Public Funding Of Abortion Axed In Oklahoma

by Jimmy Akin

in Abortion

GO OKIES!

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!


What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy

{ 281 comments }

Jared May 25, 2007 at 12:26 am

A very positive step.

Rebecca May 25, 2007 at 1:45 am

Well, that’s one way to straddle uninsured and underinsured women with troubled pregnancies.

bill912 May 25, 2007 at 2:58 am

Rebecca is right! Let’s kill! Kill! Kill!

BillyHW May 25, 2007 at 5:28 am

Rebecca, shouldn’t people have a right to choose whether or not to pay for someone else’s abortion?

Brian May 25, 2007 at 5:36 am

Why are states funding abortions in the first place? Isn’t the whole goal of the pro-abortionists to keep the government out of their “private” decisions to murder their children.

Cajun Nick May 25, 2007 at 5:52 am

Rebecca,
What a terrible thought. You are suggesting that we put a price tag on human life.
“Troubled pregnancies” for the insured or rich are okay; but, as soon as one can’t afford to pay for the pregnancy, then let’s just kill the burdensome child.
What about those pregnancies that are not “troubled” but where the child is nevertheless born with health problems that could be “troubling” later in life? Should we go ahead and relieve these uninsured and under-insured mothers by killing their children right there in the maternity ward?
What about when a five-year-old is involved in an accident that will leave her crippled and require “troubling” care for the rest of her life? Do we relieve the poor mother of the burden at that time by “euthanizing” the child?
No, Rebecca, we don’t do those things – thank God! (Although maybe you want to return to the barbaric practice of the early Romans who left their unwanted babies to die of exposure.)
Babies – whether still in the womb, in the birth canal, or born – are human. They deserve our utmost respect despite their “troubling” physical circumstances.

Terry May 25, 2007 at 5:54 am

This was a frustrating “victory” for pro life though.
The original bill was more stringently worded but the governor vetoed it and it failed one vote of a veto override.
When this adjusted bill came through it had enough support that the gov could see it would stand up to his veto. In Oklahoma a bill can become law if after 5 days the governor fails to sign it. Henry would not sign the bill so it came into law by default.
It is the first time in over 20 years, I believe, that a bill has passed in this way.

Tim J. May 25, 2007 at 8:37 am

“Well, that’s one way to straddle uninsured and underinsured women with troubled pregnancies.”
So much doublespeak in one short sentence…
First, pregnancy is only very rarely imposed on people by strangers. Denying tax-funded abortions is not straddling anyone with anything they don’t already have. If anything, it helps keep the little baby from being unfairly straddled with the consequences of his/her parents’ lack of responsibility.
Second, while talking about “troubled pregnancy” may be a comforting euphemism, it denies the facts of abortion. All pregnancies end, troubled or not… it’s all about HOW they end. Some end with miscarriage, some with babies, and some with murder. Using abortion to deal with troubled pregnancies is exactly like using nuclear weapons to deal with urban sprawl.
Abortion workers do not carry Troubled Pregnancies out the back door of the clinic in trash bags… they carry dismembered babies… little murder victims.
Tragically enough, for the women who undergo abortion, the troubled pregnancy never really goes away. It will always remain, and will always be troubled.

Leo May 25, 2007 at 9:26 am

An additional pro-life approach would be to divert the funds used for death to life, eg to support families during pregnancy and childhood.

StubbleSpark May 25, 2007 at 10:44 am

I for one hope this idea catches on in all states.
I cannot understand how a million dollar a year profit industry needs my coin to survive. It is like subsidizing the tobacco farms so they can turn around and make a (literal) killing in the market. Are you telling me with 3,000 plus served daily in the US that these people cannot make ends meet? Maybe Planned Parenthood could tighten up its ad budget a bit and make fewer pro-abortion cartoons.
Either abortion is a great idea or it is not. Let the idea try to stand for itself for a change and not for this amorphous cloud of supposed civil rights that have been invented to prop it up.
How many other rights are also industries — much less ones that require taxpayer support? There is nothing in RvW that says the dissenting free American has to pony up 90% of PP’s budget to keep this atrocity alive.
If I do not want to pay for the killing of 3,000 innocents a day, I should not have to. It is just like the pro-aborts always say: “Stop pushing your beliefs on me.”
We can keep abortion in politics but I am a firm believer in keeping the government out of a woman’s womb. This is not China, after all. Talk about benchmarks, how old is the American Culture of Death Holocaust Machine?
The best way to get rid of abortion, however, is to change the culture and get people educated on what abortion really entails. Have them watch the ultra sound of an abortion on the Silent Scream on Youtube.

Rebecca May 25, 2007 at 11:03 am

Rebecca is right! Let’s kill! Kill! Kill!
Who said that? This bill doesn’t stop abortion. It only denies paying for it to the poor. Rich and poor will continue to abort, but the poor will be straddled with the additional costs. The bill just shifts the problem around, with no provisions to solve it.

Tim J. May 25, 2007 at 11:17 am

Rebecca, Rich and Poor will also continue to snort coke… is it terribly unfair to refuse taxpayer funded coke to the poor?
You make no sense.
Abortion is immoral. No one should be doing it. The fact that rich people enjoy a financial advantage in this regard is no surprise… is it? If you find the inequity intolerable, then I agree we should work hard to make abortion impossible for rich people, too.

StubbleSpark May 25, 2007 at 11:28 am

Considering the fact that abortion clinics specifically target the poor and dark-skinned not only in their advertising but also in their location, I think you have missed the point.
Abortion is social engineering ala eugenics, naziism, and communism.
It is how governments keep the population of the poor down so they do not make demands that would tip the status quo. Baby killing as population control has been the method of choice since Pharaoh threw baby Jews to the crocodiles.
The racist nature of abortion clinics has been a part of the movement since the eugenicist Margaret Sanger started them with the explicit intention of keeping the unfit children of unfit parents from polluting the gene-pool. And that is exactly what PP is doing today.
The fact is, rich people simply do not abort as much because they are better human beings and entitled to their progeny. When a PP was opened up in a swanky neighborhood strip mall in a rich city, did it offer its trademark service of abortion? Not on your life!
Somewhere along the way, people bought into the lie that having children is unending financial burden when in fact children are a great wealth. This is illustrated in the recent trend of One-Child Policy Liberals having fewer options in their old age for care. Most of them are ending up unsupported and lonely in homes.
In reality,
children=wealth
big families=clout (ask the Kennedys)
Like so many of the “progressive” ideas of the past century, abortion runs counter to its proclaimed purpose. In limiting the size of the families of the poor, it exacerbates their poverty and keeps them locked in a vicious cycle. The only way to break the cycle is to have them question the rationality of their faith in abortion as a cure-all.

Rebecca May 25, 2007 at 11:40 am

Rebecca, Rich and Poor will also continue to snort coke… is it terribly unfair to refuse taxpayer funded coke to the poor?
Taxpayer money already pays the costs of the poor snorting coke.
Considering the fact that abortion clinics specifically target the poor and dark-skinned not only in their advertising but also in their location, I think you have missed the point.
The point is the same doctors will still recommend abortion. They will simply send them to the private abortion clinics, and the poor will pay for it through legal and illegal means. And in the end, taxpayers will pay just as much or more as before.

Cajun Nick May 25, 2007 at 11:50 am

Rebecca,
You seem to have chosen to focus on a lesser important point that Tim J. made. He made a much more important point. I will repeat it here:
Abortion is immoral. No one should be doing it. … If you find the inequity intolerable, then I agree we should work hard to make abortion impossible for rich people, too.
Now, that should be something we can all agree on.

Leo May 25, 2007 at 11:58 am

A culture where individuals are encouraged and enabled practically to choose life, will probably save more lives than de jure measures. Not an either-or of course.
A society with legal abortion on demand which also provided effective family support might have fewer abortions per capita than one where abortion was illegal but which did not support families and stigmatized illegitimacy. (It’s difficult to be sure as we can’t know the number of illegal abortions).
We, pro-lifers, should also promote policies which reduce family poverty and social stigma and improves biological and moral education even if it means paying higher taxes. Perhaps pro-choicers might concur with this.

StubbleSpark May 25, 2007 at 11:59 am

In America today, almost as many African-American children
are aborted as are born.
A black baby is three times more likely to be
murdered in the womb than a white baby.
Since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by over 25 percent.
Twice as many African-Americans have died from abortion than have died from
AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.
Every three days, more African-Americans are killed by abortion than
have been killed by the Ku Klux Klan in its entire history.
Planned Parenthood operates the nation’s largest chain of abortion clinics and
almost 80 percent of its facilities are located in minority neighborhoods.
About 13 percent of American women are black, but they
submit to over 35 percent of the abortions.
What the Ku Klux Klan Could Only Dream About
The Abortion Industry is Accomplishing
Source: http://www.klanparenthood.com/History_of_Abortion_Statistics/

Paul May 25, 2007 at 12:03 pm

A society with legal abortion on demand which also provided effective family support might have fewer abortions per capita than one where abortion was illegal but which did not support families and stigmatized illegitimacy. (It’s difficult to be sure as we can’t know the number of illegal abortions).
We, pro-lifers, should also promote policies which reduce family poverty and social stigma and improves biological and moral education even if it means paying higher taxes. Perhaps pro-choicers might concur with this.

That’s worth repeating.

Jamie Beu May 25, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Excellent point, Brian.
If we’re supposed to keep the government out of our bedrooms and “hands off the womb”, then let’s keep the government’s money (read: taxpayers’ money, i.e., my money) away from the womb as well.
(Oh, I’m sorry… I forgot. That would interfere with Hillary’s whole plan for socialized medicine.)

Aaron May 25, 2007 at 1:01 pm

read: taxpayers’ money, i.e., my money
Once it’s paid to the government, it’s public money. It belongs to everyone, including those who don’t pay taxes.

Dr. Eric May 25, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Kevin Jones May 25, 2007 at 1:26 pm

Simply requiring abortuaries to maintain a high sanitary standard could close dozens of these so-called clinics. Outside of Mississippi, no legislature has the guts to do so.

Loretta May 25, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by over 25 percent.
The black population of the United States grew almost three times as fast as the white populace in the decade of the 1990s, according to U.S. Census reports.
Blacks increased 16 percent from 1990 to 2000 — faster than the total U.S. population, which grew 13 percent.
The white population increased only 6 percent.

Dr. Eric May 25, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Loretta,
What is your point?

Loretta May 25, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Just setting out the facts.

Esquire May 25, 2007 at 1:48 pm

Facts may be facts, but useful facts are those related to the topic being discussed. It is not apparent, Loretta, how your facts have any relationship to the topic of abortion or its effect on the population, black, white or other.

Loretta May 25, 2007 at 1:53 pm

It gives perspective. There are no valid numbers as to how many white babies are aborted vs. black babies. The only reliable numbers we have are in regard to the number of the living.

BobCatholic May 25, 2007 at 1:58 pm

Why are states funding abortions in the first place? Isn’t the whole goal of the pro-abortionists to keep the government out of their “private” decisions to murder their children.
—————
Yeah, hypocrisy is a good thing :)
Remember, the left wants to impose their views on others, and what better way than to impose on taxpayers again and again and again and again….

Tim J. May 25, 2007 at 2:04 pm

“Taxpayer money already pays the costs of the poor snorting coke.”
No… unless you figure that unemployment checks are the equivalent of handing out Official U.S. Coke Stamps. Question; If that’s true, and welfare already pays for coke for the poor, why can’t they just as easily use that money to go to a private abortion clinic? I mean, they are already using the money illicitly (according to your theory), so why not just consider welfare checks to be Abortion Stamps? No need for any official state funding of abortion, in that case.
Your comments are just terribly inconsistent.

Tim J. May 25, 2007 at 2:05 pm

“There are no valid numbers as to how many white babies are aborted vs. black babies”
Really? I doubt that.

Inocencio May 25, 2007 at 2:13 pm

The website Dr. Eric pointed has many important statistics.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Dr. Eric May 25, 2007 at 2:19 pm

Inocencio,
How did you do that?

Inocencio May 25, 2007 at 2:29 pm

Dr. Eric,
I learn how here. Under How to create hyperlinks
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocencio May 25, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Dr. Eric,
Sorry I was trying to do two sperate links.
I learn how here.
Under How to create hyperlinks
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Dr. Eric May 25, 2007 at 2:32 pm

Inocencio,
Thanks! :-)

Inocencio May 25, 2007 at 2:32 pm

sorry everyone for all the typos.
I am trying to do too many things at once.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Rebecca May 25, 2007 at 2:34 pm

If that’s true, and welfare already pays for coke for the poor, why can’t they just as easily use that money to go to a private abortion clinic?Your comments are just terribly inconsistent.
My comments are completely consistent with reality. You live in a fantasy world thinking that the poor will grow money on trees. It comes out of taxpayer pockets.

Loretta May 25, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Really? I doubt that.
FACTS:
Reporting of abortions in California is enjoined by court order, and not required in D.C., Maryland, New Hampshire and New Jersey. Only 29 states include medical (nonsurgical) abortions in state-prepared reporting forms.
And in no states do reported statistics include deaths due to use of birth control pills.

Anonymous May 25, 2007 at 2:59 pm

trying to switch off italics

Anonymous May 25, 2007 at 3:14 pm

off off

Ital May 25, 2007 at 3:15 pm

italics off

Caritas/Veritas May 25, 2007 at 3:46 pm

From wikipedia:
Abortions and ethnicity
“Abortions are much more common among minority women in the U.S. In 2000-2001, the rates among black and Hispanic women were 49 per 1,000 and 33 per 1,000, respectively, vs. 13 per 1,000 among non-Hispanic white women.[5]
Reasons for abortions
“(A study in 1998) revealed that women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:[7]
25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% Want no (more) children
3.3% Risk to fetal health
2.8% Risk to maternal health
2.1% Other
91.8% of abortions are done out of utter selfishness or out of lack of funds to raise the child, in which cases adoption is a perfectly viable (and far less financially burdensome) choice.
[1] http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/characteristics.html
[2]http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

Caritas/Veritas May 25, 2007 at 3:48 pm

I made a mistake. the footnotes labeled “[5]” and “[7]” should’ve been labeled “[1]” and “[2]“, respectively.

Wendy May 25, 2007 at 4:05 pm

91.8% of abortions are done out of utter selfishness
Clearly, such a remark is not a neutral point of view that Wikipedia supports. Further, if you look at the individual numbers which add up to 91.8%, one can find many categories which can include causes not necessarily out of “utter selfishness”. For example, if the mother was unsure why, was mentally ill, or felt she wasn’t worthy or capable of raising a child, which reason would the mother report?

Tim J. May 25, 2007 at 4:17 pm

“such a remark is not a neutral point of view that Wikipedia supports”
And?… This is not Wikipedia.
There are numerous ways to collect information on abortion statistics. It might be convenient to consider them “invalid” if they add up in a way you don’t like, though.

Wendy May 25, 2007 at 4:42 pm

And?… This is not Wikipedia.
Nor is what he posted “from wikipedia” expressive of the Wikipedia’s claimed neutral point of view.
It might be convenient to consider them “invalid” if they add up in a way you don’t like, though.
The problem is, they don’t add up, except to those who find it convenient for their purposes.

Mary May 25, 2007 at 4:49 pm

A society with legal abortion on demand which also provided effective family support might have fewer abortions per capita than one where abortion was illegal but which did not support families and stigmatized illegitimacy
On the other hand, it might have more abortions, because mothers and fathers can’t afford to have their own children because all of the “effective family support” they have to provide to others.

Mary May 25, 2007 at 4:50 pm

Once it’s paid to the government, it’s public money. It belongs to everyone, including those who don’t pay taxes.
Balderdash. No citizen has a claim to own “public money.”

Sarah May 25, 2007 at 5:00 pm

On the other hand, it might have more abortions, because mothers and fathers can’t afford to have their own children because all of the “effective family support” they have to provide to others.
“in which cases adoption is a perfectly viable (and far less financially burdensome) choice,” says another poster.
Oh, but wait, as how would we afford all those adopted children if we, as a society, can’t afford what we already have?

David May 25, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Wow….When did Wikipedia become an actual recognized indisputable source of fact? LOL

Germaine May 25, 2007 at 5:45 pm

A growing number of black babies are exported to other countries for adoption. Some white people adopt black babies, but a number of black people complain that the practice is tantamount to genocide. So we have people claiming that it’s genocide for blacks to abort and genocide if they’re adopted by white families. Many adoptive parents are open to biracial babies but not to babies that are “all black.” Not surprisingly, many adoption agencies charge lower fees for black babies. A white baby may be $35,000 but a black baby $4,000. So alongside the yells about black genocide, others are saying that the practice discriminates against white babies and people who seek to adopt them.

Aaron May 25, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Balderdash. No citizen has a claim to own “public money.”
I said it belongs just as much to the non-taxpayers as to the taxpayers, not personally but publicly. It was the other poster who was claiming it was HIS money. Do learn to follow the story.

Mary Kay May 25, 2007 at 6:12 pm

So it boils down to being able to “afford” to have a child.
Here’s a news flash: Your parents very likely were not at a point of being able to afford to have you. But they managed. Parents do.

Doug May 25, 2007 at 6:23 pm

People manage. Some manage to end up in jail, on drugs, stabbed, etc.

Tim J. May 25, 2007 at 6:25 pm

“The problem is, they don’t add up”
Oh, but they do.

Tim J. May 25, 2007 at 6:26 pm

Children do not cause violence or drug abuse. Those are just symptoms – along with abortion – of an immature, narcissistic culture.

Wendy May 25, 2007 at 6:29 pm

Oh, but they do.
As vague as they are, they add up to whatever you want them to.

Doug May 25, 2007 at 6:32 pm

Children do not cause violence or drug abuse
Didn’t say they did. It’s the so-called adults who “manage” to end up in jail, on drugs, stabbed, have babies, etc.

nutcrazical May 25, 2007 at 7:38 pm

Did anyone catch this?
Strong opposition also comes from the Roman Catholic Church and some other religious groups.
Are they suggesting the Church is leading the fight against abortion, and that the other religious groups are pretty much just sidekicks? Awesome.

Delayne May 25, 2007 at 8:03 pm

No, it says, “Its staunchest opponents include evangelical Christians.” The RCC has a lesser position as an “also”.

nutcrazical May 25, 2007 at 9:05 pm

…and that’s what happens when you skim through an article because you find it too biased.
That photo with the dude silenced by “Life” – how silly is it?

StubbleSpark May 25, 2007 at 11:33 pm

I find it utterly disingenuous to come into here quoting statistics that do not disprove mine (ie, that black babies are far more likely to be aborted) and then say “See? I have other numbers. That means numbers do not matter. So we can NEVER know!”
I hope you realize how your argument and your tactics undermine each other.
You use similarly nonsensical tactics to disprove the abortion genocide debate by introducing another topic that has earned the tag “genocide” by some black people. “See? That means the abortion holocaust could not possibly be genocide because OHMYGOSH LOOK! LOOK! A RED HERRING!!”
Of course, there is a remarkable difference between adopting a black baby because s/he is black and killing a black baby because s/he is black. And if you cannot tell how one actually IS genocide and the other is not, then I seriously think you should go back to Kindergarten and work on your shapes and colors.
“One of these things is not like the other …”
The thing about moral relativism is that, not only is it a logical fallacy, but people who ascribe to it do so because they need to avoid making hard moral decisions. It is a way of muddying the waters or clouding the issue.
If you are a relativist, that is. To the rest of us, it looks absolutely insane.
A: “I think Planned Parenthood has a racist agenda and violent means that amount to genocide.”
B: “Some say Chewbacca is racist genocide.”
A: “I never thought of it that way before. I guess we really can’t say either way.”

StubbleSpark May 25, 2007 at 11:40 pm

Sincere question for the pro-aborts:
When was the last time your understanding of morality led you to a life-changing course of action which required a certain degree of permanent loss of personal comfort, status, identity (ie, some sort of continual sacrifice)?
I am not trying to imply to that you guys do not have such moments, I would just like to know what kind of data pops up.

Loretta May 26, 2007 at 1:31 am

I find it utterly disingenuous to come into here quoting statistics that do not disprove mine (ie, that black babies are far more likely to be aborted) and then say “See? I have other numbers. That means numbers do not matter. So we can NEVER know!”
Who said “numbers do not matter”? I posted facts (to include numbers!) which give perspective on the other numbers. The numbers you posted cannot be properly understood in the absence of the information I have posted. They are complementary.
You use similarly nonsensical tactics to disprove the abortion genocide debate by introducing another topic that has earned the tag “genocide” by some black people.
Who? You make a mockery of the subject without any help from anyone else, with all your paranoid accusations and talk about “tactics” and “Klan” conspiracies. You would seem to be a ripe candidate for a mental health exam.
In college, I was into the UFO conspiracy and thought the TV show The X-files had a secret agenda to inform the American populace of impending take over by aliens aided by top level officials in our government.
I don’t believe you are yet fully recovered.

Loretta May 26, 2007 at 1:40 am

Sincere question for the pro-aborts:
Why don’t you go to a “pro-abort” forum and ask your question. You might have better luck finding the people you seek to answer your question.
Or, you could put on your tin foil hat and imagine you see them talking to you here.

Ed May 26, 2007 at 2:09 am

The fact is, rich people simply do not abort as much because they are better human beings and entitled to their progeny.
Rich people are better human beings? What religion is that?

bill912 May 26, 2007 at 4:01 am

Loretta, do your mommy and daddy know you’re playing with their computer and posting snotty, childish remarks?

Eileen R May 26, 2007 at 8:59 am

*ignoring the bizarro posts*
Leo:
We, pro-lifers, should also promote policies which reduce family poverty and social stigma and improves biological and moral education even if it means paying higher taxes. Perhaps pro-choicers might concur with this.
Leo, I’d agree with this, except that I’ve found through experience that the pro-choicers do not concur with this in practice, though they accept it as abstractly stated. It turns out that our ideas of what these policies *are* can be so different! Take better biological and moral education. I’d totally agree with that, and most pro-choicers would too, but when we settle down to work out the education, they usually come up with something that I see as *worse*, and they’d think my proposals were worse too. The problem isn’t just abortion. As terrible as it is, you might say that abortion is actually just a symptom.
And the same could be said for social support. I’m a Canadian. We basically all are keen on our government interventions, often to our detriment, many would say! Be that as it may, the government’s method of helping out parents is *still* in dispute. I think the current push for “family support” is helping to destroy families, making children a huge expense that only the rich can really afford. If lower-income parents are forced to put their children into daycare to survive, no matter their own preferences, how does it help that the daycare is subsidized?
I actually work at a daycare right now, which serves very poor families, often single mothers. People who are working so hard to make both ends meet. It’s a very good place, trying to look after these kids as best we can, but I get the feeling that we’re playing catch-up to problems that should have been solved earlier and in better ways. That our best is very second-best. That even if a single mother needs to work, she’s often working *way* too long hours to survive, and government-subsidized childcare is helping in one way but it isn’t addressing that.
It’s a thorny issue, not to be resolved here, but you can see that what sounds like a simple way to combat societal ills like abortion just isn’t.

BobCatholic May 26, 2007 at 10:31 am

You live in a fantasy world thinking that the poor will grow money on trees. It comes out of taxpayer pockets.
====================
This makes the false assumption that the poor only gets money from taxpayer pockets.
Remember, jobs don’t exist. It is only a fantasy :)
It is interesting how adoption costs no money for the mother, but you’re not promoting that. Poor women CAN give up their unwanted children to adoption. There is no-body stopping them, except the pro-abortionists.

StubbleSpark May 26, 2007 at 10:36 am

Ed, the comment about rich people being more deserving of life was an attempt to portray the inherent ugliness of the “abort what you cannot afford” crowd and is not meant to be an delineation of the Church’s or my attitude towards the disadvantaged.

Caritas/Veritas May 26, 2007 at 10:44 am

wendy,
add these numbers:
25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% Want no (more) children
I ask you: are these not selfish reasons to destroy innocent human life!?! (not that it’s ever right to kill) Over 90% destroyed the child because of personal desires and ambitions. for the 21.3% who couldn’t afford to raise the child, adopting the child out has a good price tag: zero. It has nothing to do with bias. these are the facts.

Caritas/Veritas May 26, 2007 at 10:46 am

Wow….When did Wikipedia become an actual recognized indisputable source of fact? LOL
While the facts were recognized by Wikipedia, the studies were done by outside, reputable sources. read the post.

Caritas/Veritas May 26, 2007 at 10:49 am

Sarah,
Oh, but wait, as how would we afford all those adopted children if we, as a society, can’t afford what we already have?
Do you know who all the adoption waiting list for newborn babies is in this country? But never mind the truth, anything counts in the effort to kill babies.

StubbleSpark May 26, 2007 at 10:54 am

Loretta: “Who said ‘numbers do not matter’?”
Wendy: “As vague as they [numbers] are, they add up to whatever you want them to.”
And Loretta: “The numbers you posted cannot be properly understood in the absence of the information I have posted.”
My numbers showed how being black makes you far more likely to be aborted than if you are white.
Your numbers simply stated the black population has grown.
But that does not change this fact: more blacks are aborted than whites.
In fact your numbers only underscore the fact that, were it not for abortion, the United States would be a far more black population today — perhaps sharing an even majority with whites.
Now if your numbers demonstrated how many black babies’ lives were SAVED during that time period, then you would have data that could counter the data I offered you from klanparenthood.com
By the way, websites like klanparenthood and blackgenocide are not my creation so it would be unfair to call this StubbleSpark’s klan conspiracy. These sites are created, maintained, and run by blacks. You may think it is a silly little conspiracy but the numbers do not lie and you have yet to offer any data that would call the original data into question.
If you really are compassionate and loving about the plight of blacks in this country, then you should take it to heart what ALL blacks say about racism and not just those whose views coincide with your own. That is not compassion. That is using other people to get what you want.

StubbleSpark May 26, 2007 at 10:56 am

In the statement about how many black babies’ lives were saved, I meant “saved by Planned Parenthood”.
Sorry about the confusion.

StubbleSpark May 26, 2007 at 11:14 am

Loretta, I have to congratulate you on going to another thread to search my name and posting the statements I made about my past belief of/involvement with various conspiracy theories to attack my person without addressing the points I raised.
The big folks call that “ad hominum” and it is a logical fallacy wherein the debater choses to concentrate on some personal aspect of the opponent and to ignore the substantive issue at hand thereby undercutting the most foundational rule of debate. And yes, this qualifies as a “tactic”. Nothing wrong with the word. Yet you seem to take personal offense. Maybe you would rather I call it your strategery.
Maybe you think my background matters in this debate about Planned Parenthood’s inherently racist agenda.
Actually, I agree.
And in the interest of giving full disclosure of facts that may influence the argument (something I know you are fond of), I would like to add that at the time I was wearing my “foil hat” as you say I was also:
Once Saved Always Saved Protestant
Liberal
Democrat
Pro-abort
Pro-gay marriage
Politically active Clintonite
In other words, StubbleSpark 10 years ago would have jumped at the opportunity to defend what you having so much difficulty defending now.
Do you want to know what happened during those intervening years? Suffice it to say in the interest of discretion: there is a reason why it is called the Culture of Death.

StubbleSpark May 26, 2007 at 11:34 am

Loretta: “Why don’t you go to a “pro-abort” forum and ask your question. ”
Because there is no such thing as a forum that just talks about abortion unless it is a pro-life forum.
You cannot really talk much about abortion without brining up what the procedure ENTAILS and none of the stuff that abortion entails is good for Planned Parenthood’s industry of misery.
Can you imagine an pro-abort forum where people casually chat about their abortion experiences like they were vacation trips? Maybe even share pictures of ultrasounds. Maybe a moderator could butt in every time someone mentioned the lingering guilt or the nightmares and just kick that person out.
No negative feelings (unless directed at Christians)!
No it does not surprise me that someone so cowardly they will not even post their email would not want to have anything to do with answering a personal question about what they really believe. Though you had no qualms about making personal attacks.
I fully expected to be disappointed because in order to perform certain feats one must have acquired the muscles to do it and muscles lack ability in that which they are not accustomed.
You could no more make a morally critical assessment of your person than I could pole vault (and I say this knowing full well your intention to criticize my ability to vault).
When I was a pro-abort, my ethical worldview was like electricity: always following the path of least resistance. Not even human life was more important than me feeling put-upon or pressured by my moral obligations.
I suspect many if not most pro-aborts feel the same way though like I said we may never know because of a certain lack of muscle.

Rebecca May 26, 2007 at 1:34 pm

This makes the false assumption that the poor only gets money from taxpayer pockets. Remember, jobs don’t exist. It is only a fantasy :)
You get that assumption because you’re reading out of context. As I said several times already, the poor will pay for it (abortion, coke, etc.) through legal and illegal means. And in the end, taxpayers will pay just as much or more as before. Their legal means includes meager earnings from jobs, if any, but made all the more insufficient to cover the costs of day to day living when the costs of these “extras” are added in.
It is interesting how adoption costs no money for the mother, but you’re not promoting that.
The word “adoption” does not specify who pays the costs for the mother in taking the baby to full term and birth. With problem pregnancies, those cost can be astronomical. It is therefore erroneous to claim “adoption costs no money for the mother.” While it is not unlawful to pay the maternity-connected medical or hospital and necessary living expenses of the mother preceding and during confinement as an act of charity, it is not required and is illegal to make such payment contingent upon placement of the child for adoption, consent to the adoption, or cooperation in the completion of the adoption. Absent unusual and compelling circumstances, prenatal support if often limited to the last three months. And for many people who seek abortion, such details surrounding adoption can be overwhelming.
There is no-body stopping them, except the pro-abortionists.
Incorrect. For example, **IF** I were to choose an abortion over giving a baby up for adoption, it would not be because some “pro-abortionist” is stopping me. It would be my choice in respect to my then understanding of the matter. My understanding would be influenced by all sides, to include any failure of the pro-life crowd to honestly address the issues without resorting to distortion and misrepresentation as you and others have done.

Wendy May 26, 2007 at 1:53 pm

I ask you: are these not selfish reasons to destroy innocent human life!?!
Not necessarily. For example, “Want to postpone childbearing” or many of the other responses could be, as I already mentioned, because the mother was unsure, was mentally ill, or she felt she wasn’t worthy or capable of raising a child. In that case, it’s not “utter selfishness” as she’s at least expressing a level of concern for the welfare of the child. You can, of course, argue that her choice to kill the child is not concern for the child’s welfare, but “utter selfishness” must exclude all concern not just some, and it must also consider the mother’s understanding which may be different than your own.
It has nothing to do with bias. these are the facts.
No, it’s simply your opinion of a vague survey response.

JoAnna May 26, 2007 at 2:07 pm

Not necessarily. For example, “Want to postpone childbearing” or many of the other responses could be, as I already mentioned, because the mother was unsure, was mentally ill, or she felt she wasn’t worthy or capable of raising a child. In that case, it’s not “utter selfishness” as she’s at least expressing a level of concern for the welfare of the child.

It still doesn’t justify murder. So-called “mercy killing” is still killing.

Wendy May 26, 2007 at 2:29 pm

It still doesn’t justify murder. So-called “mercy killing” is still killing.
In the minds of many people who get an abortion, as well as the law of the land, a fetus is not a person, making issues such as “mercy killing” and “murder” theological only. Not everyone claims the same theology. With such diversity of thought, abortion can be justified to some and not justified to others. Apart from theology, what I express is facts and what you express is opinion.

Jared May 26, 2007 at 4:48 pm

Wendy: It is a truth (not JUST of theology, nor JUST of science, nor JUST of “personal” ethics) but an absolute truth that these are human lives and human persons of which we are speaking.
It’s not a carrot; it’s human.
It’s not dead nor inorganic, but alive.
It matters not one whit what the subjective laws of Man define. Those same laws failed to protect the Jews and countless other classes of human beings.
It is your OPINION that these are not muders happening day in and day out. But, though it be a fact that the law does not recognize these murders as such, it is a FACT that they are, in fact, murders no matter whose opinion has shaped the law.

Esquire May 26, 2007 at 4:56 pm

Actually, Wendy, if these babies in the womb are not “persons” in the eyes of the law, please explain the basis for laws that deem the murder of a pregnant woman to be a double homicide.
Just curious.

bill912 May 26, 2007 at 5:47 pm

“You can, of course, argue that her choice to kill the child is not concern for the child’s welfare…”
Now why would killing the child not be in the child’s welfare? It’s not like killing is harming the child.

Wendy May 26, 2007 at 6:24 pm

It is … an absolute truth that these are human lives and human persons of which we are speaking.
Anyone can make such claims and say it’s “absolute truth.” Maybe you’ll point to a pope or some old manuscripts, and someone else points to their pope or their old manuscripts, or maybe entrails of a slaughtered cow, or whatever. Insist you’re right and someone else is wrong has got to be one of the oldest games around.
It is your OPINION that these are not muders happening day in and day out.
Really? If you have an opinion as to what mine may be, that’s YOUR opinion.
Wendy, if these babies in the womb are not “persons” in the eyes of the law, please explain the basis for laws that deem the murder of a pregnant woman to be a double homicide.
Such laws identify the fetus as not the same as a human being, or expressly exclude interpretation in respect to abortions or are limited to “viable fetus.”
Now why would killing the child not be in the child’s welfare? It’s not like killing is harming the child.
I said you can argue whatever point you want. I didn’t say you’d make any sense.

Anonymous May 26, 2007 at 6:43 pm

In the minds of many people who get an abortion, as well as the law of the land, a fetus is not a person
Well, that settles it! Whatever the law and our conscience say MUST be correct.
Wendy, I am going to replace a couple of phrases in your sentence. Tell me what you think:
In the minds of many people who owned a slave, as well as the law of the land, a slave was not a person…
Believe it or not, Wendy, but sometimes what is in our minds and, yes, even what sometimes is in the law is not a reflection of the true morality of a situation.
At the moment of conception, a human being is formed. That embryo cannot develop into anything else. It actually takes years for a human to fully develop.
You, yourself, were an embryo at one stage in your development. I don’t know how old you are, but if you are a teen-ager, you are still developing.
Because teen-agers are not yet fully developed humans, should we be allowed to kill them when they become burdensome or “troubling”?

Cajun Nick May 26, 2007 at 6:44 pm

That last anonymous comment was from me.
Cajun Nick

juan May 26, 2007 at 6:52 pm

“Now why would killing the child not be in the child’s welfare? It’s not like killing is harming the child.
I said you can argue whatever point you want. I didn’t say you’d make any sense.”
His comment seems pretty common sense Wendy — killing someone can’t be for their own benefit.

bill912 May 26, 2007 at 7:02 pm

Thanx, Juan. I don’t think she got my sarcasm.

Tim J. May 26, 2007 at 7:26 pm

Every argument for abortion is logically untenable, and religion is simply irrelevant to the question, unless you consider “not killing people inconvenient to you” a religious proposition.
There is no point in the development of a fetus where it magically becomes a human being when it wasn’t a few seconds before. Every attempt to establish this imaginary point is completely arbitrary and is not based on science.

Jared May 26, 2007 at 7:34 pm

Anybody else find it ironic that Wendy seems capable of making an absolute statement (like the whole you have opinions and I have facts) and yet appears to also adhere to a relativistic philosophy.
Par for the course, I s’pose. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

Wendy May 26, 2007 at 7:56 pm

Believe it or not, Wendy, but sometimes what is in our minds and, yes, even what sometimes is in the law is not a reflection of the true morality of a situation.
Believe it or not, Cajun Nick, but not everyone agrees as to what the “true morality” of a situation is.
Because teen-agers are not yet fully developed humans, should we be allowed to kill them when they become burdensome or “troubling”?
Not everyone believes teenagers and a handful of cellular matter are the same — in a way similar to how you might believe your morality is more worthy of life than someone else’s.
Thanx, Juan. I don’t think she got my sarcasm.
Only because you didn’t get mine.
There is no point in the development of a fetus where it magically becomes a human being when it wasn’t a few seconds before. Every attempt to establish this imaginary point is completely arbitrary and is not based on science.
What you refer to is a soul, and science has nothing to do with it. There is no scientific view as to when cells are a human being, unless you have surrendered the authority for deciding what is a human being to that creation called science.
Anybody else find it ironic that Wendy seems capable of making an absolute statement (like the whole you have opinions and I have facts) and yet appears to also adhere to a relativistic philosophy.
In the post you refer to, it was my intent to cite the following as facts:
#1. In the minds of many people who get an abortion, as well as the law of the land, a fetus is not a person.
#2. Not everyone claims the same theology. With such diversity of thought, abortion can be justified to some and not justified to others.
If you do not see those as facts, you are welcome to attempt to show that they are not.
Cognitive dissonance at its finest.
Projection at its finest.

Eileen R May 26, 2007 at 8:50 pm

In in the interests of advancing this discussion a bit past finger pointing:
Wendy, I think that part of your point is to make people aware that “Some people don’t agree with you.”
I can see where that can be shown to be fact, but I’m not sure how it contributes to the discussion. I’m pretty sure everyone is aware that people disagree on the subject.
There may be an objective truth nonetheless. Or perhaps you don’t believe that anyone can make an absolute case for an objective truth even if it exists?
Anyway, the discussion you seem to be interested in then isn’t specifically abortion, but how we can know that we know things.
What you refer to is a soul, and science has nothing to do with it. There is no scientific view as to when cells are a human being, unless you have surrendered the authority for deciding what is a human being to that creation called science.
Good point. The case against abortion obviously rests on a philosophy and/or theology. But I’d submit that while the theology might be a bit harder for people to examine, the philosophy is more easily examined and argued.
This doesn’t mean you get unanimous answers from philosophy if you apply yourself, but public policy debate *is* in philosophy’s realm already, so those of us who do argue about what is best are already committed to philosophical enquiry, really.
Or in short, just because the abortion question can’t be answered ultimately by science doesn’t mean religion is the only thing that can provide possible answers.

Jared May 26, 2007 at 9:15 pm

Okay, Wendy, here’s a fact: not everyone understands or believes that Jewish people are worthy of protection under law.
Yet, legitimately, objectively, without using any religious or theological standard (I don’t know how many different ways I can tell you that this has almost nothing to do with theology), we know that they are deserving of the same legal protections as anyone else.

Wendy May 26, 2007 at 9:48 pm

I’m pretty sure everyone is aware that people disagree on the subject. There may be an objective truth nonetheless. Or perhaps you don’t believe that anyone can make an absolute case for an objective truth even if it exists?
No one on this forum has made an absolute case that abortion is murder.
Anyway, the discussion you seem to be interested in then isn’t specifically abortion, but how we can know that we know things.
Oh please. I only need to open up the dictionary to find that it’s NOT “an absolute truth” that abortion is murder:
Main Entry: abortion
Function: noun
1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as
a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation
b : induced expulsion of a human fetus
Not a single one of those definitions mentions or necessitates a malicious intent to kill. Simple examples include everyday birth control pills which are abortifacient in people who have no malicious intent to kill anyone. Even devout Catholics suffer spontaneous abortions. But the posters on this forum insist it’s “an absolute truth” that abortion is murder.
I bet a case can even be made for people who sign up for surgical abortions of a “fetus” with no malicious intent that a person be killed.
Okay, Wendy, here’s a fact: not everyone understands or believes that Jewish people are worthy of protection under law.
Yet, legitimately, objectively, without using any religious or theological standard (I don’t know how many different ways I can tell you that this has almost nothing to do with theology), we know that they are deserving of the same legal protections as anyone else.

Who is “we”? I don’t believe that everyone feels that way. And I don’t believe people agree as to the meaning of “same legal protections.” It’s a fact that people don’t feel all groups deserve the same legal protections.

Wendy May 26, 2007 at 9:49 pm

italics off

Wendy May 26, 2007 at 9:50 pm

And again.

Wendy May 26, 2007 at 9:52 pm

Reposted for ease of reading…
I’m pretty sure everyone is aware that people disagree on the subject. There may be an objective truth nonetheless. Or perhaps you don’t believe that anyone can make an absolute case for an objective truth even if it exists?
No one on this forum has made an absolute case that abortion is murder.
Anyway, the discussion you seem to be interested in then isn’t specifically abortion, but how we can know that we know things.
Oh please. I only need to open up the dictionary to find that it’s NOT “an absolute truth” that abortion is murder:
Main Entry: abortion
Function: noun
1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as
a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation
b : induced expulsion of a human fetus
Not a single one of those definitions mentions or necessitates a malicious intent to kill. Simple examples include everyday birth control pills which are abortifacient in people who have no malicious intent to kill anyone. Even devout Catholics suffer spontaneous abortions. But the posters on this forum insist it’s “an absolute truth” that abortion is murder.
I bet a case can even be made for people who sign up for surgical abortions of a “fetus” with no malicious intent that a person be killed.
Okay, Wendy, here’s a fact: not everyone understands or believes that Jewish people are worthy of protection under law. Yet, legitimately, objectively, without using any religious or theological standard (I don’t know how many different ways I can tell you that this has almost nothing to do with theology), we know that they are deserving of the same legal protections as anyone else.
Who is “we”? I don’t believe that everyone feels that way. And I don’t believe people agree as to the meaning of “same legal protections.” It’s a fact that people don’t feel all groups deserve the same legal protections.

Jared May 26, 2007 at 11:32 pm

Who is “we”?
“We” = civilized people.
I don’t believe that everyone feels that way.
And those people who don’t are wrong.

Wendy May 26, 2007 at 11:56 pm

Good thing the abortion laws give the “same legal protections” to all women and their fetuses regardless of their religion. Perhaps then they were written by “civilized people.”

Mary Ann May 27, 2007 at 12:00 am

Where are any other loving mothers to respond to some of this *%@#, especially on a Catholic site?
I’m a wife, mother, and I work outside the home. I love my children and honor their lives. They are welcome in my home, and in my body.
Compassion for people in tough situations, like poor or troubled pregnant moms, DOES NOT include killing innocent life. Real compassion includes loving solutions for both the mother AND the child.
Rebecca, if you are concerned about the plight of poor moms, work (or continue to work) to give them and their families real help. Abortion is not a solution to poverty. How INSULTING to me and other working poor!!! That thinking basically says that only people with money have a right to have babies. Killing is not a cure for us- while it seems like a quick fix, it rips apart our families. I’ve seen it lots.
Wendy, if you doubt the humanity of unborn people, I suggest you rely on ultrasound technology above the dictionary. Have you seen the heartbeat and moving body of a child/fetus inside you? And don’t you understand what happens when that body is forcibly removed with surgical instruments and toxic chemicals? That beating heart, a heart every bit as unique as yours, is stopped. Forever. If that heart belonged to a human being, that human being was murdered. If that heart didn’t belong to a human being, what did that heart belong to?

Jared May 27, 2007 at 12:29 am

Wendy: What legal protections does abortion law afford the unborn?
Let’s alter your statement ever so slightly in light of your previous statement on how not everyone believes Jews shouldn’t be murdered.
“Good thing the Nazi laws give the ‘same legal protections’ to all concentration camp workers and their prisoners regardless of their religion. Perhaps then they were written by ‘civilized people.’”
Does this make good sense to you? ‘Cause it’s nigh unreadable to me.

Wendy May 27, 2007 at 1:26 am

What legal protections does abortion law afford the unborn?
Do you not like to hear if the law says everyone can be aborted, that’s the “same legal protection” for everyone? Even if you can only be aborted in the womb, everyone was once in the womb, so everyone is treated equally by the law.
Reminds me of the argument I hear made against gays telling them they have the same legal rights as everyone with respect to the opposite sex.
Got to love those arguments by the “civilized people”.
“Good thing the Nazi laws give the ‘same legal protections’ to all concentration camp workers and their prisoners regardless of their religion. Perhaps then they were written by ‘civilized people.’”
Now now, the Nazis didn’t give the “same legal protections” to all concentration camp inmates nor as they themselves have been given.

Wendy May 27, 2007 at 1:42 am

If that heart didn’t belong to a human being, what did that heart belong to?
To whom does every heart belong?

bill912 May 27, 2007 at 3:08 am

Wendy, God loves you, forgives you, and wants to heal you; all you have to do is ask for His love, forgiveness, and healing.

Cajun Nick May 27, 2007 at 5:39 am

Do you not like to hear if the law says everyone can be aborted, that’s the “same legal protection” for everyone?
Wow! Let me say it again: Wow!
Wendy has actually claimed that being able to be killed is “legal protection”!!! as long as everyone else in one’s class is equally able to be killed. Then we’re all protected the same, see.
Now, if only we could apply that reasoning to the elderly and handicapped, then we’d really have some civilized laws.
Oh, wait…it looks like that’s exactly where we’re headed.

JoAnna May 27, 2007 at 7:37 am

handful of cellular matter

Wendy, I encourage you to take a look at photos of babies in the womb. You’re buying into the secular lie that embryos are just bunches of cells, not humans.
This is a baby at seven weeks of gestation (image from priestsforlife.org):

Can you honestly say that this picture is of nothing more than a “handful of cellular matter”?

JoAnna May 27, 2007 at 7:39 am

Image in above post didn’t work, but you can see it here.

Jared May 27, 2007 at 1:21 pm

Wendy: Not everyone can be aborted. There are laws, for example, that prosecute the murderer whose actions against a mother result in miscarriage. There are, in fact, laws against partial-birth abortion. And (in the U.S. but not in all nations) there are laws prohibiting infanticide. And, of course, laws against killing older people as well.
Now now, the Nazis didn’t give the “same legal protections” to all concentration camp inmates nor as they themselves have been given.
Exactly my point! That is why I asked you if my prior alteration of your statement makes good sense, since that is the exact same position in which we find ourselves now.
But, Wendy, it’s obvious that, for you, this is all about the rule of law. In other words, whatever the law of the time and place is, that must be what is right (for that is the outcome of all of your statements). So, I guess when we succeed in changing the law, you’ll change your mind. Which is fine, because I have faith that we’ll EVENTUALLY be able to ban abortion yet again. I pray that it is soon, within my and your lifetimes.
My point has been, and remains, that human law is often not a good measure of what is right, but if that’s all that you’ll accept, then, may the law reflect the truth.

Jared May 27, 2007 at 1:22 pm

But, Bill912 is right. Forgiveness awaits you, Wendy. True healing does await you. He stands at the door of your heart and knocks. He can help you heal whatever pain has led you down this path. He can make you whole. All you have to do is invite Him in.

Wendy May 27, 2007 at 1:51 pm

Wendy, God loves you, forgives you, and wants to heal you; all you have to do is ask for His love, forgiveness, and healing.
That’s it? It’s sound quite Protestant. I don’t have to go to church each week or chat with priests? Has it worked for you and the Pope? Are you healed? Paul says, “The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so,” and “It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.” And Jesus says, “I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” But you tell me it’s up to me. How do you explain that?
Wendy has actually claimed that being able to be killed is “legal protection”!!!
Really? Here’s your legal protection: The law says a viable fetus cannot be aborted if there’s no risk to the life or health of the pregnant woman. It also says the fetus cannot be aborted by an unauthorized health care provider.
This is a baby at seven weeks of gestation (image from priestsforlife.org)
Oh, then you’ll like this one. And for comparison, check this out. They’re adorable.

JoAnna May 27, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Oh, then you’ll like this one. And for comparison, check this out. They’re adorable.
So, it’s only human life if they’re recognizable as humans? Or if they’re “adorable”?
You do realize, don’t you, that an embryo remains at that state of growth for a very short period of time?
When a baby is at that state of development, most mothers don’t even yet know that they are pregnant, let alone scheduling an abortion.
When does the embryo in same the stage of development as in the picture you posted magically become a human being? And do birds and other mammals at the same stage of development also have unique human DNA? Your latter picture seems to indicate as much.
Let me share something else with you. This is an ultrasound image of the baby I miscarried. S/he was measuring 7 weeks, 5 days. Was my baby not a person at that stage? Was s/he not worth anything as a human? I’m interested to hear your viewpoint.

JoAnna May 27, 2007 at 2:04 pm

Blockquotes off. Sorry about that

Mary Kay May 27, 2007 at 2:32 pm

Wendy, the “health of the mother” has been so broadly interpreted as to make it meaningless, making de facto no limit on abortion.
In the post you refer to, it was my intent to cite the following as facts:
#1. In the minds of many people who get an abortion, as well as the law of the land, a fetus is not a person.
#2. Not everyone claims the same theology. With such diversity of thought, abortion can be justified to some and not justified to others.
If you do not see those as facts, you are welcome to attempt to show that they are not.

The above seems to be your viewpoint in a nutshell. Both rely on moral relativity, that is, the absence of an objective reality.
For years, in the minds of many people, smoking was seen as glamorous. The objective reality was lung cancer.
Ditto with justification. People justify all sorts of actions. The parent who holds his/her child’s hand to a stove to teach that it’s hot, the parent who physically abuses to “toughen up” a kid to live in a “tough world,” the father who justifies sexual relation with his 10, 12, 12 year old daughter to “teach her to be a woman” all justify their behavior. Justification does not negate the harm that is done. Indeed, justification is probably the weakest possible excuse.

Wendy May 27, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Wendy: Not everyone can be aborted. There are laws, for example, that prosecute the murderer whose actions against a mother result in miscarriage.
Everyone can be aborted within the meaning of the abortion laws. The laws you refer to expressly exclude interpretation in respect to abortions or are limited to “viable fetus.”
As to abortion and miscarriage, notice how the dictionary excludes miscarriage from the definition of abortion and how miscarriage excludes viable fetus:
Main Entry: abortion
Function: noun
1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as
a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare MISCARRIAGE
b : induced expulsion of a human fetus
Main Entry: miscarriage
Function: noun
: spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus before it is viable and especially between the 12th and 28th weeks of gestation
That is why I asked you if my prior alteration of your statement makes good sense, since that is the exact same position in which we find ourselves now.
No it’s not the exact same position. As I have already pointed out, the Nazis didn’t give the “same legal protections” to all concentration camp inmates nor as they themselves have been given. But today, Jewish inmates of the womb don’t face different protections under the law than Catholic inmates, and mothers who abort today were themselves former inmates of the womb subject to potential abortion by their own mothers.
Wendy, it’s obvious that, for you, this is all about the rule of law… I have faith that we’ll EVENTUALLY be able to ban abortion yet again.
LOL. Pro-choice people are happy without a law, while you rant about legal protections and complain about the law.
human law is often not a good measure of what is right, but if that’s all that you’ll accept, then, may the law reflect the truth.
Human law doesn’t compel you to abort anyone. And as long as human law is made by humans, it will be governed by human understanding. But if you want to claim to have special understanding, you can stand in the long line with everyone else who thinks their special too.

Wendy May 27, 2007 at 3:16 pm

So, it’s only human life if they’re recognizable as humans? Or if they’re “adorable”?
That’s your interpretation.
You do realize, don’t you, that an embryo remains at that state of growth for a very short period of time?
Mankind itself has been on this planet a very short period of time.
When a baby is at that state of development, most mothers don’t even yet know that they are pregnant, let alone scheduling an abortion.
People have abortions the day after they conceive. There are pills for that.
When does the embryo in same the stage of development as in the picture you posted magically become a human being?
Each religion has its own rules and guidance on that.
And do birds and other mammals at the same stage of development also have unique human DNA? Your latter picture seems to indicate as much.
Yet you’re likely pro-choice on killing birds, mammals and reptiles. Your religion gives you a green light on that. Meanwhile, other people, other religions seek not to kill people, birds, mammals or reptiles because they view all such life as extensions of one life source.
Was my baby not a person at that stage? Was s/he not worth anything as a human? I’m interested to hear your viewpoint.
My view is that she was a person in your eyes. I respect that. But if some other mother does not see it that way, do you respect what she sees?
Wendy, the “health of the mother” has been so broadly interpreted as to make it meaningless, making de facto no limit on abortion.
No, it’s not de facto, as it’s not a fact but an opinion, the physician’s medical opinion.
The above seems to be your viewpoint in a nutshell. Both rely on moral relativity, that is, the absence of an objective reality.
Nonsense. You and my neighbor simply have different views of that alleged objective reality. You want to claim your view is right as does my neighbor.
For years, in the minds of many people, smoking was seen as glamorous. The objective reality was lung cancer.
For years, in the minds of many people, lung cancer was seen as a bad thing. The objective reality is that lung cancer is neither good nor bad.
Justification does not negate the harm that is done.
The objective reality is that what you may see as harm, another may see as pointing to God.

Juan May 27, 2007 at 3:54 pm

“Nonsense. You and my neighbor simply have different views of that alleged objective reality. You want to claim your view is right as does my neighbor.”
Wendy you seem to be forgetting one thing throughout your posts: people can be wrong. I suggest you go around and repeat that to yourself at least a dozen times. People disagreeing does not mean that objective truth does not exist or that an action can’t be proven to be immoral using reason.

Wendy May 27, 2007 at 4:00 pm

Wendy you seem to be forgetting one thing throughout your posts: people can be wrong. I suggest you go around and repeat that to yourself at least a dozen times.
As you wish, Juan…
#1. “Juan can be wrong.”
#2. “Juan can be wrong.”
#3. “Juan can be wrong.”
#4. “Juan can be wrong.”
#5. “Juan can be wrong.”
#6. “Juan can be wrong.”
#7. “Juan can be wrong.”
#8. “Juan can be wrong.”
#9. “Juan can be wrong.”
#10. “Juan can be wrong.”
#11. “Juan can be wrong.”
#12. “Juan can be wrong.”

Juan May 27, 2007 at 4:22 pm

Glad we got that out of the way :-P Although, I can’t be wrong about people being able to be wrong. Now maybe we can move past “there is a disagreement so abortion wins.”

Mary Kay May 27, 2007 at 4:23 pm

Wendy, you’re using the same sort of existential one liner non-responses that Mary/Mark/Margo used. That makes me wonder if this is simply another user name or if you are indeed a different person.
the “health of the mother” has been so broadly interpreted as to make it meaningless, making de facto no limit on abortion.
No, it’s not de facto, as it’s not a fact but an opinion, the physician’s medical opinion.

Whether intentionally or not, you twisted my words. The phrase “de facto” means in reality, which is exactly what I said: in reality there is no limit on abortion because the – what you call the physician’s medical opinion – has broadened the definition of “health of the mother” so broadly they they now include things that are no threat to the mother’s health – like cleft palate of the baby which is a correctable condition – as an excuse for abortion.
The above seems to be your viewpoint in a nutshell. Both rely on moral relativity, that is, the absence of an objective reality.
Nonsense. You and my neighbor simply have different views of that alleged objective reality. You want to claim your view is right as does my neighbor.

When you can’t come up with a good response, all you can say is ‘nonsense,’ which isn’t a response at all. You then repeat your “no objective reality – everything is relative” viewpoint, thereby proving the truth of my statement.
For years, in the minds of many people, smoking was seen as glamorous. The objective reality was lung cancer.
For years, in the minds of many people, lung cancer was seen as a bad thing. The objective reality is that lung cancer is neither good nor bad.

“Lung cancer is neither good nor bad.” Yikes. Tell that to someone whose lost a parent to lung cancer. That is if you’re willing to be that callous. Again and again, you show your unwillingness to acknowledge an objective reality.
Justification does not negate the harm that is done.
The objective reality is that what you may see as harm, another may see as pointing to God.

You’re willing to use the phrase “objective reality” only if it serves your relativistic viewpoint. Again, your vague statement does not give a valid answer.

Mary Kay May 27, 2007 at 4:25 pm

Juan makes a good point: “People disagreeing does not mean that objective truth does not exist.”
Wendy, your flippant post did not respond to his comment.

Mary Kay May 27, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Wendy, in addition to being flippant, your response to Juan demonstrates that you appear to have an inability to be self-critical.

Eileen R May 27, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Wendy, stop being a troll. I offered you a sympathetic hand out to engage in serious discussion, but I think you prefer living under that bridge. As far as I can make out, the conversation is going like this:
Questioner: So you don’t think there’s a moral objective truth?
Wendy: No, I’m just saying there’s no moral objective truth, you loser!
ad infinitum

bill912 May 27, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Wendy, God will not force Himself upon you. As C.S. Lewis put it: He will only woo; He will not ravish.
“Has it worked for you or the Pope? Are you healed?”
For me, the answer is: Yes!
I’ll let the Holy Father answer for himself.

bill912 May 27, 2007 at 5:21 pm

“Lung cancer is neither good nor bad.” That statement speaks volumes. What we are dealing with here is a hurting soul in need of our prayers.

Wendy May 27, 2007 at 5:49 pm

Now maybe we can move past “there is a disagreement so abortion wins.”
You said you can be wrong about that.
what you call the physician’s medical opinion – has broadened the definition of “health of the mother” so broadly they they now include things that are no threat to the mother’s health
The fact / reality remains that the law forbids the abortion unless the physician certifies a threat. If, as you say, there is no threat, then the abortion is illegal. Whether or not there is a threat is a matter of opinion, as is every order of protection put forth by the courts of the land. Some judges are lenient, some are strict. Sometimes you can shop around, and sometimes you can’t. That’s life.
When you can’t come up with a good response, all you can say is ‘nonsense,’
My response included both the word “nonsense” followed by, as you yourself quoted, “You and my neighbor simply have different views of that alleged objective reality. You want to claim your view is right as does my neighbor.”
You then repeat your “no objective reality – everything is relative” viewpoint, thereby proving the truth of my statement.
What you quote as “no objective reality – everything is relative” is your viewpoint, your interpretation of what you think I’ve said. Where is the objective reality to your quote?
“Lung cancer is neither good nor bad.” … Again and again, you show your unwillingness to acknowledge an objective reality.
Why don’t you investigate the objective reality of your claims? I said, “The objective reality is that lung cancer is neither good nor bad.” Notice the first three words.
Yikes. Tell that to someone whose lost a parent to lung cancer. That is if you’re willing to be that callous.
The truth may appear callous, but that’s your subjective interpretation. Here’s another interpretation, if I may be so callous.
You’re willing to use the phrase “objective reality” only if it serves your relativistic viewpoint. Again, your vague statement does not give a valid answer.
In your subjective opinion.

Mary Kay May 27, 2007 at 6:06 pm

Wendy, you are so deeply mired in your relativist view that you apparently can’t even consider objective reality.
In your “other interpretation,” you’ve confused the lung cancer and the person’s response to it. The lung cancer is still something harmful.
However, I’m not willing to let you get this discussion away from the main topic. My point about objective reality is that abortion is always killing a human life.
You can do whatever verbal gymnastics, but the bottom line is that abortion is killing a human life.

Wendy May 27, 2007 at 7:08 pm

Wendy, your flippant post did not respond to his comment.
I already responded to his comment in keeping with his other comment. He said he can be wrong, so I rest his comment as opinion.
Wendy, in addition to being flippant, your response to Juan demonstrates that you appear to have an inability to be self-critical.
If you were self-critical, you’d realize you could be wrong about that.
Wendy, stop being a troll. I offered you a sympathetic hand out to engage in serious discussion, but I think you prefer living under that bridge. As far as I can make out, the conversation is going like this
“As far as you can make out” says it’s your subjective interpretation. You previously posted about “how we can know that we know things”, but if you’re upset that I’m not joining you on your query, by all means go ahead.
“Has it worked for you or the Pope? Are you healed?” For me, the answer is: Yes!
Great, what’s it mean for you to be “healed”? Do you have a guaranteed seat in heaven? Or can you be healed and still go to hell?
“Lung cancer is neither good nor bad.” That statement speaks volumes. What we are dealing with here is a hurting soul in need of our prayers.
You’re dealing with your subjective belief that cancer is bad. Unable to accept that what you think may be wrong, cognitive dissonance has you running to prayer.
Wendy, you are so deeply mired in your relativist view that you apparently can’t even consider objective reality.
Mary Kay, you are so deeply mired in your mirror that you can’t recognize your own reflection.
In your “other interpretation,” you’ve confused the lung cancer and the person’s response to it. The lung cancer is still something harmful.
You subjectively view lung cancer as harmful, relative to your notions on how things are supposed to be. Perhaps you think death and hardship are “bad.” Like I posted before, what you may subjectively see as harm, another may see as pointing to God.
However, I’m not willing to let you get this discussion away from the main topic. My point about objective reality is that abortion is always killing a human life.
The main topic is whether abortion is wrong and why you think it is.

bill912 May 27, 2007 at 7:26 pm

I stand corrected. Eileen R is right. Given what we’ve been dealing with lately, I’m beginning to think that this is National Jello Wrestling Month. I’m done. I feel the need for a shower.

Mary Kay May 27, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Wendy, you clearly are trying to score debate points rather than an actual discussion. You’re so quick to tell others they’re wrong yet don’t apply it to yourself. I have no intention of going around in circles with you which is what your posts have amounted to.

Mary Kay May 27, 2007 at 7:30 pm

Bill, :) at National Jello Wrestling Month. Bulls-eye.

Juan May 27, 2007 at 7:34 pm

Wendy, My only point is that people disagreeing does not prove moral relativism. You seem incapable of anything more than one liners, where all you say is people disagree so abortion is moral. You have repeated yourself in just about every post you have made. We know people think abortion is ok; move on.
Here is an actual argument against abortion that comes from skepticism since that seems to be your favorite back fall.
1. the fetus is a person and we know it
2. the fetus is not a person and we know it
3. the fetus is a person and we don’t know it
4. the fetus is not a person and we don’t know it
The only case where abortion would be acceptable is #2. Pro-choicers have yet to prove that the fetus is not a person, so I assume that abortion is immoral.
Debating you seems pretty pointless; we just go around in circles. Please move on so we can make some progress here.

Wendy May 27, 2007 at 8:01 pm

I’m done. I feel the need for a shower.
Is that what you do AFTER you’re healed? I thought Purgatory was the healing shower. Maybe you missed a spot.
Wendy, you clearly are trying to score debate points rather than an actual discussion. You’re so quick to tell others they’re wrong yet don’t apply it to yourself.
Maybe if you were self-critical, you’d realize you could be wrong about that.
I have no intention of going around in circles with you which is what your posts have amounted to.
You don’t wish to dance? Struck, the dancer hears a tambourine inside her, like a wave that crests into foam at the very top, Begins. Maybe you don’t hear that tambourine, or the tree leaves clapping time. Close the ears on your head, that listen mostly to lies and cynical jokes. There are other things to see, and hear. Music. Dance. A brilliant city inside your soul!
Wendy, My only point is that people disagreeing does not prove moral relativism. You seem incapable of anything more than one liners, where all you say is people disagree so abortion is moral. You have repeated yourself in just about every post you have made. We know people think abortion is ok; move on.
Pro-choicers have yet to prove that the fetus is not a person, so I assume that abortion is immoral.
Living under assumptions is like living under a mushroom.
Debating you seems pretty pointless; we just go around in circles. Please move on so we can make some progress here.
Life is a dance.

Wendy May 27, 2007 at 8:20 pm

all you say is people disagree so abortion is moral. You have repeated yourself in just about every post you have made
Juan, I invite you to investigate who has said “so abortion is moral.” With all that repetition, it should be an easy task for you, right?

Juan May 27, 2007 at 8:31 pm

“Juan, I invite you to investigate who has said “so abortion is moral.”"
That has been what you have been suggesting throughout your posts. You’re right though; it is difficult to find anything intelligible or clear from any of your posts.

Wendy May 27, 2007 at 8:40 pm

That has been what you have been suggesting throughout your posts.
No, that is what your own mind has been suggesting. Cleanse your mind of the assumptions and start fresh.

Mary Kay May 27, 2007 at 8:49 pm

Wendy, for all your words, you have not convinced anyone of anything. Does it get lonely spending all the time talking to yourself?

Wendy May 27, 2007 at 9:05 pm

Convince? Lonely? I may dance alone, but never lonely, as I dance for joy, not to convince.

Mary Ann May 27, 2007 at 9:36 pm

Who does every human heart belong to?… Nice existential try, Wendy.
Let’s get more specific and say, just for example, you’ve had an abortion.
What about THAT particular heart? Again, who did THAT particular heart belong to?

Wendy May 27, 2007 at 9:58 pm

Whether this heart, that heart, or every heart. No difference in my view.

Jared May 27, 2007 at 10:08 pm

This whole discussion is tiresome, particularly since one poor, damaged individual keeps spouting absolute statements in order to try to refute absolutism. Cognitive dissonance is so very sad. I mean that in all sincerity; it truly saddens me.
Wendy, you’re flat out wrong and you’ve been refuted dozens of times over, yet you continue to repeat yourself, side-step others’ refutations, and ignore the fact that your arguments have been defeated.
I don’t pretend to know the pain that’s led you to your current state, but you are in my prayers.

Wendy May 27, 2007 at 10:15 pm

Cognitive dissonance leading to prayer again.
“For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.”

Jared May 27, 2007 at 10:20 pm

Blah, blah, blah, Wendy. Everything you write screams out the pain you’re experiencing. Perhaps you should listen.

Jared May 27, 2007 at 10:22 pm

Seriously, Wendy. You really should seek out people who can help you.
For example: http://www.hopeafterabortion.com

Wendy May 27, 2007 at 10:32 pm

Everything you write screams out the pain you’re experiencing.
Your subjective interpretation is the screaming of your own mind.

Jared May 28, 2007 at 12:38 am

Ah, the ol’ “I’m rubber and you’re glue” defense. Very inspiring.
Seriously, you can overcome your past. All you need to do is ask for help.

Mary Kay May 28, 2007 at 3:01 am

Wendy, Jared has a point with his rubber and glue observation. I wish you whatever gentle balm is in your life.

Mary May 28, 2007 at 3:55 am

Nonsense. You and my neighbor simply have different views of that alleged objective reality. You want to claim your view is right as does my neighbor.
Nonsense. You have no grounds to deny our claim that our view is right by your own illogic.

francis 03 May 28, 2007 at 5:17 am

Two observations, for anyone who’s read through the rudeness on both sides to get this far:
1. We’ve heard that whether abortion is immoral (because it’s murder) is a subjective, or even theological, question. But if that’s true, is there any way to pass [i]any[/i] law prohibiting the killing of human beings (or human cellular tissue, if you prefer) without imposing some subjective, theological opinion about what is and is not human life? And if not, then why not draw the line at conception?
2. Wendy is correct that the unborn are not legal “persons” in the constitutional sense. But the category of legal “persons” has never been coterminous with the category of human beings. Blacks (even free blacks) were not legal persons before the Civil War, [i]Dred Scott[/i], but were nearly universally recognized as human. And corporations are legal persons, although certainly not human beings.

francis 03 May 28, 2007 at 5:19 am

Oops. Did the italics wrong. Y’all know what I meant.

BobCatholic May 28, 2007 at 6:28 am

>And in the end, taxpayers will pay just as much or more as before.
You seem to be arguing it is the same if someone is paying taxes for a moral purpose (helping the poor) versus paying taxes for an immoral purpose (taxpayer funded abortions)
I am against taxpayer money being used for an immoral purpose. That is tantamount to the government stepping in and forcing me to hold the pro-abortion opinion, in a monetary way.
>For example, **IF** I were to choose an abortion over giving a baby up for adoption, it would not be because some “pro-abortionist” is stopping me.
They’ve already stopped you. You accept their propaganda against adoption. In their minds, a dead baby is preferable to one placed in loving home. Want proof? Take the amount of resources Pro-aborts spend in defending adoption versus defending abortion. The ratio of the first to the second is miniscule.
> It would be my choice in respect to my then understanding of the matter. My understanding would be influenced by all sides,
That’s not true. You’re not understanding the anti-abortion side. You don’t want the unborn to have human rights, and are defending the government funding of the slaughter of the unborn.
>to include any failure of the pro-life crowd to honestly address the issues without resorting to distortion and misrepresentation as you and others have done.
It is you who distort. You’re arguing that taxpayer funding of moral and immoral activities are equivalent.
I have a simple question for you: Why don’t you want the unborn children to have any human rights?

Eileen R May 28, 2007 at 6:52 am

Bob, one can already anticipate Wendy’s response,
“You’re the one who thinks that.”
or
“What is human? Other people may not define human the same way.”
or
“Looking into your mirror, are you?”
It’s a bit like talking with a bot that’s trying the Turing Test.

BobCatholic May 28, 2007 at 7:46 am

Eileen: Agreed. However, this wasn’t Wendy’s objection (but Rebecca – unless both are really the same person) There are those who have been brainwashed with pro-abortion propaganda (which is bent on promoting dehumanization) – they cease to be able to argue logically and rationally, and only are able to argue emotionally.
>”What is human? Other people may not define human the same way.”
I have a simple answer to that: Science says so. The science of embryology has determined that the unborn children are human beings. As such, those who support abortion are going against science and reason, to promote murder. I love it when religion is accused of going against science and reason, and when secularism does the same thing, nobody objects (except the reasonable!)

Esquire May 28, 2007 at 9:24 am

Wendy,
I previously asked you the following:

if these babies in the womb are not “persons” in the eyes of the law, please explain the basis for laws that deem the murder of a pregnant woman to be a double homicide.

You responded with the following:

Such laws identify the fetus as not the same as a human being, or expressly exclude interpretation in respect to abortions or are limited to “viable fetus.”

Whether or not such laws “expressly exclude interpretation in respect to abortions” begs the question I raised, which was whether or not babies in the womb are persons in the eyes of the law, in view of various fetal homicide laws.
With respect to your other two comments, I think the following will be a sufficient answer:

Alabama HB 19 (2006) defines person to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.

Alaska SB 20 (2005) provides that a defendant convicted of murder in the second degree or murder of an unborn child shall be sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment of 10-99 years.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-1103(A)(5) declares that a person commits manslaughter by knowingly or recklessly causing the death of an unborn child at any stage of its development by any physical injury to the mother.

Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5.1.102(13) (B)(i)(a) defines “person” to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development.

Cal. Pen Code § 187 (a) defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.

La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:2 (7), (11) defines “person” as a human being from the moment of fertilization and implantation and also includes a body of persons, whether incorporated or not. “Unborn child” means any individual of the human species from fertilization and implantation until birth.

Miss. Code Ann. § 11.7.13 includes death of a fetus in wrongful death statute as muder or manslaughter.

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2903.01, et seq. defines aggravated murder and other violent crimes, and applies to a person, defined as an “unborn member of the species homo sapiens, who is or was carried in the womb of another.”

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.07 relates to the death of or injury to an unborn child and provides penalties. The law defines an individual as a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.

Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-5-201, et seq. declares that a person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, causes the death of another human being, including an unborn child.
To be sure, many additional states have fetal homicide laws that are more restrictive, and apply only to “viable” fetuses. But the point is, fetuses are recognized as “persons” in the eyes of the law of many states.

Anonymous May 28, 2007 at 9:26 am

Wendy May 28, 2007 at 10:45 am

You have no grounds to deny our claim that our view is right by your own illogic.
Let’s recap… Your claim/view is that your view is right. Likewise, my neighbor claims/views that her view is right. You each presumably see what you claim to see, so I don’t deny either of you your claims/views. (Yet, it’s your view that I deny your claim/view. Go figure.) You and my neighbor each stand where you stand, but my neighbor doesn’t insist her view is superior or inferior to yours, just that it may be different. Do you insist your view is superior to hers?
is there any way to pass [i]any[/i] law prohibiting the killing of human beings (or human cellular tissue, if you prefer) without imposing some subjective, theological opinion about what is and is not human life?
In the U.S.A., laws are passed based on majority votes reflecting various opinions, often involving compromise.
why not draw the line at conception?
Because that was not the majority decision, either of the voters and/or the Supreme Court. After all, it’s not like it’s the Supreme Court of the Catholic Church or that U.S.A. is a Catholic nation.
You accept their propaganda against adoption.
I respect your view, but you don’t have the authority to know what I accept.
Take the amount of resources Pro-aborts spend in defending adoption versus defending abortion. The ratio of the first to the second is miniscule.
A “pro-abort” by definition is in the business of promoting abortion not defending adoption. Promoting adoption is the job of the pro-adopts.
You don’t want the unborn to have human rights, and are defending the government funding of the slaughter of the unborn.
You must have me confused with someone else. I’ve never said I want or don’t want the unborn to have human rights. My neighbor, the rabbi, tells me a fetus doesn’t have full human status until it’s born. Another neighbor, a Hindu, tells me anything from abortion is wrong to what does it matter. I love my neighbors. You are my neighbor too.
I have a simple answer to that: Science says so. The science of embryology has determined that the unborn children are human beings.
My neighbor is also a scientist. He says science is an investigative tool, not a brain which decides what anything means. Therefore, it is false to claim science has determined whatever you say. Furthermore, despite all that scientists may study, scientists have no particular authority to decide the meaning of “human being.”
Whether or not such laws “expressly exclude interpretation in respect to abortions” begs the question I raised, which was whether or not babies in the womb are persons in the eyes of the law, in view of various fetal homicide laws.
The issue is abortion, and the fetal homicide laws expressly exclude interpretation in respect to abortion and/or nonviable fetuses. If you seek to turn to those laws in respect to abortion or nonviable fetuses, they expressly do not support your claims, informing you that it is invalid for that interpretation.

Brian May 28, 2007 at 11:25 am

Let’s recap… Your claim/view is that your view is right. Likewise, my neighbor claims/views that her view is right. You each presumably see what you claim to see, so I don’t deny either of you your claims/views. (Yet, it’s your view that I deny your claim/view. Go figure.) You and my neighbor each stand where you stand, but my neighbor doesn’t insist her view is superior or inferior to yours, just that it may be different. Do you insist your view is superior to hers?
Let’s recap… You claim everyone’s worldview is valid as long as they don’t insist that their worldview is superior or inferior to anyone elses. That’s your worldview. You claim it is indeed superior to that of the Catholic who believes that morality is rooted in absolute truth and can be discerned through logic and reason. If your neighbor has the right to think whatever she wants, then Catholics have the right to think whatever they want. Yet you judge the Catholic view to be inferior. You are what you hate.
Relativist: Everyone can believe whatever they want.
Absolutist: I believe you are wrong.
Relativist: You can’t believe that. It’s not right.
Absolutist: You just said I can believe whatever I want.
Relativist: I meant you can believe what you want as long as you don’t judge.
Absolutist: You just judged my belief and called it wrong.

Cajun Nick May 28, 2007 at 11:29 am

I had tried to participate in this conversation with Wendy; however, I withdrew for a time to try to figure out where the conversation was going. I do not believe that this conversation will lead anywhere fruitful.
It is my view that all Wendy wants is to do is to engage people on this thread with meaningless banter.
For those of you who still have the patience to try some discourse with her – good luck.
(The above-stated view is entirely the view of Cajun Nick; it is not meant to be the view of Wendy or of any other poster here at J.A.org. If any of you feel that my view is wrong-headed, well, go tell that to Wendy. She has given me permission to hold any view that I want, and that’s okay. After all, who knows – my view might just be right. Or not.)

Cajun Nick May 28, 2007 at 11:31 am

Italics off.

Brian May 28, 2007 at 11:33 am

sorry that should be:
Let’s recap… Your claim/view is that your view is right. Likewise, my neighbor claims/views that her view is right. You each presumably see what you claim to see, so I don’t deny either of you your claims/views. (Yet, it’s your view that I deny your claim/view. Go figure.) You and my neighbor each stand where you stand, but my neighbor doesn’t insist her view is superior or inferior to yours, just that it may be different. Do you insist your view is superior to hers?
Let’s recap… You claim everyone’s worldview is valid as long as they don’t insist that their worldview is superior or inferior to anyone elses. That’s your worldview. You claim it is indeed superior to that of the Catholic who believes that morality is rooted in absolute truth and can be discerned through logic and reason. If your neighbor has the right to think whatever she wants, then Catholics have the right to think whatever they want. Yet you judge the Catholic view to be inferior. You are what you hate.
Relativist: Everyone can believe whatever they want.
Absolutist: I believe you are wrong.
Relativist: You can’t believe that. It’s not right.
Absolutist: You just said I can believe whatever I want.
Relativist: I meant you can believe what you want as long as you don’t judge.
Absolutist: You just judged my belief and called it wrong.

Leo May 28, 2007 at 11:40 am

I find the answers to the following questions quite interesting.
For everyone
When did I begin?
When did my right not to be killed begin?
For believers
When did God start to love me?
For Christians
When did the Incarnation begin?
I would answer ‘at fertilization’ (when a single new totipotent organism began), to all the above, rather than primitive streak formation, implantation, first trimester, viability, birth, language, starting to make moral evaluations, puberty or graduation.
If I believed in the moral permissibility of abortion up to eg birth, then I would have to say my mother had the moral right to abort me up until birth. As much as I love my mother, I do not believe that she has ever had the moral right to kill me (nor I her).

Wendy May 28, 2007 at 12:28 pm

You claim everyone’s worldview is valid as long as they don’t insist that their worldview is superior or inferior to anyone elses. That’s your worldview.
You may view that as my claim, but that is your view, your words and your claim. My words were, “You each presumably see what you claim to see, so I don’t deny either of you your claims/views.”
You claim it is indeed superior to that of the Catholic who believes that morality is rooted in absolute truth and can be discerned through logic and reason.
Again, though you profess to claim my view, it is both your claim and your view. Is it pleasing to hold that view? If not, why do you hold to your position? Would the view not be more pleasing to turn toward God than to stare at your own shadow? Who compels you to hold an unpleasant view of yourself?
When did God start to love me? … I would answer ‘at fertilization’
“He chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blemish before him. In love he destined us for adoption to himself through Jesus Christ, in accord with the favor of his will, for the praise of the glory of his grace that he granted us in the beloved.”
True fertilization. Abortable? “I say that my plan shall stand, I accomplish my every purpose.”

Leo May 28, 2007 at 12:44 pm

True fertilization. Abortable?
This would suggest that one cannot unjustly kill adults.
Nevertheless, Wendy, would you like to directly answer any of my questions?

Brian May 28, 2007 at 1:19 pm

“You claim it is indeed superior to that of the Catholic who believes that morality is rooted in absolute truth and can be discerned through logic and reason.”
Again, though you profess to claim my view…

Wendy, This statement is my summary of your quoted text. If I’ve summarized what you were saying incorrectly please give me a correct summary of what you were saying in that paragraph because I’ve obviously missed the point.
it is both your claim and your view.
I never said that your perspectives are superior to those of an orthodox Catholic. If you re-read my post you will see that: “If your neighbor has the right to think whatever she wants, then Catholics have the right to think whatever they want.”
Is it pleasing to hold that view? If not, why do you hold to your position?
I don’t hold any position relating to truth because I find it pleasing. I hold it because I believe it to be true regardless of how personally pleasing it is.
Would the view not be more pleasing to turn toward God than to stare at your own shadow?
The irony of this sentence is that relativism is staring at your own shadow. To believe in a God who exists apart from all creation is to believe in a Truth that originates in Him, not in men. If Truth comes from God, there can only be one Truth.
Who compels you to hold an unpleasant view of yourself?
I don’t hold an unpleasant view of myself. Who compels you to make false statements about others?

Wendy May 28, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Nevertheless, Wendy, would you like to directly answer any of my questions?
But I already have. If you missed my direct answer, it’s because your full attention wasn’t directed to my position. To guide you, I’ll ask you, where is your focus when you’re wanting an answer?

Leo May 28, 2007 at 1:36 pm

Wendy
For everyone
- When did I begin?
- When did my right not to be killed begin?
For believers
- When did God start to love me? – the only one you claim to have answered.
For Christians
- When did the Incarnation begin?

Wendy May 28, 2007 at 2:51 pm

If I’ve summarized what you were saying incorrectly please give me a correct summary of what you were saying in that paragraph because I’ve obviously missed the point.
The point is unless you are me, you don’t see my worldview and no amount of summarizing will accomplish that.
I never said that your perspectives are superior to those of an orthodox Catholic.
I never said you did. When I said “your claim”, I’m directly referring to the claim that you yourself spoke of. Again, I quote you, “You claim it is indeed superior to that of the Catholic who believes that morality is rooted in absolute truth and can be discerned through logic and reason.” The claim you spoke of was not my claim. It was your claim. You wrote that post. You asserted that was my position by saying it is my claim. Your assertion is your claim.
I don’t hold any position relating to truth because I find it pleasing. I hold it because I believe it to be true regardless of how personally pleasing it is.
I didn’t say personally pleasing. Do you always think on a personal level? When you speak of believing a position to be true, are you speaking of personal belief?
The irony of this sentence is that relativism is staring at your own shadow.
The irony would be if you don’t realize that was what I was saying.
To believe in a God who exists apart from all creation is to believe in a Truth that originates in Him, not in men. If Truth comes from God, there can only be one Truth.
Why should someone not believe there are 10 Goddesses and 12 Truths? If Truth is apart from you and what you say, why should anyone believe you and what you say?
I don’t hold an unpleasant view of myself. Who compels you to make false statements about others?
I didn’t say you did. If you are accusing, what compels you to accuse? Misunderstanding perhaps? The question was asked in the series which began with, “Is it pleasing to hold that view?” I didn’t say that view was unpleasant, or else why would I ask if it was pleasing.

Mary Ann May 28, 2007 at 2:54 pm

“Whether this heart, that heart, or every heart. No difference in my view.”
Not sure why you would refuse to answer a question directly. But you’re patient enough to answer lots of people, so I’ll try my HYPOTHETICAL question again.
Let’s get more specific and say, just for example, you’ve had a surgical abortion. That would mean that there had been a beating heart inside your body, other than your own. The abortion would have stopped that other beating heart.
What about THAT particular heart? Again, who did THAT particular heart belong to?

Wendy May 28, 2007 at 2:55 pm

Leo, you want others to answer questions about yourself, because, as you say, you “find the answers to the following questions quite interesting.” Is there a limit to the number of answers you can make up on your own? If not, you have an unlimited source of interest before you.

Mary May 28, 2007 at 2:56 pm

Would the view not be more pleasing to turn toward God than to stare at your own shadow?
If you chose your view because it pleases you, you are turning away from God and toward an idol.
You can not offer the Author of Truth the sacrifice of a lie.

Wendy May 28, 2007 at 2:57 pm

What about THAT particular heart? Again, who did THAT particular heart belong to?
I’ve already answered your question.
Whether this heart, that heart, THAT heart or every heart. Still no difference in my view.
Heart is heart.

Mary May 28, 2007 at 2:57 pm

I didn’t say personally pleasing. Do you always think on a personal level? When you speak of believing a position to be true, are you speaking of personal belief?
Because only people can experience pleasure, “pleasing” is necessary personal.
As for truth, you clearly believe that it is personal. We are trying to persuade you otherwise.

Mary May 28, 2007 at 2:59 pm

The point is unless you are me, you don’t see my worldview and no amount of summarizing will accomplish that.
By the same token, you don’t see ours.
Yet you feel free to criticize it.

Mary May 28, 2007 at 3:05 pm

I don’t hold an unpleasant view of myself. Who compels you to make false statements about others?
I didn’t say you did. If you are accusing, what compels you to accuse?

You asked “Who compels you to hold an unpleasant view of yourself?” and no one would consider that anything but saying he held such a view.
I note that you now add an “if”. I do not doubt that you will claim that is proof that you didn’t say he was accusing anyone.

Mary May 28, 2007 at 3:07 pm

Whether this heart, that heart, THAT heart or every heart. Still no difference in my view.
Heart is heart.

How lovely. So you want to have an abortion, and instead the doctor puts you into a coma and, when the baby is delivered, kills you. After all, it doesn’t matter which heart is stopped, because “heart is heart.”

Wendy May 28, 2007 at 3:07 pm

If you chose your view because it pleases you, you are turning away from God and toward an idol.
I didn’t say choose your view because it pleases you. But does Truth not please you?

Wendy May 28, 2007 at 3:11 pm

the doctor puts you into a coma and, when the baby is delivered, kills you
So? Whoever wants to save his life will lose it. I’m not concerned.

Mary Ann May 28, 2007 at 3:24 pm

What about THAT particular heart? Again, who did THAT particular heart belong to?
I’ve already answered your question.
Whether this heart, that heart, THAT heart or every heart. Still no difference in my view.
Heart is heart.
Does this mean that stopping a heart doesn’t matter? So what about your heart? Should it be legal for someone else to pay a doctor to stop your heart?

Mary Ann May 28, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Hey, Wendy, I’m just curious- have you ever seen a fetus via 3D or 4D ultrasound technology? Have you ever heard a fetal heartbeat?
When you said you “dance for joy”, it made me fondly remember when I saw my son Tad via ultrasound for the first time. He was just a little fetus then, about 8 weeks. And he was dancing for joy, too.

Brian May 28, 2007 at 3:40 pm

OOOOOHHHHHH…
Wendy I get it now. You don’t stare at your own shadow like a relativist. You look at God, but your God isn’t the one I’m used to. Your God is inside you. You’re not relativist, you’re gnostic. I thought we had that all cleared up in 325. Bless the Holy Spirit and Bless St. Athanasius. Unfortunately I don’t measure up to St. Athanasius and I’m going to follow Cajun Nick and bow out of this fight. I don’t know how he had the patience to deal with everyone when the whole Church was on the verge of going gnostic.

Wendy May 28, 2007 at 3:52 pm

Because only people can experience pleasure, “pleasing” is necessary personal.
Pleasing is (also) unto God. So when I asked, “Is it pleasing” that can mean both “Is it pleasing to Brian” as well as “Is it pleasing to God.”
As for truth, you clearly believe that it is personal.
What you say I “clearly believe” is but your own subjective view.
Yet you feel free to criticize it.
That is your own subjective interpretation.
You asked “Who compels you to hold an unpleasant view of yourself?” and no one would consider that anything but saying he held such a view.
You mean no one who can’t read. Simply read what is clear as the text on this page. I wrote, and I quote: “Is it pleasing to hold that view? If not, why do you hold to your position? Would the view not be more pleasing to turn toward God than to stare at your own shadow? Who compels you to hold an unpleasant view of yourself?”
Not only does the last question (“Who compels you to hold an unpleasant view of yourself?”) follow in series the first question (“Is it pleasing to hold that view?”) where I asked IF it was pleasing, but it also does not expressly refer to any specific view as you imply it does.
I note that you now add an “if”. I do not doubt that you will claim that is proof that you didn’t say he was accusing anyone.
I didn’t say he was accusing. I said, “IF”. Whether you see it as proof or not is your subjective interpretation.
So what about your heart? Should it be legal for someone else to pay a doctor to stop your heart?
I already answered. I’m not concerned.
have you ever seen a fetus via 3D or 4D ultrasound technology? Have you ever heard a fetal heartbeat?
Yes. It excites some people and not others.
You look at God, but your God isn’t the one I’m used to. Your God is inside you.
Really? How many Gods do you believe there are?

Mary Ann May 28, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Let’s get more specific and say, just for example, you’ve had an abortion.
What about THAT particular heart? Again, who did THAT particular heart belong to?
“Whether this heart, that heart, THAT heart or every heart. Still no difference in my view. Heart is heart.”
So what about your heart? Should it be legal for someone else to pay a doctor to stop your heart?
“I already answered. I’m not concerned.”
I ask for your patience, Wendy. I just don’t see how you answered my original question and considered a particular heart at all. Individual opinions clearly matter to you. So please consider the importance of an individual heart.
I repeat the original scenario.
Let’s get more specific and say, just for example, you’ve had an abortion.
What about THAT particular heart? Again, who did THAT particular heart belong to?

Mary Ann May 28, 2007 at 4:20 pm

have you ever seen a fetus via 3D or 4D ultrasound technology? Have you ever heard a fetal heartbeat?
“Yes. It excites some people and not others.”
Beyond exciting people, is the fetus human, Wendy?

Pipah!!! May 28, 2007 at 4:24 pm

Guys, she’s not concerned with murder laws anymore. (Even though she seemed to be before.) She doesn’t care if the law allows you to bump someone off.
Never mind the fact that this whole discussion’s been about whether or not different forms of murder should be legal … she is not concerned.
Leave it alone.

Wendy May 28, 2007 at 5:46 pm

Individual opinions clearly matter to you.
I grant you, they may in your opinion. You have an opinion as my neighbor has an opinion, for you are my neighbor.
I just don’t see how you answered my original question and considered a particular heart at all.
Why do you want special consideration for a particular heart?
Beyond exciting people, is the fetus human, Wendy?
Is that the test for humanity? An ultrasound picture? Is that how you decided if your children are human?
She doesn’t care if the law allows you to bump someone off.
Care: 1 : suffering of mind : GRIEF
2 a : a disquieted state of mixed uncertainty, apprehension, and responsibility b : a cause for such anxiety
Concern: to be a care, trouble, or distress to.
Compare with “Be joyful always.”
Never mind the fact that this whole discussion’s been about whether or not different forms of murder should be legal.
But abortion IS legal, so why aren’t you out “murdering”?

francis 03 May 28, 2007 at 5:54 pm

why not draw the line at conception?
Wendy answers: Because that was not the majority decision, either of the voters and/or the Supreme Court. After all, it’s not like it’s the Supreme Court of the Catholic Church or that U.S.A. is a Catholic nation.
So you’d be okay with it if the majority (either of the voters or of the Supreme Court) decided things the other way and completely banned every abortion? Are you okay with the majority’s current imposition of its opinions against killing newborns? What if the majority decided that question the other way? What if the majority decided to kill everyone with your hair color? Would that be okay with you?

Wendy May 28, 2007 at 5:57 pm

So you’d be okay with…
Joyful always!
What if…
So what. “Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself.”

Mary May 28, 2007 at 6:11 pm

Why do you want special consideration for a particular heart?
So if we track you down and kill you, that’s fine by you?

Mary May 28, 2007 at 6:13 pm

Yet you feel free to criticize it.
That is your own subjective interpretation.

Wendy, we speak English in this blog. Kindly start speaking it instead of whatever jargon you are using.
For instance, that assertion about “subjective interpretation” is objectively, criticism that you feel free to make.

francis 03 May 28, 2007 at 6:45 pm

All right Wendy, here’s something that really happened: a majority of Oklahoma representatives– in fact, a veto-proof majority– decided they didn’t want to pay for any more abortions. What do you think of that? Do you accept their view of things, or would you prefer to impose your own?

Anonymous May 28, 2007 at 6:55 pm

If there is a continued avoidance of answering questions – is ‘Wendy’ now trolling?

Mary May 28, 2007 at 7:15 pm

Was Wendy a troll all along?

Mary May 28, 2007 at 7:16 pm

Though, of course, even trolls have souls, and reading posts to retort to them may still have some effect.
We can pray.

Pipah!!! May 28, 2007 at 7:40 pm

But abortion IS legal, so why aren’t you out “murdering”?
I’m afraid that I do not know that I entirely grasp the meaning of your question, Ms. Sadek.
Many do murder. 1.4 million children are murdered by abortionists every year. As for me, I have no sons to pull limb-from-limb, no daughters to burn with saline.

Wendy May 28, 2007 at 8:01 pm

So if we track you down and kill you, that’s fine by you?
I accept what is and am not concerned with what is not.
For instance, that assertion about “subjective interpretation” is objectively, criticism that you feel free to make.
It’s your subjective belief that it’s objective, just as it’s your subjective interpretation as to what I allegedly “feel.”
What do you think of that? Do you accept their view of things, or would you prefer to impose your own?
What’s not to accept about what is? If that is their wish, then that is what it is. If someone has something to say on it, I accept it as what they have to say. I rejoice always. Even if it’s cancer or whatever.

Mary Ann May 28, 2007 at 8:59 pm

Beyond exciting people, is the fetus human, Wendy?
“Is that the test for humanity? An ultrasound picture? Is that how you decided if your children are human?”
Its more reliable than a changing dictionary and a changing court, no?

Mary Ann May 28, 2007 at 9:00 pm

have you ever seen a fetus via 3D or 4D ultrasound technology? Have you ever heard a fetal heartbeat?
“Yes. It excites some people and not others.”
It must excite you, Wendy, as you said, “I rejoice always”.

Mary Ann May 28, 2007 at 9:03 pm

I just don’t see how you answered my original question and considered a particular heart at all.
“Why do you want special consideration for a particular heart?”
I want special consideration for every particular heart. Why won’t you consider any particular heart?

Jared May 29, 2007 at 2:23 am

It’s your subjective belief that it’s objective, just as it’s your subjective interpretation as to what I allegedly “feel.”
That sounds distinctly like a statement that purports to be objective. In other words (uh oh, I feel a rubber-n-glue statement of my own coming up)… it is your subjective belief that this is a subjective belief.

francis 03 May 29, 2007 at 5:11 am

So Wendy, your position is that we should just accept everything the way it is, and not worry about trying to change it? I.e., we should all be okay with abortion being legal because it’s legal?

Tim J. May 29, 2007 at 5:57 am

Responding to Wendy’s Gnosto-babble is a waste of bandwidth.

Cajun Nick May 29, 2007 at 6:24 am

…I’m going to follow Cajun Nick and bow out of this fight. I don’t know how he had the patience to deal with everyone when the whole Church was on the verge of going gnostic.
Brian, I just read all the wonderful posters (like you) here at jimmyakin.org, and my patience comes back. ;)
(Actually I know that you’re talking about St. Athanasius; but I had to re-read your post. I thought you were talking about me! who has so little patience.)

Tim J. May 29, 2007 at 6:53 am

I should clarify by saying that I don’t think “Wendy” is looking for honest debate or discussion as it is known on this planet.
There may be others who could benefit form seeing her nonsense exposed for what it is, though. So, for you intrepid combox commandos who have the stomach for it… my hat’s off to you.
I just have a very low personal tolerance for that kind of sophomoric twaddle.

BobCatholic May 29, 2007 at 7:10 am

>He says science is an investigative tool, not a brain which decides what anything means.
Interesting.
So basically there are no objective standards, just opinions.
This is relativism.

BobCatholic May 29, 2007 at 7:14 am

>I should clarify by saying that I don’t think “Wendy” is looking for honest debate or discussion as it is known on this planet.
I agree. She’s preaching relativism, in order to justify abortion.
Someone really needs to read Peter Kreeft’s demolishing of moral relativism. The guy is a genius at doing so.

Eileen R May 29, 2007 at 7:35 am

Aha! I was suspecting gnosticism as soon as the “cancer is not bad” came up. Looks like I was right.
This whole discussion reminds me of the time a gnostic on radio started claiming that the Holocaust and Rwanda were actually only illusions of evil, and manifestations of spiritual translation according to the secret knowledge. For once, the interviewer was flabbergasted.
“But aren’t these things bad?”
“Only if you want to see them as bad.”
Wendy, mind you, is at the shallow end of the gnostic apologetics pool, but it’s the same idea.

Pipah!!! May 29, 2007 at 7:43 am

Yeah. I’m pretty sure this is either Wendy’s blog, or at least a teacher of hers.
If I did the link wrong go here and laugh: http://sophia-sadek.livejournal.com/

Mary Kay May 29, 2007 at 8:20 am

Pipah, that blog doesn’t sound (to me) like the Wendy posting here. I followed the trail to another site which only reinforced how glad I am to be in the safety of the barque of Peter. Yikes, there’s some weird stuff out there.

BobCatholic May 29, 2007 at 8:25 am

>”Only if you want to see them as bad.”
Interesting, eh? Relativism is meant to shut down thinking.
In the 18th century, we’ve had intellectuals try to create a secular way of thinking based on rational thinking, logic and reasoning, without any theistic religious content whatsoever. So once they jettisoned theistic religion, they were able to “think for oneself” as they claim. Their rallying call “Reject theistic religion and think for yourself!”
Now we see people jettisoning reason, logic and rational thinking, IN ADDITION to jettisoning theistic religion. And the result? A new religion, secular, devoid of moral content, devoid of any thinking whatsoever. Basically speaking, thinking is being shut down. Not by theistic religious zealots, but by this new atheistic religion.
Now the ironic part about this: The only ones now defending rational thinking, reasoning and logic, are theistic religous people! Mainly Catholics. But their rallying call is “Don’t be afraid to think!” :)
I love watching the show, as those who have no moorings tell those who do, to give up their moorings :)

Suzanne May 29, 2007 at 9:10 am

I have been out of the loop on vacation, and haven’t read all the posts here but wanted you to know that Oklahoma Democratic Senators Rebecca Hamilton and Jay Paul Gumm co authored this bill. The Democratic party gave them a very hard time about it and tried to formally censure them. They have been practically ousted from their own party due to making this courageous stand against abortion.

Anonymous May 29, 2007 at 10:15 am

it is your subjective belief that this is a subjective belief.
Whose subjective belief is that?
So Wendy, your position is that we should just accept everything the way it is, and not worry about trying to change it?
That’s up to you and God.
I.e., we should all be okay with abortion being legal because it’s legal?
Those are your words. Acceptance does not mean you have to sit around eating bon bons while babies are aborted. But if that is what you do, I accept that is what you do. Likewise, if you want to stand in front of abortion clinics waving signs or voting what you believe is right, I accept that is what you want to do.
I just have a very low personal tolerance for that kind of sophomoric twaddle.
I accept your twaddle for what it is.
So basically there are no objective standards, just opinions. This is relativism.
This is your opinion.
I agree. She’s preaching relativism, in order to justify abortion.
BobCatholic is practicing relativism, in order to justify himself.
I was suspecting gnosticism as soon as the “cancer is not bad” came up. Looks like I was right.
Whose words are those? Cancer IS bad, in the minds of many people. But apart from the subjective view of their minds, cancer is neither good nor bad. It’s like a hurricane. Many may say it’s bad, but apart from their opinions, the hurricane is neither bad nor good.
Wendy, mind you, is at the shallow end of the gnostic apologetics pool, but it’s the same idea.
Eileen’s reflection in the shallow end of her own mind.
Relativism is meant to shut down thinking.
Has your opinion shut down your thinking?

Wendy May 29, 2007 at 10:16 am

Guess who!

Esau May 29, 2007 at 10:20 am

Guess who!
Who is only a what that is not what another is.

BobCatholic May 29, 2007 at 11:53 am

>So basically there are no objective standards, just opinions. This is relativism.
This is your opinion.
======
Thank you for proving my point.
>BobCatholic is practicing relativism, in order to justify himself.
I don’t practice relativismbecause it cannot be practiced.

Jared May 29, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Does anyone think that the lurkers who haven’t followed this from the beginning are actually going to read it? As one who has read this from the beginning, it’s gotten really … boring, to see Wendy’s … the word “antics” would suggest something amusing (which was true in the beginning, but no longer) … “acting out” is probably a better turn of phrase. She has, in fact, appeared to alter her personality (or personalities) faster than the winds in the skyscraper canyons of Chicago.
I’m done for now. The boredom of the endless “rubber-and-glue” retort is too much to bear and I have a cross-country move to prepare for.
BTW, someone mentioned Kreeft’s Refutation of Moral Relativism earlier. It’s a very good read. If you want to read an interview with a smart relativist, you should read that instead of the … stuff … that Wendy’s dishing out.

BobCatholic May 29, 2007 at 12:33 pm
BobCatholic May 29, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Paul May 29, 2007 at 1:27 pm

I don’t practice relativismbecause it cannot be practiced.
Now you sound like Wendy.

BobCatholic May 29, 2007 at 1:43 pm

>Now you sound like Wendy.
Now, now, no need to be insulting, Paul :)
Relativism cannot be practiced, because in order to practice something, you need to have objective standards to do so.
Tell me step by step instructions on how to practice relativism. The minute you do, you’ve refuted relativism by providing me with an objective standard (the step-by-step instructions). Thus, I can’t practice relativism, because there’s no way to do so without refuting it.

Paul May 29, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Then we shall not accuse others of practicing relativism.

BobCatholic May 29, 2007 at 1:58 pm

I don’t accuse anyone of PRACTICING relativism.
I accuse them of PREACHING it.
Since relativism cannot be practiced, and relativists preach it, they don’t practice what they preach and thus are hypocrites.

Wendy May 29, 2007 at 1:58 pm

Then people who abort aren’t practicing moral relativism.

BobCatholic May 29, 2007 at 2:03 pm

>Then people who abort aren’t practicing moral relativism.
No they are not. But they are practicing evil.
And pro-aborts preach relativism to justify it.

Wendy May 29, 2007 at 2:07 pm

No they are not. But they are practicing evil.
Evil is always relative to good.

BobCatholic May 29, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Evil is the absence of good – they are opposites, not relative. Get rid of good, only evil exists.
Abortion is murder.

Wendy May 29, 2007 at 2:13 pm

Evil is the absence of good – they are opposites, not relative.
You just defined evil in relation to good. You did not define evil in the absence of good. Opposites is a relationship.

Tim J. May 29, 2007 at 2:18 pm

Wendy, what is the sound of one hand clapping?
If a tree falls in a forest and lands on a gnostic, does anyone care?
If a chicken-and-a-half can lay an egg-and-a-half in a day-and-a-half, how many grasshoppers would it take to kick the seeds out of a dill pickle, Grasshopper? Ahhh…
I reached Inner Enlightenment and all I got was this lousy t-shirt…

Esau May 29, 2007 at 2:19 pm

Then people who abort aren’t practicing moral relativism.
What is “abort” and who says people are practicing it if it is but an illusion made real by those who perceive it to be?
Wendy and the Gnostic bunch yet again!

Esau May 29, 2007 at 2:25 pm

You just defined evil in relation to good. You did not define evil in the absence of good. Opposites is a relationship.
When it comes to good and evil, Wendy is just indifferent!
Wendy,
What is ‘good’ that you should call it ‘good’?
What is ‘evil’ that you should call it ‘evil’?
What is ‘BobCatholic’ that you should call him ‘BobCatholic’?
What sound do keystrokes make in the absence of a keyboard?
What falls but never breaks?
What breaks but never falls?

Wendy May 29, 2007 at 2:49 pm

When it comes to good and evil, Wendy is just indifferent!
Translation: I am not different when it comes to labels.
I’m not changed by a label.

BobCatholic May 29, 2007 at 2:49 pm

Before you can define “evil” you need to know what is “good”
Before you can define “good” you need to know what is “evil”
If there are no moral absolutes, you cannot define either good nor evil, thus you cannot say “good is relative to evil” as you can’t define either side of the equation.
Logic is a fun thing. Something sorely missing in relativism.

Esau May 29, 2007 at 2:55 pm

I’m not changed by a label.
What is “label”?
Does “label” itself carry any meaning than the one who uses it?
How can you be changed by something that is but an illusion brought about by your perception of what “label” is?
Translation: I am not different when it comes to labels.
Why need for a “translation”?
For that is not relevant to what I believe a “translation” to be.
Why do you say you are not “different” when you do not even know what “different” is?

Wendy May 29, 2007 at 3:09 pm

If there are no moral absolutes, you cannot define either good nor evil, thus you cannot say “good is relative to evil” as you can’t define either side of the equation.
When I say A = B, I haven’t defined either side of the equation as first or last.
“Many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.”

Esau May 29, 2007 at 3:12 pm

When I say A = B, I haven’t defined either side of the equation as first or last.
But what is “A”?
What is “B”?

Wendy May 29, 2007 at 3:14 pm

How can you be changed by something that is but an illusion brought about by your perception of what “label” is?
Who said I can be changed?
Why need for a “translation”?
I am not in need. Are you?
For that is not relevant to what I believe a “translation” to be.
To whom is your opinion relevant?
Why do you say you are not “different” when you do not even know what “different” is?
Do you know what I know?

Mary Ann May 29, 2007 at 3:15 pm

I just don’t see how you answered my original question and considered a particular heart at all.
“Why do you want special consideration for a particular heart?”
I want special consideration for every particular heart. Why wouldn’t you consider any particular heart? Furthermore, why have you avoided addressing the particular heart in my hypothetical situation so far?
I repeat the original scenario again…
Let’s get more specific and say, just for example, you’ve had an abortion.
What about THAT particular heart? Again, who did THAT particular heart belong to?

Kasia May 29, 2007 at 3:16 pm

I think Wendy’s been reading too much Richard Bach.

Mary Ann May 29, 2007 at 3:17 pm

Beyond exciting people, is the fetus human, Wendy?
“Is that the test for humanity? An ultrasound picture? Is that how you decided if your children are human?”
Its more reliable than a changing dictionary and a changing court, no?
Thanks for your patience and your joyful dance, Wendy. I’d still like your answers to these questions, too.

Esau May 29, 2007 at 3:17 pm

Who said I can be changed?
Who said what is “change”?
I am not in need. Are you?
What “need” is there that there should be a word “need”?
To whom is your opinion relevant?
Who is “whom” to which is what an opinion is?
Do you know what I know?
To know is not what is to which is what will be.

Wendy May 29, 2007 at 3:18 pm

But what is “A”? What is “B”?
What do you relate to them?

Esau May 29, 2007 at 3:19 pm

What do you relate to them?
What is the “relate” to be when it is not what you think it is?

BobCatholic May 29, 2007 at 3:19 pm

>When I say A = B, I haven’t defined either side of the equation as first or last.
You are saying both A and B have an identical value, while at the same time claiming that A or B have no set value. Then how can you say A=B?
When I say that good is the opposite of evil, that’s G=-E. If I can’t define the absolute values of G or E (due to relativism) – I cannot define the equation or relationship between the two variables.
Before making an equation, one requires absolute values.
Like for example let’s take the following (A,B) coordinates on a plane: (2,4) (4,8) (8,16) (30, 60) (50,100) and so on, one can say the equation is A=2B. If you have no absolute values whatsoever, then the equation cannot be determined.
I love it when someone uses math (an absolute science) to try to prove relativism :)

Wendy May 29, 2007 at 3:20 pm

I’d still like your answers to these questions, too.
“The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want.”

Esau May 29, 2007 at 3:21 pm

“The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want.”
Why is there “want” when it is you shall not?
What is a Shepherd when he can be Lord?

Mary Ann May 29, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Individual opinions clearly matter to you.
“I grant you, they may in your opinion. You have an opinion as my neighbor has an opinion, for you are my neighbor.”
As I am your neighbor, is the fetus in my body (cute little boy) also a neighbor to you? This fetus has measurable brain waves, and may have opinions of his own. Would his opinions count as the opinion of your neighbor?

Mary Ann May 29, 2007 at 3:31 pm

“Is that the test for humanity? An ultrasound picture? Is that how you decided if your children are human?”
Its more reliable than a changing dictionary and a changing court, no?
Thanks for your patience and your joyful dance, Wendy. I’d still like your answers to these questions, too.
“The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want.”
Psalm 23:1 is only a partial and oblique answer.
You have not directly answered any of my questions.
Is the LORD the shepherd of a fetus growing in my body or yours?

Brian May 29, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Now I know what Hell is like. Imagine if C.S. Lewis had never gotten on the bus in the Great Divorce and he used the book to described Hell instead of Heaven. I guarantee you, his last chapter would be Esau and Wendy going back and forth exactly like they are now.

Esau May 29, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Brian,
I’m just trying to make a point.
No need to slander me in the process.

Wendy May 29, 2007 at 3:44 pm

Who said what is “change”?
Who said anything?
What is the “relate” to be when it is not what you think it is?
What ‘the “relate”‘ is.
one can say the equation is A=2B. If you have no absolute values whatsoever, then the equation cannot be determined.
The equation is A=2B. An equation is an assertion of a relationship. “One can SAY the equation is A=2B.”
I love it when someone uses math (an absolute science) to try to prove relativism
Math is about relationships. An equation is an assertion of a relationship.
This fetus has measurable brain waves, and may have opinions of his own. Would his opinions count as the opinion of your neighbor?
When he can give an opinion, his opinion can be considered.
You have not directly answered any of my questions.
Have you tried direct listening?

Esau May 29, 2007 at 3:47 pm

Who said anything?
Anything is what anybody is saying.
What ‘the “relate”‘ is.
…is only what it seems to be.

Brian May 29, 2007 at 3:48 pm

Esau, I’m very sorry. I didn’t mean to say that you or Wendy personally would be in Hell. I know what you’re doing. You’re showing the absurdity of Wendy’s logic. I meant that the way you’re going back and forth over the meaning of words is like the ultimate conclusion of Lewis’s picture of Hell where each man defines his own reality apart from God.

Wendy May 29, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Anything is what anybody is saying.
Are you anything?
…is only what it seems to be.
“Anything is what anybody is saying.”
You’re showing the absurdity of Wendy’s logic.
Through the absurdity of his own.

Mary Ann May 29, 2007 at 3:56 pm

This fetus has measurable brain waves, and may have opinions of his own. Would his opinions count as the opinion of your neighbor?
“When he can give an opinion, his opinion can be considered.”
Would he still count as your neighbor, this wonderful fetus?

Esau May 29, 2007 at 3:57 pm

Are you anything?
Anything that is a thing.
“Anything is what anybody is saying.”
For that is “who” is saying it.
Through the absurdity of his own.
Absurdity is as absurdity does.

Wendy May 29, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Are you anything? Anything that is a thing.
If a potato be a thing and you be anything that is a thing, are you a potato?
Would he still count as your neighbor, this wonderful fetus?
Will it require a blood sacrifice to bring him to the table?

Esau May 29, 2007 at 4:06 pm

If a potato be a thing and you be anything that is a thing, are you a potato?
What is a ‘potato’ but your definition of it?
What is a thing but the thing you make it out to be?

Mary Ann May 29, 2007 at 4:07 pm

This fetus has measurable brain waves, and may have opinions of his own. Would his opinions count as the opinion of your neighbor?
“When he can give an opinion, his opinion can be considered.”
Just remembered how my first son gave opinions in utero. Here’s one example-
As a music student, I’d take him to jazz concerts, big band especially. He would move differently, with LOTS of kicks, when the trumpets came in… I couldn’t say then what his movements meant. I wasn’t able to understand his expression.
Now he loves trumpet and can’t wait to study it. He was dancing for joy as a fetus, just like you dance now.
Unborn people give opinions all the time, but are we always listening or able to understand them?
Has anyone else had similar experiences with their children in utero? I’d love to hear from other people, in addition to Wendy.

David B. May 29, 2007 at 5:01 pm

I said; I ask you: are these not selfish reasons to destroy innocent human life!?!
Wendy responded: “Not necessarily. For example, “Want to postpone childbearing” or many of the other responses could be, as I already mentioned, because the mother was unsure, was mentally ill”
Abortion of the baby of a mentally women is illegal.
“or she felt she wasn’t worthy or capable of raising a child.”
Adoption is the only legitimate answer. Not murder. In that case, it’s not “utter selfishness”

David B. May 29, 2007 at 5:36 pm

Wendy’s basic argument, AFAIK, is that no one knows when human life begins. for a moment, put aside the arguments. As the anti-Irag war folks said, if you aren’t sure, don’t do it. Likewise, one should not destory what he/she is unsure is not human.
Attempting to define when one is human has resulted in many arguments. The fact is that a human is not human because he looks human sound human, expresses himself, etc.
A human is human because he is the offspring of a man and woman. He is the ‘stuff’ of his parents, not an accidental result of sex. He was either human from the beginning, or he would never become human. A parasite cannot transformed into a intelligent being. Ever.

Wendy May 29, 2007 at 5:38 pm

Abortion of the baby of a mentally [ill] women is illegal.
The practictioner might not be aware the woman is mentally ill, nor might the woman herself. And if abortion is not a rational choice, then it is an irrational choice.

Mary May 29, 2007 at 5:47 pm

Through the absurdity of his own.
Wendy is nothing new.
G.K. Chesterton complained of people who claimed that their opponents’ use of reductio ad Absurdum proved their opponents were the ones who were absurd.

Wendy May 29, 2007 at 5:58 pm

Wendy is nothing new. G.K. Chesterton complained of people who claimed that their opponents’ use of reductio ad Absurdum proved their opponents were the ones who were absurd.
I don’t claim any such thing has been proved by anyone. If people want to complain, I don’t care.

David B. May 29, 2007 at 6:05 pm

Wendy said:
The practictioner might not be aware the woman is mentally ill, nor might the woman herself.
Doctor are required to do a mental health evaluation if they want to avoid going to jail for killing a mentally ill women’s baby.
And if abortion is not a rational choice, then it is an irrational choice.
Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wendy May 29, 2007 at 6:08 pm

Doctor are required to do a mental health evaluation if they want to avoid going to jail for killing a mentally ill women’s baby.
Mental health evaluations don’t reveal all cases of mental illness for what they may be.

David B. May 29, 2007 at 6:17 pm

Mental health evaluations don’t reveal all cases of mental illness for what they may be.
True. but you admit that it does reveal mental illness: “…evaluations don’t reveal all cases of mental illness for what they may be.”

Wendy May 29, 2007 at 6:26 pm

but you admit that it does reveal mental illness: “…evaluations don’t reveal all cases of mental illness for what they may be.”
It may reveal some or not.

Tim J. May 29, 2007 at 6:40 pm

I’m disappointed you didn’t answer my dill pickle question, Wendy. :-(

Wendy May 29, 2007 at 6:41 pm

I’m always up for a disappointment.

Anon May 30, 2007 at 7:14 am

Once again, nothing to add except to be sure that the ninny doesn’t get the last word. Because I know it will bug her.

Studdunker May 30, 2007 at 7:31 am

I think this argument just reflects the state of our society. When you give up having a moral baseline(ie judeo-christian ethics) you can argue that an unborn baby is not alive and it is acceptable to kill it. May God have mercy on each one of us for our part in allowing this to happen.

Mary Kay May 30, 2007 at 8:59 am

Anon, with most trolls, I’d agree with you. But in this case, I thought that Wendy’s line about being “always up for a disappointment” was the perfect ending to this er, um, “discussion.”
Studdunker, amen.

Anon May 30, 2007 at 9:40 am

Sorry, Mary Kay. I just know that this Wendy character (and maybe that’s the best word for her, since I wonder if relativists truly exist) would get mad knowing that she didn’t have the last word.
And, if she now posts, she automatically proves me right :) )) And she proves her concern for SOMETHING, even if only her own ego. So it’s win-win.

David B. May 30, 2007 at 1:28 pm

“It may reveal some or not.”
Wendy,
The fact it that a doctor cannot abort a mentally ill women’s baby. Whether or not he thinks she is mentally ill is irrelevent.
You take relativism to an all-time extreme.

BobCatholic May 30, 2007 at 2:00 pm

And now y’all know why relativism stops people from thinking. We’ve seen how logically weak the relativists’ arguments are, even in this place.

Esau May 30, 2007 at 2:03 pm

I’m always up for a disappointment.
Wendy,
Why “disappointed”?
“Disappointment” is only an illusion perceived by she who is not.

Karen May 30, 2007 at 2:11 pm

“Disappointment” is only an illusion perceived by she who is not.
I thought you were a man, but maybe you are not. ;)

Esau May 30, 2007 at 2:15 pm

What is not is not as important as what is for what is tells what is not until what is not becomes what it is.

Esau May 30, 2007 at 2:23 pm

I thought you were a man, but maybe you are not. ;)
HEY, Karen! I can prove it to you if you want! ;^) (j/k)

Mary May 30, 2007 at 7:06 pm

Doctor are required to do a mental health evaluation if they want to avoid going to jail for killing a mentally ill women’s baby.
Have you a shred of evidence for this being the law?
And given that abortionists kill the babies of underage girls, without reporting the statuatory rape, in fact destroying the evidence that could convict, and get away with it, I doubt that its being against the law would stop them.

Mary Ann May 30, 2007 at 9:10 pm

Would he still count as your neighbor, this wonderful fetus?
“Will it require a blood sacrifice to bring him to the table?”
No, he comes with me, his Mama. As a courtesy to me, I ask that you do not answer the following question with another question.
Is he (the dancing, thumb-sucking, adorable fetus in my womb) your neighbor?

Mary Ann May 30, 2007 at 10:06 pm

Wendy, I need your kindness and patience in understanding your position.
Here’s a partial list of questions I’ve given you in this discussion.
My first post, (includes some pertinent background)-
Wendy, if you doubt the humanity of unborn people, I suggest you rely on ultrasound technology above the dictionary. Have you seen the heartbeat and moving body of a child/fetus inside you? And don’t you understand what happens when that body is forcibly removed with surgical instruments and toxic chemicals? That beating heart, a heart every bit as unique as yours, is stopped. Forever. If that heart belonged to a human being, that human being was murdered. If that heart didn’t belong to a human being, what did that heart belong to?
To all this, you answered with a question-
“Who does every human heart belong to?”
I responded with this-
Let’s get more specific and say, just for example, you’ve had an abortion. What about THAT particular heart? Again, who did THAT particular heart belong to?
But, again, you did not face the question of the hypothetical scenario-
“Whether this heart, that heart, or every heart. No difference in my view.”
So, I politely reminded you that you had not answered my question and said-
I just don’t see how you answered my original question and considered a particular heart at all.
Again, you answered with a question-
“Why do you want special consideration for a particular heart?”
When I tried again, you only stated “I already answered. I’m not concerned.”
So I politely requested this-
I’d still like your answers to these questions, too.
You responded with the following. And I’m not sure why.
“The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want.”
I would like to point out to you that have not faced my sincere questions but rather answered them with questions or statements simply asserting you answered questions. I realize that I’m asking a lot from you in terms of patience. Clearly you may be more intelligent than I am, so I need you to make yourself more clear…
If I had to choose one area for you to focus on in our conversation, I would politely request, again, that this (hypothetical) scenario be addressed by you in a direct manner.
Here goes-
Let’s get more specific and say, just for example, you’ve had an abortion. What about THAT particular heart? Again, who did THAT particular heart belong to?

Previous post:

Next post: