The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Daily Headline

January 27, 2009 | 203 Comments

untitled-2
Washington, D.C., January 27, 2009
Special to The Raving Theist

First Lady Michelle Obama will bring her considerable charm, poise and wit to champion the cause dearest to her heart: abortion.

A staunch supporter of partial birth abortion, the President’s wife has vowed promote family values by encouraging the killing of unborn human life at every stage of development.

Cashmere-lined green leather gloves from J.Crew smartly accessorized Mrs. Obama’s blood-speckled scrubs as she stood in the waiting room of an inner city abortion mill and vowed that no woman would ever suffer the “punishment” of an unwanted child.

The First Lady said that she would lead by example by volunteering every week as a patient escort, counselor, cashier or fetal parts counter. She further proposed a national partnership between the Girl Scouts and the National Abortion Federation to insure that no baby ever be born into a broken home like that endured by her husband.

“Whether she is transported over state lines by a caring aunt, an indifferent 42-year old boyfriend or a fugitive stepfather, every terrified 16 year-old girl needs someone to curtly grunt directions to the abortion room,” said Mrs. Obama. “And the most traumatic and confusing moment of her life should not be complicated by the burden of having to count out $250-$1,500 in small bills all by herself.”

Pausing to flick a clump of fallen plaster off her forest-green Jimmy Choo pumps, Mrs. Obama then gracefully scurried down a dark alley way like a fashionably-dressed, filthy, disease-ridden cockroach.

Comments

203 Responses to “Daily Headline”

  1. Jahrta
    January 27th, 2009 @ 3:37 pm

    Fine, be a role model – fight for what you believe in. Adopt a crack baby today and do something that actually matters. Otherwise, you’re just posting useless BS, aren’t you?

  2. Keith
    January 27th, 2009 @ 4:59 pm

    No, he’s pointing out what useless BS pro-choice politics is.

  3. Melissa
    January 27th, 2009 @ 5:05 pm

    Amen to that Keith!

  4. Chris
    January 27th, 2009 @ 6:02 pm

    It seems to me that the post is lampooning the fact that Mrs. Obama is an elitist who isn’t willing to face up to the reality of her values.

    Nonetheless, only ignorant pro-aborts think that no one adopts special needs children, or adoption is a rarity.

    There are approximately 135,000 adoptions per year in the United States. Of these, there are PLENTY of people who adopt children with “special needs”, like kids with birth defects & disabilities, Down’s Syndrome, or drug/alcohol exposed children, not to mention all of the interracial adoptions of children of another race.

  5. alice
    January 27th, 2009 @ 6:53 pm

    I HATE ABORTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  6. Melissa
    January 27th, 2009 @ 7:36 pm

    Well said Chris!!

    That being said, they ought to make it easier and more affordable to adopt. But, I suppose that is yet another part of the whole agenda. They make adoption expensive and difficult that way they can condition people to just get “rid” of children instead of actually welcoming them. It’s sad. :(

    By the way, my son is a special needs child. He is hearing impaired. I wouldn’t trade him for anything! No one could have predicted that he was going to have a hearing loss, and I’m glad. I wouldn’t have wanted to hear the “advice” of a doctor tell me to just “start over”.

  7. Kathy
    January 27th, 2009 @ 8:25 pm

    Like the filthy disease-ridden cockroach of a husband of hers! Love it! Say it like it is!

  8. Joanne
    January 27th, 2009 @ 8:25 pm

    “to insure that no baby ever be born into a broken home like that endured by her husband.”

    I know, right? Love the unicorn impaling the baby…er, fetus, which may or may not be human, depending upon what you think should be allowed to happen to it. At any rate, this thread is very funny in a profoundly disturbing way. ;)

  9. Louise
    January 27th, 2009 @ 10:07 pm

    Adopt a crack baby today and do something that actually matters

    What bullshit! Pro-lifers do more to support women with unplanned pregnancies than pro-choicers do.

    And even if we did nothing, we’d still be right.

  10. 5 5
    January 27th, 2009 @ 10:11 pm

    The great thing is, these babies never have to suffer this world, they go straight to heaven and are happy forever! So I say, let them kill more babies and they’ll all go be with God! That’s a good thing, right? Don’t you want to be with God? How else would God get cherubs?

  11. Louise
    January 27th, 2009 @ 10:30 pm

    5 5, they do suffer as they’re being sliced’n’diced, you know. So, the babies will be happy with God and the abortionists and abortion supporters will likely go to Hell. That’s fair.

  12. 5 5
    January 27th, 2009 @ 10:36 pm

    Well if that’s fair, then why is everyone here complaining about it? Seems like a win-win to me. One day we will all die. But most of us have to suffer this life first. The babies make out the best, seems to me. I say, if you don’t want to get an abortion, no one should force you. AND vice versa!

  13. Carla
    January 27th, 2009 @ 10:41 pm

    One day we will all die, so let us kill each other first before we all die. You are willing to get things rolling starting with yourself, eh 5 5?

  14. Kurt
    January 27th, 2009 @ 10:44 pm

    In order to consistently advocate for the murder of the unborn, I have read the most ridiculous comments in the previous threads regarding abortion. We are told to believe that the natural connection between sex and procreation is a Christian myth propagated by the male clergy in order to oppress women. We are told to purposely confuse simple concepts and equate a naturally developing human being with sperm. We are told when women are pregnant that they are pregnant with an imaginary and invisible baby and hence we are also being told that our mothers were never pregnant with us (and they are delusional if they tell you otherwise). I suppose Obama’s mother purchased him at Babies “R” Us. It is so ridiculous that one is almost forced to believe it is some kind of sick joke, but these are the lies one has to believe in order to support a candidate who is currently implementing the Final Solution against the unborn.

  15. Louise
    January 27th, 2009 @ 10:57 pm

    Well if that’s fair, then why is everyone here complaining about it?

    Because it’s *wrong* to kill innocent people, even if they do get to be with God afterwards.

    But most of us have to suffer this life first. The babies make out the best, seems to me.

    Bullshit. You are not likely to be sliced’n’diced. The “fairness” is not that babies are killed, it’s that the people who do it will not get away with it unpunished.

    I say, if you don’t want to get an abortion, no one should force you.

    How old are you? 11? Who argues like this?

    I don’t want *anyone* to have an abortion that’s the point.

  16. jolly atheist
    January 28th, 2009 @ 6:18 am

    There are many very young women left with an unwanted child by a man who has disappeared. In this case, such a woman gives life to the child at the expense of her own life. Both herself and the child have to endure long years of hardship and difficulty. I would suggest that, instead of abortion, we try to change the traditional norms of the society in such a way that it be natural and a right for such a woman, to give away the child after birth to some state institution – should she choose to do – without any blame coming on to her from the community.

  17. Carla
    January 28th, 2009 @ 6:58 am

    Maybe there is a movement for all those women who wished they had had an abortion but instead chose to give life to their unwanted child? Maybe they could march with said unwanted child and carry a sign that says I REGRET NOT HAVING AN ABORTION. SHOULD HAVE CHOSEN. Or maybe an arrow to the child that says UNWANTED. After all, a child is a punishment and once an unwanted child, always an unwanted child.

  18. Skeptimal
    January 28th, 2009 @ 8:05 am

    “Like the filthy disease-ridden cockroach of a husband of hers! Love it! Say it like it is!”

    Kathy, are you talking about Obama? Really? And the rest of you commenting on this blog have no problem with the racist overtones here?

    Because let me tell you: I could understand opposition to abortion, and I know that a lot of sincere people sincerely believe that abortion is murder. But more and more I begin to suspect you’re using abortion to justify hatreds that have nothing to do with this issue. If you really want fewer abortions and not just control sex, then teach birth control and family planning instead of just abstinence. And when someone says the kind of hogshit that Kathy just spewed: call her on it.

    Kathy: explain yourself. Explain what you were talking about.

  19. Erin
    January 28th, 2009 @ 8:31 am

    Nice try, Skeptimal. An abortion proponent is always the same, no matter what his or her skin color.
    I’m growing tired of the if/then arguments. If you believe this/then you you must do that.
    The inconvenient truth is that abortion kills people. If you think it’s a good idea, then you think killing people is a good idea. How’s that for an if/then?
    You do not get to set the terms for the truth.

  20. Skeptimal
    January 28th, 2009 @ 8:39 am

    “You do not get to set the terms for the truth.”

    Neither do you. Nice dodge on the racism.

  21. Erin
    January 28th, 2009 @ 8:40 am

    I do not claim to set terms on the truth. An abortion kills a human being. That’s the truth.

  22. Erin
    January 28th, 2009 @ 8:44 am

    If you want to engage in a discussion about racism, let’s start with the disproportionately high number of black babies that are being aborted around our country.

  23. 5 5
    January 28th, 2009 @ 8:49 am

    Yes Kathy,
    now that skeptimal mentions it, it does sound more over-the-top than the normal christian hatred! Explain!

    I think it’s funny that nobody seemed to give much thought to the mythical unicorn (mentioned in the bible about a dozen times as being real!) killing the baby in the headline photo. Maybe RT is trying to tell you that it is myth killing babies, like the myth of a god, or a flesh and blood son of a god! Not Michelle Obama! Ever read the Pentateuch? LOTS of slicing and dicing, ordered by your god!

    We have a great president in Obama, who cannot possibly please every single person in this country. He will do things I don’t like. He will do things you don’t like. He will try to do the right thing EVERY time, which will never please everyone, every time. He will receive my support on every decision, even the ones I don’t like, because it is the only way this country will survive. I am proud to live in a country where we can sit on our high horses in cyberspace and argue the doctrines. In many countries, you would be executed for calling the president a cockroach!

    The bottom line is, he is the president! He was voted in by the majority! You must support him for four years and keep our country strong! Then, the majority will have another chance to change leadership. At that time, you may choose to run for office yourself and make the policy, vote for the leader you want in office, or cry when you end up being the minority again with Obama serving a second term!

    I’m betting on that last option! :)

  24. Skeptimal
    January 28th, 2009 @ 8:50 am

    Erin, do you have a problem with Kathy’s racist statement or not?

  25. Lily
    January 28th, 2009 @ 8:59 am

    When all else fails, play the race card. Yeah, right. Anyone who supports abortion is supporting grave moral evil. Calling such a person a cockroach is an insult. To cockroaches.

    You will not be allowed to try to change the subject, Skeptimal. The subject is the legal killing of babies in or out of the womb. Erin is right. If you want to inject race into the issue, let’s start with the inconvenient fact that 1/3 of all abortions are performed on black women who are what? 12% of the population? That is some fine genocide going on with your blessing, Skeppy.

  26. Erin
    January 28th, 2009 @ 9:00 am

    Kathy is quoting TRT from a previous post. If you feel it’s racist, more power to you. I think you’re trying to wiggle your way around the truth.

  27. Ashli
    January 28th, 2009 @ 9:00 am

    That’s it. I’m calling the American Cockroach Liberties Union.

  28. Carla
    January 28th, 2009 @ 9:12 am

    I will respect the office and the authority of the President of the United States of America. I will vehemently disagree with his stance on abortion and let him know that I vehemently disagree. I will work in opposition to his promotion of abortion in this country and around the world.

  29. Erin
    January 28th, 2009 @ 9:21 am

    I love the sounds of crickets chirping in the dead of winter.

  30. Carla
    January 28th, 2009 @ 9:50 am

    Hi Ashli!!
    Please send along the phone number and I will join you in the fight.

  31. Carla
    January 28th, 2009 @ 10:01 am

    Erin,
    Thanks for the love, lovey!! :)

  32. Skeptimal
    January 28th, 2009 @ 11:12 am

    Kathy said: “Like the filthy disease-ridden cockroach of a husband of hers! Love it! Say it like it is!”

    Erin said: “Kathy is quoting TRT from a previous post. If you feel it’s racist, more power to you…”

    Really? I guess if RA/RT says it, that makes it okay. I mean, now he’s a Christian, so you can trust every word he says.

    The thing is, I don’t see any of you referring to white politicians as “filthy” and “disease-ridden.” I’ve never heard even anti-abortion religionists refer to pro-choicers as filthy or disease-ridden, but I’ve heard many white racists refer to black people that way.

    This looks increasingly like Obama’s support for women’s rights is only part of the reason you hate a man you yourselves have said you know so little about.

  33. 5 5
    January 28th, 2009 @ 11:28 am

    Well said! Great Points!

  34. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 11:33 am

    What this boils down to is that better minds have decreed that abortion is to remain safe, legal and rare ever since 1973. Do you think you’re the first people to challenge the decision? Every year since we’ve seen the teeth-gnashers, bible-thumpers, sign-wavers, wailers and planned-parenthood shoot-em-up nutjobs. And every year we’ve seen the decision go unchanged, regardless of who’s in office, because every time someone challenges it the people we’ve elected into office recognize that abortion, while morally tenuous and thoroughly unpleasant, is a necessary evil. One of the main reasons it has remained in place is because no one can really give a definitive non-religious definition of when a fetus becomes an actual person, and since this isn’t a theocracy (last I checked) no one offering religious arguments would be seriously considered anyway. Life doesn’t begin at conception. The process by which life would eventually develop begins at conception. If you remove a zygote from its environment it dies almost immediately. A zygote isn’t capable of independent thought. A zygote isn’t aware of its surroundings. A zygote cannot feel (no nerve endings), think, dream, hope or care. At what point does abortion really count as murder? Well, to hear you people say it, the second you terminate a sperm/egg union. Other people who are not governed so wholly by their emotions and religious conditioning would argue that it comes at some point later on in the process. Admittedly, it’s a very slippery slope, but spare me your “why don’t you kill downs syndrome kids or babies in orphanages?” bullshit. It’s obvious, trite, and ultimately paints you as a fucking idiot. As others have said previously, the god you supposedly believe in and worship is the biggest mass-murderer of all time (including widdle iddy-biddy babies)so that hardly puts you, the worshipper, in a position of moral superiority. And I also find it strikingly hypocritical that the staunchest anti-choice people are most often the biggest supporters of war and torture.

  35. MK
    January 28th, 2009 @ 11:39 am

    I didn’t realize that cockroaches belonged to the negroid race. I thought they were animals. Silly me.

  36. MK
    January 28th, 2009 @ 11:42 am

    The thing is, I don’t see any of you referring to white politicians as “filthy” and “disease-ridden.” I’ve never heard even anti-abortion religionists refer to pro-choicers as filthy or disease-ridden</i.

    I think Nancy Pelosi is a filthy, disease-ridden cockroach. She’s white isn’t she? Maybe not human, but white.

  37. Lily
    January 28th, 2009 @ 11:47 am

    You have lapsed into babbling lunacy, Jahrta. If personhood can be defined at a whim, are you a person? What makes you one? I can remember a moment in recent history when the humanity of Jews was not enough to save them from genocide. Were they persons? If not, why not? If so, what made them persons? Is a 45 year old in a coma a person? He isn’t capable of independent thought. How about your grandmother when she grows so infirm, that she needs 24 hour assistance?

    Of course life starts at conception. WHen else? Have you consulted an embryology text book lately? You might want to see what 1st years medical students are taught about that.

    Down Syndrome babies? What are they? Are you not aware that they have nearly been completely aborted out of existence?

    There is no such thing as a necessary evil. There is only evil that suits someone whose ability to think morally has been eroded. Nobody today under the age of 36 knows what it is like to be born into a society that was horrified by abortion. What happened? Did abortion become less horrifying or have we become completely numb to its horrors?

    Better minds! Don’t make me laugh.

  38. MK
    January 28th, 2009 @ 11:52 am

    This site is making me crazy. It won’t take half of my comments!!! arrrrggggghhhhh!

  39. Erin
    January 28th, 2009 @ 11:52 am

    Jahrta,
    I seem to remember from talking to you previously, that you don’t even know when a baby’s heart begins to beat. You probably also don’t know that 90% of all Down Syndrome children are murdered before they’re born. I think it is you who’s relying on your emotions to inform you on this subject(you’re hatred for those who believe in God), rather than fact. Personally, I came to be pro-life before I came to be Catholic. You don’t have to believe in God to know that a human is a human right from the beginning. It’s the belief in God that informs the knowledge that all human life is sacred, and deserves protection, regardless of how you feel about that person.

  40. Melissa
    January 28th, 2009 @ 11:53 am

    “Better minds.” Yeah. Got to keep working towards evolutionary perfection!! Who’s next on the list to be exterminated? Who determines the “better minds”? Too bad Hitler isn’t still around. I’m sure he could tell us. He had it all figured out didn’t he?

  41. Lily
    January 28th, 2009 @ 11:55 am

    MK– it is good to see you back. I wondered where you had gotten to.

  42. Erin
    January 28th, 2009 @ 11:57 am

    Skeptimal, whether it’s okay or not is subjective. It’s okay with me if that’s what he wants to say. I probably wouldn’t say that myself. Just like it’s okay if you say Dick Cheney is like Hitler. I don’t like it, but it’s okay, I can deal. If you find it so offensive, I would suggest you find some reading material that doesn’t upset you so much. The sentiment is coming from a place that you just don’t understand, so you call it racist.

  43. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:03 pm

    too…much…..stupidity…..in…..one…..blog…ARGH!!!

  44. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:08 pm

    Lily,
    It won’t take my comments…really tickin’ me off. hmmmmm…

  45. Joanne
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:08 pm

    “Other people who are not governed so wholly by their emotions and religious conditioning would argue that it comes at some point later on in the process.”

    Okay, so what point is it then? Or is this another one of those questions to which nontheists respond angrily that they don’t know?

    “and ultimately paints you as a fucking idiot.”

    How charming. And what an intellectually and ethically superior way to make a point.

  46. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:09 pm

    Lily,

    I was at the March in DC. I just wrote a response to Jahrta and it got eaten. It kept doing that before too, and it’s really frustrating!

  47. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:09 pm

    I can’t believe some of the arguments here. They are like the arguments from back in 73. Doesn’t the prochoice crowd know that we are way past trying to argue that it isn’t a human life, and have moved on to, sure it’s a human being, but so what? It’s in the mothers body and she can do whatever she wants. Which of course leads to conjoined twins…that’s when all hell breaks loose… ;)

  48. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:10 pm

    Here is Peter Kreeft’s version of their “reasoning”

  49. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:11 pm

    murder is the taking of an innocent life.
    murder is wrong.
    Abortion is the taking of an innocent life.
    Abortion is murder.

  50. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:11 pm

    Therefore….wait for it….

  51. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:12 pm

    Murder must NOT be wrong.
    And they call us un”reason”able! Sheesh!

  52. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:14 pm

    Lily – babbling lunacy? I can recognize a coma patient as a human being, but you want me to view a lump of snot with the same sort of reverence and respect? No, a zygote isn’t a person. What you keep tripping over is the issue of potential, the same thing that turned TRA into TRT. Yes, I am alive, and I am a person. I meet all the requirements I mentioned in my earlier post. So does a coma patient. Once you’ve attained personhood you don’t lose it until you die. That’s my view, and I am familiar with yours, even though I vehemently disagree. What’s your point about Downs Syndrome babies? Is it a bad thing that they’ve been “aborted to the brink of extinction” as you put it? That’s ridiculous, by the way – the genetic anomally that produces Downs babies will be with us until geneticists find a way to splice it completely from the genome. Why is it a bad thing to rid ourselves of Downs Syndrome? not every sufferer can get a gig on 30-Something. Are they people? Of course they are. Would I abort if I discovered we would have one and it was still early in the pregnancy? Yes. Do you have to like my decision? No. Fewer Downs cases means less of a burden shouldered by society to see them through their lives, less tax money spent on social services and medical care, etc etc.

  53. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:15 pm

    Joanne – I calls ‘em like I sees ‘em

  54. Erin
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:16 pm

    Right on, MK.

  55. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:17 pm

    MK – I’ll play your game

    God is love
    God kills entire societies and civilizations in the OT for the transgressions (usually minor) of a previous generation
    God tells people not to murder
    God then tells people it’s ok to murder if he tells them to
    God is bipolar

    That was fun!

  56. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:18 pm

    hmmmm…lump of snot, human being. lump of snot, human being.

    What were those criteria again Jahrta? Do you fit them? Who says so? You?

  57. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:20 pm

    Jahrta,

    I’m glad you are easily amused. The difference is you don’t believe in God. So to you, he isn’t real. But the lives of these children are real. That is objective fact. You can’t joke them away.

  58. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:20 pm

    Erin – I made a factual error when I called the moment a child’s heart beats a quickening. BFD. Now that I’ve acknowledged it, get over it. Like I said earlier, it’s a slippery slope to define when a person is a person, but a sperm and an egg does not equal a person. It’s a process, and the exact moment may never be defined to the satisfaction of all parties involved.

  59. Carla
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:23 pm

    By the time a woman even realizes she is pregnant what of the sperm and egg Jahrta?

  60. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:24 pm

    Well, I guess it’s a good thing then that I’m not a public servant and have no political sway whatsoever. If you feel strongly enough about abortion to march against it, more power to you. it’s your right as an american, just as it’s my right to voice my opinion. I’ve said it about a billion times now but I’ll say it again. I don’t like the idea of abortion. It doesn’t sit well with me. I think that it would be a lot better if people practiced safe sex until they were prepared to raise a child. Abortion shouldn’t be standard and customary birth control, but it should remain a viable option.

  61. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:24 pm

    I don’t follow, Carla. What was the question?

  62. Erin
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:28 pm

    My point is that you shouldn’t be relying on your supposed knowledge to inform you, because your knowledge is obviously lacking. It seems like you come to this blog waiting for someone to change your mind. You seem like a very sad person.

  63. Erin
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:29 pm

    What Carla means, Jahrta, is by the time a woman knows she’s pregnant, what are the sperm and the egg? What have they become?

  64. Lily
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:32 pm

    Jahrta, you are evading the question of what constitutes personhood. You can’t just claim to be a person. Tell me what that means, please, so I will know who is and who is not a person.

  65. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:33 pm

    J,

    If it truly doesn’t sit well with you, then why would you call an unborn child a lump of snot? Seriously! You yourself admit that NO ONE, not even YOU knows when “personhood” begins (which is a lie, since it begins at birth as it is a legal term, and nothing else). But we DO know when LIFE begins. Scientifically, rationally, objectively. The earth is round and nothing will make it flat. Life begins at fertilization and nothing will make it begin at a later date. EVERYTHING is there in the DNA. It is a separate life. Not the mothers. It is HUMAN. Not canine, not feline. It is animated. It is ALIVE. Period. Now, if you want to argue that it is still okay to kill it because your values and desires trump those of a person that is dependent on another for continuing said life, that is a different argument. But to claim that it ISN’T life, is just ridiculous.

  66. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:37 pm

    As to the unicorn…I think the statement is that Planned Parenthood will make your DREAMS come true…rainbows, unicorns…except, that ain’t the reality.

  67. Lily
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:38 pm

    Jahrta: Your “tour” of the Old Testament was not one of your stronger moments. Last night I answered a question for someone about Elisha and the bears (2 Kings)in the “question of the day” section. It contains words of wisdom for you, too.

  68. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:39 pm

    Carla,

    I got your phone message, and all I can say is “WOW! The same thing happened to me on that trip!” I wonder if God was keeping us “focused”…no worries, I’ll catch you next year! :)

  69. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:43 pm

    I almost forgot about dear sweet Melissa. Missy: evolution does not move towards “perfection.” Evolution is a response to environmental stimuli over long periods of time and is passive, not active. Genetic mutations will be passed on to the next generation if they prove to be advantageous, and over time those mutations become more pronounced (as long as they continue to afford some degree of an advantage in terms of competition for food, habitat or mating partners). On to the next point: when I said better minds I was speaking about the people we vote into office to represent us. I would damn sure hope that the president, his cabinet, and the supreme court justices are possessed of a higher intellect than joe sixpack. Don’t you hope for that as well? Now for the doozy: your automatic knee-jerk reaction when an atheist comes out in favor of preserving abortion rights or aborting a fetus with a known genetic abnormality/deformity: we must all be nazis! Setting aside for the time being the fact that I was born into a jewish household, which you could not have known, it is not eugenics for a couple not to want to carry to term a child they know will be a huge financial burden with very little hope at a normal, productive life. Lots of people decide to keep those children, and I applaud their selflessness and compassion. I wouldn’t have it in me to do that, knowing that my child would most likely never have gainful employment, a place of their own, a family of their own, or that they wouldn’t get to enjoy a full life. Taking care of a child with special needs places a huge strain on even the healthiest of relationships, and you can’t expect everyone to sign up for that kind of committment.

  70. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:47 pm

    Lily – I’ve already defined what a person is by defining what a zygote is not. First and foremost – a person needs to be able to comprehend its own existence. A zygote / first trimester fetus does not. Once this step has been acheived, they are then a person (well, right after god inserts soul 2.0 into their little heathen bodies). Ramen

  71. 5 5
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:48 pm

    Man and woman equals lust
    lust equals sex
    sex equals swap of bodily fluids
    sperm and egg equals snot (zygote)
    snot equals fetus
    fetus equals baby
    baby equals love
    love equals god
    god equals nothing because he does not exist and you can’t prove that he does. Don’t bother asking me to prove he doesn’t, not my job, as I don’t make the claim! Abortion is a religious problem, not fit for being entertained in the matters of state.
    Abortion equals option
    option equals yes or no
    you choose for yourself, BUT NOT FOR ME!!!

  72. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:50 pm

    Erin – I will continue to trust my knowledge, life experience, reliance on the scientific method, and common sense over religion and its supporters any day of the week. The fact that you cling so tightly to an admitted factual error on my part speaks of desperation. I am only sad because I live in a world where only 10% of the people recognize superstition and stone-aged thinking for what it truly is. I have no beef with god, just like you don’t wish ill upon the Lucky Charms leprechaun.

  73. Skeptimal
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:52 pm

    Erin said: “The sentiment is coming from a place that you just don’t understand, so you call it racist.”

    I’d love to hear how you would support your statement. Explain to me what interpretation you have of Kathy’s statement that makes it not bigoted? What am I not understanding about her calling Obama a “filthy, disease-ridden cockroach?”

    I am not the one who brought race into this conversation, and I’m not going to stand by quietly while veiled racist references are made.

  74. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:53 pm

    Carla – what is it by the time she realizes she’s pregnant? Honestly, it depends at which point she makes that discovery. Some people have been known to give birth without ever realizing they’re pregnant, which I find unbelievable. Does sperm magic work for all species? When two dogs have sex, is their sperm and egg union a puppy? If not, why not?

  75. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:54 pm

    Skeptimal – in all honesty, their isn’t anything intrinsically racist about calling a black man a cockroach. Distasteful, yes. Cringe-worthy? Maybe. But she didn’t call him that because of his skin color. You and I can chose to disagree with her or be offended by the comparison, but let’s not build up straw men, ok? That’s their job.

  76. Lily
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:55 pm

    Jahrta, It is simply not true that a Down child will be a burden or have an unproductive life. Down syndrom may be so mild that the person can graduate college or it may be severe. Do you not see Down syndrome people working, everywhere? I do. I see them clerking in stores, working at my supermarket, etc.

    Making decisions about the worthiness of a baby to live or not is perfectly consonant with the Nazi program. Are you unaware that we had a full blown eugenics program in this country that would, perhaps, still be going strong but for the disrepute that sort of thinking fell into thanks to the Nazis? Does the name Margaret Sanger mean anything to you? How about “Negro project”? Does the name Carrie Buck mean anything to you? Of course in our case, birth control and sterilization were the cures of choice, not abortion. You might want to read up on it.

  77. Lily
    January 28th, 2009 @ 12:58 pm

    “First and foremost – a person needs to be able to comprehend its own existence. ” Is a woman in a coma able to comprehend her own existence, Jahrta? How about grandpa as he grows increasingly dememted? How about a healthy 9 month old child? Can we define this a little more precisely?

  78. Carla
    January 28th, 2009 @ 1:00 pm

    Hey MK!! I am so sorry I missed you at The March. YES!! NEXT YEAR!! Until then we have so many other happy places to visit. :)

  79. Brian Walden
    January 28th, 2009 @ 1:00 pm

    Like I said earlier, it’s a slippery slope to define when a person is a person, but a sperm and an egg does not equal a person. It’s a process, and the exact moment may never be defined to the satisfaction of all parties involved.

    That doesn’t sound like the scientific method there. It sounds like some superstitious belief that personhood is defined by consensus.

    P.S. of course a sperm and an egg don’t equal a person. I don’t know anyone who seriously claims such a thing. You weren’t saying that the egg and sperm exist after conception (a process which only takes a second or two), were you?

  80. Margaret Catherine
    January 28th, 2009 @ 1:00 pm

    There are any number of things in life that you, I, anyone would look at and and say “I can’t do that; I don’t have that in me”. All of us play that game at one time or another. But if you *don’t* see it coming and you *have* to do it, very often you do manage. Nobody ever wants a disabled child. Nobody ever “signs up” for that. But they manage because they must.

    Comes back to our basic divide, maybe: you believe in your own strength, with its necessary limits; we believe that we are given access to a strength that is unlimited.

  81. Margaret Catherine
    January 28th, 2009 @ 1:01 pm

    Re #69. Fast-moving!

  82. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 1:06 pm

    Lily I’m not really interested in picking apart the nuances of a book I find to be lacking any sort of real value. The OT god is a prick, then people wanted to make him more touchy-feely so they invented god 2.0 and the NT, which conveniently enough, paints the jews in a bad light after the first book said they were the chosen people. How convenient that they can keep rewriting the bible like that. I’m still waiting for 3.0 which legitimizes the evils wrought by the neocons in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

  83. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 1:07 pm

    MC – we recognize reality and know that god isn’t going to pay for medical procedures after insurance runs out.

  84. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 1:10 pm

    Lily – you don’t actually read my posts, do you? I said before that once personhood is bestowed it remains until death. That includes comas and dementia. I’m guessing that reading comprehension wasn’t your strongest portion of the SAT’s. Maybe if you ate your brussel sprouts and lima beans you’d be better at that? :)

  85. Erin
    January 28th, 2009 @ 1:11 pm

    Jahrta,
    Yes, when dog sperm meets dog egg, it make another dog.

  86. Lily
    January 28th, 2009 @ 1:11 pm

    Jahrta: Literary criticism and history do not appear to be strong interests of yours. Too bad, too. Knowing something of the past, trying to understand how people of very different backgrounds and very different times experienced and understood the world is an education in itself.

  87. 5 5
    January 28th, 2009 @ 1:12 pm

    Man and woman equals lust
    lust equals sex
    sex equals swap of bodily fluids
    sperm and egg equals snot (zygote)
    snot equals fetus
    fetus equals baby
    baby equals love
    love equals god
    god equals nothing because he does not exist and you can’t prove that he does. Don’t bother asking me to prove he doesn’t, not my job, as I don’t make the claim! Abortion is a religious problem, not fit for being entertained in the matters of state.
    Abortion equals option
    option equals yes or no
    you choose for yourself, BUT NOT FOR ME!!!

  88. Lily
    January 28th, 2009 @ 1:12 pm

    Jahrta: I read you with all the care you deserve. You just haven’t made your point. What is personhood? When does a living human become a person?

  89. 5 5
    January 28th, 2009 @ 1:14 pm

    When they get a social security number!

  90. 5 5
    January 28th, 2009 @ 1:14 pm

    That’s the law!

  91. Margaret Catherine
    January 28th, 2009 @ 1:18 pm

    Jahrta – Well, that’s when you find alternatives. (And waiting for money to appear under your pillow is not one, God not being a cosmic Tooth Fairy.) You seek out options and you do your damnedest to create them if you don’t find them already there. You’re in the situation and you’re motivated. You’re not outside of it, clicking your tongue and saying that the whole thing is hopeless, why even try?

  92. Kathy
    January 28th, 2009 @ 1:25 pm

    Kathy:”Like the filthy disease-ridden cockroach of a husband of hers! Love it! Say it like it is!”

    Skeptimal:”Kathy, are you talking about Obama? Really? And the rest of you commenting on this blog have no problem with the racist overtones here?”

    Please point out to me exactly at which point my comment was racist?

  93. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 1:28 pm

    MC – Why go through the emotional and financial trouble if you don’t want that life for yourself or your children? You view something like a crippling disability as a mandate from god. I view it as a crippling disabilty.

  94. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 1:29 pm

    Lily – what part of post 70 didn’t you understand?

  95. Carla
    January 28th, 2009 @ 1:36 pm

    When a woman first finds out she is pregnant she might be 6 weeks along, sometimes 8. What exactly has happened to the sperm and egg, Jahrta? What have they become?(thanks,Erin.)

    I am not talking about the Oprah show where a woman delivered a child when she didn’t even know she was pregnant.

  96. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 1:36 pm

    I’m just wondering what disease you think Obama has?

  97. HeatherRainbow
    January 28th, 2009 @ 1:38 pm

    She loves it so much she promotes pregnancies… no more birth control for people with medicaid…

    http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=40562773077&h=t35zR&u=yv9q3

  98. 5 5
    January 28th, 2009 @ 1:39 pm

    Just a thought. When the child is born (if it isn’t aborted of course), it will be born an atheist. It must then be indoctrinated and taught to hate by its parents or god-parents. The church will indeed help with this process, until the little one can spout all the uneducated hatred that goes with being religious.

    As for the racism, I really didn’t see any veiled implication. I believe you took that out of context. When a christian wants to be hateful, they just come out and call you REAL racial names. That’s when you’ll know for sure. However, since the indictment was made, SOMEONE should have clearly stated that they meant no racism and apologize if their statement was misconstrued in any way.

  99. Margaret Catherine
    January 28th, 2009 @ 1:43 pm

    Jahrta – Because it is life and it is reality and we only get to choose so far. I don’t view disability as a mandate from God. I view living with it when it comes as a mandate. If you can prevent or cure it, wonderful, do so – by all means! But not by ending the life of the one who is disabled or will be a burden to you.

  100. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 1:47 pm

    MC – that’s the sticky wickett, isn’t it? A lot of people don’t view the developing fetus at that stage as an actual person, and by snuffing out the life that could have been, they are saving themselves and the potential child a lot of trouble. That may sound callous and cold, but that’s a decision that people are still allowed to make. And don’t think that the decision is necessarily an easy one, or that it’s easy on the couple who choses to abort.

  101. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 1:49 pm

    55 – I don’t believe one should be made to apologize if in fact no harm was intended. In this case, racism wasn’t implied (at least not that I could see). If you make people apologize for someone else’s perceived injustice, you’re just catering to the political correctness nazis. I like to tell those people to fuck themselves sideways, regardless of their political or philosophical leanings :)

  102. Margaret Catherine
    January 28th, 2009 @ 1:50 pm

    5 5 – Yes, indeed. The child will be born an atheist (until we teach him to be uneducated); he will be born without language; he won’t have any idea of the torture that is advanced calculus, or even of 2+2; he won’t know how to read or write or be able to sing a single note. Poor darling, why heap all the travails and knowledge of the world he’s part of onto him?

  103. Lily
    January 28th, 2009 @ 1:53 pm

    “Lily – what part of post 70 didn’t you understand?” The part where you, Jahrta, describe when a person becomes a person. I asked you what that means and you replied: “First and foremost – a person needs to be able to comprehend its own existence. A zygote / first trimester fetus does not. Once this step has been acheived, they are then a person ”

    Does a 2nd trimester baby comprehend its own existence? A 3rd trimester baby? How about a 25 year old man in a coma? Does it matter that the 25 year old no longer comprehends his own existence? If not, why not?

    C’mon, put up your dukes and/or wrastle this problem to the ground… You can do it!

  104. Kathy
    January 28th, 2009 @ 2:02 pm

    I don’t intend to apologize for a racist comment I didn’t make. To assume I’m racist based on an 11 word comment is a huge leap. Unless I come out and say something specific in regard to his race, no one can rightly call me racist. But I guess this is the new way of handling things. If you don’t agree with him, you’re racist. Interesting.

  105. Lily
    January 28th, 2009 @ 2:03 pm

    Yeah, Kathy. It is going to be a long 4 years, if every disagreement with the Socialist-in-Chief is going to be labelled “racism”.

  106. Margaret Catherine
    January 28th, 2009 @ 2:04 pm

    Jahrta – Nice 100th post. ;) As for post #99…that is indeed the sticking point, and with that we rejoin your discussion with Lily.

    I don’t think it’s ‘callous or cold’ – though possibly, ‘selfish or frightened’. It’s not an easy decision, of course not, but that isn’t a good enough criterion to validate the decision made.

  107. 5 5
    January 28th, 2009 @ 2:04 pm

    God is all knowing.
    God is great.
    God is good.
    We thank him for our food and all the things he gives us.
    God’s will be done.
    If God did not want abortion to be placed into legislature, he could easily have visited Obama in a vision or dream, and told him to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
    Therefore, God must have a plan.
    Who are you to question God?
    Every breath I take is for the glory of God. (so I’ve been told) So, let God’s will be done. God will stop the abortions when he’s damn good and ready. You do not have the authority to tell God to change his plans, simply because you don’t agree!

  108. Carla
    January 28th, 2009 @ 2:05 pm

    Is it racist to be African American and only vote for someone for the office of President because he’s an African American?

  109. Lily
    January 28th, 2009 @ 2:06 pm

    We are quickly descending into parody here. Jahrta come baaaccckkk! I’ll fix lima beans…

  110. Margaret Catherine
    January 28th, 2009 @ 2:11 pm

    I detect a logical disconnect here. No, not the one where abortions are according to God’s plan but seeking to end them is contrary to that same.

    The one where lima beans are supposed to entice learned conversation out of hiding, and not into it…

  111. Lily
    January 28th, 2009 @ 2:20 pm

    Where there is butter sauce, there can be no logical disconnect.*

    *Pithy apothegm to appear in 2010 Bartleby

  112. Kathy
    January 28th, 2009 @ 2:21 pm

    Lily, yes, it’s going to be a fun ride. And at the risk of sounding racist..God help us.

  113. John
    January 28th, 2009 @ 2:45 pm

    I read this for Francis Beckwith on another site and found it relevant to the post here.

    What is an unwanted baby? Is it like an unwanted black person? Or an unwanted immigrant? Or an unwanted woman? Or an unwanted handicapped person? There are no “unwanted” babies, as if the adjective “unwanted” can be a natural property of that which is intrinsically valuable. There are just adults who have a disordered understanding of their obligations to the vulnerable and defenseless in our community. Reinforcing and nurturing that immaturity by describing the intrinsically valuable as “unwanted” is deeply immoral.
    Bad adults blame the baby first, just as bigoted adults blame the immigrant, the minority, and the handicapped first for their own inadequacies.

    http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2009/01/unwanted_babies.html#comments

  114. 5 5
    January 28th, 2009 @ 3:01 pm

    Monastica Toxicum Totus

  115. Margaret Catherine
    January 28th, 2009 @ 3:19 pm

    Ecce discipulus Latinae! Tu es discipulus Latinae, rectus?

  116. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 3:25 pm

    hehe – you guys missed me huh? I was at lunch. Lily – I believe that one can be aware of one’s surroundings and demonstrate that awareness with something as simple as reaching out to touch, or by wiggling one’s fingers while looking at them. Even kicking in the womb to test one’s physical limits and parameters (and because it’s fun to make mommy say ‘ouch’). One doesn’t need to recite prose to be a thinking, feeling being.

  117. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 3:41 pm

    And I realize I may have just painted myself in a moral/ethical corner as I am not entirely sure at what stage during prenatal development one can tell if a baby will be born with DS.

  118. Brian Walden
    January 28th, 2009 @ 3:45 pm

    Just a thought. When the child is born (if it isn’t aborted of course), it will be born an atheist. It must then be indoctrinated and taught to hate by its parents or god-parents. The church will indeed help with this process, until the little one can spout all the uneducated hatred that goes with being religious.

    How many children have you been around? They’re all born theists – they believe in fairy tales and myths and magical things. This is healthy and normal. In a way, it helps us to reason and to comprehend the world around us.

    Is it really helpful to call either Christians or atheists hateful? Sure some are, some aren’t – the label doesn’t apply to the whole group.

    But if you insist. How do you define hate? Do you mean in the objective sense (a certain action or idea is always hateful) or the subjective sense – (it’s not the action or idea that’s intrinsically hateful but the intent of the person doing/holding it). If you mean to say that Christians are objectively hateful, how do you define what’s hateful and what’s not? If you mean subjectively, have you really met enough Christians to know that as a whole they tend to be hateful?

  119. Lily
    January 28th, 2009 @ 3:53 pm

    Jahrta: I don’t think this is a win-lose game. I think we are discussing serious matters. So, if you did paint yourself into a corner, well, we will punch a hole in the wall so that you can escape– and join us to fight the evil of abortion another day.

    The real issue you have run up against, I think, is saying that it is ok to kill the developing human in utero at point A but killing it at point B is not acceptable. I just don’t think there is anyway to successfully defend that position. I think that is what we have been wrestling with all along.

  120. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 3:54 pm

    Lily – for what it’s worth, I can see your point. I’m just not ready to say that abortion should be banned, as I do believe there are times when it is a necessary option.

  121. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 3:59 pm

    Brian: “How many children have you been around? They’re all born theists – they believe in fairy tales and myths and magical things.”

    I’m sorry but that made me laugh out loud. You do see how that doesn’t necessarily make you look rational, right? :) Follow it to its logical conclusion.

    I think that parents do their children and themselves a disservice when they lie to them. If you tell your child that if they are good all year Santa will bring them presents, and then you get a pink slip due to the recession, how does your child think when they get crappy gifts even though they were extra good and ate their lima beans and brussel sprouts (even without butter sauce)? It sets unrealistic expectations for the child and furthermore they don’t make the connection that mommy and daddy bought them these toys (why is a mythical stranger bringing them toys after all? why can’t little bobby’s parents get these things for him? they buy him birthday presents after all?). It also sets a dangerous precedent of accepting gifts from strange old men…

  122. Brian Walden
    January 28th, 2009 @ 4:01 pm

    And I realize I may have just painted myself in a moral/ethical corner as I am not entirely sure at what stage during prenatal development one can tell if a baby will be born with DS.

    Hypothetically you can tell at conception. It’s in the baby’s chromosomes. In practice, it’s probably at whatever age you can get some DNA without harming the baby. This probably helps your argument

  123. Brian Walden
    January 28th, 2009 @ 4:17 pm

    Jarhta, I am following it to it’s logical conclusions. To quote Chesterton: “Fairy Tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” Man was not made to rely on reason alone. If you don’t mind me returning to Chesterton, “The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.”

    I’m rather ambivalent about Santa, to each his own I say. But seriously, take a step back and look at your paragraph against Santa. Who is more sane, the man who rants against Santa like you have, or the family who indulges in the myth in a healthy way?

    And for extra credit, how is your opinion of Santa any different from the so-called evangelicals and fundamentalists who are poisoning the world.

  124. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 4:37 pm

    5 5,
    When they get a social security number!

    Precisely. Which is why the personhood argument is a joke! Heck, spell check doesn’t even recognize the word. It is a LEGAL term. Nothing more. Nothing less. It has nothing to do with when a human being comes into existence.

    Therefore, it has no place in a debate about whether or not one human being has the right to take another human beings life.

  125. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 4:40 pm

    However, since the indictment was made, SOMEONE should have clearly stated that they meant no racism and apologize if their statement was misconstrued in any way.</i.

    Funny how that works.

    We claim God is real. You don’t need to prove that he isn’t, because WE made the claim…hmmmmm…

    Someone claims that someone made a racist statement. We don’t need to prove that she didn’t, because WE didn’t make the claim! ;)

  126. Jahrta
    January 28th, 2009 @ 4:45 pm

    I am not ranting about “santa.” I am ranting against the supposed merits of lying to your children about the nature of the world, regardless of how ugly the truth may be. FWIW i like christmas, it’s my favorite pagan holiday (look up saturnalia). And I don’t agree with your comments on chesterton. Dragons can be beaten? Doesn’t something need to exist before it can be beaten? That must be why we’ll never defeat that god of yours :P :)

  127. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 4:49 pm

    j,

    Lily I’m not really interested in picking apart the nuances of a book I find to be lacking any sort of real value. The OT god is a prick, then people wanted to make him more touchy-feely so they invented god 2.0 and the NT, which conveniently enough, paints the jews in a bad light after the first book said they were the chosen people. How convenient that they can keep rewriting the bible like that. I’m still waiting for 3.0 which legitimizes the evils wrought by the neocons in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

    Good Lord Above, where does one begin with that post????

    Okay, chosen doesn’t mean chosen like picked first for the sandlot baseball game. In order for the “story” to unfold, in order for salvation to be attained, God had to CHOOSE a certain group of people that he could mold. He chose Noah, then Moses, then Abraham…they don’t get trophies. The carry the gene pool, not the ball!

    Next, There is no OT 102. There are at least (depending on which sect you belong to) SEPARATE books in the bible, all written by DIFFERENT authors. This isn’t a Stephen King novel, for cryin’ out loud.

    As for the 3rd book legitimizing abortion, pornography, illicit sex, the end of marriage, etc, I believe that would be coming from your end of the street, not ours.

    Lastly, Please, please, please, show me where the Jews are put in a bad light in the New Testament.

  128. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 4:51 pm

    That would be 66 separate books…you’ve got me stuttering!

  129. Skeptimal
    January 28th, 2009 @ 4:53 pm

    I think it’s a little ridiculous for all of you to start whining about how you’re going to be accused of racism every time you disagree with Obama. There’s a bit of a difference between disagreeing with our lord and savior Obama and calling him a filthy, disease-ridden cockroach, a reference that seemed to me to be racially tinged.

    Why did it seem to me to be racially-tinged? Because that is what you hear from bigots who refer about black people (or any racial minority) as “them.” The artificial stereotype is pestilential uncleanness. I have never heard those references made about white people, and I’ve not observed that anti-choicers routinely use that name when attacking pro-choicers.

    Nor am I easily offended by name calling. Obama’s not my close friend, and I feel no personal need to defend him, although I do agree with many of his policies. If you’re telling me honestly that you refer to all pro-choicers, of any color, as disease-ridden filthy cockroaches, (and barbarians) then I apologize for accusing you of racism.

  130. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 4:55 pm

    J,

    A lot of people don’t view the developing fetus at that stage as an actual person, and by snuffing out the life that could have been, they are saving themselves and the potential child a lot of trouble.

    A lot of people don’t view the black man (woman/jew/club footed/red haired/anything but blue eyed-blonde/non muslim, etc) as an actual person either, and by snuffing out the life that is there, they are saving themselves and the potential black man (woman/jew/club footed/red haired/anything but blue eyed-blonde/non muslim, etc)a lot of trouble… ;)

    There’s the real stickety wicket, to borrow a phrase. When one group of people decides whether another group of people should live, we are ALL in danger of the becoming the group that gets snuffed out!

  131. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 4:58 pm

    I have never heard those references made about white people, and I’ve not observed that anti-choicers routinely use that name when attacking pro-choicers.

    That’s the second time someone has said that, so I too, will reiterate my response.

    I think Nancy Pelosi is a filthy, disease ridden, cockroach. And she is white. Again, not necessarily human, but definitely white.

    For the record, it is her soul that is filthy, her morals that are disease ridden, and cockroach is just a word used to exemplify the lowest form of life…

  132. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 4:59 pm

    We are maxing out the resources and don’t need any more people. If you have to choose between your unborn and your born, who do you choose mk?

    Limited resources dictate that you must pick.

  133. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 5:04 pm

    J.,

    One doesn’t need to recite prose to be a thinking, feeling being.

    And what if that thinking feeling being, looking at his toes, wiggling his fingers and playfully kicking mom, should have down syndrome? Or some other malady?

    This is the shift in thinking that is getting you into trouble. The idea that it isn’t a person. Oh I mean it is a person, but it is a flawed person. Or, or, a person that “is”, but still fits the same criteria that I laid out for a person that “isn’t”, like someone in a coma…

    Oh the tangled web we weave.

    This is why I’m saying you need to knock off the rationalizations and just admit, that you think you have the right to kill another person because of where it is located…and be done with it.

  134. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 5:06 pm

    VJ,

    Hi. Miss me?

    First, we are NOT running out of resources. Second, Sophies choice? I wouldn’t choose. I let things play out. I believe choosing between two lives would be *ahem*, above my pay grade.

  135. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 5:09 pm

    J,

    And I realize I may have just painted myself in a moral/ethical corner as I am not entirely sure at what stage during prenatal development one can tell if a baby will be born with DS.

    You just went WAY UP on my respect ‘O meter. Kudos. It’s takes a big man to admit when he makes a mistake.

  136. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 5:13 pm

    As with Sophie, refusing to choose,is choosing.

    And yes, we are running out of resources, perhaps you missed all the food riots in Mexico, Indonesia, and India last year.

  137. Brian Walden
    January 28th, 2009 @ 5:16 pm

    Oh Jane, the lack of resources myth is old. As civilization has grown we’ve always found the technology to make our resources meet our needs.

    But there is a possibility of shortage, let’s hypothetically say that there’s a probability. Do you start killing people now based on a probability? Even when it’s a reality, do you go around killing people to make things better for others? During the Great Depression did Americans kill a million of their children per year? Other than exceptional individual instances that must be handled on a case by case basis, limited resources have never forced civilizations to kill some of their own to save others. The mere probability of limited resources certainly does not dictate murder.

  138. Lily
    January 28th, 2009 @ 5:17 pm

    There you go again, Jane. The world has too few people in it, not too many. Corrupt governments (like the 3 you just named), war, lack of infrastructure and more may prevent the distribution of resources but that is a very different matter than not having enough people to plant,and reap. Process the crops into food. Ship it wherever it needs to go, etc.

  139. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 5:18 pm

    And yes, we are running out of resources, perhaps you missed all the food riots in Mexico, Indonesia, and India last year..

    Poor distribution is not the same as “running out”.

    My neighbor on the right drives a Mercedes. My neighbor on the left drives a clunker. Does this mean we are running out of cars?

    As for not choosing, being a choice. Yep. I choose not to choose. Maybe we’ll all die. Oh, that’s right, eventually we WILL all die. But I will die without having chosen to end one of my childrens lives on my conscience. I will “rest in peace”.

  140. Brian Walden
    January 28th, 2009 @ 5:19 pm

    So killing our babies in America is going to help Mexico, Indonesia, and India. Or are you saying we should force those countries to murder their babies? Sounds like a modest proposal to me (pun intended).

  141. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 5:24 pm

    No, there was a food bank for struggling countries. A year and half ago, wealthier countries like the US stopped contributing. They didn’t have any extra. The end result is that people surviving on those surpluses were left without.

    The big limiters for numbers of people on the planet are not space, but food and fresh water.

  142. ravingatheist
    January 28th, 2009 @ 6:08 pm

    VJ,

    That’s ridiculous. They may have stopped contributing (source please), but I doubt it was because there was no extra!

    Living on Lake Michigan, I can pretty much reassure you that there is plenty of water. Maybe not in certain places, but again, distribution and running out are two very different things.

    I’m pretty sure Catholic Relief Services is doing their share.

  143. Kathy
    January 28th, 2009 @ 6:12 pm

    First I’m a racist and now I’m a whiner? Oops, I got it wrong, “everyone” is whining. I forgot the group here with me whining about this.
    And for the record, the racist word “them” never entered by post…

  144. Kathy
    January 28th, 2009 @ 6:31 pm

    Ok sarcasm off, Skeptimal, have you read any of TRT posts? Seriously, I’m curious because my statements were an obvious reference to two of his articles and I happen to think they were funny. It does confound me though that you brought race into this argument and then professed not having done that. I do not call anyone a “filty disease-ridden cockroach” and found it to be an amusing description. I find anyone with “power” who uses it to advance the agenda of abortion, thinly veiled as “women’s rights”, to be repulsive. And that would include anyone regardless of race. I’ve never heard anyone call anyone of any race “cockroaches” either, but perhaps you have had more experience with racists than I do.

  145. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 6:32 pm

    You’re in Chicago RT? I thought you lived in New York.

    I spent every summer of my childhood across the lake from you, and as lovely as the Lake is, it’s not enough to quench the Earth.

    Here’s a reference to it in March of 08’s Wapo. The UN had issued a warning of trouble prior to that, but I can’t find the original source.

  146. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 6:33 pm

    Oh, and about Catholic Releif, why does the Vatican hang on to all those riches rather than feed their masses and fund the Male Pill?

  147. ravingatheist
    January 28th, 2009 @ 6:46 pm

    VJ,

    I could ask you the same thing. Do you drive a car? Wear shoes?

    The vaticans “riches” are only worth what they are worth because they are part of our history. That’s like asking why Obama lives in the White House, or Abe Lincoln gets a monument.

    I mean seriously, should we sell the pyramids to feed the masses?

    Actually, I read somewhere that every human being on the face of the earth could live and fit comfortably in the state of Texas. Again, it’s not lack of, it’s that it’s not in the right places.

    I’m not questioning the need for food and water. I’m questioning your statement that there are too many of us and that killing off a million and a half a year is somehow going to increase water in India. No matter how many people you kill, you still won’t be serving lobster and french wine to people in Darfur.

  148. ravingatheist
    January 28th, 2009 @ 6:48 pm

    Oh, and we no longer need a male pill. It seems that our drinking water might be doing the job.

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24891709-7583,00.html

  149. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 6:50 pm

    So you’re saying the number of people has no effect on the available resources? I remember you as being a better Libertarian than that RT.

    If the Church owns the paintings, they most certainly CAN and should sell them. Camel through the eye of a needle and all that.

  150. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 6:56 pm

    Oh for heavens sake. That wasn’t the RT, that was me. Sorry. I was using his name (with his permission) to test why my posts weren’t going through and forgot to change it…

  151. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 6:59 pm

    Oh, and we no longer need a male pill. It seems that our drinking water might be doing the job.

    Oh look at that. Cause for celebration among the religious right. Still, think how much easier it would be to sell to women taking the child to term if a man forgetting was the reason they were preggers.

    Plus the resulting jaw drop from a Religious Right science contribution.

    I’m telling, this is a good look for you guys.

  152. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:00 pm

    Anywho, I am NOT libertarian. lol. I am saying that there are not so many people at this time that they would affect the available resources. What we need to do is figure out how to get the resources TO them, not kill them off.

    Why should the church sell those paintings? Seriously? As I said they are part of their history. They aren’t worth anything in and of themselves. Why would you ask the church to sell their stuff, but not others that have extra? Smacks of distribution of the wealth…not voluntary. Oh, that sounds like our New President…let him sell his stuff first, then we’ll talk.

  153. Margaret Catherine
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:02 pm

    …VATICAN ACCUSED OF MISUSE OF FUNDS; CRITICS CITE LACK OF OBJECTIVE OVERSIGHT…POPE SUSPECTED OF BUYING PILLOW-TOP MATTRESS WITH PROCEEDS FROM SALE OF LAOCOON GROUP…GATES PREVAILS AGAINST CHURCH IN BARGAINING FOR DAVID…

    (Okay, I’m bored. Sleet storms will do that.)

  154. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:04 pm

    VJ,

    You’re joking about the scientific contributions, right? Cuz that just really makes you look uninformed.

    By the eighteenth century, the Jesuits

    had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter’s surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn’s rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon effected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light. Star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics – all were typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat, Huygens, Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among their most prized correspondents [Jonathan Wright, The Jesuits, 2004, p. 189].

    Seismology, the study of earthquakes, has been so dominated by Jesuits that it has become known as “the Jesuit science.” It was a Jesuit, Fr. J.B. Macelwane, who wrote Introduction to Theoretical Seismology, the first seismology textbook in America, in 1936. To this day, the American Geophysical Union, which Fr. Macelwane once headed, gives an annual medal named after this brilliant priest to a promising young geophysicist.

    I could go on, but it’s gauche to cut and paste endlessly…

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods40.html

  155. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:06 pm

    So you’re saying that we should have more children now, but when we run out of food, we should have abortions then? And people in Indonesia should have abortions as the food crisis is upon them now?

    I would argue that we ALL have a responsibility to the already born to manage the resources today.

    I provided a link MK did you read it, but you are acting like you did not.

    Actually, the church is the wealthiest corporation in the world, and their art is most certainly worth a great deal. They should do more for their poor, but I guess like Mother Theresa, they rather watch the suffering.

  156. Margaret Catherine
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:08 pm

    MK – Because we claim a duty to care for the poor. Buffett and Gates just make a hobby of it. Also…they are unquestionably riches. Historical as all-get-out, but still riches. You should have seen all the gems and cloth-of-gold in the traveling Vatican display that was in the States this past year. One of the world’s largest emeralds, in a tiara sent by Napoleon to the Pope…deliberately sized too small too wear. (And Napoleon had stolen the emerald from the Vatican to begin with.)

  157. Margaret Catherine
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:13 pm

    “They should do more for their poor, but I guess like Mother Theresa, they rather watch the suffering.”

    Watch, nurse, bathe, feed, clean, clothe, house, talk to…Is there anything missing off the list?

  158. Brian Walden
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:16 pm

    Oh, and about Catholic Releif, why does the Vatican hang on to all those riches rather than feed their masses and fund the Male Pill?

    You do know that the Vatican doesn’t endorse anyone using contraception right? Besides if the Catholic Church were to hypothetically go apostate, they’d endorse condoms rather than a pill just to force everyone to get less enjoyment out of their fornication. Only scratchy condoms would be allowed and everyone would have to abstain from them on Fridays.

  159. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:19 pm

    VJ,

    Again, we are not talking about a lack of food. We are talking about people not distributing it.

    From YOUR article.

    In Liberia, Catholic Relief Services funds its developmental programs — including health worker training and technical assistance to farmers — by selling wheat or rice provided by USAID at market prices. But, Catholic Relief was unable to find buyers for those grains in January because market prices have jumped so high that local buyers have switched to cheaper foods. The aid group is scrambling to find alternate sources before its funding runs out in April.

    The food is THERE. No one is willing to pay for it, but it IS there. And note, that while USAID is refusing to buy it, Catholic Relief Services is scrambling to find another way to get it to the people.

    It would be different if the Catholic Church sat back and did nothing. But she doesn’t. Take the Catholic Church out of the picture and you’d see a whole lot MORE starving people.

    Sure, it’s all of our responsibility, and the church is doing her share.

    As for aborting people WHEN and IF the food runs out, that’s your solution, not mine. I hold that the food will never really run out. It hasn’t in how many millions of years. Why would it run out tomorrow?

  160. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:20 pm

    Collecting money on the behalf of the poor, who never benefited from those funds…straight into the church coffers they went and stayed, and then praising and supporting some of the most corrupt and oppressive regimes in the world.

    I’m sure you know the real scoop.

    She was a friend to poverty, not to the poor.

  161. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:27 pm

    OMG,

    That’s it? That’s what you’ve got? Mother Teresa taking money from the mafia? Is nothing sacred to you? You read that idiot Hitchens? This is where you get your info?

    No wonder you hate the church. Are you not interested in truth?

  162. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:32 pm

    Watch, nurse, bathe, feed, clean, clothe, house, talk to…Is there anything missing off the list?

    Only that she picked worms off of their bodies…

  163. Margaret Catherine
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:32 pm

    UVJ – Do you mean, she did not give the money directly to the poor; or they never received anything purchased with the money?

    Yes. She did meet with “Baby Doc”. The poor of his country most certainly did not deserve their leader, and if he gave her money (I can’t recall), well, it went to a much better use than anything else he’d have done with it.

    By the way, the MC’s (her order) never solicit monetary donations. They will accept them but they do not, as an explicit rule, seek them out.

  164. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:33 pm

    MC,

    I’m confused. Are you agreeing that we should sell off that stuff?

  165. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:34 pm

    But they did not use them on that stark excuse for a clinic. They went back to the church.

  166. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:35 pm

    They went back to the church.

    What does that even mean????

  167. Margaret Catherine
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:43 pm

    UVJ – On the subject of Mother Teresa, yes, I do “know the real scoop.” I work with and have stayed with her nuns, and a friend of mine is down in Peru working at their house there. When she’s not helping treat orphans with everything from hydroencephalia to typhoid, she’s doing things like dress cancer victims…as in, bandage their tumors. That’s the sort of work the MC’s do every single day – I can pass on her e-mails if you like. Categorically, they are not what you are claiming. They do not cheat the poor or their donors, and they do not glory in others’ suffering.

  168. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:50 pm

    I don’t think they are glorying, but I don’t think that money is being translated in full, much as the red cross was busted for increasing their coffers during disasters.

  169. Margaret Catherine
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:52 pm

    Then what are they doing with the money? Seriously. I can assure you they’re *not* spending it on themselves.

  170. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:54 pm

    On Mother Theresa go here.

  171. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:56 pm

    Their not spending it on themselves?!?!? I guess it depends on what you mean by themselves. Quite a bit of it seems to be paying for priestly sexual satisfaction of late.

  172. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:56 pm

    I don’t think they are glorying, but I don’t think that money is being translated in full, much as the red cross was busted for increasing their coffers during disasters.

    The key phrase there being “think”. You don’t know, and yet you cavalierly discredit a woman’s entire life, because you think that it might be like the Red Cross????

    Man, you really do hate the church, don’t you?!?!?

  173. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 7:58 pm

    Again mk, I provided a link. As a donor, you of course wish to beleive otherwise. Such the art of the con.

  174. Margaret Catherine
    January 28th, 2009 @ 8:05 pm

    A link to a Wikipedia article? With no cited sources, aside from links to Hitchens’ stuff? UVJ, surely you can do better than that!

  175. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 8:09 pm

    I’m sorry…say what? Mother Teresa’s money is being spent on pleasuring priests????? Wow. That’s really sick.

    And you got your info from a buffoon! Please, that quote about the suffering poor helping the world? Hitchen’s prejudice and ignorance is what is pathetic. Not Mother Teresas statement. If you knew anything at all about redemptive suffering, you’d be on your knees thanking those that offer up their suffering…for YOU and for the entire world.

    While you’re out pushing the murdering of babies, accusing priests of sexual misconduct, and slandering nuns that have done more in a weekend for the poor than you’ll do in your lifetime, some of us are busy actually trying to make the situation better.

    Seriously, before you completely rip something to shreds, you should know what you are talking about.

    First it was science, then it was population control, then it was the church doesn’t do anything to help the world, then it was Mother Teresa is a liar and a thief.

    But Christopher Hitchens! Now there’s a shining example of the milk of human kindness. *gag* speaking of cockroaches…oh, and he’s white too.

  176. Brian Walden
    January 28th, 2009 @ 8:09 pm

    That link is a user link, not a public one. I don’t know what the difference is. Why doesn’t that link come up in a search for “criticisms of Mother Teresa”?

  177. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 8:12 pm

    Brian,

    Why doesn’t that link come up in a search for “criticisms of Mother Teresa”?

    Because it’s the ONLY source that those criticisms come from! Honestly. If it wasn’t so sad, it would be funny!

  178. Margaret Catherine
    January 28th, 2009 @ 8:13 pm

    Let’s see. Locally, they:

    -Provide weekly food baskets, and larger Christmas and Thanksgiving distributions.
    -Visit death-row prisoners.
    -Provide room, board, and hospice care to 10 AIDS patients.
    -Run an after-school program.
    -Make home visits.
    -In the summer, run a 3-week day camp.
    -Go every other week to visit a nursing home.

    Currently there are four sisters to do all of that, plus all of the background work to it all. At most there are six. In one little house. Some con.

  179. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 8:14 pm

    That’s wrong. There wasn’t a list of sources at the bottom, but every reference gives an article, a subject and an author.

    I can tell you guys know all about this already, and about the church’s investment snafu’s and of course the law suits.

    :shrug:

    You can’t make the wife see the infidelity if she doesn’t want to.

  180. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 8:14 pm

    Again mk, I provided a link. As a donor, you of course wish to believe otherwise. Such the art of the con.

    Spoken by someone that has NOT been conned by that fool, Hitchens. Riiiiight.

    I could give you ten thousand sites that tell the truth about Mother Teresa. You can give me one. And anything else you show me, will be by people that got their info from that same source.

    Really sad.

  181. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 8:20 pm

    Vj,

    Those aren’t links to authors and articles, they are links to the definitions of the highlighted words! The only author is Hitchens.

    He’s complaining that she used some money for missionary work???? DUH…SHE’S A MISSIONARY!

  182. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 8:21 pm

    You can’t make the wife see the infidelity if she doesn’t want to.

    Of course, if there isn’t any infidelity there, some people will continue to hallucinate…anything but give up their ghosts.

  183. Margaret Catherine
    January 28th, 2009 @ 8:29 pm

    UVJ, the link to Jean-Claude Duvalier leads to the Wikipedia article on Jean-Claude Duvalier. ‘Sanjay Gandhi’ leads to the article on Sanjay Gandhi. And so on. Those are not documentation of the claims being made. The only documentation offered, again, is to Hitchens, an *extremely* biased source.

  184. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 8:31 pm

    VJ,

    I’m sorry. I’m getting testy. It’s not you, it’s me. I get really cranky at night. I get up at 4:30 most days and by 8:00 I’m really short on patience.

    Look, the Catholic Church is an organization. When the guy with the poppies on the street asks you for a donation, you don’t really think HE is the one that gets the money, do you? It goes to the organization and gets doled out as needed.

    Even those “adopt a child” programs tell you that in the small print. You’re not really adopting a child. Your helping someone sure, but not really the kid in the picture. Mother Teresa answers to the church. She isn’t an entity unto herself. Anything she gets, is not really hers. I don’t know the particulars, but you know what I’m saying.

  185. frustrated(mk)
    January 28th, 2009 @ 8:33 pm

    With that, I’m off to bed. *yawn*. Sorry I was so bitchy. Talk more tomorrow….

  186. Lily
    January 28th, 2009 @ 8:36 pm

    Oh bother. I am not going to get into the Mother Theresa argument. But I am going to speak to the issue of the Vatican’s art works and treasures.

    Let me number Jane’s mistakes.

    1. The Vatican is not the largest corporation in the world. Not by a long shot. The Vatican’s annual operating budget is about $260 million. As a point of contrast, Harvard University, has an annual operating budget of $1.3 billion. (pre crash of 2008)

    The Vatican’s patrimony — all the assets it could sell —is $770 million. The University of Notre Dame’s endowment is four and a half times greater.

    2. All those art works you would like the Pope to sell? By the terms of the Lateran Treaty (1929) the Vatican is the custodian of those treasures. Italy has some of the strictest cultural property laws in the world. If the artwork were to be sold off, it would have to be sold in Italy and remain in Italy. The market there is saturated but, suppose it weren’t. Do you want these priceless treasures to disappear into the private hands of the very rich? Or remain available to all of us to see, as the majority of it is right now at the Vatican?

    UNESCO designated the Vatican a World Heritage Site in 1984. The whole world recognizes how important the Vatican (the physical site) and its collections are. Expecting the Catholic Church to auction that stuff off makes as much sense as us auctioning off the Smithsonian to pay down our national debt. Once those works are gone, they are gone.

    The Catholic Church, like all other Christian bodies and other charitable organizations, raises and disburses monies regularly. They don’t run out of money. There isn’t the slightest need to raise money by selling the artworks.

  187. skeptimal
    January 28th, 2009 @ 9:02 pm

    Ravingathest and Kathy,

    If I was wrong regarding racism, I do apologize. It isn’t an accusation I throw around lightly or often, but Kathy’s post was out of the blue and with no background to explain it. You may believe Obama played the race card, but the fact is that there has been an ugly reaction to a black man being elected.

    People I have known and respected a long time suddenly started talking about how Obama is going to have an all-black cabinet and how white people are going to be second-class citizens. RA, when you greeted inauguration day with what was really an ignorant diatribe, calling Obama a barbarian of uncertain origin, I wondered what you meant by that. Then the “filthy, diseased cockroach” comment came along from Kathy, and I think I raised a reasonable question. I’m not sorry I won’t tolerate people being stereotyped for the color of their skin, but if I was unfair to you, I apologize.

  188. Kathy
    January 28th, 2009 @ 9:52 pm

    Skeptimal, apology accepted, thanks! I may be uncharitable at times, but a racist, no.
    I never accused Obama of playing the race card either. I was referring to those of his supporters who will call people racist for not supporting him. And they’re not necessarily black, either. I agree on the stereotype thing, I don’t like people being stereotyped for any reason. Religion included.

  189. Kurt
    January 28th, 2009 @ 10:58 pm

    We are maxing out the resources and don’t need any more people.

    You ignore the fact that human beings are the most valuable resource.

  190. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 28th, 2009 @ 11:22 pm

    Well, Kurt, that sounds like a meaningless political assertion. You want to explain how you justify that remark. Do you mean that we can eat each other? Do you mean that we are just so awesome, or because Gawd said?

  191. Kurt
    January 28th, 2009 @ 11:45 pm

    Well, Kurt, that sounds like a meaningless political assertion

    It is not a political statement; it is a metaphysical statement. The ontological status of human beings are of more importance than the “limited resources” you are so concerned about. I suppose “save the trees, kill the babies” is your motto. Your forceful support for the New Final Solution has apparently created a deep contempt for all of humanity.

    Do you mean that we can eat each other?

    You obviously know this is not what I meant. You only mention it to purposely cause confusion. As I pointed out in post #14, this a common tactic done by those who support mass murder of the unborn. You have to pretend you do not know things you clearly do in order to believe the nonsense and the lies.

  192. Jahrta
    January 29th, 2009 @ 3:57 pm

    Kurt – your last sentence is a perfect summary of my viewpoint toward those who call themselves theists :)

  193. Jahrta
    January 29th, 2009 @ 4:15 pm

    Hey guys – been working and stuff so it looks like I missed a lot. Frustrated – you don’t think it makes the jews look bad that the NT makes them responsible for the death of Jesus? It was a position largely held by the catholic church and many others, up until the pope came out and said it wasn’t the fault of the jews. What was that, a few years ago? A whole bunch of people continue to blame the jews. The kicker is a lot of people, myself included, do not believe there was an historical Jesus in the first place, so to us it’s like being mad at someone for killing Luke Skywalker. That’s an issue for another day (or if you prefer you can look though the older posts on the topic and decide for yourself, but I think you already have). If someone came out with a new version of the bible, saying it was divinely inspired, would you take it seriously? Why or why not? Would it make any difference to you if the stories or parables undid or overwrote previously-held notions from the OT and NT?

    Lily – this world isn’t infinite, and the resources it has to offer are being consumed at a rate that has started to outpace replenishment. There is a carrying capacity that we need to respect. Read Rostow, or his contemporaries. I think you’ll find some sobering information. The answer to Muslim overpopulation isn’t to outbreed them. The answer is education, so they don’t think it’s their duty in life to pop out as many ignorant people as humanly possible and celebrate the boys while they loathe the girls.

    RavingAtheist – is that really you, or someone just using the handle? If it is you, why are you still calling yourself an atheist? Bump your head again or did you just typo?

  194. Jody L.
    January 30th, 2009 @ 12:54 am

    I don’t think the species as a whole cares one wit whether or not it’s constituents “want” or “do not want” to participate in it’s reproductive cycle. Certainly those constituents that suffer from having a consciousness which programatically weights their own offspring as undesirable will naturally be selected out of the population as a whole over time. Nor does it care, I suppose, what or when a person is. It does seem quite common that among the species constituents traits which seek to promote and defend the life of the newer generations, even at the expense of older generations, succeed in the long term. From an evolutionary point of view the “consciousness trait” of the constituents, also known as “persons”, seems of dubious value to the propagation of the species. However, this “consciousness” can be attributed to many other characteristics that distinguish this species from so many other species. Remarkable!

  195. frustrated(mk)
    January 30th, 2009 @ 6:20 am

    J,
    First, if you read all of the posts, you’d know that I used RT’s moniker as I was testing the site to see why my comments keep getting eaten. With his permission, I used his name, and the site allowed my comments.

    Next, “some” people blaming the jews is not “THE CHURCH BLAMES THE JEWS” sheesh.

    I’m pretty sure the term racist gets thrown around here a lot. Isn’t that when you blame a whole group of people for the actions of a few?

    SOME Jews had a hand in killing Jesus, yes. So what? We blame “THOSE” Jews. We don’t blame ALL Jews! Duh.

    I suppose that when you read history books on the holocaust you blame ALL Germans for the actions of those that persecuted the Jews? I didn’t think so. But I’ll bet in 300 years some schmuck will read a history book and say “Oh Look, Americans HATED all Germans. Americans are baaaaaaad…They blamed them for the death of the Jews! It says so right there in this here history book!”

  196. Pikemann Urge
    January 30th, 2009 @ 7:06 am

    If anyone thinks the Vatican (or Her Majesty etc.) should sell their paintings to feed the poor then you’re an idiot. What happens when the paintings run out?* Cromwell sold much of England’s wealth for his escapades and it damaged his country greatly.

    Where is the guarantee that they’ll be as publicly accessible as they are now? What about the priceless manuscripts etc? Goodness gracious, people.

    * Yeah okay maybe you could set up a fund or something but that still doesn’t solve the next point.

  197. Margaret Catherine
    January 30th, 2009 @ 11:01 am

    Too, those texts blaming the Jews were *written* by Jews. Christians of biblical times didn’t see themselves as breaking with Judaism, as such; you can see the struggle to figure out where they now stood play out in Acts and Paul’s letters. Eventually they did make the break. But not at the time of writing; not until after the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD.

  198. Jahrta
    January 30th, 2009 @ 11:28 am

    Frustrated – what good is it if the church didn’t directly blame the jews for the death of their saviour figure if their bible does? Are not all of their teachings based on that book? In a world where a lot of people seem incapable of separating myth and alagory from historical reality, that’s tantamount to propoganda.

  199. Lily
    January 30th, 2009 @ 12:29 pm

    Although, you are addressing mk, I would like to make an observation that won’t help you individually, since you deny the historicity of Christ. But you are in very thin company in that belief. The fact is, the Jews did persecute Jesus just as they had other prophets. They did hand him over to the Romans for execution. This is a fact of history.

    It is also a fact that Jesus came in the first place to the Jews and offered reconciliation to God through his ministry and later through his Jewish disciples. It was persecution at the hands of the Jews that scattered the first Christians among the Jews of the diaspora and the gentiles. (See the stoning of Stephen in Acts for the first scattering.)

    None of this makes a difference from a theological perspective. The Jews are still God’s chosen people and his covenant with them is not and cannot be broken. It does, of course, make a difference from an historical perspective. Anti-semitism is a sin against God and man. It cannot be justified on any grounds and particularly not on religious grounds.

    The fact that it has been and sometimes still is so justified, is testimony to how limited a view we humans have– even us moderns, on the propensity for evil that runs through our being like a bright red thread. We would do well to recognize it and not be too quick to say– “not me!”

  200. Brian Walden
    January 30th, 2009 @ 1:48 pm

    Are not all of their teachings based on that book?

    Jahrta, you’ve got the picture wrong. Historically the Bible is only a part of the deposit of faith along with Sacred Tradition – which is the unwritten teachings handed down through apostolic succession.

    Evangelicals should get a lot of credit for their love of the Bible, but their high media profile gives people the impression that Christians make the Bible almost into a deity in itself. In reality, this is a fairly novel concept that only became popular after the Protestant reformation. After Protestants separated themselves from the teaching authority of historical Christianity, the Bishops, they had to find a new source of authority and they chose the Bible.

    Hypothetically speaking, if someone figured out how to get rid of all the Bibles in the world in one night (and erase it from people’s memories) the Catholic Church, Orthodox Churches, and others with valid bishops and Sacred Tradition would be able to get on alright. Don’t get me wrong, Sacred Scripture would be a huge loss, but not lethal. I’m not sure that many Protestant denominations could say the same.

    On the other hand, if someone figured out a way to kill all the bishops in the world in one night the Catholic Church would be screwed. All the Bibles in the world wouldn’t be able to save the Church, she’d literally need a miracle to be saved. I don’t think Protestant denominations would be much affected by the lack of bishops.

  201. frustrated(mk)
    January 30th, 2009 @ 3:18 pm

    Brian,

    Excellent insight!

    J,

    It’s you that is focusing on the Jews. Not the bible. The bible says that’s who played a role, but nowhere does it say “THEREFORE ALL JEWS ARE EEEEEVILLLLL” It simply, as Lily says, identifies those that were responsible. This Jew did, that Jew didn’t. Most of the Christians were Jews…Including St. Paul.

    Good Lord, the Vatican is in Rome and we belong to the Latin Rite…but I’m pretty sure the Romans had something to do with Jesus death too!

  202. Jack
    February 2nd, 2009 @ 3:29 pm

    I read a rumor that she is being punished with a baby!

    Perhaps Big-O will decide as a show of solidarity with hsi biggest supporters, to accompany her to the obortuary to have his son (oops blob of cells) shredded before his own eyes.

  203. Lily
    February 2nd, 2009 @ 4:43 pm

    It took me a minute to figure this out. I think you are referring to the reports that Mrs. O might be pregnant? If so, I have to say I am skeptical but honestly, if it is true, what will the Sarah Palin haters say, after showering her with invective for giving birth in her 40s?

  • 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