Pro-lifers have a "final solution" for anyone having extramarital sex--just say no!
In addition to the usual crimes against humanity, yesterday I saw at least two cases on the local news of horrendous torture, sexual abuse, and murder of innocent children at the hands of their own families. Is this the kind of blood the pro-lifers really want on their hands?…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - diana hartman
"Rape is no excuse. Get prepared if your going to have sex."
rape is not sex, gregory john...rape is a violent assault of a sexual nature...
you might want to keep lubricant and a condom handy for those rapists who fancy young men...chance encounters with people bigger and stronger than yourself are no excuse...get prepared if you're going to leave the house...
27 - Bing
Diana.....by "staying pregnant" a murder is prevented.
The bottom line is that I do not condone murder.
Being anti murder does not mean I am responsible for the welfare of everyone that I would have not murdered.
What don't you get about that? It's pretty simple.
28 - gonzo marx
Ruvy..thank you for the Information...i'm always up for Learning something, which is why i Asked...your second Paragraph was spot on, IMO...and i don't envy you the Task of raising your children, i Wish you only the best of Luck in that most human endeavor
moving on...
well now Bing, why can't you Understand that you can't "murder" someone who hasn't been born?
that legally, there is NO "someone" until that Birth Certificate has been signed, and you can NOT have a "murder" until there is a Death Certificate?
why don't YOU "get" that?
Excelsior!
29 - Richard Brodie
Why do pro-abortionists label their cause with the meaningless ambiguity "A Woman's Right to Choose"?
Women have always had the right to choose NOT to have an abortion. That's not an issue. They should use the less intellectually dishonesty "A Woman's Right to Abort", or better yet avoid the euphemism "abort" and say "A Woman's Right to Have a Doctor Kill the Baby Living Inside Her"?
30 - Greg Schoppe
Diana I was not equating rape with consentual sex, that was the conclusion of an entire paragraph about the many ways to protect yourself. I am sorry if it came across that way. However, if an individual is of the conviction that the resultant child of a rape should be murdered before birth, and they are susceptible to rape, they should be on the pill. Also, rape is sex, just not consentual.
however, your follow up to your correction is very telling. You equated an unwanted pregnancy to the discomfort associated with unwanted anal sex. That is a glib assessment. Much of our society believes that an unwanted pregnancy is a hassle that can be easily aleviated. They overlook the fact that said hassle is a child.
This same fallacy leads to the, "its my body" argument. Unfortunately, in other cases the law does not support such statements involving children. If a parent who keeps their child decides 3 years later that the child is a hassle, and stops supporting it (without making appropriate arrangements for transferral of custody) they will be charged with neglect and possibly murder.
Moving on:
in the "dandruff" argument, dandruff does not have UNIQUE DNA. it has the DNA of the individual who produces it. Dandruff is also dead cells. a fertilized egg has its own HUMAN DNA that is not the DNA of either parent.
in the "birth certificate" argument, your definition of life fails to include the hundreds of children born in closed communities in the US who never recieve a birth certificate, or for that matter any foreign visitor on our soil? You are attempting to argue contractual humanity, while leaving out the requirement of "implied inclusion" that protects wards of the state, the mentally impaired and all children. Humanity can only be defined by similarity, and the best test for similarity we have is DNA, not what side of the cervix you're on.
Also, attempting to argue the pro-choice side using American law is futile. The entire argument of Pro-Life is that the law needs repair. We all know the law is currently on the Pro-Choice side, but that is morally heinous.
Its nice to see the debate, and thanks for listening.
31 - Greg Schoppe
oh, and as a PS:
When Pro-Life individuals call killing babies "murder," its a statement of moral facts, not the law.
Its really inconcievable to me that the same people who ask about a babies gender, call the pregnant woman a mother, and are happy for her before "the baby comes" are quick to call the one that doesn't come a fetus. It is a duality that is utterly illogical.
32 - KYS
Richard,
Some points:
1) Would all "pro-abortionists" please say aye?
>crickets chirping< Hear that? It's the sound of your hollow accusation.
I've never met a person who promotes abortion. Pro-choice, however, means we understand that a woman has the right to make decisions about her own body and that she needs only to reconcile that choice with her own conscience and her own god.
2)Women have not always had the right to choose not to have an abortion. For a long time they were denied the choice.
3) It's already been pointed out that a fetus is not a baby.
33 - gonzo marx
interesting take Greg...i'm more than happy for the discussion...
Greg sez...
*Also, rape is sex, just not consentual.*
rape is an act of violence NOT sex...most women know this instinctually...as do many "new fish" in jail
Greg says...
*When Pro-Life individuals call killing babies "murder," its a statement of moral facts, not the law.*
actually, i have always Thoght that such choice of words was to emotionally charge a phrase to induce the desired emotional state and remove the chance at not only rational Thoguht , but discussion as well
to flip the script...why do many "pro-life" people worry so much about what is not yet viable outside the womb, yet at the same time advocate for the Death Penalty or pre-emptive strike wars?
note, i did NOT say "all" or even "most"
as to your counter points to my own statements...
the "dandruff" bit was to try and point out the difficulty in deciding when there are just a group of cells..and when there is a person...
this also ties into the "certificate" bit as well...for each and every Instance you offered of exception, there will eventually be an Official Record of that person being alive...social Security or Immigration documents and the like...
but you were honest in getting to the crux of the matter when you state
*The entire argument of Pro-Life is that the law needs repair.*
twice during your comment you use the term "moral"
might i remind you that one can NOT legislate "morals"...and one cannot prove your "moral fact"
we are a Nation of Laws, based on the shared Ethics defined and delineated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
so, until we are the "United Theocracy of America"
we will just have to go by the Constitution for guidance in how to live together
might i suggest, that NO ONE is "forced" to undergo these medical procedures?
THAT is the Choice
Excelsior!
34 - Elvira Black
OK, back from my hedonistic nappie....since so many have been talking amongst themselves, I'll just initially interject a few thoughts here willy nilly:
Pro lifers who live in a moral ivory tower and ethical vacum where you can play G-d and decide what is murder etc. seem peculiar to me, considering that time and again these same people seem to think that when an unwanted child is abused that is not anyone else's problem, and if it is murdered after being born this is of no concern to them or society as a whole. So why do they stick their noses in at this much earlier juncture? An innocent child is still innocent if it is later raped, tortured, and murdered by its own family.
How can anyone be quite so rabidly protective of an unborn entity and so callous about the consequences of not at least providing women (and men) with info and access to birth control? Is it less of a sin to not abort and then slowly and deliberately murder your flesh and blood at the age of, say six?
This kind of knee jerk "right to life" philosophy is more concerned, I think, with an abstraction than with the reality of our admittedly messed up society. Aren't those who would deny women access to proper birth control also, in effect, murderers by proxy when said parents murder their own born, versus unborn, child?
Ruvy's measured responses are, in part, why I am proud to call myself a Jew. Although he does not approve of casual sex, esp. for his own children, he is not so presumptuous as to think it is his right or duty to impose his individual religious practices on the world at large. That is not the job of man.
I think, however, if we do have a "job" it might be more along the lines of truly caring for the fate of those children we are so very intent on "rescuing" in the first place. This is one reason we have governnment agencies like child protective services, which we pay for with our tax dollars.
But hey, guess what? Child services is woefully understaffed for the job at hand. Many children fall through the cracks of the system. You may rightly say that these abuseive parents are reprehensible murderers and wash your hands of the whole thing. But does an innocent child have to be the victim of this lofty debate?
Some people are not cut out to be parents, which is one reason I think it is crucial to firstly, accept the fact that millions of people will have extramarital sex. That is a fact that will never, ever change.
So what do we do about this? Do we try to deny the fact that sex is here to say, and deny people access to the very birth control that will prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions because we disapprove of all the hedonists out there?
As we bicker about when a molecule becomes a viable life form, myriad children are being tortured and murdered by their guardians. Foster parents have also been known to starve and neglect if not kill these charges. Why is there no outcry here about that? Why do these children get left behind in the big "right to life" debate?
Blame the parents's "sinful ways" if you like--that does not change the fact that innocent children are being heinously abused every day. Should they, in effect, pay for their parents' "sins" with their young lives?
As I mentioned, I don't really think I"m a "liberal" per se, but perhaps a libertarian. I am very dismayed and often angered by the fact that people who want the pleasures of sex are not willing to make sure they are responsibly protected against unwanted pregnancies. I know accidents happen, but to simply procreate irresponsibly by not bothering to use birth control because it is inconvenient or "spoils the moment" seems like the genuine "sin" here, so to speak.
But I think that the deceptions of the religious right are very much to blame here. Those who mistakenly label morning after pills as "abortion pills" and would prevent people from taking charge of their reproductive choices have some of the blood of innocent babies on their hands.
There, I guess that's enough for one comment. I am very grateful to everyone who has commented here so far.
35 - Matthew T. Sussman
I don't like that pro-choicers try to discredit their own beliefs by saying "well it's OK to kill a baby because it's not a human being."
I call shenanigans.
An unborn fetus may not be able to live on its own, but neither could Terry Schiavo. And it's legal to permit the death of either (what some courts may call "Murder Two").
So is abortion legalized murder? In the words of Napoleon Dynamite, "Heck yes!"
36 - KYS
Many people provide living wills which ask that they not be kept alive in a condition like Terri's. People of sound mind, in desperate pain and suffering, are not allowed to end life on their own terms because we deny the right to die for the terminally ill. This "life at any cost" mentality is degrading, short sighted and futile.
37 - Dave Nalle
>) Would all "pro-abortionists" please say aye?
"Aye, Aye!" I'm all for abortion. It's a reliable, cost effective method of population control. If it weren't for abortion people would be exposing children in the woods and that would lead to a terrible feral baby problem.
Dave
38 - Elvira Black
KYS:
Excellent point. The RR's disinterested, cold bloodedly semantic bullying is disgusting to me. Killing the enemy (as well as civilians during wartime) is murder (i.e. the person in questoin is dead by your hands.) Captial punishment, by the same token, is murder by the state, whether you believe in it or not.
Meanwhile, QUALITYY of life for a child or potential parent (who faces an unwanted pregnancy with no options if the RR has anything to do with it) does not seem to have any place in these high and mighty proclamations of "murder."
39 - Greg Schoppe
A. Elvira Black - PLEASE READ AND COMPREHEND MY COMMENTS... your statements have been addressed...
B. The Pro-Life movement is anti- death penalty, despite the beliefs of SOME of it's members. (note, I said SOME, not MANY)
C. To live in a society, there must be a common moral ground. To state that recognizing such morals makes america a theocracy is ridiculous. We made murder illegal... is that religion meddling with law? There are basic morals that all humans must accept to live in a society. Two of those are the recognition of another's humanity, and the recognition of the rights of other humans. America's definition of Human is FLAWED.
D. RAPE IS SEX. FACT. a penis enters a vagina, ejaculation occurs, penis withdraws. THEREFORE, its sex. If an individual believes that they would kill their baby if they were to become pregnant REGARDLESS OF THE MANNER OF CONCEPTION, they should be on birth control.
E. "might i suggest, that NO ONE is "forced" to undergo these medical procedures?"
THE BABY IS!
F. The use of the terms murder, kill, and baby is not an attempt by pro-life individuals to kill rational thought. The terms abort, terminate, and fetus are used to push down the base human revulsion we all feel when we picture a human baby's skull being crushed and its linbs torn off so it can fit more easily through the vagina and into the waiting bin. THAT IS A FACTUAL DESCRIPTION, NOT AN EXAGGERATION. Now tell me you can comfortably picture that. There's your universal morals, right there, with the little knot in your throat you feel when you see a baby torn apart.
G. "Women have not always had the right to choose not to have an abortion. For a long time they were denied the choice."
Here is where we see the true misunderstanding of the facts.
Recall, if you will, the Civil War. The South believed the North was trying to limit the rights of the individual states (the women in this example) by calling the slaves (the babies) human beings. The North saw it as a case of recognizing the rights of the slaves.
we can all look back and see that giving the slaves rights was more important than theoretically eroding the rights of state governments.
In today's situation, try to see that it is far more important to give babies the right to life than to give mothers the right to kill them.
40 - KYS
Greg,
If you honestly believe that a woman who is raped should bring the resulting pregnancy to term against her will, I cannot discuss that point any further than to say I think it's bullshit. Don't you dare blame her for not being on birth control. You can, however, try to counsel her as to why god would let her be raped, if you want.
As a roman catholic priest are you really going to promote birth control to your parishioners? Isn't that a sin as well?
41 - Mark Edward Manning
Let me get this straight, Elvira, you decry the abuse and killing of children at the hands of "parents," but think people should have as much sex as they like?
Oh, wait. You support abortion. Feh. I agree entirely with Bing and RedTard here - let's all carry on with our irresponsibility and keep killing babies inside the womb. Great idea! Total dereliction of responsibility. Let's not also forget that abortion is a militant feminist issue: The man has no say whatsoever. If the woman wants a termination, then her wishes must be honored. The man can cry in his beer all he wants over the loss of his child is he does not agree. He is of no consequence. He is just a stupid, inferior man.
I would have more respect for legal abortions if there was a law stipulating that an abortion should only be performed when both parties, man and woman, are in agreement about the termination. I would still oppose abortion as morally wrong, but this would be a better way. But no chance of that happening.
On the topic of premarital sex, I've heard it hypothecized that when couples have sex before marriage, it clouds judgment. You stick with the person for the sex and then only when you get married, you start seeing the person in a different light - hence, all the divorce. If you can remain celibate through the courting process, and reserve the sex until after marriage, then the chance of a successful marriage is higher. This is also the church's belief. It is not some anti-fun, anti-libertarian diction they made just to ruin our lives. There is a reason for it - common sense thinking.
But hey, in the end, in our contemporary society, who cares about the high divorce rate and even higher abortion rate - we don't want to stop the party and keep screwing the men (forgive the pun)!
42 - gonzo marx
no matter what...much of this discussion is fruitless due to completely differing views on Reality
to begin...read up to my previous comment..where i state
*twice during your comment you use the term "moral"
might i remind you that one can NOT legislate "morals"...and one cannot prove your "moral fact"
we are a Nation of Laws, based on the shared Ethics defined and delineated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights*
your *morals* may or may not be the same as the Ethics outlined by aforementioned Rule of Law
Greg counters by saying ...
*America's definition of Human is FLAWED.*
and also goes on to equate late term procedures with ANY stage of post coital termination, again attempting to make the assertion that as soon as sperm meets egg there is a Person...a "Human"
a valid position to hold...but not the current legal or scientific stance on the matter
and THERE lies the dilemma...the dichotomy between this "moral" view of when a Person begins, and the legal and scientific views as held by our current Law
a VERY difficult problem, and nothing easily resolved...especially not by blind rhetoric on either side
my last bit on the Subject...
your mileage may vary
Excelsior!
43 - Mark Edward Manning
I would like to add, however, that I support abortion in cases of rape. That is not the fault of the woman's. I also have no problem with the morning-after pill. If you're going to have irresponsible sex, take care of business before it becomes bigger. I don't go as far as proclaiming a fertilized egg as sanctified life, so fine, the pill is OK.
Shark, you think abortion will become a necessity? Apparently, imploring people to just keep it in their pants and not to spread their legs at every opportunity does not come into your thinking. Let's not stink up the world with morals, God forbid. It's unsurprising to find out that you support Chinese-style population control.
I would like to see population control too, but not by slaughtering innocents who should never have been conceived in the first place. A little responsibility could take care of that problem. Instead, we encourage sex-on-demand, so abortion-on-demand was the logical conclusion.
Shark (and Elvira), what have you to say about all the single women having babies simply because they can? The government pays extra for every baby born. Babies that will grow into irresponsbile, fatherless men who will repeat the cycle over and over. If you want population control, it would be interesting to hear you speak out against this policy. It is the ultimate irony that feminists and other liberals demand abortion, citing population control as a reason, but have nothing to say about all the babies being born because the welfare system encourages it, because no-one would dare tell a woman how to live.
44 - Mark Edward Manning
Ruvy: "Screw all you want but don't crowd up my welfare rolls or hospitals or cost me money. Nice coda to the sexual revolution, eh?"
Aye, indeed, Ruvy. Great way of putting it.
"Suffice it to say, I'm not raising my sons to have that attitude - society be damned."
Good for you. If only more "parents" cared as much.
45 - Elvira Black
Oy, I'm dizzy already!
But it's a good kind of dizzy.
A few points, yet again:
Where is the concern for the abused children who have already been born? Isn't there a moral imperative there too?
Sex--inside or outside of marriage--is here to say. I'm a romantic myself, and my first LTR lasted twenty years--about three times as long as a lot of marriages. We didn't cheat on each other. WeI didn't want kids, so I used birth control. If only all those who didn't want children would do the same. Must the RR make this option so very hard?
Some of you heartily agree that contraception is a viable option, even if you consider extramarital sex distasteful or immoral. Thank goodness there's some sanity left in the world.
I agree that it is the height of selfishness and opportunism to have baby after baby out of wedlock deliberately to gain more welfare money--kind of a twisted career goal. But at least in NYC, welfare laws have been radically amended, and workfare is the new status quo. Not a foolproof solution, but a start. I think fatherless children have a huge disadvantage in life, though it can be overcome if one is strong and lucky.
I cannot say that it is realistic or even perhaps reasonable to expect most people to remain celebate until marriage. I can understand how the concept would be a beautiful one, but I daresay many people in our society--or any society past or present-- simply cannot or will not comply. That includes me. I sowed my wild oats in college, though my motivations were, chiefly, a search for love and comfort (I lost both parents by age 15). When I found someone I could have a stable relationship with, I did so. We both agreed--no children. Case closed.
Again, I am furious with those who deliberately refuse to use birth control if they don't want children. But I'm also furious at those on the RR who would take away a person's choice to have access (inexpensive or free if need be) to that birth control.
I am equally saddened at the high divorce rate, the shuffling of children back and forth because of broken families, the plight of one-parent children, and so on. But I cannot pretend that I have the holy power to prevent people from procreating and not living "happily ever after." Moreover, sex within marriage is no guarantee of a good life for a child, especially nowadays. I say, think long and think hard before you deliberately bring another human being into this messed up world.
Morals in terms of sex simply cannot be legislated. Nice to live in a little dream world, but you will never, ever be able to control other's sexuality unless we make this some sort of totalitarian 1984-ish state.
Not on my watch!
46 - Mark Edward Manning
I don't want a 1984-like state either, but the problem is everyone laughs at abstinence efforts as if having irrresponsible sex is the "done" thing. It's just a knee-jerk liberal reaction to something that even faintly sniffs of morality. God ... oops, Gaia forbid!
Anyway, Elvira, I think we can both agree that too many couples, married or not, have kids because that too is considered the "done" thing, when so many of them are not cut out for the job of parenting. This old entry of mine might serve to further clarify where I stand.
47 - Elvira Black
Mark:
Read your post--loved it--commented there. Thanks for providing that link.
As far as abstinence, well, in our country at least, that has to remain a personal choice. And I don't necessariily think others have to concern themselves with everyone's sexual behavior on an individual basis, other than in the broader sense of "the world is going to hell in a handbasket" commiseration.
But yes, it is a pretty idea, a romantic idea--that people will abstain til marriage. In my parent's generation, the norm was for a couple to marry, have children, and stay together til death do us part. Divorce was not the normal, inevitable turn of events it seems to be today, and pre-nups were not part of the cynical matrimonial picture.
Since you and I both agree that there is no "sin" or shame in remaining childless, it follows that if one cannot or will not remain celebate til marriage, one has a responsibility, in my opinion, to not bring unwanted children into the world. If I had children (which I never intended to have, and thus took precautions accordingly) I would want them to have the best of everything--not in the material sense, per se, but in terms of education, opportunity, and tender loving care.
If one wishes to talk about immorality, I say it is much more immoral to cynically or carelessly produce a child you don't want, married or no. And it also seems morally depraved to me to care so fanatically about the status of a foetus or even pre-foetus without giving a flying fluck about living, breathing children who are suffering and dying at the hands of their morally bankrupt, and downright evil, parents each and every day.
I do not laugh at abstinence. It is a personal choice--and doubtless a relatively rare choice in our society. But I will not stand for anyone telling me what I can do behind closed doors with another consenting adult. I'm just careful as hell not to create and insert an innocent third party into the mix.
48 - Mark Edward Manning
Elvira, I will not change my opinion about a developed foetus being classified as life. And I used to be pro-choice, but I found myself drifting toward the anti-abortion viewpoint based on the whole science behind it. And I also bristle at the whole man-has-no-say aspect of it.
But, bringing up the issue of the already-living kids who are suffering: Can we both mutually agree that it's a shame more people don't care to adopt. It's the selfishness of human nature that able parents want "their own" children. That, too, is part of the problem.
49 - Elvira Black
Lest anyone miss the connection I was striving to make here:
If it is agreed that having unwanted children is not a good thing, it also follows that most rational women and men would agree that having contraceptive information, education, and access to cheap or even free birth control is a moral imperative in the times we live in.
Speaking of which--has anyone seen even one commercial for the morning after pill? Has anyone seen any concerted effort or responsible media coverage concerning the crucial difference between the morning after pill and the more controversial "abortion pill?" Has anyone discussed the fact that this is not a viable method of everyday birth control, considering the fact that the side effects are so unpleasant? So how in the world are people to know about this option? I guess if they don't just say no, they don't deserve it anyway....
This point tends to get lost in the shuffle with some people in their fruitless, unrealistic, pie in the sky idealism about abstinence. It just won't wash. You can't call the sex police on people who schtup out of wedlock.
So what's the solution? To try to force people to either not have sex and/or not have access to birth control? To put them in a position where they are either abstinent or parents?
There are some things infinitely more "sinful" than fornication. Where and when did Jesus say anything about going to hell for this sin? Did he not cherish all his children? Should we not cherish ours?
This was the central point of my post--that holier than thou "moralists" think it's all about just saying no. And if you don't say no, then heaven help the hapless progeny you produce. But after birth, like, who cares? No-one's problem, right? Let the little bastards fend for themselves.
Shame on you.
50 - Andy Marsh
Elvira - I haven't seen one commercial for any of those pills you mention...but I surely know what drug I need if I can't get it up or my hair stops growing!
I really hope I never need that info...btw!
51 - Elvira Black
Mark:
My apologies--I did not see your latest comment til I had posted mine. They probably went up at about the same time.
Yes, there is controversy about when life begins. All the more reason, I feel, to make birth control easily accessible and affordable to all. Make it the first line of defense.
I do not think that late-term abortions should be performed, barring some eminent danger to the mother. And if I became pregnant, I honestly am not sure what I would do. Well, now that it's available, I do--I'd take the morning after pill if possible.
As far as the "man has no say" aspect--well, the truth is that in many cases, unfortunately, (esp if one watches Jerry Springer or Maury) it's more like the MEN have no say--and many of them are not at all eager to take on the legal or financial responsiblity of being a true father anyway.
In other cases, I think ideally if a couple is involved in a serious relationship, their preferences should be discussed early on. Does one want children and the other does not? How do both feel about abortion and contraception? Are there irreconcilable differences that should be addressed from the start?
Again, this may be unrealistic. But when it comes down to brass tacks, it is still the mother who carries the baby to term, and thus I feel that she has the ultimate right to decide whether to have the child or not. Moreover, it is the responsibility of both parties to ensure that proper birth control is used. In my case, either I or my partner did so. Addditionally, in this time of AIDS and STD's, condoms are basically a given, esp. for "casual" sex.
52 - Elvira Black
Andy:
Yes, isn't it strange that this pill is not advertised?
I do, however, see plenty of advertising for the Pill or some derivative of it--patch, etc. Thing is, if you're not in a LTR, using the pill does not protect you from STD's. And the women they seem to target in these commercials, judging from the actors used, don't appear to be married. In fact, you see no man in sight.
This is not the only pharmaceutical that is not advertised widely. Moreover, from what I recall, I believe the FDA has been holding up the works as far as releasing the morning after pill over the counter for no valid reason whatsoever. Shameful--and, yes, in my humble opinion--inexcusably immoral.
53 - diana hartman
"Diana I was not equating rape with consentual sex, that was the conclusion of an entire paragraph about the many ways to protect yourself. I am sorry if it came across that way. However, if an individual is of the conviction that the resultant child of a rape should be murdered before birth, and they are susceptible to rape, they should be on the pill. Also, rape is sex, just not consentual."
the first sentence and the last sentence don't jive greg...if, by your last sentence you mean to say that rape is sex even though it is not consensual, you're still missing and dismissing the overwhelming element of rape: violence...
"D. RAPE IS SEX. FACT."
me thinks thou doth defend too much...
"a penis enters a vagina, ejaculation occurs, penis withdraws. THEREFORE, its sex."
read up on what you're insisting is sexual intercourse and rape greg...ejaculation does not always occur nor does ejaculation always have to occur for a pregnancy to occur...clearly you've never been raped, have limited experience with sex if you'd had it at all, and have no idea the fumbles and mishaps that can occur and still result in a rape conviction...
"If an individual believes that they would kill their baby if they were to become pregnant REGARDLESS OF THE MANNER OF CONCEPTION, they should be on birth control."
because a woman could possibly be impregnated by a rapist, she should be prepared by being on the pill?
that would be the only way to be prepared with birth control...i can't imagine a scenario wherein a rapist would hold on while she inserts an IUD or breaks out some foam, nor can i see a rapist going to all the trouble of putting on a condom she pulled from her purse...ah, but that would be making him responsible and clearly it's your assertion that it's her responsibility, not his...
we could all, man or woman, just as possibly be hit by a bus...should we all then agree never again to cross the street? or would that only apply to pregnant women and women who might possibly be pregnant?
what a curious assignment of responsibility that anyone would isolate the woman's role in a rape (a role involuntarily heaped upon her by the rapist) and completely dismiss the role of the rapist (who voluntarily heaped himself and someone else in to these respective roles)...how about this greg: if an individual believes that the person he would rape would kill their baby if they became pregnant, they should have a vasectomy...
if every woman is to be regarded as a potential rape victim, and in your view should prepare accordingly, then it stands to reason that every man be regarded as a potential rapist -- and prepare accordingly...
"You equated an unwanted pregnancy to the discomfort associated with unwanted anal sex. That is a glib assessment."
i equated the responsibilities of a woman who could be raped with the responsibilities of a man who could be raped...i equated nothing else...glib would be your view of rape as sex...sex is consensual, rape is not...to suggest that rape is sex and that women have a responsibility to avoid the consequences of that rape would be like saying murder is really just dying -- and that the dead had a responsibility to live that was greater than the murderer's role not to kill them...
what i'm hearing you say greg is that because a man cannot get pregnant, he doesn't have any responsibilities with regard to being raped or being a rapist...it's always a note of interest that someone who doesn't have a vagina, could never be raped (vaginally), and who could never get pregnant would define these things in such black and white terms with moral platitudes at the ready...
54 - diana hartman
"I would like to add, however, that I support abortion in cases of rape. That is not the fault of the woman's."
interesting...i'm pro-choice so i make no such judgements about what fetus is okay to abort and what fetus is not...
you, however, are opposed to abortion and define it as morally wrong and yet you think the "life" created by rape is okay to abort and the "life" created by consensual sex is not okay to abort...
what is that? quantum morality?
55 - Shark
urhg... tried... uh... [sigh] ...uh... tried to [groan] read thread... ugh...
now... come further choice... [pant]
...me revisit [pant] Intelligent Design "debate"...
...or me [groan] disembowel self with red-hot, rusty melon-baller...
...ahhh... farewell... my...
56 - RedTard
"interesting...i'm pro-choice so i make no such judgements about what fetus is okay to abort and what fetus is not..."
Your lack of judgement is not something to be proud of. Especially on critical issues that involve life and death I think we should investigate with our best logic and an open mind to find the truth. Another poster stated that he believed life began when a birth certificate was issued and ended when a death cert was. That, to me, is a little bit scary.
I choose to be a little more scientific and define human life by unique DNA, heartbeat, and developed brainwaves. A fetus doesn't really have all three until about the 3rd trimester. All I ask is that during late pregnancy, once the life has become viable and human, that it earns the right to not be destroyed.
There are two isuues that if they were resolved would put me in the new middle pro-choice camp. One is the late term abortion issue and the other is parental notification. I find it strange that you can't buy cold medicine or go to a movie without parental consent but you can get an abortion.
On both issues there need to be protection built in for the woman, (incest/abuse examptions for parental notification and medical concerns for late term abortions) but there can be a compromise that makes sense and settles this for most Americans.
57 - Elvira Black
Diana:
Not trying to be gay (not that there's anything wrong with that, and that's another separate debate) but I think I love you.
What a masterful rebuttal to St. Greg's Sermon on the Cybermount . I won't rehash what you've already so beautifully stated, but just have to say I'm thunderstruck by how someone can deliberately and willingly reveal such mysogyny--in fact, such out and out misanthrophy--or in plainer terms--just good old HATRED for their fellow species in an open forum.
Pro-life my ass! What kind of life are we talking here by Greg's exacting standards?
Leave it to a would-be priest to have the answers for anyone who might dare to have sex. I'm sure there are some good priests out there, but I wouldn't cast my vote for this koo koo.
It is truly breathtaking to see how, once again, such blatant would-be tyranny can be unleashed in the name of "religion." This man is demanding that everyone TAKE THE PILL. Not suggesting, not imploring, but basically saying fuck you if you get raped. For the good love of Jesus, what would Jesus say about all of this?
Hey, I know. Let's ask him. Gregory, I know you have a direct connect to the Jesus hotline in heaven, don';t you? Well, dial up at the very least. You have no sense of doubt, for you have your precious FAITH, and you use it like a deadly weapon against all comers. Just like in the Crusades, eh?
Humanity, compassion, understanding, normal sexuality be damned. If you DARE to have premarital sex of ANY kind--even involuntarily--TAKE THE PILL! Don't make me come down there and force it down your throat!
Thanks, dad--I mean, Father.
Yes, a religious career choice that demands celibacy is SO mentally and emotionally healthy for yourself and others--and in your case, Gregory, if you ruled the world, said "others" would include all the creatures of the earth under your holy command.
Well, if I lived under St. Gregory's brand of theocracy, I guess all I could do is hope that the..ahem...morning after pill were available for rape victim's use.
No wonder people don't go to church anymore if this is the kind of crap they have to put up with.
All the finger pointing and yelling and bellowing about the rights of the unborn. Apparently after a woman is born, she has no rights whatsover in your eyes, Greg.
Kudos to your family for adopting, Greg. That leaves just... um... about ten squillion more lost souls (and I don't mean aborted foetuses) out there lined up for good homes. Though I don't think I'd relish living in yours, thanks all the same.
I suppose it is a good thing that a man who detests, despises, and disrespects women so much is being cloistered off to the priesthood, where hopefully he can do the minimum of harm in this day and age. Just keep away from my Supreme Court [Deleted].
58 - Elvira Black
Shark:
No, no! For lord's sake man, not the red-hot, rusty melon-baller!
RedTard:
The child of a rape victim is still an innocent child who had nothing to do with this heinous crime. I say draw your line in the sand and stick with it on this one.
I am not a fan of late-term abortions. If you're gonna abort, get off the pot and do it in a timely manner. Of course, there's always the possibility that some underage girls are too afraid to tell their parents about their plight until it is too late....
Underage kids do drugs, have sex, and all sorts of other things they don't let their parents in on. You were a teen once, weren't you? Anything you wouldn't want mom and dad to know you did back then?
Teens have sex. Not all, but a large number. Best thing to do, IMHO? Make sure they have access to birth control and plenty of information about pregnancy, STD's, and all the rest. You know what dewy-eyed, wishful thinking produces, don't you? Unwanted children.
We send 18 year olds off to die in wars and don't skip a beat. An unwanted pregnancy can ruin a child's life before it even starts. And in some cases, the proud father to be is none other than dear old dad.
But it's good to hear that you're not as nit picky as Father Greg on when it's ok to abort. All kidding aside, I think we're much closer in agreement than not about this issue.
59 - Greg Schoppe
who said anything about hating women, BTW that is a PERSONAL ATTACK (not allowed).
Women are absolutely equal to men in most ways, However, women are the ONLY gender that can bear children to term. Therefore, It is their resposibility to take the situation in hand. I don't believe all women should be on the pill, just those who have taken it upon themselves to be of the preempive opinion that they will abort.
your comments are completely baseless, and highlight the worst sort of arguements pro life individuals have to put up with. The "Your a man, if you make any statements about 'women's issues', you're a sexist pig" The fact is, its not a women's issue, its a baby's issue, period.
Diana seems to not realize that "the Pill" is forced upon all girls entering the foster care system. (at least in TV NH and CA) if the state can do that, who not force it on all pro-abortion women. Also, a baby is not a bus, it is a life. If a ax wielding murderer forced you to live in a house with Gilbert Godfried for nine months, would you kill Gilbert? No, you don't have that right, regardless of how the situation arose.
To Gonzo Marx, the law states that a late term fetus and an egg have the exact same rights. The partial birth abortion ban DOES NOT make third trimester babies "human"... it is also a ban that MANY pro-abort advocates would like to see overturned. You say ethics, I say morals... They're the same thing. Legal Ethics/Morals have been redefined throughout history. They need to be redefined again.
KYS, NO, I will not promote birth control to my parishoners. Neither will I promote premarital sex. Both are sins, however, if you're having premarital sex, don't bring an innocent life into it. If you're going to sin, sin smart.
In any event, you're all missing the issue. There are 4,000 babies murdered every day in the US. How is that less monstrous that nazis killing the Jews.
60 - Greg Schoppe
Also, 18 year olds who went off to war, in this decade, CHOSE TO. There has been no draft.
61 - Andy Marsh
My mother once said to me..."You get caught at everything you do."
I said, "No I don't."
She said, "name one time."
I said, "ok...ummmmm...no!"
Almost squeeled on myself!
As far as my daughters (20 and 16) are concerned...they don't do anything I'm not aware of.....yeah...suuuuurrrrrreeeee they don't!
I won't go into whether or not either one is on the pill...it's none of YOUR business!
62 - Elvira Black
Greg:
If I devolved the arguement into a personal attack, please accept my apologies. I guess I was just taking your viewpoint and expression of same as a personal attack as well. But point well taken.
But onto other more practical issues:
What say you to the morning after pill solution? Again, not the "abortion pill" but a pill that is, if I understand what I"ve read about it correctly, nothing more than a mega-dose of regular birth control which prevents sperm from even fertilizing an egg?
"If you're going to sin, sin smart."
I like that. Kind of like the old Jewish saying, "If you're going to eat pork, eat it and enjoy it so much that the pork fat drips off your chin."
Want less abortions? Advocate free and unfettered access to birth control. It's the "sin smart" thing to do.
63 - Elvira Black
Andy:
LOL--Leave it to an actual parent who's actually had kids to "get it."
64 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
It gets a little sickening constantly hearing abortion opponents constantly dragging in Nazis killing Jews to their metaphors. It just doesn't apply. You kill your own arguments.
Many of the adult Jews in Europe had a chance to leave or flee and were too stupid or complacent to do so. They knew what danger (from Christians) that faced them and shut it out of their minds.
A fetus doesn't have that opportunity.
Don't they teach you kids in seminary not to weigh apples and oranges in the same scale?
65 - Greg Schoppe
umm, the morning after pill stops a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. as it is a measure for after fertilization, I'm not ok with it.
66 - Greg Schoppe
Runvy, doesn't that make it more heinous for the pro-choicers?
67 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Greg,
Maybe THAT is the argument you should be making? Do I have to teach you your own business too?
68 - Elvira Black
Greg:
I respectfully assert that I think you are incorrect in your assertion about the morning after pill. I respectfully suggest that you take another look at the post above and the definition presented about the difference between the morning after pill and the "abortion pill." I think equating the two is quite a common misconception--and our media has done little to nothing that I can see to clarify the distinction, which to my mind is a crucial one.
Yes, I know Planned Parenthood had a hand in the statement, but it seems to also be backed up by more non-partisan professionals as well.
And again let me stress that the side effects of the morning after pill are unpleasant enough to prevent its routine use.
As with so many things, we might look to Europe's use of the pill and see the stats that accompany it to determine how viable an option this is.
But I fear that since some folks allegedly are more concerned with the fact that sex is a sin, I suspect that for some, any technological breakthrough, no matter how sound, would be rejected or at least roundly criticized.
Notice I am not referring to anyone in particular here.
69 - Elvira Black
Ruvy:
With all due respect, I think you are blaming the victim here. It's quite surprising to see, frankly, and more than a little dismaying to me.
As far as I can tell from what I've read and seen, there were millions of Jews who could not escape the Holocaust, period. Many--Jew and Gentile--did not see it coming, or could not believe such a thing could be. Others tried to flee, but were turned away by several countries where they attempted to seek asylum, as I recall.
Just could not see it coming--Kinda like some of what's happening in the US as we speak, as you pointed out so succinctly in another post.
70 - diana hartman
"Your lack of judgement is not something to be proud of. Especially on critical issues that involve life and death I think we should investigate with our best logic and an open mind to find the truth."
speaking of logic, open minds, and truth, how in the sam hill did you arrive at the conclusion that my not making the same judgment as someone else means i make no judgement at all?
that someone is comfortable saying "you cannot tell me what to do but i will tell you what to do, and i have decreed that you here may abort and i have decreed that you there may not" is alarming...it requires a judgement one should be ashamed to have made when one has already asserted that abortion is morally incorrect...saying one life is okay to abort and saying another is not is to say one is qualified to assess human value beyond all life being equal...this person essentially countered his own argument by having made the judgement that one life was less important that another while at the same time asserting all life is equal...
i have made a judgement, and it isn't based on some wishy-washy fence-riding ignorant moral imperative that would abandon anyone's right to know about and have full control of their bodies...i firmly believe in and support choice...i firmly believe in education, information, and resources...there is no "in this case" or "under these circumstances"...
until pro-life means unconditional pro-education, pro-information, pro-resources, pro-support, and pro-human condition for all life, they can step the hell off...anything less is not pro-life, it's pro-my-way...
"There are two issues that if they were resolved would put me in the new middle pro-choice camp. One is the late term abortion issue and the other is parental notification. I find it strange that you can't buy cold medicine or go to a movie without parental consent but you can get an abortion."
i don't and never have been in favor of late term abortions except where the life of the mother is in peril...
parental notification laws seek to strip yet more choice...the pregnant minor should have the choice of telling whomever she wishes to that she's pregnant and considering an abortion...parental notification advocates act as if the child is legally able to walk into a clinic and all but perform the abortion herself with no one being the wiser...just because a parent isn't notified doesn't mean there is no adult in her life who does know...
it's best if it's a parent but it should also be her option to legally seek out the guidance and support of a sibling, adult friend, counselor, doctor, or clinic worker...while the minor should certainly be encouraged to tell her parents, i'm damned leery of requiring a minor to tell her parents she's pregnant when it's quite obvious that the parents have not already paved an open road of communication for that minor...why else would a girl be hesitant to tell her parents? she wasn't born with shame or a fear of them nor was she born a mind reader...if the parents would be supportive and helpful they would have to have already shared this information with her...the only reason a child would not tell her parents stems from the communication that has already come from the parents...if they've not made it completely clear that she would be supported, guided, and helped regardless of her choice then she's not going to want to tell them...that's the parent's fault, not the child's fault...it's also not the government's fault nor is it the government's place to both A) crawl up inside that child's uterus like some kind of mad conductor and B) lecture from a pulpit while they're in there telling her what to do and who to tell...
parental notification laws ignore the potential consequences for those minors pregnant by a male relative or in danger of any manner of injury should their parents find out...
it has never mattered what additional services were made available to the family, it takes only leaving the minor in the care of an informed and enraged parent for a few minutes to make a difficult situation tragic...parental notification gone awry has consequences for the minor only...any arrests of an abusive parent (assuming anyone finds out) come after the child has been hurt, not before as a matter of prevention...
the only parent who doesn't know what's going on in a child's life is the parent who hasn't made communication, education, information, support, and love the cornerstones of their parenting...leave any one thing out of the equation for whatever reason and seemingly insurmountable problems will arise...
my girls know and have known that if they should become pregnant they will have our full support regardless of their decision...their education here at home on such matters has included everything they need to know to facilitate that decision...how sex feels, what precautions to take, dangers that can crop up out of nowhere, lines guys use, things they may feel and think and then think are exclusive to them and their situation, how pregnancy and birthing feels, the responsibility of raising a child, the emotional consequences of abortion, ad nauseum...they know that while pregnancy, birth, and single mothering are huge responsibilities, they also know these things are not the end of the world and in fact are quite natural occurrences...they know how these things would seriously cut into their goals of college, career, and carousing for further fun...
any parent who has not taken the time to educate and discuss these things in the most age-appropriate way on an ongoing basis from the time the child is born until they leave home is not taking their job seriously and should expect the consequences of their neglect to include being left out of decisions the minor has taken to other adults (clinic, doctor, counselor, etc)...
while this is how i have raised my girls, i'm not stupid enough to think this is how everyone has raised their girls...my girls tell me so many things i sometimes think i've done my job too well, but my discomfort is a tiny price to pay for insuring they know who's got their back...
if a girl doesn't think her parents have her back, it's a good bet they don't...no law should put her in the position of having to count on people whom she obviously couldn't count on before...
i realize that having a pregnant teen daughter is not the same as having a teen son who got somebody pregnant, but don't you think it's interesting that the parental notifcation advocates don't address the issue of the boy/man having to, by law, tell his parents what he's accomplished with his free time?
71 - diana hartman
"Diana seems to not realize that "the Pill" is forced upon all girls entering the foster care system. (at least in TV NH and CA) if the state can do that, who not force it on all pro-abortion women. Also, a baby is not a bus, it is a life. If a ax wielding murderer forced you to live in a house with Gilbert Godfried for nine months, would you kill Gilbert? No, you don't have that right, regardless of how the situation arose."
did you include "mind reader" in your seminary application?
it's not just wrong to force female minors into birth control...it's also wrong to force ANYone into birth control...
that females can get pregnant and males cannot does not make females responsible for preventing a pregnancy brought about by rape and it doesn't (as you have conveniently and continually failed to address) relieve males of any and all responsibility for pregnancy prevention...
that you would compare living with someone to a pregnancy further illustrates your ignorance of the process...no self respecting male obstetrician would get behind this analogy...try again...
72 - Andy Marsh
I promise baby....I'll pull out! I swear!
73 - Elvira Black
Diana: Once again, I stand in awe. Bravo!
Andy: PreCISEly!!!
74 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Elvira, re: #69,
I don't really want to move the discussion from where it belongs. I apologize in advance. Any Jew who could read in western Europe or Poland could see what was happening in Europe around him. In 1934, Ze'ev Jabotinsky travelled all over Europe campaigning in the Zionist Congress elections begging his fellow Jews to leave. The Hafetz Haim, the greatest Ashkenazi scholar of his day, asked on his deathbed in 1933 that Jews leave Europe. They didn't want to and they didn't.
We all know the results. But I'm not blaming the victim - merely pointing out that the victim had plenty of warning - from the day Mein Kampf came out in the bookstores, from the day that the European markets collapsed in 1929. They refused to think that their nieghbors could turn on them - American Jews, by and large, are no different and no smarter. Maybe they have better neighbors, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. I write from Jerusalem for that reason.
75 - KYS
Greg, I just don't get your analogies. They don't really make any solid points in your favor.
They might make for good homilies, though! Who wouldn't love to hear about Gilbert Godfried at Sunday mass?