This deserves its own blog post!
Way to go, Mr. Rubio! This is called a Truth smackdown!
And Mr. Cuomo (a staunch abortion supporter), please pick up both a science book and a catechism.
Thank you, Marco Rubio, for not backing down. Wow! This is courage!
Watch and cheer (shorter version):
Longer version, encompassing more about his Catholic Faith and science:
NAILED
ReplyDeleteIT
Mad props.
Mad respect.
Nubby, watch the second video that I just put up! Even better! Longer version, and he talks about his Faith and science!
ReplyDeleteMan, GET that Cuomo a science book, sheesh!!!!!
“The logic is a little too simple.”?? Yeah, uh, Cuomo, logic is NORMALLY very simple. That’s what makes it sensible. Distill the thoughts, follow the systematic foundation of those thoughts, tie em together…and what do you get…. Everybody?? A LOGICAL ANSWER. YAYY!!!
ReplyDeleteAnd: A map of a DNA plant?
Welp, follow your DNA map, Mr. Cuomo. If it’s a DNA map of a plant… It’ll be… a plant. If it’s a DNA map of a human…it’ll metabolize into… a human.
Super deduction! The thing itself is irrelevant to it’s having a MAP in the first place! DERP x2
“If you’re going to be a leader of the future …” says Cuomo. Then, what? What kind of empty-headed quasi-threat is that? Then we need to bend to the future? I’m thinking “no”, whadda you think, Cuomo?
“Could it become a cat?” Rubio.
LOL
And the 6:32 mark and onward…! BOSS!
* its having a MAP
Delete* “And: A map of a DNA plant?” Should be this: And: A DNA map of a plant?
DeleteAll of my neurotransmitters weren’t firing at full throttle, apparently. The idiocy of Cuomo’s herbage to human genetic comparison had me momentarily dyslexic.
Let’s hope Rubio gathers momentum and $$$ necessary.
Nubby, doesn't it just make you giddy?? I sorta wish I had a million bucks and some influential friends to start stuffing his campaign coffers. He appears to be a clear thinker!
ReplyDeleteI once took on Cuomo when he said something really stupid about his Catholic Faith vs. some sin he wanted to support (oh, it was gay marriage), on his Facebook page. He threw out a couple of platitudes and then ignored me when I asked him if he thought it was possible to be a reporter who is Catholic and live a life of integrity, living what he professed to believe? I think that's the gist of what I asked (twice). He didn't answer. I wonder if his conscience ever actually bothers him???
Did you!? I wish I could've seen that! Go get 'em.
ReplyDeleteAnd since he's making a straight comparison of a plant DNA map to a human DNA map:
How many cases are there of people giving birth to plants? I mean, this is supposed to be clever or something?
How's Rubio looking, as far as shaping up to contend? $$
Yes, he's super clever with that silly talk. Ugh. I bring this up a lot, but my daughter's sixth grade Harcourt (secular) science book started out the chapter on human biology with this sentence: "You began life as a single cell." Duh. I would love to ask Cuomo if he was ever conceived? If not, that would be weird, lol.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure, but I know that he is a contender. I hope people will start to get a clue and give him $$. He could beat Hillary. (I think anyone could, but I don't want to overestimate the American public after the last two presidential elections!)
"You began life as a single cell." With a map that was not a plant's map! Derrhhh.. (droolin')
ReplyDeleteHilarious question for Cuomo you got there. I'd love to talk to this guy, too. Holy fire.
Slow clap.
ReplyDeleteThat was beautiful. And brave. And I may have just fallen into Kara's opinion of Rubio.....
Excellent! I remember wishing Romney would have picked him for VP in 2012 and perhaps they would have carried Florida, to get over the finish line, anyways; looking fwd, he's come into his own now. Hopefully he'll get more time in the next debate to further demonstrate that gravitas.
ReplyDeleteReally, Cuomo needs to simply google "when does human life begin" and the great scientific mystery can be solved for him! lol. Wait, I did just that:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=when+does+human+life+begin&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Ummmmm...... gosh, it's just such a HARD SCIENTIFIC QUESTION!
I rolled my eyes so hard when Cuomo spoke that my eyeballs fell out of my head and they are rolling out the door.
I hope about a thousand embryologists have contacted Cuomo since his embarrassing statements. Oy, vey.
Rubio is only 44. What a smart young man! I think he'd make a very FINE president!
And yes, he's easy on the eyes, ;)
Ladies, you are hilarious! Rubio was on my short list, but I have certainly moved him up to the top after that brilliant and courageous display of faith, common sense, persistence and composure. I can't imagine Hillary besting him in a debate.
ReplyDeleteAlso love the story of his immigrant parents. I hope they are still living...how proud they must be.
For the first time in forever, being pro-life seems really hopeful. Wish I had a million bucks too, but I can send him something. And, thanks again, you two for the laughs! ; )
ha ha, well Nubby's the funny one! And we need Chris Sawaya in here to make it a real party!
ReplyDeleteI actually just sent him a donation myself. He earned it with that beautiful display! :)
By the way, your blog is beautiful!!!
ReplyDeleteHere it is folks:
https://theholyfaceofjesus.wordpress.com
Cuomo seems highly irritating. Rubio keeps saying his position is not only from his faith and Cuomo just flat-out ignores him. I wonder if he ever got any of those scientists who don't believe human life begins at conception to come on his show.
ReplyDeleteTo me, Rubio already came out best during the debate. This is icing on the cake. Very clear, eloquent, courageous, positive. I'm glad he was already among the leading contenders pre-debate. I liked Paul Ryan in 2012, shame he's not running this time, but anyway there's a decent Republican roster. Curious who will get nominated in the end.
ReplyDeleteFavorite Rubio line, "I will always support protecting life no matter what the world thinks".
ReplyDeleteAnd Cuomo needs to clarify ~some~ women have evolved their thinking. Give me a break from speaking on my behalf.
Cuomo is a bully. Rubio is right. God bless him for stating what we all know to be true, that human life begins at conception. Thank you Senator Rubio for standing up to the media that strives to create controversy and perpetuate the secular agenda.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for sharing. I hadn't seen this and it is a balm to the soul.
ReplyDeleteBest thing I've seen all day! Thanks for sharing?
ReplyDeleteGo, Rubio! A pro-lifer who doesn't apologize for having no exceptions. Who's young, a minority, eloquent, and good-looking (doesn't matter to me, but it does to some voters). Folks, we need to work really hard during the primaries and caucuses. No doubt the GOP establishment will get behind someone more "moderate." (What's moderate about allowing the taking of innocent human life?) I don't think Rubio is the only really good candidate we have right now, and the pro-life vote is probably going to split, at least early on. May it not work against us, Prayers!
ReplyDeleteIt is insulting that Cuomo that he even considers himself a Catholic!
ReplyDeleteBy the way, check out how Carly Fiorina operates! I am thinking that Hillary is likely very afraid of matching wits and debating with her:
ReplyDeletehttp://therightscoop.com/must-watch-carly-fiorina-destroys-hillary-clinton-in-interview-with-chris-matthews/
Perhaps as Carly/Rubio ticket, or a Rubio/Carly ticket? A girl can dream!
Hillary trying to counter Fiorina in debate? Level of difficulty: Expert
ReplyDeleteFiorina will own her.
That would be fun to see!!
ReplyDeleteWe're overlooking a fallacy in Cuomo's and Rubio's argument--that which places science ahead of the law. For better or worse, the law takes more than science or faith or morality into account. It certainly is influenced by those things, and sometimes determined by them, but the overarching point of a law is to maintain and protect peace and cooperation within a group.
ReplyDeleteWhether science states that human life starts at conception is irrelevant to the law. This might seem alarming (alarming from an emotional standpoint--it's actually quite logical), but the law isn't about what science says. If it were, Creationism would be outright banned in schools because it's not in any way scientific. Therefore, we must come to a *legal* definition of personhood before we can make any headway on legislating--or banning--abortion.
If, by argument or (more accurately) lobbying, the government were to decide that legally, life begins at conception, then the law to ban abortion would follow suit.
Scientists and fertility doctors and therapists would probably be brought in to testify about what their expertise determines the answer to be (as well they should), but at the end of the day it's up to the lawmakers to make the decision that will best ensure peace and cooperation in this nation. That might very well mean that life begins at twenty weeks. Or five, or one.
The United States makes laws for people who are Catholic. For people who are Muslim, Buddhist, Protestant, Atheist, Unitarian, Hindu, Agnostic, and more. One religion, philosophy, or morality can't rule them all, no matter what your personal faith asserts. You don't have to like it, but you have to respect it. This is the system that has ensured relative success in democracy. It definitely isn't perfect, and it's due for some updates, but it's the best we have. If you want it to change, the onus is on you to find an argument that isn't defined by "My God said so."
I do find it very ironic that, as Catholics, you have chosen to support candidates who, despite toeing the party line on abortion, routinely ignore or actively sabotage the poor, the elderly, the sick, and generally anyone who didn't have the privilege to be born white and middle-class. The responsibility to those people is equally important to Jesus' teachings (and perhaps more so, since these are the people who are in the world actively and not potentially).
Cuomo is doing here what you all did to Emily/CS the other day--dogpiled and misquoted and purposefully misconstrued and asked leading and deeply personal questions with the intention of catching her out and judging her. I have never seen more condescending and judgmental comments in the name of "Catholic Love". You are well within your rights to be angry that your personal belief (read: not a fact) wasn't validated, but to treat a person so shabbily, to suggest that she is some kind of gaping hole of neediness and pity because she is an adult making decisions you don't like is nothing short of disgusting. I also find it totally ridiculous that you suggested she live in an echo chamber (that is to say, surround herself with only Catholics who think the way you prefer), considering Jesus pursued the friendship of people that society considered "evil" all the time. Open yourself up to a worldview that hasn't already been confirmed by your like-minded friends. You might find some compassion will wander in.
Cuomo is doing here what you all did to Emily/CS the other day--dogpiled and misquoted and purposefully misconstrued and asked leading and deeply personal questions with the intention of catching her out and judging her.
ReplyDelete100% inaccurate takeaway from the whole exchange. Re-read it, maybe.
Fascinating that you completely circumvent the reality that CS, herself, was the one asking Margo “deeply personal questions” with the intent of making a point that Margo didn’t know the “nuances of sexual experience” well enough, as if that had anything to do with abortion. It does not. It only has to do with CS wanting to excuse herself and give us the sales job that sex on demand is … something she prefers, but it has zero bearing on a child having a right to a womb.
And the self-righteous critique that people here (here, of all places) lack “compassionate Catholic love”. Really. Welp, some of us have lived much wider experiences (in work, men/relationships, and schooling) than CS; and we’ve been around the block of life a few hundred laps. It’s not like we’re blowing smoke when we relate our experience then vs. now. You fail to see the wisdom because you’re emotional.
You mean to tell me with a straight face and some basic logic that CS couldn’t clear up half her heart break in 10 seconds with just a choice to remain chaste?
No one misconstrues a thing she says because there is no need to. She’s a straight up advocate for killing unborn for any of the following:
Pregnancy makes a woman physically uncomfortable
Pregnancy makes a woman mentally uncomfortable
Pregnancy makes you fat and changes your body
Pregnancy means you have to give up “permission” for bodily autonomy.
For all of these reasons, CS thinks that pregnancy means the child is pitted against the mother and the mother must kill the child.
Erroneous, false, cowardly, ignorant. All of it. And you cannot intelligently defend her, so you “pile on” emotionally. You’re doing what you accuse others of.
She even agreed to the idea that she was needy. Read. She fully endorsed my “advice/opinions”, which included spending time alone with God because she has deep wells that need filling. She never bucked that. Why are you trying to buck it here and now? No use trying to defend something she acknowledged. You’re making no sense.
I also find it totally ridiculous that you suggested she live in an echo chamber (that is to say, surround herself with only Catholics who think the way you prefer), considering Jesus pursued the friendship of people that society considered "evil" all the time.
Oh, well, you see, she already lives in an echo chamber. It’s an echo chamber that says, “Women are enemy, men are the enemy, family is the enemy, kids are the enemy.”
It’s an echo chamber of death, paranoia, and stupidity.
You cannot defend that, because she’s made that very clear.
We all live in echo chambers, so get to reality here. The echo chamber of Catholicism lifts a person, encourages a person to overcome self, frees a person from burdens, to name a few things.
And the bit about Jesus and sinners – no kidding. He dined with sinners, he broke bread with sinners, he freed sinners, he forgave sinners, and ever to this day – shocking – he saves sinners. Never once did he endorse them in their sin. Never once did he validate them in staying the same. He CHALLENGES. He heals.
Stop making him out to be a feeble minded psychotherapist. He is God Almighty. Caricatures of Jesus as a wimpy hippy push-over grandpa are completely false and harmful.
And your bit about the science and the church? The Court can easily reverse that which it handed down erroneously based on the criteria alone. No idea what point you’re trying to show with those first 4 paragraphs.
Not one Catholic here is emoting unintelligibly. That would be the secular minded people like CS and yourself.
Nubby,
DeleteMy response will take up more than one comment, so stay with me.
"100% inaccurate takeaway from the whole exchange. Re-read it, maybe."
Let me clarify: I concede that Margo and CS both willingly entered into a conversation about sexual consent (that is, the contract people enter into when they choose to engage in sex together) and how that affects any consequences of the action. CS testified that her partner deceived her regarding the agreement they made to use contraception. WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE THAT CONTRACEPTION IS "RIGHT", her partner misled her and could very easily have charges brought up against him for sexual assault, which CS mentioned herself.
My problem with the response to this is how quickly people glossed over the deception/potential assault in order to tell her "no matter what you thought you agreed to, you're wrong." Once again, the contract was that these two people were engaging in sex with the express understanding that a condom would be worn in order to prevent pregnancy and disease. Whether that agrees with your Catholic values or not, your values have zero bearing on how a law should be written or upheld regarding abortion. I notice that you chose not to engage in this very argument in the first three-quarters of my comment.
You fail to see the wisdom because you’re emotional.
Your kneejerk anger is apparent, and, once again, you've refused to engage with the logical argument I presented. For a site that values logic, you tend to forget the basis of it: a solid premise. You're working from a flawed premise (that your Catholic faith and values should dictate not only the behavior of others, but the laws of a diverse and secular nation), so the logic that proceeds from it doesn't wash.
I'm not refuting your experience--I myself waited until I got married to have sex and it was a wonderful decision that I'd recommend to anyone. But your experience/opinion isn't a pure, unvarnished truth that is a gift to anyone who you deign to bestow it upon. Anecdotal evidence isn't fact. It's an anecdote.
Calling me "emotional" is a tactic you're using to discredit my point: that you spoke to CS with disrespect and venom. I *was* angry at the disrespect and condescension you showed, as anyone would be. Having an emotion about something (like your anger and disgust at abortions, for example), doesn't invalidate the arguments that come forth from that reaction.
"You mean to tell me with a straight face and some basic logic that CS couldn’t clear up half her heart break in 10 seconds with just a choice to remain chaste?"
Like I said, I'm not arguing that giving advice is wrong. I'm arguing that your delivery was rude and condescending. You mean to tell me with a straight face that making an argument that a woman should be able to acquire a safe and legal abortion makes someone a "sadist"? That is not logic. Do you know what "sadist" means?
"For all of these reasons, CS thinks that pregnancy means the child is pitted against the mother and the mother must kill the child...And you cannot intelligently defend her, so you “pile on” emotionally. You’re doing what you accuse others of."
The first four paragraphs of my comment "intelligently" defend her. You're just not interested in thinking of any opinion other than your own as "intelligent". CS was promoting the apparently radical idea that women are allowed to make medical decisions about their own bodily and mental health and their futures.
"She even agreed to the idea that she was needy. Read. She fully endorsed my “advice/opinions”, which included spending time alone with God because she has deep wells that need filling. She never bucked that. Why are you trying to buck it here and now? No use trying to defend something she acknowledged. You’re making no sense."
DeleteHer personal relationship problems are her own. I'm not bucking anyone's point, but the advice wasn't solicited or offered with love. In fact, CS even brought your disrespectful and insulting tone to your attention, which you dismissed as "emoting", which we've already covered. That's not arguing in good faith, and you are the one who behaved badly. End of.
"It’s an echo chamber of death, paranoia, and stupidity.
You cannot defend that, because she’s made that very clear."
To you, perhaps. I didn't get any of that from her comments. I think this is a case of Nubby Putting Words In People's Mouths.
"Stop making him out to be a feeble minded psychotherapist. He is God Almighty. Caricatures of Jesus as a wimpy hippy push-over grandpa are completely false and harmful."
You are truly an expert at this putting words in people's mouth's thing. You are forcing your purposeful misunderstanding forward as the "true" interpretation. You did it yesterday with CS and you are doing it now. When I point out that Jesus opened his heart to the dregs of society, I was making a point about his willingness to engage with opinions and lifestyles that were not his own. He did not live in an echo chamber--not a Jewish, Catholic, or Gentile one. I made no mention of how I interpret Jesus, and I certainly don't see him as a "wimpy hippy pushover grandpa".
"And your bit about the science and the church? The Court can easily reverse that which it handed down erroneously based on the criteria alone. No idea what point you’re trying to show with those first 4 paragraphs."
"The Court can easily reverse that which it handed down erroneously based on the criteria alone."
This sentence gives me no context or reference to my argument, so I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. My point is that religion cannot dictate law in a free, diverse nation, and that scientific opinion can't either (because science can't even agree when "human life"--a nonscientific concept that implies an emotional/spiritual element---begins).
Here is another thing I'm interested to know: if abortion is banned, what do you think should happen to women who seek out illegal abortions? Should they be tried for attempted murder? Murder in the first degree if they're successful in procuring one? How about the doctors who perform them?
"Not one Catholic here is emoting unintelligibly. That would be the secular minded people like CS and yourself."
Interesting that you say so, because I seem to be the only one providing a premise based on the way our legal system and Constitution actually work.
(2/2)
I'm wondering if you've been involved in discussions here or if this is your first time visiting "the Bubble". (Sincerely asking.) The discussions that happen yes, can get emotional and even snarky. I prefer to stay out of any snarkiness, I don't see any benefit from it. But at the same time, the discussions that happen here are much more respectful than what I have witnessed from those from pro-abortion or pro-choice discussions. Talk about dog-pile! It happens on both sides, but this side is much kinder. Yes, snarky sometimes, or "tough love" but believe me, it is much more respectful here.
ReplyDeleteRegarding CS, I have only followed half of that discussion so I don't know everything that happened. But what I did see was a heated discussion on both sides. CS has been a commenter here before and she knew what she was getting into, respectively speaking. Regardless of our different opinions, I know that a lot of people here and Leila especially, have a high regard for CS. She proves herself to be an intelligent woman and I think that frustration sometimes spills out because we only want her to see the Truth. But she keeps coming back and out of a lot of the commenters here (that are "on the other side"), she is my favorite. I appreciate her zeal and passion even if we don't agree.
Again, I'm not sure if you've commented or followed Leila's blog before, but there have been much more passionate discussions from both sides--we have had more than just one person "on the other side" in a discussion who is just as passionate and snarky. It isn't just the people here that are Catholic. While I wish we could all remain calm and not let frustration seep through, we're all human on both sides. And if you notice in the video, both men became rather passionate and frustrated also. Human nature. It's a hard discussion to discuss.
I'm sorry if all you saw in that discussion was judgment and condescension. I can tell you that you have misread the discussion completely. And following my comment here, other people will step in to explain to you why you misunderstood. They will also address the first part of your comment which I have chosen to not discuss. I am a follower here and mostly, a lurker. I'm not here for the drama but here to learn. So for that reason, I can't answer or engage in discussion but will be tuning in to follow and hopefully learn along with you. I hope that you will also be open to what others might say and hopefully, we all can have a discussion that doesn't lower itself to condensation or snarkyness.
Alyssa, welcome! You must be very, very new here.
ReplyDeleteI'm off to mass soon, but I will be back later to address your points. But in the meantime, let me ask: Have you watched the videos, specifically the fifth video released (check my last post)?
Thanks! Be back later today....
Leila--funnily enough, I'm not new. I was initially linked to your blog in March of 2013, and check in maybe once every two or three months to scan the topics. I wouldn't call myself a regular reader, but I have the lay of the land. I don't think you intend the condescension, but I'm telling you that it's there in that "very, very new" comment.
DeleteI haven't watched the videos, but I'm aware of their content. I'd be happy to watch all five before addressing your comments, however.
I'm really looking forward to your response!
Alyssa, you say that laws should no be based on science, faith, or morality, but rather on what would "maintain and protect peace and cooperation within a group."
ReplyDeleteSo. By that logic, both the Holocaust and slavery were just. The Holocaust "maintained and protected peace and cooperation within" German society. Slavery "maintained and protected peace and cooperation within" the South.
Do you think the Holocaust and slavery were both good things?
Ah yes, and both World War II and the Civil War never happened. Thank you for that history lesson.
DeleteCS testified that her partner deceived her regarding the agreement they made to use contraception. WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE THAT CONTRACEPTION IS "RIGHT", her partner misled her and could very easily have charges brought up against him for sexual assault, which CS mentioned herself.
ReplyDeleteYeah, uh, Alyssa. Interestingly, the whole context wasn’t about contraception being wrong.
If you would correctly follow, I never once said anything about contraception being immoral.
I said abstinence takes care of her issues of condom accidents and fears of a guy leaving her if she conceives his child.
I said abstinence takes care of heartache and, it eradicates the reality of abortion in her life. This is not difficult, Alyssa. I don’t understand how you got what you got out of that exchange.
Whether that agrees with your Catholic values or not, your values have zero bearing on how a law should be written or upheld regarding abortion. I notice that you chose not to engage in this very argument in the first three-quarters of my comment.
Are you ignorant of law? Of history?
How plainly would you like to see it, Alyssa?
laws should no be based on science, faith, or morality, but rather on what would "maintain and protect peace and cooperation within a group. - you say.
Fact: Anything that is lawful is always tied to ethics and morals, regardless if the law actually reflects that accurately and justly, is another question completely. There are just laws and unjust laws.
What do you think the criteria is for formation of constitutional law?
There is no escaping the moral reality to law. The moral component, the moral aspect, is always the single driving element in your idea of “protection of peace”.
But let’s not talk Constitution. Let’s just look at the Declaration and its laws therein.
Your idea of law “maintaining and protecting peace” without a moral or scientific basis actually falls completely on its face when you look at RvW and the very first two unalienable rights listed in the Declaration while simultaneously looking at the Courts reasoning in the decision and how it came down.
Do you see the ordering of those rights?
Do you know those are ordered that way on purpose?
Do you see how RvW never should’ve tampered with that ordering?
Do you realize those rights were never voted upon by any judiciary, but merely acknowledged and respected by the founders?
Do you know what the judicial opinions were? Have you read the critiques?
Where do you think those unalienable rights came from? A vote?
And you say you know how our Constitution works? Interesting.
This sentence gives me no context or reference to my argument, so I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. My point is that religion cannot dictate law in a free, diverse nation, and that scientific opinion can't either (because science can't even agree when "human life"--a nonscientific concept that implies an emotional/spiritual element---begins).
ReplyDeleteWelp, here's your context:
No one, not one single Catholic, wants Catholicism to rule the land, so you can put away the false notion that we want the Church to be the writers of court orders and positive law. What definitely don't want is tyranny of the majority. Do you know what that is?
Do you even know how that went down in RvW?
And your idea that science doesn't tell when life begins... here we go. Crack a secular science book.
Check your facts about the RvW case and then we can perhaps chat intelligently.
Here is a reply to both comments:
DeleteYou've overlooked my grander point re: contraception--I was illustrating that the perceived morality or immorality of contraception is irrelevant to the contract that was made. That's all. Contraception is secondary. Here's the necessary info, in bullets for easier digestion:
-The contract was made (i.e. consent was given on the condition that a condom would be worn)
-Her partner broke the contract by removing the condom without her consent.
-If she were to have gotten pregnant, the contract she made--that is, the much-lower-risk she agreed to (with the condom)--supercedes the high-risk contract she DIDN'T agree too. Thus:
-Any consequence that proceeds from that high-risk contract isn't her responsibility.
That is the argument she was making, and that is the argument I am making. I'm amazed I have to go through this point by point, but I will if it will enhance your understanding.
You and JoAnna have both misquoted me. What I wrote was: "For better or worse, the law takes MORE THAN science or faith or morality into account. It certainly is influenced by those things, and sometimes determined by them, but the overarching point of a law is to maintain and protect peace and cooperation within a group." (emphasis mine)
I never removed science, faith, OR morality from lawmaking procedure. I simply said that those aren't the only thing that determine it; that the way to best maintain peace must also be considered.
Here's an example: I could outlaw all guns on the basis of the devastating crimes they have assisted in committing. I would be doing so on moral grounds--no guns means no gun deaths. However, I would be setting myself up for an incredible uproar: hunters, collectors, plain old gun nuts would be banging down my door and, yes, disturbing the peace. More than one group must be considered in the making of a law.
In that vein, I didn't say that Catholics want to take over government at all. I said that your premise is that laws should reflect Catholic values and that it is a flawed premise. Please read to understand, not to pick out what you think are "gotcha" moments.
When I say "human life", I'm not referring only to biological responses, which is what the "secular science books" mean when they refer to "the moment life begins". I'm taking about "HUMAN life", AKA when does this cluster of cells, this bundle of biological responses, become a Person with a Soul. That is not something science can measure, and therefore can't comment on. Which is why I said in my original post that we should be concentrating on legally settling the argument of Personhood before we ban anything outright.
I'm sorry to say I don't see any argument of yours presented here. I see a few loose questions with no real context or relevance. If you have a thesis to state, please do so and I'd be happy to respond.
Echo Chamber??? Dear God we can't go five minutes without a heaping helping of secular mantas from coworkers, TV , radio, movies or any public gathering. What a Joke. There isn't a single person on this blog that couldn't regurgitate the cultures message in fine detail and probably better with more understanding than the advocates of that tired worn out "echo chamber" sheep talk. I mean please!!
ReplyDeleteThe bubble is by far the most courteous and open minded forum I've ever seen. If CS says things like " but guys lie to get sex" and nobody's yells "what are you , 16?" That is civil. Ok Nubby did call her Columbo but is CS could connect a few dots perhaps there wouldn't be such frustration. It's astonishing how an established accepted lie causes so much contortion to defend it.
And yes Johanna , like the south, they were being asked to abandon a lie and they were so fixed on the lie that they fought and died to avoid change. The correlation is perfect . And laws not based on science, morality etc? What?
and don't we all remember long parade of science and evidence presented to court before Roe? No, they bypassed all discovery on the principle question Of when life begins. A Joke piece of law.
I wish I had more time to not be so snarky.
Yesterday we celebrated birthdays for our twin uterus invaders and today is our 18yh anniversary. We found a way to un-graft the kids to go spend an afternoon by ourselves in the secular echo chambers of a theatre
And restaurant.
Ok Nubby did call her Columbo but is CS could connect a few dots perhaps there wouldn't be such frustration.
DeleteHahaha, no I didn't, bro!
I said that was for a friend who might suggest that a baby isn't human until after it's born - before CS entered the convo.
And I upvote the snarky. It's not a sin. It's refreshingly honest in a world full of bull.
I'm gonna graft a whiskey flask to my arm so every time I need to type a reply I just tip-up and bam... good 2 go.
"Graft a whisky flask" "twin uterus invaders'!!!!! CLASSIC, please please please make some YouTube vids of your banter! The Chris & Nubby show everyone, comedy, Catholic-style with intellect, wit, and just a touch of snark ;-)
DeleteI just might do that, CS. I'll launch a vid, and Chris can answer back.
Deletecorrection to my reply: before CS entered the convo with me specifically.
Nubby, A wh. flask sounds better than an IV drip of Starb.coffee, since they reportedly fund PP via matching employee contributions to same.
DeleteIs snarky the new Trumpesque lite?--quite the kinder/gentler version with still specks of spice :)
Haha, Maggie :)
DeleteSnarky (smart a--) comments are a norm to me. Strikes me as odd, in this culture of "tolerance" that "you're snarky!" is used to try and shame us.
To which I shrug,
"Nah, no thanks. Not today. I got actual real sins to be forgiven. But, thanks anyway..."
Why did I call you "CS", Margo? I am sorry. I meant your name. Derp!
DeleteToo much whiskey, Nubs? ;)
DeleteBam. Called me out. lol
DeleteWhiskey-armed and celebrating the day! Because, ya know, at the end of all the warped confusion, God stands. ;) Celebrate the joy today, whoooooo!
Yes!! Today is the Lord's day, let us rejoice and be glad! Well, except if you're Francis Choundhury and live in Australia where it's already Monday or Moan-day as I think of it haha
DeleteHow come you always reply to me with " nope, sorry, wrong again bro!" what about my feelings? Can't I be right too? To hell with the facts. I can't believe you guys are talking whiskey. I love you guys. Margo you are a jewel.
Deletethis has been a running theme in our house lately. Jim Baucus is classic here. "just push the button marked BOOZE!"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i415QwSj0Og
In my defense, I did freely share some personal information regarding my experience with romantic situations that could have led to sex, but I did so only to show that it IS possible to choose abstinence even amidst the heat of the moment. And that relates to abortion because if women flat out decided to fully practice chastity and abstain until marriage then there would be far fewer causes (unplanned pregnancies) for abortion in the first place.
ReplyDeleteAlyssa, I've been a follower of Leila for YEARS now and I can tell you that she is one of the most loving, sincere people I know. Did you read her "Please read first" post? She explains that this is not a sugar-coated blog, but one that discusses topics in a respectful, direct, clear manner. So, when we're in the midst of discussions with long-time commenters such as CS, we're not going to be saccharine-sweet, but we're going to love her by challenging her ideas and challenging her to think about perspectives in a different way.
And if you read Leila's reversion story, you will see that Leila knows what it is like to be on the other side, to live without practicing chastity, so she is full of compassion and knows what it's like to live in a non-Catholic way.
"if women flat out decided to fully practice chastity and abstain until marriage then there would be far fewer causes (unplanned pregnancies) for abortion in the first place."
DeleteThat may be the case. I'd be interested to know how you plan to implement this lesson and ensure it gets obeyed. I'm sorry to say you're also overlooking the information that shows us that the majority of women who seek abortions are already parents, usually living below the poverty line. Many are indeed married. In fact, teenagers only account for 18% of abortions. (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html)
"we're not going to be saccharine-sweet, but we're going to love her by challenging her ideas and challenging her to think about perspectives in a different way."
I'm all for direct, blunt discussion. Rudeness and judgment don't enter into that. (To be fair, I was mostly referring to Nubby in this case, but Leila was very encouraging to Nubby.) Any chance you'd be willing to have your ideas similarly challenged? Nobody here is willing to give an inch, and I become a "secularist" who's out to lord their opinion over others. Is that arguing in good faith? It isn't.
I have read the disclaimers Leila put in place (you might have seen that I've been reading since March 2013). I'm well aware that I won't convince anyone, and that's more than fine. I'm introducing an alternative premise--one that aligns more closely with how the majority thinks in order to inspire a little understanding. I fully understand and sympathize with the Catholic perspective, even if I don't fully share it.
What I'm amazed by is the stubborn tendency to completely overlook the very direct points I'm making in order to make a tone argument at me defending the blog itself. I take no issue with Leila or her blog. I have seen respectful discourse here. But I saw an instance where a person was rude and nasty and called them out. There is no shame or misunderstanding in that.
Alyssa, for an alleged follower of this blog, you seem to not know Leila's preference to not use the "reply" buttons when replying to comments.
ReplyDeleteNow, as to your retort. Yes, WWII and the Civil War took place after enough of the populace determined that the Holocaust and slavery, respectively, were not just. So, does that mean you concede that laws enacted for the purpose you state are not always just laws?
He did not live in an echo chamber--not a Jewish, Catholic, or Gentile one.
ReplyDeleteNo, actually He came to reveal the proper echo chamber. If He's the truth, what do you think he wants you listening to in terms of messages regarding life, healing, wholeness, hope, and sin? Hmmmm?
And you're not supposed to reply under each name with that high of a word count. Leila's law.
And for you and for the belly aching future comments from here on out about my "rudeness" or "snark". Please. My attitude is that of Christ. I am His.
That I don't roll over and layer sweetness in my words does not mean I lack truth, it means most people a) don't like to hear it so bluntly or b) don't like my personality.
Either way, I'm okay with it. For the times I'm actually rude, I will apologize. But I won't apologize for blunt truth. It was so someone's "blunt rudeness" that shoved me into finding the truth of Church and I punted it right back at her x10. Her rudeness was a very good catalyst to truth finding. Take it or leave it.
^^ Nubby, I'd love to hear that story!!! I want to know how it went down!!!
DeleteAlyssa, it sounds like to me that you hold man made laws above moral and natural laws. So would you say that when slavery was 100% legal in the USA by man made laws, that you fully support that slavery was okay and that we don't need to apologize for slavery in anyway? If there is a law in the USA that makes it legal to kill anyone with a dark tint to their skin, that would be perfectly fine since it is the law?!?
ReplyDeleteThere are just and unjust laws. As MLK said, we are obligated to follow just laws. Those laws that square with moral and natural law. We are also obligated to NOT follow unjust laws, those that conflict with moral and natural law.
Man made laws aren't about natural law, when a person thinks it is, we go down the rabbit hole that leads to slavery, genocide, holocausts, racism, sexism, etc.
*above natural law. (not about)
Delete"I haven't watched the videos, but I'm aware of their content."
ReplyDeleteAlyssa, great! I only want you to watch the fifth one, all the way through. Carefully. Thanks!
And, I still can't comment much yet (not even caught up reading), but if you are not new, then please adhere to the very old rule that we only comment at the bottom of the thread and do not use the "reply" function, unless you are correcting a typo. See rules below. Thanks!
JoAnna and Nubby--
ReplyDeleteI concede that I broke Leila's Law of Posting--I'm used to forums that prefer threads to one long stream. It was a mistake that doesn't invalidate any of my arguments. Sorry about that, Leila!
Nubby,
I've never heard that justification for disrespect before. It must be very hard to be so right and above reproach all the time.
JoAnna and JRFJosh,
You bring up a very tired, fallacious argument. By that incredibly useless token, I bet you agreed with how England was run in the Dark Ages because they were all about "natural and moral law". For clarification: slavery and the Holocaust were both terrible tragedies and shameful parts of our past that should never be repeated again.
Man-made laws aren't perfect. I never said this. I also agree with MLK that we should be enforcing and following just laws.
The thing is, abortion is such a hot topic is because we are arguing the JUSTICE of a woman being able to make her own decisions about her own body. You might disagree with that and say it's unjust that a baby should die. Another person might argue that it's not a baby until xx weeks, anyway. This can go on forever.
The point is, you have to acknowledge that there is another argument being made, a compelling argument that has a lot of understandable support behind it. No one here is willing to allow that there is a REASON that people are supportive of legal abortion. They want to reserve their bodily agency, their freedom, their futures--not to mention the precedents this law could set about other medical matters. This is an enormous issue that ripples outward for generations.
A general note:
Perhaps consider not putting words in a dissenter's mouth in order to distract from the point they're actually making. This is something I've seen often, not just with me and not just in the last few days. I have stated and restated my position as people continue to willfully misconstrue my point. Read, digest, respond.
"When I say "human life", I'm not referring only to biological responses, which is what the "secular science books" mean when they refer to "the moment life begins". I'm taking about "HUMAN life", AKA when does this cluster of cells, this bundle of biological responses, become a Person with a Soul."
ReplyDeleteEnsoulment is a religious concept, not one that can be proven by science. So trying to prove that a person becomes a person when s/he has a soul is pointless. Atheists will not concede that a soul exists, since its existence can't be proved via science. There are plenty of secular arguments for personhood beginning at conception so I would completely disregard ensoulment. See Secularprolife.org.
So basically, you're saying that the unborn are human beings (scientifically), but not all human beings are persons based on some random, arbitrary criteria. How is this any different than slaveowners deciding that human beings with black skin weren't persons? Or Hitler deciding that Jewish human beings weren't persons?
What is your arbitrary criteria for why only some human beings are persons, and others are not?
"The thing is, abortion is such a hot topic is because we are arguing the JUSTICE of a woman being able to make her own decisions about her own body."
ReplyDeleteNo, we are not arguing about that all. We are arguing the JUSTICE of a woman being able to kill the separate, unique, distinct body of an innocent human being.
I completely acknowledge that there is a reason people want to kill unborn children. People who commit any kind of injustice usually have a reason or several reasons for wanting to do so. But the long and short of it is that the right to bodily autonomy is not absolute (this point was actually acknowledged in the majority opinion of Roe v Wade). Pregnancy is temporary whereas death is permanent; therefore, the right to life supersecedes the right to bodily autonomy.
Nubby, I've never heard that justification for disrespect before. It must be very hard to be so right and above reproach all the time.
ReplyDeleteInteresting take, Alyssa. If you’ve been reading since the time you said, you’d have seen my apologies here plenty. Swing and a miss.
You’d have also seen many points I make in terms of showing where the law has failed, esp in RvW. So weird that you fail to address any of that very substantial and relevant here, as pertains to this very delicate topic. Odd.
They want to reserve their bodily agency, their freedom, their futures--not to mention the precedents this law could set about other medical matters. This is an enormous issue that ripples outward for generations.
A general note:
Perhaps consider not putting words in a dissenter's mouth in order to distract from the point they're actually making.
And yet you continue to think we miss this point? Really?
We completely get it- women want their bodily autonomy, congratulations. Didn’t miss that point.
Didn’t miss the point that you have degrees of separation in your speech in order to justify abortion. “Bodily agency” really? What’s it an agent to, if not life? Just wondering.
You’ve gone on about the law and you still fail to show what you understand about it. Are you a lawyer? Do you know any? Live with any? Have lunch with any? Chat with any? Just wondering. Some of us here are lawyers or know 3 or 4 of them. We have well informed conversations, not just com-box jello.
It’s been fun, though, Alyssa.
Swing and another miss, Alyssa.
ReplyDeleteScience completely, utterly acknowledges that at the "moment of fertilization" life begins. That's been the case since RvW.
The Court had that as their objective criteria. That's all they had to refer to. They had it, they chose to ditch it.
Do you know why?
Do you even understand how they came about their "personhood" argument?
Check your references, not just loose arguments here because you want points, because so far I respect nothing of what you have said being that it’s not even based on the judicial opinions themselves. Just your opinion.
I never removed science, faith, OR morality from lawmaking procedure. I simply said that those aren't the only thing that determine it; that the way to best maintain peace must also be considered.
Then insert something new and quit playing the shell game with criteria.
What else would a judiciary even use, Alyssa? Ethics and morals undergird every law, and if you realize that, then you must realize that ethics and morals are always tied to God’s law. Always. That’s a whole body of scholarship, right there.
In that vein, I didn't say that Catholics want to take over government at all. I said that your premise is that laws should reflect Catholic values and that it is a flawed premise.
??
Not flawed at all, considering the actual fact that all law is tied to morality, which is further always tied to God’s law. Looks like you need to read some. Or chat with some lawyers.
Alyssa,
ReplyDeleteWhen a woman consents to engaging in sexual intercourse, she is consenting to all possible outcomes. No contraceptive is 100% effective, there is always a chance of pregnancy. It's basic cause-and-effect. If a woman does not want to be pregnant, then she should not consent to engaging in sex. No one has ever died from abstinence :)
And it would be one thing if we Catholics were trying to enact a law saying that all people MUST pray the rosary every day or attend Mass every Sunday or believe in the Nicene Creed. That would be wrong. It just so happens that part of our faith is loving all people, including the unborn, and wanting what is truly best for all people (and abortion is never best for the woman). Do you see the difference?
Alyssa, you said:
ReplyDeleteNo one here is willing to allow that there is a REASON that people are supportive of legal abortion.
But isn't that a given? I mean, there is a reason, even good reasons (good ends) for every bad thing that is done. I thought that was a given, that women have reasons for having abortions?
The question is not whether or not they have "reasons", it's whether or not an act is wrong, immoral, evil, or whatever word you would like to use.
So, that is why the basic principle in moral reasoning is: The ends don't justify the means. The end might be very good, but if the means (i.e., killing someone innocent) is not good, then we are not morally permitted to get to that end using those (evil) means. See?
So, you say you agree with MLK that we should not follow unjust laws, but you leave off the part where he explains what that means. How do we determine which laws are just or unjust?
I'm still just catching up, but oh, goodness. Alyssa, you said:
ReplyDeleteIf you want it to change, the onus is on you to find an argument that isn't defined by "My God said so."
Oh, my. I don't even know what to say. This blog has never, ever, ever, ever argued with a secularist about pro-life issues by saying "my God said so".
Oh, I am weary. I mean, you say you have been here, but have you actually read any of the discussions? Forgive me, but ... ?? Sigh.
I do want you to stay, I really do. But please, I beg you, give us more credit than that.
And, please let me know when you have watched the entire fifth video (I'd love for you to watch them all, of course).
JoAnna:
ReplyDeleteAllow me to clarify again: I misspoke when I said 'Person with a Soul'. What I meant was a person who can be considered a citizen with separate legal rights in our country. You're right that ensoulment is inherently religious, which is exactly why scientists can't determine it.
Nubby,
I'm guessing you're referring to the first two Declarative rights of life and liberty. One could make a pro-choice argument about "the pursuit of happiness", but since the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with how we make laws (and has no laws in it, either), I'm going to put this aside.
Regarding RvW, I didn't address it because I'm not really sure what you're asking of me. You didn't make any point for me to either agree with or refute. Are you asking me to acknowledge that the court created a legal definition of personhood and viability using trimesters as a marker? I acknowledge that.
That is, in fact, the whole argument I'm making. That science might say "this egg is fertilized and the seed of a baby is now sprouting", but that doesn't necessarily touch the legal definition of "citizen" or "person" OR encroach on the rights of the mother. The court did exactly what they're there for and created a legal definition and precedent. Actually, Justice Perry Blackmun reserves any particular judgment about the "official" (read: universal) definition of when life begins, stating that doctors, philosophers, and clergy can figure that out for themselves in context.
Bringing things back to the Planned Parenthood situation, the law that the video misquotes includes language that refers to the mother as "the Donor", indicating that the position of our lawmakers is that fetal tissue is the mother's property alone to donate or dispose of as she wishes. This isn't what Planned Parenthood's handbook says--this is US law. If you have a problem with this, that's the source you need to go to--not misleading pro-life organizations who are set to "expose" "illegal" practices. What went on in that video was a frank discussion of a medical procedure and the transference of tissue for research purposes. If you were to read even the next line alone of the law quoted therein, you would recognize that trading in fetal tissue isn't illegal at all--it just has conditions like pretty much everything else.
Margo,
Discussing the politics of consent with you isn't the hill I'm going to die on today. We disagree fundamentally about the control a woman should have over her sexual experiences and the products thereof. (AKA: I believe she should have control, even if I disagree with the experiences she chooses to have.)
A phrase like "abortion is never best for the woman" is an empty one, especially when there are thousands of women who HAVE had abortions who would almost certainly contradict you. Either way, it's not your call.
I won't be replying again to anyone on this subject except Leila, once she responds.
Okay, but what am I supposed to respond to? What is your question to me?
ReplyDeleteDid you watch the whole video?
One could make a pro-choice argument about "the pursuit of happiness",
ReplyDeleteUm. No, actually, one could not, because the pursuit of happiness does not mean “license to do what I want”. I thought you knew law.
but since the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with how we make laws (and has no laws in it, either), I'm going to put this aside.
It actually has contained within it something called “assent to law”. And has a boatload of meaning in terms of how and why we make laws. Oh. My.
It explains rights of people, Alyssa. It contains a list of grievances.
Nothing about constitutional rights (voted upon) but assent to a higher, divine law. So don’t put it aside at all. It is completely relevant here, especially in terms of the gravity of RvW.
You didn't make any point for me to either agree with or refute. Are you asking me to acknowledge that the court created a legal definition of personhood and viability using trimesters as a marker? I acknowledge that.
No, I’m asking you to read the judicial opinions. I’ve asked if you’ve read them. I’ve asked you to read them. Nothing to do with trimester markers- that was a parameter they instilled to fall back on.
Read. Their. Opinions. See how they measure and dialogue. See how your right to life (NO VOTE) went from a protected, given right (via the Decl) to an extrinsic right (via A VOTE) in the blink of an eye.
Do you know what this means for you, American citizen? Do you extrapolate the importance of a Court’s defining your personhood for you, Alyssa?
That is, in fact, the whole argument I'm making. That science might say "this egg is fertilized and the seed of a baby is now sprouting", but that doesn't necessarily touch the legal definition of "citizen" or "person" OR encroach on the rights of the mother.
ReplyDeleteOh. My. Alyssa, are you even familiar with the law? As it was as it is now?
It actually did touch *directly* upon the definition, meaning, and protection of “citizen” and “person”, Alyssa. It actually did.
So—not sure what you’re reaching for here. Do you know basic Con Law 101? I don’t like entertaining these conversations where people know nothing but to sell the notion that they do. Learn they did *not* need – at all! – to create a legal definition of “person” or “personhood”, Alyssa.
They *chose* to do that. They had necessity criterion in place and they had recourse to science. Alyssa, all they had to do was uphold what was already in place, they went above and beyond their limits in reassigning a new definition. You know what that means for you, Alyssa? It means now, your “declared” and un-voted upon right just tanked into an extrinsic an voted upon right. Guess what that means? You could be voted a “non person” by any corrupt judiciary. At any time, thanks to RvW. You’re good with this, because of abortion? Really? What kind of logic is that?
What went on in that video was a frank discussion of a medical procedure and the transference of tissue for research purposes. If you were to read even the next line alone of the law quoted therein, you would recognize that trading in fetal tissue isn't illegal at all--it just has conditions like pretty much everything else.
Don’t try to sell any of us on this, Alyssa. This is a horrible dishonest sales job that none of us here will buy.
You don’t see or know about the percentage and uptick of cost baked into the 10 layer cake of Planned Parenthood’s abortion rate? Really? Alyssa, I think we’re done. I cannot entertain these kinds of conversations where the person wants to argue adamantly for something they don’t even know about. Ridiculous.
Yesterday we celebrated birthdays for our twin uterus invaders and today is our 18yh anniversary. We found a way to un-graft the kids to go spend an afternoon by ourselves in the secular echo chambers of a theatre
ReplyDeleteAnd restaurant.
Happy Anniversary!!! And, please, please, you two need to have a show! Or a podcast!!! Or something! I cannot get enough of the Nubby and Chris Show!!
I'm down with that. After a few margaritas, we might get all philosophical... lol
DeleteOh Happy Day Chris! (n belated but sincere congrats to you also Leila, somehow I missed that one)
DeleteRE the podcast, when you and Nubby get on a roll, you both seem to talk in some obscure native language, so please have a translate button available, or text button also, in case some of us, (ok, just me), need to replay it again, and again to get it :(
Leila, Yours is one of the few blogs I read that has the perfect combo of light n heavy :)
Nubby we call those medicinal margaritas. You know the ones with grapefruit, blood orange thing? I admit to becoming more appreciative of the spirits on ice. not stupid like when your 20 but all philosophical first and then stupid.
DeleteSo Maggie, that translate button will require a $5 dollar cover and 2 drink minimum. Thanks for well wishes. I'm the luckiest guy on the face of earth.
Alyssa, the whole reason the grievances are there is b/c King George didn’t assent to the laws the colonies made. Those were all in place to serve the common good, which does not mean “license to do was we wish”.
ReplyDeleteThose laws were declared – declared – not voted upon, to avoid a tyrannical rule. And they are separate from the Constitution on purpose.
KG3, (King George III)
Delete* those right were declared
Deletenot laws
Great, Alyssa, I'm glad you clarified. Now, you said: we need to determine who is "a person who can be considered a citizen with separate legal rights in our country."
ReplyDeleteWhether or not someone is a citizen of the United States is irrelevant, unless you are trying to argue that illegal immigrants or legal non-citizens can be killed with impunity. (I'm going to go ahead an assume that you don't mean that.)
Can you agree with me that a "person" is "a human being who is entitled to basic human rights"? Is that a fair definition?
Leila,
ReplyDeleteI did watch the fifth video--I made reference to it in my most recent comment, but it would be easy to miss!
As far as a response, I figured you would be responding to my original comment. It's your blog, so feel free to respond to any other comments I or others have made.
Be back later on!
Yes, I saw you quote something about the law. Yes. But it left me unsure if you had watched the video. So, as a human being, not as a lawyer or pundit, what did you think of the video? As a human being? I'm seriously curious. CS was very honest that it was worse than she could have imagined, and she has rethought some of her ideas.
ReplyDeleteI have yet to read through the thread (two kids start school tomorrow, ack!), but I will do that later and attempt to respond to your first comment (assuming that the others have not already addressed those points even better than I could have, which actually I am sure they have! And if so, I will distill out the points that are still unaddressed. Meantime, could you comment on what I said?)
But if you can't admit that we don't back our arguments with "Because God said so", then I am not sure we are actually having a legit dialogue? Reassure me there.
Maggie, so sweet! Thank you!!
JoAnna, I'm not going to argue semantics with you. I think you know exactly what I mean, and I choose to end this nitpicky sidebar here.
ReplyDeleteLeila,
Let me clarify: "Because my God said so" was a blunt, simplified statement. However, when it comes to any argument that proceeds from a religious foundation, the basis for that argument is, generally speaking, "my faith in God/the teaching and documents of my religion declare that this is right/wrong for xx reasons, and I believe that". The point is that the teachings of the Church (which, you'll allow, is acting for God on Earth) shape your beliefs about morality, law, government, life, etc. I don't condemn it in the least--our beliefs are shaped by all kinds of authorities and people and experiences--but they don't make a convincing legal argument to govern an whole nation of people who might not subscribe to those beliefs. That's what I meant.
I'm not saying people who post here haven't used other arguments, but they're moral arguments, which come down to "morally this is wrong, and my morality comes from God". Do you see where I'm coming from? I'm trying to argue in good faith, so if I've missed some huge, compelling talking point that is separate from Catholicism, let me know.
Regarding the video: I want to be clear that it's misleading and patently wrong to say that anything shown in that video illustrates illegal actions; the director never talks about profit at all, only about recouping costs and providing for the research facility. This is a witch hunt, and it's distracting from more meaningful nationwide dialogue about abortion. (And the root factors of lacking sex education, poverty, etc., which aren't anywhere near sensational enough to discuss on the national stage, apparently.)
As I watched the video, I was actually pretty underwhelmed by it--not because I don't understand how some might be alarmed or disgusted by the subject matter (I do), but because the videos have been hyped as SO DISTURBING AND GRAPHIC AND OUT OF LINE that I was a little surprised to find that, when it comes down to it, this was a medical professional discussing candidly (and not at all cruelly) a procedure and medical research. I don't think that's callous or unethical, but I totally allow that if the perspective we're working with is "these are helpless murder victims", it's totally gruesome and saddening. I admit that shots of the aborted parts weren't the most pleasant to view, but that doesn't change my opinion about how the laws should serve their people.
I have complex feelings about abortion. Despite some characterizations I've come across, no one is steepling their fingers and grinning evilly about how abortion is this perfect thing that everyone should have and do all the time. I recognize and wholeheartedly agree that abortion isn't an ideal. I get the feeling that any nuanced discourse on the subject won't be met well, so all I can say is that I would prefer to live in a world where women have the choice. If I were in a desperate situation, I would certainly like to have it.
This probably isn't a terribly satisfying answer to you, and that's fine.
Not sure what you mean, Alyssa?
ReplyDeleteCan we agree on the definition I posted above, or not?
Let me clarify: "Because my God said so" was a blunt, simplified statement. However, when it comes to any argument that proceeds from a religious foundation, the basis for that argument is, generally speaking, the basis for that argument is, generally speaking, "my faith in God/the teaching and documents of my religion declare that this is right/wrong for xx reasons, and I believe that"
ReplyDeleteWelp, here’s the irony of your assumption, Alyssa: No one—Not a person—here has ever “proceeded from a religious foundation” as pertains to law.
So can that opinion. Tag it as “inaccurate”.
You want to know an armchair observation?
You secular people that chime in here have such pre-conceived ideas of any Catholic reasoned challenges you’re facing here. Well… wake up and smell the instant coffee.
Catholic people who comment here are not dumb.
We actually have ability to reason, think, and, ya know, come to intelligent conclusions. We never say, “Because God said so.” We go about 10 steps previous to that.
If you’ve been lurking, how do you miss this about any of us? From fundie blog-lurk, ok, that might be your conclusion; but not from Catholic blog lurking. We are not fundamentalists. We don’t even reason that way.
We back track and start at the same “zero” as any secularist. So bring it. All day. Bring it. Let's reason forward. Catholics actually propelled that kind of thinking.
Before I get to answering Alyssa, I have to ask the rest of you, who might be shocked, and even distraught that someone could not be moved by the sights on that video, please read what Abby Johnson has said about herself, and her involvement in the killings and how she could not see:
ReplyDeleteThere are a few pretty common questions that you get when you leave the abortion industry. How did you not see that it was a baby? How did you not realize that you were killing babies? How did you see these babies in the POC lab and not leave? (The POC lab is where the fetal body parts are put back together after an abortion). How did you have a baby and not see the problem in what you were doing?
My answer…
I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. Guys, I don’t know. It doesn’t make sense. I don’t understand it. I know I’m a smart person, and yet I was duped by the abortion industry for eight years. Why did it take so long for me to see the truth? I don’t know.
Read the rest here:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/for-8-years-i-helped-kill-unborn-babies.-how-did-i-not-see-the-truth
^^And I say that in response to Alyssa's being "underwhelmed" by the sight of slaughtered children, recently alive, now sitting in their own blood and intestines. The injustice of the blood of these innocents SCREAMS to the heavens, but, like Abby before the scales fell, it's just "a medical procedure" that "isn't the most pleasant to view".
DeleteLord have mercy.
Alyssa, let's take a couple things first:
ReplyDeleteWhen you say that abortion is "not ideal", why? Why is it not ideal?
And, I am guessing that if you saw someone taped who had taken a premature baby from the hospital and then chopped into pieces, and if you saw those bloody pieces being examined for their specimen value, you might be actually horrified. (Well, I hope.) So, is the only difference between that baby and the aborted babies -- the law? Is the only difference, the thing that makes you not gag in horror, the fact that it's legal?
Help me out. I'm truly asking.
After all, I had one really nice young atheist (I like her!) tell me that she couldn't tell me if the late term baby girl in the casket (killed by abortion/buried by Priests for Life) was a piece of trash or a child worthy of love. She couldn't tell me about that specific baby girl before her eyes. Why? Because she would "have to know the circumstances". She would have to know the circumstances of that baby's killing to tell me if she was worthy of love and protection, or if she was a piece of trash.
I still marvel at the subjectivity of the value of the same human life, depending on the perspective. Do you think it's okay for some human beings to determine the humanity of others? I mean, it's common, yes. Not just in abortion, but in all history, in many cultures. But do you think that is how we determine a person's humanity? By what others' judgement?
Okay, on to something else:
Can you name for me any law that is not based on someone's moral judgement? Isn't all law legislated morality? If not, how so? I don't see it.
What is the source of morality? Not "how do we determine it", but what is its source? Or, another way to put it, what is the source of moral truth? If you say "self" or "societal norms", then you are saying it's subjective. And if so, does that mean you do not believe in objective moral truth?
I guess we can start there. Maybe take one at a time if you'd like. I still have to go back and read the thread....
Okay, I have read your first comment again, very carefully. A couple of things stick out to me and need examination, if you will indulge me.
ReplyDeleteRegarding laws and who is or is not a human being (or person with rights):
...at the end of the day it's up to the lawmakers to make the decision that will best ensure peace and cooperation in this nation.
Is this true of lawmakers in every nation? (And not just on abortion, but all human life?)
As for abortion itself: Do you believe abortion (namely, the belief that it's gravely immoral) is a merely Catholic issue? Or a merely religious issue?
As for CS/Emily: Are you aware that she and I have a relationship outside of the blog comments? I mean, I "met" her on this blog, years ago, but we have become friends (and I actually feel quite maternal, since she is my daughter's age). You realize that she doesn't need you to defend her from us, since she actually knows that we have only her best interests at heart, right? I hope you got that from your reading this blog over the past years (I think you said). I speak to her no differently than I would speak to my own child if she were making very bad choices, to her detriment.
"Echo chamber".... I think Chris handled that one better than I could. He said it best. The whole of our life outside this blog seems to be a liberal "echo chamber". We could articulate the secular left's position on just about anything. But I've no doubt that very few Americans could articular the Catholic (or even natural law) position on most anything. (I actually wrote a whole blog post countering the "echo chamber" claim, just a few weeks ago. It was the one where I discuss my blog title.)
As for the claim that some Catholics don't care about Jesus' admonition to help the poor and needy, I don't know who those Catholics are. I haven't met them. My friends very actively help the poor. Just because we don't always support unwieldy, ineffective central government social programs does not mean we don't have better ideas, and more effective ideas, besides putting our money (and not just our tax money, which is involuntary) where our mouth is. (Search this blog for the "subsidiarity" post, for Catholic social teaching on the matter.)
If you really are interested in what "conservative" Catholics do for the poor, ask me, and I will be happy to go into a huge litany, if you have the time.
As for Catholics in the public square (the voting and public policy things you are talking about), I have already written on what our Faith tells us are the "non-negotiables":
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-i-cannot-be-catholic-and-democrat.html
The responsibility to those people is equally important to Jesus' teachings (and perhaps more so, since these are the people who are in the world actively and not potentially).
ReplyDeleteAlso, could you clarify what you mean by "actively and not potentially"? Thanks!
Okay, I have read a little more now. Alyssa, a couple of things.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I am glad JoAnna picked up on the "soul" issue for determining personhood. I'm still not quite sure why you brought that up (instead of science only)? But I haven't read further and I'm going to assume that was just a misstatement.
I had a science major (the really affable atheist student I told you about earlier) once tell me that, that although “it’s true” she started life as a single cell, “that zygote that I started out as wasn't me”. <-- read that carefully.
My question to you (and it's just a logical question, looking for a logical response): Were you ever conceived? I can't get abortion-rights folks to answer. Were you ever conceived? Because I was conceived. I was conceived in my mother's womb, in San Diego, actually, after my dad came home from Viet Nam (yes, TMI). And I actually conceived my own children. They were conceived in my womb.
Were you ever conceived? If not, when did you begin? And what were you a split second earlier?
Also, here is the photo of the little girl in the casket who was aborted:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/photo-late-term-aborted-baby-lies-in-open-casket-at-city-hall-funeral
Could you answer the same question I posed to the pre-med student (now she is in med school):
Is that little girl trash, or is she a child that was deserving of love? It really has to be one or the other, doesn't it?
Okay, so as to the idea that nothing illegal like the sale of baby parts was happening. I don't know if you watched the testimony before the Texas Senate? I posted it a couple of posts ago (I think?). Abby Johnson testified about how they would charge between $100 to $200 a baby/body/cadaver/specimen and they would make about $120,000 a month on that (from the procurement companies). Now, the total cost to them was about $5 or $10 a specimen (baby), and that was shipping costs. Sometimes, the procurement company would come to pick up the organs, so there was no cost. All the cost of extraction, storage, disposal (or transport) and administration were already paid, for each abortion by the patient. So not only were they double dipping, but the profit was huge.
ReplyDeleteAre you sure you don't see any negotiating or inflating of prices in those videos? And the one lady wondering aloud to the other lady why some of the other Texas affiliates thought that this was illegal (shrug of shoulders)?
By the way, every woman in that video is a former friend and colleague of Abby Johnson. She worked with them for years, and she still prays for them. That could have been her on that video, if she had not had the scales drop from her eyes as she helped with that ultrasound-guided abortion of a little boy on that fateful day.
Actually, I do want to go back to this:
ReplyDeleteAKA when does this cluster of cells, this bundle of biological responses, become a Person with a Soul. That is not something science can measure, and therefore can't comment on. Which is why I said in my original post that we should be concentrating on legally settling the argument of Personhood before we ban anything outright.
If science "cannot measure" personhood (which is silly, since human being = person; the only reason a one human being questions the "personhood" of another human being is if the first person wishes to harm the other), then we err on the side of life.
"I don't know if that is a deer or a boy, so I'm going to assume it's not a boy and shoot."
Uh, no, we don't do that. Do we?
I'm still reading through. Just got to JoAnna's post that says:
ReplyDeleteNow, as to your retort. Yes, WWII and the Civil War took place after enough of the populace determined that the Holocaust and slavery, respectively, were not just. So, does that mean you concede that laws enacted for the purpose you state are not always just laws?
Exactly. And Alyssa, you may have noticed that 42 years after the "settled law" of Roe v Wade, the land is still very, intensely divided on this issue, to the point that some do see it as a cultural civil war, and something that has not in any way led to "peace" in the land. Unjust laws tend to simmer for a bit, but they never, ever lead to peace in the land. In fact, the country is becoming more and more pro-life, with young people leading the way. So, the analogy of WWII and Civil War might not actually bolster your case here, but ours.
What I meant was a person who can be considered a citizen with separate legal rights in our country.
ReplyDeleteAlyssa, I think that JoAnna mentioned this (or someone, I skimmed and went back up), but just in case I dreamed it... Are you saying that illegal immigrants and non-citizens have no right to life? They can be killed at will? I'm sure that's not what you are saying, so can you try again?
Not "ensoulment"
Not "who can be a citizen with rights"
So, what?
Hi Alyssa,
ReplyDeleteGreat to “meet you.. I really appreciate your comments. At times, it can be frustrating here and I’m glad to see you understood the vast majority of what I was saying even though it got distorted by many of the commenters here.
CS
ReplyDelete“She’s a straight up advocate for killing unborn for any of the following: Pregnancy makes a woman physically uncomfortable Pregnancy makes a woman mentally uncomfortable Pregnancy makes you fat and changes your body Pregnancy means you have to give up “permission” for bodily autonomy. For all of these reasons, CS thinks that pregnancy means the child is pitted against the mother and the mother must kill the child. ”
UGHHHHHHH. I straight up said pregnancy varies from one woman to the next. I said there are deep mental and medical effects of pregnancy on the body. And because of those two facts and because I am not a doctor, I am not going to make a woman’s medical decisions for her. That is what I said. Stop distorting it.
CS
“She even agreed to the idea that she was needy. Read. She fully endorsed my “advice/opinions”, which included spending time alone with God because she has deep wells that need filling.”
ReplyDeleteWTF, I didn’t agree that I was ‘needy’, or that I had deep wells that needed filling, Goodness. I agreed that I am on a journey, like everyone else. I admitted that it is probably good advice to wait and see who god sends, me but as we all know that’s not always how things go. This insinuation that I am this needy promiscuous girl sleeping with men to fill the void in my life is an absurd and offensive caricature. There is an enormous difference between ‘waits until marriage’ and sleeps with strange men to feel loved’ that you find difficult to grasp.
CS
"JoAnna, I'm not going to argue semantics with you. I think you know exactly what I mean, and I choose to end this nitpicky sidebar here."
ReplyDeleteWait a sec. Whether or not 55 million human beings lived or died hinged on the question of "personhood" -- I'm fairly certain that those 55 million (or the millions to be killed in the coming years) don't consider the question to be "nitpicky".
Socratic method. It's what we do here. Follow it to its logical conclusion and you will get to truth. Brush aside the crux of the discussion as "nitpicky" and you stay in your own echo chamber.
I prefer the former. That's why I switched sides on many, many issues.
CS, didn't we leave some open-ended questions on the last post? I haven't checked... maybe you already stopped by there.
ReplyDelete“If CS says things like " but guys lie to get sex" and nobody's yells "what are you , 16?" That is civil.”
ReplyDeleteThis really pissed me off. I mentioned the very personal story about a man removing a condom to provide an example about how intimate trust is betrayed. AND HOW IT IS A BIG DEAL. I get that men lie about sex and I’m not 16, but our permissive attitude towards men’s manipulation of women is problematic. I’m not talking about women who meet a man that night who confesses their love for her, I’m talking about how women and especially girls are really deceived into thinking they are in stronger relationship that they are and how that and that alone causes them to have sex and risk pregnancy.
CS
CS, I'm sorry I used this approach. Your bad experience should not have been used by me to demonstrate a point about the civility of dialogue on this blog. In doing so, I showed a lack of sensitivity to your experience. I just sometimes find it astonishing that young woman don't fully understand just how fixed the game is when you enter this disordered playing field. I hate that woman don't understand where their real strength and power is. Again, I apologize and hope to have more time to fully explain from a guys perspective some things that young woman MUST understand. Like Leila, It also breaks my heart to see woman not understand.
DeleteCS, you said:
ReplyDeleteI straight up said pregnancy varies from one woman to the next. I said there are deep mental and medical effects of pregnancy on the body. And because of those two facts and because I am not a doctor, I am not going to make a woman’s medical decisions for her. That is what I said. Stop distorting it.
By saying this, you are advocating for legal abortion. You are supporting legal abortion. That means (correct me if I am wrong) that there is no legal protection for the unborn children in America. None. That means, you are okay with the law that says they may be killed at will. You cannot get around that. It's just a fact. It's like someone saying, "Hey, I never owned a slave. I just don't want to make such a decision for others." That makes those folks complicit in slavery.
So, you are totally fine with laws that "allow" women to abort their children for reasons of bodily discomfort and autonomy. If not, you would be standing up for laws to restrict or outlaw abortion. Correct me if that is what you are currently rethinking after seeing that child killed so violently? Maybe you are now in favor of laws protecting all humans from being killed at will? I hope so! If not, then how on earth can you dispute Nubby's conclusion?
I'm seriously asking.
"...intimate trust is betrayed."
ReplyDeleteThis is the part that I wish, as a mother, I could make you see. Intimacy should be reserved for people with whom you are actually, emotionally, mentally, legally intimate. You have admitted that you have dated creepy men. Users. Why, dear CS, someone who I care about, why oh why do you become "intimate" (which is SUCH a misnomer with casual sex) with men who are creeps? Why oh why would you consider this person "TRUSTWORTHY"?? Help me understand!!
Trust and intimacy belong inside of vows and lifelong commitment. Otherwise, my dear CS (whom I love!!), you are being USED.
Oh, please, I plead with you as if you are my own daughter.... enough! You have to stop this. It's breaking my heart.
Hi Leila. What does legally intimate mean? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteHi Johanne! I think I just made it up as I was typing, ha ha! I assume I meant to imply marriage, but one never knows when I'm typing on the fly....
ReplyDeleteBut the whole "have sex with a creep, or someone who is using you for his own pleasure" seems oxymoronic too "trust and intimacy" -- just does not go together at all. And it breaks my heart to see young women (and older women!) act as if sex is like eating ice cream. To have sex with someone is to give everything to him, even the ability to make a child together. The very language of sex, the language of the body, bespeaks something so special, so private, so intimate, so trusting.... and we wonder why women are just broken on the battlefield of "free love" (along with their dead children). The misuse of human sexuality is just a manifold tragedy.
It just breaks my heart.
And it's not simply an "ideal" -- this confusing is destroying people.
"confusion is destroying people"
DeleteAnd, I should have added "spiritual intimacy" to the list.
I guess what I'm struggling with is, how can "intimate trust" be "betrayed" by someone who is not there to honor you or cherish you? It makes no sense to me at all.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you. (not the marriage part because I don't believe in legal marriage) I think casual sex hurts women a lot, esp teens.
ReplyDeleteSo, I am a little curious. A lot of semantics talked has centered around the fact that the baby (by nature of how pregnancy works) is attached to the mother. Somehow the baby is relegated to the status of a mere appendage or organ to the mom instead of a person simply because she is attached for a development phase of her life. Although conjoined twins are rare, here is another scenario where two people are attached.. obviously, in this situation, it's the typical way babies develop, but they are attached nonetheless. Would those who are okay with abortion be okay with, say, one twin purposefully ending the life of the other to assert her bodily rights? Would that be an ethical way to "cure" being conjoined?
ReplyDeletesorry for typos... I've had little sleep :)
ReplyDeleteOh brother. I REALLY can't type... being conjoined *isn't the typical way babies develop, but the point is, they are attached so...
DeleteI have a friend in her mid-60s; she's liberal and Episcopalian (though the two terms are almost always redundant these days). Once, when we were talking about abortion, she snapped something about that we could get rid of abortion, "when we legislate men's penises!"
ReplyDeleteTo which I replied, "I legislate men's penises by saying, 'no.'"
That shut her up. I don't think she was happy about it either.
Because "no" solves the problems that CS and so, so many other mislead women face when they are searching for love and commitment and end up being used by sex, if not also being left with STDs and/or an unplanned pregnancy. I've been there, done that (the used part), and then I smartened up.
You cannot have birth control and its misnomer of "'safe' sex" and abortion as an out when "'safe' sex" has failed and then turn around and blame men fully. Feminism and its subsequent results of birth control and abortion have been gifts to men in the form of responsibility-free sex. Generations of men have been accustomed to this, so now, for those of us willing to wait until after marriage for sex, the pickings of men with self-control, decency and who have not been poisoned by the current culture of, shall we say, "test-driving," are pretty slim.
I read this blog post today and it's really terrific. CS, I would really recommend that you read this and consider what it says.
ReplyDelete"I straight up said pregnancy varies from one woman to the next. I said there are deep mental and medical effects of pregnancy on the body. And because of those two facts and because I am not a doctor, I am not going to make a woman’s medical decisions for her. That is what I said. Stop distorting it. "
ReplyDeleteThe issue of abortion has no middle ground, you either support people having abortions or you oppose people having abortions.
It is a lazy "cop out" to say, well I don't like the idea of abortion but I'm not going to tell women what to do with their "clump of cells in their body".
The logic that pro-life people speak of is regarding recognizing the person that is those cells in the woman. This is why I say there isn't middle ground on this issue. You either recognize there is a person there or not. You either recognize their human rights or not. That is why it is analogous to slavery in the U.S. There were people at that time who did not recognize a slaves human rights and personhood. There were others that did. Then you had those lacking in courage and/or logic that said they didn't like the idea of slavery but were not going to tell slave owners what to do with their property. Why should they, there was a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that favored the slave owners rights over the human rights of slaves. Very similar to the RvW court ruling, not recognizing the human right to life a a group of people and giving another group of people "property rights" of those people to do with how they saw fit. Sell them, kill them, it was all okay; because the Supreme Court said so.
To be clear, the quotes of certain phrases or words are not meant to be an actual quote from this blog's comments. Those are for emphasis of those words in my comment.
DeleteIt is interesting that slavery was selling and then killing(sometimes). Abortion is killing and then selling(sometimes). Reversed order, but both are crimes against humanity.
Delete"I’m talking about how women and especially girls are really deceived into thinking they are in stronger relationship that they are and how that and that alone causes them to have sex and risk pregnancy."
ReplyDeleteYes, we can all agree that is very problematic! However, it seems to me that two different approaches are being proposed to deal with that problem:
Your approach: "We need to make sure that abortion is available so if a woman is deceived and she gets pregnant, she can deal with it." (And "deal with it" = "deliberately kill an innocent human being".)
Our approach: "We need to emphasize to both women and men that they should not have sex outside the context of marriage, because that is the best way to ensure that the other person in the relationship is fully committed to the relationship as well as the 'consequences' of sex."
Your approach violates the human rights of human beings. Ours does not. Which one do you think would be best?
Here's another thing I was thinking of. What if the woman is the deceiver in the scenario? Say a man has sex with a woman he feels he truly loves, and she tells him she's on the Pill so he doesn't bother with a condom. Turns out she wasn't on the Pill and she gets pregnant. But it also turns out that she really isn't all that into him. However, she decides that she doesn't want an abortion, and that adoption isn't an option, and then he's on the hook for child support for the next 18 years. He's forced to carry a significant financial burden for a good chunk of the rest of his life, against his will. Do you think that is fair, CS? What do you think guys should do to avoid this situation?
I need to test drive before I commit to a man.” “What is a relationship if not a friendship with sex and intimacy? ... I mean, you always test drive a car before you buy it, right?” “Don’t you drive a car before you buy it?” - from the post JoAnna linked.
ReplyDeleteYeah, well. You’re not just test driving one vehicle for purchase, so don’t kid yourself. What you’re doing is fleet testing. You’re evaluating performance. “Sexual performance”. That happens well before you “buy one car”, and it happens on many vehicles. So you’ve just upped your “test ride” by a factor of 50, which means you’ve just greatly increased your chances of contracting various STD’s.
You wanna know all that can wrong in a batch of fleet vehicles while safety and durability testing is being conducted? No, you don’t.
A simple purposeful crash into the guardrail is designed to test the vehicle safety of the gas line on side impact. Parts cut into the gas line on impact and, Blammo. It’s not such a fun idea to “test drive” anymore, eh?
You test drive with sex, you’ll most likely have to suffer a similar type of crash and burn.
The “test drive” that comes before purchase (marriage) is the dating part, not the sexual part. That's the relevant logic.
... I straight up said pregnancy varies from one woman to the next. I said there are deep mental and medical effects of pregnancy on the body. And because of those two facts and because I am not a doctor, I am not going to make a woman’s medical decisions for her. That is what I said. Stop distorting it.
ReplyDeleteAnd I straight-up showed you the numbers that easily deflate those fears. That's what I said.
99.98% of the time, the mom will be just fine. That's the math. You don't follow it. You follow your feelings. Stop letting your fear distort reality.
It is interesting that slavery was selling and then killing(sometimes). Abortion is killing and then selling(sometimes). Reversed order, but both are crimes against humanity.
ReplyDeleteBoom! Thank you. Yes, truth.
Nubby, yes! The "test drive" is the human connection, which cannot be had apart from conversation and getting to know the other person (without genital distraction, so to speak!). When one has sex early in the relationship, that becomes the "way" they communicate. It's the default. If a couple is not having sex, there is nothing getting in the way of actually getting to know the other person, his or her character, foibles, values, real self. And that doesn't even touch on the real physiological bonding that happens when a woman has sex with a man. (Multiple men? A mess.)
ReplyDeleteMeaning, "the real and authentic test drive".
DeleteWe don't test drive the body (that is using someone as a commodity for your pleasure). We "test drive" personalities, we test drive values, we test drive for what is real and lasting, before we commit and then seal the commitment with the giving of our whole selves (which is conjugal love).
Exactly, the "proving grounds" is the dating/social scene.
ReplyDeleteHow does he treat you, socially?
How does he treat your family? His family?
How much do you have in common, socially?
How much, even, professionally?
And faith-wise, what's there in common?
The psychological and emotional intimacy needs to be proved out before the physical intimacy, anyway.
Otherwise, like you said, it clouds your data. Your controls are screwy. Test = garbage.
You cannot now say "I didn't know". Now you know:
ReplyDelete"'Dr. Warren Hern [late-term abortionist] has pointed out to me that a number of practitioners attempt to ensure live fetuses after late abortions so that genetic tests can be conducted on them. It is his position (and I concur) that practitioners who do this without offering a woman the option of fetal demise before abortion act in a morally unacceptable manner, since they place research before the good of their patients. This view, then, sets a presumption in favor of ensuring fetal demise before a late abortion, a presumption which can be overcome only by a woman's informed willingness to assume the additional risks that attend attempting to ensure a live abortus through the procedure.'
So when you wondered why Barack Obama wanted to oppose a law protecting babies who survived abortion and were born alive, it wasn’t because those are always accidents and the abortion industry is embarrassed by such survivors. That’s only part of the story."
Read it all:
http://politicaloutcast.com/2015/08/book-admits-babies-are-removed-alive-from-the-womb-and-used-for-research-before-they-are-killed/
All abortion is evil, but extracting the baby alive to do tests and then kill them, that somehow feels even more evil.
ReplyDeleteThese are the kind of people that Pro-choice people help keep in business. Pro-choice advocates are accessories to these murders because they support the laws and decisions that lead to them. Some of them even donate money to their cause.
Yes. And there is no moral difference, no salient difference, no physical difference in the baby in the moments before and after birth. Only, perhaps, a "legal" difference. So sick. And we turn our eyes and let it go by....
ReplyDeletethat practitioners who do this without offering a woman the option of fetal demise before abortion act in a morally unacceptable manner, since they place research before the good of their patients.
ReplyDeleteSo he's prioritizing informed consent before human life-got it; thy name is evil hypocrisy
CS,
ReplyDeleteHi there! I appreciate seeing you in this post. I understand that you're a regular, which is pretty incredible, because I'm already exhausted by the way these goalposts keep moving and from all the words being shoveled into my mouth. You have more fortitude than I. That being said, if I'm really missing a point here, feel free to point it out.
I was mortified by your story. I'm sorry that guy betrayed your trust, and I hope you're doing okay. I'd love to talk more, if you're interested.
Leila,
ReplyDeleteAgain with the misreading of my original point: I don't remove morality from law. Morality is a very important part of law. But it isn't the ONLY part of the law. Murder is wrong, right? No bones about it. Yet, we have degrees of murder. And in cases of self-defense, the law allows that the perpetrator acted rightly. If we're going only by black-and-white morality, these people--no matter what--should be judged and sentenced similarly. But we don't do that because we as a nation understand that there are circumstances that aren't black or white alone.
The fundamental difference in our arguments is that you believe that a sperm and egg have human dignity and rights from the moment they meet. I disagree with that, so we can't meet from the same premise. All we can do is reason from our own. If it helps, your logic is sound if we're in agreement that a fertilized egg has equivalent dignity to the woman carrying it. However, we're not. My logic can't justify your premise and vice-versa. It's a circular argument.
I don't think Catholics are dumb at all--I wouldn't be here arguing the point if I wasn't doing it in good faith. I was raised by several Catholics and they generally did a good job. The issue I take--particularly on a blog so focused on doctrine--is that there is no other reference point. Everything can be explained or justified by the doctrine. And that is a closely-held Catholic belief, and I respect and appreciate it. But that can't be a factor in deciding laws.
Regarding "ideal": sure, it would be wonderful if everyone had sex with only their loving spouse and no one ever raped or cheated, etc. But they do. We can't make laws about preventative measures based on an ideal. In an ideal world, abortion wouldn't even be a question because everyone would have had great sex education and wouldn't sleep with the wrong person, etc. But that's not the case. So abortion is an option in a not-ideal world. That was what I meant by that.
Regarding the difference between a "premature baby chopped into pieces" versus an abortion: you're overlooking an essential piece of the equation, and that is the woman's consent. That is what makes these situations unequal and a poor comparison. As I said above, you're working from the premise that a fetus has the same legal rights as the woman carrying it. I'm working from the premise that they don't, therefore the woman has the decision.
I think we also have different definitions of "echo chamber". To step outside of an echo chamber is to entertain the opinions and values of others without prejudice and automatic mistrust. Certainly, people of all cultures and faiths and political stripes choose to only credit people who believe what they do in order to avoid discomfort, struggle, or confrontation, but I don't think it's right. We should strive to seek more understanding rather than simply patting each other on the back for being like-minded.
I've said all I can say here, because diametrically-opposed premises (and about eight different logical fallacies--look up "strawman" and "appeal to emotion" specifically) are driving us around in circles. All I can say is that abortion has been part of women's reproductive lives for thousands of years, and isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Give me a clean, safe doctor's office over a wire hanger any day.
I doubt I'll be back, but thanks for the exercise.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com
I doubt I'll be back, but thanks for the exercise.
ReplyDeleteOh, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. LOL Leaving so soon? Don’t go.
Because there’s this:
Do you see the ordering of those rights?
Do you know those are ordered that way on purpose?
Do you see how RvW never should’ve tampered with that ordering?
And this:
Do you realize those rights were never voted upon by any judiciary, but merely acknowledged and respected by the framers? Yes or no?
Do you understand the major difference between an unalienable right and an extrinsic right? Yes or no?
Do you see the absolute abuse of power it is when a judiciary votes – votes – for an unalienable rights change? They had no right to do that. No power to even exercise to do that.
And do you see the logic in reversing Roe v Wade on that count, alone?
And this:
I understand that you're a regular, which is pretty incredible, because I'm already exhausted by the way these goalposts keep moving and from all the words being shoveled into my mouth.
To which I “non-circularly” punt this:
I said that your premise is that laws should reflect Catholic values and that it is a flawed premise.
You’ve just eaten your own words, Alyssa.
You put words into our mouths. Because not one person here ever uses that as their “premise”. Ev-er.
And if I had to whine about “rude” now would be that time. You know, insinuating we’re illogical circular thinkers which, considering I bet you’ve never take one Logics course in your life is both rude and nonsense.
Some of us here had/have careers in logical/analytical capacities, and are actually trained to cut to the logical quick, so there will be none of that faulty premise stuff here. That's either your misunderstanding of what is contained in a logical premise, or that is just you cutting and running because it's actually your own premise that is extremely, linearly, logically weak and faulty to the extreme. Actually.
You fail in several logical veins. Should I list them?
Alyssa, thank you, but everything you said here, I already understood. I get that you don't believe that unborn humans are equal in dignity to their mothers. I get that. I get that. I get that.
ReplyDeleteBut you are not giving me a logical reason why some human beings have more dignity than other human beings.
You are not telling me why some human beings have a right to live and others don't, other than this:
"Abortion has always been with us."
"Abortion is not going away any time soon."
"A mother has the right to consent to the death of the child in utero."
Stuff like that. That is what I'm hearing.
But let's back up, as you say, to the PREMISE. Your premise, as you say, is different than mine. So, I beg you, stick around and answer:
On what basis do you get to your PREMISE that unborn humans are not equal in dignity to born humans.
I'll repeat: Where did your PREMISE come from? On what basis do you hold your premise?
I hope my question is clear. If it's not, please tell me and I will try again.
In different words:
How do you arrive at the PREMISE that the unborn are not equal in dignity to the born?
Is it their location? Their size? Their ability to feel? If so, say so, and we will argue from that point.
And there’s this pertaining to your idea of happiness or abortion on demand:
ReplyDeleteJustice Anthony Kennedy, himself!, said there is a “hedonistic component” to the definition of happiness in these modern times. However, for the framers of the Declaration of Independence, “happiness meant that feeling of self-worth and dignity you acquire by contributing to your community and to its civic life.” Ref: His 2005 lecture at the National Conference on Citizenship.
Not about self-gratification, self-indulgence, or pleasure-seeking, but about contributing directly to society at large. It’s about contributing something so that every person’s input can yield a net result greater than zero, because true happiness is found when we know we are really part of something much larger than independent self.
The right to Life is the very necessity for the right to Liberty. You can't have freedom if you're dead. You get the point of this order.
The Court only had to protect, not establish, not change meaning, not respond with any new form of criterion. It’s only job was to acknowledge and protect those rightly ordered rights. As they say these days, “You had ONE job!” But they grabbed power instead.
And to the moving goal posts bit:
The highest Court in the land moved the goal posts with regards to the protections of your God-given freedoms, with subjective Clarity Criterion.
Does this not upset you?
It applies to your freedoms, right now, today.
Whether or not you acknowledge a Creator, you surely can acknowledge that no man-formed or man-made judiciary or government should be yanking those freedoms out from under you, right?
And this:
Do you know the only recourse we have against tyranny is a vote?
And do you know that set-up is faulty by design?
Do you know why?
Because of tyranny of the majority.
The Court decided it will not protect our unalienable right to Life. Now, what?
The instant we start metabolizing, we have a full human genetic code. That means we have unalienable rights.
Doesn't that make you wonder? Does it make you alarmed as an American citizen with unalienable rights?
This question of, "When does human life begin?” had this for its very clear and objective answer at the time of RvW:
ReplyDeleteAnswer: When there is a single human cell, at the moment of conception. A full genome is present. It is fully identifiable as a human being."
In other words, science. In other words, the Court even understood that a full genome present was not that of a grizzly bear, but of a human. In other words, it had all it needed to make recourse to.
They had this very objective and scientific (scientific, even!) criterion already in place.
So don’t try to put lipstick on this pig and call it pretty. They went way out of bounds ignoring it and throwing it out the window; and if you’re intellectually honest, you will acknowledge that and concede to that fact.
Doesn't that rattle you?
And here is some of the stuff that frustrates me. There are simple definitions and concepts that for some reason people have never learned. For example:
ReplyDeleteAll murder is wrong.
All murder is killing.
But not all killing is murder.
So, when you say this:
"Murder is wrong, right? No bones about it. Yet, we have degrees of murder. And in cases of self-defense, the law allows that the perpetrator acted rightly."
See, you don't even have your terms right. Killing in self-defense is NOT (not) not murder. Murder is intrinsically wrong; killing in self-defense does not fall under its definition.
Killing in self-defense is NOT murder.
Sorry for being redundant, but these things, these terms, these distinctions, are so very important.
So when you imply that you would be horrified if a born, premature infant is stolen from a hospital and cut up and sold for parts, but then you are not so horrified if that same baby was cut up and sold for parts with consent of the mother before birth, I have to wonder --- is one person's opinion/consent the only thing that makes the former a horrific crime and the latter a legally protected right? If so, then we need to stop right there and think!
You are saying (and how are you not?) that one human being can determine the value of another human being (worthy of love vs. trash). You are saying that mothers or women or lawyers or society can say who is or is not worthy of protection -- protection from being killed at will.
We are not going around in circles when we argue these points. We are arguing in a linear, socratic way. You are simply refusing to answer and go with the implications of your position, because you want to claim a premise for which you won't supply a basis.
Stick around. Make your case. Tell me where you get your premise. I get mine from science:
Every human being is begun at conception. Check the embryology textbooks. Ask an embryologist.
And answer a simple question: Were you ever conceived?
And don't be another pro-"choicer" who just leaves when the going gets tough. If anything, I am just waiting for the one who will not leave, but who will admit, as Princeton's Peter Singer does, that YES the unborn are human beings (science proves it) and YES he still believes that they can be killed at will. I can at least find that intellectually honest, if abhorrent.
So, his premise is:
YES, we who are bigger and stronger may kill other innocent human beings at will. Some human beings, whom we deem less worthy, have no right to life.
Good gracious, as much as I hate it, just say it!
Peter Singer is honest, he says it outright. He says we may kill innocents -- and he refuses the arbitrary line of "birth", as well. He says (and he's right!) that it's silly when people on his side (abortion advocates) claim some watershed moral line at birth (or "viability"). The baby is the same. He knows it. You know it. We all know it. And that is why he advocates for the the right to kill a child even up to three months after birth, if the parents wish it. His logic is consistent!
Please, just speak plainly!
And if you can't, please find one of your pro-"choice" friends who is willing to come here and actually answer the questions that are posed.
Thank you.
Nubby, they always go. They just leave. It's so predictable. :(
ReplyDeleteThey refuse to answer direct questions. They just say "bye!" and go away again.
Please, pro-"choicers", send someone who will hang with us! Who will answer basic questions!
Did you really say this, Alyssa?
ReplyDeleteI said that your premise is that laws should reflect Catholic values and that it is a flawed premise.
I mean... I just.... I can't....
I give up.
I just give up.
Sigh.
I know, mama. It's the "you're so circular in your logic" comment that cracks me up every time, while they are simultaneously completely circular in their thinking, or devoid logic themselves. And the, "you're rude" as they fire off condescending remarks themselves. HiH Larrry Us
ReplyDeleteFor anyone out there who actually cares, here is a quick science primer, including quotes from embryologists/textbooks, and even the atheist pro-abort, Peter Singer:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jRM6ytOA_U
A good and quick little video to post to your facebooks and blogs to educate the populace on the basics of biology.
Let's go back to premises.
ReplyDeleteAlyssa's premise:
Unborn humans may be killed at will because they are not equal in human dignity to women and because women may consent to have their offspring killed.
Leila's premise:
ALL human beings have human dignity. Period. No one may directly kill an innocent human being.
Alyssa's premise comes from.... ? I don't know. She won't address it.
Leila's premise comes from Natural Law. It is written on the conscience and in the hearts of every human, and accessible to all humans via the light of human reason alone that:
We do not directly kill innocent human beings.
That premise is universal. We may often find ways around it, but it's always a way to thwart the Natural Law (the universal moral law) or "what we can't not know".
Oh, and I should add that my natural law premise is also based on/supported by science. Not so with Alyssa's premise. It's based on... again, I don't know, because she won't say. All I've heard is that it's because we want peace in the land (um, Roe v Wade has not brought peace in this land), or because abortions happen anyway (um, so does rape and murder, but we don't call them "rights"), or because a mother consents to have her child killed (think of the logical progression there!).
DeleteWhat do all those things have in common? Every one of them is subjective. (Unlike science re: human biology)
If I am missing something, let me know.
The issue I take--particularly on a blog so focused on doctrine--is that there is no other reference point. Everything can be explained or justified by the doctrine. And that is a closely-held Catholic belief, and I respect and appreciate it. But that can't be a factor in deciding laws.
ReplyDeleteEmphasis mine, but I still CANNOT believe that Alyssa said this, with the millions of words that have been typed on this blog in the past five years, none of which says that laws should be based on Catholic doctrine. AT ALL.
So the woman housing "it" has dignity and inalienable rights but the next person in line, the baby, has none. The baby is in the exact same position the woman was a generation earlier but no, it ends here. I guess they get their right to life whenever the woman damn well says. And this personhood thing. What a ball of amibiguous mush. What... They don't have a favorite color yet? One thing is for sure. That child is fully human and will have a favorite color, and love puppies and maybe have a wicked curveball. They will likely be the love of someone's life and the most important person in the world to that next baby in line. Hell, one of the 55 million may well have been the exact person that people like CS are waitingf for. Who the hell are we , living breathing recipients of that freely given and received inalienable right, to deny it to the next? Madness!
ReplyDeleteI still haven't heard a straight answer to when life, personhood , emancipated alien or whatever you want to call it , begins. 4 months, 3 months...92 days. That's it, 92 days. 91 days it's research material that shouldn't go waste (freakin Nazis) but at 92 days, welcome to the world. What's your favorite color Johney? The only way you get such torchured logic is in defense of a lie.
Btw, anybody hear Dennis Prager today roast Cuomo? He saw the same joke we did. Such empty wind bag. Talk about climate change when that guy opens his mouth. He could melt the ice in my Old Fashioned with one breath.
This right here. Thank you, sir.
ReplyDelete"Who the hell are we , living breathing recipients of that freely given and received inalienable right, to deny it to the next? Madness!"
My 10 yr old daughter. " how can it not be person? It's alive right?"
ReplyDeleteHow I wish that Alyssa, CS, and others understood this premise:
ReplyDelete"Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being’s entitlement by virtue of his humanity" -- Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta
(Please note: She did not say "by virtue of Catholic doctrine")
Basically, Alyssa’s tactic (sadly, as with most secular types that comment here) is to dive-bomb the thread with the talking points and nothing more. Always carrying out the same orders, apparently.
ReplyDeleteLet your rhetorical dive-bomb include the following:
Irrelevant and fictitious assumptions that Catholics base all of their thinking on their religion as the starting point to any moral argument (whether the arguments be about the laws of the nation or abortion).
Shuffle the criteria used for law making in manner of the “shell game”, while failing to posit any other, better, improved, relevant criteria or basis for said laws. Basically just confuse the issue and hope the Catholics don’t notice.
Broad brush strokes for definitions of terms like murder, killing, bodily agency, rights, laws.
Attempt a red herring with side bar retorts and overly verbose replies in hopes that people will actually pick it through it all and be confused enough.
Implement blindness to the reality that Catholics use the Natural Law as their “zero” starting point and reason outward.
Include failure to see that Catholics show that it is completely reasonable to hold up the Natural Law in your left hand, and the Catholic Church in your right hand, and to see how it makes perfect sense to believe in the Church, based on the fact that what is contained in the Law actually fully supports belief in the Church. Not the other way around, even though that works, too.
Include hypocritical reprimands for manners breeches while insulting them with false accusations of wanting their religion to rule the laws, of wanting all women to suffer because of pregnancy, and of being rude while simultaneously making arrogant half-baked retorts. That’ll show ‘em.
Always, always include hypocritical reprimands for circular logic. Assume that they use two arrows in their argument which point back and forth to each other, but never outward from a single starting point. To concede they don’t do this means you’ll actually have to challenge their position outwardly, and that equipment is not in the arsenal.
This is not an exhaustive list, but represent several that are notoriously involved in their crop-dusting comments. Fly by, drop it, never engage, never answer the plethora of very valid straight-lined challenges put to them, and make a hasty exit. They fail logically, they fail intellectually, and they fail to communicate. It’s either a true communicative disability or its laziness. I am never quite sure which, anymore.
I just know that people cannot even reason their way out of a paper bag and it’s alarming that this country’s “educational system” is breeding people to rehearse talking points but never to analyze.
Need your suggestions for rebuttals when people decry single issue voting re pro life candidates; besides the usual retort of 'if you don't have right to life, all the other issues are null' thnx in advance
ReplyDeleteRead this article yesterday (which I thought was pathetic, frankly), and it made me sad. Then I was reading through some of the comments, and I came across one from a woman who said something like, she has three kids and doesn't wish to have any more, and she takes all precautions (surgically and chemically), but she and her husband have decided that if she got pregnant, that the children she already have come before a blastocyst/zygote, and she would abort. It got me thinking about how people use these euphemisms to gloss over the reality of abortion, and how her existing children were once blastocysts themselves. One thing I notice is that pro-aborts like to say a blastocyst isn't a baby. Well, okay, if all that comes to mind for them when they hear the word baby is a cute chubby bundle of joy cooing in a bouncy seat, so be it. Then let's just go with human being. A blastocyst is a HUMAN BEING in the appropriate stage of development. There is no getting around that. It's not anything else. It's not a potential human being, and it's not anything else. It can't ever get closer to being a baby (as some of these people would consider a baby) if it gets snuffed out of its mother's womb.
ReplyDeleteSorry, link to article: http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/08/the-big-secret-of-abortion.html
DeleteNubby, you are right! It's just dropping talking points! Because, we ask tons of questions. Tons. And they don't really ask any, they just drop their talking points. We are trying to get from point A to point B. They don't engage, they leave.
ReplyDeleteOff the top of my head, Alyssa asked questions like:
"Don't you know that women have reasons for having abortions?"
We answer "yes" (obviously), and yet there are no more questions forthcoming that can lead us somewhere, and when we ask questions, they are ignored, hedged or abandoned (because she "has to go, it's been fun!").
FRUSTRATING. And it's a pattern. I don't mean to single out Alyssa.
Beth, yes, so sad! They don't realize that a human being is SUPPOSED to look like that at that stage of development? Sigh.
Maggie, honestly, I can't think of any better response. That's the truth of it. However, I guess I ask these questions a lot and never get an answer, so maybe they would be helpful?
Are you okay with one group of human beings determining the humanity of another group?
When the strong kill the weak, we call that oppression. Would you agree? And why are you okay with this type of legal oppression?
I just want to know why CS & Alyssa don't seem to think that choosing not to have sex is even a possibility. It seems to me that they're saying that casual sex is inevitable so abortion is absolutely necessary so the women who inevitably have sex have a way out of dealing with the resulting pregnancy. If abortion is illegal and women keep having sex, what are they supposed to do? Endure 9 months of pregnancy? Or be "forced" to do the "closet hanger" thing? Very strange perspective.....
ReplyDeleteI wonder too, Margo. It’s bizarre fear-based thinking.
ReplyDeleteIt’s like: Everyone is the “enemy" but they (women) have no self-control over not sleeping with the enemy (jerky guys) and therefore should not be asked to spare the unborn enemy (baby), all while being scared of what normally secure women do everywhere all over the world which is carry a child and give birth to him/her, and never regard either the baby or the man as the "enemy" even if life gets hard with either of those relationships, or all of them together. I guess those types of confident women are the enemy, too; someone to be jealous of (?). It's very Ellen Herman-esque.
She explained that women are not free by describing this as the biggest barrier:
… the family – especially, the western patriarchal, bourgeois, and child-centered, nuclear family – as the most important source of women’s oppression. - Ellen Herman
Mis-wired thinking all the way through, imo. Fear, fear, fear. They act like there is never a remedy. Only pain, pain, pain and fear, fear, fear! Like there’s nothing to be offered or received. Like a constant net result of “zero” no matter which way you add things up.
Maybe make the effort to stop being so easily offended and scared, modern ladies. It sounds paranoid and unhealthy because you lack clear thinking. That’s what people in panic mode, do. They panic and fly off the handle. And make poor choices out of fear.
Look at the numbers. Pregnancy in this country is not something to fear. The nonsense in this thinking is enough to make Aristotle’s eyes cross and Chesterton order up a double scotch just to stomach it all.
If you're a believer (like CS), stop buying that feminist junk and start walking in the victory which is yours through God. Cast off the shackles. Be free to rise above in Christ.
And, dang it, Chris S.! Quit sandbagging and start kicking out some of your strong advice for women from a male perspective around this estrogen camp! (No offense to Leila. I dig this estrogen camp ;) )
I’m doing the “modern woman” thing in a matter of hours -- fishing like a dude, with some dudes, with a two-stroke engine to get me around 15 miles of lake.
Take up the slack, man! I’ll be covered in fish guts and unable to type, and the only thing grafted to my arm this week will be a fishing pole (well… that’s not fully true. There may be some beer duct taped to my fist at some point. Maybe).
As near I can figure, they are saying:
ReplyDelete1. No matter what, some women will have sex out-of-wedlock (true)
2. No matter what, some women will have abortions (true)
But then they are going to point three, which makes no sense:
3. Therefore, we must make sure it's legal to kill the children that are conceived but not wanted.
???
How does #3 follow from #1 and #2?
And Nubby, please, get that Youtube show going with Chris! Right after you start your own reality show, because honestly, between your playing hockey with men and fishing with men, and then looking as beautiful as you are, that would be a ratings extravaganza!
ReplyDeleteThey should also have a timely topic q/a each week to show that young, attractive, intelligent professionals can be unabashedly Catholic apologists!
DeleteAlyssa, if you are still reading, two points:
ReplyDelete1. It's absolutely pointless to tell people they are committing logical fallacies, throw out a link to a website that lists logical fallacies, and then flounce off. At the very least you could cite an example so that the commenters and lurkers can evaluate the accuracy of your analysis. I saw you committing loads of straw man arguments (for example, claiming that we were ignorant or didn't care about the reasons women aborted, claiming that we based our beliefs of Catholic doctrine) but I didn't see any fallacies from other commenters.
2. Please, please, please visit SecularProLife.org. A solid, logical, rational, reasonable case can be made for personhood from conception without ever referring to any religious doctrine at all.
Oh what I'd give to pull an all nighter with Chesterton and Tolkien slobbering over scotch and chips.
ReplyDeleteYou Nubby, are simply bad-ass. I can't get over the amount of brain power and wisdom that you and Leila throw down around here. And all the commentators for that matter. Someday I'll be having my daughters read through these com boxes to understand what wisdom looks like.
Sand-bagger? Perhaps if we didn't have sick kids and wife ( in the middle of August for Peteys sake) I'd have some time. And employment gets in the way. Don't intentions count.? I'll try. Leila may have to edit to achieve a PG rating. I started some and ended up saying " I can't say that, they'll stone me".
I wish you great fishing trip and you kill many fish and beers.
Go to the the link and you can listen to a very interesting tape recording of the Roe v. Wade case. Excerpt:
ReplyDeleteJustice Potter Stewart: Well, if it were established that an unborn fetus is a person within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here, would you not?
Mrs. Weddington: I would have a very difficult case. [Laughter]
http://stacytrasancos.com/heard-roe-vs-wade-oral-transcripts/
I am going to post something (hopefully tonight) which lays out the problems with the way Alyssa (and others, not trying to single her out) choose to dialogue on this issue.
ReplyDeleteStay tuned.
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2015/08/abortion-dialogue-where-alyssa-went.html
ReplyDelete^^ I just posted on where Alyssa went wrong. And I just heard that a sixth video was released. Going to watch it now....
“And I straight-up showed you the numbers that easily deflate those fears. That's what I said. 99.98% of the time, the mom will be just fine. That's the math. You don't follow it. You follow your feelings. Stop letting your fear distort reality.”
ReplyDeleteRight Nubby as in she doesn’t die. People’s mental and pshyical health is a lot more than they mere just don’t die. One of the readers, I think it was Bethany, said she was sick her entire pregnancy and had severe depression for 2 years after it. I do not tell people that being sick for nearly 3 years is nothing. I do not know the long reaching effect, I let women and their doctors figure that out.
CS
Margo,
ReplyDelete“I just want to know why CS & Alyssa don't seem to think that choosing not to have sex is even a possibility. It seems to me that they're saying that casual sex is inevitable so abortion is absolutely necessary so the women who inevitably have sex have a way out of dealing with the resulting pregnancy. If abortion is illegal and women keep having sex, what are they supposed to do? Endure 9 months of pregnancy? Or be "forced" to do the "closet hanger" thing? Very strange perspective.....”
Because Its sex Margo. Think of what happened during prohibition, and that was just liquor. Alyssa and I were not talking about ourselves we were talking about people and human nature. We can help people make better healthier decisions in all regards absolutely but sex is strong, it isn’t going anywhere.
CS
Nubby,
ReplyDelete“Everyone is the “enemy" but they (women) have no self-control over not sleeping with the enemy (jerky guys) and therefore should not be asked to spare the unborn enemy (baby), all while being scared of what normally secure women do everywhere all over the world which is carry a child and give birth to him/her, and never regard either the baby or the man as the "enemy" even if life gets hard with either of those relationships, or all of them together.
Where do you get these things from and WHY must you be so insulting to other people. It is really ridiculous.
No one said any one is the enemy. Many women have relationships with people that end badly ( duh). This includes one night stands and MARRIGES. No where did I say all men are evil. Furthermore and this is important, people are not mindreaders so you likely don’t know someone is a jerk UNTIL THEY ARE BEING A JERK, you don’t seem to have a lot of empathy for deception which by the way happens to everyone.
I also didn’t say say babies are the enemy. About a million women have an abortion a year and millions don’t. No one is going around to the millions that do and saying ‘don’t you know you don’t actually want to be pregnant”
CS
“And actually, there is a way to hold men responsible -- it's to not engage in sex with them unless they've committed to marriage. The problem is that so many women aren't willing to hold the men responsible.”
ReplyDeleteExactly.
You want to hold women responsible LEGALLY and you
women to hold men responsible and you want the law to hold women responsible. You ultimately want women to be the gatekeepers, and you don’t see any problems with that.
CS
"Right Nubby as in she doesn’t die. People’s mental and pshyical health is a lot more than they mere just don’t die. One of the readers, I think it was Bethany, said she was sick her entire pregnancy and had severe depression for 2 years after it. I do not tell people that being sick for nearly 3 years is nothing. I do not know the long reaching effect, I let women and their doctors figure that out."
ReplyDeleteoh, CS. I am of an age that I know many women who had abortions in their youth. Many who now so bitterly, horribly regret it. Many of whom are still mourning and suffering decades later. Many of whom only felt "relief" -- at first. You have no idea. I have met women so destroyed by their abortions (and the lies they were told) that they have been brought to the brink of suicide. It is something that cannot be undone. It is not a figurative death, it's an actual death of a person, and not just any person, but one's own child. This rarely remains dormant. It can come up decades later (usually earlier). And no abortionist admits that it's even a thing. They lie, they lie, they lie.
They betray women. And they profit from them. The whole business is so dirty, so dark. It's death peddling. Death vs life will always net you something very different. Life is a choice that women can live with, and the child as well. Death.... it's over, no going back.
CS, please answer this direct question: Do you acknowledge that the unborn are human beings? Do you acknowledge that a new human being is begun at conception?
As near I can figure, they are saying: 1. No matter what, some women will have sex out-of-wedlock (true) 2. No matter what, some women will have abortions (true) But then they are going to point three, which makes no sense: 3. Therefore, we must make sure it's legal to kill the children that are conceived but not wanted.
ReplyDeleteI guess here’s the thing Leila, and I think this is where Alyssa was going as well, I don’t feel the empathy from this group. You’ve made your case a million times and I’ve made mine, we know where we stand so let’s talk personally for a sec.
I think the reason you didn’t get as many converts as you would have liked, frankly as you could have with the videos is because your movement’s empathy for women doesn’t come across.
Yes of course, I know about the pregnancy crises centers yes I know about the catholic virtues. I say it, the other commenters say it not because we’re spouting off talking points but in talking to you in interacting with you the concern doesn’t come through. If we did exactly what you advocated it doesn’t seem that women would be better off.
CS
I don’t see the empathy for pregnant women, hell I don’t see the empathy for sexually active women. Again, I’m not mitigating the work you do but its frustrating because you fail to acknowledge, I mean really acknowledge why we have so many abortions, what pro-choicers are trying to do. I mean so many of the commenters have said ‘well that’s a risk she took when she opened her legs’ and that absurd to hear because you know what a simplistic view that is. That might be a fine attitude if we were talking about boys, but these are girls, we know damn well that they are likely seeking validation and attention, we know they are getting less of out it. We know that’s a lot of responsibility to take on alone because no one has come up with a way to make men equally responsible.
ReplyDeleteThe people on this board dismiss the difficulty these women face, saying that being sick for several months at a time or delying one’s education and rearranging ones life are mere inconveniences. You can still be against abortion and recognize those things ARE BIG DEALS, offering diapers or toys are not the same as a loving partner or a dream job or the life you gave up.
http://www.aholyexperience.com/2015/08/an-honest-conversation-about-abortion-that-asks-us-not-to-turn-away-from-anyone-the-emmaus-option/
You posed this article a few days and if you talked to women like this, if you advocated for this like you advocate for abortion, people would listen to you more than they listen to PP
CS
Leila,
ReplyDeletethe unborn are developing human beings
"You posed this article a few days and if you talked to women like this, if you advocated for this like you advocate for abortion, people would listen to you more than they listen to PP"
ReplyDeleteCS, but remember, this is not that kind of a blog. I'm coming at it from socratic, logic. It helps some people see the light. Elisabeth is coming at it from a more soulful place of relationship, beautiful prose, really almost poetry. That helps others. We don't all do the same thing, but the Truth is the same. If you don't see the Truth here, then see it there. And then you are obligated, by God, to respond to that Truth. These are His children. And I include the mothers.
I would love, love, love to give you a tour of First Way or Life Choices here in town. They have multiple clinics here in town, all free. Or Maggie's Place. All free. All compassionate, nonjudgmental, all 100% pro-life, serving the poor, the abused, the abandoned, the lonely, and now including the fathers (at First Way). Life changing. I have told you about them (and the centers are similar all over America, thousands of them -- and PP tries hard to get them shut down). I wish you could see. My blog is not going to be everything for everyone, and please don't judge what the pro-life movement is as a whole by what I write. I write for people who are interested in the logic, in the truth of it, who want to follow that argument. If not, there are other ways to access the same Truth.
Here's something of interest:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/10/i-don-t-know-if-i-m-pro-choice-anymore.html
The gist is that the guy has been pro-choice forever. A journalist. And he saw the horror the videos (which may not be effective to change all hearts; point in case, Alyssa). And so his heart may have finally changed. He said at the end:
'At least that’s how my wife sees it. She’s pro-life, and so she’s been tearing into me every time a new video is released. She’s not buying my argument that, as a man, I have to defer to women and trust them to make their own choices about what to do with their bodies. To her, that’s ridiculous—and cowardly.
“You can’t stand on the sidelines, especially now that you’ve seen these videos,” she told me recently. “That’s bullshit! These are babies that are being killed. Millions of them. And you need to use your voice to protect them. That’s what a man does. He protects children—his own children, and other children. That’s what it means to be a man.”
I didn’t like the scolding, but I needed to hear it.'
CS, if this blog has not convinced you (and it hasn't), then please, go tour a crisis pregnancy center. Talk to the women there who have been helped. Read the blog you linked instead of this one. Elizabeth is astounding. She may reach your heart better than I have been able to.
"the unborn are developing human beings"
ReplyDeleteWould you agree that we are all "developing human beings"?
‘well that’s a risk she took when she opened her legs’
ReplyDeleteAnd no one has spoken so crudely here. No on said this. What we've said is that we must, must, must teach and understand that babies are a consequence of sex. If one has sex (male or female) there is always a chance that a baby is going to be created. A human being. That is the effect of sexual activity, and yet our culture makes it seem like babies are some strange thing incidental to the sex act, and they are only allowed to come around maybe twice in our sex lives, just when we decided. But that's now how biology works. Sex comes with the inherent baby-making properties, because that the purpose of sex, biologically speaking. That is a message that people actually don't even consider anymore.
And yes, we must say it. That is education. That is truth. It's the difference between these two messages:
"Hey, if you have sex with someone, make sure you want that person to be the father/mother of your child, because you definitely could get pregnant."
vs.
"Hey, if you have sex, just make sure you use birth control so that you don't have a baby."
Different mindsets totally. The latter comes with a "contract" mentality: We agree to have sex and NOT have a baby. If a baby is made, that was NOT part of the contract and abortion is the back up to the failed contraception plan.
That doesn't serve anyone.
I wanted to share this will everyone, my wife and I are an infertile couple. This is exactly how we felt seeing these videos.
ReplyDeleteIf weak politicians can't fight to abolish abortion, the least they can do is increase adoption education and require by law that clinics give tons of adoption info to the mothers. I think there are some women who choose abortion because they don't know enough about how adoption works.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/12/infertile-couple-experiences-the-planned-parenthood-videos/
You want to hold women responsible LEGALLY and you women to hold men responsible and you want the law to hold women responsible. You ultimately want women to be the gatekeepers, and you don’t see any problems with that.
ReplyDeleteNo, CS, I want everyone held responsible for for their own actions. Men AND women. Why is this a difficult concept for you?
Please stop with the red herrings regarding empathy and compassion. You're trying to deflect the conversation from the actual topic at hand. Whether or not we have compassion for pregnant women in crisis pregnancies (and we do, in spades) is *irrelevant* to the question if unborn children are human beings with the right to life. If they are, then no circumstance, however difficult, justifies deliberately killing them.
"You want to hold women responsible LEGALLY and you
ReplyDeletewomen to hold men responsible and you want the law to hold women responsible. You ultimately want women to be the gatekeepers, and you don’t see any problems with that."
I think everyone here has said that both man and woman are responsible when having sex and there is a new human being created from that. The law also holds the man responsible, the law forces him to pay money. Sometimes that doesn't work out well but there are laws to try to put responsibility on the man from a legal perspective.
To the point that people want women as the "gatekeeper", again both parties are responsible for consenting to sex and ALL possible consequences. Both are actually gatekeepers of their own bodies, and are responsible for what they do with their bodies.
"You can still be against abortion and recognize those things ARE BIG DEALS, offering diapers or toys are not the same as a loving partner or a dream job or the life you gave up. "
ReplyDeleteFollowing this logic, if a spouse leaves the other and leaves them with children, it would be okay to kill those kids because they are now a burden for a single parent, and they keep that single parent from dating easily again, keep them possibly from working more hours to move up in their career. Just think of that life they are giving up because of their kids! The parent should have the right to kill those children, they are dependent on that parent and are a burden!
Also, CS, you talk of the months or years of sickness because of pregnancy. (Leila already gave testimony about the women she knows that are still in pain over the choice to have abortions.) I don't want anyone to be sick or not feel well or have to delay school or anything else that makes them not as happy as they could be, but none of those reasons should be used to kill another human being. That is the logical argument here.
In my opinion, I think many of the people that are pro-choice base their position on feelings and not logic. It is tough to see someone that is terrified and crying because they found out they are pregnant and weren't planning on that situation. That causes feelings in all of us.
The difference between pro-life and pro-choice people, I think, is that pro-life people want to help the mother through pregnancy and help her child through many different support programs (private and governmental); pro-choice people just give in to pure emotions and because they don't see the new human being inside the mother, they choose the easiest "feel good"(to the pro-choice person) and "instant" solution which is abortion. What pro-choice people refuse to recognize is the harm that abortion does psychologically to the mother. When a good person kills another person, especially their own child, that has life long lasting effects on that person. As Leila said, it can even lead to suicide or near suicidal tendancies.
But the pro-choice people scream how pro-life people just want control over women and it is a war on women. The fact is, the pro-choice movement has done much more harm than the pro-life movement will ever do. 55 million young human beings killed and almost the same number of women with lasting psychological issues because of the pro-choice movement.
I strongly argue that pro-choice isn't only anti-humanity, it is also anti-women. I feel terrible for women that have that burden of taking a life.
I think that women like CS must see women's biology (that we can conceive and bear children in our own bodies) as something "unfair". That is why the Obamas and others speak of abortion as the great equalizer, something that allows girls and women to "fulfill their dreams". They celebrate abortion for making things "fair". They don't see that to have been given the gift to bear life is a privilege beyond any other privilege and honor bestowed (other than life itself). As a woman I am awestruck by the honor and responsibility of it, not put out by it or annoyed that it makes me "stuck" with the "burdens" involved.
ReplyDeleteWhat have we taught our girls and daughters?
I am so grateful that I am not at war with my own biology. With nature or with Almighty God Himself, who loves us so. Or with my own children.
I don't want anyone to be sick or not feel well or have to delay school or anything else that makes them not as happy as they could be, but none of those reasons should be used to kill another human being. That is the logical argument here. In my opinion, I think many of the people that are pro-choice base their position on feelings and not logic.
ReplyDeleteI understand why you say that, but understanding things outside of black and white, understanding context isn’t merely basing something on feelings.
There is an extremely sound logical argument for prohibition, hard alcohol especially has no redeeming benefits for a society, alcohol breeds reckless decision making, destroys health, causes enumerable accidents and honestly destroys more families than drugs do. Despite this, making it illegal actually makes it worst Its not enough that we just outlaw bad things, we first have to make sure that the implication of something isn’t worse than the thing itself.
CS
There so much talk of how the unborn should be treated equally to children, but it doesn’t seem like people REALLY believe that. It appears that even the people who think abortion is wrong don’t REALLY believe the unborn should be treated the same as other children.
ReplyDeleteNo one thinks women who have abortions should go to jail, especially not for 25 years to life.
No one (other than a few fringe people) thinks its ok to kill abortion doctors, if they were mass murderers it would be pretty permissible to kill them
No one thinks that a pregnant woman who neglects her health and refuses prenatal care to the determent of her child should be faced with child abuse.
That because we all understand that being pregnant and having an abortion isn’t actually the same as shooting someone, we can still take it seriously without calling it murder, we can still respect nascent life without giving them legal personhood, which has very fringe support.
CS
“I think that women like CS must see women's biology (that we can conceive and bear children in our own bodies) as something "unfair".”
ReplyDeleteI guess, Leila this is what I mean when I get frustrated and sometimes say that the people on this board seem out of touch.
Sometimes having a baby is a burden for some women, sometimes it’s a gift. You deal with unwed mothers all the time, you might not agree with it but surely you understand the concept. Different things are good for different people at different times is what we teach our daughters.
CS
No one thinks women who have abortions should go to jail, especially not for 25 years to life.
ReplyDeleteNo, CS, I don't think that every single person who kills another human being should automatically go to jail for 25 years to life. I don't think an abused woman who kills her abuser should necessarily go to jail for 25 years to life either, or even a woman who kills her newborn. I think extenuating circumstances must be taken into account. Is there mental illness in play? Long-term abuse? Coercion or threats from family members? This is what's known as "justice" and "due process of law," and I support it for ALL people who kill another person.
No one (other than a few fringe people) thinks its ok to kill abortion doctors, if they were mass murderers it would be pretty permissible to kill them.
See above regarding due process of law. Also, you forget that a tenet of Christianity is "we may never do evil so that good may result." See, we believe that ALL murder is wrong. (Killing in self-defense or the defense of others may not be murder, but it depends on the circumstances. I shouldn't shoot a trespasser on my property and claim that I was defending my family, for example, because I don't necessarily know if the trespasser intended harm to me or my family. If s/he didn't, killing him/her would be wrong.)
No one thinks that a pregnant woman who neglects her health and refuses prenatal care to the determent of her child should be faced with child abuse.
Actually, you're wrong. I think a pregnant woman who is DELIBERATELY attempting to harm her unborn child needs intervention of some nature. Some women decline standard prenatal care because they have a suspicion of modern medicine, not because they intend to harm their child. Some women decline prenatal care because they are scared and in denial and trying to hide their pregnancy - again, not because they intend to harm their child. Once again, circumstances need to be taken into account via due process of law.
That because we all understand that being pregnant and having an abortion isn’t actually the same as shooting someone
And we can all understand that opening fire in an elementary school isn't actually the same as driving drunk and crashing into a school bus. But either way, kids are killed and the people responsible should be given due process of law, and punished as the circumstances warrant.
we can still take it seriously without calling it murder
Why, though? If it's not murder, then why should it be taken seriously?
we can still respect nascent life without giving them legal personhood, which has very fringe support.
Legal personhood for black people had "fringe support" in this country at one time, too. Thank God, that didn't stop the abolitionists.
Why do you oppose giving human rights to human beings, CS?
Sometimes having a baby is a burden for some women, sometimes it’s a gift.
ReplyDeleteA child is ALWAYS a gift, even if the circumstances are difficult for the parents.
"There so much talk of how the unborn should be treated equally to children, but it doesn’t seem like people REALLY believe that."
ReplyDeleteFirst, I see this is a diversion to answering the question: Do innocent human beings have the right to stay alive? Or can some innocent human beings be killed at will? If so, where do you get that moral principle?
You have said that the unborn child is a developing human being. So are all of us. And at the least, we can say that born babies and children are still developing. So, what is the moral principle for how we treat developing human beings? May we kill them at will? Can one group of humans decide to kill another group of humans?
As for "treating equally" -- yes, I often treat people unequally. Ask my children, ha ha. But one thing I don't do is treat them unequally by KILLING some of them. But yes, I treat people "unequally" based on their personalities, ages, interests, needs, etc. What is equal is the dignity God gave them.
God said, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." HE formed us in our mother's wombs. He also said, "Even if your mother forgets you, I will never forget you." He loves us from the first moment He creates us. To kill His children, whom He loves, is a fearsome thing. I think we have lost sight of who we are and why we are here.
As for your frustration about me saying that many including you think female biology is "unfair", I stand by it. Yes, as long as things are going the way a woman wants, you are fine with it. But as soon as it's a burden of some kind or another, you are quite upset and want to make sure women have the "out" of abortion.
Your words are copious on the subject over the years. A woman suffers in ways that a man cannot and she should not be required to shoulder that burden. You've said it again and again. And the only difference is that we are the bearers of life. That's why you complain that men never have to do this, only the pregnant woman (who suffers so greatly that she needs to have the option to kill her baby) has to bear this awful burden (again, not if she WANTS the baby, we get that).
Heck, you have said more than once that you reject the premise that women's bodies were made to sustain others' bodies, or that a uterus is there for one reason: as the home for a growing baby. And yet, that is pure biology. Pure biology.
Also, CS, I encourage you to read the following: Why the States Did Not Prosecute Women for Abortion Before Roe v. Wade
ReplyDelete"There is an extremely sound logical argument for prohibition, hard alcohol especially has no redeeming benefits for a society, alcohol breeds reckless decision making, destroys health, causes enumerable accidents and honestly destroys more families than drugs do. Despite this, making it illegal actually makes it worst Its not enough that we just outlaw bad things, we first have to make sure that the implication of something isn’t worse than the thing itself. "
ReplyDeleteProhibition of alcohol and abortion are completely different. Here is why:
If I drink a beer, another human doesn't die just because I drank that beer.
Sure, bad things can happen because people abuse alcohol or drugs. That can be said of many things, self control and moderation is needed in almost everything.
The fundamental difference from drugs, smoking, alcohol, vs abortion is that every abortion ends with at least one dead human that was alive right before that act.
A sip of beer, an injection or smoke of a drug; do not have to end in a human dying. In fact those acts, statistically, more often than not don't end in death.
I am not advocating drugs, but you can't equate drug laws to abortion laws. It is like saying agriculture laws are equal to murder laws. They simply aren't the same.
And I would add that alcohol it itself is not evil at all. Goodness, even Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding at Cana for the guests to enjoy (and showed forth his first public miracle). Hard liquor, same thing. Abuse of it is bad (and we decry that abuse and we do have laws against things pertaining to alcohol abuse), but hard liquor is not intrinsically evil.
ReplyDeleteNow let's compare that with abortion. What is abortion? Remember abortion and *reasons* for abortion are two different things. Abortion itself, the act, is the killing and removal of an unborn child from the mother's womb. That is actually what an abortion is. It is a killing act. It is an act that is meant to kill. As in, a successful abortion means a child has been directly killed. That is a successful abortion. The point of the abortion is direct killing so that we have a dead human being as the outcome of that act. It is intrinsically evil to kill an innocent. And abortion is *nothing* if not the *killing of an innocent*. That's all it is. I'm being redundant, but that's all it is. "Abortion" is another name for "we are targeting and killing the unborn child."
That is intrinsically evil. It's not something that "can be abused", it's abuse itself! It's violent of its very nature, and intended to kill a human being.
And the sick thing is, we celebrate this killing as a right! Oh.my.gosh. There can be no equivalence, as jrfjosh has said. Not even close.