The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Mother’s Day Announcement

May 9, 2004 | 113 Comments

Sometime before September, The Raving Atheist will become, in part, an anti-abortion/anti-choice (with exception for serious threat to life of mother) blog. The site name and color will change one day a week (maybe more) to reflect the topic switch and give you a chance to flee if discussions of fetus-killing upset you.

Although my decision for pursuing this direction was inspired largely by some deeply religious people (they know who they are), my reasons are entirely secular. I am anti-abortion and anti-choice because if the choice had been made to abort me at any time after my conception I wouldn’t be here, and neither would you. While it is true I wouldn’t now be in a position to notice my non-existence, that is just yet another reason I oppose abortion. I’m glad to be here, and glad you made it as well.

Thanks, mom!

Comments

113 Responses to “Mother’s Day Announcement”

  1. mnuez
    May 9th, 2004 @ 1:14 am

    Awwwight… That’s a new idea and I like it. (I’m kinda sick of the media making it look like the rank and file anti-abortionists are all raving Christian nuttas. Come to think of it, thay make anti gay-marriage folk out to be even more insane fanatical Christ-ians, and that aint so either. But considerin your blog cats I doubt you’d agree wit me – Agree at least that one can be a raving athiest and still be of the opinion that folk aren’t “jutht born thith way” but that our society is suffering from mass hysteria. Maybe because we don’t despise Jews no more, lynch negros and keep wo0men locked up and we really NEED some “injustice” to wax indignantly against. Some people to free from O-PRE-SSION! – be dat as it may, And I hope some more rationalists will come out of the closet on this one, , I mean for heaven’s sake what about evolution, ey? But on ta yer post – )

    Like I said, like your POV (for it’s originality, pause-giving, and seperating from the athiest herd) but dya know that if yer Mom woulda had a headache that day you wouldn’t exist? And if yer Dad had been outta town (welll, maybe then you’d exist but youi’d be Chinese), or if he’s’a come early?

    I mean should we make all post puberty people immediately hook up and start and start reproducing? And while we’re at it, ya against Boyt control?

    Just raising the questions. As for answers, I don’t have ‘em. The only answer I’ve got is that members of the herd (“a woman’s right to do with her body…” / “The Bible says…”) make me sick – and I think, just my opinion, they oughtta be Beyatch slapped. And then told that they aren’t allowed to have an opinion and should just go to their rooms and watch cartoons until it’s time for msupper.

    mnuez

  2. mnuez
    May 9th, 2004 @ 1:21 am

    Oh, and one more thing. I want you to be a success (because I CARE… ) and I don’t think (although I may be wrong) that having this complex system of changing blog name and blog colors and whatever- is the best way to build a loyal following. Post lots on why you’re anti-abortion and you’ll come to be known for it but don’t go a changing to try and please me- ahem! I mean don’t go changing your blog colors, name and identity or your name is MUD! You know I love you, right?

    mnuez

  3. Debbie
    May 9th, 2004 @ 1:44 am

    As someone who suffered through three misscarriages and personally understands a little on loss and the grim realities of abortion … I don’t wish you well at all on this.

    Who knows, may be a court of old men could have determined that I didn’t take sufficient care of one of my foetuses and so I should be prosecuted for negligent homicide.

    Mother’s day announcement – don’t make me laugh. Who determines “serious threat to life of mother”?

    Will you be selling RA-branded coat hangers for terrifed girls to use alone at home once you and GW Bush are successful?

  4. Julia
    May 9th, 2004 @ 1:47 am

    See ya, RA. Nice knowing you for this short while. Can’t abide/support an anti choice platform, regardless the vector.

  5. Katherine
    May 9th, 2004 @ 5:53 am

    Any time after conception? How far will you go, I wonder? Do you want to make the Pill illegal? Would you like to see women who wear IUDs executed as serial killers? After all, they could be murdering as many as thirteen people every year.

    If I want this sort of stuff there are plenty of Catholic websites. I don’t think I could stand it on a non-religious site. So I think I shall be leaving, like Julia.

    The trouble is, where can I go? I need an unfair, inaccurate, insulting anti-religion blog to set against religious blogs, like Mark Shea’s unfair, inaccurate, insulting Catholic blog. Any suggestions?

  6. me oh my
    May 9th, 2004 @ 7:15 am

    anti choice platform

    Um. Anyone who uses a propagandistic term like “anti-choice” probably isn’t being serious.

  7. Tim
    May 9th, 2004 @ 8:29 am

    Hmm, both strange and disturbing.
    RA: Wouldn’t it make more sense to start a completely new blog on this issue instead of putting people off your current, unique and worthwhile one?

  8. Viole
    May 9th, 2004 @ 8:50 am

    So long as RAA–the Raving Anti-Abortionist–doesn’t start posting those disgusting pictures of mangled fetuses, and sticks to clear, rational arguments, I think I can handle the change. I’ve seen those pictures printed on boards twenty meters high and stuck up on Northrop Plaza, where I have to walk by them nearly every day.

    That said, I think a few of you have over-reacted a bit. RA has made this stance clear before, if not so bluntly. Let him lay out his positions on some of the issues you’ve raised–such as who determines a threat to the mother, and being decided by a bunch of old men–BEFORE we castrate him.

    And I wouldn’t be complaining about RA using the term anti-choice rather than pro-life. It’s high time that liberals started defining the debate, rather than letting the right-wingers do it.

    Now, If I may close with a song… Monty Python, some of you may be familiar with it…

    Every sperm is sacred.
    Every sperm is great.
    If a sperm is wasted,
    God gets quite irate.

  9. David
    May 9th, 2004 @ 9:43 am

    “I am anti-abortion and anti-choice because if the choice had been made to abort me at any time after my conception I wouldn’t be here”

    What about all those siblings you don’t have because your parents used contraception? Will you be in favor of banning contraception, too?

    Should every family be like this one with nine kids? As reported in this Mother’s Day story:

    To hear Schott tell it, raising a big family is mostly a matter of showing up, doing your best and having faith.

    “My older girls will say, ‘Mom, how did you do this nine times?’ I’ll say, ‘Honey, it’s the grace of God.’ ”

    Many of her hours are spent at St. Roch Catholic School and Roncalli High School, which the three kids still at home attend. She prays daily and attends Mass five days a week.

    To this Roman Catholic who chose to accept as many children as she and her husband conceived, her brood, which included a baby boy who died in 1985 before coming to full term, is a blessing.

  10. Division56
    May 9th, 2004 @ 11:53 am

    This is too bad. I really liked this site. You had some really funny god squad rants, but I’m not coming back if you turn this into an abortion blog.

  11. Piotr
    May 9th, 2004 @ 12:32 pm

    Well, I shall be deleting that link of my favorites then. I could not stand another MAN talking about thing he knows little about.
    Too bad, I really enjoyed your raving for so long.
    I’ll check in a year maybe to see if you stopped that nonsense.

  12. Daniel
    May 9th, 2004 @ 1:57 pm

    April fools day was last month, raving atheist :)

  13. mnuez
    May 9th, 2004 @ 5:07 pm

    Ah, the herd has arrived.

    (Omigod! you want me to hear an opinion different to the one that makes me feel good and different to the one that EVERY LOGICAL, RATIONAL AND NON-EMOTIONAL PERSON KNOWS IS THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH?!?!)

    mnuezzzzz

  14. Jason Malloy
    May 9th, 2004 @ 6:12 pm

    Of course it’s your website, and you can do whatever you like, but I really don’t think this is a good idea. For one you chose to make this a topical blog instead of a live journal style general vanity blog, even adopting a pseudonym reflecting the purpose. I would be upset even if I agreed with you on this issue, it cheapens the focus and actually hurts both unrelated topics to juxtapose them. Why not create another blog either entirely devoted to abortion or just a typical blog using your real name where you can talk about lots of stuff (politics, movies, experiences, etc.). Better yet why not start a topical group blog with like-minded bloggers, like Panda’s Thumb or Oh, That Liberal Media. Then you could keep your present identity* but without needlessly compromising this blog.

    *and still “make a statement”, if that is your intention, about abortion not just being about religion.

  15. Christopher Rhoades D
    May 9th, 2004 @ 6:15 pm

    Ever jerk off? Wasted potential life, you sinner. As someone quoted earlier: “Every sperm is sacred.”

  16. me oh my
    May 9th, 2004 @ 6:26 pm

    Every sperm is sacred.

    Yeah, really. And once they have human cloning perfected, every single cell not used to make another person is an abortion. But that isn’t how abortion is defined.

    another MAN talking about thing he knows little about

    Yeah, really. Except for the fact that every man used to be a fetus, and so can be considered a party to the whole abortion topic.

    Should every family be like this one with nine kids?

    What is the proper number of children, anyway? If woman x makes nine of them, then it’s necessary that woman y abort hers?

    ***

    I really don’t think this is a good idea

    I don’t either…probably 90 percent of your current readership will be hostile, and (believe me) people are more likely to ditch than to question their convictions.

  17. joe
    May 9th, 2004 @ 6:45 pm

    I am convinced this is a joke. The stupid remarks in this announcement gives it away.

  18. AK
    May 9th, 2004 @ 7:20 pm

    Hey RA, I love your atheist stuff. I am pro-choice however. I do not support forcing mothers with little or no resources to have children that will grow up to be criminals or poor (insert race here)-trash with no education and will to better themselves.

    Aborted babies are aborted for good reason. The mother must be able to provide the best care possible for her child and when she aborts its because she cannot provide for the child adequately.

    Its not like we dont have enough people in the world already!

    Abortion allows much greater control of our society. Having an anti-abortion stance means that you prefer QUANTITY. Having a pro-choice stance means that you prefer QUALITY.

    Isnt QUALITY more important than QUANTITY? China has more QUANTITY, but Europe has better QUALITY (in terms of citizens).

  19. Jenia
    May 9th, 2004 @ 7:59 pm

    I love how people are responding to others’ decisions to leave with snide remarks about closed-mindness or an unwillingness to challenge convictions.

    If there’s one thing that has been made clear at this atheistic site is that its visitors HAVE thought long and hard on various issues, and, in fact, by adopting a very non-mainstream system of beliefs, are forced to defend and analyze their views on a regular basis.

    I’ve researched and studied abortion extensively, and, since I attend a Catholic-Jesuit university, I regularly participate in honest and intelligent discussions on this issue. I HAVE heard the other side. I HAVE seriously considered their viewpoint, and I HAVE challenged my convictions. I made my decision to be resolutely and unflinchingly pro-choice only AFTER processing all of the above. But to this day, I am continually using my knowledge of the pro-life arguing points to re-define and refine my alternative to their view.

    Still, I too will not be returning to Raving Atheist. When I want to hear pro-life information, I seek it out myself and analyze it as necessary. I do not need to regularly visit a forum bolstering an agenda I vehemently oppose.

    So don’t tell me what I have and haven’t questioned, and don’t tell me what I can and can’t do with my uterus.

    Every mother willing, every child wanted.

  20. PhalsePhrophet
    May 9th, 2004 @ 8:01 pm

    On the off chance it is not a joke, I vote in favor of not using this site to debate the merits of abortion. You think the Catholics can

  21. me oh my
    May 9th, 2004 @ 8:49 pm

    I seek it out myself

    Oh, you don’t want to self-filter information too much. But what’s your pro-choice argument? I’ve never heard any rigorous ones.

    (And yes, I still think this is all a put-on.)

  22. Ben
    May 9th, 2004 @ 9:41 pm

    That’s cool. I’m going to become shrilly anti-Gay Marriage sometime before Shrove Tuesday for reasons best known to myself and my frog.

  23. Quasimofo
    May 10th, 2004 @ 8:54 am

    Man, you need to read a book on marketing. Please leave this site as it is so we can discuss issues related to atheism. You should use the popularity of this site to promote a new web site devoted to the anti-abortion movement. Call it “The Raving Anti-Abortionist” or something. Use the same basic page layout, but a different color scheme. Voila, you’re on your way to your own little cottage industry!

    Btw, I am very much opposed to abortion. Last time I checked, women aren’t forced to become pregnant. Accept a little responsibility.

  24. speedwell
    May 10th, 2004 @ 10:49 am

    Maintaining a website about atheism is a defense of freedom-of-religious-choice. Maintaining an anti-abortion website is an attack on freedom. You said it best… “anti-choice.”

    Thanks very much for hosting the atheist website, but even though I myself am against abortion, I’m even more strongly a proponent of freedom and personal choice. I’m very disapponted by your decision, but I support your right to make it.

    I will not be back.

  25. Viole
    May 10th, 2004 @ 11:21 am

    This is starting to look like not so good an idea, RA. Now, I don’t see the difference between supporting someone who occasionally writes anti-choice stuff, and someone who you know is anti-choice, so I’m not going to run off merely because of this. I also hope that few people will be so silly to leave merely because of that change.

    I look forward to tearing your arguments apart, like you’re ‘argument from non-existence.’ There are an infinite number of choices that could have led to your non-existence. The decision not to abort you is last, though not the least, and may not even have been a choice at all–that is, the question may never have arisen. Are you against every single choice that would have led to you not existing?

    I suspect not. I suspect you draw the line at conception, which is at the least the second-best place for such a line, with another at birth, and a third, for the sake of argument, at eighteen(or whatever age is accepted for adulthood). A woman in Utah recently refused to have a cesarian, and her child died. She is being prosecuted, because she made that choice against medical advice–would you have that made illegal, as well? How long until the state asks me to wear a chastity belt?

    As for Quasi’s, ‘Argument for Responsibility,’ I can only suggest that the best way for a woman to assure that she doesn’t get pregnant is to castrate her partner. Condoms aren’t always effective, you know, and neither are birth control pills. What you’re saying, in effect, is that women shouldn’t have sex unless they want kids, while men can have all the fun they want.

  26. REDFRED
    May 10th, 2004 @ 11:21 am

    wow, I think thats 22-2 oops forgot me 23-2.

  27. Adrian
    May 10th, 2004 @ 1:08 pm

    “The site name and color will change one day a week (maybe more) to reflect the topic switch and give you a chance to flee if discussions of fetus-killing upset you.”

    I can deal with this weekly change and even flee if it upsets me, so I’ll keep reading my fav. blog. Unfortunately, some people will always whine and complain.

  28. dog of flanders
    May 10th, 2004 @ 2:03 pm

    Mmmh. Say, RA, does this post have anything to do with your previous post (I can’t find it) wherein you searched for a way to identify “Most likely to start believing again” atheists?

    Maybe one of the ways to identify these would be antagonism to expose oneself to viewpoints contrary to one’s own.

  29. AK
    May 10th, 2004 @ 2:46 pm

    by the way I will still be coming back to see your wonderful atheist writing. Even if I dont agree with the abortion stance you take, as long as theres good atheist stuff here, why throw out the baby with the bath water? HAHA I made a funny!

  30. Jerry
    May 10th, 2004 @ 3:58 pm

    RA: Write what you want, I’ll still read you. I’m Catholic and I read your site every day because I enjoy having my ideas and beliefs challenged. I am also pro-choice, so I’m looking forward to you challenging my ideas and beliefs on a new topic.

  31. REDFRED
    May 10th, 2004 @ 4:06 pm

    Great now we have an anti abortionist Atheist and a pro-choice Catholic, you guys are driving me mad… what

  32. ocmpoma
    May 10th, 2004 @ 4:53 pm

    Hey Redfred -

    Did you hear they are going to finally let gays march in next years St. Patty’s day parade in Boston?

    Only if they’re ordained, though.

    “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
    -Voltaire (attrib.)

  33. Kathy K
    May 10th, 2004 @ 7:45 pm

    Just what we need. An all flame-war, all the time blog. Sigh.
    If you mean that, you are a very brave man. And I’ll be over here to argue with you. Again.

  34. BwanaMan
    May 10th, 2004 @ 9:34 pm

    Let the games begin.

  35. tara
    May 10th, 2004 @ 10:25 pm

    I’ve never accepted that RA is serious about in his “anti-choice” stand. RA’s (supposed) reasoning that abortion is wrong on the basis that *if* his own mother had aborted him, he wouldn’t be here is pretty telling. If RA’s mom hadn’t done any number of benign things, if anything had been different than it was, he wouldn’t be here. Were it sound reasoning to reject an activity because it would eliminate your own existence when applied to the past, then all forms of birth control would surely have to be rejected on the same basis. I doubt he’s willing to go so far as to proclaim interrupting semen from fertilizing an egg by means of a latex barrier is wrong. An anti-condom stance might reveal that all of this has been tomfuckery.

    My own theory is that he keeps bringing this up to stir up debate and speculation. It keeps people coming back to find out about the curiousty of an atheist who prides himself on his logic, yet is rabidly pro-life- just a very effective gimmick. Indeed, maybe RA has taken courses in marketing.

  36. Kris
    May 10th, 2004 @ 11:15 pm

    Just here to offer encouragement, RA. I enjoy your posts, your integrity, and your respectful attitude.

  37. Jason Kuznicki
    May 11th, 2004 @ 8:54 am

    I think the joke is on all of us–possibly including RA himself.

    RA’s argument against abortion is almost exactly parallel to the old theist argumen that, “If God hadn’t created the world, you would not be standing here to deny His glory.”

    Take out God, put in Mom. The logic is the same, and I do hope that RA understands this.

  38. me oh my
    May 11th, 2004 @ 1:41 pm

    The logic is the same,

    Well, one difference is that he isn’t trying to prove the existence of his mother.

  39. Annie Banno
    May 11th, 2004 @ 3:11 pm

    Congrats and admiration from me, Raving A. You have my vote of confidence. As I

  40. apegirl
    May 11th, 2004 @ 4:10 pm

    RA – You say you’re going to switch over one day a week, maybe more, to your other subject matter. Are you going to let us know which days in advance, so those of us who wish can forgo attendance? Or will it be Russian roulette?

    me oh my – I don’t see reading anti-abortion screeds as “challenging my convictions”. I’ll look upon this website as I would one promoting woodworking, say, or dog fancy. I simply have too few hours in the day to waste my time with a subject that hold so little interest for me.

  41. apegirl
    May 11th, 2004 @ 4:13 pm

    Oops. Double post. Mea culpa.

  42. jefe
    May 11th, 2004 @ 5:09 pm

    I think next week I am going to turn gay.

  43. liz
    May 11th, 2004 @ 5:38 pm

    Another reason to keep abortion safe and legal: a thinking person can use a low-risk-of-side-effects form of contraception (such as condom+spermicide, and have the “failsafe” of abortion should the first method fail.

    I am ambivalent about RA’s announcment–this is his site, he pays the freight, it’s his. But I hope that RA would start another blog–maybe Atheists Against Abortions–and leave this one dedicated to its stated purpose.

    And RA, what IS your stance on medical abortion: the definition of which is a pregnancy which self-terminates, known in lay circles as “miscarriage”. In RA-land, would you advocate prosecuting women who miscarry? Why not? If miscarriage is not a crime, why should abortion be a crime? How about IUDs, which prevent fertilized ova from implanting? Is this a criminal form of birth control? Why or why not? Discuss.

  44. Debbie
    May 11th, 2004 @ 5:42 pm

    Annie,

    Your website focuses on the post-procedure pain and regret suffered by women who have had an abortion as though this should be a surprise. It is true that many women who abort their fetus regret it but many also realize it was still the right choice for them. If your goal is to make sure that every woman considering abortion has access to excellent, impartial counselling before the procedure, and after it (if she decides it is the right thing to do), I would support your goals. But I would not if your approach is just a mechanism to build support for making abortion illegal, which it appears to be.

    Viole,

    You answered your own question regarding sex being only for procreation … in the minds of RA’s new Christian bedfellows, contraception and abortion are “fruits of the same tree” as stated by the current pope.

    In Ireland the Catholic Church recommended the Billings method of natural family planning. This led to the very much repeated (and true) joke … “What do you call a couple practicing the Billings’ Method”?

    Answer: Parents

    RA may not be a lost soul yet (assuming he is not pulling an elaborate but characteristically brutal prank on his religious anti-choice comrades). He is already showing signs of backing out … he is prepared to grant an exception in the case of “threat to the life of the mother”. How an exception for the rape of my twelve-year old daughter? Or should she see it as a blessing as the Christians do?

    Perhaps the anti-abortion lobby will loose more than half its advocates to a medical breakthrough … that allows a man to have the woman’s unwanted fertilized egg to be implanted in his body, and then carry the fetus through to birth, along with all the physical changes.

  45. Viole
    May 11th, 2004 @ 6:33 pm

    You know, if this country really cared about women… or people… I mean, Cuba has better medical care than we do. They’ve less problems with AIDS, lower infant fatalities and deaths from childbirth, and they’ve been getting almost no trade at all since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Iraq had free health care and education, plus one of the best food distribution systems in the world. And these are countries that we’ve been told are evil! Why can’t we do better than these people, since we’re so good?

    I lost my point, though… ah, fell under the desk. What I was going to say was that if this country really cared about women, there could be much more advanced medicine for us. Perhaps something to stop the menstrual cycle until we need it–I would kill for something like that. Also, we wouldn’t get used as political volleyballs in every election, which I am entirely sick of. Better motherhood courses than we have would be nice, too. Ah, but now I’m just dreaming. Point is, we women are still fighting for women’s rights, and this is just another battle–unfortunately, this struggle is divisive and dangerous, and there’s only one group of people who don’t bend on this issue; the fascists, who like to subjugate women. And sorry if you get swept up in this rather broad sweep I’m about to do, RA, but most anti-abortion wing-nuts are not only fundies, but neo-fascists.

  46. me oh my
    May 11th, 2004 @ 7:04 pm

    Perhaps something to stop the menstrual cycle until we need it

    I’m no expert, but if you replace the inert birth control pills with active ones, I think that does it.

    neo-fascists.

    I’d take il duce over Castro. Not that I’d like either.

    If miscarriage is not a crime, why should abortion be a crime?

    There’s a good reason why miscarriage isn’t a crime, nor likely to become one.

  47. Viole
    May 11th, 2004 @ 7:56 pm

    Your choice. I’ll stick with Fidel, since both tales of his atrocities and election-tampering seem wildly overblown by the world press. But you know where that’s coming from, so I don’t know why I bothered to say it. Long live the Revolution!

  48. Annie Banno
    May 12th, 2004 @ 9:40 am

    Debbie, it isn’t my website, it’s the site of a group of thousands of women who regret their abortions and want others to know that if they hurt too there is positive, noncondemning help. My goal is also to let women know they don’t have to subject themselves to the physical and/or emotional lives of pain that so many of us have experienced since our abortions. And it isn’t “to make sure that every woman considering abortion has access to excellent, impartial counselling before the procedure,” [Planned Parenthood and the like aren't "impartial counselors" either, if one looks at the money made]. My goal is also to make sure every woman considering abortion has access to real, live, better alternatives, including free pregnancy tests, free medical care/baby supplies/food/a place to live if she needs it, for the long haul, not just for a week or for 9 months even, and help raising that child or allowing another loving couple to adopt the baby. That’s what about 3,400 life-affirming pregnancy centers around the U.S. are for. Friends of mine have been offering such help in conjunction with such places for decades, helping moms and babies avoid the trauma of abortion. Even those who support abortion admit it is not a walk in the park.

    Viole said, “if this country really cared about women… or people,” and I agree, that’s what we should be doing as a country, and many of us are trying to do. But Planned Parenthood and the like don’t make 96% of their money from helping women like these other groups do, they make about 96% of their money from performing abortions (those figures can be found in PP’s own latest annual report, and they are the U.S.’s largest single abortion provider).

    It would be nice to “have your support” for women this way, Debbie, but in fact, the lack of your support won’t stop us from delivering better choices to more and more women, nor will it keep us who do regret silent anymore.

    As for your comments about Christians, the pope doesn’t represent all Christians, and to make jokes about natural family planning methods, which you may very well know little about other than negative stories that pro-abortion media emphasize, is hardly productive. Take an NFP course before dissing it; the couples report it actually spices up their sex lives, rather than dulls it. And that it’s as or more effective than the best contraception out there at birth control. I’d be curious also to know how many Christians you really know that you can state emphatically that “[rape is seen] as a blessing [by Christians"]? Or was that just sarcasm? I don’t know a single Christian who sees rape as a blessing, and I know tons of them. If you’ve actually heard or read even one Christian say that, then sadly you heard from someone who really isn’t living the Christian life. There are those out there who’ve gotten Christ’s message completely wrong. I wish I could say that wasn’t true, but it is.

    I am very sorry that your daughter experienced such a horror. I would be angry too.

  49. Debbie
    May 12th, 2004 @ 11:05 am

    Annie,

    Many Christians take the position that pregnancy is a blessing irrespective of how the pregnancy occured … rape, incest whatever.

    You misinterpreted what I wrote … my daughter has not been raped, but what is your position if she becomes pregnant as a consequence of rape?

    Are there any circumstances where you believe abortion is the better of two (undesireable) options?

    You may not support the pope’s view but one of the two listed supporting organizations (Priest for Life) of the website you’re associated with (www.silentnomoreawareness.org/) absolutely do oppose contraception. There’s a lot of wisdom in the saying that you can learn a lot about someone by the company they keep.

    I also don’t care for your expressed sympathy – sincere or not – as your agenda, as you have made clear, is NOT to support the needs of women in crisis, but to prevent them from choosing abortion, today through persuasion but ultimately through changing the law.

    You’ve also accused me of being angry when I am nothing of the sort. The website you’re associated with, and some writings I presume are yours, contain vitriolic, childish and snide comments toward the people who attended the March for Women’s Lives. Have you considered a career writing for FoxNews or Rush Limbaugh?

    Media coverage of the march, and my experiences on the day, showed a very different perspective for the one you imagined and described on the site. Anti-abortionists were the ones with megaphones spewing hate. I am not surprised that in a broad crowd of more than one million people marching to defend their rights that there were some who were uncivil toward you. Perhaps they had experienced death threats while working in or visiting legal abortion clinics. But you also noted that many did express sympathy for your loss, which you interpreted as possible conversions to your cause. Or perhaps they felt your day for marching was the month before with your March for Life.

  50. Quasimofo
    May 12th, 2004 @ 1:30 pm

    Viole:

    The argument for responsibility is not the first argument I would make against abortion.

    The most important argument is that abortion is murder. Now maybe I’m not certain at which stage it becomes murder, but I am positive that once a baby has a functional brain, heart, heartbeat, lungs, and can experience pain, then it is murder to kill it. I am positive at that point that it is a separate human being, and a mother does not have a right to kill it. Furthermore, I believe it is unjust for my government to implicitly include me in every abortion that occurs in the US. The US government that I pay taxes to should not fund this in any way.

    You say that the best way for a woman to avoid pregnancy is to castrate her partner? Lol. Very rational of you. I contend that by becoming pregnant a woman had to make the following prior choices: 1) she had sex with a man, 2) she let that man ejaculate inside her, and 3) she did not use preventive birth control. Do you honestly believe it happens against her will? Do you not believe that people are personally responsible for the choices they make?

  51. Annie Banno
    May 12th, 2004 @ 1:33 pm

    Debbie, you wrote:

  52. Debbie
    May 12th, 2004 @ 3:21 pm

    Annie,

    I fully support women making the choices you describe. But it is their choice. Your support appears to be conditionally offered, i.e available if they do not have an abortion.

    The million-plus people marched a few weeks ago for no more than the right to choose. Abortion may have been the wrong choice for you or your friends. It should not be considered without impartial counselling, but if a raped pregnant woman believes that giving birth to such a product of violence would make her suffering worse than better, I think the current law that allows her to make that (early) choice in a controlled, safe medical environment should stand.

    You and I have a difference of opinion but I don’t take my direction on this from, in RA’s own words “an organization which promotes hatred, misogyny and psychosis”.
    http://ravingatheist.com/archives/2003/04/socially_destructive_organization_calls_gays_socially_useless.php

  53. Annie Banno
    May 12th, 2004 @ 4:15 pm

    I don’t have time to address this right this second but will do so as soon as I am able…

  54. Quasimofo
    May 12th, 2004 @ 5:05 pm

    Even though I’m morally opposed to abortion, I must admit that it’s not right for the government to get involved. Although I’m anti-abortion, I don’t side with the Pro-life people.

    Most of the Pro-Lifers believe they’re morally superior to you and me. They’re not. They want to use government to tell us what to do. I can’t listen to someone who could in the same breath tell a woman not to abort while at the same time tell that mother to send her son to the Middle East to kill terrsts. Hypocrits.

    This problem would probably solve itself if we’d reduce most of the restrictions that are barriers to raising kids. I believe we need to make it much easier for couples to adopt.

  55. ocmpoma
    May 12th, 2004 @ 9:13 pm

    Can’t help but throw in my 2 kopeks here…

    Personally, I feel that abortion should be kept legal for the same reason that alcohol should be kept legal.

    Besides, it’s good population control.

    Also, I realize that I am reapeating this quote, but it seems so appropriate. Most abortion arguments I have listened to involve a lot more screaming than listening. (And it’s a good song, too.)

    “If I speak at one constant volume at one constant pitch at one constant rhythm right into your ear you still won’t hear…”
    -Faith No More, “A Small Victory”

  56. hermesten
    May 13th, 2004 @ 11:34 am

    I simply don’t believe that most “Christians” are as much against abortion as they are against unsanctioned sex. If they were really more concerned about abortion than sex then they would support ready availability, without prescription, of the morning after pill. They want women to get pregnant because they want unsanctioned sex to have consequences. They don

  57. Viole
    May 13th, 2004 @ 12:59 pm

    I agree with you in part, herm, at least in that the Church hierarchy is more against unlicensed sex than anything. My theory is, that when people are happy, they have less need to believe in a god, and it’s also an issue of control. But they’ve clearly lost, and should just shut up.

    On the other hand, the rank and file of the anti-choice movement likely believe precisely what they say.

  58. ocmpoma
    May 13th, 2004 @ 2:38 pm

    I could go on for quite some time regarding religion

  59. REDFRED
    May 13th, 2004 @ 2:54 pm

    I don’t think that anyone here is against a woman from receiving appropriate counseling and information about their options before they make the decision to abort or not, I don’t think that anyone here feels that an abortion is a happy event with no repercussions or pain. The differences in opinion here are that should a woman, once counseled and educated, still be of the opinion that to abort is the right choice for her in her situation that she should be able to go through with it. That final decision is hers to make and hers alone, and we should support her in whatever way we can regardless of what she chooses. Legislation is not the right way to go here.

    Annie,

    I’m sure you have lots of friends that regret their abortions, there are also many women who regret not having them in the other camp, we have all heard the stories. I do not deny that both parties have painful memories and experiences, the circumstances leading a woman to the point of considering an abortion can not be happy ones. We have a duty to respect the choices of the women in the situation and not force them down a path not of their choosing. In your dialog you mention women that had kept their children that were the product of rape, and how happy they and their children were. Now consider for a moment if we were discussing legislation that forced rape victims to abort, how would that have affected your friend

  60. REDFRED
    May 13th, 2004 @ 3:02 pm

    Sorry I din’t keep that quite as short as I would have liked.

  61. me oh my
    May 13th, 2004 @ 3:56 pm

    A lot of people argue that all life is sacred

    And then, other people argue that all life is granted equal protection under the law.

  62. REDFRED
    May 13th, 2004 @ 4:07 pm

    your point?

  63. hermesten
    May 13th, 2004 @ 5:14 pm

    Me oh my: “And then, other people argue that all life is granted equal protection under the law.”

    Is an embryo a human being –a life– that can and should be granted equal protection under the law? Is a just fertilized egg a human being? I say no. I reject the contention that “life” in the sense it can be granted “equal protection under the law” begins at conception. Is a seven month old fetus a “life” in this sense? I think it is. I don’t think aborting a four week old embryo is an act equivalent to aborting a seven month old fetus.

    Unlike Redfred, I can’t say I find anything generally “life affirming” about the Bible. The Bible is basically a tribal warfare document. It’s modern spin that it applies to everyone. So far as I know, there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits abortion. If God gave a rat’s ass about the rights of the unborn you’d think he would have made that clear when He “inspired” the Bible. He obviously didn’t think abortion ranked up there with coveting your neighbor’s ass. If He thought it was important, and knowing as He must that this would be such a contentious issue in his second most favorite nation, you’d think he would have made his feelings on the matter absolutely clear.

  64. Annie Banno
    May 13th, 2004 @ 6:30 pm

    redfred, if you can say –and believe– that “[if] NFP actually spices up a sex life, well that

  65. me oh my
    May 13th, 2004 @ 6:37 pm

    Is a just fertilized egg a human being? I say no.

    Is 1+1=2? I say no.

    So far as I know, there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits abortion.

    I was referencing the constitution.

  66. Annie Banno
    May 13th, 2004 @ 6:40 pm

    The thing is, Christians and Catholics are supposed to not hate a person *back.* Those who DO, are not really following Jesus Christ (who I

  67. Annie Banno
    May 13th, 2004 @ 6:49 pm

    Me oh my, re: “I can’t say I find anything generally “life affirming” about the Bible. The Bible is basically a tribal warfare document.” I just couldn’t help but notice that. I have this already done for the teens in our youth group, so this didn’t take much time…I hope you don’t mind the cut and paste…While these are all from the Old Testament (and I might add, in all Hebrew and Protestant bibles too), the New Testament is nothing but life affirming, I think. Would love to hear which part(s) of the Bible you’ve read…there is much in the Old T. that is horrifying and used to justify being anti-religion, I’m afraid…I can answer that a bit another time, perhaps…

    11 Scripture quotes that are life-affirming (vs. death-affirming?):

  68. Annie Banno
    May 13th, 2004 @ 6:53 pm

    Excuse me that wasn’t me oh my, but hermesten who said the above. So sorry. Trouble with going fast to get to other obligations…

  69. Redfred
    May 13th, 2004 @ 7:21 pm

    Herm,

    About the Bible… I was trying to be nice, I didn’t want to make it the focus of my post. I kinda sorta feel the way I posted but in a much more sinister and corruptly evil way. But I’m not here to discuss the bible :-)

  70. RedFred
    May 13th, 2004 @ 8:10 pm

    Annie

    65:1 I would not and did not ask for you to educate me on NPF, Thats what a gynecologist is there for. There is a risk, associated with the method and you are fooling yourself if you don’t think so.

    65:2 I didn’t realize we were talking about STD, Silly me I thought we were talking about abortions… Oh wait we were talking about abortions… what the hell does your entire paragraph have to do with the topic at hand? What has your HIV stats for Botswana have to do with your argument against what to do with an unwanted pregnancy? Are you mental? do I need to talk s…l…o…w…l…y for you ? Stick to the subject and leave your other propaganda at home. The only purpose of this paragraph is to show what a moron you are and how you are working to religious agenda and cast doubt about your previous claims to be working for the good of other post abortion Women.

    65:3 Ironic words for a xtian. So basically you want to come in here and throw out a load of garbage and then run away when you can’t answer the questions asked back at you? I actually moderated my dialog to take in to account of your sensibilities regarding the bible. Ho hum whatever. Again you bring into question all that you have said before by your inability / unwillingness to defend your comments.

    67….Again the STD propaganda I must say you have done a marvelous cut and paste job there, tell me did you use the classic menu.. edit..copy method or the neoclassical right-click copy? see err…. 65:2 above

    68 Isn’t the bible wonderful…. next. you know it says in my memoirs chapter 3 verse 21 “your a fucking idiot”

    69…. At last an intelligent comment…..I’ll translate for you RF_Memoirs Chap 3 verse 21.

  71. me oh my
    May 13th, 2004 @ 8:18 pm

    11 Scripture quotes that are life-affirming

    Har har.

    500 Hitler quotes that are life-affirming:

    1. I love the German people.

    2. Nothing is so wonderful as a German child…

    3. The German people shall triumph!

    Annie,

    You’re glazing everybody’s eyes over. You could write 5000 volumes of bible interpretations, sure. Anyone could. But such jabber-jabber-jabber depends upon a single question, “Does god exist?” being answered, “Yes”. Until you prove that “Yes” is correct, no further talk is pertinent.

    ………………

    Red,

    I missed you’re question, “your point?” earlier.

    The point is: If you and I are both protected by laws forbidding murder, it is constitutionally necessary for everybody to be so protected.

  72. ocmpoma
    May 13th, 2004 @ 8:31 pm

    I must admit that I am confused

  73. Piotr
    May 13th, 2004 @ 9:38 pm

    Annie,
    OK, so you are a jesus freak, that’s nice but you are also an offensive freak. That’s not nice.
    I visited “http://davidmorrison.typepad.com/sed_contra” recommended by you. The guy is gay (seld-defined?), sure but is a freak just like you. Obsessesed with diseases, misery and pain.
    I do not care what you believe in and how you waste your time but I do not appreciate anyone telling me what to do and how to live my life. Not you, not my parents and especially not the government.
    Your passion to fight homosexual PEOPLE is frightening. And you dress it up in such beautiful words of “love”. It made me sick. Please stop pushing your religious superstitions on others. Right now.

  74. Viole
    May 14th, 2004 @ 2:16 am

    Annie;

    I have link here you might be interested in. It’s a story about someone switching the side of the media they read for a month… a true story, with some insightful stuff about both the right and left.

    Now, I consider myself to be intelligent as well. I know that condoms aren’t perfect. Natural family planning is worse. There’s about a week out of an entire month that a heterosexual couple can have sex, without any risk of pregnancy. Condoms are ninety-eight(or some number thereabout) percent effective at preventing pregnancy. I’m sure someone better with statistics than myself could come up with a good number for family planning. What with boredom, stupidity and random chance, I would guess it’s around seventy-five percent.

    As for homosexuals, congrats on having a few gay friends. Congrats on not hating them. It’s amazing how you still manage to be a bigot. Gays have about the say two methods of preventing STDs as everyone else; abstinence, and making sure their partner doesn’t have any.

    Now, no one is sure what makes a person homosexual. That such behavior occurs in animals can offer some insight, and suggests it to have a genetic predisposition. How can I say this! Why aren’t people like me extinct?

    Well, that’s rather simple. You can have a genetic predisposition to heart problems, and never get them.

    Now, I know, homosexuality is a disease. I’m a sick person. You people are the reason I can’t stand psychiatrists. I’m a special case, but since I was eleven, I’ve found girls attractive. Not guys, girls. It’s never been a problem for me, with the exception of a few social circumstances, but I got through them without serious injury(I have a reputation for beating up idiots that still haunts me today, and is why I became a pacifist). I’ve been with the same lovely lady for five years(and known her for twenty), and that doesn’t look to be changing anytime soon.

    The point of that is, I’m perfectly happy as I am. If I die young, I’ll die knowing I lived a better life than most people. If we were to adopt a child, I suspect she’d grow up in a stable household, with two loving mothers.

    So why do gay relationships break up more often that heterosexual marriages? Um, duh. Why is a yard longer than a meter. First of all, there’s no gay marriages to break up. Second, wedding vows mean a lot to people. And if celibacy makes gay people straight, does it make straight people gay? You have more straw men in your arguments than a field full of scarecrows.

    One final thing. Jesus didn’t found the christian church. He merely tried to reform the Jewish one. It was those who survived him that founded the christian church. Of course, I haven’t seen any proof that he existed in the first place.

  75. hermesten
    May 14th, 2004 @ 11:42 am

    Me oh my:

  76. me oh my
    May 14th, 2004 @ 1:12 pm

    Two cells, four cells, eight cells, do not constitute a human being.

    How many cells then? You seem to know the magic number. Is is 2 to the 13th power, or 21st power, that makes a human? And if 2 cells aren’t a human, what are they? A bacteria?

    I used to be a bacteria? Give a scientist those two cells, say, “What kind of animal is this?” and he isn’t going to say, “Bacteria”.

  77. hermesten
    May 14th, 2004 @ 4:48 pm

    You’re the one who claims to know the magic number and apparently it’s two. As I said earlier, it’s clear that a seven month old fetus is a human being. Is a three month old fetus a human being? I don’t know. If a legal decision is to be made it will be an arbitrary one no matter what the age of the embryo or fetus that is decided. Give a scientist a hair and he can tell you what kind of an animal it came from, so what? At some point it may be possible to produce a specific human being from the DNA information in that hair. Does that make a hair a human being? What distinguishes a human being from any other animal? A fertilized egg doesn’t have a brain, a heart, or a human form. It can’t think, talk, walk, or pee. It has the potential to be a human being, but then so does a hair, a fingernail, or a piece of dead skin.

    If a fertililzed egg is a human being, then any deliberate act to destroy it is murder. You are apparently willing to equate someone killing their thirty year old daughter with aborting a four week old embryo or a six month old fetus. You apparently see those as three equivalent acts –the murder of a human being. I don’t. I think a distinction should be made between them.

    Tell me, if a fertilized egg is a human being, do you reject the right of a woman to abort a pregnancy to save her own life?

  78. me oh my
    May 14th, 2004 @ 4:59 pm

    Tell me, if a fertilized egg is a human being,

    First: If it isn’t a human, what is it? It is zoologically defined as a human, and I’m surprised this is a point of argument. This is by definition in the same sense that 1 and 1 making 2 is by definition. If you want to make exceptions based on such criteria as, “Does it pee?” then we have ourselves a monumental problem.

    do you reject the right of a woman to abort a pregnancy to save her own life?

    There’s a lesson in propaganda here. A few major themes come up, again and again:

    1) If abortion is illegal, wire hangers in back alleys will be used.
    2) This isn’t about life it’s about men controlling women
    3) You’re own: What about cases when the life of the mother is at stake?

  79. me oh my
    May 14th, 2004 @ 5:15 pm

    (Note: I’m multi-posting due to my computer’s crashes every five minutes.)

    There are other things as well, and they invariably serve as distractions from the main point. These distractions are necessary for purposes of sloganeering, recruiting, etc. One cannot be very rhapsodical about the essential issue: The typical inconvenience of a pregnancy.

    3) Your own: What about cases when the life of the mother is at stake.

    We have a balance in such cases. On both sides we have humans, but on one side we have a person whose presumed past cost and future value to society is higher than the other. Thus, in such cases I don’t see a problem with abortion. (Nor in cases of rape: But that’s a different issue.)

  80. hermesten
    May 14th, 2004 @ 6:46 pm

    You didn’t address the most significant issue –which is how women who have abortions are to be treated under the law if a fertilized egg is a human being and abortion is therefore murder. Since abortion would be premeditated murder do you advocate either the death penalty or life in prison for a woman aborting a one-month-old fetus? The implication of your position is that legally and morally there is no difference between killing a six-year-old child or a six-week-old fetus. The logical consequence of your statements about the legal rights of human beings lead to the execution or imprisonment of women having abortions. You should either state openly just how women having abortions should be punished or explain why such murderers shouldn’t be executed or imprisoned. You’re spouting a bunch of bullshit about propaganda, distractions, sloganeering, and inconvenience but you refuse to address the issue of how women who have abortions should be punished under the law.

    Two of your so-called “propaganda” points are real. If abortion is illegal, there will be dangerous illegal abortions. That’s a fact. Questions about how to deal legally with two conflicting rights to life are significant and legitimate, even if the circumstances under which the life of a mother is at stake are rare.

    Me oh my:

  81. Annie Banno
    May 14th, 2004 @ 6:57 pm

    Firstly, I’d like to ask you all to please try to read my words without inferring sarcasm into them, as they are not written or thought out with sarcasm in them.

    The question posted was,

  82. me oh my
    May 14th, 2004 @ 7:09 pm

    hermesten,

    I missed that part in the Constitution

    It was a political argument (not constitutional) and a pretty typical one. Similarly: If your car goes out of control, and you have to kill one person, or another person, cold-blooded reasoning is required for a decision. I won’t pretend that my reasoning is perfect on that point, but the argument, “When the life of the mother is at risk” forces us into unpleasant choices.

    If abortion is illegal, there will be dangerous illegal abortions. That’s a fact.

    A meaningless fact. If killing Jews is illegal, then if I want to kill any Jews, I’m going to have to commit dangerous back-alley killings. Signifies nothing.

    uber-capitalism they?re teaching now at Wharton?

    I went to a cheap public school. Thanks for the class warfare.

    you watch Fox ?News? and are going to vote for Bush in November?

    I don’t have a television, and I’ll probably withold my vote. Bush and Kerry both make my stomach hurt.

    you refuse to address the issue of how women who have abortions should be punished under the law.

    Don’t lay down a deuce pretending its an ace. I don’t really give a shit how they’re punished. Life in prison, ten years in prison, one year in prison, whatever. It’s just another distraction. That the question, “What punishment?” is a difficult question does not prove that there should be zero punishment.

  83. hermesten
    May 14th, 2004 @ 7:51 pm

    Me oh my, I apologize for my Fox

  84. me oh my
    May 14th, 2004 @ 8:20 pm

    Public school should be free.

    Cheap public university. If there are any free ones, someone should have told me…

    But what punishment is appropriate, and what distinction, if any, should be drawn between various acts, is important.

    You’re right. It’s a question on which I should probably just plead ignorance.

    the choice between Kerry and Bush

    Yep. Two groups not represented this election:
    1) Liberals against the war.
    2) Conservatives against the war.

    1968, anyone?

  85. Debbie
    May 14th, 2004 @ 9:38 pm

    Annie, Annie, Annie ….

    A word of advice

  86. Debbie
    May 14th, 2004 @ 10:28 pm

    Annie,

    You made a separate point (referencing the Big Bang and what preceded it) which wasn’t clear what you were trying to say. Can you try again to make it clear what your question was? Or perhaps the following may help ….

    There has been a lot of groundbreaking work over the past twenty years that goes well beyond the relatively old work of Einstein, Hawking and Penrose on the early universe. This modern research includes what happened before the Big Bang in order for the Big Bang to produce the results it did. The work of Hawking and Penrose on the Big Bang predict a number of measurable phenomena and effects that are inconsistent with what we see today. These include the ‘flatness problem’, the ‘horizon problem’ and the ‘magnetic monopole problem’. Modern research which is studying what happened before the Big Bang, such as the Inflationary Model, not only fix the ‘horizon’, ‘flatness’ and ‘magnetic monopole’ problems but even more importantly make predictions (such as density variations in the cosmic microwave background) which have been verified through measurement.

  87. Viole
    May 15th, 2004 @ 12:25 am

    There’s something that needs to made clear, Annie; it is the of the Catholic church that defines what that church stands for. Not you. Bishops speak for the church. Not you. The pope speaks for the church. Not you. So before you start claiming other people aren’t catholic because of their beliefs, perhaps you should consider that it’s you who aren’t catholic.

    I hear people say this all the time. Pat Robertson doesn’t represent my church! Pat Buchanan doesn’t represent my church! Jerry Falwell… Yes they do(not your church, but christianity, certainly). Unfortunate, I’m sure, but I find it unfortunate that people like Muqtada al-Sadr represent Islam.

    You see, at a time when christians were still muddling their way through the dark ages, muslims were a remarkably cultured civilization. We lost the Greek and Roman epics, but the Arabs never did.

    So before you start claiming that christianity is a religion of peace, remember that it’s also a religion of war. There are people who believe our imperialist misadventure in Iraq is a Holy War, beginning–debatably–with the AWOL Monkey himself. General Boykin is another. These people are the face of your religion. If you don’t like that fact, I suggest you find a new one. It’s not as if there isn’t enough of them out there.

  88. Annie Banno
    May 15th, 2004 @ 9:17 am

    “Roger, while certainly a smart guy, is widely considered to suffer from “degenerative mysticism”. ;-)”…
    You say that but don’t say just exactly who (and how many) are “widely considering” this nebulous whatever-you-call-it about Penrose. And their qualifications for believing (not “knowing”) this to be true would be….?

    “But rather than just blow you off for your blind acceptance of the accuracy of a statement in a semi-literate article in a Christian teen publication, let me try to explain it to you.”….”you have no understanding of what the words mean…”

    There come the dismissals and the “semi-literate

  89. Viole
    May 15th, 2004 @ 11:38 am

    Liberals own the papers and TV news? I guess you don’t watch FOX… or read the Washington Times. Even the NY Times isn’t all that liberal, anymore. If you want proof, count up the times they criticized Clinton, and the times they criticized Bush.

    And don’t even start on the urban legend thing. Gore never said he invented in the internet, but he did support it, while in the Senate. Some people say he coined the term, ‘information superhighway,’ but I don’t know the truth of that. Ann Coulter was spewing about that in her column. Now she is full of vitriol. She builds more straw men than you, claiming that Saddam could have restarted his chemical and biological weapons programs, ‘on a moments notice.’ Well, I could start brewing RX in my basement on a moments notice, but first I’d have to buy the proper equipment, and chemicals, and set up a lab… and you know what? I have a reference strain of botulinum toxin growing in my garden.

    You’re obviously a conservative, and you too are spouting the party talking points without thinking. So before you start calling me blind, you might want to note that I read three opinion columnist regularly; Paul Krugman, Ted Rall, and Ann Coulter, for balance, and watch perhaps an hour of TV news a month, usually FOX, as it’s all I get. Oh, and I watch the Daily Show.

    What you don’t seem to realize is that statistics are easy to manipulate. I don’t know the abortion death statistics before Roe vrs. Wade. My personal stance on abortion is as much based upon the fact that I would want one were I to become pregnant as anything. And no, I most certainly wouldn’t go to a group like your for support, afterwards. You’re worse than psychiatrists; you think you understand people, but you’re really only interested in getting them on your side.

    I do know, however, that the unnecessary death of one woman–and the fetus be damned–is a tragedy. Whatever your numbers are, they’re higher than they need to be.

    As for GW and Boykin not being Catholics… they aren’t. Neither are Robertson, Falwell, or Buchanen. But they are christian, and like it or not, in that sense, at least, they represent catholicism to the rest of the world. For those that realize the distinction, well and good, but how many people realize that Islam isn’t a single, unified religion? Worse, though, from my point of view, is that they represent America.

    I guess I should put it this way; I might be blind, as you claim, but at least my side isn’t the one apologizing for those who anally rape Iraqis with chemical lights, without even knowing if they’re actually guilty of something. Or caring. ‘Cause as Ann Coulter says, all Arabs are terrorists, and all terrorists are Arabs.

  90. Debbie
    May 15th, 2004 @ 12:02 pm

    Annie,

    OK if it is too complicated for you … “degenerative mysticism” = “pseudo-scientific advocacy of Deism”. Penrose is an avowed Christian who has been widely criticized for crossing the line from physics to metaphysics and then publishing his musings as scientific truth. These musings do not hold the credibility of his scientific work because they are not peer reviewed in scientific journals. Tabloid journalism, no matter who the author, is no substitute for rigorous application of the scientific method.

    What you and other fundamentalist Christians are guilty of is scanning the scientific literature and philosophical musings of scientists to find material (which you often quote out of context) to claim scientific evidence of your god. This ‘god of the gaps’ tactic is a terrible way to justify any religion and while it may have worked well in the Bronze Age, it is ludicrous to try now as science continues to expand knowledge of the physical universe. In all the brilliant peer-reviewed work and progress of the last century, nowhere have we found ‘god’s fingerprints’. This does not mean that I can prove absolutely that there is no great ‘spirit in the sky’. It is just that there is absolutely NO scientific evidence of a god, NOR are there scientific problems that suggest an external agent participated.

    I was not criticizing Penrose for his body of genuine scientific work … that would be stupid. However my comments above aren’t based on faith and selective reading of the media … I did complete my doctorate in physics at Oxford in the late 80′s so I do have some competence in reading the literature and knowing when people are manipulating the truth to suit their agenda, rather than faith as you accuse me of.

    The other point I was making, which you ignored, is that the Penrose/Hawking work you referenced has been revised by more recent work to fix deficiencies. Wishing that science will find your god as the initiator of the big bang is not evidence of her existence.

    And finally, if you are claiming that your christian bible is the word of god, why is it full of scientific inaccuracies? Innacuracies the catholic church defended through the use of terror.

  91. hermesten
    May 15th, 2004 @ 5:28 pm

    Annie,

    Some renowned scientist believes in God? So what. For every one who does there are probably four that don

  92. Eva
    May 15th, 2004 @ 7:41 pm

    deb…..awesome…….tip my hat to you…no wonder….

  93. ocmpoma
    May 15th, 2004 @ 8:23 pm

    Debbie:

    As with Eva, my hat is off. I can now rest assured knowing that any attempts to bring science in on religion’s side in this little discussion are well in hand.

    “Science is the knowledge of consequences, and dependence of one fact upon another.”
    -Hobbes, Leviathan

  94. ZroKewl
    May 17th, 2004 @ 7:14 am

    I don’t think RA is joking… entirely, at least. He has said on numerous occassions that he is against abortion and “pro life” (search his site for “abortion”. He has never explained his position, so I am looking forward to hearing it.

  95. Annie Banno
    May 17th, 2004 @ 11:51 am

    You all just leave me speechless in wonder…and sadness…as I said, no matter what I say…you always have the so-called “right” answer for it all…. Whether you disdain it as sanctimonious or not, I’ll still genuinely pray for you. Even if you do think of it as an insult.

  96. Eva
    May 17th, 2004 @ 12:10 pm

    well, annie, what else did you expect?

  97. Annie Banno
    May 17th, 2004 @ 12:36 pm

    I expected better of you (collectively).

  98. ZroKewl
    May 17th, 2004 @ 1:21 pm

    For the search impaired:

    Tears in Heaven – Fri, Jun 6, 2003
    God the Abortionist – Fri, Dec 13, 2002
    God the Abortionist (Part 2) – Thu, Jan 23, 2003
    Pro-Life Abortion Post at Atheist Blog Draws Zero Comments – Thu, Jan 30, 2003
    God and Goddess and the Abortionists – Wed, Apr 30, 2003

  99. redfred
    May 17th, 2004 @ 1:41 pm

    Annie, are you finding it tough in an environment when people disagree with you? As a general rule I thing most of the people who regularly post here can relate to that from personal experience most of us deal with it day to day in our real lives. We do not hold the same values you do, we do not believe in some of the concepts probably held nearest and dearest to your heart. This is an Atheist site we come here to discuss our similarly held viewpoints without the influence of God and religion. Most of us by necessity have strong personality types and a passionate style when it comes to discussion. Please do not feel sorry for us, we are all very aware of our choice in life probably more so that most Christians are who never even dream of thinking about the alternatives. so save your prayers for those that will appreciate them, and no hard feelings.

  100. ocmpoma
    May 17th, 2004 @ 4:10 pm

    Someone once said to me during an argument:

  101. Debbie
    May 17th, 2004 @ 10:40 pm

    Annie,

    You should be ashamed of yourself for your intellectual dishonesty. You presented what you claimed was scientific proof of your god. This was shown to be false. A rational human would apologize or withdraw their statement, but your response is to be “saddened” and disappointed in the progress of science. This combined with your statement that “you always have the so-called “right” answer” displays an ignorant arrogance which is unfortunately typical of the religious.

    “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science”. — Charles Darwin

    “I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use.”
    – Galileo Galilei

  102. Kris
    May 19th, 2004 @ 12:49 am

    I join Annie in her sincere prayers for fellow commenters. Annie has taken much time to respond to the comments in an entirely respectful manner. In turn, she is called a “freak,” accused of bigotry and of being arrogant. I have never personally met Annie, nor corresponded with her. But from reading these comments, it is obvious that she is a caring person, and desires to do God’s will. Many blessings, Annie. Sorry for so much persecution … you handle it with grace and wisdom.

  103. Kevin
    May 19th, 2004 @ 1:36 am

    If I may offer a little insight on trollish types… anytime someone expects to be persecuted for their views, upon entering a website, and in particular if they say ‘people have done so to them before,’ it is likely that they’ve nothing coherent to say.

    I’ve noticed this a number of times, more so in politics than even here. For example, the Righty wing-nut enters the Democratic forum. They proceed to espouse a point of view courtesy of Rush Limbaugh, or perhaps Ann Coulter, including the part about liberal prosecution. They promptly get banned. I assume that the Freeper version of the above is nearly identical, but I really can’t say. I can’t stand more conservative viewpoints than my weekly Ann Coulter readings, and the occasional quote from Rush(Plus everything emanating from the current admin.).

    Fortunately, RA doesn’t ban people, or we’d never have any fun.

  104. Debbie
    May 20th, 2004 @ 12:33 am

    Kris,

    Perhaps you can clear up something for us … Annie has “an entirely respectful manner” and yet the religion she follows and expounds as the truth on an atheist website, sits in judgement on everyone … including gays (who are an abomination according to her creed) and non-Catholics (who face an eternity burning in the lake of fire)? Such a definition of ‘respect’ is orthogonal to common decency and humanity.

  105. Annie Banno
    May 20th, 2004 @ 9:03 am

    The religion must not “sit in judgment,” the God does. And gays are not considered “an abomination according to [the Catholic] creed.” The person is (should not be) not hated. Nor do “non-Catholics…face an eternity burning in the lake of fire.”

    Matthew Pinto, in the book, “Did Adam & Eve Have Belly Buttons?”, writes, “The [Catholic] Church doesn’t say that the mere homosexual *orientation* is a sin – though it is an inclination or a tendency that must be resisted….Homosexual *acts* are always sinful, because sexual acts are intended by God for husbands and wives not unmarried persons, whether the same or opposite sex….And if we are supposed to hate and, even, kick out members of the Church who sin, there would be no one left.”

    This is why the Church has supported the group “Courage.” Because it does care for *people* with homosexual orientations.

    Regarding non-Catholics, Pinto also writes, “This does not mean in order to be saved one has to be a ‘card-carrying member’ of the Catholic Church….All religions contain some truth.”

    Honestly, if you believe God doesn’t exist or that He can’t be proven, then none of this should matter to you.

  106. Annie Banno
    May 20th, 2004 @ 9:04 am

    correction: “The person is not (should not be) hated.”

  107. Deebie
    May 20th, 2004 @ 10:39 am

    Annie,

    None of this wouldn’t matter to me if religion was kept personal and private. However, as the title of this blog accurately states … Religious Devotion Trivializes American Law and Politics … if religion can’t be proven to be true (or even highly probable) then it should hold no authority in shaping law. That is all I ask.

  108. ocmpoma
    May 20th, 2004 @ 3:18 pm

    The church does not

  109. Kris
    May 20th, 2004 @ 10:43 pm

    Debbie — I am not eloquent in my writing, so I’m hoping that everyone will take this into consideration when reading my response. However, it comes to my attention that tolerance is expected from people with opinions (to use your word) “orthogonal” to yours. Yet, you appear to have no tolerance of our views in turn. I do not wish to debate, and only make these observations because you want your faith that God does not exist to have precedence over our Faith that He IS. That smacks of intolerance, Debbie. While you will continue to deny His existence, we will continue to believe. And we both live in this free country (one nation, under God) where we can express those strongly held denials/beliefs.

    You say, “None of this wouldn’t matter to me if religion was kept personal and private.” Right. That sounds like censorship. If you take away the right of free speech for some, out it goes for all. You also say, “if religion can’t be proven to be true (or even highly probable) then it should hold no authority in shaping law. That is all I ask.” You decide for yourself whether religion is true or not, but not for the entire nation. Just as others cannot decide for you. I would say that our nation’s forefathers believed this Judeo-Christian faith to be true, so much so that it formed the framework that shaped this nation. Do you vote? If so, you express your belief, or lack thereof, when you cast that ballot. As do I.

    But be careful. Because once a right is lost, more rights follow in quick succession. The abortion debate makes me wonder at how forward-thinking pro-choicers are. I mean, where do one person’s rights stop and another’s begin? Are we a nation so caught up in having it all, that we will actually fight to have the government-given ‘right’ to throw away our fellow person? It seems it is never enough. We demand the right to contracept. To have the government pay for it in many instances, even. Then, the right to abort for health/safety reasons of the mother. And because the baby may have serious health problems. But does it stop there? While we’re at it, let’s expand it to include social reasons. And as a form of contraception. Then, just BECAUSE, and at any stage in the pregnancy. And while we’re at it, let us sell the parts of the babies we’ve aborted. And make babies just to kill them by harvesting their stem cells, even though cord cells and adult stem cells have been proven better alternatives. And hey, what about cloning, too?? Also asking the government to foot the bill for those little experiments. Let’s freeze our fertilized eggs until we decide we are ready for them. Then, let’s ‘selectively reduce’ the number in the womb so we can have just the family size we desire. Unless we decide we do not want those frozen lives after all. If that be so, we will just chuck them. No holds barred. Hey, I want to marry a person of the same gender, and have us recognized as spouses the same as every hetero couple. Plus, let us advance this lifestyle in our nation’s public schools, and condemn anyone as intolerant who dares to disagree. While we are in the public schools, let us distribute condoms to the kiddies, and advise them on having an abortion if that does not work out for them, and where to go for AIDS and other STD testing. Let the parents deal with the broken hearts and bodies. Let us legislate killing once again by euthanizing the willing terminally ill — where will that ride stop? Can you really believe it will not be pushed to include those who are chronically depressed, deformed, mentally challenged, or other persons who cannot speak for themselves or who “drain” society? Once started, can you guarantee it can be stopped short?

    No, we do not agree. No one is surprised at that. But women and all of society deserve better than the violence and indignity of abortion. Adult women and men, and unborn women and men alike. There is something better to be aspired to.

    We have become a disposable society. Can any of us really assume that we are not disposable as well? We fight for the ‘right’ to be disposable???? For our children and grandchildren to be disposed of at the whim of another? No. That is not freedom. That is slavery.

  110. RedFred
    May 21st, 2004 @ 11:19 am

    Kris, Why do you presume that we as humans are not disposable? What is wrong with a terminally ill person from taking their own life rather than suffer the pain and anguish of a protracted illness? Why should a homosexual couple who love each other and plan to stay with one another for as long as both shall live not have their relationship be recognized as every bit as legitimate as a heterosexual one? Why shouldn’t people plan the size of their family rather than just reproducing at such a rate that soon we will not be able to feed ourselves? Why shouldn’t Government sponsor scientific experiment into preventing illnesses and disability? Why shouldn’t we teach our pubescent children about the changes in their bodies and the hormonal urges they are experiencing and how to remain safe? Why shouldn’t we show them how to get information on STD and HIV or are you naive enough to believe that your children won’t experiment with sex because you tell them not to? Why do you think that all these rational and reasonable prospects are abhorrent? Because you delude yourself in to believing that the crap written in the bible 1400 years ago is not only the truth, but The ultimate truth, and you refuse to listen to logic, even when it is as plain as the nose on your face. Debbie is right it would not be half as bad if you kept it personally to your self, I couldn’t give a crap if you think your going to heaven or hell or whatever mumbo jumbo you believe in that

  111. Kris
    May 21st, 2004 @ 3:43 pm

    Gee, I’m humbled RedFred. I “crusade my ‘wisdom’ on others,” as you say, “whether they like it or not.” But you — YOU know the truth. We Christians are delusional sheep, for whom you feel contempt (at least in my case). But YOU are the bearer of knowledge and wisdom — unquestionably.

    To all of the questions of which you asked “Why” — I answer as I did in my previous post. Because abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, cloning, homosexual marriage, and childhood sex education NEVER stop with their original intent. Do they? Oh, no. Once legalized, the push is (or will be) on to go farther and farther, beyond their original scope and intent.

    I do care whether I, and my fellow man, end up in heaven or hell. And I have a right to care. You have the right to not care. I have every bit as much right to express these opinions as do you have the right to express yours. Now that I have, and it is obvious that neither of us will budge in our beliefs, I will not address further comments from you, as it would be an exercise in futility for us both. I trust you feel the same on this one comment.

    Peace, Kris

  112. AK
    May 25th, 2004 @ 12:29 pm

    Hey Kris,

    Just remember, there is no heaven, nor is there a hell. I know its difficult, but just try to imagine what I am about to type:

    When you (or me or anyone) dies, they simply do not exist anymore. You know what happens to people when they die? They return to the state they were in before they were born. That state is NON-EXISTENCE.

    My proof: can you tell me, from recollection (that is from memory), what you were doing before you were born?

  113. Stephen
    May 28th, 2004 @ 6:58 am

    Teeming numbers of people wouldn’t have been here if their mother had NOT had an abortion earlier!!!

    I think your’re crazy Raver!!!!

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links

    Switch to our mobile site