Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Any pro-"choice" secularist want to defend this lady?

Wow! And we Catholics are "anti-science"? I cannot stop laughing…. Anyone want to defend Ms. Harris-Perry (the same lady who ironically said that children don't belong to their parents, and who thankfully has removed the tampon earrings from her ears for this segment)?






The crazy part, of course, is that it's the pro-"choice" crowd that wants laws to be made based on feelings, not the pro-life side -- since our side sticks with science! How on earth can she be missing that? Sorry, but I am laughing at this!! It's insanity!


107 comments:

  1. Feelings, oh, oh, oh, feelings,

    Nothing more than...

    So are you going to do another song post?

    ReplyDelete
  2. LOL, I should!! I am still laughing… I cannot believe this. Is she for real? Does she hear herself? She just won a Maggie award from Planned Parenthood, named after the racist, eugenicist, Margaret Sanger ("no gods, no masters", and apparently no brains!).

    ReplyDelete
  3. As a woman with a daughter named Maggie (also Margaret, though after my holy grandmother who is in a nursing home with alzheimers and whom some would deem a "useless eater") I'm offended at their use of the name "Maggie" and demand an apology. After all, that's how I feel. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Her line of argument reminds me of the tactics the left uses when arguing for gay "marriage" too - how dare I be so cruel as to suggest we base our laws on something besides a person's whims?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm willing to bet that many pro-choicers are shaking their heads at this and thinking, "Please shut up, lady, you're NOT HELPING..."

    ReplyDelete
  6. I wonder if this video even makes sense to the average (or perhaps slightly below-average) pro-abortion-choice person? Is that perhaps this gal's audience? It is funny, but ... I guess I find it sad too.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's like, the first thing the pro-abortion media folks do on ANY story that could possibly be viewed as pro-Life, is to find an angle from which they can present it so that abortion will seem like an "equal" option... ?

    ReplyDelete
  8. She lost me at: "It's easy to think of that 'bump' as a baby"....if it's not a baby, then every pregnant woman should be pretty worried right now...

    ReplyDelete
  9. And oh my gosh, she just totally contradicts herself. She "submits" that when life begins is based on feelings, "not science" and then she defines the "problem" as when people base laws on the feelings! HUH??????!!!!!!!!!!

    Does this woman have an editor or a producer????!!! Do people check her script before she speaks on air?

    (Oh yeah, I forgot, her producer is the one who gave her the tampon earrings.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1. It's been quite some time since the Catholic Church has been anti-science.

    2. Churches, and people in general, often have beliefs as to reproduction and sexuality which they consider to be immutable laws of nature but are actually based on nothing more than their feelings.

    3. That said, Ms. Harris-Perry, who is right about most things, is on increasingly thin ice when she says when life begins depends on the parents' feelings. Pregnant women sometimes "know" things about their child, particularly if it's unwanted, things that often turn out not to be true. But the mechanism of conception and fetal development is quite well known by now and as it develops it is destroying the pro-choice position as to when life begins (and as to age of viability too). "Science is typically a friend of progressive causes. Not this one."

    ReplyDelete
  11. 1) i defer to comments on previous post.
    2) nope. Sorry two women dont fit together. Thats not a feeling on sexuality. That's fact. Sex is how babies are made. My mother taught me that when i was 5. It's a fact. No matter what you do they dont change. And thats what natural is. Facts not feelings.
    3) sure science wins out. But some people in the pro choice camp simply dont care if a baby dies. Viability and fetal development mean little. They only care about mom's feelings. Ethics and morality dont matter. So i think its great that you see the science but my concern is that you're not thinking in terms of ethics. Is the mother or the baby more important? Trick question because they both are equally.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's interesting that she is willing to consider the feelings of the "parents" and not just the mother. So let's say that the mother has a "powerful feeling" that this is a baby, which she wants to carry to term and raise. The father, however, has equally powerful feelings that this isn't a baby at all...it's a burden and a death knell to his freedom. One would have to assume that Ms. Harris-Perry would grant the mother total discretion to end the pregnancy if she wanted to...but is she willing to concede that the father's rights to his own "powerful feelings" should allow him to force the woman to have an abortion?

    ReplyDelete
  13. CDP, good point! Whose "feelings" win out if there is a conflict?

    And, if the "feelings" of the parents can determine if a human being lives or dies, then how can those same parents not be in charge of their own child (from Ms. Harris-Perry's earlier comments that children don't belong to their parents)? So children belong to their parents to the extent that they can kill them or let them live, but after that decision, they belong to the "community". How was this woman educated? I'd love to know where she went to university.

    captcrisis: "...is on increasingly thin ice when she says when life begins depends on the parents' feelings"

    Is she only on "increasingly thin ice", or is she objectively wrong? Since when does someone's feelings ever determine that another person is, objectively, alive? Can that ever happen? In reality?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Captcrisis, I've gotta agree with Deltaflute on this. As far as #2, are you implying that it is scientifically or biologically sound to discharge the male reproductive system into the digestive tract of another person, for example?

    ReplyDelete
  15. That's some great fantasizing, there, Ms. H-P.

    I'm going to apply her logic and say that "cash flow begins when I say it does, not based on math". My checking account thrives when I say it does! What, zero, balance? But I'm just not feelin' it.





    ReplyDelete
  16. Nubby, lol! I am going with that!

    And, Elizabeth Scalia has an excellent analysis of Ms. H-P's words, line by line:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2013/07/23/is-thinking-what-makes-babies-harris-perry-says-so/

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm applying to Tulane this fall. The fact that this woman got a job as a professor there disturbs me.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Leila,
    I can't see the column; it's blacked out. Whi is that????

    I really want to see this...nonoe of your other ones are blacked ut. Sorry if thee's errors here, I can't see what I'm typing , either!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sorry, Lisa! The video is not a YouTube video and it does not seem to be working on iPads or iPhones. If you click the link in the OP, it should lead you to the video. Here is the link just in case:

    http://www.lifenews.com/2013/07/23/msnbc-host-life-begins-when-parents-say-it-does-not-based-on-science/

    PS: Your comment cracked me up! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Did she really just say that parents determine life based on their circumstances (and implying their feelings of those circumstances) and it's LAWMAKERS who make laws based on feelings?! How can someone seemingly intelligent have such dizzying logic?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I *love* this woman! She is the best thing to happen to the pro-life cause since Leila started this blog! LOL! Keep talkin' Melissa! And pass the popcorn!

    ReplyDelete
  22. What Harris Perry says is so irrationally silly and laughable, it is hard to see how she can say it with a straight face.

    We are living in a world of liars!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Kristy, Jamie, Kevin, I cannot decide which is better for the pro-life movement: Harris-Perry's incoherent, nonsensical babble disguised as thoughtful commentary, or straight-up admission of "yes, we are killing human beings and we like it", like Singer and this lady:

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2013/01/hey-abortion-advocates-keep-talking.html

    I just encourage them all to keep talking.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Somebody made a funny parody here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkHs7Wl_BNY

    ReplyDelete
  25. I feel like she should never be allowed near an electronic device again. I feel her stupidity reflects badly on all women and all professors.

    Thinking about Harris-Perry is making me crabby. I have to go away now.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @leila:

    "Is she only on "increasingly thin ice", or is she objectively wrong?"

    It's beginning to look like she's wrong, though there might still be thin ice holding her up. I am talking here not about dogmatic beliefs but about the evidence an open-minded person looks at as to how much the fetus has human characteristics. Roe v. Wade was written by Harry Blackmun, who was new on the Supreme Court and wanted to do a good job on the opinion. He was responding to the arguments being made by the parties: at what point should a fetus be recognized as a human being with rights? and: at what point can the State step in and tell the woman no, she can't abort? So he spent the summer of 1972 poring over biology books. It seemed to him, given the science at the time, that human characteristics formed around the beginning of the third trimester, and before you deride this exercise, remember that Catholic philosophers used to make similar evaluations as to at what point a fetus becomes "human", often concluding with different timelines.

    My point is that the science has progressed since 1972 and nowadays, if he were alive and in that position again, Blackmun would come to a different conclusion, perhaps that life begins as early as fertilization or implantation.

    ReplyDelete
  27. First, my understanding of Roe is that the decision actually skipped modern biology and science and referred back to the ancient philosophers! Ridiculous when we are talking about life and death, facts of biology (which were very well-known in 1973).

    Second, you keep going back to ancient Catholic thought about ensoulment, etc., back when there was no biological knowledge of the embryo. But again, Catholic teaching, even then, always considered it a grave evil to kill the unborn, no exceptions. That is the salient point there.

    I'm also pretty sure that Melissa Harris-Perry was doing the opposite of what you claim Blackmun was trying to do. She is going out of her way to explicitly say that science does not matter, and that what we "feel" about a pregnancy is what makes us able to kill other humans.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @leila:

    "are you implying that it is scientifically or biologically sound to discharge the male reproductive system into the digestive tract of another person, for example?"

    That's a very broad question. Lots of things are scientifically and biologically sound (some endorsed by the Catholic Church, some not), and lots of things are scientifically and biologically *un*sound (ditto). We're meant to eat meat, for example, both by our nutritional requirements and the way our teeth are designed, yet we can be vegetarians. It might be very biologically *un*sound to resist popping someone in the nose who badly deserves it, but we resist, even though it makes our blood pressure explode. Keeping someone alive by extraordinary means, resulting in bed sores, coma, and long-term calcification of the body as it atrophies and twists into a fetal position, is certainly biologically *un*sound, yet the Catholic Church endorses and in fact requires it.

    As for swallowing semen, it certainly is not unsound either scientifically or biologically. A typical ejaculation contains about 10 calories and consists of body sugar, enzymes, Vitamin C and protein, and nobody has said that swallowing it has any biological after-effects, even though we are now into the third generation or so of it being a common practice. It is probably safer than ejaculation into the vagina, which is more likely to transmit any STD the male might have. (The mouth and especially the stomach are great destroyers of bacteria; only a few types get through.)

    ReplyDelete
  29. Keeping someone alive by extraordinary means, resulting in bed sores, coma, and long-term calcification of the body as it atrophies and twists into a fetal position, is certainly biologically *un*sound, yet the Catholic Church endorses and in fact requires it.

    This is an untruth. The Catholic Church does not "endorse or require" the comatose/dying to be kept alive by "extraordinary means". Not.at.all. In fact, if you've read anything at all, you'd know that the truth is exactly the opposite. If you are speaking of Terri Schiavo, she was not hooked up to a single life-saving machine. She could breathe and live on her own, and she was able to sit up and move, interact with others, etc. She was given food and water. Food and water given to a non-terminal, non-dying woman with a brain injury is not "extraordinary means", which are never required. Food and water are standard humanitarian care. Not extraordinary at all.

    So, insertion of the penis into the anus (the exit channel for human waste) in order to discharge sperm is biologically ordered? You know better than that. And by your analysis, I guess swallowing urine could also be harmless, biologically, so that means it's biologically ordered? We could teach our children that it's okay, correct? And if it's safer to ejaculate into a mouth than a vagina, then it must be better (is that what you are implying?) and maybe that is what we should promote, also?

    Question: What is the biological purpose or design of the reproductive system? (Note the base word is "reproduce" -- I didn't make that up, and neither did the Church)

    As for your examples: No one has ever claimed that the human is not designed to eat meat and veggies. We all get that that is rightly ordered, and (just as with sex) we don't have a "quota" for how much we *must* partake in either meat or veggies. As for punching people in the nose, it can be rightly ordered for self-defense, but wrongly ordered for assaulting an innocent. A punch is neutral without context, and non-controversial. There is no "science" behind the punch. There is no "punching system", in the way there is a cardiovascular system, a nervous system, a reproductive system, an endocrine system, etc. However, if you put the "punch" (fist) in the reproductive system (as I believe some people do, no?) I would say that's unsound. Going out on a limb there. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  30. @leila

    As to comatose, fetal position, calcifying, I'm thinking of the Karen Anne Quinlan case.

    If you're going to talk about "biological purpose" (instead of whether something is "scientifically or biologically sound"), well that is a different subject. Our body parts (and I suppose not even our brains) are often not being used according to their "biological purpose". This occasionally results in injury -- we get carpal tunnel syndrome because our fingers' biological purpose is apparently not to type at a keyboard. We use our feet for reasons aside from locomotion (kicking soccer balls), our lips for reasons aside from speaking (playing trombone), and our brains for purposes beyond what was needed in prehistoric times. And of course the human body was not designed for high altitudes or to be in space. In fact a lot of human progress results from our thinking of new ways to use our bodies.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The Karen Anne Quinlan case was so long ago (I was a child) and I don't remember the details. Was she hooked up to tons of machines? Was she dying? What was the issue there? You'd have to remind me.

    Okay, here is what just makes me scratch my head about the examples you give (I was surprised when someone else used the "kicking a soccer ball" analogy, too)…. No one has ever denied that feet can be used for kicking things or playing ball. That is a given. Everyone uses feet to kick. And everyone uses hands to manipulate things (such as ties, looms, keyboards, hair braiding, buttons, etc.). Using hands to manipulate things is actually very much in line with what we have hands and fingers for. Lips were never used "only" for speaking. Lips have been used for kissing, for playing instruments, for blowing out flames, for whistling, etc. No one has ever thought that lips are only used or designed for speaking. Ever. So, I'm not getting your analogies. And brains are not something we can "move" or voluntarily do anything with (aside from think, as far as I know, unless someone wants to enlighten me), but if we willfully put our brain up someone's anus (or even our own), I think you'd agree we are using our brains in a disordered manner.

    Let's stick to organ systems, since that is what we are talking about with the reproductive system. If I decided to discharge the digestive system into the ocular system of another, is it disordered? How do we know if an organ system is disordered, and in the case that we have some voluntary control over our organ systems, how do we determine what is disordered use of them?

    There is something called pica, which is when the person craves and eats non-food items, putting them in his digestive tract. We call that a disorder. Why is it disordered?

    ReplyDelete
  32. @leila

    "if we willfully put our brain up someone's anus (or even our own) -- "

    Wow, that was a LOL moment. It's a dreary day outside so I'm glad to laugh. Thanks.

    P.S. I'm trying to e-mail you a picture I took yesterday that is pretty striking (not related to this discussion; in fact I don't want to see a photo of a brain going up an anus). I can't get your "e mail me" tab to work. My e-mail is captcrisis@aol.com

    ReplyDelete
  33. captcrisis, ha ha, I am glad you liked the humor, as it made me laugh as I was writing it (and it makes me laugh now!!). I will email you.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "but if we willfully put our brain up someone's anus (or even our own),"
    I used to have this disorder, now I don't even turn on msnbc anymore. :)

    ReplyDelete
  35. Okay, Csawwww, now you're killing me!! LOL!!! Dying here!

    ReplyDelete
  36. OHMYGOSH, I am dyin' over here!!!! you guys are hysterical!I I wonder if situs inversus can substitute body parts in this case, because we may have an epidemic of this condition.... too funny!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Cari, you may have diagnosed a cultural problem!! LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  38. "but if we willfully put our brain up someone's anus (or even our own),
    I used to have this disorder, now I don't even turn on msnbc anymore. :)


    lol
    They need a full head extraction - stat!
    The smell of: "scientific fact isn't really science", should have been their big tip-off that their brain had willfully gone where no brain should ever go...

    ReplyDelete
  39. willfully gone where no brain should ever go…

    New round of laughing for me!! Lol! Thanks, Nubby!

    ReplyDelete
  40. @leila

    Actually some health regimens include people drinking their urine. I can't say whether it's healthy or not. Prime Minister Desai of India (in the 1970's) used to do it. Bleachh!

    What's a "disordered" use of an organ system? Probably we can all agree that if the use is physically unhealthy (like, I imagine, your example of vomiting into someone's eyeball), then it's not to be encouraged. Oral sex (either mouth-vagina or mouth-penis) does not fall into that class. Nor does anal sex, if precautions are taken.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I am bleeding all over my desk from biting my tongue. Curse my job!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  42. Captcrisis, what other organ system needs to have "precautions taken" for safety before its ordered use? Serious question.

    So, in your view, is being "physically healthy" (or made so through precautions) the only thing necessary for the proper (and I would say moral) use of any organ system? Couldn't anything be made "physically healthy", even vomit in the eyes? Urinating in the eyes would seem ordered, then, correct? Pica could be ordered and healthy, if there are no actual toxins ingested, no?

    Csawww, you should wait till you get home to read this blog, ha ha!

    ReplyDelete
  43. What's a "disordered" use of an organ system? Probably we can all agree that if the use is physically unhealthy…

    Sorry for the distastefulness, but I am going to use an example from a long ago Bubble convo. So, if a man used his penis to pat a child on the head, for example (maybe a kindly teacher), that would be okay? There is nothing unhealthy about that. Is that an ordered use of a penis? Would we say that since it doesn't hurt anyone, it's good to use a penis that way? Or does a penis have a specific purpose (and certain places it belongs)?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Ok Leila I'm driving home and Captcrisis for love of God man, don't answer that question yet!!!! Nubby, did you have inject the word "smell" here?? Jeez!!

    ReplyDelete
  45. @leila

    Even penis-to-vagina intercourse requires precautions at times for it to be healthy. We can begin with foreplay (so to speak). Particularly with young men, they can hurt the woman if they charge in too fast. And injury can happen in certain positions. I remember a sendup of the Kama Sutra that was called, "Sexual Positions (and how to get out of them without injury)". Also, it is important for the man to be free of disease or infection. One reason some women keep getting yeast infections despite repeated treatment is that the man (for whom it is non-symptomatic) keeps reinfecting her through intercourse. And of course there are various precautions against pregnancy, both approved and disapproved by the Catholic Church.

    Now with a grown man taking out his penis to pat a child on the head, we're talking about inappropriate behavior. If the same man rapes a woman vaginally, even though he's using the penis the way it's "designed" to be used and the vagina is being used the way it's "designed" to be used, that would also be inappropriate behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  46. P.S. As for pica, I prefer the soft recycled loose leaf paper of the early 1970's, unfortunately hard to find now. The yellow paper used in legal pads has a certain pungency, but its bouquet is too aggressive for my taste. Printer paper is satisfying in a way, but it's basically anodyne and can never shake off that reputation of philistinism.

    ReplyDelete
  47. My childhood faves were crayons and wax candles. ;)

    I wish I could just get you to admit straight up: The penis was not designed to penetrate the anus, and sperm (the life-giving element of the reproductive system) was not meant to be released into the "death" chute, where waste comes out of the body. The reproductive system is not to be used in the digestive tract. If you are suggesting that in fact those things can legitimately, morally, happen, and be ordered biologically, then there is surely no reason why a man cannot pat a child on the head with a penis, non-sexually. After all, it's just a natural, normal body part, and it's less likely to injure (in fact, injury = 0%) than putting it in places like a rectum. Maybe the "inappropriateness" of it is simply a social construct, a taboo that it's time to shed?

    I still never quite heard (from another post) why sex is not like eating ice cream (aside from some "emotional attachment" issues that were mentioned, and yet that was negated by the other statements, including that casual, even anonymous sex can be beneficial). I mean, I know why sex is not like eating ice cream, but I'd like to hear the other side articulate it.

    PS: Pregnancy is not a disease or injury to be "protected" from.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Funny side note: A friend of mine told me the trouble with Catholics is we don't allow open discussion about things. I referred her to this blog as evidence we do.

    And y'all are talking about THIS. Ha ha!

    I think I better call her and make sure her brain hasn't exploded......or gone anywhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Kat, lol! You are sure right that we don't hold back here. If we are talking about this stuff, we really have to talk about this stuff! The irony is that I really wish with all my might that we NEVER had to talk about this stuff!! Dear Lord, we never used to have to! Everyone pretty much "got" that there was deviancy to sodomy. As we shed that natural boundary, we can expect the other boundaries to fall as well. Just a matter of time. I despise that this is the conversation we've come to in society (and that little children will have to "learn" all about it).

    Let me know if your friend's brain has exploded, ha!!

    ReplyDelete
  50. MY brain has exploded just from reading all of this!! You Go Leila!
    DD

    ReplyDelete
  51. @leila

    "He who made the inside of the cup also made the outside of the cup"

    When Jesus declared all foods clean, I'm sure the Pharisees were grossed out.

    In one of the noncanonical books (dated around 150 A.D.) one finds: "He who made the woo-woo also made the poop-chute." (Letter of Paul to the Eskimos 3:17.)

    I've tried anal sex only a couple of times. It seemed too painful for her, and certainly not worth the bother of doing the enema beforehand.

    But a friend told me once that she thought anal sex was the most intimate kind of sex. "It requires him to be especially tender to me, and it shows how much I am willing to give him of me. I'm giving him a part of my body not designed for his penis, giving of myself 'above and beyond the call of duty'."

    ReplyDelete
  52. Hi captcrisis, sorry but your last comment rather grossed me out. Could this type of discussion be held privately with whomever you wish to discuss it, email to email, rather than publicly? If I am interested in this type of description, I'll go and find it elsewhere on the internet. Thank you for your consideration!

    ReplyDelete
  53. Nothing says true love , sacrifice, total gift and commitment like tender journey into the "Death Chute" . Hahah. Leila that does it, Death chute may become the new official description of that oriface in our home. "Beyond the call of duty" amazing how people get things ordered in their head. ( my editor will not let me comment further)
    You how they say certain conversations take you a couple steps back! Well this one is causing my head to be drawn back into my Death Chute like the mellinium falcon being caught in tractor beam of the Death Star .

    ReplyDelete
  54. Oh , and yes, that soft recycled paper from the 1970 s was as good as Hubba Bubba

    ReplyDelete
  55. Leila, you know, before you posted this video perhaps you could've offered your unsuspecting readers/viewers a free pair of tampons in advance - to be employed as ear plugs! :) My ears are bleeding from the imbecilic assault on them right now.

    "The problem is many of our policy makers want to be sweeping laws on those feelings." Huh? Does this breathlessly blabbering baboon even speak English?

    ReplyDelete
  56. "Nothing says true love , sacrifice, total gift and commitment like tender journey into the "Death Chute"."

    Catholics pray before a bleeding, naked man who is being gruesomely tortured to death, and speak freely of eating his body and drinking his blood. They are not in a position to criticize practices that might gross them out.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Captcrisis, that truly is disgusting. I guess then you would say that Jesus wants us to eat and drink out of anuses. I seriously don't know how to even respond to something like that, so I am going to let the readers decide. I think both sides are pretty clear now.

    And as for the woman who liked being sodomized, if that is actually her true feeling, she is the *very rare* exception (there are women who like rape scenarios, too), and the fact that she likes it "better" makes me think she needs therapy, and badly. In real life, most women who do that do it *only* to please a very disturbed man who really pushes it (though I hear teens do it a lot now, since it's expected of them). But desperate women are known to want to please a man at all costs (think of all the women who go back to their abusers due to low self esteem, and who even stay with men who abuse and kill their own children (non-biologically related, usually). And all I can wonder is if that friend had a difficult childhood, had some sexual abuse in her life, or an absent father. To think that being sodomized is the most intimate "union" is a sign of something very wrong and she needs therapy. I will remember this for a long time, unfortunately, and I will pray for her emotional healing.

    I think this conversation has to end now. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  58. Just saw your latest, after I hit "publish". To compare the act of God Himself sacrificing His own life for the salvation of the world that He loves is not to be compared to acts of sodomy. The former is the highest act of love ("no greater love has a man than this, than to lay down one's life for one's friends"), the latter is the basest form of degradation for the pursuit of sexual pleasure.

    I am going to vomit at the comparison, and may God have mercy on the soul that would compare the two. Eternity is a long, long time.

    I'm done.

    ReplyDelete
  59. @leila

    I'm not comparing the two. My friend was not saying that anal sex was a religious experience. I'm just saying (as I've said before) that one cannot condemn something just because it grosses you out.

    ReplyDelete
  60. @leila

    The description I just gave of the crucifix was something I read some years ago by a Hindu who was encountering Christianity for the first time. I was surprised to see him describe it thus -- "a naked, bleeding man being gruesomely tortured to death" -- but then I realized that's what it looks like to an outsider. Based on that symbol, at least, an uninformed person might think that Christianity is a bloodthirsty, violent religion.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I don't condemn things because the "gross me out", I condemn things when they are evil or disordered. Some evil and disordered things are also "gross". But I don't base what is wrong on what is "gross", so you misunderstand.

    If a man urinates on the body of his enemy, is it wrong because it's "gross" (which it is) or is it wrong because it's degrading to the human person?

    Is adultery wrong because it's "gross" (I wouldn't say so) or because it degrades the human person?

    Is stealing wrong because it's "gross" (nope), or because it degrades the human person?

    ReplyDelete
  62. "an uninformed person might think that Christianity is a bloodthirsty, violent religion"

    Yes, it is shocking to see the bloody, dead body of the Lord. But it was not the followers of Christ who did the violence, so it's not Christianity that is a violent religion. It's important to see the blood and gore, the reality of what Christ underwent, as the Crucifix tells us two things:

    1) The enormity of sin
    2) The enormity of God's love for us

    ReplyDelete
  63. There are healthy, logical and fruitful unions of bodies - flesh and blood (divine and human) - that give life.

    Hideously mimicking these are sick, unnatural and sterile alignments of bodies and objects - human, animal and inanimate - that lead only to death.

    But how do you explain the difference to one who is already sick - in head, heart, and soul - and therefore incapable of comprehension - or honest admission? It's not like the consequences of any perversity are immediate, even though they are so remorselessly inevitable.

    "If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!"

    ReplyDelete
  64. Francis, it reminds me of the truth that the Devil cannot create anything. All he can do is distort and twist what is already created, to be a sick imitation of the good, the true and the beautiful. Therefore, the very faculty that is designed to create life is used inside the faculty that produces waste ("death"). And our consciences are deadened and our intellects dimmed, so that we now call that "good".

    Do we really think these will be kept at bay?

    http://patdollard.com/2013/07/it-begins-pedophiles-call-for-same-rights-as-homosexuals/

    http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2009-08-20/news/those-who-practice-bestiality-say-they-re-part-of-the-next-gay-rights-movement/

    ReplyDelete
  65. "The description I just gave of the crucifix was something I read some years ago by a Hindu who was encountering Christianity for the first time. I was surprised to see him describe it thus -- "a naked, bleeding man being gruesomely tortured to death" -- but then I realized that's what it looks like to an outsider. Based on that symbol, at least, an uninformed person might think that Christianity is a bloodthirsty, violent religion."

    That is an accurate description. It is also the point. God came to us as a man. A peaceful man who preached about love. An he was brutally murdered. Says a lot about human nature, says a lot about God, and it says a TON about love and mercy.

    You are suppose to be uncomfortable when you look at a crucifix. Your heart is suppose to cry out. It is suppose to get you thinking. Of all the ways, God choose to save us....this was how he choose to do it.

    Francis has a very nice comment a few posts back talking about this. It is worth a read.

    I hope the Hindu who made the comment about the crucifix was able to find out the reasons why we have crucifix.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Your friend's justification is very disturbing.

    Love isn't about making people do things that are bad for them to prove they love you. (And that act IS bad for you.)

    Love also isn't about saying "Oh I have the chance to really, really hurt you but I won't.....cause I love you."

    I think you understand it because you made a comment it didn't seem "worth it" cause it was painful to the girl. That's because mentally healthy people don't get kicks from hurting others (even if they consent to it.)

    ReplyDelete
  67. Right, Leila. And it's also axiomatic that no lie can actually exist without borrowing a little something from the truth. Which is why the depravity of something like anal sex has to be dressed up as being "tender" and "intimate" "lovemaking" and, indeed, even camouflaged by some hilarious rationale of surrender "above and beyond the call of duty"! LOL!

    But seriously, I shudder to think of the total lack of dignity and self worth of these people - that they would consider it some form of "conjugal" "duty" to have themselves abused for their partner's (or their own) perverse and pointless titillation! I also shudder to think of the demeaning by such claims of the sacrifices of those who do actually go above the beyond the call of duty to help, nurture and protect us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. not "of these people"... "in these people"...

      Delete
  68. Re: that comment about the "uninformed" Hindu...

    I grew among a billion Hindus and was a good friend to scores of them, but never heard that opinion/misunderstanding aired. It sounds more like something a fundamentalist Christian (an iconoclast) would say to justify their hatred of sacred art/objects. You know, like the tired old charge about Catholics delighting in crucifying Christ all over again...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "grew up". Ugh. It's 3 am here. That's why!

      Delete
  69. Francis, your contributions are elucidating, even at 3:00am!

    Kat, excellent analysis. It's very, very sad that this is "love" to some folks. I hope and pray that they find real love one day!

    ReplyDelete
  70. I can't believe that just happened. I have a long standing theory/ observation that when real Truth runs directly into real Lies, you can tell by the almost involuntary , disproportionate , nasty reaction that it produces. In other words , when I apply beautiful words to an obvious distortion (death chute stuff) , the involentary reaction is goes directly to the (crucifixion ), the actual source of those words. Examples: abortion fight in Austin. Prop 8 in California when my friends had repeatedly been vandalized including slashed tires, spitting and all kinds of vile crap. Those of you with big families know those really nasty, bitter people who stare at you like one of your kids stole some French fries from their plate. Tell one of them about the joy and love you feel for your wife and all your kids and then watch their head explode . How about Sarah Palan in 08? I watched politics my whole life and have never seen such a strange wild viscous response than after her RNC speech. Why? Everything she said was typical politics. But everything she said just by being who she is caused the worst reaction ever. When she walk around that stage with her healthy, living, Down syndrome baby, that caused many older woman to face the truth about their life decisions. The spinning head, green projectile vomit was so disproportionate you knew Truth got in the devils face.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I am talking here not about dogmatic beliefs but about the evidence an open-minded person looks at as to how much the fetus has human characteristics. Roe v. Wade was written by Harry Blackmun, who was new on the Supreme Court and wanted to do a good job on the opinion. He was responding to the arguments being made by the parties: at what point should a fetus be recognized as a human being

    The fact that a human being exists in a single cell with a full genetic code was all the Court needed to say "yes" to, and uphold the unalienable right to life. No one should have been wondering "at what point should a fetus be recognized as a human being."

    That right to life wasn't given by a court, so a court had no right to start tampering with it. It's the most fundamental right to any other right, and they destroyed any protection people have by throwing out what was objective, and introducing their own subjective standard.

    Science showed the fact that a human being exists at the moment of conception, a full genetic code, a single metabolizing cell. There is no other species it could be. It is human from one cell onward.
    R v W needs to be overturned on this blunder alone.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Nubby, exactly! And Chris, it reminds me of the avenging conscience:

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

    And as much as I despise this subject, I have to comment that CS has told us (non-chalantly) that in her high school, (underage) girls now routinely have "butt sex" (I grew up in the wildly immoral '80s public school culture and then college at a party school, and this was not even discussed). I am just wondering if the boys (and grown men) who coerce these girls to sodomy are doing so out of the "highest level of intimacy" and love and care, and if they take time to make sure the filth is cleansed by a careful pre-event enema. Somehow, I'm guessing not.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Leila, that just nails it. And explains it so clearly. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Csawww, we should always pray for that avenging conscience. One day, it will catch up to all of us.

    ReplyDelete
  75. So... I guess that means I didn't really discover some brilliant new insite into haman behavior....well ... I guess I'll go back to work now.

    ReplyDelete
  76. an uninformed person might think that Christianity is a bloodthirsty, violent religion

    It wasn't the Christians that put him there, it was the non-Christians of the world. Christ never fought back.
    Therefore, to turn your point around, I'd say it's actually the non-Christians that are bloodthirsty and violent.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Nubby, it doesn't matter if the statement is nonsensical. If an eastern religious leader makes any statement about Christianity, it's inscribed on stone columns on college campus's and is mandatory that you be able to parrot the quote if you want your cap and gown.

    ReplyDelete
  78. lol, Glad I'm out of college, then, because I could never have recited that tripe. :)

    ReplyDelete
  79. Ya know! I saw a Buddha statue and came to the conclusion that they worship food.

    ReplyDelete
  80. lol- And, thus, you would've also concluded that all pregnant ladies must be Buddhists. Similar bellies. Similar love of food.

    ReplyDelete
  81. @leila

    You seem to assume that women who have anal sex have been "coerced" into it. That is not the case with the woman I quoted, whom I knew personally and quite well, and it cannot be the case with the 46% of young women who now have anal sex at least occasionally, according to the Journal of Sexual Medicine.

    You also quote scare sites claiming that bestiality and legalized pedophilia are just around the corner, but I don't see any evidence of that. In fact bestiality (which used to be a standard joke in farming communities) is probably on the wane. As for pedophilia, it used to be hushed up (most notably by Catholic bishops who transferred known pedophiles to other parishes without telling their new pastor). Now it's openly condemned and combatted.

    Any cultural prejudice can be dispelled through personal contact. If American bishops, for example, actually were close friends with loving gay couples who have been together for decades, their harsh stand against gay marriage (and gay sex as "disordered") would modify. I'm not asking you to go to San Francisco and join a gay church, but online you can consult the many sites where gay sex (or oral sex or anal sex) is discussed, and not only that but discussed with a high degree of sensitivity and knowledge. Susie Bright is one example. You will not see any evidence of coercion, nor that these behaviors are done in anything but a loving way.

    ReplyDelete
  82. "...and [coercion] cannot be the case with the 46% of young women who now have anal sex at least occasionally, according to the Journal of Sexual Medicine."

    Why can't it be the case? I've known women who have been traumatized by the experience. A true violation, even by the one they "love" and who "loves" them. They are part of the 46%. When a woman dreams of a real man making love to her, I promise it is not the dream that he sodomize her. If it is, there is something terribly twisted in her life and background. Very sad.

    If young girls are actively looking for any sex encounters, and especially anal sex encounters, it's only because they are deeply wounded (possibly have been abused as youngsters) looking for approval, love, etc. As the girl gets older and starts to look for anal sex, and somehow enjoying it, it's for the same reason a woman would look for a rape scenario or domination, etc. There is something "off" if that is what fulfills one's sexual appetite.

    I think it's our porn culture as well. We know that with porn (I'm guessing you are okay with porn), after a certain point, "normal" porn does not satisfy (esp. men), and there needs to be a hint of deviance brought in (more and more). That is why kiddie porn and the other types of depraved sex are increasing online. Desensitivity. We become desensitized. And now the Ivy Leagues are hosting sensitivity training re: bestiality, pedophilia, etc. To say that we as a society won't be desensitized to all that soon enough is naive at best (look how quickly we have accepted sodomy as "marriage"). I guess we'll keep watching the great social-sexual experience unfold and see where it all goes. I'm not optimistic.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Captcrisis- Do you really think that's why Catholics hold the views they do about marriage? Because we don't have enough gay friends?

    I have plenty of gay friends. Some are practicing Catholics and some aren't. Those who aren't are aware of my views and we somehow still manage to be friends. I am also able to be friends with people who have had sex before marriage or who have stepped out on their spouse or who had an abortion. I don't have to like or agree with their actions to be their friend.

    To suggest the American Bishops just need to "get out more" and interact more with gay couples and they will change their mind about gay marriage illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding on what marriage IS. The Bishops no more decide what a marriage is than they decide what color the sky should be.

    Not all sodomy is a result of coercion, that's true. That doesn't mean it is love either. You can go on a BDSM website and learn all about all sorts of painful and degrading things that can be done to the human body. Those same sites will assure you that of course, they should only be done with the utmost love, respect and dignity.

    All that proves is they clearly do not know what any of those words mean.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Kat, again, you cut through the fog with laser-sharp clarity. I am clapping (can you see me?). Well stated, my friend.

    ReplyDelete
  85. "46% of young women [who] now have anal sex at least occasionally, according to the Journal of Sexual Medicine."

    It's becoming so routine: medical authorities regularly warning us that at least half the world is seriously sick. STD epidemic yesterday. ADDs the day prior. Quivering Anus Syndrome today. Chute.

    ReplyDelete
  86. "You also quote scare sites claiming that bestiality and legalized pedophilia are just around the corner, but I don't see any evidence of that. In fact bestiality (which used to be a standard joke in farming communities) is probably on the wane. As for pedophilia, it used to be hushed up (most notably by Catholic bishops who transferred known pedophiles to other parishes without telling their new pastor). Now it's openly condemned and combatted."

    Hooray! Sure sounds like the devil's left the building!

    ReplyDelete
  87. It would be an odd kind of "friendship" with a gay person who you think should not enjoy the rights you enjoy. It's like being friends with a black person while opposing her right to vote.

    You can't deny people their rights and be nice about it.

    "Look, here’s the deal: It doesn’t matter if you think you’re a nice person. And it doesn’t matter if your tone, attitude, sentiments and facial expressions are all very sweet, kindly and sympathetic-seeming. If you’re opposing legal equality, then you don’t get to be nice. Opposing legal equality is not nice and it cannot be done nicely."

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

    ReplyDelete
  89. "It would be an odd kind of "friendship" with a gay person who you think should not enjoy the rights you enjoy."

    Huh? What "right" of sodomy and other barren perversities surrealistically codified as "marriage" do heterosexuals enjoy? Who is being denied the right to a true marriage and (re)productive intercourse that the overwhelming majority of the world's peoples enjoy? (Except perhaps in communist China with its tyrannical one child policy.)

    There can be no equality - naturally, anatomically, biologically, rationally, morally or legally - between conjugal sex between complementary partners and the deviant antics of odd couples. The two are intrinsically and radically different things - like the difference between an apple and an orange, the sun and the moon, and chalk and cheese. Sorry, no sale.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I'm reminded of a work colleague years ago, who was a closet homosexual. None of us had any idea. One day, he took me aside and told me about his sexual preferences, somewhat nervously pleading for my understanding. I assured him (most sincerely) that it was none of my business who he was attracted to. Then I wagged a finger at him and said sternly (with a smile on my face), "Glenn, what you do in the privacy of your bedroom is no concern of mine, nor does it affect our friendship, which I truly enjoy. But the day you make a move on me, you're dead meat!" "Of course I wouldn't," was his reply, "I know you're not that way inclined." And we remained as good friends as ever (until he moved interstate a couple of years later).

    HOWEVER, if Glenn had to ever come to me and demand that I tell my children that he was "married" to his homosexual partner, same as I was married to their mother, the friendship would surely have ended there and then. One doesn't push friendships to unreasonable places. Unfortunately, homosexuals (egged on by an elite few among them) are now attempting to do just that - with the very people who (they must know) have always been their friends and advocated (institutionally and personally) for their wellbeing. In the long run they'll quite likely discover they've done themselves a disservice, because this ill advised attempt to ram unreality down our throats will only serve to distance us from them instead of endearing them further to us.

    ReplyDelete
  91. It would be an odd kind of "friendship" with a gay person who you think should not enjoy the rights you enjoy.

    captcrisis, marriage is not a "right". Where do you get this idea? Also, could you define marriage for me?

    One cannot have a "right" to something that is ontologically impossible. For example, a cat has no "right" to be a dog. A watch has no "right" to be a coffee pot. A woman has no "right" to be a man. A homosexual union (whatever that entails, as they cannot "unite") has no "right" to be the conjugal union we call marriage.

    If you suggest changing the definition of marriage completely (to be something else, something other than what this thing we've called "marriage" is, ontologically), then we have just put the marriage label on something that is not marriage. It's like calling a cat a dog. But okay, let's say we do that. Let's say that homosexuality can be the basis of this new thing we now call "marriage". Then, we have to add other unions as well. Why not? Why don't other people (of all orientations) have a "right" to marriage? Aren't you saying you can't be friends with people who are of other "orientations" if you deny them the "right" to marriage, too?

    Can you have friends who lie (even if you believe that lies are wrong)? Can you have friends who are adulterers (even if you believe adultery is wrong)? Can you have friends who cheat (even if you believe cheating is wrong)? Can you have friends who eat way too much (even if you believe eating way too much is wrong)?

    Is that possible?

    ReplyDelete
  92. It occurred to me that we have gotten far afield from the original post.

    I used to do this on guitar. Tune by Priscilla Herdman.

    The Water Lily – Henry Lawson

    Lonely young wife
    In her dreaming discerns
    A lily-decked pool
    With a border of ferns,
    And a beautiful child,
    With butterfly wings,
    Trips down to the edge of the water and sings:
    ‘Come, mamma! come!
    ‘Quick! follow me—
    ‘Step out on the leaves of the water-lily!’
    And the lonely young wife,
    Her heart beating wild,
    Cries, ‘Wait till I come,
    ‘Till I reach you, my child!’
    But the beautiful child
    With butterfly wings
    Steps out on the leaves of the lily and sings:
    ‘Come, mamma! come!
    ‘Quick! follow me!
    ‘And step on the leaves of the water-lily!
    And the wife in her dreaming
    Steps out on the stream,
    But the lily leaves sink
    And she wakes from her dream.
    Ah, the waking is sad,
    For the tears that it brings,
    And she knows ’tis her dead baby’s spirit that sings:
    ‘Come, mamma! come!
    ‘Quick! follow me!
    ‘Step out on the leaves of the water-lily!’

    ReplyDelete
  93. The Water Lily

    What a wonderful portrayal of the unbreakable bond between a parent and his/her biological child, who lives, despite circumstance or the culture having robbed it of its temporal life. This'd make for a great pro-life anthem, methinks.

    ReplyDelete
  94. I really think Leila's last question is very good and deserves an answer.

    Speaking of good songs, here is one that grabbed me. Colin Raye's granddaughter died a couple years back from a rare disorder. He talks about how huge an impact this sick girl had on his families life. This is the same type of babe that would have about a 5 % chance of surviving an early diagnosis before she was born. Surviving the parents decision to abort that is. The word craft and singing is amazing but the beautiful ending says it all.

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oj6GXVTAOiU&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Doj6GXVTAOiU


    She’s with me
    I proudly tell the maitre de as we arrive
    He seems surprised
    In a clumsy moment as he looks for room, for her blessed chair
    A table stares, and their eyes show only pity
    as they try to sympathize
    Oh, how difficult that must be, look away
    Day after day, they’ll never see, the joy you bring
    Only happy at the times I know that she’s with me

    I wear it like a badge of honor at the mall
    I hear her call, the only way that she is able with a cry
    Time to go bye bye, she can’t say why
    Maybe tired, maybe hurting, god I wish that I could tell
    Do I ever make her happy for awhile
    To see her smile, makes my week,
    Though she can’t speak,
    [ From: http://www.metrolyrics.com/shes-with-me-lyrics-collin-raye.html ]
    She let’s me know she feels my love when she’s with me

    I know just what heaven looks like when I see that perfect face
    For no other mortal heart could be so fair
    I myself so weak and weary, so imperfect as a man
    How could I be the one you chose to care for our girl
    Never done a single deed to earn the right to share her light
    Though it’s such a painful road we walk each day
    Lord you have your ways, this I pray
    On the day I stand before you, she’ll stand right by my side
    When you look upon me, head hung down in shame
    I’ll feel the blame, she’ll look at me,
    And then she’ll speak, in that precious voice
    Don’t worry ‘bout him my lord, cuz you see,
    He’s with me

    ReplyDelete
  95. Ok Can I please get an AMEN for the Communion Saints? Did you hear the end? This song just chokes me out. Seal team 6 would be doing a group hug for Gods sake.

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

    ReplyDelete
  97. Captcrisis-

    I'm fairly confident that those of us who have gay friends. Have ADULT gay friends. Friends who are intelligent, educated and fairly well adjusted. They are perfectly capable of identifying two-faced, insincere individuals who deliver insults and jabs in under the facade of being "kind."

    ReplyDelete
  98. Csawww, AMEN and AWWW. I was moved to tears by the song - both of sadness and of joy. How beautifully it illustrates that Will Shakespeare was actually only half right when he wrote: "The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones" (Julius Caesar). Not so under a just God Who never fails to reward good, to crown those who have fought the good fight. Thank you for the link!

    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!