(Prolifer)ations 11-11-10
by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN
- Big Blue Wave points out that the attempt to destigmatize abortion via Twitter will not work because “when you apply logic in a dispassionate manner to the whole business of abortion, it’s clear that it’s the taking of human life, and if morality or human rights mean anything, the taking of human life is wrong.”
- Wesley J. Smith was quoted on the issue of ESCR is former President George W. Bush’s new book. Congratulations! Sometimes we feel like we labor in a wasteland with no one listening, and then we are encouraged to find we truly can make a difference.
- Real Choice lauds NJ Gov. Chris Christie for defunding Planned Parenthood. Apparently, “the Governor insisted that prescription drug coverage was more important than funding other people’s sex lives.”
- Life Training Institute’s Scott Klusendorf shares notes and videos of his training recently done at Biola University. This is information we can all use, regardless of our public speaking abilities.
- ProLifeBlogs has a press release regarding RI Governor-elect Lincoln Chafee (I) who has appointed a transition team including an abortionist who performed illegal abortions in South America.
- Stand for Life shares the symptoms of post-abortion stress as presented by Theresa Burke of Rachel’s Vineyard:
Nov.11, 2010 3:30 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.
PLEASE stop insinuating that women are the victims of abortion. Please. There is no such thing as post-abortion syndrome, and even if there was, it wouldn’t matter.
Do you mean that abortion would still be wrong even if women did not suffer PAS, Austin?
I love Chris Christie. I love him!
Austin, sorry. Seen it with my own eyes. PAS does exist. I guess my friend nearly drank herself to death after her abortion because she was pleased with her choice?
Austin,
Do tell.
Please explain how my PAS was not PAS. Thanks.
If I was a blogger, I’m sure being quoted by an idiot drunk in a book that he didn’t even write himself would be the height of my blogging career.
“Please explain how my PAS was not PAS. Thanks.”
Last I checked, the Diagnostics and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders does not recognize any such condition as “post abortion syndrome”.
“Joan” is it??
Are you a man?
Joan, maybe not, but at one time the APS described homosexuality as a mental disorder. So are all your views dictated by what is in a manual?
“Joan, maybe not, but at one time the APS described homosexuality as a mental disorder. So are all your views dictated by what is in a manual?”
To the extent that they can be positively diagnosed as an actual condition? Yes. That doesn’t mean the DSM is some kind of transcendent, eternal authority on all matters of mental disorder. However, every condition that the DSM currently acknowledges has been vigorously studied and tested by experts in their relevant fields, which is why the DSM is authoritative. So no, I’m not willing to accept some novel “syndrome” as a legitimate, unique condition, based on the accounts of a few people.
Last I checked, the Diagnostics and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders does not recognize any such condition as “post abortion syndrome”.
And I care because???
Because, “Carla” (if that is your real name, and you’re not actually a spy for the Red Chinese), you don’t really have any standing to claim that you suffer or suffered from a “syndrome” that doesn’t exist. Oh, look at me, the hostility I’ve faced here has caused me to contract “harried blog commenter syndrome! the horror!”
“Joan, maybe not, but at one time the APS described homosexuality as a mental disorder. So are all your views dictated by what is in a manual?”
Current psychiatry is informed by the current version of the DSM IV. It is based on peer reviewed studies by top professionals in the field. If post abortion stress syndrome is considered, after careful analysis, to be part of an axis for mental disorders, it will be included in the next version. Of course, if it isn’t, the anti-choicers will say that it’s just part of a baby killing conspiracy. But as Carla says, they really don’t care one way or other. They believe what they want to believe, regardless of the actual evidence which, at present, does not support their position which is based on “evidence” garnered by those who support an anti-choice philosophy.
Bobby Bambino: Do you mean that abortion would still be wrong even if women did not suffer PAS, Austin?
Women don’t suffer from “post-abortion syndrome.” Abortion is nonetheless murder.
Sydney M: Austin, sorry. Seen it with my own eyes. PAS does exist. I guess my friend nearly drank herself to death after her abortion because she was pleased with her choice?
Someone may regret taking action x, that does not mean there exists a psychological condition called “post-x syndrome.”
Many women regret putting their children up for adoption, and the research indicates that adoption, unlike abortion, is inherently psychologically traumatic. Does this mean adoption should be outlawed? Certainly not. In fact, the evidence indicates that giving birth is more physically and psychologically detrimental to the well-being of women than abortion.
Carla: Austin,
Do tell.
Please explain how my PAS was not PAS.
Thanks.
You had feelings of guilt, which is perfectly normal after taking an action you later realize directly killed your child. “PAS” also enables you to view yourself as a victim, which probably helps a lot with the whole “guilt” thing..
joan: Oh, look at me, the hostility I’ve faced here has caused me to contract “harried blog commenter syndrome! the horror!”
WIN.
If a woman says she’s stressed because of an abortion, I’m going to believe her. Period.
~ ~ ~
Joan and Austin,
Two peas in a pod with a case of PAE – post abortive euphoria.
DD and joan,
Do some googling. You will find the DSM is in a state of constant revision with “disorders” being continually added, subtracted, and compacted.
Let’s see, children who throw too many tantrums, (don’t they all?) suffer “temper dysregulation with dysphoria”. I remember when they were called spoiled brats.
Teenagers who are especially eccentric may be candidates for “psychosis risk syndrome”. I remember when “eccentricity” was just part of being a teenager.
Men way too interested in sex may be suffering from “hypersexual dysfunction”. In my day that was called adolescence.
As of February 10, 2010 these were only among dozens of proposals being unveiled by the APS in the first complete revision of the DSM since 1994.
This has been the bible of psychiatry for half a century. What field is more fluid and non exact than the field of psychiatry? Remember when schizophrenia resulted from too early toilet training and autism from poor mothering? Interesting how fathers were never held in any way accountable for a the psychiatric problems of their offspring, don’t ya think?
This is the book you folks hold in such reverence?
So Austin, is my PMS all in my head too? My husband notices I get cranky before that time of the month. I don’t think I am acting cranky at all. He will smirk at me and raise an eyebrow and say “Is Aunt Flo coming soon?” and when I do the math…well shucks, yes, she is. And it annoys me that my husband picks up on it. PMS has been recognized by the medical community. But I guess you’ll remain unconvinced.
“This is the book you folks hold in such reverence”
Where did I say that I held the DSM IV “in reverence?” I said that “it informs” mental health counseling. I agree that it is an ongoing process. If post abortion stress syndrome is found to be a valid diagnosis of a “disorder”, it will be dealt with in a professional and scientifically based manner. And if it is a diagnosis, it has no bearing on whether abortion should be criminalized. If a woman is having problems relating to her abortion, then she should, by all means, see an unbiased counselor.
And Sydney, PMS isn’t considered a “mental disorder” which require psychiatric intervention. If it impedes functioning, a psych evaluation is done to determine if there are other problems.
DD… my husband would disagree with you. lol.
DD,
So you agree then that the DSM may not always be the most informative source and thus certainly not the final word as to whether a “disorder” does or does not exist. Simply because a “disorder” is not listed doesn’t mean its non-existent, just as the fact a “disorder” is listed doesn’t mean it does in fact exist.
“So you agree then that the DSM may not always be the most informative source and thus certainly not the final word as to whether a “disorder” does or does not exist.”
A mental or psychiatric “disorder” is just a professional designation for a behavioral pattern that has been observed empirically to the extent that the pattern can be repeatedly distinguished and recognized and a generalization made. In this case, whatever Carla and others are trying to get at with “post abortion syndrome” would probably be diagnosed as clinical depression, the diagnosis of which is of course not dependent on its cause. Someone could conceivably experience a sustained behavioral pattern consistent with clinical depression as a result of their favorite sports team losing a championship, but that wouldn’t make them sufferers of “post Super Bowl loss syndrome”.
If a woman is having problems relating to her abortion, then she should, by all means, see an unbiased counselor.
LOL. You mean a pro-choice counselor, right?
“LOL. You mean a pro-choice counselor, right?”
If the only alternative is a “pro-life” counselor who would go on a tangent about how abortion is murder like the people here do, then yeah, a pro-choice counselor would probably be the wise choice.
Joan,
Since pro-life counselors are held to the same standards as pro-choice counselors, I don’t believe a professional pro-life counselor is any more likely to discuss murder with their patient in the same breath as abortion than a pro-choice one is. Perhaps one will comment here….
Austin,
Wrong.
Joanie,
Wrong.
Very compelling rebuttal. If I didn’t know who actually posted it, I would have assumed the site’s resident scholar and gentleman Gerard Nadal did.
Thank you!!
I went to a secular counselor for 3 years once a week trying to “deal” with my abortion and the torment it gave me for the 12 years afterwards. Sometime in Feb, 1995 she threw up her hands and said, “You’re just going to have to learn to live with it!” I said to her, “How does someone learn to live with murdering they own child.” She had no answer for me. Three weeks later on March 5th 1995 I was healed of the shame and guilt of the abortion while praying the Divine Mercy Chaplet. Something came out of me I could feel it leaving my body. It felt like a baseball. When it got to my heart, through wailing tears I said, “God are you going to take me tonight? I am ready.” As I continued to pray I felt this thing in my thoat and it came out my mouth with a noise I will never forget. The moment it left me I felt the healing MERCIES of Jesus Christ being poured into my soul and I knew then He died for me. I was at peace…finally real peace. I Know MANY women who have been healed while praying this chaplet.
Joan the DSM recognizes surgery as a trigger of PTSD. At the very least the surgical procedure of the abortion is enough to trigger PTSD. It is ridiculous to state that abortion is somehow the only surgical procedure in the world that is exempt from this classification.
joan,
So cutting through the psychobabble we will agree that psychiatry is an inexact science based on observation of certain behavior about which a generalization is made. It would seem that human behavior of just about any kind can be designated as a “disorder”. So the fact that PAS is not listed in the DSM does not mean the disorder does not exist, just that some “observer” hasn’t thought of it yet.
Who is claiming that they have suffered PTSD as a result of having an abortion? The “symptoms” the hack “doctor” in the YouTube video is listing are not consistent with PTSD. Additionally, she makes the claim that men can suffer from this “post abortion syndrome”. How would you explain a surgical trigger for that?
joan,
I spent my childhood in a home plagued with domestic violence and never heard of “battered woman syndrome”. In fact, that “disorder” didn’t appear until I was an adult.
Joan, men suffer too. There is a book called “Dearest Angel”. It is letters that a father wrote to his aborted child as he struggled to come to terms with his loss. The father emailed me when I wrote a review of his book. He explained a little more of his sorrow and confusion. I guess he’s just making it all up.
Theresa Burke lives in my neck of the woods. She is not a hack.
“It would seem that human behavior of just about any kind can be designated as a “disorder”.”
If it meets the accepted definition of “disorder” and isn’t comorbid with another existing disorder that would make it redundant, yes. The DSM is a professional diagnostic manual, not revealed truth. No one is claiming that it’s the absolute, objective final word on psychiatric issues.
“So the fact that PAS is not listed in the DSM does not mean the disorder does not exist”
The fact that “PAS” is not listed in the DSM is because there is no such thing as “PAS” any more than there is such a thing as “post Lost series finale stress syndrome”.
“I spent my childhood in a home plagued with domestic violence and never heard of “battered woman syndrome”. In fact, that “disorder” didn’t appear until I was an adult. ”
So what’s your argument? That the DSM is meaningless because of its inherent subjectivity? I’ll accept that as a valid opinion with the caveat that the DSM does serve an important purpose despite its flaws, but don’t try and tell me that there’s such a thing as “post abortion stress syndrome” or whatever other politically charged nonsensical “condition” you’re trying to create out of thin air.
“Joan, men suffer too.”
Lauren was arguing that abortion as a surgical trauma could trigger PTSD. My point is that men cannot have abortions and therefore could not suffer PTSD as a result of such a surgical trauma.
Ah, you have PAS Denier Syndrome. I have the name of a counselor for you, Joanie.
Men experience Couvade Syndrome.
Wow…this must be the hopping thread.
Hello, Carla. How have you been? I was thinking about how chilly that it’s getting here and remembered where you live. ^.^
So, I’m making a list of groups I would like my friends and family to donate to this Christmas instead of getting me gifts. My mom said that she’ll get a goat for a family instead of getting me a present. Thus far: Save the Children, Save Darfur, Defenders of Wildlife, Trevor Project, and hopefully I’ll find some wildlife conservation groups, particularly for rainforests or tigers. Huzzah! :D
Ah, you have PAS Denier Syndrome. I have the name of a counselor for you, Joanie.
Carla,
Your assessment is more accurate than my earlier one. Good job!
Hello Vannah!!!
I am wonderful! Today was actually in the 60’s but we are heading down to 40 tonight and the s word is in the weekend forecast!!! Bring it, winter!! :)
Our two Compassion children receive $ from us for Christmas and our girly usually buys a goat every year! :) We have sponsored her for 13 years! Part of the family now.
Um. Please save the children, Vannah before the tigers. My two cents.
joan,
Its “inherent subjectivity”? Another way of saying “in the eye of the beholder”. Great, we agree. The fact PAS is not listed in the DSM does not mean it doesn’t exist, just that a bunch of “experts” haven’t decided it does.
Attend a murder trial and you will see these “experts” disagreeing with each other as to the psychiatric “disorder” the defendent is alleged to be suffering. Diagnosis depends largely on which side is paying them.
My point about the domestic violence is that for as long as domestic violence existed, no such psychiatric diagnosis of ”battered women syndrome” existed.
Does that mean it did not in fact exist? Was it listed in the DSM? So, given this, is it possible that PAS may indeed exist but like “battered woman syndrome” will take some time to be recognized?
“Who is claiming that they have suffered PTSD as a result of having an abortion.”
That’s what PAS is. Abortion triggered PTSD. Also, caregivers can suffer PTSD as well as victims, which explains men’s response.
boo. Why are we arguing if pro-abortion people disagree with PTSD for abortion? They disagree about abortion being murder. If they cannot be compassionate toward the unborn – why are we expecting them to be compassionate toward woman and men affected negatively by abortion?
In years gone by, Vietnam Veterans coming back from the war were having lots of trouble re-entering home life. The clinical psychologists finally put a name to what they were experiencing. And a new diagnosis was born.
Pathologies always exist before naming them and trying to treat them. This is the same with Post Abortion Stress Syndrome.
This is a very interesting discussion.
Joan,
You must be desperate, as you invoked my name and I didn’t even comment on this thread. I don’t know about being the resident scholar. My children could run rings around you, because they actually have intelligent things to say and know how to argue a point. They’re 7, 9, & 11 years old.
All you do is act like a blowhard. You have nothing intelligent to say because you don’t think. It’s all emoting with you. People hold out facts and the most you can do is vomit.
I’m warning you, I’m getting ready to let my seven year old tear you apart.
Now, for the thinking people here (Joan, you can go back to sleep) Dr. Martha Shuping M.D. is a psychiatrist who treats post-abortive women. She has told me that she prefers to use the established medical diagnostic terminology in DSM IV, such as post-traumatic stress disorder to diagnose and treat post-abortive women.
Further, Dr. Shuping has a good point when she suggests that inventing names such as post-abortion syndrome actually discredit and devalue the authentic pathology and suffering of post-abortive women within the psychological and psychiatric communities. She has written an excellent book, The Four Steps to Healing:
http://www.postabortionhealing.net/
Joan, if you’re still reading, stop. This is red meat and your tummy isn’t ready yet.
It would be best if you call Post-Abortion Syndrome as its full name. There’s another PAS out there — Parental Alienation Syndrome — which occurs when one parent tries to program a child against the other parent.
There are those with a vested interest in denying THAT PAS’s existence, too, so keep fighting.
It’s also the Psychogeriatric Assessment Scales :-)
“Its “inherent subjectivity”? Another way of saying “in the eye of the beholder”. Great, we agree. The fact PAS is not listed in the DSM does not mean it doesn’t exist, just that a bunch of “experts” haven’t decided it does.”
And the fact that “post Super Bowl loss syndrome” is not listed in the DSM does not mean that it doesn’t exist either, using that logic. You might as well be making the claim that theoretically any possible variation on a mental disorder exists. It’s an argument that leads to nothing and has no possible resolution. Practically speaking, a mental disorder does not exist until professionals in the field have acknowledged that it does. That’s the entire purpose of the DSM.
“Does that mean it did not in fact exist? Was it listed in the DSM? So, given this, is it possible that PAS may indeed exist but like “battered woman syndrome” will take some time to be recognized?”
A “mental disorder” is a classification used to describe a behavioral pattern. No, “battered women syndrome” did not exist prior to being added to the DSM because it was not a recognized classification.
“You must be desperate, as you invoked my name and I didn’t even comment on this thread.”
Then there must be a whole lot of desperation going around on this site since my words have been used to create entire new “quote of the day” threads on two separate occasions.
“My children could run rings around you”
If that’s the case, here’s a piece of advice: get a paternity test.
“All you do is act like a blowhard. You have nothing intelligent to say because you don’t think. It’s all emoting with you.”
You haven’t been able to logically counter a single argument I’ve made, much less win one. I think that fact speaks for itself.
“I’m warning you, I’m getting ready to let my seven year old tear you apart.”
Great, a 7-year-old flinging poo at me instead of a 47-year-old flinging poo at me would be a welcome change of pace.
“Dr. Martha Shuping M.D. is a psychiatrist who treats post-abortive women. She has told me that she prefers to use the established medical diagnostic terminology in DSM IV, such as post-traumatic stress disorder to diagnose and treat post-abortive women.”
Oh, of course she “prefers” to use established medical diagnostic terminology: trying to convince the requisite number of her colleagues that a classification specifically tailored for “post-abortive” women would get her laughed out of the building, and rightly so.
“Further, Dr. Shuping has a good point when she suggests that inventing names such as post-abortion syndrome actually discredit and devalue the authentic pathology and suffering of post-abortive women within the psychological and psychiatric communities. She has written an excellent book, The Four Steps to Healing:”
You realize you’re actually vindicating what I’m saying here by admitting that nonsense like “post abortion syndrome” is totally fictional and invented, right?
Well Joan, two people can agree on the same thing for different reasons. Our only point of agreement is on the nomenclature. Post-abortive women in large numbers suffer from what is currently best described as post-traumatic stress disorder. The suffering is real.
Dr Shuping believes, and I concur, that inventing nomenclature not in standard use hurts the cause of post-traumatic stress patients whose suffering has abortion as the etiological agent.
I don’t agree that it’s all made up. Perhaps I may have missed this on another thread, but have you ever had an abortion Joan, or participated in procuring one for another person?
“Post-abortive women in large numbers suffer from what is currently best described as post-traumatic stress disorder.”
What are “large numbers” and where is your source for that? I’m very curious to see evidence of this epidemic of women who are suffering from PTSD as a result of getting an abortion.
“I don’t agree that it’s all made up. Perhaps I may have missed this on another thread, but have you ever had an abortion Joan, or participated in procuring one for another person?”
I don’t see how this is relevant. Despite the best efforts of many people here I never try to make these arguments about me. I don’t share gratuitous personal details.
Joan,
You share much more than knowledge of past abortion. That would be the least of it, and the most forgivable. I could hold out all sorts of studies to you Joan, but your mind is already made up, so why bother anymore? Really?
It becomes tiring to hold out valid scientific data to have you not engage the data critically, but just dismiss the data brusquely. And that’s the most tragic thing that can happen on a blog like this, for people to conclude that you’re just not worth talking to. So make up your mind. If you want an adult conversation, say so. If not, say so.
Joan, I’ve tried to elicit some sort of statistical data on how many or what rate of post-abortion women are ‘hurt’, to no avail. All I get are peoples anecdotal references.
The evidence I’ve seen describes what ‘some’ people suffer as being almost self-induced. Like they ‘want’ to hurt.
I’m sure this is not widespread however.
But how many? To what extent? We don’t seem to be able to define.
I sometimes get the impression that if a post-abortion woman becomes an alcoholic for example, all the anti-choicers would stand around going “Look. See. Abortion – alcoholism.” Never mind that there may be some earlier source of trauma, recalled or not, which is the actual cause of the alcoholism.
The problem in this case, and with the alleged ABC link is that statistical correlations are drawn which may not indicate the true cause. A lot of the pro-abc link studies I’ve looked at did not look at other lifestyle or socio/economic factors.
“You share much more than knowledge of past abortion. That would be the least of it, and the most forgivable. I could hold out all sorts of studies to you Joan, but your mind is already made up, so why bother anymore? Really?”
So you have nothing. Got it.
And for someone who’s “not worth talking to”, I sure do seem to attract plenty of your attention.
Actually Joan, There are plenty of data, plenty of studies. But they mean nothing when thrown before the willfully ignorant. So if you’re really curious, start with Shuping’s book. If you’re not, then we’re just wasting our time.
If there is “plenty of data, plenty of studies” then let’s see it. Give me names of peer-reviewed, scholarly articles supporting your claims and I’ll go investigate them. Give me citations for clinical studies.
Okay Joan,
Let’s check your intellectual honesty and acuity. Here’s a list to get you pointed in the right direction:
http://www.theunchoice.com/pdf/OnePageFactSheets/RecentResearchSheet1.pdf
Now, since you have labeled me the resident scholar, I expect you to engage the substance of the studies and to give a detailed critical analysis based upon research design, statistical interpretation, and detailed specifics of what it is you disagree with and why.
This is the official position paper of the American Psychiatric Association on Abortion It may be found here:
http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/197703.aspx
Abortion
POSITION STATEMENT
Approved by the Board of Trustees, December 10, 1977
Approved by the Assembly, October 15, 1978
“Policy documents are approved by the APA Assembly and Board of Trustees… These are …position statements that define APA official policy on specific subjects…” – APA Operations Manual.
This final draft was drawn up by a subcommittee1 appointed by the Reference Committee to collate an Area I Action Paper and information provided by the Committee on Women, the Council on National Affairs, the Council on Children, Adolescents, and Their Families, and the American Academy of Child Psychiatry.
The emotional consequences of unwanted pregnancy on parents and their offspring may lead to long-standing life distress and disability, and the children of unwanted pregnancies are at high risk for abuse, neglect, mental illness, and deprivation of the quality of life. Pregnancy that results from undue coercion, rape, or incest creates even greater potential distress or disability in the child and the parents. The adolescent most vulnerable to early pregnancy is the product of adverse sociocultural conditions involving poverty, discrimination, and family disorganization, and statistics indicate that the resulting pregnancy is laden with medical complications which threaten the well-being of mother and fetus. The delivery that ensues from teenage pregnancy is prone to prematurity and major threats to the health of mother and child, and the resulting newborns have a higher percentage of birth defects, developmental difficulties, and a poorer life and health expectancy than the average for our society. Such children are often not released for adoption and thus get caught in the web of foster care and welfare systems, possibly entering lifetimes of dependency and costly social interventions. The tendency of this pattern to pass from generation to generation is very marked and thus serves to perpetuate a cycle of social and educational failure, mental and physical illness, and serious delinquency.
Because of these considerations, and in the interest of public welfare, the American Psychiatric Association
1) opposes all constitutional amendments, legislation, and regulations curtailing family planning and abortion services to any segment of the population; 2) reaffirms its position that abortion is a medical procedure in which physicians should respect the patient’s right to freedom of choice – psychiatrists may be called on as consultants to the patient or physician in those cases in which the patient or physician requests such consultation to expand mutual appreciation of motivation and consequences; and 3) affirms that the freedom to act to interrupt pregnancy must be considered a mental health imperative with major social and mental health implications.
__________
1The subcommittee included Edward H. Futterman, M.D., chairperson of the Council on Children, Adolescents, and Their Families; James M. Stubblebine, M.D., chairperson of the Council on Mental Health Services; Harold M. Visotsky, M.D., chairperson of the Council on National Affairs (1975-1978); Jeanne Spurlock, M.D., staff liaison; and Jay Cutler, staff legal counsel.
Now, when an academic and medical body such as APA ties itself inextricably to abortion, they cannot very well free themselves as a body to recognize research that contravenes the adopted orthodoxy of the scientific association. This means that they are the ones who are willfully blinded by an a priori politically-grounded intransigence. It is their scientific objectivity that is called into question.
In the case of post-traumatic stress from abortion, the APA crafted this document 4.5 years after the passage of Roe. That wasn’t enough time for the leading cohort of abortion clients to have developed symptoms. Thus, from the outset, APA made up its mind that the only noxious presence in a teen mother’s life is her baby, and they foreclosed any openness to the emergence of a body of data that would suggest that the document would need to be amended or abolished altogether.
It’s been 32 years of APA sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting “I can’t hear you”. This is the same APA that gives us the DSM IV.
Then they have the temerity to chortle and claim that there is no credible body of literature showing post-abortive sequelae, and that’s because they made up their minds 32 years ago that they would never admit such a body of evidence.
You know what, guys? You keep arguing and arguing and trying to invent the wheel when other countries have done that long time ago. I guess any unbiased research/information on the topic of post abortion issues is impossible in the USA, because abortion is such a big money making business and it buys politicians/researchers/scientists to prove their point (which is that abortion is the only medical procedure that has NO side effects… HAHA!!!) and on the other hand, any pro-life researcher/scientist is dismissed just because of the sheer fact that he/she IS pro-life, so all the findings MUST be biased.
OK, I get that. That’s how things are in the USA.
I can tell you how things are in the UK. First of all, you have to remember that UK is one of the most liberal European countries, especially when it comes to the so called “reproductive rights”.
As far as I understand, most (all?) CPC’s in the USA are pro-life, right? And that’s what annoys the pro-choicers, that the mothers are encouraged to give birth and discouraged from having abortion.
Not the same in the UK. CPC’s here are neutral – they tell you about ALL your choices (including abortion), but they also include FULL information about each choice, what it means, how it goes, what you should expect, where you can find help, and all. That is what I call real choice, and an informed one (however, I have no information about the fact if they inform you about fetal development, they probably don’t).
Here what abortion risks are highlighted in one of UK’s CPC chains’ website (and you MUST remember, THIS is NEUTRAL centre, NOT pro-life):
“Many women initially feel relieved after an abortion. Some feel sadness about the abortion, but over time cope with it in a way that’s acceptable to them.
However, there are some who do not cope well and who experience various symptoms, which are sometimes called post-abortion stress.
These can include:
Emotions such as guilt, grief, sense of loss and anger.
Feeling the need to ‘replace’ the pregnancy.
A feeling of distance from existing children.
Inability to maintain normal routine.
Depressed feelings, which are stronger than ‘a little sadness’.
Sleeping problems.
Flashbacks.
Tearfulness.
Disturbing dreams or nightmares.
Difficulty being near babies or pregnant women.
In severe cases a woman can become suicidal, self-harming, indulge in risk-taking behaviours, become dependant on drugs or alcohol, or suffer anxiety or panic attacks.
These symptoms can occur at any stage after an abortion and are sometimes triggered by another loss later on.
Some women are more susceptible to these symptoms particularly if there was uncertainty or ambivalence surrounding the decision.
Such women may have experienced:
Feeling uncomfortable about the idea of abortion.
Strong motherly feelings or maternal instinct.
Feeling she had no choice because circumstances were overwhelming.
Having an abortion after a disability had been diagnosed in wanted pregnancy.
Previous depression or mental ill health.
Feeling pressurised by someone close.”
So, whether the post-abortion syndrome is acknowledged as a mental disorder or not, the FACT is, that a lot of women at some point in their lives DO get some of the symptoms and need help. Me personally, I DON’T care if it’s made official and written in the psychiatry bible, it’s important that I know about these risks and can tell others about it and where to look for help.
Here’s the link to the UK’s CPC :
http://www.careconfidential.com/WhatAboutAbortion.aspx
Considering Joan’s constant slandering of others and deliberate inflammatory comments, can she just be banned, please?
Gerry,
Thank you for your tireless work on behalf of those hurt by abortion!! God bless you!!
Marauder,
I shall talk to Jill. :)
joan,
As we have seen, psychiatrists can be quite imaginative when it comes to creating “syndromes”. We also see that they are largely subjective. Sooooo, it seems we are in agreement here that the DSM alone, which has been continually revised for decades, does not determine if a “disorder” actually exists, or that it doesn’t. The fact that the DSM does not list PAS is not in itself any proof the syndrome does not exist.
Hi Gerard,
Excellent and informative posts. You are indeed a scholar and a gentleman.
We live in a post-modern society that is supposed to embrace openness and expression of feeling. As a society, we worry about nearly every disorder, traumatic stress, personal problem, and “issue” of nearly every person. Each of us in some way could claim victimhood in today’s world: for being female, black, gay, Hispanic, children of divorced parents, gluten intolerant, poor, from a bad neighborhood, in debt, victims of abuse, and the list goes on forever. Some of this victimhood can certainly not be helped, some of it we bring on ourselves, but that is the way of life.
We agree that babies result from pregnancy, and pregnancy results from sexual relations.
So how is it that we can console the women who suffer sadness from difficult break-ups or divorces, we can console women who are victims of violent sexual attacks, we can console women who cannot get pregnant, we can console women who suffer sadness at a miscarriage, we can console women who suffer through the physical ills of pregnancy, we can console women with severe pre-menstruation side effects, we can console women who suffer from sexually transmitted diseases, we can console women who suffer for months with an unplanned pregnancy, we can console women who suffer with depression after the birth of a child: all of these women may experience signs of depression, anxiety, disorders, and the like, and our society has no qualms with naming these specific syndromes or disorders. However, a women who has an abortion and suffers negative side effects resulting from that action deserves no consolation or acknowledgement? And further, there are efforts to eradicate and repudiate a diagnosis for this specific emotional trauma!
Whether you believe that a fetus is a child, or part-child, or part of the mother, or a clump of tissue, it is a very real situation. It is the stuff of life, the beginnings of life. Therefore, for a women to rid herself of her pregnancy, how can we say that there may not be side effects from this? That she may not experience emotional and personal trauma? Removing or destroying what would become a human being is not nearly the same as having an appendectomy, a nose job, a face lift, or a tumor removal (while all of those surgeries may have emotional impact).
“Well,” you say, “Every woman is different. Not all women feel emotionally attached to a pregnancy.”
This is true, but a woman’s body is made in many ways for the purpose of bearing and nurturing children. Why do women take birth control? So they won’t get pregnant. Why do women have to run to the drugstore every month for tampons? Because they’re on their period. Why do women see a gynecologist, or buy Midol, or use heating pads for cramps?
If a woman removes an unwanted or unintended pregnancy, it is only logical to assume she will feel emotional side effects, for she has in some way gone against the essence of her physical nature. It doesn’t matter what we call it, or deem it, or define it as. From this side of the argument, the truly modern, intelligent woman who is self-aware of her physicality and sexuality should be expected to suffer some emotional side effects from her abortion, whatever those feelings may be.
What depresses me is how we can acknowledge victimhood in nearly every other situation in life–but a woman who has an abortion and regrets it, feels sadness, or has trouble coping or acts out, may be pushed aside or told her feelings aren’t real. This is a travesty of our moral bankruptcy as a nation: we disregard logical conclusions because of political and financial motivations. The green stuff of our lives, sadly, rules over the red, and the women who battle for empowerment become enslaved to propaganda which from a very early age encourages us to embrace nearly every aspect of our sexuality and femininity, with the exception of what our sexuality and femininity are ultimately there for: reproduction, nurturing and caring for life.
Thank you Jill, for all that you do, God has given you a great calling.
“Now, since you have labeled me the resident scholar, I expect you to engage the substance of the studies and to give a detailed critical analysis based upon research design, statistical interpretation, and detailed specifics of what it is you disagree with and why.”
I’m in the process of reading through some of the scholarly articles you (finally) cited. Taken either collectively or individually, what is the point that you are trying to make with them? We were specifically discussing a supposed link between abortion and PTSD, and I asked for proof that “large numbers” of post-abortive women are in fact suffering from PTSD. Where and in which of these articles can I find some relevant hard numbers? You can’t just drop 11 journal articles on my lap and expect me to spend half my day reading through them, looking for actual proof of your claims. I want specifics.
It doesn’t really matter what you give to Joanie. She will BALK at it!!
Cat,
I LOVE YOU!!
Thank you!! There are some things you just have to accept. The suffering and pain that some women and men experience after abortion is very real.
Those with PAS Denier Syndrome shall not be expected to understand nor accept the above paragraph.
btw
How I feel NOW about my abortion is not how I felt 13, 15 or 20 years ago. If you will notice I speak about it in the PAST tense. Using words like had, did, felt, wondered, drank, partied, was……..
I am not an alcoholic. I am not clinically depressed. I am not filled with guilt and shame.
Thank you for your concern. It’s so sweet!!!
Cat. Thank you. That was a wonderful, wonderful post.
And you’re exactly right. I don’t even know that it matters how many women suffer from PTSD following an abortion. Their suffering should not be negated. Soldiers returning from war can have PTSD. Some, but not all. In fact, the majority do not experience PTSD. Under 20% do, but only a small % of THOSE soldiers even seek treatment for it. So, what are we to assume? That those soldiers are making it up?
Oh, and this article http://psychcentral.com/lib/2006/facts-about-ptsd/ states that women are more likely to suffer PTSD (over 10% do on average). I really don’t see how an unplanned pregnancy and resulting abortion could be thought to have NO lasting effects on a woman. As Vita pointed out, miraculously, abortion is apparently the ONLY risk-free and consequence-free surgery known to humankind.
I guess I better go look at the national registry of women who have reported PTSD associated with an abortion to report the exact number of women who have suffered it to satifsy Joan. Give me a break!
And yes, with respect to hot-button issues such as abortion and homosexuality, the APA sold out a long time ago. If you doubt that, you need to look at how it very politically (not scientifically) removed homosexuality from the DSM.
Of course, the first poster is right in some respect. It just seems natural (without designating it as a particular syndrome) that participating the killing of your own child would naturally lead to distress and regret. In fact, I would find it crazy for a person not to regret his or her participation in procuring an abortion.
Thanks Carla and Kel! That was my first post on this site!
all of these women may experience signs of depression, anxiety, disorders, and the like, and our society has no qualms with naming these specific syndromes or disorders. However, a women who has an abortion and suffers negative side effects resulting from that action deserves no consolation or acknowledgement?
It seems to me that the difference is, no one is claiming to suffer from post-divorce syndrome, post-STD-diagnosis syndrome, etc; they are all at least moderately related, in that people commonly experience depression or anxiety etc after a traumatic event. The things that get specific diagnoses are the ones with specific root causes - in your examples, PPMD and post-partum depression, which are caused more by chemical/hormone changes than by significant emotional trauma.
Trauma after a devastaing event is horrible and unique to each person, but not generally unique to each root source. There is no post-rape syndrome, post-war syndrome, etc. These are excessively traumatic experiences, and it does not detract from the astonishing trauma involved in each of them to call them all “post-traumatic stress.” There is trauma, and there is stress associated with it.
It seems to me that no one in this thread has argued that women are not traumatized by abortion. We all know that many women are, though of course debates flare up about “how many.” What the argument here seems to be is whether there is a separate and specific post-abortion syndrome, unique in root cause or mental/emotional reaction; or if it is one awful facet of post-traumatic stress.
OH and welcome, Cat! Is Cat short for Catherine? If so, I love the name – it’s my mom’s name. If not, well, I love cats – so either way I am so far a fan of yours. :)
“on the other hand, any pro-life researcher/scientist is dismissed just because of the sheer fact that he/she IS pro-life, so all the findings MUST be biased.”
Vita,
Yes, I get hit with that slur pretty often. It’s just another of the many desperation moves by pro-aborts. Logic would dictate that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, that if one’s position is that an abiding belief about abortion clouds one’s scientific objectivity, then that should work in both the pro-life and pro-abort directions equally well.
Of course there are several flaws inherent in such reasoning.
For openers, I posted the APA position for a reason. It demonstrates that pro-aborts have preemptively closed themselves to even an investigation of the truth. The reason why there is not widespread inquiry into post-abortive psychological and psychiatric sequelae isn’t because there is a lack of research subjects. It’s because the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH), which is the premier funding agency in psychology/psychiatry, will not grant funding for research into a medical procedure that APA sees as an absolute and necessary good.
Further, the peer reviewers and editorial boards at most journals are not only governed by the APA policy, but are also abortion’s true believers. On this I speak from experience. While I was a pre-med/pre-sciences student at Columbia University I spent three years working in the department of Psychiatric Epidemiology with folk who sat on the DSM committees. I was the only pro-lifer in the pack. I tore down a sign that was put up by my copy machine which read:
“If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.”
Can a pro-lifer be an objective scientist? Well for openers we go further than pro-aborts by entertaining the possibility that there could be something worthy of investigation. We go further still by designing research protocols that are as stringent as can be, knowing well that it is not only a scientific and ethical obligation, but that pro-aborts will be waiting to seize upon the smallest weakness to dismiss the entire body of work.
Further, there are several well-established benchmarks that must be met in order to move from establishing a correlation (coincidence, if you will) and causality. In both post-abortion’s post-traumatic stress disorder (what some call PAS) and in the abortion/breast cancer link, those criteria have been met soundly.
In reality, what we have left is the derisive critique of abortion’s many true believers in the APA. They point to scholars such as Burke, Reardon, and Coleman and claim that their studies lack adequate controls (the most devastating of charges one may level at a scientist) because they do not produce a way of measuring the baseline mental state of the subject pre-abortion.
That sounds good. In reality, it’s a joke.
Were that to be a serious criterion, then the entire body of literature on post-traumatic stress disorder would be invalid, and PTSD would need to be stricken from the DSM for want of credible scientific evidence. Much of that evidence arises from studies of persons who have fought in or lived through wars, suffered natural disasters, etc. In none of those studies were baseline data available on the subjects before the war or other calamity. And this brings me to my final point.
The APA, having preemptively declared a major life event both good and necessary, has closed itself to the possibility that this major life event may in fact be a major stressor (as all major life events are, even the good ones such as marriage and a new job). In so doing, the major players have walked off the field and sit it out in the locker room. Who, then, is the one lacking in scientific objectivity? They aren’t even curious enough.
God Bless
“It doesn’t really matter what you give to Joanie. She will BALK at it!!”
Yeah, I’m going to balk at someone dropping a list of broadly-encompassing articles and essentially saying “knock yourself out” in response to a request that they provide some hard numbers in order to verify a claim they made. Maybe that info is, in fact, contained in one of the articles he listed: if so, great, tell me which so I can focus on reading that. Because really, what do sleep disorders and an increased risk of generalized anxiety disorder, among other seemingly irrelevant things, have to do with PTSD?
Carla,
I posted a lengthy comment and when I edited it, it got marked as spam. Can we restore it please?
“I don’t agree that it’s all made up. Perhaps I may have missed this on another thread, but have you ever had an abortion Joan, or participated in procuring one for another person”?
This seems to be a favorite question, posed by Dr. Nadal, of all pro-choice women who post comments here. When I responded that I did drive my relative to an abortion, he proceeded to attack me for participating in the murder of a child and not offering to raise this child. For some strange reason, it appears that the anti-choicers on this blog want to believe that every pro-choice woman has either had an abortion or has participated in one. I suspect that it serves to validate their belief that anybody who is pro-choice, is in denial about their abortion when the real denial is those anti-choicers who can’t deal with the reality that many women just move on with their lives – no regrets – after an abortion.
And while I would agree that some women suffer from depression after an abortion, others suffer from post-partum depression after childbirth. In both cases, intervention is important.
I’m having flashbacks to the days when premenstrual syndrome was denied. It’s all in your pretty little heads, ladies. No one warned me what my hormones were going to do afterward. I can imagine how bad post partum depression must be, because my hormone fluctuations contributed to a similar presentation. Jill and Carla are doing great work here. Women can see they aren’t alone, their pain is reasonable and not uncommon. I look forward to the day when the abortion genie is back in the bottle.
Artemiserable,
Yes, you coldly drove your niece/nephew to its death. It explains all I need to know about your motives here. You are truly a miserable human being in gloating over your foul deed and beliefs. You should have been the voice of reason to a panicked sister-in-law.
Joan,
You can’t very well demand that I furnish studies then whine because I expect you to read what I have furnished! That’s just the tip of the iceberg. It’s tough and time-consuming work, and yes, as the ‘resident scholar’ as you’ve derisively dubbed me, I have read them all and many, many more. You can’t dismiss what you refuse to read, and if you have better things to do with your time than read what you laugh at, then I suggest that you restrict your commentary to what it is you HAVE read and understood.
The numbers are all in those studies, but as a scholar I am not chewing your food for you.
Put up or shut up.
he proceeded to attack me for participating in the murder of a child and not offering to raise this child.
Gee, pro-lifers are told all the TIME that if we don’t adopt all the unwanted babies, then we’re horrible people! Pfft.
Cat
November 12th, 2010 at 10:13 am
Thanks Carla and Kel! That was my first post on this site!
Welcome Cat! As for your first post, you did super! I really enjoyed reading your post, you have a LOT of common sense! Look forward for some more ;)
Kel,
ROTFLMAO!! :-)
I suspect that it serves to validate their belief that anybody who is pro-choice, is in denial about their abortion when the real denial is those anti-choicers who can’t deal with the reality that many women just move on with their lives – no regrets – after an abortion.
DD,
We are not in denial, it’s the women who say they’re fine with abortion that are in denial because they are denying what it really is.
I’ve been pregnant before and know what a baby looks like inside the womb (I saw my kid’s ultrasound pictures, both the regular and 4-D) there is NO question that the pre-born baby IS a baby. Even without having seen the facts with my own eyes, I knew this. But being pregnant and having a child only confirmed what I knew.
We don’t HAVE to validate our beliefs on pro-choicers/aborts being in denial about what abortion is because biology is on our side. Oh, I know, there’s all those so-called scientific data out there to support abortion, but it’s misguided.
Developmental stage is just that. A developmental stage, it doesn’t change what the being IS which is a human being.
We’re all made up of tissue and cells — we’re walking clumps of it. The fact that we don’t look just like a blob doesn’t change the fact that we are blobs of cells and tissues (granted, bones and such are in there, too, but you can’t deny we are made up of cells and tissues–even in some cases, blobs of them).
Pre-born babies may not look exactly like a baby outside the womb, but it doesn’t change the fact that he/she is, in fact, a human being.
“You can’t very well demand that I furnish studies then whine because I expect you to read what I have furnished! That’s just the tip of the iceberg. It’s tough and time-consuming work, and yes, as the ‘resident scholar’ as you’ve derisively dubbed me, I have read them all and many, many more. You can’t dismiss what you refuse to read, and if you have better things to do with your time than read what you laugh at, then I suggest that you restrict your commentary to what it is you HAVE read and understood.”
Oh, okay, I see how it is with you. Next time I want to make an unsupported factual claim in an argument and you request evidence for it, I’ll just go run a search on EBSCO or some other database for a general topic, randomly pick 20 or so vaguely-relevant-sounding articles, cite them here, and tell you to read through them to find the proof for my claim, and if you don’t want to spend 8 hours doing that, claim vindication for my still unsubstantiated claim of fact.
“The numbers are all in those studies, but as a scholar I am not chewing your food for you.”
Any intelligent person could plainly see that if you had the precise numbers to support your claim, you’d happily cite them in order to totally refute me, instead of posting a list of barely-relevant article summaries and telling me to read through 300-some pages to find a simple citation of numbers.
he proceeded to attack me for participating in the murder of a child and not offering to raise this child.
Kel’s reply: Gee, pro-lifers are told all the TIME that if we don’t adopt all the unwanted babies, then we’re horrible people! Pfft.
Kel,
LOL same thought occurred me! We don’t offer to raise the child, we’re horrible people, a pro-choicer/abort doesn’t offer to raise the child but instead offers to drive a woman to a clinic for an abortion he/she is heralded as loving helpful angel! Makes me want to VOMIT (and I HATE throwing up).
Great post Cat. I look forward to reading more of your comments!
“I don’t see how this is relevant. Despite the best efforts of many people here I never try to make these arguments about me. I don’t share gratuitous personal details”
joan, You’ve answered the question by not answering the question.
“joan, You’ve answered the question by not answering the question.”
A skill that certain others here are equally adept at.
Joan,
Numbers are only intelligible within the context of the study in which they were generated. They find their validity within the soundness of the research method, execution, and data analysis. I’m on to your game.
These were your words, your challenge to me:
If there is “plenty of data, plenty of studies” then let’s see it. Give me names of peer-reviewed, scholarly articles supporting your claims and I’ll go investigate them. Give me citations for clinical studies.
I note the use of the plural in that challenge. So I obliged. Now you state:
Oh, okay, I see how it is with you. Next time I want to make an unsupported factual claim in an argument and you request evidence for it, I’ll just go run a search on EBSCO or some other database for a general topic, randomly pick 20 or so vaguely-relevant-sounding articles, cite them here, and tell you to read through them to find the proof for my claim, and if you don’t want to spend 8 hours doing that, claim vindication for my still unsubstantiated claim of fact.
That gagging sound is you, choking on your own words. I really thought last night you were getting serious when you asked for those studies.
You’re such a tease.
Cat–Great post and welcome to the site.
good golly – Joan please pick one of the studies to look at and see what you find. Dr Gerard – please do not lose your temper, even if the conversation is testy!
If Joan truly does not look at the studies and just complains, then we know she is not serious in her wanting to understand, but just stuck in her position. And that would be too bad.
And Joan – you should look up Dr. Brind also – who found that many studies about breast cancer and abortion failed to note one specific thing that helps a woman avoid cancer of the breast is a near full-term pregnancy. In America, abortion usually comes for the first child(ren) – and that starts the process of milk duct cells changing – but those breast cells do not get mature until late in pregnancy. Thus they get ‘turned-on’ and are not properly ‘turned off’ or mature since the pregnancy did not get out to the 32nd week (I think).
Miscarriage does not produce that tendency, since the reason for the miscarriage is normal, and the hormones are not abruptly and unnaturally interrupted as in an abortion or accident.
But there is just one thing to think about when looking at the studies – and as a professional, I’m sure you will take in all the specifics needed.
Cat – very nice post – lots of really good points. However, I’m curious about this statement:
Given your context, it seems there’s two ways to interpret what you boldfaced:
1) you are taking a general position, in which everyone can agree that at some point along in the process (9 months) there is a child; or,
2) this is your own viewpoint/understanding: that a human being is not present at conception, but comes to be (exist), somehow, at a later point in pregnancy.
Could you please clarify this? Thanks!
Alexandra!!
How are you? Its always so good to see you here.
Joy,
I’m a long way from losing my temper. New Yorkers tend to have a rather straightforward, unvarnished style of communication that is often taken in most of the rest of the country for impatience or being ill-mannered.
I’m actually having a little fun watching Joan choke on her own words. She wasn’t doing so well on this thread and decided to invoke my name derisively. So, I obliged the challenge. True to pro-abort form, she’s another one who’s all sizzle and no steak. These are deadly serious issues, but every once in a while it’s really a treat to watch a non-starter like Joanie the Queen of Whine paint herself into a corner and then blame others for her own stupidity.
Temper? I’m having too much fun.
God Bless.
Hi Chris and other commentators!
My belief is that life begets life, meaning that from the moment of fertilization/conception that a human life is formed, and of course remains a human life throughout the various stages of development.
However, I understand that not all people believe this, so for the sake of the argument I generalized the statement, for those who believe that it’s not a baby until_____.
Alexandra–it is short for Catherine, and I’m a dog-lover with two adorable cats, so I understand completely!
Cat,
Great food for thought!
I’m a long way from losing my temper. New Yorkers tend to have a rather straightforward, unvarnished style of communication that is often taken in most of the rest of the country for impatience or being ill-mannered.
So stereotypically speaking, only your cabbies lose their tempers easily? (Sorry I just couldn’t reisist LOL–ya know I think you’re cool, Gerry!)
I’m actually having a little fun watching Joan choke on her own words. She wasn’t doing so well on this thread and decided to invoke my name derisively. So, I obliged the challenge. True to pro-abort form, she’s another one who’s all sizzle and no steak. These are deadly serious issues, but every once in a while it’s really a treat to watch a non-starter like Joanie the Queen of Whine paint herself into a corner and then blame others for her own stupidity.
And this is one of the reasons I admire you. Again, you’re are one cool customer. You just laugh it all off.
“Artemiserable,
Yes, you coldly drove your niece/nephew to its death. It explains all I need to know about your motives here. You are truly a miserable human being in gloating over your foul deed and beliefs. You should have been the voice of reason to a panicked sister-in-law”
Ah, it’s the good Dr. Nadal abiding by the “rules.
“Criticize ideas, not people”
“Be civil and considerate”
So Dr. Nadaloonie (see, I can play this game too). Your idea of polite discourse is ask somebody a question that seems innocent and then attack them for their answer. Accusing somebody of being a “miserable human being” (you don’t know me) certainly isn’t being “civil” and “considerate.” While I disagree with Bobbie Bambino, he is far more polite in his comments and for that I respect him. You really do seem to have a problem with pro-choice women as I am not the only woman that you treat with vile contempt. Who is the “miserable human being?”
The thing is that I respect a woman’s decision. If my sister in law decided to carry the pregnancy to term, I would have respected that, too. Why would I, as a somebody who is pro-choice, have offered to adopt her baby? That’s just bizarre. BTW, she wasn’t “panicked.” She made a very informed decision and was comfortable with it. However, if that’s your “projection” – whatever floats your boat. And as I said, she had the blessing of her female pastor. As you know, not all churches have the same views of abortion as yours does. Oh, right, they’re apostate churches. But your comments are very instructive as they do underscore what appears to be some serious misogyny in the pro-life movement. Judging from some of the comments here (not all) and having observed the screamers outside PP, there’s also an element of punitiveness and meanness. Do you hate us for our freedom?
And I forgot to note that my sister in law’s daughter also had an abortion when she was a teenager. It was the best decision that she could have made. She now has two grandchildren and is doing well, thank you very much. But having said that, I expect that the good Dr. Nadal will attack her too. But fine Dr. Nadal, bring-it-on. Insulting people and attempting to shame them is such an effective communication tool.
I am proud to be pro-choice and will continue to defend my position as well as contribute money to Planned Parenthood. All of Dr. Nadal’s attempts to smear me don’t mean jack you-know-what.
And Dr. Nadal. I never had an abortion. I used birth control. It works. (oh, do I hear an insult coming my way?)
DD, Artemis, whoever. Birth control does not always work. I was on YAZ and got pregnant with my son. No, I was not on antibiotics and yes I remembered to take it every day. So much for “controlling” fertility. My husband and I briefly for a few months tried to get pregnant and nothing happened (his plans have changed since then, I still want another baby…hopefully in the next year our financial situation will change). The point is, if I can control my fertility and finally be a liberated woman then why didn’t I get pregnant the FIRST month I tried to?
We don’t really control our fertility. Its just an illusion we do.
“Joannie, the Queen of Whine” from Dr. Nadal, the King of Pomposity. The double standard here is amazing. And there’s no whining about nasty, pro-choice “trolls,” nosireee. Bottom line is that abortion will continue to be legal for the forseeable future and no amount of anti-choice whining and insulting will stop it. If you can change minds and hearts, good on you. As long as women have the choice to do so, it’s all good.
Sydney
Contraception worked for me. But as you say, there can be problems. It would be great if somebody could develop a perfect contraceptive techniqe (no, not abstinence or “natural family planning”) with no side effects or failure rates. That would help reduce the incidence of abortion.
Artemiserable,
We must be getting very close. We now have pet names for one another. I actually like “Dr. Nadaloonie”. It has a nice ring to it. Don’t stop using it in the future. It will be our little thing.
King of Pomposity on the other hand doesn’t fit. (I like loonie, because it does). The reason why it doesn’t fit is because I spend my time pointing to something larger than myself, the scientific data, and there is a whole mountain range of data piles that support our contentions.
You and the Queen of Whime, on the other hand come here with nothing larger than your own sense of self. You both refuse to engage the data. You both refuse to have polite and civil discourse and have been the first to hurl invective and ad hominem. Unlike Bobby, who is far more charitable than I am in such matters, I am not at all beyond responding to you in kind.
Then it’s delicious to watch you cry about getting a dose of your own medicine. I’ve spent close to forty years trying to be polite to pro-aborts and trying to persuade them with reason and fact grounded in top-tier medical literature. For some who are given to reason and civility, the conversations have been cordial and illuminating all around.
Then there are the trolls like you and Joanie. Your only interest is to derail threads by lobbing hand grenades around the room. It really bothers you that I don’t let up on your complicity in the slaughter of your niece/nephew and your disgusting pride in having betrayed that child and your sister-in-law. You need to repent and reconcile with God for that one. You’ll find His infinite mercy and forgiveness when you do.
In the interim, so long as you celebrate such depravity, Christians have a duty to you, in love, to show an appropriate level of disdain for your celebrating such a “choice”. Tough love hurts.
So yes, loonie fits me, but pompous best describes those who point to nothing larger than themselves. That would be you and Joanie.
But don’t stop the Nadaloonie. Not when we’ve come so far together.
ok -DD – would you be ok with your sister-in-law deciding to rob a bank? Hit your relative on the head while that person is sleeping? Hurt your existing nieces and nephews? molest the neighbor? Plant a bomb?
if not – why not? It’s her decision, right?
Any decision that hurts another is not a moral decision. And if we are in position to help stop that, we should.
Of course, we are not always ready to act quickly or decisively, and sometime we look the other way or don’t act. If we have our wits about us, we should try to help others in distress and we should help others choose the good – the action that does not harms others or themselves.
Looking back, there are many decisions I would make differently in my life. And as we grow and learn, hopefully we make better decisions. In any case, though, if we have failed I hope that we try to make restitution and help the next situation to a better outcome.
”You need to repent and reconcile with God for that one”
Thanks for the advice but I really don’t need to do anything as I don’t believe in your God, Dr. Nadal. (No, I’m not going to lower myself to juvenile name twistings. I will address you by your given name. If you want to continue to play, whatever….) And you can continue to “not let up” on me for my “complicity in slaughter.” It’s actually rather amusing and a good look into what makes Dr. Nadal tick. Dominus Vobiscum and all that jazz.
Oh, and “hurling invective.” As if your characterization of Joan’s comments as “vomit” isn’t “hurling invective.” Pot meet kettle!
“ok -DD – would you be ok with your sister-in-law deciding to rob a bank? Hit your relative on the head while that person is sleeping? Hurt your existing nieces and nephews? molest the neighbor? Plant a bomb”
Currently, abortion isn’t a criminal act and certainly can’t be compared to acts of violence against another human being. Right, I know your argument but it holds no water with me, lots of other women, and our legal system.
I can’t tell you how many people drive a friend/relative to the abortion clinic not realizing the damage that will be done or even if that woman will have an abortion. The look on the driver’s faces after they learn that she was here for an abortion is terrible, to say the least.
When they learn of all the help that could be offered that family, they are astounded. But we help where ever we are needed, under any circumstances.
Rachel’s Vineyard is also for the drivers and other family members, if they want it… but many people still champion abortion, no matter what; no matter the difficulties. We are still available to help.
so again – if it’s legal, it’s ok? Let me rephrase: if your sister-in-law wanted a slave during the slavery times, or was a German living in Germany or Poland, you’d be ok with her having a slave or persecuting the Jews? What about Sharia Law? Ok with that? Just wondering.
Are there no standards you would call an immoral law immoral? Bad law is still bad law. And it’s an especially bad law if it allows the harming,maiming or killing of humans. I hope you’d agree to that.
Thanks for clarifying that Cat. BTW – welcome to the blog!
DD – and I guess I need to ask – why don’t you think abortion is not an act of violence against another human?
Artemiserable,
You’re pretty slow to catch on. Why poke at your chosen moniker?
Because your chosen moniker, Artemis, is the name of the Greek goddess, twin sister of Apollo, who was not only goddess of wild animals and the hunt, but also of virginity and childbirth.
Kind of ironic for a pro-abort troll who aided in the death of a relative.
Thirty studies to scoff at, Joanie.
http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/12/opi-1006/
Okay Joan,
Deep breaths. Here’s a tip. The abstract of the article is one paragraph and summarizes the article’s question being asked, method, results and conclusion.
30 Articles, 30 Paragraphs, and all the numbers your little pro-abort belly can digest. It should be a cake-walk for a whiz like you.
Then we can have a nice debate over methodology, and the finer points of statistical analysis.
Carla just gave you a chance to redeem yourself. Don’t let us down.
Remember, this was YOUR challenge.
Artemis (if it really is you), you say you’ve never had an abortion. What about the story you told on this site several months back, about self-aborting with a turkey-baster? — way back sometime in the 70’s, if I remember right. Or did you just make that story up? I always sort of imagined you did. But then I guess you’re not much about the truth, one way or another.
Mary! I’m good, thanks! How are you? Always wonderful to see you too.
I got to fly today. Like not in an airplane, but clipped into some steel cables (one on each hip) and hoisted up 40′-50′, then around, via an automated fly system in a theater. That’s not my job but the cast wasn’t here yet and they needed to program the computer system’s cues, and I am the right height/weight. Plus I have, over the years, developed a reputation for being either brave or stupid (don’t answer that), so no one hesitated to ask me to do it. It was definitely a rush, so I’m feeling pretty awesome today! :)
OK continue the conversation, sorry everyone!
Good Catch Lori!
Hi Alexandra,
LOL. You are a brave soul. I’ll stick to airplanes. :)
Gerry, DD, et al have one point: We are supposed to criticize ideas, not people. I don’t think I’ve completely followed that, and I don’t think anyone’s completely followed that. But it IS a good reminder. Civility is important.
Let me make this clear to everyone, though: I disagree with pro-choicers/aborts on abortion. It’s wrong, it’s the death of a person and I disagree with/disapprove of helping a person get one. I disagree with the idea that abortion is fine and perfectly acceptable. I totally disagree with all that.
I only agree that we shouldn’t name-call and we should be civil. But after that, as far as I’m concerned, pro-choicers/pro-aborts are completely wrong in supporting abortion at all.
“so again – if it’s legal, it’s ok? Let me rephrase: if your sister-in-law wanted a slave during the slavery times, or was a German living in Germany or Poland, you’d be ok with her having a slave or persecuting the Jews? What about Sharia Law? Ok with that? Just wondering.”
A slave is a “post born” person so the analogy between abortion, I believe, is specious.If I had been living in a slave state, I might have supported slavery. And regarding comparing persecution of the Jews with abortion. You really don’t want to go there because American Jews (regardless of the “denomination”) resent this comparison. (The same church that preaches against abortion is the same church that made treaties with Hitler, assisted in moving Nazi war criminals to South America, and never excommunicated Catholic Hitler.) Moreover, the vast majority of American Jews (Reformed with some Conservatives) are pro-choice. Many of those on Planned Parenthood boards are Jewish. Dr. Nathanson (“Silent Scream”) was an ethnic Jew who converted, under the auspies of an Opus Dei priest, to Roman Catholicism. Again, my relatives decision was hers and I supported it – as did her Christian pastor. Again, we view the “death” of a fetus very differently. As I said, abortion will continue to be legal in this country until Roe goes down and if that happens, the blue coasts will be abortion refuges for red state women. That’s reality. Sorry.
And Sharia law – “Every Muslim Scholar knows that the termination of a pregnancy before 120 days is not an issue for discussion. These statements were made by Miss Asma’u Jodah of the Centre for Women and Adolescent Empowerment during a discussion at the conference Keeping Our Promise to explore the contributions of faith-based groups in promoting women’s reproductive rights from the Christian and Muslim perspectives.” I, on the other hand, feel that the Jewish principal, that “life” begins only after the fetus leaves the birth canal, to be the valid principal.
“DD – and I guess I need to ask – why don’t you think abortion is not an act of violence against another human”
No more an “act of violence” than removal of a vital organ.
DD: I was going to complain about your last post – but upon a very close second reading, I realized that you made the case beautifully (a mistake, I’d wager!).
If you remove a vital organ, it’s deadly. And if you abort a pre-born baby, it’s deadly for the baby. Great comparison. Thank you.
Ah- the power of the subconscious mind. A truly beautiful thing.
JoyfromIllinois
LOL. No Freudian slip there. Just a silly mistake in phrasing. (Right, I know in my heart of hearts that abortion is evil. Right, dream on) Obviously a uterus, gall bladder, intestinal parts are not “vital” but considered major organs of the body. The “killing” of these organs (or a tumor) is no different from “killing” a fetus.
Mother in Texas,
I understand your point about civility, and I agree. However, there comes a point in debates such as these when we reach aburdity. Specifically when the trolls are treated with kid gloves as the hurl invective and hand grenades, derailing one thread after another.
Over at my blog, someone went after the Catholic clergy and their sexuality in a gratuitous and vicious manner yesterday, specifically suggesting that they are taught a warped attitude toward sex, and I called that person an ass. Why? Because Megan is a troll, and Megan has never seen the inside of a seminary.
There comes a time when we need to move the agenda and conversation forward, and not allow ourselves to be tied down by endless repetitions with the same people, to not allow the conversation to be derailed again and again.
Thomas Aquinas taught that humility is truth. Holding up the mirror to the trolls is not the absence of humility or charity. It is the necessary function of truth, which is alien to the Julia Child of NARAL and her Turkey Baster, which Lori did not forget. There is no nice, or sweet manner to tell someone that they are a liar, or a troll. They only invoke the rules after they repeatedly break them and finally get a dose of their own medicine.
Even this is calculated for effect—to return us to being tied down by their clever tactics. You saw it all unfold on this one single thread. “Consecrate them to the truth.”, and that is what we are doing.
I’m sure that when Jesus excoriated the Pharisees, or when the Apostles tore into people, they were told to just be nice. But that is not what the constant example of scripture tells us to do in the face of evil that tries to trip up good at every turn.
I suppose my question is, does anyone willingly continue to socialize with a woman who has an abortion, not as a teen, not necessarily while in college, but really? The anecdotes- they are always about someone you “used to know.” Never about a close, personal friend. There are stories of drift. It seems to me that, socially, instinctively, people seem to withdraw from a woman who has an abortion. Has anyone else noticed this? There aren’t friends from that time around, ever. Or the guy- he seems to lose his friends and colleagues, too.
there is some sort of viceral horror, below our level of politeness, that kicks in, I think. I don’t know. I do know that the one person I knew who was pleased about an abortion was horrifying in so many other ways that I wasn’t quite ever sure what was happening during a conversation.
I was wondering about anyone else. I know here, there is carefulness and kindness and solicitousness and politeness, one to another.
I know and am friends with women who have had abortions, ari.
The only time I have experienced a sort of visceral reaction over a friend’s abortion is, oddly, with a longtime friend I love dearly. We had been talking for some time about pregnancy difficulties (his wife’s) and I said that I would probably not ever hope to be pregnant, myself, because I had been once and it had not really agreed with me, physically. He was very sympathetic and said that when he was in college, his girlfriend got pregnant and they chose abortion – it was incomplete so they had to go back – he said, “It was HORRIBLE.”
I was so inconsolably, bottomlessly sad in that moment. I don’t know why in that moment as opposed to in any other, but regardless, even then it certainly did not horrify me in the least. It made me wish I had known him back then, and it made me wish I could take all of it away for him.
Personally I find that if anything, I am drawn towards women who have had abortions, rather than repelled. Probably neither of the two, though. I do think, however, that if most of the abortion stories you have heard are about people someone “used to know,” it’s because abortion is somewhat common – or at least commonly discussed - in times like college years. Most of the people I knew in those years are now people I ‘used to know,’ abortion or not.
I have consoled relatives and friends who are post-abortive. I wish they would have confided in me or someone else they could trust before they had the abortion. It really made me so sad to hear about it after the fact (one of these women wrote about her abortion) but when they told their story I tried to be supportive and loving. It was so difficult and painful to hear their story. I bet the majority of prolifers that post here probably have had a similar experience with friends and family although they may not be post-abortive themselves.
Basic biology DD. An organ in a body is the not the same as an entire human body. And an organ can not grow and live and breathe all on it’s own. It’s part of another organism – and does not have its own unique DNA, etc…
A finger is not a hand, a hand not an entire arm, an arm not an entire human body. Basics, basics, basics.
And on Monday I am actually getting my gallbladder removed – and it’s not remotely the same thing as an abortion.
I’m not ending a life of another, I am removing an organ that does not work. It’s not an ending of another human life - it’s removing an organ from my body, with my dna. No moral difficulty there. Basics.
joan
November 12th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
“Over at my blog, someone went after the Catholic clergy and their sexuality in a gratuitous and vicious manner yesterday, specifically suggesting that they are taught a warped attitude toward sex, and I called that person an ass.”
The nerve! Suggesting that an organization which has bred thousands of sex offenders just might be propagating some skewed perspectives on sexuality.
you really have no idea what you are talking about do you Joan? Whether it’s abortion or the Catholic church sex abuse scandal.
The Catholic church did not BREED sex offenders. And only a small percentage of priests were abusers. Many of the people who offended had these tendencies BEFORE they entered the seminaries. They were not screened properly mainly due to liberal attitudes towards homosexuality that were evident in society AND especially in higher academia. The problem of sex abuse in public education is far greater. The response has been slower and many abusers still work in the system, moving from school to school.
It’s one thing to try to carry on a discussion with people when you honestly don’t know something and quite another to make a buffoon of yourself because you are deliberately ignorant. It sounds to me like you get alot of your (mis)information from secular media. You might try using some critical thinking skills….
It seems to me that, socially, instinctively, people seem to withdraw from a woman who has an abortion. Has anyone else noticed this?
In the case of one of my friends many, many years ago, she withdrew from all of US. It was the other way around. People tend to gravitate toward people who won’t typically bat an eye at their life choices. Human nature. However, I am back in touch with that friend, thought we haven’t spoken of her abortion since. She knows where I stand on the issue.
I only told 2 people before my abortion. After that I didn’t say a word about it for 7-8 years.
My college roommate had one. We talk now and I shared the hope and healing I have found.
My sister had one when I was young. I haven’t seen her in 8 years as her abuse became too much for me to handle.
Other friends have drifted away on their own knowing that I am not afraid to talk about it.
I would have to agree with Kel. If anything or anyone reminded me of my abortion I had to walk away from it.
Gerry,
You do know you’re one of my favorite people on here, right? I appreciate your straight forwardness, your directness and your careful explanations. I just wanted to say that up front so nobody thinks I have anything less than the highest respect for you.
I apologize if it looked like I was calling you out and embarrassing you. That was NOT my intention.
I just really don’t like it when either pro-choicers/pro-aborts and pro-lifers start calling each other names and slinging insults. It seems counterproductive to either side’s position.
And you know more than anyone how hurtful I’ve found DD’s posts. I couldn’t comment anymore on one thread because I was so upset. I’ve had to stop myself from going into it because I didn’t think it would do any good.
I, on the other hand, feel that the Jewish principal, that “life” begins only after the fetus leaves the birth canal, to be the valid principal.
So, where are you with other Jewish principles, if I may ask? Do you believe them to be valid as well?
ari
November 12th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
I suppose my question is, does anyone willingly continue to socialize with a woman who has an abortion, not as a teen, not necessarily while in college, but really? The anecdotes- they are always about someone you “used to know.” Never about a close, personal friend. There are stories of drift.
Ari,
My sister-in-law had an abortion. I’m still civil to her. We’ve never been close (it’s hard to get close to her even before the abortion). But she’s still my husband’s sister and I still treat her with civility. Even treat my father-in-law with civility even though I suspect he had something to do with my sister-in-law’s abortion.
The reason I might’ve talked about having a friend past tense who had an abortion is because I lost contact with this person. It wasn’t because of the abortion I don’t know what happened, but we lost contact…but I can guarentee you it wasn’t because of the abortion.
The fact of the matter is, most of my close friends and relatives haven’t (to my knowledge) or wouldn’t (based on the fact that they’ve been vocal about being pro-life) have an abortion.
I have a friend who’s ex girlfriend had an abortion. I don’t remember why they broke up, but it was soon after the abortion (he begged her not to have it). I’m still friends with this guy and our friendship. We’ve had our share of differences but they weren’t over his ex’s abortion. In fact, he called me confiding in me over the woman’s abortion and believe me, he and I don’t always see eye to eye on religious and social issues. But he’s still a friend of mine and I still care about him. And I see good in his heart…I see incredible good in him no matter the fact we’ve disagreed over things in the past.
Being pro-life isn’t about cutting off ties with people when they have an abortion. Being pro-life is about standing up and defending life and offering compassion and life-giving alternatives to abortion–life giving not just for the pre-born baby but also for the woman/husband and any other children involved. It’s about showing that you don’t have to kill your pre-born baby to get through a difficult situation. It’s about walking with a person who’s hurting.
Some pro-lifers get too extreme and bomb and kill and I totally don’t approve or support those methods of protesting abortion not one bit.
But it doesn’t change the fact of what I believe and know the pro-life movement truly is…I’ve seen it in others who are pro-life and seen it in many of the pro-life organizations that exist.
Joan,
Adopting the left wing line of argument for a moment…
Men don’t choose to be gay. They are born that way.
They therefore entered the seminary with their orientation, and of course since gays are not driven by compulsion, freely chose to rape boys. They weren’t formed that way in the seminary, they arrived that way.
Mother in Texas,
I know that you weren’t calling me out, and I share your desire for civility. However, I was actually alerted to Joan trashing me by a commenter on my blog, and this was a thread I hadn’t even read yet! I presumed that as the mods didn’t delete the comment, it was fair game for a rebuttal in kind–which is sometimes necessary.
Joan came here insulting great women like Carla and a host of my post-abortive friends by demeaning their suffering and dismissing the extent to which their ministries deal with post-abortive PTSD in women (and men). And so I tried to engage Joan on the merits of the science, furnished the list of studies that she requested to fulfill her stated goal of reading for herself.
When she choked, and started insulting me for giving her what she requested, I finally called her on it.
No, it isn’t pretty. But this isn’t a high school debate class. We are in a war for the soul of our nation, for the lives of those Joan and her turkey baster buddy would see torn apart. 52 Million and counting. I would prefer civility, but in the words of ABC’s Ted Koppel in his 1987 address at Duke University:
“In its purest form, truth is not a polite tap on the shoulder. It is a howling reproach.”
There does finally come a time when people have cut themselves off from civility by assaulting civilization itself. Jesus gave us this template Himself in the steps to take in fraternal correction. The last step for the recalcitrant is to be treated as an outcast. This, from the very mouth of God. It is meant as medicinal, to show the recalcitrant what their obstinate refusal to get with civilization merits them. That’s the distasteful, but necessary part of Christian witness.
Don’t let all of this upset you!
And regarding comparing persecution of the Jews with abortion. You really don’t want to go there because American Jews (regardless of the “denomination”) resent this comparison. (The same church that preaches against abortion is the same church that made treaties with Hitler, assisted in moving Nazi war criminals to South America, and never excommunicated Catholic Hitler.) Moreover, the vast majority of American Jews (Reformed with some Conservatives) are pro-choice. Many of those on Planned Parenthood boards are Jewish. Dr. Nathanson (“Silent Scream”) was an ethnic Jew who converted, under the auspies of an Opus Dei priest, to Roman Catholicism.
Artemis, I just knew it was you!
I’ve heard all this nonsensical boilerplate from you before. Hardly worth responding to you again. But here goes.
Not all American Jews by any means are pro-abortion. I have heard great rousing speeches from rabbis at the Washington March for Life. I doubt they would resent comparison between abortion and the Holocaust at all. Because once you are honest and admit that an unborn child is a human being, then the constant effort to dehumanize the victims and the self-delusion of the murderers — and its likeness to what happened in Nazi Germany — become all too apparent. Who better than Jews can recognize a holocaust when they see one? All too many Jews are unfortunately blind to this — because they have in reality abandoned Judaism and taken secularism for their religion, just as too many Christians have done. Of course, the sheer numbers of people who are pro-abort or who they are does nothing one way or another to prove whether a human being is actually killed in an abortion.
Dr. Nathanson, the founder of NARAL recognized the error of his ways and fought against abortion as a Jew and an atheist for many years before becoming Catholic. Not such good news for your argument. I have heard him speak and he was converted by Cardinal O’Connor of New York — who by the way, was not an Opus Dei priest (not that it matters).
As I have pointed out to you before, all the German bishops gathered together at Fulda in 1937 (I think) excommunicated everyone who adhered to the Nazi party, including, presumably, its founder and leader, Adolf Hitler. Check the Pave the Way Foundation website, they have a reproduction of the actual documents.
I’m sure that none of this matters one bit to you. The way that you repeat this junk again and again even after you’ve been corrected, clearly shows that you are acting on emotion not logic.
Dare I suggest it’s fear? Fear that the Gospel and Church you abandoned might actually be true after all? (Yes, I remember that you are an ex-Catholic too). You attempt to put up a front of cool logic and cynical indifference, but the real fear is there underneath. it’s all about as pathetic as your miserable attempt to conceal your true identity here.
You cant keep this up forever, you know. Someday you will crack. I hope when your heart finally breaks, you will let God enter in, so He can tell you, “be not afraid.”
Gerard,
Somehow I just knew you were a fellow New Yorker!
At any rate, you are a national treasure. Keep up the good work!
Don’t let all of this upset you!
Gerry,
You don’t upset me. :-)
Lori,
You can take the boy out of Brooklyn, but you can’t take the Brooklyn out of the boy!! How ’bout you? Where in New York did you grow up? I really love Artemiserable’s conspiratorial hysteria about Nathanson converting under the auspices of an Opus Dei priest. It conjures the image of a hapless Jewish abortionist being abducted in the middle of the night by the Spanish Inquisition and wetting his pants with fright for what might become of him.
Can we spell p-a-r-a-n-o-i-d ??
(We should all pray for Dr. Nathanson, whom I hear hasn’t much longer to live, that he not despair toward the end, but trust in God’s infinite love and mercy.)
You too are a National Treasure, Lori. BTW, I recently finished Barbara Tuchman’s A Distant Mirror, it only succeeded in making me wish I had my doctorate in your field (I’ve always regarded the Medieval Historians to be the cream of the academics. It’s such a rich and vibrant period, much moreso than the supposed ‘Enlightenment’. Wanna swap?).
Mother,
You’re beautiful. Keep smiling! I haven’t been well for about a month now, and I’m sorry for not getting back to you sooner. More tests this week, but I feel myself having gotten somewhat better. I’ll be in touch soon.
Gerard,
I have to confess that I didn’t grow up in NYC; I was transplanted here from my home state of Iowa in 1994, when I started studying at Fordham. I live in the Bronx.
I love the city, especially after seeing the courage and resilience of its people after 9/11. That’s why I consider myself a New Yorker.
(Though Iowa is my birthplace, I didn’t actually grow up there either. My dad was in the Air Force, so I grew up all over the country. We moved back to Iowa when my dad retired from active duty when I was in high school).
Don’t know for sure if I’d even like or be able to handle your job, though it is certainly invaluable. I think I’ll stick with history. I too think the Middle Ages is the most fascinating period in history. Of course, since it stretches over some 1500 years, you find a lot of variety – that’s mainly what people don’t understand about it.
Sorry you haven’t been well. Hope the tests turn out well and you improve soon.
Thanks Lori,
My somewhat dyspeptic nature catching up with me :-o
Now I’m REALLY green with envy! Medieval at Fordham!! Wow!! Did you know Frank Beckwith when you were at Fordham? I believe you may have been contemporaries. In any event, if you haven’t gotten your official adoption papers from New York, you will soon. You’re definitely one of the family.
I’ve used some of my down time to get back into the Medieval period after a 25 year absence. Now I’m reading Thomas Cahill’s:
Mysteries of the Middle Ages: The Rise of Feminism, Science, and Art from the Cults of Catholic Europe
He has a rather fresh perspective on it all.
I’ve also snatched the John Paul I interview on Louise Brown from your blog and given all due credit. I’ve only heard about it for years and thought he gave it during his papacy. I’ve never been able to find it though. Thanks for putting it up.
God Bless,
Gerry
I see maybe there are a few other Catholics here! That is exciting.
I was baptized Catholic but raised Protestant, going to Presbyterian and Methodist churches. I rejoined the Church with my family at the age of 15, as my father left for many years due to abuses in our parish in Mississippi, and brought us back to the Church with him. I understand why Catholics leave–they are frustrated with their priests, the watered down masses, the feeling of being lost. I now live in South Carolina and attend a Latin mass here, and it truly is, as Father Faber said, “the most beautiful thing this side of heaven.”
The sad truth is that an evil entered the hearts of people at the very top of our Church, and a sick liberalism infected it, and since Vatican II, many have left the Church altogether. I have heard it in the stories of family and friends, and seen it with my own eyes. I understand if you were once Catholic, and left the Church; you are not alone.
But we have to remember that there is truth! There is an absolute truth, an unending love of Jesus and a promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church. The Catholic Church has never bred pedophiles, or abusers, or monsters: and while there have been, and quite possibly will be, other priests, bishops and popes who live in sin and do evil things, that does not make the Church inherently wrong. The truth of the Church lies in Jesus’s promise to Peter (You are Petra/Rock, and upon this Petra/Rock I will build my Church), and in the teachings of the Church Fathers, and in the lives of Saints, and in the miracles of life we see each day.
Much of history has been re-written to fit an agenda, and unless we dig for the truth and repeat it to others, it will be forgotten. The state of the world, the Church, and our nation is a story that is much greater than the past 50 years, but unfortunately, many can’t or won’t look beyond that.
The beauty of our Church and of Christianity is that we are all sinners, but God continues to love us and give us grace to come to Him. We turn away, He calls after us. We look away, He calls again. That is why we respect life in its smallest essence, because if we do not respect the weakest and smallest among us, then we have given in to our selfish natures, that our individual life is greater than another’s. In God’s eyes, we are all equally planned, loved, and known, from the cell to the grave.
I realize not everyone on here is Catholic or Christian, but I truly respect everyone’s opinions. It is hard to be honest at times, when you feel like no one understands your point of view, or perhaps it doesn’t matter anyway. There are days when I feel hardened against the world, and other days when I feel hopeful. Today is hopeful, I guess.
If we each have a soul and a physical nature, is that not worth preserving or fighting for, even at our smallest essence?
Cat,
Yes, there are a bunch of us Catholics here. The beauty of the pro-life movement, one of the rays of light coming from the black hole of the Culture of Death, is that it has reunited Catholics and Protestants in our shared heritage and common humanity. It has forced us to rise above the scandalous divisions and bitter recriminations of half a millennium. That’s very evident here at Jill’s place.
Hi Cat, I’m Catholic too. The church is full of sinners, some of us say! After all, is a hospital full of healthy people? Jesus didn’t come to save the righteous, but kindly goes after every lost sheep. I too was away from the church for a long time. The abuse scandals were a deep wound, and the media of course doesn’t talk about all the safe child rules and background checks that are in place now.
“They therefore entered the seminary with their orientation, and of course since gays are not driven by compulsion, freely chose to rape boys. They weren’t formed that way in the seminary, they arrived that way.”
Still clinging to this moronic “it’s all the gays’ fault” line, I see. In fact, despite bringing it up any number of times, I have yet to see you once comment on the heterosexual priests that assaulted children. Therefore, I can only conclude that you are fine with straight men molesting children, but have a blanket hatred of homosexuals regardless of what they do.
“The Catholic Church has never bred pedophiles, or abusers, or monsters: and while there have been, and quite possibly will be, other priests, bishops and popes who live in sin and do evil things, that does not make the Church inherently wrong.”
Your problem (and that of Gerard Nadal’s as well) is that you are willing to give credit to the Church for the good things it does and the good people it introduces to the priesthood, but not the bad things it does and the bad people it puts in positions of trust and authority. You can’t acknowledge one and ignore the other, and the stubbornness of people like you places me in an uncomfortable situation, when as a Catholic I am forced not only to respond to the abuses of the Church but also the fact that there are a number of other Catholics who are simply unwilling to acknowledge any fault whatsoever on the part of the Church for the abuse that its employees both perpetrated and tried to hide from the public to avoid controversy.
Joan there are just as many abusers in the public school system (in fact, I’ve seen reports that the incidence is higher) but why is it that there is no public outcry in this situation?
The fact is that the media has tried to paint ALL Catholic priests as child abusers.
I know for a fact that other religions do not vett their candidates for ministry in any way near to what the Catholic church now does.
I have two friends who children are now in the seminary. They have to undergo rigorous psychological screening and the entire process now takes about 7 years. The can be asked to leave at any time. Most of the incidents of abuse we are talking about have happened prior to the new processes now in place at seminaries in North America.
Just like you wouldn’t want all homosexuals painted with the same brush as those who rape and murder children, also we don’t believe Catholic priests should be all considered abusers.
“Joan there are just as many abusers in the public school system (in fact, I’ve seen reports that the incidence is higher) but why is it that there is no public outcry in this situation?”
For one thing, I’m assuming there is a considerably larger number of overall public school teachers than there are Catholic priests to begin with, so the number of abusers as a percentage of overall teachers is probably lower. Also, while teachers are placed in a position of authority, there is no pretense that it is a transcendent moral and spiritual authority: religious figures are held to higher standards because they are considered representatives of God on Earth. For that reason, their misdeeds are necessarily seen as worse. Lastly, most sexual abuse by public school teachers is of a statutory rape nature, with adult teachers having relations with sexually maturing teenagers. While it’s certainly illegal, it’s not on the same level as a man of God molesting a very young child.
“I know for a fact that other religions do not vett their candidates for ministry in any way near to what the Catholic church now does.”
Of course it does now, after decades of the widespread abuse being publically known. Would the Catholic Church’s new rigorous screening procedures have been instituted if the scandal had been kept under wraps like many of the Church’s high-level bureaucrats tried to do?
“Just like you wouldn’t want all homosexuals painted with the same brush as those who rape and murder children, also we don’t believe Catholic priests should be all considered abusers.”
As I said earlier, I am Catholic. I wouldn’t be Catholic if I felt that all Catholic priests are abusers.
Joan,
Your insistence on taking umbrage at the rape of children, while championing their murder in the womb would actually be comical if it weren’t so very monstrously depraved. I’m not debating the rape of children with you, and the origins of the rapists and their abettors, until you stop calling for the murder of babies in their mother’s wombs. You are the murderer’s abettor. It’s positively sick.
You may be a Catholic by virtue of the Sacraments, but the reality Joan, and you may check this with your Bishop, is that you have placed yourself on train bound for hell by advocating for the murder of babies. You have set yourself against the Popes and Bishops, whose God-given Apostolic Authority you are bound to as a Catholic. The Church condemns this evil as a depravity without equal, and teaches about the gravity of the sin committed by those who formally and materially cooperate in it. And yes, I’ll save you and your turkey baster buddy the trouble and say it first:
Dr. Nadal has come here and tried to scare you with going to hell for supporting the institution of abortion. And that’s because it is what our Church teaches. It teaches that we should be frightened of that prospect, and that cooperation in abortion without repentance or remorse merits us that eternal destination.
BTW Joanie, no response yet to Carla’s list of 30 references I see. But you sure know how to speak up in support of slaughtering babies.
Catholic? Dream on honey.
Hi Joan!
Hope you’re doing well today.
When you responded to my post, you actually quoted my recognition that there are bad people in the Church.
The point I made is that while the Church is comprised of sinners, it does not mean that the Church is inherently wrong, which I am assuming you must believe, since you say that you are Catholic. I’m not sure what more you want me to say.
You also made the point in another post when discussing abuse by those in authority that “religious figures are held to higher standards because they are considered representatives of God on Earth. For that reason, their misdeeds are necessarily seen as worse. Lastly, most sexual abuse by public school teachers is of a statutory rape nature, with adult teachers having relations with sexually maturing teenagers. While it’s certainly illegal, it’s not on the same level as a man of God molesting a very young child.” You are absolutely right. A priest or a pastor should be held to the highest standard, and that is what makes something such as abuse of a child especially sickening in these situations. We are all called to a higher standard, each of us is called to a saintly life, insofar as we can make it.
As a Catholic, it may be a good idea to promote the goodness of Christians, Catholic and Protestant alike, so that the world can see the light of the truth. We only hear the negative day in and day out, but the Church has been around for 2,000 years, and we are only living in a moment, a blip on the radar of Christianity. I believe that while Jesus commands us to condemn evil, he also asks us to do good and promote love and truth.
The reason for this site is to support the most innocent life of all, the life of a developing child. From the very moment we come into being, we are made in God’s image. Our bodies are simply the packaging for our souls, whether we exist in the form of a few cells or a few trillion.
“Your insistence on taking umbrage at the rape of children, while championing their murder in the womb would actually be comical if it weren’t so very monstrously depraved.”
Incredible. What we have here is a man who openly claims that abortion, a safe and legal medical procedure that a majority of people support in some capacity, is worse than child rape. I can’t think of anything more “monstrously depraved” than that.
And I can assure you, your Opus Dei boogeyman routine doesn’t impress upon me anything other than the fact that you are full of searing hatred for anyone who has different beliefs than you do. Most people, regardless of their religious convictions, have the class not to condemn others to hell for their political stances. Maybe you should reflect upon the fact that you are alone, even here, in telling other people that they are on a “train bound for hell”.
“The point I made is that while the Church is comprised of sinners, it does not mean that the Church is inherently wrong, which I am assuming you must believe, since you say that you are Catholic. I’m not sure what more you want me to say.”
The Church is, first and foremost, a bureaucracy whose purpose is to manage the power vested within its officials by virtue of their religious titles. I am not arguing that the Church is inherently wrong, but by that same token neither is it inherently right. It’s an organization, not unlike any other, that is only as good as the people it employs. That’s why I have a problem when someone tries to shift the blame away from the Church bureaucracy, where it rightfully belongs, to some scapegoat, in this case, homosexuals as an entire class of people. However, I might have been gotten a bit ahead of myself by assuming that you are guilty of this as well.
Joan, you don’t even have your facts right.
Somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of those abused by Catholic priests here in the U.S. were male. So there is reason to think that it’s a homosexual problem. This doesn’t mean that all homosexuals are abusers. But it does seem that the type who do abuse used to enter the priesthood in large numbers. Now they are being screened out.
And contrary to what you say, most of those abused by priests were developing adolescents, mostly male, a few female. Those are very similar statistics to those of public school teachers, as least as to the age.
Only a very small number of those abused by priests were very young children. Yet you constantly trumpet this idea that priests abuse very young children. Why? Because you are ignorant? Or because you enjoy thinking the worst about priests? I think I know the reason.
The secular media has done exactly the same, constantly called it a “pedophilia” scandal when it is nothing of the kind. (“pedophilia” means abuse of young children). The time has past when the press could write a serious investigative story on this subject (yes, before you say anything, they did in fact in the past write valuable stories about abuse in the Church). Now they are all about vile slander against Pope Benedict, the very man who is doing the most to reform the Church in this area. It’s mostly been all lies.
And I suspect the real reason is not the abuse crisis at all, but the fact that Pope Benedict isn’t on board with the Catholic dissenters’ agenda – including abortion, contraception, gay marriage, what have you. This is the press’ way of punishing him for that. And if you were honest, you could admit that this is your reasoning as well. You’ve given many hints of that here. You’re a dissenting Catholic, probably just waiting for the full implementation of the “Spirit of Vatican II’ before you’ll deign to spend more than two hours in church a year, eh?
I also think it’s pretty hilarious that when Gerard called your bluff on the question of post-traumatic stress for women who’ve had abortions, you suddenly change the subject and become all interest in the Church’s sex abuse problems. No one’s being fooled here, joanie — except for you and your self-delusion.
Hi Gerard,
No I didn’t know Frank Beckwith at Fordham, though I am privileged to know the awesome Fr. Joseph Koterski, and a number of other fine Jesuits there. I was also lucky to be there at the same time as Avery Cardinal Dulles I regret that I didn’t take any classes from him. But I did hear him lecture once on C. S. Lewis.
The Cahill book sounds really interesting.
Thanks for noticing the John Paul I interview as well. He actually gave it while still a cardinal, right after Paul VI’s death. Some people think that it helped him get elected Pope. But it’s been misquoted and misused over the years. Hope you will keep reading my blog. I love yours!
Joan,
The murder of Jews used to be safe, legal, and wildly popular in certain quarters in the 30’s and 40’s. So was owning slaves in this country for a couple of hundred years. It didn’t make it moral, and the key word here is moral. Jesus will judge us all on our adherence to His moral law, and not our support for what is fashionable under positive (manmade) law.
You, turkey baster girl, the Nazis, the slave owners, and the rapists are all cut from the same bolt of cloth. You all share the same underlying psychopathology:
You exercise raw, overwhelming poltical and physical power over the weak and defenseless simply because… you can.
You’re no better than the pedophiles you decry Joanie. Under the skin, you’re all the same.
And if I am alone here in pointing out your destination unless you change, then I am proud to be a majority of one.
“Somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of those abused by Catholic priests here in the U.S. were male. So there is reason to think that it’s a homosexual problem.”
I’ve already countered this line of thought in previous discussions by pointing to sociological data both historic and current. Heterosexual adult men, in many cultures throughout history, have regularly had sexual relations with young boys, simply because it was the cultural norm. Despite this cultural practice, these men still were sexually oriented such that the primary objects of their attraction were physically mature females, making them heterosexual. A contemporary example is the “rape culture” in prisons, where 100% of the abusers and 100% of the victims are male, despite the vast majority of the abusers being heterosexual men. Sexual orientation is not defined by the physical acts a person engages in. There are social motivations for engaging in sexual acts: exercising raw power over another person, attempting to establish a particular kind of relationship, “using” another person for sexual pleasure because a preferred mate is not available, and so on.
“But it does seem that the type who do abuse used to enter the priesthood in large numbers. Now they are being screened out.”
And I think that this screening process is ultimately going to fail because the Church is still denying its priests other legitimate, legal avenues for satisfying the physical and emotional needs that sexual contact provides. The Church has essentially created a sub-culture for its priests where abuse of minor children is the default method of satisfying sexual needs for those who simply cannot withstand the extreme pressure placed on them by their religious obligations.
“And contrary to what you say, most of those abused by priests were developing adolescents, mostly male, a few female. Those are very similar statistics to those of public school teachers, as least as to the age.”
The difference, being, of course, that males physically mature at a slower rate than females do. A 12-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl have not reached the same physical and mental level.
“Only a very small number of those abused by priests were very young children. Yet you constantly trumpet this idea that priests abuse very young children.”
So what is a “very young child” to you? And does it really matter? Is molesting a “very young child” much worse than molesting a merely young child?
“You, turkey baster girl, the Nazis, the slave owners, and the rapists are all cut from the same bolt of cloth. You all share the same underlying psychopathology:”
Your deranged rants really say more about you than they do about me or anyone else. I’m a psychopath, comparable to Nazis and slave owners and rapists in your view, because I don’t share your political beliefs. Regardless of the level of cordiality you may show to some “pro-aborts” over others, there really is no way for anyone to have a reasonable difference of opinion with you: after all, the sweetest, most deferential pro-choice person is still happily and willfully abetting mass murder in your view, and is morally culpable for such. You like to bring up the occasional odd example of some person coming to your blog to disagree with you, but since they are just so pleasant and civil, you return the favor, and in doing so are, by your own logic, necessarily abandoning your “Christian duty” to tell people they are hellbound reprobates who are as bad as pedophiles and serial killers. Way to stand on principle.
there was no treaty with Hitler. There were Catholic Priests in Nazi concentration camps as well. One of them is well known: Saint Maximillian Kolbe, who took the place of a Jewish man who was going to be sent to the starvation bunker, but because the man had a family, Saint Kolbe took his place. The man he replaced survived the Holocaust and was a special guest of honor at the canonization Mass in 1982.
Sexual orientation is not defined by the physical acts a person engages in. There are social motivations for engaging in sexual acts: exercising raw power over another person, attempting to establish a particular kind of relationship, “using” another person for sexual pleasure because a preferred mate is not available, and so on.
This may be true enough. But are you saying that priests don’t have adult women available to them? Because they do; illicit, but no more illicit than young boys. They’re not in prison. Besides, the homosexual culture in some Catholic seminaries in the 60’s and 70’s and still later, has been well documented. People can put two and two together.
And I think that this screening process is ultimately going to fail because the Church is still denying its priests other legitimate, legal avenues for satisfying the physical and emotional needs that sexual contact provides. The Church has essentially created a sub-culture for its priests where abuse of minor children is the default method of satisfying sexual needs for those who simply cannot withstand the extreme pressure placed on them by their religious obligations.
Then how do you account for the similar or even high percentage of abuse among ministers in Protestant denominations, most of whom are married? Or the similar numbers in the population at large? This argument for a married priesthood is the lamest one imaginable, but it still keeps being repeated.
The difference, being, of course, that males physically mature at a slower rate than females do. A 12-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl have not reached the same physical and mental level.
How does this have anything to do with what I said? You can’t deny that they are developing adolescents, so you try to introduce a distraction.
So what is a “very young child” to you? And does it really matter? Is molesting a “very young child” much worse than molesting a merely young child?
This is completely disingenuous.
You apparently think molesting very young children is much worse, or you wouldn’t have been making this distinction as you do. Again, all nonsense, an attempt to distract from the real issue. Abuse is abuse, and it is bad.
And when it comes to the abuse of the very young, let’s not forget your support for abuse of those in the womb. Don’t you think that’s the worst abuse of all, since they are the youngest of victims? And yet you keep denying they matter or that they are human. Pretty much like the abusers themselves do.
I would really love to find out what you think of Dr. Nadal’s articles.
And by the way, joan, what is this Opus Dei obsession you and DD/Artemis have all of a sudden? Do you compare notes? Have a secret Da Vinci Code club? What?
“This may be true enough. But are you saying that priests don’t have adult women available to them? Because they do; illicit, but no more illicit than young boys. They’re not in prison. Besides, the homosexual culture in some Catholic seminaries in the 60?s and 70?s and still later, has been well documented. People can put two and two together.”
There are two primary reasons I can think of for why otherwise heterosexual priests might pursue sexual relations with young boys rather than adult women. The first is an issue of simple practicality; it’s easier for a respected adult member of the community to suppress public knowledge of such a relationship by taking advantage of the power differential between himself and his victim in order to ensure the victim’s silence. By contrast, an adult sharing an account of engaging in illicit sexual behavior with a priest would necessarily be taken more seriously and could be much more damaging to the reputation of the priest. The other reason is that priests perceive the religious prohibition on sexual contact with women to exclude young males; thus they can satisfy their urges without violating their religious obligations.
“Then how do you account for the similar or even high percentage of abuse among ministers in Protestant denominations, most of whom are married? Or the similar numbers in the population at large? This argument for a married priesthood is the lamest one imaginable, but it still keeps being repeated.”
I haven’t seen any statistics showing similar rates of abuse by ministers in Protestant denominations. And considering the diverse nature of such denominations, it would be much harder to accurately make any generalizations about what motivates sexual abuse in those situations. Of course, the actual acts of abuse are only half of the equation here: the Church bureaucracy specifically took actions in order to cover up the behavior of its priests. No one is arguing that sexual abuse is unique to the Catholic Church.
“How does this have anything to do with what I said? You can’t deny that they are developing adolescents, so you try to introduce a distraction.”
The point, which should have been obvious by implication, is that most sexual abuse in the public school system is between adult men and juvenile girls, thus the age comparisons are irrelevant or less relevant for the reasons I explained: a boy may be prepubescent, and therefore sexually immature, at the same age a girl is already sexually maturing.
“This is completely disingenuous.
You apparently think molesting very young children is much worse, or you wouldn’t have been making this distinction as you do. Again, all nonsense, an attempt to distract from the real issue. Abuse is abuse, and it is bad.”
You’re the one who decided to take contention with my original usage of the phrase “very young child”, which does not imply a specific age to begin with. It could just as easily refer to a 12-year-old boy as it does a 6-year-old boy. You could take out the “very” or even the “very young” and just leave it at “child” and my original point would still stand.
“And when it comes to the abuse of the very young, let’s not forget your support for abuse of those in the womb. Don’t you think that’s the worst abuse of all, since they are the youngest of victims? And yet you keep denying they matter or that they are human. Pretty much like the abusers themselves do.”
Oh yes, of course, keep trying to drag abortion back into the debate.
“I would really love to find out what you think of Dr. Nadal’s articles.”
I wasn’t aware that he has been published. What peer-reviewed journals can I read his work in?
“so the number of abusers as a percentage of overall teachers is probably lower.”
nope. the percentage of teacher-abusers is higher
it is a problem that is being ignored and it’s getting worse
The problem in the Catholic church existed from 1950 to 1990 which coincides with the sexual revolution. Since the church is part of society, and it’s people are part of society it’s not surprising something like this happened. The Church’s teaching on sexuality, if taught from the pulpit, in the seminaries and in Catholic schools and universities, would have prevented this from ever happening.
“As I said earlier, I am Catholic. I wouldn’t be Catholic if I felt that all Catholic priests are abusers.”
wow another liberal Catholic flaunting her rebellion. My deepest sympathies….
“And I think that this screening process is ultimately going to fail because the Church is still denying its priests other legitimate, legal avenues for satisfying the physical and emotional needs that sexual contact provides. The Church has essentially created a sub-culture for its priests where abuse of minor children is the default method of satisfying sexual needs for those who simply cannot withstand the extreme pressure placed on them by their religious obligations.”
Please, do you KNOW anyone currently in the seminaries? I do. I know recently ordained young men and have several friends whose sons are currently in the sem.
What you are saying here is that it is impossible to live a chaste life without some kind of sexual activity. Well I am here to tell you that you are WRONG. I have lived chastely as an adult for many years. Intimacy is found in friendships and priests and many single people find the courage to live chastely through the grace of the sacraments.
Also there is NO subculture in the church. Do you even READ what you write Joan? Good grief.
Hey Joan – did you know that the Catholic church does have married Catholic priests? Yes, sirree! Surprised? In the Eastern Rite Roman Catholic Church (there are 22-24 of the different rites that mirror the Eastern Orthodox Churches) allow married priests – but they can not become bishops, if I recall correctly. And Anglican priests can petition Rome to be allowed to be married priests in the Latin Rite RC Church – we even have at least one here in our Diocese of Peoria.
Celibacy in the priesthood is not the problem here (since if sexual contact is so ‘needed,’ priests could join the Eastern Rite RC Church) – the problem is not leading a Godly life instead of the secular one.
Priests are granted graces to perform their priestly duties in the right way – IF they correspond to that Grace. If they are not disciplined or trained correctly and remain in their proper duties, then they can get tempted and fall from that Grace.
Again – fidelity to the teaching, prayer, sacraments and the office of the priesthood. We should not be surprised by some who stray from what they should do, after all, Jesus himself picked Judas.
God always is ready to call people back – but He will not impose himself on others, otherwise there is no free will. We are all called to do the greatest good and to love as Christ does – and that includes the laity and the priests and religious alike.
God is so good that way, of course!
Your insistence on taking umbrage at the rape of children, while championing their murder in the womb would actually be comical if it weren’t so very monstrously depraved.
Just thought this deserved to be quoted. It’s just so right on.
Joan, the point of the comparison between Protestant and Catholic clergy is not to claim that abuse isn’t limited to the Catholic Church, but that the problem isn’t created by celibacy, as you know very well. Please don’t keep introducing these diversionary tactics to try and cover up when you are on the losing end of an argument.
There are numerous studies about the rates of abuse in denominations and all segments of society – and there is abundant evidence that bureaucrats in schools do as much cover up as in churches. That you don’t want to look for these studies is your problem.
Besides, I’m sure if we continued this discussion, you would soon be back to your trick of asking for studies and then whining about being given “too much to read” when you get them. You frankly don’t want knowledge because it destroys your comfortable delusions.
And please don’t play innocent by asking “what studies??” in regard to my reference to Dr. Nadal’s studies. I’m sure your memory hasn’t been wiped clean since just last night. You know very well I mean the studies on the abortion and PTSD that he offered you.
So why continue? You will just continue to deny, deny, divert and deny rather than engage in real argument.
Joan,
“I’m a psychopath, comparable to Nazis and slave owners and rapists in your view, because I don’t share your political beliefs. “
No. You’re a psychopath comparable to Nazis, slave owners, and rapists because you champion the usurpation of politics to exercise raw power over the defenseless humans of your choosing. Get it straight.
Joan,
I advise you to look at the following web page:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex8.htm
Please pay attention to the section titled, “What the media says, compared with reality”
Mother,
You’re beautiful. Keep smiling! I haven’t been well for about a month now, and I’m sorry for not getting back to you sooner. More tests this week, but I feel myself having gotten somewhat better. I’ll be in touch soon.
Gerry,
You crack me up. You put “Mother” instead of “Mother In Texas” so it looked like you were calling me YOUR mother (which would be a neat trick LOL).
I hope the tests go well. Call me when you can and let me know what’s going on. I’ll be sure to offer some prayers up for you!
I notice these tests haven’t taken away your fiestiness–fabulous! Keep rockin’!
Incredible. What we have here is a man who openly claims that abortion, a safe and legal medical procedure that a majority of people support in some capacity…
Joan,
There is NOTHING safe about kiiling a human being while he or she is inside his or her mother’s womb. NOTHING. Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s right and it doesn’t mean it’s safe.
No. You’re a psychopath comparable to Nazis, slave owners, and rapists because you champion the usurpation of politics to exercise raw power over the defenseless humans of your choosing. Get it straight.
YES!!!! Keep after her like that. She is so easily distracted from the real point.
Been perusing “The Unchoice” list of articles about Post Abortion Syndrome and have some comments. I’ve started at the beginning of the “Citations” list at the bottom of the document. It seems curious to me that 8 of the 11 studies posted were conducted by Priscilla Coleman and/or David Reardon, two prominent voices in the pro-life movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_K._Coleman. Regardless, this is not a reason to immediately dismiss the scholarship presented here. And a disclaimer: I am looking at research for the existence of PAS, NOT refuting the claim that some women experience mental illness after abortion.
The first study is not available to me online, and I don’t feel like paying $40 for it. On to the next listing, “PK Coleman et. al., “Induced abortion and anxiety, mood, and substance abuse disorders: Isolating the effects of abortion in the national comorbidity survey,” Journal of Psychiatric Research.
The authors analyzed the results from the National Comorbidity Survey, which seeks to determine the prevalence of mental illness in the US: http://www.hcp.med.harvard.edu/ncs/. Coleman et al. broke down female participants into two groups: those who had had abortions, and those who hadn’t, controlling for several sociodemographic factors. The authors found that women in the abortion group had significantly higher rates of psychological distress when compared to the control group.
But pause for a second. The authors immediately jumped to the claim that abortion is correlated, vs. associated, with mental illness, even though the data they had did not measure prevalence of mental illness in these groups before abortion. Women who decide they can give birth to and/or parent a child very well might report being in more stable physical/psychological health than women who opt for abortion. Coleman et al., while they don’t acknowledge the study’s limitations for basing conclusions only on post-abortion data, do look at problems of methodology: ”Further, the NCS data does not include a variable related topregnancy intendedness/wantedness, therefore it was not possible to compare women who aborted to women who carried an unintended/ unwanted pregnancy to term.” The authors then dismiss this assertion by talking about the difficulty in measuring “wantedness” vs. “unwantedness.” Even so, the fact that the study’s existing data archive doesn’t allow researchers to determine mental illness across the lifespan and pregnancy “wantedness” are reasons enough to say “okay, we need to be careful in drawing hasty conclusions.” But that’s not what the authors do. They claim correlation between abortion and psychological harm despite acknowledging these significant limitations.
Also, lest we forget that the argument on this thread was about the existence of Post Abortion Syndrome. The article here talks about potential psychological sequellae but does not mention, not once, PAS.
Might not have time to read the rest of the articles tonight. Just some food for thought, for now.
Megan,
I’m four hours from home and just leaving to drive back. More detail later. For now, Reardon and Coleman CAN’T ,easure PAS, or name it, because it does not exist as a DSM IV category. Therefore, they are left to measure the various components of PTSD and build a case from there.
Recall the APA position on abortion as reproduced higher up on this thread. The task is to work parallel to the PTSD body of literature and build the case for a more specific form in post-abortive women.
HAHA! What does my claim about the effects of celibacy vows on sexual health, which I made on your blog, have anything to do with topics posted on this thread?
Anyway. Perhaps my claims are unfounded, since I haven’t looked for peer-reviewed research on the subject yet. I will admit as much. But I think it’s equally disingenuous to scapegoat the gay community for causing the Church’s sex scandal woes without taking an honest look at the Chuch’s policy of clerical celibacy, especially since people are, uh, blatantly not adhering to it. But yes, please enlighten us about the treatment of sexuality in seminary, Dr. Nadal. It is a very important isuse.
You know what’s so funny about the troll rants? We totally predicted that it would go down like this. Whenever the abortionists run out of things to say, they get on their priest abuse merry-go-round. No abortionist has ever convincingly explained how an abuse scandal excuses pre-born child murder, but don’t worry, nothing will stop the abortionist on their favorite straw man hunt! So let me get this straight: “you are pro-life. some pro-lifers are catholic. some catholic priests abused boys. therefore its ok to abort chlldren in the womb.” Ok, see, I’ve written it out and there’s something missing. How does the repetitious ranting about the abuse scandal make it ok to murder children by abortion? Cuz I don’t get it.
Megan,
Don’t tell me you’re as clueless as the Julia Child of NARAL with her turkey baster and Joan the camp commandant!!
Most sexual abuse takes place in the home. So much for marriage preventing child rape.
If you wish to join the ranks of those who argue that it’s criminal to rape a child, but not to murder a baby, go ahead. Again, it comes down to the exercise of raw political power to subjugate, humiliate, control, or murder another human being. Yes, gays ARE responsible for 90% of the rape victims in the Church. Is it a gay thing? The last I checked, the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) wasn’t a heterosexual outfit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association
NAMBLA calls for the legalization of sex between men and boys. Now in Joanies perfect little world, that would be fine, just so long as the sex was legal. That’s the key with Joan, legal.
Abortion is legal.
Slavery was legal.
The murder of Jews was legal.
The rape of children, illegal (unless NAMBLA eventually gets their way).
I’ve got a great idea for bumper stickers that sum up the sick and depraved world of all the trolls who slither around here:
Kill ’em. Just Don’t Rape ’em.
Or, this one…
Prevent Child Rape: Kill Them in the Womb.
Or…
Abortion and Pedophilia: Just Because I Can.
Or…
NARAL and NAMBLA: Perfect Together.
Again, the common denominator is the exercise of raw political power to use overwhelming force against those who are weaker and defenseless to assert ones base motives and desires. It ALWAYS involves the perversion and usurpation of the political process to masquerade as lawful activity. I refer the trolls to Ted Koppel’s 1987 Commencement address at Duke University. Select portions:
We have actually convinced ourselves that slogans will save us. “Shoot up if you must; but use a clean needle.” “Enjoy sex whenever with whomever you wish; but wear a condom.”
No. The answer is no. Not no because it isn’t cool or smart or because you might end up in jail or dying in an AIDS ward — but no, because it’s wrong. Because we have spent 5,000 years as a race of rational human beings trying to drag ourselves out of the primeval slime by searching for truth and moral absolutes. In the place of Truth we have discovered facts; for moral absolutes we have substituted moral ambiguity.
Our society finds Truth too strong a medicine to digest undiluted. In its purest form Truth is not a polite tap on the shoulder; it is a hallowing reproach. What Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai were not the Ten Suggestions, they are Commandments. Are, not were.
The sheer brilliance of the Ten Commandments is that they codify, in a handful of words, acceptable human behavior. Not just for then or now but for all time. Language evolves, power shifts from nation to nation, messages are transmitted with the speed of light, man erases one frontier after another; and yet we and our behavior, and the Commandments which govern that behavior, remain the same. The tension between those Commandments and our baser instincts provide the grist for journalism’s daily mill. What a huge, gaping void there would be in our informational flow and in our entertainment without routine violation of the Sixth Commandment. Thou shalt not murder.
That’s right Megan, that wasn’t the Pope speaking. That was none other than ABC’s Ted Koppel at Duke University. Food for thought.
Joan and Austin:
Did you know that the American Psychiatric Association lists abortion as a trigger for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder?
Bekah,
If you have a moment, could you get me that source? Thanks so much.
God Bless.
Whoa, 2 am! Something must be keeping you up at night. This is the most incoherent you’ve been, Dr. Nadal. I’ll make my response easier to navigate.
1. ACT-UP is a direct action group. Their demonstrations aren’t meant to be popular, but they have achieved a lot of good. They’ve battled pharmaceutical companies to lower prices of antiretrovirals and fought to place AIDS at the top of the national public health agenda. They took down Cosmo for publishing a piece from a quack psychiatrist who said women were physiologically not at risk for HIV infection. And yes, they stormed St. Patrick’s Cathedral in protest of the Archdiocese’s stance on AIDS education, condom distribution, and gay rights. Yes Archbishop O’Connor ministered to dying AIDS patients at their bedsides, and no, ACT-UP didn’t acknowledge these efforts as anything but “harrassment” and prosyletization. It might seem ungrateful–and I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with the “correctness” of that action–but their claim was legitimate: why was the Archdiocese trying so hard to put the damper on AIDS education in public schools? Hello, separation of Church and State??
2. ACT-UP is hardly a “mainstream” LGBT organization. And don’t insult me with the whole NAMBLA bogeyman. Would you want that Koran-burning nutjob in Florida to represent all Christians in the US? Here’s an example of what you would call a mainstream gay activist organization: http://www.hrc.org/volunteer.asp. The Human Rights Campaign. Very involved in the effort to repeal DADT and prevent kids from getting bullied in school because of their sexual orientation or assumptions about their orientation.
3. The difference between abuse in the Church and abuse in domestic settings is that with the latter, there is not a large bureaucracy that serves to shield its offenders. But yes, sex abuse in either setting is harmful to children.
You might also be interested in this article linking pregnancy wantedness to
toddler wellbeing: Horowitz et al. (2009). “Male Pregnancy Intendedness
and Children’s Mental Proficiency And Attachment Security During Childhood.”
Analysis of the Early Child Longitudinal Study Birth Cohort data found that
“unwanted and mistimed pregnancies for fathers had negative consequences for
toddlers’ mental proficiency and attachment security.” I need to read the article
closely, since this is only from the Abstract, to see if the article discusses specific
types of abuse.
3a. The exercise of raw political power, interesting. Mommy Machiavelli! By talking about “innocents slaughtered in the womb,” you seem to forget that that womb is attached to the body of a human person. That’s the funny thing about ultrasound technology: all you get is a picture of uterus and its various contents. By “humanizing” the preborn you dehumanize the BORN woman whose body houses developing life. I don’t care about the guise in which you dress up this “exercise of raw political power,” whether it be harping on the spurious link between abortion and breast cancer, post-abortion syndrome, concern for women, etc. You are still disregarding the wants and desires of BORN women who would not have you use their bodies as mere vessels for developing life. Yes, you have pro-life women like Carla, but I don’t think they’d be too happy if the government started demanding that they give birth in a particular way, C-section vs. vaginal delivery, which is a logical extension of the assertion that women should subordinate their interests to those of the fetus: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/louise-marie-roth/is-a-woman-in-labor-a-per_b_242307.html
That’s the funny thing about ultrasound technology: all you get is a picture of uterus and its various contents. By “humanizing” the preborn you dehumanize the BORN woman whose body houses developing life.
Megan,
Did you MEAN to make that “slip up”? “Developing life” IS life–it doesn’t suddenly become life. Conception means baby forming means life has started. It doesn’t start somewhere half way between conception and birth or even just start at birth, it starts the minute that pre-born baby starts forming at the very moment of conception. Pre-born babies may not be fully formed and fully grown, but they’re STILL living.
You haven’t taken into account a single word written about the help we pro-lifers offer women in need and pregnant women. You haven’t bothered to take into account anything anything we pro-life mothers have said on here about unselfish love, responsibility and our compassion for those in need as well as the pre-born baby. You have ignored all that and stuck your head in the sand because it’s easier for you to lambast pro-lifers for their so-called discounting of a pregnant woman who might be in crisis, than to look around and see all the organizations that try to help both mom and pre-born baby.
I’ve listed at least 2-3 organizations (maybe more, I can’t remember) and others have listed places and websites as well.
But, it’s a lot easier for you to say we dehumanize woman rather than acknowledge the things we have said that are designed specifically to help the pre-born baby as well as the mother. Because without that argument you lose ground and that won’t do for your position.
We have restated these organizations and facts over and over and over again. That argument about “dehumanizing women” should be long gone by now based on the information we’ve provided that counteracts your argument.
Stop playing that old tune. It’s a broken record–it doesn’t help your position.
P.S. MEGAN SAID: You are still disregarding the wants and desires of BORN women who would not have you use their bodies as mere vessels for developing life. Yes, you have pro-life women like Carla, but I don’t think they’d be too happy if the government started demanding that they give birth in a particular way, C-section vs. vaginal delivery, which is a logical extension of the assertion that women should subordinate their interests to those of the fetus…
But we’re not telling women HOW they should give birth, we’re standing up for the life of the pre-born baby AND the mother. I don’t think a single person on here has said ANYTHING about the way a woman gives birth to her baby. So now you’re just looking for something to nitpick when we never even said “A woman has to give birth THIS way.” In fact, I’d venture to say you’re changing the subject just to try and have something to throw in our faces.
I know pro-life women who have turned down this that or the other thing that a doctor told them to do. I know pro-life women who have given birth at home. There’s not a single pro-life woman I know who’s telling women “Oh the only way to give birth is THIS way”
By “humanizing” the preborn you dehumanize the BORN woman whose body houses developing life.
By “humanizing” the preborn what Megan?
Preborn apples?
Preborn paperclips?
Preborn salamanders?
Preborn grass clippings?
Preborn tennis shoe?
Preborn WHAT?
Oh. . . . . . PREBORN HUMANS.
Humans are notorious for dehumanizing other humans in order to rationalize their selfishness. Why do you insist on being a part of this violent, evil problem of dehumanizing other humans?
I support a a woman’s right to be born.
Did Ted Koppel really say that? Amazing.
“And yes, they stormed St. Patrick’s Cathedral in protest of the Archdiocese’s stance on AIDS education, condom distribution, and gay rights.”
yes and that was because? The people at St. Patricks had nothing to do with what act-up was protesting. They were innocent people at prayer. Act-UP achieved nothing by this. Abit of newsplay and nothing else. Homosexual men are still dying of AIDS because they are the ones who insist on participating in actions that make them ill. That is the bottom line.
“Yes Archbishop O’Connor ministered to dying AIDS patients at their bedsides, and no, ACT-UP didn’t acknowledge these efforts as anything but “harrassment” and prosyletization.”
Act-Up wouldn’t know an act of charity if it slapped them across the face. The people in this organization are heterophobics who run around calling normal people “breeders”. What could they possibly know about love? All they spew is hate.
“The difference between abuse in the Church and abuse in domestic settings is that with the latter, there is not a large bureaucracy that serves to shield its offenders.”
you don’t think families protect abusers? Think again sweetie.
“unwanted and mistimed pregnancies for fathers had negative consequences for
toddlers’ mental proficiency and attachment security.”
I get it. So the solution is to kill the baby so it can’t be unwanted and daddy doesn’t have to have any responsibilities.
Maybe daddies should learn to grow up and stop being so narcissistic. Mistimed by whom? The mother? The father? Perhaps you meant mistimed SEX. Because it isn’t the baby that’s the mistake. It’s the sex, Megan.
Megan,
If you must know, I frequently stay up until 2 AM reading. Also, for a month now, significant illness has kept me awake nights, and not doing all that much research and blogging. I assure you that the trolls don’t keep me awake. But if I’m up and the house is quiet, it seems a good opportunity to expose the depravity that flows like a river from Trollville.
As for the gay community, I appreciate your primer, but I’ve been around a lot longer than you Megan, and witnessed these events as an eyewitness when you were a little child. I also spent 2 years working with HIV+ teens and teens with AIDS in ’89-’90. You may defend the shock troops from the gay community who desecrated the Eucharist, desecrated the Cathedral, repeatedly interrupted Mass, infiltrated our priesthood and raped ~90% of the victims of child abuse in my Church…
Defend them if you must. Every atrocity from this group is always downplayed as the exception, rather than the rule. But with less than 3% of Catholic clergy even accused over a 50 year period, you trolls carry on as though it were systemic. So, I think that I’ll adopt your thinking on this one and reflect that back on those whom you knock yourself out defending. So you and the trolls fall all over yourselves defending the community that contributed to 90% of the rape of our children.
At least you’re consistent in your depravity. You always make excuses for the atrocities coming from the gay community. You always defend the indefensible, but never the defenseless.
You don’t defend the innocent, the weakest, the most defenseless. You advocate their mother’s “right” to slaughter them at whim. And that’s going to be the dominat theme every time you trolls come out to attack the Catholic clergy.
Again, the psychopathology you and the rapists share is the proclivity to exercise raw political coercive force against the victims of your respective choosing simply because you can.
I don’t doubt that you genuinely abhor child rape, but I think you try to assuage your guilty conscience by going after those who share your same pathology. In the final analysis, you’re all the same.
Dr. Nadal, I’m yet to see anything which supports your assertion that it is homosexuals who infiltrated the church and raped 90% of the victims.
The John Jay report indicated 81%. Internal sources put it as high as 90%. Wanna quibble over 9% Cranium? And please don’t give me the line that the guys were straight, but boys were the only available outlet. Parishes are filled with women, and not a few who look for some fun at taboo-breaking.
Men who have sex with females are heterosexual.
Men who have sex with males are homosexual.
Men who have sex with children are rapists, gay or straight.
Men and women who advocate the right to butcher babies in the womb are no better than the rapists, murderers, etc… and share the same pathology with them.
“That’s the funny thing about ultrasound technology: all you get is a picture of uterus and its various contents. By “humanizing” the preborn you dehumanize the BORN woman whose body houses developing life.”
Megan, you keep using that word “dehumanize.” I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
Tell me, are “born women” called “clumps of cells,” in spite of their perfectly recognizable arms, legs, fingers, toes, heads and features?
Are they seen as non-persons under the law?
Denied their very right to live because of where they live?
Denied the protection of the 14th amendment?
Are born women being slaughtered in this country by the hundreds of thousands a year?
Are their bodies thrown into dumpsters like medical waste?
Tell me they are, Megan, then we’ll talk dehumanization.
You think focusing for even a moment on the humanity of the child in the womb makes the mother lose her humanity. De-humanization doesn’t work that way at all. Acknowledging someone’s humanity, even a every small someone, makes us, if anything, even more human.
Showing a mother the reality of her developing child acknowledges her human right for basic health information.
Asking her to acknowledge the child’s humanity and accept her role in his creation and his future is asking her to perform a specifically human act. Yes, Megan, it’s called MORAL RESPONSIBILITY. It’s unique to human beings.
You know, you’d actually save yourself a lot of trouble coming up with these ludicrous arguments if you just did what “L” did on Gerard’s blog the other day. Simply admit “yes, the fetus is an ensouled human being, a human person, but I have the right to kill it if I want, as long as it’s in the womb.” Or the woman who wrote in the London Times a few months back, also about abortion” “You have to be willing to kill for the feminist cause.”
After all, why can’t we kill whoever we want to? Does this really change your basic argument? Because to you, “humanity” for a woman basically means “My right to kill any human person I want to when I have needs and desires that aren’t being met and that person is in my way. And if you want to take that away – why, that’s inhuman! – it dehumanizes me!! Waaaaaah!”
I’m not sure you’ll get lots of takers for that idea, but at least it’s easier and more honest. Besides you aren’t doing so hot with the credibility angle now, so what’s the difference?
Megan,
“By “humanizing” the preborn you dehumanize the BORN woman whose body houses developing life.”
So what did that make your mother when she was carrying you?
An ape? A dog? a Zebra? What, Megan? She was dehumanized according to you. What did she become?
From your rantings here, I’d say the flow of humanity seems to have been interrupted in the other direction, from mother to child. Something didn’t make it across the placental barrier there. Lori is right, just admit the humanity of the child and then claim your right to kill it.
The interesting thing, though, is that history’s mass murders always seem to be preceded by the deadening of conscience brought about by a dehumanizing verbal engineering.
It was done with Africans for slavery (feeble-minded, brutes), Native Americans for their genocide (savages), Jews in Germany (filthy, blood-suckers), and pre-natal children (parasites).
Your mother gave you a share in her humanity. Too bad you couldn’t have paid that forward. Email Carla about backing away from the edge of the cliff. She’ll walk you back lovingly, all the way.
I wouldn’t quibble over 9% when the numerals are that high Dr. Nadal. The only problem is that unless you are reading from a different page to me I don’t find it saying that 81% of these people were actually homosexual.
Nice ending! Start with a subjective, link to an emotive and then slam with a very unscientific accusation. Smooth.
Cranium,
You’re right. There is no evidence that men who have sex with boys are homosexual. And there is no evidence that Hitler really hated Jews. He was just misunderstood. That’s all.
Megan, I’ve said this more than once, and I say it again, in all sincerity:
Get some help. You’re raving, you’re hate-filled, and you’re frothing in all directions. You confuse your own myopic relentlessness for “logic”, you decry the alleged “personal attacks” of others while you freely indulge in attacks of your own, and you trod upon the most sensitive wounded hearts with a sneer and a twist of your heel. Until you stabilize, get a grip, expel whatever inner demons keep you coming here to offer your snarls, flames and slogans (I’d call them “anti-life bumper-stickers”, save for the fact that it’d take a stretch limo to hold one, and you’d need to circumnavigate the limo to apply it, even if it were in 8-point font), no one with any sense will have any reason to take you seriously. You are currently a troll, and a particularly nasty one, at that. You’ve shown a few cracks of light through your wretched shell, which makes me (at least) hope that you can get better.
Seriously, Megan: go somewhere else, where you aren’t tempted to keep up this treadmill of vitriol. Let it go, already, will you? You’re harming yourself, and you’re harming other people in the process. Go get well. Then come back, and we’ll talk.
Megan,
There are times when your posts are coherent and you can actually hold a conversation. There are other times where your comments spiral. I am concerned for you as are others here.
If you are drinking or doing drugs to cope and then coming here to type away, you wouldn’t be the first.
Lest you forget……I have been where you are. I have been lost and alone and angry and drinking and partying and trying to make sense of my life and continually wondering why everything spun out of control after my abortion.
The good news? There is health and hope and healing.
Take care, Megs. I am praying for you.
Carla, Megan,
I’ve exhausted this thread. I too am concerned for Megan, and dearly hope that she contacts you to talk. I’m taking my leave of this thread, having said all I think needs to be said, and seeing the absurdity to which Cranium wishes to drag it.
I’ll abstain from my normal “troll-poo-shovelling” warnings that I usually dispense in such times as this, Doctor… :)
“You’re right. There is no evidence that men who have sex with boys are homosexual. And there is no evidence that Hitler really hated Jews. He was just misunderstood. That’s all.” – BAM! Just like that, a completely ridiculous response to a question – and then you leave. Super smooth!
Cran, as I’ve had occasion to point out before, the whole “homosexual subculture” in Catholic seminaries makes it clear that homosexual orientation definitely played a large part in the abuse crisis.
Just this past week, several news stories have emerged about Bishop Kicanis of Tuscon, who had the bad luck some years ago, as a seminary rector, to agree to a young man’s ordination, in spite of the fact that he had admitted to sexual relations on a couple of occasions with young men of his own age (early 20’s; the media falsely reported them as young boys). “Oh well,” the bishop thought, “Not a big problem, just part of the maturation process. Can’t really discriminate if he’s homosexual anyway.” Only this seminarian, once ordained, went on to molest 23 young boys. (I’ll provide the link for this if you want).
It is certainly known that some (not ALL) homosexuals molest young boys, just as some heterosexual males with girls. There are some who go both ways. It is possible for heterosexual men to have occasional relationships with the pubescent males (read Plato sometime).
I don’t see how anyone could fail to admit that some homosexuals can be sexual predators of the young. How does recognizing that some of these molestations occur in the Church amount to “scapegoating homosexuals” for anything? (as someone here said-joan, Megan? so hard to keep you guys straight).
I’m tired too. Good night (and get well, Gerard).
Carla, you are such a dear. I don’t think I could be as patient with the Megans of this world as you are. But then you know her situation intimately, because you’ve been there- and I don’t exactly envy you that. :-)
I do recall Ashley, who had a lot of similar traits. I’m pretty sure she was drinking when she wrote some of her crazier comments. I wonder if she is OK now. I often think of her.
What an ingenious way to discredit what somebody says. I must be wasted. Or on heroin. Maybe meth. Maybe heroin and meth!
You’re right though. I am terribly angry. Our society is regressing. It’s absolutely absurd to push the “personhood” of a zygote without infringing upon the rights of the woman carrying that zygote. Tell me, Mother in Texas: what services do you provide for women who absolutely do not want to be pregnant? That is my contention. You have nothing to say except “You’ll love your baby in the end,” “You don’t want to be a murderer,” or “Suck it up.”
The House Scholar commented here on something I said over at his blog. Discussion is now fair game. He chooses to scapegoat, I choose to attack. Obviously human beings of all sexual stripes commit abuse, but it’s crazy to claim that the “gays” have infiltrated the Church and caused its woes. Really? No efforts to look at the environment and hierarchy that was apparently conducive to abuse? Nah, easier to just point fingers.
And as far as those articles go…they’re bogus, plain bad science. Anybody could read them and see that.
Tell me, Mother in Texas: what services do you provide for women who absolutely do not want to be pregnant?
Is that a serious question? First of all, pregnancy is a TEMPORARY condition. It is not terminal. It is not a disease, no matter how you continue to rail against the very idea of it because you simply couldn’t FATHOM carrying your pregnancy to term, Megan.
Do you believe that we, pro-lifers who believe abortion to be the murder of innocent human beings (because it can be nothing other than that, as they are human and they are murdered), are supposed to be helping women who don’t want to be pregnant to commit murder?
Are you saying that if PRO-LIFERS do not offer the service of abortion for women who do not want to be pregnant, then we are not helping women?
I do believe that if a woman feels she can’t wait through those months of eternal pregnancy (*snort*) then Planned Parenthood or some other former back-alley chop shop will be happy to oblige her (for a price, of course!) in the murder of her innocent offspring. Tell me, Megan, when you found out you were pregnant, did you go to a pregnancy resource center and demand that they set up an appointment for you with the local abortion clinic (claiming if they didn’t, they weren’t really helping women), or did you have to open the phone book, dial the number and make that appointment all by yourself?
And btw, Megan, if you are truly pro-choice, then let’s stop talking “zygote” and talk the reality here. Because let’s face it, you use the terms “fertilized eggs” and “zygotes” to make it seem like our position is extreme and crazy, when in fact, it’s actually the scientifically accurate one. Most abortions take place between 9 and 12 weeks, which means a fetus is aborted. A fetus who looks like this: http://www.minti.com/members/ellamia/photos/41649/10-Week-Old-Fetus/ And let’s take it even further. How about a fetus who is 16 weeks? 20 weeks? 24? 28? 32? 40? Where does it stop, Megan? When is it “not ok” to kill an unborn human being because mommy doesn’t want to be bothered by her temporary condition?
No one has to discredit you here, Megan. Clearly you are volatile. Your anger (like Ashley’s was) is palpable. Those who have been where you are can identify with what you are feeling now. You need to take a good, long look at yourself instead of pointing fingers and throwing flames here. You need to figure out why you believe your abortion is all OUR fault, Megan.
Tell me, Mother in Texas: what services do you provide for women who absolutely do not want to be pregnant? That is my contention. You have nothing to say except “You’ll love your baby in the end,” “You don’t want to be a murderer,” or “Suck it up.”
Megan,
Wake up. I don’t know of a single woman who ever gets pregnant who doesn’t think at some point “I don’t want to be pregnant.” That doesn’t mean you kill the pre-born baby!
No, I’m not going to say “Suck it up” because that’s not what I’d say. I’d offer support, encouragement and ask what I could do to help them feel better (a pregnant woman I know wants her feet rubbed? Well, I’m not a massage therapist, but I’d do my best or I’d find someone who could. A pregnant woman wants me to get her a drink? Sure…water, juice, soda, milk? Dropped something on the floor? Let me get it). Where does that say “Suck it up”? It doesn’t.
The thing I’ve learned from being pregnant and about pregnancy is that you find strength in faith (if you are into faith of some kind), you take deep breaths, you find people to support and love you as you go through the pregnancy, you read up on nututrion and rest and take care of yourself, which takes care of the baby. you let yourself cry when you need to cry, but you find ways to laugh. you realize you’re doing something so incredible: You’re helping to give life.
Sure, every woman has some complaint when they’re pregnant. Doesn’t mean you murder the pre-born human being!
Why do you suppose there’s pregnancy pillows and cold packs and pregnancy lonzgers and books on nutrition and Marilyn Shannon’s “Managing Morning Sickness”? And exercises especially designed for pregnant women? It’s to help the woman be more comfortable during the pregnancy.
Pregnancy isn’t easy. I never claimed it was. But again, that does not mean you abort the pre-born human baby!
It’s not about sucking up, it’s about finding ways of dealing with the hormonal/emotionational/psychological changes women go through in pregnancy. Prengnat woman needs to cry? Shoot, here’s a box of tissues and have at it. Goodness knows I did my share of crying while pregnant. I had good days and bad days with my pregnancy. I know women who had sucky pregnancies, but they found ways of getting through the pregnancy because they found an inner strength–maybe they don’t think they’re particularly strong, but they were.
Again, all this does NOT mean you abort/murder/kill the pre-born human being.
As for organizations…
Foundation For Life (http://lifeadvocates.org/ ) offers all kinds of help for pregnant women.
Homes of St. Mark (I THINK this is the website link, it’s been a long time since I’ve talked to anyone who works there, but yes, I knew people who worked there:
http://www.pchas.org/)
I know people who have used and were adopted through Catholic Charities. http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=1681
Natural Family Planning offers ways of avoiding pregnancy without using artificial birth control or abortion as means of avoiding pregnancy. (there’s several methods: Sympo-Thermal has 2 ways of teaching it: Couple to Couple League–www.ccli.org and Standard Sympo-Thermal–which I don’t know the website address for, I just know people who teach it. There’s other methods like Creighton and Billings, as well).
There’s dioceses around that have Family Life Offices…sometimes they have resources for people. http://www.usccb.org/directory.shtml
The Gabriel Project: http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/gabrielguidance.html
AND…
Like Kel said…pregnancy doesn’t last forever.
Just gotta jump back in…
Megan, you killed your baby because you could.
Gay priests raped ~90% of those children because they could.
Murderers murder because they can.
Common denominator? Predation of the weak and defenseless simply because one can. Sure Megan, defend the indefensible. Absent decency, that’s all you have.
On the matter of your assessment of what you have read, care to expound, or are you going to stick to the fifth grade pout?
Hey Lori,
Nothing a post abortive mom does to cope surprises me. :)
Deja vu for me.
Hi Megs,
Hardly discrediting.
I was making an observation. One that has been made here before.
I know nothing about heroin or meth. Except that they are both illegal.
Friends don’t let friends drink and post.
If you EVER need me, you know where to find me. That offer will always stand Megs.
Always.
You’re right. I couldn’t fathom carrying my pregnancy to term. The help is much-appreciated, and you’ve rightly pointed out that there are women who desperately want to have the child but lack the means to do so. But I’m not ashamed to admit that I wasn’t one of those women. And it is insulting to be told that it was “only a temporary condition,” or that “many women feel negative emotions during pregnancy,” no matter how much these assertions are dressed up in the language of compassion. If you somehow managed to criminalize abortion, frankly, you’d have a lot of pissed off women on your hands who probably wouldn’t respond all that well to massages or praises for “bringing new life into the world.” And don’t you know anything about maternal stress? Means a less healthy pregnancy, a less healthy baby. Do you really want women to bring children into this world under duress?
And I did respond to that first article, Dr. Nadal. Maybe you can explain to me how a researcher can conclude that abortion causes mental illness without analyzing the health statuses of its subjects pre-abortion/birth. Forcing that correlation is shoddy science, as are your “statistics” about gayness and child abuse. You are deliberately abusing science to further your conservative, anti-normative sex agenda. Awful.
Megan,
“And I did respond to that first article, Dr. Nadal. Maybe you can explain to me how a researcher can conclude that abortion causes mental illness without analyzing the health statuses of its subjects pre-abortion/birth. Forcing that correlation is shoddy science, as are your “statistics” about gayness and child abuse. You are deliberately abusing science to further your conservative, anti-normative sex agenda. Awful.”
I did respond to this critique higher up in the thread. It’s an invalid critique Megan, one that betrays a lack of understanding of how such studies are done. I’m saying this with the utmost respect to you, as well as with scientific rigor and objectivity. Allow me to continue.
If the critique that you articulated were a valid critique, then PTSD would need to be sticken from the DSM IV, as well as the adjustment disorders, stress disorders, etc.
The PTSD literature is largely comprised of case-control studies. These are so-called because of the two groups involved:
1. Those manifesting the symptoms being studied who have had abortions (The cases).
2. Those who are healthy (The controls).
Control subjects are carefully matched with case subjects for all variables except the one in question, in this case, abortion. In the PTSD literature, much of that studies combat veterans, civilians who have lived in war zones, victims of natural disasters, etc…
In none of those cases are there baseline data on the subjects. We don’t need such data when we have a sufficiently large pool of control subjects that we can match by age, gender, lifestyle, occupation, education, socioeconomic status, etc.
What we look for is how the experience of the life event (stressor) influences mental health and functionality in daily living. Without background information we see, and are hardly surprised, that veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have higher rates of PTSD than veterans from other wars. That’s a dose-response relationship. In WW II a vet typically might typically have sen only 30 days of combat per year, on average. That number rose to a few months in Vietnam. In this conflict, there is no front line, per se, and no safe rear area. Hence the stress of being on combat alert is a 365 day/year reality.
We can ascertain their level of PTSD by comparing them to military personnel who have not shipped overseas, and to civilian control subjects as well.
The same is true of the stress associated with abortion. Many women are railroaded into it by cold and punishing family/friends/boyfriends, and feel they have no other support structures. For many who are not religious, there is a mother-child affinity that gets caught in the emotional cross-fire of disappointed family, panicked boyfriends, etc. It is a definite life stress event, even in marriages where a child is hoped for. However, the resolution/outcome can be devastating when the shock wears off, when the hostile fire ceases and the baby is dead.
It’s real Megan. And the studies that ascertain the post-abortive stress and other sequelae follow the same paradigm as PTSD studies on other stressful life events as precipitating factors.
Be Well.
I’m ticked !!!! - I’ve spent hours and hours reading about PAS supposedly, and it’s existence. That IS AN ABSOLUTE, NO BRAINER. (period)
PREGNANCY = a WOMAN completely refurbishes her biochemical make up, to BRING TO BIRTH + A FETUS/BABY
ABORTION = A WOMAN (still hormonally ‘pregnant’) + A Suddenly EMPTY WOMB
To surmise that a woman will not have any repercussions from her full compliment of pro=pregnancy/birth hormones with nothing-to-do, is lunacy/denial of the 1st order. an abortion removes the central player in a pregnancy, BUT DOES NOT REMOVE A PREGNANCY.
FOR INSTANCE, A LEAD ACTOR IN A PLAY DIES … WILL THE PLAY DIE (when there is no substitute)?
Right on, John. Like I said earlier, these denials of PAS remind me of the good ole days when PMS was all in our pretty little heads.
Whether a woman takes a poison pill or waits to get a surgical procedure, abortion murders a human being. Humans reproduce like other mammals. We can no more force ourselves to be pregnant than we can force earth’s gravity to stop pulling things toward the earth. Pregnancy is a natural biological event. It is the abortionist who, having found how easy it is to kill a small person and how much money it makes, wants to rewrite biology to suit their greedy fancy.
“Megan, you killed your baby because you could.
Gay priests raped ~90% of those children because they could.
Murderers murder because they can.
Common denominator? Predation of the weak and defenseless simply because one can. Sure Megan, defend the indefensible. Absent decency, that’s all you have.
On the matter of your assessment of what you have read, care to expound, or are you going to stick to the fifth grade pout?”
and these words of yours Dr. Nadal, I find to be redolent of fifth grade logic and intellectual rigour.
Cranium,
Murder, rape, abortion are very simple, evil, and grubby realities. It doesn’t take a whole lot of spilled ink to describe them and the logic that binds them all together. Authentic scholarship involves an economy of words when describing some entity, not diarrhea of the mouth.
Let’s take the quintessential ‘American’ example: 9/11. [Heck, all I have to do is quote two numbers and folks here ‘know’ exactly to what I refer.
I think too little thought goes into the ‘significance’ of each human life [eg. Hal has no ‘heroes.]. We have a nasty habit of ‘distancing-ourselves’ … NO to comparison with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. NO to any comparison to slavery. I think it quite easy to understand that there are multiple negative experiences to 9/11 beyond those who died. Why then do we not all(even expect) a substantial problem when 52 million children ARE KILLED? Are we really doing enough – REALLY?
While your description of the economy of words is quite appropriate Dr. Nadal, your depiction of the words is somewhat disingenuous.
Abortion does not fall into the category of ‘simple, evil and grubby realities’.
And they are not combined by logic.
Well, since not every vet in combat experiences PTSD, researchers are particularly interested in factors that could predispose certain individuals to the disorder. Negative childhood experiences are thought to be linked to mental health outcomes after combat. This study is one such example and was published in ’91…three years before DSM-IV came out: http://www.springerlink.com/content/v0839p4144u2m101/. Researchers are also working on establishing the relationship between genetic factors and disease development.
Even Coleman et al. acknowledge that “future research is needed to shed light on mediating mechanisms linking abortion to various disorders and to decipher the characteristics of women most prone to developing a particular mental health problem” (776). Yes, the cases were matched to control for specific variables, but this list of variables did not include a previous diagnosis of a mental health condition. Since abortion is allowable on the grounds of endangerment to a woman’s health–presumably including mental health–wouldn’t it make sense to control for history of menal illness? Socioeconomic characteristics don’t fully capture whether a woman perceived herself to be emotionally and mentally capable of bearing a child. And it is quite possible that women in the abortion group had had higher rates of diagnosed mental illness than those in the control group.
This omission is not the fault of the authors, since they were simply analyzing data from a national survey. They can be faulted for overinterpreting their findings, however, especially since more methodologically sound, prospective cohort studies have found that abortion does not cause PTSD in a significant number of women.
Also, the study did not measure pregnancy wantedness. What about women who carried unwanted pregnancies to term, or gave their babies up for adoption? What about women who were pressured to abort vs. women who aborted of their own volition? And what about women who aborted a pregnancy late in the second trimester after diagnosis for fetal abnormality?
These are all important questions that need further consideration, and a cautious researcher would be hesitant before jumping to claims of causality. If they aren’t ideologically-motivated, that is.
you’d have a lot of pissed off women on your hands who probably wouldn’t respond all that well to massages or praises for “bringing new life into the world.” And don’t you know anything about maternal stress? Means a less healthy pregnancy, a less healthy baby. Do you really want women to bring children into this world under duress?
Megan,
No matter what a person does SOMEBODY is going to be mad (“pissed off”) about it. A person can greet another with complete civility and kindness and still get snapped at…so why would abortion be any different? There’s someone mad if abortion is legal (us pro-life women are pretty “pissed off” about that–since you’re so worried about “pissed off” women, what about us pro-life women who are “pissed off” that abortion is legal and so easily procured and that a lot of women ARE hurt by it not to mention the pre-born baby is killed by it), there’s someone mad if abortion is illegal (I’m sure the pro-choice/proabort women would be “pissed off” about that). HOWEVER, someone being “pissed off” is NOT the heart of the matter.
The heart of the matter is whether something is right and wrong. And abortion is WRONG.
Regarding Maternal stress…
I know a lot about Maternal Stress I’m a Mom as I’ve said so MANY times before. I’m WELL acqauinted with maternal stress.
However, there ARE healthy ways of dealing with stress. But, it is the responsibility of the person in question to educate themselves and use these methods to de-stress.
No, I don’t think most people are perfect at handling stress, but I believe that we are in control of our actions. We can choose to handle stress in a healthy manner or choose to handle stress in an unhealthy manner.
Life is full of stress. But we can’t let that hinder us from rising above it and working at becoming better at handling stress and better people. (We all have to remind ourselves about that every now and again, I reckon).
Furthermore…
Abortion does NOT challenge us to be better people. It doesn’t challenge us to grow up and handle stress healthy. It teaches us to be MORE selfish by telling us that we’re more important than anyone else in the world and that nobody else is more important than “Me, me, me”.
I’m completely shocked that this thread is still alive!!! Haven’t we exhausted all there is to say about the issue? Let’s move on to fresh interesting topics, shall we? ;)