GET THE STORY!
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live." View all posts by Jimmy Akin
Deo Gratias!
Time to redouble our prayers and continue to turn back the culture of death
And in these dark days, a little glimmer of light…
Finally!
This article repeatedly states that abortion is actually enshrined in your constitution. Is this true? If so, would someone mind pointing me to the amendment that established it because I, being Johnny Foreigner, really had no idea it was a constitutional right.
In anycase, this good news is quite timely to match the good news from the UK that abortion rates are falling into near crisis here, due to the ever increasing numbers of doctors refusing to perform them. Of course, this will probably just lead to widening of the rules for who can administer one instead of abolitioning or downsizing but every victory is a good one.
Justice Kennedy voted with the majority? Amazing.
Deo Gratias
UK Medic, it’s not in their constitution by way of an actual amendment. The Supreme Court read it in as part of the right to privacy. *rolls eyes*
UK Medic,
As you may have suspected, it’s not ‘enshrined’ in our written Constitution. It was declared a part of a larger Constitutional ‘right to privacy’ by judicial fiat in 1973. (In addition to a written constitution, we also have considerable case law and precedent that governs interpretation of our Constitution.)
I’d heard the good news about your declining abortion availability – Deo gratias! I had rather thought that the government would respond by making abortions a mandatory function for medical licensing, but your prediction seems more likely. We over here will certainly be praying for you as well.
There is also no mention of a “right to privacy” in the Constitution.
Justice Kennedy voted with the majority? Amazing.
It’s not that amazing. Kennedy did, after all, write a very forceful dissent in Stenberg v. Carhart, the case in which the majority struck down the Nebraska PBA ban.
Arguments for Roe v. Wade were based on a case called Griswald v. Connecticut in 1965dealing with the issue of artificial birth control.
Is it not true that 4 of the judges in the majority are Roman Catholic?
YEE-HAW! It’s about time the Supreme Court stopped axing laws passed by our dully elected congressional representatives and started letting the legislature do its job in passing laws. I know that this victory was only achieved by a slight majority, but it is still a victory nonetheless, and hopefully will set precedent for other such victories in the days to come.
Still, I feel I must remark on how overly biased and factually incorrect the linked article is. Not only does it refer to “a woman’s constitutional right” to have an abortion, but it also states that: “It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure . . . ” Well, as far as I can tell, the court did not ban a specific procedure. It is not the court’s job to do that, nor did they do so in this instance. It was, in fact, the *legislature* that banned this ungodly, barbarous procedure; the court merely opted, in this case, to let the legislature do its job in passing laws and not interfere with the law-making process. Good for them.
It is too bad that the author of this article is so mentally deficient that he cannot tell the difference between the two. It is a shame that such disreputable characters are allowed to work in the field of journalism at all; the author of this article is truly deserving of the titles lib-tard, Dummycrat, and all those other instances of petty name-calling that I usually so abhor.
I’m not surprised at all by four, but I’m really glad about Kennedy!
Pat:
Actually, all five in the majority are Catholic.
My favorite excerpt from the decision is from Justice Thomas:
“I write separately to reiterate my view that the court’s abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, has no basis in the Constitution.”
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
All five justices in the majority are indeed Catholic. I’ve been reading quite a few of their opinions in my consitutional law class this year and Scalia and Thomas are the most consistent in deciding cases from a Catholic viewpoint. Not to mention that Scalia can be downright funny in some of his dissents 🙂
Praise be to God for a small but hopefully significant victory in the ongoing war between the culture of life and the culture of death. Let us take a moment to give thanks, and then re-double our prayers for the much bigger step of overturning Roe v. Wade (or as Jimmy calls it, “the evil decision”). Even that huge step would be only the beginning of a new phase of this war, not by any means the end of the war, but it is a huge and necessary step nonetheless.
I’d also like to quote something that Domenico Bettinelli said on his blog today:
“Voting in the majority to uphold the law banning the murder of a child that is mostly outside his mother were Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion. Six lower courts had ruled against this or similar state laws. In 2000, the Supreme Court had upheld those previous rulings, but now that Alito and Roberts are on the bench, the outcome was different. This is why we elected Bush, not once but twice.” (quoted from http://www.bettnet.com)
Think what you want about President Bush (and personally my feelings about him are very mixed), but he apparently has delivered the goods when it comes to appointing good justices to the Supreme Court, which arguably is one of the very most important duties of a president in America’s current climate of runaway judicial activism.
Again, praise be to God for a small victory in this ongoing war. Lord, have mercy on us, and grant us the grace to repent from abortion, and to protect all life, from conception to natural death. Amen.
The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.
…
The decision pitted the court’s conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush’s two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.
Okay — now wait a minute, I thought that the President and the Republican Party were politicians who call themselves pro-life but support abortion and, thus, don’t deserve the title?
Think what you want about President Bush (and personally my feelings about him are very mixed), but he apparently has delivered the goods when it comes to appointing good justices to the Supreme Court, which arguably is one of the very most important duties of a president in America’s current climate of runaway judicial activism.
A-M-E-N, Paul H.!
I, myself, have VERY mixed feelings about the President, but when it comes to matters Pro-Life, I believe he’s made major contributions to the Pro-Life effort — especially considering the heavy opposition he constantly faces because of his adamant stand on such issues (e.g., stem cell research as well).
Of course this is a good decision, but it’s not going to prevent many (or any?) abortions. Justice Ginsburg is on target when she says that it’s strange that the first issue the majority brings up is the state’s interest in protecting fetal life, while at the same time treating the statute itself as intended not to protect fetal life per se but instead just the sensibilities of doctors and people who find intact D&Es aesthetically yucky.
The upshot: the majority edges close to saying that the state’s interest in protecting fetal life can at least sometimes outweigh a woman’s interest in an abortion (heath or otherwise), but then decides the case on unrelated technical grounds that make its initial rhetoric seem irrelevant. The most likely course is that Congress (or more likely the states at this point) will try further regulations based on their interest in fetal life, and see how far Justice Kennedy is willing to let them push it.
Planned Parenthood’s website is asking for donations to fight this.
1 Peter 5:10-11 makes me think of what to expect from the other side. Methinks I hear the roaring lion getting a little bit louder.
Some good news for a change.
I haven’t been following the arguments closely – not being American – but isn’t the point of the Partial Birth Abortion ban that PBA is actually legally infanticide, not abortion? Anyone know?
Planned Parenthood’s website is asking for donations to fight this.
How? By appealing to the Super-Duper-Even-Higher Supreme Court?!
OK, so I’m very ignorant of these things. But if Clinton signed something into law, and then Bush made it go away, then can the next president make Bush’s making go away, go away? Of course, then I assume it would have to go to the courts if the next president did that, right?
Sorry for asking a basic question, but I don’t really know much about our government. Instead of reading the things like the Constitution, or Declaration of Independence growing up, my public school teachers had me reading the Communist Manifesto and were busy proving God didn’t exist (while defending no religion in school.)
This is a reversal of the 2000 PBA decision, and a reversal of many apellate court decisions, and also what we want to with Roe v. Wade. Ah, the shifting sands of the Supreme Court. Thank God we have a higher, truly authoritive Truth, and a visible, identifiable Church to proclaim it.
DJ,
I’m not sure I fully understand your question. What did Bush make go away that Clinton signed into law?
The (very) basic process is: Congress passes a law. The President either signs it into law or vetoes it. Let’s say Clinton signs it into law. Then it’s a law, and the remedies are to either have Congress change it *or* have a court challenge. Bush can’t undo Clinton’s having signed it into law.
Make sense?
When you go to their site you get
Breaking News
Donate Now as Planned Parenthood Mobilizes in Response to the Supreme Court’s Reckless Decision
and then a Donate button.
Presumably, you don’t even need to know what Planned Parenthood is planning to do to respond before you donate.
Here is the Supreme Court document from today.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf
How you guys claim the Republican party is justified in killing innocent children selectively?
Thanks Rob in Maine!
Supreme Court Document
So does this mean that the act has had force since 2003?
Do we get to put all abortionists who performed PBAs since 2003 on trial now? Or does it take effect now in 2007?
When do we get to start putting murderers in jail?
It would take effect now, I believe. It would be very unjust, even for these people, if they could be tried for something the courts said was legal.
How you guys claim the Republican party is justified in killing innocent children selectively?
It’s another incoherent troll!
Kasia:
So, how did the allowance of PBA come into place? And then the ban on it which is credited to Bush? Both through Congress?
It would take effect now, I believe. It would be very unjust, even for these people, if they could be tried for something the courts said was legal.
I don’t believe that this ruling would have that retroactive effect, especially since the law read it as being legal at the time.
In a quote from a Yahoo News piece, Justice Ginsburg “said the latest decision ‘tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.'”
Um . . . yeah. Sorta like pro-aborts have tolerated & applauded the federal intervention, in the form of judicial tyranny, in 1973 that superseded state’s rights to make laws regarding abortion for over 30 years now?
Justice Ginsburg, your liberal is showing.
DJ, nothing was allowed in the first place. The practice was undertaken by abortionists and presumed legal by them, just another form of abortion. When it became known publicly, various legislatures enacted bans.
a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
What are these cases supposed to be? I’ve never seen any presented. Usually, the tactic seems to be “If you ban Partial Birth Abortion, you are magically banning all D&E abortions.”
“It’s another incoherent troll!”
So are you an apologist for the pro-abortionists?
Thanks Eileen. I think I understand now.
Debate for the sake of those who are honestly questioning can be fruitful.
Debate with Planned Parenthood is futile. Time to pray and fast in intercession for conversion. The only way to cast out certain demons.
So are you an apologist for the pro-abortionists?
Just as you are an apologist for genocide!
So are you an apologist for the pro-abortionists?
Anon, you obviously don’t get it. No one understands what you’re talking about.
Get a screen name, and maybe explain yourself. I never get why people believe everyone will know what they’re thinking from a few incoherent words.
Hahaha…………….
Just why do you think they initiated a law to put a ban on partial-birth abortion in the first place?
The only way to cast out certain demons.
I wish there was also a way in terms of trolls.
Just why do you think they initiated a law to put a ban on partial-birth abortion in the first place?
Please enlighten us! If you have such important knowledge, why tease us with one-liners? Surely you have some argument to make!
How you guys claim the Republican party is justified in killing innocent children selectively?
I take it this is supposed to mean that if one is in favor of preventing a small number of abortions it must mean he is in favor of keeping all the rest legal? Uh…no!
“Please enlighten us! If you have such important knowledge, why tease us with one-liners? Surely you have some argument to make!”
It’s simple. To destroy democracy that’s why.
Hahaha…………….
“Hahahaha…. I am such the anonymous idiot that to give proper answer to such intelligent folks as Eileen R would be too much a burden for me.
The only response I can muster is that which springs from my idiocy; thus, why I refuse to identify me.”
Esau, I’m starting to think he must be just a very good parody of the non-sequitur wielding troll. That last answer was classic.
The really good troll must leave everyone in doubt whether they’re a enraged conservative or an enraged liberal, a Catholic or an Atheist etc. etc. He certainly qualifies.
“Esau, I’m starting to think he must be just a very good parody of the non-sequitur wielding troll. That last answer was classic.
The really good troll must leave everyone in doubt whether they’re a enraged conservative or an enraged liberal, a Catholic or an Atheist etc. etc. He certainly qualifies.”
Show me where, the law baning partial birth abortion puts a ban on all abortions?
It’s simple. To destroy democracy that’s why.
Yes!
That must be it!
And destroy the entire free world until all are brought under KAOS, the International Organization of Evil!
DJ,
So, how did the allowance of PBA come into place? And then the ban on it which is credited to Bush? Both through Congress?
As Eileen said, it was ‘just another abortion procedure’ and presumed legal. Then various legislatures came up with bans.
In this case, the federal partial-birth abortion ban was passed by Congress and signed into law by Bush.
I don’t know the ins and outs of the history of this particular law, but usually when such a high-profile and controversial law is under review by the courts, it is sort of held in suspended animation. Maybe one of our resident attorneys can speak to this better than I can, but as I understand it, partial-birth abortions that took place while the law was in the courts *cannot* be prosecuted without violating ex post facto (the principle that you cannot be punished retroactively for something that was legal at the time you did it).
“It’s simple. To destroy democracy that’s why. ”
Who how preventing the urder of innocents destroying democracy? The opposite is true. Do you think that the supply of thousands of jobs which illegal are taking wouldn’t be occupied by those who were murdered before birth?
BTW, the Constitution says that ‘all men are created equal.’ Not born equal, but created equal.
Show me where, the law baning partial birth abortion puts a ban on all abortions?
Only if you’ll tell me where are past years are,
Or who cleft the devil’s foot,
Teach me to hear mermaids singing,
Or to keep off envy’s stinging,
And find What wind
Serves to advance an honest mind.
Show me where, the law baning partial birth abortion puts a ban on all abortions?
Quite exemplary logic!
Only one type of abortion was stopped and, therefore, this MUST mean that the Republican Party wants to kill people off selectively!
Simply Outstanding! Bravo!
No, Esau – it’s to bring the world under the power of JA.O! Get out your bat signal and secret decoder ring – the message is coming through!
Correction: I meant to say: and how would the murder of innocents destroy democracy?
“Who how preventing the murder of innocents destroying democracy? The opposite is true. Do you think that the supply of thousands of jobs which illegal are taking wouldn’t be occupied by those who were murdered before birth?
BTW, the Constitution says that ‘all men are created equal.’ Not born equal, but created equal.”
Because for one thing, the law banning partial birth-abortion contradicts itself. And with one stroke of the pen, Bush could have outlawed all abortions. Thirdly, you don’t legislate abortion.
Correction again: “and how would preventing the murder of innocents destroy democracy?
Long night.
“And with one stroke of the pen, Bush could have outlawed all abortions.”
Wrong. He couldn’t have. Bush can outlaw abortion precedures, but NOT the ‘right’ to all abortions.
And with one stroke of the pen, Bush could have outlawed all abortions.
Gee, I must’ve missed this Power of the President in American Government!
Quite exemplary logic! Only one type of abortion was stopped and, therefore, this MUST mean that the Republican Party wants to kill people off selectively! Simply Outstanding! Bravo!
You’re probably coming up with an argument to defend Suction aspiration, Dilation and curettage, Dilation and evacuation, Dilation and extraction, Salt poisoning, Prostaglandins, Hysterotomy, and Chemical abortions.
“Gee, I must’ve missed this Power of the President in American Government!” Democracies don’t survive when children are killed under the cover of law.
You’re probably coming up with an argument to defend Suction aspiration, Dilation and curettage, Dilation and evacuation, Dilation and extraction, Salt poisoning, Prostaglandins, Hysterotomy, and Chemical abortions.
Just as I’m trying to come up with an argument why your mother didn’t have an abortion.
Democracies don’t survive when children are killed under the cover of law.
THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT!!!
That’s WHY folks are trying to REVERSE the TIDE of ROE V. WADE with little steps like these!
Dear anonymous poster, I think you have misjudged people here. Most of the regular posters here are avowedly pro-life. What we are rejoicing in is a small step.
I suggest you rethink your audience here – if you’re pro-life (as your comments suggest) then your critiques amount to friendly fire. And a posting name, even an alias, helps lend credibility. Just a thought.
God bless,
Kasia
I find the opinion a bit ominous. Justice Kennedy intimates that the statute is upheld owing to its practical inability to be violated. (“[T]he Act contains scienter requirements concerning all the actions involved in the prohibited abortion. To begin with, the physician must have “deliberately and intentionally” delivered the fetus to one of the Act’s anatomical landmarks. If a living fetus is delivered past the critical point by accident or inadvertence, the Act is inapplicable. In addition, the fetus must have been delivered “for the purpose of performing an overt act that the [doctor] knows will kill [it].”)
Leave it to an abortionist not to violate the law. I can see it already: “Whoops, didn’t this little fellow inadvertently slip past one of his anatomical landmarks without my deliberately and intentionally having yanked him out of his mother! Oh well!”
Also, Thomas and Scalia’s concurrence was troubling. They hinted that a Commerce Clause challenge hadn’t been raised in either of these consolidated cases–and their views re Commerce Clause jurisprudence are not in doubt. I think they would find that Congress does not have the power to enact such legislation (while New Deal and Warren Court precedent would disagree and say that Congress does).
And neither Scalia nor Thomas’s commitment to life issues will trump their commitment to deciding cases within their constitutional powers as justices. Don’t look for them to stretch and bend the language of our founding Document for selfish ends. They would rather be able to proclaim, and rightly so, that the abortion business is none of the Supreme Court’s business (and, consequently, none of the federal government’s business).
That, to me, presents an interesting dilemma: where abortion would be permitted in some states and not others. There is nothing we could do about those states who so chose to permit such a moral travesty to occur within their jurisdictional confines.
Sigh.
“That’s WHY folks are trying to REVERSE the TIDE of ROE V. WADE with little steps like these!”
The exeecutive powers of the president include, according to Harvard law graduate Howard Phillips, the following which he said he would do on his first day in the White House were he to be elected president:
“Abortion in America must be ended. And if God chooses to bring our principles, our platform, and our plan of action, and our candidates to office, we will strive to be sensitive to His will and to faithfully do it. On Day One as President, I will officially acknowledge the legal personhood of the unborn child, and appoint new US Attorneys who will make it their top priority to work with state and local officials in prosecuting and closing down every abortuary within their jurisdictions.”
In 1988 President Ronald Reagan issued the PERSONHOOD PROCLAMATION which, I must add, was totally ignored by Congress. You can read it on line at http://www.lpca.us/personhood_proclamation%20by%20Reagan.htm
Finally, when Michael A. Peroutka ran for president a few years ago he made the same statement but did not give us too many facts. However his statement is worth reading and it is at http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=itemview&event_id=189
PLEASE LEARN what EXACTLY are the EXECUTIVE POWERS of the Office of the Presidency prior to making such outrageous statements like:
And with one stroke of the pen, Bush could have outlawed all abortions.
With the stroke of my pen, I could’ve outlawed (as Eileen R puts it) incoherent trolls as well in all the free world!
“…I will officially acknowledge the legal personhood of the unborn child, and appoint new US Attorneys who will make it their top priority to work with state and local officials in prosecuting and closing down every abortuary within their jurisdictions.”
Respectfully, that doesn’t sound like a one-stroke-of-the-pen move to me. In order to prosecute and close down abortion clinics, one must first have abortion be ILLEGAL. (See earlier comment about ex post facto.) And officially acknowledging the personhood of the unborn sounds a lot like what Reagan did…and you yourself admitted that it was largely ignored. Probably because it didn’t have the force of law.
Anonymous poster is also selectively killing children. The law won’t be changed here on JA.O, but yet he/she is spending a lot of time posting here rather than changing the law, while millions die in the meantime. Anonymous poster, using her/his own logic, is selectively killing babies by allowing these abortions to continue. When are you going to actually do something about the abortions, AP?! And don’t even think about feeding the poor if you’re going to continue using your logic, because it means you’re still implicitly allowing abortions to continue. In fact, you’re in favor of them continuing.
Actually, John E., the reason why Anon Poster is so much against selective abortion is because HE WANTS ALL FORMS OF ABORTION TO REMAIN LEGAL!
Kasia:
Thank-you for your significant contributions to this thread!
Might I ask (if it’s not too personal), do you actually work in some legal capacity in your professional life?
No, Esau – I considered law school, but decided against it. My undergraduate work was in political science, though, with emphases in comparative politics and American law and judicial processes. So it’s a significant interest of mine. 🙂
“PLEASE LEARN what EXACTLY are the EXECUTIVE POWERS of the Office of the Presidency prior to making such outrageous statements like: And with one stroke of the pen, Bush could have outlawed all abortions. With the stroke of my pen, I could’ve outlawed (as Eileen R puts it) incoherent trolls as well in all the free world!”
Esau tell that to Judie Brown.
“Judie, I find it amazing that when I tell people that with one stroke of the pen Bush could have abortion illegal, they’ll respond, “this is not a dictatorship”. Are they suggesting that such an act of God is fascism? To say that the statement, Bush could have with one stroke of the pen put an end to abortion, is an act of fascism is just rediculous. I mean come on, irresponsible statements like calling an act of God fascism, doesn’t really help the pro-life movement. These same people who accuse us criticizing Bush could these people end up supporting a dictatorship themselves? That’s what could happen if we’re not careful. Just my opinion.
Nick”
“Dear Nick
Perhaps the best response to such people is that murdering innocent human beings is insane; stopping such crimes is just. Democracy cannot survive when the innocent are being put to death under cover of law.
Judie Brown”
Esau,
I think you should apologize for this:
Just as I’m trying to come up with an argument why your mother didn’t have an abortion.
I believe that the poster is pro-life, so much so that he believes (incorrectly) that the president, at this time, has the power to outlaw all abortions. As I said before, the only reason that the supremes allowed this to stand is that it doesn’t outlaw abortion. It makes one precedure illegal. The ‘right’ to abortion, unfortunately, remains.
The least biased report on the decision I’ve seen yet today is from the BBC at <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6569007.stm>. Check out the last sentence that makes clear that it is still legal to dismember fetuses in the womb.
No, Esau – I considered law school, but decided against it. My undergraduate work was in political science, though, with emphases in comparative politics and American law and judicial processes. So it’s a significant interest of mine. 🙂
AWESOME!
I, for one, am certainly happy you’ve taken the time to provide us with such information!
Of course, even in the past, I often loved reading your comments!
Other things the President could ban with one stroke of his pen:
– rainy days
– rap music
– head lice
– death
– time
– the designated hitter
– global warming
– global cooling
– weather
How can the President accomplish all this: the super-duper extraordinary presidential powers clause of the Constiution. It’s located in Article XXX, right after the right to privacy.
Esau,
I think you should apologize for this:
Just as I’m trying to come up with an argument why your mother didn’t have an abortion.
David B.
You misunderstood the purpose of that remark —
I was attempting to show just how ridiculous and false his/her statements were with an equally ridiculous and false statement.
Guys, I’ve decried rhetoric like Anon’s more than once around here, but his/her comments point toward something important. The Court didn’t say Congress can ban any abortion– it just said that Congress can regulate HOW the unborn child gets killed, without regard to whether some doctors think this increases the danger to the mother. As the Court cast the law it wasn’t even INTENDED to prevent fetuses from being killed, and as Jason noted its interpretation of the “intentionality” requirement means that at best, enforcement of this procedural regulation will be largely up to how willing local U.S. Attorneys are to try to prove intent from circumstantial evidence (which if you like the law is another reason to vote against Rudy Giuliani).
There are two reasons this opinion is a hopeful sign: Justice Kennedy (1) speaks strongly but superfluously about the state’s interest in protecting fetal life, and (2) explicitly avoids reaffirming Roe or Casey. This doesn’t mean he personally has changed his mind about Roe, but it does mean that he decided to forgo the chance to entrench it further, as a cost of upholding some abortion regulations.
A quick legal primer for those who’ve asked questions:
The 14th Amendment says that no state can deprive anyone of life, liberty or property without due process of law. For decades now the Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean, among other things, that the right to an abortion is a “liberty” so basic that a state can’t take it away at all, except in certain limited circumstances in the last three months of pregnancy. About 15 years ago the Court refined this and said that a state can’t place an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to get an abortion.
The law at issue in this case is the partial-birth abortion ban, which bans a certain kind of abortion PROCEDURE where a live fetus is pulled partway out of the mother before being killed. It was twice vetoed by President Clinton before being signed by President Bush, which means that it can be repealed by any future Congress and President. It doesn’t mean that the fetus can’t be aborted; it just means that the doctor must kill it some other way (such as by dismembering or poisoning it inside the uterus). The medical community was divided about whether this is ever “medically necessary”– that is, whether it is ever safer for a woman than other kinds of abortion that could be used at a similar stage in pregnancy. If this were clearly the case, the Court would probably say that a ban would place an “undue burden” on the right to an abortion, and thus unconstitutional. But Justice Kennedy basically here said that Congress has the right to decide such an issue when the medical evidence is conflicting– so, based on Congress’s finding that partial-birth abortions AREN’T ever medically necessary, they don’t place an undue burden on the right to an abortion and thus may stand. But this is ONLY the case because, even with this law on the books, it’s clear that in any given situation there will be other, legal, abortion procdures available by which the fetus can be killed without great danger to the mother.
Stop, Esau, you’re making me blush! 😉 I think you’re super too!
…although I do agree with David that that particular comment to our anonymous friend crossed the line. I don’t think it came across as you intended…
Esau wrote:
Just as I’m trying to come up with an argument why your mother didn’t have an abortion.
Esau — please retract that statement.
The Constitution does not say “All men are created equal.” That’s in the Declaration of Independence.
Creation is a process that begins at conception and ends with birth. This is how it is described in scripture in terms of God “knitting” someone in his mother’s womb.
It may be wrong for a woman to terminate the procreative process, but it’s not the same thing as murder. I don’t believe women who choose to terminate the procreative process should be punished.
As a sin or crime, abortion is more similiar to contraception than murder.
To address DJ’s question squarely:
Partial-birth abortion was allowed by the fact that in Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court invalidatd just about every law on the books regulating abortion. So for a few years at least, just about any kind of abortion was legal. The states and federal government have spent the last 30-some years trying to figure out what more modest regulations the Supreme Court will permit. The partial-birth ban was enacted to test the outer boundary; it is one of the more serious regulations that has been allowed yet.
francis03:
One word — ‘baby steps’.
But thanks so much for all that info though!
Yet, I still find it quite bewildering that:
The 14th Amendment says that no state can deprive anyone of life …
… doesn’t actually extend to the fetus.
Also, how is it that the murderer of a pregnant mother can be indicted for killing two people — both the mother and the baby she’s carrying — and, yet, the abortion laws doesn’t even acknowledge the baby as a person?
Recovering, how does “creation” end at birth? Looks to me like the “process” you’re talking about is called “growth,” and it ends closer to age 20.
Looks like we may actually stand a chance of doing something about the Culture of Death.
Unfortunately two big problems.
A democratic congress which worships the culture of death.
A republican party which wants to join their democratic friends in worshipping the culture of death.
So we’ll have this nice breather in the growth in the culture of death, until Hillary gets in then the march (goosestep) of the culture of death shall continue.
Secular society has no hope as long as it is secular. Until society accepts Christ’s sceptre, that is. Then, and only then, will it have hope.
“Other things the President could ban with one stroke of his pen:
– rainy days
– rap music
– head lice
– death
– time
– the designated hitter
– global warming
– global cooling
– weather
How can the President accomplish all this: the super-duper extraordinary presidential powers clause of the Constiution. It’s located in Article XXX, right after the right to privacy.”
Here’s why I’m so opposed to this bill.
http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php
“I found it interesting that the Supreme Court upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Law that contains a life of the mother exception. I found it even more interesting that the justices themselves found the law “facially” constitutional, pointing out that the lawsuits challenging the partial birth abortion law should never have been allowed in court anyway.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, made it clear that the proper way to challenge such a law, “if an abortion ban is claimed to harm a woman’s right to abortion,” is through an as-applied claim. In other words, the law can be challenged again based on a particular mother’s claim that if she does not get a partial birth abortion, her life will be endangered.
Kennedy said: “the Court was assuming that the federal ban would be unconstitutional ‘if it subjected women to significant health risks.'”
Justice Kennedy clarified that other options are readily available to the woman in such a circumstance, so no significant obstacle to obtaining an abortion exists even though the partial birth abortion law was upheld.
In other words, the decision rendered today simply outlaws most of a particular type of abortion; it does not limit when an abortion can be done nor does it limit abortions by other methods up through the moment of birth.
The pro-abortion crowd will scream bloody murder, of course. And the Republicans will use today’s decision to distance themselves from “radical” pro-life positions, but in point of fact, what was really won today?
If pro-lifers consider this a victory, then somebody better check what they are putting in their coffee.”
I think you idiot neo-cons on here should learn a thing or two from Judie Brown. Blind fools!
Smoky Mountain Pro-lifer:
Please examine the actual context of that remark I made.
It’s the similar to how somebody would say:
“Just as I would be for your mother having an abortion or anybody else for that matter.”
Of course, treating a statement out-of-context can often bring out a meaning that wasn’t intended.
Let’s take a moment to revisit the philosophical foundation laid by PP vs. Casey:
These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
One could say that Cho fellow was simply defining his own concept of existence on Monday. Who’s to say he wasn’t??? Madison AND Jefferson were rolling over in their graves after Sandy’s demi-God pronouncements. Not to mention John Locke! They rolled back the other way after reading this gem of legal analysis:
These considerations begin our analysis of the woman’s interest in terminating her pregnancy, but cannot end it, for this reason: though the abortion decision may originate within the zone of conscience and belief, it is more than a philosophic exercise. Abortion is a unique act. It is an act fraught with consequences for others: for the woman who must live with the implications of her decision; for the persons who perform and assist in the procedure; for the spouse, family, and society which must confront the knowledge that these procedures exist, procedures some deem nothing short of an act of violence against innocent human life; and, depending on one’s beliefs, for the life or potential life that is aborted. Though abortion is conduct, it does not follow that the State is entitled to proscribe it in all instances. That is because the liberty of the woman is at stake in a sense unique to the human condition, and so, unique to the law. The mother who carries a child to full term is subject to anxieties, to physical constraints, to pain that only she must bear. That these sacrifices have from the beginning of the human race been endured by woman with a pride that ennobles her in the eyes of others and gives to the infant a bond of love cannot alone be grounds for the State to insist she make the sacrifice. Her suffering is too intimate and personal for the State to insist, without more, upon its own vision of the woman’s role, however dominant that vision has been in the course of our history and our culture. The destiny of the woman must be shaped to a large extent on her own conception of her spiritual imperatives and her place in society.
This “legal” summation of the psycho-spiritual-biological nature of motherhood which does not recognize the fetus as a separate human being, entitled to at least theoretical protection, is currently the law of the land. The opinion of today’s case gives a wee tiny hint that this court may consider breaching that subject. That’s certainly cause for hope, but it’s also cause for concern. If Kennedy, Alito, or Roberts join O’Connor’s Concept of Existence book club, they could easily slam the door shut.
“Creation is a process that begins at conception and ends with birth. This is how it is described in scripture in terms of God “knitting” someone in his mother’s womb.”
I don’t think that’s in my catechism.
“It may be wrong for a woman to terminate the procreative process, but it’s not the same thing as murder. I don’t believe women who choose to terminate the procreative process should be punished.”
Don’t we have a shorter term for “terminating the procreative process” – oh yeah contraception. In that case I agree with you. Contraception is wrong for women, and don’t forget men too. I also agree they shouldn’t be punished as murderers/abortionists because those can obviously only occur after the procreative process has been completed (also known as contraception).
“As a sin or crime, abortion is more similiar to contraception than murder.”
We’ve already established that abortion can only occur after contraception. That makes it a crime against the person being aborted.
Who the heck is Judie Brown, and why should I care about her incorrect musings on these matters?
Agreed. Baby steps. I just want everyone to realize that this that’s all this is– and that at this point it’s only even a “baby step” because of its rhetoric, not because of it’s effect.
As to the 14th Amendment, I could have been more precise: it actually only protects “persons.” Roe v. Wade held that, while a fetus may or may not be a human life, it is not a legal person, and so its life is not protected by the Amendment. Some people argue that a fetus IS a 14th-Amendment person, and they further claim that this means that the states should be REQUIRED to ban all abortions. But there are two objections to this: (1) for centuries, the unborn actually have been afforded different (and in some matters no) rights, in our legal tradition. Additionally, (2) the portion of the 14th Amendment at issue here limits only what a state may DO to its people. But the main issue in the abortion debate is not whether the state itself may abort fetuses (which would clearly violate the Amendment if they were “persons”) but whether it must PERMIT others to do so.
But just because a life (or “potential life”) isn’t a legal person doesn’t mean the state has no interest in protecting it, even though the 14th Amendment doesn’t. That’s what Justice Kennedy is talking about near the beginning of today’s opinion. That’s also what permits states to punish murderers of pregnant women more severely. The only reason this doesn’t apply in the abortion context is that the Court has held that a woman’s 14th-Amendment “liberty” interest in having an abortion outweighs the state’s interest in protecting the fetus. Third parties who kill the fetus against the mother’s will have no corresponding liberty interest.
Abortion reduces the number of unwanted and molested children.
francis,
In reading discussions of frozen embryo adoption I came across the traditional Catholic view that procreation was a process that began at conception and ended at birth. This is mentioned in the blog archives and also here:
http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2005/11/catholic_moral.html
“Post-implantation pregnancy is a part of procreation. Hence, for a woman to adopt a child into her womb is for her to engage in procreation outside of marital relations with her husband.”
BTW, apparently Justice Clarence Thomas indicated he might have voted to invalidate the partial birth abortion statute had the issue of the Commerce Clause been raised which would have given us of course a different result.
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/
So would killing the unwanted and molested children. That’s no reason to support such an awful practice. Perhaps helping them would be a better approach.
>I think you idiot neo-cons on here should learn a thing or two from Judie Brown. Blind fools!
She doesn’t think this is a victory? Perhaps it would be better of the supremes struck it down?
Sally,
How do you know that? Do you seriously think there were more unwanted and molested children in 1972 than there are today?
Sorry, newbie mistake, that should read:
We’ve already established that abortion can only occur after conception. That makes it a crime against the person being aborted.
Do you seriously think there were more unwanted and molested children in 1972 than there are today?
There’d be even more if many weren’t aborted.
Recovering, I suppose that’s a fair way to use the word. But I think’s it’s a logical error to assume that a new life appears only at the “end” of the procreative process. Wouldn’t it be just as logical to say it appears at the beginning– perhaps even more so, since as I noted birth isn’t really the end of the maturation process?
francis03:
THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!
Great explanation there — clear, concise and to-the-point!
By the way, you don’t happen to be working in any official legal capacity yourself?
I just love it when good, knowledgeable folks like you & Kasia provide these nuggets of info!
>There’d be even more if many weren’t aborted.
So alive children being hurt is WORSE than dead children?
Interesting.
Unwanted? Molested? No human rights for you!
Sheesh. How illogical.
Bob, the only real “victory” will be one that prevents abortions. This law doesn’t do that– and the Supreme Court upheld it only because it doesn’t. It’s a victory only for what it might lead to, not for what it is.
I’m just a student of the law at this point, Esau– so all of you are advised that I can’t give legal advice! But thanks for your kind words. I have to echo Kasia’s sentiments, however, that abortion is too horrible to wish on anyone, even as a rhetorical device.
Esau,
With francis03’s comment, that makes 4 people who’ve posted that they’ve found your comment inappropriate. I recognize that you did not intend it to be understood that way, but the abundance of misinterpretation should be enough to elicit an apology.
It’s a victory only for what it might lead to, not for what it is.
This is true, but as you have conceded, it is a step. This is the first abortion-related victory before SCOTUS that pro-lifers have achieved since Roe. It is indeed a minor victory, but it is something that moderately instills hope that we can chip away at the atrocious abortion jurisprudence of the past three decades.
I have to echo Kasia’s sentiments, however, that abortion is too horrible to wish on anyone, even as a rhetorical device.
francis03:
I didn’t WISH an abortion on that person.
That was NOT the intention of my statement at all.
Just to be clear:
The purpose of my earlier statement was to answer a ridiculous and patently false statement made by the anon poster with something just as ridiculous and false.
Unfortunately, it seems that the point of that exaggerated statement I made was actually misinterpreted to mean that I actually wished that on that particular individual.
At any rate, great to know about your aspirations in Law — Best of Luck!
So alive children being hurt is WORSE than dead children?
Everyone dies sometime. Perhaps you prefer they get a few molestations in first.
Or perhaps we prefer to prevent the molestors from committing the crimes, rather than killing the potential victims.
Or perhaps we prefer to prevent the molestors from committing the crimes
By moving them from parish to parish?
Dude, I’m know I’m new here, but multiple people have asked you to apologize. Just man up and do it. It doesn’t matter how good your intentions were, the fact is your comment disturbed people who it wasn’t even directed at. No one’s asking you to retract any of your beliefs, just admit you didn’t foresee the effects your comment would have, apologize, and move on.
No.
“No” was to Sally, who can’t seriously be proposing that the solution to the priestly abuse crisis is to abort everyone who might become a victim. That is shockingly insenstive and insulting to the victims of those crimes.
“No” was to Sally, who can’t seriously be proposing that the solution to the priestly abuse crisis is to abort everyone who might become a victim.
The law says it’s a woman’s choice.
That is shockingly insenstive and insulting to the victims of those crimes.
Many victims find what the Church has done to be shockingly insenstive and insulting.
>Everyone dies sometime. Perhaps you prefer they get a few molestations in first.
Perhaps you prefer that nobody has human rights? After all, you start with the unborn, denying them human rights.
>By moving them from parish to parish?
Hmmm…so you approve of moving them from public school to public school then….
>The law says it’s a woman’s choice.
The law also said that blacks are not human beings. You agree with that too?
>Many victims find what the Church has done to be shockingly insenstive and insulting.
I find dehumanizing the unborn to be shockingly insenstive and insulting.
I love it when they turn to the secular law, which can be changed by mere human politicing to defend their viewpoint.
As if the law is infallible.
As if the law is truly the moral arbiter.
When law and morality have a divorce, the children suffer.
Perhaps you prefer that nobody has human rights?
Catholic Catechism is pro-choice. It says every woman “has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. She must not be forced to act contrary to her conscience. Nor must she be prevented from acting according to her conscience, especially in religious matters.”
I recognize that you did not intend it to be understood that way, but the abundance of misinterpretation should be enough to elicit an apology.
Smoky Mountain Rhetorical Maestro:
I can’t quite understand why a person should apologize for saying something that he actually didn’t say.
It’s reminds me of the instance with Pope Benedict XVI’s remarks at Regensburg.
In one story, there is this dialogue that comes to mind which takes place between a mother and child, where the child asks about his brother who was scolded earlier by the mother, “Do you really hate Tim that much?”
The mother answered, “Yes, just as much as I hate you.”
Now, did this mean the mother hated both her two sons?
I would say not — especially when you consider that she was trying to express how awfully ridiculous the notion was.
Sally, one of the issues in the abortion debate is whether the law ought to say something different. And why can’t sexually molesting people (and then covering it up), and aborting people to prevent their molestation, BOTH be shocking and insulting?
But Esau, you could argue that it would be imprudent to the point of immorality for a mother to even use such language, since in ordinary use it would imply that the mother actually does hate Tim– which would be an awful thing to make him think, even if it happened by mistake. Creating the situation where such a mistake can occur is also to be avoided.
>Catholic Catechism is pro-choice. It says every woman “has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. She must not be forced to act contrary to her conscience. Nor must she be prevented from acting according to her conscience, especially in religious matters.”
You forget that the woman has an OBLIGATION to form her conscience correctly.
Hitler’s conscience said it was OK to kill 10 million Jews. Using your logic, he cannot be wrong.
KKK members conscience says it is OK to kill blacks. Using your logic, they cannot be wrong.
If the conscience is not formed properly, the mirror rules.
Now, tell me why you hate unborn children because you want to deny them human rights?
And why do you deny the choice to the unborn?
I love it when people misinterpret the catechism to justify evil.
The mother answered, “Yes, just as much as I hate you.”
Now, did this mean the mother hated both her two sons?
No, but when her son starts crying because he thinks his Mommy just told him that she hates him (even though that’s not what Mommy intended), I’ll bet that Mommy apologizes and recognizes that she shouldn’t have said something like that that could be so easily misinterpreted.
1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.
There’s the context. The conscience MUST be well-formed.
Funny, I hate it when they do it, Bob.
You forget that the woman has an OBLIGATION to form her conscience correctly. Hitler’s conscience said it was OK to kill 10 million Jews. Using your logic, he cannot be wrong.
It’s the Catholic Church which teaches “man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”
If the conscience is not formed properly, the mirror rules.
The only mirror you see is the one you gaze into and see yourself.
why do you deny the choice to the unborn?
I don’t. God did not give the unborn the ability to choose.
Lost, Kevin?
Sally, as BobCatholic pointed out, you’re misinterpreting the Church’s teaching by not considering the full context: specifically, the need for a well-formed conscience.
Esau, I agree, and fail to see the need to apologize for something you didn’t say.
The mother answered, “Yes, just as much as I hate you.”
Now, did this mean the mother hated both her two sons?
No, but when her son starts crying because he thinks his Mommy just told him that she hates him (even though that’s not what Mommy intended), I’ll bet that Mommy apologizes and recognizes that she shouldn’t have said something like that that could be so easily misinterpreted.
He said sons, not children. The question is who is on the receiving end of things. If a mother said this to a child who would not comprehend the MEANING of the words in context, then yes she did a bad thing. If she said it to an adult, or a young-adult (teenager) who has the intelligence to comprehend the language device then there is no issue.
>It’s the Catholic Church which teaches
Why do you care what the Catholic Church teaches? You ignore their moral teachings.
>I don’t. God did not give the unborn the ability to choose.
So therefore those who cannot choose cannot have human rights?
When you’re asleep or unconscious, no human rights for you.
When you’re forced at gunpoint, you have no human rights.
Logic and pro-abortion had a nasty divorce.
I don’t. God did not give the unborn the ability to choose.
I guess God did not give the VaTech students the ability to choose to not die when shot by a bullet, so the shooter was justified in his right to act as he saw fit…
>Sally, as BobCatholic pointed out, you’re misinterpreting the Church’s teaching by not considering the full context: specifically, the need for a well-formed conscience.
And she just cannot see it.
She must be blinded or brainwashed by pro-abortion propaganda.
Sally,
You’re not seriously using the Catholic Church’s catechism to refute its own magisterium are you? You can make the argument that the Catholic Church is wrong, but the only way to support your claim that the catechism is pro-abortion is to pull pieces of it out of context and distort them.
>I guess God did not give the VaTech students the ability to choose to not die when shot by a bullet, so the shooter was justified in his right to act as he saw fit…
Good point. Only the gunman had the choice in that situation, and according to Sally’s dehumanizing logic: it must therefore be OK.
Sally, as BobCatholic pointed out, you’re misinterpreting the Church’s teaching by not considering the full context: specifically, the need for a well-formed conscience.
The Church teaches, “The education of the conscience is a lifelong task.” You can come back when you graduate and judge what’s misinterpretation and what’s not. Until then, you’re still learning.
>You’re not seriously using the Catholic Church’s catechism to refute its own magisterium are you?
No, she’s showing how inconsistent she is.
The Catholic Church is authoritative when you can interpret this paragraph to say abortion is a goodie.
The Catholic Church is NOT authoritative when you can interpret this other paragraph to say abortion is a baddie.
the only way to support your claim that the catechism is pro-abortion is to pull pieces of it out of context and distort them.
It is you who distorts. Pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. Back to school for you!
>The Church teaches, “The education of the conscience is a lifelong task.” You can come back when you graduate and judge what’s misinterpretation and what’s not.
Why do I have to “come back when I graduated” when the magisterium already knows what the proper interpretation is?
They already have ruled this is a misinterpretation.
Or do you deny this paragraph?
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.
So, I ask you again: Why do you hate the unborn and want to deny them human rights?
It’s obvious that Sally places no intrinsic value on human life. Or logic.
She’s probably a Scientologist.
Or an Assyrian.
In other words, the decision rendered today simply outlaws most of a particular type of abortion;…
I just have trouble understanding how some pro-lifers cannot take that to be a GOOD thing.
So captainbozo, what if she said it in an online combox, which anyone can read and which lacks the lifetime of context that a woman’s sons would enjoy?
Enough people already think of pro-lifers as hateful hypocrites. We have to be careful not to say things that can easily be construed to confirm that prejudice and to be extremely unkind to the people at whom they’re directed.
>Pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion.
Right.
That’s why I’m arguing that the unborn should have a choice. A real pro-choicer would say the unborn should have a choice. You are not doing this.
You’re not pro-choice. You’re pro-abortion.
“By moving them from parish to parish?”
The anti-Catholic bigotry oozes to the surface.
But Esau, you could argue that it would be imprudent to the point of immorality for a mother to even use such language, since in ordinary use it would imply that the mother actually does hate Tim– which would be an awful thing to make him think, even if it happened by mistake. Creating the situation where such a mistake can occur is also to be avoided.
francis03:
This is exactly the kind of thoughtful response I look forward to from similar folks here on this blog!
(You guys are great!)
However, in the scenario provided, I can assure you that the child did not misinterpret the mother’s comments to mean as such.
Never mind the fact that when the mother said it to her child, she was smiling at him (as well as tickled him) and both ended up in laughter.
That said, I’ll say I’m deeply sorry for the reactions to my comment which was considered offensive to the feelings of some of those here. I hope this is sufficient to placate the spirits and to clarify the true meaning of my remarks which in its totality was and is an invitation to a frank and sincere dialogue, with mutual respect.
God Bless All! =^)
Enough people already think of pro-lifers as hateful hypocrites. We have to be careful not to say things that can easily be construed to confirm that prejudice and to be extremely unkind to the people at whom they’re directed.
OK, Francis. I’ll take back my “Assyrian” accusation.
Sincerely,
Sgt. Hulka
>It’s obvious that Sally places no intrinsic value on human life. Or logic.
This is why I say the pro-abortion position and logic had a nasty divorce.
Why do I have to “come back when I graduated” when the magisterium already knows what the proper interpretation is?
Education is a lifelong task. You’re still learning if you’re still living.
Lots of things can be seen as evil, but that doesn’t mean I have to vote to outlaw them. “Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer.” Are you going to make hate illegal? Or looking at a woman with lust? How about not going to church?
So, I ask you again: Why do you hate the unborn and want to deny them human rights?
Check the mirror.
I once heard Ricardo Montalban speak about abortion. He said: Twenty years ago I was still I. When I was 5-years-old, I was still I. A moment after my birth, I was still I. Just before my birth, I was still I. At what point was I not I?
Recoverin Catholic, what you need are forgiveness and healing. Go to confession and ask forgiveness for the sin you committed. You will find that forgiveness and healing that you need.
>The anti-Catholic bigotry oozes to the surface.
This is in addition to her anti-unborn bigotry.
captainbozo:
THANK-YOU FOR UNDERSTANDING MY POINT!
Esau, I agree, and fail to see the need to apologize for something you didn’t say.
AND
He said sons, not children. The question is who is on the receiving end of things. If a mother said this to a child who would not comprehend the MEANING of the words in context, then yes she did a bad thing. If she said it to an adult, or a young-adult (teenager) who has the intelligence to comprehend the language device then there is no issue.
Sally, you look pretty pro-abortion to me. After all, if every woman CHOSE not to have an abortion, then your decline in abuse and molestation would go up in smoke.
John E., I don’t care HOW a fetus gets murdered. I care THAT the fetus gets murdered. The only reason the Supreme Court is letting Congress regulate the “how” is because it found that it won’t change the fact that an abortion will occur.
>Lots of things can be seen as evil, but that doesn’t mean I have to vote to outlaw them.
Good, so nothing evil took place at VaTech?
And you still won’t answer why you hate the unborn. Afraid to answer the question?
>Are you going to make hate illegal?
We have hate crimes laws on the books. It is already illegal.
And murder is illegal. Using your logic, we shouldn’t have.
Judging by this statement
It’s the Catholic Church which teaches “man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”
If I want to believe sexual abuse is ok, I can go straight ahead following my conscience?
>If I want to believe sexual abuse is ok, I can go straight ahead following my conscience?
Good point. So she has no moral basis to rail against the Church 🙂
Thanks, Esau. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I feel like you’ve understood and addressed my own concern.
Sally,
I’m going to make the charitable assumption that you are open to an honest dialogue.
As such, would you kindly answer whether you think there are any actions that should be illegal (e.g. murder, theft, rape, etc.)?
>I don’t. God did not give the unborn the ability to choose.
God also gave the man the ability to choose. You deny a father’s right to choose. After all, it is his body too, and how he spends the next 18-22 years of his life should be his choice. You say “NO, he has no choice!”
Sally, correct me if I’m wrong, but you may misunderstand the difference between conscience and freedom. Doesn’t the catechism say something like our conscience always tells us the Word of God, we just have to train ourselves to listen to it. We all have the freedom to go against our conscience, to choose evil over good, but the only thing we decide is to listen or not. We can’t decide our conscience nor can others decide it for us.
So freedom of conscience is really freedom to listen to our conscience. There’s no such thing as freedom to make up our own conscience. Of course, as with any choice we make, our decision has consequences.
Esau, I echo Francis – and kudos to you, both for your explanation and for taking the high road and apologizing. 🙂
Pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion.
Of course not!
It just euphemistically covers the actual TRUTH — that Pro-Choice is really PRO-MURDER!
Good, so nothing evil took place at VaTech?
All part of God’s plan, whether you label it as “evil”, or mental illness, or a sociological action/reaction, or whatever.
And you still won’t answer why you hate the unborn. Afraid to answer the question?
You’re projecting.
that Pro-Choice is really PRO-MURDER!
LOL. Did God not give you free will? Does God not want you to choose?
>You’re projecting.
How?
I don’t hate the unborn. I’m defending them, and defending their human rights.
You’re not.
You believe they should not have human rights. Therefore, you treat them exactly the same as the KKK treats blacks: You support their choice: “We have the choice to kill them.”
Did God not give you free will? Does God not want you to choose?
Wow, hard to say who gets the Straw Man of the Day Award…Sally or Tim…
>LOL. Did God not give you free will? Does God not want you to choose?
What’s this? Another pro-abortion supporter?
Didn’t God give the man the right to choose too? I guess you don’t support the man’s right to choose an abortion too.
Sally, care to look at my 1:53PM post and answer the question: “At what point was I not I?”
… correct me if I’m wrong, but you may misunderstand the difference between conscience and freedom.
As Father Corapi would say, there’s a difference between FREEDOM and LICENSE.
LICENSE means I decide what is right and wrong and I do whatever I want to do, whenever I want to do it, because I have the ability to.
FREEDOM is knowing the difference between right and wrong and, thus, choosing to do the right thing because it is what we should do.
Don’t even DARE place such criminal acts (such as abortion — which is clearly murder) under the specious pretext of FREEDOM!
we just have to train ourselves to listen to it
Did you leave God’s grace out of your equation?
Sally, care to look at my 1:53PM post and answer the question: “At what point was I not I?”
That’s a question you have to answer for yourself. Hope you don’t have too much trouble with it.
>Did you leave God’s grace out of your equation?
You did, since you won’t allow God’s grace to work on the children (slaughtered by abortion) during the part of the life stolen from them.
“That’s a question you have toanswer for yourself.”
No guts.
So Sally, at what point did your mother’s ‘right’ to kill you end?
At implantation?
At viability?
At birth?
At consciousness (i.e. 2 – 3 years)?
Inquiring minds want to know…
As such, would you kindly answer whether you think there are any actions that should be illegal (e.g. murder, theft, rape, etc.)?
In a democracy, it would be those acts which the people decide to make illegal.
Sally,
Your sarcastic one-liners which rarely address the questions posed to you make you appear rather trollish to me.
I will withhold that assumption for the time-being, but would greatly appreciate an answer to my question from earlier:
“Would you kindly answer whether you think there are any actions that should be illegal (e.g. murder, theft, rape, etc.)?”
Kind Regards,
Smoky
>Sally, care to look at my 1:53PM post and answer the question: “At what point was I not I?”
> >That’s a question you have to answer for yourself. Hope you don’t have too much trouble with it.
So much for this…(written by Smoky Mountain Dialoguer)
>I’m going to make the charitable assumption that you are open to an honest dialogue.
So if a majority of the people decide that murder is OK, it somehow becomes OK?
No guts.
No, no foolishness.
Sally: sorry, I posted before I saw your response.
That’s a question you have to answer for yourself. Hope you don’t have too much trouble with it.
Too bad bill912’s statement wasn’t backed up by Scripture —
No wait — didn’t John the Baptist leap in his mother’s womb when he was a child when Mary visited Elizabeth in Luke’s Gospel?
Or was that all just myth?
OH WAIT:
Lk:1:41:
41 And it came to pass that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. (DRV)
Darn it!
TOO BAD ELIZABETH DIDN’T HAVE AN ABORTION!
(of course, an apology will be pending once again, I take it) ;^)
So if a majority of the people decide that murder is OK, it somehow becomes OK?
It’s ok with those who think it’s ok. And it’s not ok with those who think it’s not ok.
I’m not sure that it’s possible to discuss morality with someone who holds that all morality is relative.
“No, no foolishness.”
Cop-out. Like I said: No guts. No guts to face a question that makes you uncomfortable.
No, Sally, I think I must be misunderstanding you, and civility demands that I make an attempt to clarify this:
If a majority of the society decides that, for example, rape shouldn’t be punished, and you get raped, was it somehow morally justifiable for your rapist to rape you?
I don’t see how it could be. Are you arguing otherwise?
No guts to face a question that makes you uncomfortable.
The question does not make me feel uncomfortable. But perhaps you are.
Smoky Mountain, I think you may be right.
I’ll leave to the Lord to determine whether Bill is right…
No, Sally, I think I must be misunderstanding you, and civility demands that I make an attempt to clarify this:
If a majority of the society decides that, for example, rape shouldn’t be punished, and you get raped, was it somehow morally justifiable for your rapist to rape you?
I don’t see how it could be. Are you arguing otherwise?
Kasia:
Very Well Put!!!
(Not only was it logical but charitable as well!)
If a majority of the society decides that, for example, rape shouldn’t be punished, and you get raped, was it somehow morally justifiable for your rapist to rape you?
It is the nature of a rapist to rape. He was raised to be a rapist much like God raised the Pharoah to do what he did.
Sally, I have been operating under the mistaken notion that you were an adult, not an adolescent. “But perhaps you are” ranks right up there with other mature, intellectual responses such as “I know you are, but what am I?”, and “I am rubber, you are glue–what bounces off me sticks to you.” I apologize for overrating you.
we just have to train ourselves to listen to it
Did you leave God’s grace out of your equation?
What does training ourselves to listen to our conscience have to do with denying God’s Grace? Did you leave repentance out of your equation? I guess if there’s no repentance, then I’ve left out God’s Grace.
It is the nature of a rapist to rape. He was raised to be a rapist much like God raised the Pharoah to do what he did.
Smoky was right.
The notion that “we JUST have to train ourselves” can be seen as arrogance.
Bill912, it was you who spoke of being uncomfortable. It arose on your end with your repeated insistance that someone answer it for you.
francis03, I can definitely see your point. I see that this victory, if it is one, is pretty miniscule. Doctors who would’ve done a partial-birth abortion will now just do it another way or continue to do it the way they always have and fudge the paperwork, although there’s more risk to them now to do that. Few lives will be saved because of today’s ruling.
Yet it’s still difficult for me not to hope that this as at least some sort of partial victory or something that can be built upon or something that may help to sway public opinion.
Abortion is still the virtually unrestricted law of the land and we may have inflicted little damage to it, but damn it, I’m going to keep throwing whatever I can at it. If all it does is outlaw a barbaric procedure, so be it and we’ll keep doing what we can until all abortions are illegal. And as Fr. Stephanos said above, fast and pray.
Getting back to the Supremes’ decision: as has been pointed out, the decision was a small victory, but there is still a lot of work to do, a lot of praying to do. But, as that great American philosopher and honorary Doctor of Letters, Dr. Lawrence Peter Berra, says: “Never give up; it ain’t over till it’s over.”
The notion that “we JUST have to train ourselves” can be seen as arrogance.
I apologize for being unclear. I meant to say that our responsibility is merely to train ourselves to listen to our conscience as opposed to making up our own consciences and then trying to follow it. I didn’t mean to say that this task is easy, nor that one is doomed the instant he fails once – indeed we’d all be doomed if that were the case (I think that’s what you meant by arrogance).
But it appears, if you’re correct, that no one needs to do any of those things: our conscience follows us instead of us following it. A rapist’s conscience molds itself to his desires, a mother’s conscience molds itself to hers, etc.
But it appears, if you’re correct, that no one needs to do any of those things: our conscience follows us instead of us following it. A rapist’s conscience molds itself to his desires, a mother’s conscience molds itself to hers, etc.
Like the Bible says, “God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden… It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.”
Sally,
I noticed you did not answer Brian’s question. It is a fair question.
Second, you need to look at the statistics on child abuse (of all sorts) since the legalization of abortion, including a study that came out a few weeks ago saying that women who have had abortions are more likely to abuse their children than women who did not.
The wanted/unwanted argument is scary. Is the validity of a life left up to whether it is wanted by someone else? What happens, Sally, when you become incapacitated or elderly? Even if you’re in good health should your family or the state have the right to kill you if you become a burden (broadly defined)?
Back in 1972 all kinds of promises were made to support the legalization of abortion. They were the same set made in 1956 in regards to Griswold Vs. Conneticut regarding the use of artificial contraception. WE were promised if these things were allowed then we would see dramatic drops in divorce, abortions, teen preganancies, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, domestic violence and abuse, and so forth. Not only did these things not go down, most of them exploded in numbers! Read the studies, Sally! The empirical evidence points to these things being exacerbated by legalization. Why? Because both legalized abortion and the proliferation of artificial birth control require the de-humanizing or objectification of the human person. “A life becomes valuable only when I say it has value” is the pre-dominant feeling prsented. Both see life as an evil to be avoided or purified so that only the right ones get through (the wanted). Is it any wonder than birth control and abortion were centerprieces of eugenicist like Margaret Sanger (read her books…I have), Ernst Haeckel (gave Hilter his underpinnings), Thomas Galton & Charles Darwin (read Darwin’s Descent of Man, sometime)?
Finally, your snarky comment about molesters presumes all molesters are priests. It is criminal that even one priest is…but again, do your homework on the statistical information. I would hope you are reasonable enough to be persuaded by the cold data out there on these subjects. Because the bishops blew it and sinned does not make the truth of the gospel any less true.
I have a hard time believing that anyone could see the necessity for this barbaric procedure. I have friends who are doctors (even a OB/GYN) who say this procedure is wholly unnecessary and not safe for the mother at all. Is pro-abortion (you bought the rhetoric that it’s pro-choice…but a choice about what???) so afraid that if they are not given free reign to do as they please that their worlds are going to come crashing down? They should be. It is a first domino. No doubt you will say that this is about a woman’s control over her reproductive choices. But let’s be honest: A) in MOST cases (before you rush to rape and incest argument) the choices that need to be assessed are long before conception takes place (lest there be a thing such as spontaneous conception) and B) what is actually being sought is freedom from the consequences of reproductive choices. How atypical of this society.
I am not saying, Sally, you are a bad person…only that you have been sadly misinformed by someone who is looking to justify their behavior by a selective prooftexting of the catechism. The topic of conscience always presumes we have a conscience informed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. A conscience informed by the morality of the world is anything but an informed conscience! AS the world is primarily selfish in nature, the needs of others become secondary to the wants of the individual. That is why ‘wanted’ in reference to another human life can be so glibly said by one side but anethema to the other. Christian morality is always a reflection of Christ. Thus the needs of others take precedence to my own needs or wants. The world cannot understand this. You want to help the unwanted? Don’t kill them! Give them what is necessary for them. In other words, want them!
Just do the homework, Sally, there is enough of it out there. When you read it, though, be careful. For example, the Guttmacher Institute, closely tied to to Planned Parenthood is about as reliable as the scientist who worked for big tobaaco were about there findings with smoking. Abortion, artifical birth control, and the overall abuse of sexuality are big business raking in a lot of money. THey, like big tobacco, have a vested interest in telling you their product is safe for you. Now I ask, what vested interest does the church have in teaching what it teaches? Do we send out chastity bills to those who are chaste? Do we profiteer on pro-life? No. No, we are in the ‘business’ of the salvation of souls. Granted, some the aforementioned priests and bishops have done horrible damage to that call. But it is what we are supposed to be about.
Sally,
Doing nothing to prevent the abortion of an innocent is always wrong. Freedom of choice doesn’t trump morality. If I decided to kill you, Bill912, et al would be obliged to stop me. Their exercise of free will to stop me would prevent the consummation of my expression of free will. But they would be right.
Sally, you’re near (but not yet at) the top of those who can fit a large amount of distortions, mispercerptions and faulty logic in a short space.
You are apparently under the misperception that abortion is painless to the child. It is not. Fetal studies have shown that the baby, or fetus if you prefer, feels pain from at least 20 weeks.
Even going on the miminum of 20 weeks, that means that every aborted child has been subjected to pain ending in death. Even if one were to crassly go by numbers alone, those subjected the painful death due to abortion far outnumber those subject to abuse once born.
As others have commented, conscience must be properly formed.
In a democracy, it would be those acts which the people decide to make illegal.
Ah, I see. You are a student of the “tyranny of relativism.” If you claim to be Catholic, it would behoove you to read Veritatis Splendor.
italics off
Somebody send me a neon sign to preview before posting.
Like the Bible says, “God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden… It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.”
So it’s your position that the overall theme of Scripture is that we should do whatever we want because in the end it doesn’t matter what we do, God just picks his favorites.
P.S. If I’ve summarized your position correctly, why then is it wrong for us to try to prevent abortions if that’s what we want to do?
Cross posted so didn’t see Fr. RP’s excellent post.
Sally, do you chapter and verse for that quote allegedly from the Bible?
M(ortal) K(ombat):
I believe Sally may have meant the passage in Romans 9 (which she has clearly taken out of context).
13 As it is written: Jacob I have loved: but Esau I have hated. =^(
14 ¶ What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid!
15 For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. And I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith to Pharao: To this purpose have I raised thee, that I may shew my power in thee and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will. And whom he will, he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say therefore to me: Why doth he then find fault? For who resisteth his will?
20 O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it: Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction,
23 That he might shew the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he hath prepared unto glory?
Though, I would recommend she reads Romans 13.
She completely misses the points that Paul makes there.
“It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.” (William G. McAdoo)
Does anyone, besides me, feel that this discussion has become just an exercise in narcissism, egotism, and or elitism? On both sides.
“Never converse with an idiot, for someone may walk by and not know who the idiot is.” (Author unknown.)
Does anyone, besides me, feel that this discussion has become just an exercise in narcissism, egotism, and or elitism? On both sides.
In what way?
“Never converse with an idiot, for someone may walk by and not know who the idiot is.” (Author unknown.)
Isn’t this a variation of what Obi-Wan Kenobi said:
“Who’s more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?”
Esau, do you really think you’re going to change Sally, considering all that’s been said? She’s enjoying this “debate” immensely, watching everyone dance at her command. And instead of understanding this, we jump at the opportunity to show off our moves … our debating skills. At best, this specific discussion is practice … not real discussion or apologetics.
We quit; she has to quit. Hard for those with big egos.
And instead of understanding this, we jump at the opportunity to show off our moves … our debating skills.
Yeah, like I’m sure Fr. RP, Kasia, bill912, MK, francis03, BobCatholic and the rest of the folks here were more interested in showing off than in helping a person out of charity.
Hard for those with big egos.
Actually, it takes an even bigger ego to say what you just said here!
While I certainly appreciate your defense, Esau, I think Ed’s got a point.
Sally’s being a troll. We’re not going to change her mind at this point, as she’s clearly not entered into the discussion with an eye to a reasoned discussion. She’s just trying to antagonize us. And as long as we keep responding, she’s going to keep antagonizing. She’s not interested in finding truth; she’s interested in rattling our cages (so to speak).
I am sure that you, and Fr. RP, and Bill, and Francis, and BobCatholic, and I, and everyone else involved was simply making an honest attempt to defend the Truth and perform a spiritual act of mercy. But she’s not interested in hearing Truth, and for those who have no ears to hear…all we can do is pray.
I’ll commit to saying a Divine Mercy Chaplet tonight on my way home for Sally. Care to join me in that? 🙂
Kasia
Count me in, Kasia. God bless you.
And may Love’s Power prevail over our wills.
Ed
I’ll commit to saying a Divine Mercy Chaplet tonight on my way home for Sally. Care to join me in that? 🙂
Sure — but I guess I’ll need to learn the DM Chaplet first =^)
Prayed the Rosary — but never the DM Chaplet.
=^(
God bless you, Kasia.
As such, would you kindly answer whether you think there are any actions that should be illegal (e.g. murder, theft, rape, etc.)?
In a democracy, it would be those acts which the people decide to make illegal.
That philosophy worked so well with that whole chattel slavery thing, didn’t it?
God bless you too, Ed and Esau (and everyone else, of course).
The Divine Mercy Chaplet is wonderful, Esau! And what’s best is that you can use ordinary rosary beads to pray it. (Or your fingers, of course.)
But I’m sure God would be pleased with a Rosary too – I’ve just not had as much practice with the Rosary, so I tend to muddle up the Mysteries if I don’t have some sort of guide in front of me. 🙂
It may be wrong for a woman to terminate the procreative process, but it’s not the same thing as murder. I don’t believe women who choose to terminate the procreative process should be punished.
So your mother should be able to terminate the procreative process by having you hacked limb from limb?
So alive children being hurt is WORSE than dead children?
Everyone dies sometime. Perhaps you prefer they get a few molestations in first.
By that logic, the only rational behavior would be nuclear war, being the only way to ensure that no one gets molested before they die.
And now you’re hearing too much from me. Sorry. But … “And may Love’s Power prevail over our wills.” is taken from Devotions to the Holy Spirit, Brian Moore, SJ, Pauline Books & Media, Boston.
Ed
Happy Happy Joy Joy. I love Justice Thomas’ comments the best. He is a brilliant jurist and was a bit disappointed he wasn’t picked as chief justice. Those on the other side would have gone crazy! Imagine having to vote against a minority something they claim we are against yet we are the ones who want to protect ALL life, go figure
I’d be slow in calling Sally a troll. Maybe she honestly believes what she said. Maybe she has been seduced by the wisdom of the world. Maybe she is thinking about what has been presented to her. Maybe it is the first time anyone has challenged what might be status quo for her. Ed, the point of debate is to challenge. The presumption of why she is no longer here is dangerous. Maybe she is doing the research. Maybe she is a person of good will who is thinking or re-thinking what she has held. Instead of presuming the worst, how about we leave room for conversion? Maybe, Ed et al., she is a troll just looking for a fight. But then again, maybe she isn’t.
Maybe we don’t know what she said, but only what we think she said.
Kasia and Ed, I agree with you in general about trolls, but have to agree with Fr. BP (even though I got his initials wrong earlier, sorry). The content and tone of Sally’s posts are very similar to other discussions with women.
Besides there are always lurkers who read and ponder.
Esau! Mortal Kombat?!? I’m not sure how to take that 🙂
Sally is a troll. Anyone, especially a woman, who says “It is the nature of a rapist to rape. He was raised to be a rapist much like God raised the Pharoah to do what he did.” is being dishonest or is clinically insane. Either way she is not a serious interlocutor. Either way such a person has no place in even a half-civilized combox discussion. The problem with this place is that people take commenters who are way too off the wall to be both honest and fit to be outside an asylum walls seriously. Since no one here has the power to commit people for observation, the best course of action is to ban them or at least ignore them.
Fr BP you’re right. It could be that Sally is sincerely questioning her reasoning and beliefs. I just reread all posts and have moved somewhat closer to your position regarding her. However, certain thoughts and phrases, such as “you’re projecting” and “it is in the nature of a rapist to rape,” keep me wondering. Certainly it would be more prudent to give her the benefit of our doubt. But I still think “leaving room for her conversion” would be best accomplished through our silence and prayer now and charitable responsiveness should she request it.
Ed
Okay, over two hundred posts so far and I just got here. Obviously I do not have time to read them all in one sitting but I do want to throw in my two cents:
HOORAY!
This is indeed a victory against the forces of despotism and death! Small though it may be, I will take a small victory over no victory any day! A prayer has been answered!
ALL PRAISE, HONOR, AND GLORY ARE HIS!
NOW AND FOREVER!
AMEN!!!
Obviously, no one is taking this as a sign that we can start dumping Gatorade on the pope as we still have an uphill battle. And this battle is multi-dimensional. The law is only one of those dimensions. The most important dimension is the social — as illustrated by the many incoherent babblings of the trolls visited upon us here.
People need to know the truth about abortion:
* It targets Blacks, Latinos, and other people who are dark, poor, or handicapped.
* Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, passed the whole idea of eugenics on to Hitler who then started to “beat us at our own game” (Auschwitz).
* Abortion is the greatest tool a government can wield in order to dabble in “social engineering” and refashion society into the image of her leaders. Without abortion, this totalitarian tactic is impossible.
* Abortion on demand enables rapists and child molesters to go unprosecuted and strike again.
* Societies which abort have higher incidences of child abuse, not less.
* Women are harmed psychologically, physically, and spiritually by abortion. Life after abortion is a living nightmare.
* Abortion makes it possible to perpetuate the degradation of women into mere objects of pleasure without real consequence.
* 1 in 4 Americans have died in this holocaust.
We will always fight. We will never surrender. “We will fight for life because we fight for life!”
Esau, do check out the divine Mercy chaplet. We love it at our house – it is good for tired people who can’t stay focussed on the rosary, and for small people. Even my 3 and 4 year olds can easily lead a decade. You seem to have boundless energy though, so perhaps you should stick with a 15 decade rosary… 🙂
Life after abortion is a living nightmare.
All part of God’s plan. Living nightmares bring many to God.
I notice how consistently Sally, and others who hold the same beliefs, resort to euphemisms… a woman “terminates the procreative process”… she can’t even bring herself to say the words.
In plain English, a woman KILLS her BABY… IN THE WOMB. Abortion has made the WOMB far and away the most dangerous place in the world for a baby to live.
That’s insane.
Any society in which that is true is simply suicidal. Capable of anything… there is no evil that can’t be contemplated in such a world.
Fr. BP and MK, I am usually pretty circumspect in labeling someone a troll, but the nature and tenor of Sally’s responses, as well as her total unwillingness to respond directly to direct questions, make me reasonably sure it’s a fair assessment.
However, MK is right that Sally’s responses are not THAT different from those of many committed “choicers” I know. And Fr’s points are well taken also. So I’ll step back from my assessment for now.
Thanks for the gentle correction.
Anon, Sally, and Tim (not Tim J) are obviously trolls.
Do NOT Feed the Trolls!
MONICA AND KASIA:
Thanks for the DM Chaplet suggestion/info!
MARY KAY:
Esau! Mortal Kombat?!? I’m not sure how to take that 🙂
Your beauty, indeed, is such mortal kombat, milady! ;^)
(j/k)
FR. BP, in response to your first post, wow… just wow. I almost cried when I’d finished reading it. It was so awesome!
Sally is a Calvanist. No arguing with a Calvanist. Someone should ask Sally if God loves somebody, pick anybody, just not Sally.