by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli
We welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com.
Our newest blog addition, Right to Life of Michigan, summarizes new polling information from Gallup regarding life issues. Most people favored restrictions and regulations on abortion, especially after the 1st trimester, but the majority also said Roe v. Wade was a good law – which means most people really don’t know Roe:
This is where pro-lifers and the importance of educating the public on pro-life issues need to come in. The main reason 58% of the public supports Roe v. Wade is because vast swaths of citizens have no clue what [the law] did.
If they knew it overturned abortion laws in 50 states and set up a framework which prevents states from banning late-term abortions, support for Roe would plummet.
SoapboxFive reveals Planned Parenthood and population alarmists aren’t really pro-choice – they are pro-abortion, as evidenced by their support for China’s oppressive One Child Policy. The “bodily autonomy” rhetoric rings hollow in the face of such barbarism.
Women’s Rights Without Frontiers doesn’t buy China’s promises to stop sex-selective abortions. Despite their past “efforts,” the gender gap has widened and forced abortion, sterilization, and infanticide have increased. In 2009, China hailed these tactics as a success in countering global warming, and CNN mogul Ted Turner agreed in 2010, suggesting the world should adopt China’s policies.
Parenting Freedom notes a horrifying New York Times article on the trend of selectively reducing twins to singletons for non-health reasons. Even those who describe themselves as pro-abortion seem to be uncomfortable with this kind of procedure.
Vital Signs points to a disturbing pro-euthanasia piece in the Huffington Post by April Bogle of Emory University, in which she suggests human society should take its cues from the rainforest on how to “clean up the mess” of caring for the sick and elderly.
Star Studded Super Step discusses reasons the Catholic Church should accept embryo adoption.
Pro Life Blogs links to Operation Rescue’s updates on the botched abortions of late-term abortionist Dr. Curtis Boyd in Albuquerque, New Mexico. In the video below, Boyd describes himself as an ordained Baptist pastor who “asks God to accept the spirit of a pregnancy back into heaven with love and understanding.” Also alarming is the calm voice of the nurse reporting complications of a “post first-term” procedure. That’s a new one:
Read fully and consider carefully before responding.
Do Not's
Blasphemy will not be tolerated.
No swearing or slandering of others.
No deliberate inflammatory comments.
Do not violate another’s privacy.
Do not threaten fellow commenters or anyone else.
No personal, racial, ethnic or gender-based insults/slurs.
Do not post private personal information about yourself or others.(ie addresses, phone #s)
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned. Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls
to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They
reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
“In the video below, Boyd describes himself as an ordained Baptist pastor who “asks God to accept the spirit of a pregnancy back into heaven with love and understanding.”
[Another ‘Broadway Church of the Half Saved’, preacher Luke Warm presiding.]
O God,
I pray that you will receive Boyd into heaven with the same ‘love and understanding’ he extended to the pre-natal children who were at the center of every pregnancy Boyd terminated.
Of course I know the pre-natal children whom Boyd killed, with his own blood stained hands, are pleading with YOU not to hold their innocent blood against him.
I pray that YOU will call out men and women in the community where Boyd lives who implement Matthew 18 and if Boyd does not repent I pray that they will publicly cut him off from the Body of Christ until such time that he acknowledges his sin against you and against your children and brings for fruits of repentance congrurent with that acknowledgement.
I pray that YOU will heal my heart that I might have some compassion for some one as perverted in his understanding and as barabaric in his actions as Boyd.
I fully realize that Boyd is a fellow human and as such is stupid.
But I know nothing is impossible with YOU and YOU can fix stupid.
and I know YOU do require some ‘honesty’ before YOU begin your work of transforming grace.
I pray that YOU answer only the prayers that are according to YOUR perfect will.
The above comments underscore, one again, the “pro-life” belief that only “pro-life” churches are the “true” faith. Once again, we see why the “pro-life” movement is considered a bunch of intolerant religious zealots. Funny how the religious right loves Israel because that’s where their Jesus is returning to – American Jews who are overwhelmingly pro-choice – not so much!
Vital Signs points to a disturbing pro-euthanasia piece in the Huffington Post by April Bogle of Emory University, in which she suggests human society should take its cues from the rainforest on how to “clean up the mess” of caring for the sick and elderly
Well, hey, if we want to cut the deficit, we need to cut entitlement programs (or so sayeth the Tea Party) and the bulk of the entitlements go to the sick and the elderly. Oh, right, the ”church” will take care of them. Oh, right, the churches that are going broke. Can’t have it both ways here. There’s no money for “entitlements.” Right?
Star Studded Super Step discusses reasons the Catholic Church should accept embryo adoption
Yes, yes. The Catholic bishops should set up embryo orphanages in the basements of their palatial residences. Perhaps they can work with the politicians to require that all Catholic girls between the ages of 18 and 30 be required, under penalty of mortal sin, to carry these embryos to term at which point they will be put into Catholic orphanages so that they can be raised to replenish the ranks of aging Catholic clergy. The possibilities are infinite. And if the little “babies” are held by the Catholic Church, they can be baptized and receive communion although that might be a little difficult given the logistics.
If you support the right to choose abortion, then it shouldn’t bother you if a woman chooses abortion just because she’s carrying a girl, or just to reduce twins to a singleton for non-health reasons. The very premise of a woman’s right to choose abortion is that any reason she may have for doing so is nobody’s business but her own. If you support the right to choose abortion, and you have a problem with the concept of a woman choosing abortion just because she’s carrying a girl, or just to reduce twins to one baby for non-health reasons, then you’re a hypocrite; and perhaps you should ask yourself why you have a problem with it. For example, “Why does it bother me that a girl would be ripped out of her mother’s womb simply for being a girl?” Or, “Why do I have a problem with the concept of randomly ripping out one twin from the womb?” Such are questions that might serve as a good start for searching your soul. That is, of course, if the concepts of sex-selective abortions and selective reduction abortions aren’t fine and dandy to you.
I, personally, don’t give a crap as to why anybody would want to have an abortion because it’s their business. So yeah, sex selection abortions and selective reduction abortions are just fine and dandy.
But let’s criminalize them and clog up already clogged up court system. Let’s put women and doctors in already overcrowded jails.
Then by all means, CC, carry on not giving a crap. You sound just a tad angry and caustic, by the way. You know, numerous post-abortion healing resources are available out there. And those who avail themselves to such resources will find that it’s the pro-lifers who are welcoming them with open arms, interestingly enough.
But seriously, folks. If I were in charge of it all, the day that abortion becomes illegal again, most post-abortive mothers would be given amnesty for the past. That would be my course of action, and many of the pro-lifers I talk to concur with me on that. However, I would extend absolutely no amnesty to abortionists or their escorts. And I mean that, sincerely.
I do wonder if some of those escorts relish the murder of children just so they can stick it to the pro-lifers. Interesting. I’m willing to die for my cause, but cowardly abortion fans are willing to kill the tiniest most defenseless people for their cause. Bullying, it’s what abortion fans do.
Is April Bogle of Emory University involved with the TEA party?
Are abortion advocates ever capable of rational discussion of the issues?
They often seem to make irrational, hysterical statements intended to demonize people who disagree with them.
Or is CC a “pro-life” plant who is pretending to be an irrational, hysterical pro-abort with the goal of making pro-choice advocates appear to be emotionally unstable?
Boyd is about as obedient to Christ as someone who runs around killing people so they can “meet Jesus.”
CC – remember how you get all upset because as a “trained professional counselor”, you don’t like when other people counsel pregnant women with factual information? IIRC, you think they don’t belong to your exclusive clan.
It’s like that with those who follow Christ.
We don’t believe Boyd is true follower of Jesus Christ, because he follows your religion, sacrificing to your gods.
Most people favored restrictions and regulations on abortion, especially after the 1st trimester, but the majority also said Roe v. Wade was a good law – which means most people really don’t know Roe:
I do think most people favor restrictions on abortion at some point during gestation. ____
This is where pro-lifers and the importance of educating the public on pro-life issues need to come in. The main reason 58% of the public supports Roe v. Wade is because vast swaths of citizens have no clue what [the law] did.
That’s a far-fetched conclusion. ____
If they knew it overturned abortion laws in 50 states and set up a framework which prevents states from banning late-term abortions, support for Roe would plummet.
Did it really overturn laws in all 50 states? Maybe it did, but I doubt that that, alone would mean the conclusion is true. Actually, the restrictions that almost all states have – and the ones that don’t are because ludicrous attempts at circumventing Roe were attempted, or because no even-remotely sensible language has been used – are okay with Roe, and not really being contested, currently, as far as I know.
The above comments underscore, one again, the “pro-life” belief that only “pro-life” churches are the “true” faith.
CC,, you’re an atheist, remember? What gives YOU the authority to decide what is the “true faith”? Yeah, I know, one is just as good as the other to you, because you’re apparently also a devout relativist. So from your point of view, you’ve just written a completely meaningless comment.
Like it or not, there is Christian teaching. It comes from Christ and the historical Christian churches have taught it for 2,000 years. Some Christians of modern times haves caved in to secularism and relativism abandoned these beliefs. So there is credible reason to think they are no longer Christian, no matter what they call themselves. It seems to me that Christians who treasure the original teachings have the right to say who holds to the true faith and who does not.
Lori, truly – no disrespect here nor am I saying that certain beliefs are “wrong,” in any objective way.
I will say that “Christian teaching,” – that which had been unchanged to a good deal, over the past couple thousand years, is currently undergoing somewhat of a big change – the notion that science and faith are compatible is taking some hits. Many evangelicals are now saying that there really were no historical Adam and Eve – the mapping of the human genome makes it clear that we (humans) came from a primate population in very large numbers, and that it’s not possible we came from two individuals. For the “Adam and Eve” story to be true, there would have to be astounding mutation rates, rates which are conclusively ruled out by what we know.
“Vital Signs points to a disturbing pro-euthanasia piece in the Huffington Post by April Bogle of Emory University, in which she suggests human society should take its cues from the rainforest on how to “clean up the mess” of caring for the sick and elderly.”
“It’s simply unnatural to encourage old people to live on well past their functionality; I’m convinced of this now more than ever since I returned from the rainforest of Costa Rica’s Osa Peninsula. This may sound like a heartless statement, but it is just the opposite.
For more than 10 years I’ve watched my father — a brilliant college administrator and professor of history, a progressive thinker and agent of social change, a man who loved to ride his bike for exercise, worked in his rock garden for meditative therapy, grilled hamburgers for his wife and two daughters and wrote stories about his past for fun — deteriorate into someone who is lost, scared, immobile…
There are the smells that you can’t hide no matter how attentive the staff. And the sounds. The jabbering, moaning and crying is a constant, like the ocean, wave upon wave. And then, of course, there’s the television that’s always on, even though everyone knows TV is not a viable activity for people with late-stage Alzheimer’s.
In a nursing home, there is no system for life and death except the endless waiting. The rainforest, on the other hand, has it all worked out. Obviously it is a brutal plan, but I argue no more horrendous than the “care” people endure in a nursing home. In the rainforest, everything is about survival — from being eaten, from lack of sun or water, from limited nutritious soil. Yet everything, except perhaps the big cats and big snakes, gets eaten. Everything dies. And the remains are taken care of by four different kinds of vultures and thousands of other natural recyclers.
Where would we draw the line for ourselves? Past a point, where would life be worth living?
No CC…
Your response to the above comments reflects your intolerance of Christians/Christianity.
May you someday come to know THE TRUTH (Jesus) before it’s too late.
Ninek – you don’t need to grant them amnesty. Our constitution already guarantees (like actually guarantees in words that can be read, not imagined) that people can’t be retroactively punished for behavior that was legal at the time.
Doug
I knew a lady she was a nurse, her mom had that dreaded disease I think it’s called getting older anyway she lovingly took care of her mom and I knew another lady that did the same for her mother-in-law. I also seen two different families one the man was a carpenter and his elderly mom and sister lived with them. What really amazes me about the eutanasia crowd is that to hear them speak or read what they’ve written you get a sense that their parents really loved and took good care of them. Why is it when the parents have done their job and usually done it well that they’re treated with such lack of gratitude. I think the analogy of the rainforests is a good one and to those who would like to base their how to care for the elderly program on the rainforest I believe they should be parachuted right into the midst of that beautiful spendor and told good luck. The line for me is when God calls me home. One more story that’s how I learn best. There was a lady from the town that I’m from she worked in a nursing home. She decided that she could do a better job of taking care of an individual than the nursing home was. She got permission from the mans’ family and did just that. And took care of him until he passed away. Two different people one saw something that she could fix took the initiative and did just that. Those are real heroes not people who are afraid if mom and dad live too they themselves may be inconvenienced. Your right about nursing homes though they need some serious overhaul. Nursing homes have some of the strongest lobbyists that’s why there is so little change.
Well, we have here the opinion of one scientist. How does it square with the idea of Mitochondrial Eve, which says it’s provable that we can trace the descent of everyone living today from one woman in Africa some 200,000 years ago, though there was a large population of other homo sapiens alive at the time? And ME was only our most recent common ancestor. So isn’t it possible that in principle a large human population and one common ancestor isn’t impossible, and that there may have been an original couple from whom we are all descended even farther back?
As you might know, I am Catholic, not Evangelical, and I’m not bound as a Catholic to an absolutely literal view of Genesis. What I am bound to believe is that
1) original sin is real; there is no doubt there is, because we all experience it’s effects in our lives. We do what we don’t want to do, and refrain from actions we can see are harmful even with the greatest difficulty. (I don’t know how evolutionary scientists get around the fact that we are so self-destructive, which goes clean against our survival instinct as a species).
2) An original couple from among the first humans sinned. There are no descendants of theirs to whom this sin was not passed down “by propagation, not imitation.” Pope Pius XII writes:
“For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.” (Humani Generis, 37).
This is not to say there might not have been other human beings before or at the same time as Adam and Eve who did not sin. (“True men” or “true human beings” means they must have been endowed with rational human souls; there may well have been beings biologically identical to human beings alive at the same time, to whom, however, God didn’t give human souls, though every human descended from the first couple must have had rational souls created by God).
I haven’t seen any scientific theories yet that would rule such a scenario out – though I will willingly admit I am no scientist.
I do believe that science and faith are perfectly compatible. However, I’m sure that the majority of today’s scientists, if they come across a theory that points to the compatibility of human origins with Christian beliefs, will drop that theory like a hot potato. Because they aren’t broad-minded enough.
(Please, I am not aiming to get into an argument over Genesis with evangelicals or anyone else tonight. Too much work to do!)
If I were in charge of it all, the day that abortion becomes illegal again, most post-abortive mothers would be given amnesty for the past. That would be my course of action, and many of the pro-lifers I talk to concur with me on that. However, I would extend absolutely no amnesty to abortionists or their escorts. And I mean that, sincerely.
While it is pleasant to imagine abortionists getting the legal comeuppance they so richly deserve, that is also legally impossible. You can not pass a law criminalizing an action and make it retroactively apply to instances of that action committed when it was legal. This is called ex post facto and is specifically forbidden by the Constitution.
Given what we know about abortionists and their respect for the law, however, I think they’ll give us plenty of opportunities to nab them after a law is passed.
“CC
At what point in gestation is it permissable to allow the baby to live even if the mom objects. In your opinion.”
I would say at no point of gestation - but the laws, which vary from state to state, have a different standard.
“It seems to me that Christians who treasure the original teachings have the right to say who holds to the true faith and who does not. ”
That’s funny. Many Protestant churches claim that they are the one following the “original teachings” – Reformation – helloo. But they don’t make the claim of being “one, true, church” which is what your religion claims and which made it very difficult for Catholic kids in the 50’s to have non Catholic friends because invariably the Catholic kid would tell the non Catholic kid that their faith was false and they were going to hell – something my grammar school nuns taught us on a regular basis. Do they still teach that? But as you say, you “true” Christians have a right to think what you want. It doesn’t mean it’s true!
“Given what we know about abortionists and their respect for the law, however, I think they’ll give us plenty of opportunities to nab them after a law is passed”
And meanwhile, we in the pro-choice states will be providing abortions for the rest of the country. Just like Canada and Europe used to do. If women can’t travel, that’s unfortunate but it will boost the population in sparsely populated states and provide lots of nice babies available for adoption for those who are now going to China and Russia. So there’s something for everybody!
CC, the Catholic Church does not teach that everyone else is going to hell. Your nuns were ignorant. Why go to the actual sources of Catholic belief, like the Catechism of the Catholic Church? The teachings of Vatican II? Both are free online. Even historically, the Church has taught this against Fr. Feeney and his followers. Your need to hold on to your prejudices is just astonishing.
Many Protestants (maybe not the type you knew where you lived) are quick to say that all Catholics are going to hell, because they are affected with equal ignorance. All these divisions in the Church are an unfortunate legacy of sin. But it does not affect the truths that Christ handed down to his apostles and that are still believed among his true followers.
The point is that those teachings are the ones that were believed from the beginning. Christian works from the first century, like the Didache, proclaim the Church’s teaching against abortion. Any Christian who believes this, Catholic or Protestant, is believing the original teachings of the Church. The others are departing from it.
You are right that claiming or believing something doesn’t necessarily make it true. You actually have to investigate the claims. Why not do it?
Prayers are needed in Indiana…
High winds associated? with a severe thundersto?rm caused the grandstand? stage at the Indiana State Fairgrounds to collaspe forward into the crowd prior to a scheduled Sugarland concert during the Indiana State Fair. Over a dozen individuals are reported injured (2 are reported to have a severe head trauma) and four fatalities have been reported thus far. Also, it’s been declared a level 1 emergency by the Department of Homeland Security :-(
Lori: Well, we have here the opinion of one scientist. How does it square with the idea of Mitochondrial Eve, which says it’s provable that we can trace the descent of everyone living today from one woman in Africa some 200,000 years ago, though there was a large population of other homo sapiens alive at the time? And ME was only our most recent common ancestor. So isn’t it possible that in principle a large human population and one common ancestor isn’t impossible, and that there may have been an original couple from whom we are all descended even farther back?
Lori, on the mitochondrial DNA – I don’t know. It, certainly is a different deal than our own nuclear DNA. However, even going with the 200,000 year figure and adding some for the regression back to when Adam & Eve would be then postulated, we’d be much farther back than the 6,000 or 10,000 years etc., figures we see from many Bible literalists.
“but the majority also said Roe v. Wade was a good law – which means most people really don’t know Roe:”
Anyone who writes that Roe v. Wade is a ‘law’ is ipso facto incapable of commenting on it intelligently. Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court ruling, not a law. Try looking for Schoolhouse Rock videos on YouTube if you don’t understand the difference.
But Lisa dontcha know? Roe V Wade is THE LAW OF THE LAND!!!
1 likes
Who Is Jill Stanek?
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.
by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli
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.
Poor man. I don’t think he really understands the character of God.
“In the video below, Boyd describes himself as an ordained Baptist pastor who “asks God to accept the spirit of a pregnancy back into heaven with love and understanding.”
[Another ‘Broadway Church of the Half Saved’, preacher Luke Warm presiding.]
O God,
I pray that you will receive Boyd into heaven with the same ‘love and understanding’ he extended to the pre-natal children who were at the center of every pregnancy Boyd terminated.
Of course I know the pre-natal children whom Boyd killed, with his own blood stained hands, are pleading with YOU not to hold their innocent blood against him.
I pray that YOU will call out men and women in the community where Boyd lives who implement Matthew 18 and if Boyd does not repent I pray that they will publicly cut him off from the Body of Christ until such time that he acknowledges his sin against you and against your children and brings for fruits of repentance congrurent with that acknowledgement.
I pray that YOU will heal my heart that I might have some compassion for some one as perverted in his understanding and as barabaric in his actions as Boyd.
I fully realize that Boyd is a fellow human and as such is stupid.
But I know nothing is impossible with YOU and YOU can fix stupid.
and I know YOU do require some ‘honesty’ before YOU begin your work of transforming grace.
I pray that YOU answer only the prayers that are according to YOUR perfect will.
your imperfect son
ken the birther
What “church” is he ordained in…the Westboro Baptist (cult)?
Delusional people need prayer, too.
The above comments underscore, one again, the “pro-life” belief that only “pro-life” churches are the “true” faith. Once again, we see why the “pro-life” movement is considered a bunch of intolerant religious zealots. Funny how the religious right loves Israel because that’s where their Jesus is returning to – American Jews who are overwhelmingly pro-choice – not so much!
Vital Signs points to a disturbing pro-euthanasia piece in the Huffington Post by April Bogle of Emory University, in which she suggests human society should take its cues from the rainforest on how to “clean up the mess” of caring for the sick and elderly
Well, hey, if we want to cut the deficit, we need to cut entitlement programs (or so sayeth the Tea Party) and the bulk of the entitlements go to the sick and the elderly. Oh, right, the ”church” will take care of them. Oh, right, the churches that are going broke. Can’t have it both ways here. There’s no money for “entitlements.” Right?
Star Studded Super Step discusses reasons the Catholic Church should accept embryo adoption
Yes, yes. The Catholic bishops should set up embryo orphanages in the basements of their palatial residences. Perhaps they can work with the politicians to require that all Catholic girls between the ages of 18 and 30 be required, under penalty of mortal sin, to carry these embryos to term at which point they will be put into Catholic orphanages so that they can be raised to replenish the ranks of aging Catholic clergy. The possibilities are infinite. And if the little “babies” are held by the Catholic Church, they can be baptized and receive communion although that might be a little difficult given the logistics.
If you support the right to choose abortion, then it shouldn’t bother you if a woman chooses abortion just because she’s carrying a girl, or just to reduce twins to a singleton for non-health reasons. The very premise of a woman’s right to choose abortion is that any reason she may have for doing so is nobody’s business but her own. If you support the right to choose abortion, and you have a problem with the concept of a woman choosing abortion just because she’s carrying a girl, or just to reduce twins to one baby for non-health reasons, then you’re a hypocrite; and perhaps you should ask yourself why you have a problem with it. For example, “Why does it bother me that a girl would be ripped out of her mother’s womb simply for being a girl?” Or, “Why do I have a problem with the concept of randomly ripping out one twin from the womb?” Such are questions that might serve as a good start for searching your soul. That is, of course, if the concepts of sex-selective abortions and selective reduction abortions aren’t fine and dandy to you.
I, personally, don’t give a crap as to why anybody would want to have an abortion because it’s their business. So yeah, sex selection abortions and selective reduction abortions are just fine and dandy.
But let’s criminalize them and clog up already clogged up court system. Let’s put women and doctors in already overcrowded jails.
CC
At what point in gestation is it permissable to allow the baby to live even if the mom objects. In your opinion.
Let’s also put the butchers’ escorts in jail for conspiracy to commit murder and accessory to the crime. :>) !!!
Then by all means, CC, carry on not giving a crap. You sound just a tad angry and caustic, by the way. You know, numerous post-abortion healing resources are available out there. And those who avail themselves to such resources will find that it’s the pro-lifers who are welcoming them with open arms, interestingly enough.
But seriously, folks. If I were in charge of it all, the day that abortion becomes illegal again, most post-abortive mothers would be given amnesty for the past. That would be my course of action, and many of the pro-lifers I talk to concur with me on that. However, I would extend absolutely no amnesty to abortionists or their escorts. And I mean that, sincerely.
I do wonder if some of those escorts relish the murder of children just so they can stick it to the pro-lifers. Interesting. I’m willing to die for my cause, but cowardly abortion fans are willing to kill the tiniest most defenseless people for their cause. Bullying, it’s what abortion fans do.
Is April Bogle of Emory University involved with the TEA party?
Are abortion advocates ever capable of rational discussion of the issues?
They often seem to make irrational, hysterical statements intended to demonize people who disagree with them.
Or is CC a “pro-life” plant who is pretending to be an irrational, hysterical pro-abort with the goal of making pro-choice advocates appear to be emotionally unstable?
Boyd is about as obedient to Christ as someone who runs around killing people so they can “meet Jesus.”
CC – remember how you get all upset because as a “trained professional counselor”, you don’t like when other people counsel pregnant women with factual information? IIRC, you think they don’t belong to your exclusive clan.
It’s like that with those who follow Christ.
We don’t believe Boyd is true follower of Jesus Christ, because he follows your religion, sacrificing to your gods.
Most people favored restrictions and regulations on abortion, especially after the 1st trimester, but the majority also said Roe v. Wade was a good law – which means most people really don’t know Roe:
I do think most people favor restrictions on abortion at some point during gestation.
____
This is where pro-lifers and the importance of educating the public on pro-life issues need to come in. The main reason 58% of the public supports Roe v. Wade is because vast swaths of citizens have no clue what [the law] did.
That’s a far-fetched conclusion.
____
If they knew it overturned abortion laws in 50 states and set up a framework which prevents states from banning late-term abortions, support for Roe would plummet.
Did it really overturn laws in all 50 states? Maybe it did, but I doubt that that, alone would mean the conclusion is true. Actually, the restrictions that almost all states have – and the ones that don’t are because ludicrous attempts at circumventing Roe were attempted, or because no even-remotely sensible language has been used – are okay with Roe, and not really being contested, currently, as far as I know.
The above comments underscore, one again, the “pro-life” belief that only “pro-life” churches are the “true” faith.
CC,, you’re an atheist, remember? What gives YOU the authority to decide what is the “true faith”? Yeah, I know, one is just as good as the other to you, because you’re apparently also a devout relativist. So from your point of view, you’ve just written a completely meaningless comment.
Like it or not, there is Christian teaching. It comes from Christ and the historical Christian churches have taught it for 2,000 years. Some Christians of modern times haves caved in to secularism and relativism abandoned these beliefs. So there is credible reason to think they are no longer Christian, no matter what they call themselves. It seems to me that Christians who treasure the original teachings have the right to say who holds to the true faith and who does not.
Lori, truly – no disrespect here nor am I saying that certain beliefs are “wrong,” in any objective way.
I will say that “Christian teaching,” – that which had been unchanged to a good deal, over the past couple thousand years, is currently undergoing somewhat of a big change – the notion that science and faith are compatible is taking some hits. Many evangelicals are now saying that there really were no historical Adam and Eve – the mapping of the human genome makes it clear that we (humans) came from a primate population in very large numbers, and that it’s not possible we came from two individuals. For the “Adam and Eve” story to be true, there would have to be astounding mutation rates, rates which are conclusively ruled out by what we know.
“Vital Signs points to a disturbing pro-euthanasia piece in the Huffington Post by April Bogle of Emory University, in which she suggests human society should take its cues from the rainforest on how to “clean up the mess” of caring for the sick and elderly.”
“It’s simply unnatural to encourage old people to live on well past their functionality; I’m convinced of this now more than ever since I returned from the rainforest of Costa Rica’s Osa Peninsula. This may sound like a heartless statement, but it is just the opposite.
For more than 10 years I’ve watched my father — a brilliant college administrator and professor of history, a progressive thinker and agent of social change, a man who loved to ride his bike for exercise, worked in his rock garden for meditative therapy, grilled hamburgers for his wife and two daughters and wrote stories about his past for fun — deteriorate into someone who is lost, scared, immobile…
There are the smells that you can’t hide no matter how attentive the staff. And the sounds. The jabbering, moaning and crying is a constant, like the ocean, wave upon wave. And then, of course, there’s the television that’s always on, even though everyone knows TV is not a viable activity for people with late-stage Alzheimer’s.
In a nursing home, there is no system for life and death except the endless waiting. The rainforest, on the other hand, has it all worked out. Obviously it is a brutal plan, but I argue no more horrendous than the “care” people endure in a nursing home. In the rainforest, everything is about survival — from being eaten, from lack of sun or water, from limited nutritious soil. Yet everything, except perhaps the big cats and big snakes, gets eaten. Everything dies. And the remains are taken care of by four different kinds of vultures and thousands of other natural recyclers.
Where would we draw the line for ourselves? Past a point, where would life be worth living?
No CC…
Your response to the above comments reflects your intolerance of Christians/Christianity.
May you someday come to know THE TRUTH (Jesus) before it’s too late.
Ninek – you don’t need to grant them amnesty. Our constitution already guarantees (like actually guarantees in words that can be read, not imagined) that people can’t be retroactively punished for behavior that was legal at the time.
Ninek is pretty grouchy about some of this stuff….
Doug
I knew a lady she was a nurse, her mom had that dreaded disease I think it’s called getting older anyway she lovingly took care of her mom and I knew another lady that did the same for her mother-in-law. I also seen two different families one the man was a carpenter and his elderly mom and sister lived with them. What really amazes me about the eutanasia crowd is that to hear them speak or read what they’ve written you get a sense that their parents really loved and took good care of them. Why is it when the parents have done their job and usually done it well that they’re treated with such lack of gratitude. I think the analogy of the rainforests is a good one and to those who would like to base their how to care for the elderly program on the rainforest I believe they should be parachuted right into the midst of that beautiful spendor and told good luck. The line for me is when God calls me home. One more story that’s how I learn best. There was a lady from the town that I’m from she worked in a nursing home. She decided that she could do a better job of taking care of an individual than the nursing home was. She got permission from the mans’ family and did just that. And took care of him until he passed away. Two different people one saw something that she could fix took the initiative and did just that. Those are real heroes not people who are afraid if mom and dad live too they themselves may be inconvenienced. Your right about nursing homes though they need some serious overhaul. Nursing homes have some of the strongest lobbyists that’s why there is so little change.
typo:
she’s right about nursing homes.
Doug,
I was talking about Christian moral laws, not literal interpretations of Bible stories, so nice attempt to change the subject. However:
I suspect you were reading this story, which I also noticed just today.
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957812/evangelicals-question-the-existence-of-adam-and-eve?ft=1&f=1016
Well, we have here the opinion of one scientist. How does it square with the idea of Mitochondrial Eve, which says it’s provable that we can trace the descent of everyone living today from one woman in Africa some 200,000 years ago, though there was a large population of other homo sapiens alive at the time? And ME was only our most recent common ancestor. So isn’t it possible that in principle a large human population and one common ancestor isn’t impossible, and that there may have been an original couple from whom we are all descended even farther back?
As you might know, I am Catholic, not Evangelical, and I’m not bound as a Catholic to an absolutely literal view of Genesis. What I am bound to believe is that
1) original sin is real; there is no doubt there is, because we all experience it’s effects in our lives. We do what we don’t want to do, and refrain from actions we can see are harmful even with the greatest difficulty. (I don’t know how evolutionary scientists get around the fact that we are so self-destructive, which goes clean against our survival instinct as a species).
2) An original couple from among the first humans sinned. There are no descendants of theirs to whom this sin was not passed down “by propagation, not imitation.” Pope Pius XII writes:
“For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.” (Humani Generis, 37).
This is not to say there might not have been other human beings before or at the same time as Adam and Eve who did not sin. (“True men” or “true human beings” means they must have been endowed with rational human souls; there may well have been beings biologically identical to human beings alive at the same time, to whom, however, God didn’t give human souls, though every human descended from the first couple must have had rational souls created by God).
I haven’t seen any scientific theories yet that would rule such a scenario out – though I will willingly admit I am no scientist.
I do believe that science and faith are perfectly compatible. However, I’m sure that the majority of today’s scientists, if they come across a theory that points to the compatibility of human origins with Christian beliefs, will drop that theory like a hot potato. Because they aren’t broad-minded enough.
(Please, I am not aiming to get into an argument over Genesis with evangelicals or anyone else tonight. Too much work to do!)
If I were in charge of it all, the day that abortion becomes illegal again, most post-abortive mothers would be given amnesty for the past. That would be my course of action, and many of the pro-lifers I talk to concur with me on that. However, I would extend absolutely no amnesty to abortionists or their escorts. And I mean that, sincerely.
While it is pleasant to imagine abortionists getting the legal comeuppance they so richly deserve, that is also legally impossible. You can not pass a law criminalizing an action and make it retroactively apply to instances of that action committed when it was legal. This is called ex post facto and is specifically forbidden by the Constitution.
Given what we know about abortionists and their respect for the law, however, I think they’ll give us plenty of opportunities to nab them after a law is passed.
“CC
At what point in gestation is it permissable to allow the baby to live even if the mom objects. In your opinion.”
I would say at no point of gestation - but the laws, which vary from state to state, have a different standard.
“It seems to me that Christians who treasure the original teachings have the right to say who holds to the true faith and who does not. ”
That’s funny. Many Protestant churches claim that they are the one following the “original teachings” – Reformation – helloo. But they don’t make the claim of being “one, true, church” which is what your religion claims and which made it very difficult for Catholic kids in the 50’s to have non Catholic friends because invariably the Catholic kid would tell the non Catholic kid that their faith was false and they were going to hell – something my grammar school nuns taught us on a regular basis. Do they still teach that? But as you say, you “true” Christians have a right to think what you want. It doesn’t mean it’s true!
“Given what we know about abortionists and their respect for the law, however, I think they’ll give us plenty of opportunities to nab them after a law is passed”
And meanwhile, we in the pro-choice states will be providing abortions for the rest of the country. Just like Canada and Europe used to do. If women can’t travel, that’s unfortunate but it will boost the population in sparsely populated states and provide lots of nice babies available for adoption for those who are now going to China and Russia. So there’s something for everybody!
CC, the Catholic Church does not teach that everyone else is going to hell. Your nuns were ignorant. Why go to the actual sources of Catholic belief, like the Catechism of the Catholic Church? The teachings of Vatican II? Both are free online. Even historically, the Church has taught this against Fr. Feeney and his followers. Your need to hold on to your prejudices is just astonishing.
Many Protestants (maybe not the type you knew where you lived) are quick to say that all Catholics are going to hell, because they are affected with equal ignorance. All these divisions in the Church are an unfortunate legacy of sin. But it does not affect the truths that Christ handed down to his apostles and that are still believed among his true followers.
The point is that those teachings are the ones that were believed from the beginning. Christian works from the first century, like the Didache, proclaim the Church’s teaching against abortion. Any Christian who believes this, Catholic or Protestant, is believing the original teachings of the Church. The others are departing from it.
You are right that claiming or believing something doesn’t necessarily make it true. You actually have to investigate the claims. Why not do it?
Prayers are needed in Indiana…
High winds associated? with a severe thundersto?rm caused the grandstand? stage at the Indiana State Fairgrounds to collaspe forward into the crowd prior to a scheduled Sugarland concert during the Indiana State Fair. Over a dozen individuals are reported injured (2 are reported to have a severe head trauma) and four fatalities have been reported thus far. Also, it’s been declared a level 1 emergency by the Department of Homeland Security :-(
Praying.
Lori: Well, we have here the opinion of one scientist. How does it square with the idea of Mitochondrial Eve, which says it’s provable that we can trace the descent of everyone living today from one woman in Africa some 200,000 years ago, though there was a large population of other homo sapiens alive at the time? And ME was only our most recent common ancestor. So isn’t it possible that in principle a large human population and one common ancestor isn’t impossible, and that there may have been an original couple from whom we are all descended even farther back?
Lori, on the mitochondrial DNA – I don’t know. It, certainly is a different deal than our own nuclear DNA. However, even going with the 200,000 year figure and adding some for the regression back to when Adam & Eve would be then postulated, we’d be much farther back than the 6,000 or 10,000 years etc., figures we see from many Bible literalists.
“but the majority also said Roe v. Wade was a good law – which means most people really don’t know Roe:”
Anyone who writes that Roe v. Wade is a ‘law’ is ipso facto incapable of commenting on it intelligently. Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court ruling, not a law. Try looking for Schoolhouse Rock videos on YouTube if you don’t understand the difference.
Hilarious!!
I’m just a bill. Sitting on Capitol Hill.
But Lisa dontcha know? Roe V Wade is THE LAW OF THE LAND!!!