Those who think they are competent enough to handle their own money can keep it.
You did an excellent job in your post of showing how Hoover and FDR meddling in the economy only caused problems. There’s no reason to think now is any different.
Sorry, Bethany but you said you took the test 2 weeks before the start of your period, which normally would be Day 14. I thought maybe you were 1 month pregnant at this time since the test was positive.
Otherwise it sounds odd that you could have a positive test so early. From your link:
hCG enters the maternal circulation almost immediately after implantation of the embryo (blastocyst) on about day 21 of the menstrual cycle. The tiny amount of hCG that enters the maternal circulation on day 21 (
Sorry, that last sentence got cut short. here it is:
The tiny amount of hCG that enters the maternal circulation on day 21 (
Sorry, Bethany but you said you took the test 2 weeks before the start of your period, which normally would be Day 14. I thought maybe you were 1 month pregnant at this time since the test was positive.
Day 14 of my CYCLE, which is about the time I ovulate! Not day 14 since conception.
I thought maybe you were 1 month pregnant at this time since the test was positive.
And you thought wrong.
Otherwise it sounds odd that you could have a positive test so early
Of course it sounds odd, which is why the doctors concluded (after tests and ultrasound) that I was carrying twins. Like I posted above, it is possible to have a positive pregnancy test if your baby has not implanted yet.
Let me repeat:
hCG production starts at an early stage of development, just a few days after conception, before implantation in the uterus.
hCG can also be produced by early pregnancy loss (EPL) or pregnancies that fail to start or properly implant.
I think it goes without saying that I’m more inclined to trust my doctors on this issue.
I tested positive on pregnancy tests at 11-14 days past ovulation, yet my period still came. Why?
What you are describing is most likely a chemical pregnancy. This is a very early miscarriage that occurs around the time the menstrual cycle is due or a few days after. What happens is the egg is fertilized and starts to implant and release hCG hormone which will give you a positive on a very sensitive home pregnancy test. Unfortunately implantation does not complete. Almost every woman will experience one or many of these in their fertile years. It is said to happen 40%–50% of all conceptions. Many times you think your period just came late, but you were actually briefly pregnant. The causes range from chromasomal problems, missed implantation or a luteal phase defect because of low progesterone or inadequate uterine lining. Here is a great article on Chemical Pregnancies from Conception-Tips.com
“Sorry, Bethany but you said you took the test 2 weeks before the start of your period, which normally would be Day 14. I thought maybe you were 1 month pregnant at this time since the test was positive.
Day 14 of my CYCLE, which is about the time I ovulate! Not day 14 since conception”.
I didn’t assume “14 days after conception.” If I had assumed that, I would not have wondered
about the positive pregnancy test.
And Day 14 is when most women ovulate.
“Let me repeat:
hCG production starts at an early stage of development, just a few days after conception, before implantation in the uterus”
Yes, and let me repeat from the same link:
“The tiny amount of hCG that enters the maternal circulation on day 21 (
Dang…. the last part of that sentence keeps being dropped and I don’t know why. Go to your link Bethany. It says the HCG concentrations at Day 21 are still too low to be detected by pregnancy tests.
You tested at Day 14. So I thought you must have been 1 month pregnant.
It’s pointless to argue this with you any further, Asitis. I know the truth, have shown you multiple times how it is possible, and you obviously are going to argue just to argue. I have no time for ignorance like that.
I tested positive on pregnancy tests at 11-14 days past ovulation, yet my period still came. Why?
What you are describing is most likely a chemical pregnancy. This is a very early miscarriage that occurs around the time the menstrual cycle is due or a few days after. What happens is the egg is fertilized and starts to implant and release hCG hormone which will give you a positive on a very sensitive home pregnancy test. Unfortunately implantation does not complete. Almost every woman will experience one or many of these in their fertile years. It is said to happen 40%–50% of all conceptions. Many times you think your period just came late, but you were actually briefly pregnant. The causes range from chromasomal problems, missed implantation or a luteal phase defect because of low progesterone or inadequate uterine lining. Here is a great article on Chemical Pregnancies from Conception-Tips.com
Posted by: Bethany at January 31, 2009 4:35 PM
I’m not questioning this Bethany. But you said you tested positive on Day 14, which is normally when ovulation occurs. In this case you mention above, the women had a positive test on Day 25-28.
I’m not saying the above doesn’t occur. I’m just telling you how it is that I thought you were 1 month pregnant since you had a positive test on Day 14.
It’s pointless to argue this with you any further, Asitis. I know the truth, have shown you multiple times how it is possible, and you obviously are going to argue just to argue. I have no time for ignorance like that.
Posted by: Bethany at January 31, 2009 4:40 PM
You haven’t though Bethany. Nothing you have shown me how it is possible that you had a positive pregnancy test on Day 14…
Ken,
thanks, intersting histical perspective. It does draw many parallels.
speaking of that, why couldn’t a president order a Emancipation Proclamation ending abortion?
Nothing you have shown me how it is possible that you had a positive pregnancy test on Day 14…
Asitis, I was there. I know it happened. I’m not an idiot. My cycles are exactly 28-29 days every time. I have never had irregular cycles. This is something that actually did happen, and I’m sorry that you are too close minded and arrogant to believe that it actually happened.
My doctors weren’t, and they’re actually educated in that area.
Aww, man! Truthseeker was posting drunk last night and I missed it. Too bad. And he was talking about big butts and trying to do math…hilarious
Keep Klassy, TS!
Posted by: barney at January 31, 2009 11:29 AM
What’s unclassy about big butts? Sounds like you are prejudiced :
Not prejudiced, Anonymous, I just could have come up with a hundred ways to convey that thought without resorting to truthseeker’s crudeness. Whatever floats his boat, though.
you obviously are going to argue just to argue. I have no time for ignorance like that.
Posted by: Bethany at January 31, 2009 4:40 PM
Honestly Bethany, I am arguing for the sake of argument. And I am not being ignorant. In fact I have taken the time to read what you have sent me. It’s just that nothing you have sent explains how you could have tested positive on the day you ovulated.
I didn’t say that I ovulated on exactly that day. Wow, Asitis. Do you really not understand that “about day 14” doesn’t mean “Exactly at 3:00 pm on day 14”?
Honestly Bethany, I am arguing for the sake of argument.
I wish you’d stop that cause it’s annoying and gets us nowhere. Why argue just to argue? Why not argue for a better purpose?
Besides, that wasn’t my point in the first place. You’re good at getting me sidetracked.
My entire point was that women CAN and DO grieve when they miscarry, even when it happens before implantation. My story is just one of many.
I didn’t say that I ovulated on exactly that day. Wow, Asitis. Do you really not understand that “about day 14” doesn’t mean “Exactly at 3:00 pm on day 14”?
Posted by: Bethany at January 31, 2009 4:50 PM
Of course I understand what day 14 means Bethany. It could be a day or two bedfore or after, though given the regularity of your periods it’s probably pretty close. In any case, you are talking about having a positive pregnancy test much earlier than they are saying is possible.
Besides, that wasn’t my point in the first place. You’re good at getting me sidetracked.
My entire point was that women CAN and DO grieve when they miscarry, even when it happens before implantation. My story is just one of many.
Posted by: Bethany at January 31, 2009 4:56 PM
Why would I want to sidetrack you from this? I was simply looking for clarification.
Yes, the original point was as I suggested:
“Even without contraception fetilized eggs will commonly fail to implant and the pregnancy will not establish itself. Do women cry and mourn these “misscarriages”?”
It would be rare that they even know they have misscarried. The only way they would know is if they had taken a pregnancy test earlier than recommended, prior to the first day of their period, and the HCG levels had been high enough to be detected.
Bethany is it not possible that you were 1 month pregnant when you had this early miscarriage? Was the “period” you got before it possibly bleeding from implantation? That would also explain the high HCG levels.
Asitis, I had heavy bleeding with tiny clots for a month. I was absolutely without a doubt not 1 month pregnant. The doctor I went to was able to confirm exactly where I was and I was monitored closely for a few weeks. She told me herself that the baby had failed to implant and that is what caused the miscarriage.
Asitis, I had heavy bleeding with tiny clots for a month. I was absolutely without a doubt not 1 month pregnant. The doctor I went to was able to confirm exactly where I was and I was monitored closely for a few weeks.
Posted by: Bethany at January 31, 2009 5:20 PM
Sorry, all this was AFTER this pregnancy or BEFORE?
It was after. Is there some reason you are giving me the third degree about my own personal experience?
If you said that you had had a miscarriage, the last thing I would ever do is question it.
Wait, did you mean the bleeding or the monitoring by doctors? I went to the doctor as soon as I got the positive pregnancy test.
By the way, implantation bleeding is MUCH different from a period. And it’s much different than miscarriage bleeding.
And BTW Bethany, please don’t get me wrong: I am in no way saying that women cannot and do not grieve these early miscarriages. I am just saying that it is rare that they are even aware of them.
And possibly even more rare for those that would grieve because one whould think they might be apt to wait until after the missed period to take the pregnancy test to avoid knowing that this had even happened.
That’s all I am saying. I am not saying that you didn’t grieve. I am certain you did and I am sincerely sorry for your sadness Bethany. I am not in any way saying you were wrong to grieve. I know what it would mean to you.
Peace
By the way, implantation bleeding is MUCH different from a period. And it’s much different than miscarriage bleeding.
Posted by: Bethany at January 31, 2009 5:29 PM
I have never experienced either so I don’t know firsthand.
But can implantation bleeding be similar to a short, light period? Maybe mistaken for one, especially if your system has been thrown off by another previous miscarriage (I think you said Blessing was a few minths prior?).
It was after. Is there some reason you are giving me the third degree about my own personal experience?
If you said that you had had a miscarriage, the last thing I would ever do is question it.
Posted by: Bethany at January 31, 2009 5:27 PM
Bethany, no! I’m not questioning that you had a miscarriage! Of course you did. Sorry, if I gave you that impression. No, I’m just wondering how you had a +ve pregnancy test on Day 14. Didn’t the doctors wonder this as well? Did they suggest that it was possibly a pregnancy from the previos cycle?
All of this information might help you, Asitis.
Just not sure
Posted by Bethany at 6/20/2007 11:25 AM and is filed under Pregnancy Loss,pregnancy
Today I went to the doctor, and she seemed just as mystified as I was about the fact that I had a period just two weeks ago and the hcg levels are high enough to test positive on a test. Especially since it happened right on time and seemed completely normal. She took my blood and will be taking it again Friday to compare the levels and see if they are rising or dropping. I’m concerned. I have been searching online for answers. I found many places saying that if you spot after 2 weeks you probably miscarried early, too early for most people to detect it. I don’t know if that’s true or not because the line was so bold. I also saw other sites that said some women have what seems to be a period and actually isn’t, right at the beginning of thier pregnancy…and their pregnancy turns out fine. I guess what I will have to do is wait and see what the doctor thinks…I wont know till Monday how the blood tests compare.
Posted by Bethany at 6/25/2007 10:55 AM and is filed under Pregnancy Loss,pregnancy
This morning, I had one little spot of blood when I went to the bathroom.
My heart fell.
I went to the livingroom and cried and cried.
Then, after this, I decided that instead of calling for the results, I would go to the doctor in person. I went to the doctor and the receptionist told me that I couldn’t see the results till tomorrow. I insisted that they had told me I would be able to see them Monday. I also told her about the spotting, and that I need to know what is going on.
She decided to see if she could get another doctor to do it. I sat in the waiting room and waited…finally I was in the doctor’s office. The doctor told me that the levels had risen from Wednesday to Friday from 1529 to 2088. He said it should be doubling but it is not a cause for concern yet, because many women have carried pregnancies even with the levels rising slowly like this.
The doctor said that since the levels were 2088, they should be able to detect something with the ultrasound.
When I came in the room to get the ultrasound, the nurse there who was giving me the ultrasound said that I should not be alarmed if she didn’t see anything on the monitor, since 2000 is a very early number…she said she wouldn’t be surprised if she didn’t see anything. And she didn’t. She saw nothing whatsoever on the screen.
She reassured me, saying, “Don’t worry, that doesn’t mean you’re not pregnant, it just means we did it early, and it’s too small to be seen yet.”
I went back to see the doctor, and he asked me when my last menstrual cycle was. I told him it was June 4th. He said that was more recent than he had thought. And he gave me two contrasting possibilities about what could be happening: He said that it is possible that I am carrying twins (my heart jumped at the thought), since my levels are so extremely high for how close my menstrual cycle was…and he also said it is possible that I miscarried since the last levels were taken. But I do not know how that would be possible, since I have only had one drop of blood since then. But I could be wrong….I don’t know. I just don’t know.
I don’t think the doctor understood how much this has effected me emotionally. He seemed so distant and matter of fact about everything he said. He told me that we would have another blood test Friday, to see if the levels have gone up from last Friday, and then if they have gone up, we’ll do another ultrasound.
I asked him if since I wouldn’t be able to get the results till Monday if we did that, if it would be possible for me to get my blood taken Thursday instead of Friday, and he said,
“No, I think it would be better to wait the whole week.”
I know he probably has good reason to do that…it’s just so hard waiting that long.
My heart was so excited at the possibility of carrying twins…but simultaneously devastated at the thought that I may have miscarried again. I just hope that this week will pass quickly. I have no idea how I should feel!
I’m sorry
Posted by Bethany at 6/25/2007 1:35 PM and is filed under Pregnancy Loss
I’m sorry that I have to report this, but I think I am miscarrying.
I have been bleeding the same way I bled right before miscarrying my last baby. I’m also having cramps. I am so sorry the latest posts have been so sad. I don’t want to depress anyone. I know there is a reason for this to happen, and it will work out for the good. “All things work together for the good to those who love God and are called according to His purpose.”
I know that God never guaranteed my life would be free of suffering. Nothing happens without a purpose. I know that whatever happens to my babies in the womb, we will meet one day in Heaven.
I am crying!
Posted by Bethany at 6/29/2007 11:53 AM and is filed under Pregnancy Loss,pregnancy
Oh my goodness. I am just in shock and in tears. I don’t know what to say, or think, or what….
THANK you for praying! Thank you so much!
I am still not sure but ….
Today, I went in to get my blood levels checked. I have been having what I believe is exactly like a period, so I was sure that I had totally miscarried…I had no hope that the levels were going to do anything except go down.
I asked the lady who took my blood if she could possibly please let me know how I could get the results today, because I did not want to wait a whole weekend to know what the results are. She told me that if I would call at about 11:35, they should have the results in.
I called at about that time, and the receptionist there told me that they didn’t have them in. I told her that I thought they would be in by then, and she said, no, I would have to wait for them to call me. Well, I thought about it, and 10 minutes later, I called again. I was desperate to know.
I waited on hold for about 10 minutes as the new receptionist looked for the doctors and asked them about the results. She said that they were in rooms at the time, but would be out shortly. She asked if they could just call me back with the results. I said, well, can they call me in about a half hour? Because I will be going into town soon.
She said, “Well, just give me a minute.” and I waited another 10 minutes. All of a sudden, I heard the voice of my doctor on the phone (the one who has always been considerate and compassionate in this situation), and she said,……..
“Bethany, your levels are going up. It looks like you’re still pregnant!”
I took in a sharp breath and didn’t know what to say. Then I said, “How??? How can I be pregnant? I am bleeding and bleeding…it’s just like my period! How can they be rising????”
She said, “Well sometimes you do bleed in pregnancy…”, and she said, “Your levels were 1529 the first time, then they were over 2000, and now they are showing at 4000! This is wonderful”
I started crying and crying and I said, “Oh my goodness, I can’t believe it!!”
She said, “Do they have you scheduled for an ultrasound? If not, I’ll get you scheduled for one next week.”
I got an ultrasound scheduled and I have been crying and crying with joy….. I cannot believe this. It is almost too unreal!!!!!
Got the results
Posted by Bethany at 7/6/2007 5:32 PM and is filed under Pregnancy Loss
It’s official.
I’m not pregnant anymore. The levels dropped from 4,400 to 3,077.
This has been one huge roller coaster ride….but at least I finally have a conclusive answer.
Bethany, thank you for sharing that. It must have been hard to journal when it was happening.. but also helpful. Your concern, hope and sadness are palpable. I’m sorry you didn’y have your twins. Maybe someday?
You mention your doctor was surprised at the levels and suggested two reasons for this. But I only see one (twins). What was the other?
“went back to see the doctor, and he asked me when my last menstrual cycle was. I told him it was June 4th. He said that was more recent than he had thought. And he gave me two contrasting possibilities about what could be happening: He said that it is possible that I am carrying twins (my heart jumped at the thought), since my levels are so extremely high for how close my menstrual cycle was…..”
Thanks Asitis…
Oh..the other was that I was miscarrying. And I had to wait 1 week to know which one it was. It was a long, long week.
Another difference is that a miscarrige is not chemically induced abortions. Wether you cared to know or not that is what you did to your sixty or so pregnancies while on birth control hormones.
Doug,
I checked out my W-2. Very interesting.
The first 4 and a half months or so I worked to pay the gov’t. Pretty easy money for them
Then another month I worked for the city. Property taxes.
The state I’m not sure but I figure at least and month in a half, being conservtive.
So, my last 5 months of working my money was mine!
Oh yes, the IRS isn’t through yet, that’s only what they withheld. Wait till April 15th.
Barney: Aww, man! Truthseeker was posting drunk last night and I missed it.
I wondered…. Ain’t nuttin’ wrong with that once in a while…
Posted by: Doug at January 31, 2009 1:31 PM
I use the word “butt” to make you laugh(purpose served) and somehow you conclude I must have been drunk to post something that “crude”?
Another difference is that a miscarrige is not chemically induced abortions. Wether you cared to know or not that is what you did to your sixty or so pregnancies while on birth control hormones.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 31, 2009 6:34 PM
So?
Those hormones also have effects you can’t see physically like to receptors in your brain.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 31, 2009 12:04 PM
Please explain. I sure have read a LOT of warnings. They basically tell you to watch your bone density. Where did you read this? I’ve absolutely never seen it.
Posted by: Josephine at January 31, 2009 1:28 PM
It was in the link I posted for you yesterday.
“In women, estrogen circulates in the bloodstream and binds to estrogen receptors on cells in targeted tissues, affecting not only the breast and uterus, but also the brain, bone, liver, heart and other tissues. ”
I checked out my W-2. Very interesting.
The first 4 and a half months or so I worked to pay the gov’t. Pretty easy money for them
Then another month I worked for the city. Property taxes.
The state I’m not sure but I figure at least and month in a half, being conservtive.
So, my last 5 months of working my money was mine!
Oh yes, the IRS isn’t through yet, that’s only what they withheld. Wait till April 15th.
Posted by: Mary at January 31, 2009 6:35 PM
Wow, so your total tax rate is about 58% Mary! Amazing, seeing as my husband makes way more than you and ours is much lower. And no, deductions don’t account for this.
Something is fishy in Denmark…. Or maybe you live in Denmark???????
Posted by: Jasper at January 31, 2009 4:44 PM
Ken,
thanks, intersting histical perspective. It does draw many parallels.
speaking of that, why couldn’t a president order a Emancipation Proclamation ending abortion?
—————————————————-
Socrates is quoted as having said, ‘The wisest thing a man can say is I don’t know.
Abraham Lincoln waited a long time to issue his proclamation. He stated often that his first priority was to save the Union, meaning all the states, slave and free. But his writings indicated that he found slaverey as abhorent a practice as the most ardent abolitionist. Hating slavery and embracing a black man, free or otherwise, as your equal were two quite different propositions. Bigotry is subtle and it is pervasive.
The little eeny meeny miney mo thing I posted the other day has different endings for different folks. If you were born in the south in prior to the 70’s, you would remember the next line was catch a nigger by his toe.
That rhyme was taught to me when I was a child, probably by my mom or dad. I do not remember. Children just absorb stuff, they learn by observation or osmosis what is modeled by adults.
It is a dark reminder of a by gone era.
I would like to think that I am free from ‘racism’ now that I am adult, but the truth is it is still working it’s way out of my understanding.
What lesson is being learned by the recent and present generation of children, when they observe adults ignore logic, sound reason, even living proof that the prenatal embro/fetus is human?
This denial of humanity and value of human life will not end well.
yor bro ken
“The little eeny meeny miney mo thing I posted the other day has different endings for different folks. If you were born in the south in prior to the 70’s, you would remember the next line was catch a nigger by his toe”
Funny ken: I was born in 1964 so I’m old enough to know the ending to that rhyme…. but young enough to know that it’s okay to be a ‘mo!
Progress can be a good thing.
Another difference is that a miscarrige is not chemically induced abortions. Wether you cared to know or not that is what you did to your sixty or so pregnancies while on birth control hormones.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 31, 2009 6:34 PM
So?
Posted by: asitis at January 31, 2009 6:48 PM
So it was you who insunuated that the sixty you aborted were no different than a miscarriage.
So it was you who insunuated that the sixty you aborted were no different than a miscarriage.
Posted by: truthseeker
And your point is……
So it was you who insunuated that the sixty you aborted were no different than a miscarriage.
Posted by: truthseeker
Just to clarify something for you truthseeker: They are the same in that the same failure to implant occurs naturally and artifically and in both cases it uses goes unnotiticed. The difference would be that in the case of the Pill is that the failure to implant is intentional.
Sorry, that should be “usually goes unnoticed”. Geesh… one glass of wine and I’m sounding like Dean Martin (yes, I’m old enough to know him!). Some pirate I am!
Dr. William Liley, an Obstetrician and Physiologist, known as the Father of Fetology, was the professor of fetology at Auckland New Zealand National Womens Hospital and was the first to do amnio centesis on an investigative basis and intrauterine transfusions on RH babies.
After he and his wife had conceived and raised four children to adulthood they adopted a Downs Syndrome child. Dr. Liley said this child was the one that had given them the most pleasure.
Dr. Liley wrote, “For a generation that reputedly prefers scientific fact [now they just go with feelings] to barren philosophy, we might have thought that this new information [fetology] would engender a new respect for the welfare and appreciation of the importance of intrauterine life.
Instead, around the world, we find a systematic campaign clamoring for the destruction of the [human] embryo and the fetus as cureall for every social and personal problem.
I for one find it a bitter irony that just when the [human] embryo and fetus arrive on the medical scene there should be such sustained pressure to make him or her a social non-entity.”
Humans are stupid. Sometimes I am ashamed to be acknowledge that I belong to the same species.
yor bro ken
Posted by: asitis at January 31, 2009 7:18 PM
Funny ken: I was born in 1964 so I’m old enough to know the ending to that rhyme…. but young enough to know that it’s okay to be a ‘mo!
Progress can be a good thing.
————————————————–
I would think that most honest homosexuals would not share your sentiment. Neither would most psychologists and psychiatrist who posessed both the integrity and the courage to speak what they know to be true: Homosexuality is a pathology that seldom ends well.
Being born black into a funtional family with two parents who love you does not predispose you to disease, depression and an early, often times self inficted death, or murder at the hands of one of your fellow citizens in the homosexual community.
But keep on making my point that logic and reason
are foreign concepts in the fantasy land in which you exist. Are you wearing your ruby slippers?
yor bro ken
“I would think that most honest homosexuals would not share your sentiment”
Oh my god Ken! You have no idea…..
“Are you wearing your ruby slippers?”
And now a Dorothy reference! You are cracking me up!!!!!
“Neither would most psychologists and psychiatrist who posessed both the integrity and the courage to speak what they know to be true”
Oh… my….lord. Ken, ken,ken.
That does it/ I am kicking you out of Planned Piratehood. You are being depatched. Dispatched?
Actually ken is correct. Same sex attraction was removed from the list of psychological disorders because of intense pressure by homosexual activists within and outside of the psychiatric community. Fortunately there are some psychologists and psychiatrists who are speaking out and providing the treatment that these people need.
Eileen, Eileen.
Good night all.
Asitis 6:54PM
In case you read it wrong, I was referring to the various taxes, not just federal, which was about 4 and a half months. This would include SS and Medicare. Also I have free lance income which the government hasn’t hit on yet, but certainly will. I’m uncertain of the state at this time but know a month worth of pay checks covers my city taxes.
Try it yourself Asitis. If you husband pays x amount of taxes, how many paychecks is that the equivalent of over how many months.
Face it Doug, the more you make, the more the gov’t and state will want.
Mary, nobody ever told you any different. Although – we didn’t mention that after a point you no longer pay Social Security taxes, which really cuts the tax rate down at that point.
The fact remains that you still take home most of what you make, no matter how much you make.
Worrying about say, another $10,000 or $20,000 per year is silly.
Would you want to give up that much of your normal pay to “save on taxes”?
Well if you can’t make em happy where, make em happy when…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKCVS57j284&feature=related
They must put something in the water in West Texas. Evolution alone could not produce this.
yor bro ken
Doug why are we beyond the point of letting the people keep their money?
Well, Mary, actually – the US has fairly low tax rates compared to many countries around the world, so we already are keeping a lot of it.
We’re not going to see any dramatic tax cuts. The gov’t is running huge red ink as things are now. We’re many decades beyond any real chance of turning around the US gov’t Titanic.
Ken, nice video of the national anthem. And also nice to see it sung “normally” rather than with all sorts of ludicrous twists.
Barney: Aww, man! Truthseeker was posting drunk last night and I missed it.
“I wondered…. Ain’t nuttin’ wrong with that once in a while…”
>TS: I use the word “butt” to make you laugh(purpose served) and somehow you conclude I must have been drunk to post something that “crude”?
Had nothing to do with it. I didn’t even see the “butt.” I was just going with what Barney said, and you did seem a bit “different.”
The difference would be that in the case of the Pill is that the failure to implant is intentional.
Posted by: asitis at January 31, 2009 7:26 PM
Exactly. And why, when one human being kills another human being, do most people care wether the killing was accidental or intentional? It is not healthy to take the attitude you take when you say “so” and try and make it “matter-of-fact”.
Different how Doug? You mean the lyrics I posted from the song I wrote?
I am actually finding my conversation with asitis about her decision to take birth control fascinating. Too bad her and Barney weren’t awake to discuss more on the topic of how fertility is something that makes guys more macho and girls more feminine.
Different how Doug? You mean the lyrics I posted from the song I wrote?
Truthseeker, I did see the “butt” comment – had already forgotten it – but you seemed wild and loose, and I presume that is what Barney saw too.
Wild and loose I like. Drunk not so much though.
Thats what happens when you channel the love Doug. Eventually it bursts and spills out.
Jill,
Thanks for leaving this blog up. It is good to have a single blogline run for so long because you can really get deeper into conversations when they are carried on over days or even weeks.
Bethany,
I was thinking of you when I ended up talking with asistis about her birth control actually causing abortion by blocking implantation of a fertilized egg. When youn posted it previously it didn’t really occur to me how often that happens.
Paul Bradford, if your out there reading this,
I was thinking of starting a club called Catholics for Choosing Life. Care to join?
I checked out my W-2. Very interesting.
The first 4 and a half months or so I worked to pay the gov’t. Pretty easy money for them
No, Mary, ain’t no way. If you do the math, you’ll see it’s impossible.
For federal income tax, if you make about $70,000 and have zero deductions than it’d be less that 2.5 months. And you certainly have some deductions, even if just the standard one and our personal exemption, etc., (those two now being $9350 for single fling status). Those two alone would mean it’d be less than 2 months to pay the gov’t, there – something to keep in mind if we’re thinking about working more or less this year.
…..
Then another month I worked for the city. Property taxes.
1.) If true, then I think it’s crazy to be living in a place that takes a twelth of one’s income for property taxes.
2.) Has nothing to do with federal income tax and the issue of working overtime or not anyway. You’ve got it even if you don’t work at all.
…..
The state I’m not sure but I figure at least and month in a half, being conservative.
It’d likely be right about one month or less for you.
…..
So, my last 5 months of working my money was mine!
Sales tax is a given, depending on what you buy (again – even if you don’t work), so per the above, I’d say that you have to work 3 months or maybe 3.5 to pay your federal and state income taxes.
Eileen,
Wise is the man who keeps his own counsel, whom it appears I am not.
Well as Tiny Tim said so eloquently, “God bless us everyone.”
Doug,
I just appreciate good harmony. It is a ‘gift’. I can do it a little bit, but those girls. Man only one of them was a teenager when that video was made. They not only have a great sense of pitch, their vocal range and the quality of their voices is stunning for their ages.
Thank you for your steady even keel. A little nautical lingo for a salty ol dawg.
yor bro ken
In case you read it wrong, I was referring to the various taxes, not just federal, which was about 4 and a half months. This would include SS and Medicare. Also I have free lance income which the government hasn’t hit on yet, but certainly will.
Posted by: Mary at January 31, 2009 10:15 PM
Already accounted for all that Mary.
Something’s fishy…..
Too bad her and Barney weren’t awake to discuss more on the topic of how fertility is something that makes guys more macho and girls more feminine.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 31, 2009 10:46 PM
I wasn’t exactly sleeping when you wrote that truthseeker. I was…. you know….. being “feminine”, so to speak! ;)
Doug @11:52pm
Agreed! She must live in Denmark…..
I checked out my W-2. Very interesting.
The first 4 and a half months or so I worked to pay the gov’t. Pretty easy money for them
Then another month I worked for the city. Property taxes.
The state I’m not sure but I figure at least and month in a half, being conservtive.
So, my last 5 months of working my money was mine!
Posted by: Mary at January 31, 2009 6:35 PM
Mary dear, do this: Take out that W-2. Add up your fed tax (Box 2), Social Security withheld (Box 4), Medicare tax withheld (Box 6), state tax (Box 17) and local earned income tax (Box 19). Add to this your 2008 property tax as well.
Divide this sum by your gross income (Box 1).
Mulitply that by 12. This gives you the number of months last year that “you worked for The Man”. I get it’s not 7. Right?
Finally, when you think about how you live, do you ever wonder who pays for those things you or your loved ones have access to without user fees? Like roads, hospitals, museums, parks, bridges, public schools, state colleges, new technologies, safe food and water, public health, public safety….. How about social security for your grandparents or parents? Medical coverage for the elderly or poor children who come to your hospital in need of treatment? I could go on………….
Bethany,
I was thinking of you when I ended up talking with asistis about her birth control actually causing abortion by blocking implantation of a fertilized egg. When youn posted it previously it didn’t really occur to me how often that happens.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 31, 2009 11:40 PM
Truthseeker, just to be clear…. I don’t believe it is really known yet how often breakthrough ovulation occurs and how often implantation is blocked while on the Pill.
And in the end, the actual RATE of this occurence doesn’t really matter in terms of usage.
The difference would be that in the case of the Pill is that the failure to implant is intentional.
Posted by: asitis at January 31, 2009 7:26 PM
Exactly. And why, when one human being kills another human being, do most people care wether the killing was accidental or intentional? It is not healthy to take the attitude you take when you say “so” and try and make it “matter-of-fact”.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 31, 2009 10:29 PM
It’s not unhealthy to take that attitude truthseeker, when you don’t see blocking a fertilized egg from implanting to be the same as killing a person.
But if you do see it to be the same, then I suppose it could be a problem.
Asitits dear,
This isn’t rocket science. Look at what you pay the feds total in one year. Figure out how many months worked or how many paychecks will equal that amount.
Do the same for your state taxes. By the way it came out to about 2 and a half months wages for me to pay the state, as of now anyway. Being our governor is as financially inept as the Great Father in Washington, I only expect our state financial situation to get worse and taxes likely to increase.
Do the same for your city taxes. For me it came put to about a month and a half.
No user fees? My dear what planet do you reside on?
You don’t pay ever increasing hospital bills? You’ve never paid road tolls? You haven’t paid college tuition? You’ve never paid a fee to cross a bridge?
Any number of what you describe can be privately donated, built, and sustained with private donations, including parks, museums, private schools, and are. Citizens volunteer their time to fundraising and maintenance. New technologies can be privately developed and invested in.
Instead we have bridges built to nowhere and research into why convicts want to escape from prison.
Social Security and Medicaid are almost broke. No surprise there considering the government runs it. People would be better off keeping what they give for SS and wisely investing it. Ask medical personnel about the time, expenditure, and paperwork wasted on medicaid. Again, our gov’t at work.
People will be treated at a hospital no matter what, including mine. By the way, you’d be surprised the people who feel they have no obligation to pay a bill, even though arrangements are made for them.
Keeping more of our money better enables people to invest in what betters their community, donate to charities that truly serve the community, and keeps our communities alive with commerce and employment. It keeps people in their homes. It could mean fewer people in need of government assistance.
Of course taxes must be paid to city, state, and the feds. I have no objection to them being used to help people legitimately in need of help, not those who think they deserve a handout, and to maintain our roads, bridges, etc.
What I object to is the waste, payoffs, corruption, and ineptness that our tax dollars subsidize.
If these are the folks you think can best manage your money Asitis, go for it. I can do a far better job of managing my and investing my own.
Try it yourself Asitis. If you husband pays x amount of taxes, how many paychecks is that the equivalent of over how many months.
Posted by: Mary at January 31, 2009 10:15 PM
Mary, we just got his W-2 so for the heck of it I just did the math. And I included everything as mentioned in my comment to you at 7:45am.
The answer: He “worked for the government” for 3 months in 2008. And as I said, he makes much more than you would be making as a nurse, even a high level one.
I also did a rough calculation on our 2007 filing. That year, thanks to good fortune (Arrrrrr!) we made a ridiculous amount of money which was then taxed as both regular income and long-term capital gains. To be consistent with your scenario I excluded from the calculation the quarter of our income that was capital gains and its corresponding the tax. Even in 2007 he “worked for the government” for only 4 1/2 months.
Your calculation is wrong Mary.
Asitits dear,
This isn’t rocket science. Look at what you pay the feds total in one year. Figure out how many months worked or how many paychecks will equal that amount.
Posted by: Mary at February 1, 2009 9:01 AM
Mary sweetie, no it’s not rocket science. But I think you may be making a critical error in your math. Are you using your takehome pay to figure out how many months you are working for your taxes????? That’s not right. You are doubling up on your payroll taxes.
Follow my simple steps and that will help you.
As for tolls and donations… sure some of the institutions and services I mentioned have those to SUBSIDIZE their actual costs. And sure the government has some waste in their operations. But nevertheless….
Doug,
First of all you’re making some assumptions about my wages which are totally inaccurate. I’ll leave it at that since I don’t care to discuss my income.
I will say what I paid in federal taxes last year is equal to about 4 and a half months of paychecks. Of course I kept most of it, the IRS does’t snap it all up at once.
Same with state and property taxes. Yes it is a month’s paychecks for me. BTW that’s two paychecks.
A month for the state? I wish. I saw what the state has already taken, and they’ll take more, and its closer to 2 for me Doug.
I know other countries pay more in taxes, they also have more gov’t control of everything. Isn’t France bankrupt?
Our gov’t is in the red only because of out of control spending and financial ineptness, not because we don’t pay them enough.
Asitis,
No I’m using full pay.
As I pointed out to Doug you are making assumptions about my income. Also I have free-lance income which is substantial. It comes out to about 4 and a half months for me where the feds are concerned.
Property taxes are not withheld and are paid in full at the end of the year. They are worth about a month.
State will be about a month or month and a half but that doesn’t take free lance pay into account.
Doug,
First of all you’re making some assumptions about my wages which are totally inaccurate. I’ll leave it at that since I don’t care to discuss my income.
Posted by: Mary at February 1, 2009 9:23 AM
I think Doug used $70,000 as an estimate. It looks like that’s not too far off the national average for an advance practice nurse. But that’s just an average. Maybe you live where they pay more and you’ve been around awhile Mary. Maybe $100,000 is a better guess. but it still wouldn’t make your claims right. Heck, let’s say you make $700,0000! Your claims would still be wrong!
Asitis,
The gov’t has “some” waste. You are being very charitable.
Asitis,
The gov’t has “some” waste. You are being very charitable.
Posted by: Mary at February 1, 2009 9:37 AM
Thank you!
How’s that math coming along?
Asitis 9:37am
It is very far off the mark, considering I make a substantial amt of money free-lancing, which the feds and state haven’t gotten their share of but certainly will by April.
I wish I made $700,000 but unfortunately will not in this lifetime.
No Asitis, I saw my taxes for last year, federal only, and was floored. I’m not saying we’re in poverty and being we no longer have house payments is a huge plus. It also one less deduction.
I get two paychecks a month, I used the full amt and figured it was about 4 and half months of full checks to pay my federal taxes. That throws in my free lance pay as well which of course the feds will get their hands on.
I stand corrected on the property tax, that is one paycheck, not a month’s.
The state surprised me as well. Again throwing in the free lance and what the state is due that it didn’t withhold, it comes out to about 2 months.
Asitis,
The math is just great, thank you.
Asitis,
No I’m using full pay.
As I pointed out to Doug you are making assumptions about my income. Also I have free-lance income which is substantial. It comes out to about 4 and a half months for me where the feds are concerned.
Posted by: Mary at February 1, 2009 9:36 AM
Mary, that’s literally impossible. That’s a federal income tax rate of 37.5%. Even the highest rate is 35% and that’s only on the portion in excess of $373,000.
I wish I made $700,000 but unfortunately will not in this lifetime.
Posted by: Mary at February 1, 2009 9:47 AM
Trust me, even if you were making $700,000 you wouldn’t be taxed so much that it would take 4.5 months to pay the feds and 7 months to pay all your tax.
Even if you were making $1,000,000 that wouldn’t be the case.
Trust me.
Your math is not fine. Try again.
I get two paychecks a month, I used the full amt and figured it was about 4 and half months of full checks to pay my federal taxes. That throws in my free lance pay as well which of course the feds will get their hands on.
I stand corrected on the property tax, that is one paycheck, not a month’s.
Posted by: Mary at February 1, 2009 9:47 AM
Mary, you keep referring to “paycheck” amounts. I go back to my early suggestion that perhaps you are using the takehome pay amount (rather than gross pay) in your calculations. Are you sure you are using your gross pay?????
Mary, I have to go out shortly. Good luck with the math. I’ll check back later!
Asitis,
I am referring federal taxable gross pay.
I am allowed pre tax deductions from my gross pay for various insurances and my annuity which will total about $700 per check(gross pay) that the gov’t doesn’t tax. According to my check that leaves me with federal taxable gross.
If I wanted to turn over this entire federal taxable gross to the government to pay off taxes, only federal taxes, and keep nothing at all from the check, and throwing in the taxes from my free lance income which is also variable, I would have to send in about 4 to 4 and a half months of paychecks, going by what the gov’t withheld last year.
Obviously there is no way I can do this.
By the way that’s just what the feds withheld, it may be more at tax time, considering my freelance pay or if the feds didn’t withhold enough, which they never seem to do.
City taxes by the way I pay with take home after taxes so that is two paychecks for me, or a month’s take home pay.
State, again going by variability in pay and frequency, some months we get three checks, and free lance work, will come out to about 1 and a half to 2 months max of pay checks.
I don’t know why, I just thought it was relevant.
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/extremely-stupid/278840/
yor bro ken
The difference would be that in the case of the Pill is that the failure to implant is intentional.
Posted by: asitis at January 31, 2009 7:26 PM
Exactly. And why, when one human being kills another human being, do most people care wether the killing was accidental or intentional? It is not healthy to take the attitude you take when you say “so” and try and make it “matter-of-fact”.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 31, 2009 10:29 PM
It’s not unhealthy to take that attitude truthseeker, when you don’t see blocking a fertilized egg from implanting to be the same as killing a person.
But if you do see it to be the same, then I suppose it could be a problem.
Posted by: asitis at February 1, 2009 8:28 AM
They are both human life, but it took you six weeks to even admit that. Respecting that life is a personal choice that you may never make. But it does not change the fact that a mother having intercourse and discarding her progeny as non-persons is evil. It is a self-serving disrespect for human life and you likely wouldn;t mind classifying other humans as expendable if it suited your means.
Eileen,
Wise is the man who keeps his own counsel, whom it appears I am not.
ken, all men stumble once in a great while — it is the wise men who acknowledge it.
“Well as Tiny Tim said so eloquently, “God bless us everyone.” :)
“I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries,” Obama said, according to a White House transcript. “My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy.”
——————————————————-
In my life time the United States has twice invaded Iraq. The first time to liberate Kuawait and destroy Saddam Husseins ability to wage war on his neighbors. The second time to remove Hussein from power and return the government and the country to the people of Iraq.
We sent US troops to Somalia to faciliatate the distibution of humanitarian aid to the citzens of a war torn and strive ridden country.
It was the non-Muslim countries who intervened in the Balkans to prevent the genocide of people groups who were predominantly Muslim.
When the tsunami struck that south east asian countries, many, which are predominantly Muslim, we along with the non-Muslim west sent immediate aid.
With any and all due respect to PBHO, it is the responsibility of the Muslim world to demonstrate to non-Muslims, in tangible ways that they are not our enemey.
Show me the non-Muslims who strap bombs to themselves, their women, even their children’s baby bottles and indiscriminantly murder men, women and children.
Show me the non-Muslims who advocate the complete destruction of a nation (Israel) and the anihilation of a people (Jews), simply because they do not share their perspective on religion.
Show me the video of the non-Muslims who danced in the streets when planes full of innocent people were flown into buildings full of more innocent people by misguided bombs with Muslims
strapped to themselves.
Show me videos of mass demonstrations of grief and remorse by the Muslim world over the afore mentioned acts of barbarism. Show me the leaders of the Muslim world, political and spiritual, who condemned this madness perpetrated by fellow Muslims.
When the last troops are gone from Iraq and the Iraqi people are left to enjoy the freedom that has been purchased for them by the life and blood and wealth of non-Muslims, show me the mass demonstration of gratitude from the Muslims of the neighboring countries for the removal of beast who had terrorized them.
We non-Muslims are not the enemy of life and liberty and prosperity in the middle east. The Muslim world needs to look much closer to home, maybe in the mirror, to identify that threat.
The Muslim world can continue to live in the middle ages or it can choose to join the 21st century of civilized freedom loving people.
yor bro ken
Doug,
Where do pirates love to eat?
Arrrrbys
yor bro ken
Truseeker @1:01pm
Matters more to you than me and any woman (and there are A LOT of us) that is on the Pill!
Asitis,
I am referring federal taxable gross pay.
If I wanted to turn over this entire federal taxable gross to the government to pay off taxes, only federal taxes, and keep nothing at all from the check, and throwing in the taxes from my free lance income which is also variable, I would have to send in about 4 to 4 and a half months of paychecks
Posted by: Mary at February 1, 2009 12:20 PM
Mary, as I already said, it’s impossible for anyone, you included, to be paying 37.5%(or 33 to 33.5%) federal income tax on total income, no matter what they make.
So from what you have said above it sounds like what you must mean is that you would have to send in 4 to 4.5 months of the taxable pay from your fulltime job to pay for the federal income tax owing for that job AND for the freelancing. In order for this to be true, the freelancing pay must be a significant amount in proportion to your fulltime job.
What you really should be doing is saying how many months of the combined income from your fulltime and freelance job it takes to pay the combined federal tax.
If you actually looked at your regular income for the year from your fulltime job and
The Muslim world can continue to live in the middle ages or it can choose to join the 21st century of civilized freedom loving people.
yor bro ken
Posted by: kbhvac at February 1, 2009 2:29 PM
Hey, that works for at least one other religion I can think of Ken! Well, actually some of it’s members have progressed, but not all….
Do you know any Muslims Ken?
Sorry, ignore this last partial sentence in my comment:
If you actually looked at your regular income for the year from your fulltime job and
Posted by: asitis at February 1, 2009 4:00 PM
Mary, did you do the calculation I suggested at 7:45am.
This will tell you how many months of the year you spend working at your fulltime job and freelancing in order to pay all your income taxes (federal, state and local taxes,social security and medicaid).
Hint: It’s not 7 months! It’s not even 5 months! It’m pretty certain it’s less than 4 months.
“Let’s try Rush’s plan and see if it works.”
Mary, why don’t we try the President’s plan before Crazy-Radio-Talk-Show-Host’s?
Also, why do you keep saying “wait till April 15th”… why don’t you just ask to have more money withheld. Then you can enjoy a refund instead of paying in. Lots of people do it. :) You said you don’t have a house payment and stuff… seems like that’s the best way to get through tax season..
TS,
You said it affects my brain receptors. There is a big difference between brain receptors and receptors in the brain for estrogen..
Eileen..
” Fortunately there are some psychologists and psychiatrists who are speaking out and providing the treatment that these people need.”…
I can’t believe there are people that think like that. Any psychiatrists & psychologists that think that are disgusting people. Really, truly disgusting.
Asitis,
First of all you don’t know exactly what I make or what I have paid in taxes.
Yes I have reviewed what I made for the year and yes I have reviwed the federal tax. I have reviewed last years taxes. I have reviewed my most recent pay stub.
I said 4 to 4.5 months when I throw in my freelance as well which is substantial. My regular pay alone would be 3 to 3.5 months. Also my tax bill, if is was like last year, will be likely be substantially added to though I hope not.
State would be closer to 1.5 months though it may push 2. Again hopefully not. I got a good sized bill last year.
City is two weeks of take home pay, after federal and state taxes.
Comes out anywhere between 6 to 7.
I am figuring that after paying off the federal, I would then pay the state, then the city. Of course I will not and cannot do that. This is all done over the course of a year obviously.
Since two paychecks a month is being a little too rigid, it can vary, perhaps it would be best to say 6 to 7 paychecks for the feds, which would be 3-3.5 months, maybe a little less, especially if I get three checks in one month. Then with freelance the possible equivalent of another paycheck, which would be 1/2month or 4 months.
The state, 3 paychecks, about a month in a half and with free lance still making it a month in a half.
Comes to about 6 months. I was off by one!
Josephine,
Sounds like the president’s spending plan may have some problems in the Senate. 11 Democrats voted against it in the Congress.
What’s so wrong with Rush’s plan? Those who think the Great Father can better manage their money are welcome to send all they want.
Those of us who think the economy would be better served by more money in the hands of the people to spend as we see fit can keep theirs.
Seems very fair and bipartisan to me and that is what Obama called for.
So far the only thing bipartisan about his plan is the opposition to his spending plan in the congress.
Comes to about 6 months. I was off by one!
Posted by: Mary at February 1, 2009 4:52 PM
Mary, that’s impossible. Okay, I am going to get up close and personal here and give you a real-life example.
In 2007 our regular income was just over $800,000 (our total income was actually $1.1 million, but I have taken the $300,000 in long-term capital gains out of the equation since that is taxed at a much lower rate).
To pay the total taxes (federal, state and local taxes,social security and medicaid) on this $8000,000 would take 4.3 months of income.
You are saying it takes you 6 months! There is no way that it takes longer to pay the taxes on your income, whatever it is, given that you said… what was it?…”I wish I made $700,000 but unfortunately will not in this lifetime.”
And by the way, I’m not making this up. I told you 2007 was an extraodinarily good year for pirates! It’s not a normal year, so I’m stilling holding my cards close on our normal. ;)
Did you do my calculation from 7:45am?
We haven’t tried out the President’s plan. That’s why.
Not to mention Rush Limbaugh, to about half the country, really is just a fat sack of disgusting poop.
Lol. The only thing that’s bipartisan is the opposition? Not quite, sweetie. You obviously need to do some reading other than Fox News. :)
Oh, and in your plan no one would pay taxes. Didn’t you say your kids were in college? I’d love to see how your college bills sky rocketed. Unless, assuming, you’re sending them to a private college?? In which case, you’d get a tax deduction for that, which you said you didn’t?
No one loves paying taxes. They do love, however, going to parks, paved roads, public schools, getting mail, snow being plowed.. the list goes on….
I just appreciate good harmony. It is a ‘gift’. I can do it a little bit, but those girls. Man only one of them was a teenager when that video was made. They not only have a great sense of pitch, their vocal range and the quality of their voices is stunning for their ages
Ken – I can’t even do a little bit, there. And I squirm when people sing ‘Happy Birthday.”
But those girls and their harmony bring shivers to my spine, not to mention to me timbers.
….
Thank you for your steady even keel. A little nautical lingo for a salty ol dawg.
Ken, what a nice thing to say. Thank you too – we get a sense of a person around here, and you’re an interesting and nice guy.
Even some of us old salty dawgs get choked up and cry quite easily when hearing certain music, that mix of voices, or, for example, when a string section kicks in.
My wife feels it’s one of my saving graces.
And for 2008, a more “normal” year for us, it would take 3.2 months.
This income is probably still higher than yours, but much closer than our 2007 was. So it will give you a rough idea and also show you the trend with decreasing salary.
6 months???????
Asitis,
I have a fear of discussing personal finances on the internet because of some bad experiences in the past. The feds withheld $35,000 of my regular pay, that’s federal only, over the course of the year 2008. Were I to pay them 6 or 7 of my taxable income checks this year or 3 to 3.5 months, telling them to leave nothing in my check for me, I could have my federal taxes paid, assuming they will be the same this year as last, though I suspect there will be more.
Again you have to throw in freelance and changes in deductions which I will have this year.
The state, again if they remain the same, could be paid off with two, maybe three checks. Again, that’s leaving me nothing.
City taxes come out of take home pay.
“My regular pay alone would be 3 to 3.5 months”
Okay, let’s say it’s 3.3 months Mary. That’s a federal tax rate of 29%.
That’s impossible.
Sorry, I did that for 3.5 months. 3.3 months would be 27.5% tax rate.
Still impossible.
Josephine: We haven’t tried out the President’s plan.
Which does, I note, include a tax cut. The legislation would have to be passed by both Houses of Congress – it’s currently in the House – it’d equal 6.2% of earned income in 2009 and 2010, capped at $500 for single filers and $1,000 for joint filers each year. It would be phased out for higher-incomers — between $75,000 and $100,000 of adjusted gross income for single filers and between $150,000 and $200,000 for married couples.
“Were I to pay them 6 or 7 of my taxable income checks this year or 3 to 3.5 months, telling them to leave nothing in my check for me, I could have my federal taxes paid”
Mary, again, I have to ask, are these “taxable income checks” your paychecks… as in the amount you would have automatically deposited into your bank on payday or written on a check.
Because that’s the only way your 3 to 3.5 months for federal tax might be right.
Did you do my calculation? It would be super easy for 2007 using your 2007 W-2 and adding in any extra you had to pay.
Josephine, 5:11PM
Please check your facts. 11 Democrats and all the Republicans opposed this spending plan in the Congress. Only Democrats supported it. Only Democrats were allowed to have any input into it to begin with.
Yes my son is in college. I pay his tuition with no help from the gov’t and still can’t get a deduction!
Colleges depend on donations and outrageous tuitions despite federal help. Maybe more money in people’s pockets means people more willing to donate or better afford tuitions.
Parks, paved roads, etc usually depend on city and state taxes.
Also a stimulated economy means more people paying taxes.
I understand some congressman suggested a two month tax holiday for Americans. Of course that would have a snowball’s chance.
I’m all for everyone’s taxes being reduced and the gov’t being fiscally responsible, not being fed more of our money. True no one likes taxes. Its the irresponsible fiscal policies of our gov’t, and in my case the state I live in, that I have an issue with.
I have a fear of discussing personal finances on the internet because of some bad experiences in the past.
Posted by: Mary at February 1, 2009 5:28 PM
I can appreciate this Mary! Funny how we might throw some numbers around here that we wouldn’t dare speak in person (isn’t this one of those long-held taboos????) and yet, we are saying to so many more and unknown people! Crazy internet…..
Look, I do appreciate you being open about this. I am just perplexed at how you can say you are working for half the year just to pay your taxes. You would have to making oodles of regular income do-re-mi for that to possibly kick in…. I’d rough guess in the few million dollar/year range and above, but by that amount you’d have the wiggle room and wherewithall to probably end up paying less than folks like us are paying! Pirates!
Asitis,
That may be the misunderstanding here. These would be checks that have had tax free money already removed (TSA and some insurances, about $700.00) and are now gross taxable income. From this the feds and state take their bite and I deposit what is left. I’m saying if they would take the whole blasted check, what they tax and what they leave me, then I could get them paid off in3-3.5 months, by 2008 numbers anyway. That doesn’t include freelance. Since this is the amount of money that will eventually end up with the feds by the end of the year, I could say I just work for them the first 3-3.5 months :) Then there’s the freelance…..
I do need two take home after tax checks to pay the city. I don’t mind this so much because the city at least uses the money sensibly.
The state 2 to 3 paychecks, even with freelance though there is some talk of taxes going up.
I would assume Asitis that you do quarterly since you seem to run a business. I do only yearly.
I promise I will dig through my 2007 and do that calculation but another time. Right now my jaw is killing me and I’m on pain pills. Frankly, I don’t want to move!
Asitis 5:49PM
You’re right about the internet. The daughter and son-in-law of my co-worker “John” display their family pictures, their infant daughter, relatives, home, and wedding pictures on their website.
It makes me cringe. I wonder if they’re aware of the people they may well being giving information about themselves and their daughter to. Many of them perverts, ding-a-lings and weirdos.
I say nothing to John but I personally think this is very dangerous. Its no different than asking total strangers into your home and giving them information about yourself and your family.
“Yes my son is in college. I pay his tuition with no help from the gov’t and still can’t get a deduction!
Colleges depend on donations and outrageous tuitions despite federal help. Maybe more money in people’s pockets means people more willing to donate or better afford tuitions.”
If your son is in college he is either in a public school, which your taxes help pay for.. or a private school, which you would get a deduction for. That’s all there is to it. I don’t know what any of this is about.. what do you mean you pay “with no help”… do you realize how expensive tuition would be without government funding of universities?? My school runs about $30,000…. I don’t want to think about how much more it would cost if the government didn’t put so much tax money into it. However, I plan on going to a private school after next year. It’s about $45,000 a semester, and I will be paying for it. (NG won’t pay for private schools.) I will get a pretty massive tax break for paying for a private university.
Soo… taxes help you out either way when it comes to college. :)
By the way– there’s a Superbowl party at my apartment right now, and I’m on here. I am NOT a football person– I made a bunch of snacks for my boyfriend’s friends, and now I’m sitting in my room while they enjoy!
Posted by: asitis at February 1, 2009 4:04 PM
Do you know any Muslims Ken?
————————————————-
I do not hold all Muslims responsible for the acts of a relative few, but I do hold them responsible for not publicly condemning the mass murderers who have hi-jacked their religion.
I do know more Muslims than there have been Muslim leaders condemning acts of mass murder by people claiming to be Muslims and justifying their barbarism by their religion and in the name of their god.
How about you?
yor bro ken
Josephine,
No argument there. Of course my taxes pay for his college and though I pay his tuition I get no deduction for it. Only people in a certain income bracket get the deduction which seems a little unfair to me. I mean he does not get any kind of gov’t loans to go to school.
I’ve heard one theory that colleges would be much less expensive if the gov’t didn’t get involved in providing loans and tuitions. The colleges would have to adjust their tuitions to enable students to pay or have no students. Just like any other business.
I stand corrected on the property tax, that is one paycheck, not a month’s.
Mary – okay, that makes sense. While it wasn’t impossible that you’d be paying a twelth of your income in property taxes, it was farfetched, hence my skepticism.
…..
First of all you’re making some assumptions about my wages which are totally inaccurate. I’ll leave it at that since I don’t care to discuss my income.
No I’m not. I realize you have more than one source of income, but from what you’ve said about your paycheck I knew I was in the ballpark, for an example.
…..
I have free-lance income which is substantial. It comes out to about 4 and a half months for me where the feds are concerned.
It does not matter about the other sources nor the total – what you’ve said about your federal taxes is impossible, no matter how much you make.
Single taxpayer, one exemption (themself) making $100,000 is still less than 2.5 months working to pay it, tax year 2008.
Heck, go with $130,000, and this is still with only the one exemption, no other deductions at all, and it’s still only 2.58 months.
I get two paychecks a month, I used the full amt and figured it was about 4 and half months of full checks to pay my federal taxes.
Like asitis has been noting, that too is just impossible. If anything I think – also like I believe asitis asked about – that you are saying how many take-home-paychecks it would require, and that’d be nonsensical, since tax has already been deducted, there.
“Tax Freedom Day” in 2008 was April 23. I realize you make more than average, but we’re still talking May, then.
http://www.mytaxfreedomday.com/calc.php
Wisconsin = May 9 for $130,000, zero state deductions, one federal deduction = “Tax Freedom Day.”
I do know more Muslims than there have been Muslim leaders condemning acts of mass murder by people claiming to be Muslims and justifying their barbarism by their religion and in the name of their god.
Kbhvac, perfect.
I would assume Asitis that you do quarterly since you seem to run a business. I do only yearly.
I promise I will dig through my 2007 and do that calculation but another time. Right now my jaw is killing me and I’m on pain pills. Frankly, I don’t want to move!
Posted by: Mary at February 1, 2009 6:01 PM
Oh! Sorry about your jaw! What happened?
No, we don’t run a business. Not even self-employed. My husband is actually…. gasp…. also a scientist, and applies that in his career.
asitis: Okay, let’s say it’s 3.3 months Mary. That’s a federal tax rate of 29%.
That’s impossible.
Gotta disagree here, Ms. Pirate. It’d be 27.5%
With no deductions, income of $259,077 would put one right there.
These would be checks that have had tax free money already removed (TSA and some insurances, about $700.00) and are now gross taxable income. From this the feds and state take their bite and I deposit what is left. I’m saying if they would take the whole blasted check, what they tax and what they leave me, then I could get them paid off in 3-3.5 months, by 2008 numbers anyway.
mary, it sounds like this is the calculation you are using for each job:
Annual federal tax divided by (monthly gross taxable income minus monthly fed and state taxes)equals number of months working to pay federal tax. Correct?
You should be using the before-tax monthly amount. What you should be doing is this:
Total annual federal tax divided by monthly gross taxable income equals number of months to pay for federal tax.
It sounds like this is what you doing for all the calculations and are therefore counting (or “paying”)the withheld fed and state taxes multiple times. That’s where the error is.
When you feel better, do the calculation I gave this morning and you’ll see that you actually are working (I estimate) 3 to 4 months to pay for ALL of the taxes combined: fed, state, local (property and if applicable, earned income tax, social security and medicaid), NOT 6 months. And that should make you feel better going to work tomorrow and make you smile… even if you still have a sore jaw!
Peace
And it seems that you are using this
Mary at February 1, 2009 6:21 PM
I hear ya! I hear people in the generation older hesitant to give out any information to people face-to-face and the generation younger airing everything on the internet. It’s an interesting time we live in, that’s for sure!
Pssst…. And on the not giving away too much aspect: My mother didn’t really name me Asitis.
And I’m not REALLY a pirate!
Lol. The only thing that’s bipartisan is the opposition? Not quite, sweetie. You obviously need to do some reading other than Fox News. :)
Josephine, you really believe everything that you hear on CNN and MSNBC? Have you ever listened to Rush? He presents tapes and/or transcripts of politicians and gov’t officials and lets what they actually say speak for itself. He presents actual facts and figures that can be traced to the source–not just spin.
asitis: Okay, let’s say it’s 3.3 months Mary. That’s a federal tax rate of 29%.
That’s impossible.
Gotta disagree here, Ms. Pirate. It’d be 27.5%
With no deductions, income of $259,077 would put one right there.
Posted by: Doug at February 1, 2009 7:53 PM
Yes, I know, 27.5%. I corrected that in the next comment.
And you are right that someone with absolutely no deductions, filing singly would pay 27.5% at $259k. I was wrong!!!! (I was looking at the married, filing jointly rates). But Mary would at least have state and local taxes as deductions, so with just those you would have to have an adjusted gross income of closer to $300k.
A very large part of the “stimulus” package is pay-offs for the special interest groups that donated to Obama’s campaign. I thought that he was going to eliminate special interest groups and lobbyists from the gov’t arena!
Mary:I get two paychecks a month, I used the full amt and figured it was about 4 and half months of full checks to pay my federal taxes.
Like asitis has been noting, that too is just impossible. If anything I think – also like I believe asitis asked about – that you are saying how many take-home-paychecks it would require, and that’d be nonsensical, since tax has already been deducted, there.
Posted by: Doug at February 1, 2009 7:13 PM
You’re right Doug, I did ask about that and I am pretty sure now that that’s what Mary is doing. Which explains it all……
I figure if you are going to work half the year before you get to keep any of your money, you may as well live in Sweden … especially if you have kids!
Ken @ 6:39pm
Yes, I do know some Muslims and used to at the university. But none closely.
Eileen, I don’t watch MSNBC, I do watch CNN. Most of what I know I learn from my Current Politics class, where we go over news footage and newspapers daily. Trust me, my Professor can’t really afford to show much bias in a classroom.
As for Rush, I will never, ever waste one more second listening to that giant turd of a man. I have before. I’ve never heard of a more ridiculous person.
I ? Rush!
???
I figure if you are going to work half the year before you get to keep any of your money, you may as well live in Sweden … especially if you have kids!
Ha! Or, if you’re a single guy with no kids it’d be cool, too.
Doug and Asitis,
I was referring to my income before taxes. I should have specified this fact from the beginning and I think its what led to all the confusion. That is not my “paycheck” (take home) obviously, though I wish it was. I assumed you knew this (never assume) and you thought I was referring to take home after taxes when I spoke of a paycheck.
Asitis seems to understand my point.
I get paid, and non taxable money for insurance and TSA is taken out. That leaves me with a gross taxable income. From this the state and feds take their bite and let me take home the rest.
I said if I told the feds to take these checks in total and don’t leave me anything, not likely to happen believe me, then I could get my fed taxes paid off with 6 or 7 pre tax paychecks, or 3 to 3.5 months of just working for the gov’t. Then I wouldn’t pay anymore. Freelancing might make for another pretax check. About $35,000 will go to the feds, what I paid in 2008, and I will be working for the feds until that $35,000 is paid, which comes out to about 6 to 7 PRETAX checks for me, or 3 to 4 months. Obviously I’m not going broke in the process, I just consolidated what the feds do over the year into 3 to 4 months.
Property taxes are two TAKE HOME post taxes paychecks or the equivalent of one pre tax paycheck.
The state would be about 3 pre tax checks, about a month to a month in a half, if I told them they could have them and I don’t want any part of the checks, going by what my state taxes were last year. Being our state is in the hole bigtime I wouldn’t be shocked if we got another tax hike
That’s all I ever meant to emphasize but it was my mistake not to specify exactly what I meant by paycheck and can see where these perpetuated some confusion.
Asitis 7:58 PM
NO!! :):)
Asitis,
I had jaw surgery on Friday, nothing major. I hate the pain pills but have to take them.
I’d make a lousy addict.
Mary @ 9:35pm
Mary, do Doug and me a favor (and yourself!) and when you get a chance, run your 2007 numbers through my calculation from 7:45am today.
You will see that all your taxes (fed, state, local, social security and medicare) are paid before 4 months, and not at 6 months. It’s a big difference and it will make you happy and less grumpy about taxes!
In the meantime, good luck with the jaw!
Hopefully you were cheering for the Cardinals so you don’t have to smile tonight! Always a silver lining!
I figure if you are going to work half the year before you get to keep any of your money, you may as well live in Sweden … especially if you have kids!
Ha! Or, if you’re a single guy with no kids it’d be cool, too.
Posted by: Doug at February 1, 2009 9:22 PM
Ya…. all those tall blonde girls and the long summer days. And long winter nights ;)!
Mary, it’s been a slice!
Sleep tight.
I love Chris Matthews.
I think I love Rachel Maddow more though. She’s smart AND a goofball. She’d make a good pirate too I think.
Josphine,
I meant what I said. It is my understanding that estroen does effect the brain tissue, and the purpose of the estrogen receptors in the brain are to absorb the estrogen into the brain tisue.
“In women, estrogen circulates in the bloodstream and binds to estrogen receptors on cells in targeted tissues, affecting not only the breast and uterus, but also the brain, bone, liver, heart and other tissues.”
That statement is pretty clear.
Truseeker @1:01pm
Matters more to you than me and any woman (and there are A LOT of us) that is on the Pill!
Posted by: asitis at February 1, 2009 3:39 PM
Most women probably don’t understand they are actually conceiving and then aborting while on birth control. They probably never even get educated about those pregnacies occuring as part of the prescription. And if Planned Parenthood has their way they won’t tell the minor girls about this “detail” of pregnancies that occur while on birth control. Well I am one parent who WILL educate his daughters about this little detail, cause it would matter to them.
Mary, hey, I just thought of something that might throw my estimates off: All along I have been thinking about tax rates for married, filing jointly, which is what we do. I had just assumed you are married and are filling jointly as well. I might have been wrong (again? wrong? me?) in making those assumptions. We have always filed that way here. In Canada there are no options – you have to file separately and I was forgetting that there are options here in the US. So that might make some difference in the numbers. Though not enough to take it to 6 months.
Funny what this blog gets you thinking about…….
Most women probably don’t understand they are actually conceiving and then aborting while on birth control. They probably never even get educated about those pregnacies occuring as part of the prescription. And if Planned Parenthood has their way they won’t tell the minor girls about this “detail” of pregnancies that occur while on birth control. Well I am one parent who WILL educate his daughters about this little detail, cause it would matter to them.
Posted by: truthseeker at February 1, 2009 10:26 PM
It’s not “withheld” information truthseeker. It’s possible though that not everyone understands that there is a second mechanism of birth control in the pill to cover the chance that an egg may breakthrough AND might get fertilized AND might try to implant.Honestly, I don’t think too many would care.And the ones that would care probably wouldn’t use the Pill even if it didn’t have this effect.
I don’t think an egg and a sperm joining make a baby. I think the egg and sperm joining and then implanting is the beginning of a baby. After implantation, the pill can’t really do anything.
If you think JUST the egg and sperm is a baby, well, sorry to sound to much like Elle Woods, but that’s like saying every man that …you know whats when he’s alone… (I don’t know how to say that on a family site!) is killing babies? Or that every time a woman has a cycle and doesn’t use her egg, she’s killing a potential baby. Potential. That’s all it is when the egg and sperm first meet. That’s what I think, anyway.
Asitis, I disagree. The majority are inclined to guard the life created by their “relations” with their lover. In fact, to intentionally kill said life is a slap in the face of love.
Truthseeker, the majority do not recognize a fertilized egg that may or may not implant on it’s own as “a life”.
To be the point, there is a reason pro-lifers demonstrate with signs depicting rare, late-term abortions rather than fertilized eggs from unestablished pregnancies.
Truthseeker, the majority do not recognize a fertilized egg that may or may not implant on it’s own as “a life”.
Posted by: asitis at February 1, 2009 11:09 PM
It is undeniably alive and human. Sounds like you are reverting back to the days before your enlightenment.
Asitis,
Actually it came to 4.5 not figuring in free lance hours and taxes, which I won’t know until tax time. Also we do not have a local income tax figured in, that’s a seperate bill altogether.
So it looks like there won’t be a final answer until my accountant does the free lance taxes.
I’ll just ask him to give me the final tally.
Before my enlightenment? Please! Nice try Truthseeker. No, it’s as Josephine already noted: Most people would see the fertilized egg as a potential baby, at most.
Mary, use your 2007 return. You’ll have all the numbers there already.
Asitis,
In fact I was referring only to my tax forms and was not including my husband in any of this discussion, though we do file jointly. There’s a lot of factors I think can throw things off so I’ll just get an answer from my accountant. The four and a half months is just me figured in there and I don’t have the freelance hours and taxes figured in there either. Also, property taxes are not part of the W-2 form.
Mary do you mind me asking… are you married? Do you file separately then?
Sorry, I posted that while you were posting yours above it………..
Asitis,
I’ll just wait for my accountant to do the 2008 taxes and let you know. My husband and I file jointly and I don’t feel like going through all those forms. :p
Asitis,
Yes I am married and we file jointly.
Hey, here’s an update on that enterprising mom. It’s not getting any better…..
Octuplet mother ‘to sell story for $2m’
A California woman who gave birth to octuplets is at the centre of a major bidding war for her story amid claims that she desperately needs the money to care for her 14-strong family.
By Tom Leonard in New York
Last Updated: 8:08PM GMT 01 Feb 2009
Doctors Karen Maples, left with Harold Henry, right and Mandhir Gupta at the Kaiser Permanente Bellflower Medical Center in Bellflower, Calif where a mother gave birth to the world’s second live-born set of octuplets. Photo: AP
Amid reports that some of the biggest names in US television, including Oprah Winfrey, CBS’s Katie Couric and Diane Sawyer of ABC, are all interested in securing the first interview, Nadya Suleman reportedly hopes to earn as much as $2 million (£1.37 million) from selling her story.
It has also been claimed that she wants to get commercial sponsorship, such as free nappies, and wants to start a new career as a TV childcare expert.
But any ambition to be seen as a child-rearing authority now look very remote after it emerged that Miss Suleman did not – as initially believed – have fertility treatment because she had been infertile but, rather, because she simply loved having children.
Public support for the 33-year-old mother, whose six boys and two girls born last Monday are only the second case of surviving octuplets in the US, has waned dramatically as details of her situation have come out.
A divorcee, she already has six young children, lives in a three-bedroom house outside Los Angeles with her parents and has no visible means of financial support. Her parents initially bought her the house but went bankrupt and had to move in with her.
Her family have indicated that she may have serious mental health problems. Her mother, Angela, said: “[She] is not evil, but she is obsessed with children. She loves children, she is very good with children, but obviously she overdid herself.”
She added: “It can’t go on any longer. She’s got six children and no husband. I was brought up the traditional way. I firmly believe in marriage. But she didn’t want to get married.”
The case has raised ethical questions with doctors questioning how a mother of six could be allowed to have fertility treatment without an investigation into her mental state and ability to look after a supersized family.
Asitis,
Clarify for me. Did you say an embryo is not a life? Ughhh. Trying to spin your way out by denying the humanity or the life of an embryo.
Have you heard anything about her being on welfare, also? I heard something about it the other day, but never knew if there was any truth to it?
Any doctor that would allow eight eggs to be implanted in the first place is an idiot and should get in some pretty hefty trouble.
I heard something on the radio today about some congressman who thinks that any person with more than three children should not be allowed fertility treatment. It was criticized pretty intensetly, but I think it’s a great idea.
Before my enlightenment? Please! Nice try Truthseeker. No, it’s as Josephine already noted: Most people would see the fertilized egg as a potential baby, at most.
Posted by: asitis at February 1, 2009 11:18 PM
An embryo is a potential 80 year old man too, what’s your point? Intentionally killing life created through sexual relations with your partner is the epitomy of evil. It makes a mockery of love.
TS,
Most will tell you it’s not actually an embryo until it is implanted. No one is saying that an embryo isn’t a life, but a fertilized egg is much, much different than a fertilized egg that implants and begins to develop. There’s a huge difference there.
a fertilized egg is much, much different than a fertilized egg that implants and begins to develop. There’s a huge difference there.
no difference but time.
Mary: I had jaw surgery on Friday
I swear – the bat was styrofoam!
There’s a big difference. When eggs are fertilized for cases like one mentioned about, before they’re in the uterus they’re nothing more than eggs that are fertilized in a dish. To say that, it’s like saying a man is baby killing when he you-know-whats.
I heard something on the radio today about some congressman who thinks that any person with more than three children should not be allowed fertility treatment. It was criticized pretty intensetly, but I think it’s a great idea.
Posted by: Josephine at February 1, 2009 11:43 PM
well that’s a very draconian view Josephine!
Three children is not a large family. I see nothing wrong with a couple who is experiencing secondary infertility and has the means to pay for the treatment and the support of the children. I don’t believe IVF is ethical to begin with but there are other “treatments” available that might help a couple conceive.
Maybe you think that family size should be limited?
Intentionally killing life created through sexual relations with your partner is the epitomy of evil. It makes a mockery of love.
Posted by: truthseeker at February 1, 2009 11:49
That’s your opinion truthseeker.
HAhahahahahahhaah Doug!
a fertilized egg is much, much different than a fertilized egg that implants and begins to develop. There’s a huge difference there.
no difference but time.
Posted by: Bethany at February 1, 2009 11:57 PM
Not true Betahny. A fertlized egg isn’t necessarily going to implant successfully and develop. It requires luck (good or bad!) or human intervention.
There’s a big difference. When eggs are fertilized for cases like one mentioned about, before they’re in the uterus they’re nothing more than eggs that are fertilized in a dish. To say that, it’s like saying a man is baby killing when he you-know-whats.
You can put an embryo in a dish too. So?
Not true Betahny. A fertlized egg isn’t necessarily going to implant successfully and develop. It requires luck (good or bad!) or human intervention.
A newborn baby isn’t necessarily going to make it another day either.
That doesn’t make it less human.
I heard something on the radio today about some congressman who thinks that any person with more than three children should not be allowed fertility treatment. It was criticized pretty intensetly, but I think it’s a great idea.
Posted by: Josephine at February 1, 2009 11:43 PM
well that’s a very draconian view Josephine!
….. I don’t believe IVF is ethical to begin with but there are other “treatments” available that might help a couple conceive…….
Maybe you think that family size should be limited?
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 2, 2009 5:26 AM
And the question to you toostunned would be:
Maybe you think IVF that should be banned?
Josephine, a sperm cannot grow and develop into a human being without a drastic change and something added to it. With a fertilized egg, that is not so. All it needs is time to develop in the womb.
You cannot put a sperm in the womb and expect it to develop as a human being.
Josephine, a sperm cannot grow and develop into a human being without a drastic change and something added to it. With a fertilized egg, that is not so. All it needs is time to develop in the womb.
You cannot put a sperm in the womb and expect it to develop as a human being.
Posted by: Bethany at February 2, 2009 7:08 AM
You can start the process if there happens to be an egg awaiting.
As for the fertized egg, as I already said, it requires more than simply time to develop Bethany.
I heard something on the radio today about some congressman who thinks that any person with more than three children should not be allowed fertility treatment. It was criticized pretty intensetly, but I think it’s a great idea.
More pro-CHOICE thinking for ya! :) Yeah…
Asitis, since you refuse to actually talk about this issue when I ask you questions about it, I see no point in discussing this with you. I’ll talk to Josephine instead. Thanks.
A newborn baby isn’t necessarily going to make it another day either.
That doesn’t make it less human.
Posted by: Bethany at February 2, 2009 7:07 AM
No. And it doesn’t make it any less “born”. You could that about any of us. Am I going to make it through this day? Are you?
Asitis, since you refuse to actually talk about this issue when I ask you questions about it, I see no point in discussing this with you. I’ll talk to Josephine instead. Thanks.
Posted by: Bethany at February 2, 2009 7:14 AM
Just pointing out some facts Bethany!
However, thank you for helping me prove my point, Asitis (7:08)
Asitis, here’s a question for you. And I mean it sincerely. With all of that money you’ve apparently got, you could be spending your free time “living life to it’s fullest”. Traveling, enjoying life with the family, etc.. If it were me, I sure wouldn’t be spending hours upon hours every day just talking away on some internet blog, simply out of boredom, if I had that much money. But then again, money doesn’t buy happiness, so perhaps it is that you’re not really that happy?
I’m really honestly curious why you spend entire days (and nights apparently) discussing stuff on this blog. Don’t you have better things to do? Not an insult, I’m honestly curious.
I believe your “point” at 7:08 was that with a fertilized egg, no drastic change is required to have it grow and develop (unlike a sperm)…. it just requires time.
You misunderstood Bethany: I actually didn’t “prove your point”. I said that a sperm requires an egg. Likewise a fertized egg needs more than just time. It needs luck or human interbention. It is not a given that it will grow and develop.
Josephine, a sperm cannot grow and develop into a human being without a drastic change and something added to it. With a fertilized egg, that is not so. All it needs is time to develop in the womb.
You cannot put a sperm in the womb and expect it to develop as a human being.
Posted by: Bethany at February 2, 2009 7:08 AM
You can start the process if there happens to be an egg awaiting.
As for the fertized egg, as I already said, it requires more than simply time to develop Bethany.
Posted by: asitis at February 2, 2009 7:12 AM
It needs luck or human interbention. It is not a given that it will grow and develop.
Same with premature babies….or even disabled newborns. So?
Oh and some premature babies even need human intervention BEFORE they’re born.
Asitis, here’s a question for you. And I mean it sincerely. With all of that money you’ve apparently got, you could be spending your free time “living life to it’s fullest”. Traveling, enjoying life with the family, etc.. If it were me, I sure wouldn’t be spending hours upon hours every day just talking away on some internet blog, simply out of boredom, if I had that much money. But then again, money doesn’t buy happiness, so perhaps it is that you’re not really that happy?
I’m really honestly curious why you spend entire days (and nights apparently) discussing stuff on this blog. Don’t you have better things to do? Not an insult, I’m honestly curious.
Posted by: Bethany at February 2, 2009 7:22 AM
Ha ha!!! A new attempt to rid the blog of me!!
Bethany, I do enjoy a good, full life, it’s true. But I do spend alot of time home alone with my boys being older, especially these past few months with a new puppy that has kept me much more housebound than usual. As for all hours of the night? ‘m in a different time zone so that’s skewed, but nevertheless I get up early a few days a week for group runs and will do some stuff on the computer while I try to wake up. And sometimes I have to get up insaney early on weekends for sports. On top of that, lots of time driving and waiting around at sports (they are HEAVILY involved) makes for more time to kill.
Does that help you understand? Having said all this, I do find the blog somewhat distracting, especially when the computer or iPhone is often right there. So much so that it has kept me from my own group blog. This onging post of Jill’s hasn’t help my addiction. Must…. resist…..
Same with premature babies….or even disabled newborns. So?
Posted by: Bethany at February 2, 2009 7:26 AM
So, nothing. Difference is they are born.
Oh and some premature babies even need human intervention BEFORE they’re born.
Posted by: Bethany at February 2, 2009 7:30 AM
And sometimes they get it. Sometimes they don’t.
Can a woman choose not to intervene?
That wasn’t the point, Asitis. You’re changing the point. 7:39
The point was that it doesn’t change their humanity. But now I’ve gone and broken my rule about discussing this issue with you.
Asitis, thanks for your answer 7:35. I also have a hard time breaking away.
Just curious…what is your original blog? And if you’re willing to answer, what is your husband’s profession?
It seems to me your point to josephine was that a fertized egg is certain to develop into a baby and that makes it different than a sperm. That’s what I was addressing.
Don’t break your rule on my account Bethany! I’m content with just addressing a misconconception or misinformation without you responding! ;)
It seems to me your point to josephine was that a fertized egg is certain to develop into a baby and that makes it different than a sperm. That’s what I was addressing.
No, that is not what I said. You’re not pointing out misconceptions when your own account of my post is a misinterpretation of my words.
Asitis, thanks for your answer 7:35. I also have a hard time breaking away.
Just curious…what is your original blog? And if you’re willing to answer, what is your husband’s profession?
Posted by: Bethany at February 2, 2009 7:44 AM
My blog is totally unrelated this one! It’s one a private group blog I started a couple years ago with some fellow athletes to stay motivated, swap stories, tips, have fun, keep in touch….. It’s pretty cool.
My husband is also a scientist, but on the business side of things. And yes, we do living comfortably, but don’t take that year I mentioned to Mary as typical. Not at all!
And yes, we do living comfortably, but don’t take that year I mentioned to Mary as typical. Not at all!
Do you have any murals on your walls?
murals????
Hahahaha! (Do fingerprints and black marks from hockey sticks count?) Like do we live in a palace? Though it is a fair size and very, very old (by North American standards anyway)
haha No. that wasn’t my point. lol I was just wanting to shamelessly plug my site and let you know that if you ever do want a mural painted in your house (possibly one relating to hockey even!), I’m always available. :)
I don’t know if you’ve ever been to my site, but I have examples of my work there. Believe me, you don’t have to have a palace to have a mural on the wall…my house is far from being a palace and I have murals almost throughout the whole house!
Doug 12:12am
Sit on your bat, styrofoam or otherwise. So far I am working for “the Man” from January 1 to the middle of May. I’m sure I’ll get even more great news from my accountant before the week is through.
And don’t make fun of my jaw surgery, its making my life miserable!!:):)
Good morning, Mary! :) I hope that your jaw will be feeling better soon!
I hereby swear and affirm that Bethany has enormous artistic talent.
Good morning, Doug, and thank you for that!! :)
Bethany you are very talented! Wow! And what a great business.I admire someone who has a talent like that and has the confidence and ambition to devlop it into something as you have done.
I’m laughing at myself too because I find painting walls, highly satisfying too… but that’s solid colors, using brush and roller. I can only imagine how YOU must feel when you look at one of your walls.
I should get going on that pile of laundry. And I have a sick boy to get to the doctors later.
Good Morning Bethany,
Its good to see you. I’m feeling better but still sore and grouchy. I’ll gather up all my tax stuff today and get it ready to go. That should brighten my day.
Good luck on the laundry, Asitis! I have to take my laundry to my mom’s house today because our washer switch has broken somehow. :D
Have a good day!
Mary, gotta keep the bat handy, because you never know.
(Maybe a light tap on the other side, to “equal you out”?) [evil grin]
As for excluding income then saying it takes such-and-such of the remainder to pay one’s taxes, well heck – of my first 17 weeks pay in a year, it takes 100% of it to pay my taxes, all the way around.
Ohmigod, I have nothing! ; )
Asitits,
I hope its nothing serious with you son.
I’ll gather up all my tax stuff today and get it ready to go. That should brighten my day.
LOL
Mary @8:22
Well, that’s better than January through July as you originally thought! Look on the bright side!
Hope your jaw is better somewhat. can you eat?
Asitis, I didn’t even see your comment about your son till Mary said something. I hope he’ll be okay.
Doug, I’ll swear and affirm that too! Not too mention she looks highly adorable. I feel bad for getting mad at her sometimes. I don’t think I could face to face!
Mary, thanks. I doubt it’s anything serious, but he needs to see the doctor.
Doug,
Well according to my W-2 calculations I’m working for the Man until the middle of May. Thankfully he’s graciously letting me take it home and nailing me at the end of the year.
Oh did you hear? Tom Daschle is “deeply embarassed” about his $120,000 tax “mistake”. What a scream. He’s embarassed? Most of us would be declaring bankruptcy.
Good grief Doug, a few years back my poor old accountant had Alzheimer’s, screwed up my taxes
and I had the IRS on my tail for two years. And I didn’t owe any $120,000. Fines, interest, and accountant fees, yes. Even though my new accountant wrote them explaining what happened, still a no go. When I thought it was settled I get a notice from the state, now they want their share of this too. Hopefully I’m done with it.
Let anyone else tell the IRS how “embarassed” they are and see how far it gets them.
Doug, I’ll swear and affirm that too! Not too mention she looks highly adorable
You’re sweet to say that.
. I feel bad for getting mad at her sometimes. I don’t think I could face to face!
I don’t think it’d be possible face to face either…I’m not confrontational in person at all. I hate confrontation and online is the only way I can seem to do it! lol So this is where I learn to be assertive.
Asitis,
Well let’s see what the accountant says. I still haven’t got all the taxes paid yet, it may go beyond the middle of May.
I’m glad its nothing serious with your son.
I have trouble eating but that’s the bright side. I’m finally losing some weight:)
The pain pills dull the appetite and overall I’m just not hungry. If that can last a few more months, great.
I heard it was for a car and driver he had access to? It must be complex for politicians and bigwigs who get these kinds of perks to know what’s taxed and what’s not. maybe I’m being too generous here?
This hit Sarah Palin during the campaign – the tax liability of those clothes could have been a huge hit to her pocketbook. And then the tax implications of taking family members along on state-funded jaunts as governor. I’m sure tax time is not as clear cut for any of them as it is for us and once you come under the spotlight as Palin has and as Dashcle is now you better make sure you have been extra diligent.
Doug and Asitis,
Bethany is indeed a real doll, inside and out.
Okay… laundry….
Hey Bethany, maybe you can talk to Jill about cutting me a check for all the work I put in this past month on the blog, keeping it going in her absence! ;)
Asitis,
Good point. Though you’d think this is what they’re paying accountants for and you wonder where the IRS is. They sure found me in a hurry.
I heard someone is introducing the “Rangel Bill” in congress in honor of Congressman Charlie Rangel who apparently owes a lot of back taxes but never had to pay any fines or interest. This bill would grant the same privilege to the rest of us, not get fined and hit with interest when we don’t pay our taxes.
Hey, fair is fair.
More pro-CHOICE thinking for ya! :) Yeah…
Posted by: Bethany at February 2, 2009 7:13 AM
Bethany, how is that pro-choice? You realize that what the women that had eight babies did was VERY dangerous for the babies and her own health? That’s why it’s so rare. Most doctors absolutely REFUSE to use that many fertilized eggs unless the woman will selectively abort. I’m not sure why birth control is bad but having babies in a completely unnatural way.. that’s fine? Especially if you’re already had three kids. Why in the world would you have to have fertility treatment? Way to tell those kids they aren’t good enough for you. ;)
Josephine, who are you to tell the woman what she can and can’t do with her own body?
Bethany, how is that pro-choice?
That was exactly my point…
Bethany, think that’s a good point. I think a woman should be free to have as many woman as she wants. And we just have to hope that she is prepared to care for them. If not, we have social services that intervene and all we can do is hope that they are doing their job well. Though we hear that’s not always the case, unfortunately.
Now, when it come to administering fertility drugs or implanting embryos, I believe the medical community should have some control and from what I have read over the past week, it seems they do such as limiting the number of embryos that can be implanted and monitoring the women while she is on fertility drugs to control the size of her “litter”. Though I don’t know that there are strict guidelines, because clearly this one doctor did what other doctors say should never be done.
There is a great risk to the babies and to the mother in carrying so many babies. Not to mention the medical costs.
“Bethany, think that’s a good point. I think a woman should be free to have as many woman as she wants”
Too funny. House frau brain! I meant “I think a woman should be free to have as many CHILDREN as she wants”
(Not to say that I don’t think a lesbian should be free to have as many lovers as she wants! ;) )
Well, I personally am against IVF, especially with multiple embryos because most of the time when they do that there is selective abortion or embryos are killed in the process “naturally”….and of course, many embryos are created, then are frozen and never used, then they are destroyed.
But my question to Josephine was basically to make a point. I don’t know if she’ll understand the point I was making, but it’s out there anyway.
I wonder if Josephine is also against a woman using progesterone cream to enhance her fertility, if she already has three kids? I have considered it, and I have three kids.
I wonder if she is also against a woman choosing to use clomid, or any other type of fertility treatment… or was she only speaking about in vitro?
“Bethany, think that’s a good point. I think a woman should be free to have as many woman as she wants”
Too funny. House frau brain! I meant “I think a woman should be free to have as many CHILDREN as she wants”
OKay now that is funny!
Someone who is against abortion saying you shouldn’t be able to control what a woman does with her body? Interesting…….
I’m against abortion. It makes sense that since in cases like hers, where doctors generally make sure the women will selectively abort… that, yes, I want to make sure there won’t be a need to selectively abort. It’s not only with 8 babies. A normal number of fertilized eggs to implant is three. If a woman has three kids, and only wants one more… yet ALL eggs make it, guess what? She can use her option to selectively abort.
It’s very, very rare to only use ONE fertilized egg, because the chances are small that it will take. The more eggs you use, the better chance you have of getting a baby.
Someone who is against abortion saying you shouldn’t be able to control what a woman does with her body? Interesting…….
Flew right over your head…
So are you against IVF, Josephine?
Gotta run for now…will check for answers later!
Glad I made you laugh Bethany! Lord knows my son isn’t cracking up over any of my jokes, nor is the dog. Oh yes, I’m lonely for an audience!
asitis: Doug, I’ll swear and affirm that (Bethany has enormous artistic talent) too! Not to mention she looks highly adorable.
Understatement of the day.
Grandmother Is Upset Over Octuplets
LOS ANGELES (Jan. 31) – The woman who gave birth to octuplets this week conceived all 14 of her children through in vitro fertilization, is not married and has been obsessed with having children since she was a teenager, her mother said.
Bethany is indeed a real doll, inside and out.
Co-signed, Mary! (How ya’ doin’ B? ; )
You, too, Mary. You’re a strong, hard-working person with a lot of dignity, and I’m sure it’s reflected in your countenance. I’ve always loved your sense of humor, and though I’ve been an antagonist the last few days, it’s about run its course. For now, anyways – heh.
:: adjusts eyepatch ::
And – arrr Lassie, ye & me be quite similar. (((*smooch*)))
P.S. And I knows ye knows it too.
Bethany: Well, I personally am against IVF, especially with multiple embryos because most of the time when they do that there is selective abortion or embryos are killed in the process “naturally”….and of course, many embryos are created, then are frozen and never used, then they are destroyed.
Okay, back to the matter at hand.
(You’re adorable, B.)
It’s a good topic because almost everybody can see two sides here.
I’ve told the story before – really briefly: a cousin of mine and his wife had two kids, wanted more. Couldn’t conceive for several years, determine to try IVF. 7 embryos resulted.
During the pregnancy, problems developed. One or two fetuses died, then two more, then another… and by week 16 or 18 – somewhere in there – only two were left. The parents would have gladly had all 7, and really had their hearts set on the remaining two.
I don’t remember exactly when it was, but they lost those last two early in the weeks in the 20’s. Not saying they shouldn’t have tried, but this was an enormously costly thing, emotionally, among other things.
I think they could have swing 9 kids, financially, and with the support from the family, their church members, and the community they live in.
For the woman with 14 kids, I wonder what’s going to happen….
I’m working for the Man until the middle of May. Thankfully he’s graciously letting me take it home and nailing me at the end of the year.
Mary, while I don’t favor having too much withheld – it amounts to an interest-free loan to the gov’t, perhaps increasing your withholding would help, there?
…..
Oh did you hear? Tom Daschle is “deeply embarassed” about his $120,000 tax “mistake”. What a scream. He’s embarassed?
Well, now that the news is out in public I bet he is hee hee hee.
…..
Good grief Doug, a few years back my poor old accountant had Alzheimer’s, screwed up my taxes and I had the IRS on my tail for two years.
My dad worked for the IRS for 33 years. Yeah – you’re still liable even if everything was in good faith on your part and it was the preparer that screwed up.
I do know that often the IRS will settle for less, sometimes substantially less, than the total owed. Don’t know if in your case it’d be worth it to pursue a legal settlement with them outside of just paying everything they say you owe.
…..
:: takes styrofoam bat and uses it for a peg-leg ::
:: adjusts eyepatch ::
And – arrr Lassie, ye & me be quite similar. (((*smooch*)))
P.S. And I knows ye knows it too.
Posted by: Doug at February 2, 2009 1:16 PM
Gar! I feels ye and I are more alike than me and the lassies here at times! We savvy each other, that’s for shar!
It’s always good to have a fellow pirate on deck. I appreciate ye matey!
(And I do appreciate Bethany and am learning to appreciate some of the others as well. I see why you hang around Doug.)
Mary, while I don’t favor having too much withheld – it amounts to an interest-free loan to the gov’t, perhaps increasing your withholding would help, there?
…..
Posted by: Doug at February 2, 2009 1:34 PM
Especially IF you are paying penalties on the underpayment as well………
Doug, 1:16PM
Now aren’t you the dearest man. Thank you so much for the kind words. You’ve made my day and I sincerely mean that.
We may be antagonists at times but I find it very enjoyable and challenging. A mutual admiration blog would be a colossol bore. I always respect your sincerity and intelligence.
BTW Doug, I was watching this program where they help women dress more stylishly. The woman was a New York City lawyer who her friends thought dressed very dowdy and frumpy, which she did. Anyway, her friend described the lady lawyer as “dressing like a Wisconsin housewife”. I BEG you pardon!
Apparently Miss La Dee Da was blissfully ignorant of the fact she could be mistaken for a Packer linebacker.
Asitis 1:46PM
They nail your tail anyway they can, don’t they?
Mary,you’re from Wisconsin?????
Bethany,
Do selective aborting bother you? Because you do realize that since in vitro is so expensive, many people use SEVERAL fertilized eggs, correct? With that comes selective abortions.
I’d guess someone that already has a couple children is more likely to selectively abort if they get pregnant with say, three babies, then someone who has NO kids and gets pregnant with three.
I thought this piece was rather interesting coming from actor Gary Graham, someone I’m not familiar with but anyway here goes:
“No. I’m going to say it. I’m going to say what millions know in the front of their brains, and many, many more millions know in the depths of their hearts…but won’t allow themselves to think it, much less feel it. And believe me, I know I’ll be hated for saying it, I’ll be hated by people who don’t know me, have never worked with me, have never golfed with me, had a drink with me, shot the shit with me. They’ve never met me, don’t want to meet me…but they will hate me. I’m going to say it anyway: Abortion is murder.
In the sixties and seventies I was a proud part of the peace generation. Long-haired hippies, rocker-lovers, lover-rockers, music festivals, drug explorations, peace not war, and there’s this cute piece right next to me, I’ve got a sleeping bag, would you like to get warm, and there’s a little hash left, you’re so pretty… Hey don’t laugh, we thought we were changing the world. Free love, baby, do it if it feels good, don’t look back, power to the peeps, and do your own thing. Wow, really? You mean you can be cool, have a lot of sex…and save the world all at the same time?
But wait – I’m in college. I’m on a fast track to jump into the business world. I’m going to be some stick-up-the-butt loser in some establishment straight-ass job, when I really just want to party. Oops, I mean… I want to help save the world! Through drugs, sex and rock and roll. All right, we don’t really have a solid business plan made up yet…but we’re working on it. Of course I’m a Democrat! Duh!
End of flashback.
I have been on all sides of this issue for most of my life, and I can simply not escape the logic. That fetus a pregnant woman is carrying inside of her, regardless of the gestation stage, is a living, breathing human being. Yes, breathing – the amniotic sac forms 12 days after conception, and in the second trimester the baby is actually breathing the amniotic fluid. It’s not an ‘unviable tissue mass.’ Not a wart, a mole, a skin outcropping, a boil, or a bundle of uncoordinated cells. It’s not just a ‘fetus’.
It’s a baby. Not fully developed, true. Like an infant is not a fully developed and mature adult. But it’s a baby.
And the first time I got a girl pregnant, I would have wrestled you to the ground for saying that.
Well I do know. And I stand condemned. I’ve paid for three of them and was responsible for probably several more, I’m not really sure. But it breaks my heart. Because I’ve been convicted in my soul. It took years after the fact, but I was shown the Truth. And not to get mumbo-jumbo, oogly-boogly on you, but it was a spiritual awakening that did it. It happened unexpectedly, and it threw me to my knees in sudden tearful epiphany of what it meant for a man to be with a woman, what sex was really designed for by our Creator and… what abortion is.
And up until that point, I was completely ‘Pro-Choice’. I had bought the whole ‘women’s rights’ thing, completely agreed with ‘the constitutional right of a woman’s freedom to choose’…and I was just fine with that. Sure took the pressure off of me, a guy, interested in sex who had been raised in the era of, “Hey, you get a girl pregnant, you marry her!” But times had changed. Now abortions could be had legally if a doctor determined the life of the mother was in danger. Girls in college told me what a joke that was. They’d go in to see a doctor, tell him they’re pregnant, and the conversation went like this:
Doctor: “You’re feeling suicidal?” (hint hint, wink nudge.)
Girl: “Oh. Yeah… suicidal. I’m feeling suicidal.”
Doctor: “All right, then.”
Abortion as a method of birth control became the norm. I knew a few girls who had had as many as five of them by the time they were twenty-five. And they seemed fine on it…mostly because everyone around them was telling them that they should feel fine about it.
So this abortion thing was pretty damn convenient for a guy. And for a time, I was quite the Lothario. I kept a roster of seven girlfriends. Why seven? I don’t know…maybe Lucky Number 7 (yeah maybe)…or seven days in a week (more likely). But I would meet someone new, and I would simply go through my list…and kick one girl off. I would simply stop calling her. And to my great shame…this was my chosen method to ‘decathect.’ In retrospect, I wish I’d had the balls of utter honesty in my early relationships; but I was a drug-addled, post college idiot and that was the best I could muster. This was my m.o. and I knew I wasn’t alone…not by a long shot. We were proud products of the Love Generation.
Jump forward thirty years and Nancy Pelosi tells us yesterday that ‘family planning’ is now a fiscal responsibility to ‘reduce costs.’ Her defenders will say that NO, she’s talking about condoms and sex education. But anyone with a mind who’s been around for a while knows that ‘family planning’ is code for abortion. She is asking for 200 million dollars for Family Planning Services to ‘expand the economy.’ These are taxpayer dollars, dontcha know. Your money. She says states are in terrible fiscal crisis and it’s ‘part of what we do for childrens’ health and education’…” I’m trying to figure out how ripping an unborn child from it’s womb is aiding in it’s health or education, but maybe I’m missing something here.
I’ve heard it argued that a fetus is not a baby because it could not survive outside the womb on its own. But what about three-day old baby? Or even a two week old baby? If you set it down on the floor and leave it alone…will it survive on its own? Or will it die? So what’s the cut-off for determining whether it’s a baby or not?
It really comes down to this: when does life begin? When is it a baby? At the point of conception? First trimester? Third? At the point of actual delivery? When the umbilical cord is cut? Two weeks afterward? When?
I’m telling you, once you draw that line and say this is the moment it’s a human being…you’ve lost the argument. Because it’s arbitrary. On this date it’s a baby, but yesterday it was just a bunch of cells…this blob of a nothing and you can do anything you want with it, it’s okay. Babies have been born premature in the second trimester and lived. Happens all the time. So please, somebody tell me how is taking a baby and delivering all but the head, then plunging a tube into its skull and sucking the brains out…how is that not murder? This is what happens in partial-birth abortions, and unfortunately, this happens all the time, too.
And we as a nation…as a people…are all right with this?
I understand the hate that is leveled at someone like me who reminds people of this. To contemplate the reality is daunting. The act is horrendous and made more tragic when you consider the numbers of babies that are being disposed of every day.
Our willingness to tolerate such a holocaust says volumes of how our entire culture has been coarsened. How life itself has been cheapened. We are told to have sex any time we feel the urge. Condoms are handed out in grade schools. Promiscuity is not only condoned, it’s tacitly encouraged. Illegitimacy has enslaved an entire underclass of our citizens, relegating them to government assistance for a lifetime, bankrupting cities, and holding an entire subculture down in dependent despair. But if you should get pregnant and it’s just not a ‘convenient’ time for you, don’t worry, there are Family Planning Services, funded, thanks to the likes of Nancy Pelosi, by your tax dollars. That inconvenient fetus can be surgically ripped from its uterine moorings, ground up and tossed into the trash like so much garbage. Problem solved, and the mother can resume her egocentric lifestyle. But the scars on that woman’s soul will never quite heal. I’m a man, but I’ve got them on mine.
I’ve heard from liberals the following quote: “We want abortion to be legal…but rare.” And I ask, Why rare? What’s wrong with abortion, that you think it should be a rare occurrence? I’ve had moles removed from my skin. Doctors don’t tell us that a mole removal should be rare. So what’s with this ‘rare’ business? Or is it a tacit agreement that abortion…is plain wrong?
And in the double-standard department… Will somebody tell me how it is that Scott Peterson gets convicted of a double homicide – his wife, and his unborn son – and yet it’s not murder if a doctor does basically the same thing in a clinic? Explain it to me; why is it murder in the one case, and totally acceptable in the other? You tell me, “HEY! It’s my body, I’ve got the right to do whatever I want with my body!!” Well, no you don’t. You don’t have the legal right to prostitute yourself (Nevada excepted). You don’t have a right to pick up an axe and lop off your boyfriend’s head if he gives you lip. You don’t have the right to murder. And your anger will bring you back to the its-not-a-baby, it’s-my-body mobius.
Illogic without end.
Try this exercise: Every time you hear someone use the phrase “…a woman’s right to choose…” mentally complete the phrase with the following words – “…to kill her baby.” That’s what the argument’s about. A woman’s right to kill her baby.
In the extreme cases of incest…rape…severe birth defects. Hey, I don’t know. I don’t have all the answers. That’s a tough one. But there has got to be a better way than abortion. Adoption comes to mind. With all the thousands of couples out there unable to make a baby…doesn’t it seem the right thing to do…to give birth and give the unwanted baby up for adoption into a loving family?
Just a thought.
I saw my daughter’s ultrasound when she was at four weeks. All I saw was this little pulsating cylinder about the size of my little fingernail. Each little vibration was a heartbeat. Yes, a heart barely formed; cells still differentiating into form and function…but her little heart was just wailing away. I burst into tears. And I realized… I was beholding an utter miracle. The miracle of life. And I also realized that from the very first merger of cell into cell, and the first divisions…that the whole miracle of life was from that point on struggling against all odds to become a fully-realised human being.
I don’t mean to preach. I’m just telling you what I have come to know, and that I know that I know. The unborn fetus is a baby in development…and to end that life prematurely is to murder that life.
I truly wish that I had had this conviction way back when…when I was only concerned about my selfish convenience of the day. But I didn’t want to know, I didn’t want to think about it. It was inconvenient to think about it.
How ironic that the ‘Love’ Generation should spawn such a culturally accepted abomination as abortion.
May God have mercy on us all.”
Asitis,
Yes I arrrrr
Doug, Asitis… thank you for being so kind. I definitely don’t deserve it!
One day I’d like to be like Mary, who seems to always be able to keep her cool and never really gets emotional in these debates. I have a lot of maturing to do yet!
Hi Bethany!
You are a sweet one and have alot to contribute to discussions! Don’t be so hard on yourself! :-D
Bethany,
Do selective aborting bother you? Because you do realize that since in vitro is so expensive, many people use SEVERAL fertilized eggs, correct? With that comes selective abortions.
I’d guess someone that already has a couple children is more likely to selectively abort if they get pregnant with say, three babies, then someone who has NO kids and gets pregnant with three.
Josephine, I believe the question was: are you against IVF, Josephine?
Toostunned, thank you! :)
Asitis,
Yes I arrrrr
Posted by: Mary at February 2, 2009 3:07 PM
Gar! Ye might be pirate material afterall then Mary…. I hear they like their drink in Wisconsin!And if you were to pillage the IRS out of some of their booty, then that might just earn you an eyepatch!
I see why you hang around Doug.
As, I’ve said it many a time – the abortion debate is a great one because it takes us down to the unprovable assumptions we all make. We start out with things in common, and it’s when those assumptions enter the picture that the arguing starts.
I do like the people here, even most of the old grouches.
Even most of the young grouches.
And o’ course the piratin’ too.
asitis: I hear they like their drink in Wisconsin!
:: snicker ::
Do they like their cowboy hats in Texas?
“As, I’ve said it many a time – the abortion debate is a great one because it takes us down to the unprovable assumptions we all make.”
I guess if you believe that in your own little universe that’s fine Doug. However some of these things are not assumptions and some are not unprovable.
Bethany, read my comments. You obviously didn’t. I’m neither for OR against. There need to be rules and regulations.
Josephine, I believe the question was: are you against IVF, Josephine?
Posted by: Bethany at February 2, 2009 3:21 PM
I think she would be Bethany… because what’s the point? (that’s said all in fun, Josephine by the way! wink!)
Here’s something I was thinking about earlier, walking the dog…. I’ve had other woman here say they are surprised when they hear I am a woman and a mother. And they say they wonder how it is that I could have carried my babies and love my children so much and yet still think abortion is okay. So… here’s something: For those of you that are against IVF, would you want to block it from a woman whose only hope of having a baby of her own is through IVF? Would you yourself have it if it was your only chance, knowing how much motherhood means to you?
I’m curious, that’s all. I’m not trying to draw any conclusions, or make any judgements. Pirates’ honor (is that an oxymoron?)
“As, I’ve said it many a time – the abortion debate is a great one because it takes us down to the unprovable assumptions we all make.We start out with things in common, and it’s when those assumptions enter the picture that the arguing starts.”
Very astute Doug. I agree. Assumptions, beliefs… I think you are absolutely right. That is ultimately where the differences lie
here and ain’t nothing you can do but argue (or agree to disagree) when it gets to that level.
Do they like their cowboy hats in Texas?
Posted by: Doug at February 2, 2009 3:26 PM
Giddyap! OMG, I want to be a cowgirl next!
Anyone from Texas?
“As, I’ve said it many a time – the abortion debate is a great one because it takes us down to the unprovable assumptions we all make.”
TSTL: I guess if you believe that in your own little universe that’s fine Doug. However some of these things are not assumptions and some are not unprovable.
The point is that we all live in the same universe. Yes, some things are provable, very few, actually, when we really examine them, but yeah.
asitis: Giddyap! OMG, I want to be a cowgirl next!
Just so long’s ye keep the eyepatch, Missy.
…..
Meself, I’ll stick with the Wisconsinites.
The last time I sailed into port, there, they gave me a beer. Mary knows the town – Appleton. Mayhap she’s even heard o’ the joint – “The Old Bavarian.”
O’ course, I had to pay $50 for it.
One day I’d like to be like Mary, who seems to always be able to keep her cool and never really gets emotional in these debates. I have a lot of maturing to do yet!
Posted by: Bethany at February 2, 2009 3:17 PM
Bethany, don’t go changin’….. you have a deep kindness that makes up for any loss in cool-headedness. Be yourself always. :)
Bethany, read my comments. You obviously didn’t. I’m neither for OR against. There need to be rules and regulations.
What if a woman who has never given birth wants to give birth to only one, but three embryos are implanted in her? Why do you think that limiting it for people with three children or more is best when there are obviously people who think even 3 children is too much? Just out of curiosity.
Here’s something I was thinking about earlier, walking the dog…. I’ve had other woman here say they are surprised when they hear I am a woman and a mother. And they say they wonder how it is that I could have carried my babies and love my children so much and yet still think abortion is okay. So… here’s something: For those of you that are against IVF, would you want to block it from a woman whose only hope of having a baby of her own is through IVF? Would you yourself have it if it was your only chance, knowing how much motherhood means to you?
Asitis, I wouldn’t mind IVF if only 1 embryo was created and used each time, and if any “extra” embryos were donated to loving families rather than being destroyed.
Bethany, don’t go changin’….. you have a deep kindness that makes up for any loss in cool-headedness. Be yourself always. :)
? ? ? ? ??? ? ? ? ??? ? ? ? ??? ? ? ? ??? ? ? ? ??
That’s so sweet…thanks!
? ? ? ? ??? ? ? ? ??? ? ? ? ??? ? ? ? ??? ? ? ? ??
Doug, is that a pack o’ smokes I see beside the beer stein? Say it ain’t so matey!
Best days: wake up and throw on a bathing suit, sundress, flip-flops and COWBOY HAT, jump on my bike and head to the beach. I think this summer I’ll add an eyepatch to the ensemble too. Thanks Doug! My teenage boys do NOT thank you!
The point is that we all live in the same universe. Yes, some things are provable, very few, actually, when we really examine them, but yeah.
Posted by: Doug at February 2, 2009 3:45 PM
again Doug that is YOUR take on things
I think there are many things in this world that we can know for certain.
One of them, and I know it gets stuck in your craw every time, is truth.
Asitis, I wouldn’t mind IVF if only 1 embryo was created and used each time, and if any “extra” embryos were donated to loving families rather than being destroyed.
Posted by: Bethany at February 2, 2009 3:53 PM
Thanks Bethany. Would most feel that way do you think?
/_/_ .”’.
=O(_)))) …’ `.
\_\ `. .”’Asitis, I know most likely, most babies born as a result of not being destroyed as an embryo would be appreciative, and the thing that matters most to me in this situation!
`..’
I am thankful, so very thankful, that I was given the gift of life!
I think there are many things in this world that we can know for certain.
One of them..is truth.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 2, 2009 4:00 PM
oh yeh too stunned, we sure learned that recently, didn’t we? ;)
Nix that, I was being a brat……….
Bethany at 4:05
Sorry, I wasn’t referring to the potential recipients of the extra embryos. I was referring to other people who are against IVF: would they be okay with it if it weren’t for the alternative use or disposal of extra embryos? Or do they have other reasons?
What’s the graphic? My brain can’t see it.
Asitis, I have been a little obsessed with ascii art lately and have been trying out different ones. lol For some reason, it showed up fine in the preview, but all the spaces went away when I posted it. So it may not be possible to do it here.
Sorry, I wasn’t referring to the potential recipients of the extra embryos. I was referring to other people who are against IVF: would they be okay with it if it weren’t for the alternative use or disposal of extra embryos? Or do they have other reasons?
Oh… hmm, I’m not sure…I think Jill had said she wouldn’t have a problem with it if it weren’t for the multiple embryo use (she can correct me if my memory is off)… and I think I heard at least one other person say this as well.
My concern is that life isn’t created then destroyed like that. Know what I mean?
I wouldn’t mind IVF if only 1 embryo was created and used each time, and if any “extra” embryos were donated to loving families rather than being destroyed.
Posted by: Bethany at February 2, 2009 3:53 PM
Bethany I have big problems with the morality of IVF. I don’t believe it is right to create children in a petri dish. The drugs used to stimulate ovulation can cause serious problems for the woman. There is the problem of creating many embryos and then either destroying them, using them in research. The methodology is only successful in a limited percentage and researchers admit they do not understand a great deal about conception despite having observed thousands under the microscope. Children resulting from IVF have been shown to have more birth defects than their naturally conceived counterparts and appear to be less healthy overall despite the “selection” of what appears to be the healthiest embryo.
This is just nasty test tube science and eugenics in my books.
You could be right, Toostunned. IVF is one topic I know very little about.
Oh..and 4:17…it was a bee with a trailing dotted line behind it.
Actually, on IVF, “studies have yielded conflicting results on the safety of these techniques, with some reports showing that children conceived through ART are no different health-wise than their naturally conceived peers while other studies have raised concerns.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3076781/
One day I’d like to be like Mary, who seems to always be able to keep her cool and never really gets emotional in these debates. I have a lot of maturing to do yet!
Bethany, I think it depends on where one is coming from. Too much “coolness” and intellectuality (or something like that) and people start getting on you, asking if you’re a robot or if you ever get passionate about anything… ; )
You’ve always been remarkably mature, I think (certainly since I’ve seen your writings). Probably – having kids has matured you, too…? I’ve told you before that it’s obvious you’ve done a lot of good thinking about this stuff. A whole lot. And I think you’re in your late 20’s or that you were a year or two ago.
Heck, I didn’t start thinking about most of it until I was 37, got a computer, and got online.
Again – and this has nothing to do with the above – I think of that picture of you and your husband looking at each other on your wedding day. :: sniff ::
Contesting and arguing with others, researching and learning, debating and having a good time: valuable.
Getting to know ourselves better, and getting to know people on all sides of the issues: priceless.
Anyway, if I was going to give a real-world definition of ‘maturity’ I’d say it’s a willingness to sacrifice current or short-term desires for what’s really wanted in the long run. Not trying to start a different argument here – one could say that it’s being willing to not have sex and wait until the time is right (and I wouldn’t argue with that).
Or not blow your money on stuff that breaks or gets wasted, but rather save for one’s long-term security or other goals.
Or forgo that large order of fries for the sake of long-term health, etc.
That said, it does pay to not have too thin a skin, realize that we don’t hear voice inflection or see body language online, and that it can make a lot of difference. Let the cooler heads prevail.
And watch ye out fer the landlubbers.
Thanks for that link Bee. I wonder if people who are still opposed to it even if extra embryos were not implanted might be opposed to it for religious reasons… that doctos are “playing God”.
Doug, is that a pack o’ smokes I see beside the beer stein? Say it ain’t so matey!
Yarr, ’tis certain sure that it be, but don’ be a-thinkin ‘ that they be mine.
‘Twere of a hearty, sea-farin’ mate o’ mine own by the name of Long John, him of a full fathom of height and five inches beyond, what were sittin’ to me starboard side of that night. We didn’ wan’ to walk the plank of lily-livered lightweightedness, ne’er no nay! Not even in the mind’s eye of those what could be merely seein’ the picture, so we figgered that a package o’ smoke might provide a pinch of scale to the proceedin’s.
Now of a rare evenin’ I might be bummin’ the odd smoke, but most cases ‘twould be a Marlboro Light, in any case, while those what accosted yer eyes be Winstons, more the pity for Long John. And him even of a Pittsburgh Steelers cap – a scalywag at first sight thuswise. Garr it boils me biscuits, it does, how the wind blew o’er that game… Fer those dirty-bird defenders (so-called) at the last I’m not sure that it ain’t fittin’ that they be made sure to a rope then dragged all about the barnacle-encrusted bottom o’ me ship….
Gave up me doubloons, I did, and shiver me timbers if’n there warn’t six liters of good german ale within the great grand schooner. Swashbucklin’ man o’ fortune that I be, and no squiffy besides, I made fast to me barstool, and did not avast.
For only one hand prior had the gorgeous galleon been filled with grog, and that scallywag was forced to walk the plank to the restroom before the voyage was complete.
Decades since a sprog I be, and raise the Jolly roger that night did I did. ‘Twas either an empty chalice or the Fiddler’s Green for me, that was how ’twas to be. Three sheets to the wind – nay, though loaded to the gunwales me was. I sat through to the end and I’m remembered on the tradewinds that blow through The Old Bavarian.
“The point is that we all live in the same universe. Yes, some things are provable, very few, actually, when we really examine them, but yeah.”
TSTL: again Doug that is YOUR take on things
Nay, ’tis the way of all, for all.
….
I think there are many things in this world that we can know for certain. One of them, and I know it gets stuck in your craw every time, is truth.
Nay, for there ye’ve crossed the line, and blurred things betwixt just what ye say – amidst the I think and the know for certain. Almos’ as rare as an unsalty sea are the times they be the same.
Shiver me timbers! You ARE the pirate king!
:)
A few of the earlier studies on the effects of IVF:
Health of Children Born as a Result of In Vitro Fertilization
Reija Klemetti, MHSca, Tiina Sevóna, Mika Gissler, DrPhil, MSocScb and Elina Hemminki, MDa
a Health Services Research
b STAKES Information, STAKES, National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health, Helsinki, Finland
PEDIATRICS Vol. 118 No. 5 November 2006, pp. 1819-1827
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to use nationwide registries to examine the health of children up to 4 years of age who were born as a result of in vitro fertilization.
METHODS. Children born after in vitro fertilization (N = 4559) from 1996 to 1999 were monitored until 2003. Two control groups were selected from the Finnish Medical Birth Register as follows: all other children (excluding children born after ovulation induction) from the same period (N = 190398, for study of perinatal health and hospitalizations) and a random sample of those children (n = 26877, for study of health-related benefits). Mortality rates and odds ratios for perinatal outcomes, hospitalizations, health-related benefits, and long-term medication use were calculated.
RESULTS. Although the health of most in vitro fertilization children was good, such children had more health problems than other children. A total of 35.7% of in vitro fertilization children and 2.2% of control children were multiple births, and the health of multiple births was worse than that of singletons. Perinatal outcomes of in vitro fertilization children were worse and hospital episodes were more common than among control children. Risks for cerebral palsy and psychological and developmental disorders were increased. Among in vitro fertilization singletons, worse results for perinatal outcomes and hospitalizations, but no increased risk for specific diseases, were found. The health of in vitro fertilization multiple births was comparable to the health of control multiple births.
************************************************
ScienceDaily (Mar. 19, 2003) — Researchers from the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center report that a group of rare urological defects, including bladder development outside the body, may be more common in children conceived through in vitro fertilization (IVF). The researchers caution, however, that the findings are preliminary, and should not necessarily dissuade couples from considering the procedure.
——————————————————————————–
Information collected on 78 children with cloacal-bladder exstrophy-epispadias complex treated at the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center from 1998 to 2001 shows these birth defects are approximately seven times more widespread in IVF children. An estimated 12 percent to 14 percent of the children born each year with exstrophy-epispadias in the United States are evaluated at the Children’s Center. The findings are reported in the April issue of the Journal of Urology.
“What we are seeing now is simply an association between this group of birth defects and IVF births,” said the study’s senior author, John P. Gearhart, M.D., director of the division of pediatric urology at the Children’s Center. “Further research is needed to verify these findings and understand this association. These defects are extremely rare, and our preliminary findings should not alone discourage couples from undergoing IVF.”
Exstrophy-epispadias complex, which is comprised of defects of the bladder, pelvic bones, urethra, and genitals, occurs in approximately four out of every 100,000 live births. Applying this incidence data to the 112,127 children who were born through IVF from 1997 to 2000, researchers determined that approximately five affected children would be expected among the entire U.S. IVF population during this four-year span.
Four of the 78 children with exstrophy-epispadias seen at the Children’s Center were conceived using IVF. Comparing this to the expected rate of exstrophy-epispadias among IVF children during the same time period, researchers estimate the incidence of these birth defects are up to 7.3 times more common in the IVF population.
The most common defect of the exstrophy-epispadias complex is bladder exstrophy, a condition in which the bladder is exposed, inside out, and protrudes through the abdominal wall. In addition, the skin on the lower abdomen does not form properly, the pelvic bones are widely spaced, and there may be genital abnormalities.
“With reconstructive surgery, we can close abdominal wall defects, reform the pelvic bones, create normal appearing external genitalia, and help the child gain urinary continence. Following surgery, most children go on to live a normal life with normal bladder and reproductive function,” said Gearhart.
Exstrophy-epispadias is four to six times more likely in boys than girls. Researchers believe these birth defects are caused by failed development of the urogenital system during the first trimester of pregnancy.
**************************************************
Scientists from Johns Hopkins and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis have discovered that in vitro fertilization (IVF) appears to be associated with a rare combination of birth defects characterized by excessive growth of various tissues.
After studying data from a national registry of patients with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome (BWS), the researchers found that IVF-initiated conception was six times more common than in the general population. The findings are slated for the January issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, and should be online by the end of November.
Children born with BWS, which may predispose them to Wilms’ tumor, hepatoblastoma, neuroblastoma and other cancers, would likely represent only a tiny fraction of babies conceived via IVF if the findings are confirmed, the researchers emphasize. The results should stimulate further investigation, not change parents’ decisions, they say.
***************************************************
June 2007:
A recent British study shows that children conceived by IVF have increased health problems and spend almost double the time in hospital than naturally conceived children, the Daily Mail reports.
The 7-year follow-up study, done in conjunction with Finnish studies, compared the hospital costs of IVF-conceived children to naturally conceived children. It examined 303 IVF-conceived children as well as 567 naturally-conceived children, all of whom were born between the years 1990 and 1995. Prior studies had reviewed the pregnancies of these children, their medical history and neo-natal health as well as the case notes of their hospitalization.
Published in the June 21, 2007 issue of Human Reproduction, the study showed that on average, a child conceived through IVF was in hospital significantly more times (1.76 vs. 1.07 times) than a naturally conceived child.
Dr. Marjo-Riitta Jarvelin, professor at Imperial College London and one of the lead researchers behind the report, told LifeSiteNews.com, “What we showed was that actually there were certain disease groups which were more common among those born after IVF.” She added that this included “certain infections, respiratory disease, and inflammatory disease,” and noted that there are some neurological disorders that are slightly more common as well.
The report also notes that low birth weight and pre-term birth have been linked to IVF, but these results may be influenced by the multiple births often resulting from IVF. Nevertheless, single IVF children were also sicker than naturally conceived children and spent more time in the hospital. During the 7-year period, 61% of the singleton IVF children were hospitalized versus 46% of the naturally conceived singletons.
Chen XK, Wen SW, Bottomley J, Smith GN, Leader A, Walker MC.
OMNI Research Group, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Health Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
1: Hypertens Pregnancy. 2009 Feb;28(1):1-12
OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilization (IVF) and ovulation induction with the risk of preeclampsia. METHODS: We conducted a population based retrospective cohort study of pregnancies conceived by assisted reproductive technology (1357 exposure subjects, 5190 controls) based on 2005 Niday Perinatal Database for Ontario, Canada. All pregnancies conceived by assisted reproductive technology were identified as exposure group. Four controls were randomly matched for each exposure subject by maternal age, parity, plurality, and delivery hospital level and residence area. The risks for preeclampsia associated with intrauterine insemination, IVF, and ovulation induction were evaluated through conditional logistic regression models compared with their corresponding controls. RESULTS: With adjustment of maternal age, smoking during pregnancy and initiating time of prenatal care, in vitro fertilization was associated with an increased risk for preeclampsia (OR=1.78, 95% CI: 1.05, 3.06), whereas intrauterine insemination (OR=2.44, 95% CI: 0.74, 8.06) and ovulation induction (OR=1.34, 95% CI: 0.31, 5.75) was not associated with the risk for preeclampsia. CONCLUSION: There was a higher incidence of preeclampsia among pregnancies conceived by IVF, but no significant association was found in intrauterine insemination and ovulation induction.
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2007 Feb;21(1):67-81.
Perinatal outcomes, such as preterm delivery, low birth weight and some obstetric complications, are increased significantly after in-vitro fertilization (IVF) compared with spontaneously conceived pregnancies. The degree of difference is greater for singletons than for twins, especially with regard to preterm delivery which is increased two fold in IVF singletons and by 40% in twins. It is difficult to obtain accurate outcome information because of unmeasured confounders such as smoking status and fetal reduction. It is also unknown whether IVF technologies or patient infertility is the major contributor to adverse outcomes. Birth defects are increased, shown in a number of systematic reviews, and there has been a particular interest in imprinting syndromes. Epigenetic modifications may play a larger role in IVF outcomes, as yet unidentified. There is no apparent increase in adverse outcomes in children up to adolescence, although further studies are needed to examine longer-term risks, including those for cancer.
Funny toostunned, that you didn’t highlight these parts of the short exerpt!:
It is difficult to obtain accurate outcome information because of unmeasured confounders such as smoking status and fetal reduction. It is also unknown whether IVF technologies or patient infertility is the major contributor to adverse outcomes…..There is no apparent increase in adverse outcomes in children up to adolescence, although further studies are needed to examine longer-term risks, including those for cancer.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 2, 2009 5:26 PM
Also, in the studies you cited earlier one cautioned that results were only preliminary and another that differences in health were related to the more IVF births being multiple births compared to natural births being singletons.
Why are you REALLY opposed to IVF toostunned?
Major CDC Study Finds Two to Four Times More Birth Defects from In Vitro Fertilizations (11/08)
MAJOR CDC STUDY FINDS 2 TO 4 TIMES MORE BIRTH DEFECTS FROM IVF. Infants conceived with Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) are two to four times more likely to have certain types of birth defects than children conceived naturally, according to a study by the CDC.
The report, “Assisted Reproductive Technology and Major Structural Birth Defects, United States,” was released in the journal Human Reproduction.
“Today, more than 1 percent of infants are conceived through ART and this number may continue to increase,” says Jennita Reefhuis, Ph.D., epidemiologist at CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities.
The study shows that among pregnancies resulting in a single birth, ART (which includes all fertility treatments in which both eggs and sperm are handled, such as in vitro fertilization) was associated with twice the risk of some types of heart defects, more than twice the risk of cleft lip with or without cleft palate and over four times the risk of certain gastrointestinal defects compared with babies conceived without fertility treatments.
In the United States, cleft lip with or without palate affects approximately 1 in every 950 births; doubling the risk among infants conceived by ART would result in approximately 1 in every 425 infants being affected by cleft lip with or without cleft palate.
The study examined multiple births separately from single births because ART increases the chance of a multiple birth. Children born as part of a multiple birth are more likely to have a birth defect regardless of use of ART. The study showed use of ART did not significantly increase the risk of birth defects among multiple births.
However, ART might contribute to the risk of major birth defects by directly increasing the risk of defects among single births. It may also have an indirect impact because ART increases the likelihood of having twins, which is a risk factor for many types of birth defects. Researchers believe this suggests the need for further studies to determine risk for ART in pregnancies with multiple births.
The study examined data from 281 births conceived with ART and 14,095 conceived without infertility treatments.
The National Birth Defects Prevention Study is a population-based study that currently incorporates data from birth defects research centers in Arkansas, California, Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas and Utah. These ten centers have been working on the largest study of birth defects causes ever undertaken in the United States. Information is gathered from more than 30,000 participants to look at key questions on potential causes of birth defects.
Since 1981, ART has been used in the United States to help women become pregnant. It is defined as any procedure that involves surgically removing eggs from a woman’s ovaries, combining them with sperm in the laboratory, and returning them to the woman’s body or donating them to another woman. ART does not include treatments in which only sperm are handled (i.e., intrauterine-or artificial-insemination) or procedures in which a woman takes medicine only to stimulate egg production without the intention of having eggs retrieved.
BABIES CONCEIVED THROUGH IN-VITRO FERTILIZATION HAVE HIGHER RISK OF DEATH at birth than those conceived naturally, the results of a new study show.
IVF children are also at an increased risk of being born prematurely and of weighing less at birth, scientists found.
Researchers looked at more than 2,500 women who had conceived both naturally and through IVF and compared the results to more than one million natural conceptions.
They found that babies who had been conceived through IVF were 31 percent more likely to die in the period before and after their birth.
IVF conceived children also tended to weigh an average of 0.9 ounces (25g) less at birth, the findings, published online in the Lancet medical journal show.
The babies also tended to be born earlier, by an average of two days, and were 26 percent more likely to be small for their age.
Dr Liv Bente Romundstad, from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, who led the study, believes that the high death rate among IVF babies could be linked to the underlying reasons why their mother sought infertility treatment in the first place.
“The adverse outcomes of assisted fertilisation that we noted compared with those in the general population could therefore be attributable to the factors leading to infertility, rather than to factors related to the reproductive technology,” Dr Romundstad said.
***************************************************
in other words these women are trying to have babies when they obviously shouldn’t be.
There is a reason why they can’t have babies and in using ART they are not only putting themselves at risk but they are also placing their infants at risk.
Press Release
National Birth Defects Prevention Study Shows Assisted Reproductive Technology is Associated with an Increased Risk of Certain Birth Defects
For Immediate Release: November 17, 2008
Contact: Division of Media Relations, Phone: (404) 639-3286
Infants conceived with Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) are two to four times more likely to have certain types of birth defects than children conceived naturally, according to a study by the CDC. The report, “Assisted Reproductive Technology and Major Structural Birth Defects, United States,” was released in the journal Human Reproduction.
“Today, more than 1 percent of infants are conceived through ART and this number may continue to increase,” says Jennita Reefhuis, Ph.D., epidemiologist at CDC?s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities. “While the risk is low, it is still important for parents who are considering using ART to think about all of the potential risks and benefits of this technology.”
The study shows that among pregnancies resulting in a single birth, ART (which includes all fertility treatments in which both eggs and sperm are handled, such as in vitro fertilization) was associated with twice the risk of some types of heart defects, more than twice the risk of cleft lip with or without cleft palate and over four times the risk of certain gastrointestinal defects compared with babies conceived without fertility treatments. Despite these findings, the absolute risk of any individual birth defect remains low. In the United States, cleft lip with or without palate affects approximately 1 in every 950 births; doubling the risk among infants conceived by ART would result in approximately 1 in every 425 infants being affected by cleft lip with or without palate.
The study examined multiple births separately from single births because ART increases the chance of a multiple birth. Children born as part of a multiple birth are more likely to have a birth defect regardless of use of ART. The study showed use of ART did not significantly increase the risk of birth defects among multiple births.
However, ART might contribute to the risk of major birth defects by directly increasing the risk of defects among single births. It may also have an indirect impact because ART increases the likelihood of having twins, which is a risk factor for many types of birth defects. Researchers believe this suggests the need for further studies to determine risk for ART in pregnancies with multiple births.
The study examined data from 281 births conceived with ART and 14,095 conceived without infertility treatments. The National Birth Defects Prevention Study is a population-based study that currently incorporates data from birth defects research centers in Arkansas, California, Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas and Utah. These ten centers have been working on the largest study of birth defects causes ever undertaken in the United States. Information is gathered from more than 30,000 participants to look at key questions on potential causes of birth defects. While the causes of most birth defects are unknown, studies show that smoking, alcohol, and obesity increase a mother’s risk of having a child with a birth defect.
Since 1981, ART has been used in the United States to help women become pregnant. It is defined as any procedure that involves surgically removing eggs from a woman’s ovaries, combining them with sperm in the laboratory, and returning them to the woman’s body or donating them to another woman. ART does not include treatments in which only sperm are handled (i.e., intrauterine—or artificial—insemination) or procedures in which a woman takes medicine only to stimulate egg production without the intention of having eggs retrieved.
The number of infants born after ART doubled in the United States from 1996 through 2004. According to data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, almost 12 percent of U.S. women aged 15-44 years have reported using infertility services. In 2005, more than 134,000 ART procedures were performed and approximately 52,000 infants were born as a result of these procedures.
For more information about birth defects please call toll free 1-800-CDC-INFO (232-4636) or visit http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/bd/facts.htm.
####
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
*******************************************
although the press release states the risk of birth defects is “low” if your baby is the one with the birth defect, what does it matter just how low that risk is.
Since ART is a billion $ a year industry, the CDC would not like to dampen anyone’s enthusiasm for ART in the same way that it doesn’t believe abortion is harmful either.
TSTL: in other words these women are trying to have babies when they obviously shouldn’t be.
There is a reason why they can’t have babies and in using ART they are not only putting themselves at risk but they are also placing their infants at risk.
Well, that “shouldn’t be having babies” is gonna be awful tough for some people to swallow. Risks? Sure, I believe that, and that it’s more risk than “normal” pregnancies but it still will be well worth it to many people, the same way that the lesser risk of normal pregnancies is well worth it to vast numbers of people.
What if a woman who has never given birth wants to give birth to only one, but three embryos are implanted in her? Why do you think that limiting it for people with three children or more is best when there are obviously people who think even 3 children is too much? Just out of curiosity.
It depends Mary. If she is willing to have three babies, fine. Implant three. If she’s not, then only implant the number she’s willing to have. That’s not too complicated. It’s exactly what I said in the beginning. You can just have ONE implanted, it’s not like it’s impossible.
If she gets pregnant with three and only wants one, lots of women wouldn’t mind selectively aborting.
The big reason women have several fertilized eggs implanted is because it costs so much money to have it done, and so they want to give themselves the best chance of having one.
TSTL, maybe you could try summarizing all this stuff you post and just use links. Holy poop, there’s so much stuff there, I just skip over it.
Intentionally killing life created through sexual relations with your partner is the epitomy of evil. It makes a mockery of love.
Posted by: truthseeker at February 1, 2009 11:49
That’s your opinion truthseeker.
Posted by: asitis at February 2, 2009 7:01 AM
No, it is a fact. Love is life itself. And killing your own progeny at any stage of developement is anti-life, anti-love, and pro-heathen.
My post was in answer to Bethany, not Mary. Whoops.
“No, it is a fact. Love is life itself. And killing your own progeny at any stage of developement is anti-life, anti-love, and pro-heathen.”
Uhmmm… that isn’t fact at ALL….
Well, that “shouldn’t be having babies” is gonna be awful tough for some people to swallow. Risks? Sure, I believe that, and that it’s more risk than “normal” pregnancies but it still will be well worth it to many people, the same way that the lesser risk of normal pregnancies is well worth it to vast numbers of people.
Posted by: Doug at February 2, 2009 7:07 PM
I know it sounds rather harsh Doug but, at what price are people willing to have children?
I really believe that there exist this view that people are entitled to have children just like they believe they are entitled to have a nice house, a good car or have the government bail them out of their financial difficulties etc.
It’s one thing to have a baby naturally and the child has a birth defect. It is quite another to undergo a risky procedure knowing that it might result in severe birth defects.
Many of these children have learning disabilities and other abnormalities including genital deformities and they also may be infertile like their parents.
In fact there is now a belief developing among researchers that all IVF couples are doing is perpetuating their infertility and that they may be one of the reasons infertility rates are actually rising. Very interesting indeed.
And Josephine I posted all that stuff to demonstrate that there is a wealth of information that now suggests IVF does not create the healthy babies they advertise. It’s very easy to blow off studies but increasingly physicians are seeing IVF patients with many problems.
Holy poop, there’s so much stuff there, I just skip over it.
Posted by: Josephine at February 2, 2009 7:07 PM
you’re gonna be a doctor, so you better get use to reading through a lot of stuff very quickly
:-D
I was just saying maybe you should summarize and post a link. I know why you posted it, but I’m sure I’m not the only one who just skipped it completely.
You don’t believe all people are entitled to have kids? Then why are you not okay with birth control? I don’t understand.
TSTL,
I read over a lot all the time. Besides wanting to be a doctor, I am a junior in college…. I don’t have a problem reading. I do, however, have a problem reading things from a book on a message board when it could easily be summarized. I’m on here while I do my homework. I’m sure I’m not the only one multi-tasking. :)
You don’t believe all people are entitled to have kids? Then why are you not okay with birth control? I don’t understand.
Posted by: Josephine at February 2, 2009 7:45 PM
No what I mean is that there is a commodification of children. And many couples seeking ivf do so because their infertility is due to sti’s, delayed marriage and childbearing and the extended use of bc.
It use to be that choices had consequences.
TSTL: I know it sounds rather harsh Doug but, at what price are people willing to have children?
Some, a very high price.
…..
I really believe that there exist this view that people are entitled to have children just like they believe they are entitled to have a nice house, a good car or have the government bail them out of their financial difficulties etc.
Perhaps. That said, if they are paying for it, I’d be hard pressed to tell them “no.”
…..
It’s one thing to have a baby naturally and the child has a birth defect. It is quite another to undergo a risky procedure knowing that it might result in severe birth defects.
Many of these children have learning disabilities and other abnormalities including genital deformities and they also may be infertile like their parents.
In fact there is now a belief developing among researchers that all IVF couples are doing is perpetuating their infertility and that they may be one of the reasons infertility rates are actually rising. Very interesting indeed.
Yeah, indeed – and here too there are at least two sides to it. Varying shades of people wanting one thing or another, some seeing too much cost one way, some seeing it another way. I guess I’m in the middle on it – personally, if there was what I consider too much risk, then I would not be for it. I wouldn’t tell other people “no,” here, though, either.
Many people seek IVF because of past medical conditions that have left them infertile. Endometriosis, pelvic inflammatory disease, Polycystic ovary syndrome, Luteal Phase Defect, immune system problems, Uterine muscle problems, Poor quality cervical mucous… all can cause infertility.
What do you mean, “delayed marriage”? So if you get married later in life you shouldn’t be entitled to kids? Are you for real??!
What do you mean, “delayed marriage”? So if you get married later in life you shouldn’t be entitled to kids? Are you for real??!
Posted by: Josephine at February 2, 2009 8:40 PM
stop being disingenuous Josephine.
Delayed marriage means women are older and therefore less likely to conceive. Fertility declines dramatically after 30. Women have been sold yet another lie that they can have children any time only to discover that it can be very difficult to conceive when past 30. Many women do not know that perimenopausal symptoms begin as early as 35.
No, it is a fact. Love is life itself. And killing your own progeny at any stage of developement is anti-life, anti-love, and pro-heathen.
Posted by: truthseeker at February 2, 2009 7:08 PM
That’s your opinion truthseeker
BTW, endometriosis worsens with time and pelvic inflammatory disease is often the result of promiscuity.
Poor cervical mucous can be a symptom of hormonal problems which can be identified and treated with NFP.
Stop being disingenuous? You happen to have crazy standards.
Let’s see:
No birthcontrol for people who don’t want kids, even though they may be married.
No IVF for people who absolutely can’t conceive.
No sex before marrige for people who aren’t even Christian.
No abortions.
You aren’t entitled to kids if you follow ALL of those rules but you don’t get married until you’re, say, 32…
Come on.
I do, however, have a problem reading things from a book on a message board when it could easily be summarized.
Posted by: Josephine at February 2, 2009 7:49 PM
Oh, I don’t think you want to trust anything toostunned “summarizes” Josephine! She’ll do anything but tell the REAL rason she is against IVF. Hint: it has n0thing to do with health effects or risk of bith defects. Just like her real opposition to BC has nothing to do with supposed health concerns or environmental effects! ;)
No what I mean is that there is a commodification of children. And many couples seeking ivf do so because their infertility is due to sti’s, delayed marriage and childbearing and the extended use of bc.
It use to be that choices had consequences.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 2, 2009 8:32 PM
But what about those couples that simply can’t have a child without IVF and not because of any of the great sins (!) you’ve listed here???? What about them, huh?
Actually endometriosis can be taken care of, but still leaves the woman infertile.
Pelvic inflammatory disease comes from a LONG list of thing. It doesn’t come from being promiscuous. It happens because of intercourse itself. It could be intercourse with your husband that causes it. It always comes from other organ problems.
Poor cervical mucous is generally caused from past infections, not hormones.
In all of those examples, a woman can do NOTHING about the cause of her infertility. So they aren’t entitled to children?
Women have been sold yet another lie that they can have children any time only to discover that it can be very difficult to conceive when past 30.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 2, 2009 8:49 PM
Holy crow! How did I manage to get pregnant RIGHT away both times I tried at age 29 and 32???!!! I must be a super woman!
“It always comes from other organ problems. ”
That’s supposed to be “It also comes from organ problems”
As for the fertized egg, as I already said, it requires more than simply time to develop Bethany.
Posted by: asitis at February 2, 2009 7:12 AM
I have a huge problem with the personhood debate when trying to specify fertilized eggs as having the same right as already born people. And if Bethany’s statistics on chemical pregnancy are true, then 40-50% of fertilized embryos don’t even implant naturally. That’s way more than the 25% I would have given it (since nobody knows for sure).
“In fact there is now a belief developing among researchers that all IVF couples are doing is perpetuating their infertility and that they may be one of the reasons infertility rates are actually rising.”
Even more terrifying toostunned is that all IVF couples are doing is passing their acceptance of IVF onto their children as well and that may be one of the reasons it’s becoming more widespread!
No, it is a fact. Love is life itself. And killing your own progeny at any stage of developement is anti-life, anti-love, and pro-heathen.
Posted by: truthseeker at Feb 2, 2009 7:08 PM
That’s your opinion truthseeker
Posted by: asitis at February 2, 2009 8:51 PM
Love means nurturing. Love only means killing through the warped mind of a pyschokiller.
Truthseeker, what’s the deal with the “pro-heathen” thing?
Doug, where are you? Quick, we need some road signs ouside the IVF Clinic and the Pharmacy:
Heathen Psychokillers in area! Run!!!!!
Nazi Heathen Psychokillers! Run!!!!!
It seemed to fit the description of somebody who kills out of convenience so they can have sex without consequence.
That’s right asitis. Run into the shelter of the Lord and don’t look back.
You crack me up truthseeker!
I ditto Asitis. Truthseeker, you’re a funny person. :)
Josephine,
Is it funny that you have been taking hormones for years without even knowing that it effects all kinds of tissues in your body, not just bones? Are you comfortable just laughing off the fact that you women on birth control are getting pregnant and aborting three times a year on birth control that is advertised as being 99% effective at “preventing” pregnancy?
It seemed to fit the description of somebody who kills out of convenience so they can have sex without consequence.
Is this your answer to putting down “heathens”? Because many of them follow the rule of doing no harm because the results of any harm done to someone else will come back times three upon themselves.
Don’t see anything bad there.
Terezia,
My apologies to all the enlightened, non-barbarous, civilized heathen out there.
My apologies to all the enlightened, non-barbarous, civilized heathen out there.
Apologies for what, exactly?
Truthseeker,
You know my history with my parents and what I’m in school for. If I had any reason to be worried, I wouldn’t be doing it. :)
And, no one that is using birth control correctly is getting pregnant three times a year. I don’t know where you got that number from. I believe Asitis said she’s been on BC for twenty years, and only got pregnant when she went off of it? (If I’m wrong, I misunderstood. I don’t mean to make things up!)
MOST people on bc don’t get pregnant, TS. Just because some do, doesn’t make it “common”.
Unless by “getting pregnant and aborting” you’re talking about JUST a fertilized egg that can’t implant. In which case, I in no way consider that anything other than a fertilized egg. Not all fertilized eggs become babies.
Are you comfortable just laughing off the fact that you women on birth control are getting pregnant and aborting three times a year on birth control that is advertised as being 99% effective at “preventing” pregnancy?
Posted by: truthseeker at February 2, 2009 10:39 PM
Oh truthseeker, truthseeker. Did you miss my comments the other day or did you forget them?
1. “three times a year” is nothing more than a guess. It is not known how often breakthrough ovulation occurs AND fertilized AND attempts to implant while on the Pill or other.
2. The >99% effectivness rate refers to prevention of an established pregnancy (ie post implantation)
3. I personally have NO problem with the idea that this sometimes may occur, wether you call it “abortion” or not. (By the way I should mention: doesn’t the medical community refer to an abortion as terminating a pregnancy AFTER implantation?)
So the answer to your question would be a big yes!
“No one that is using birth control correctly is getting pregnant three times a year. I don’t know where you got that number from”
Hi Josephine. Truthseeker is referring to “getting pregnant” as having ovulation occur while on the pill.
Yeh….
And yes! You were right about my experience with the Pill those far.
Unless by “getting pregnant and aborting” you’re talking about JUST a fertilized egg that can’t implant. In which case, I in no way consider that anything other than a fertilized egg. Not all fertilized eggs become babies.
Posted by: Josephine at February 2, 2009 10:50 PM
Josephine, when the sperm penetrates the egg a new, unique, human life is created and that life is no less deserving of nurture than you or I were at that stage of developement.
My apologies to all the enlightened, non-barbarous, civilized heathen out there.
Apologies for what, exactly?
Posted by: Terezia at February 2, 2009 10:50 PM
For mischaracterizing them and bundling them in with all the unenlightened, barbarous, uncivilized heathen.
TS,
A fertilized egg shows NONE of the characteristics of life. None. Please explain your logic in saying that it is a life?
Here’s a funny one :
“If a fertilized egg is a person like Mike Huckabee says, can a post-coital woman drive in the carpool lane?”
TS,
A fertilized egg shows NONE of the characteristics of life. None. Please explain your logic in saying that it is a life?
Posted by: Josephine at Feb 2, 2009 11:12 PM
Josephine, the entity you call a fertilized egg only exists for a split second. Once fertilized (the point of conception) the fertilized ovum no longer exists. It has now become a zygote. It is growing and dividing, it reacts to stimuli, it contains unique DNA (46 chromosomes (half from the mother and half from the father), and it has metabolism. As a biology student you must recognize these as characteristics of life.
As a biology student I know a fertilized egg doesn’t do any of those things until it implants. If an egg can’t make a home in the womb, it never begins to show the characteristics of life.
In fact, TS, all the cells from the fertilized egg aren’t even just cells that make a baby. Some of the cells actually become the placenta…
In fact, TS, all the cells from the fertilized egg aren’t even just cells that make a baby. Some of the cells actually become the placenta…
Josephine, I’m only on here for a second, but all of the cells attached to a newborn baby aren’t cells that make the baby either. Some of them actually have another purpose (i.e. umbilical cord) That doesn’t mean that the baby isn’t a baby because it has parts attached to it that are not “baby”.
And as a biology student, it doesn’t appear you’ve paid much attention, because a fertilized ovum (zygote) indeed does show biological characteristics of life. (I think you’ve been reading propaganda from PP.)
What is a zygote Josephine? Does a zygote exist prior to implantation? Do the cells of a zygote divide and multiply?
I think I’ve been getting most of my information from medical textbooks, Bethany. I think you’ve been getting your info from google..
Please explain to me how a fertilized egg shows characteristics of life before it is implanted? Or maybe you can’t, and that’s why you’re only here for a second.
A zygote is a cell before cleavage. It isn’t an embryo until after cleavage. What is your point, TS?
You realize there is a phase between fertilization and creation of a zygote? It’s called egg activation.
A zygote is a cell before cleavage. It isn’t an embryo until after cleavage. What is your point, TS?
You realize there is a phase between fertilization and creation of a zygote? It’s called egg activation.
Josephine, there is no doubt that the zygote is biologically alive.
The zygote fulfills all four of the criteria necessary to establish biological life:
1 metabolism
2 growth
3 reaction to stimuli
4 reproduction
Where did your medical textbooks come from, Josephine?
Maybe you could give me some names of your books, so I can research them…maybe buy them for myself to explore.
Let’s see:
No birthcontrol for people who don’t want kids, even though they may be married.
No IVF for people who absolutely can’t conceive.
No sex before marrige for people who aren’t even Christian.
No abortions.
You aren’t entitled to kids if you follow ALL of those rules but you don’t get married until you’re, say, 32…
Come on.
Posted by: Josephine at February 2, 2009 8:55 PM
Josephine as a Catholic you should know that the morality of an action is not necessarily determined by the desires of a person.
Just because a couple does not want children does not make their practice of BC ethical.
Because a couple cannot conceive, does not make IVF ethical.
There is NO circumstance in which abortion is ever ethical since it is the outright murder of an innocent child.
after fertilization, cell activation occurs in which the fertilized egg is prepared for continuing development.
I think the point to make here is that during cell activation and afterwards as a zygote although a single (diploid) cell at this point, all the genetic information of a human being is present.
Please explain to me how a fertilized egg shows characteristics of life before it is implanted? Or maybe you can’t, and that’s why you’re only here for a second.
Posted by: Josephine at February 3, 2009 12:30 AM
well Josephine, one of the characteristics of life is cell division.
The fertilized egg undergoes considerable cell division before implantation.
For example a blastocyst has about 100 cells at day 5. Implantation occurs at 8 days or thereafter if memory serves me.
Utilitarianism! Boo…
Toostunned you need a correction (in capitals):
Josephine as a Catholic you should know that the morality of an action is not necessarily determined by the desires of a person. FOR A CATHOLIC WHOSE MORAL CODE IS IN STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE CHURCH’S CURRENT TEACHINGS THIS MEANS:
Just because a couple does not want children does not make their practice of BC ethical.
Because a couple cannot conceive, does not make IVF ethical.
There is NO circumstance in which abortion is ever ethical since it is the outright murder of an innocent child.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 3, 2009 6:25 AM
Ah, better……….
Utilitarianism! Boo…
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 3, 2009 6:55 AM
hey Mr. Bambino, did you hear about the statement Robert George made about the octuplets and how he was misquoted or taken out of context?
N, TSTL. Hook a brotha up!
ya, bro, here it is:
“[Robert] George said that, based on the information available, his personal ethical decision would probably support the woman’s choice to carry all the babies to term. But he said that selective reduction is not the same as traditional abortion because the goal is the healthiest possible birth rather than the termination of a pregnancy.. “The babies didn’t put themselves there; it’s not their fault,” George said. “There does seem to be a serious ethical question [?] about killing one or more of them, even for the sake of maternal health.”
He was contacted by a blogger for an explanation and this is what he gave:
UPDATE NEXT: Professor George was gracious enough to provide a very long explanation of what happened, which I am happy to send to interested readers. In short, he begins:
Thanks for calling this to my attention. I gave an interview to the reporter yesterday, but hadn’t seen the article in which she quoted me until I opened the link you kindly provided. I see exactly the problem you are concerned about, based on the way she described my position outside the quotation marks, and the material she quoted. It is very misleading, though I don’t think she intended to mislead. It was a very long interview that unavoidably required the introduction of some complicated scientific and philosophical issues. At the beginning of the interview, I explained why I and others are opposed to IVF in principle in the first place. I then explained the health and safety issues that exist even if we lay aside the question of the morality of IVF — issues having to do with the safety of mothers and the health of children they may conceive by IVF.
Then I explained the European regulations that limit the number of embryos that may be implanted …
We would do well always to remember that most people in the media have little to no background in theology, philosophy or medicine. Thus, good will may be compromised by a limited ability to follow a complicated strain of thought. Needless to say, many of these quandaries could be avoided if we didn’t insist on replacing God with our own “super powers.” Pray for these confused souls and for an end to “children as consumer goods.”
I’ll send you the link.
Bethany, 3:17PM
I don’t know how to respond to you’re kind words but thank you. It means so much.
Please however listen to Doug and Asitis. They’re very correct in what they say about you.
Don’t change, you’re a very beautiful person the way you are.
BTW you handle discussions, moderating, and debates very well!
Doug 3:51PM
I have to know. Is that your mug on the mug?
I don’t know how to respond to you’re kind words but thank you. It means so much.
Please however listen to Doug and Asitis. They’re very correct in what they say about you.
Don’t change, you’re a very beautiful person the way you are.
BTW you handle discussions, moderating, and debates very well!
Posted by: Mary at February 3, 2009 8:27 AM
agreed Mary!
Asitis 3:23PM
LOL. I might well be pirate material! The IRS has been pillaging me! The middle of freaking May! Probably longer.. ARGGGGH
According to Miss La Dee Da in NYC, who resembles a Packer linebacker but not quite as good looking, I must must conduct myself like a pirate wench. I carry a barrel of beer on one shoulder and a mammoth wedge of Wisonsin cheese in my other arm, while dressing like a “Wisconsin housewife”.
Mary, (groan…) no, that’s Franz Josef Strauss, died 1988. For the last ten years of his life, I believe, he was governor (‘Minister-President’) of Bavaria, the german state.
The guy that owns The Old Bavarian, Appleton, WI, is an admirer of his. Strauss was probably the major critic of Chancellor Helmut Kohl’s administration, and often when “Germany as a whole” wanted something, Strauss would say for Bavaria, “No, **** it, we’re not doing that…”
What? Do you think I have a great big widescreen-TV head?
The IRS has been pillaging me! The middle of freaking May! Probably longer..
Mary, as I said, my dad worked for the IRS for 33 years. I know some people in it,and I’ll see if we can’t get that increased to September.
Josephine: A zygote is a cell before cleavage.
Whoa, I’d heard that girls are maturing earlier these days, possibly due to additives in our food, but this is getting extreme. Shortly after the zygote stage, a cell gets cleavage?
Shortly after the zygote stage, a cell gets cleavage?
Posted by: Doug at February 3, 2009 8:51 AM
oooh la la!!!
Damn,I hate wait WAY longer for mine!
The mother of the octuplets + 6 others has hired a spokesperson and is pimiping her babies’ story. Here’s what the spokesperson has to say about the mother:
“Nadya is a very balanced and together woman,”
hahahahahahahahhahahhahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TSTL,
STOP looking stuff up on google. You are NOT getting correct medical information from google, and I know that’s what you’re doing. A fertilized egg DOES NOT go under cell division until AFTER cell activation. Cell activation occurs when the egg has been implanted.
Those are from MEDICAL TEXTBOOKS. You can’t just read random things on google, because there is no way about it. You may believe a fertilized egg is a life. Fine, but in NO WAY will science back you up.
Also, what exactly is it that makes you think you’re entitled to kids, but someone with, say, endometriosis isn’t? Please, PLEASE elaborate, Ms-Holier-Than-Though?
Doug 8:46am
>
Doug 8:46am
>
Doug 8;46am
The sound of chirping crickets
Doug 8:48am
,,,about that great big widescreen TV head
“You may believe a fertilized egg is a life.”
Josephine this statement tells me you are just plain stubborn and do not want to consider the truth. I don’t know why this is. You need to examine your heart, my dear.
High school students are taught this in biology class – one of the criteria for life is cell division. yet you cannot seem to accept this.
A fertilized egg is a living cell. In fact it’s more than that it is a living human being.
Asitis 9:08am
I had to have 3 babies and get old and fat before I had mine. Better late than never but lot of darned good it does me now.
Asitis 9:27am
Where the devil does this woman get money to hire a spokesperson? I had all I could do to pay a babysitter.
LOL, TSTL, you can’t use biology against me. A fertilized egg doesn’t implant until activation. That is a fact. You know when a cell divides? After activation. So, no, a fertilized egg does NOT undergo cell division. I’m the one being stubborn? You obviously don’t understand biology and you’re trying to argue using it.
I am holding “Essentials of Human Embryology” by William J. Larson in my hands. On page 14, we read
“Within 24 hours after the fusion of the pronuclei, the aygote embarks on a regulated series of miotic cell divisions called cleavage.”
So we see cell divisions occurring within the zygote. On page 15 we read
“By day 5, the blastocyt hatches from the clear zona pellucida by enzymatically boring a hole in it and squeezing it out. The new blastocyst is now naked of its original investments and can interact directly with the endometricum. Very soon after arriving in the uterus, the blastocyst becomes tightly adherent to the uterine lining.” (implantation)
So we see that the zygote undergoes cell divisions within 24 hours and that it does not implant until around day 5. On the same page, it says that on day 4 the morula already consists of 30 cells.
What are we misunderstanding about this embryology text?
Josephine,
See article at link. It clearly states that the zygote is dividing.
http://www.medgen.ubc.ca/robinsonlab/mosaic/intro/mos_how.htm
Bobby, my textbook is the Textbook of Medical Physiology. The newest edition. It CLEARLY STATES that a fertilized egg does not divide until after cell activation. A fertilized egg itself is just that. A fertilized egg. When you have a seed for a plant, it’s not a plant. It has the potential to become a plant.
I’m going to class, so I’ll get back to this later. :)
Josephine,
Does your book reference the zygote at all? A zygote is what a fertilized egg becomes after it joins with a sperm and gets “activated”. This occurs prior to implantation. Does your book book say that the zygote undergoes cell division?
Maybe you should broaden your horizins and find other books that go into this in more detail.
Ah, now wait a second…
“A fertilized egg itself is just that. A fertilized egg. When you have a seed for a plant, it’s not a plant. It has the potential to become a plant.”
That’s a philosophical objection, not a scientific one. We have discussed the differences between the accidents and substance of a being many times here, and I’d be happy to discuss it again, but I don’t think that’s where we want to go right now.
“my textbook is the Textbook of Medical Physiology. The newest edition. It CLEARLY STATES that a fertilized egg does not divide until after cell activation.”
However, my book is an embryology text which I would argue should hold greater weight to the answering of this question.
Now you also mention that you have the newest edition, implying that the text I am quoting from is old and outdated. True, my text is from 1998. So let me ask you this. Suppose it was 1998, and this textbook I have is hot-off the press. Would you concede that in 1998, to the best of our scientific knowledge, the zygote was “a life”?
Yes, which textbook is this? I’ll go the college library and check it out.
BTW, Josephine, are you at that “one school” you told me that you were going to go to eventually now? (I don’t want to say the name, just in case you don’t want people to know where you are anymore) If so, I have a really close friend who is a grad student in the math department. I know you said that you didn’t have to do any math at your old school, but if you have to any at your new school, you have an “inside guy.” :)
Asitis 9:08am
I had to have 3 babies and get old and fat before I had mine. Better late than never but lot of darned good it does me now.
Posted by: Mary at February 3, 2009 10:00 AM
Mary, thanks for the laugh. Truth be told, I don’t have any myself except for when I’m wearing certain bras from Victoria’s Secret with special powers or I squeeze them together with my upper arms!
Just goes to show, that fertility and boobage aren’t necessarily related. Because I am super fertle….. when I want to be!!! ;)
Asitis 9:27am
Where the devil does this woman get money to hire a spokesperson? I had all I could do to pay a babysitter.
Posted by: Mary at February 3, 2009 10:08 AM
I know! I was thinking that myself…. and you know she’s going to needs LOTS of money for the babysitter. I’m thinking the spokesperson might be working for a percentage of the proceeds.
Madness.
Asitis 12:42PM
If you saw me you would never guess I descended from very well endowed women. Somewhere the DNA got lost or rescrambled.
You’re entirely welcome for the laugh.
My grandmother always said if you didn’t laugh you’d cry.
I always say laugh at yourself, everybody else does.
About Victoria. She’s a great friend of mine too. My daughter worked there and bought me some unmentionables for my birthday one year. I was pleasantly surprised they were not a couple pairs of bloomers. I mean, I am her mother.
I like your grandmother and your daughter, Mary!
Bobby: Utilitarianism! Boo…
Radley.
Oh that dude! I just got it. I don’t know who/what that is, but I’ve heard that name/phrase before.
Bobby I have access to the same text as you and have also found resources on line which state what you have quoted.
As well, from http://www.embryology.ch/index.html
After a successful impregnation of the oocyte by a spermatozoon a cortical reaction of the oocyte is triggered, which leads to a polyspermy block. Further, the completion of the second meiosis (meiosis II) thereby is effected. This procedure leads to the expulsion of the second polar body. The haploid nucleic material of the spermatozoon and of the oocyte swells and forms the paternal and maternal pronuclei. They approach each other slowly and roughly 22 hours after impregnation the zygote arises in that the two sets of chromosomes move to a equatorial position within the spindle. The first cell division takes place with the mitotic spindle, which comes from the proximal centrosome of the spermatozoon. With the creation of two daughter cells the fertilization is complete. The preimplantation phase has thereby begun.
After a successful fertilization, which takes place in the ampullary part of the fallopian tube, the embryo migrates through the tube into the uterine cavity. This migration takes six days. Along the way, the zygote divides several times, initially without increasing its volume because it is still enveloped by the pellucid zone. Daughter cells are engendered and one speaks now of the blastomere stage.
These exact quotations can be found at http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/bvueEmbr/vueembryo.html
Module 4 and 5 were produced by the University of Bern.
From this same site under The Formation of the Zygote:
The zygote, the first cell of a new organism with an individual genome (2n4C) is created by the alignment of the maternal chromosomes together with the paternal ones on a common spindle apparatus.
There are many good websites produced by universities with departments of embryology Josephine. I remember the basics from my advanced university biology courses. Some of these sites are directed towards medical students.
It would appear that medical students are taught:
1. that a new organism exists (and therefore is alive)with the formation of the one celled zygote.
2. that a zygote undergoes several cell divisions but does not increase in size (thus fulfilling the criteria that it is a living entity)
BTW, for those interested another excellent resource is
http://www.embryo.chronolab.com/fertilization.htm
Bethany, I think it depends on where one is coming from. Too much “coolness” and intellectuality (or something like that) and people start getting on you, asking if you’re a robot or if you ever get passionate about anything… ; )
LOL, Doug…that all sounds so familiar for some reason… *scratching head*
You’ve always been remarkably mature, I think (certainly since I’ve seen your writings). Probably – having kids has matured you, too…? I’ve told you before that it’s obvious you’ve done a lot of good thinking about this stuff. A whole lot. And I think you’re in your late 20’s or that you were a year or two ago.
Yeah, kids do have a tendency to teach you a lot over the years…I can only imagine all of the lessons I’ll be learning when they’re teenagers!
I don’t remember exactly when I started really thinking about abortion, but I remember being about 7 and reading a pamphlet that ended with, “today my mother killed me”, from the unborn child’s perspective and I remember how it bothered me that day. It left an impression on my heart that has never gone away.
I always think of a mother as someone precious and loving, near selfless being who would do anything for her children, and to be willing to protect them with her life. I know that’s idealistic but that has always been my idea of a mother. (I don’t expect any mother to be perfect, but I do expect them to instinctively love their children and want to protect them.)
So to imagine for the first time any mother choosing to kill her baby… it just hurt me deeply, from that moment that I learned it could happen.
But I think for years after that I didn’t think about it anymore. My mom wasn’t involved in pro-life things or anything like that, but I think after I got married, I was watching something on TV that mentioned abortion and it made me so sad. I started looking up abortion on the computer and I was shocked to see people talking about abortion as though it were something as simple as the choice whether to eat grits or cold cereal in the morning.
I cried many nights thinking about the unborn children who were being killed, and I prayed for them. I asked God why would anyone kill a precious baby who never did anything to deserve it?
I started debating online about abortion when I was about 19. I was a lot more immature then, but I guess that is to be expected when you’re just 19.
Again – and this has nothing to do with the above – I think of that picture of you and your husband looking at each other on your wedding day. :: sniff ::
Awww …thanks for remembering that, Doug. That is my favorite picture because it was such an emotional moment.
Anyway, if I was going to give a real-world definition of ‘maturity’ I’d say it’s a willingness to sacrifice current or short-term desires for what’s really wanted in the long run. Not trying to start a different argument here – one could say that it’s being willing to not have sex and wait until the time is right (and I wouldn’t argue with that).
Or not blow your money on stuff that breaks or gets wasted, but rather save for one’s long-term security or other goals.
Or forgo that large order of fries for the sake of long-term health, etc.
I have to say I totally agree to that!
That said, it does pay to not have too thin a skin, realize that we don’t hear voice inflection or see body language online, and that it can make a lot of difference. Let the cooler heads prevail.
Yes, that has so much to do with it. Hearing the voices would be tremendously helpful in understanding tone better! Depending on how I feel any particular day, I can read someone’s post as antagonistic, when it may be an innocent remark which was not intended to offend.
Bobby, the school I talked about earlier is the one I’ve mentioned before. I’m more not saying the name so I’m not embarrassed if I don’t get accepted! I hope I do. :) But, thank you for the offer. I might have to take you up on that!
My textbook is by Arnold Publishers, but there are no authors on the cover, if that helps. It’s a collection of authors.
And yes, if this were 1998 I would completely accept that as fact. However, “cell activation” (from my understanding anyway.. I could be wrong..) is something that wasn’t recognized until recently. I could be wrong, but everything I look at makes it seem like a phase has recently been added so that it goes “fertilized egg” – “cell activation” (where everything we’re talking about takes place) – implantation.
TSTL,
I have NO idea why you bolded what you bolded.
“The first cell division takes place with the mitotic spindle, which comes from the proximal centrosome of the spermatozoon. With the creation of two daughter cells the fertilization is complete.” –We were never trying to define when fertilization is. We were talking about eggs that were already fertilized.
“The zygote, the first cell of a new organism with an individual genome” Again. You can go to the dictionary and find out what a zygote is. In fact, I HONESTLY have no idea why you posted that stuff. It doesn’t prove anything one way or another..
Actually,
“After a successful fertilization, which takes place in the ampullary part of the fallopian tube, the embryo migrates through the tube into the uterine cavity. This migration takes six days. Along the way, the zygote divides several times, initially without increasing its volume because it is still enveloped by the pellucid zone. Daughter cells are engendered and one speaks now of the blastomere stage.”
ALONG THE WAY. That “along the way” refers to the egg activation period, TSTL. This is AFTER it’s just a “fertilized egg”.
Josephine,
You are just being hard-headed.
Here is another link.
http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec22/ch257/ch257c.html
Tell me now, in your biology book what happens to the fertilized between the time of fertilization and implantation.
It’s moving. That’s what. It’s moving to the place where it will be implanted.
Josephine, it’s cells are already dividing BEFORE it is implanted.
From the link Truthseeker provided:
The cells of the zygote divide repeatedly as the zygote moves down the fallopian tube. The zygote enters the uterus in 3 to 5 days. In the uterus, the cells continue* to divide, becoming a hollow ball of cells called a blastocyst. If fertilization does not occur, the egg degenerates and passes through the uterus with the next menstrual period.
*not begin…continue.
That differs from what TSTL posted and what was in my textbook, Bethany.
What in the world is your point? The information is there and is valid.
Praise the Lord in 2009!!
I am having a very hard time finding a textbook on amazon called “Textbook of Medical Physiology” published by Arnold Publishers. Are there names on the inside cover? Just the first one in alphabetical order maybe?
here is a definition I was able to located with some help:
Egg activation
“Ca++ release at fertilization results in an increase in metabolic activity within the egg, apparently due to an increase in the intracellular pH of the egg. Diacyl gycerol (DAG) causes protein phosphorylation cascades to be initiated, with one result being the phosphorylation and activation of a plasma membrane Na+:H+ ion exchanger. Na+ is pumped into the cell, H+ is pumped out of the cell, and the pH inside the cell increases. Sperm themselves are NOT required for egg activation – injection of Ca++ can artificially induce egg activation in many species.”
Egg activation occurs immediately after fertilization. It is my understanding that this process occurs with the purpose of inhibiting other sperm from entering the fertilized egg.There are other ways this can be accomplished and the mechanisms are not well understood. Once fertilized, the egg is now called a zygote. Mitotic division begins about 10 hours after fertilization and continues as the embryo moves down the fallopian tube and into the uterus. This takes anywhere from 6 to 8 days.
Based on what I have read and the correspondence I have received from a reliable source (having medical creds) cell activation does not occur over a period of days Josephine.