Jivin J’s Life Links 5-25-11
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- A man in New York has been arrested and charged with felony abortion and assault for allegedly punching his 17-year-old girlfriend in the stomach in an effort to kill their child.
- I’m still waiting for RH Reality Check’s Robin Marty to provide evidence for her false assertion that “the number one factor being cited for unintended pregnancy is an inability to afford birth control.”
I won’t be holding my breath.
- Abortions in the UK are still on the rise. As always, pro-choice groups have only one solution in mind:
But health commentators including pro-choice groups said they were surprised by the rising total number and rate of abortions, and called for greater spending on contraceptive services.
The number of repeat abortions is up:
Figures also show that more women are having repeat abortions. In 2010, 34% of women ending pregnancies had had at least one previous abortion, up from 30% a decade ago. In total, 85 women have ended 7 or more pregnancies.
May.25, 2011 1:00 pm |
Blogs |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Isn’t the definition of insanity to keep doing the same thing but expect different results? We have contraceptive sex ed, contraception in every drug store, etc and yet when abortion rates dont improve or actually get worse, the solution from pro-choicers is always….more sex ed and contraception.
In 40 years that approach has not worked. I truly wish it had, but it hasn’t. And I honestly don’t beleive it ever will. Even when kids are given bc and have it in their homes, many wll never use it.
I have freinds who have had multiple pregnancies (as married women) who were faithfully using either condoms or on the pill. If they (who have been practicing contraception for years) can’t get it right, why am I supposed to think younger unmarried folks can?
If they (who have been practicing contraception for years) can’t get it right, why am I supposed to think younger unmarried folks can?
Good point.
And regarding those having repeat abortions – I wonder if they consistently used birth control, or were they using abortion AS their means of birth control, or did they have too much “unexpected sex” as statistics show? The stats do NOT bear out that women can’t get birth control.
In Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992), the Supreme Court stated (emphasis mine):
“…for two decades of economic and social developments, [people] have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.”
Contraception does not reduce abortion, it just makes people more dependent on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception fails.
Abortion will be outlawed in the UK in about 15 years.
Correction - Abortion will continue among non-muslims as long as they exist as dhimmi populations.
Abortion is already outlawed under sharia law.
National cultural suicide by abortion is really what’s being chosen when the pro-choice crowd has their way.
I had another blog (Blogher) get quite upset when I made such comments, but they are coming true as the years pass. Those who don’t want to acknowledge that reality are finding themselves in an alien culture, where eventually they will have no choice at all in many things.
“Abortion is already outlawed under sharia law”
“Muslims regard abortion as wrong and haram (forbidden), but many accept that it may be permitted in certain cases.
All schools of Muslim law accept that abortion is permitted if continuing the pregnancy would put the mother’s life in real danger. This is the only reason accepted for abortion after 120 days of the pregnancy.
Different schools of Muslim law hold different views on whether any other reasons for abortion are permitted, and at what stage of pregnancy if so.
Some schools of Muslim law permit abortion in the first 16 weeks of pregnancy, while others only permit it in the first 7 weeks.
However, even those scholars who would permit early abortion in certain cases still regard abortion as wrong, but do not regard it as a punishable wrong. The more advanced the pregnancy, the greater the wrong.
The Qur’an does not explicitly refer to abortion but offers guidance on related matters. Scholars accept that this guidance can properly be applied to abortion”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/abortion_1.shtml
And Chris, shouldn’t you be thrilled that Muslims are pro-life? Your comment about “national cultural suicide” has some ugly non Muslim supremacist undertones that aren’t much different from the “eugenics” arguments that, pro-lifers claim, were promoted by Margaret Sanger. The use of ”dhimmi” is interesting as that’s a term used by Islamophobes when they’re criticizing those cultures who are tolerant towards Muslims.
And I do love how the increasingly secular Brits accept abortion – unlike the United States where the anti-choice zealots are trying to re-criminalize the procedure. Maybe it’s because the Brits aren’t as entangled with conservative religion as are many Americans. I don’t know. What I do know is that the Brits are just so much more enlightened (as are Europeans in general) about reproductive issues. They also have a great safety net (being eroded in the US) for those women who do give birth.
And as far as “Sharia” – the laws, restricting women’s reproductive rights, which have been enacted by the mostly Christian “right to life” is almost as restrictive and misogynist as the worst examples of Sharia. It’s all about controlling and punishing women.
Robin Marty was merely paraphrasing what was in the Guttmacher Report:
“Willie Parker, an obstetrician/gynecologist who is medical director of Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, D.C., says the results suggest the recession’s impact.
“While some women are getting better at preventing unplanned pregnancy, it’s a reflection on women in poverty who have limited access to birth control methods,” he says. ”
So perhaps you should take this up with Dr. Parker.
And re contraception (also a target of the anti-choice movement): While there are failures, there are also successes. Without any contraception, there would still be unplanned pregnancies which result in abortions. My mother showed up in the world, in 1920 as a result of non marital, unprotected sex. Orphanages were full of children whose unmarried parents had sex. Better to have failed contraception than no contraception.
Yes, I would take that up with Dr. Parker, since that’s not what the report shows. He’s suggesting this, not reading it in the data.
And I do love how the increasingly secular Brits accept abortion
Are you hopping up and down with glee like the pro-abortion protester in the video at the Rockford IL abortion mill? I can just picture that.
You’d have to come down off your high horse first, though, I guess. It’s a long way down. Watch your step.
There’s no putting the genie back in the bottle, as far as birth control. Developed countries have had declines in both fertility and mortality, and there too – it’s not just a matter of “turning back the clock.”
“Are you hopping up and down with glee like the pro-abortion protester in the video at the Rockford IL abortion mill? I can just picture that”
Some nice “projection” (or is it fantasy) on your part. I approve of Britain’s attitude as you approve of the Republican “war on women.” Jumping up and down? Hey, if that’s what you’re into, go for it. I’m far more sanguine about things. Must come with age and all that…Although I have been known to jump up and down when the Red Sox get that winning run….Otherwise, fagetaboutit.
Let’s do some math here.
According to the Guttmacher report, “approximately one-half of unintended pregnancies end in abortion”.
According to that same report, “twelve percent of nonusers had encountered problems accessing contraception, such as financial barriers.”
This is also included in the table 3 found here:
http://www.guttmacher.org/tables/3429402t.html#t3
So, statistically speaking, that amounts to 50% * 12% = 6%
This means that, so far, we’re sitting at 6% of unintended pregnancies being due to lack of access to birth control.
Now, let’s say for illustration’s sake that in order to the #1 reason for unintended pregnancies, it would have to apply in at least 31% of all cases (admittedly, not based on any sources, but it makes the math very simple).
So we have 31% – 6% = 25% <- that’s the difference we need to make up
But with only 50% of unintended pregnancies remaining, that leads to 24% / 50% = 50%
This would mean that at least half of the remaining 50% of unintended pregnancies (i.e. those that did not end in abortion) would be due to lack of access to birth control.
Now, if Robin would kindly point out the source for that information, we could have a discussion. Otherwise, it’s just the same old lies upon which the pro-aborts are founded.
Maestro, before we get to those dastardly pro-choicers, you need to get your statistics a little better in hand, I think.
Okay, yeah – around one half of unintended pregnancies end in abortion. Well-known fact in the US and I think it’s been pretty consistent over the past couple decades, at least. But then you go to a table dealing with women having abortions who did not use contraception in the month of conception.
Well, not all unintended pregnancies are due to that. Some of that amount is due to women who were using contraception that month, so you can’t accurately take the 50% figure, there.
On “lies,” hey – if something is statistically true, I’ll admit to it, as a pro-choicer.
Some nice “projection” (or is it fantasy) on your part. I approve of Britain’s attitude as you approve of the Republican “war on women.” Jumping up and down? Hey, if that’s what you’re into, go for it. I’m far more sanguine about things.
It’s not projection or fantasy if I’m asking a question, now is it? :D For someone who purports to know psychology, that’s kind of pathetic.
Republican “war on women.” lol -good one.
I don’t think anyone would have to look too far into your comments to see that not only do you support abortion at any time and for any reason, you do so with a fair amount of glee.
Robin Marty is talking about women making under a certain amount of money, family income, in a 3-person household. The numbers she gives are saying that, “this group has this many abortions.”
She says: “The increase in poor women obtaining a large share of the abortions is hardly surprising. The number one factor being cited for unintended pregnancy is an inability to afford birth control.”
Okay, Makes sense that they’re having increasing difficulty paying for contraception, but her second sentence, there, isn’t proven by the numbers she gives.
We would need to see a table with the reasons for unintended pregnancies or abortions within that group, i.e. “Women who make less than $17,170 in a three-person household.” If inability to afford birth control was the largest reason, there, then it would back her up.
And Chris, shouldn’t you be thrilled that Muslims are pro-life? Your comment about “national cultural suicide” has some ugly non Muslim supremacist undertones that aren’t much different from the “eugenics” arguments that, pro-lifers claim, were promoted by Margaret Sanger. The use of ”dhimmi” is interesting as that’s a term used by Islamophobes when they’re criticizing those cultures who are tolerant towards Muslims.
Translation:
CC eagerly anticipates the day that liberal democracies are replaced by Sharia.
How can a secular person possibly be so blithe about the real threat of theocratic rule?
“Better to have failed contraception than no contraception.”
So, how exactly is one better than the other?
I mean, look at that statement and think, just think what is stated there.
Absurd
The lib minions hate the Christians. They are committing cultural suicide. When their numbers decrease sufficiently, they will not enjoy their experience as much as they enjoyed attacking Christians all these years.
Racist undertones? Really?
There’s a broadway musical that makes fun of Mormons. No one is dead. It’s been nominated for awards.
There are so many mocking-Christians examples in television, movies, musicals, etc. that I couldn’t possibly name them all. No one is dead. Everyone laughs.
One Danish newspaper publishes one cartoon by one artist. One death.
Racist overtones? Really? When’s the last time the cast of Saturday Night Live made fun of Mohammed (pbuh)? When’s the last time Tom Toles did a political cartoon making fun of the Prophet? Racist overtones? Really?
The enemy of your enemy is NOT YOUR FRIEND.
“There’s a broadway musical that makes fun of Mormons. No one is dead. It’s been nominated for awards”
The Mormons aren’t upset about it. Now if this were about Catholics, Fox News and Bill Donohue, would be calling for boycotts. Mormons are nice folks with a sense of humor.
And “lib minions” hate Christians – I guess that includes the “lib” Episcopal Church as well as Unitarians, some Methodists, some Lutherans, some Presbyterians (now approve of gay marriage) and the very liberal Congregationalist Church. They must hate Christians. And Lib – let’s talk Reformed Jews!
But instead of “turning the other cheek,” aggreived Christians talk about how Muslims should be insulted.
And BTW, South Park did make fun of Mohammed. But the thing is, lots more Americans are Christians so making fun of Christians has lots more traction because lots more Americans have had experience (for better or worse as the case may be) with it.
Hippie: How can a secular person possibly be so blithe about the real threat of theocratic rule?
What’s more of a threat? Radical Islam, or radical Christian fundamentalists?
Better to have failed contraception than no contraception.”
So, how exactly is one better than the other
More pregnancies with no contraception.
But here’s the question. Is the pro-life movement trying to criminalize contraception?
What’s more of a threat? Radical Islam, or radical Christian fundamentalists?
Bingo! For American women, the Christianists pose far more of a threat.
Actually, seeing the Catholic and Orthodox revival in Eastern Europe and Russia is very encouraging. The seminaries are doing well and church attendance is WAY up. The Church (and by that I include all in the body of Christ, Catholic and Orthodox) has survived for all this time, despite two millenia of constant persecution.
In fact, even in many Islamic cities and towns, there are secret Christians who smuggle Bibles to each other. In South America, there are members of communist organizations that are secret Christians and treasure their contraband Bibles.
The abortion fans aren’t going to win, they aren’t going to succeed in destroying humanity out of spite. I read the Book. We’ve already won.
Bingo! For American women, the Christianists pose far more of a threat.
B.S.
I’m more concerned about someone who would cut my hand off for wearing nail polish, stone me to death for getting raped, or hang me for going out without a male family member than I am about people who would *GASP!* take away my oh-so-precious right to kill my children in utero! The latter I’ve fully deprived MYSELF of my entire life with no life-threatening consequence. You all are insane.
I’m more concerned about someone who would cut my hand off for wearing nail polish
I certainly see that concern, but it’s not only the exact nature of what would happen, it’s also the chances of it occurring. I’m not wishing for a Muslim theocracy here, but see more of a real danger of a Christian one.
And are we aware of what Kansas state Rep. Pete DeGraaf has come out and said?
For heaven’s sake this country has survived 200 years without theocracy and no one advocates it. Please check the First Amendment of the Constitution. Also, keep in mind religious people have long been involved in important social and moral issues of this country, i.e. Dr.Martin Luther King Jr. I never hear any “concern” about theocracy when the Revs. Sharpton and Jackson are spouting off.
I’m not wishing for a Muslim theocracy here, but see more of a real danger of a Christian one.
Considering I’ve not been adherent to any theology whatsoever and yet found myself “imposing” on my own person a pro-life course of action based on scientific evidence (which much to my elation I’ve found most Christians who wage this war with me have espoused rather than any sort of theological mantra of protecting pre-born human rights) without encountering the “REPENT, YE SINNER!” from my cohorts, I see more of a danger from a theology which mandates in their holy books to convert everyone or behead those who won’t convert than from those who I’ve fought right alongside who’ve seemed more than tolerant of my divergent world view/lack of theology.
Christian Theocracy?! Where did you go to grade school, under a rock? The authors of the Declaration of Independence were Christian. The authors of the Constitution were Christian.
That mean old Queen of England is also the head of her Church. Wow, she is so scary. I’m shakin’ in mah boots. Lol!
The proof is in the puddin’, kids. I don’t see our trolls packing their bags to go live in Saudi Arabia.
“I’m more concerned about someone who would cut my hand off for wearing nail polish, stone me to death for getting raped, or hang me for going out without a male family member than I am about people who would *GASP!* take away my oh-so-precious right to kill my children in utero! The latter I’ve fully deprived MYSELF of my entire life with no life-threatening consequence. You all are insane.”
Really? And what are the prospects for any of those things happening to you? Islam, much less radical Islam, has essentially no considerable presence in the United States at all. Evangelical Christian conservatism, on the other hand, remains a powerful political and social force.
Of course, maybe I’m wrong in assuming that you live in the US. Maybe you’re a resident of Yemen or Afghanistan, in which case your post makes a lot more sense.
joan,
As I said, check out the First Amendment of the Constitution. Also, Chrisitian and other religious people, such as the Quakers and Dr.King, have long been active where important moral and social issues are concerned. The republic is better for it.
To CC and pro-choicers,
Honestly I have NO repeat NO interest whatsoever in criminalizing contraception. And honestly neither does ANYONE I know. I personally do not use contracepton. I use NFP, but I am pro-choice on contraception as it does not kill anyone.
I have known waaaay more pro-lifers and serious pro-life activists than u. NEVER have I ever even heard 1 even suggest that we should try to ban contraception.
I have never even read that in ANY pro-life publication or website or mailings from pro-life groups I support. EVER.
I don’t know where u are getting this idea. And I am being totally honest and open w/u. And unfortunately, u probably won’t believe me or will respond w/some snarky rude remark. I hope I am wrong. We’ll see.
I believe pro-choicers when they tell me that they don’t like abortion either, but simply do not feel that banning abortion is the way to go. It is very judgemental and presumptuous of u to not take us at our word as well.
Evangelical Christian conservatism, on the other hand, remains a powerful political and social force.
Yeah and the worst thing they do to you joan is pray for you.
Great post Xalisae!
Doug, you are 100% correct (how’s that for statistical analysis 8D) in that I did indeed neglect to include the fact that the 12% given was referring only to those who weren’t using contraceptives when they became pregnant. As such, the percentage given would not apply as broadly as I thought.
My apologies to any who were misled or confused by my assertions, and my thanks to Doug for pointing out my error in logic. I will now redo the math to account for my previous error.
The report says early on (second paragraph in DOI section) that “approximately one-half of unintended pregnancies end in abortion” (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3429402.html).
Later, the report says that “the proportion of women having abortions who had not been using a contraceptive when they became pregnant varied across social and demographic subgroups from 37% to 54%”. Table 2 (http://www.guttmacher.org/tables/3429402t.html#t2) gives the figure of 46.3%, which I will use.
Further down, the report says that “twelve percent of nonusers had encountered problems accessing contraception, such as financial barriers”, which is also included in table 3 (http://www.guttmacher.org/tables/3429402t.html#t3).
Putting those three figures together, we have 50% x 46.3% x 12% = 2.778%
This means that of those women who had unintentionally become pregnant and were getting an abortion (i.e. half of all cases according to the report), only about 3% of them claimed difficulty of access to contraceptives as a reason for their pregnancy.
For Robin’s claim to be substantiated, this reason should account for a large portion of all cases. I’ll again use the number 31%.
So, we have 31% – 2.778% = 28.222%
This is the total contribution to this reason that would be required of those whose unintended pregnancies did not end in abortion. However, since this group only comprises half of the total polled population, the requirement within that group would be:
28.222% / 50% = 56.444%
This means that, in order for difficulty of access to contraception to account for 31% of unintended pregnancies, over half of those that did not result in abortion would have to be caused by this.
At this time, I would like to point out that I am not making any definitive declarations either way as to the validity of Robin’s claim (frankly, I don’t know if it’s true), but I do contend that the report she cites actually weakens her claim.
However, if Robin can substantiate her claim, then by all means, she should feel free to do so.
And Kris, in the interest of honesty and openness, I should point out that I am pro-life and I would very enthusiastically support a total ban on contraception.
“I have never even read that in ANY pro-life publication or website or mailings from pro-life groups I support. EVER.” – it would appear that you haven’t read many of the comments on this site then Kris.
Ah, just like a good little minion, Joan always comments on cc’s heels. You ladies are so cute.
Really? And what are the prospects for any of those things happening to you? Islam, much less radical Islam, has essentially no considerable presence in the United States at all.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece
No Christians I know have been talking about setting up courts to punish people for breaking “Christian Law” (unless you count murder charges, since those are in the bible…do you all count those?), but as you can see it’s well on its way to happening with Sharia Law in other “western” countries. My life hasn’t been terribly inconvenienced by Christians, and I don’t know any who would inconvenience me. Far different when it comes to Muslims and the imposition of Sharia.
So you’re British, then? I’m not sure what your point is, xalisae.
As we know xalisae, there are countries which operate under sharia law. There are also movements within those countries for more libertarian government and law.
In some countries there have been, and are, attempts to introduce some elements of sharia law in some capacity.
In the US there are those who would legislate for the teaching of creationism in science classes instead of evolution. There are those that would legislate to have prayers conducted at all meetings, ceremonies, in schools etc. There are those who would legislate against homosexuality, non-marital sex and even contraception.
If any of these came to pass then they would, in effect, be “setting up courts to punish people for breaking “Christian Law”.
And there are those whose lives have been or are inconvenienced by christians.
Reality: ““I have never even read that in ANY pro-life publication or website or mailings from pro-life groups I support. EVER.” – it would appear that you haven’t read many of the comments on this site then Kris.”
I have read almost every comment on this exact site for years! If u know of comments that suggest banning contraception by all means PRODUCE THEM.
“And Kris, in the interest of honesty and openness, I should point out that I am pro-life and I would very enthusiastically support a total ban on contraception.”
R U serious? WHY?!!!!
All ya’ll wanting to imply that a Christian “theocracy” is such a threat should read the New Testament. You will find things like, “Love your neighbor” “Love your enemies” “Turn the other cheek” “The greatest commandment is love” and tons of advice on how to be financially and personally responsible, honest, and giving. Everyone doing their part, doing to others as they WANT them to do to them, and rather than revenge or retaliation you are encouraged to PRAY for those who persecute you and treat you unfairly. If a brother or sister asks for money, give them more than they ask, if you are asked to go a mile, go two, etc. Imagine if EVERYONE lived by these “rules”! Imagine if this was our “theocracy”! Explain to me how this would be a bad thing. And there’s nothing in the New Testament about making these encouragements LAW, or punishments for not doing them (read the parable of the good Samaritan, no punishments done to or implied for those who refused to help). It’s gentle encouragement and advice from a loving Father and God. I invite anyone to present anything from the New Testament that promotes violence, oppression of others, or “convert or die”mentalities. The New Testament is SUPPOSED to be the book Christians live by, modeling themselves after Christ and seeking to glorify Him in all we do and say. The day the New Testament is fully implemented in government (like pre 1954 all the way back to the writing of the constitution when most of it was taken DIRECTLY from the New Testament and actually the colonies all had “constitutions” based on the Bible to govern themselves by as well) will be a wonderful day of freedom for all (including the pre-born).
Now please read the koran. PLEASE. You really cannot in your right mind defend that religion and suggest in any way shape or form that it is the “lesser evil” when compared to Christianity once you read it’s instructions on how to ambush non-believers and murder them, how to “honor” your wives by beating them properly, how Allah is glorified in rampant murder and suicide (and encouraging CHILDREN to murder and commit suicide), how it’s ok to lie to people,marrying a 6 yr old girl is ok and consummating her when she was only 9 years old (condoning pedophilia, child brides), exact rules establishing the worth of a woman as 1/3 that of a man (even less than an infidel, who by the way, can be murdered with little excuse and NO punishment), relegating non-muslims to 2nd class citizen status and limiting the rights of many others, let alone Sharia which makes committing horrible atrocities a LAW you must obey or die! A cartoonist murdered for a doodle, someone starts a rumor someone else SAID (not even DID or any proof at all) something against the kuran and whole villages and communities are slaughtered (women and children included), countless women being maimed murdered or disfigured with acid or fire for showing bangs or nail polish or going to school, or even wearing a bra! It takes a dangerous amount of ignorance to suggest this isn’t true.
The secular anti-Christ media do not report these things (such as the recent slaughters in Egypt of innocent Christians) but this happens everyday. Hundreds of thousands murdered for loving Jesus, Bibles burned and defecated on, and Christians do not rise up. They do not blow themselves up in crowded streets, they do not threaten or take to the streets or attack innocent people simply because they believe differently. They do not seek revenge. Christ teaches us not to commit violence, but to LOVE. But sneeze on a kuran in front of a muslim and see what happens! Muslims wave banners saying “God is greatest and he has no son” and Christians just pray. A Christian suggests Jesus is Lord and the son of God, and their entire household is burned to death with acid and all their neighbors slaughtered, their church bombed. Because Muhammad orders them to. Whose is the dangerous theocracy?
http://www.persecution.com/
How can you possibly compare Christ to Allah and prefer the latter????? How can you possibly compare them at all????? Christians do not bomb temples or throw acid on children. Christians do not slaughter entire villages or behead those who disagree with them.
Demographics show Islam as one of the three most prolific religions (so if “they only make fun of Christ because the majority of people ‘get’ it” were true, there would be nearly equal mocking of Islamics). Glee, SNL, Hollywood in general mock and deride God and Christ, the worse they receive is a boycott. Rampant racism and stereotyped (much unkind) characterization surround Jews, they boycott, the endure, but doodle Mohammad, so much as SUGGEST a characterization of him in a cartoon (South Park was forced to censor themselves for the first time EVER because of threats of violence and murder from the “peaceful” Muslims) and threats of murder, bombs, mobs of violent Islamics take to the streets, people are seriously hurt and killed.
Now which group do we have to fear? Which group should we be fighting to keep to a minimum of power in our country? Whose influence should we fear????? Whose???
Hippie – I would not consider islam to be a ‘lesser evil’. The fact is that there are arguments over the interpretation and meaning of the koran just as there are for the bible.
To answer your bundle of four questions at the end of your post, any group which would place articles of faith over reason and try to implement their beliefs into law and government.
Well there’s obviously one for a start Kris. And surely any ‘full-blooded’ catholic would say the same thing. Do I really need to troll back through numerous old posts to find examples? Is anyone else here willing to say that there has never been a comment on this site stating that contraception should be banned?
Reality: “Well there’s obviously one for a start Kris. And surely any ‘full-blooded’ catholic would say the same thing. Do I really need to troll back through numerous old posts to find examples? Is anyone else here willing to say that there has never been a comment on this site stating that contraception should be banned?”
I AM a full blooded Catholic as are half of my friends. You are quick to make assumptions Reality of how whole groups of people think and feel.
And yes, if there are posts of pro-lifers who actually want contraception banned, I would like u to show me. I am not kidding. This is serious to me.
I would like to make a comment though that CC is asking if “the pro-life movement is trying to criminalize contraception”. She is accusing the whole pro-life movement of trying to ban contraception. That is certainly a very different thing than a vast minority of pro-lifers who might feel this way (not that I have encountered ANY until today).
In my days tabling @ our college pro-life table I have encountered many pro-choice people. I did 1 time have 1 pro-choice young man (very respectful and kind) tell me that he felt that people were a threat to the planet. He said that the planet was a spirit and that he wished that God would create a natural disaster so that many people would be killed and therefore not hurt the earth anymore.
I would NEVER try to take his random comments and apply them to THE WHOLE PRO-CHOICE MOVEMENT as if there were actually representative of it. It is completely disingenuous to do so.
“And surely any ‘full-blooded’ catholic would say the same thing.”
Well, assuming that you’re not suggesting that Catholicism is genetic…
You would be correct, Reality (and that is something I’ve been wanting to say for quite a while, so thank you for that 8D). Anyone who is truly Catholic absolutely does not accept contraception and, conversely, anyone who supports contraception is not Catholic. It really is that simple. The Magisterium and the Catechism are very clear on this and if you don’t trust them, why would call yourself Catholic anyway?
(And no, Reality, I’m not saying you’ve ever done that, but “you” is quicker to work with grammatically than “one”)
Seriously, it’s like trying to be a vegan and a poultry farmer at the same time.
“R U serious? WHY?!!!!”
It’s very simple, Kris; faith issues aside, contraception has always been and continues to be one of the main contributors to (and, oddly enough, symptoms of) the attitude that children are a burden to be avoided and that people can have their fun and not pay for it. If you don’t feel you’re prepared for a child, the solution is simple; don’t have sex. Note that I said “simple”, not “easy”. I am neither oblivious nor immune to the strength of sexual desire, Kris, and I know from personal experience that self-control is no walk in the park, but I also acknowledge that my actions have consequences, for myself and others, whether I try to prevent them or not.
Faith issues not aside, as I said to Reality, the teaching of the Catholic Church is crystal clear on this issue, Kris. You don’t have to dig, you don’t have to search; the teachings are very well summarized in Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae (published july 25th, 1968) and are clearly laid out in the Catechism. You read them and then decide if you will continue to call yourself a true Catholic. I will not think any less of you if you decide to leave the church over this issue; rather, I have more respect for someone who makes sacrifices for what he or she believes than I do for someone who tries to live in denial (the whole idea of knowing where someone stands).
“You are quick to make assumptions Reality of how whole groups of people think and feel.”
Once again, I am happy to be able to agree with something Reality says (though it is technically the same thing as the last time, I’ll take what I can get 8P), because saying that true Catholics oppose contraception and would like to see it eliminated is not an assumption, but is rather an observation of demonstrable fact.
There is an assumption being made, but it instead concerns the membership of that group, and Reality is not the one who made it.
Honestly, it’s a VERY long discussion (based on your reaction, anyway) that doesn’t really fit this thread, but you may rest assured of two things:
1) Every true Roman Catholic is pro-life.
2) Every true Roman Catholic is totally against contraception.
So any illusions you have had of the neutrality of the pro-life movement (and especially Catholicism) with regards to contraception have been just that: illusions. We true Catholics (and I think there are other groups, though I’m not certain) are going after what we believe to be the root of the problem, not just the symptoms.
You are correct in asserting that many (possibly most?) people in the pro-life movement would not like to ban contraception, and therefore CC would be incorrect in generalizing pro-lifers as such. Where we disagree, though, is that whereas you see that characterization as annoying and something to be eliminated, I see it as a goal and the final true form of the pro-life movement.
“That is certainly a very different thing than a vast minority of pro-lifers who might feel this way (not that I have encountered ANY until today).”
As many in the pro-life movement have commented, Kris, if you’re going to be pro-life, you better get used to working with Catholics. Today, you’ve met one.
And finally, in case you’re wondering; no, I’m not known for my tact or subtlety.
I AM a full blooded Catholic as are half of my friends. You are quick to make assumptions Reality of how whole groups of people think and feel.
And yes, if there are posts of pro-lifers who actually want contraception banned, I would like u to show me. I am not kidding. This is serious to me.
Kris, there are plenty of people on Jill’s site who really are against contraception, and I’m not even saying they are all Catholics.
That said, I really do think the official position of the Catholic church is against it, and this was re-stated back in 1968 by Pope Paul 6, far as I know.
That said, of course many Catholics use contraception. But it’s not officially sanctioned by the church.
Ok, Reality. As soon as abortion is illegal, I’ll hop the fence and come over there and help you fight to keep contraception legal.
Like I’ve been saying xalisae, if we continue to improve the quality and availability of contraception abortion will be almost completely eradicated.
I’m going through a few previous posts Kris, I can’t spend a solid block of time on it but am doing so in spare moments.
“That said, I really do think the official position of the Catholic church is against it, and this was re-stated back in 1968 by Pope Paul 6, far as I know.”
Correct: Humanae Vitae, July 25th, 1968, by then Pope Paul VI.
You have to admit; love us or hate us, it’s nice to be able to know where we stand, right?
Admit it! (shakes fist jokingly)
Reality; ” The fact is that there are arguments over the interpretation and meaning of the koran just as there are for the bible.”
Except that somehow misinterpreting the Bible isn’t resulting in hundreds of murders a day! Unless of course you count those “christian” and “jewish” groups who condone abortion! You have to ignore EVERYTHING Jesus ever said, and twist the rest into garbled insanity the rest of the NT to so much as suggest murdering the pre-born is ok.
You have to seriously twist, make-up stuff, ignore EVERYTHING Muhammad ever said or did, and “misinterpret” the koran to wrench any shadow of “peace” out of it.
“any group which would place articles of faith over reason and try to implement their beliefs into law and government.”
Re-read my expansive post. That is exactly Sharia. And so agree with me. Unless you really are truly offended that our laws are forcing you to obey the 6th commandment? The 8th isn’t “reason”able for you? I bet you agree with at least half the 10 commandments. Less than half have been placed into law.
Let’s try a few examples of sharia (currently being implemented in just the way you described);
“It is law that no (muslim) should be punished equally in the killing of a (non-believer)” (i.e. some people have greater value than other people, but being pro-abortion we already know you agree with this one.)
“Drinkers and gamblers should be whipped”
“4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great.” (spousal abuse is encouraged if wife is disobedient)
“5:45 And We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal.” (Yes this is literally enforced today. I will provide news reports if you need them)
“5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise.”
“5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land (anyone who seeks to convert a Muslim or disagrees with Islam/Sharia) should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter”
“‘If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done’” (homosexuals should be put to death)
“24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah’s law]” (death penalty for adultery, flogging for unmarried sex)
All these Sharia laws are enforced to the letter today. Exactly as described. I will provide news reports if you need them, and court cases where sharia was enforced upon the “guilty” party(s). Do you concider this “Reason”able? Is this ok with you?
Yeah look, lovely little rant against islam hippie. And I didn’t disagree. I didn’t say what the resultant exclamations were. I merely said they were both interpretated in various ways.
You asked – “Now which group do we have to fear? Which group should we be fighting to keep to a minimum of power in our country? Whose influence should we fear????? Whose???” – to which I replied “any group which would place articles of faith over reason and try to implement their beliefs into law and government.” – any group. The 6th and 8th commandments you cited are social mores which were entrenched in cultures well before christianity or islam came along. Murder and theft are illegal in many, many countries which have no cultural history of abrahamic faith. And there are aspects of sharia law which are in the statute books, they just aren’t listed under ‘by order of islam’, the same as laws against murder and theft aren’t listed under ‘by order of christianity’. “Articles of faith and beliefs” include things like creationism, homophobia and mandatory involvement in prayer. The bible also allows instances where death is called for. Cheeky kids, working on sundays, that sort of thing.
“All these Sharia laws are enforced to the letter today” – in some places yes.
Do I consider it reasonable? – no. That’s why I’m against any faith having involvement in government or law.
Like I’ve been saying xalisae, if we continue to improve the quality and availability of contraception abortion will be almost completely eradicated.
Right. Because contraceptives are practically handed out like candy to children on Halloween these days, and abortion hardly ever happens at all, ever. Riiiiiiight.
Why the need to totally distort what I said xalisae?
Did I say we should hand out contraceptives to children?
Did I say abortion hardly ever happens?
Did I?
I said we need to improve the quality and availability of contraception. One day it may well become possible to basically turn off fertility chemically or in some other way – without any negative side-effects – and enable it to be reversed when a woman decides she wants a child. And then we would need to ensure that this was available to all on the planet.
Is it available now? No.
Will it be available tomorrow? No.
Will it be available next year? Doubtful.
Will it be available in 3-5 years time? Given the rate of scientific, medical and technological advancement, maybe.
Whenever it does happen, there will be almost zero need for abortion. Less than will ever occur through legislating against it, that’s for sure.
Whenever it does happen, there will be almost zero need for abortion.
And until that happens, you’ll find me doing my best to try and make sure that the human beings brought into existence when the contraception we have now (inevitably) fails are protected by law throughout their entire lives (instead of just after they’ve managed to escape from their mothers) from everyone (even their own mothers).
angel says:
August 18, 2010 at 8:43 am
I am a prolife woman who believes contraception should be banned but I also don’t believe women should be forced to be pregnant.
There are lots of choices BEFORE getting pregnant – such as remaining chaste outside of marriage.
It’s what the majority of people, men and women use to do many years before contraception came in a little white pill. If they chose otherwise, they accepted the “consequences” – previously called a baby.
Honestly, Amanda Marcotte just gets stupider and stupider.
http://www.jillstanek.com/2010/08/quote-of-the-day-8-18-10/#comments
Oh, I get it! Abortion fans have trouble with language:
“I don’t want to pay for your condoms, go buy them yourself” means to them: “I want to ban condoms and put people in jail for using them”
and “We don’t want the government to use our tax money to kill American children” means to them: “We want to wage war against women”
I just need to get me one of those English-Abortion Fan/Abortion Fan-English Dictionaries.
“The bible also allows instances where death is called for. Cheeky kids, working on sundays, that sort of thing.”
That’s the old testament, the law of Moses. Talk to the Jews about that, I’m sure they have some reason why they no longer follow most of their law. I don’t know it.
I’m talking about CHRISTianity, as laid out in the New Testament. Jesus “did away with” the old law when He died on the cross and declared it FINISHED. He did away with the death penalty for adultery, witchery, heresy, etc. when He said “those without sin cast the first stone”. Read it. You will see him clarify, change, or remove all parts of the old law! “eye for an eye” became “turn the other cheek”. “hate your enemy” became “love your enemy”. He stopped harsh punishments against transgressors of the law when He siad ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’. He ended death for Sabbath day efforts by saying “It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath”. Christ was the last and final blood sacrifice required for the remission of sin. Christ changed everything. He fulfilled the law.
CHRISTianity is the theoretical “theocracy” that I am defending specifically. Anyone who has read the NT would not suggest that it would be a bad thing if it were used as guidance and outline for a country’s government. After all the United States was except for the last 50yrs since certain groups twisted and added unrelated meaning to a letter from Jefferson to a baptist church, he simply reassured them that “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” ensured freedom to worship and meant that the state would and could not interfere with the church. Using an analogy that clearly indicated a protection of the church from government which certain groups later (much later since everyone who was there understood what it meant then) decided was protecting government from church and thus changed the course of our country in the 50’s.
The ENTIRE United States History was based on the Bible, all our founding documents, our governmental three branch system, and each of those branches were each framed according to the Bible, court cases were decided according to the Bible. Knowing this, it can easily be argued that our country was built as, governed as, and existed as a “theocracy” for the majority of it’s history. And because that “theocracy” was based on Biblical CHRISTianity and no other religion, it resulted in never-before-seen freedom for all (although the democrats prevented freedom for the slaves until the civil war and the blacks and minorities in general for years after…. and now are practicing legalized genocide against them with abortion under the guise “women’s rights” ). All the way up to 1954 when the Bible and Christ was cut out of government and now we have this sick twisting of “privacy” to allow murder of certain groups of people. We have others attempting to twist the “pursuit of happiness” into allowing them to have sexual relations with young boys and children, we have groups trying to twist each word in our documents to fit their needs now that it’s foundation in the Bible has been severed, and activist judges allowing it to happen one syllable at a time leaving us in this quagmire of double meanings and relative morality and this weak pretense of “justice” where we no longer judge by the law but now make law respecting “feelings” and other such fothel creating layers and layers of contradictions in our legal system and loop holes and pot holes allowing INTENTIONAL murderers to plead down to “accidental” murderers!
We were better off as a CHRISTian “theocracy” and we should reset back to 1951, just before the Bible was removed from government and the sharp uptick in promiscuous sex, STD’s, unintended pregnancy, teen pregnancy, murder rates, rape rates, violent crime etc, and then go from there.
Did I say we should hand out contraceptives to children?
Are you familiar with simile?
Meastro, Reality, and others:
I think I need to clarify (quickly) my views on contraception. I am against it. I do not practice it and am teaching my children likewise. Totally into Theology of the Body. I am a “full blooded Catholic” so to speak.
BUT I am not for BANNING contraception. Please do not mistake others comments against contraception as their wanting it banned. 2 different things. There are many things I find morally unacceptable that I do not want banned.
Abortion is different for me because it harms another human being-the baby. That is why I am pro-life.
Reality-thank u for doing that research. I appreciate it and believe it to be true. I can honestly say again that in all my years, I have never encountered those kinds of sentiments. And again reiterate that they are not representative of the pro-life movement but of a vast minority.
Again I don’t appreciate (CC) taking the comments of a few and applying them to the whole or even the majority of the pro-life movement. It simply is not true.
At this time, I would like to point out that I am not making any definitive declarations either way as to the validity of Robin’s claim (frankly, I don’t know if it’s true), but I do contend that the report she cites actually weakens her claim.
Maestro, to support her claim, we’d need to know the reasons for unintended pregnancies within that low-income group itself, rather than abortion rates or reasons for unintended pregnancies for women in general, and I posted that on the Reality Check site, for what it’s worth. She gives some figures there, but they don’t support her claim.
Robin Marty: “The number one factor being cited for unintended pregnancy is an inability to afford birth control. If a woman can’t afford birth control, it’s highly unlikely she believes she can afford to raise a child, either.”
Okay, so she should show us the citations, she should demonstrate that it really is the reason that is most frequently given.
____
You have to admit; love us or hate us, it’s nice to be able to know where we stand, right?
Admit it! (shakes fist jokingly)
Ha! Indeed, and nice to see your sense of humor. I’ve known some cool Catholics my whole life.
Reality: “Now which group do we have to fear? Which group should we be fighting to keep to a minimum of power in our country? Whose influence should we fear????? Whose???” – to which I replied “any group which would place articles of faith over reason and try to implement their beliefs into law and government.” – any group.
Yeah, that’s just it. I see practically no chance of an “Islamic takeover” of the US. While not as remote a chance, I also am not predicting any dire Christian theocracy any time soon.
Yet they are both not impossible, and if we need to see the thoughts of some prominent Christians, some of them leaders in the churches, some of them in positions of power in government, to establish that they run the gamut from just having some facist leanings all the way to out-and-out kooks, numerous examples can be given.
Let’s keep Thomas Jefferson’s idea of a “wall of separation between church and state” in place.
“I don’t want to pay for your condoms, go buy them yourself” means to them: “I want to ban condoms and put people in jail for using them” – what makes you say that ninek?
Of course hippie, the usual ‘convenience factor’ of which parts of the bible are interpreted in which way to suit which group of people.
“The ENTIRE United States History was based on the Bible, all our founding documents, our governmental three branch system, and each of those branches were each framed according to the Bible,” – I beg to differ.
“court cases were decided according to the Bible.” – WTH?
“Knowing this, it can easily be argued that our country was built as, governed as, and existed as a “theocracy” for the majority of it’s history.” – ???
“All the way up to 1954 when the Bible and Christ was cut out of government” – what, like ‘one nation under god” being inserted into the pledge? And the whole teaching creation as science thing. Not what I’d call ‘thrown out’.
“we have groups trying to twist each word in our documents to fit their needs” – hello pot, meet kettle.
“now that it’s foundation in the Bible has been severed,” – it was never what you’d like to believe it was.
“We were better off as a CHRISTian “theocracy” and we should reset back to 1951” – and there we have it. Tell me, on what basis do you refer to yourself as a hippie?
“BUT I am not for BANNING contraception.” – that’s cool.
“Please do not mistake others comments against contraception as their wanting it banned” – but some do, as you have now seen.
Reality; I am so sorry your are so grossly misinformed about our country’s history! I guess you just went to public schools and happily swallowed whatever they taught you without researching anything deeply for yourself. There simply isn’t enough time/space here to bring you up to “reality”. You are hopelessly and, it appears, stubbornly ignorant and therefore I could throw truth at you all day and you would refuse to catch it. Such the bane of being a liberal :( I’m so sorry :(
Everything I said was truth. PLEASE look it up (not just in your college text book) it IS available for public consumption. I know you won’t, since the day you do your entire “reality” will be shattered into a million pieces. But I want to encourage you that you will get through it :)
READ THE NEW TESTAMENT. “Convenience” suggests cherry picking to suit one’s needs (i.e. your world view) and the NT clearly shows that is not the case. But go ahead and keep arguing something you know nothing about :)
This whole teaching evolution as a “settled” science thing is pretty ridiculous, and to cut out completely other viable theories simply based on their sources sets a dangerous precedent for our future scientists doesn’t it? We certainly wouldn’t want to look too deeply into the dependability of radiocarbon dating now would we? Don’t look at the experiments on Mt. St. Helens were they tested BRAND NEW (50yrs) rocks for age and got millions of years. Don’t look up the few hundred yr old clock encased in ROCK dated to be millions of years old. Don’t look up the few hundred yr old fossilized boot (with human foot inside) dated to be billions of years old. I bet you’d seriously consider “time travel” before even blinking in the direction of a young Earth! Your “belief system” and raging bias is blinding your view of “reality”!
What twisting? It says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Ya’ll are the ones trying to twist “all men” into “all BORN men, as long as their family doesn’t think they’ll suffer too greatly caring for them, and as long as they weren’t born after an abortion attempt, cause otherwise mom wants them dead and who are we to judge?” and “created equal” into “not really ‘created’ but evolved, and not so equal as survival of the fittest, and there are still many dregs in the gene pool that can go so lets put all our abortion mills in minority neighborhoods!” and CREATOR with a capital C by the way, into “oh just any deity, statue, stick, or not, whatever” and “rights” into “suggestions” and LIFE into “Life (whatever that means, no one’s sure) ,unless you’re unwanted, small, dependent, defenseless, very young, or sick,” We read the words and take it for what it means, you read it and apply all these qualifiers and footnotes to every word or completely ignore that they are there! So kettle, I’m not pot, you have me confused with someone else!
My heart is that of a hippie, and yes my appearance reflects that, but one day I grew up and did RESEARCH, alot of reading, and study and found that all our happy dreams can never happen cause 1. THEY HAVE NEVER WORKED IN ANY COUNTRY THAT’S EVER TRIED IT EVER IN HISTORY. 2. There are living humans involved. 3. Most of our logic was circular and thus BAD. I had to DECIDE to ignore too much to continue believing what I did. I couldn’t continue being a stubborn idiot once I had been fully educated in the FULL truth, so I had no choice but to change my political party, religion, world view, ideology etc. And so, although my heart still desperately wants to believe as a hippie (I thoroughly enjoy looking like one), my brain is too stubbornly learned to vote or believe “hopey-change potential cure, date the rocks by their strata and the strata by the rocks, I’ve never seen the wind (God) so it doesn’t exist (choosing to ignore the moving of the trees and feel of the…. uh oh, not breeze uhhhhh….. it’s not real! Can you SEE it? So shut up!)
This whole teaching evolution as a “settled” science thing is pretty ridiculous, and to cut out completely other viable theories simply based on their sources sets a dangerous precedent for our future scientists doesn’t it? We certainly wouldn’t want to look too deeply into the dependability of radiocarbon dating now would we? Don’t look at the experiments on Mt. St. Helens were they tested BRAND NEW (50yrs) rocks for age and got millions of years. Don’t look up the few hundred yr old clock encased in ROCK dated to be millions of years old. Don’t look up the few hundred yr old fossilized boot (with human foot inside) dated to be billions of years old
Hippie, while we don’t know everything, the theory of evolution isn’t really at issue any more than the theory of gravity is.
On those examples of mis-dating you gave, do you have any real proof behind them?
I can’t help but wonder if you haven’t overindulged in the hippie ‘lifestyle’ at some stahe hippie. And where did you go to school, the Michelle Bachmann school of US history?
“Convenience” suggests cherry picking to suit one’s needs (i.e. your world view) and the NT clearly shows that is not the case” – you must be kidding! Have you not seen and read the numerous ‘interpretations’ evidenced by various denominations and sub-groups?
And you’re a young earth creationist to boot! The more the numerous branches of science discover about the facets of evolution the more creation theory is squeezed into a rapidly tightening corner. Thus the number of faith-based pseudo-scientific apologists trying to reconcile the ever-diminishing scope of god with evolution.
Reality, actually I’m currently reading the written works of everyone involved in drafting, framing, and signing the constitution and declaration and also reading some of the writings and authors of those they site as influences or inspirations (and so of course I am spending alot of time in the Bible and reading the works of many theologians and priests). That’s just for fun. Reading court documents is not fun, but sometimes I am led to them by references in said writings and do indeed find quotes or allusions to the Bible specifically in their decisions (and to no other “religious” text).
Yes there are volumes and volumes of scientific studies and journals discussing the problems with radiocarbon dating and the other forms of dating and how to “average out” the vastly differing dates found from various rocks taken from a single site and how the strata (aged by the rocks) they are found in must also be considered to decide what age the rock “likely” is and “ignore” the rest of the contradictory data. What kind of “science” is this? Based on the assumption that evolution is true. It staggers my mind the amount of rabid stubbornness needed to “ignore” contradictions in order to get a result you want. That’s not science. Science is supposed to be without opinion. Facts are facts. So why are all facts that contradict a “settled science” simply ignored and “shoved in to a corner” (a corner larger than the room by the way)? Why aren’t they reconsidering their findings? Show me a transitional fossil. Explain how rocks + water became life. We did not come from rocks. The burden of proof is on you and you can’t come up with any except flimsy suppositions based on assumptions ignoring contradictory facts. There are so many holes in the evolutionary theory (missing links) and we’re all supposed to shrug and accept that somehow it holds water. You trust blindly that evolution is right and the proof is just “out there somewhere”. The boot is in Texas and the clock is at the Creation Museum near Cincinnati. But go ahead and ignore them. Here, here’s a site you are prolly more likely to believe since it lines up so squarely with your assumed to be true old-Earth theory;
http://theunexplainednet.tripod.com/Page9.htm
Or you can check out this site:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/radiometric-dating
Evolution spawned eugenics and eugenics spawn planned parenthood.
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.
“Show me a transitional fossil” – go look for yourself, with honesty. They are out there. Your question is one of the biggest furphys getting around.
“Explain how rocks + water became life” – just how ignorant do you want to be seen as?
The creation museum? Really? ROFLMBO! I’m still waiting for Kenny to tell me who made jesus’s dinosaur saddle.
Answers in genesis? More rolling on floor!
How about Uncommon Descent, or Darwin’s God? Are them your learnin’ places too?
I’m guessing one of your favorite questions is “if man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?”
Evolution spawned mankind, mankind spawned religion.
<realizing your excessive closed mindedness is beyond help so just not really into it anymore> Billions of years ago the Earth was all hot and lava and junk and then it cooled and rained for like, billions of years or something and then, I don’t know, lightning or unicorns or something happened and then life was in the primordial pools so…… rocks plus rain equals life. Look it up. You’ll find lots of dif. THEORIES and most involve the magical combination of rocks and water. Explain it so it makes sense. That’s what we learn in school, and college. Except in college they add alot of technical terms so it sounds sooooo much better and smart but is still just the same fairy tale. I used to believe it. But then I thought about it for like ten minutes and it all fell apart. *shrug*
I’ve looked at alot of fossils, even before I was all Bible-thumpin’ ignorant ;) and still nothing. Asked teachers and looked up journals and manuals, googled, watched all the NOVA and National Geographic junk and read all the headlines of new discoveries and still lots of fun “maybe” “probably” “possibly” “could be” and other fun terms meaning “we really don’t know, but lets assume evolution is right and make it fit ok?” Transitional fossils simply aren’t there. With all honesty :) You’re still welcome to show me one :)
You act like I’m simply ignorant of evolution and if I didn’t grow up being brainwashed into believing in the boogy man I might have had a chance to go to school and get all learned up like ya’ll smart folks! :)) Well, actually I grew up atheist believing Darwin and evolution and then Hawking and STILL, even then, actually thinking about and considering what I was told instead of just blindly believing it, couldn’t ignore the HUGE GAPING HOLES in the THEORY of evolution. Too many unknowns, contradictions, and circular logic. So I RESEARCHED a bunch of other theories, including creationism, with an open mind to the possibility I might be wrong cause, ya know prejudice kills brain cells, and the whole creation/massive flood thing made a WHOLE lot more sense and really explained why all those annoying holes and dangling loose threads were in the evolutionary theory (it’s an unfinished fairy tale). You might try it, you might learn something, or question something, both very dangerous pass times :)
Any Darwinistic evolution biased site you send me to, if you actually did research at all and had such sites you frequent for the fun of learning, I have probably already been to a hundred times and have seen their short comings and blind insistence of excluding very real and very meaningful data simply because it doesn’t fit their pre-formatted storyline therefore disqualifying them from consideration as a seriously scientific source. I will try not to laugh at you though. The CHOICE to remain ignorant is not funny.
I’m guessing one of your favorite questions is “if man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?” — just how ignorant do you want to be seen as?
Yeah. Sure it is. And also, “Why, even though every single ‘missing link’ ever found has been debunked and/or rescinded, do they still keep insisting there is such a thing ‘somewhere out there’? Isn’t that unscientific? Couldn’t they also say the same thing about fairies and unicorns and waste millions looking for those?” ;p
And I could google it but I’ll just ask you and ignorantly make fun of your answer, what does “furphy” mean? :)