The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Daily Headline

January 24, 2009 | 134 Comments

obamabortion

Washington, D.C., January 24, 2009
Special to The Raving Theist

President Obama ended the divisive national debate on abortion yesterday, declaring that “common ground” could be found in abortion industry-approved platitudes about finding common ground.

Obama stated that he had no desire to continue the “stale and fruitless” debate about rendering women fruitless by killing human beings in utero. Instead, the President Obama offered a “fresh conversation on family planning” consisting of cobbled-together snippets from thirty years of Planned Parenthood and NARAL press releases.

The administration’s new approach will consist of tracking down whatever impressionable pre-teens and adolescents have not yet figured out what a condom is despite unlimited internet access and 200 cable channels, and then discouraging them from having sex by educating them about every conceivable sex practice just in case they do, and giving them condoms.

Obama also ended the politicization of abortion by signing an executive order to release billions of taxpayer dollars to fund millions of abortions overseas. Although the President has allowed all other important signing ceremonies to be photographed, and the New York Times even published a front-page photograph of photographers photographing the Presidential pen, the press was barred from the abortion-order signing ceremony. Instead, the President signed the measure in a darkened room late Friday afternoon after the close of the week’s news cycle, quickly scurrying away like a filthy, disease-ridden cockroach.

Comments

134 Responses to “Daily Headline”

  1. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 24th, 2009 @ 8:18 pm

    When will we finally put a stop to the real murderers. That’s right! I’m talking about MALE MASTURBATORS. The Bable never mentions abortion, but masturbation is mentioned repeatedly.

    Please! Just stop!

  2. Beelzebub
    January 24th, 2009 @ 8:31 pm

    You must worship the blob of cells, Jane. It has a soul.

  3. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 24th, 2009 @ 8:50 pm

    We’re going to cut federal funding from anyone who’s penis spills babies on the ground. Doctors and pharmacists will not be required to sell or prescribe offensive masturbation promoting medicines…like viagra, and blood pressure medicine. And we’re going to picket your house.

    Our dream is a law that prevents the exploitation men and their unborn infants by outlawing male masturbation. If you’re caught masturbating or you are unmarried and your examined penis shows excessive wear, then you are a murderer.

    But don’t worry, we won’t imprison you. We realize that you’re a blubbering idiot and the victim of the porn industry.

    Instead you will be fined and required to sign the Murderer’s Registry each year. Prostitutes will die in your place.

    The only absolutions will be granted to those who infanticide makes our political opponents look bad.

    Carry on. And remember, God can see you when you’re naked and he thinks you should do more squats.

    Amen

  4. Kathy
    January 24th, 2009 @ 8:57 pm

    I think your last line sums up the new administration.
    Well done.

    Kathy

  5. Lily
    January 24th, 2009 @ 9:15 pm

    Jane, that was pretty lame and not up to your usual standard.

    Actually, the Bible does mention abortion but it doesn’t particularly mention masturbation, that I can remember. Why it is to be avoided is pretty clear, if one thinks it through. The story of Onan has nothing to do with masturbation.

    Moreover, I think you must have learned in high school biology, if not earlier, that neither sperm nor egg is a human being until they meet and do their thing.

  6. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 24th, 2009 @ 11:22 pm

    It’s not that easy to parody something as ugly as institutionalized masogony, but I did my best.

    And you will remember from biology that life never begins it continues. The point is that conservative Christianity in insisting that a zygote is a person, always chooses an eforcement pinch point that maximizes the cost to women and minimizes the cost to men. For instance why not just illegalize all premarital sex? Or as I said before, track down the fathers? Or create an economic environment that entices people to take pregnancies to term?

    That rigid unwillingness to move the hammer to any other spot in the continuim makes mockery of Anti-choice concern…well, I guess, reveals it for what it truely is.

    Playing Vagina Police.

  7. Margaret Catherine
    January 25th, 2009 @ 1:36 am

    I’d love to see the fathers tracked down. There is an ad campaign (not certain who by) here in Baltimore to that purpose, trying to encourage men to take on their responsibilities as fathers – there are far too many children raising children while their mothers work. But abortion gives the man an easy out – the woman could have taken care of the problem, and without consulting him; she didn’t; why is she coming crying to him now? If he is denied any legal responsibility before the child’s birth, why should he be expected to shoulder any down the road? Abortion as a legal option perpetuates abandonment. It doesn’t solve it, it just drives the wedge deeper.

  8. Margaret Catherine
    January 25th, 2009 @ 1:40 am

    Oh, and RT – as one of those “unintended pregnancies” whose life was very likely preserved courtesy of those “stale old dogmas” my mother held to, I thank you.

  9. Beelzebub
    January 25th, 2009 @ 4:52 am

    The sacred blob of cells must be revered, no matter how many lives are ruined, or women killed in alleyways.

  10. Peony Moss
    January 25th, 2009 @ 6:20 am

    “Shut up,” the President explained.

  11. Lily
    January 25th, 2009 @ 9:58 am

    Jane– You are reaching so hard you are gonna tear a ligament! Human life begins at conception. Once conception takes place, the human being develops. At that point it is correct to speak of the development of the human person as a continuum.

    What is worse, given the argument you are trying to make, you are colluding with the patriarchy! Whose interests are really served when men have no responsibility towards the babies they create? Whose flesh is ripped apart violently? Who gets off scot-free, while a baby dies and a woman heals from a nasty surgical procedure that leaves her empty, literally and figuratively?

    Do you think it is an accident that the most fervent supporters of abortion are men between 18-44? (if I remember correctly the upper number was 44– it might be lower.) Why is that, do you suppose?

    I bitterly resent that so many women are forced into abortion: not at the point of a gun but because the men in their lives don’t have any real connection to them or concern for them. How, in the name of all that is holy, is that a good thing for women?

  12. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 25th, 2009 @ 10:17 am

    Beelzebub, I suggest we each go get a donut and think about it.. Be sure to read the comments.

  13. Vince R
    January 25th, 2009 @ 11:13 am

    I think we should come down firmly on the issue and adopt the catholic approach: Be forced to go ala natural, and when things go wrong, there are no gray areas about the result! What could be simpler? The problem is their other policies:
    http://adoptanatheist.blogspot.com/

  14. Lily
    January 25th, 2009 @ 11:44 am

    Pregnancy is a result of things going right, Vince R. Sex and procreation are inextricably linked. Biologically speaking, it has no other point. There is something very seriously, very dangerously wrong in the thinking of people who think that babies are punishment.

  15. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 25th, 2009 @ 11:48 am

    Which is why you are a foster parent, right Lily?

  16. Christina
    January 25th, 2009 @ 12:13 pm

    Boy, RT, you get some winners here, don’t you? I don’t see that UnspeakablyViolentJane has missed a single logical fallacy. It kind of reminds me of when my friend died, and a co-worker, trying to comfort me, managed to use every single useless platitude that we’re warned not to try to use because they only make the grieving person feel worse. Joyce was so on the mark with hitting every single one of them that by the time she spouted her fifth or sixth platitude it stopped being hurtful and became so funny I could hardly keep a straight face.

    UVJ seems to have a list of fatuous things to say and is determined to cover every single one of them.

  17. Christina
    January 25th, 2009 @ 12:31 pm

    UnspeakablyViolentJane, by COMMON GROUND on abortion, that means STUFF BOTH SIDES CAN AGREE ON. Okay? So, “If an abortion is performed, both sides want the woman to survive and not be injured.” That’s common ground. And approaching that common ground is tricky, because each side will approach it differently. The trick would be to find a way that doesn’t promote more abortions (which the prolifers would object to) and doesn’t constitute what the prochoicer will see as a needless “barrier”.

    So — do you understand common ground?

    Now, here’s the joke — RT was noting that the standard approach to “common ground” is for prochoicers to tell prolifers to just agree with them on EVERYTHING!

  18. Ruth Leone
    January 25th, 2009 @ 4:49 pm

    uvj:

    I don’t know if Lily is a foster parent or not, but I am a grandparent who is raising a grandchild.

    Most of the people I know who have foster children or adopted children or who have assumed legal guardianship of their grandchildren, nieces, or nephews don’t go around advertising it. But pro-life is more than anti-abortion, and I decided a long time ago that I must be prepared to take care of my grandchildren if my daughters could not take care of them.

    My husband works in a residential treatment facility for adolescents, and many of the workers there also have foster children.

    I have two cousins who each have five biological children and one adopted child.

    My brother-in-law and sister-in-law have two adopted children.

    Babies are not punishment.

    Ruth
    grandmother to seven — six on earth and one in heaven

  19. Mother Of Many
    January 25th, 2009 @ 6:16 pm

    Clearly, Obama does not want abortion policy to define his Presidency. He seems annoyed at having inherited the heavy yoke of legalized murder.

    After all, it’s just a blob of cells, a fetus, a zygote, tissue. Punishment.

    There are, of course, so many more important things he’d rather be doing.

  20. Pikemann Urge
    January 25th, 2009 @ 8:23 pm

    Lily #11: I’m not sure that I’d say I ‘support’ abortion anymore than I ‘support’ war or the use of violence as self-defence. But sometimes the legitimate (yet still far from ideal) option is abortion or hitting back or a counter-attack.

    Pro-choice is, IMHO, about reducing misery in life, not increasing it. Like self-defence and war, it’s better for all parties that abortion be as rare as humanly possible.

  21. Christina
    January 25th, 2009 @ 8:59 pm

    PU, you said, “Pro-choice is, IMHO, about reducing misery in life, not increasing it.”

    Read Ashli’s words and tell me how much her misery was reduced by “choice” —

    >>>It’s 5:20 A.M. …. It’s here… the 8th anniversary of my first child’s death.

    Even though I realize that time is linear and nothing bad is happening right here and now (unless you count heartache), I can’t help but relive it. January 30th rolls around and sweeps the cobbwebs from my mind’s dusty corners. Images fly at me like bats.

    Peering through time, I stand a ghost at my yesteryear bedside. I see myself sleeping only hours away from the horror of the rest of my life as a grieving mother. I see my precious child floating securely, possibly resting, possibly exercising, but completely safe, warm, and unaware of the fate that awaited him/her later in the day.

    Forward a little. I see….

    The forms, the plexiglass, the “nurse” calling my name…

    I remember the pregnancy test and the mourning as I realized this was the last time my child’s life would register in mine. I didn’t want to do it. “It’s OK,” the nurse reasoned, “You can always have another baby later.”

    “BUT I WANT THIS ONE!”

    I remember…
    The counseling. And how the counseling was not counseling. And how there was no 11th hour salvation for us.

    I remember…

    The Room.

    The absorbant pad. My fixation with it and inability to remove my clothing for staring at it and catching a glimpse of the future, of our blood draining into it, soaking it as our love became garbage, medical waste.

    The sonogram and the man that turned it away. ….

    I can feel myself crying even now, pleading with the abortionist that I didn’t want to kill my baby but didn’t know what else to do because of my illness. He sent my husband in. I remember…

    I can see his body appearing in the room, but he doesn’t have a face. Just a flesh-colored blur. Where are you, husband? Nowhere, it appears… trapped in the same numbing void that enabled me to sit on a gut pad and kill our child.

    That’s when I hear it… the cart. Squeaky wheels. Yes, the doctor is in. “I don’t want to do it! I don’t want to kill my baby. But I don’t know what else to do!”

    “OK then,” says the good doctor, “Are you ready?”

    I say nothing. That’s it. It’s over. I’m gone. I hand him my arm. The end.

    I wake up in the middle of it. I’m shaking. He is pulling something out of me. Pieces of something. Something awfully tenacious. He tugs and tugs. I heave back and forth as we are mangled. I pass out again.

    I wake up. Someone is crying. Someone is bleeding. It’s me. It’s me. I see the nurse yanking me up. She is not nice anymore. She is yelling at me to be quiet. I stand in crimson-soaked socks, all that is left of my child splashing to the white tile floor. I look. I see. I faint.

    I am manhandled, injected. Someone shoves a pad in my underwear and pulls me into a chair. I am fed. I eat for the first time in ages. …. I fill my stomach but find that it is empty. Something is missing. Something electric and wonderful. Something small and perfect. Something precious. Someone being knit together wholly wired for loving me. My child is gone. Death for physical respite. It was not worth it.

    We pull over on the way to the hotel. I puke on the side of the road. I eat at the hotel. I bleed at the hotel. That is why I am AT the hotel. “Do not go home,” the abortionist warned. “Call us with your blood loss every hour.”

    I remember how he lied on my records. He said I left the abortion clinic with no bleeding. I bled for weeks and weeks. In a way, I am still bleeding.

    Through the grey veil, I see my husband falling into hotel sheets and disappearing. I am at his side thinking of our child in pieces back at the abortion facility. I see him/her twisted at the bottom of the bell jar. I want him/her warm and safe and back with me. I’m so empty. There’s no life in me. I look for a way out of the window. I’m done. There is none. I crawl into a porcelain corner and cry until I fade away forever.

    I come home and life is different. Everything is strange and foreign. I will never be the same.

    I try everything to cope. To survive. I have other children. But it’s not like it’s supposed to be. Every happy thing is tinged with sadness.

    Eventually I start a blog. I talk about my child, my loss. I expose the royal scam. A few people even care.

    Days go by. Months go by. Anniversaries come and go. When they arrive again I try not to think of it, but I can’t not.

    Curiously, I focus on the moment when the cruel lance first touched the amniotic sac. That split milisecond just before the end of all things. That shallow short breath that divides the space between life and death, happiness and horror. I see a delicate, precious orb and a sharp threatening instrument puncturing it. It’s too late now.

    Liquid spills out onto the pad. Diamonds flow into an oversized sanitary napkin. Diamonds… and rubies.

    There is no turning back. This is the rest of my life. This is what one human life will buy.

    Another anniversary. Another one. Another one. Another one…<<<

    She is just ONE. And at least she is hanging on. Others, like Stacy Zallie, Carol Cunningham, Sandra Kaiser, Arlin della Cruz, and Laura Grunas, simply couldn’t take the anguish. They couldn’t bear the reality that their children are dead, dead because of something they signed up and paid for. And their families are left with the unique, bewildering anguish a suicide leaves behind.

    Ambivalence and rejection of the pregnancy are normal and typically self-limiting. Being the mother of a dead baby isn’t self-limiting. It’s fresh and new every morning.

    Just ask Ashli.

  22. Lily
    January 25th, 2009 @ 9:17 pm

    I thought I had understood, just a little bit, Ashli’s grief (I am very slightly acquainted with her, virtually speaking). I knew her abortion had never ceased to grieve her. Still, I am stunned by this which I have not seen before. May our dear Lord give her and all those who grieve like this peace!

  23. Carla
    January 25th, 2009 @ 10:41 pm

    Heart wrenching words from sweet Ashli. The pain never leaves, the grief never goes. It remains. It stays. It will be like this until the day I die. The regret and remorse and pain after abortion. The longing for the child that should be 18 and here with me. I am reminded anew every September 5th.

  24. Pikemann Urge
    January 25th, 2009 @ 11:52 pm

    Christina #21, I don’t doubt Ashil’s feelings. Perhaps they are of compassion. Some people don’t cope with tragedy very well.

    Makes you wonder about where this joy is that the Spirit is supposed to provide. But that’s another story.

    If you endlessly despair for your own, then you should despair for the world, too. Otherwise it’s just a hang-up.

    Sometimes a woman sees her son go off to war and die. Sometimes she’ll cope, sometimes not, but either way it’s not something that goes away.

    It’s also a matter of which grass is greener. If you abort, you are always reminded what could have been. If you don’t, you might think, gosh, life would be better if you had aborted.

    Adoption would be the most ideal solution, especially with ‘unwanted’ yet perfectly healthy babies (which *should* be a rare occurrence). But I would not want to be guilty (though I’m but a man) of bringing into the world a child with serious pathology.

  25. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 26th, 2009 @ 12:16 am

    Keep in mind Pikeman, that when they say abortion, they are including use of the pill.

    I don’t know about you, but I consider the pill (and Plan B) a modern miracle that enables women to enjoy sex with trepidation, not a regrettable act of violence on par with war.

    We have different definitions of person hood. Mine is more likely to include Koko than a zygote.

    Ashli, I just finished Screwtape Letters. Lewis has a great little part on nursing regrets. I think you might find strength in it, if you haven’t already read it.

  26. Christina
    January 26th, 2009 @ 12:24 am

    USV, not everybody has failed to get with the program as far as the Pill being abortifacient. (Not that you’d care. If you knew that every single time you took it you were killing a zygote I doubt that you’d be any more troubled than by the idea that the antibiotics you take kill microbes.) The problem is that the Pill’s original developers and promoters THOUGHT that it had a tertiary, abortifacient effect, and even though recent research has shown then to be wrong, people are still believing the original INTENT — which was “If one slips through and gets conceived anyway, we’ll starve it out!”

    As for the idea that The Pill is a modern miracle transforms sex from a “regrettable act of violence on a par with war” to something you can enjoy — you must REALLY hate kids, to think that even the possibility that you’ll create one is an act of violence.

  27. Christina
    January 26th, 2009 @ 12:27 am

    PU, you said, “It’s also a matter of which grass is greener. If you abort, you are always reminded what could have been. If you don’t, you might think, gosh, life would be better if you had aborted.”

    I don’t know of many mothers who wake up weeping in the middle of the night, in anguish that their child is alive. That the child is SICK, or MISSING, or in trouble, yes — and you risk that anytime you love. But the idea that the anguish of a dead child in any way compares to thinking, “Gee, maybe I should have snuffed Billy and gone to grad school. We’d probably have a boat and a summer house now.”…

  28. Margaret Catherine
    January 26th, 2009 @ 1:14 am

    Christina, I think Jane was referring to use of the Pill as being “an act of violence.”

  29. Patrick
    January 26th, 2009 @ 6:04 am

    Wow. Obama is a diseased cockroach because he values the lives and health of living women over the existence of zygotes and embryos. Right.

    I guess this leads to me asking the religious types on this blog: Why do you prolong and sustain the occurrence of abortions by wasting your time and resources on praying and political activism? I ask this sincerely. Banning abortion will only drive it underground, and increase the number of botched operations that scar or kill women. If you want to stop abortion, make it obsolete. A pro-life Manhattan Project – a viable, efficient, and economically feasible artificial womb. Set up a foundation, tap into the resources of the tens of millions of pro-life Americans to fund it through donations, and assemble a team of scientists and engineers to build the damn thing. Put them in every hospital in the country, give the technology away to any nation who asks for it. Any girl or woman with an unwanted pregnancy gets federally-funded access to them, with the state picking up the check for the operation to remove the embryo and give her follow-up care. (With pro-life politicians backing such legislation it would sail through Congress.) It obviously would not be easy or quick, true…but this solution would be permanent. It’s not science fiction; researchers have been working on this, not too long ago (in the past ten years) someone used donated endometrial cells to fashion a new uterus, outside a human body, and embryo implantation was observed.

    Another idea would to devise a totally effective means of birth control. (Or as close to one hundred percent effective as we can get.) Something that doesn’t prevent implantation but forestalls ovulation itself, perhaps. Again, on par with the Manhattan Project, or the moon program, requiring a massive national/multinational effort…but not at all impossible. Such an invention would be hailed as one of the greatest in human history, and would literally raise billions of women out of misery (and despite what the well-off pro-life bloggers here say, yes, having children IS a punishment, when you have no running water, no consistent food supply, no access to health care, no sex education or birth control, and multiple pregnancies literally suck the life from your bones and flesh). Rally behind this, make it your mission to spread it to ever corner of the Earth for free. Goodbye abortion.

    I truly doubt that the pro-lifers will ever back any such project. Such a solution doesn’t allow them to congratulate themselves for their piety, it doesn’t allow them to judge and condemn women for the very human crime of wanting sex for its own sake and not just to produce future Christians, and it doesn’t require the intervention of their deity of choice to achieve it, only the hard work and ingenuity of men and women. The pro-life movement has less to do with preventing abortion than it does with promulgating an overall philosophy of Puritanical subservience.

  30. Pikemann Urge
    January 26th, 2009 @ 6:08 am

    UVJ #25, I must say that if I ever got ‘stuck’ with a woman in a passionate moment, and we didn’t have protection, I think it would be far better to be content with mutual masturbation and go no further than to have to worry about accidental pregnancies etc. One can’t have everything. Besides, as the song goes, we’ll meet again. :-)

    Christina #27, there are lots of regrets. Some women probably should not have aborted. And some will be at peace with what they did. The idea is to make good decisions.

    To pretend that morality is set in concrete does not help. Then again, ideas on the morality issue by itself can fill libraries…

  31. Ruth Leone
    January 26th, 2009 @ 6:37 am

    Patrick said:

    Another idea would to devise a totally effective means of birth control.

    Such a method already exists. It is called “self control”.

    No sex, no baby.

    The difficulty arises from the fact that people who don’t want babies seem to believe that they have a “right” to have sex.

    Ruth

  32. Patrick
    January 26th, 2009 @ 6:52 am

    >Such a method already exists. It is called “self control”.
    No sex, no baby.
    The difficulty arises from the fact that people who don’t want babies seem to believe that they have a “right” to have sex.
    Ruth

    Sorry, but sexual freedom among consenting adults is a human right, full-stop.

    I notice that you ignore the possibilities offered by a technological solution to abortion in favor of calling sexually active women sluts. Thank you for confirming what I wrote. Pro-lifers care more about judging women than about preventing abortion.

  33. Lily
    January 26th, 2009 @ 7:13 am

    I think that the idea that we don’t recognize developmental differences is common but wrong. We know that a baby on day 2 after conception is at
    very early stage of development. Its loss, even if we could know about it, is not as likely to cause pain, beyond serious disappointment for the parents rejoicing in a baby they wanted, as the loss of the baby at 3 months or five.

    The issue, as always, is protecting human life and not creating false categories; this is a life worth preserving, this one is not. We have seen where that thinking gets us.

    It took me a long time to accept the Catholic Church’s stance on birth control. In fact, it prevented me from converting for a good 15 years (along with a couple other doctrinal issues). I simply could not affirm that I believed all that the Catholic Church teaches, with those reservations. I did get there finally. One thing that really did it for me on the issue of birth control is Humanae Vita (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/humanae_vitae.pdf)

    Pope PaulVI took a horrendous beating over this document– even within the Catholic Church and its rejection broke his heart from what I have read. Nevertheless, his reasons for rejecting birth control and his predictions about what it would do to women and society have been proved right, though at the time it was derided as the stuff of fantasy. It is worth reading, if you never have.

    So where are we 40 years later? Why, we have a president who has virtually nothing in his “stimulus” plan for businesses to create jobs with but has hundreds of thousands of dollars for birth control! The mind boggles. It really does.

  34. Lily
    January 26th, 2009 @ 7:18 am

    Who called women sluts? I am pretty sure no one did– but Patrick. It is hilarious in a sick way. Just like I wrote earlier, it is men between 18 and 44 who are the most fervent supporters of abortion and the chief beneficiaries of it and birth control They have absolutely no connection to the women they use and no concern for them. They are like rutting animals and proud to be so.

    Women deserve better.

  35. Christina
    January 26th, 2009 @ 7:22 am

    Patrick, you said, “Wow. Obama is a diseased cockroach because he values the lives and health of living women over the existence of zygotes and embryos.”

    It’s the abortion lobby that doesn’t care about women. They do nothing to shut down seedy abortion mills that leave women injured or even kill them. In fact, they’ve been known block protective legislation and to start legal defense funds for woman-killing abortionists.

    To rabid abortion promoters, women are just cannon fodder in the war on fetuses, it seems.

  36. Christina
    January 26th, 2009 @ 7:24 am

    PU, how can killing an innocent human being just because you fear his or her existence might trouble you be “a good decision”.

    Because it benefits you? John List benefitted very much from gunning down his entire family and starting a new life under an assumed name. Do we take the benefit to John List and say that this was a good choice that we as a society should support?

  37. Christina
    January 26th, 2009 @ 7:26 am

    Patrick, you said “Sorry, but sexual freedom among consenting adults is a human right, full-stop.”

    Any “right” that doesn’t also mean that you accept the consequences of your actions isn’t a real right. Part of having rights means accepting responsibility. You get behind the wheel of a car, you have a responsibility to drive it safely; you’ll be charged and possibly jailed if you drive unsafely and take somebody else’s life.

    Why is SEX so sacred, that people should be allowed to kill any innocent human being who gets in the way of their perceived “right” to baby-free sex?

  38. Patrick
    January 26th, 2009 @ 7:34 am

    >Who called women sluts?

    Mocking them for wanting to enjoy sex without risk of pregnancy isn’t calling them sluts? If I am wrong then please feel free to correct me – what is that attitude, if not one of sneering judgmentalism?

    >Just like I wrote earlier, it is men between 18 and 44 who are the most fervent supporters of abortion and the chief beneficiaries of it and birth control.

    You’re so right – men are CONSTANTLY interrupting foreplay in order to go put on a condom, much to the consternation of women, who perpetually claim that it “doesn’t feel right” and try to talk them out of wearing one. Am I right, guys?

    >They have absolutely no connection to the women they use and no concern for them. They are like rutting animals and proud to be so.

    You have a fairly twisted view of human sexuality and relationships between men and women, I think. In your view, men wanting to prevent women from becoming pregnant or getting STDs is bad, and women mutely accept whatever men tell them to do because of course they have no minds of their own to assert. What a strange way to see the world.

  39. Patrick
    January 26th, 2009 @ 7:43 am

    >It’s the abortion lobby that doesn’t care about women. They do nothing to shut down seedy abortion mills that leave women injured or even kill them.

    It’s the pro-life movement that creates seedy abortion mills. It’s pretty hypocritical to do everything in your power to drive abortions providers into the back alleys and then decry them for not adhering to rigorous standards. Safe, legal, and rare is the way to go.

    >In fact, they’ve been known block protective legislation and to start legal defense funds for woman-killing abortionists.

    As opposed to blocking funding legislation and starting legal defense funds for those who kill doctors, I presume.

    >To rabid abortion promoters, women are just cannon fodder in the war on fetuses, it seems.

    There are no abortion promoters. No one is hawking t-shirts saying “I HEART ABORTION.” Come on. Abortion will be with humanity for the foreseeable future, it’s a question of reducing the circumstances that compel women to do it, and reducing the risks to those who do elect to do it. Outlawing it would make you all feel very good about yourselves, but it wouldn’t stop abortion.

  40. Lily
    January 26th, 2009 @ 7:43 am

    Patrick– take responsibility for your words. You plainly stated that Ruth called women sluts. She did not. You are the only one who used the word. Believe me, there isn’t one woman writing here who doesn’t understand that jumping to that conclusion speaks volumes about you.

    Mocking them for wanting to enjoy sex without risk of pregnancy isn’t calling them sluts? No. Nor was she mocking anyone. Stating an opinion that you do not like is not mocking.

  41. Carla
    January 26th, 2009 @ 7:48 am

    How does the prolife movement create seedy abortion mills, Patrick?
    How is abortion safe?

  42. Patrick
    January 26th, 2009 @ 7:49 am

    >PU, how can killing an innocent human being just because you fear his or her existence might trouble you be “a good decision”.

    A zygote or embryo without a brain, heart, or nervous system is not a human being. If you want to argue that current law is not stringent enough and that there needs to be a shorter window for allowing abortion, I’ll grant that. That’s certainly something that can be debated. But human life beginning at fertilization is nonsense to me. Don’t most zygotes fail to implant in the uterine wall? Does that mean your god kills the vast majority of “people” ever conceived?

  43. Patrick
    January 26th, 2009 @ 7:53 am

    >Patrick, you said “Sorry, but sexual freedom among consenting adults is a human right, full-stop.”
    Any “right” that doesn’t also mean that you accept the consequences of your actions isn’t a real right. Part of having rights means accepting responsibility.

    Christina, I am afraid you missed the entire point I was making. I was suggesting that technological means to remove this particular biological consequence of sex, i.e. unwanted pregnancy, would make abortion obsolete and irrelevant. Not today, not tomorrow, but with a vigorous pursuit, within the near future, I think. That IS accepting responsibility.

  44. Patrick
    January 26th, 2009 @ 8:03 am

    >Patrick– take responsibility for your words. You plainly stated that Ruth called women sluts. She did not. You are the only one who used the word.

    I found her parochial attitude towards women pretty insulting and I called it like I saw it. You’re arguing that I said she used the word “sluts,” when I never said that; I said that the language she used about such women, those who have the temerity to think they’re entitled to the sexual freedom that men have, was condescending and judgmental, and yes, the way she described them was to make them sound like sluts who had no right to complain and deserve what they get. “People who think they have a ‘right’ to sex.” Well, people DO have a right to sex, men and women alike. Sorry if you feel otherwise.

  45. Patrick
    January 26th, 2009 @ 8:08 am

    >How does the prolife movement create seedy abortion mills, Patrick?

    This is a gag, right? You’re putting me on here? There’s no way that this can be a serious question, no one can be that dense…

    >How is abortion safe?

    Let’s see, making it legal so that accredited doctors won’t be afraid to perform them, ensuring that clinics have access to little things like antibiotics and rust-free surgical instruments…things like that.

    Like I said, banning abortion does not end it. It makes it deadlier for the women. That’s all.

    And bear in mind as well that a more tolerant and accepting attitude towards pre-marital sex might, just might, keep a lot of scared girls from looking for a back-alley abortion doctor in order to keep their judgmental parents from disowning them and kicking them out of the house. Just sayin’.

  46. Lily
    January 26th, 2009 @ 8:20 am

    How much more tolerant and “accepting” of premarital sex can society possibly be? Have you looked at supermarket magazines aimed at pre-teens and teens? Listened to radio? Watched tv? Visited a junior high school?

    Honestly, Patrick. You don’t seem to be aware of what is going on around you! You certainly don’t know the facts about abortion– you don’t seem to understand that anyone can open an “abortuary”. It is easy, virtually unregulated and a sure money-maker. You don’t seem to understand that women die regularly in them.

    You also need to be a man and take responsibility for your words which I will quote once more:

    notice that you ignore the possibilities offered by a technological solution to abortion in favor of calling sexually active women sluts.

    She did not call sexually active women sluts. You are dodging responsibility for your words, again. This is absolutely hilarious:

    You’re arguing that I said she used the word “sluts,” when I never said that; I said that the language she used about such women, those who have the temerity to think they’re entitled to the sexual freedom that men have, was condescending and judgmental, and yes, the way she described them was to make them sound like sluts who had no right to complain and deserve what they get. “

    All that dodging and weaving! Just ‘fess up and put it behind you.

  47. Carla
    January 26th, 2009 @ 8:26 am

    You stated it’s the prolife movement that creates seedy abortion mills.

    I asked how? I will now ask Where? Do you have documentation to prove your assertion that the prolife movement creates seedy abortion mills? The burden of proof is on you, buddy.

  48. Patrick
    January 26th, 2009 @ 8:39 am

    >How much more tolerant and “accepting” of premarital sex can society possibly be? Have you looked at supermarket magazines aimed at pre-teens and teens? Listened to radio? Watched tv? Visited a junior high school?

    You seem to be conflating “pre-marital” with “pre-teen.” Maybe that’s a Christian thing, I don’t know. But there is a world of difference between stating that society has a responsibility to educate pubescent teenagers about sex and birth control, and to suggest, rather sleazily, that I am somehow interested in sexually encouraging 12-year-olds. Come on now. You’re just being silly.

    >Honestly, Patrick. You don’t seem to be aware of what is going on around you! You certainly don’t know the facts about abortion– you don’t seem to understand that anyone can open an “abortuary”. It is easy, virtually unregulated and a sure money-maker. You don’t seem to understand that women die regularly in them.

    It is not a fact that abortion providers have to be unregulated. You are the one in favor of deregulating them – illegal clinics don’t have any oversight. If your argument is that clinics need to be held to more rigorous safety standards then you have no argument from me. But somehow, I suspect that this is not your argument…

    >You also need to be a man and take responsibility for your words which I will quote once more:

    Here are HER words, which started all this:
    >”Such a method already exists. It is called “self control”.
    No sex, no baby.
    The difficulty arises from the fact that people who don’t want babies seem to believe that they have a “right” to have sex.

    So, women who have sex have no self-control, and they don’t actually have a right to the sex they’re having anyway. She is calling them promiscuous, and the definition of “slut,” according to Merriam-Webster, is “a promiscuous woman, especially a prostitute.” Are you really trying to say that any time someone fails to use the precise words and instead paraphrases those words, that that constitutes a misstatement or lie? That’s beyond ridiculous. She used more polite language, and I chose to state what her words meant – that she thinks very little of women who behave differently than she does. Nothing to which to ‘fess up here, sorry to disappoint.

    All of this, of course, obscures the original point I was making, which is that technological solutions to the problem of widespread abortion will be inevitably ignored by pro-lifers, because they would rather feel self-righteous than end abortion. Nothing said here so far has dissuaded me from that statement, sad to say.

  49. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 26th, 2009 @ 8:41 am

    Patrick,</b. these are one issue Christians. If you were to convince them of your very reasonable position, it would mean their extinction. Luckily for us they comprise about 12% of the vote, at the most.

    Check out Obama’s approval rating – 68%, with 21% having no opinion as yet. Gosh, I wonder who that 12% is (::rolls eyes::)

    Ashli, I was thinking about your sadness and I think you should consider that – whatever the unfortunate circumstances of your abortion – had you taken that child to term, the children you have now would not exist.

    You might have had more children, but it would have been a different sperm and egg combination and thus different people.

    I can’t think of anyone for whom I would trade the children that are in front of me.

  50. Patrick
    January 26th, 2009 @ 8:52 am

    >You stated it’s the prolife movement that creates seedy abortion mills.

    Maybe some people are that dense…

    The prolife movement stigmatizes abortion, hounds those who seek it out and those who attempt to administer it with a minimum or risk, tries to disrupt it at all costs, condemns scared girls as dupes or murderers, calls doctors (who could easily make the same money, and not have people shooting at them, by doing other non-controversial work) nothing but money-grubbing hitmen…and you ask who’s pushing abortion clinics underground? Really?

    I don’t know if you’re deliberately being obtuse here, but my point was that pro-life harassment makes abortion clinics less and less ubiquitous, meaning women turn more to back-alley quacks because they can’t find one near them in time, can’t afford to travel out of state, and don’t want anyone they know to see them going in to one. Consequently, more of them are at risk of dying from botched operations. The pregnancy is still terminated, but now their health and lives are at risk as well. The point…as I have been saying here with most of my posts…is that banning abortion doesn’t stop it, doesn’t reduce it, it just makes it more lethal and more traumatic. That’s a high price to pay, just so pro-lifers can feel good about themselves.

  51. Carla
    January 26th, 2009 @ 9:00 am

    It is your assertion that the prolife movement does all of the above things, Patrick. I am waiting for THE PROOF. You are stating opinions, not facts.

    I did not ask who is pushing abortion clinics underground.

    Keep calling me dense though if it makes you feel good about yourself.

  52. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 26th, 2009 @ 9:05 am

    Carla, are you denying that this wasn’t the case before the law changed?

  53. Patrick
    January 26th, 2009 @ 9:10 am

    >It is your assertion that the prolife movement does all of the above things, Patrick. I am waiting for THE PROOF. You are stating opinions, not facts.

    I don’t know why you would deny that you, as someone who is presumably pro-life, isn’t trying to shut legally operated clinics down. That should be something you speak of openly and with pride. It’s your goal to “stop” abortion, by which you mean stop legal abortion, so…why the “dodging and weaving,” as my good friend Lily would say? You’re saying you DON’T want to shut down abortion providers?

    I was merely pointing out the consequences of your actions, and that you aren’t really stopping abortion at all, just making it deadlier for the women. Still not sure why you deny this, it seems the very raison d’être for the pro-life movement.

    >Keep calling me dense though if it makes you feel good about yourself.

    I wouldn’t say it makes me feel better about myself, per se…but it doesn’t make me feel worse, that’s true. ;)

  54. Lily
    January 26th, 2009 @ 9:15 am

    You simply don’t know what you are talking about, Patrick. You are spouting the party line. Of course, I think you believe what you are saying which is a problem that has a solution. If you listen to people who really know and have documented for years what is going on, like Christina, you will come away much better informed.

    Visit her website and scroll way down to the link “Cemetary of Choice”. From its sidebar you can learn just about everything you never knew about abortion– its history, who the abortionists are, and, of course, you can read about the women who have died since legalization.

    But really, how can you suppose that criminalizing abortion would not reduce it? Do you really think there were 40 million plus abortions in the 35 years prior to Roe v Wade? Where do you get the idea that illegal abortion was a hugely lethal procedure? Do you have any idea what the mortality rates were prior to legalization?

    And yes, you are still denying the obvious. Only you used the word “slut”. Only you used the word promiscuous. This is amusing:

    Are you really trying to say that any time someone fails to use the precise words and instead paraphrases those words, that that constitutes a misstatement or lie?

    Yes. It is certainly a mistatement to put words in someone’s mouth and/or attribute attitudes to someone that cannot be supported by what that person has actually said/written. If you do so deliberately, it is a lie. So, which is it Patrick? Did you jump to an overhasty conclusion or did you lie? I don’t think you are deliberately lying. I think you jumped to a conclusion that cannot be supported way too fast. What do you think?

  55. Ruth
    January 26th, 2009 @ 9:19 am

    Patrick said:

    notice that you ignore the possibilities offered by a technological solution to abortion in favor of calling sexually active women sluts.

    I did not use the word slut. I stated what is in fact an obvious fact that people who do not have sex do not produce babies.

    The woman is only one part of the equation. Abstinence requires self control on the part of women and men. It is possible both within and without marriage. To say that it is not possible for humans to abstain from sex places them — male and female — in the same category as animals. I believe humans have capacities above that of the animals — including the capacity to maintain chastity when it is warranted.

    Those who choose to be sexually active should also be prepared to welcome the life that results.

    Period.

    Ruth

  56. Ruth
    January 26th, 2009 @ 9:21 am

    And, as I believe I mentioned earlier, all who call themselves pro-life should be prepared to help take care of the world’s unwanted or abandoned children (including those that the world terms “defective”). I know many who are doing just that.

    Ruth

  57. Carla
    January 26th, 2009 @ 9:24 am

    UVJ,
    Are you uncomfortable with Ashli’s grief? Or are you trying to find the silver lining in abortion?? Thank goodness that those that abort “can have more.” Right? Sadly that is not always the case. 3 of my friends were damaged physically. The only children they would ever bear died by abortion.
    Ashli and other women like her are healing the best way they know how. Suggestions about that grief are unnecessary and insensitive.

    I am not denying anything. I am asking Patrick to clarify what he is stating. I am asking him to explain himself and back up what he is asserting. Hence the questions. :)

  58. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 26th, 2009 @ 9:32 am

    I think Ashli’s stuck and probably depending on unqualified people to help her with the counseling that she needs (ie clergy) and that makes me sad for her. It would be better for her, for her children, and for her marriage if she would talk to a pro.

    And Carla, when you consider the number of people that use the pill and terminate vs the number of people for whom it turns out badly, modern birth control comes out an overwhelming success.

    Anecdotal evidence does not a study make.

    Here’s a question for you…remember that 11-year old that was raped by those men during Katrina. Should she have received a rape kit? Should a little girl molested by her father have to take a baby to term? Should a woman with five kids and a husband with a drinking problem carry one more? I’m sure I can match you story for story with many to spare.

  59. Patrick
    January 26th, 2009 @ 9:35 am

    >I did not use the word slut. I stated what is in fact an obvious fact that people who do not have sex do not produce babies.

    No, you said that women who had sex for reasons other than procreation lacked self control and that they had no right to that sex. Calling a woman promiscuous is calling her a slut, despite Lily’s bizarre jihad against synonyms.

    >To say that it is not possible for humans to abstain from sex places them — male and female — in the same category as animals.

    We are animals. Sentient, sapient animals. Sorry to break it to you. It is possible for humans to abstain from a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean it’s optimal, or even necessary, to do so. I say it is better to seek technological solutions to remove the uncertainty of sex, so as to enjoy the benefits, and you say people should just stop having so much sex. To me that’s like saying people wouldn’t need cars if they would just learn to like everything within walking distance of their hut. It’s technically right, I guess, sort of, but why would you think that way when there are alternatives?

    >Those who choose to be sexually active should also be prepared to welcome the life that results.

    Unless they use science to keep from getting pregnant. Which was my whole point. Why don’t we just get better at not getting pregnant, instead of foregoing sex? I’m pretty sure that human nature is on my side on this one.

  60. Ruth
    January 26th, 2009 @ 9:56 am

    Patrick said:

    >I did not use the word slut. I stated what is in fact an obvious fact that people who do not have sex do not produce babies.
    —-
    No, you said that women who had sex for reasons other than procreation lacked self control and that they had no right to that sex. Calling a woman promiscuous is calling her a slut, despite Lily’s bizarre jihad against synonyms.
    —-
    I did not mention gender at all. You interpolated that.

    While it is true that only women have babies (hence only women have abortions), it is NOT true that women (outside of technology) have babies by themselves.

    I believe men need to be as much a part of the solution as they are of the process.

    I have seven grandchildren, one who only lived for a day (and not because of abortion either). Only one of those children was born inside of wedlock. I love every one of them and I love their mothers (my daughters) AND their fathers (two of whom have been in prison, one is still there). I have guardianship of one of my grandchildren. Another grandchild has been adopted by his aunt. All my children and grandchildren are welcome in my home. I would never use any of the words you have put in my mouth to talk about my daughters. However, I also know that a strong belief in the effectiveness of birth control led my daughters to believe that sex and babies can be disconnected one from the other. I’ll leave you to decide whether that was a good assumption.

    Sterility is dangerous to the human race. Previous generations wept over it. How sad that you believe that technologically induced temporary sterility is something to be desired. How very sad.

    And I’m done for now — I have to work. Although I do find it interesting how a MAN has chosen to twist my words to make them insulting to women.

    Ruth

  61. Carla
    January 26th, 2009 @ 9:57 am

    You are ASSUMING Ashli is stuck.
    I am not talking studies. I am talking about your unkind words to Ashli who is a friend of mine. All one needs to say to someone who is grieving a child lost through miscarriage or abortion or early infant death is
    I Am So Sorry. No platitudes, no insensitive comments(God needed another angel)no wondering WHY she is grieving.

    I am not interested in matching you story for story. I am interested in questioning someone who makes assertions and does not care to back them up. I am interested in how people come to their conclusions about abortion.

  62. Patrick
    January 26th, 2009 @ 10:04 am

    >You simply don’t know what you are talking about, Patrick. You are spouting the party line.

    Unfortunately, that pretty much ends the discussion, doesn’t it? My rhetorical kung fu fails me, I’m afraid; there’s nowhere to go from “you’re absolutely wrong about everything you just said.” Uh…no I’m not? You are? Where does one go from there, when every single thing I’ve said has just been blithely ignored?

    You say abortion isn’t safe, and I won’t argue. I don’t like abortion. It should absolutely be the last option for a woman to choose. But…the entire point I was making (or I should say trying to make, as nearly everyone here has ignored it and I’ve let myself ramble all over the place and gotten sidetracked) was that pro-lifers could look for technological ways to make abortion obsolete, but that it probably wouldn’t happen because they were more concerned with being religiously right, than with being effective in their cause. An artificial uterus would end abortion. A perfected form of birth control would end abortion. These are within our reach, if the pro-life movement would rally behind it. But this approach is inconceivable to pro-lifers. It’s not morally satisfying for abortion to go away, they have to be the ones to end it dramatically. It’s the same reasoning that people would rather HIV spread than give clean needles to addicts, or would rather see young girls get HPV and possibly cervical cancer than be vaccinated against it; cleansing morality trumps logic, and rather than work to solve the problem, they choose to hector and lecture people for not behaving as they themselves do.

    So it boils down to pro-lifers deliberately overlooking effective means of ending it, based around technological innovations that don’t vanish on a whim and don’t require constant arguing and convincing and reassuring to remain functioning. It seems more important for them to get people to agree with them on how bad abortion is, than it is to get them to stop having abortions by making them unnecessary. It’s a very strange mindset for me to grasp, to be honest.

    >Yes. It is certainly a mistatement to put words in someone’s mouth and/or attribute attitudes to someone that cannot be supported by what that person has actually said/written.

    It’s a good thing I didn’t do that, then. :) Go ahead, go back and re-read, the (multiple) explanations are still up last I checked.

  63. Carla
    January 26th, 2009 @ 10:30 am

    I will do what I can with what I have as long as I have the strength to do it. Which includes but shall not be limited to, calling a girl today who is being asked to abort by her boyfriend and attending a board meeting for a local pregnancy care center.

    Patrick, the artificial uterus will have to sit on the backburner. Sorry. I am going to be offering real help to real people. A bloom where I am planted kind of a thing.

    Why don’t you like abortion, Patrick?

  64. Patrick
    January 26th, 2009 @ 10:30 am

    >I did not mention gender at all. You interpolated that.

    Since we were talking about women getting pregnant and all. Silly me.

    > I would never use any of the words you have put in my mouth to talk about my daughters

    Not your own daughters, perhaps. But your earlier words belie, to me, this loftier tone of nonjudgmental acceptance for women’s sexual habits in general.

    >However, I also know that a strong belief in the effectiveness of birth control led my daughters to believe that sex and babies can be disconnected one from the other. I’ll leave you to decide whether that was a good assumption.

    I know nothing about you or your family and therefore I’ll take you at your word that you believe that access to birth control was responsible, wholly or in part, for their unplanned pregnancies. You will, I hope, forgive my deep skepticism regarding that opinion, in general if not for your family in particular. Birth control is a miracle of the modern age that has improved the lives of millions and millions of women, mainly poor women, and anecdotal evidence of one family is just not going to convince me that birth control doesn’t work or is a bad idea.

    >Sterility is dangerous to the human race. Previous generations wept over it. How sad that you believe that technologically induced temporary sterility is something to be desired. How very sad.

    There is no such thing as “temporary sterility.” That’s like saying women are temporarily sterile when they’re not ovulating. There is nothing immoral about the idea of choosing when you wish to conceive, and if modern science lets us do that without simply having to forego sex altogether, then that is to be celebrated, not bemoaned. The danger to the human race is unchecked, uncontrollable, deliberately incurred (in the case of groups like Christian fundamentalists) overpopulation. I would suggest you visit a village in Mozambique, or the Congo, or Bolivia, and tell them that what they need is more children and that they can’t have any birth control.

    >I do find it interesting how a MAN has chosen to twist my words to make them insulting to women.

    I find it interesting that you think not using the naughty word itself somehow excuses the critical, condescending attitude your “polite” wording encapsulated.

  65. Ruth
    January 26th, 2009 @ 10:39 am

    Patrick said:

    >I do find it interesting how a MAN has chosen to twist my words to make them insulting to women.

    I find it interesting that you think not using the naughty word itself somehow excuses the critical, condescending attitude your “polite” wording encapsulated.

    ———

    I continue to find it ridiculous that even making mention of chastity as an option is viewed as condescending.

  66. Patrick
    January 26th, 2009 @ 10:52 am

    >Patrick, the artificial uterus will have to sit on the backburner. Sorry. I am going to be offering real help to real people. A bloom where I am planted kind of a thing.

    Obviously I was not expecting you to sit down in your workshop and construct one today. I just mean that, as a movement, this notion and approach never occurs to pro-lifers, not that I’ve seen. They’d rather get people to agree with them, than actually solve the problem. People can be won over in argument, and then lost again; people are fickle. Technology is not. Making abortion obsolete ends it for all time, but I just don’t think that that would be morally satisfying for most pro-lifers.

    >Why don’t you like abortion, Patrick?

    Because I am a humanist and I don’t like any waste of human potential. I do not believe in a god, or a human soul in the supernatural sense of the word, and I do not consider most abortions to be murder, nor do I believe in a singular instant when human life, or human-ness, “begins.” When a fetus meets a certain number of criteria, i.e. alpha wave brain activity on an EEG, heartbeat, sufficiently developed nervous system, etc., then it may be considered a discrete human being; until then, it is not. One day we will have the technology to record an entire pregnancy from conception to birth, and perhaps in studying that we will see the moment, the first stirrings of sapience, I don’t know. I lack the terminology sufficient to do it justice. But to me, abortion performed before sentience and sapience come into being is not murder. No pro-choicer can say otherwise.

    That does not mean I like abortion. I do not.

    It is trite, but I believe that every person has value, and everyone has something to contribute to society, even if it’s only to improve themselves and become better people. I do not consider abortion murder but still am discouraged by the notion that the next Einstein, the next Mozart, the next Lincoln may not be born because of it. That’s emotional, and easily countered, of course, as we don’t know how many potential Hitlers and Attilas have been aborted, either. And most fertilized cells never implant in the endometrium and abort naturally anyway. But still. I feel that in some way that the loss of potentiality for us all is regrettable.

    I think abortion is a sad necessity today because we are locked in a primitive technological and social state and we have yet to take total control of our bodies and free ourselves from the biological limitations imposed on us from birth. I suspect that my arguments that abortion is necessary under certain circumstances will fall on deaf ears here, and that’s alright; none of you are convincing me, either.

  67. Patrick
    January 26th, 2009 @ 10:59 am

    >I continue to find it ridiculous that even making mention of chastity as an option is viewed as condescending.

    But you didn’t call it an option. You explicitly stated that the contrary case was no one’s right. It’s not an option when you think the other choice shouldn’t be allowed.

    And I think people should wait until they’re well past puberty before having sex. (I’m sure that surprises some here, considering us pro-choicers LOOOOOVE abortion and want every girl to have four or five.) Do I think that most will? Of course not. But I would encourage it. Not, as many want, by failing to mention sex ever, or lying about it, or just saying “true love waits,” but seeing that kids get a full understanding of just how serious it can be, letting them know all the possible repercussions of it, physically and emotionally.

  68. Lily
    January 26th, 2009 @ 11:12 am

    Patrick– you can be part of a conversation or you can be a distraction. So far, you aren’t holding up your end of the conversation.

    Are you a very skinny dude? I think jumping to as many false conclusions as you have, along with all that dodging and weaving must burn a lot of calories!

    More seriously, Catholic pro-lifers are not going to favor birth control. Protestant and non believers would, I imagine. The pro-life movement is not a monolith. Will that glorious day come when sex and procreation will come? If it does, will that be a good thing? Today’s realities indicate otherwise.

    Are you unaware that most of Europe, Japan and a few other countries are actually dying out because the birthrate is below replacement level?

    This is why Europe will be majority Muslim in 20 or 30 years. Muslim families have on average 5 children. The rate in Britain, Italy, Germany etc. is less than two children. It is the anxiety over this demographic fact that is driving much of the turmoil over immigration.

    It has also led France, too late, to recognize the problem and try to bribe French women into having a second child. Whole towns in the eastern part of Germany have been reclaimed by wolves and forests because there are no young people and the elderly are dying off.

    Unfortunately, without people to plant and harvest the crops, there will be no food to process. Without people to drive the trucks, pilot the boats, fly the planes, and run the trains, there will be no way to bring what food there may be to places that need it. Without people to build the roads, tracks, and ports that make those means of transportation possible, even if we find someone to handle transportation, without the infrastructure, trains don’t run, trucks don’t run and ships don’t sail.

    Too few people is as big a problem as too many and it is our reality now. We reap what we sow and severing sex from procreation and turning babies into punishments has created a nightmare world for the next generation. They will not thank us for it.

  69. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 26th, 2009 @ 11:27 am

    All one needs to say to someone who is grieving a child lost through miscarriage or abortion or early infant death is I Am So Sorry. No platitudes, no insensitive comments(God needed another angel)no wondering WHY she is grieving.

    I did say that Carla, when TRT first introduced her. But it is curious that she defines herself in terms of her abortion years after it happened. Healing is not occurring, and so, a pro should be involved. That you object to that suggests that your group receives some benefit from her depression, and clearly they do.

    I am interested in questioning someone who makes assertions and does not care to back them up.

    Are you being funny by making a blind assertion. I have no idea what you are talking about here.

    I am interested in how people come to their conclusions about abortion.

    We’ve explained at length. You think living human tissue takes precedence over everything, and I think sentience takes precedence. It’s as simple as that. I see a woman as more than a womb, and you see a fertilized egg as more than cells.

  70. Carla
    January 26th, 2009 @ 11:51 am

    You don’t know what I think because I haven’t told you. Where have I written that I see a fertilized egg as more than cells?
    I still talk of my daughter after abortion 18 years later. Shall I see a pro? I wish that my girl were here with me. Is that really so hard to understand?
    Healing is a process. Ashli is doing exactly that. Healing.

    I object to your insensitivity which I already explained to you.

  71. Ruth
    January 26th, 2009 @ 11:57 am

    Patrick said:

    Sorry, but sexual freedom among consenting adults is a human right, full-stop.

    —————

    And you are correct that I do not believe that sexual freedom among consenting adults is a human right.

    I believe that procreation is a human right and is the intended purpose of sexual activity.

    We disagree on this point. Disagreement is allowed between reasonable people.

    Most of the lessons I have learned in life have been learned from sad experience, not from sitting on top of a mountain and looking down on others. So if you do not wish that I judge you, I recommend that you do not judge me.

  72. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 26th, 2009 @ 12:19 pm

    Carla, if you and Ashli are obsessing and crying over an event that is more than a year in your past, then yes, you most definitely should talk to your doctor about getting a referral.

    In not getting past it, you miss your life.

    So often people have some issue that could be sorted out in six months, but, because of the stigma of seeing shrink, or some misplaced ideas about the virtue of suffering, live a half life by carrying the load all the way to their grave.

  73. Carla
    January 26th, 2009 @ 12:38 pm

    UVJ,
    What do you mean by obsessing? Commenting on a blog? Then you would be obsessing as well, Jane.
    Why do you care if I cry? Why do you care if I get past it? You are worried that I am missing my life I guess. No worries, Jane. My life is awesome but I have much to share with others.

  74. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 26th, 2009 @ 12:46 pm

    *sigh* Carla, if you’re thinking about it every day, that would be obsessing.

    …and I’m glad your life is good.

  75. Carla
    January 26th, 2009 @ 12:55 pm

    I think about my grandmother everyday too. She died when I was 14.
    Grieving someone that has died is a normal, human reaction. We grieve because we love. Even grieving a child lost to abortion.
    Why deny that, Jane?

    I am glad you are glad. :)

  76. Melissa
    January 26th, 2009 @ 12:58 pm

    Amen Carla!! ((((((((((HUGS)))))))))))

  77. Lily
    January 26th, 2009 @ 1:02 pm

    Jane– when our moms or our grandfathers die in the fullness of years, their passing leaves a hole in our lives but we can come to cherish the memories of lives lived fully and grieving ends. When one loses a child, it is a different thing entirely. Every birthday (or anniversary of death) is a reminder of a life that didn’t happen. One doesn’t stop wondering about that daughter or son– would she have loved music like me? Would he have wanted a puppy for his 7th birthday? And every milestone– as their classmates graduate from elementary school, high school, college, and when they marry, it is all a fresh reminder of the life that didn’t get lived.

    It is hard enough to lose a child to natural causes or an accident– to have caused the death is a pain that I cannot even imagine. I believe that Ashli and Carla will be reunited with their children in the resurrection and I hope and trust that both know beyond a shadow of doubt that they have the forgiveness of God. But I don’t think it is a psychologist that they need to get past their losses, though the right one might help.

    I have a feeling, and perhaps Carla will tell me, if I am wrong, that they need you and me and others to recognize and acknowledge that they lost children, not clumps of cells. If you and I will mourn with them over the loss of their babies, perhaps it would help them get past their grief. If we put an end to the senseless slaughter of so many babies (and I include the born among them), then something very terrible will have been put right in our world. This would be comfort, indeed.

  78. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 26th, 2009 @ 1:12 pm

    The difference is that you knew the Grandparent – have memories of them, of things that you actually did and said.

    When you grieve an abortion, you are not grieving a person, they didn’t come to fruition and you never met.

    The same could be said of every egg that passes through you. They could have been a person with the right environment (one filled with sperm). I’m sure you don’t morn every period.

    You are grieving what might have been….and in thinking about it every day you are sacrificing what is (time with people that are here and now) for a dream.

    That’s way wrong for a Buddhist, and I think also wrong for Christians, is it not?

  79. Lily
    January 26th, 2009 @ 1:21 pm

    Jane– if it were true, that all Carla and Ashli are doing is mourning what might have been, why do so many women grieve miscarriages? You can’t just wave your hand and dismiss the feelings of those who lose children at whatever stage of development. It is a real loss and the women who suffer those losses deserve to have their pain recognized and acknowledged.

  80. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 26th, 2009 @ 1:27 pm

    Absolutely, but not at the cost of the rest of their life, right? Something that’s gone on for years and years is way past the point of recognition. That’s depression.

  81. Margaret Catherine
    January 26th, 2009 @ 1:31 pm

    UVJ, I wonder sometimes about my older brother, Michael – who he would have been. He was miscarried at 5 months, over ten years before I was born. I obviously never met him or even saw him. It can’t be said that I grieve for him; for me he is indeed a “might-have-been”. But my mother did grieve (as did my father). She carried him; she lost him completely unexpectedly; she never forgot that he was her son, and she always held onto the reality of him.

  82. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 26th, 2009 @ 1:57 pm

    My mom lost a baby boy about a year after I was born. She was really sad for a bit.

    But later, reflecting on the loss and the hurt she realized that had the baby been born, she very likely would not have had my brothers.

    As tantalizing as the “one that got away” can be, to undo an old bad is to undo every good that follows.

  83. Carla
    January 26th, 2009 @ 2:07 pm

    I miscarried my second child into my hand. I held that baby. I was 10 weeks along. I had an abortion when I was around 10 weeks along. There is no question in my mind that I lost 2 children. Also lost another one to miscarriage. It is not for you to say, Jane how one should or should not grieve or when that should cease. It will not cease for me. I know that and I accept it. I will always miss those children. I will always love them. The pain of knowing that I paid for someone to kill my own flesh and blood has been already dealt with and yes, I do know forgiveness and the hope and promise I shall see them again.

    I’m a mom. I have 4 children here on earth with me and 3 in heaven. If you think I am sitting in a corner, rocking and babbling, you would be wrong. There are children here to love and make PB and J sammiches for.

    I hear caring in your words, Jane. You would hate to see me wasting my life grieving cells. I understand that you do not understand. You will not acknowledge them as children or accept my grief. Got it.

  84. Carla
    January 26th, 2009 @ 2:14 pm

    Thank you Lily, Melissa and Margaret Catherine. You seem to get what I am saying. :)

  85. Carla
    January 26th, 2009 @ 2:19 pm

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09012603.html

    Silent No More at The March for Life in D.C. The article quoted Muriel’s story. She is a friend of mine.

  86. Margaret Catherine
    January 26th, 2009 @ 2:22 pm

    Jane – That’s true, and it’s occurred to me regarding myself and my siblings…but it gets into a hugely tangled area. (One that’s tripped up every sci-fi writer who ever lived.)

    I’m not a mother, so I’ll use another example. If my mother were still alive, I would not be the person I am now. There are great goods in my life that would never have happened (instead there would be another set, the nature of which I will never know). Should I not, then, sorrow – or when I think of her, wish that she had not died? It’s been ten years, and past that first year or so, not a bad ten years. But the wishing and the sadness are still there at times. I can only imagine that it is all the more so with one’s own child, for reasons others gave above.

  87. Margaret Catherine
    January 26th, 2009 @ 2:30 pm

    *laugh* I have this sudden desire to sing the Easter Exultet. “Oh happy fault of Adam, that gained for us so great a Redeemer!” Good does follow, and follow from, the bad. It doesn’t change the fact of it.

  88. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 26th, 2009 @ 2:53 pm

    Margaret Catherine, I’m sorry you lost your Mom!

    That’s sad, and I don’t think you can help but feel grief.

    I understand what you are saying – that grief is inevitable and I agree, but I also think that there is a point which becoming philosophical about it and letting go is healthy.

  89. Lily
    January 26th, 2009 @ 3:09 pm

    I dunno for sure, Jane, but it may be that philosophy is for those who have no hope. Those of us who do have hope don’t exactly need to let go in quite the way you might mean. We do have confidence that we will join those we have loved.

    My mother died when she was barely 50 and to this day, nearly 28 years later, I still think– if she had lived to the age women these days tend to live to on average, she would still be alive. How many times I have wanted to talk to her. When I think how proud she would have been of her grandchildren who turned out better than we could ever have anticipated! It isn’t that I grieve after all these years, it is just that there is a real, mom-shaped place in my life that no one else could possibly fill.

    I think that is the issue. We are unique. When you lose someone dear, that person cannot be replaced. So it is when one loses a child. Yes, others may come and will be dearly loved and cherished. But there is still a Billy, Molly, Heather or, whatever, -shaped hole in one’s life.

    It will all be made good, of that I am quite sure.

  90. Margaret Catherine
    January 26th, 2009 @ 3:19 pm

    I’d want to know what you mean by letting go…in the case of an abortion, how do you ever ‘let go’ of the fact that you killed your child (when and if you come to that realization), and of the pain that that engenders? I haven’t been there. Carla and Ashli have, and what they’ve said I can understand as far as my distance from their situation permits. But I don’t know what ‘letting go’, as you use the term, would mean.

  91. Margaret Catherine
    January 26th, 2009 @ 3:20 pm

    And, Jane, thank you.

  92. Melissa
    January 26th, 2009 @ 3:26 pm

    UVJ, just because someone remembers a joy, loss, etc. doesn’t mean that they haven’t moved on or let go. The people and things that shape our lives aren’t forgotten because they are part of who you are and what you have experienced. So, please tell us about all the people you have lost in your life and have forgotten completely about. Wait, nevermind. Since you move on and let go of all your losses, you wouldn’t remember them, think about them, or have any ounce of feeling to recall right? You ought to dedicate your brain to science when you die because I have never known a person who has the miraculous ability to completely wipe away painful memories without EVER having an afterthought.

  93. jolly atheist
    January 26th, 2009 @ 3:46 pm

    I have been following your comments. I’m sure nobody says we can wipe away painful memories without EVER having an afterthought. However, having an afterthought about a painful memory and being obsessed with it are two different cases. The second is a case where you would need a psychologist.

  94. Lily
    January 26th, 2009 @ 3:47 pm

    I fear we may be dumping on Jane. There are a lot of people who have grown up believing that abortion does not kill a child. It is hard to believe that it has been 36 years, since Roe v Wade and nearly 50 million babies killed. 50 million!

    If it is up to us, as our horrifying abortion laws have it, whether our children live or die, seeing them as somehow not really human is a necessity. How could one bear it otherwise? That has been drummed into the younger generations.

    I just read another article that deals once again with the fact that half of all abortions are done on African American women and that they are actually increasing among them while decreasing among white women. Sanger’s “Negro project” has succeeded better than she could have hoped.

  95. Melissa
    January 26th, 2009 @ 3:50 pm

    I agree. Obsession isn’t good no matter what it is. Though, the ones being attacked aren’t “obsessed” with their memories and I think it’s unfair that there are some trying to minimize their pain or act as though those events have no meaning or place in their lives.

  96. Mother Of Many
    January 26th, 2009 @ 4:35 pm

    UVJ: “When you grieve an abortion, you are not grieving a person, they didn’t come to fruition and you never met.”

    Hmm…I see a contradiction here. Who is the “they” that never came to fruition? It IS a person! Just because this small little human has not “come to fruition” yet does not make it a non-person.

    You might as well say I’m not a person because you have no memories of me and we haven’t met in real life. So, when, exactly does a child become human? When it first smiles? When it sucks it’s thumb? When the parent has enough memories of the child in order to properly grieve the loss?

    The first success of the pro-choice movement was in convincing people that an unborn child is not human. And yet, it’s completely preposterous! It’s why even someone like yourself cannot speak about abortion without contradicting herself.

    Grieving an abortion IS grieving a person–just ask any mother who has lost a baby via miscarriage or still birth.

    But yes, we agree on one thing: at some point, we have to let go. The grief never goes away, really. It will always be there. But we can learn to manage it.

    I, myself, found great comfort in prayer, meditation and reading of the Scriptures.

  97. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 26th, 2009 @ 4:55 pm

    Margaret Catherine – Here’s my idea of letting go. When my grandmother first died I pined for her, but after a while I stopped wishing for her presence, as it wasn’t a possibility in any case, and just visited moments that we shared.

    Funny – I just thought of this – The only time i experience sadness anymore when I think of her is remembering times she cried.

    Anyway, that’s what I mean by letting go…let go of the grasping, and the resulting pain.

    In Buddhism they teach you not to suppress feelings but to observe yourself feeling them and observe your choice of thoughts, (and try to do it without judgment).

    As in “Isn’t that interesting that I choose to berate myself.” or “Isn’t that interesting how I choose to keep revisiting the episode with that rude help desk person.” and “oh, look how thinking about that made my heart rate go up…and now it’s going back down.” and so on.

    As far as how do you ever make peace with an abortion if you are a Christian? I don’t know, and that’s why I would urge someone haunted to hire a gun, and in this case, I would look for a Female Christian Doc.

  98. Carla
    January 26th, 2009 @ 4:56 pm

    Some have to believe there is nothing to grieve. Buncha cells, buncha cells. They have believed the lies. I do not blame them, nor seek to put them down. I believed the lies too.

  99. Carla
    January 26th, 2009 @ 5:18 pm

    Jane,
    What does your last paragraph mean?

  100. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 26th, 2009 @ 5:24 pm

    If your abortion bothered you, and you are Christian, I think you should make sure your shrink is a Christian as well. I don’t know that I would trust an atheist doctor to really appreciate your point of view, no matter how sincere their intent.

  101. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 26th, 2009 @ 5:30 pm

    They have believed the lies. I do not blame them, nor seek to put them down. I believed the lies too.

    Obviously I don’t agree, but I do think that if you are religious and you have a relationship with an invisible entity that perhaps you are predisposed to having a relationship with an invisible child.

    Perhaps it just comes down to a capacity to attach to the unseen.

  102. Carla
    January 26th, 2009 @ 6:42 pm

    The lie that it is just a bunch of cells, Jane. A baby that was 10 weeks along was delivered in my hand. A perfectly formed human baby. I was unprepared for that. I remember them telling me it was just a bunch of cells. It was not.

    I am a Christ follower. I have asked for forgiveness for killing my own child. I am forgiven. The last stage of grief is acceptance. That is where I am. That doesn’t mean September 5th is my favorite day but I deal with what happened on that date 18 years ago.

  103. Carla
    January 26th, 2009 @ 9:03 pm

    Jane,
    I just wanted to thank you for the conversation today. I appreciated it and am always willing to talk about my abortion. I also try not to miss an opportunity to honor the daughter that died in that clinic on Sept. 5th, 1990.

  104. Livingstrong
    January 27th, 2009 @ 1:57 am

    My personal opinion is that an excellent physician who is very ethical to his/her medical principals should never judge any patient and should always respect his/her patient decisions no matter if s/he is a religious person or if s/he has no belief at all.
    A good doctor should always try to save lives, respect and have compassion for a Christian patient, Muslim patient, atheist, Buddhist, etc.
    A doctor should never try to convinced any woman to go through an abortion, or not to have it either.
    Personally, I am proud to say that I have never performed an elective abortion. Never. I just don’t believe that I studied medicine to interrupt the embryological evolution of the embryo nor the fetus. I studied medicine to safe lives and to alleviate pain and suffering, not to cause it or aggravate it.
    However, I am not judgmental either and if my patient insists in having an abortion then its not my place to try to convince her not to have it done no matter how much I oppose to it personally. I will refer her to an abortion clinic but I educate her first about the possible complications and teach her how to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the future. I also advise her about the danger of having repeated abortions so she takes care of her body next time.

    I understand that this topic can be very painful for many moms who have gone through this procedure in the past and now they wish they would have never done it. And I have great respect for your feelings and all of you who have lost your mothers and children.
    It is true. When we lose someone we have loved so much, there is a hole in our hearts that is very hard to fill. And they will always be missed.

    Peace to all and hope you continue to have love and happiness, always.

  105. Carla
    January 27th, 2009 @ 7:05 am

    Thank you LivingStrong. I would encourage you to hand out some literature about fetal development and also do an ultrasound so a woman SEES and KNOWS the child she is contemplating killing. She will not get that at the abortion clinic as they sell abortion. So much for choice.

    I never would have had one if I had known the truth.

    I will be praying that soon you will take a stand and not send a woman to be wounded and a child to die.

  106. Carla
    January 27th, 2009 @ 7:05 am

    How is it judgmental to tell a woman the truth??

  107. Brian Walden
    January 27th, 2009 @ 12:38 pm

    A doctor should never try to convinced any woman to go through an abortion, or not to have it either.

    Call me old fashioned, but I have a higher view of doctors than this. They’re not over-glorified medicine waiters who exist to take our orders and give us whatever we want. Their job is to give us their expert advice on what is healthiest for us. If a doctor determines to the best of her ability that her patient should or shouldn’t have an abortion that’s what she should advise.

  108. Carla
    January 27th, 2009 @ 1:04 pm

    That is why I have a prolife Dr. :)

  109. Carla
    January 27th, 2009 @ 1:24 pm

    Doctors do not know everything. I am a sucker for stories of women advised, urged and STRONGLY cautioned to “terminate the pregnancy”(kill the baby)and they did not.
    A child is born.

  110. Brian Walden
    January 27th, 2009 @ 1:50 pm

    I agree that doctors do not know everything. But their job is to advise – if a patient doesn’t trust their doctor’s advice they should find a new doctor. I realize that many doctors are objectively wrong about abortion – but we don’t live in a perfect world. I guess I’d rather have doctors be professionals giving what they honestly believe is the best medical advice even if that advice may turn out to be objectively wrong, than have doctors be specialists whose job is to perform their specific service for anyone who wants it regardless of their opinion of whether or not its the best course of action for the patient.

  111. Carla
    January 27th, 2009 @ 2:21 pm

    I am grateful that my friends did not listen to their drs. when encouraged to abort.

    I agree, Brian. People should find a new dr. or at the very least a 4th opinion.

  112. Ashli
    January 27th, 2009 @ 2:40 pm

    Raving Theist,
    I don’t appreciate you comparing Obama to a disease-ridden cockroach. In the future, please show a little more respect to cockroaches.

    Ashli

  113. Melissa
    January 27th, 2009 @ 3:08 pm

    LOL

    Ashli’s right. When it comes to comparing Obama to anything that is filthy, diseased, etc. there is no comparison. At least animals, insects, etc. don’t enjoy exterminating their own kind.

  114. Jahrta
    January 27th, 2009 @ 3:45 pm

    Are you being a dipshit on purpose? Animals love exterminating each other, be it for food, competition for food, or potential mating rights. That little exchange reminded me of Death’s date with the Pet Store clerk in Family Guy.

  115. Melissa
    January 27th, 2009 @ 3:53 pm

    I said their OWN kind. I’m not talking about the food chain. Though, you do make an important observation in that we are nothing more than savage animals if we go around killing each other.

  116. Pikemann Urge
    January 28th, 2009 @ 3:56 am

    Well, some insects kill their own kind. And probably one or two species of primate, too.

    Sorry to see that the hang-up about abortion has taken precedent over issues equally (or doubly) as important.

    Anyway I hope to see some broader issues brought up by TRT in the coming months. Maybe some theology, some philosophical chat about morals, textual criticism etc.

  117. Ashli
    January 28th, 2009 @ 8:53 am

    Ya, when I was six my gerbil ate all her bald, pink babies’ heads off.

    I think the point is…WE’RE NOT GERBILS.

  118. Ashli
    January 28th, 2009 @ 8:58 am

    Melissa, I just visited your blog.

    You duh BOMB!

    RIGHT ON!

    :-)

  119. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 4:04 pm

    Melissa – you said we’re nothing more than savage animals if we go along killing each other – does that count when the edict to do so comes from god, as in every other page of the bible? What about when the early christians spread the gospel by way of cold steel, killing all practitioners of other savior cults in the fertile crescent and beyond?

  120. Lily
    January 28th, 2009 @ 4:14 pm

    Jahrta, Where on earth do you get the notion that early Christians killed anyone, much less spread the Gospel by killing all practitioners of other savior cults (Like what? When? Where?) in the fertile crescent?

    Probably the single most reliable description of the spread of Christianity in the first couple of generations is found in a book written by Rodney Stark, a sociologist, “The Rise of Christianity”. It is a fascinating look at the early years from a perspective (the sociology of religion and historical sociology) that is rarely brought to bear on the question of the spread of Christianity. I don’t agree with him entirely but it is a fascinating study that I think everyone interested in the early years of Christianity would do well to read. You won’t find killing or the fertile crescent mentioned.

  121. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 4:41 pm

    Lily – there were many other cults before and during the rise of christianity whose central figure was supposed to have died for his followers only to be resurrected. These cults went the way of the dodo because they posed a threat to the church. The cult of Ahuramazda, Osiris, and Heracles fall under this category. All those people didn’t suddenly stop believing. They suddenly stopped breathing.

  122. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 4:41 pm

    And you didn’t address my other point about god telling his followers to kill other neighboring civilizations and take their land for themselves.

  123. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 4:42 pm

    He means the crusades.

    We make decisions every day on value of human life. Every speed limit is set knowing there will be a certain number of deaths, every war declared, every tobacco tax set, every building standard has an acceptable body count.

    The bottom line is that we make choices between lives and we do it on the basis of what is best for the group. It is to the advantage of the group to protect the productivity of young adults. Their potential is our most valuable asset…more valuable than the brain dead child on life support and more valuable than the non sentient human in the womb.

    We all live in a world of limited resources. All choices are triage, and all of us participate in life and death choices every day – not just the chick popping a plan B.

  124. Lily
    January 28th, 2009 @ 4:46 pm

    jahrta: You simply cannot be serious. What is the evidence for these “cults” you claim were bumped off by Christians?

  125. Lily
    January 28th, 2009 @ 5:00 pm

    “And you didn’t address my other point about god telling his followers to kill other neighboring civilizations and take their land for themselves.” Did you mean for me to answer this, Jahrta? If so, I will tell you what I just tried to tell someone in another thread about the story of Elisha and the bears.

    The OT is the national story of the Jews. It was written over nearly 1400 years +/- a century or two, depending on whose dating you accept. It is a mix of genres; mythology, stories, laws, history, court chronicles, poetry, etc. It testifies to the ancient Jews understanding of how they became a nation and how God dealt with them in making them a nation.

    Catholics (and others, I am sure) do not see it as a how to manual. Nor do we take every bit of it literally. We consider it valuable for obvious reasons and learn a great deal from it.

    A set of books containg stories about the creation of the world (which none of the authors witnessed, I hardly need remind you), stories of how the Hebrews became a people and a nation in the misty past and written down in the early iron age, are probably going to reflect the views and ways of thinking of the writers of that long ago time.

    They won’t be footnoted and scientifically gussied up the way 20th century writers would do history. That means we are going to have to read them carefully, trying to see them from the point of view of the writer and what he was trying to convey. Then we can draw out the lessons that may be contained in them.

  126. Alphonsus
    January 30th, 2009 @ 9:06 am

    Anyone interested in a strong defense of the pro-life position on abortion should check out Francis Beckwith’s book “Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice.” He deals with both popular and sophisticated arguments in a cogent and readable manner.
    http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Life-Against-Abortion-Choice/dp/0521691354

  127. kim
    January 30th, 2009 @ 7:13 pm

    Jane,
    You don’t understand the pro-life position. Of course there are good reasons a woman would have an abortion.

    There are also good reasons to torture people suspected of terrorism. But both are intrinsically evil. Neither can be morally legitimate no matter how compelling the reasons for doing them.

    Rape and incest are violent acts. So is an abortion. Abortion does not improve or fix the act of violence, it adds to it. Giving birth, while painful, is not inherently violent or destructive. Ask all the moms of the world. A woman who gives birth after rape or incest actually brings healing to a violent act. Ask the women who have actually had babies in these circumstances.

  128. kim
    January 30th, 2009 @ 7:16 pm

    Patrick et. al,
    You don’t understand Catholicism at all. I’m tired of being under attack by those who woulnd’t dream of otherwise letting their bigotry hang out for all to see.

    The Catholic church’s deep teaching on human sexuality is far more beautiful and better than your cheap, anemic summary. I know; I live it.

    Crash course: There either is or isn’t a God. He either did or did not design the world. He either did or did not infuse it with a purpose. We Catholics see His design, and we say others, through reading the plan of nature, can also see it: Sex is for the purpose of babies and bonding, and pleasure is the lovely side effect.

    If you decide to set up pleasure as the purpose: you can do that, but, like it or not, the consequences will be bad. That’s because you have the purpose wrong. We’re just pointing out the natural purpose of things, if you want to be God or are ticked because you don’t like the plan, or don’t see it that way, so be it. Go ahead and get angry at deeper thinkers other than yourself, like the giants of Catholic thought. It doesn’t change reality. If you’re right, not the Church, all the fruits of the sexual revolution should be bearing good fruit about now. If you think that fruit is juicy and smells good, so be it. I think STD’s, divorce, and abortion smell rotten.

    I love spacing babies via Natural Family Planning, in the context of monogamous marriage, as the Church teaches. Not because it is easy but because it bears good fruit: let’s see: self-control, sex with meaning, sex grounded in relationship, sex with someone who doesn’t see babies as something to be rooted out with technology (yick!), no STD’s, no treating my fertility as a disease, no treating me as merely an object of pleasure.
    Oh, and no pill: no peeing estrogen out into the drinking water and wreaking serious environmental damage, no increased risk of breast cancer.

    As far as I’m concerned, the Catholic Church is my best friend and greatest advocate as a woman. The more people strive to actually follow what she teaches, the better off we are.

    You don’t think so? don’t follow it. But, I’ll never buy for a second that your world view leads to good results.

  129. Jack
    February 2nd, 2009 @ 3:25 pm

    Common ground is too… well “common” for the soles of big-O’s feet to touch.

  130. Lily
    February 2nd, 2009 @ 4:40 pm

    Wow, Kim! I am speechless for once. Great post!

  131. Ruth
    February 3rd, 2009 @ 1:07 pm

    It appears that the majority of Americans disagree with the Executive Order signed by Obama that is the topic of this post:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/114091/Americans-Approve-Obama-Actions-Date.aspx

    The poll found that the public agreed with Obama’s action in five instances, and disagreed in two. The Executive Order allowing government funding to organizations that promote abortion overseas had the lowest approval rating of the seven actions discussed. Only about a third of Americans actually approve of this action (which probably explains why he signed the order with so little fanfair and publicity).

  132. Jetson
    January 22nd, 2012 @ 11:55 am

    This is both street smart and intleelignt.

  133. bvjusm
    January 23rd, 2012 @ 3:29 am

    252QNg lelrmdzxndbo

  134. abcvfn
    January 26th, 2012 @ 5:41 am

    8fT45N esatqjlvkoba

  • 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