Saturday, October 29, 2011

And this is soooo different from other abortion clinics because...?



Go ahead, read the article first. It's short. I'll wait.

Former Gosnell employees Adrienne Moton and Sherry West.

Done reading? Great.

Now, can anyone tell me what the salient, essential difference is between Gosnell's abortion mill and any other?

I'm serious. What's the difference?

Sanitary conditions?

If sanitation's the issue, then this part shouldn't be so horrible to read:
According to testimony by former employees, Gosnell and his assistants killed “hundreds” of newborn babies by severing their spinal cords rather than killing them in the womb...
Because, severing a baby's spinal cord outside the womb (rather than dismembering a baby or crushing his skull in the womb), can be done sanitarily, I'm certain of it.

So, I'm truly interested in what the big deal is? If they had cleaned the place up (assuming anyone cared about standards for abortion clinics), there would be no moral objections, right?

And this:
...an abortion worker has been found guilty of murder for killing a baby… 
Seriously, rest for one moment on those words; take them in. Are you laughing at the absurdity?

I thought "killing a baby" was the very goal of the abortion industry? Isn't the success of an abortion measured by the production of a dead baby? After all, when a baby survives the attempt on her life, we call that a "botched" abortion. A mistake. A goof-up. A fail. So if the workers can make things right just moments later and kill that same baby out of utero, what's the moral difference? Seems to me like they're just finishing the job they were paid to do.

Anyone else see the irony in this story? Any of you "pro-choicers" out there?

Just a teeny bit of irony amidst the horror?



.

423 comments:

  1. This whole situation has baffled me from the beginning. How is Gosnell considered a monster and George Tiller was a hero in the abortion community?? The difference? Tiller hadn't yet delivered the head. That's it. That's the ONLY difference between these two psychopaths. I seriously want a pro-choicer to explain this to me. PLEASE! I BEG YOU!

    Gosnell worked at a clinic in Delaware and we couldn't even get the (uber-liberal) state legislature to pass a clinic regulation bill after these horrors were discovered in Philadelphia. What is WRONG with pro-aborts??? How does this so-called sacrosanct "right to choose" trump literally everything else, including health and safety conditions?? Baffling.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Along with being baffled, I'm horrified. I honestly have no words...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm not baffled by the fact that there is a hesitation to regulate these things in the face of such horrors. Because, as Leila points out, what's the real difference? To admit that one is wrong, you have to admit that the other is wrong as well. I am horrified that this is all still going on. It needs to stop! All of it!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't get it either....Maybe because he wasn't affiliated with PP? I am assuming he was an independent baby killer facility?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sew, yes, he was independent. I think that PP does their baby-killing with more sanitation and style. But they do keep baby body parts in the freezer. And I think there is the occasional dead mother, as well. But at least they have better PR!

    CM, the only business the left does not want to regulate (even refuses to!) are abortion mills. Go figure.

    Nicole C, I would love an answer to that question.

    Oh, and yesterday I read this little piece, about how abortion clinic workers were laughing and having a great time right about the same time a woman in their clinic was hauled off by ambulance:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/27/clinic-workers-laugh-as-ambulance-transports-woman-injured-in-botched-abortion/

    ReplyDelete
  6. OK, I just feel sick to my stomach as I wipe away my tears. My God, my God. How sad He must be.

    It just goes to show how those lines are blurred and gray because it's always a baby, whether inside the womb or outside the womb...they crossed the line and didn't even realize it, because there really is no line.

    That's the irony I see.

    ReplyDelete
  7. One of my favorite pro-choice arguments about keeping abortion legal is that if we outlaw abortion in this country, women will only be able to turn to back alleys and coat hangers for their abortion needs... yet abortion is legal in our country and this is happening? This sounds worse than the coat hanger to me...

    It's just sickening. I pray that people in this country will wake up someday SOON to the fact that this is horrifying and we can't continue to let this happen.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I couldn't even finishing reading the article because it was too horrible to contemplate.

    Those abortion workers are either in denial over the humanity or cold-hearted.

    What is wrong with our country?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sick! It's all sick. I just don't understand it. Murder is murder any way you put it. Yes, the sanitary conditions sound appalling. I would imagine a PP would be cleaner. But as far as treating women any better? Probably not. A friend of mine at church works at a crisis pregnancy center that is right next door to a PP (they actually share a wall). She saw some clinic workers shove an obviously very sedated and delirious woman out the back door the other day. The woman collapsed and they just shut the door.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Leisl I like that one too. Except, the funny thing is that those "back-alley" abortions they ways talk about were done in the exact same places they're done now. Except after Jan 22, 1973, the doctors were able to put "abortions" on their signs.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Leila, I just went to that hot air link you posted and watched the video. Actually it's more of a listening video. Now I am mad that those laughing cold hearted women were mean to the pro-life person. Who raised these people to be so callous? I know that being rude was nothing to sending a woman to the hospital, but they verbally confirmed their evilness.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Lena, it reminds me of this:

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/10/laughing-at-dead-babies-and-avenging.html

    There was no response from pro-"choice" readers, other than one lady claiming that the ladies must have been lying. But the video at Hot Air shows the callous nature of those who work in the killing fields. It has to be that way, or they could not go on….

    ReplyDelete
  13. Karen-awful...just awful......

    ReplyDelete
  14. Here's what bothers me. As my husband points out, there isn't even an attempt at rational argument on the otehr side. Everyone admits it's a baby in the womb and out of the womb. No one is going around arguing that the fetus isn't a baby or isn't human anymore. That's been blown up. Now, you just get "it's a tough decision"...."I wouldn't want to be in that situation."

    The only way I can explain it is by an article I read last week that Simcha over at National Catholic Register linked. I would not recommend reading it, as it contained a lot of bad stuff in it and very crude language (not by Simcha, of course). In the article Simcha links to the writer talks about her sex life, her use of contraception and the morning after pill three times in a month, etc. The hedonism, the horror of her entire outlook on life, the darkness, the silliness of everything she said - and she was the health editor, as Simcha points out - makes me think she is actually insane.

    My point is, the only way I can get my head around someone being OK with abortion is that they are insane. There is a book called "Theology and Sanity" by Francis Sheed. I have not read it yet, but I know the argument he makes in the book. Basically, there is an objective way to perceive life, to perceive God and his designs. If you don't see things that way, you are insane. You live in an alternate reality that is not True. Well, people who agree with abortion must be suffering some form of insanity. And, those who kill babies halfway out of the womb and actually get their hands dirty in the business show their insanity in many areas of their lives. Just scratch beneath the surface.

    Sorry to ramble, but the more I pray about this issue, the more I read about it, the more angry and sad I get about it, the harder it is for me to fathom the other viewpoint.

    Any thoughts?

    TB

    ReplyDelete
  15. I don't have any words for this. I just look at my own little boy scooting around playing and think how many like him have been killed. Healthy, breathing, LIVING babies. Lord have Mercy.

    ReplyDelete
  16. TB, there is such evil in it, and sin darkens the intellect and dulls the conscience. It is a sin as old as the ages, but it's one of the darkest ones: The killing of innocents.

    It is sad that now we have ultrasound, and science, and we still find a way to justify the killing of innocents, and we call it "good". That's the end-justifies-the-means mentality. It's a scary road to go down. Praise God for all the women who have come back out of that darkness.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Raremem, I wish you were right about the fetus/baby argument. I just had a lengthy Facebook discussion with someone who kept trying to argue that even scientists didn't know the answer to that question. She was one of the rudest people I've ever encountered. Constantly belittling and scoffing at others in the discussion, but that is beside the point. She kept saying that we needed to go read Google Scholars to see that science has not determined anything yet. So I went straight to Google Scholars and pulled a quote that says the start to human life is easily defined at conception. She then linked to a BBC article to enlighten me on this supposed debate, since clearly I wasn't getting it. That article actually also defined the start of biological human life at conception, but then proceeded to discuss when that person obtained the right to life. It gave all these arguments about when one obtains the right to life, even citing previous theological debates and beliefs on when the soul entered the body.

    It drives me nutty, because these people really are insane. I completely relate to that insanity concept. People are really sitting around scratching their heads, wondering when someone actually deserves the right to life? And others actually interpret the "right to life" as then defining humanity, even when this has already been defined scientifically? She never responded after that.

    Evil truly deceives, confuses, and corrupts. People do not want to let go of perceived control. They will justify anything at all costs, like Herod and the slaughtering of the innocents, to maintain control over their lives.

    I had another guy in a different discussion on Facebook tell me that he would support a one-child policy in the U.S. He is so terrified over overpopulation, that he is willing to create such a dismal world, hardly worth saving, in order to save it. But his fears are unfounded. I tried to reassure him a bit as a geologist.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Elizabeth, that is so sad. It's like the conversation we had here with Michelle. She is a science major and an atheist, and it took her the better part of two pages of comments to finally get her to admit that what scientists and embryologists say is true: That a new human being is started at conception. She finally admitted it, but then of course said it was obvious that these human beings are not human "persons". So, it's okay to kill some human beings at will: The ones who we deem as NOT human "persons". A semantics game that allows us to dispose of the inconvenient human beings who come defenseless into our lives.

    It goes back to the "sliding scale of personhood" post, and the idea that the only reason anyone questions another's "personhood" is so that they can harm that person. There is no other reason to question or deny "personhood" except to do harm to them. So unbelievable that it's come to this.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Leila,

    A cell at conception is "a human" to the same extent a tumor on the back of your knee is human. The only reason people say that is because it contains the full genome, not because they think it has personhood. Just sayin'.

    Also, I've read and have been told of you referencing not only myself, but others as well, in comments where you grossly generalize and misconstrue our points of view and arguments. When students do this, they fail.

    While I cannot speak for the crowd, I'd like you to please refrain from ever referencing me again. I ask that so that you consider to stop to reference others in a malicious manner. A previous comment you made on gay marriage completely misconstrued a view I put forth on eliminating marriage but only in form of terminology, instead suggesting civil unions for everyone. You did it to construe me as an atheist willing to haphazardly unravel society.

    Michelle has also asked me to ask you to stop referencing her if you cannot do it correctly. We scientists have a respect for presenting the truth and following things logically and respectfully, and these are all things you have managed to completely ignore. If you could handle writing about us and our point of views correctly, this would not be an issue.

    -Peter

    ReplyDelete
  20. "To the same extent a tumor on the back of a knee is human?" Is that how little you value human life and the miracle of conception. I hope you don't have any children.

    DD

    ReplyDelete
  21. DD. Conception is a miracle. It's a complicated and beautiful biochemical process. The only reason people say that "Science admits that even a zygote is a human!" is due to the fact it has a full genome. The tumor on the back of a knee also has a full genome. It is not because I think a zygote is the same as a tumor on the back of your knee.

    I doubt I could find many people who could physically describe the difference between a tumor cell and a zygote. There are many, but the fact is that most people have zero idea what they're talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I meant to type "Conception is *not* a miracle." Clearly.

    ReplyDelete
  23. What I don't get is how none of the employees at the clinic could even be bothered to appear concerned for the woman they'd just sent to the hospital. If that's "having compassion" for women (one of my mother's favorite arguments for abortion), than I am more than happy not to be compassionate, because that would be more likely to make me a good Christian.

    It boggles the mind how atrocities like this are committed every day, all over the world, and somehow the perpetrators still have the upper hand in society even though they're wrong. The issue of abortion isn't one of selective sight or hearing anymore, it's an issue of selectively having a heart. And clearly, very few select *to* have one.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This is just horrific, ironic, hypocritical. But perhaps it is a tiny step towards recognizing something so inherently wrong. There is a place in Europe called the HOuse of Horrors where the Nazi's and Communists tortured and killed but this one sounds infinitely worse.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Peter, why is it when I clicked on your comment I was taken to your blog where it says your name is Zach?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Because his name IS Zach, at least, that's what he always said it was before. Besides, women don't even know they're pregnant until they are at least 4 weeks, when they miss their period. And that's if they notice right away. What is the fetus at that point, Zach? "It's complicated"...no, it's not. Either it's a baby or it's not.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Peter and Michelle,

    First: If you would like to look up the things you have said, the record is public. In the discussion with Michelle (check the blog post directed at her, and all the comments), she conceded that a new zygote is a human being. It took a while, but she conceded that science says that very fact. Read the thread, check the links. The scientists do not say "new human 'thing' as a tumor", but they use the term "human being". Everybody gets that. It's really not rocket science. It's basic biology. You can twist it and turn it to fit your own agenda, but facts are facts. Michelle conceded it. Look it up. She has also conceded that she was conceived. Not a tumor, not a "thing" but "she". There was a moment when she was conceived. A new human being. Why would she shy away, now, from what science teaches? What embryologists know? It's all public record.

    And if I misrepresented you regarding civil unions vs. the abolishment of marriage, let me see. Show me, and I will willingly recant and restate. I never said your motives were malicious. I assume your intentions are good, no matter how awful your positions might be in my (and the Church's) opinion. Like I have said about a thousand times on this blog: I cannot read your heart. Only God can.

    I don't blame you for not wanting me to reference the things that you have written here, publicly, for all to see. You are free to correct anything I have misstated, and I am also free to bring up your own words, which you have typed directly onto this blog.

    If you want to accuse me of something specific, please reference it directly.

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Leila to Michelle: You have said that while a zygote is a "human" it is not a "human being". This contradicts the scientists I've quoted. Will you concede that scientifically they are the same? That a zygote is a human being?

    Michelle to Leila: No. This is a question of semantics, I think, so the fact that I used different words than the scientists you quoted doesn't really matter. I think in general, "human life" and "human being" are used pretty interchangeably. It was probably a bad move on my part to use those words to make the distinction between a zygote and a viable infant, but the fact remains that I don't think a zygote is the same as a viable infant. Do your textbooks specifically state that they are? Unless they do, I don't think there's any real disagreement.

    Leila to Michelle: It is you, the atheist, who is introducing a metaphysical, subjective, arbitrary distinction between a human and a person, or between a human being and a person.

    Michelle to Leila: Okay. To me, a sliding scale of personhood makes perfect sense. Even if abortion didn't exist as a concept, having a scale would still make sense. A zygote is less of a person to me than a newborn is, and that self-unaware newborn is less of a person than a 10-year-old or an 80-year-old that is fully self-aware. I don't know where "metaphysical" is coming from. Something subjective or not fully quantifiable is not automatically metaphysical.

    There is lots more, but I haven't had a chance to look it up. The discussion is here:

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/08/answering-michelle-i-dont-think-you.html

    And Peter and Michelle, I would love, love, love to have you comment thoughtfully on the post I wrote earlier, about "Laughing at Dead Babies and the Avenging Conscience". What do you make of it?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Begin here with comments, if you want the whole gist (although I would read them all…. very interesting stuff)

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/08/answering-michelle-i-dont-think-you.html?showComment=1313700094209#c5523238255568900006

    Personhood is a metaphysical concept, not science. And, scientists know that a new human being is begun at conception of sperm and egg. Even Peter Singer, an atheist who supports infanticide up to several months after birth, says that a zygote is a "human being". Science.

    ReplyDelete
  30. My point is: that zygote has all the makings of a human life. All of the genetic material is there. A tumor will always and forever be nothing but a tumor.

    DD

    ReplyDelete
  31. Even in Michelle's definitions of "human life" she did not include things like "tumors". She included Zygote, etc. She knows exactly what we are talking about. Tumors are not in the equation. She didn't get conceived as a tumor.

    ReplyDelete
  32. But I pressed her and she clarified (?) here:

    Leila said: Although you don't really mean "anything" that is alive and has human DNA, right? Because you don't mean a human spleen or a cancer mass, correct? Could you use another word besides 'thing' to clarify?

    Michelle answered: Well, I'm not quite sure. Because a human spleen has the same exact genes as that zygote, just different ones are expressed (the cancer mass, however, may not have the same genetic makeup as the zygote, since some cancers are characterized by chromosomal abnormalities). I've seen the fact that a zygote has its genes at conception used against abortion, which then suggests that anything with human genes is worth saving. I've seen the fact that a zygote has unique DNA used against abortion, which then suggests that anything with unique DNA is worth saving (and cancer masses often have very unique DNA). So, while I'm using "human life" mainly in reference to zygotes (and all the stages that come after), I guess this is also a question for you - how do you define human life?

    I agree that a zygote is the beginning of a human being, but I don't agree that it is a person (or a human being, which I'm using mostly interchangeably with "human being", though I guess the word itself is pretty much irrelevant now that I've got definitions down, so if you disagree about the distinction between human life and human beings, it probably doesn't matter too much).

    ReplyDelete
  33. Peter/Zach I don't know how you can read that article and look at that video and still think that the killing of children is perfectly ethical. Your tumor argument is disgusting, for babies in the womb and out. Are those poor babies that make it outside of the womb and snapped at the spine or be-headed comparable to a tumor as well?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Peter, as to the marriage thing, this is how I remember it, and correct me if I am wrong. You were doing a 'mock marriage' on campus with your boyfriend. I asked you to define marriage. You said you hadn't really thought about it. So, I called you on it and asked how you can push to be allowed to "marry" when you have never even thought to define the thing you seek? Then you said it would be your preference to get rid of marriage altogether. Was I wrong?

    If "everyone" gets a civil union (which is not the same as marriage?) then marriage is abolished, and civil union is very, very broad.

    ReplyDelete
  35. If provided with adequate nutrition and a suitable environment, and barring accident or disease, a human embryo will, by internally directing its own integral organic functioning, develop himself or herself from the embryonic into and through the fetal, infant, child, and adolescent stages, and into adulthood with his or her distinctness, unity, and identity fully intact. - source

    So, Peter/Zach, can you give me an example of a tumor that will internally direct its own organic functioning and eventually develop into an adult human being?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Michelle and Peter, directly to you, since it has never been addressed:

    You determine which "human life" or "human beings" or "human things" can be killed based on the concept of "personhood". Yet you have not (to my memory) acknowledged that "personhood" is a metaphysical concept, and not a scientific one!

    Do you acknowledge that your criteria for who lives or dies by another's hand are metaphysical criteria and not scientific? And, as atheists, how do you reconcile that?

    If you cannot answer, would you please refer another atheist science major here who can?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Peter, do you agree with Michelle that a "self-unaware newborn is less of a person than a 10-year-old"? And would that imply lesser criminal penalties for killing a born baby vs. a ten-year-old?

    Maybe Michelle could answer.

    You have made it seem like it's a personal attack on you, when we have been exchanging ideas. Why do you think it's personal?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Sorry, I've got a few more things to say. I wish Peter or Michelle would respond (or another atheist) but either way, I will say what I want and put it out there. Here is something I wrote in the comments on the Michelle post. It still seems relevant:

    See, if I were an atheist, I wouldn't get into the whole "what is a person" philosophical discussion, because that is not science. So, I would stick to what is a human life aka, human being. I would admit that a new human being comes into existence with fertilization. That is a scientific fact. Then, if I were a pro-"choice" person, I would just be honest enough to say (as some do), "Yes, of course abortion kills a human being. So what? I think it's okay to kill human beings while they are still in the womb. What's it to ya?"

    But, that's just me. I wouldn't try to make the science into pseudo-science/philosophy (as Roe v. Wade did, by the way).


    And here is something else that I found simply shocking at the time (yes, I found an idea shocking! That means we debate the idea, not that I am calling the person "malicious"). Michelle said this when the topic of oppression came up:

    Leila said to Michelle: You believe that it is okay for some human beings (pre-viable unborn) to be killed by other human beings. The reason you say it's okay for some human beings to be killed by others is because the first group is ""fully dependent" on the second group of human beings. In other words, the first group of human beings (the "fully dependent" ones) are weak. They are utterly helpless (dependent) on another, stronger human being. The first group have no voice, no vote, no way to defend or protect themselves, and the second group has all the power, and is stronger and bigger.

    Michelle responded:
    Okay, the oppression argument. It sounds compelling, but think about it - when you're concerned about the oppression of a group of people, you put yourself in their place. You say, "how would I like it if I was in their position? Would I think this was fair?" And for me, the answer is, in the fetus' position, I wouldn't care. I wouldn't have any opinion because I wouldn't be conscious of anything. I wouldn't know that I existed.

    This answer by Michelle stunned me. I haven't stopped thinking about it since. So, oppression or violence (injustice) against another human "thing" can only be real and valid and wrong if the people being killed "wouldn't care" anyway? And since they are not conscious of being killed, then it's okay to kill or oppress them? Do we really want to have this as a moral principle, and can we extrapolate on it please?

    Let's open up this discussion. I'm ready.

    ReplyDelete
  39. By the way, I do not judge "oppression" by putting myself in their place. I judge it on whether or not my actions are good or evil, not whether they are perceived as such.

    By Michelle's reasoning, if a whole group of brainwashed prisoners thought they were worthless and deserved to die, then the captors should go ahead and slaughter them, since the captors need only "put themselves in the others' place" and determine that they would surely be okay with the slaughter.

    And by her reasoning, we could kill anyone who is sleeping. Sure, they will be conscience soon enough, but then again, so will the unborn or newborn baby…

    This is the type of moral reasoning that deserves to be discussed, questioned and dissected.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Raremom said,
    "No one is going around arguing that the fetus isn't a baby or isn't human anymore." Well, I actually hear that quite a lot in my circles.

    To be totally honest, I am not 100% sure that a two-week embryo is a person, but it seems to me that we have to err on the side of life, because nobody really knows when ensoulment takes place. For example, think of the case of identical twins. They come from the same zygote, and then it splits into two, independently developing embryos. At the one cell stage, just before it splits into two cells, is it one soul or two? Are twins considered to share a soul?

    That said, the George Tillers of the world must do elaborate mental gymnastics to justify what they do.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Mary, you are right that we must always err on the side of life. And remember also that "person" to you (or me) means something different than it does to an atheist. "Ensoulment" is meaningless to them, so a "person" means something different to them than to you.

    I'm still not sure how or why atheists want to speak of human life in terms of metaphysics?

    ReplyDelete
  42. I'm so very sad by all of this. I agree...why is it that they won't regulate/shut down abortion mills in light of this stuff?

    Oh and their argument that they just want it to be "accessible, safe and rare" is such BS! (sorry!)

    YOu know, I just have no words for any of this. My beautiful babies...how many of their peers have been killed? My peers? (I was born in 1973)...my generation (X) is so small, I am convinced, because of Roe v. Wade and the evil it has wrought.

    "For the sake of His Sorrowful Passion, Have Mercy On Us and All the Whole World." :(

    ReplyDelete
  43. @ Peter/thepoetryofthesingularity: re: "conception is a miracle". Freudian slip, I guess? : )

    Leila: I just finished reading Radical Son, by David Horowitz. It's the story of a radical communist and his journey to becoming a vocal conservative (look him up on the web). Besides being a great introspective read, it gave me some insight into the mindset of the liberal left. David was a "cradle communist". In the book he is clear that within the communist movement of his parent's era there was incredible deception. People were not upfront about their motives or agenda with the general public. He goes on to explain how he saw the same type of deception in his adult life as a radical writer and organizer--people deliberately and obtusely avoiding the truth of an issue because truth did not serve their purposes. This is a man who was very much involved in the movement against the Vietnam war, heavily involved with the Black Panthers--you name the big liberal causes of the 50's/60's/70,s--he was a mover in them all. It took the death of a friend at the hands of the Panthers to wake him up a little, and then he found that none of his other friends would even acknowledge it as a possibility that the Panthers could commit such a crime. He began a long process of discovery (which essentially meant the end of life as he had known it since birth) and at last came to the conclusion that among the left truth is irrelevant. They seek only that which furthers their purpose, regardless of the cost--including the cost of human life. They ruthlessly pursue their efforts to create utopia on Earth ("every child a wanted child"), and "inconvenient truth" be damned. The catechetical term for this is "willful ignorance".

    All of you might enjoy watching a video called 180. It's long, and in the beginning I questioned the choice of the interviewees...but in the end I came away with renewed hope for the average rhetoric-spouting pro-choicer, and a commitment to myself to SPEAK THE TRUTH...in love.

    God bless as you fight the good fight here, Leila!

    ReplyDelete
  44. I went to the Texans for life Coalition banquet last night and the key note speaker, Lila Rose (whose awesome by the way) spike about this and it literally made me sick to my stomach and filled my eyes with tears. You are so right though, there's not a whole lot different between that place and other abortion clinics!! So sad!!!

    "A person's a person no matter how small" (thank you Dr. Seuss!!)

    ReplyDelete
  45. robbie, welcome and thank you! I'm glad you filled in the details on David Horowitz! I am a fan of his, and I have used his statement, "Liberals are only liberal on two things: sex and drugs", a few times on this blog. He knows the left from the inside. What a life he's had!

    Yes, the 180 video is amazing! I posted it a couple of weeks ago, on one of my Quick Takes. I have yet to hear any pro-"choicer" discuss it or even claim to have watched it. On film, it was amazing to see their consciences become awakened.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Did I forget to comment about the video?

    I meant to. I did actually watch it, when you posted it.

    I thought it was neat, but could not forget that we have no idea the number of interviews it took to get the reactions they got. And it could have been staged.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Do you have proof that it was staged, Chelsea?

    ReplyDelete
  48. How whould I know it was not. I have never heard of someone changing their minds spur of the moment. Even when presented with the same arguments. Usually if they do, the processes would be longer.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Chelsea, did you think the logic he used was sound? It seemed to me those were "real people". Usually things that are staged (and with that many people) are more obvious.

    Also, people keep forgetting that Christians (serious Christians) believe that lying is a sin, and that God knows when we are lying. We don't take lying lightly, as there are consequences. But as with the "avenging conscience" post, the only response was that the Christians must be lying. But we are not "ends justify the means" people. We don't believe you can sin in order to try to bring about a good.

    What do you think about Gosnell's house of horrors? Is it fundamentally different from other abortion mills (aside from issues of cleanliness)?

    ReplyDelete
  50. With regular abortion in a clean facility, the rate of the women dieing is lower.

    The pro-choice argument is often, "for the mothers sake."

    It does not seem like they were helping mothers, by doing an operation in a dirty enviremeant. A better location whould also have counseling, which PP does provide. Both of which help mothers more.

    Seems fundamentally different to me.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Chelsea, there are women who die in "regular" abortion clinics, too. But as far as slaughtering the unborn humans in that clinic, it was fundamentally the same, correct? What is the difference, aside from hygiene?

    And, do you see any difference, morally, in killing a child in the womb, or a few seconds later, after it's emerged from the birth canal? Isn't it the same baby? Wasn't the killing just as intentional? What moral difference do you see, if any?

    As for PP "counseling"… what sort of counseling do they receive at PP? I know they talk to the women, but what about?

    Some things to think about.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Chelsea, and not to pick on you, but you are the only atheist commenting now: Do you think that the pro-"choice" position (that it's 'for the mother's sake' -- and thank you for acknowledging her motherhood, by the way) is correct? Is it "for the mother's sake" that her child is killed? I've never understood that. The abortion movement says that there is no harm to women when they abort their children. And yet, we have movements like Silent No More, filled with wounded and grieving mothers who feel as if they were lied to and duped and coerced. We don't see any such organizations by people who have had their appendix removed, for example. Why not?

    http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/

    Also, there are so many post-abortion programs for help and healing, like Tears Speak and Rachel's Vineyard. Why do they exist, if abortion is good for mothers?

    ReplyDelete
  53. I am personally not for late term abortion, except in medical emergencies. So although it is a bit different in the case that one is completely dependent on the mother, the other case, the baby is not. I would still not condone it.

    Planned parenthood does have counseling, and presents all the options.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Leila, you said: "It is a sin as old as the ages, but it's one of the darkest ones: The killing of innocents."

    This is much worse than insanity. It is diabolical. (I'm going to speak in terms here that atheists probably won't relate to). You're absolutely right, the enemy, the "father of lies...a murderer and thief from the beginning" hasn't got us (a society) doing anything new here, only an age-old participation in the most heinous evil, sanitized and with a new name and presented more cleanly.

    Our just God will not tolerate this injustice forever. St Giana, pray for us!

    ReplyDelete
  55. One Man, amen!!

    Chelsea: Clarify for me. You would not condone what? A late term abortion? (In case of emergency, they could just deliver the baby alive; no need to kill the baby before or after delivery, right?)

    Also, in the case of dependency, are you saying it's okay to kill someone if they are weaker and dependent? Isn't that "might makes right" or the classic oppression model? Help me out.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I think that I have maybe mentioned my sister with Rhett Syndrome?

    She is very dependent on someone to take care of her,she will also need that care for the rest of her life. However it is still different then a mother and an unborn child.

    My sister could be cared by someone else other then my parents (not that they would ever want that). She can feed herself to some degree, she is not weaker, but if you were to use someone as an example as someone very dependent, she would be one.

    An unborn child is completely dependent on the mother, no other option.

    I guess what I mean by late term, is middle term. That time after 12 weeks but before where the child could live outside the womb.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I just saw you second comment after mine.

    About that, we all have regrets. Usually what the goal is is to help the mother at the moment. And there are many that do not regret their abortion.

    Their are also women whom feel that they were not able to achieve what they could have, because they had a child at the wrong time.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Chelsea, but I still don't understand. We are talking about a mother and a child. Are you saying that the mother has no moral obligation to protect and nurture the child which resides (where he/she is supposed to) in the womb?

    And it seems that you are saying that the more weak and vulnerable a child is, the less we owe that child as a society, or the less the mother owes that child as a family member (the closest of bonds, between a mother and child). That doesn't make sense to me. I thought that we have more of an obligation to care for the weakest among us, the most voiceless, than anyone else?

    How is simply carrying a child in the womb as it grows (and yes, possibly experiencing pain and inconvenience for a few months -- then place for adoption if need be) a sacrifice so great that it trumps a child's very right to life itself?

    I still don't get the argument that the weaker our neighbor, the more we have a right to kill him or her. Again, isn't that the classic oppression model?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Usually what the goal is is to help the mother at the moment.

    But again, is this how we determine what is moral? To stop whatever suffering is happening at the moment? So, if my kids are driving me crazy (and they do), should I banish them from my home or even kill them? Or, do I look for real help, as opposed to doing something immoral?

    Or, what if I have terrible suffering in my life, and shooting up with heroin helps ease my pain in the moment? Is that moral?

    I just don't see determining morality based on what feels like it might give me relief in the moment.

    You are right, not every woman regrets killing their own children. But on some level, there is pain and harm. And even if not (if there is a deadened conscience), the harm to the child is clear. The child is now dead. Killed intentionally. We don't kill children in a civilized society. The very act in itself is immoral, even if the mother (and yes, she is a mother, as you note) is okay with the killing.

    ReplyDelete
  60. It is not "the weaker it is". The argument is the difference between being dependent on others in general, and being completely dependent on one person for every thing.

    Of course, if the mother is able, she should nurture the child. Those of the left side of the fence love having babies around as much as anyone, and want all children to grow up well and loved.

    ReplyDelete
  61. It is not "the weaker it is". The argument is the difference between being dependent on others in general, and being completely dependent on one person for every thing.

    Being totally dependent on one person is the criteria for why a child can be killed? Makes absolutely no moral sense to me. If anything, there is more of an obligation to help. Aren't we human beings, with bonds between us? Especially mother and child? What kind of a world says that if my child is dependent on me alone, I am able to kill it?

    By the way, those who vote to allow the legal killing of the child are also responsible for the death of the child. So, it's not only the mother who is morally responsible for the killing. It is the adult population of this nation who allows it to continue. The whole point of government is to protect its citezens, especially its weakest ones (and yes, the unborn are the weakest among us; they have no voice but ours).

    ReplyDelete
  62. Those of the left side of the fence love having babies around as much as anyone, and want all children to grow up well and loved

    Yes, of course. That was the whole point of the post I wrote regarding Michelle. But the problem is, they only want the born or wanted babeis to be loved and grow up. But the others? The unborn and unwanted? They are okay with them being killed and thrown out with the trash. Don't you think that is a tragedy?

    We all love people that we love and people that we want around. But we are supposed to love our neighbor and treat them well, without exception. Not, "we can kill these and toss them out, but we love the rest!" Can you see the moral quagmire there? Think of any other type of genocide.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Not everyone can handle the responsibility. The argument is for those whom cannot take care of those children. Not for those whom can.

    The unwanted even are important. But yes, it is true that the left are more likely to step in after the child is born, because that is the only time we can. Before that it is the mothers responsibility, whether or not she can handle it.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Not everyone can handle the responsibility. The argument is for those whom cannot take care of those children.

    Chelsea, the only "responsibility" that a woman has in the first nine months of a child's life is to gestate the child. Feeding is automatic. No need to change diapers. The mother only has to carry the child (and there are TONS of resources to help her do that. I am involved with many such places).

    And you are wrong. The left could care for and protect the child before birth, by making sure they do not vote to allow the child's death. It is not enough to say, "I will love the child after she is born" anymore than it would be enough to say, "I will love the slave after he is set free". We are to love all people, all the time. And we are to make sure they are not deprived of their very lives. If we don't vote to protect the most innocent, vulnerable among us, then we are guilty for their blood. We will be accountable.

    ReplyDelete
  65. The unwanted even are important.

    I wish the left believed this, but they do not. I showed Michelle a photo of a late-term baby in a casket (given a decent burial by Priests for Life). The baby girl had been brutally aborted. I asked Michelle if that child was valuable, and if she should have been loved, or if she was trash to be thrown out with the garbage. She couldn't answer one way or the other. To this day she has not answered about that baby girl, beautiful girl, lying dead. She said she would have to know more about the "circumstances" of why she was killed. Can you imagine? That we are either trash or valuable, depending on what someone else thought of us?

    I think we've seen that in history, haven't we? Scary stuff.

    The Christian position is that we are ALL valuable, simple because we exist. We don't have to prove our value as a human being, it's simply inherent. We are made in God's image and likeness and we are all worthy of life and love. No exceptions.

    ReplyDelete
  66. What about mental pain? Depending on how the women became pregnant, she could also have psychological pain by having to carry the child.

    ReplyDelete
  67. We kill our own children because we have "mental pain"? Chelsea, do you think that mental pain and stress is a reason to kill another human being? I can't wrap my mind around it.

    I almost laughed (truly), because do you know how much "mental pain" I have from raising children for 20 years? Should I kill them? lol, I don't think you would say yes!

    ReplyDelete
  68. Chelsea, back to the original post: Do you see a moral difference between killing a child a split second before it's born vs. a split second after it's born? Because these ladies are guilty of murder (legally) for doing the killing just a moment later (and a few inches further out the birth canal) than the law said they could. But morally, is there a difference? Isn't it the same child being killed?

    Do you see the irony?

    ReplyDelete
  69. If the child could have lived on its own, that is one thing. If it could not, that's another. I think that the line is so blurry, that right before the baby exits the womb is where the government has placed it.

    Many say that the line is when the child could live on its own. I think that seems reasonable. The reason that they are being charged for murder, is that the child could have lived on its own.

    And about the "Mental Pain". I was really thinking of victims and teenagers.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Chelsea, no, they are being charged for murder because they killed a LIVING child AFTER birth, not because the baby was able to live on its own (can ANY infant live on its own?). Even if the child's spinal cord was severed after birth, prior to the conventional understanding and some states' laws of viability, they would still be considered murderers under the law.

    However, I do know it's common for babies to be born alive after attempted abortions and being left to die - heck, our president voted against a law that would save those babies. Obviously there is no moral difference. But the legal murder charge exists because they intentionally inflicted harm AFTER birth (regardless of age or viability).

    ReplyDelete
  71. And the government has not placed a line at "right before birth" because the line is blurry. They have placed it there for political reasons. Don't be fooled.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Of course an infant can't live on its own. I have yet to see a baby sign a lease, or write his signature at all for that matter.

    I meant that a baby would able to breath and eat without his/her mother.

    Please state what you meant again, it seems we are on the same side, children should not be killed after birth, or did you mean something else...

    ReplyDelete
  73. Chelsea, do you see a moral difference in the baby who is killed after birth or moments before? If yes, then are you saying that "location" is a reason to kill an innocent child?

    Do you see an irony in the fact that if the doctor killed the babies a minute earlier (like Tiller) he is considered a hero, but if he killed the same babies a minute later (like Gosnell), he is considered a murderer? Do you see the irony in that?

    And again, I have no idea why a mother can morally kill her own child when the child needs her most. What is the source of such a morality? We kill at will when the victim is totally helpless? Then it is good and moral?

    You don't really think that is right, do you Chelsea?

    ReplyDelete
  74. The reason that they are being charged for murder, is that the child could have lived on its own.

    As Nicole said, that is not accurate. It is legal to kill viable unborn children. They were charged with murder because the baby happened to slip out alive and was killed minutes later. It was not because of the age of the baby. The baby, no matter what age of gestation, can legally be killed. The state does it every single day, and we call those abortionists heroes.

    I still am not sure why the more dependent a child, the more right someone has to kill it? You never gave me a "why" on that. Why wouldn't we have more of an obligation to care for the most vulnerable among us?

    ReplyDelete
  75. I think that it is the mother's choice. Is it the ideal? Of course not.

    I do not think I could do that, but you ask how a mother could? Well obviously, some can.

    If the kid could actually breath on its own, that is one thing, another if it cannot.

    But like I said before, it is hard for something as big as the government to place a line, so that is where they put it.

    I feel the same way about being allowed to drive only when I was 17. I am not superbly more mature then when I was sixteen, especially not more then the month before I turned 17. But the government put the line there, since there had to be a line.

    With the whole late term abortion thing. There is not much difference between either moments, so that is where it is.

    OK, I do not want to seem like I am running away, but I really have to go. I have no idea what the time it there, but here it is getting late.

    I will read the rest of the comments in the morning.

    ReplyDelete
  76. I know I said I was leaving, but I just saw the above comment.

    The "why" is that the child is dependent only to the mother. Other can help, but at the end of the day, the baby is only inside of her.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Chelsea, is staying alive (the right not to be killed) a right or a privilege in your eyes?

    See, it's not analogous to driving, which is a privilege. The right to life is inherent in our being. No one can morally violate our right to life, including the government. That is why the government is not allowed to gas the Jewish people, and it's why we are not allowed to own people as property.

    The "why" is that the child is dependent only to the mother. Other can help, but at the end of the day, the baby is only inside of her.

    But this is not a moral reason to kill a child. We are not allowed to kill other innocent human beings simply because they depend on us alone. If a woman was stranded on a desert island with her small, dependent child, would the mother have a moral right to slit that child's throat? I think you know she would not have any such moral right.

    ReplyDelete
  78. But like I said before, it is hard for something as big as the government to place a line, so that is where they put it.

    Why is there a "line" at all? Shouldn't the line be where another's life begins, you cannot violate it? We cannot kill innocent human beings. It's not morally permitted. Why is there need for a line other than that?

    ReplyDelete
  79. There gets to be a blurry line when the mother's life is in danger. Granted, this is not a common occurrence, and it would be great if the law could work in a way such that, for cases in which both mother and child would die if the mother tried to carry to term (say, if the mother were in advanced stages of cancer), things could be considered differently. I'm aware of St. Gianna's story, and she was very fortunate to live long enough for her child to be born. But that is not always the case.

    ReplyDelete
  80. We have a regular commenter on this blog, Becky, whose current pregnancy very truly threatens her life. She refused the doctors' advice to abort her child. It's a hard cross if we are given it, but the direct killing the innocent, for any reason, is a line we are not morally permitted to cross. Great graces come to those who sacrifice all for the sake of their child, and for the sake of virtue, and for the love of God. Was it St. Joan of Arc who said she would rather die than commit one sin against our Lord?

    Having said that, in such extreme cases, both mother and child should be cared for, and all should be done to save both lives. We can never pit mother against child. Both their lives are equally and infinitely valuable. We must work to save them both.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Chelsea - There's no legitimate reason to kill an unborn child, even if the child is in the zygote, embryo, or fetal stage. I wrote a post about women I know who raised children despite the psychological pain of rape.

    I know another woman who was diagnosed with cancer while pregnant. After the doctors consulted they delivered the baby early, and both mother and child are doing fine. Actually child is in high school.

    Another woman became critically ill during her pregnancy. Again the baby was delivered early and survived thanks to great neonatal care.

    A third woman said she wasn't ready to have a baby when she got pregnant, but she said, "I got ready." That's what pregnancy is for, for getting ready.

    If people are doing grown-up activities like having sex then they need to BE grown-ups and take responsibility for the children they conceive and stop being selfish.

    You know if you have an operation you are completely dependent on the hospital staff for a certain amount of time. It's not okay to kill those on the operating table despite what some goofy hospital programs show on television.

    May God help Becky the Blogger and those with difficult or risky pregnancies.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Leila,

    I remarked that I hadn't thought much about the definition of marriage to the extent that the Bubble would accept. That is, tomes of definitions and explanations. Marriage is defined, legally. I simply suggested a name switch, and opening it to same-sex couples.

    And once again, I leave for about 12 hours and already the questions upon us are staggering.

    For those wondering, I do accept that there is something different from a tumorous cell compared to a zygote. What I'm saying is a zygote is a single-cell, and is relatively not that different from any other human single cell. Yes, the differences are that which allow it to grow into a human being, wonderful. Apparently you all missed my biology lesson, but that's okay. You were too busy thinking I had suggested tumor=6-month old fetus. It's hilarious how quickly you twist our arguments!

    Also, it's really none of your business what my real name is. I used the name Peter ironically and as a reference, so if you didn't get it, I'm sorry--but it wasn't intended for you then.

    See, I am 100% certain I have never spelled out my position on abortion here, yet you all think you understand it perfectly. When I come here, it's to discuss the foundations of our philosophies, and because I challenge you on base assumptions I'm labelled a baby-killer, which is wonderful. I'm also almost certain I've said that if anything, I lean pro-life!

    So, yes, Leila, I once was "100% pro-life". An education and having a larger base of knowledge permits me to question things. If I ever encountered a situation, I would also recommend doing what it took to make the life of the mother and child as comfortable and best as possible.

    I cannot argue or discuss things here because it seems the Bubble is on the assumption that everything is a dichotomy. And if I'm perceived to be on anything other than your side, then I'm an atheistic baby-killing amoral liberal. I came here because I was questioning, because I was looking. I didn't conclude that you all are wrong, just that the answers aren't here.
    -Peter. Zach. Whatever. Ideas are more important than verifying web id's.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Peter/Zach, I didn't question your name. I do know that you lean pro-life, but I wonder if that is slipping away. You used to be 100% pro-life, and I'm sure you knew why. But now, you allow exceptions for the killing of human beings. I don't know what the exceptions are, because as you pointed out, you never told us.

    Yes, I am going to challenge anyone who says that some killing of innocents is permissible. You can surely understand that. Here is what would satisfy me as far as clarity (not agreement). If you or any other pro-"choice" person would simply say that your definition of "personhood", or when someone's life should be unprotected, is arbitrary. Not based in science, not based in the truth of when a human life/human being begins. And if you said, "I don't care if you don't like it, we need to be able to kill some human beings." Then, I would say at least you are being honest with yourself and us. And then I might press you as to why other groups besides the unborn cannot also be killed at will. (Well, I guess the elderly and disabled can according to a growing number on the left, but you might not agree with that, so I would clarify that, too.)

    But are you saying, Zach, that you are closer to the Catholic position on pro-life than you are to Michelle's position? I am interested.

    I worry that you started out pro-life, and you knew why. And then, slowly, you have pulled away bit by bit. Where will you be ten years from now? Yes, I worry. I'm a mom. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Peter, Zach (are you the only peter who was commenting here before?) I am really confused. I understood your point with the zygote and the tumor. Your latest point is right, the zygote has the potential to become a person, and it is a totally 100% unique roll of the dice in terms of the genetics in the zygote, so it is really precious. No humans share exactly the DNA, except identical twins, and now we know that the genetics is different even for them.

    Zach, could you explain your reasoning for using two different names? I just find it confusing, because if I spend a great deal of time conversing with one person, then a go re-explain that stuff to another, but they turn out to be the same person, it is frustrating.

    I value your input and am glad you are here, but now I am not sure because I thought you were two different people.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I get cranky when it comes to this case. But, it wasn't just sanitary conditions that were the problem in this clinic. It was not having proper resuscitation devices on hand, the staff weren't even medical professionals, they had a teen working there administering anesthesia, AND the unsanitary stuff, like unclean rooms, equipment, etc. Also, they wouldn't pay their medical waste bill so they'd keep bags of babies in the basement. The dr kept baby parts all over the place in jars. The clinic was not easily accessible for gurneys. I could go on and on...

    So, the pro-choicers give me the whole, "Well, not eeeeevery clinic is like that."

    Okay then... guess what? In JUST the clinics linked to Gosnell they found very similar situations. States are not regulating clinics because of some kind of stupid "privacy" loophole, and they can and do get away with all of this disgusting nonsense.

    The only good thing about Gosnell, is his case was so disturbing and so out of hand, that it has begun to shed light on these clinics. They will find more of this. Evil can't do good.

    So, now that my off topic rant is over, I'd like to add that there's just obviously a total disconnect within the pro choice movement. Most of them won't even talk about this stuff without making excuses or making light of it. They won't admit to themselves that the baby is no different inside its mother than it is out. I don't care if those babies were killed inside or out, either way it's atrocious and these people are monsters.

    Also, if anyone wants to see the full interviews of the people in that 180 film, they are starting to post them on their youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/thewayofthemaster But I know libs will still cry fake anyway, so whatever.

    (I don't recommend their other videos. lol)

    PS. I had started this comment out with, "I don't have much to add..." And I had to delete it.... ;)

    ReplyDelete
  86. I don't quite understand this zygote thing, since before the mother even knows she is pregnant, it is no longer a zygote, and is "one celled" for what, one day?

    ReplyDelete
  87. Okay, I will admit to not having read all the comments after the initial comments by thepoetryofsingularity. There is a difference between a zygote and a tumor. (I apologize if this has been stated already.) A zygote is on the developmental spectrum of a human life, like a fetus, two-year-old, teenager, or even the elderly in the last days of life. Even if that person is barely recognizable. Eliminating a zygote stops a human life in its tracks. Eliminating a tumor does not stop a human life. It can help save one, but it won't stop one unless death arises from unfortunate medical complications or the inability to cure even after tumor removal. But the tumor is not a human and will never be a human. It may be developing, but not on the human spectrum. Make sense?

    On a side note, I once saw the saddest documentary on orphans in Eastern Europe. Some of the older children were barely recognizable as humans. They had been confined to a crib with no stimulation their entire lives. Their bodies had literally fused into disks -- they lacked limbs and recognizable body parts. They had contorted heads, could not speak, and did not know love. But they responded to human touch and cried to just be held. Oh, it still hurts to think about those neglected kids. Most parents interviewed had been told to leave their children with the State, because the State would take better care of them for various reasons. Anyway, these kids probably did not fit the definition of human by many standards. Looks are deceiving. But these kids have human life and have always had this human life since conception. Life started, continued to develop, and even persevered through unimaginable hardships. And their lives, like all our lives, will eventually cease on earth. A lifespan includes many stages, constant growth, distinct stages of development. A tumor is not part of human development. A zygote is.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Ah, yes, I am way behind -- Sorry Zach/Peter and others. I see we've already been here.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Kara, you are right that most women are not aware of pregnancy for about four weeks. But there are still those who justify the morning-after pill or take birth control, which can act as an abortifacient. So acknowledging the full spectrum of a human life is still important.

    I also know women who are "super-fertiles". Intercourse during fertile periods always equals a baby for them (at least until fertility winds down). They know immediately that they are pregnant, even if they can't test for a few weeks.

    ReplyDelete
  90. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Just a thought--I have also noticed that people who are horrified by the fact that there were frozen babies in Gosnell's clinic, are not similarly horrified by the frozen embryos/zygotes in infertility clinics.

    In that sense, Gosnell has more in common with IVF doctors than abortionists. :(

    ReplyDelete
  92. Ummm, the salient difference is in the legal status I suppose. Of course, that is a practical matter and I suppose not really important to the actual truth at hand.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Zach, your original post asked Leila not to use your words from previous posts in her future posts or comments. Then you signed the name, Peter. Then you came back and berated all of us for questioning why you would use a different name, and said you can't comment here because...well...I'm not really sure why, but it's probably the same reason you have used so many times before. We are just trying to have a discussion in order to reach clarity. Don't take things so personally! We are not attacking you. I don't even know you, and yet I find myself caring about you and hoping for your emotional well-being. The reason I questioned your first comment was because you seemed to be arguing against the subject of this post by stating that at the moment of conception you don't believe a one-celled zygote should have any rights. But the subject of this post has to do with an abortion clinic and workers delivering almost full term babies and killing them after they are born, which is against the law. I don't understand why you went to the one-celled zygote, when no woman in the history of mankind has ever aborted a one-celled zygote, and by the time most women know they are pregnant that zygote has turned into a fetus with millions of cells, a beating heart, brain waves and his/her own blood supply.

    ReplyDelete
  94. I have to mention something my husband and I were talking about just last night... At an ultrasound when I was 11 or 12 weeks pregnant, we watched the baby jump up and down, do a somersault, stand on its head and kick it's feet up in the air, etc. It was hilarious, the kiddo seemed to be having a great time in there. So amazing to see how incredibly developed a child is by 11 or 12 weeks (and I should note that's 9 or 10 weeks from conception! AMAZING)!
    If all women considering abortion watched this - watched the baby doing these activities in the womb at this very early stage - would they still be able to kill the child? If so, I don't know how that wouldn't haunt them forever. I just cannot imagine. That was no "blob of cells" or a tumor. We saw little legs, hands, feet, etc, and an active little baby.
    A tumor is obviously quite different from a baby...a tumor doesn't have a heartbeat...doesn't grow up to be an adult... that argument is ridiculous to me.

    I hoped this would make some people at least stop and think about things....

    ReplyDelete
  95. By the way, those who vote to allow the legal killing of the child are also responsible for the death of the child. So, it's not only the mother who is morally responsible for the killing. It is the adult population of this nation who allows it to continue. The whole point of government is to protect its citezens, especially its weakest ones (and yes, the unborn are the weakest among us; they have no voice but ours).

    Thanks for making this point Leila. I tried to use this logic when a commenter on my blog asked if I thought the women should be thrown into jail if they have an abortion, and I don't think she really got my point when I said that we should instead throw Margaret Sanger and the supreme court justices and the politicians who vote for abortion into jail.

    ReplyDelete
  96. And still, MaiZeke and Zach/Peter/whoever don't get the concept of thinking that IDEAS are stupid/diabolical/insane and not the PEOPLE.

    *sigh*

    Is it because liberals are so accustomed to attacking people who hold certain ideas that they can't separate the two?

    Zach, what name you use matters for consistency's sake. Paul Rimmer has commented under countless aliases and it got so confusing that Leila finally asked him to stop commenting (yet he still pops in from time to time - creepy how obsessive he is). It's simply blog etiquette to pick a name and stick with it for consistency's sake; or, if you do want to change your name, to make that eminently clear withe a separate comment instead of commenting out of the blue with a name change and expecting everyone to know who you are.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Reading through Leila's and Chelsea's conversation I couldn't help but realize that there is a time in an unborn's life in which it is not dependent on the mother. That the time following conception the unborn is on it's own to make its journey to the womb and implant so it can be nourished and grow.

    This may be the most basic of biological instinct, but it is no more biologicaly instinctual than a newborns first breath outside the womb.
    It is also proof of the unborn's survival instinct from the very begining. It should also be pointed out that it is the unborn's survival instinct that starts the labor process. It is at no time the mother's choice, biological or instincual, to go into labor.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Nicholas: I'm probably misunderstanding you, but are you missing the point? There is no difference between the baby who is legally killed within his/her mother than one who just happened to be born alive by accident and then killed illegally. That's the point. That there *IS* no difference in the baby. It's the same baby, just a different location... Yet people are all up in arms about it and charging these people with murder. Which I agree with and I'm glad they were stopped but it should've been stopped regardless. Not just because they were doing it after birth.

    @Erin: Actually, I'm quite disgusted by the IVF system. It's disgusting to have your children frozen, waiting for someone's perfect time to be allowed to continue to grow. It's all just so unnatural.

    I only brought up how I didn't understand the zygote argument because it really makes no sense. The babies involved in ANY abortion are not zygotes, thus not "one-celled" anyway. So why are they bringing that up?

    I am so afraid of learning the truth of all these things when we all go to Heaven (hopefully). I can't imagine the people who have not realized the horror in the things the do and what they have done to these children. Birth control pills, IVF, abortion, they're all morally evil, because precious lives are at stake. It saddens me to think of all of the babies of a typical contracepting mother waiting for her at the gates... But I'm rambling again...

    ReplyDelete
  99. Thank you, JoAnna, for clarifying that. Yes, the ideas are insane, not the people. There was a time when I agreed with the opposite viewpoint, but I was never clinically insane. I understand what it is like to be on the other side, to be a caring person, to want to do the right thing, but also to have bad logic, to justify things out of fear, selfishness, pressure from others, ignorance, uncertainty or any number of other motivations or conditions. I remember having an if-it-seems-right, relativistic morality. I was a thinking, feeling, caring, sane person, but my thoughts didn't make sense when held up to reality. Other ideas may even by wonderfully logical on some points, but morally bankrupt despite the logic. So please don't feel like the "insane" comment or even the acknowledgment of evil is a judgment of an individual person, but of the ideas that pervade our culture and that often very good and intelligent people justify.

    The lady I referenced from my FB conversation was a little off kilter -- very rambling and borderline incoherent on certain things. So the insane comment struck a chord there, but not everyone articulates as she does.

    ReplyDelete
  100. I don't have time to contribute to this debate. I would like to pop in and defend two of my favorite contributors though:

    #1 Since you all recognize Peter as a previous commenter, there's no reason to suddenly jump on him for, of all things, using this particular name to post. If he'd been able to post as anonymous, you'd have skewered him for that too.

    #2 I'd be careful about throwing out that little accusation JoAnna. No, I don't separate the idea from the person (at least easily) which is probably why I would never let my child be taught by a priest who abuses children (to pick up from a previous post where some people said it would be ok). And, I notice everytime someone points out that they view your praise for saints as idolatry, you all get pretty passionate, use capital letters and exclamation points to say "don't tell us what we believe in!" But I guess that's just a calm, logical way of you saying you acknowledge that person's ideas and fault only the ideas, right?

    -gwen

    ReplyDelete
  101. ok Elizabeth, I think you're fundamentalist, skewed, paranoid ideas are a construct of successful right wing political maneuvers to gain more votes over a topic that morally requires you to vote one way over another. But hey, I bet you're a real nice person : )

    -off to grade papers,

    Gwen

    ReplyDelete
  102. You are entitled to your beliefs, Gwen :).

    ReplyDelete
  103. I suppose I should be more insulted by your comments, Gwen, since you don't separate ideas from the person. Except that people can discuss ideas, change their mind on big issues and nuances on a regular basis, and have a discussion of ideas without even fully claiming an idea. Or they can claim an idea and then realize it was terrible later.

    My husband once tried to design and build a free-standing pull-up bar. He is not an engineer. He thought he had a great design, very well-conceived. He drew it up and bought all the materials. He spent hours building this monster, only for the whole thing to come crashing down. His engineering friends laughed at his design later and called it "insane". While he may have defended it heartily before building it (he invested time and money, after all), he had to laugh at himself when he saw his ideas applied to reality. He agreed that the design was nuts, and we can joke about some of his crazy ideas. Or even talk about the idea of bringing our two-year-old skiing as insane. My husband has had the opportunity to point out my bad ideas too. But no one would actually assume that we are accusing each other of clinical insanity.

    We all get that the discussion is over the idea. If someone doesn't understand that, because of tone or a heated discussion like this, then I think it is important to articulate this difference for clarity so that we can move on without loads of hurt feelings on either side. It's a good thing I'm not worried about your opinion of me :).

    ReplyDelete
  104. Miss Gwen - you don't find it confusing at all that someone with Zach's username is now signing his name as Peter? I do. How do I know it's not Zach's partner commenting instead of Zach? Or someone else attempting to impersonate Zach? I think after the experience with Paul Rimmer, we're all a little wary when it comes to multiple usernames for a single person.

    As for your second paragraph, I don't understand what you're saying. I don't remember anyone saying, for one, that they would want a convicted pedophile teaching their children in any context. Not sure how that's relevant, anyway. As to the accusations that Catholics worship saints, the frustration comes in when that person is gently corrected, shown what Catholics actually teach and believe, but then that person continues to insist that Catholics worship statues despite all evidence to the contrary.

    Getting frustrated with someone for their repeated insistence that a proven falsehood is true, and similarly refusing to stick around and show us why he or she continues to cling to an idea that has clearly been proven false =/= directly attacking that person with name-calling and personal insults.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Chelsea Said: I think that it is the mother's choice.
    Actually, the choice comes with having sex. The pregnancy is a natural consequence of that choice. It amazes me how many people are surprised by a fully functioning human reproductive system.

    I have not read the article. I'm mortified just by what I read here. My almost 8 week old son is sleeping in his bassinet at the foot of my bed. The problem that I see with this is that there are TOOOOOOOOO many different words being thrown around interchangeably and yet each have differing definitions which color people's ability to see the truth.

    As I see it, the TRUTH is at the moment of conception, a LIFE is created. Life!
    As defined as

    the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

    For human beings, that life created at conception is human; not dog, not spider, not dinosaur, not mushrooms, acorns or penicillin. Human and Only human.

    If that life is human (which it is) and if it exists (which it does - is anyone really arguing that "nothing" (absence of something) is formed in a woman's body at at the moment of conception). Then that life is, rightly classified as, a human being.

    To intentionally "destroy", "put an end to" or kill that human being is murder. Regardless of how "grown" the life is.

    ReplyDelete
  106. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Gwen, are you misunderstanding that the real Peter who commented on this site was different than the Zach who signed his name as Peter? Or am I the one who is confused? Is he the same person?

    ReplyDelete
  108. MaiZeke - I didn't see raremem's comment until you pointed it out - must've missed her post. For the record, I don't agree with it - there are plenty of perfectly sane people who have insane ideas. But why not directly address raremem's comment initially instead of assuming that everyone agrees with it, or has even seen it?

    By the way, for someone who was just going to pop in and out, you seem to be sticking around. :) The Bubble is pretty addictive!

    ReplyDelete
  109. Yeah, we never said a priest convicted of molesting children should still be around children...we said it is still possible for that person to teach truth. When a priest is convicted of molesting children, he loses all rights to be around children. Our point was that just because a person commits a crime, does not negate all good he may have done prior to that crime, i.e., it doesn't necessarily discredit, say, a professor from everything he ever wrote/taught if he shoots his wife. Should he lose his teaching license? Maybe. Or, maybe once he does his time, he can go on teaching. But I, for one, would not allow my children to be alone with a priest who was convicted of molesting children, and I don't believe anyone ever said they would. The point was that people fall into sin...but that doesn't negate the truth in any way.

    ReplyDelete
  110. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Why do you think I'm riled up, MaiZeke?

    Also, it's interesting how you keep taking that particular statement of mine out of context. Let's look at it again (please note my bolded, bracketed comments):

    JoAnna: MaiZeke, have you ever considered that by holding the beliefs that you do about Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular, you are saying that the following people were ignorant, deluded, or just plain dumb:[this is a question to you based how I perceive your beliefs, not a statement of fact]

    St. Thomas Aquinas
    Louis Pasteur
    Fr. Gregor Mendel
    Blaise Pascal
    St. Augustine
    Nicolaus Copernicus

    and others?

    In the present, what about Stacy, a commenter on this blog, who holds a Ph.D. in chemistry? What about Father Tad Pacholzcyk, who has earned a doctorate in neuroscience from Yale University as well as four undergraduate degrees (molecular and cellular biology, chemistry, biochemistry and philosophy)?

    Do you believe that all of these great thinkers and scientists are/were just, as P.Z. Myers believes, "ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies"?

    See, whenever I read something from you (or, really, anyone) where it's claimed that Christianity is so obviously untrue, etc. etc., it comes across as extremely arrogant because it's just assumed that all the people listed above were just -- what? Stupid? Non-critical thinkers? Brainwashed or mind-controlled by the money-grubbing papacy? (Stacy, how much does the Vatican pay you to remain their brainwashed puppet, again?)[once again, this paragraph as well as the former are QUESTIONS based on my perception of your beliefs, not statements of fact]


    I will apologize for my thoughts harming you, MaiZeke. I will try to think more positive thoughts when responding to your posts in the future, because I know how thoughts from hundreds of miles away can magically "punish" you. (I'd love to see the science behind that one of these days.)

    Okay? Right now I am thinking of how fun it will be to hand out candy with my little toddler (dressed as a cow) while my husband takes Princess Tiana and Spiderman out trick-or-treating tonight! Hopefully those thoughts aren't too punishing to you. :)

    ReplyDelete
  112. In the strictest definition, I wasn't backtracking (to retract or reverse one's opinion, action, policy, etc, backtracking). I definitely did not choose my words wisely, as I was referring directly to a conversation with someone who did seem mentally unstable. I've had a few interactions with others that went that way, and so I was thinking of "these people", but the readers here had no reference point. I won't make you suffer through the entire conversation -- It was a long one.

    So I just wanted to clarify my thoughts, since clearly my words muddled my interaction with certain individuals with a broader concept. Definitely bad choice of words on my part :).

    ReplyDelete
  113. Wow, just popping in for the first time today!

    I'll be brief. First, regarding the "insane" comments.

    I guess we all may have said something like that when we are trying to wrap our minds around something that is truly evil. For example, when I think of chattel slavery, I think sometimes (again, trying to grasp how this could happen): "Were people insane to think that they could buy and sell human beings as property, split up babies from their mothers, and husbands from their wives?" And the same with things like the Holocaust: "Were the Nazis insane when they took human beings and treated them like non-humans, to be systematically tortured, starved, and murdered by the millions?"

    Now, of course I don't think there was technical insanity on the part of all slaveowners, or Nazis (though there may have been in individual cases). But the deeds are so hard to reconcile with human love, human dignity, the good of our fellow man, that we almost have to wonder, "Is it insanity?" because we cannot fathom how it follows that the human heart or mind can believe that such things are "good".

    As for abortion: We see abortionists being paid to force open a mother's womb and rip out a child, sometimes a late-term baby whose head must be crushed and brains sucked out or whose fully formed limbs must be ripped flesh from bone, but we are told that this is "good". And yet that if the same killing of the same child happens a moment after birth, it is suddenly "murder".

    But you see, our brains twist and turn trying to make sense of that kind of thought process. How the brutal death of a child in utero is "good" and yet the brutal death of the same child moments later is "bad".

    Does.not.compute.

    And so our mind says, "Is it insanity?" But we know it's not.

    I hope that makes things a little more clear on perhaps why that term was used (again, not defending it, but just trying to give context).

    MaiZeke, Gwen, do you find what happened in Gosnell's office to be horrible and unspeakable? Do you find the severing of babies spines in order to kill them to be horrific and evil?

    And if so, do you also find the violent killing of the same-aged child in utero to be just as evil and horrific and unspeakable?

    If not, why not? What logical reason is one act (on the same child!) morally "good" and the other morally "bad"?

    ReplyDelete
  114. I thought the same thing when the news story broke. Of course MSM blamed it on abortion restrictions and even though there are few, they maintain that women turn to places like this because they are scorned by anti abortion people. They are running out of people to blame.

    ReplyDelete
  115. I second JoAnna's points about the double names. I was not following closely enough to know Zach and Peter were the same person until two days ago.

    It's just blog etiquette.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Monica, seriously? Ugh! Yes, they are running out of people to blame, for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Chelsea attempted to address the very questions and points I put on the original blog post. I would be grateful if the other atheists would address those questions directly.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Yeah, this comment thread really didn't touch upon the issues you actually brought up. I'd be interested to hear the atheist perspective too. :)

    ReplyDelete
  119. Hey, all. This comment thread is HUGE!

    INSANITY.

    Anyway, I am the one who used the term "insane" in the first place, and I did mean that the people are insane. It wasn't some flippant exclamation, "Oh, that is insane!" I truly believe that some of the people I read about or see even on this blog are insane. Let me reiterate why. In the simplest form, God created the world, God is Truth, God is Justice, God has set the parameters of his design. God created ONE reality. Now, nobody has a grasp of that reality entirely, but the Catholic Church brings us as close as we can get in its massive body of historical writings, dogmas and doctrines, the writings of the saints, etc. So, if there is ONE reality, and I walk around living my life outside of that reality - in an alternate reality, I'm insane. Now, there is a spectrum of insanity, of course. I wouldn't put people who simply agree with abortion or gay marriage (not acting on their beliefs) in the same category as those who sleep with multiple partners, take the morning after pill frequently, have many abortions, have a hatred for God's law, and otherwise profane what is sacred in the world and in themselves.

    I guess all of this doesn’t matter if you are an atheist or postmodernist. Then, you don’t believe in one Truth or one Reality anyway…
    What is an element in all mental illness? Not grasping reality, not seeing life as it is, to a point of being debilitated in some way. Depression clouds the world in worry, fear, sadness. Schizophrenia is a person actually seeing and hearing things that don't exist in reality. People with Bipolar have either a grandiose view of life in which they are invincible and able to achieve more than they really can or a view where everyone is out to get them or a view like that of depression. I could go on. I am not speaking of these illnesses lightly, mind you. I have experienced them all in loved ones, and I know they are serious and tragic sometimes.

    Does it sound like a horrible insult to say that people are insane if they don't try to live according to God's designs and don't have a grasp of the Truth (meaning, reality) in their minds. Yes, but that is what I was saying (and that is a point made in "Theology and Sanity" by Sheed). Their ideas are not insane, they are.

    Anyway, very interesting stuff above. I applaud you all for your patience. I just don't have it for repeating decades-old (in the case of abortion) and two thousand-year-old arguments to people who tend to know them already and just don’t care. I'm cynical that argument does much, which is why I dip in and out of the conversation. I'm more of a pray and lead by example type person. So, onward Church Militant!

    TB

    ReplyDelete
  120. Back to Leila's original question, yes, I see the irony in the news story. Of course I see it because I am pro-life. Do any pro-choicers or atheists see the irony? Any fence sitters see the irony?

    Monica, who or what is MSM?

    Pregnant women should not be going to any abortion clinic, whether it is clean or not, regulated or not. People should not coerce or pressure or take any pregnant woman to any abortion clinic. It doesn't matter if the abortion clinic is clean and luxurious as a four-star hotel. And no, I do not want women harmed, injured, or killed in any abortion clinic. Nor do I want any unborn humans harmed, injured, or killed. Just stay out of abortion clinics, and no one will get hurt by the people who work there.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Chelsie, I was not speaking specifically to you, but I do stand by what I said originally about insanity. It's not my idea, actually, but one I read by a great writer, philosopher, theologian of the 20th century.

    Why would you care about me thinking you are insane when my view is based on a reality that you don't believe in anyway? (To be insane, per my argument, Catholic Christianity has to be True.)

    ReplyDelete
  122. Reason I deleted my post (well main reason it sounded selfish all of the sudden) was because I realized it had nothing to do with the original post.

    But just to answer that question. I do not hate the Church, or automatically disagree with everything they said. I also do not find you (or anyone here that is Catholic) insane. You I might not agree with everything, but I do agree with somethings. But when you say I am insane, that would suggest that I disagree with everything the church says, and will never change.

    Does that make me semi-insane?

    ReplyDelete
  123. Plus you know. Think whatever you want. But who really wants to be called insane?

    ReplyDelete
  124. raremem, whoa, whoa, whoa. You don't speak for me with what you said. I believe your implication (unlike what I previously thought you were saying) is that the people who don't see the truth are clinically insane. I don't believe that for a second. Was I insane when I didn't see the truth, living a life of sin? No, I was stone cold sober and completely sane. Clinically sane. I don't believe Sheed's book was in any way meant to discuss medical conditions and mental health such as bipolar disorder.

    I don't find your way of dialoguing helpful in any way, shape or form. I find it divisive, and unloving frankly. We have our disagreements with the atheists on this blog, and yes, I find their positions on things to be utterly, horribly wrong. I can't wrap my mind around the pro-"choice" position, as you can see. But that doesn't make me superior to those folks. It makes me blessed and humble and almost grovelingly grateful.

    Christ did not win anyone over to the Truth by saying they were insane. Have you read the encounter between Jesus and the woman at the well? He did not come to condemn, but to save. We are all sinners, and you have no idea if all these folks will get to Heaven long before you (or me). Only God can read hearts.

    I just don't get your idea of how to "love" the world, or those who are not Christian. I don't feel the love, raremem. Sorry, I disagree with what you are saying and I want to make sure that all the atheists on this blog understand that you speak only for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  125. I’m late to the game

    But I see a lot of similarities between Gosnell’s case and late term abortion and very few similarities between this and early term abortion, the most common type by a landslide as you know.

    You might not believe me but pro-choicer don’t support abortion because they think women have an unalienable right to kill their children. I don’t even think women have an inalienable right to avoid parenthood. We believe very simply that a person cannot use another persons body without their consent.

    It’s the same reason we're pro-sex and anti-rape and pro-organ donation and anti organ harvesting.

    I personally don’t think a woman has a right to kill anything, but she absolutely fundamentally has the right to remove something inside of her.

    If we as a society wanted to focus more on removing the fetus intact and then using medicine to save it, I’m all for it. It would be expensive and futile but i'm all for it. Its not about killing babies its about not forcing women to be pregnant with them.


    ~ College Student


    ~College Student

    ReplyDelete
  126. Chelsea, it's totally fine if you wanted to say something other than the point of this post. You addressed it and I am grateful. I was only speaking to the other atheists, who never did address the original post. But you did. So, now you can say anything that you'd like. :)

    MaiZeke, if you are still there, I would love to know from previously, why you think that abortion is generally "bad"? Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  127. We believe very simply that a person cannot use another persons body without their consent.

    Yes, the "unborn child as unwanted intruder" argument.

    college student, unless the woman was raped, that child was there due to the woman's own choice. She had sex, and sex produces babies (shocker!). Now, justice is giving one what is due him. No child is "due" a killing! But every child is due safety and love by the adults who are responsible for him. That is justice. Killing a smaller, dependent human being (who is exactly where he or she is supposed to be), is an act of oppression. It is the height of injustice to murder the child. Totally, and without any gray area.

    Unjust.

    I have to get to mass (holy day!) but I will revisit this and the words of JPII on this, unless someone else gets to it first….

    ReplyDelete
  128. We believe very simply that a person cannot use another persons body without their consent.

    College student, what does love require?

    In every situation, we have to ask that: What does love require? There is a child, helpless, exactly where it is supposed to be. What does love require of the mother?

    ReplyDelete
  129. When I was at mass this evening, I heard the words we always hear at the Consecration, the words of Christ before He died:

    "This is My Body, given up for you."

    Christ sacrificed His own body, His very life, for us. That is true love.

    As many of us have observed before, abortion advocates use the same phrase, but turn it on its head:

    "This is MY body!" ...and it will not be given up for you.

    I will not sacrifice my body for you, not even to nurture you for nine months. And in fact, it is you, my child, who will be sacrificed for me. You will die, because this is MY body.


    That is the pro-"choice" meaning of "This is my body."

    So different, turned upside down, the antithesis of Christ, the opposite of true love.

    The irony is not a coincidence. It's a signpost, in neon. Those who have ears to hear will hear it.

    ReplyDelete
  130. College student, a few questions:

    1) Are you saying that it is immoral to shred and dismember a child in the womb, no matter how small? In other words, you seem to think that is "killing" and should not be allowed, but that instead, the woman should be able to scoop out the baby intact and then put it on life support. Correct?

    2) If a mother wants her baby removed from her body, is it the job of a doctor to do so, because she wants it? Even though there is no medical reason to do so? Is that the role of a doctor?

    3) If an abortionist shreds and dismembers and kills an unborn baby, should he be jailed for the killing?

    4) Do you think that sex makes babies and that anyone who chooses to engage in the baby-making activity should expect that a baby will result? Or does sex only make babies if we "want" a baby to result?

    5)If someone is not prepared to be responsible for a baby that will result from engaging in the baby-making act, should they be engaging in the baby-making act in the first place?

    I just think the idea that a woman is "forced" to be pregnant is wholly bizarre. Sex makes babies. Really basic biology.

    Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  131. I know it's extremely tangential...

    But some folks might actually enjoy coming to the Bubble and trying out ideas and whatnot before signing their actual name. I came anonymously as Peter as first on purpose. I stopped using that name when I started signing with my own. I signed the one comment today as Peter to be ironic. As I noted, if you don't understand the irony, I apologize and it wasn't meant for you.

    The comment was meant for Leila, to ask her to please stop referencing our comments if she can't do it correctly. The signing off as Peter was directed at her, so I apologize for the confusion it caused.

    People use anonymous identities in online forums all the time to create unique perspectives to see where a discussion will go. Yes, it's like talking to yourself if you think about it. I don't do it, but I know others who do (to prevent dichotomous arguments, for example).

    Religion and other matters here are sensitive and can be potentially very personal. Priests can handle that (in the form of confidentiality). Yes, you get trolls. It's the price to pay for people who are shy.

    Can you imagine someone going to a priest and asking a question, and then priest laughing and publicly decrying why their argument implies sin and debauchery! If that hypothetical situation doesn't work, maybe you should ask yourself what Jesus would do, because I'm pretty sure I know that answer.
    -Zach

    ReplyDelete
  132. ""It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
    - Aristotle

    I'm not saying deception is the mark of an educated mind, but this quote makes a good point. If you are going into a discussion just to defend your worldview, you're doing it wrong, and probably only doing it to boost your ego and feel more secure in your beliefs. I've heard people say discussion here is Socratic, but it's really not even close.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Leila said: "When I was at mass this evening, I heard the words we always hear at the Consecration, the words of Christ before He died:

    "This is My Body, given up for you."

    Christ sacrificed His own body, His very life, for us. That is true love.

    As many of us have observed before, abortion advocates use the same phrase, but turn it on its head:

    "This is MY body!" ...and it will not be given up for you.

    I will not sacrifice my body for you, not even to nurture you for nine months. And in fact, it is you, my child, who will be sacrificed for me. You will die, because this is MY body."

    What an amazing insight! I don't know what the pro-choice people thought of it, but you have really made me think! You never fail to amaze me, Leila!

    ReplyDelete
  134. Becky, I can't take credit for it, but it's amazing isn't it? It's an illustration of love and then its opposite. Abortion is the anti-gospel.

    Zach, I've always said "pseudo-Socratic" or "semi-Socratic". This is an amateur operation, the Bubble. I like to dig and dig, trying to get to what the core of a belief is. Trying to get it to its logical conclusion. Trying to see how the atheist mind puts things together. I have it all laid out in my "Read This First" link at the top of the page, if anyone is confused or interested about what this blog is or is not.

    It's not a confessional, so we don't operate like that (I am not a priest), but I definitely hope that I never hurt anyone and that I am respectful. Like I've said before, we are all sinners, and any one of you (including the atheists) may get to Heaven before me. We are not the same people now that we will be on our deathbeds. I've seen too many dramatic conversions of heart to think that we remain static, or that this or that group or person is "lost" and not worthy of dialogue.

    You've made an interesting point, about why someone goes into a conversation. I think my link at the top says a lot of why I'm having these conversations, but in general, my whole point is to try to teach Catholics that their faith is coherent, reasonable and beautiful. I also want to help as many souls get to Heaven as possible, and part of that is by proclaiming the gospel and the truth as I have learned it (to Catholics, Protestants, agnostics, atheists, whatever). So, it may be something different from just an academic exercise, because I have a goal. I really do want people to find grace, peace and joy, and rest eternally in the Heart of a loving God. It's the heart's deepest longing and I long to share the truth.

    I do understand that not everyone dialogues for those reasons, and I do think there is merit to having this dialogue even if those on the secular side don't care about the spiritual part. The ideas are still worth discussing.

    Does that make sense? Kids making noise, teen who should know better, going to go scream now...

    ReplyDelete
  135. Zach, perhaps if you would give us an argument which pertains to the subject of the post we can all entertain it.

    ReplyDelete
  136. College student said Its not about killing babies its about not forcing women to be pregnant with them.

    I feel like I'm in that episode of "How I Met Your Mother", with Zoey's cousin "Honey"?

    Oh Honey.... I'm sorry if this sounds condescending. BUT. First of all, in all but an incredibly SMALL percentage of women who are pregnant and seeking an abortion are doing so because they were "forced" to be pregnant with a child.

    2ndly, sex is part of the human reproductive system and I realize that you feel, in your 20-something year old heart, that it is completely unfair that women are the ones who have to carry and bear offspring. In your mind, I'm guessing based on your comment and previous comments, it is a form of inequality.

    That's so sad, in my mind. That you can't see how inherently wonderful, beautiful, and I dare say special, we are as women, precisely BECAUSE we are the ones who are to carry and bear the children.

    Simply because men don't carry and bear children in an equal capacity as women does not mean that it is UNfair or that it is our "right" to equalize it.

    One of the most important lessons I learned in college was the following statement:

    Fair does NOT mean equal

    For the record, My 6 year old son, not having EVER discussed anything about sex, gender, or difference between girls and boys or men and women, he made the comment that he believes "daughters are the MOST important, because they can grow up and have children which helps carry on the race."

    Seriously, he said that. Of course this is the child that could define the physics term, leverage at age 4. He loves Cyberchase.

    ReplyDelete
  137. I'm still keeping up with the comments. I wish I had something to add at the moment, but I'm at a rare speechless moment. Great comments! Umm...Go, Leila! :)

    ReplyDelete
  138. As usual, some very great discussions here. As a former lesbian atheist (well, I believe being homosexual for me is similar to being an alcoholic in that I will always be a homosexual but choose NOT to act on it) who had an abortion, I would like to make a few comments.

    I can see Zach/Peter's views and Michelle's and Chelsea's because I was there once. When you don't have a Higher Power in your life, you try to make logical the illogical. You only have fate and happenstance as your guide. Why then not manipulate the outcome? Why then not terminate a life you don't have to see in order to make things "easier" for the woman or whomever is involved.

    I don't have an issue with the concept of civil unions, but I am greatly offended that the same sect of people want it called "marriage" when they don't even believe in marriage. You would have to believe in God to believe in marriage, since it comes from religious understandings. But instead, they want to destroy the sacredness of marriage by forcing us to allow them to marry as a direct mockery of what we believe to be Holy.

    Two years ago when I was faced with an unplanned (and yes, unwanted) pregnancy, the "old, atheist" me reared her ugly head and played with my thoughts (the Devil is pretty clever that way). Dear friends, some of which consider themselves Christians, told me I would "be crazy" not to abort, considering my finances were a wreck and I had a young son to focus on and I had some serious health issues.

    One of my gay friends (a die-hard atheist) actually asked me if I was going to allow this "unknown and unwanted" child to negatively affect my five-year-old's life. "After all, you WANTED Noah."

    Here is where my newfound beliefs and my wonderful Heavenly Father filled me with great love and understanding and I knew the baby inside me was here for a reason. It was not my place to "play God" and decide her fate.

    But an atheist will never see it that way. They believe we create our own destinies, even if that means playing "God" themselves.

    My battle now is to not allow people like Zach/Peter, Michelle and Chelsea try to destroy what I hold dear. I will always fight for marriage as MARRIAGE. I will continue to fight against the slaughtering of millions of unborn children who cannot defend themselves. My God expects nothing less from me.

    DD

    ReplyDelete
  139. Bethany,

    Although I differ from you on many points, I have to say, that this: "Simply because men don't carry and bear children in an equal capacity as women does not mean that it is UNfair or that it is our "right" to equalize it." is very well stated.

    While it is true, that women the world over and for much of history have suffered injustice, the ability to bear children is a gift and not an injustice.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Zach,
    For the record, I also think it is entirely worth doing to entertain a viewpoint that is opposite from one's own. I do this often. It is one of the reasons why I do think we have to be concerned about population growth on some level.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Leila,

    For the record, since so far it's looking like you are not getting any straight answers as to the difference between this abortion clinic and others (the goal IS to kill the baby in ALL abortion clinics, right? So this man was just doing his job, and got a little carried away maybe? Maybe he started to like death so much he wanted to see the whole thing by delivering the baby first and THEN killing him/her. Some of his comments during the abortions suggest that this is the case.)

    I sent this to a pro-choicer I was discussing politics with the other day, and asked her to answer your question. She sent back that it was propaganda from the pro-lifers and she didn't believe a word of it. She added, "If it is true, it is VERY rare!" So I sent her an article from ABC (she NEEDED it to be MSM in order to believe it, she said anything conservative she would not believe because conservatives lie...) and she answered that THIS man is a monster and should be hanged, but so should Bill O'Reilly for inciting the death of George Tiller (an abortion hero?) What is the difference between the 2 men? George Tiller has surely come across babies born alive and had to take necessary action. Planned Parenthood admitted in a video that sometimes babies are born alive. When this happens, they are killed. Jill Stanek worked at a hospital and when the baby was born alive they would put him/her in a room to die alone.

    I just don't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Thanks, Mary. :)

    It amazes me how many people see that as an injustice.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Manda,

    How infuriating!! On SO many levels! "Conservatives lie." Well...liberals kill babies, so...

    As far as this being rare, this Gosnell issue is close to me because he worked in Delaware also. But just a couple of months before Gosnell was found out, an abortionist in the town I live in in Maryland (I work for DE Right to Life, but live in MD) was found to have 35 dead babies in his freezer. He's currently in court. And because he had already lost his license in MD, he was flying in some med-school flunkie "doctor" from Utah to do his dirty work. In fact, if women came to his office in NJ too late to perform abortions, he would caravan them down to MD so that this "Dr." Riley could do their late-term abortions. They were only found out after they sent a woman to the local hospital (they didn't call an ambulance...the "doctor" took the girl to the ER in her SUV. Sick.)

    I'm also good friends with one of the local Silent No More reps. We've had her speak at many events for us. Before she converted to pro-life, she worked at a hospital, assisting in abortions. You mentioned Jill Stanek. Well this woman has seen babies born alive after abortions, dumped in a bucket, and left to die. In her testimony, she tells how she could hear the baby moving in the bucket for minutes until he just stopped. Sorry to be so graphic, but it's the reality. At 36 weeks pregnant, it's hard for me to even type that, but it INFURIATES me when pro-aborts say that stories like this are lies. I mean, they're killing babies. Do you think they have the conscience enough to do it "morally?" Talk about an oxymoron.

    Sorry for the rant, but that comment got me riled up!!!

    ReplyDelete
  144. Oops, I meant to include a link about the MD abortionist:

    http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/warren-county/index.ssf?/base/news-3/128365955711870.xml&coll=3

    ReplyDelete
  145. Chelsea has given me permission to re-post the comment she removed, directed at Raremem:


    Raremem

    I HAVE changed my views actually. I am less pro-choice now.

    I will let the insanity comment slide, just assuming you are having a bad day or something, and feel the need to attack someone. But how do you think that by calling me insane, I would be more open to "your reality"?



    Posted by Chelsea T to Little Catholic Bubble at November 1, 2011 3:57 PM

    ReplyDelete
  146. Per overpopulation, think in terms of minds not mouths:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204777904576651391038917246.html

    Great discussion everyone. I would add that marriage is not simply or only a religious institution, as all societies recognize it and always have. But "two grooms" or "two wives" -- um, not marriage. That pairing cannot be the foundation of any society for obvious reasons. It's natural law. I will be running a guest post next week by someone who discusses the issue of marriage much better than I can.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Zach, could you address my points at 8:44pm on Oct. 30? Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  148. It really gets me when pro-choicers say we're the ones that lie. If they truly understood our position, especially as Catholic Christians, they would know that we see lying as a sin, and therefore strive to avoid lying as much as possible. We are not out to deceive anyone as we do not have a profit motive as PP does. Why would we lie? What is our motive? We're mean people who want to force pregnancy on women? No! We just believe in taking responsibility for what happens in life. And we want all souls (including the unborn) to have a chance at life. We are not out to get anyone, if anything we just want to help both the mother and the child.

    PP is all about propaganda. They do not want women to know the ugly truth about abortion, otherwise women would think twice and then PP would start losing all the money they get from abortions and that's their biggest fear. Thus, they hide the truth and deceive women. Just as Hitler did, they twist words and brainwash women with the whole "Women's choice" argument. They even go as far to call pregnancy a disease. It truly is a 21st century Holocaust as that "180" movie so powerfully depicted.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Is the Gosnell case so rare? Nicole makes great points, and so does Stacy, today on her blog:

    http://www.acceptingabundance.com/2011/11/we-need-to-wake-up-gentle-abortions-no.html

    "Gentle abortions"… full anesthesia, from small to even "larger pregnancies".

    Zach, I know you have a conscience. I know this sickens you. You still have that spark of understanding of the heinousness and injustice of the violence of abortion. What do you think of Stacy's post? Of this one?

    ReplyDelete
  150. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  151. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  152. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  153. MaiZeke,

    I can give you many reasons why divorce is bad. I can also give you many reasons why abortion is bad. You won't go there. You won't give any reasons why abortion is bad. That is what I'm asking. Why is it bad? I presume that if I ask you why divorce is bad, you will have reasons. But for some reason, you get silent when I ask you to name the reasons that abortion is bad. I am pressing you on it.

    As far as "clarity". Who cares if I am not "clear" about why you believe something? You have the forum here to state your case to many people, most especially the lurkers. They are from all walks of life. You make your case as clearly and eloquently as possible, and I will make mine. Then, the reader sorts it out and comes to a conclusion. I will press you for clarity, you press me for clarity. If you think I won't accept your answers as logical, or if I want you to go further, that is because they are not clear to me. They still are incomplete and make no sense to me. Or, maybe (as in the case of Peter Singer) they are based on faulty premises, but yet they do make sense and then I accept it. (Peter Singer admits that any line drawn during a pregnancy, such as "viability" is simply arbitrary… that makes sense to me. I hate where he takes it and where he started from, but that part makes perfect sense).

    more in a sec...

    ReplyDelete
  154. I can't agree more with Zach/Maizeke's points here.

    I actually made the effort to go to Mass in an effort to understand better the worldview so often presented here on this blog. Which one of you will go with me to PP and interview providers/patients? Which one of you is willing to participate in an atheist dominated pagan viking fest?

    Instead of lying, I'd say a lot of pro-lifers/conservatives are not very forthcoming. For example, Nicole posted all about the glories and benefits of genetically modified foods....however, it took some comments to get her to admit her father accepts campaign donations from Monsanto..and yet that has no bearing on her opinion of Monsanto even if her father has been a Monsanto farmer for years?? Please. Just own it.
    The article linked in this post? I'm not even going to bother. It's at "Lifesite news" which is not exactly the place to go for a piece of news that even attempts to consider pro-choice politics as also presenting a logical, pro-woman, point of view.

    I don't want to get further into this discussion. It's like banging my head against a wall and wandering around hopelessly in circles.

    Thanks to Maizeke and Zach,
    Gwen

    ReplyDelete
  155. But JoAnna - how is this different? I mean, we PERCEIVE that when you say our ideas are insane you also mean our person, we become offended.

    However, I've said repeatedly that your perception is not accurate. When I say your ideas are insane, it does not mean that YOU are insane. The question becomes, then, why do you stubbornly continue to cling to a belief that you know to be false? Or, you could simply ask for clarification - i.e., "When you say that my belief is horrible/insane, do you mean that I am a horrible person?" At which time I'd reply, "No, of course not. I don't think you're a horrible/insane person at all."

    Similarly, you PERCEIVE that my statement that I am an atheist means that you (and Aquinas et al) are stupid, and become offended.

    No, I expressed how I feel when atheists IN GENERAL (note: not you specifically) disparage Christian belief. I also ASKED you if that was what you thought, and you keep giving me the runaround.

    As for your Michael Nugent article, his "About me" page says the following: "I’m Michael Nugent, a writer from Dublin, Ireland, and chair of the advocacy group Atheist Ireland." Sorry, but why do you hold the chair of the advocacy group Athiest Ireland up as a expert Catholic theologian on the doctrine of mental reservation? Your own link to the Catholic Encyclopedia shows that applying that doctrine in this specific instance is sinful. If that is indeed what the Catholic officials did or intended to do, they've committed a grave sin.

    However, there is no proof. It's just guess/assumption of an atheist based on second-hand information that he somehow allegedly heard from a priest that allegedly was told this by the diocese. Again, no proof whatsoever.

    I have to admit I am bewildered when atheists (not you in particular, I'm speaking in generalities) insist on such a high standard of proof for the existence of God, yet are willing to condemn Christians of any crime on the books based on hearsay and circumstantial evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  156. P.S. And Nicole, in all sincerity, I wish you a healthy, quick delivery soon as you welcome baby #2

    -gwen

    ReplyDelete
  157. So, my point is that with Peter Singer, I totally hate what he believes, and I think it's evil, evil, evil, but it makes perfect sense. He is being logical.

    I actually think Michelle is logical when she says that a born baby is not as fully human as a 10-year-old. Even though she is wrong on the truth of it, she is consistent. A zygote is not as human as a fetus, which is not as human as a born baby, which is not as human as a 10-year-old, which (I hope she would say, for consistency) is not as human as a young adult, etc. (Note that she considers herself "fully human" of course.)

    So, I can see things that "make sense" and are "clear" and I accept it. What I would press her on is the premise and the science of it, which I still do not understand. (No one will touch the question about "personhood" being a metaphysical concept, not scientific.)

    more in a sec...

    ReplyDelete
  158. Miss Gwen -

    Which one of you will go with me to PP and interview providers/patients?

    I'll go.

    Which one of you is willing to participate in an atheist dominated pagan viking fest?

    I go to the Renaissance Festival every year (in costume!). Does that count? :) At any rate, I'd go to this as an observer. Wouldn't mean I'd necessarily stay for the whole thing, but I'd be willing to go.

    The article linked in this post? I'm not even going to bother. It's at "Lifesite news" which is not exactly the place to go for a piece of news that even attempts to consider pro-choice politics as also presenting a logical, pro-woman, point of view.

    Hmmm. Well, let's look at two examples here. MaiZeke linked to an article by atheist writer Michael Nugent. I went to the link, read it, and then posted my reasons for not believing the content therein -- even though I could guess from the get-go that Michael Nugent's blog "is not exactly the place to go for a piece of news that even attempts to consider pro-Catholic politics as also presenting a logical, pro-child point of view" (to borrow your phrase).

    Leila links to an article from LifeSite. Rather than going to it, reading it, and pointing out the reasons you think the information contained therein is not accurate, you simply refuse to read it on the basis of the fact that it's not going to glorify abortion or praise women who obtain abortions.

    Who is refusing to entertain a different perspective, again?

    ReplyDelete
  159. Gwen, would you go into an active death camp, say Auschwitz, and interview the "providers"? I can barely walk by an abortion clinic for the evil that goes on there. Would you help them as they reconstruct the baby's body parts, counting to make sure that the torso, the head, and all four limbs are accounted for? Then would you assist in throwing the body in a medical waste container (assuming it isn't stuck in the freezer with the lunches for a few months)?

    See, I can't do that. I wrote that post, about the avenging conscience, and no one responded. And no one has yet addressed the main points of this post.

    Would I go to a worship service of another religion? Sure, for cultural reasons. Would I go to a "Viking fest"? Sure, why not?

    As for lying. MaiZeke, you need to understand your terms. If Abby Johnson (and the other lady, Jewels Green, with her story) was lying when she said this:

    It took a few weeks before I got the alarm code to our clinic. I guess it takes that long for them to trust you. I remember getting the code and feeling shocked. The code was 2229. That seems innocent…until they told me what it spelled out…BABY. Really. Wow. We were really joking about that…our alarm code was mocking the murder of children.
    A few weeks later I was introduced to our freezer in the POC (products of conception) lab. This was the freezer that held the fetal tissue until the biohazard truck came for disposal. I found out the name for that freezer…the nursery. Again, that was a joke. How had that become a joke?

    A few days later I learned the password to our phone system…2229…BABY.

    A couple years later I remember walking in on my supervisor making jokes with the abortionist and another employee in that same POC lab. They were joking about how the fetal tissue floating in this dish looked like bar-b-que. Did I hear that right? Did they really just say that? Then one of them said, “I actually think this part looks like strawberry jam.” I turned around and walked out without saying a word. I felt sick to my stomach. How did that conversation begin? How could they say that? Was it enough to make me leave? No. I was one of them now. I am drenched in the evil of this place.


    If she was lying (making it up) that is called a LIE. It is not a "mental reservation". It is an outright false statement, making up events that never happened. We are talking about lying. We can talk about "mental reservation" all day long, but that guy you linked to doesn't have that concept quite right, either. I think I copied something about that from my Moral Theology book a while back, and I'll look for it so I don't have to type it all again. But "mental reservation" is quite different than fabricating facts and telling untruths about others. Those are called lies.

    ReplyDelete
  160. JoAnna, I'm picking and choosing my battles right now. In the past, I might have read the article and refuted certain points, but I've been down that road before here.

    Pack your bags. The viking fest is in February and there will be plenty of pagan oriented activities.

    -gwen

    ReplyDelete
  161. Miss G, talk about not representing someone properly. First, I'd hardly say that I wrote about "glories" of GMO's. I just tried to present the other side of the issue that people in my blog circle weren't getting from a few other bloggers. And to note that most of the anti-GMO hype was unfounded and politically-motivated.

    I also never said that my father takes campaign donations from Monsanto. I said he takes donations from many various sources...I in fact don't even know if he does or not!! What I said is that he grows Monsanto seeds, which he wouldn't do if he thought they were dangerous (and it's something I never denied!! It was even in the original post!). Then yes, got offended when another commenter stated that he "works for Monsanto" simply because he grows their seeds! HAHAHA! That's like saying I'm an employee of my grocery store!

    But I digress. Are you referring to MY link that I posted?? Because it was from Lehigh Valley Live, not LifeSiteNews. I actually searched for a link from the MSM because I knew no one would open a link from a pro-life source (those liars!! :) If you're not referring to my link, I apologize.

    But thank you for the well-wishes. I sincerely appreciate it!

    ReplyDelete
  162. This "provider" offered me a tour of his own little house of horrors. I declined. If any readers haven't seen my correspondence with abortionist Brian Finkel, start here. I don't think I have shied away from dialogue with abortionists:

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-real-life-correspondence-with.html

    ReplyDelete
  163. The Viking fest sounds pretty hilarious. I want to go!

    ReplyDelete
  164. The article linked in this post? I'm not even going to bother. It's at "Lifesite news" which is not exactly the place to go for a piece of news that even attempts to consider pro-choice politics as also presenting a logical, pro-woman, point of view.

    Seriously? This is a court case. It's on the record in a secular court. My goodness, I read the New York Times and don't dispute when they actually report facts! Facts are facts, and it's on the record. I will dig up a secular source if you'd like, but really? sheesh….

    ReplyDelete
  165. You going to pay my way, Miss Gwen? Can I bring my husband and 4 kids, too? :)

    Actually, funnily enough, I may be visiting Albuquerque in March... my stepsister and I are talking about meeting up there (she lives in Kansas, and Albuquerque is the halfway point between my city and hers). She & her husband adopted a baby boy last April and I'm dying to meet my new nephew (and it'll give her a chance to meet my new baby as well).

    ReplyDelete
  166. My unwillingness to read the article stems more from lack of time to hang around and debate the errors/dispute the underlying ideology.

    Thanks,
    Gwen

    ReplyDelete
  167. JoAnna, you are brave, and I admire your willingness to go to the abortuary and talk to the "provider". I don't have the guts for it. I am weak that way. You are a warrior and brave.

    To think that going into an abortion clinic, where babies are dismembered daily and tossed in the trash, is equated to attending a Catholic mass is a bit weird to me, Miss Gwen.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Sure JoAnna, as soon as I win the lottery ; )

    Your kids would probably have a hoot since there are usually a bevy of kids running around the campfire.

    -gwen

    ReplyDelete
  169. Miss Gwen, the article is extremely short. Like, really, really short.
    It took you more time to comment once or twice than it would have taken to read the link.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Scandinavian food and drink - I'm there!

    ReplyDelete
  171. To think that going into an abortion clinic, where babies are dismembered daily and tossed in the trash, is equated to attending a Catholic mass is a bit weird to me, Miss Gwen

    Certainly not apples to apples.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Mmmm, Scandinavian food. You know, I'd probably go just so I could rout out some homemade lefse. I can't eat the storebought stuff; my mother makes it herself and now I'm utterly spoiled.

    Or, I'd go just so I could find a Taco John's and get some Potato Oles. It's terrible to have a pregnancy craving for a specific food when the nearest location with that offering is hundreds of miles away!

    ReplyDelete
  173. Underlying ideology? Well, I just want to know if you think there is a moral difference (forget legal) between killing a baby a moment after birth as opposed to a moment before. Same baby. Same death.

    Tiller a hero for doing it cleanly, Gosnell a devil for doing it more sloppily. But both have dead babies as the outcome.

    And, does this strike you as ironic:

    ...an abortion worker has been found guilty of murder for killing a baby…

    It's a straight up question, not really ideological.

    ReplyDelete
  174. I'll go too, Gwen. And here: http://abcnews.go.com/US/alleged-victim-calls-philadelphia-abortion-doctor-kermit-gosnell/story?id=12731387

    NOW will you read the article? Please remember he is being charged with murder. Didn't he just do his job?

    ReplyDelete
  175. Pro-lifers have been going into clinics and interviewing employees for some time now. You may have seen their work.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Okay, here:

    "Upon entering the building, investigators were hit by the stench of cat urine and the sight of drugged and moaning women lying on blood-stained blankets. Flea-ridden cats defecated freely on the bloodied floors."

    I have yet to see a scene so horrific at a PP or an approved, legal medical facility providing abortions.

    I'm not denying what the first responders at the Gosnell clinic saw, I'm simply refuting the idea that his clinic is the standard for all abortion facilities or PP.

    -gwen

    ReplyDelete
  177. ABC News, good source for Gwen and it has many more details.

    As for it being an anomaly, I guess Nicole has addressed some of that. I have heard of many, many atrocities over my 16 years in the pro-life movement.

    But Gwen, aside from the sanitation, what is the difference between the House of Horrors and what Tiller did, for example? Address my points in the post, if you would be so kind. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  178. Is there a difference between two priests who give sermons weekly to their congregation and then one of them molests his altar boys afterwards? I sure hope so.

    There's a huge difference between Gosnell and Tiller.

    -gwen

    ReplyDelete
  179. Gwen, Gosnell's clinic WAS an approved, legal medical facility providing abortions.

    The grand jury report severely chastised the state health department for failing to regulate it. Here's an article from Slate.com detailing the health department's deficiencies.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Well, Tiller actually cared about his women patients and wanted them to live and not have physical complications. Apparently Gosnell could care less if his patient lived or died, much less incurred physical injury during the procedure.

    -gwen

    ReplyDelete
  181. One look at the clock and I realize I've already spent too much time on here. I'm sorry, but work must get done today.

    Thanks,
    Gwen

    ReplyDelete
  182. So you would say that what Tiller did (how he killed the babies) was good and how Gosnell killed the babies was bad. But it's in the timing, not the fact that babies were being killed?

    Because in the Gosnell clinic, the spines were being snapped and necks wrung to kill the child, but in the Tiller clinic (presumably) the babies were killed while still in the womb (although equally violently). So there is a moral difference, in your eyes, between a killing one moment before, while still in the womb, and a killing one moment after, while outside the birth canal?

    I just want to make sure that the horror you see is not in the killing of that child. Because if the child could be killed a moment earlier, in the womb, then what is so horrific about the child's spine being snapped after it's been born? Or maybe you don't see that part as horrific?

    I guess I want to hear straight up: Is the fact that those babies died by having their spines snapped and their necks wrung, horrific? Is that horrific and evil to you?

    I'm truly curious and sincerely asking.

    ReplyDelete
  183. Is there a difference between two priests who give sermons weekly to their congregation and then one of them molests his altar boys afterwards?

    Bad analogy. With both Tiller and Gosnell, the outcome was the same: dead babies.

    The only way your analogy would be any way comparable would be if the result was abused altar boys in both cases, but somehow one priest was doing it legally and the other was not.

    ReplyDelete
  184. He's being charged with murdering babies!!! WAIIIITTTTT! COME BACK!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  185. Bye, Gwen.

    Not one word about the babies who had their spines snapped. They are ignored.

    I want Gwen to say she has feelings and cares about those children. I don't ever hear it. Zach, do you?

    ReplyDelete
  186. The only way your analogy would be any way comparable would be if the result was abused altar boys in both cases, but somehow one priest was doing it legally and the other was not.

    Excellent point.

    ReplyDelete
  187. Is there a difference between two priests who give sermons weekly to their congregation and then one of them molests his altar boys afterwards?

    Not analogous to your point.

    ReplyDelete
  188. Well, Tiller actually cared about his women patients and wanted them to live and not have physical complications.

    Yeah, tell that to the families of Christin Gilbert and Sarah Brown, among others.

    ReplyDelete
  189. JoAnna, that is so sad. And that second link references the Arizona girl who was sent illegally by our state to get a late term Tiller abortion. I remember it like it was yesterday. Even our bishop at the time had a letter read at all the masses, offering any type of assistance the girl and the baby needed, no matter what. And still the state sent her to have the abortion. It was horrible.

    ReplyDelete
  190. Leila,
    "I want Gwen to say she has feelings and cares about those children. I don't ever hear it. Zach, do you?"

    I thought we were supposed to leave feelings out of the debate. Afterall, that's what we're told to do every time someone pipes up in favor of gay marriage around here.

    As for your suggestion that I interview an S.S. officer at Auschwitz: first I need a time machine and secondly, I'd have to seriously lie since my name is a clear indicator of my Jewish heritage. As for comparing Tiller and Gosnell to S.S. officers, I find that comparison completely ridiculous.

    People-ladies, I have papers to grade. I have an assignment to create and readings to post. I'm sorry but I've contributed enough to this little 'discussion'

    -gwen

    ReplyDelete
  191. Certainly you aren't trying to dodge the questions, Gwen. You will be back to answer, right?

    The "feelings" part is just for me. I want to know if you have any feelings for the dead babies who were murdered by having their spines snapped in half. Do you care for them? We are about truth as Catholics but truth is rooted in love. The reason for truth is love. Love is not inconsequential to us. It's who we worship. Do you care for those children? Does what happened to them shock your conscience? You never mention it, or even say that it disturbs you.

    If you want to get away from feelings about truth, then let's just go to truth alone: Is there an objective, moral difference between the babies who died at the hand of Gosnell and the babies who died at the hand of Tiller?

    My husband and children are Jewish and would go to the chambers if this were Nazi Germany. I think the dehumanization of segments of the population at any time and place is evil. Don't you?

    ReplyDelete
  192. As for comparing Tiller and Gosnell to S.S. officers, I find that comparison completely ridiculous.

    Good comparison actually. A death chamber is a death chamber.

    ReplyDelete
  193. Nubby, good point. Gwen (and my husband and children) are endangered by going into a Nazi death camp in the same way that an unborn child is endangered by going into an abortion clinic. Both declared less than human, both pretty much marked for an ugly, brutal death.

    Seriously, Gwen, just show me your heart. I have said before that liberalism is cold. Prove to me it's not cold, Gwen? You do care a teensy bit about those murdered children? Don't you? Does your heart weep for them at all? In your quiet moments? You are a woman, there is a maternal instinct there, no?

    Do you care for the weakest, most vulnerable among us? Even a tad?

    ReplyDelete
  194. I would go with JoAnna and interview abortion provider and patients, but I don't know how long I could stand to stay. I think I would throw up if I saw dead baby parts. I certainly wouldn't want to witness an actual abortion.

    Leila and other pro-life commentators: I think you are planting seeds of pro-life thoughts in the pro-choicers. Maybe in time those seeds will grow to see abortion is wrong and work to save mothers and babies.

    ReplyDelete
  195. I'm at work so I'll have to comment intermittently from my I phone.

    In response to your first comment Leila I've got to say.. What's love got to do with it. We are talking about laws aren't we. Not what it's nice to do or sweet to do but what we should do under penalty of law. I don't believe in legislating love do you.

    I know behany thinks I'm daft because I made a distinction between removing the fetus and killing it. outright. I understand the baby will die in both cases I was never arguing otherwise. I was saying at most law could keep us from killing an unborn baby thT is what you are saying you are asking for. But it is an entirely different and rediculous thing to imply that the baby can live inside it's mother without her permission. Youve made ample arguments why a woman cannot kill and very little argument on why she mist do everything in her power to keep it alive

    ReplyDelete
  196. But it is an entirely different and rediculous thing to imply that the baby can live inside it's mother without her permission.

    The mother gives this permission, implicitly, when she freely engages in the act meant to cause conception (i.e., sex).

    ReplyDelete
  197. I find it odd when you and others bring Up the fact that most women engaged in consensual sex when they gt pregnant. Don't you think how the baby is conceived is irrelevant? You oppose abortion in all cases even rape because you don't think a babies right to occupy the womb stems from consent.

    If you believe this you need to be consistent and stop inferring that a woman implicitly consented to pregnancy when you don't believe Implicit consent is nessesary

    ReplyDelete

PLEASE, when commenting, do not hit "reply" (which is the thread option). Instead, please put your comment at the bottom of the others.

To ensure that you don't miss any comments, click the "subscribe by email" link, above. If you do not subscribe and a post exceeds 200 comments, you must hit "load more" to get to the rest. We often have meaty and long discussions -- trust me, they're worth following!