Tuesday, January 22, 2013

O.M.G.

** UPDATE: Apparently, even the makers of the video realized its awfulness 
and have since removed it. **



I am speechless.

Unfortunately, this is not a spoof, not a parody.

Totally, utterly depraved.

55 million battered, bloodied, shredded, dismembered innocents, sacrificed on the altar of "free love" and "sexual rights", and in commemoration we get this:





I can't bring myself to do commentary, so go here if you'd like some.

I'm going to go throw up now.





.

101 comments:

  1. I could NOT finish watching it after I saw the words. The man said that they have tried to tear them apart. Yep. They HAVE TORN PEOPLE APART.

    ICK, ICK, ICK. A red siren is going off in my head. Where and how do you find these videos?

    Creepy, creepy, creepy.

    I have to go look at something pretty and life affirming now. Bye.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lena, I know. It's setting off reactions on facebook just like this. And the "tearing us apart" line struck me, too.

    Yes, red sirens should be going off. And this is how they think and believe! Flippant, joking, sexual innuendo, all so much fun... and meanwhile we step over a pile of 55 million dead corpses while they celebrate this ghoulish anniversary.

    This creepy, vile video is from the Center for Reproductive Rights, a VERY well-respected abortion advocacy group. People like Meryl Streep, Kevin Bacon and other celebs shrill for them. It's so important that everyday Americans actually see this stuff. People just don't know. We really have to show them.

    And, if you had watched the video to the end, it's even creepier.

    To think that our president, the leader of our nation, applauds this organization and its work. Shudder. Lord, have mercy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This made me feel dirty. Yuck. He sounded like a pimp.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I feel like I need to take a shower after watching that. God have mercy on them all...

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am disgusted and heartbroken that America has come to this. That OUR nation has THAT many people who feel this way.

    DD

    ReplyDelete
  6. I find it offensive that he is African American. That community should be outraged by it, as an admission that they have been the industry's core business for 40 years and are needed to keep them going for another 40. I pray that God raises up a true leader for the African American people, one who will lead them away from being the lapdogs of a party that couldn't care less about them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sharon, you took the words out of my mouth. The fact that he is a black man made me embarrassed for my community. Despicable, and stupid are the first ones that come to mind when I think about this actor's decision to make this commercial.

      Delete
  7. Why does he keep saying BABY??? Obviously that choice of term of endearment was intentional. Let me euphamistically refer to PP as my "baby", aterm we used to use to mean a cherished one, someone to love, but which we now rip to shreds. Hahaha! Not.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Eww ewwwww ICK!!!!! UGHhhh!!! I want to cry and throw up and scream right now. Every single bit of this was contrived to be completely disgusting from the "tear us apart" to the incessant use of "BABY" The NERVE. When all PP ever does is try to make people FORGET about the baby..So many prayers are needed for our country where so many buy into this nonsense or even those who find humor in this. Ugh.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I watched this last night and had to stop. It was disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Where are his horns and tail? Seriously, it seems to me like he is playing the part of the Devil, celebrating the marriage of America and Hell. Is this really supposed to encourage pro-aborts?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I am in shock. I seriously can't close my jaw. As I was watching I kept thinking- "This must be a joke or something." (Albeit a bad one.) But- this is serious? I can't believe that anyone would be okay w/ this. How disturbing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I said it last night, I'll say it again, I feel like I watched Satan himself on my screen. Lord, have mercy on us.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Let's see: Putrid, check. Stupid, check. Mocking, check. Yep, it's evil in action. Nothing shocking.

    I'm not shocked by things like this.
    I merely see the likes of something like this and just puzzle over the fact that in such an "advanced" and "enlightened age" as ours, our nation is getting morally worse, not better. Where's the advancement? Where's the improvement in human behavior? If we're smarter, better, more improved, more educated, the where is all the progress?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I watched that last night. It was horrible. It is Satan laughing at us. That is what it felt like. Horrible. Just horrible.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You know what is amazing about this putrid video? It's the perfect foil to the image of Christ, the pure and glorious Bridegroom, who lays down His life for His Bride.

    What we see on the screen above is a seduction by a deceptive, abusive cad -- a liar and a user.

    Christ is the ultimate Lover and Bridegroom, He courts us tenderly and gives us the fullness of love and life (in abundance!), He protects and cherishes us eternally, never using us, raising us up to the height of our own human dignity.

    This other seducer (his name is ancient) charms us with lies, pulls us in, and instead of offering love and life, he offers us death. We think he loves us, but after he uses us, he is more than happy to, well, pay for the abortion.

    It's also fitting that in this video he is all dressed up, looking slick, sophisticated, wealthy and polished, but if you take a closer look, he's got on old, worn out shoes. Quite discordant.

    It's a video about the seductive lure of the Culture of Death. They played it well, I will say that, but not in the way they intended.

    Sharon, could not agree more about the use of an African-American man. Abortionists' biggest targets are black babies. And Nubby, your questions are perfect. But it's shocking that the left would say that this sort of thing is progress and moral evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I am about to throw up. Totally looks like Satan..especially with the fire in the back and all his grunting...so gross.

    ReplyDelete
  17. All I have to say is... EW. Why all the grunting? fajdfro;wieanfjsd! That's how I feel about that. BLAH!

    ReplyDelete
  18. That was pure evil. I feel the need to go to the adoration chapel after that. Horrible.

    ReplyDelete
  19. You know what it reminds me of? With it's smirky, jokey tone, the talk of "baby"?

    It reminds me of the avenging conscience, former abortion workers recalling the macabre jokes about dead babies when they worked in abortion clinics, etc.:

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

    I tell you, I often think that this post (the one I just linked, about the avenging conscience) is the one of the most interesting/important posts on this blog, and the one I was most interested in discussing with pro-"choice" folks. It's so disturbing, and makes perfect sense. But if I recall, no one on the abortion side really stepped up to talk about it (except I think one lady, who just dismissed it by calling the former abortion workers "liars"?). Anyway, this "Happy Anniversary, Baby" video (so macabre even in its title) fits the same mold. The avenging conscience.

    ReplyDelete
  20. That was utterly disgusting! I agree that it is like Satan laughing at us all...such evil!!! The pro life movement creates videos that are the complete opposite of this trash...ones of adoption, family, and love...Have you seen this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktbnqpiHr94

    My favorite! :)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Grace in My Heart, what a beautiful video! Sort of cleanses the palate after the slime of the original post.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I am shocked by this. How could anyone actually produce such a thing and think it was persuading people?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mary, it's a well-respected, celebrity endorsed, mainstream abortion rights group. Why would any decent person want to be part of this horrid, lowlife movement? I don't get it. The only thing that explains it is the avenging conscience.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This is so (pardon me) EFFING repulsive, I don't even get it. Seriously?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hi Leila,

    "Why would any decent person want to be part of this horrid, lowlife movement? "

    I understand y u don't like the video or anything really that would celebrate the Anniversary of Roe v Wade, but why do you think this video would make someone want to completely abandon the cause?

    CS

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hold on, whoa, WHAT?!?!?!?! Women feel empowered by this organization? A horny man grunting and cooing about wanting to get it on in celebration of the fact that she can have an abortion if a baby results from it? Shouldn't he at least offer to pay for her to undergo the procedure - you know, to really make it clear how much he respects her?? Or no - wait - maybe that's anti woman, to suggest she'd need a man to pay. I don't know. Thank the Lord, I am far too out out of touch with what may constitute a "pro-woman" stance to anyone who finds this ad anything other than repulsive and degrading to women.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I agree with those who state that it's like the devil laughing...I bet the evil one is happy. We have to keep praying for mothers to not abandon the precious souls that are growing within them! We have to keep praying for life!!! Lord Help US!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  28. This is shameful. May God have mercy on us. I pray for the men and women who are duped by this kind of evil, that their eyes may be opened to the cancer they promote.

    May we be Godly witnesses to the truth, and welcome them to the fold if their hearts are softened.

    ReplyDelete
  29. CS, I will answer you question, but first, you didn't say what you think of the video? You didn't comment on it… good, bad, interesting, clever, funny, repulsive beyond words?

    Tell me what you think of this video and I will fully answer your question, I promise!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Yes, this is disgusting..... Things like this make me hope that God is real!

    This is why I think it is so important to push Morality, even without specific religion. Disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Leila

    I am interested in your answer to CS as well. and I think the video is disgusting and sexist as well

    One might ask the question why would people want to be part of the "pro-life " movement when people in it murder doctors and blow up clinics where womwn have important medical care--as well as maim workers? (few clinics only do abortions). or why do people want to be part of a religion (Catholicism) whose leaders have perpetrated so much sexual abuse against children?

    The video is gross and i will write some letters. but it has nothing to do with my being committed to being pro choice.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I found the ad mildly amusing.
    However the USA has to offer abortion without limitations because not everyone in society believes that a zygote, embryo and foetus is a person. You can't impose your view on other people the only person whose business it is the person whose pregnant. If they for whatever reason wish to end the pregnancy they have to be able do this as quickly and safely as possible. No one is asking that you have an abortion or that you perform the abortion.
    So why people who do not hold your view have to follow them, have to carry a pregnancy they do not wish to carry.
    This is my life I am currently on medication that means I can never ever fall pregnant and if I do I must have an abortion because I can't stop taking the meds instantly and a foetus can not develop because of these meds. When I decide to have children it's going to be a very complicated planned out medical deal and involve me having to live when a malfunctioning nervous system without meds controlling it.
    I mean this in the most respectful way but I am genuinely curious.
    Offred.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Johanne, but you are missing something. This video was thought out, written, produced, paid for and promoted by a mainstream abortion advocacy group in America. One which celebrities such as Meryl Streep are aligned with and have worked with. This video is a reflection of the group and how it thinks, and the values it wants to project.

    If any mainstream, respected pro-life advocacy group endorsed clinic bombings and murder, or if the Catholic Church held up child molestations as good and moral (as opposed to mortal sin deserving of hell), then you would have a point.

    Do you see?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Copezio, what did you find mildly amusing about the video?

    Also, just because someone does not believe the fetus is a human being doesn't make it so, correct? Why don't we go with science on the question, which clearly holds that a new human life is begun at conception. Then we apply the principle: We do not kill innocent human beings.

    (Check my newest blog post to see that many pro-abortion advocates agree that human life begins at conception; it's just biology.)

    As for your situation. I know many women who should not become pregnant for serious medical reasons. They either use Natural Family Planning in a very strict application, or they do not engage in the act that is designed to make babies. If one simply cannot have babies, one can avoid conception in the first place. As far as medications and their effects, that depends on the medicine. Many babies have survived chemo and other medicines that were thought to have been harmful to them. If a child should die in utero because of a medication, that is a morally different scenario than the active killing of a child. That would fall under the principle of double effect.

    But let's admit that these "hard cases" do not make up the bulk of the 55 million dead humans that has come about since Roe v. Wade. That's a lot of death, and we are better than that. We can welcome every human being in life and protect them in law. As Obama said (though he didn't realize what he was saying!), we will be judged by how we treat and protect our children.

    Love is bigger than death.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Johanne, anyone who believes that murder is justifiable for any reason is, by definition, not pro-life. A person who commits deliberate murder while claiming to be pro-life is like a person who eats beef while claiming to be vegan.

    Pro-choice advocates have a much larger umbrella. All you have to do is be supportive of the "choice" to murder innocent children in some regard and you're pro-choice. So the guy in the video? Yes, he represents your movement. The Center for Reproductive Choice isn't some whacko fringe pro-abortion group; they're a respected mainstream organization that affiliates with Planned Parenthood (take a look at all the former Planned Parenthood staffers on their Board of Directors).

    Copezio - However the USA has to offer abortion without limitations because not everyone in society believes that a zygote, embryo and foetus is a person

    Are you arguing that the United States was wrong to make slavery illegal? Because not everyone in 1835 believed that black people were persons.

    Are you arguing that the Holocaust was justified? Not everyone in 1935 Germany believed that Jews were persons.

    ReplyDelete
  36. @Leila
    I see your distinction. But let me ask you this: If a mainstream "pro-life" organization--let's say operation rescue--published a video advocating for clinic bombings, would that have any effect on your "pro-life" position? If someone asked you why you would want to be associated with such a low-life movement would you say to yourself that you must have been wrong all along and then change your position to pro-choice? My guess is no. My guess is that whatever other people or organizations say, pro-life or not, has nothing to do with your personal position.

    @JoAnne

    anyone who believes that murder is justifiable for any reason is, by definition, not pro-life.

    The only people who fit that description are pacifists. So..since Catholics believe in capital punishment, self-defense, and "just wars," I guess that places them firmly in the pro-choice camp. And all the folks on this blog who lament the idea of making semi-automatic weapons illegal (as their only purpose if to kill a lot of people at once) must be firmly pro-choice as well.

    OR are you saying that the circumstances surrounding a murder can justify it, or are you saying that the killing of certain classes of people does not constitute murder? OR that the intention of the person doing the killing determines whether or not it is murder?

    Hmmmmm...what position might such premises lead to?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Johanne, you are right that even if all the pro-life organizations betrayed their mission and did a 180 and started promoting killings, I would be horrified. But then they would cease to be the pro-life movement, as JoAnna said.

    My problem is that in your analogy, you are proposing the morphing an organization that doesn't want to see killings into one that suddenly does want to see killings.

    But in my question to you about the abortion movement, the killing itself is the point of the movement (they want legalized killing of human beings), so even these sleazy, horrid, depraved videos are less awful than the point of the movement itself, which is killing. The sleaziness just exposes that there is a natural underbelly and consequence to the wholesale killings of innocents, and it is started to be boldly reflected in the mainstream of the movement. By contrast, that would not be the evolution or natural outcome of an organization which promotes respect and protection for human life, and a turn to virtue (which the pro-life movement does). So, I am having a hard time with the analogy.

    What could be worse than the willful killing of innocents? Certainly not this video. But the video belies the ugliness of killing movement. Watch the ugliness get bolder and stronger, because an movement based on killing innocents has nowhere else to go.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I look forward to JoAnn's answer to you, but yes, there is a big distinction between willful murder and killing in self-defense, for example. Not all killing is murder.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Johanne, murder is the unjust killing of a human being. Legitimate capital punishment (e.g., where the criminal has received due process of law prior to his/her execution), legitimate self-defense, and just wars are three examples where killing may be necessary to protect people and/or society. Even then, the killing must be a last resort and must come after much moral scrutiny to make sure it can't be avoided (with the exception of immediate self-defense, but even then killing should be a last resort, if other methods to protect one's family have failed or aren't practical for the situation).

    Pro-life does not mean anti-killing. Pro-life is anti-MURDER.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I cannot handle all my typos, ugh! Forgive me.

    Anyway, Johanne, I have always thought highly of you. We disagree greatly, but you are a class act. So, I know you are horrified by the video above, and probably by the videos promoted by another mainstream and beloved abortion group, Planned Parenthood. One of them is a flippant appeal to young girls to embrace the term "slut" and be proud of their promiscuity, another is a video for young people promoting the fun and adventure of sadomasochism, not to mention all the other depraved things that PP and the abortion movement does (cookies in the shape of vagina's on college campus malls where young co-eds in pink screamed out to passsers-by (including my daughter) "You can lick these pu**ies!!!!", and so many other disgusting things that we have shown and discussed on this blog (not including the undercover sting videos in myriad cities, which was not meant for the public to know).

    There is no denying that the frequency of these disgusting things is on the rise, and the goal is to normalize and mainstream this crap. Things that all decent folks used to reject.

    I guess I want to know why you think these depraved things are so prevalent and ever-increasing in the pro-"choice" movement's mainstream?

    My theory is that it's a natural, expected evolution of the idea that unfettered, recreational sex trumps human life itself. Such a movement, such a premise, cannot help moving more and more into darkness.

    Again, the avenging conscience at work.

    Do you think the abortion movement has any hope of righting itself and walking out of the mire?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh my gosh!! Apostrophe abuse, orphan parenthesis, forgive me!! I really MUST slow down and proof-read!!

      JoAnna, please stage an intervention for me, my grammar friend.

      Delete
  41. Leila
    Yes, I was particularly disgusted by the SM video, and you are right that such things are more common in the pro choice movement (though I wouldn't even know this if I didn't read your blog because I don't track the movement). I haven't been involved in the "movement" for a very very long time. But the change in focus that I see really disturbs me a lot. From defending womens' right to have control over the own lives and well-being, to the defense of all kinds of weird sexuality; and, ironically, a lot of sexism. The mission of Planned Parenthood is very different from when I worked there decades ago (when they didn't even do abortions). I don't personally believe that unfettered recreational sex is good for women--certainly not for teens. And that doesn't collide with my pro choice position--because women can become pregnant from any kind of sex. Sorry this is very disjointed but mostly I agree with you that these videos are gross, that they are associated with the pro choice movement, and they are on the rise. But that doesn't affect my pro choice position. And I don't know how the movement can walk out of the mire. It's something i have to ponder.

    I think the idea that not all killing is murder is an important premise that we agree on. Because I don't believe abortion is murder, even though it kills something that is alive because I believe it is necessary to protect people AND society--though I know you don't agree with those things. I think you would agree that a lot of innocent people can be killed in a "just" war, even though you believe it may be justified. So innocence itself does not mean that killing is murder in your world view (at least that's how it looks to me). I don't mean to start an argument. But I think pro lifers actually have more in common with pro choice ideology than they cop to.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Johanne, just briefly: The direct targeting and killing of children, even in a just war, would be murder. If it's intentional and it's direct, it's murder. Just like abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  43. You're right, Johanne, there is a lot we can agree on. For example: " "...defending womens' right to have control over the own lives and well-being." I think this is an excellent thing to defend! However, once a baby is conceived, there are TWO lives in the equation, not just one, and both must be considered.

    Yes, sometimes innocents are killed during a just war, and that is sad. It's also why war should be an absolute last resort. But there's a difference between deliberately targeting innocents (which is always immoral, just war or no), and innocents being unintentionally killed due to poor intelligence or enemy fire or whatnot. (Stunningly, the left seems to have no problems with Obama deliberately murdering innocent civilians with drones.)

    I don't understand how it is ever necessary to deliberately (i.e., directly) murder an innocent human being in order to protect a person or society. Can you elaborate on that?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Johanne, what do you think of the most recent post? Isn't she essentially stating that the strong may kill the weak?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Johanne, this can be broken down into set principles.

    1) We do not directly, willfully kill innocent human beings, as this is murder.

    2) It is morally licit to defend one's own life or others' lives against an aggressor (assuming he is using deadly force; our defense must be proportionate). This includes recourse to the death penalty if it's absolutely required to protect the citizenry. This category of killing is what we know as self-defense.*

    3) In a just war, it is morally licit to kill armed combatants. This is not murder, but falls under the right of a nation to defend itself against an aggressor nation.

    *An unborn child can never be considered an aggressor.

    My question to you: What is the principle you use to defend abortion?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Johanne, you said:

    Yes, I was particularly disgusted by the SM video, and you are right that such things are more common in the pro choice movement (though I wouldn't even know this if I didn't read your blog because I don't track the movement).

    Yes, you've identified a huge problem in the nation! So many people have no idea what these movements stand for. We are living in an age of the low-information voter, low-information citizens. I have a relative who is liberal, pro-"choice", and we never discuss religion or politics. Until recently, when I told her some of the things PP does, such as the slut video, the vile cookies, the sexualization of teens and younger -- and she was horrified. She had no idea and she's been identifying as a liberal her whole life. Honestly, it's a real problem. Her comment to me… "I guess I'm not as liberal as I thought!" Bingo! Most aren't, if they only knew what liberalism has become.

    Most people do not want what the smut-peddlers are selling. But it's becoming soooo mainstream, and it positively permeates higher education. You've heard about Yale's Sex Week activities? From a bright young author who recently graduated from Yale (warning, offensive):

    There is clearly a radical sexual agenda at work at Yale today. Professors and administrators who came of age during the sexual revolution are busily indoctrinating students into a culture of promiscuity. In fact, Yale pioneered the hosting of a campus “Sex Week”—a festival of sleaze, porn, and debauchery, dressed up as sex education. I encountered this tawdry tradition as an undergrad, and my book documents the events of Sex Week, including the screening in classrooms of hard-core pornography and the giving of permission to sex toy manufacturers and porn production companies to market their products to students.

    In one classroom, a porn star stripped down to bare breasts, attached pinching and binding devices to herself as a lesson in sadomasochism, and led a student around the room in handcuffs. On other occasions, female students competed in a porn star look-alike contest judged by a male porn producer, and a porn film showing a woman bound and beaten was screened in the context of “instruction” on how students might engage in relationships of their own.

    And again, these things happened with the full knowledge and approval of Yale’s senior administrators.


    Replicated at "enlightened", "progressive" schools like Harvard, Brown, Duke, Northwestern, the University of Illinois, and the University of Wisconsin. And I'm sure many more… that's the trend. See, it's "progress".

    I do appreciate that you will ponder where this movement toward depravity springs from. I would like your response after you have thought it through. We Catholics would say it's the inevitable consequence of artificially separating the procreative and unitive aspects of sex, as if the two have nothing to do with one another. It's predictable.

    Oh, the rest of the article from the Yale alum is here, and it's disturbing:

    http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2013&month=01

    ReplyDelete
  47. That video and many like it are satanic. Hell laughing. And was that really a Bible on the table next to him?
    Something inside me curled in horror. It was almost as if it's no longer just about the vileness of abortion, for the enemy of our souls thinks he can win such fights. But satan makes the most noise when his time is coming to an end, I just think about the crucifixion. But what is truly horrifying is how the world - from an Australian perspective - heralds America as leading the way. That is scary.
    However God's kingdom is already on earth, and the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. We will die in Her defence, but gain so much more.
    Lord help us. God help the makers of that video when they stand before their own Maker.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Back again.
    Lelia to answer you're question/statement a potential life is created at conception.
    However why does this "life" get demand things that a born human being couldn't.
    For example a born human being can't demand to unilaterally seize control of someone else's body, they can't demand kidneys, lungs, if I'm dying and the person who stab me could save me via a kidney transplant I can't force them t give it to me, so why does a clump of cells get to demand this?
    Why are they ranked higher than the living breathing human with a uterus.
    The right to life you give to the cells does not extend to the breathing human why not?
    People with uteruses (both male and female) have the right to control their body, being forced to carry a pregnancy you don't want is nearing the handmaid tales realm which is scary.
    JoAnna to answer your points no the USA was not wrong to remove slavery because it involved human beings being treated in an inhuman way.
    The same with the Hollucast they were slaughtered for simply being Jewish or a minority that Hitler deemed wrong, which was wrong because they were human beings. However I don't like to use Hollucast analogies because you can very stray into Godwin's law territory.
    I hope this makes sense I'm typing on an iPad and its hard to go back and make changes.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Copezio,

    First of all, with the exception of rape, a woman can only get pregnant if she consents to do the act that is biologically designed to make a new human being. Pregnancy is not a disease that you randomly catch. An embryo isn't just floating around in the air thinking, "Hmmmm, I think I'll just go attach myself to that woman so that her body can nourish me."

    Secondly, in 99% of cases pregnancy does not in any way endanger the health of the mother. It's not like one must live and one must die. Both the mother and the baby have a right to life. Most abortions are done for "convenience", because of the hardships taking care of the baby might cause, not because the baby would kill her.

    Third, it is not just a "clump of cells". From the moment of conception it is a new being with it's own unique set of DNA. By the time it is deemed a fetus, it has the basic form of every single organ. Those organs will continue to grow and develop for the next 30 weeks inside the mother and the next 20 years outside the mother until they reach maturity. If a embryo/fetus is a "clump of cells" than so are you.

    What it boils down to is that it is either a human life or it is not? Science tells us that an unborn baby is a human life. To intentionally murder an innocent human for ANY reason is wrong. This includes the child in the womb, the handicapped, the elderly...everyone has the right to be alive from conception until natural death.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Copezio:

    Actually science says that the unborn are human lives (begun at conception) not "potential lives". Can you show me any reputable science that bolsters your side?

    Here are the medical and embryology textbooks that bolster mine (scroll down the page when you get to the link). It's simple biology:

    http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/

    Actually human rights are not "different" for the unborn or the born: We have the right to remain alive and not be willfully killed. The basic right of every human being is the right to life. We don't have to do anything special or be anything special to have the right to stay alive and not be murdered.

    Let me ask you: What moral obligation does a mother have to her child?

    You mention people with uteruses, both "male and female". Could you elaborate? I think I may have an idea of what you are getting at, but I want you to clarify what a "man with a uterus" is.

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  51. But in order not be wilfully killed they are able to do something that born humans aren't demand the use of a body. Something that other human beings don't get to demand like I said I get stabbed someone I can't demand anything from mp them to save my life.
    I say person rather than specify a gender/sex because I don't buy into the gender binary stuff, gender is for each person to decide for themselves about themselves, some people also decide to be completely gender free. Which I find I awesome, i identify with a gender I just hate all confines society puts on my gender about how I should act and how I should live my life. Do not get me started on pink and princess for girls and blue and violent imagery for boys ick ick ick. I deal with everyday as a kindergarten teacher.
    A completely random but how do you know the Catholic Church is the truth why don't you believe all pathways lead to god? I have been pondering this ever since hearing that my cousin who happens to be a Catholic Priest is dying, you all seem so sure, where does this surety come from?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Copezio - how exactly does an unborn child "demand the use of a body"? Does a newborn demand the use of my breasts to nurse?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Copezio, the unborn child doesn't "demand" anything. He or she is right where she is supposed to be. Justice is giving one what is due them. The unborn child is due a passive gestation (no action necessary… I've gestated eight, so I know). Morally, a child is due the love and protection of her parents.

    By the way, to demand, as a verb, means "to ask authoritatively or brusquely." An embryo or fetus can do no such thing.

    You didn't answer me as to the science of "potential life"?

    An honest question here: If a male can decide to be a female, even though science is definitive that he is a male, then are you saying gender is all in the mind? And if gender is, why not species? If a man believes, truly, that he is a bird, is he then a bird? I'm not being snarky, I truly want to know how gender is determined (if not by DNA and science, aside from that first glance down when a baby is born), and if it's all in the mind, irrespective of science and DNA, then what of species? Is that in the mind, too?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Yes a baby does demand the use for food however you are feed a baby formula and the baby will thrive its not entirely dependant upon a person anyone can feed a baby a bottle. According to the WHO there is no nutritional difference between breast and bottle feeding,
    The same can not said for pregnancy it can only grow in that uterus you can't move it to another uterus, it demands space and nutrients from the host, why should the person have to give it space if it doesn't wish too. No one else can make these demands. People should have the right to control their reproductive systems and there bodies.

    ReplyDelete
  55. As to the surety of the Truth of Catholicism, it goes back to Jesus. If He is who He says He is (God), then Catholicism is True. If He is not God, and if He did not literally rise from the dead, then He is a liar (a very bad man) or a lunatic.

    So, it goes back to the Resurrection. If it happened, then Christianity is the most important thing in the world. If it didn't, then Christianity can be completely dismissed.

    I wrote a bit about the evidence for the Resurrection here:

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/05/did-jesus-really-die-and-rise.html

    But I highly recommend C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity or Kreeft and Tacelli's Handbook of Christian Apologetics

    A claim of history like the Resurrection, which has stood the test of over 2,000 years, deserves a very serious investigation.

    Blessings!

    ReplyDelete
  56. Copezio, I am afraid you still did not answer my questions.

    How can a passive baby in the womb demand anything? She has no voice. She is dependent on her mama. What is the moral obligation of a mother to her child?

    Since you brought up the analogy of a born baby, let's try this scenario. A little newborn baby has been left on the doorstep of a woman who is living in isolation in a remote arctic region. She sees that the woman who dropped the baby off has died nearby. The woman is the only person who can care for this baby and keep him alive. What is her obligation to that little human being on her doorstep? Is she culpable if she leaves him out in the cold to die, even though it is within her capacity to bring him in, feed him, and care for him until someone else can come (after the thaw) to take him?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I should clarify: "The woman who answered the door is the only person who can care for this baby and keep him alive."

      Delete
  57. "People should have the right to control their reproductive systems and there bodies."

    But what if science says that there is another body now, a human being, within the mother's uterus? That is a whole different question, as it's not her body that is about to be killed, but another human being's.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I refer to them as potential lives because they haven't begun living they are currently inhabiting a womb but they are not living. There isn't science to back it up but I still believe that "life" shouldn't be granted a special privilege to unilaterally seize control of another persons body when no other living person is able to do that.
    I differentiate gender and sex, gender is self identifying and sex is typically related to chromosomes it used to be related to genitals however they are finding that chromosomes and genitals don't always match. Which is what happened to a family friend who was doing science at college and they always did a fun blood chromosome test his chromosome was that of a female not of a male. Gender is entirely in the mind you decide your gender or not to have a gender as the case may be. There are also intersex people who are born with ambiguous genitals and so they decided how they wish to live their life. If a person wishes to live like a bird then they can but I do not think it is the same thing, as someone identifying as female.
    Species are not in the mind however their gender might be,

    ReplyDelete
  59. Sorry my ipad is delaying your responses Leila so I'm not not answering just getting after I post anything. Not very helpful.
    But why does Jesus resurrection make the Catholic Church the true church why isn't all Christianity the truth and valid.

    ReplyDelete
  60. The person would have an obligation to care for the baby until someone else can or forever if they choose. because a) the baby is born therefore it has human rights and b) the person at the door does have a choices about the baby, it's not nine months of forcible pregnancy.

    ReplyDelete
  61. As Leila has said, with the exception of rape, it's not forcible pregnancy since the woman consciously decided to engage in a sexual act that naturally results with pregnancy. Where's the disconnect? Sex leads to procreation.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Again I say even though it is another body it's still making demands on another human being that no another human being can't make. I can't demand you give me your nervous system so that I could have even a minute where my body so much pain I throw up because I moved a finger which is something that happens daily, just getting up and moving to my kitchen is a daily battle, and I haven't kept well in years. I though if you would ever like to swap to nervous systems for a few moments that would be swell :P.
    Sorry for being snarky bad pain day.
    But I can't ask anyone to give me any part of there nervous system, any organ or blood without there permission however a foetus can.

    ReplyDelete
  63. There isn't science to back it up

    You have no idea how refreshing it is to hear this admission, that there is no scientific basis for a fetus to be called "potential human being". The term is subjective, even political, and not grounded in any objective truth. It's your opinion that some human beings are less than other human beings. But on what authority do you place degrees on the humanity of others? Isn't that dangerous, to claim degrees of humanity (and your humanity, conveniently, is always greater than the humanity of those you deem "less than" and worthy of death)?

    I still believe that "life" shouldn't be granted a special privilege to unilaterally seize control of another persons body when no other living person is able to do that.

    I understand that this is your personal belief, but your personal, non-authoritative belief should not dictate whether other human beings have the right to stay alive or are to be killed. By the way, the baby in the womb did not "unilaterally seize control" of anything. She was placed there by two adults who chose to engage in the biological act that is meant to create children just like her. She's exactly where they put her, when they made her. That is hardly unilateral, nor a seizure.

    I'm still a bit unclear about the "gender" stuff. If a human head is found in the woods, decomposed past recognition, and the coroner is trying to make an ID, he could tell via DNA if it was a male or female, correct? So science would say, "That head belonged to a man." But you are saying that if the man felt in his head (no pun intended) that he was a woman, then he was really a woman, in fact? Or, his sex is male, but his gender is female? And if it's entirely in his head that he was female (when scientifically he was male), then he should legally be known and treated as a female in your mind, right? Even though science and biology says he's a male? (Well, treated in that way before he was dead! You get my point! ha ha!)

    If it's "entirely in the head", one cannot test for it, correct, and we just take it on the person's word? So, then why is it not valid if a person (entirely in his head) thinks he's a different species (against scientific evidence)? I don't get why you allow one and not the other? What is the underlying principle there?

    ReplyDelete
  64. But why does Jesus resurrection make the Catholic Church the true church why isn't all Christianity the truth and valid.

    Because Christ explicitly founded a hierarchical Church, a visible Church, with Peter delegated as its earthly head. The pope today is a direct successor of Peter. Where Peter is, there is the Church. The entire history of the Church, including the Scriptures and the early Fathers, attest to that.

    ReplyDelete
  65. But you have no right to my nervous system. However, the fetus has a right to his mother's care. What is a uterus for, in your opinion?

    Why is birth the demarkation for human rights? And how does the woman at the door have a choice? Won't she be culpable if she leaves the baby in the snow to die?

    ReplyDelete
  66. By the way, I am truly very sorry for your pain. I have a sister who lives with chronic pain, and I know how horrible it can be. I am terribly sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  67. The corner that found the head was identifying the sex of the person not their gender. I believe that a person should be treated and recognised as the gender they believe they are I live in the USA but also in New Zealand in NZ you are allowed to put your gender as female, male or X you are allowed to be gender less. Which is great why must we be confined by the gender binary nonsense and all the baggage that goes along with it.
    If a person truly believed they were a bird and dolphin then they can live there live in a way that fulfils this belief, if they are not harming anyone what's the harm? Although I still think they are completely differently things.
    Until they find out someway to transplant a zygote into another person, the person who is currently pregnant gets body autonomy and gets make decisions about their own body and life. Because people with uteruses are more than passive walking uteri. They are human beings too they have the right to life as well.

    ReplyDelete
  68. the person who is currently pregnant gets body autonomy and gets make decisions about their own body and life.

    But there are two bodies, not one. And, each body is a human being, according to science. So, the stronger human being gets to kill the weaker one? On who's say-so? On the fact that the strong can oppress the weak? I'm not clear on the principle there. Again, remember that science says there are two human beings there, not just one.

    On the sex/gender thing: So a person can be male and female at the same time, but whatever he/she is in the head trumps what science says he/she is in the body. And why is this okay?

    Do you think biology is 'baggage'? What are your views on science? Also, may I ask what your religious beliefs are, so that I can get a sense of where you are coming from? Are you an atheist?

    If a person believes he is a bird, should we legally declare him a bird? (We can use a different word, just as we split up "sex" and "gender" now, we can say "species" and "mecies" or something? But "mecies would trump species, legally, correct? Because what is in the head (our sense or our feelings) trumps the scientific reality of a thing?

    If a man who thinks he's a bird is declared a bird legally someday (because it's his "mecies" and he feels he was born into the wrong species), could we treat him like a bird is treated? And in fact, must we?

    This may sound silly, but I really want to know.

    ReplyDelete
  69. They are human beings too they have the right to life as well.

    They have the right to life as well as what?

    (And, an unborn child is not an aggressor hellbent on taking the life of his mother, so I'm not sure anyone is threatening to kill the mom?)

    ReplyDelete
  70. The uterus is there for pregnancy if the person chooses that path in their life, it has the potential but it doesn't mean it has to be used in that way.
    I've chronic pain all my life, but there are times when it gets in my nerves shall we say.
    I have read a fair bit of CS Lewis but not the one you said, perhaps I will track it down.
    But how is the Pope the successor of Peter? If the Pope is the successor of Peter does he talk to God? How do you know this church Christ established was the Catholic church and if it was why aren't all Christians Catholic surely all christians would want to be with the real church? (Not being glib or anything genuinely curious)
    A foetus can't expect anything it has no right to expect anything.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I am agnostic I want to believe in God and Heaven and that my beloved grandmother is up there somewhere watching over me telling me off for eating in the street that a big no no in her book being able to see what I have done since she died, however there's a louder voice in my brain that says that's completely insane thinking and that once your dead there's no heaven its entirely a social construct to force to conform to rules made up men to control other people's lives and to give help people work through there fear of death because death isn't scary if there's some where to go after this that you still after death. I have gone to many churches, temples and halls. I have read the bible, even tried praying a few times, I have participated in many Hindu festivals due to having a sister (not biological) whose a Hindu, am about to read a book about a Hindu leader and his journey from Judaism to Hinduism. None of them can answer my questions.

    ReplyDelete
  72. But see, you are acting like the unborn human being is an interloper or an aggressor, when she is exactly where she was placed, and she is in the very vessel that exists to house her, protected and nurtured by her own mother. How can you make her the villain, when she is the weak one, in need of protection? Again, are the strong allowed to kill the weak? What is the principle there?

    A newborn baby cannot expect anything, either. Does she have a right to live? Or do the strong have a right to kill the weak who cannot form expectations yet?

    ReplyDelete
  73. As for Catholicism and Christianity, I really do urge you to get Lewis' Mere Christianity. It is a true classic, and written by a former atheist (a true intellectual). Again, it all boils down to Jesus Christ and who he was/is. Investigate that. Did you read this post that I published recently, from my friend who went through all the religions looking for truth? It's an interesting read (she was a pro-choice feminist, too):

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2013/01/from-radical-feminist-to-devout-catholic.html

    As for Peter: The successors of Peter are known, by name, since his day (just like a list of presidents, for example). It is known history, a known line. The Pope does not talk to God in the sense that you are thinking, nor is he sinless. The Pope is simply the earthly head of Christ's Church, sort of Christ's vicar if you will, the touchstone of unity for Christians. The Holy Spirit protects the Church's teaching body (i.e., the Pope and the body of Bishops, who are the Apostles successors) from teaching error on issues of Faith and morals. That is why such teachings are the same now as they have been since the founding of the Church.

    I think you would find this post interesting and explanatory, as well as the links at the bottom:

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2012/06/pope-fact-infallible-does-not-mean.html

    As for Protestants, they did not exist until 1,500 years into Christianity (a mere 500 years ago), when a rebellious priest, Martin Luther, started his own church, based on two heresies (heresies have been around since the beginning of the Church, but Luther had the benefit of a printing press and ripe political conditions for his heresies to be widely disseminated). Protestants generally don't believe in a visible Church. Luther and other Reformers rejected the authority of the Pope and Bishops and declared that they could find their own truth in the Bible, by personally interpreting it… something unheard of in Christianity, as the Bible belongs within the Church and is not intended to be personally interpreted by individual believers. That is why there are today tens of thousands of Protestant denominations all teaching different (and contradictory) things. This is what happens when people leave the Church (founded on Peter) and the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit. It's very sad, this break in Church unity. However, the Catholic Church (Catholic simply means "universal") marches on, still proclaiming the same Faith, still sanctifying with the same Sacraments as always.

    Why don't Protestants want to be in the real Church? Well, they don't think a "church" (visible, with a hierarchical leadership appointed by Christ) exists corporally. Their paradigm, for the 500 years of their existence and separation from the Church, is totally different than the Catholic paradigm of 2,000 years. But it's always wonderful when Protestant Christians discover the historical, true Church, and come back to the fullness of the Faith.

    And, your grandmother certainly lives on. :) Not myth, but truth. The human soul is immortal. Death is not the end (and that is not said merely for comfort, because the reality of hell is still very much an option for those who choose it by their actions and dark hearts).

    I would try one prayer, and ask it sincerely: "Jesus, I want to know if you are True. Please reveal yourself to me." It might not be an instantaneous answer, but persevere.

    And read the Gospels (the first four books of the New Testament), but always say a prayer for understanding first. Peace be with you! There is nothing more exciting than someone who is seeking!

    (Also, stick around this blog and keep asking questions. What can it hurt?)

    ReplyDelete
  74. So then how old is the world do you believe that it is millions and millions years old or a few thousands years old which many Christians in New Zealand believe denying the scientific evidence that says its older, also what's the view on dinosaurs again Christians believe that we all lived together happily and that they wouldn't have been trying to eat us rather we were friends which again I don't even see as slightly plausible.
    Also if you don't believe in God does that mean you automatically go to hell? The Christians who are not Catholics do they go to hell? Why doesn't God just pop in and say all be Catholics?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Copezio, Catholics are not "creationists" like many Protestant evangelicals, because although the story in Genesis tells us truths about our first parents, Adam and Eve, it is not a science book about how the world began. It's a story of salvation history. So, Catholics may believe in a six-day creation if they would like, but I don't know any who do. Science tells us a lot about how old the world is, and I believe it to be millions of years old. Even the very earliest Christian writers and Fathers do not have us believe in a strict creationism. Here is a short piece to explain more on that:

    http://www.catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis

    No, it does not mean that one automatically goes to hell if one does not believe in God, but it certainly is not a spiritually advantageous thing to be an atheist! Hell is certainly a great risk. However, again, we are not like certain sets of Protestants who say that anyone who does not strictly know and believe in Jesus is going straight to hell. That is NOT the Catholic position. I apologize for more links, but I wrote it all out, simply, in this post:

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/12/can-non-catholics-be-saved.html

    ReplyDelete
  76. Why doesn't God just pop in and say all be Catholics?

    Well, Jesus (God) did "pop in" to history, about 2,000 years ago, and stayed with us for 33 years. And he founded the Church.

    But if you are asking why he doesn't command us or coerce us or compel us to choose his way? It's because God is a Lover, not a rapist. He gave us a great gift of free will, and the dignity to choose love, choose God, or not. If we didn't have free will, we could not love (love is a choice, and one must be free to make that choice, or else we are robots, slaves -- God didn't want to enslave us, He loves us).

    You are asking all the right questions, Copezio! I hate to give you another link, but if you want to start from the beginning, start here, and there are the basic answers you might be seeking:

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/05/what-i-never-learned-part-i.html

    And, at some point, look up at the tabs above, and click "Little Teachings". It might be interesting for you to read through some of those topics someday, as they catch your eye.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Copezio,

    A few things, science tells us that a fetus is a human being, just like a baby, a teenager, a middle-aged adult, and a senior citizen. They are just different stages of the life cycle.

    Second, while it is true that any one can meet a baby's most basic physical needs, study after study of orphanages shows that meeting a baby's physical needs is not enough. In order to thrive, a baby must thoroughly bond with small number of care-givers (1-3) through constant interaction. Otherwise the baby may have all sorts of developmental problems (physical, mental, and emotional). This is why so many countries switched from orphanages to foster care systems. A born baby is WAY more demanding than an unborn baby. However, I don't think you believe that it is permissible to kill a born baby.

    Third, science tells us that gender is usually congruent with the genitalia one is born with and discrepancies are usually a result of hormonal variation, often an imbalance of estrogen, testosterone, and/or cortisol during various development stages in the womb and during key times in child development. It is not just nurture, but very much nature. There are vast differences in the neurological development of males and females in general.

    But, let's turn the tables a bit. When do you think human life begins? The term fetus refers to the developmental stage in utero from 10 weeks gestation until birth at approximately 40 weeks. So, when does it turn from a potential human into an actual human? Only when it passes through the birth canal or is removed from the abdomen? In which case is it ok to kill a fetus at any moment before that point?

    For instance, what if I get pregnant and decide while I am in labor at 40 weeks that I really don't want a child after all? If I ask the doctor to kill the fetus an hour before I am fully dilated and the baby begins to push through the birth canal, then do you think that is perfectly moral and acceptable?

    Now the child is just as fully formed the hour before birth as the hour after birth (actually it's just as fully formed weeks before but just puts on extra weight the last few weeks). Do you really believe that while in the womb it is just a "potential human" but by some magic, an hour later it turns into an actual human?

    ReplyDelete
  78. Copezio,

    The purpose of an abortion is to ensure the death of the fetus not to "terminate a pregnancy". A pregnancy can be ended without causing the death of the child. I think the latest child was 20 weeks. So a woman who did not realize that she was pregnant till she was 22 weeks, could terminate her pregnancy and the child could live. A failed abortion is a fetus that has survived and has been expulsed from the womb. Which is what lead to the born-alive infant act. Why did pro choicers fight against the born-alive infant act if it only about the right of controlling one's body? The child is out of the woman's body.

    Abortions are done because a woman doesn't want to have a child, not because she has problem with a fetus using and affecting her body. It is a temporary state and the body is functioning as it was meant to do.

    This argument of bodily autonomy hides the reasons why there is a debate in the first place. It has nothing to do with a woman having bodily autonomy as it is simply an argument to be able to kill the fetus. This argument makes it OK for a woman to kill her child after giving birth if the umbilical has not been cut. Which has happened.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Johanne, I hope you are still following this discussion. The lame (at best) video featured in Leila's post does not affect your pro-choice position. You question whether violent pro-lifers - they are living oxymorons - would cause us to turn away from the pro-life movement. I've been thinking about your comment, wondering if people in the future will judge those who killed abortionists as harshly as they will judge the abortionists themselves, and I have to say, I doubt it. Let me show you why.

    The video does not make you think of leaving behind your pro-choice views, but I wonder if the words of a post-abortive woman might have an affect on you. This is from Leila's Quick Takes post, which she put up yesterday. The woman who is writing is waiting in a room for an abortionist to come and and perform an abortion on her (more accurately, on her child). She lifts the sheet off of the vacuum aspirator that the abortionist will be using. Her description follows. Warning - it is graphic. You do seem to have a tender heart, so it will be hard to read. But it is the reality that you support:

    The glass container was half full and splattered with blood. Even the tube that fed into the container was crusted with blood. What I saw inside the collection container defies belief, little baby parts swimming in a bloody muck. All those graphic photos you’ve ever seen of tiny dismembered arms and legs are accurate. Only this wasn’t just one set of tiny arms and legs… this was more than I could count. This wasn’t just one baby that was aborted and some careless worker forget to remove from the room. This looked like all the babies that had been aborted that day. All together in one glass container, swimming in a gruesome soup of blood and bits. They hadn’t even bothered to clean the equipment between patients and I suddenly realized they had every intention of using the same filthy equipment on me.

    I would be very interested in your comments.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Hi Sharon.
    I read that post and have read many many stories like it, as I have spent a great deal of time on pro-life blogs attempting to understand what leads people to have that position. But I have stories of my own, and have heard many others that make it impossible for me to think that abortion should never be an option. There are greater evils than abortion; I know that personally. I suppose where I agree with the pro-life movement is that in an ideal world there would be no abortion because there would be no unwanted pregnancies (understanding, of course, that just because a pregnancy isn't planned doesn't mean it isn't wanted.) I don't expect you to understand. Best to you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it is the reality that you support

      And there are horrific realities that the pro-life position supports as well (at least will not confront), and in my opinion, uniformly sweeps under the rug and rationalizes. Neither position is an easy one and both sides don't acknowledge of the pain of the other. I don't want to deny the pain of grieving postabortive women and others scarred by abortion, because it's important for us to know the possible consequences of our viewpoints. I experience prolifers as being totally unwilling to look at the pain their movement causes and sometimes it's too difficult for me to dialog about it.

      I have a lot of sympathy with the Catholic position that intercourse should only be used for procreative intent, or at least where a pregnancy would not be felt as a tragedy. But I don't agree at all, that no other sexual activity should be allowed. (I guess that's another topic, though.)

      Delete
    2. Also, the video is worse than lame. It's really gross.

      Delete
  81. There are greater evils than abortion

    What is a greater evil than the deliberate murder of an innocent child at behest of his/her mother?

    I'm honestly asking, because I can't think of one.

    ReplyDelete
  82. I have a lot of sympathy with the Catholic position that intercourse should only be used for procreative intent,

    That's not the Catholic position. All the Church requires is that each instance of the marital act is open to new life being created (that is, that couple does not perform an action before, during, or after intercourse to prevent pregnancy).

    The Church does not teach that couples must intend to procreate with each instance of the marital act.

    ReplyDelete
  83. I thought that Leila said that every sexual encounter has to end with intercourse--that it's not allowed to engage in other forms of sexual intimacy without having intercourse. Am I mistaken?

    Maybe I should have said that all sexual activity has to have the possibility of procreation.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Yes, every sexual encounter must end with intercourse, but that isn't the same thing as couples intending to procreate with each sexual act.

    "Possibility" is a better term, but it can imply that couples are required to have sex during the fertile period of the woman's cycle.

    I would just say that each act has to be open to the possibility of new life, however remote that possibility may be. But couples don't have to have any specific intention other than to be open to God's will for their lives.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Johanne, maybe you have been more specific in other discussions on Leila's blog but I have to ask, could you explain what you mean by "prolifers as being totally unwilling to look at the pain their movement causes". I know you indicated that it can be too painful to talk about but if someone says a movement I am part of is causing pain, it would certainly be helpful to know how it is causing pain.

    ReplyDelete
  86. What is a greater evil than the deliberate murder of an innocent child at behest of his/her mother?

    I'm honestly asking, because I can't think of one.


    JoAnna took the words right out of my mouth. I know it's sensitive for you Johanne, with your history of abortion after rape. But abortion does not undo the rape. It can never undo the rape. The only thing it does is take an innocent life. How can you be absolutely sure that letting your child live (and either raising him/her or placing him/her for adoption) would have been worse than abortion? For the child, we know it could not have been worse. Help me understand.

    And we must keep in mind that the 55 million children put to death under Roe v. Wade were overwhelmingly not the product of a rape. That is a high price to pay, and a lot of blood and death, to make sure all folks feel comfortable at all times. It has had the opposite effect, actually. Abortion has brutalized countless women. I know so many women, personally, who still cannot even speak of it publicly. And I remember one young woman (whom I have wanted to post on, but don't have the fortitude yet), who was so broken… during our chance meeting, and subsequent phone calls, years ago. I have never gotten over how traumatized this woman was. Anorexia, suicidal ideations. The clinic lied to her on every level (I even referred her to an attorney). It haunts me to this day. Her name was Gina, if you all could pray for her. It was before I had internet, she moved away to get away from the memories, and I lost touch with her. I think about her and I don't know if she is okay.

    ReplyDelete
  87. But I don't agree at all, that no other sexual activity should be allowed. (I guess that's another topic, though.)

    I think, Johanne, you are saying that you think that morally certain things like mutual masturbation or orgasm without intercourse should be allowed. You are right that we disagree, as that sort of puts us back on the "sex is for gratification" not unification… and not procreative even in its "orderedness". That leads us away from a proper reverence (and sacredness) of the act which creates new life. I know people do not like that the standard for the Church is the very highest and most noble, but in fact, that is what Truth is: It's the highest good, and it's for our own good, and the good of the babies who will or won't be created. To deviate from that norm or standard does not lead to the flourishing of human society. We will always, as a human race, fall short of the ideal, but we don't jettison the ideal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...and not procreative even in its "orderedness" That was awkward wording!!! I should have said, "...and not ordered toward its natural end, procreation".

      Delete
  88. @Sharon
    If you're still around:
    I'm not up to discussing this more on this public forum. Perhaps at another time. Undoubtedly the subject will keep coming up.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Absolutely, Johanne. You are in my prayers.

    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!