The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Compare and Contrast

January 28, 2009 | 62 Comments

Alfred Hitchcock never said that all actors are cattle; what he said was that all actors should be treated like cattle. I feel the same way about the implication that I have called President Obama a filthy, disease-ridden cockroach. I certainly did not. I said that he acted like a filthy, disease-ridden cockroach.

How else to describe his conduct in signing the executive order to fund overseas abortions? Recall that Obama received the enthusiastic support of every pro-abortion organization and promised that the first thing he’d do in office was to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. Recall that Obama celebrated his election with NARAL head Nancy Keenan. Recall that Obama has packed his staff with members of the abortion lobby. So one would think that when the time came to sign the first big pro-choice order, the President would proudly march on to the front lawn of the White House surrounded by cheering throngs of abortion lobby officials and sign a blow-up of the order with a giant pen at high noon.

But what did he do? He scheduled the signing for a late Friday afternoon. He barred the media from the signing ceremony. The actual the text of the directive was not released until three hours later, after Obama had fled from the room.

When cockroaches wallow in filth, they like it quiet and they like it dark. They don’t like people to see what they’re doing, and disappear when the lights go on. All you see after they scurry away is their disease-ridden droppings. So I repeat: President Obama acted like a filthy, disease-ridden cockroach. The description is a behavioral one, not a genetic one. If you are looking for a genetic comparison, the best one would be between Obama and his fetus.

Some of you have decried my comparison as racist. I am well familiar with this tactic because it was the favorite of the Obama campaign in deflecting any criticism of his policies, while it simultaneously promoted the candidates’ skin tone as one of the prime reasons for electing him. It won’t work here. So scurry away.

Comments

62 Responses to “Compare and Contrast”

  1. ceil
    January 28th, 2009 @ 4:36 pm

    i understood what you meant, and I agree. Bring all your dirty deeds out in the light! and if you cant or wont do that, then it looks like even he “knows” they are dirty deeds. Abortion on demand is the dirtiest deed anyone could wish on any country, and I feel fear and shame for our country.

    cp

  2. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 4:49 pm

    We are the only developed nation that even questions a woman’s right to choose. We need to adopt Canada’s laws and be done with this silliness.

  3. ceil
    January 28th, 2009 @ 4:52 pm

    what about the (future) womans right to life? hmmmmm????

  4. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 4:53 pm

    What about it?

  5. ceil
    January 28th, 2009 @ 4:58 pm

    as I hope you are aware, female babies are aborted at a much higher rates in many countries. Being for abortion on demand is the most mysogynistic view possible. Future girls will never have the chance to live and experience life due to yours (i assume) and others view of a womans right to choose death. She gives no thought to what her “right” is unleashing on the world. So sad

  6. Skeptimal
    January 28th, 2009 @ 4:59 pm

    “I said that he acted like a filthy, disease-ridden cockroach…How else to describe his conduct in signing the executive order to fund overseas abortions?”

    That isn’t what the executive order says, of course. Bush made it so that no dollars can go to any organization overseas that even talks about abortion or contraception. Obama revoked that foolish rule. American tax dollars will not be used for abortions.

    “So one would think that when the time came to sign the first big pro-choice order, the President would proudly march on to the front lawn of the White House surrounded by cheering throngs of abortion lobby officials and sign a blow-up of the order with a giant pen at high noon.”

    I seem to recall plenty of mainstream publicity about that decision. It was hardly done in the darkness.

  7. Brian Walden
    January 28th, 2009 @ 4:59 pm

    We are the only developed nation that even questions a woman’s right to choose.

    If a woman’s “right” to choose to murder her child is so great, why do people who support that “right” want to reduce how often it’s exercised?

    We need to adopt Canada’s laws and be done with this silliness.

    Yeah, because those Human Rights Commissions are so great.

  8. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 5:02 pm

    No, the most misogynistic view possible is to treat women like livestock. When women are viewed as animals, only useful for reproduction (a view held by Christianity and Islam, girl embryos are chosen for termination.

    If you can’t care for all your babies, the slave babies go first.

  9. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 5:03 pm

    Brian – WHAT? I have no idea what you were trying to say.

  10. Lily
    January 28th, 2009 @ 5:11 pm

    Jane, that is just nonsense. Have you ever been on a farm? My father raised cattle until recently. He had lots of cows but only ever needed one bull. The little male calves got sold off right away. They were useless. Males are, biologically speaking, superflous.

    So when nations like India and China slaughter female babies in great numbers something is going on that isn’t very healthy and obviously has little to do with understanding the role women play in the demographic health of the nation.

    Christians never allowed abortion. The Romans slaughtered babies in utero in the thousands and brought on their own downfall, in part, because they had to import their subject peoples when they were no longer reproducing in great enough numbers to fill army ranks and settle conquered lands. This should sound familiar, since it is the same dynamic making Islam a force in Europe. It is a simple fact which sociologist, Rodney Stark, has argued, that Christianity spread so quickly in some part because it reproduced, literally, in far greater numbers than the people of the cultures around them.

    India and China don’t seem to understand, even yet, the demographic catastrophe they have invited by killing off so many females. If they understood their value as livestock for reproduction, there would be many more females alive today.

  11. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 5:16 pm

    I never said Christians were pro abortion – I said they view woman as a womb. Although there is no evidence that there attitude toward exposure was any different than anyone else’s in ancient Rome

  12. Lily
    January 28th, 2009 @ 5:20 pm

    Oh yes there is. The evidence about their attitude toward infanticide is abundant and cannot possibly be mistaken.

    Christians forbade abortion and out-reproduced everyone around them. The number of girls born outstripped then, as now, the number of males born which is why marriage to pagans had to be winked at. Try again. Or shall I provide you with a bibliography?

  13. Brian Walden
    January 28th, 2009 @ 5:23 pm

    Jane, I apologize for being confused. If I may use the common “Safe, legal, and rare” theme. If abortion is so great, why should it be rare?

  14. Brian Walden
    January 28th, 2009 @ 5:25 pm

    That was supposed to be, “I apologize for being confusing.” Feel free to have a good laugh at my expense, I deserve it for not proof-reading such a short post.

  15. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 5:26 pm

    If you include the pill, then of course they aren’t rare. Why don’t you guys put your energy into the male pill instead of trying to control sex?

  16. Matthew in Fairfax
    January 28th, 2009 @ 5:27 pm

    We are the only developed nation that even questions a woman’s right to choose.

    Perhaps you could clarify, Jane. From a 2005 article in the Daily Mail (UK) :

    “Britain has the most liberal abortion laws in Europe.

    A termination can be obtained up to 24 weeks of pregnancy – double the limits in France and Germany and six weeks later than in Sweden or Norway.”

    “In France, abortion after 12 weeks is allowed only if two doctors say a woman’s health is endangered or the foetus has a serious abnormality.

    In Sweden, abortion is provided free and on demand until week 18. After that, a woman must secure special permission from a medical board.

    Denmark has abortion on demand for the first 12 weeks. After that, there are limits and terminations are few after 16 weeks.”

    I came across various papers giving other examples of restrictions on abortion in Western European countries, but my question: do any of the restrictions listed in this article count as questioning a woman’s right to choose? Or perhaps I misunderstand.

  17. Brian Walden
    January 28th, 2009 @ 5:33 pm

    If you include the pill, then of course they aren’t rare.

    So you don’t think abortion should be rare? Even most pro-choicers think it should be rare. I admire that you stick to the logic of your position.

    Why don’t you guys put your energy into the male pill instead of trying to control sex?

    Right back at you, Jane – WHAT? I have no idea what you were trying to say.

  18. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 5:34 pm

    I don’t understand your position. We also have restrictions on late term.

    My point was that due to the frailty of depending on R v W rather than having a clear federal law, we get all this froth from a minority that is, ironically, the same size as the number of gays in this country.

    It’s the tail waging the dog.

  19. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 5:38 pm

    I agree that pills are an abortion. I agree that they are frequent, and feeling that the pill is a GREAT invention, I thus do not have a problem with the frequency.

    If the failure of a fertilized cell to implant is a problem for you, then why not work on the male pill. The male pill prevents viable sperm from reaching the egg and thus, no abortion.

    Imagine the great PR the Christian right would have if they funded the male pill.

  20. Kelly
    January 28th, 2009 @ 5:46 pm

    Jane – you would think the right to “choose” would fall on both sides of the aisle. Did you ever ask yourself WHY women have abortions? Many woman are barraged and beaten by family and boyfriends, and feel there is no other way. She has coerced into having an abortion, and then what? She is right back into the same abusive situation. Instead of simply giving uninhibited rights to any girl to terminate her pregnancy, why not initiate more caring programs that ASK these girls what the root of their problem is? And it IS a problem. Abortion is not a liberating or pleasant experience. No woman WANTS to have an abortion. Usually it is a last, desperate measure taken by a woman who feels there is no way out.

    Furthermore, many companies do not provide maternity coverage and colleges do not provide pregnancy services. Why does a woman have to choose between killing a baby and having a career? News flash: Woman get pregnant. We are doing VIOLENCE to women by proliferating this notion that they cannot live an effective life and have a child.

    Did you know the first feminists were vehemently pro-life? That’s right – abortion was legal and common in the 1800s, and these first feminists felt that the growing penchant of society for abortion was violence, not only against the child but also the woman.

    A quote from Sarah Norton, first woman to successfully argue admission at Cornell Univesity:

    “Child murderers practice their profession without let or hinderance, and open infant bucharies unquestioned. Is there no remedy for this anti-natal murder? Perhaps their will come a day when an unmarried mother will not be despised because of her motherhood, and the right of the unborn to be born will not be interfered with.”

    Motherhood, and human life, are SACRED. Look at what the devaluing of both in our society. Father abandonment has risen to ridiculous highs. “It’s my body,” we say. “Then it’s your problem,” they say.

    Child abuse has risen exponetially in every country that has legalized abortion. Why do you think this is, Jane?

  21. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 5:59 pm

    Kelly,

    I agree with some of your remarks about a bad situation, but that leaves me wondering why you would add to the woman’s bad situation by changing the law rather than providing well advertised options for her.

    “Child abuse has risen exponentially in every country that has legalized abortion. Why do you think this is, Jane?”

    Wrong! Completely wrong.

  22. Lily
    January 28th, 2009 @ 6:01 pm

    Jane, it is a popular myth that we have restrictions on abortion. We do not. It is available up to the minute of birth at a full 9 months. Ours are the most “liberal” abortion laws in the world and every attempt to outlaw partial birth abortion has been tossed out by the courts.

  23. Forrest Cavalier
    January 28th, 2009 @ 6:08 pm

    Since rescinding the Mexico City policy will increase the reach of organizations that encourage choice, it will definitely increase abortions.

    Candidate Obama pledged to work to reduce abortions. Therefore to keep that pledge, President Obama surely plans to do something to decrease them. Perhaps it is only a mistake that he did not announce that last Friday as well.

  24. Kathy
    January 28th, 2009 @ 6:41 pm

    I will apologize to you RT that I didn’t mean to imply that YOU called him a cockroach (that would be me!). I really thought the description was funny and I have learned my lesson not to make comments on funny things I find on people’s blogs, lest I be labeled something I’m not. It gave me a great mental picture of him scurrying down the hall after the signing. I think it was an apt description of his actions and it made me laugh. Twice actually, the second time when you described Michelle Obama’s actions!

  25. Melissa
    January 28th, 2009 @ 6:57 pm

    ROTFL!! Brilliant post RT!!

  26. Brian Walden
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:20 pm

    Imagine the great PR the Christian right would have if they funded the male pill.

    You do realize that Catholics think that contraceptive sex is immoral right? Why would make a male pill?

  27. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:21 pm

    I explained that Brian.

  28. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:22 pm

    I understand that you think sex is immoral, but the chastity programs have been an epic failure. If you want to stop conceptions, find a solution that replaces the pill.

  29. Brian Walden
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:38 pm

    Obviously you don’t understand. I think sex is one of the holiest things there is. We’re no more like God than during sex.

    I don’t want to stop conceptions per se. I want to stop abortions. I can’t endorse contraception as a solution – in fact I believe it’s one of the problems. We’ve got more contraceptives than we’ve ever had and more abortions than we’ve ever had.

  30. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:43 pm

    Brian, sex can be a lot of things, in and out of a marriage.

    Everything from a mindless release, to an act of violence, to play, to a power move, to an expression of love.

    Chastity isn’t working. The liberal Christians are sick of the one issue politics. They walked away and it cost you the election.

    How do you plan to adapt?

  31. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:47 pm

    My point was that due to the frailty of depending on R v W rather than having a clear federal law, we get all this froth from a minority that is, ironically, the same size as the number of gays in this country..

    82%, let me repeat that, 82% of Americans think there should be restrictions on abortions. Only 9%, let me repeat that, only 9% think abortion should be allowed through all nine months for any reason.

    Which minority were we talking about again?

  32. Brian Walden
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:54 pm

    How do you plan to adapt?

    Confession. Prayer. Fasting. I’m a big part of the problem.

  33. Nick
    January 29th, 2009 @ 12:20 am

    I just dropped by here for the first time in a long time.
    This is just sad. OOOOOOHHHHH so painful Its all because of that Catholic bitch that writes for the post!
    Ahhh ! This Sucks soooo bad!
    Wake! Wake from your slumber!

  34. SCS
    January 29th, 2009 @ 8:25 am

    Obviously you don’t understand. I think sex is one of the holiest things there is. We’re no more like God than during sex.

    Sex itself isn’t anything but a physical act, a biological function. It’s what the couple brings to it that makes it positive or negative.

    But at least you recognize that priests and nuns are actually LESS like God through their unnatural celibacy than married people are through their perfectly natural and healthy intimacy.

  35. Brian Walden
    January 29th, 2009 @ 8:42 am

    SCS, would you like to put any more words in my mouth.

    By the way if you’re going to make a claim, at least make it logical. If sex is just a biological function, how are people who take a vow of celibacy less like God. If it’s just a biological function, what’s so natural and healthy about marriage. We can swap biologicals with anyone – or anything even.

  36. jolly atheist
    January 29th, 2009 @ 9:05 am

    RT Isn’t a cockroach God’s creation and part of a fine-tuned design? Maybe God created that animal with a purpose beyond your understanding and Obama is just the person who has grasped the ultimate meaning of the cockroach and acts accordingly!

  37. SCS
    January 29th, 2009 @ 9:05 am

    You, a Catholic, claimed human beings are never more like God than when they’re having sex. If that is true, it follows that anyone who deliberately eschews sex is never going to attain that level of kinship with God.

    I don’t believe this, but whether you realize it or not, that’s what you said. If you’d like to reword your statement, fine, but don’t blame me for something you expressed poorly.

    I don’t believe that engaging in sex always raises human beings to a level near that of God. Rape, incest, child sexual abuse, manipulative sex, abusive sex, perverted sex, promiscuous sexual behavior are examples of people having sex yet being about as far away from God as possible.

    I believe emotionally healthy sexual relationships between married people are good and holy and may give us a glimpse into the mind of the Creator. It is not the sexual act itself, however, that brings our behavior close to that of the Creator. It’s what’s going on in our minds and hearts and souls.

    I also think artists (true artists) achieve this kinship with the Creator, however, so some people can attain this closeness outside of sex. I’m sure there are other situations in which people find themselves achieving this kinship. Caregivers, advocates for the poor, oppressed and voiceless, etc. Emergency responders.

    Whenever we act like Christ because of our love for Christ, we’re as much like God as we can be.

  38. frustrated(mk)
    January 29th, 2009 @ 9:23 am

    SCS,

    I have been doing a series of articles on Theology of the Body, and I have to say that your claim that artists can achieve this without sex was very insightful. Sex is not what makes us like Christ, but it is a VEHICLE that can take you to that place. It is not the ONLY vehicle, but it is a powerful one, and one that God has given us. It can certainly be a direct route.

  39. frustrated(mk)
    January 29th, 2009 @ 9:24 am

    SCS,

    May I have permission to reprint your comment on my blog? It think it is a great one, and would add much to the discussion.

  40. Christine the Soccer Mom
    January 29th, 2009 @ 9:49 am

    Hmmm…Obama’s actions made me think of this:

    19 And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. 20 For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved.

    link

  41. jolly atheist
    January 29th, 2009 @ 9:49 am

    Here’s a story: A priest died a virgin. In heaven, he had the original of the holy book in front of him. While reading, he came to a point and sighed: Aaaaah! It’s ‘celebrate’, not ‘celibate’!

  42. Brian Walden
    January 29th, 2009 @ 9:56 am

    You, a Catholic, claimed human beings are never more like God than when they’re having sex. If that is true, it follows that anyone who deliberately eschews sex is never going to attain that level of kinship with God.

    I should have used clearer language. I meant we’re no more like the trinitarian nature of God than during sex.

    I don’t believe this, but whether you realize it or not, that’s what you said. If you’d like to reword your statement, fine, but don’t blame me for something you expressed poorly.

    I admit my poor wording and I apologize. But even the original version of my statement is true when interpreted subjectively with the “we” in “We’re no more like God than during sex” meaning those of for whom sex is a part of our vocation. Seeing as how 99% of us are laypeople, it’s a fair statement to make. Clergy and Consecrated religious are the exception that prove the rule.

    I don’t believe that engaging in sex always raises human beings to a level near that of God. Rape, incest, child sexual abuse, manipulative sex, abusive sex, perverted sex, promiscuous sexual behavior are examples of people having sex yet being about as far away from God as possible.

    Agreed. I can also say God is love and then cite a dozen examples of false love. That doesn’t mean that God isn’t love – it means we often miss the mark. Catholic belief is that during sex husband and wife participate in the unity and life-giving love of the Persons of the Trinity. Obviously if the parties engaging in sex choose to break that unity or that openness to life, they’re not participating in the supernatural aspects of sex.

    I believe emotionally healthy sexual relationships between married people are good and holy and may give us a glimpse into the mind of the Creator. It is not the sexual act itself, however, that brings our behavior close to that of the Creator. It’s what’s going on in our minds and hearts and souls.

    Fair enough. Catholics believe sex is intrinsically good. You believe it’s intrinsically neutral.

    I also think artists (true artists) achieve this kinship with the Creator, however, so some people can attain this closeness outside of sex. I’m sure there are other situations in which people find themselves achieving this kinship. Caregivers, advocates for the poor, oppressed and voiceless, etc. Emergency responders.

    Whenever we act like Christ because of our love for Christ, we’re as much like God as we can be.

    I never intended to make a mutually exclusive statement. I can’t win. According to Jane I’m wrong for hating sex and according to you I’m wrong for loving it too much.

  43. jolly atheist
    January 29th, 2009 @ 9:59 am

    CSM/Post 40: Your quotes are examples of conlicting explanations of religion. Is the night-watch an evil person? As to animals, how about owl and bat? Must they be evil?

  44. Brian Walden
    January 29th, 2009 @ 10:07 am

    Jolly, it’s figurative language. The light being talked about does not mean literally mean sunlight; it’s an extended metaphor.

  45. SCS
    January 29th, 2009 @ 11:00 am

    How am I saying you’re wrong for loving sex too much?

    There’s nothing wrong with loving sex for all the right reasons. Healthy sex is good! By healthy, I mean within a married relationship and between emotionally mature adults.

    I think human beings are intrinsically good, but sex is intrinsically neutral. It’s our relationship with the divine that affords us the opportunity to experience sex on a higher level than people who are squandering their sexuality by randomly hooking up or using sex abusively.

    I don’t think, however, that anything external lends a supernatural dimension to sexual intimacy. Marriage, even what Catholics call “sacramental” marriage, doesn’t mean all married, uncontracepted sex is healthy or reflective of anything divine. I know at least one conservative Catholic, NFP-using couple whose marriage fell apart because of the sexually abusive nature of the wife.

  46. frustrated(mk)
    January 29th, 2009 @ 12:21 pm

    SCS,

    It’s not a guarantee, no. But there is most definitely an outside external supernatural factor. God is in the mix. Having sex (the right way, as you described) means that God is in the room with you. In the marriage bed with you.

    You aren’t just “communing” with your spouse, your communing with the Trinity.

    I know what you mean tho. It’s not done TO you, it’s something that you ENTER into.

    You never answered me, can I use your comment on my blog?

  47. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 29th, 2009 @ 12:29 pm

    Not to turn the subject away from wether or not we make magic by rubbing our winkies and woowoos together…as fascinating as that is.

    I was wondering what you frothing wackos think about the Quintuplet situation. It turns out the chick already had 6 kids living in a three bedroom home when the doctor perscribed fertility medicine.

    Is there any limit – in your opinion – to the number of children one should responsibly produce or is that between you, God, and your pharamacist?

  48. Brian Walden
    January 29th, 2009 @ 12:45 pm

    SCS, I generally agree with you.

    I never intended to say that every sexual act is good. The Catholic position on sex is similar to that of people. God created it intrinsically good as he did us us. We mess up sex a lot just as we mess up ourselves a lot.

  49. Brian Walden
    January 29th, 2009 @ 12:51 pm

    Is there any limit – in your opinion – to the number of children one should responsibly produce or is that between you, God, and your pharamacist?

    Your answer is in your question – responsibly produce. There’s no magic number, it’s a case by case basis.

  50. Lily
    January 29th, 2009 @ 1:01 pm

    What does a pharmacist have to do with it? I personally don’t understand why a woman with 6 children would use fertility drugs which famously result in multiple births but if she and her husband want and can afford them, why not? I would be more inclined to ask why a doctor would prescribe them for such a woman.

  51. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 29th, 2009 @ 1:06 pm

    I was being glib – obviously this wasn’t a naturual occcurance. The babies owe their conception to medication, and I agree that the doctor’s decision, or lack of inquiry as may be the case, is worrisome.

    I guess the question becomes, how poor is too poor. They now have 16 people crammed into a three bedroom house. Is that child abuse. How crowded and neglected do kids have to be before it’s abuse?

  52. Lily
    January 29th, 2009 @ 1:20 pm

    Jane– on the surface that is a reasonable question. But if you look at the size of the homes generations of children have been brought up in, it doesn’t seem so obviously reasonable. Crowded simply doesn’t = abuse. Nor do multiple children = neglect. My italian grandparents each had 9+ siblings. The older children helped take care of the younger children in a tiny house in Boston and in a tiny row house in Philadelphia. Yet they were as happy as proverbial clams at high tide.

    Now on the Irish side it was a different story. My grandparents had few brothers and sisters. They had 2 children that they brought up in a very big house- actually, make that houses, since they also had a summer home, like all the other rich folks. Yet, my mother and her brother were left to the care of an alcoholic mother, after their father died, who basically turned them over to the maid to raise. Who was neglectd?

    Maybe our ideas of neglect and abuse require some adjustments?

  53. Brian Walden
    January 29th, 2009 @ 1:26 pm

    I guess the question becomes, how poor is too poor. They now have 16 people crammed into a three bedroom house. Is that child abuse. How crowded and neglected do kids have to be before it’s abuse?

    So women when it comes to killing babies women can do whatever they want with their bodies? But when it comes to having them, we must step in and tell them when to stop?

    This sounds like a question for the local zoning board and social services and possibly the doctor who gave her the fertility drugs knowing her situation and the risks of multiple fertilizations. I personally question the prudence of the decision to go on the meds (based on the information you’ve given, I haven’t read the details yet), but I when it comes to the government telling people how many kids they can have I don’t want to let the camel get it’s nose under the tent.

    Besides everyone knows that when you have a bunch of kids at once like that you get your own TV show and book deal and free trips to Disney world and all that stuff.

  54. SCS
    January 29th, 2009 @ 1:31 pm

    Huh. And we Irish in my family all had/have very large families and my father’s second wife (my mother died when I was pretty young) had only two (she is Italian), and she herself was an only child. Both families of that generation came here in the very early 1900s.

    My husband and I are rather wealthy. My brother and his former wife were always struggling. Our marriage is healthy and his has disintegrated and no longer exists. Our children are grown, happy, successful and independent. His are still dealing with the fallout of their abysmal home life.

    Maybe we should leave the ethnicities and incomes out of it? Abuse is an equal opportunity offender and occurs among all ethnic and income groups.

  55. Lily
    January 29th, 2009 @ 2:06 pm

    What has ethnicity got to do with anything?

  56. SCS
    January 29th, 2009 @ 3:07 pm

    Egggggsactly! So let’s leave out the ethnic and economical qualifiers, ‘k?

  57. Lily
    January 29th, 2009 @ 4:24 pm

    No, not ok, if you are referring to my anecdote. Ethnicity had nothing to do with it– accurately describing the two different sides of my family was the point. I could, I suppose, have referred to the rich side and the poor side or the beautiful and the plain side. Or the drunken sot side and the abstemious side. I chose the qualifiers that I particularly value, since they are of abiding interest to me.

    ‘k?

  58. SCS
    January 29th, 2009 @ 8:34 pm

    Whoa! Chill, bitch…

  59. Alphonsus
    January 30th, 2009 @ 9:07 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

  60. Eresh-Kigal
    February 2nd, 2009 @ 10:13 am

    We all know what this is coming to. The only way to satisfy the people on the one side who enjoy calling women murderers for not feeling able to to raise a child properly and those on the other side who believe that creating life is too precious to be entered into willy-nilly is:

    To regulate baby-making. Sterilisation after the permitted number of babies has been born.

    This way, women don’t have to abort children and deal with the emotional abuse of being called a murderer (for all you pro-lifers, d’you not think calling a woman that is going to cause her some… issues?). The world’s population might also start to slow down somewhat and gee whiz wouldn’t it be nice if all our descendants could actually have a nice world instead of something horrifically polluted and ecologically barren. Oh and the resources and wealth that we have been blessed with could be shared out to less people in greater measure ensuring them stability, prosperity and happiness.

    Reality checks –
    a) children aren’t loved and adored the world over. We have them because we are programmed to reproduce and survive as a species.
    b) *gasp* not all unborn children will survive to be born. What’s a miscarriage then? Manslaughter?
    c) banning abortion will not change rates of teenage pregnancy, child abuse or make us love existing children more. Unwanted babies will still be unwanted but they’ll have the luck of actually being born before being killed. As is done today the world over and has been done throughout history.

    Solution – don’t breed.

  61. Lily
    February 2nd, 2009 @ 10:44 am

    I suppose I ought not to respond to this but I wouldn’t be me, if I didn’t.

    Just exactly what makes you think that we need fewer people in the world? Are you unaware that most of Europe is in demographic crisis? The Japanese are on the verge of extinction as are other populations around the world. Are you really unaware of this? If so, Google is your friend. Just the documents and studies produced by the UN would fill the Grand Canyon.

    No, this idea that we need few people and your love affair with sterilization and cutsey references to not “breed” tell us pretty much everything we need to know about your love of humanity.

    The idea that we must regulate “baby-making” is the hallmark of the totalitarian mind. It doesn’t surprise me but it does still turn my stomach. Who, pray, will write the rules? Let me guess– you? No, thanks. No thanks, indeed. Anyone foolish enough to equate miscarriage and abortion isn’t wise enough to make his own breakfast much less impose laws on others.

  62. David Kwon
    May 31st, 2009 @ 5:11 am

    Perhaps our views on abortion ultimately do not matter at all? Maybe, just maybe, if we Christians can all just start loving and caring for other people, and those other people start caring for the rest of the world, then ultimately, perhaps decades later though, rapes will occur less often with less people willing to indulge in the crime, more women will grow up in loving and supportive families who will think twice about abortion, and there will be less unwanted pregnancies as more women prefer to wait for marriage to have sex?

    How about this for an idea? We start a revolution by loving people! And ultimately, this will be the cure for abortion. None of this divisive talk about abortion will get us anywhere, as we have discovered in the past several decades. Why continue in the futile chatter? Did Jesus tell us Christians to put forth our views on abortion to show that we believe life to be precious? No, all he said was to love our neighbor. And perhaps by doing so we can put a stop to abortion.

    I have a feeling this is similar to what is going through Obama’s mind.

  • 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