tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post6691651002674020303..comments2024-03-09T00:51:33.602-07:00Comments on Little Catholic Bubble: You're such a hypocrite! Or maybe not….Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comBlogger117125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-5909126052203066952011-08-01T13:05:00.969-07:002011-08-01T13:05:00.969-07:00Thank you, thank you, thank you! When I have hear...Thank you, thank you, thank you! When I have heard others accuse Christians of being hypocrites, I have also felt that their labels were not accurate. Now it will be much easier for me to offer that possibly they are just noticing that Christians are 'sinners.'Infertile Catholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00991940151726561815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-55604372710130411732011-07-27T07:48:50.487-07:002011-07-27T07:48:50.487-07:00MaiZeke can correct me if I'm wrong, but I bel...<i>MaiZeke can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe she is of the position that no child is a person until birth. So, even though she is troubled by late term abortions, she is not strictly against them. </i><br /><br />Which is disturbing on so many levels to me. Especially since my first child was born at 34 1/2 weeks and yet, a child at 37 weeks in utero could be killed and dismantled. Never mind the fact that the 37 week child in utero would actually be MORE developed than my 5lb 4oz scrawny little man was. <br /><br />He just turned 10 now, is nearly 5ft tall and is already heading into his teenage years with his attitude. <br /><br />And for those that would say, "But it's for the sake of the life of the mother." <br /><br />I respond,<br />"And, why do you think my child was born at 34 1/2 weeks? Or for that matter why I had been in the hospital for a week before he was born?"Bethanyhttp://www.innocenceexperience.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-54936365784230246712011-07-26T20:08:16.944-07:002011-07-26T20:08:16.944-07:00MaiZeke can correct me if I'm wrong, but I bel...MaiZeke can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe she is of the position that no child is a person until birth. So, even though she is troubled by late term abortions, she is not strictly against them.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-69271629538743165622011-07-26T18:42:36.413-07:002011-07-26T18:42:36.413-07:00It depends, Mary, on the criteria upon which human...It depends, Mary, on the criteria upon which humanity and/or personhood exists. That's the real question. Appearance is irrelevant. If someone is badly disfigured in a fire, I don't get to decide that he's not a person anymore because he doesn't look like one.<br /><br />I agree there are different degrees of evil when it comes to the abortion debate, or the views of its proponents. However, if I'm not mistaken, MaiZeke believes abortion is perfectly acceptable at least until the second trimester, which means she would have been perfectly okay with, say, <a href="http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/74/9wkultrasoundqe6.jpg/" rel="nofollow">this baby</a> (my oldest daughter at 9w6d) being dismembered and murdered in my womb should I have chosen to have her killed.JoAnna Wahlundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09942928659520676271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-6857175076805617142011-07-26T18:21:29.029-07:002011-07-26T18:21:29.029-07:00JoAnna,
I get your point, but do you get mine? Th...JoAnna,<br />I get your point, but do you get mine? That it is not beyond the shade of pale to question whether a fetus with gill slits, a tail and no heartbeat is actually a person? I think that very conscionable folk actually do think about this quite deeply. Therefore, (although I don't know where Maizeke stands in terms of how liberal she thinks abortion laws should be) I think it is rather course to think she has no ground to stand on when trying to discern the morality of certain types of treatment of children.<br /><br />Let's say she has thought about abortion for quite some time and weighed the issues, and she has come down on the side of being OK only with the morning after pill, as she thinks it is OK to prevent the implantation of a blastula, but not intervene in a pregnancy after implantation. <br /><br />Would you not respect that view as slightly more morally defensible than the view of a person who thought it permissible to abort a 25 week old fetus for the mental health of the mother, say?<br />For me, that answer is clear. I would certainly sense that the person who holds the first view was more reasoned and understanding than the second.Marynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-27126757145588576112011-07-26T16:10:31.837-07:002011-07-26T16:10:31.837-07:00MaiZeke, too bad you won't address the abortio...MaiZeke, too bad you won't address the abortion issue. I understand why you don't want to. I wouldn't either. However, the questions I asked really do beg for an answer. I just can't wrap my mind around the idea that it's okay to shred a child in the womb, or that a child isn't even <i>in</i> the womb. You've been pregnant, and you know better.<br /><br />Mary, any assignment of "personhood" after conception is simply arbitrary, based on appearances, size, location, abilities or convenience. If we start deciding personhood on any of those factors, we are all in trouble.<br /><br />Bottom line, no human being gets value only after passing a litmus test. Human beings are valuable simple because they exist.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-26499349198701797022011-07-26T15:24:29.242-07:002011-07-26T15:24:29.242-07:00I am not going to debate abortion here.
I underst...<i>I am not going to debate abortion here.</i><br /><br />I understand. If I supported the dismemberment and murder of unborn children, I wouldn't want to talk about it either.<br /><br /><i>Everywhere I have read about zero tolerance from 2002 does not mean unsubstantiated. It means zero tolerance for credible accusations. </i><br /><br />And what, in your view (or anyone's view) is a "credible accusation"? I thought your view was that ANY accusation, no matter how farfetched, ought to be taken seriously and fully investigated, even if it means throwing an innocent man in jail for a couple months.<br /><br /><i>JoAnna above even quoted some stuff saying maybe we shouldn't report even those cases that we KNOW something happened, to "protect" the children from having to testify. </i><br /><br />Actually, no, that's not what it said at all. It said that there should not be a policy in which confidentiality could not be respected in case the victim did not want their name and situation splashed all over the media -- such as <a href="http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=6804" rel="nofollow">this victim</a>, who had requested confidentiality and was deeply upset when it was breached. <br /><br /><i>If you can find the source to the 2002 bishop's report which describes zero tolerance as any accusuation, credible or not, then I will stand corrected.</i><br /><br />All right. In the article by Akin I've previously posted, it says the following was the SUGGESTED reporting policy (this is a section the advisory group was concerned about):<br /><br />"2.2.1 <b>In all instances</b> where it is known or suspected that a child has been, or is being, sexually abused by a priest or religious the matter should be reported to the civil authorities. Where the suspicion or knowledge results from the complaint of an adult of abuse during his or her childhood, this should also be reported to the civil authorities."<br /><br />I don't see anything about a "credible accusation" in there, do you? <br /><br />Might I suggest reading the ENTIRE article next time?JoAnna Wahlundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09942928659520676271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-69692486552033126302011-07-26T15:15:54.137-07:002011-07-26T15:15:54.137-07:00I am not going to debate abortion here.
I'm ...I am not going to debate abortion here. <br /><br />I'm so glad we are all back on topic. <br /><br />JoAnna says: <i>What I oppose is automatically throwing Fr. Smith in jail if he should accidentally bumps into 9-year-old Susie Parishoner in the hallway. Under a "zero tolerance" policy, however, that's exactly what could happen. </i><br /><br />Everywhere I have read about zero tolerance from 2002 does not mean unsubstantiated. It means zero tolerance for credible accusations. JoAnna above even quoted some stuff saying maybe we shouldn't report even those cases that we KNOW something happened, to "protect" the children from having to testify. <br /><br />It was after I questioned THAT shocking line of argument that she started telling me that I have cognitive dissonance (an ad hominem attack, still) and started to argue about abortion instead.<br /><br />If you can find the source to the 2002 bishop's report which describes zero tolerance as any accusuation, credible or not, then I will stand corrected. But from what I read and can find, it always says credible accusations.MaiZekehttp://www.hameno.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-7750175788050319732011-07-26T15:14:54.454-07:002011-07-26T15:14:54.454-07:00Mary - I think there is a considerable difference ...Mary - I think there is a considerable difference between this: <a href="http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/339/elanorbirth3oy.jpg/" rel="nofollow">http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/339/elanorbirth3oy.jpg/</a> and this: <a href="http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/802/elanor2010.jpg/" rel="nofollow">http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/802/elanor2010.jpg/</a>. However, it doesn't change the fact that she is still a human being, and the same person, even when she was this: <a href="http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/74/9wkultrasoundqe6.jpg/" rel="nofollow">http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/74/9wkultrasoundqe6.jpg/</a><br /><br />The main difference between an embryo and a fetus, or a fetus and a newborn, or a newborn and a 6-year-old, is that they are living, growing human beings in different stages of development.JoAnna Wahlundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09942928659520676271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-55315154007379646802011-07-26T14:55:53.031-07:002011-07-26T14:55:53.031-07:00Ok...not wanting to feed into the tangents too muc...Ok...not wanting to feed into the tangents too much as I have been chastised before, but in some defense of MaiZeke, I do think there is a considerable difference between this: http://3dpregnancy.parentsconnect.com/calendar/6-weeks-pregnant.html and the fetus depicted here http://3dpregnancy.parentsconnect.com/calendar/22-weeks-pregnant.html<br /><br />Now, I myself am not entirely sure of when "ensoulment" takes place, or even if it does etc....but as I explained once to Leila, I "err on the side" of thinking the early fetus is a person. But, I do think it is a graver sin to kill a 22 week old fetus...and I think it is more morally odd to think it is OK to do so. Therefore, I can understand the reasoning of someone who says they are OK with abortion before there is a heartbeat or brainwaves, but I cannot understand the reasoning of someone like George Tiller.Marynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-85617030987697955402011-07-26T13:43:50.334-07:002011-07-26T13:43:50.334-07:00Above, read (from JoAnna): You don't think pro...<i>Above, read (from JoAnna): You don't think properly. I do.</i><br /><br />No, MaiZeke. You're reading entirely too much into that. I mean exactly what I said: I don't understand how you can maintain the cognitive dissonance involved with simultaneously opposing child abuse and supporting the dismemberment and murder of unborn children. No more, no less. <br /><br /><i>You oppose child abuse, certainly. However, you do support allowing bishops to use their discretion to protect abusers over their victims</i><br /><br />Actually, no, I don't.<br /><br /><i>You just wish they wouldn't continue to abuse, and call the ones who do "sinners".</i><br /><br /><br />I also support any and all child abusers, as well as the ones who cover up any and all abuse, being investigated and, if found guilty by due process, prosecuted to the fullest extent of civil and Church law.<br /><br /><i>If you really opposed child abuse, I suggest that you would support a stand of outing the abusers, and making sure that they cannot abuse again. </i><br /><br />Absolutely! I support this 100%. We just disagree on the right way to go about it.<br /><br />What I oppose is automatically throwing Fr. Smith in jail if he should accidentally bumps into 9-year-old Susie Parishoner in the hallway. Under a "zero tolerance" policy, however, that's exactly what could happen.JoAnna Wahlundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09942928659520676271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-54621434004139694372011-07-26T13:37:15.555-07:002011-07-26T13:37:15.555-07:00MaiZeke, I've always wanted to ask someone thi...MaiZeke, I've always wanted to ask someone this question:<br /><br />If you don't believe there is a person in a pregnant woman's body, then did you not love your children before they were born? If so, what did you love? A piece of tissue? How did you relate to the non-person in your womb?<br /><br />What will you tell your children when you show them your ultrasound photos of them? "That wasn't you in there, but it was an indication that there would be a person at some point, much later. You didn't really exist as a human, but whatever that was in there was something we wanted to examine. Thankfully, later you came along."<br /><br />I am seriously wondering how you can love your unborn child (oops, not a child, sorry…your "non-person"), and how you will explain your thoughts on their former non-personhood to your own children one day.<br /><br />Thanks!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-55005724949857276122011-07-26T13:32:55.462-07:002011-07-26T13:32:55.462-07:00I suggest that you would support a stand of outing...<i> I suggest that you would support a stand of outing the abusers, and making sure that they cannot abuse again. </i><br /><br />Great, we agree! That was easy.<br /><br />But, you didn't answer the second half of the problem: What system would you propose for protecting innocent priests from false accusations and ruined lives?<br /><br />Thanks!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-57316367284567752922011-07-26T13:30:23.354-07:002011-07-26T13:30:23.354-07:00If you really opposed child abuse, I suggest that ...<i>If you really opposed child abuse, I suggest that you would support a stand of outing the abusers,</i><br /><br />Most (I think like over 90%) have been "outed", that is to say, they are no longer in positions that will allow them to continue the abuse. The Church starting doing this LONG before the sex scandal broke. Which is why you have a dramatic decrease (more dramatic than the original increase) in child abuse cases from the '80's onward.<br /><br /><i>you do support allowing bishops to use their discretion to protect abusers over their victims</i><br /><br />And no! We support allowing the bishops to use their discretion, and the resources available to them (which were different resources 40 years ago), to make sure that the ACTUAL abusers are meeting justice, and not whichever priest is being accused by those who are "playing the victim" (and there are many who do that).Bethanyhttp://www.innocenceexperience.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-21859400112044844292011-07-26T13:29:05.080-07:002011-07-26T13:29:05.080-07:00I heard a pro-choice person say an embryo doesn...I heard a pro-choice person say an embryo doesn't look like a baby to which I responded a baby doesn't look like he/she will at 45 yrs old either. To which they responded that the embryo is not a fully developed human being. I retorted neither is the baby.<br /><br />I don't get it either Leila<br /><br />VuyoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-7036545229121791702011-07-26T13:22:33.961-07:002011-07-26T13:22:33.961-07:00See all of the other numerous posts about abortion...See all of the other numerous posts about abortion here for my take on the topic.<br /><br />Since we are now moving on to questioning the others' character (how is this not ad hominem?), vis a vis: <br /><br /><i>I brought up the fact that you somehow have no cognitive dissonance with simultaneously opposing child abuse while supporting the murder and dismemberment of unborn children.<br /><br />See, I opposed BOTH.</i><br /><br />Above, read (from JoAnna): You don't think properly. I do.<br /><br />You oppose child abuse, certainly. However, you do support allowing bishops to use their discretion to protect abusers over their victims -- which allows abusers to continue to abuse. You just wish they wouldn't continue to abuse, and call the ones who do "sinners". If you really opposed child abuse, I suggest that you would support a stand of outing the abusers, and making sure that they cannot abuse again.MaiZekehttp://www.hameno.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-29911996832227580002011-07-26T13:05:41.797-07:002011-07-26T13:05:41.797-07:00I've never understood how any one group of hum...I've never understood how any one group of humans has the right to define the humanity (thus the disposability) of another group of humans. <br /><br />"Embryos and fetuses are not people." Statement of fact based on... <i>opinion?</i><br /><br />Because Person A declares that Person B is not a person, that makes it so? Declaring someone a non-person makes it so? Truly? That's all it takes? A declaration of opinion? And suddenly a class of humans is declared non-persons?<br /><br />I can think of a few groups in history who have decided that other groups are "less than persons" and the outcome for the second group had not been so good.<br /><br />I.just.don't.get.it.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-31913267653717758392011-07-26T11:46:12.768-07:002011-07-26T11:46:12.768-07:00Yeah, I'm trying to figure out how the 19w3d b...Yeah, I'm trying to figure out how the 19w3d baby <a href="http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/18/baby43dwm.jpg/" rel="nofollow">I saw on the ultrasound screen yesterday</a> is not a human being. <br /><br />Am I pregnant with a puppy? The ultrasound tech assured us s/he was a human being, and identified all relevant body parts as human as well... s/he has a developed and functioning brain, heart, kidneys, bladder, arms and legs, eyes, nose, etc.JoAnna Wahlundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09942928659520676271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-39831751855316070342011-07-26T11:43:28.431-07:002011-07-26T11:43:28.431-07:00Abortion involves only one person: the woman. The ...<i>Abortion involves only one person: the woman. The embryo or fetus is not a person, so it is not a child.</i><br /><br />Seriously, MaiZeke?!?!?!?!?! Nearly EVERY respected medical and scientific researcher in the last 20 years has defined the moment of conception as the beginning of life. <br /><br />If an embryo or fetus is NOT a human being, then what exactly is it?Bethanyhttp://www.innocenceexperience.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-29885422367410894042011-07-26T11:34:41.094-07:002011-07-26T11:34:41.094-07:00As if the truth or falsity of the argument about t...<i>As if the truth or falsity of the argument about the actions of the bishops being immoral rests on what kind of person *I* am. You all spent an inordinate amount of time a week ago arguing the same for the priests. Do not listen to my exhortations if you like, as we are not listening to the church, but that is not a reason to say that the argument is incorrect.</i><br /><br />Nobody is saying you are incorrect in your argument that children should not be abused, and that we should do whatever can be done to protect them. We are all in agreement, MaiZeke, I promise you that. So, there is no <i>ad hominem</i> here.<br /><br />We just want to point out to you that it's inconsistent to be against some child abuse, but then be okay with the killing of 53 million other children who have no protection from their abusers at all. I hope you can see. We just want you on our side, and on the side of all the children who need protection and love.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-16797057027026760222011-07-26T11:25:11.648-07:002011-07-26T11:25:11.648-07:00How is it ad hominem to say that we oppose child a...How is it <i>ad hominem</i> to say that we oppose child abuse against all children, born and unborn? <br /><br />You said you oppose child abuse against born children. We agree with you. We also say that if you kill that same child one minute before he is born, we oppose that abuse, too. We oppose ALL child abuse.<br /><br />How is stating that an <i>ad hominem</i> attack in any way? I am seriously confused.<br /><br />Also, if you want to come back to the issue at hand, what system would you propose to protect children and falsely accused priests? Offer a solution; I'm listening.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-15843070549192845682011-07-26T11:19:42.047-07:002011-07-26T11:19:42.047-07:00Abortion involves only one person: the woman.
Th...<i>Abortion involves only one person: the woman. </i><br /><br />Then why does something have to be killed? <br /><br />You say children have to be living and "breathing". I say the child who exists, lives, and grows is a human. <br /><br />Why do you deny humanity to the unborn?<br /><br />Were you ever in your mother's womb? Were you alive then? Were you the same as your mom, or were you different?<br /><br />The only reason someone would refuse humanity to another is so that they can have permission to harm them. <br /><br />I wrote about that here:<br /><br />http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/06/sliding-scale-of-personhood-license-to.html<br /><br />Don't you want to deny the humanity of the unborn so that a woman can legally "get rid of" that unborn child? What other reason would anyone have to deny the humanity of the unborn? <br /><br />Do you know that pregnant women are considered "mothers" in the medical lexicon? "Maternal-fetal" medicine, anyone? So, if there is no child, how can there be a mother? If there is only "one person" involved in abortion, then who is she a "mother" to?<br /><br />If there is only "one person" in an abortion, then whose arms, legs, trunk and head does the abortionist have to piece together when the abortion is over? Whose limbs are those? Whose face?<br /><br />Only one person?<br /><br />You have told me before that you are uncomfortable with late-term abortions. Why? If there is "only one person" in a late term abortion, then why are you uncomfortable?<br /><br />Abortion is about "women's rights" and not child abuse? That is wrong. Someone has to speak for the 53 million dead babies. If you will not do it, then I will. Those were human beings, and they were killed. They were the other person in the abortion. I will not allow anyone to deny their existence, not on this blog and not in my real life. <br /><br />They existed and they were killed because they were paid to be killed. <br /><br />It's as much child abuse as any other form.<br /><br />I am against ALL forms of child abuse.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-13977454195635954552011-07-26T10:53:48.397-07:002011-07-26T10:53:48.397-07:00MaiZeke - I didn't bring "women's rig...MaiZeke - I didn't bring "women's rights" into it. I brought up the fact that you somehow have no cognitive dissonance with simultaneously opposing child abuse while supporting the murder and dismemberment of unborn children.<br /><br />See, I opposed BOTH. So when you profess moral outrage over child abuse but openly and proudly support the murder and dismemberment of unborn children, your outrage rings hollow.<br /><br />I'm not saying I'm more moral that you are. I don't know your heart and mind so I wouldn't presume to make that judgement. I'm just saying I don't understand how you can live with that cognitive dissonance.JoAnna Wahlundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09942928659520676271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-51960005675731725952011-07-26T10:50:28.637-07:002011-07-26T10:50:28.637-07:00She does not decide what is moral or not moral.
...<i>She does not decide what is moral or not moral. </i><br /><br />Well, then perhaps she should not have brought my stand on women's rights into the issue. In that case, if she is not deciding what is moral and immoral (and by corollary neither am I), she should merely have replied, "Allowing Catholic bishops to have discretion in whether or not to report priest child abuse to the authorities is moral." If she cared to, she can add on "As decided by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, the depository of all moral truth."<br /><br />Why bring my other "sins" into it? What does that have to do with anything? This is an ad hominem attack, Leila. As if the truth or falsity of the argument about the actions of the bishops being immoral rests on what kind of person *I* am. You all spent an inordinate amount of time a week ago arguing the same for the priests. Do not listen to my exhortations if you like, as we are not listening to the church, but that is not a reason to say that the argument is incorrect.<br /><br /><i>All child abuse, all killing of the innocent, is wrong. <br /><br />Help me understand how abortion is unrelated to child abuse.</i><br /><br />Abortion involves only one person: the woman. The embryo or fetus is not a person, so it is not a child. Child abuse, by definition, involves a living breathing child.MaiZekehttp://www.hameno.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-11528132485339466892011-07-26T08:22:03.508-07:002011-07-26T08:22:03.508-07:00It seems to me that what JoAnna is saying is that ...<i>It seems to me that what JoAnna is saying is that she is better than me. </i><br /><br />In all sincerity, MaiZeke, I did not read that into JoAnna's statement at all.<br /><br /><i>That she alone can decide all that is moral and what is not moral, because she has decided an unrelated moral issue a certain way.</i><br /><br />She does not decide what is moral or not moral. All child abuse, all killing of the innocent, is wrong. <br /><br />It's not an unrelated issue, because we are talking about child abuse. Abortion is the ultimate child abuse. What is more abusive than the shredding and dismembering of innocents while still nestled safely in their mothers' wombs? <br /><br />Help me understand how abortion is unrelated to child abuse.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.com